No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscPROPOSED SIGN PACKAGE for LOCATION #7252 @ 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON, WA 98057 FEBRUARY 24, 2013 rt FED~~AL HEATH NG2 PROTOTYPE SIGNAGE CC:!\ A!)") () 0 ",q, r K u , 1 CfiY t:> REV DATE CHANGE Update new code sheet. Sign A 1 · show sq fl. Sign C · Change to blue perforated vinyl fac es. 05-12-14 Sign E4 , ES and E7 • Delele, Sign EB · Side B_ • Sales and service right arrows , I Sign E9· Note associated with pylon sign opt,on , Sign F, G. H and I need lo be updated to new fon1 and 1ayou1 for NG2. 06· 18:_+ Re,ise g,aphi cs oo sigo lype ·1· lo NG2 "'"'"' 07-15-14 Update pages 2. 3. 13 and 14. Deleted page 7. 03 -4 -15 Update Site Plan to SP 13. 03-24-15 I Update sig n placement of Sig n E6 & EB . Update arrow on Si gn E4. CARMAX COMMENTS: Summary: Fr ees tand ing Wa ll Signs Direc tional's Lot Signs Banners #7252 Renton, WA ** Possible Variance** Site is loca ted off of Hwy 167 which has heavy t raffic , head ing Sou th ex it SW 43rd takes you to the corne r of the si te . Code restri ct s heig ht allowance but, surround i ng businesses do have hi r ise signs vis ib le to the highway. Variance should be co nsidered her e t o obtain better visibi lity t o t he high way. Code will allow for a large amount of square footage on wa ll signs, all standard signs will be allowed w ith leftover sq uare foot age. (1) 5' OAH monument sign, 1.5 sq ft per linear1 A2-200 sq ft monument 5' OAH ft of fro nta ge. NTE 300 sq ft and sq ft divided I A l Option -300 sq ft ' 5' O A H and between the two face . M ax sq ft per face 150 at 40' OAH sq ft. One sign per stree t frontage 20 % of bu ilding fac;:ade per elevation . Not transferab le to another e levation . Subject to rev iew by bui ld ing inspector. Logos are allowed Not re gu lat ed, subject to revi ew (1) 100 sq ft banne r hung on the bui l ding al lowed prior to the finaliz ati o n of bu il ding p ermit. Stand ard per prototype along w ith additional traditiona l wall ca binet Standard Protot ype, as nee ded. A2 -200 sq ft monument 100 sq ft faces 5' OA H. Al -30 0 sq ft py lon 1 50 sq ft, 40 ' OA H. (2) 55 sq ft ill um in ated channel lett ers "CAR MAX", (1)26.7 sq ft illumin at ed chan ne l letters "Service", (1) 150 sq f t w all cabinet on Nort h elevation (6) 4' OAH , 4 sq ft (2) DNE , Ro w Markers (TB D), (8) Reserved and Appraisa l post and pan el w/rubb er base, (lpr) Carwash, (1) Visitor, (2) Stop Change Dri ver M onum ent sign A2 for traffic com ing off of h ighway 1 67. Max height allowed by code along w ith sq ft . Sig n w i ll he lp direct customers to the main entrance . Al will need to be determined if a variance is to be obtained for more height to obtain visibility to Hwy 167. Surrounding businesses do have high rise signs 0 West 364 sq Sta ndard wal l sig na ge for p rototype and an Ea st 309 additional cabine t along the north e levation South 1214.3 for m ax v isibil ity North 1078. As nee ded Prototype. _.VARIANCE MAY BE REQUIRED FOR STANDARD BANNERS** n /a n /a CODE RESEARCH AND CHART F'FEDERAL HEATH SIGN COMPANY www.FederalH e.ath.com 2 300 North Highway I 21 Euless, Texas 76039 rs, 11 685-9077 rsoo 1 527.9495 Fax (81 7) 685-91 03 Manufactuting Fad/ttlies: OceansJde. CA . Euless. lX • Jack5onvfile. TX · Oefa'Nare. OH Office locations· Oc~e. CA. Las Vf,gas. NV• Laughlin. AZ. Idaho Falls, 10 · Euless. TX · ..l.locsonvil1". TX • San Mconio. TX Houston, TX • Corptn Christi, TX • f~napolb, IN LouiSVlie, KY . Knoxvi~. TN • G,at'ton. U/1 • [)etaw.Jre, O H \1/illowo«:>ok.. IL • Tll'IIC,:I, MS • l'\UM"ltJ, GA r,ctmpa, FL . D.:ryton..i Stach , Fl • Qfldnd(), FL Building Quality Slgnage Since 190 I Revisions RI ·05-12-14 VA/J K Revise as per pdl ma rk up attached . R2.06-J8. J4 8W Rev ise graph ics on sign I. R3 07.15.14 RMJJDR Update pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del page R4 03.4.15 VA/JOR Update Site pion to SP 13 R5 03.24.15 VA/JOR Update 11gn plo<emenl ofS1gn E6 & E8, Update arrow ol Sign E4. Account Rep: Project Manager: Drawn By: ProJect / Locanon MAITSM ITH JESSICA VIDAL J. CARPEN TER CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 @ Underwrl lers @ a.ECTRtCA&. TO usr u .L usn:o n C COM,QNEMSAN0$1-W.L A1ErT Laboratorieslnc. ; ML N .IE .C. STANOAlll'OS A lLlLl!(fltl(Al SIGNSA lt f T 0(0M'L't'#IT t,tU l 4.Al'IIO A IIT I C L• •oo o, f HI N .I.C, S J ANDA II DL I NCLUDING H -tlf l"IIOf'I:. GIIOUNOllltG A N D •ONOIIIIIO 0 1' JI.L L SIGNS. WAR R ANT Y N O TICE frr: ... rr1 tT'<!flc:..al Wfllj'.X)l'1t_,·1.,, nr ~ WII lit1I P,C'ffld!.l'et/ ! 'JO[ shut off !c• J p('(l«I cf :."'"le>. ::n:e. eacn day i:or De!.t pt"rfonru.-.ce. \'A' /l'((,IIIIIIC'.KJ :/IA[ ',,KJ'I~ :It'. lDr11,t't.:et1 to K' dU'.CNrY:c Energ,.· M~,....e-,,r system r mt C:Od<. °' Phoro Cet ro corrrOI rhe OJrty ... 11u1-oll ;11"f10tl f-d•lrne m fol:0.•1 s/lt--:<;e rt"Corrmcncldtor1s l.il'1 Cd.Ae CJfllJQ(' co tne s.grs e t'Ctnc~ll comporen:s ,md \'Old ct1e w~ran~ 5l~•l1!' rl~"'frW"J O!!VK:C',, .... ,1 <IC'vc!~efo/ dffect tt'e Nl"CtflCd COl""'oone-lti of tnt' ~· :o .... ~t"· I s ari:.JCN'O C~U5M'Q f.-Ure Ny ClrTVT1119 <!C\1(C... LJSL-X: ori me ,;;gr· .... ,t'loul pr,or comu l<l!lcn ,,...u-, F~a• Heau· s,qn Cc ""'* \'OIO me wJ1r¥1lY Client ApprovaVDate: Landlord ApprovaVDate: This or g,nal drawing 1s orOVJdcd as pan or a planned pro)t"Ct and 15 riot to be ext I b ttt'<t copied or reproduced without the written permission of Federal Heath Sign Compary LL( o r •cs duttiorved agent © FHSC Coiors Oe,;)ined In rh1s Rendermg M;1y Nor M,1tct1 Actval Materia! F1n1snes Refer To Product Samples for Ex,K: Color M,HO' Job Number : 23-23170-10 Dace: FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Sheet N umber 2 Of 15 Design Numb er 23-23170-10-RS l E G E N D ® LIGHTED PYLON SIGN ~ LIGHTED ENTRANCE MONUMENT SIGN 0 INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LETIERS -CL55 {2) 0 SERVICE CHANNEL LETIERS-CL26 0 150 S.F. CHANNEL LETIERS WALL SIGN {) D/F DIRECTIONAL SIGN ~ D/F DIRECTIONAL SIGN 4) D/F DIRECTIONAL SIGN ® D/F DIRECTIONAL SIGN 4) S/F DIRECTIONAL SIGN @ S/F DIRECTIONAL SIGN I C) S/F DIRECTIONAL SIGN Q DO NOT ENTER SIGN (2) 0 ROW MARKERS (TBD) ~ ESCORT SIGN {NOT SHOWN) 1----t)• @ CAR WASH ENTER/EXIT SIGNS 0 STOP CHANGE DRIVERS SIGN (2) 0 RESERVED SIGN (MOVEABLE) @ APPRAISALS {MOVEABLE) • • • ID l _ ' • VEHICLE STAGING 01.08 ACRES I. 178 SPACES I DETENTION AREA 1.05 ACRES ~~ ~~~~ CUSTOMER/EMPLOYEE PAAJONG 228 SPACES 03.68 A( Chi = ~ /cs Cb • INDI CATES SING LE ROW PANEL MOUNTED TO POST SUPPLIED BY FH () INDICATES SI NGLE ROW PANEL MOUNTED TO EXISTING LI GHT POST 00 INDICATES DOUBLE ROW PANELS MOUNTED TO EXISTING LIGHT POST R JT· I I( ;~ I / ,, ( 0 N EB SITE PLAN [7\ C?" • I 1 I L SP-13 • • • • ---------+++0 ------® •1 0 ~ SITE PLAN with SIGN SCHEDULE 1!,FEDERAL 1 1 HEATH SIGN COMPANY www.FederalHeath.com 2300 North H ighway 121 Euless, Texas 76039 (81 71 685-9077 1800) 527-9495 Fax (81 7 1685-9103 Mar>.Aaaulng Fadlltl<s: Occan:s.ide, CA · Et..16ell. TX · J.Kksonvfflt. TX · (}da\,yare. OH Office Locations· Oc~. CA· Lai Vegas. Ml· ~n. N. laaho Falls. /0 • Euless. TX • Jacksonvil~. TX • San AntOr'IIO, IX Houston. TX • Corpus Christi, 1)( • lndi3napo6•s. IN l.ouiSV1lle, IO' • K/loltvilloe. rN • Gtarton. WI • Qd;rw.Me, OH W!l ov,,t>,()06(, IL • H.Jnw:.;:i. MS • AlJ;lr'lta. GI\ T<1trpt1, Fl· Oi!ytona De.xt1. FL • 0,1.irldo, Fl Building Quality Slgnage Since 1 901 Rf".1srons. Rl-05 -12 -14 VA/JK Rev ise as per pdf mark up onoche<f. R2-06-I 8-l 4 BW Revise gra phics on sign I. R3 07 .1 5.14 RM/JDR Update pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del pag e R4 03.4.15 VA/JDR Update Site pion to SP 13 R5 03.24.1 S VA/JDR Update sign placement of Sign E6 & EB. Update arrow of Sign E4. Account Rep· ProJect Manager· Drawn By Project / Location: MATT SMITH JESS ICA VIDA L J. CARPENTER CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VA LLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 ® Underwriter, cg) ~ ro lGE u.L. us:rm n C COMl"'ONUfllAHOlHAl.l ME!T Ul bofalorles Inc. ; Al l N .t:.C. HAN OAR OS A ll IHICT ltl (Al S IG N S A II I! TO (OM,LY WlfH U l ,. AHO AII TICLI 40Q Q I' fl,,1 1 N .I.C. 'IT ANDA ltDL I NCL UDING T H I 1"1tQ,l(lt G 1t0UND1NG AND •O NOING Or' ... l l SIGNS . WARRANTY NOTICE Cerrari eiec"lC.Jl <crnponern or \ICJm 1,1:11 ,,.11 prNl'ld:.lft_'f'/ r not Shut. r,~ io, J pe,,oa r,t IJTie. Or'\Ce. eacn aay =or Dest ~rtorrrunce we ·eto,runerl(J tttctr ')I{)''' ht> ,1,r11)(.'(tl'II m ,.., .:1u:omdlK. En.Yg,1 M.tn.'.>Q~t S)o'Ste'li. r..,,..e c~ °' P"lcto ::~ to cor,trOI 1he a.~f/ V·11C-1)fl 1>!"·~! 1,1l1J·r m 1010 .... rtt."\I' n"Con'11lCl'lllit!ol'i um ::A:~ ::J.>mage [0 cr,e Slql'lf et«:'lCJI CC<TlpCN"("fl~ Jr)j ..00 tt~e WJ.''J'lfy Som,c• rJ rrvr~.'MJ <J,,,,'lfL"\ \\1111 ""'t.<t"r-..~ <1l!l!tr rt·e t'k'd:nc.al cornpo,X"11:~ of :ne sqn to wr,ct'I ,t ~ JU.)O"'~ cauw,g fa:i..Jtt! !.rr)· omr-,ng :k".11tP\ .J\l'!J c r1 1tw \Kjfl WJC.'lOlil i,::· er com.u·r.atl0f1 wrt'l i:~.11 heJrti Sq"\ Co 'NL!l .,o.c :·~ warr¥1cy Client ApprovaVDate: LancllOrd ApprovaVDace: Thrs ong1na l dra.V1ng 1s orovlded as parr o' a panned prOJeCT and 1s nm m t>e ext1·011ec1. cop,e<J 01 reoroduced without the wntten oermrssion of Federal Heath Sign Company LLC or its dUlf'OllLt'd dqt'nt © FHSC Colors Depicted,., This Rendermg May No, M•Hc~1 AcLUal MareriaJ Fini.shes Refer To Product Samples Fnr ~x~cr ( oior M;ircr1 Job Number: 23-23170-10 Dace: FEBRUARY 24 , 2014 St1ecl Number: 3 Of 15 Design Number: 23-23170-1 O-R5 E9 AERIAL OVERLAY with PHOTO REFERENCES ' !II FEDERAL .. HEATH SIGN COMPANY www.FederaJHeach.c om 2300 North Highway 1 21 Euless, Texas 76039 18171 685-9077 18001 527-9 495 Fax (81 71 685-9 103 Manul.Kturw,g Fac:ilrtic's: OcC'anJidC', CA · Eule». TX -Jacksonvr'le. TX· Oefaware. OH Office l.oG!tKns: Oceansllk, CA · UU ~-NV· L.augtwin, N. kJaho Faus, ID • fuJ~. TX • J.KtsonyUIC, TX • Siln Nltonio, TX Houston. TX -Corpus CtvtsU, TX -lndi.1ni1PO/h. IN Loutsvt!le. KY · Knwvllle-, TN · Grafton. W1 -Decaware, OH Wlfk)wt)fOOk. IL · Tl.lt"IIU. MS · J\tlanta, Gi-. Tampa, FL · Dayton.a Sc.xti. FL • Orl.lndo, FL Building Ouallty Slgnage Slnce 190 I Revisions· Rl -05-12-14 VA/JK Revis e os per pdf mar k up atto,hed . R2 -06 -1 8-14 BW Revise graph i<s an sign I. R3 07.15.14 RM/JDR Update pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del page R4 03.4.15 VA/JOR Update Site pion to SP 13 RS 03.24 IS 'IA/JDR Update sign plotement of Sign t6 & E8, Update arrow of Sign E4. Account Rep : MATISM ITH PrOJect Manager: JESS ICA VIDAL Drawn By: J. CARPENTER Pr0Ject / Location: CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 ® Underwriters ~ .EUCTiltCAL TO us.r u.L USTEO . n C COIU'ONUITS NtlO SHAU MHT Laboratones Inc. ' ALL N.I .c. HAN O A.ROS A l l CllCT•I CAL '5 101<11'5 A •I! TO C OMP O ' 111 1TH U .l. 41 ANO Allfl Cll 4 00 OP fHII! N .I .C. S J AHDAIID,. I N CLUD IIIIG T H I 1'•01'1 11 090U ND 1H0 AND a QHl)IHO 0 1' All SIGH S WARRANTY NOT I CE Certari e,~c·QJ ccrnp:)J'Cf'l:s Of ~s w~ 'a; prer"tatt.rely 1' nc: Y"\llH)l'f rcw ~ ,~orl r:l {lrTle' Ol'lCe' e'.Ki' d.:f'; F()f IX~( ::ie<'Ofm.JflCe'. ·....-e •ecornr,enc:, tl'lat S.Q('S De' C:'.Y'~ed ta an .iJ...tOf'1cltx: E~'9' M.,nA<;err~11 ,~,;i-m. llr"l.' (J,:xk o, P't'.oi:o Ce,, to conuo ~ ~,y Sl'<Jt off pe"\00 '"a :u·eo co fOlloY.· tl"ese r!'(ornnmdclbonS can c;,..,se c.L:tm,;4rft tc rre ',l(jnf (it'{'.x~ CC,X:,)l"ltS ¥Id ..00 :ne wan3flty kiine o.rrwn,'lq ~,ces \W' .ict.fflety ar'«t the e1cc~u1 c~ts ot .. w, \19rl rn wh1,ti It I\ ,m.-t(hfil UJ')ll'X] fdti·i-A.""J c•...,ning de-11ces ust'(I en cne s,qn ""'triou: ;,rJO< ccns...itatK>n vv,th ~ttk'l'd! He..im '-9' Co. \v..1 IIOl(l :rw wilrr,m'.)' Client Approvavoace: Landlord ApprovaVOate: Th,, 011g1ra1 ctraw1~g 1s prOV1ded as par[ of a planned pro_Ject and " not to t>e exhit>lled. copred 01 ~ep,oduced w,cnouc ~he wrmen perm:ss1on of Federal He,Hh S1g11 Company LLC or its authorized agert. © FHSC (01or~ Ot:>rnc..tecJ lr1 Thi~ Reriderir1g Mdy N ot M.itcti A crual Marerial Finishes Refer To Proouct Samples Fer Exact Color Match Job Number: 23-23170 -1 0 Date· FEBRUARY 24 , 2014 She et Number. 4 Of 15 Design Number. 23-23170-10-RS 0 LOOKING NORTH ON EAST VALLEY ROAD @ LOOKING SOUTH ON EAST VALLEY ROAD @ LOOKING WEST ON SW 41ST STREET 6 LOOKING EAST ON SW 41ST STREET 0 LOOKING NORTH ON 167 0 LOOKING SOUTH ON 167 PHOTO SURVEY STUDY with NUMBERS for REFERENCE '' FEDERAL HEATH SIGN COMPANY www FederalHeath com 2300 North Highway 1 21 Eul ess, Texas 76039 (817) 685-9077 (800) 5 27.9495 Fax (8171685-9103 M.Jl'U'acturing Fadlltl,es: Occa~. CA· E'-"es.s. TX · .Jadcson'll'it/e. TX · ~re. OH Offlc:el..cXi'tJons Dee~. Cl\· Las~ Ml· Lau{l'll1n, N. klatlo F.ilts. IO. Eulen, TX -JacbQrMlle, TX -~1 Anlorno. 1X Houston, TX . Co rp u s Christi, rx. Indianapolis, IN Loul!Ml/e-, KY -krlo.Ml!e, TN · Gr.1rton. \VI -Ori.twMe. O H WllkMIDt'OOk. IL -Tuntea, MS -.-.uartta, GA Tampa, FL -Daytona Beach, FL -Or1anclo, FL Building Ouallty Sl gnage Since 1901 Re..nsrons RI -05 -11-14 VA/JK Re vise a, per pdl mark up anached. R2 -06-18-14 BW Revise grap hic, on sign I. R3 07.15.14 RM/JOR Upd ate pag es 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del page R4 03.4.15 VA/JOR Update Site plan to SP 13 RS 03.24 IS VA/JOR Update sign pla<ement of Sign E6 & ES, Update arrow of Sign E4 Account Rep: PrOJect Manager. Drawn By· ProJect / Location : MAITSMITH JESS ICA VIDAL J. CARPENTER CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 @ Underwriters ~ n«TJNCM. ro USE u .L USTIEO . 0 C COMPONENTS ANO SHAll MEET laboratoneS IRC. r ALL N.~.C-StANO A •OS AL L ll.C TI IC AL S IGHS Air TO CO M "lY ,...,r H IJ l. •e A N O A,H IC LI •oo OP TH I ....... c . S T ANOAIOS. IN C LU D I N G THI: ,1 0,1 • G•O UHl)tNG AfllO •oNOJfllG O f' All s ,ONS W AR R A NT Y NOT I CE Certa n eit"Ctrl(.:JI c00'¥)0rm!s or '>l<)rn ...,,. ,a, ;::n"l'Ntur~ 1t ,,rn ...:1.1-c:t• b t .,a pt'IIOct o ~ (rr,('. or,r:e. eacn ~ I;:)!" best petfor"'\Mxe ,,.,.e ,~O'r''Tl«'d mat Ml s oe connectt'CI co .r al-!~ildtl( Em,g:,, M,..,l,t{Jf'l'n, .. 1t ,y,1Pm. r 1~ CocS.:. or Photo Cel co contro! rt·e rolJ S'll.t o!" peri<XI F~lk.·e to fOII(),,,.-tre-;e rcrorr'JlcrlClatlO'n c..ar ::..lu'>t' 11d·n..wJI.' lf) t/'1t• ~nf ~~.,1 cc-ipor:en:~ "nd ,,o,o tl~e v,,.J''.JTIC'f Some anYr ·nQ ~ \...,., ikJ',~ art"CT tre ~tncdl comp:JJ'ffl:s u' :tie \JfJ'I 1c wh<"h 1r I'\ .~u.tef'.,.cl ~~ll!.M'g f"'*.Jre N•y dirn,.,,ng oe,..·ces used or ttie s,qn ...-,thou: 0101 ,~su t.a!ron w1tn ~e,lt"~' '-ie..t"t 'i.ql Cu. 'M:l vowl :rn• ~...tllAf"IY Client Approvavoare: Landlord ApprovaVDate: Ttus or1g1na1 clrav11ng rs pro111ded as part of a pranned prOJect and ,s not to be ext11Djterl toµ1ed or reproduced wHhour rhe wrrrren permrssron or Fe<leral Hedth S1qn Company LL( o r rrs authonzed agent. ~ FH SC (oior5 Oeµrc.te d In Trns Re-r1de·1r1g Mity N or M a{ch A ctual Ma{enal Finishes Refer To Producr Sa mp,es Fer ExaG Color Matc.ri Job N umber· 23 -2 3170 -10 Date: FEBRUARY 24 , 2014 Sheer N umber: 5 Of 15 Des,gn N umb er: 23-23170 -1 0-RS C? c::, .... <? ~ ! 1'-4 1/2" !-- "7 I N -'--'-cc -r- ~ <=i' '"" SIGN TYPE ~ FLAGGING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE HEIGHT I 26 '-0" -23 '-3" ----.., Ill. ........, -=-1 I I I I I • ' ... 145.31 SQ.FT DOUBLE-FACED PYLON SIGN ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1 '-0 " 145.31 SQ.FT 5" 3'-2 " 5" f.-1'.:.£-j (ALL CABINETS TO HAVE COUNTER-SUNK SCREWS AND FACES TO HAVE BUTI SEAMS) ______ FABRICATED ALUMINUM CABINET W/ CARMAX SATIN BLUE FINISH . ---------ACRYLIC FACE ALUMINUM CHANNEL LEITERS/DASHES. ____--> CAR/DASHES HAVING YELLOW FACES /YELLOW RETURNS & TRIM CAP MAX HAVING WHITE FACES /WHITE RETURNS & TRIM CAP INTERNAL WHITE LED LIGHTING IN LEITERS/DASHES . GRAPHICS AND COPY: I I "CAR & DASHES " -YELLOW #2037 =--·--~ "MAX-#2447 WHITE PAINTED FINISH I I LEITER RETURNS -YELLOW PMS -109 SATIN FINISH LJ LEITER RETURNS -SATIN FINISH WHITE CABINET CARMAX PMS-281 SATIN BLUE FINISH , SQ . TUBE STEEL SUPPORT TO BE PER FH ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS w/ MAITHEWS BRUSHED ALUMINUM FINISH ON ALUMINUM POLE COVERS. (ALL PYLON COVERS TO HAVE BUIT SEAMS) END VIEW MASONRY BASE TO MATCH BLDG MATERIALS BY GC 277V-20 AMP CIRCUIT ELECTRICAL PRIMARY TO SIG N LOCATION AND THE FINAL HOOK-UP TO BE BY CUSTOMER 'S CERTIFIED ELECTRICIAN . NUMBER OF CIRCUITS REQUIRED PER SIGN TO BE PER FEDERAL HEATH SIGN ENGINEERING SPEC IFICATION S AND REQUIREMENT S. ALL SIGNS TO COMPLY WITH U.L. 48 REQUIRMENTS AND ARTICLE 600 OF THE N.E.C., AND ALSO MEET ANY STATE AND LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. DEDICATED CIRCUITS Number of 277v -20 Amp Circuits Req'd TBD ALL BRANCH CIRCU ITS SHALL BE DEDICATED TO SIGN S(INCLUDI NG GROU ND AND NEUTRAL) AND SH ALL NOT BE SHARED WITH OTHER LOAD S STANDARD IN STALL IS TO BE DIRECT PIPE EMBEDMENT INTO CONCRETE FOOTING PER FH ENGINEERING SPECS DOUBLE FACED PYLON SIGNS 11!,FEDERAL 1 1 HEATH S IGN COMPANY www FederalHeath.com 2300 North Highway I 21 Euless, Texas 76039 18 17) 685-9077 1800) 527.9495 Fax 18171685-9103 ManufiKturlng Faclitks: Ocean5'die. CA· Eulell, TX · Jack5orM!fe. TX · Odaware. OH Ofl'lccl.ocations: OceN'ISide, C/\ • Li,:, Vegas, ,w -UtlM)hlm, AZ. ldahO f AJts. ,o. Ei.:les.S. rx . Jac.ksc;;lr'MJ~. rx -S;;i,, AntcnC>. TX Hol.J5ton, TX • Corpus O v hli, rx • lndianapoks. IN L.ouiS\111/e, KY -KflOJMlfe, TN -Gra fton, WI -Def.irtNMt", OH Wllk>'NOfOOk, IL -TlnC.it, MS -Allantit, GI\ Tampa, FL -Dayton.a Bt-actt. FL -Orlando, fl Building Ouallty Sfgnage Sinc e 1901 Re1as1oris RI -05-12-14 VA/JK Revise 01 pe r pdf mark up attached . R2 -06-18-14 BW Revise gr ap hics on sig n I. R3 07.15.14 RM/JOR Upda te pag es 2, 3, 13 and 14 . Del pag e R4 03.4.15 VA/JOR Update Site pion to SP 13 RS 03.24.15 VA/ JOR Update sign pl0<ement of Sign E6 & ES. Update arrow of Sign E4 Account Rep: MAITSMITH JESSICA VIDAL J. CARPENTER Project Manager D rawn By: ProJea / Location: CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 ® Underwriters (if) £1..E(TWICAL. ro USI u.1... usrm . n C COMPONENT'S NIO SHAl.l.. MffT Laboralones 1nc. ' A ll N .IL C . S TANO A•Ds All l:lfC T •t(A l SICJ l,H Alf ro COM~L 'I' W I Tl-1 u L .... A NO AI TIC LI 600 o , T l-11' N .l'.C . ITA NOA.0 1 . IN C LU D I N G f l-1 1! ~1 0~1:I GIOU NO IIII(; ANO IOJrolCI I N G o, ALL $1G l'rol$ WARRAN T Y NOTICE Certain ciee:.1<.'.a· com~t'i o· ~rn w 11. r.-Ol'rm.JttJ,'e'y 1f not Yxn-otl 'o r ~ perlOd ot :me. oner. eKri ~· For bes, p,et!orr-.ance we ·ecorrvnena ma: ~m De i.:OIY'·t"Clcd l:J an Jl.tOl'l'.dllC EllC'l'g/ V .-r~"lef"! sym•m Time Cloe.: 0t Phol:o Cetl ro conuOI rt-..e ru,; fut off oe•oo Fa,.~ to fOlow :'ll-St' recomme'ldaoom can ::.aw,e ckttri..:+1J('mttiew.,,s·r:i.•urvitc~1trtsarxJol()l(J(rev.,,1"y1cy ~ d,r'lf'T'llnQ aevr<es ....,, ~set1 affect ~e eiec"u'lC.a, compoi'ena <.>I 0 '.M.' '-><.1 . :o ,•,:hict· t \ .~~ C<ll..W"'J !;jj.Je Arl), ctwnr-.r~ C!e-.tees u~ec, O"'I :"'te sq-wi:r"ICN..t prior CO'ls1..1tatt0n wrtn f-edN..il Ht·.trt' \K;1 (u ....... V!Wl t111· \'JArr.¥My Cliem Approvavoare . Landlord ApprovaVDate: Th,s orrginal dra"sng 1s p,CM<Jed as pare or a planned praJecl and 1s not to be ext1rh1te<I. copied or reproduced withouc trc wnccen perrr1ss1on or Federa l Healrl S1qn Company LL ( o• ,cs authonzed agent f.) FHSC Co/or~ Ot:>p1Cted Jri Ttm Renderrng M ..iy N or M ;:1tct1 Acruat M acer1at F1n1shcs Refer To Product SarnpJcs For Exact Color Match Job Number: Ddte: 23-23170 -10 FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Sheet N umber 6 Of 15 Design N umber 23-2 3170-1 O-R5 I 9'-9 1/2" 9'-3 "--~ I ____J - ' 31f4" t - I . <';' ~ ~ _L --C"') "':' _J_ <=;' C") C"") V'l -r-I °' entrance ~ . 9 ;:.... SIDE A SIGN TYPE® DOUBLE FACE LIGHTED MONUMENT SIGN ELEVATION (1) REQ'D SCALE: W' = 1 '-0 " entrance SIDE B 34.4 SQ. FT. ~-1'-10 " I --1'-4" .... ~ 5" END VIEW (ALL CABINETS TO HAVE COUNTER-SUNK SCREWS AND FACES TO HAVE BUD SEAMS) FABRICATED ALUMINUM CABINET W/ 5" -CARMAX BLUE FINISH. ACRYLIC FACE ALUMINUM CHANNEL LEDERS/DASHES. CAR/DASHES HAVING YELLOW FACES/YELLOW RETURNS & TRIM CAP -MAX HAVING WHITE FACES/WHITE RETURNS & TRIM CAP INTERNAL WHITE LED LIGHTING IN LEDERS/DASHES. t--+-+---RECT. SUPPORT COVER WITH MADHEWS BRUSHED ALUMINUM FINISH (IF ALUM. COVER REQ'D, BUD SEAMS TO BE USED) WHITE ALUMINUM CABINET W/ ROUTED COPY BACKED WITH #4774 WHITE ACRYLIC HAVING BLUE PERF. VINYL APPLIED TO FIRST SURFACE . ---INTERNAL H.O. FLUORESCENT LIGHTING. ___ MASONRY BASE TO MATCH BLDG MATERIALS BY GC GRAPHICS AND COPY: i I "CAR & DASHES" -YELLOW #2037 "MAX-#2447 WHITE PAINTED FINISH ~ LEDER RETURNS -YELLOW PMS-109 SATIN FINISH ;-J LEDER RETURNS -SATIN FINISH WHITE -CABINET -CARMAX BLUE PMS-281 SATIN FINISH ~~ ENTRANCE CABINET -CARMAX WHITE FINISH DEDICATED CIRCUITS Number of 277v -20 Amp Circuits Req 'd TBD ALL BRANCH CIRCUITS SHALL BE DEDICATED TD SIG NS(INCLUDING GROUND AND NEUTRAL) AND SHALL NOT BE SH ARED WITH OTHER LOADS STANDARD INSTALL IS TO BE DIRECT PIPE EMBEDMENT INTO CONCRETE FOOTING PER FH ENGINEERING SPE CS. 277V-20 AMP CI RCU IT ELECTRICAL PRIMARY TO SIGN LOCATION AN D THE FINAL HOOK-UP TO BE BY CUSTOMER 'S CERTIFIED ELECTRICIAN . NUMBER OF CIRCUITS REQUI RED PER SIGN TO BE PER FEDERAL HEATH SIGN ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS . ALL SIGNS TO COMPLY WITH U.L. 48 REQUIRMENTS AND ARTICLE 600 OF THE N.E.C., AND ALSO MEET ANY STATE AND LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. DOUBLE FACED MONUMENT/ENTRY SIGN F'FEDERAL HEATH SIGN COMPANY www. Federa/Heath. com 2300 North Highway 1 21 Euless, Tu.ts 76039 (817] 6 85-9077 1800] 527.9495 Fax (8171685-9103 Manutaauing FadR*s: Oceanskte. CA · EtMSS. TX • J.ad oo,MUe. TX Oebw'are. OH Otffce LocatJOn5· Occanlkle. CA • Las ~s. Ml · Laug-,lin. N id¥1o F~IS. 10 • E ul('SS. TX • J~llC', TX • San M tOfllO, TX Houston, IX • Corpus Ovisti, TX • lndianapol~ IN Lowsvil:I", KY· KnaxvfIII", TN· Grafton, WI· Dd<lwdl'I", O H W!llow t>mok, IL • fume., MS • ManLil, Gt\ T.irr-.,.a, A. • D.tytonill 81".Ktl, R • Orlando, fl Building Quality Slgnage Since 1901 Revisions R 1-05-12-14 VA/JK Rev ise as pe r pdl mark up a"a,hed. R2-06-18-l 4 SW Revise graphics an sign I. R3 07 .15.14 RM/J DR Update pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del pag e R4 03.4 .15 VA/JDR Update Site plan ta SP 13 R5 OJR 15 VA/JDR Update sign placement of Sign f5 & ES Update arrow ol Sign E4. Account Rep: Prqiect Mdnager: Drawn By: Pro1ecr / Locatron· MATISMITH JESSICA VIDAL J. CARPENTER CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 ® Underwriters fE; ElfCTRtCAL TO us« u.L. usrm n C COMl"ONf"NTS /WO SHAu. MffT Laboralorleslnc. ; ALL N ,f .C . SrANOA"D S A Ll f:t.fC T.l(A L S IG NS A lli! T O co ... ,t.., WHM u L •• ANO A aTI C L I 6 0 0 C l" IH I! N.I.C. I TANO ... IIDL I N C LUD I NG T H ! l"ltO l"l!I G1t OU N0 1NG A/111 0 •ONO ING o , Al l HONS . WARRA N TY N O TI CE :::erram e~:·rc,:i• cc'llporie•1t..s. or s.gr·~ w~ rd.I pr~tJct/ f nOl si'U(-Off to, J ~··oc -=»f twne. c'lCe, c:J& ::la'/ For ~5.l performance \NI" 'e{Ommen<l th.It 'ilgm be rnn111.."CtetJ to Mr .nJ:omdt'C Ef'("f:i,• V~me<'t syste"l. r.nv Ocd o, Pt"mo Cei :o CQ('trol rhe c.>t; !>hut-off oe'OO ~.,1:lre to 'OIIC'w ttx>se recornn1l-rdit!or1~ ~n ,,use CMIT\Jge rn (he SJig'lf eit'anc.JI coi-oont"'llS d 'ld VOod ttie w.Jrrancy ~ d '"'YY11nQ c,r,..,cf'i v.1'1 ad\~ ,'ll''l"\."l tri~ ek:.'ctocaj COl'"'"0011eots ot "'lit' YT :o ...,.,,c1 I{ ~ .Jrtached. caJS~,g ,,.._ire Al) c,rnmJ,g devices Jil"G en !he :. q ·1 w tt'oJt ;,nor corsu,ta:·cn .,.,u, ll"<IPr.-1I I 1l"Ali' ~ (o \'Al, ve•r! rt·!' w.:>rr.•,1)' Client ApprovaVDate: Landlord ApprovaVDate: fhis or,g-nal dravmg ,s prov,ded as pare of a pld rlrle<l prq.iect <.tn<l 1) flOt to t;e ext11blter1 lOp1erJ °' reproduced without the written perm,ss,on ot Federdl Heath Si gn (o,npany LL( or its a.1U1onzed agent <t; FHSC Color~ D~ptcted In 1t11s RernJem19 M.1y Nor M.1tct1 Acrual M .atcna1 Frn1shcs Rcrcr To Product Samo:cs ro, Cx,H.t Color MJ:C." Job Number: Date: 23-23170-10 FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Sheet Number: 7 Of 15 Des,g n Nu mber 23-23170-10-RS C'-1 -C"-1 ~ ;:::-~ ~ N CV) ~ ' c--. 16 '-8 " WALL PANEL 16'-6 1/2 " CUSTOMER TO PROVIDE DEDICATED 811.lHCH CIRCUITS FOR SIGNS ONlY PER NEC CODE 600.S Al l BRA NCH CI RCU II, SHALL BE OEOIC.UEO TO IIG NIIINCWOI NG GROUNO ANO NEUTRAL) ANO IHAU NOT BE SHAREO WITH OTHER LOAD~ PROPERLY SIZED GROUND WIRE THAT CAN BE TRACE D BACK TO BREAKER PANEL 11 REQUIRED . : I I I I I I ---~---BLUE ACM WALL PANE LS BY GC INSTALLER REQUIREMENTS AL L MOU NT ING HHO WH E & THE IECONOAJIY WIRING & COMPONENTS I CONOUITI, CONNECTORS, Ht) ARE 10 BE PROYIDEO Bl THE LOCAL SIGN INITALUIION CO NTRACTOl All PENETRATIONS IN THE WALL I.IIE TO BE IULEO WITH SILICONE AN O TO BE WATERTIGHT I/ 9 I .- cu -b,~---;:::, --7,-~~ ~--:c.;;:--; =-=--;----. - V ~--~· ____ ·__; p =----~~ F"" I I I ______ L __ I :::-----1--- \ I -~ 1_ I I_ :'.°I .... T I-·.' 55 50. FT J "O P(NfTU.OO~S IN9l+ISUU WIREWAY BEHIND WALL 5 7/8" DEDICATED CIRCUITS Number of 277v -20 Amp Circuits Req'd TBD AL L BR ANC H CIRC UITS SHALL BE DEDICATED TO SIGNS(INC LUDI NG GR OUND AN D NEUTRAL) AND SHALL NOT BE SHARED WITH OTHER LOA DS ANY DEVI ATION FROM FEDERAL HEATH REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN DAMAGE TO OR IMPROPER OPERATIO N OF SIGNAGE , CAUSING DELAYS ANO ADDITIONAL COSTS. : ...... , --_,I -,---I-'--+-'-- 277V-20 AMP CIRCUIT ELECTRICAL PRIMARY TO SIGN LOCATION AND THE FINAL HOOK-UP TO BE BY CUSTOME R'S CERTIFIED ELECT RICIAN . NU MBER OF CIRCUITS REQUIRED PER s1GN TYPE (} CM-CL55 INDIVIDUAL ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS (TWO REQ'D) scale 3/8"=1'-0" GRAPHICS AND COPY: 55.0 SQ . FT. CJ "CAR & DASHES " -YELLOW #2037 ACRYLIC FACES-CARMAX SATIN PMS-109 YELLOW RETURNS -YELLOW TRIM CAP == "MAX " -WHITE #2447 ACRYLIC FACES -SATIN WHITE RETURNS -WHITE TRIM CAP -BLUE ACM BACKGROUND BY CARMAX G.C. -t ~I ,-.... ' c--,1 Cl;> -~ cs------- : . . ......• 10 '-4 II • J WIREWAY BEHIND WALL ~ s1GN TYPE 0 CM-S-CL26 INDIVIDUAL LED ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS (ONE SET REQ 'D) sca le 1 /2" = 1 '-0" LETIER CO LORS -GRIP-GARD SATIN FINISH CARMAX BLUE (PMS-281) RETURNS I I CLEAR ACRYLIC FACES /SECOND SURFACE WHITE DIFFUSER W/ BLUE TRIM CAP PMS -281 BLUE DAY/NIGHT PERF. VINYL FACE OVERLAY 26.7 SQ_ FT SIGN TO BE PER FEDERAL HEATH SIGN ENGI NEERING SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS . ALL SIGNS TO COMPLY WITH U.L 48 REQUIRMENTS AND ARTICLE 600 OF THE N.E.C., AND ALSO MEET ANY STATE AND LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. Aluminu m Letter Returns with White In terio r Fini sh r---Hing e requ ired to ollow bo ck lo swi ng open / 14 AWL Wire Whip Ou t Back of Letter-1-----Install er to Ho ok-up to Po wer Sup pl y (All Wall Penetra tions to be Sealed w/ Silicone) White L.E.D Modules 1• i------Custom Wireway Behi nd Wall 3/16'~~;~:~cgF:c: 1 : Ii rf +!! 1 -~• !! ~~ ------Booted Toggle Sw itch on Box w/ Vinyl Overlay ___ __, No Penetra tions within 4" of Seam 1: 11 Ill: . 063 Alumin um Lette r Back s : ~- W' 0 Stainless Steel rofl,mna.l!i,w ffO, Type Mounting Har dw are Appropr iate for Wall Material-] By ln sta ll e;___J (Three Min . Per Lette r) l/t Drain Ho le 277v/l 2vdc Pow er Supply ( Moun t In Dry Area Onl y) '-+--Yi'' 0 Metal Pas s-Th ru In Wall For Suppl y Leads {B y Install er) -----Elect rical To Power Suppl y In Flexib le Conduit (by Install er) ._.._,_--J-Box And Final Pri mary Hook -up By G.C. El ectrici an . 1 Prima ry to Sign Loca tion By G.C. Ele ctrician {277v-20 amp circu it) SECTION DETAIL -LED ILLUMINATED WALL LETTERS NEXT GEN 2 EXTERIOR WALL SIGNS F!II FEDERAL 'II HEATH SIGN COMPANY www.Feder.3IHealh.com 2 300 North Highway 1 2 I Euless, Texas 76039 (81 71 685-9077 (8001 5 27-9495 Fax j81 7 1 6 85-9 I 03 M.,..,,acturlngF.Kil<des: Oceanskle. CA · Eu~. TX · JacksorMlle, TX ·~. Ot-1 Ottk:e Locadons: Oceanslde. CA · Las \;!gas. flN • Laughlin. N. Idaho Fcllb, ID • Eu~. TX • .Jadcsonvllle. TX • San Mconlo. TX Houston. TX • Corpus CMstl. TX . lndianapolb.. IN Louisville, ICY· ICnQJrvl~. TN · Gratton. \Ill · ~.Jre, OH \1/itlo w tw~ IL · f\JntC.J, MS · At:l,ar'Q, ~ T,:Nl'lp,il, FL • OilytQ(l(I ~<ICh. FL • Orlando, FL Building auallty Sfgnage Since I 90 I Revisions: Rl-05-12-14 VA/JK Revise os per pdf mark up otta<hed. R2-06-18-14 BW Revise graph ics on sign I. R3 07.l S.14 RM/JOR Upd ate pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del page R4 03.4.15 VA/JDR Update Site pio n to SP 13 RS 03.24.1 S VA/JDR Update 11gn placement of Sign E6 & EB, Update arrow of Sign E4. Account Rep· ProJecc Manager: Drawn By Proy"cr I Loca tion: MATT SMITH JE SS ICA VIDAL J. CARPENTER CARmax ----- LOCATION #72 52 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 @ Underwrllers ~ flf:CTitfC.o'L ro USI! u.L USTm , n C COMP'Of«NnANDstWJ..ME!T Labotat0t1es Inc. f ALL N .e.c . HAND.MIDS A l l (Ul!Cfll( ... l SI G NS AU! ro CO M l'"lT W HH u l .•• A N O Allf l Cla ,oo OP f H II H .•. c STAH O AIDS, I HCl U DIH(l r,.u: ,10.-11• GIIOU NOIN G A N D S0 N 0 1NG o• A L L SIG N S • WARRANTY NOTICE Cr-·t.o111 t"lt"C!fl(.(11 t(J11i.xwl(:'f:!\ r)' <Jl)"l'I v.'111 ,,.:r prl"rri..1u11<:"t,, , not sriut otf •c, J ~ ot :,m('. O("l(C. e~'l (l.l)o Co, ~st pe,fOimJnc.e \'./("/t"'((),l"llfrX"!"KJ './I.I' \Nj't\ !1("((}111"(.'(tl'Cl :o..i,: ,-j[j(()fll.AII( 1:,·n~ MJr.qr"'""ffi'. S~lem •,me CIOCK Of >ioro Ce~ ro COOUOI the 0.11fy ~hJt.of! p1:Yllx1 f.111,1w m !!~fl\.'\/ '1111"'!' ft'{{)l""'lllt'f':IA!Ui't\ 1.-ri (A l'\I' ~ :::, tnie S'9(T e«trl(.." Compot"et'l'.S ,lnCI ',-0·(1 ttie w.)'r.lf'l(y 'i,t.vre :ln:,111'9 Ol!\Kt'~ ... ,I M""°'\ti'/ ,lllf"<.! !I!' l"lt't.111" .-tl UY"'l)Orwnr, of me sigr, to .... ..-..er ·I s Jtt,"lCnta cJuS.'g ta"-.lr~ IV) c•rnm ng OCVJCC~ UU'tl :)(1 Ole \Kjl' .... ,:now p·n-Ulr \11,1.t!ICfl 11'.t'[/ i·ecer.~, ~.-.v, s.g .... Co ~• ..oa me wdo't¥>ry Client ApprovaVDate: Landlord ApprovaVDace : This origina l dra,..,ng rs prov:ded as part or a µt.c1rmed p roJea and 1s nm to be exntb1ted. copied o, ,epmduced without tre w ri t ten permission of federal H each s,gn Company LLC or ,cs J1Jl110r11ecJ .Jqen: @ FHSC Colors Dep1cred ,..., f h1s Renaer•."!g May· Nor M atch Actua M aterial Finishes Rere· To Product Samo;e~ ror Exdlt Colur Mdtct1 Job N umber: Dare: 23-23170-10 FEBRUARY 24 , 2014 Sheet Number 8 Of 15 Design Number 23 -23170 -10 -RS i,, ~ F ~ ;;v ' I f- l I I / / , . . ' ~ < i~\ ~• l). ll 111/ I I~ ::;1GN~'1PE 0 ELEVATION [~ T.O. CANOPY STL ·~ --35'-8"' _____ TJ). CANOP'I' S_IL~, 35'-8" SJ -/l e Section TTnff l rffil [ ACM SIGN BAND PLACEMENT OF SIGNS ON SIGN BAND !'!? ..... '-9 "' T.O.M . -SALES ~' 24' -O" \.._. ~ ;)1,,0. ~ co ~ ;::: "? ... J-B ox Inside Wireway ' ~ CV) ' 'Dash ' Section~ : ( -, On Wir ew oy . , _________ 1 8" 14'-2" RACEWAY _ T .O.M. -S~LES ~\ ---24'~ EDGE OF PANELS AND CLIPS ~ I 1 r / l\ 1tj 9=:il 111 11 1r r1 v ::... \I~ JI ARE LOCATED ALONG mis LINE. CANNOT DRILL HERE •1 u WIREWAY ON BACKSIDE 11 11 ,/ OF WALL SHOWN IN GRAY 14'-8 1/2' T.0. STO EFRONT_~, --L,---· ___Lj_ ...,. onWirewoy ~11!:. _ 1 . _. ~==,, T.O. STOREFRONT •.' ,, 10'-0" \... ;! .._,___.___ 10'-0 '-. · r.F.E. ,.-,. ~ 1 1 -'T 1-.:...__·, ·!__ INTERIOR ELEVATION (facing out) CONCEALED WIREWAY SPECIFICATIONS : F.F_g, ~ . -Q"'J 4" de ep (additional blocking by GC wi ll be shown on architectural detail for su pporting wire way) Wiring for the letters may be dri lled straight through the sign band into the wire way. Powe r supplies to be mounted ins ide th e sam e wire way. The wire way will have a doo r on th e back that opens (sw ing s up) to expose all of the wiring and power su pplie s allowing for easy instal lation and service. The wire way will be painted blue to match (the adjacent ACM) r -- b WALL SECTION I 01 ---~ r ~ 1nilf L -----~-~~~-- .. ,FEDERAL 1 1 HEATH SIGN COMPANY www Federa!H eath com 2300 North Highway 1 21 Euless, Texa s 76039 l817J 685-9077 f800J 52 7-9495 Faxf817J685-9103 Manuf.JCtu',ng f.tOllUes. Occ~. Cl\. e~ TX. J.tdtson'Ville, TX. Dciavva,e. OH Offlc.e Loeations: Occal'\Skk, 0. · L.1S vegas, NV • Laughlin. /',Z kJ.arlo Falls. ID . Eats$. TX . .J.lO:sOnvil~. TX . San MtonlO. TX HClu$tOt'I, TX · Corpus OYfstl. TX ·/~~ IN l.ouJs\,1/le. KY · Knoxville. TN 4 Gt3fton. \t1 -Oefaware. OH I.NNk)INl)(OC*. IL -Tunica. MS · Adanta. Go\ Tampa . A.~ Oaywna Beach. FL · Orlando. FL Building Quality Signage Slnce 190 I Rev,s,ons Rl -OS-12-1 4 VA/JK Revise 01 per pdf marl up ottD<hed. R2-06-18-14 BW Rev ise graphics on sign I. R3 07 .15.14 RM/JOR Update pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del pag e R4 03.4.1 S VA/JOR Update Site pla n to SP 13 RS 03 24 15 VA/J OR Updo1e 1ign placement of Sign E6 & ES. Upda te arrow of Sign E4. Account Rep . ProJec t Manager Drawn By: ProJec t / Location: MATISMITH JESSICA VIDAL J. CARPENTER CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 @ Underwrit ers @ rL.KTRtCAI. TO USl U.L UST?D . nee cOMP"ONEHTSN.IOst-WJ.MffT Laboratoneslnc. -ALL N.E .C. SfANDAltDS ALL ILICtlllC AL S IGNS Altl ro CO M ,.Lt WITH U.L ••• A NO A•f lC Lf tOO o, f Hf N f C STA NOAltOS. INCtlJO I N G THI ,11or11t GltOUNDINCi AN D •oNDINCi o, ALL ~IGNL WARRANT Y N O T /C E Ce·t~..., elieC'"ulC.li c~r:s o• ~ns 'M1 facl prem.:3ru·ey 1f roe !,hut-off 'a, a pcoo::J cf Clr''e. o,,c:c-, cac:h ~ FOi' ocs: pcr'.0 1 ....... ane ~ recommena ~~ signs De connea.ec co an .)t,[Of"" .aoc (l'l('fq,, Mar~rn: $,Stem r me Cloe11: 0< PhOfo en re o:xltfO· tl't"" aa.r,. shut-of' penod FJllute to 1()1,o,-., '.'lt"5e recorrwne'l0atl0llS car c,~u!.e ~.anuge :o t"I<' s,gr,s ex•ctnc.al componcn.1 .a.XI ...o,.; tr(" ','\,i!HCm:, Sorr'e drT"rnr,g ~n::es wd ac-,,, .. Sa!.'f'/ Jffea !l'lt" o!'iec:'lCJ CQn1Xl'">ef~IS o f tt>e S1Qf1 co ......-.Ch 1: l'> att:<Knt"C. <.:dlJSl'lG '.i,·ure Ari,,· Oll'l'Tlll"'Q of\'1Ce~ l.S~d on tre ~n \'Jl'.hOul pnc11 ccn~.t«H)(){' .,..,1'.t1 feGert'.ll Heatt1 $1c;'l Co ~• ~ tt'C wa··a<1ty Client Appr011aVDace: Landlord Appr011aVDate· Tris ongrnctl drirl.Vlng ,s p rOVlded .as p~1rt of rl planned pro,ea and rs not to be exh1brted. coo,ed or reprodJced i.vithou t the written ,oerm1ss10.•1 o f Federal Heath S,gn Company LLC or rts a uthorzed agen: © FHSC Co lors Depicted 1·1 This Rendering May N ot Ma~cn Actudl MJtE"fl..JI F1rnst1es RE"f?>r To Product SJmµles For f,cacc Co'or Match Job N umber: 23-23170-lO Dare: FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Shee r Number: 9 Of 15 Design N umber 23-23170-l 0-RS C? ~ " ~ ~ ' N _L co 23'-3 " _______ ,_ SIGNTYPE 0 CM-WS-CL 150 5/F ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER WALL SIGN SCALE: 3/8" = 1 '-0 " 6" 5" 277V ELECTRICAL REQ'D ........ TYPICAL SECTION 150 SQ . FT. GRAPHICS AND CO PY: c:=J "CAR & DA SHE S" -YELLOW #203 7 ACRY LI C FACES -CARMAX SATI N PMS-109 YELLOW RETURNS -YELLOW TRIM CAP FABRICATED ALUMINUM CABINET WITH .1 25 " ALUM INUM FACE - FILLER PAINTED CARMAX BLUE FACE PAINTED CARMAX BLUE I . "M AX" -WHITE #2447 AC RYLI C FAC ES -SATIN WHITE RETU RNS -WHI TE TRIM CAP -PMS -29 1 SATI N BLUE BACKGROUND (AL L CABINETS TO HAVE BUTI SEAMS & COUNTER-SUNK SCREWS) INDIVIDUAL ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETIERS WITH ACRYLIC FACES, TRIM CAP RETAINERS AND SLOAN WHITE LED LIGHTING. ATIACH LETTER CHANNELS TO BACKGROUND WITH # 10 TEK SCREWS. 120V-277V/1 2VDC SLOAN LED POWER SUPPLIES TO BE HOUSED IN BAC KGROUND CABINET. CUT OFF SWI TCH TO BE LOCATED END OF CABINET. WEEP HOLES REQ 'D IN BOTTOM OF LETTERS 277V-20 AM P CIRCUIT ELECTRICAL PR IMARY TO SIGN LOCATION AND TH E FINAL HOOK-UP TO BE BY CUSTOM ER'S CERT IFIED ELECTRIC IAN. NUM BE R OF CIRCU ITS REQU IRED PER SIGN TO BE PER FEDERA L HEATH SIGN ENGINEERING SPEC IFICAT IONS AND REQUIREMENTS. ALL SIGNS TO CO MPLY WIT H U.L. 48 REQUIRMENTS AN D ART ICLE 600 OF THE N.E.C., AND ALSO MEET ANY STATE AND LOCAL CO DE REQUI REME NTS. DEDICATED CIRCUI TS Number of 277v · 20 Amp Circuits Req 'd TBD ALL BRANCH CIRCUITS SHALL BE DEDICATED TO SIGNS (INCLUD ING GROUND AND NEUTRAL ) AND SHALL NOT BE SHARED WITH OTHER LO ADS F!II FEDERAL 'II HEATH SIGN COMPANY www.Fe d era l Heath .co m 2300 North H ighway 1 2 1 Eu l ess, Texas 76039 18 17) 685-9077 18001 527-9 495 Fax (8 I 7) 685-9 I 03 Manufacturing F.K.ilttin: Qce;,nsjde. CA· Eu~s.s. TX · J.JclGonviAc. TX· ~e, OH C'>t'fice'UXiKKlr"IS: Ocear\Slde', C,.'i. • LAs Vt!'gas. NV · LAugflltn. N k1ilhO Falls, 10 • Euless, TX • .Jadt.sorMlle, TX • San Antonto, TX Houston, TX • (Ol'pus Christl, TX · lndi.lnapofl.s, IN LoulSVIJte. KY -Knoxville, TN -Gratton, WI -Ddaware, Ot-1 WIIIO'wO<OOk. IL -n.nca . MS . /\Uanta, u-. T~. Fl -o.r,tona aeacn. Fl . On.lrldo, Fl Bull d ing Quality Slgnage Since 190 I Revis,oros : Rl -0 5-12-1 4 VA/JK Rev ise as pe r pd f mark up alla ch ed. R2-06-l 8-14 BW Rev ise gra ph ics an sign I. R3 07.1 5.14 RM/JOR Up da le pag es 2. 3, 13 and 14. De l pa ge R4 03.4.15 VA/JDR Update Sil e plan 10 SP 13 RS 03.24 15 VA/JOR Updale sign placemen! ol Sign E6 & ES, Up dale arrow of Sign E4 Account Re p: Pr0Jec t Manager: Drawn By · ProJecr / Locan on : MATI SMI TH JESSI CA VIDA L J. CARPENTER CARmax ----- LOCATI ON #7252 3751 EAS T VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 ® Underwrite rs (;fJ ELECTRtCAI.. TO I.JU U.L USTm n C COMPONENTS ANO SHAU. MEET laboral olies lnC. r A LL N .E .C . HAHDAAOS A L L I L I C T •I C A l SIO lol ~ "a r 1'0 C OM PL Y 'MIT H UL . 4 1 AlolD AII HC L I •o o OP r H• Jrt .l.C . 1 f A ND A lt O S . I NC LUDI NG T Hf PIOl"fa Q lt O U lol OI N G AHO •OHO I NQ OP A l l S I CJH S . WARRANTY NO TI CE Certain ~at compormts of SIQ'ls v.1; r~ pr~turely r not IJ'xr·r.lf IOI~ J)("!'Od o' (mt'. Of'<t'. f'i+<.'I <'....iy lfw l>nt pt·tbrrn .. m c.r we fe(OITI~ tr.at 'i.(JI ·s tx" COl"rf'C'Clt'(] !O ,)I" .:.U!c)(ll.{lt!C €~11/ M~~ ~~tern. f1~ CO:k Of ''h?IU ( l;'t In (llf'Unl lllt' (!A°J sr.u: off peroo Fai:t,re to foClow :tx~ r~t~<'lS CJn :.lLl!.e d.:wr-dg(' lO tht' ~n~,' efe<.'.01<..ot COlflXVll1 °t~ ,<I'd Y01C.J 1111,,' W,t/f,i'lty Some Ctrm nq ae,.,ce,s wr! ao~se+; .1ffe1:t :n,e, ~l'IC.ll corr,poflefl'.1 ,,t ttv.• ~Jfl u..: v..t1f(h 1r 1, --1t1..tcl">f'fl (Al .\.lllfJ 'A1 11w ,'\l,ycJn nr"flC} aev.ces use:J Ot'I tre s,qn Mt"'IOLl prfO!' ,o.,su irat,on ,'1,1t'l j,,edf'r;i Hc,..:-1 ~ig, (o ·.v.~ ..-.:•! :•11• wttrrttnty Client Approvavoare : Landlord ApprovaVDate: Th:s orrgonal drav..,ng is prcMded as part of a olanned proJect .md ,s not to be ex h ,btte<l . copied or rep rodu ce d wrthout cne wr:tren perm,ss,on of Feue,a l Hed tl> S1q n Comµdny LL( or rts auth onzed agent. ,r.i FHS( Co lor~ D eµKl~cJ ir-nm RencJ~r m y M dy N ot M,HC'' Acrua l Marer.a l F1rn s.hes Re fe r To Product Samples For Ex.act Color M atch Job Number : Date: 23-23170-10 FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Sneer N u m ber: 10 Of 15 Design N u mber 23-23 170-10 -R5 • TO CANOPY .--3T 3" ... T.O. PARAPET 2•·-0· • T.0. STOREFRONT • Ta-o· -- v.tm: N:JI.CA'CP1 E-EAST SITT:"'-"U. -SPIJT FACE CW P,"rt:O ONIJCENll'l-ffc»E 2 E-SOUTH ..,, ._ TO CANO;,,( ,..-3r.3· ... T.O. PARAPET 24·.o· 3 E-NORTH ..,,· 11(.UYN,lot STOREfFKWT .RAMI NG M rrM TYP 80 '-51 /2" ---' -< 11 a 55 SQ . FT. SIGN SPUTFAClCIIJ ?II.INTEO ON« ENtrMlONE ~~Aa.C'.MJ PAIHTCOIJQfT[Nmro,.t: fl.LIE rwTE::>Cl.MNl J SrTEWM..1.-SAJTf!IC'.f.CMU P,t.,NT£D CAAi( rAATHiONC 26.7 SQ. FT. SIGN 0 MEl"-PA.\l;l SF'\JTFACE.CW P'-IN"WDNIKENIIH'O'E ----------------------280'-6" .tr&..\INUM $TORO'RONT FRAMINGSVST~TYP 23'-3" 150 S.F. SIG N SIMJOTHFN:ECMJ P~'(TEO IJG;;f EN('1o410NE PNU.F.TVOCER SITE 'o'IH.J. • SPLIT F >a. CIIJ PA.NTUIOl,,RJ(ENIIHTONE llt.UETillTUIG.AZIHC 16-B" 16-6 1n ~U~Sf()l:Efl()HT 'RAMI . ..C.Sl'STEMTYP 55 SQ. FT. SIGN roe~,~ .. T.O P~; ... T O STOREF 1 ~~ -4_. F.F.~ ... VHTE1°'CAt¥:Pi NEXT GEN 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS F!IFEDERAL 'I HEATH SIGN COMPANY www.FederalHeath.com 2300 North Highway 12 I Euless, Texas 76039 (8171 685-9077 (8001 527-9495 Fax (8171685-9 103 Manuraaurtng Facl~: Oce~. CA · Elieu. TX · .Jack:sorM"'°. TX· Oel.Jwafe. OH Offlcelocaoor'ti: Ocean.ilde. CA· L.» ~ 1'N -L.augtJln,. N. Idaho Falls. I() • EIM'Ss. TX • JadoorMJte, rx • San Jvltonk>, TX 1-b):,;1~ TX • (Ol'J)t)S (hrtsti, rx · lndiN'lilpOh~ IN l!)lUVlllt', ICY. Knoxvllk'. TN. Gra fton, VII -Defawarc, OH WilkJl.vbrOOk. IL • rlJlltU, fv1.S -"11an~. GI\ ~rrpa. Fl -DAytona Bif!'ac.h, FL -Ortando, FL Building auallty Slgnage Since 1901 Re1.1s 1on s RI -05-12-14 VA/JK Rev ise as per pdl mark up attac hed. R2-06-l 8-I 4 BW Revise grophi<S on sign I. R3 07 .15.14 RM/JDR Update pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del page R4 03.4. l S VA/JDR Update Site pion to SP 13 R5 03.24.15 VA/JDR Update sign placement of Sign E6 & ES, Update arrow of Sign E4 Account Rep: MATISMITH ProJect Manager: JESSICA VIDAL Ora-wn By J, CARPENTER ProJect I Locat1on· CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 @ Underwriters <if) nKTWtCAL TO USE u .L USTtD 0 C COMPONEN?l AHO SHAl..L MEET L.abocatories Inc. ' A ll N .11 .C. srAMOAJtOS A l L fl lCf lt l ( II L Sl Gl'tH A lt l ro COM,l 'I' Wlf M l,j l. ... AND A•r l CLI 6 00 O f' THI: N .l':.C . I IANOAltOS . IN C L U DI NG HU: ,itOl"l lt GIIII OUNOOIII G "NO 90Jrol 01111G 0 ' "LL SIQN S. WARRANTY NO T ICE Ct-r!,>;111 L*-"C~'lr.a LOO'OOl'!t:,'lt:i. er ~ns \'A,; ra1 pr('ffic!rure)" I not ShJt off 'c, J PMOO ol ume. C'lCC. eacn Gil'j Ry bes: ~form.me(' '.'It' reu.xr111'1e"ld th.I! "WC,m t>e (()(l(l(_'CteG to art .ill.!001-dOC Ef'l'f::,1 MJl"' .... ~"ief"r syster--. Time CIOc< OI' Phcxo CN (0 conuOI the' Ci't/ !,hut--olf :x-rlO<l Fd, LJfC :o rDICMo the'se rec~taons can :'..i!use ~ co tne s.,gns· ~nc.ll C::wnpone,'a dl''CI \oQWJ ti't' w.w~·lly Soroe t11r'llflln9 ONIC~s wt ac1\.nse!'f arr~ L'lt" e,e,c:.,c.a. comporlena of :ne sq· :o ...,,t,,c~ 1, ·s J:!~. cau~l(j ,~iur" 1v,,. (lrnr-irx; CC'\KCS mro en :ne s,q'l w,mout poo< ,cns~ltation ...,,tn !-('derA!l 11~..tu• SKJr1 OJ ..._..\'Q<tl llw>'N..tl',mty Client ApprovaVOate: Landlord ApprovaVDate: This or g,nal drawing ,s prCMded as part or a plorv1ed pr01ea drxl 1~ riot lo t>e e xt110 1te<1. copied or reproduced without the wn:ten pcr,russ1on of federa1 Hea,h Sign Company LLC or •ts au1t1oro,ed ,,gent © FHSC to,ors Dep,ca·d In P11s Rt>nde'mg M,,y No: M,H01 AC:val Mate•1ar F1nr:s he:s Refer To ProduG SaMplcs for Exdtt Color M.3tct1. Job Number: 23-23170-10 Dace: FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Sheet Number 11 Of 15 Design Number. 23-23170-l 0-RS 5' "SI" ~ M "1" T""" SID E A CoPEN~ SIGN TYPE ® LOT DIRECTIONAL SIDE A SIDE B BLANK C oPEN~ SIGN TYPE() LOT DIRECTIONAL REFLECTIVE WHITE VINYL ARROWS I I 3M-680-10 FIRST SURFACE APPLIED. REFLECTIVE YELLOW VINYL COPY 3M-680-71 FIRST SURFACE APPLIED {COPY ON TWO FACES) 1 1/2" -------+-I-----ALUMINUM CABINET W/ CARMAX SATIN BLUE FIN . 2" 1 PAINTED BRUSHED ALUMINUM FINISH ON RECTANGULAR SUPPORT FRAME (2" X 10 " X .125" RECT. TUBE) FOUR SQ . FT. sca le 3/4"= 1 '-0" C. 10" ~ "" 1 1/2" SIDE B I I REFLECTIVE VINYL #3M-680-7l YELLOW [ ___ ~ REFLECTIVE VINYL #3M -680 -l0 WHITE --CARMAX PMS -281 BLUE SATIN FIN . MATIHEWS BRUSHED ALUMINUM FIN. --(2) l '-6 "0 x 2'-6" DEEP CONC. FOOTING NOTE: ALUMINUM EMBEDDED IN END VIEW CONC. MUST BE HAVE MOISTURE BARRIER COATING TO PREVENT CORROSION SI DE A SIDE B CoPEN ~ SIGN TYPE ~ LOT DIRECTIONAL scale 3/4" = 1 '-0" scale 3/4"=1'-0" LOT DIRECTIONALS (non-illuminated) • .I FEDERAL I .. HEATH SIGN COMPANY www.Fed eralHealh.com 2 300 North Highway 1 21 Euless, Texa s 76039 (817) 685-90 77 (8 00) 5 27.9495 Fax (817) 6 85-9 103 M.lnutaaurtng Fadlitles: 0c:C.l0Skk, CA -euess. TX . J.xk:s.orMlfe. 1)( -OdalNare. O H Ortlce Locations· OceanskSe. CA • L.u ~s. Ml· Laughlcn . N. k.1aho Falls. 10 -Euless. lX -Jadcs,o,Mlle. TX -San Antonio. rx HOU$lOfl. TX . Corpus Christi. TX -lndLanapolil, IN loulS\ril~. KY -Knoxville, rN -Grarton. U/1 -Ddaw,..e, O H \li'illowbrooi<. IL • rumc.:1. MS -J\Ua n u . GI\ Tampa, Fl • Daytona 8ettch, Ft • O,lando, FL Building Quality Slgnage Si nce 1901 Revos,ons: Rl-OS -12-1 4 VA/JK Revise 01 per pdf ma rk up attached. R2-06-18-14 BW Revise graphics on sign I. R3 07.15.14 RM/JO R Update pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del page R4 03.4.15 VA/JD R Update Site pion to SP 13 RS 03.24 I 5 VA/JDR Up,fote sign placement of S,gn E6 & E8. Upd ate arrow of S,g n E4 . Account Rep· MATISMITH JESSICA VIDAL J. CARPENTE R PrQJecc Manager· Drawn By: ProJect / Location. CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 @ Underwrllers fB ~ ro USE u.L us-rm , n C COM,oHEN~ MO SHAU MHT labofltO<ttS lnc . r All H .l!.C. 5rAN DAltlH A l l IL.C T ilt tCA.L SIG NS JIii ( TO CO M"lYWlfH UL 4 .... NO A•r•cl r ,oo o• THI N .I .C. STA N DAlrOS, IN C LUD I NG nu ll'iltOl"flt G,IIOUl'fOIN G AN O •O "'O!!'jG O f' All S I GNS WARRANTY NOTICE Ct>r:.~·r1 ~JI Compot'lt"fl:\ o' \Kjfl\ V.'!I IA .xnr...!Hlie'y 1f ,·rn shut off 'or d ~ of :..me. O('IC!'. e.Kri Ga)· For oes: ~~o-"·•·1ar,ce we r("(crirnena '"L:.f' ~;·1\ ti(' ({)11'1{'{ 1t'l! 1:1 ..... 1 ... t01··.e1tic E1("fw M~eri: r(Stem. ; me CIOClc rx PTlofo Ceti ro conuo, me cia.,,J Y 'IL.lt--OII ;Jf:'l'IOd r,li>II(' (0 fr:M'lrAI :·11•\I.' /('(_0011,C-~Oons CK Cill,sc CarrlaQl' to the ,;.q,s eectncJI :Ofl"IPOl'"lcns J('CI .io.c rN' wJrr.:>n:'J Som,> '1ir"JTW'l(J <WV<.M-••,:ii ..to:M'•\t-l'/ ..tffl'll :"k~ t"ic{'.~; ~()r'J(X)fle'l'tS or tt1f" sq, :o wh<I"' f s Jt':3C"lie'C. C,>.Js,n,; 'a.:we A:1•;, ~r-rTW"9 (.('\"Cl"~ u~~ ,:·1 · ·1p \)(Jll v.,,ihot.t poor ccmul;atJon with feclCf,11 Heam 5'Qf'1 Cc WIii ,,.o,a uie wa .. c,ncy Client ApprovaVDate: Landlord ApprovaVDate: This orig inal drawing 1s provided as part or a ;,lanned prOJec: and 1s not to be ext1101tect loµied or •eproducerl without the wntte'l pe,m,ss,on of Fed era l H ea:h Sign Company LLC or ,cs autnO'IZed agent © ~HS( Colors Ocp1cted In This Render,r.g M,;iy N or M ruch A:._tudl M.iter JI finishes Refer To Product Samp:cs For Exa cr Color M.:]rch. Job Number: Dare: 23-23170-10 FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Sheet Number 12 Of 15 Design Nu mber: 23 -2 3170-10-RS 31-2 " / 1-10" - "'1" ~9 • ?i ~ service :r .-- 5' I 11 SIDE A "'1" C..oPEN~ SIGN TYPE © LOT DIRECTIONAL SIDE A C..oPEN~ SIGN TYPE © LOT DIRECTIONAL 10" ~1 11 /2"_u-~1 1/2" REFLECTIVE WHITE VINYL ARROWS 3M -680-l0 FIRST SURFACE APPLIED. REFLECTIVE YELLOW VINYL COPY 3M -680-71 FIRST SURFACE APPLIED {COPY ON TWO FACES} ~ II ALUMINUM CABINET W/ CARMAX SATIN BLUE FIN. I PAINTED BRUSHED ALUMINUM FINISH ON RECTANGULAR SUPPORT FRAME 2" (2 " X l O" X .125 " RECT. TUBE) FO UR SO. FT sca le 3/4" = 11-0" SIDE B • • I c,.. Q .() SIDE B C=:J REFLECTIVE VINYL #JM-680-71 YELLOW --REFLECTIVE VINYL #JM-6 80 -10 WHITE -CARMAX PMS-281 BLUE SATIN FIN . ._ ~] MATIHEWS BRUSHED ALUMINUM FIN . --(2) 11-6 11 0 x 21-6 11 DEEP CONC. FOOTING NOTE : ALUMINUM EMBEDDED IN END VIEW CONC. MUST BE HAVE MOISTURE BARRIER COATING TO PREVENT CORROSION CARmax ----- entrance • SIDE A SIDE B C..oPEN~ SIGN TYPE ® LOT DIRECTIONAL scale 3/4"=1'-0" LOT DIRECTIONALS (non-illuminated) '' FEDERAL HEATH SIGN COMPANY www.Feder.a JHe.a tt1.com 2300 North Highway I 2 1 Euless, Texas 76039 (81 7 1 685-9077 1800) 5 27-9495 Fax 18 171 685-9 1 03 Manufacturing Facilities: CkeAn:sJcko, 0,.. EtAess. TX -Jadcsorrviue, TX -Oelawate. OH Offlct Locadons: Oc:eanskk. ~ • Las Vegas. tN · LaugN1n. N. klaho Falts. IO • EtAess. TX • .Jadcsonvllit. TX · San Antonio, lX Houston. TX -Co,pus Owfstf. lX • fndianapolb. fN LOIJS\11Ue. KY · KnoxviH~. TN · Gtafton, WI • ~,11re, OH WilO'INbrook. IL • TI.Jnk:a. MS • Adarca, GA Tampa. A.. · Dayrona ~ach. FL · Ofl,J,ldo. Fl Buil d ing Quality Signage Slnce 1901 Revisions Rl-05, 12,14 VA/JK Revise as per pdf mark up attached . R2-06·18·14 BW Revi~ graphics on sig n I. R3 07.15.14 RM/J OR Upda te pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del page R4 03.4.15 VA/JDR Updole Site pion la SP 13 R5 03.24.1 S VA/JDR Update 11gn plo<ement of Sign E6 & E8, Upda te arrow al Sign E4. Account Rep ProJeCt Ma nager D rdwn By· PrOJ e ct / Location: MATI SM ITH JESSICA VIDAL J. CARPENTER CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 @ Underwrite-r s (if) !1Z<TltlCAI. ro US1 u.L usno . n C COIM'ON!Pl'T'S NJO ~ MUT Laboratoneslnc. r ALL N.1!.C . HAND1UDS ALL ILICrlUCAL SIG N:li All ro COM .. Lf W I Tl1 U.L ...... No AITICLI •oo o, 1H I Hf C $Y A NDA•o1, IN C LUD I N G nn: r110,11, GROUNDIN G ANO IOl't DING o, A LL $1(HrU WARRANT Y N OTICE CN~.J n ele<:tnC:Jj componerts o• ~ns vM f,di! Dt"er-.. m.1ety 1r r•ff S'll.l-of' rur ,1 p(TIOCI of trl('. onn.·. cacn c.ay FOt oe-st oer'orm.,r,cc . .... -e te<()r"'mend that signs ::,,e ccr11"1ected to ;m JLJlcrn...itK l:·11:-r~ Ma~, ..-~tern T me CIOC"< 0( Pnoto Ctt-to contrOI mt (l.l..y S'll,(-Of' peood Fa1lurl" lO IC,0',11, (ti('~ rf'(O,JWT1f'nC,1..tllC)r1\ CMI L'l,~ d<lrl'l.ilql' :o ttJC '>q1S e ectncal r:,)(rlp(YlC(lU Jn<J ,.OK:J :nc wJ,ramy Sot-e 3fTVT'lws.g ~es wa ;J(!v-rse1"1 . .11ff:'(I rtw-t'"l!'t.U·:...ir ~miporlL, H a, th· s,q,1 to W'lld' ,! s at:au~. c..lus.i,q ra,1u•e An1 o,mm.ng Oev1Ces .... 5ed on tne siun \v1tt,~ it puOf <nr1\uit.e1trwl v11th h ."Geror Heatt1 Slc;'l Co WIii vo,a tt1e w,m-,n:y Client ApprovaVDate: Landlord Approvavoate: This orrg1nal draw,ng 1s pro\Sd ed as part of a planned proJect and 1s not to be exh1b1t ed. copied or reproduced witt1out Uie written permission of Federal Heath Sign Compan y LL C or rts authonzea agem © FHSC Cofors Depicted In This Rcnacr1n9 May Nm Macch Actd dl M,nert.JI F1nt~.r1~~ Rerer To Product Samples For Exact Color Match Job Number : Date· 23-23170-10 FEBRUARY 24 , 2014 Sheet N umber: 13 O f 15 Design Number 23-23170 -10-R5 "? iN 2 3/4'_..' --- ~,.- 2'-6 " STANDARD HIGHWAY SIGN PANEL -----(SETON 29594) . 125" ALUMINUM SIGN PANEL PAINTED CARMAX BLUE ON ALL SURFACES. 2" ft S,I o ;:c, ("') carmax vehicles only BEYOND THIS POINT _. WHITE 3M 680-10 & 3M 680-17 YELLOW REFLECTIVE VINYL COPY 2'-0 " ------2" X 2" X 3/16" SQUARE i /- TUBE (6061 -T6) PAINTED MATTHEWS 13B-2T GRAY PLATE MOUNTED TO CONCRETE SURFACE @CM-0-DNE SINGLE FACE "DO NOT ENTER " SIGN / TWO (2) sca le 1/2" = 1 '-0" .... CN t 18 " 8 REMOVE ANTENNA AND LOCK BOXES SECURE ALL WINDOW, DOOR AND ROOF OPENINGS t t 18 " CM-0-CW CM-D-CWE t @ WALL PANEL sca le 1"=1'-0" @) WALL PANEL scale 1"=1'-0" 3 SQ . FT. 3 SQ . FT. FLAT .125 " ALUMINUM PANE L W/ CARMAX BLUE BACKGROUND "STOP SIGN /DO NOT ENTER "-RED 3M-680-72 W/ COPY TO BE WHITE 3M -680 -10 MAIN COPY TO BE 3M 680-10 WHITE ALL SIGNS ARE TO BE MOUNTED FLUSH TO WALL AT ENTRANCE/EXIT LANES ON CAR WASH BUILDING -4' -0" ABOVE GRADE LU 0 ffi I LU > 0 co <I: 9 CC> ,l:,. Ol.'J-1 11~.li.{ """-1 .. ltf\f(II ~Wll,OQll<l:f .._.,., r,,.,r ,. ,,l)f~fCf! 1 '-0" 9 - ~ 'IW\O.fl"f,(, ~:lt!(;.l'J:fl..; ~ U,lf,(>f{{I ·r,·~;M1','6.IP,,.•1U ~rn. r u.;;11,~·r.1•J,yt,·•o ~.)'l'P'll.l;t.,IJ ~<u,'((,rN-:W,.,111,IJ( ~1,1~!,-:"·(,,.;.,;;:!m,:1·,, I '-')"ll)·u~,1~ K">"Sll"l'<l·~·,.-JPJt•,HJ' ~ll)lVtlf(JL(~'), ....:·o1.s11., -"""-"61!1,"' .. '------- -~-.125" ALUM INUM PANEL WITH l Yi" LEG FOR ATTACHMENT TO SUPPO RT. PANEL PAINTED CARMAX BLUE BACKGROUND. COPY TO BE WH ITE REF LECTIVE VINYL 3M-680-l0 . MOUNT TO PIPE WITH STAINL ESS STEEL STRAP EXIST ING LI GHT POLE (SEE ROW MARKER DETAIL PAGE FOR EXACT MARKERS REQUIRED) 0 CM-0-RM DOUBLE FACE ROW MARKER SIGN PA NELS 2'-6 " ~ iN ~ -.0 sca le 3/4" = 1 '-0" --.FLAT 125 " ALU MINUM PANEL WITH PAINTED PMS -032 RED FINISH ON ALL SUR FACES. REFLECTIVE WHITE 3M-680-l 0 VINYL ON COPY AND BORDER (ONE SIDE ONLY} 2• X 2" X 3/16" SQUARE TUBE (606 1-T6) PA INTED MATTHEWS 13B-2T GRAY a· X a· Xv.· ALUMINUM PLATE MOUNTED INTO CONCRETE WITH MASONR Y ANCHORS . PAINT MATTHEWS 138 -2T GRAY e CM-0-SCD SINGLE FACE SIGN ELEVATION I TWO (2) scale 1/2"=1'-0" ~r c::, ! ~.:- r-2'-0 " while carmax welcomes visitors, WE ASK THAT YOU HAVE AN ESCORT BEYOND THIS POINT . FLAT .125' ALUMINUM PANEL PAINTED CARMAX BLUE 3M 680-10 WHITE REFLECTIVE COPY & 3M 380-71 YEL LOW HIGHLIGHTED COPY. ~ CM-0-ESCORT SINGLE FACE SIGN ELEVATION I J REFLECTI VE VINYL #3M -680 -71 YELLOW --1 REFLECTIVE VIN YL #3M-680 -10 WHITE -REFLECTIVE VINYL #3M 68 0-72 RED -CARMAX PMS -281 BLUE SATIN FIN. ~ MATIHEWS 138-2T GRAY FIN. '' FEDERAL HEATH SIGN COMPANY w ww. Feder a /Heath.com 2300 North H i ghway I 21 Euless, Texas 76039 1817) 685-9077 1800) 527-9495 Fax 181 71 685-91 03 Manufactl.ring Fadlitlts: Ocearukie.O.·Euhs. TX -~. TX -O&ware.OH Office Locadons: Oceanside. CA • Las Vegas. Ml · l.dughlm. AZ Idaho Falls. ID • Eu!ess. TX • Jadcs.onvllle. TX • San Antonio, TX Houston. TX • Corpus Chnsd. TX • lndlanapolls . !N Louisvi!"°. KY • Knoxvi!"°. TN • Gr.a~on. W'J • ~.we, OH WilloYJbroot.. IL · Tunica, MS • Adant.,. GA Tam pa. Fl · Dayton.a Beach, Ft· 01ando, Ft Building Quality Slgnage Since 1901 Rcvrsrons : Rl -05~ 2-14 VA/JK Rev ise as pe r pdl _ITlo rk up oltoched . R2-06-18-14 BW Revise graphics on s_ign I. R3 07 .15.14 RM/JDR Up date pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del pag e R4 03.4.15 VA/J DR Update Site pion to SP 13 RS 03.24.15 VA/JDR Updale sign placeme nt of Sign E6 & EB, Upda te arrow ol Srgn E4 . Acco unt Re p· ProJecr Manager· Drawn By: PrOJect / Location: MATI SMITH JESSICA VI DAL J. CARPENTER CARmax ----- LOCATION #7252 3751 EAST VALLE Y ROAD RENTON , WA 98057 @ Underwriters r;/j f1.KTMCAl TO VS( U.L I.JSTl!D . 0 C COMr'OH!NTSNK) SHAU MUT Labotatones Inc. F JU L N .e:.c. srAND A rto s ALL I LI ( f lt l ( o'I L 51G H I J\ltl ro COM,.LT W ITtt U .L ..... o'IN O J\aTtC:L a 600 0' T M l' HI! C: 5 T A N O A1t 01. IN C:L.UD I N Q 0-1111' 'lt0,.l(lt OltOUNOtN G i'NO •011t OI N G o, J\F.L S IG NS . WARRANTY NOT ICE Ct'f:<'111 e&eanc:.t, com;x,nenu o' s,gns ,,....,. fail JY~mai:1..J·ety 11 f "IO'. snut otr 'c• d pe'fl()(l ot !Jrnl:. once.>, each aay For oe-s: J)ef'c•'TIJr'Ct. Wf:' f("("Ol'll'nenc tri.:J· ~11~ tX" corirlt'Ctei::l to ,.., Jl.!°'""""(K f•wrgy M~~.ent s-,..stem. Tll'TIC (ioo; or Photo Ceti to contrO me a..w,. ~lit,r-c,,11 ;:it'flOCl F,Ji,,M'('CO!o,IQo. ... ·•~r~nlYIW"'l(!AflOll\{..U,(,11.\(' <li'm.JQC' t:J the s,qns· electncill CQO\X)(let"ts ilf'd ~ tre \11,wJnr,. ){:r'f' •lirrmM'"J <)f"Vti•'.\ ,.,,:rt ,:t1'.V!'1sel'; o:tffP'(I :•I(' t't!"<."l{,ct c.ompont'f r, c i tt'-C' ~1 :o wh,Ch t s JttcK.~. caus1t1Q •ai•ure An,· t'.llr'r't'W"IQ flf'\.'l(f'\ t,W<l w1 ··w ':>!t,n Wt!tQJ( pnor (Cn~.lr,mon wat1 ftetr:11 He.l1t1 s.gn Co ....,. ,'OK1 rti,e w,1"Jnty Client ApprovaVDate: Landlord Approvavoate: Tr'11s or1g1nal drawing is prcMded as pan or a planned proJecc and ,s no: rn be exhrb,ted. ccp,ect or reproduct'd W'thout tt·,e written perm1 ss1on of Federal Heat~ Srgn Compa ny LLC or rts auttlonzed agent t': FHSC Colors Depicted tn ThJS Rendering May N ot M a tch Actudl MJter1J· F1n 1 ,;,t1es Rider To Product Samples For Ex.:icr rotor M aren Job Number: Dare. 23-23170-10 FEBRUARY 24 , 2014 St1eet N umber: 14 Of 15 Desrg n Number 23 -23170 -10-R5 !I 9 "' k 1'-2" ~ 1 1 -ROUNDED CORNERS (1 " RAD IUS) - •· .125 " ALUM INUM PANEL WI TH SCR EENED LT BLUE/DK. BLUE GRADATION ON FACE-SOLID BLUE ON BACKS IDE & EDGES . WH ITE REFLECTIVE COPY 2 3/8" WHITE PVC POST POST IS LEED CERTIFIED RECYCLED MATERIALS 100% RECYCLED RUBBER SIGN BASE SIGN TYP E O S/F SIGN PANEL WITH MOVEABLE BASE (LEED CERTIFIED)/ FIVE (5) REQ'D SCALE : 3/4" = l '-0" ~ 1'-211 1 1 __,,..- RESERVED I '? appraisals ;.._ 9 .:n I I rt- ~ 1 -RO UNDED CORNERS (1" RADIUS) .125·· ALUMINUM PAN EL WITH SCREENED YELLOW/ORANGE GR ADATION ON FACE W/ ORANGE BAC KS IDE & EDGES 3M 680-75 BLUE REFLECT IVE COPY ---2 3/8" WHITE PVC POST POST IS LEED CERTIFIE D RECYCLED MATERIALS 100% RECYCLED RUBBER SIGN BASE SIGN TYPE @ S/F SIGN PANEL WITH MOVEABLE BASE (LEED CERTIFIED)/ THREE (3) REQ'D SCALE:3 /4" = l '-0" NEXT GEN RESERVED (non-illuminated) • .I FEDERAL I .. HEATH SIGN COMPANY www. Federr1 /Heat h. corn 2300 North H i ghway 121 Eu less. Texas 76039 (817) 685-9077 (800) 527-9495 Fax (81 71 685-91 03 Mlnutacturing FacilrtieS; Dee~. 0. . Elkn. lX . Jack.SOOville, TX Delaware-. OH Ottke Locations: Oceansklc. CA • Las ~s. NI/ • Laughhn. N. Idaho Fats. IO • EI.AeSS. TX · .Jadcsc:>n\lllk-. TX · San Mronlo. TX Houston. TX • (Of'PUS Owisd, TX • lndW\apolh. IN Loulsvll!t. KY . Knc»rvllle. TN . Grafton. \li1 . Oti..3w¥e. OH WrUO'wbrOOk. fl • funlca. MS · NS.Yira. GA Ta~. Fl • Daytona Beach. Fl · Ortando, Fl Building Quality Signage Since I 90 I Revision s Rl-05 -12-14 VA/JK Rev i1e as pe r pd l ma rk up atta<hed. R2-06-18-14 BW Rev ise grap hi cs on sign L R3 07.15.14 RM/JOR Update pages 2, 3, 13 and 14. Del page R4 03.4.1 S VA/JOR Up dale Site pion to SP 13 R5 03 24.15 VA/JDR Update sign placement oi S,gn E6 & ES, Update arrow ol Sign E4. Account Rep Pro1ect Manager. Drawn By· Project/ Location: MATISMITH JESS ICA VID AL J CARP ENTE R CARmax ----- LOCATION #725 2 375 1 EAST VALLE Y ROAD RE NTO N, WA 98 057 @ Underwriters <;I!) EL£CTRtCN. ro us,: u.L UST!O . 0 C COWONENTS N',jQ S1-W.1. Mal Labofatories Inc. F ALL N.1.c. STANDARDS A L L ILI Cf ltl (;AL IIGN1, A•I: ro COM l'L r WtlH U.L . 41AND AltrlCLI ,oo o , THlf N If C. STANOA IIOS. INC LU DING THI ,1to,1 1 GIIDUHOINCi ANO IOHDING o , ""LL 1.IGNi. WARRANTY NOTICE CertJlf1 eteanc.JI con,pon.e,,ts o· s,gns w•1 •a, p,~m.:m.Jtefy .f noc ~tut-off 'c• ,1 p1'TJOC1 ol '..Hll', t>rlll'. t·.id1 clifj FOi' Dt"1t J)eff{)(ffiitnc:e •,'llf': rec0rnmiena tl\J; s,gris De COl'V)('Q:ed £C ,:>r1 .)ut oi•ia·-c [n('rm- M arvogt>"')t'l'l! '>y"<;lern Twlll! Ckx:< or f'tioto C~ co com•OI the aalJ',• shut otf ~ FJt,U'e to folow the~ ·ecOfM"t'l'x:l.:ttO''\ c~·1 C<t.rs.e c!inr~· 1u the :.icJls cil'LIOCill com,JOll('l'1ts .i1ll.l ~'OKJ t~ w.arran~ So,Tit, d1/"'il'TW"lg ~es .-.11 .xNersoe~-J'ft"<I t~ r ec[r1Cdl Cl)(1":xM')P'1tS of r11t_· 'i.KJI: '.o ""twch t -~ <tt:.tcr1r·d. ~-rig ra11t..r~. NJ\' c•mm,nq cf".1<es usea O'l i~ ~gn wtti::>ut ;xior co1·s . .1it;J ·1cn 1N1t r1 1-('Q(Yal He.iltr Sign Cc we VOid 11-.e warra nty Chene Approvavoace: Landlord ApprovaVDate: Trns orrg!ndl cJ,awiriy ,s provicled JS pare of a plannea pro.J{'Ct and 1s not to be exh1b1tcd. cop,ed or reproduced wn:hout the wmren pem11ssion of Federa l Heath S,gn Company LLC or rt s authorized agent 11'.; FHSC Co1or5 Depicted rn Trn s Renderrng M ay Not M at01 Acru~I M arenal F-1n1shes Re ·e, ro Produtl S.m1µ1e~ For Exact Color M atch Job Number· 23-23170-10 Date FE BRUARY 24 , 20 14 Shee t Number: 15 Of 15 Des,gn Number: 23-23170-1 O-R5 WETLANDS & DRAINAGE CORRIDORS EVALUATION AND DELINEATION REPORT Parcel # 1253600030 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA prepared for: Mr. Jon Einarsen, L.G., Principal Zipper Geo Associates, LLC 19023 36th Avenue West, Suite D Lynnwood, WA 98036 Prepared by: H & S CONSUL TING P. 0. Box 731695 Puyallup, WA 98373 253 732-6515 MHeckert@Q.com February 5, 2014 ,. '-. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The CenterPoint Project Site, 3751 East Valley Road, City of Renton, WA, Parcel number 1253600030 is approximately 12.3 acres, located in the city of Renton, Washington. An assessment of this project area following the procedures outlined in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash. Manual), the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (2008 Supplement), Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System(WSWRS), and City of Renton Title IV-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations) resulted in the identification of two regulated wetland areas. The project site is developed as a cinema complex. The site is 90% impermeable surface (structures and parking lot) and has been completely covered in imported permitted fill. Onsite assessment included an evaluation of the function and value rating for the wetland, a classification of each wetland and stream following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service methods, a categorization of each wetland and drainage following City of Renton Title IV- 3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations), and an identification of the City of Renton buffer width. WETLAND SIZE City of Renton WA WETLAND GENERAL Adjustment by Buffer Total (square feet) CATEGORY RATING BUFFER WIDTH Function And SCORE Land Use A 5,140 3 n/a 25 fl. +Oft. 25 fl. B 2,621 3 n/a 25 ft. +Oft. 25 fl The wetland was delineated and the drainage and other features located. The Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington Department of Ecology, and City of Renton (as well as a number of other resource agencies) regulate activities in and around identified wetland and stream areas. Such regulations focus on the avoidance of adverse impacts to wetlands and the mitigation of such impacts that cannot be avoided. In addition, City of Renton has established criteria to categorize wetlands for purposes of regulation and requires a buffer along wetland and drainage corridor areas. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTIOl'i ............................................................................................................. I BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................ 2 ONSITE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 2 WETLAND AND STREAM DETERMINATION ........................................................ 6 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT ............................................. 7 REGULATORY CONS ID ERA TION ............................................................................. 9 SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION .................................................................... 11 FIGURES...................................................................................................................... 12 REFERENCE LIST ........................................................................................................ 13 APPENDIX A-FIELD DATA FORMS ....................................................................... 14 ATTACHMENT I -WETLAND DELINEATION .................................................... 15 STANDARD OF CARE Prior to extensive site planning, this document should be reviewed and the wetland boundaries verified by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Wetland boundaries, wetland classifications, wetland ratings, and proposed buffers must be reviewed and approved by City of Renton Planning and Land Services and potentially other regulatory agencies. H & S has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished. No other warranties are expressed or implied. H & S is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Mark Heckert Principal H & S Consulting 13012-CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 4 INTRODUCTION This report details the culmination of activities and onsite evaluations undertaken to complete a wetland and drainage corridor evaluation as an element of the planning and site development of the CenterPoint Project Site. The CenterPoint Project Site is located generally in the southern portion of the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1 ). The project site contains a movie complex and parking area. The evaluation and delineation of onsite and adjacent wetlands and drainage corridors is a vital element in the planning and selection of a site development action. The goal of this approach is to assure that planned site development does not result in adverse environmental impacts to regulated wetlands, streams, and their associated protective buffer areas. Wetlands are generally defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." (City of Renton) STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to present the results of an onsite assessment and evaluation of wetland areas within the CenterPoint Project Site following the methods and procedures outlined in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash. Manual), Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System (WSWRSJ, the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules. Onsite assessment noted that there were no differences in the identified wetland boundaries as a result to using either the Wash. Manual or the 1987 Manual. Drainage corridors were also assessed in accordance with the criteria established by City of Renton and the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222- 16-030). This study was designed to accommodate site planning and potential regulatory actions and is suitable for submittal to federal, state, and local authorities for wetland and stream boundary verification and permitting actions. SITE DESCRIPTION The project area was generally rectangular, approximately 12.28 acres in size, located in Renton, Washington. The site is bounded on the east by Valley Ave NW, on the north, south and west by commercial development. The project site contains a cinema complex. The site is flat. 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt BACKGROUND INFORMATION National Wetland Inventory Mapping The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Fig. 2). This mapping resource did not identify any wetland within, or in proximity to, the project site. King County Wetland Inventory The King County Wetland Inventory was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource did not identify any wetland within, or in proximity to, the project site. City of Renton Wetland Inventory The City of Renton Wetland Inventory was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Fig. 3). This mapping resource did not identify any wetland within the project site. Wetlands designated W-33a and W-33c were identified at the northwest boundary of the project site. This wetland was described as PEM and PSS "poor'' habitat, and "On fill; seven small isolated areas". Soil Mapping The soil mapping inventory completed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Fig. 4). This mapping identified the soils generally throughout the project site as Snohomish silt loam and Tukwila muck. Snohomish soils are not listed as "hydric." Tukwila muck is listed as "hydric". Previous Delineation City of Renton records indicate a wetland delineation and mitigation plan was conducted as part of the original site development for the cinema complex. The original report identifies eight wetlands totaling 1.37 acres on the site. Original development resulted in the fill of 0.90 acres of wetlands with the creation of 0.85 ac. wetlands, and enhancement of 0.97 ac. of wetland and buffer as mitigation. ONSITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terms, wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin et al., 1979). Wetlands are generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (1987 Manual). 13012-CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 2 Wetlands exhibit three (3) essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria within the Wash. Manual and the 1987 Manual. These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: A predominance of plants that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils. 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons. 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally. A stream is generally defined as a location where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is typically an area which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes, but not limited to, bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds, and defined channel swales. A stream need not contain water year-round. A stream typically does not include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water run-off devices, or other artificial watercourses unless the constructed watercourse conveys a stream which naturally occurred prior to the construction of such watercourse. STUDY METHODS H & S completed a specific onsite evaluation of the project site on December 30, 2013. The objective of this evaluation was to define and delineate potential wetland and drainage corridor areas which may be present within and adjacent to the project area as defined by the three-parameter criteria test noted within the Wash. Manual and 1987 Manual, and the water-typing criteria noted within the WDNR Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-16-030). Boundaries between wetland and non-wetland areas were established by examining the transitional gradient between wetland and non-wetland characteristics criteria along transects through the site. Delineation was performed using the typical site methodology for areas larger than five acres as detailed in the 1987 Manual. City of Renton Wetland category was derived utilizing the City of Renton Title IV-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). FIELD OBSERVATION The site is bounded on the east by Valley Ave NW, on the north, south and west by commercial development. The project site contains a cinema complex. The site is flat. • The entire project site has been developed for commercial use. The site is dominated by an approximately 70,000 sq. ft. commercial building, with 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 3 approximately 90% of the site covered by impervious surface. This area was identified as non-critical area in character (i.e. not wetlands). • The western 10% of the site has been developed as a stormwater detention facility. This entire area has been graded and manipulated as part of site development. This area contains stormwater conveyances and retention/detention ponds, and receives stormwater from the entire site through storm drains. Within this detention facility, two areas on-site and one area adjacent at the north boundary express wetland characteristics. These areas are dominated by a mixed tree and shrub plant community. Observed species included mature black cottonwood (Popu/us trichocarpa) and mature and red alder (A/nus rubra), as well as planted willow (Salix spp.) and an emergent layer of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). This plant community was identified as hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of wetlands). As identified at several sample plots within this plant community the soil is a mixed gravelly loam to gravelly sandy loam, appears to be installed fill material, and did exhibit redoximorphic features. Field indicators of wetland hydrology are present. Soils The project was generally comprised of gravelly sandy loam, and was apparently filled as a development activity up to 3 ft. deep. This area did not exhibit redoximorphic features such as gleying, oxidized root channels, or mottles. This area did not meet the hydric soil criteria. The western portion of the site is the only area not paved. The surface soil layer within this parcel was generally silt loam underlain with clay loam or gravelly clay loam. The sub-soil within this area was generally noted as silt loam, dark gray (10YR 2/1) in color, and exhibited prominent redoximorphic features (i.e. soil mottles, oxidized root channels). These soils met the hydric soil criteria. • Hydrology Hydrology within the overall project area appeared to be the result of seasonal stormwater runoff from onsite and adjacent properties; short-term seasonal ponding within depressional areas and soil characteristics. Stormwater surface runoff through the overall project area was directed by a stormwater system to the ditches in the west, which flowed through the detention area, then west into the City storm drainage system. The detention ditch and pond appear to have been crea,ted as part of the filling of the site. • Vegetation Impermeable surface covers 90% of the site, interspersed with ornamental landscaping vegetation. This plant community was identified as non-hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands). 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 4 Along the west boundary of the site, the site was dominated by a mixed wet forest plant community. This plant community was identified as hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of wetlands). 13012-CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 5 WETLAND AND STREAM DETERMINATION Wetland determination was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the 1987 Manual (2008 Supplement) and the Wash. Manual. Based on these methods two wetlands were identified within the project site. WETLAND SIZE City of Renton WA WETLAND GENERAL Adjustment by Buffer Total (square feet) CATEGORY RATING BUFFER WIDTH Function And SCORE Land Use A 5,140 3 nta 25 fl. +O fl. 25 fl B 2,621 3 n/a 25 fl. +O fl. 25 fl Wetland A: This wetland was located within the stormwater control system along the west boundary of the site. This wetland appears to have been created by the filling of the site, cutting off drainage to the drainage ditch to the north. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater drainage from the commercial development on all sides of the feature. Wetland A meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Since this wetland meets the criteria of City of Renton: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. It appears to be a Category 3 Wetland. General buffer for a City of Renton Category 3 Wetland is 25 ft. Based upon the criteria and the absence of extraordinary features, the buffer appears to be qualified for the 25 ft. buffer. Buffer Width assigned by Rating is 25 feet, as measured perpendicular to the wetland edge. Wetland B: This wetland was located within the stormwater control system along the west boundary and to the north of the site. This wetland appears to have been created by the filling of the site. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater drainage from the commercial development on all sides of the feature. Wetland B meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Since this wetland meets the criteria of City of Renton: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 6 (3) May have altered vegetation. It appears to be a Category 3 Wetland. General buffer for a City of Renton Category 3 Wetland is 25 ft. Based upon the criteria and the absence of extraordinary features, the buffer appears to be qualified for the 25 ft. buffer. Buffer Width assigned by Rating is 25 feet, as measured perpendicular to the wetland edge. Artificial features: This assessment identified drainage features and detention pond within the project site that are ambivalent as regulated features. The two on site areas appear to be artifacts of the original site development, and appear to be a City-approved water quality facility that was constructed in a former wetland area. Areas of wetland are called out in the primary engineering design of the area. The entire area appears to have been graded and manipulated in the course of development to accept and process stormwater. There are berms on all sides of the area, and particularly at the north boundary. Storm water is deposited into the swales in the east boundary of the area, then flowing to the central pond, then to the southern ponds. From there, the flow is directed to the City stormwater system through a culvert. The system processes normal storm flow, and the larger area accommodates flood flow. Although these areas express wetland characteristics, their wetland functions were subsumed by the detention/retention functions of the storm water facility upon development of the site. These areas appear to be artifacts of stormwater management, therefore not regulated as "Critical Areas". However, should they be determined to be regulated features, they appear to meet the criteria for designation as City of Renton Category 3 Wetlands. As such, they would be required to be protected by a 25 ft. buffer, which would be contained within the wetland swales east of the wetlands (following the original development buffering scheme). The one area at the north boundary appears to be a remnant of the original site development. This area appears less manipulated, and has a greater cover of trees and shrubs, going north from the north boundary. This area is truncated from the site by an established and functional berm, which inhibits surface flow to/from the site. Flow is permitted to/from the site by a culvert in the northeast corner of the detention area. This area appears to be regulated as a "Critical Area". This wetland appears to meet the criteria for designation as City of Renton Category 3 Wetlands. As such, it is required to be protected by a 25 ft. buffer, which may encroach onto the presently developed area of the site in a very small area. Off-Site Wetlands: No other areas within 315 ft. were identified as critical areas. WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetlands are known to perform significant roles in the ecosystem, some of which are of immediate value to society. These roles vary greatly with the size, type, hydrology, 13012-CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 7 vegetation, and location of wetland areas. Although the ecological functions performed by these wetlands are complex, interrelated, and difficult to assess and quantify, methods have been developed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Adamus et al. 1987: Reppert et al. 1979). The functions provided by wetlands include hydrologic support, shoreline protection, stormwater and floodwater storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, and provision of wildlife habitat. CATEGORIZATION BASED ON FUNCTIONS The functions that a wetland performs are characterized by answering a series of questions that note the presence, or absence, of certain indicators. Indicators are easily observed characteristics that are correlated with quantitative or qualitative observations of a function (Hruby et al. 2000). Depressional or Flats Wetlands Potential to Improve Water Quality Potential to Reduce Flooding and Stream Erosion Riverine and Freshwater. Tidal Fringe Wetlands Potential to Improve Water Quality Potential to Reduce Flooding and Stream Erosion Opportunity to Reduce Flooding and Stream Erosion Lake-fringe Wetlands Potential to Improve Water Quality Opportunity to Improve Water Quality Potential to Reduce Shoreline Erosion Opportunity to Protect Resources from Shoreline Erosion Slope Wetlands Potential to Improve Water Quality Opportunity to Improve Water Quality Potential to Reduce Flooding and Stream Erosion Opportunity to Reduce Flooding and Erosion Functions Related to Habitat for All Classes of Wetlands Potential to Provide Habitat Opportunity to Provide Habitat Score and Category Based on Functions Wetlands that are Category I based on functions need to score 70 points or more. Total scores between 51-69 are Category II; 30-50 are Category 111, and less than 30 are Category IV. 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 8 REGULATORY CONSIDERATION The proposed alteration of lands defined by various federal, state, and local authority rules and regulations as "wetlands" raises environmental concerns that are generally addressed in the development review process. These concerns center on the development's potential adverse impacts to the structure, function, value, and size of these "wetland" areas. Such adverse impacts may include a reduction in wildlife habitats, reduced surface water quality, reduced water retention, a reduced ground water recharge rate, reduced plant species diversity, and the reduction in the function and value of other associated wetland and non-wetland characteristics. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Proposed action undertaken through either of the Corps of Engineers processes (Nationwide or Individual) are also subject to the provisions of the Washington State Department of Ecology Section 401 Water Quality Certification Process. Projects that may be exempt from Corps of Engineers Section 404 jurisdiction may still require review by the Washington State Department of Ecology to ensure consistency with State water quality protection provisions. THE CITY OF RENTON -City of Renton Title IV-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). The City of Renton regulates activities in and around sensitive wetland and stream areas. Such regulation also requires that an undisturbed native vegetation buffer be placed along the upland side of the identified sensitive areas. City of Renton Title IV-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). M. WETLANDS: I. Applicability: The wetland regulations apply to sites containing or abutting wetlands as described below. Category 3 wetlands, less than two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet in area, are exempt from these regulations if they meet exemption criteria in subsection C of this Section. a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes of regulating wetlands in the City. Wetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios and avoidance criteria shall be based on the following rating system: i. Category I: Category I wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species; and/or 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 9 (bl Wetlands having fony percent (40%) to sixty percent (60%) permanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with two (2) or more vegetation classes; and/or (c) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3) or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water; and/or ( d) The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of their occurrence; and/or ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category I or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (I) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydro logic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. 6. Wetland Buffers: a. Buffers Required: i. Wetland buffer zones shall be required of all proposed regulated activities abutting regulated wetlands. 13012-CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 10 ii. Any wetland created. restored, or enhanced in conjunction with creation or restoration as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall include the standard buffer required for the class of the wetland being replaced. iii. All required wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition. Category 3 wetland buffers of twenty five feet (25') require the buffers be fully vegetated with native species or restored; otherwise increased buffer widths to protect functions and values may be required. iv. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation may be required. b. Measurement of Buffers: All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field pursuant to the requirements of subsection M4a of this Section, Methodology. c. Standard Buffer Zone Widths: i. The width of the required wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to the wetland category. The buffer zone required for all regulated wetlands is determined by the classification of the wetland. If standard buffer widths cannot be met, and buffer reductions per subsection M6e of this Section and buffer averaging per subsection M6f of this Section cannot be accomplished, a variance to buffer requirements may be requested per subsection N of this Section, Alternates, Modifications and Variances, and RMC 4-9- 2508, Variance Procedures. If the criteria in subsection M6d of this Section are met, standard buffers may be increased. Wetland Category Standard Buffer Category l 100 feet Category 2 50 feet Category 3 25 feet SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION The proposed onsite action selected focuses on the commercial re-development of the site. The entire site will be re-developed. The development will terminate at the western edge of present development, and no encroachment into the wetland/detention complex at the west will occur. 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 11 FIGURES 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 12 REFERENCE LIST Adamus. P.R.. E.J. Clairain Jr.. R.D. Smith. and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin. L.M .. V. Carter, F.C. Golet. and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock. C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Reppert. R.T., W. Sigleo. E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values -Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Institute for Water Resources. Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey of King County Area Washington, February 1979. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication Number 96-94. Washington State Department of Fisheries. Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1., 1975 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 13 APPENDIX A -Field Data Fonns 13012 -CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 14 ATTACHMENT 1 -Wetland Delineation Map 13012-CenterPoint Renton WetRpt 15 '" --> .. ;_ "' , \ w.,., '• ,, , • < 0 • '< } SH4thS1 S 1 ~6th .'\1 S 14B!l,Stn/ S 150th $1 ..., 1a S 1~4th Si WA.-,ns S 176thS1 .:.,, •.,1 ... ~-jg(' S 188th St 1 ·,uJ.. Seatae , • 'I>-, > ,., ~ rt T"h,. 80-l'm<J Comp,in, S 212ltl :SI 9-'""'J •• • , a I 1 " ' < '"' C'o R:.Mlf;~ :.. ,!~ l :i •, LV,1 ·,·,,,9/~n ! ~,l' •,. ID z • ~ t ~ > ~ S 180th St S 196th SI .... .,.,l ..... ,' o 1-'n'V' St •' 1 in= 1 miles 0.5 1 2 Miles 515 lllPU~fOr • ~ ,,oo i NE 4th St :.I f·F ., PROJECT SITE ;; t < SE 19~ndSt SE 208th St N0,11, r,,t,:;,(,".ll. n P,,,., Fig. 1 Parcel #1253600030 Vicinity map PROJECT SITE ijQthl'r, -::::==-PEMC ::::_\ PEMc 1 '~ PEMC ~ PEMC (-----.. PEMC ,._- 1 ~1PI PEMC '·./ ,,. ~I L\ N 0 500 ~ 117~, $1 in = 1,000 feet 1,000 ' ' j 2,000 Feet PEM~PEMC -' ' PEMC ri PEMC l_.,,.I ,1, -, ~, .ll""'"'"?chua,~1", u r: ! , -. Fig. 2 Parcel#1253600030 National Wetland Inventory map ~j 1 i d~ 1"'.' ;j swim~· ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ sw,n,st i PROJECT SITE S UOtt, S! •' / I, S 1l!Olt, St ; :; ·,o•, Pl th ~I 1 in= 1,000feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 •m:==--c::==== Feet I ', t !.11hJI i ·i ;;'!Hi Pl ,, i '• ,,~ ~--,,, •, ""•~.r \" )0)1·.,s, ,, a ;l2ns!P' > \ / ~ § < /;:r "~~"' • s ,ltth~r C i Ci ' '-""' , s lilts, s nu ~I :; .. ,.,.~, -ll""',Q,,.,'11.~~-""'1, u ~ 5 ,~,~·-.! ~j ; ,,,.,, .. .t ' ,. 1 H S lo•, Pl ',,,,,, Fig 3 Parcel #1253600030 City of Renton Wetland Inventory map Sno mish silt loam Woodinville silt loam 0 ~--·---./'. ' PROJECT SITE ( '---------~ 6 N Renton silt loam 1 1n :: 500 feet 250 500 1.000 Feet Tukwila muck I _J ........,__.· __ ' ... "- ......,...._~~-. 6 to 15 pa"""11 slopes ' ' ' . . ' . . . Fig 4 Parcel #1253600030 NRCS soil type map Feet 0 75 150 300 1 incl1 = 150 feet Alt. 1 Wetland and Drainage Corridor Assessment 3751 East Valley Rd .. City of Renton Parcel #1253600030 ' BiO~Wate ;----7--- l-e, -~ ------+--- ,...., W-133a r--------.._ ~ L ' . ,,,,, ~ W-33" Bio~e i ~ioswale 'j r Pond , 'j r , -'1 -re ' I ' 1 I . j ~loswale ; PohdBioNale • I: I . I Pond; j ! j ' ';i-e Pond --, [ _________ _ • I ~4p:::..,,_• .. ____ ____..._____.._ ____ _ ,........--------, ' -- Feet 0 75 150 300 1 inch = 150 feet I -----~ 'ili: I i---":<" -·· ----- -L- r ,, • I I ' .. c:,,i"''~'t' f ' / '-----·--.. ~/ r-_-., vt~ " ' ~' }! Alt. 1 a Wetland and Drainage Corridor Assessment Parcel #1253600030 Surface Water System H&S Consulting 253 732 6515 1/13/14 j WL 8 2.621 Sq Ft on c-1te I '. -' • • --' • • : ' I ___ 7--I ' I • k- l ; .............. ! I Wl A 5. 140 Sq. Ft on site I • • • ._j. • • ' • ____ .._ ' • .~-----~ • "' . - • ' ·-~~----------------· ' i I / -" f---1-- WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY PONDS & BIOSWALES _,!. __ ~ " " 0 z ~ 0 m " "' ~ ~ ~ m 0 z " ~ r "' ~ ~Feel 0 20 40 00 1 inch = 40 feet --, :,... I / I Att. 1 Parcel #1253600030 Wetland Delineation Map West Portion -DETAIL From Survey WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite· 13032 Zip Renton centerPoint City/County: ~R~e~nt~o~n~/K~i~n4g ________ Sampling Date:12/30/13 ApplicanUOwner: "C"e~nt~e~,P~oi~n~t ------------------------State: "W~A~----Sampling Point ;S~P_1~--- lnvestigator(s): 0M~.~H~E-C;K=E~R~T ___________________ Section, Township, Range:---------------- Landform (hi!lslope, terrace, etc.): "D~e~te~n~t~io~n~a~r;e;a ________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): 01e~v"e~I _____ _ Slope(%):~ Subregion (LRR): ---------------Lat:---------Long:---------Datum: ____ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Mckenna gravelly loam NW! classification: ~P~F,,o,,c'-------- Are climatic/ hydrotogic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes IZI No O (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Yes , Soil Yes, or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes IZI No D {If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 NoO Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ISi NoD within a Wetland? Yes ISi NoO Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ISi NoD Remarks: VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum {Plot size: 1 OM) % Cover S!;!ec:ies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ------That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Po~ulus trichocar~a 30 ~ ~ Total Number of Dominant 3. ------Species Across All Strata: 1 IB) 4. ------Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are DBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (NB) Saeling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 m) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: ------ 2. ------Total % Cover of: Multiely b~f 3. ---OBL species X 1 = --- 4. FAON species x2= ------ 5. FAC species 1 X 3 = 3 ------ = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:_) UPL species x5= 1. ------Column Totals: 1 (A) 3 (B) 2. ------ 3. Prevalence Index = BIA= 2.8 ------ 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ------ 5. ISi Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ------ 6. ISi Dominance Test is >50% ------ 7. ISi Prevalence Index is s3.01 ------ 8. ISi Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting ------ 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ------D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ------ 11. D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explaln) ------1 1 ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. WoodJ'. Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ ) 1 ------Hydrophytic 2. ------Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes [81 NoO %1 Bare Ground 1n Herb Stratum 100 Remarks: ground level maintained US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: .§.E..:L_ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features {inches) Color {moist) ___Tu_ Color (moist) ___lL_ ~ --12£_ Texture Remarks 0-12 10/YR4/1 1.QQ__ gre~ 100 ---clay loam 12-18 10::i:r 4/1 1.QQ__ ---clay loam ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1r,,..,e: C=Concentration, o-oeoletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, cs-covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL:::Pore Linina, M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 121 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) 121 Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present}: Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes0 NoD Remarks: fill HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima!'.Y Indicators {minimum of one reguired· check all that ai:2121~) Secondar_y Indicators (2 or more reguired} 0 Surface Water (A 1) 121 Water.Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water·Stained Leaves (B9} {MLRA 1, 2, 0 High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B} 0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B 11) 121 Drainage Patterns (810) 0 Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry·Season Water Table (C2) 0 Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 121 Drift Deposits {B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aqu1tard (03) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAC·Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost.Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? YesD NoD Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes 121 NoO Depth (inches): _8_ Saturation Present? Yes 121 NoD Depth (inches): _6_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [ZI NoO /includes caoillarv frinae) 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 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProJect Site" Appllcant'Owner lnvestigator(s) 13032 Zipper CenterPoint cENTERpOINT M. Heckert Landform (h1llslope, terrace, etc): Subregion (LRR) Soil Map Urnt Name: Lat. Aie climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year'? City/County RENTON/KING Stale WA Sampling Date Sampling Pomt Section. Township. Range Local relief (concave, convex. none) Long. NWI class1ficat1on Yes No D (If no, explain m Remarks.) Slope(%): .£ Datum Are Vegetation Are Vegetation D. Sod 0. Soil 0. or Hydrology 121. significantly disturbed? Are "Norma! Circumstances'' present? Yes 121 No 0 0. or Hydrology D. naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers 1n Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Hydnc Soil Present? Yes l!:I No D Is the Sampled Area Yes D No l!:I within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks· recent fill VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plots1ze. __ ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1 --------Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL FACW, or FAG Q (A) -------- 3 --------Total Number of Dominant 4 Spectes Across All Strata. 1 (B) -------- 50% = ---20% = ----= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size· __ ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG· Q (A/B) 1 --------Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 --------Total % Cover of· MuJtiply:b:i 3. --------OBL species --xi = -- 4 --------FACW species --x2 = -- 5 --------FAG species --x3 = -- 50% = __ ,20%= __ --= Total Cover FACU species --x4 = -- Herb Stratum {Plot size: _) UPL species --x5 = -- 1 Dac[y/1s g/omerata lQ ""' FACU Column Totals __ (A) __ (B) 2 --------Prevalence Index= BIA= 3 --------Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 --------D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophyt1c Vegetation 5. --------D 2-Dominance Test is >50% 6 --------D 3-Prevalence Index 1s .::_3.0 1 7 --------4 -Morphological Adaptat1ons1 (Provide supporting D 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) -------- 9 --------D 5 -Wet!and Non-Vascular Plants 1 10 --------D Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11 -------- 50% = 20% = = Total Cover 1 lnd1cators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must ------be presen( unless disturbed or problematic Woqdy Vine Stratum (P!ot size: __ ) 1 -------- 2 Hydrophytic --~-----Vegetation Yes D No l!:I 50% = --20%= ----= Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground m Herb Stratum -- Remarks fill bare ground US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountams. Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 ProJect S1te 13032 CenterPomtr SOIL Samnlma Point· SP 2 Profile Description: (Describe-to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Malnx Redox Features (inches) Color (mrnst) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loe' Texture Remarks --------- 0-16 10yr4/1 1!l!l ------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ 1Type: C= Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location PL=Pore Lmmg, M=Matnx Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soifs3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Matenal (TF2) D Blael< H1stic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) {except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix {F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31nd1cators of hydrophyt1c vegetation and D Sandy Gleyed Malm: (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or nroblematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Type -- Depth (inches) Hydrk: Soils Present? Yes D No 121 Remarks: fill on old fill HYDROLOGY Welland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary !nd1cators (2 or more required) D Surface Water {A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table {C2) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Ox1d1zed Rh1zospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geornorph1c Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aqu1tard (D3) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction m Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface 8011 Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aenal Imagery (87) D other (Explain 1n Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface {88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No D Depth (inches): -- Water Table Present? Yes D No D Depth (inches): -- Saturation Presen1? Yes D No D Depth (inches)· Welland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 121 {includes capillary fringe) -- Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aenal photos. previous inspections), if available. Remarks. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mouniains. Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 April 27, 2015 1505 WESTLAKE ,\VE\'. SLITJ·: 305 SEAHLE. W .A 98 I 09 T 206.522.9510 F 206 522 8344 WWW.PACI.A~D COM CarMax Auto Superstore -Renton, WA Parking Supply Analysis ~-; ,. '.) t. ; The purpose of this analysis is to present the empirical data collected to support the modification request for an increased parking supply over the parking maximum allowed in the City of Renton code. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION The property is located at 3751 E. Valley Road in Renton, Washington. The site is bordered by SW 41" Street to the south, E. Valley Road to the east, a Harley-Davidson dealership to the north, and a medical and retail mixed-use building to the west. The site is currently developed as the Act III Movie Theater, which has a building footprint of 61,856 square feet, with associated parking and landscaping. A wetland and a stormwater detention and water quality facility is also located on the western 1.13 AC of the site. The entire lot is approximately 12.28 acres in size. This project proposes to demolish the existing theater and redevelop the site to become a CarMax Auto Superstore car dealership. CarMax as a use is a combination of a pre-owned auto dealership, car servicing operation along with private auto auction. CarMax has approximately 145 stores across the country and has heavily analyzed their parking demand, per previous store experiences. CarMax has defined the parking demand to adequately operate in Renton to be 244 customer and employee stalls. CarMax's projections are based on the size of the sales lot, peak weekend traffic and peak employee shifts. The sales lot size is based upon the market demand and sales projections for this store. Unlike traditional car dealers, CarMax's number of transactions are typically 3-4 times the average new car dealer transactions. CarMax will purchase cars from customers without the requirement that the customer purchase a vehicle from CarMax. These cars are brought to CarMax and parked in the customer/employee lot until they are appraised and processed. This process also adds to the number of parking stalls that are required for CarMax to operate. CarMax wants to ensure that all parking lots are safe for pedestrians and vehicle traffic. CarMax does not want vehicles to be parked in drive aisles, in landscape areas or on adjacent properties due to lack of parking spaces on site. SECTION 2: BACKGROUND Customer Parking: CarMax has a regional customer draw unlike many other retailers and auto dealers. When evaluating sites and potential markets, CarMax's sales market radius is typically forty (40) miles. They have found that customers will drive this relative distance to purchase a vehicle. Unlike traditional car dealerships, CarMax clearly defines the customer/employee parking area, the sales lot and the vehicle staging areas. At a traditional dealership customers generally park wherever there is space available nearest the showroom and they do not designate stalls for trade-in evaluation. At store maturity, up to 200 customers per day are anticipated for retail sales and service and close to 490 retail vehicles per month are expected to be sold in phase I and close to 590 at full build out. Store maturity typically occurs after the 5th year of operation, but varies per market from 5-10 years. Approximately 10-15% of customer traffic will be for retail servicing. Employees: Total employees (part-time plus full-time, including all shifts) could total between 100-130 by store maturity and full phase build out. CarMax projects the number of hourly employees on staff at one time to range from 15 to 65 throughout the day. During the week between 1:00 and 4:00 PM CarMax anticipates approximately 55-60 employees to be on staff at one time; on weekends during the same time period, CarMax anticipates between 60-65 employees. SECTION 3: EMPIRICAL DATA FROM OTHER CARMAX STORES Historical Parking Survey Existing parking counts, based upon actual trip data, at other CarMax stores in Washington is unavailable because no stores exist. PACLAND reviewed aerial photos of other west coast CarMax locations. The closest CarMax locations in Oregon and Washington do not have aerial photos readily available for review. The aerial photo data does not provide a time of day which the photos are taken. In most cases it is believed the photos are taken about midday for weekdays. Weekend aerial photos appear to be taken early morning and this would account for the low parking counts. Parked Cars in Location Date of Aerial Photo Day of Week Customer Parking Bakersfield, CA 3/28/2013 Thursday 125 (192 Provided) 7/30/2013 Tuesday 97 8/12/2013 Monday 111 4/15/2014 Tuesday 117 Duarte, CA 3/17/2011 Thursday 305 (364 Provided) 4/16/2013 Tuesday 202 4/23/2014 Wednesday 212 Ontario, CA 3/9/2011 Wednesday 174 (209 Provided) 6/7/2012 Thursday 192 3/15/2013 Friday 172 11/12/2013 Tuesday 162 4/27/2014 Sunday 149 Parked Cars in Location Date of Aerial Photo Day of Week Customer Parking Roseville, CA 4/2012 195 {260 Provided) 8/2012 232 4/2013 199 8/2013 228 4/2014 159 Henderson, NV 6/21/2011 Tuesday 192 (289 Provided) 6/21/2012 Thursday 172 2/20/2014 Thursday 196 3/24/2014 Monday 156 Fresno, CA 4/25/2011 Monday 110 (216 Provided) 8/27/2012 Monday 127 3/15/2013 Friday 101 4/5/2014 Saturday 71 Las Vegas, NW 6/21/2012 Thursday 125 (212 Provided) 2/20/2014 Thursday 167 3/24/2014 Monday 165 Irvine, CA 11/14/2009 Saturday 59 (313 Provided) 3/7/2011 Monday 188 4/16/2013 Tuesday 187 4/23/2014 Wednesday 264 Buena Park, CA 3/7/2011 Monday 123 (235 Provided) 4/16/2013 Tuesday 151 4/23/2014 Wednesday 187 Modesto, CA 7/2011 130 (172 Provided) 9/2011 110 8/2012 125 4/2013 132 3/2014 119 Based on the empirical data listed above, the average number of stalls parked at is 165 stalls. The average parking utilization at the observed peaks is about 77%. As stated above, the parking observations are at random and there is no way to document the time of day which the photo is taken, if an auction occurring, or the number of employees, etc. Parking Survey -!TE Parking Generation Manual The 4th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Parking Generation Manual provides parking demand data for various land uses. The data listed in the !TE Manual represent parking demand studies where one or more hours of observations were conducted on a given day. The Manual provides various parking statistics, including the parking demand based off of the 85 1h percentile peak parking rate for land uses. Unfortunately, there is no auto dealership (new or used) parking demand data represented in the !TE manual. SECTION 5: CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting the parking variance receive approval based upon the decision criteria listed in RMC 4-9-250D Part 2: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; Response: The project will be consistent with Policies LU-BB, LU-129, LU-130, LU-126, LU-137, CD- S, CD-136, CD-138. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; Response: The proposed parking areas will provide parking this is landscaped, dimension and constructed to the current City of Renton Codes. The limits of the current parking areas are not being increased to provide parking. No adverse impacts to the environment are anticipated due ta the parking modification. c. Will not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; Response: The implementation of the increase in the maximum parking ratio will not be injurious to other properties. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; Response: It is our understanding the intent of the required parking is to have the intended land use to provide sufficient o{fsite parking to not impact surrounding properties by having a parking demand which exceeds what is provided. Additionally the maximum parking allowed is intended to encourage property owners and developers to not oversize parking areas for a particular use. The parking study shows the 244 parking stalls is a sufficient ond consistent amount of parking for the intended use. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended Response: As stated previously CarMax is a unique operation. The separation of customer and employee parking is ve,y unique for o car dealership. The intended amount of parking is warranted based on the historical data provided and Carfvlax's operational knowledge. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. Response: The implementation of the increase in the maximum parking ratio will not have adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. 1. Empirical evidence shown above for other CarMax facilities in the western United States. 2. The unique way CarMax operates providing separate parking for customers and employees from their vehicle sales area and storage areas. 3. CarMax's understanding of their operational needs having over 145 locations in operation. Therefore, CarMax is requesting the parking variance of up to 244 stalls to meet the needs of their Phase III sales build out be approved. 1505 WESTLAKE AVE. \.I. SUITE 305 SEATrl.E, WA 98109 T 206 522.9510 F 206.522.8344 WWW PACI /\1\f) COM APPENDIX A PARKING LAYOUT EXHIBITS ~ f i. 0 e 11 ! !! : : I ~ 11 ! I~ !i I j q ' (.) z ~ w C: "' APPENDIX B HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGES OF CARMAX SITES Bakersfield, CA ~-l ' iii;U:!1 -z: w I I I ~ ... ~ ,;: ~ ...... :;;;;;; 1.1. -1: ?1·i'1'r l i I ,,1, lt;;!.i I --... u !••; ';)< diili ,! = ' -~ o< ,:(· Lil I I 1 I 00 I I a I n 'GB:ISl!lllVI ~ ~ ::! ~ .. ' => i ; I ' Lffl. 'ON illOJ.S :::ii ,' co J1II-~~ I~ :;l ; 1-1 30ll\cl3S .v .. illOO!lf""" ,m~ 1011111X11- -:l!,'1,,Lll'llldS(l~-1!15 • Duarte, CA -------.. -·--------·---- 9CU:i 31::!0lS XVV'il:IV:J Nv'ld t:>'MilS ONV lOhlNW lVlNOZIIJOH ! , , 11 , I · i' I I. I •• I • I ;1!••!;=1:, • : •d ! ' . • ii ii pd~• I f.!II •,1: • ~11--1?12 I' ,.,ez•;c~··~! 'l'il. •a1,•, ... , ·~·~~· i II ii ii ii II 1i 111111 , .......... . ••••• ••• .,. < 1~11l1IIIIIINll,,1,1111l~,Hl~o1.i ......... ·······--·--·---·-------.... 11i111.,11i11il11111111111111111~ .. i.; ..... ... ... .. ··-····-.......... ·· .......... . . . .. . . ····:·:···::::::·:::: :.:.:::·::::::·:···-· . i ! Ontario, CA I I P A I I I I I 1~ e~ I I R I f G I iii . ' ~ ~.ffi· ' Ill . . .. . ' 11\1111 ' .. \ Roseville, CA -., . ~ ;> ~ - I " _;~ : : ' • ~ ~ • • . . ' •• I e!f, -r. r: '" ~ l.tl . r ea r. ~ l ' ""' ~ ea ~ -~ .. r. /ff ~ e . ~ r; r .. -,. r. . - ea- ~ ~ r.:-{It -1. ~ g r: ci- ~ t~b -- Henderson, NV Frensno, CA !111 -,Kif 1 M ii':'5 J I ., r. 11 , r; r; a .. ,, f Las Vegas, NV !!l C ~ <( I" "' .c "' Cf) r·· ! .,. } '4'<1 N 11 ~-(t 24 HOUR FITNESS ··-··-··-··-··-··-·--·-·-··-··-··---··----··---··-··-··-··-··-··-··-··---··-··--··-··-,··-··-··-··-··---··----··----··-··-·---··-··-··-··---··-··-··-··-··---i I I " Burnham Ave . , SCl'IVll:t. !V.1.Ul lil"::.W(;lOl•i,:s,;>...Ct$ n,JAL:Nt.:> l~I c;::g;::J I I ' i ! I I . I I I I ! t.VTPAAC(l6 H ACNl:.S SITE Holf'ORWol.TlON ""'"'" CARliWI 0£Y£LOPCO DCl[h'TIOM: "'"'"''"' •CTWIOS. lNt[)SC.A.Ct( BUffERS: EAS(l,l(HfS: PU8UC/PRIVAT[ ROADS· (INCL lANDSCA.PIHG) OTHER: VSABL! SURPUIS: txPANSK>< ""'-"'U:, TOTAL: BUIILOING INF'OR~TlOH: 1'1P(. SM.LS: S(JMC(. CARWA.SH; PRCS[NlATION: TOTA&.: 09.47 AC xn:x AC. xxxx N:.. xo:x N:,, lOO(X AC.. X)ll()[ ,C.. XXICX 1£. XXll:X N;, 6 .24 IC.. 1S.'1 AC "s(r)/A-" 12,914 Sf 24,Dll2 Sf J,7oa sr 4,914 SF' 4~.007 SF SALLS ESTIMATE (11.12.12) • lM PlitOOUCTION[~Tt(1 1.12.1l)•49!! NJCTION [STiw.TE (11.1 .12) • •915 ...,.. .. 1\1-S CN..CIJLAroH: ,,~ SPACCSLN:, ~~ lE(RY / Hf RR A RCM I T(CT ............ aJIIII H:LU.SEO rO• CO .. TlltUCTION • '~ .__ I " } i s' ~ I i . --1 · , : '-'--"-- : i ~ . : i I :, I ~ ~I~ z w (._) ~ "' ...,,, xx.xx ~0111 1/IJ - ""ffi PRESSP~2 \]7 _,,,., ~· 100' SCALE: 1· = 100'-0" Irvine, CA 'o':) 3NIAlll ')()()()( "ON 3llOlS I ;~ ;; ~ ~ ~ ===== ~ ~O!]O~ . ZEB !:oo • ... o · ::J , f,J t 0 ~ L , 5 I El r [J ! . ;:.. I .. o ,' i ~ £J :J £1 ' I €J .. • C3 I,.:! C § r . .. C. -• ... ... . ' .. D a § .. Er . II '-C. "" .;: •• ... [J a • El 9 • ca . u • Buena Park, CA i I I ! 11; a ij ~ C) h N ~ I 0.. ~ (/) .. -----Ill ii I xew ·r ·'-~ f .. c 'J/'. • •• • ••••••••• z-- Modesto, CA ...... C:l b • 'C i 4t .-J V J [] ~v ~io ., . -L C .:): L ,.._ ~TENW Transportation Engineering NorthWest MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: April 6, 2015 Jan Illian City of Renton Public Works FROM: Chris Forster, P .E. TENW SUBJECT: Renton CarMax Traffic Impact Analysis TENW Project No. 4827 This memorandum documents the traffic impact analysis completed for the proposed Renton CarMax project located at 3751 East Valley Rood in Renton, Washington (see Figure l) Executive Summary Project Description. The existing site includes a 13-screen movie theater totaling 74,306 square feet, which would be removed. The proposed CarMax project would include up to 20,300 square feet of automobile sales/service uses. There are four access driveways connecting the site that are proposed to remain unchanged and are shared with neighboring commercial businesses. Two full access driveways are located along East Valley Road, one full access driveway is located on SW 4 I 51 Street, and another full access (signalized) driveway is located west of the site at the intersection of Lind Ave SW /SW 39th Street. The project is anticipated to be built and occupied in 2017. Trip Generation. The proposed CarMax project is estimated to result in a net reduction in weekday daily trips (-1 ,623 trips) with 39 net new trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (29 entering, I 0 exiling), and a net reduction in weekday PM peak hour trips (-124 trips). Given the net reduction in daily and PM peak hour trips, our traffic operations analysis focusses on the impacts of the project during the AM peak hour only. Local Traffic Operations. The study intersections and stop controlled movements at the site driveways currently operate at LOS Dor better in the AM peak hour, and are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better in 2017 without or with the proposed CarMax project. Mitigation SEPA Mitigation. No significant adverse transportation impacts are anticipated with the proposed CarMax Renton project The site driveways and study intersections as currently configured will operate at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour, and the project will reduce traffic al the site driveways and study intersections during the PM peak hour and on a weekday daily basis. A potential new southbound right-turn lane at the south site driveway on East Valley Road, which was specifically discussed at the pre-application meeting, is not warranted based on our analysis. In summary, no offsite traffic mitigation is proposed and no improvements to the existing site driveways are recommended. Transportation Impact Fees. Based on the City of Renton' s Rate Study for Impact fees for Transportation, Parks, and fire Protection and adopted Ordinance 5670, transportation impact fees are based on PM peak hour trip generation, and a credit is given for existing uses that will be removed. Because the proposed CarMax development will generate less traffic during the PM peak hour than the existing Movie Theater that it will replace, the project will not have an impact on the transportation system in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the payment of transportation impact fees for this project is not required. ~nwsportution Planning I Design I Traffic Impact & Operotior~ 11400 SE 8~ Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98004 ) Office (4251889-6747 Figure 1: Site Vicinity ~TENW Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax N ~ t.OTTOS<Al [ April 6. 20 15 Page 2 Traffic lmpact Analysis -Renton CarMax Introduction Based an our discussions, the fallowing items are addressed in this traffic impact analysis· • Project description • Trip generation • Trip distribution and assignment • Traffic volume forecasts • Traffic operations at local study intersections and site driveways • Mitigation Project Description The development site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of East Valley Road and SW 41 st Street (see site vicinity map in Figure l ). The existing site includes a 13-screen movie theater totaling 74,306 square feet, which would be removed. The proposed CarMax project would include up to 20,300 square feet of automobile sales/ service uses. There are four access driveways connecting the site that are proposed to remain unchanged and are shared with neighboring commercial businesses. Two full access driveways are located along East Valley Road, one full access driveway is located on SW 41 st Street, and another full access [signalized) driveway is located west of the site at the intersection of Lind Ave SW/SW 39th Street. Trucks would access the site by entering the north driveway on East Valley Road and exiting at the south driveway on East Valley Road. Customers and employees would primarily use the south driveway on East Valley Road and the driveway on SW 4 1,t Street, with minor usage of the driveway on Lind Ave SW The project is anticipated to be built and occupied in 2017. A preliminary site plan for the redevelopment is provided in Figure 2. Trip Generation The trip generation estimates for the proposed CarMax project were based on methodology in the Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition, for Automobile Sales (LUC 841) and Multiplex Movie Theater [LUC 445). The net new trip generation was calculated by subtracting the trips from the movie theater to be removed from the trips generated by the proposed CarMax. The resulting net new weekday daily, AM and PM peak hour trips are summarized in Table l. A detailed trip generation estimate is included in Attachment A ~TENW Table 1 CarMax Renton Trip Generation Summary Weekday Time Period Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Net New Trips Generated In Out Total -811 29 -59 -812 10 -65 -1,623 39 -124 April 6, 2015 Page3 I [?, I! Figure 2: Preliminary Site Plan ~TENW ,,.,.,:c ... -. """""""" ,-..,.oa• Si ~ -. • :_..~.::!) ~ ! I' ~ If Li Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax ' .L. ! .1 •. I I ·I· ·1 . -i-- :±. :er". j I ., ,,......,cuor~a.1'.-.o-n;, ..... .,., ......... ,,..,.,.,,.,...,_~ u O! >- ii! 0 > w (!) NOTTOICAI.E : April 6, 2015 Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax As shown in Table l, the proposed CarMax project is estimated to result in a net reduction in weekday daily trips (-1,623 trips) with 39 net new trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (29 entering, l 0 exiting), and a net reduction in weekday PM peak hour trips (-124 trips). Given the net reduction in daily and PM peak hour trips associated with the CarMax project, our traffic operations analysis focusses on the impacts of the project during the AM peak hour only. Trip Distribution and Assignment The distribution of net new AM peak hour project trips in the study area was based on the assumptions used in the recently completed traffic study for the nearby IKEA redevelopment. The distribution on roadways in the project vicinity was based on existing traffic patterns in the AM peak hour. The assignment of trips at the site driveways was estimated based on the intended usage of the driveways and the allocation of parking within the site. The AM peak hour project trip distribution and assignment at the study intersections and site driveways are shown in Figure 3. Traffic Volumes Forecasts Existing weekday AM peak hour traffic counts were collected by All Traffic Data, Inc. at the following study intersections and site driveways: l . E Valley Rd/SW 41 st St/SR-167 SB Ramps (traffic signal) 2. E Valley Rd/South Site Driveway (EB/WB stop controlled) 3. E Valley Rd/North Site Driveway IEB/WB stop controlled] 4. SW 41 st ST /Site Driveway (NB/SB stop controlled) 5. Lind Ave SW/SW 39th St/Site Driveway (traffic signal) The AM peak hour volumes represent the highest hourly volumes observed between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM. The existing AM peak hour traffic counts are summarized in Figure 4. Year 2017 without-project AM peak hour baseline traffic volumes were estimated based on the assumption of a 2 percent annual growth rate, consistent with other studies conducted in the area. In addition, the estimated new project trips from the approved IKEA redevelopment were included to account for pipeline development. The year 2017 baseline AM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 5 Future 2017 with-project AM peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding the trip assignment from the proposed project (Figure 3] to the year 2017 without-project volumes (Figure 5] The resulting 2017 with-project AM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections and site driveways are shown in Figure 6. ~TENW April 6, 2015 Page5 -\/cil,~·/ R::J / s, __ 11~!"' Sile U·,eo 0 '.," _'),. .. , ~ t I JI ~ t I--+ -0 ~ ~. .~ , ,., 5--,._ 0 ) C'·.V·. •,,:;rr, : V•)lit::•, ~·i; '<lrlr' ·, i.ec, :_: ... t ·,:e:..·, ... ,. c-" ~ cc c,., c,:1e ·:1,·,' -,•; 4 '. ·•,-1 t ~ Figure 3: AM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution & Assignment ~TENW Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax 1/1 (2\ '-::2J 1<__ C ( 0 LEGEND Study lr,te1section Project !rip Dic;·ribL I lion f AM l'caK I Jcu1 XX P,oject T'ips (!) NOTTOICAL~ April 6, 2015 Page6 -·,-:,1,:-·<J :::o C") '-0 _, Lr' ~-:JS +-3.Sl ,r42-9 ~ • -c_,,. . .'; """l"" C 0 ('-j - '-" ·'.'i 1~3 --,J ,rO -.Y, .3 __,, ", t r "2---:1>--" C• ~ ~ I"' LC: Figure 4: 2015 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ~TENW Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax ~33 +-37'.2 0 ,.-'. ·;;() 1\~J ~e•.J< '1,)1_1r lr-:1tf'r: Vnli1·,1,-:. _ ~d "'.·, • w':\ <;•;., :1?t~,:-t · ;t,-; l'w I '° ~ I;~\.. 0 ___:( 0-----> ·' 10--.. _. ~ 15 --9 ,:-9_ ~ t r April 6, 2015 Page 7 "---I 2 ~. "' -0 ,c .._ 371 ) t ~ y-5C9 C ~ .. ' ' 9 _1( ", t r 45--... v; ""' CD ~ ~ - 20,., ,n '" " ) /i•ls-,·U· st.,..> " "---3 ('< -o t ~ y-C "c"" .. •., 9 _J( ", t r ·J ...... ""' 8 ['"J ~, 7 •O " ,·.~~~ -~ :J.-, 3J 2_...., I"-! Figure 5: 2017 Baseline AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ~TENW ~ D cc ' t ~ Ji 3.Jf 65_... 2,.. Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax .._ 37'.; y-29 ", t ;f I C N rX"l ,\i\-11\:·uk I ;cur !·, _ _;Ilic Vc,iun+ 6__1( . J-. 'J,.' "---6 -? "' t r -0 N ~ O'J l..'~ t'C· --0 c!) l<Ul T()SlAL! April 6, 2015 Page8 r V, ;IIFc, _;'/,' ,j ! \' jj, .-if./ I~ !iC1rl1Ui ,.,__ 117 "' en -0 -0 •n -376 ' ... I. II' r 509 .',\ j/ t,' ·''·"''~" 9J "I t (' 46-+ "' G X, ~ "' ;:; 21 •C "' ~ ) -'/ .Jlle:' ~ .. J :;-__:_I· s·1co C·:,. '" ,.,__ 3 N +-0 ... I. ,,---o .·uV'> ;,:c [.,v·, 1cJf "I t 0-+ ~ '" ~ 12,._ -0 -'J ·111,, .-~· J ' 'J·:d) .)11.cc, ".:,,;.,v -0 ,.,__ 3 ·D N 0 +-0 ~ 0 D. ) ... I. ) ... I. ,r4 .·,0~" . •e:J,,, r; .. (' 3J "I t (' 12J 65-.. 2,._ ,.., 2-+ co " I ,i. " Figure 6: 2017 With-Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ~TENW Traffic Impact Analysis-Renton CarMax ,.,__ 45 ~ 37C r29 "I t (' 0 N a.) A.'/, ~'c·u< >iour frn"0 i:~ '/,,)l,_1,ne " "' "' ) t I. -,'; -5~-•• ' 6__;,( 0-+ 10,._ =i,,,,, ,.,__ 16 +-9 ,,---9 "I t (' -0 N - cc, I.() (") --0 c!) "10ff05CAI.E April 6. 2015 Page9 Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax Traffic Operations at Study Intersections & Site Driveways An existing 2015, 2017 without proiect, and 2017 with proiect AM peak hour level of service ILOS) analysis was conducted at the study intersections and site driveways LOS generally refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection. It is a measure of vehicle operating speed, travel lime, travel delays, and driving comfort. A letter scale from A to F generally describes intersection LOS. At signalized intersections, LOS A represents free-flow conditions !motorists experience little or no delays!, and LOS F represents forced-flow conditions where motorists experience on average delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. The LOS reported for signalized intersections represents the average control delay isec/veh) and can be reported for the overall intersection, for each approach, and for each lane group !additional v/c ratio criteria apply to lone group LOS only). The LOS reported at stop-controlled intersections is based on the overage control delay and can be reported for each controlled minor approach, controlled minor lane group, and controlled maior-street movement land for the overall intersection at all-way stop controlled intersections. Additional v/c ratio criteria apply to lane group or movement LOS only). Table 2 outlines the current HCM 20 IO LOS criteria for signalized and stop-controlled intersections based on these methodologies. Table 2 LOS Criteria for Signalized and Stop-Controlled Intersections' SJC.NAUZEQ INJEBSECEQNS STOP{X)NJROU.ED fflRSECJJQNS LQli bl£ Volume-lo LOS !2x Volume-lo Caoocity: Cll!:I Rgtio2 i;;aoacitl£ Cl~I B!lfi~ Control Delay Control Delay (sec/Yehl s 1.0 > 1.0 {sec/Yehl s 1.0 > 1.0 5 l 0 A F ,; l 0 A F > 10 to ,; 20 B F > l Oto,; 15 B F > 20 to,; 35 C F > 15 to,; 25 C F > 35 to,; 55 D F >2510535 D F > 55 to,; 80 E F > 35 to,; 50 E F > 80 F F > so F F 1 Source: HCM2010 Highway CapaClty Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. 2 For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments al signals, LOS is defined solely by control delay. J For two-way slop controlled intersections, the LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole at two-way stop controlled intersections. For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments at all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is solely defined by control delay. Level of service calculations for intersections were based on methodology and procedures outlined in the 20 IO update of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Boord IHCM 20 I 0) using Synchro 8.0traffic analysis software Existing signal liming used in the analysis was provided by the City of Renton. Existing intersection geometry was used in the analysis of existing and future conditions as no modifications to the existing intersections or driveways ore currently planned by the City or by CarMax. ~TENW April 6, 2015 Page 10 Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax The NV\ peak hour LOS analysis results are summarized in Table 3. The LOS worksheets are included in Attachment B. Table 3 AM Peak Hour LOS Summary at Study Intersections & Site Driveways 2015 Existing 201 Z Bgselne 20!7 With-Project Delay Delay Delay Stuctv Intersection / Stoe Controlled Mvmt LOS (secJ LOS (sec! LOS 1secJ Signalized Intersections #I E Valley Rd/SW 4P'/SR-167 SB Ramps D 48.9 D 50.9 D 51.4 #5 Lind Ave SW/SW 39 1h St/Site Access A 6.7 A 6.7 A 6.7 Stog-C.gntrglled Intersections #2 E Valley Rd/South Site Access NB Left (entering site) A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.7 EB Shared Lt-Th-Rt (exiting site) B 13.2 B 13.5 B 12.9 WB Shared Lt-Th-Rt B 12.6 B 12.9 B 12.9 SB Left A 9.2 A 9.3 A 9.3 #3 E Valley Rd/North Site Access NB Left (entering site) A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.6 EB Left (exiting site) C 16.8 C 17.3 C 17.4 EB Right (exiting site) A 9.5 A 9.5 A 9.5 WB Shared Lt-Th-Rt C 15.0 C 15.4 C 15.5 SB Left A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 #4 SW 41'1 St/Site Access NB Shared Lt-Th-Rt A 9.5 A 9.5 A 9.6 EB Left (entering site) A 8.8 A 8.8 A 8.9 WB Left A 7.4 A 7.5 A 7.5 SB Shared Lt-Th-Rt (exiting site) B 10.6 B 10.6 B 11.0 As shown in Table 3, the study intersections and stop controlled movements al site driveways currently operate at LOS Dor better in the NV\ peak hour, and are expected to continue to operate at LOS Dor better in 2017 without or with the proposed CarMax project. Mitigation SEPA Mitigation No significant adverse transportation impacts are anticipated wilh the proposed CarMax Renton project. The site driveways and study intersections as currently configured will operate al acceptable levels during the NV\ peak hour, and the project will reduce traffic at the site driveways and study intersections during the PM peak hour and on a weekday daily basis. A potential new southbound right-turn lane at the south site driveway on East Valley Road, which was specifically discussed at the pre-application meeting, is not warranted based on our analysis. In summary, no offsite traffic mitigation is proposed and no improvements lo the existing site driveways are recommended. ~TENW April 6, 2015 Page II Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax Transportation Impact Fees long-term traffic impacts in the City of Renton are mitigated by the proiects included in the City's capital facilities plan [CFPJ The CFP proiects are funded through the payment of City of Renton transportation impact fees Based on this process, a fee is assessed upon a development to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of public facilities needed to serve new growth and development Renton transportation impact fees are based on the CFP and a proiected amount of growth. Based on the City of Renton' s Rate Study for Impact fees for Transportation, Parks, and Fire Protection dated August 26, 2011 and adopted Ordinance 5670, transportation impact fees are based on PM peak hour trip generation, and a credit is given for existing uses that will be removed. Because the proposed CarMax development will generate less traffic during the PM peak hour than the existing Movie Theater that ii will replace, the proiect will not have on impact on the transportation system in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the payment of transportation impact fees for this proiect is not required. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this analysis, please call me at 206-498- 5897 or email at lc1s'er©ler·w com. cc: Sarah Pangelinan, Pacland Attachments ~TENW April 6, 2015 Page 12 Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax ATTACHMENT A CarMax · Renton Trip Generation Estimate ITE Dlreclional Split Vehicle Trip Generatton Land Use Size Unlts 1 LUC 2 Trio Rate Enter Exit Enter Exit Total DAILY I Progosed Use: Automobile Sales 20,300 GFA 841 32.30 50% 50% 328 328 656 Less Exiting Yse Multiplex IV\ovie Theoter3 13 Screens 445 175.27 50% 50% -I, 139 -I, 140 -2,279 NEI' NEW DAU. YTRIP GENERAIION: -811 -812 -1,623 AM PEAK HOUR I fl[ogoses;t Us~: Automobile Sales 20,300 GFA 841 1.92 75% 25% 29 JO 39 Less Exiting !,!se Multiplex i\l\ovie Theoter4 13 Screens 445 No ITE data available 0 0 0 NEI' NEW AM PfAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION: 29 10 S9 PM PEAK HOUR I Progose:Q !,!se: Automobile Sales 20,300 GFA 841 2.62 40% 60% 21 32 53 L~1s Exiting Use Multiplex Movie Theater 13 Screens 445 13.64 45% 55% -80 -97 -177 NET NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION: .59 -65 -124 Nat es: 1 GFA is Gross Floor Area 2 ITE Trip Generation manual, 9th Edition Land Use Code 3 Interpolated weekday daily trip rate using a ratio of the Friday doily rate to Friday PM rote (292.5/22.76"'12.85) applied to the Weekday PM trip rate (13.64) • No Af.11 peak hour data was available in the ITE manual. Therefore. no trips were assumed as a conservative estimate. Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax ATTACHMENT B Level of Service Calculations Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax 2015 Existing Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: E Valley Rd & SW 41st St/SR-167 SB Off Ramp Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Right Turn on Red Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles(%) Shared Lane Traffic(%) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum lnltial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Spilt (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode 0.88 22% No Left 1.00 15 Split 6 6 6.0 29.0 30.0 23.1% 4.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 None :./{'~;;~~~-';;:-,·~:~ }·; :·~: Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 - 1 25 Yes 25 391 10.7 2 0.88 0.88 0.88 22% 22% 6% 36% No No No Left Right Left 12 0 16 Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 15 NA Perm Split 6 2 6 6 6 2 6.0 6.0 6.0 29.0 29.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 42.0 23.1% 23.1% 32.3% 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 None None Max Offset: 52 (40%), Referenced to phase 4:NBT and 8:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated S rt d Ph )tl Is an ases: 1 EV II Rd&SW41 S/SR 167SBOffR a ev st I -amo ~¢2 4.i.6 42 s I 130s Carmax Renton 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour - 30 755 17.2 0.88 6% No Left 12 0 16 1.00 NA 2 2 6.0 30.0 42.0 32.3% 4.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 Max I 108 1900 0 0 Yes 0.88 6% No Right 1.00 9 '-.¢3 13 s ...., ¢7 18 s 2/20/2015 t I' '-. + .; :·~~/-,t:{{1f:-a T£LW , /:·Ill r 11 ti. 210 53 58 6 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 200 0 1 1 0 25 25 Yes Yes 35 35 466 358 9.1 7.0 2 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 7% 7% 7% 20% 20% 20% No No No No No No Left Left Right Left Left Right 12 12 0 0 16 16 Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 9 15 9 Prat NA Perm Prat NA 7 4 3 8 4 7 4 4 3 8 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 33.0 33.0 8.0 10.0 18.0 45.0 45.0 13.0 40.0 13.8% 34.6% 34.6% 10.0% 30.8% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min C-Min None C-Min t.,4 (R) I 45 s I + ¢8 (R) I 40< I Synchro 8 Report HCM 201 O Signalized Intersection Summary 1: E Vallel Rd & SW 41 st SVSR-167 SB Off Rame 2/2012015 / -"'). (" -"'-..... t ~ '. + 7:t:); · _');"-·. ~\~'·?q-,t;:~'~t,r ';~}i-'.i:f: Lane Configurations "i + .,, "i 4l> "i + .,, "i ti. Volume (vehlh) 9 42 13 489 351 108 63 524 210 53 58 6 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhnn 1557 1557 1557 1792 1792 1900 1776 1776 1776 1583 1583 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 48 0 359 674 123 72 595 0 60 66 7 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 22 22 22 6 6 6 7 7 7 20 20 20 Cap, vehlh 70 73 62 486 840 153 91 854 726 73 1309 137 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.48 0.00 0.05 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow vehlh 1483 1557 1324 1707 2952 538 1691 1776 1509 1508 2749 287 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 10 48 0 359 409 388 72 595 0 60 36 37 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhnn 1483 1557 1324 1707 1792 1697 1691 1776 1509 1508 1504 1532 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 3.9 0.0 24.8 27.5 27.6 5.5 34.0 0.0 5.1 1.7 1.7 Cycle Q Ctea~g_c), s 0.8 3.9 0.0 24.8 27.5 27.6 5.5 34.0 0.0 5.1 1.7 1.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 70 73 62 486 510 483 91 854 726 73 716 729 VIC Ratio(X) 0.14 0.66 0.00 0.74 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.70 0.00 0.82 0.05 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 285 299 255 486 510 483 182 854 726 104 716 729 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Unrrorrn Delay (d), s/veh 59.4 60.9 0.0 42.1 43.1 43.1 60.8 26.3 0.0 61.3 18.3 18.3 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 13.2 0.0 9.7 12.5 13.2 19.0 4.7 0.0 32.3 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOIQ(-26165%),vehnn 0.4 2.0 0.0 13.0 15.4 14.7 3.0 17.8 0.0 2.8 0.7 0.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.8 74.1 0.0 51.8 55.6 56.3 79.8 31.0 0.0 93.6 18.4 18.4 LnG~LOS E E D E E E C F B B Approach Vol, vehlh 58 1156 667 133 Approach Delay, slveh 71.8 54.7 36.3 52.3 Approach LOS E D D D '.}"'-: :t;;:~--::,>:Jl:f~'.kf·r:ti:.,(::,t·~6\'.-c;,:},f'.{i':.:~. :};t~,i"!!f Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 10.3 66.6 11.1 11.0 65.9 Change Period (Y +Re), s 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.0 9.0 41.0 25.0 14.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 29.6 7.1 36.0 5.9 7.5 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.6 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.1 7.0 .::,·;;-, 1~:!i;Mtt~<. ;.:,i_'i::L~~}~: .. \-{1:-f~\' f{i.,tr $:_~)1. ~::iW'/K.'.~JJ·. _\1~.~,ftt:~f~JJ"t .,.,· ,·:··· ,,,;:~·rt.;~4':r~?-':~·:~:,'. HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.9 HCM 2010 LOS D rr· ,-: · ,.:.,:-; · •·,''.:.'1',' 'is:'. ~-·-.;r, ·;y, i {!a,~:: .. ;·.~/;>:' ;;_1'· ':~ ·:· W"'·~ .. :~ :. ,; , ::L :t(:·· -1! ~·,(·.~'.~-~~,: '·? >.\·1:!i ~-'.·. ·),;..;.;;-',er ··'r···· •. ;·~· 1 "' ·" ,;-,.·<· ,· User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Carrnax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: E Valle~ Rd & South Site Access 2/2012015 .,.,. -" f -"'-.... t I' \. + ~ •r:: ;,.xi,· .,'··-7' <·-·,.: -;Mt: ··· rm ,. •1.lS\•;::rwr.• MYr ,.. • !},_ ff ',;,/M '~~-~« \-Lane Configurations .i. .i. 11 t. 11 +t. Volume (vph) 9 0 7 0 0 3 34 586 3 1 118 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 126 94 358 479 Travel Time (s) 3.4 2.6 7.0 9.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 4 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 13% 13% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 22% 22% 22% Shared Lane Traffic(%) Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free '· ~ ~--, ·/'?;.<:'~~:ft'ffi·,. ~f~S?t;{~1t ~);,:,.f'.:~>-r-.t;. ' Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Canmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour HCM 2010 TWSC 2: E Valley Rd & South Site Access 212012015 Wtrrili,.:· r·'2t:""*"· "·4L'l1i'\ ·c~;}; ·. ,:r'>t ;.· .· ....... :· .. ~-(; .... , '.;, ;'' ~, 1 "i!i' ,, f· !'t· -.. --... ., ... 'II .,,;(· ..• i ·t ~L Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 wn ·• ~-,' . ' .. : lilll. ,m 1fllt ~ , )A1'iWF• ;.;; ....... -, . 1111. lllR • .-Ef::.•#1@ ); >' • i I Vol, veh/h 9 0 7 0 0 3 34 586 3 1 118 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length 50 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 1 1 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 0 0 0 7 7 7 22 22 22 Mvml Flow 10 0 8 0 0 3 37 637 3 1 128 3 Mli•Mi ·:,. 'a'(;; llilcd. ·,~.,';,'//'\; 1--.-·r, Mah.I·. . : JllalrjQ ,; , : 1 '·' Conflicting Flow All 850 850 74 783 851 643 136 0 0 640 0 0 Stage t 136 136 713 713 Stage 2 714 714 70 138 Critical Hdwy 7.495 6.695 7.095 7.3 6.5 6.2 4.24 4.32 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.695 5.695 6.1 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.295 5.695 6.5 5.5 Follow-up Hdwy 3.6235 4. 1235 3.4235 3.5 4 3.3 2.27 2.398 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 252 281 941 300 299 477 1410 855 Stage 1 826 760 426 438 Stage 2 400 413 938 786 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 243 272 935 290 290 475 1405 852 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 325 341 359 360 Stage 1 802 757 415 426 Stage 2 386 402 926 782 ...... ';··, El ::_;,~' • :f~·,AIA -.~; :t•' HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 12.6 0.4 0.1 HCM LOS B B 1405 455 475 852 0.026 0.038 0.007 0.001 7.6 13.2 12.6 9.2 A B B A 0.1 0.1 0 0 Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: E Valley Rd & North Site Access 2/2012015 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Coofl. Peds. (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles(%) Shared Lane Traffic(%) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Sign Control :;r·r; ,sa ,,,.· .:'x Area Type: Control Type: Unsignalized Carmax Renton 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour -t - 11 "f' 4 11 ft 11 + "f' 3 2 1 4 0 3 14 592 1 0 111 2 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Other 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 100 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 0.91 50% No Left 1.00 15 25 124 3.4 4 0.91 0.91 50% 50% No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Stop 2 0.91 29% No Left 1.00 15 25 103 2.8 2 0.91 0.91 29% 29% No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Stop 4 0.91 9% No Left 1.00 15 35 479 9.3 2 0.91 0.91 9% 9% No No Left Right 12 0 16 Yes 1.00 1.00 9 Free 2 0.91 20% No Left 1.00 15 35 478 9.3 4 0.91 0.91 20% 20% No No Left Right 12 0 16 Yes 1.00 1.00 9 Free Synchro 8 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 3: E Valley Rd & North Site Access 2/20/2015 Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 11 T:ZiP: ,;,,/~;;~i:L-: _ _.i-; ·• ·:;:er 77 " ,e·~w. rr ";;.,; ,•r•,.rr ·.\@;., :.a·;·arr. -Vol, veh/h 3 2 1 4 0 3 14 592 1 0 111 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 4 2 0 2 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Slop Stop Slop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length 0 0 50 50 100 Veh in Median Storage,# 1 1 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 50 50 50 29 29 29 9 9 9 20 20 20 Mvmt Flow 3 2 1 4 0 3 15 651 0 122 2 !!li!lil!!!!!!i' •. ,., ,., -~ MiiDl'"<!::-./'--.·.' ' ,',.'. ·t "·'· . ··•+·1 ·· .;':.~·- Conflicting Flow AU 810 130 811 810 657 126 0 0 654 0 0 Stage 1 126 684 684 Stage 2 684 127 126 Critical Hdwy 7.6 7 6.7 7.39 6.79 6.49 4.19 4.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.6 6 6.39 5.79 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.6 6 6.39 5.79 Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 4.45 3.75 3.761 4.261 3.561 2.281 2.38 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 248 265 806 269 285 421 1418 853 Stage 1 775 708 398 410 Stage 2 369 383 816 743 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 242 261 801 264 281 419 1413 850 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 309 323 336 345 Stage 1 764 706 393 405 Stage 2 361 378 810 741 -1111 .. ,4(\, . . ,. , .. >/Ill . .r.;·:--'i,,i;·::'fit.::.~-~ .·•: ;~·41, ;0.f:J -·,· ,;{P·-;1.·J/;/ .,,J., ~-'1, .··ti·7 •• r~ ;-""'t I 1 HCM Control Delay, s 15 15 0.2 0 HCM LOS C C ' -, ·· _,. ''' 'e , ... ,i', ,,..,.x·tv-.. &·,·:c···~+· Capacity (veh/h) 1413 309 801 367 850 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.011 0.001 0.021 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 16.8 9.5 15 0 HCMLaneLOS A C A C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) O O O 0.1 O Canmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 4: SW 41 st St & Site Access 2/2012015 -t -t + Lane Configurations 'i +t. 'i +t. 4 4 Volume (vph) 8 56 2 28 372 33 0 2 8 3 O 13 1900 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 50 0 50 O o O O Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 O O Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 968 391 163 Travel Time (s) 26.4 10.7 4.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 21% 21% 21% 5% Sharee Lane Traffic(%) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Oftset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Sign Control Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalizec No Left 1.00 15 No No Left Right 12 0 16 Yes 1.00 1.00 9 Free No Left 1.00 15 5% 5% No No Left Righ1 12 0 16 Yes 1.00 1.00 9 Free 0% No Left 1.00 15 0% 0% No No Left Right 0 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Stop 0.85 6% No Left 1.00 15 25 143 3.9 0.85 0.85 6% 6% No No Left Righ1 0 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Stop Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour HCM 2010 TWSC 4: SW 41 st St & Site Access lntDelay, s/veh 1.1 Iii .. I l!l, ,, ''.~ %:·:•.;·.~-: ;-):\;_ ~-~-~·· ·---~~_-,:ar"~-:~:M ~--· -..r; Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# Grade,% Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Sig 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocl<ed, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 8 0 Free 50 85 21 9 476 4.52 2.41 960 960 . ··.';·,·a. 1.1 56 2 0 0 Free Free None 0 0 85 85 21 21 66 2 0 0 .'.' s---· . iie:tllii' ' Free 50 85 5 33 68 4.2 2.25 1510 1510 0.5 Free 0 0 85 5 438 0 Free None 85 5 39 0 Capacity(veh/h) 815 960 1510 658 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.014 0.01 0.022 0.029 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 8.8 7.4 10.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A 8 HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) o O 0.1 0.1 Carmax Renton 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour 0 0 Stop Stop Stop None 1 0 85 85 85 0 0 0 0 2 9 371 628 34 86 86 285 542 7.5 6.5 6.9 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 3.5 4 3.3 566 402 1038 918 827 704 523 541 390 1038 579 438 909 819 675 512 · .. 111 . 9.5 A 2120/2015 'i~---~#,llt!,~;- 3 0 Stop 85 6 4 . ,:llliii2 ; 576 523 53 7.62 6.62 6.62 3.56 392 495 942 378 429 490 922 10.6 B ··'i""·) 0 0 Stop 1 0 85 6 0 610 523 87 6.62 5.62 5.62 4.06 399 519 813 387 437 508 805 13 0 Stop None 85 6 15 238 7.02 3.36 751 751 Synchro 8 Report Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Lind Ave SW & SW 39th St/Site Access 2/20/2015 .,} -.. f -' '\ t /" \. + ~ ltt'tef ,.~. ~ .. ,-'. t ·,. ,:··,,",7·>·· a'l"i-·~··· ' 0 ···:at:':'181 ·-•-e·,-r,_. -'::Y·~.. .· .f-,\1 _ :.;;j, ,.,1'111. .1•1c•·a"''''~I & '''*111··<:o1111f" ·• '-~4 :'\: .-,.·;;; '.,-d&t~ -,'\ri··:/ '4¥:::( .··,,·,.::~ Lane Configurations 11 i. 4-11 ti. 11 ti. Volume (vph) 6 0 10 9 9 15 179 627 30 8 126 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 125 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 404 522 614 576 Travel Time (s) 11.0 14.2 12.0 11.2 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 13% 13% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 15% 15% 15% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(tt) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(tt) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA pm"j)t NA pm"jlt NA Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 8.0 25.0 8.0 25.0 Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 35.0 15.0 35.0 Total Split(%) 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 18.8% 43.8% 18.8% 43.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 36 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-lJncoordinated Snlits and Phases: 5: Lind Ave SW & SW 39th SVSite Access '\ ~1 + ~2 -..,4 15 s I 35 s t <Os I "'~5 t~6 -~8 15 s t ,-x; < I •=s I Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour HCM 201 O Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Lind Ave SW & SW 39th St/Site Access 2120/2015 .,> -• f -' ~ t I' \. + ..,, ... rrn 1 "''"' ·"·· "'4';1;' '"!ffi·•··,-·~-'"'' ;,.l>f1 r+£Wit·~·-,tritW+v: -. ;2·' · ~,~.'it Lane Configurations 11 f. Volume (veM1) 6 0 10 9 15 30 16 Number 7 4 14 3 B 1B 16 12 Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj ,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 16B1 1681 1900 1900 1845 1900 1B45 1900 1652 1652 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 0 12 11 11 18 746 36 10 150 19 Adj No. o1 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 15 15 Cap, vehlh 260 0 76 136 20 32 946 1759 85 573 1438 179 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.52 0.52 0.10 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow vehlh 1237 0 1425 367 367 600 1757 3403 164 1573 2808 350 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 7 0 12 40 0 0 213 384 398 10 B3 86 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/Mn 1237 0 1425 1334 0 0 1757 1752 1815 1573 1570 1589 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 5.3 5.4 0.1 1.1 1.1 Cyde a Clea~g_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.1 5.3 5.4 0.1 1.1 1.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.27 0.45 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.22 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 260 0 76 188 0 0 946 906 938 573 804 813 VIC Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.10 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 1010 0 939 1139 0 0 1251 1333 1380 854 1194 1208 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filte~I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 17.8 0.0 17.8 18.4 0.0 0.0 3.3 5.9 5.9 3.3 5.0 5.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehnn 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.8 2.9 0.0 0.5 0.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.8 0.0 19.2 19.2 0.0 0.0 3.5 7.0 7.0 3.3 5.2 5.2 LnGr~ LOS B B B A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 19 40 995 179 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.7 19.2 6.3 5.1 Approach LOS B B A A Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 25.2 6.1 7.9 25.4 Change Penod (Y,Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 30.0 26.0 11.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c"11), s 4.1 3.1 2.3 2.1 7.4 3.3 Green Ex1 Time (p_c), s 0.5 14.6 0.3 0.0 13.0 0.3 HCM 2010 Ct~ Delay 6.7 HCM 2010 LOS A Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour Traffic Impact Analysis -Renton CarMax 2017 Baseline (Without Project) Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: E Vallez: Rd & SW 41 st St/SR-167 SB Off Rame 4/1/2015 .,J .... "'), i' -'-"\ t ,.. \. ! .; LaneGmllll £fl. mt SR WIii. ---Nl:lT -SEil. :$81' ' -Lane Configurations "i t 7' "i .ff. "i t 7' "i tf. Volume (vph) 9 45 20 509 371 112 43 545 218 55 60 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 0 500 0 200 0 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Taper Lengu, (ft) 25 25 25 25 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 30 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 391 755 466 358 Travel nme (s) 10.7 17.2 9.1 7.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles(%) 22% 22% 22% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 20% 20% 20% Shared Lane Traffic (%) 35% Tum Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prat NA Perm Prat NA Protected Phases 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 30.0 30.0 8.0 33.0 33.0 8.0 100 Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 42.0 42.0 18.0 45.0 45.0 13.0 40.0 Total Split(%) 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 32.3% 32.3% 13.8% 34.6% 34.6% 10.0% 30.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 10 10 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None Max Max None C-Min C-Min None C-Min kllalll8Cllloll Summay Area Type: OH1er Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle LengU,: 130 Offset: 52 (40%), Referenced to phase 4:NBT and 8:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases· 1 E Valley Rd & SW 41st SUSR-167 SB Off Ramp ..-.2 14,6 '-'•3 I t'"'(R' 42s I •30 s I I 13 s I 14s s I °'I 07 l i OS (R) 18 s I 1405 I Carmax Renton Synchro 8Report 2017 Baseline -AM Peak Hour HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: E Vallez: Rd & SW 41 st St/SR-167 SB Off Ramp 4/112015 .,> --.. f -'-..._ t ,.. '-. i .,, Mollelllerlt. ·. a E8T . E8R •·,Mn'/·-!S;''<fllr .. ·. -.. $(Jr SliR Lane Configurations 'i t ., 'i ,n, 'i t ., 'i tf. Volume (veh/h) 9 45 20 509 371 112 43 545 218 55 60 6 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1557 1557 1557 1792 1792 1900 1776 1776 1776 1583 1583 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 51 0 376 705 127 49 619 0 62 68 7 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 22 22 22 6 6 6 7 7 7 20 20 20 Cap, veh/h 73 77 65 486 842 152 63 847 720 76 1353 137 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.05 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1483 1557 1324 1707 2958 533 1691 1776 1509 1508 2758 280 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 10 51 0 376 427 405 49 619 0 62 37 38 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1483 1557 1324 1707 1792 1698 1691 1776 1509 1508 1504 1534 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 4.2 0.0 26.3 29.1 29.1 3.7 36.4 00 5.3 1.7 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 4.2 0.0 26.3 29.1 29.1 3.7 36.4 0.0 5.3 1.7 1.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Gap(c), veh/h 73 77 65 486 510 483 63 847 720 76 738 752 V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.66 0.00 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.73 0.00 0.82 0.05 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 285 299 255 486 510 483 182 847 720 104 738 752 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.1 60.7 0.0 42.7 43.7 43.7 62. 1 27.3 0.0 61.1 17.3 17.3 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 13.1 0.0 11.4 15.0 15.8 25.3 5.5 0.0 33.2 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehRn 0.4 2.1 0.0 13.9 16.5 15.7 2.2 19.0 0.0 2.9 0.7 0.7 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 60.3 73.8 0.0 54.1 58.7 59.5 87.4 32.8 0.0 94.3 17.4 17.4 LnGa! LOS E E D E E F C F B B Approach Vol, veh/h 61 1208 668 137 Approach Delay, s/veh 71.6 57.5 36.8 52.2 Approach LOS E E D D lllner t .2 3 4 .5 .. ! II 1 .. ' '' 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 10.5 66.0 11.4 8.8 67.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.0 9.0 41.0 25.0 14.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 31. 1 7.3 38.4 6.2 5.7 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.9 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.1 7.4 lntan,..: M Slllmltll'V HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50.9 HCM 2010 LOS D i.illls User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 Baseline -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: E Valle:i:: Rd & South Site Access 41112015 -" -" f +-'-"\ t ,.,. \. + .; LaneGIDliP ESL m EBB -·-WBR • 111T --88T SBR Lane Configurations .;. .;. 'I t, 'I tt> Volume (vph) 9 0 7 0 0 3 35 610 3 1 123 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 126 94 358 479 Travel Time (s) 3.4 2.6 7.0 9.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 4 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 13% 13% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 22% 22% 22% Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free lnle1secli00 Summav Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Canmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 Baseline -AM Peak Hour HCM 2010 TWSC 2: E Valley Rd & South Site Access 4/1/2015 lnlell!ICllb'I Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Mcilll!ffll8II( a EBT EBR WBI.. MIT 8 -!!!! fllR • JIBT S8R Vol, veh/h 9 0 7 0 0 3 35 610 3 1 123 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length 50 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 1 1 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 0 0 0 7 7 7 22 22 22 Mvmt Flow 10 0 8 0 0 3 38 663 3 1 134 3 ~ Llnol2 PAnot1 I MaioJ1 MaiQf2 Conflicting Flow All 884 884 76 814 884 669 141 0 0 666 0 0 Stage 1 142 142 741 741 Stage 2 742 742 73 143 Critical Hdwy 7.495 6.695 7.095 7.3 6.5 6.2 4.24 4.32 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.695 5.695 6.1 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.295 5.695 6.5 5.5 Follow-up Hdwy 3.62354.12353.4235 3.5 4 3.3 2.27 2.398 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 238 268 938 286 286 461 1404 836 Stage 1 819 756 411 426 Stage 2 385 401 934 782 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 230 260 932 277 277 459 1399 833 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 312 331 346 349 Stage 1 794 753 400 414 Stage 2 371 390 922 778 ~uadl EB W8 NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.5 12.9 0.4 0.1 HCMLOS B B 1hr Lane/MlliOf Mwnt -NBT NBR.ab1WS&.nt S8L .S8Ti $BR Capacity (veh/h) 1399 440 459 833 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 0.04 0.007 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 13.5 12.9 9.3 HCM Lane LOS A B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0. 1 0.1 0 0 Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 Baseline -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: E Vallel Rd & North Site Access 411/2015 .,> --+ ... f -'-~ t ~ \. + .; laGlollll ESL ear .SIR -WilT WEIR •• ti! -sa .tlBT SBR Lane Configurations 'I .,, 4, 'I t+ 'I t .,, Volume (vph) 3 2 1 4 0 3 15 616 1 0 115 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 100 Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 124 103 479 478 Travel Time (s) 3.4 2.8 9.3 9.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 50% 50% 50% 29% 29% 29% 9% 9% 9% 20% 20% 20% Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free lnletseclioll Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 Baseline -AM Peak Hour HCM 2010 TWSC 3: E Vallet Rd & North Site Access 4/1/2015 ~lllfli •111 Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 llll,1111111111 EBL Ii.BT BIR ----NBT • • •••• Vol, veh/h 3 2 1 4 0 3 15 616 1 0 115 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 4 2 0 2 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length 0 0 50 50 100 Veh in Median Storage,# 1 1 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 50 50 50 29 29 29 9 9 9 20 20 20 Mvmt Flow 3 2 1 4 0 3 16 677 1 0 126 2 ~ Minor2 Mit!or1 Mlior1 Maiol2 Conflicting Flow All 844 843 134 843 842 683 130 0 0 680 0 0 Stage 1 130 130 712 712 Stage 2 714 713 131 130 Critical Hdwy 7.6 7 6.7 7.39 6.79 6.49 4.19 4.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.6 6 6.39 5.79 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.6 6 6.39 5.79 Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 4.45 3.75 3.761 4.261 3.561 2.281 2.38 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 235 253 802 255 273 406 1413 834 Stage 1 771 705 383 398 Stage 2 355 371 812 740 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 230 249 797 250 269 404 1408 831 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 297 312 323 334 Stage 1 760 703 378 393 Stage 2 347 366 806 738 ~ EB WB N8 SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.4 15.4 0.2 0 HCM LOS C C IAnor Lane,Maior· Mlllnl NBl NBT 8EBLn1eBIJQMllAt $BL ST 8BR Capacity (veh/h) 1408 -297 797 353 831 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 -0.011 0.001 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 17.3 9.5 15.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A C A C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 0 0.1 0 Camnax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 Baseline -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 4: SW 41st St & Site Access 4/1/2015 ,f -" f -~ ..._ t ,,. '-. + .,' LarreQQ.11) '. EBl.. .eat --WIT. -.. MIT '!Am &·.·· 8BT . .1!!3 Lane Configurations "i tr. 'I tf. .;. .;. Volume (vph) 8 65 2 29 370 34 0 2 8 3 0 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 968 391 163 143 Travel Time (s) 26.4 10.7 4.4 3.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 21% 21% 21% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% Shared Lane T raffle (%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop lnl8rseclall Sinllllll[f Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Canmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 Baseline· AM Peak Hour HCM 2010 TWSC 4: SW 41st St & Site Access 41112015 f?.;}, :,;;~ Int Delay, s/veh H 11 · ! !~<;:-r~·~:t~'~;~}g,/·~'.ftr:..~~·a::.?Yl, ·~••r-'.:~{-,_~ Vol, veh/h 8 65 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 o 0 o Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length 50 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 1 1 Grade,% 0 o o 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 21 21 21 5 5 5 0 0 0 6 6 6 Mvmt Flow 9 76 2 34 435 40 0 2 9 4 0 16 '. '.f}:~!-'!'l!' Conflicting Flow All 475 0 0 79 0 0 382 640 39 582 622 238 Stage 1 96 96 524 524 Stage 2 286 544 58 98 Critical Hdwy 4.52 42 7.5 6.5 6.9 762 6.62 7.02 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 6.62 5.62 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 6.62 5 62 Follow-up Hdwy 2.41 2.25 3.5 4 3.3 3.56 4.06 3.36 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 961 1495 556 396 1031 388 393 751 Stage 1 906 819 494 518 Stage 2 703 522 935 804 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 961 1495 531 383 1031 374 380 751 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 573 434 427 433 Stage 1 898 811 489 506 Stage 2 672 510 915 796 .... 11·.·: .. •14. -.',. · 1;'·,~,.< '; ·::a . ,·WI· ;"::\',;. . '.l. I .v,,, •••• ".:·, ,'"/i.-(:.••i$8'.'r\c . HCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0.5 95 10.6 HCM LOS A 8 Capacity (veh/h) 809 961 -1495 662 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.015 0.01 -0.023 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 9 5 8.8 75 10.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 0.1 0.1 Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 Baseline -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Lind Ave SW & SW 39th St/Site Access 4/1/2015 ,> -~ f ..... ..... ~ t ,,., \,. ! ~ WT f'.':c::.{.,;.;· , P'\~;:~at·.f/·~w»r-:w,,,,'.·;;:•·~ ·M:<'1fft·,• •;• ··a: <i:__·-_-~'.-_..,;· ,,+·J _..;..·" i" , r' · 'ti· a w:,·e Lane Configurations 'I lo 4, 'I tl> 'I tl> Volume (vph) 6 0 10 9 9 16 186 652 31 8 131 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 125 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 25 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 404 522 614 576 Travel Time (s) 11.0 14.2 12.0 11.2 Conft. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 13% 13% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 15% 15% 15% Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm•pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 24 0 24.0 24 0 24.0 8.0 250 80 25.0 Total Spl~ (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 35.0 15.0 35.0 Total Split(%) 37 5% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5% 18.8% 43.8% 188% 43.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All·Red Time (s) 00 00 00 00 00 1.0 00 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 00 00 0.0 0.0 00 Total Lost Time (s) 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 4.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag LeaHag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 36.3 Natural Cycle 60 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases 5: Lind Ave SW & SW 39th SUSite Access rt 15 s f( 35 s g Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 Baseline -AM Peak Hour HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Lind Ave SW & SW 39th St/Site Access 41112015 ,> -+ " .. .-' ...,. t ~ \. + .' Lane Configurations f, .;. ~ tf. ~ tf. Volume (veh/h) 6 0 10 9 9 16 186 652 31 8 131 17 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 lnttial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 100 0.99 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1681 1681 1900 1900 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 1652 1652 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 0 12 11 11 19 221 776 37 10 156 20 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 15 15 Cap, veh/h 258 0 76 133 19 33 946 1785 85 562 1445 183 Arrive On Green 0.05 000 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.52 0.52 0.10 0.52 052 Sat Flow, veh/h 1236 0 1425 358 358 619 1757 3405 162 1573 2803 354 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 7 0 12 41 0 0 221 399 414 10 86 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1236 0 1425 1335 0 0 1757 1752 1815 1573 1570 1588 Q Serve(g_s), s 00 00 03 1.0 00 00 2.2 5.6 5.6 0 1 11 1.2 Cycle Q Clea~g_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.6 5.6 0.1 1.1 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 100 0.27 0.46 100 0.09 100 0.22 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 258 0 76 185 0 0 946 919 951 562 809 819 VIC Ratio(X) 003 000 0.16 0 22 0 00 0 00 0.23 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.11 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 991 0 922 1117 0 0 1239 1309 1356 837 1172 1186 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 1.00 100 Upstream Filte~I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 18.1 00 18.1 18.8 00 00 3.3 5.9 59 3.4 5.0 5.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 00 0.0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.0 00 00 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.1 00 19.5 19.6 00 00 3.5 7.1 70 3.4 5.2 5.2 LnG~ LOS B B B A A A A A A Approach Vol, vehlh 19 41 1034 186 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.0 19.6 6.3 5.1 Approach LOS B B A A 1iiii'-\•1, ,L'!;.' iCC,,;'}•~f1i):;lfil~'l '·f ;:~~,.~ 1,._,i!~~~t"/!fi,W.;yj!Ji,~~-'f~:'~{~\li>'~,;ij /'fi./,il~!,.j,,,11'jl~,~j:'.i;f.J~ii;;!li>~>'~, +tt'··w·"t·· ··-,·s ·"':(· It:' -~--· · ·"'t"''·· ·>;·,1· · ·'s<"'""·· .. , -., -· ,..,,,. · ""N' r· "'::ar·•,ii'c::~-''"tirx"' r·-•'-'',¥•f"">.,; Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 25.7 6.2 8.0 26.1 6.2 Change Period (Y•Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 30.0 26.0 11.0 30.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 4.2 3.2 23 2 1 76 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 15.1 0.3 0.0 13.4 0.3 -:·(~.\(, ~;.. '. ,. HCM 2010 Ctrt Delay 6.7 HCM 2010 LOS A Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 Baseline -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: E Valley Rd & SW 41 st St/SR-167 SB Off Ramp Lane Configurations 'I t Volume (vph) 9 46 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 Taper Length (fl) 25 Right Tum on Red Yes Link Speed (mph) 25 Link Distance (ft) 391 Travel Time (s) 10.7 Conft. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles(%) 22% 22% 22% Shared Lane T raffle (%) Turn Type Split NA Perm Protected Phases 6 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split(%) Yellow lime (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost lime Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode 6 6.0 29.0 30.0 231% 4.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 None 6 6.0 29.0 30.0 23.1% 4.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 None 6 6 6.0 29.0 30.0 23.1% 4.0 1.0 0.0 50 None 509 1900 500 1 25 30 755 17.2 0.88 0.88 6% 6% 35% Split NA 2 2 2 2 6.0 6.0 30.0 30 0 42.0 42.0 32.3% 32.3% 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 00 5.0 5.0 Max Max 117 1900 0 0 Yes 0.88 6% ~: . j';\J./t: ~ :'..'~\{~t~'*;~;t~ · .. Area Type: other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset: 52 (40%), Referenced to phase 4 NBT and 8:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 11 O Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated 1 E Valley Rd & SW 41st SVSR-167 SB Off Ramp Carmax Renton 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour 4/112015 ' ,I t'rij- tf. 49 552 218 55 65 6 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 200 0 200 0 1 1 1 0 25 25 Yes Yes 35 35 466 358 91 7.0 2 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 7% 7% 7% 20% 20% 20% Prot NA Perm Prot NA 7 4 3 8 4 7 4 4 3 8 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 33.0 33.0 8.0 100 18.0 45.0 45.0 13.0 40.0 13.8% 34.6% 346% 10.0% 30.8% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 00 00 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None C-Min C-Min None C-Min ~~-,!.~},t ~:::~·,.t;:,r-:~-")t~ I '~'"' : I Synchro 8 Report HCM 201 O Signalized Intersection Summary 1: E Vall el Rd & SW 41 st St/SR-167 SB Off Rame 41112015 ~ -+ ...... " +-' .... t ,,. '. ! ./ llfl r• ·~~"'if' '''""f"B·~1'8fi'~!;Ll '."Yf' k'Hi'!J?ii:t':r:·7/''· ;,· •' ·~"- Lane Configurations , t Volume (vehlh) 9 46 21 509 117 49 218 55 6 Number 1 6 16 5 12 7 14 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parl<ing Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 100 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1557 1557 1557 1792 1792 1900 1776 1776 1776 1583 1583 1900 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 10 52 0 379 705 133 56 627 0 62 74 7 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 22 22 22 6 6 6 7 7 7 20 20 20 Cap, vehlh 74 78 66 486 835 157 72 846 719 76 1348 126 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0 00 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.04 048 000 0.05 0.48 048 Sat Flow, vehlh 1483 1557 1324 1707 2934 553 1691 1776 1509 1508 2782 260 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 10 52 0 379 431 407 56 627 0 62 40 41 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1483 1557 1324 1707 1792 1695 1691 1776 1509 1508 1504 1537 Q Serve(g_s). s 0.8 4.3 0.0 26.5 29.4 294 4.3 37.1 0.0 5.3 1.8 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 4.3 0.0 26.5 29.4 29.4 4.3 37.1 0.0 5.3 1.8 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 100 1.00 0.33 1 00 100 100 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 74 78 66 486 510 482 72 846 719 76 729 745 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.67 0 00 0.78 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.74 0 00 0.82 0.05 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 285 299 255 486 510 482 182 846 719 104 729 745 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 100 100 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.0 60.7 00 42.8 43.8 43.8 61.7 27.5 00 61 1 17.7 17.8 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 13.0 0.0 11.7 15.6 16.4 22.6 5.8 0.0 33.2 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.0 00 00 00 %ile BackOfQ(0%),veh/ln 0.4 2.1 0.0 14.1 16.8 16.0 2.4 19.5 0.0 2.9 0.8 0.8 LnGrp Delay(d).s/veh 60.2 73.7 0.0 545 594 60.2 84.3 33.3 00 94.3 17.9 17.9 LnGre LOS E E D E E F C F B B Approach Vol, veh/h 62 1217 683 143 Approach Delay, s/veh 71.5 58.1 37.5 51.0 Approach LOS E E D D : ·t~~ t; . ~'."'·1:~.~'1';1f'.~t};:.J:~:t1,~{:t,f'fJ.:}(, Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 10.5 65.9 11.5 9.5 67.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.0 9.0 41.0 25.0 14.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 31.4 7.3 39.1 6.3 6.3 3.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.8 00 1.0 0.3 0.1 7.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.4 HCM 2010 LOS D M!> ·.-.,;,.·>/~-~--;/-"i>~\}i'.,)i i.:":.;: ·,,_: '·:·,_.·.·; •• .. ~ ';\ ·'·~.:\·~y;:.._::·::,·.g:~:t>:r~<: .<~ ~f,:Y ') ., •' C /'.>·I ··'.; J.} ·,t.~ ... · ·"' . ~.i:-. . ,::t.f~--. ' ' -C' ~. ''nt· •·-·k<·t1 User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: E Valley Rd & South Site Access 4/112015 Lane Configurations 4o 4o 'I ;. 'I t;. Volume (vph) 10 0 12 0 0 3 44 613 3 1 123 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 O 50 O 50 O Storage Lanes O O O O 1 O 1 O Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 Peak Hour Factor O 92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Carmax Renton 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour 25 126 3.4 4 0.92 0.92 0.92 13% 13% 0% Stop 25 35 94 358 26 7.0 4 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 22% Stop Free 35 479 9.3 4 092 0.92 22% 22% Free Synchro 8 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 2: E Valley Rd & South Site Access 41112015 Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 •t I 'P!l :.: ,, ,·;1, ' ..•. , .•..• , , ..... , ...... ,11111····· · -, •. ,.:•t···, .. ,,,. !IM:'J'.111' "I._:~: _';-· :.;/ ,.,c-t·.~,;:'i .·,Y,. 1. ',.f'j·.:;.,b ~ :•,,. ~-, ~1,::v·,.;--i!,::e;~ ,' "'P Vol, veh/h 10 0 12 0 0 3 44 613 3 1 123 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length 50 50 Veh in Median Storage,# 1 1 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 0 0 0 7 7 7 22 22 22 Mvmt Flow 11 0 13 0 0 3 48 666 3 1 134 4 Conflicting Flow All 907 907 77 837 908 672 142 0 0 670 0 0 Stage 1 142 142 764 764 Stage 2 765 765 73 144 Critical Hdwy 7.495 6.695 7095 7.3 65 6.2 4.24 432 Critical Hdwy Sig 1 6.695 5.695 6.1 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.295 5.695 6.5 5.5 Follow-up Hdwy 3.62354.1235 3.4235 3.5 4 3.3 2.27 2.398 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 229 260 937 275 277 459 1403 833 Stage 1 819 756 399 416 Stage 2 374 391 934 782 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 220 250 931 263 266 457 1398 830 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 301 321 333 339 Stage 1 788 753 385 402 Stage 2 357 378 917 778 •• t "") ' ; ' :, . ·, ~--Ji ;J >):i ~-; ,;&> t;' ·· _-,r~ .. -; ;-:?<<t'.· ·-_~\_·'.11> ··'.;._:-.. ,: --·-;;-;+:·, -:'liilF -,,:~ ,-, .. 'c'':•/.fe :§If' HCM Control Delay, s 12.9 12.9 0.5 0.1 HCM LOS B B ............ ·111·1· .......... · ·._,.i .. ·.·.·. ·.···"""'···'',··-.·,•.111::r.:.=·1?;,".--··,·_,_., ..... \··:"""". · ·'.'·.-"· '···'·'·~····.·,•.,·.,.·,,1·;. ___ · ....... ,.·'.'·.···,·.·.· • · · " · · , · , --liPIIII !111= ~ -~ !!!!!!_~_,=,!~!!,!-;;I'!!!: ;;;~t!!!!!!: ! :;: .. , ·:.. ·,-.,;.;·.;,'.,:;:·!,-i ·( . .:,;;~_::\~~(·:~~-f];,·(/~\'--: Capacity (veh/h) 1398 477 457 830 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.034 0.05 0.007 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 12.9 12.9 93 HCM Lane LOS A B B A . HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 0 0 Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: E Vallet Rd & North Site Access 4/1/2015 ,} ...... ~ ~ -'-~ t ,... '-. + ., ,, ;}: ·., Lane Configurations 4+ 'I f, t r Volume (vph) 2 1 4 0 3 18 617 1 116 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 50 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (It) 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 35 35 Link Distance (It) 124 103 479 478 Travel Time (s) 3.4 2.8 9.3 9.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0 91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 50% 50% 50% 29% 29% 29% 9% 9% 9% 20% 20% 20% Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour HCM 2010 TWSC 3: E Valley Rd & North Site Access 41112015 ;'! ·' Int Delay, slveh 0.4 •• IM· ';: (· '-J-1 d : ''ila .,.,. ' 'EM·;:: '•"'t':8'-'WlilRI ,, ' ---.,.,., -..• ,. c· ·-~ )t .. · \ .' . .. , .. ·.:.·r-ctc;:cr;. ·'<:, ·--.,. r:¥°~' :.<~-~-;,;:.n:;"'-*~·-:r~::.-": Vol, veh/h 3 2 1 4 0 3 18 617 1 0 116 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 4 2 0 2 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length 0 0 50 50 100 Veh in Median Storage, # 1 1 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 50 50 50 29 29 29 9 9 9 20 20 20 Mvmt Flow 3 2 1 4 0 3 20 678 0 127 2 'M 'lilt;(. >.'. ,: /: iM!,dll; : . ': ' :1flt\i!S -;:J}}~, ·:: <; ·, ,_, ; >,-t ~:'$') :~:,...,:,,;,'; ::r-~:~-c,?/ ;, Conflicting Flow All 853 Stage 1 131 Stage 2 722 Critical Hdwy 76 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.6 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.6 Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 232 Stage 1 770 Stage 2 351 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 226 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 293 Stage 1 757 Stage 2 342 HCM Control Delay, s 154 HCM LOS C HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) Carmax Renton 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour 852 135 131 721 7 67 6 6 4.45 375 250 800 704 368 245 795 309 702 362 853 720 133 739 6.39 639 3.761 251 379 810 245 318 373 804 155 C 851 720 131 679 5.79 579 4.261 269 394 739 264 330 388 737 685 6.49 3.561 405 403 0 A 0 131 0 0 681 0 0 4.19 43 2.281 2.38 1412 833 1407 830 0.2 0 Synchro 8 Report Lanes, Volumes, Timings 4: SW 41 st St & Site Access 4/1/2015 .,,. -+ " 'f +-"--'"" t I' \. i .' «-·-,. Lane Configurations 'I 'I .;. .;. Volume (vph) 12 2 29 45 0 2 8 5 0 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 968 391 163 143 Travel Time (s) 26.4 107 4.4 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 21% 21% 21% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour HCM 2010 TWSC 4: SW 41 st St & Site Access 4/112015 :~ .. ;;;,,, -;;· Int Delay, slveh 1.2 Iii!!! , I ~ , --', , : Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length 50 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 1 1 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 21 21 21 5 5 5 0 0 0 6 6 6 Mvmt Flow 14 76 2 34 435 53 0 2 9 6 0 19 Conflicting Flow All 488 0 0 79 0 0 392 662 39 598 637 244 Stage 1 106 106 530 530 Stage 2 286 556 68 107 Critical Hdwy 4 52 42 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.62 662 7 02 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 6.62 5.62 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 6.62 5.62 Follow-up Hdwy 2-41 2-25 3_5 4 3_3 3.56 4.06 3.36 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 949 1495 547 385 1031 378 385 744 Stage 1 894 811 490 515 Stage 2 703 516 923 796 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 949 1495 518 371 1031 362 371 744 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 564 424 419 428 Stage 1 881 799 483 503 Stage 2 670 504 898 784 .,.. .. .i_, ,·_;.'.\',· 'ff,(, ':/.-':'·' Ml-"' •':/·. .·:f_ ., ; ::"9-r,_,\·.1·:·:·:-·<t~r ,-;·:,. 'j'' ,':':-rilf:'" 't· HCM Control Delay, s 13 05 9.6 11 HCM LOS A B ••· 1111f1111·11t10ll:'c..',. •1\1 xa :m,.:a~a-,r,11r, !fll!ll.lll!/' >:~,:~:~}~-;':~-: ,'.·.··;{·::,:/:~ . .-,: . · ... ;\; \;..i,i)~-/~' ·.; Capacity (vehlh) 802 949 -1495 628 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.015 0.015 -0.023 -0.039 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 8.9 7.5 11 HCM Lane LOS A A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 0.1 0.1 Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Lind Ave SW & SW 39th St/Site Access Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Right Tum on Red Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles(%) Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split(%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode -+ ·;-0t{·;-~,FW1 ·:r.11[;{/ 'I .. 6 0 1900 1900 0 1 25 25 404 11.0 1 0.84 0.84 13% 13% Perm NA 4 4 4 4 4.0 4.0 24 0 24.0 30.0 30.0 375% 37.5% 4.0 4.0 00 00 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 None None +- 10 9 1900 1900 0 0 0 0 25 Yes 25 522 14.2 1 1 0.84 0.84 0.84 13% 3% 3% Perm NA 8 8 8 8 4.0 4.0 24.0 24.0 30.0 30.0 37.5% 37.5% 4.0 4.0 00 00 00 4.0 None None 4/1/2015 t I' 16 31 131 17 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 25 Yes Yes Yes 35 35 614 576 12.0 11.2 1 2 4 4 2 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 3% 3% 3% 3% 15% 15% 15% pm•pt NA pm•pt NA 1 6 5 2 6 2 1 6 5 2 4.0 10.0 4.0 100 8.0 25.0 8.0 25.0 15.0 35.0 15.0 35.0 188% 43.8% 18.8% 43.8% 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 00 1.0 0.0 1.0 00 00 00 0.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lead Lag Lead Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes None None None None •,,;."!''£;' ,·rct·'"" IMl6i'j .... ,, .... ,~.,-.... __ _... ....... ''"·:·,...~ .. .-~..C' ..... ....;·· .. :! ... ·-( .. >.-... ~;~ .. ts .. :::"':\ .. ·'r:_·:•:-_: ... : .... \·_.J .. 2:.;.:·' ..... ...; ......... ...;..;;;;..;.:w....c. ..... .c.... ....... Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 36.3 Natural Cycle 60 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 5: Lind Ave SW & SW 39th SUSite Aocess 5s 5s Carmax Renton 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Lind Ave SW & SW 39th St/Site Access 4/1/2015 .,> -.. f +-' .., t ~ \. + .; Lane Configurations "i 4, "i tf. "i tf. Volume (veh/h) 6 10 9 9 16 186 652 31 9 131 17 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 100 100 0.99 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 100 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1681 1681 1900 1900 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 1652 1652 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 0 12 11 11 19 221 776 37 11 156 20 Adj No of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 15 15 Cap, veh/h 258 0 76 133 19 33 946 1785 85 562 1445 183 Arrive On Green 0 05 000 0 05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.52 052 0 10 0.52 0.52 Sat Flow, veh/h 1236 0 1425 358 358 619 1757 3405 162 1573 2803 354 Grp Volume(v). veh/h 7 0 12 41 0 0 221 399 414 11 86 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hnn 1236 0 1425 1335 0 0 1757 1752 1815 1573 1570 1588 Q Serve(g_s). s 00 00 0.3 10 00 00 2.2 5.6 5.6 0.1 1 1 12 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.6 5.6 0.1 1.1 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 100 0.27 046 1.00 009 1.00 0.22 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 258 0 76 185 0 0 946 919 951 562 809 819 VIC Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.22 0.00 000 0.23 0.43 043 0.02 0 11 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 991 0 922 1117 0 0 1239 1309 1356 837 1172 1186 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.1 00 18.1 18.8 00 00 3.3 59 5.9 3.4 5.0 50 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Oelay(d3),siveh 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 %ile BackOfQ(O'lo),vehnn 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 00 1.0 3.0 3.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.1 00 19.5 19.6 00 00 3.5 71 70 3.4 5.2 5.2 LnG~ LOS B B B A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 19 41 1034 187 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.0 19.6 6.3 5.1 Approach LOS B B A A · ,~.~~~,;'~fq.f'Jrli 1~?Yiitl~~1J;i:~~t '":;;'Ji'"'"'" , 'iir -~r,lf;i;_;.~y:;_ Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 25.7 6.2 8.0 26.1 6.2 Change Period (Y+Rc). s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 30.0 26.0 11.0 30.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 4.2 3.2 2.3 2.1 76 34 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 15.1 0.3 00 134 0.3 ~ !ii! il I lli•ij, ·'·--,;'1.(,f:f-, f~_,/.'' .::;)./)~::,: r: -:.1:;-,;.;.-,'.-'.f~·~.:.,. -:;,::·-1 :.· ._, t --~-1,~; \-:fi~l-fL\~f.\~~:~':i:.i->{:\-:.·:'. ·.)i/:i":~ ~t.:.:: "f'?it::-.::-:"<\'I':~' HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.7 HCM 2010 LOS A Carmax Renton Synchro 8 Report 2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour CarMax Auto Superstores 3751 E. Valley Road Renton, Washington, 98057 Technical Information Report Commercial Redevelopment April 6, 2015 1505 Westlake Ave. N Suite 305 Seattle. WA 98109 T 206.522.9510 F 206.522.8344 www.pacland.com Prepared By: Willis Liu Reviewed By: Sarah Pangelinan, P.E. CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Table of Content~ Section Page Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2 Section 1-Project Overview .......................................................................................................... 4 1. Tl R Worksheet ................................................................................................................... 4 2. Site Location ...................................................................................................................... 9 3. Drainage Basins, Site Characteristics, and Subbasins ......................................................... 10 4. Soils ................................................................................................................................. 12 Section 2-Conditions and Requirements Summary ..................................................................... 12 Section 3-Off site Analysis ........................................................................................................... 15 1. Upstream Analysis ............................................................................................................ 15 2. Downstream Analysis ....................................................................................................... 15 3. Evidence of Existing or Predicted Problems ...................................................................... 18 Section 4· Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ................................... 19 1. Hydro logic Analysis ......................................................................................................... 19 2. Existing Site Hydrology .................................................................................................... 19 3. Developed Site Hydrology ............................................................................................... 20 4. Flow Control Analysis ...................................................................................................... 20 5. Water Quality System ....................................................................................................... 20 6. New PGIS ........................................................................................................................ 21 Section 5· Conveyance System Analysis and Design .................................................................... 21 1 . Conveyance ..................................................................................................................... 21 2. 100 Year Flood/Overflow Condition ................................................................................. 22 Section 6-Special Reports and Studies ........................................................................................ 22 Section 7-Other Permits ............................................................................................................. 23 Section 8-CSWPPP Analysis and Design ..................................................................................... 23 Section 9-Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant.. ......................... 24 Section 10-Operations and Maintenance Manual ....................................................................... 25 Appendices: A -Exhibits/ Grading and Drainage Plan PACLAND B -Act Ill Theaters Drainage Report C -Design Calculations Project #10298005 Page 1 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Executive Summary Site Location: The property is located at 3751 E. Valley Road in Renton, Washington. The site is bordered by SW 41" Street to the south, E. Valley Road to the east, a Harley-Davidson dealership to the north, and a medical and retail mixed-use building to the west. The site is currently developed as the Act Ill Movie Theater, which has a building footprint of 61,856 square feet, with associated parking and landscaping. A wetland and a stormwater detention and water quality facility is also located on the western 1.13 AC of the site. The entire lot is approximately 12.28 acres in size. This project proposes to demolish the existing theater and redevelop the site to become a used car dealership. The project site lies within the Lower Green River Subwatershed, which is part of the Green/Duwamish Watershed. It is in the City of Renton Black River drainage basin. The project site is located in the City of Renton Employment Area Valley Overlay District (Valley Community Planning area). A portion of the property is zoned IM (industrial medium) and the remainder of the property is zoned CA (commercial arterial). Design Criteria: The City of Renton uses the King County Surface Water Management Design Manual (KCSWDM), 2009 Edition, as adopted by the City of Renton and the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual, dated February 2010. The existing site is developed and entirely impervious with the exception of landscape islands and the existing wetland and stormwater facilities along the western property line. The overall impervious area will remain approximately the same, and additional required detention is not anticipated for this project. However, additional water quality treatment will be provided to meet the requirements of Core Requirement #8 as the project will increase the pollution generating impervious surface by more than 5,000 SF. Table 1 Jurisdictional R""uirements Peak Runoff Control: Peak Rate Flow Control Standard Matchimz Existinl! Site Conditions 2-vear: Match existinl! site conditions 10-vear: Match existing site conditions 100-vear: Match existing site conditions Water Oualitv: Enhanced Basic WQ Treatment Preceding detention 60% of the developed 2-year peak flow rate Downstream of detention The full 2-year release rate from detention facilitv Proposed Drainage System: The project proposes to utilize the existing stormwater system for conveyance, water quality, detention, and flow control and provide improvements, as necessary, for additional conveyance and water quality treatment. Revisions to the stormwater system are anticipated to accommodate the new building configuration and regrading of the site. PACLAND Project #1 0298005 Page 2 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Conclusion: The proposed stormwater management system for this project has been designed in accordance with regulatory criteria described above and is consistent with sound engineering practice. The site has been analyzed to determine the requirements for detention and water quality treatment, and no significant adverse impacts to the stormwater management system are expected as a result of the proposed development. PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 3 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Section 1-Project Overview Figure 1 -Technical Information Worksheet (KCSWDM 2009) KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner_B_H_I F_on_un_a_to ____ _ Phone (206) 522-9510 Address 1505 Westlake Ave. N., Suite 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Project Engineer Bill Fortunato Company PACLANO Phone (206) 522-9510 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION LJ landuse SeNices Subdivison / Short Subd. I UPO [lJ Building Services M!F I Commerical I SFR !L_ Clearing and Grading 1--Right-of-Way Use Otho, Pens PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Teehnlcal lntormation Report Type of Drainage Review~ Targeted (c1rcie): arge Site Dale (indude revision dates): Data of Final: Pane ADJUSTMENT APPROVAlS Type (circle one): Standard I Complex I I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Renton CarMax ODES P8ffllit # --------- Location Township 023-'--'N ___ _ Range "5--'E'----- Section 30 (SE, SW 1/4) Site Address 3751 E Veley Road RenlOn. WA 98057 Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFWHPA 0 COE404 D DOE Darn Safety [J FEMA Floodptain D COE Wetlands D 01he, CJ Sl"loreline Management D Structural ROckEH)'Nault/ __ D ESA Sect;on 7 Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): ~ Modified I al Site Date (indude revision dates): Dale of Final: Preapplication I Experimental I Blanket Description: (indude conditions in nR Section 2) Date of A--roval: 2009 Surfocc Waler Dc!>iKn Manual J/9/2009 PACLAND Project #10298005 Renton, Washington Page4 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington PACLAND KING COCNTY. WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIG~ :>.f..\'.'-!t::\L TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS I ! Monitoring Required. Yes ® Describe:-------------I -----1 Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY ANO DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan : Valley Community Planning Area Special District Overlays: ~E~m~p~lo~•~••=k~•~•~V~•~ll•~•~--------------- Drainage Basin: City of Renton Black River Drainage Basin Stormwaler Requirements: City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Waler Design Manual Part 9 ONSfTE AND ADJACENT SENSmVE AREAS llJ River/Stream Springbrook Creek D Lake [lJ Wetlands Western portion of site 0 Closed Depression -------- Q Floodplain _________ _ CJ Other ------------ Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes [{J High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) (J Olher 0 Additional Sheets AHached 201)9 Surface Water Design Milnual ' 0 Steep Slope --------- 1:] Erosion Hazard -------- 0 Landslide Hazard------- 0 Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ 0 Seismic Hazard _______ _ 0 Habitat Protection ______ _ Q ---------- Erosion Potential CJ Sole Source Aquifer CJ Seeps/Springs t '912009 Project #10298005 Page 5 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington KING COUNTY, WASHfNGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Pan 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT [l]Qgr§ 2 Q!f§j~ eil!lb!ii:i [lJ fi:mJllitiv§:/QriJi~I ~li!li ~QCDA other Q Q Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TlR SUMMARY SHEET '"'""Me one TIR Sum,.,._., Sheel ...... Thteshold Dtscha--Area' Threshold Discharge Area: tname or descrintion\ Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Oischame at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: 1 Offsite An~ysis Level: (.!Ji 2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: W' 2 / 3 or Exemption Number incl. racilitv summa·· .. sheet\ Small Sile BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at Wtmmrn 12!Jllklll of. Sile Erosion and Sediment Control esc Site Supervisor: TBD Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: rivale Public If Private, Maintenance Lnn R--ulred: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes I No Liabllitv Water Qualtty Type: Basic I Sens. Lake I Enhanced Basicm t Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landsca,_ Man~ement Plan: Yes I No Sneclal R-ulrements las B""licable' Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO / MOP I BP / LMP / Shared Fae. / None Renuirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Majoc f Minor I Exemption 19 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilrties Describe· Source Cont,O, Describe landuse: (comm.findustrial landuse) Describe any structural cootrols: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual l/9/2009 3 PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 6 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington PACLAND KIJ\.G COUNTY. WASIIIN(;TO:>l. SUlff,\CE \VATER DESJ(i~ MANL'AL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET ~~0~;~1 C~o-,~,,-o~I -------~H~;g~h--u-se~S~ite-,-~v~.-.-,~N~o ---------~ -· ·· -----~ Treatment BMP· ------------- Maintenance Agreement: Yes I No with whom? other Oralnaae Structure& Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION i Clearing Limits ~ S1aM;ze Exposed Surtaces ,/ Cover Measures Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ~ Perimeter Protect,on Clean and Remove All Sift and Debris, Ensure Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities i Sediment Retention DFlag Limits of SAO and open space preserva11on areas ./ Surlace Waler Collecllon Drnher 7_ Dewatering Control Dust Control - Flow Con~ Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS tNote: lndude FaciliN Summarv and Sketch\ Flow Control Turvo/Descriotion Water QualitV TvnA/Oesctiption [l]Delention [l] Biofiltration D Infiltration [Zlwetpool D Regional Facility D Media Filtration Dshared Facility [ZJ Oil Control [Z] Flow Control [l] Spill Control BMPs D Flow Control BMPs OOther Oother 2009 Surface Wa1c-r Dci.ign Manulll 4 l-9i200Q Project #10298005 Page 7 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington PACLAND KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS lL Drainage Easement ..... Cast in Piece Vault ~ Covenant ..... Retaining Wall L..... Native Growth Protection Covenant ~ Rockery> 4' High Traci ---Structural on Steep Slope • Other Otho< Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visiled the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best at my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. " 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual s 119/2009 Project #10298005 Page 8 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Figure 2 -Site Location Location: 3751 E. Valley Road. Renton, WA 98057 Section/Township/Range: SW Quarter of Section 30, Township 23, Range 05 Parcel/Tax Lot(s): 1253600030 Size: 12.28 acres City, County, State: Renton, King County, Washington Governing Agency: City of Renton Renton, Washington Design Criteria: 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM (February 2010) PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 9 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Drainage Basin Renton, Washington The project site is located in the Lower Green River Subwatershed, which is part of the Green/Duwamish Watershed. It is in the City of Renton Black River drainage basin. Existing Subbasins The following information is from Drainage Calculations for Act Ill Theaters, City of Renton, Washington, prepared by Brant 0. Merci I, P.E. of Horton Dennis and Associates, revised August 8, 1996, the full report is included in Appendix B. "Runoff from the parking area in front of the proposed building [Act Ill Theaters] will be conveyed in a storm drain pipe system to a grass-lined swale in the proposed wetland buffer at the rear of the building. The swale has been designed with a flat slope to promote water quality through ponding prior to discharge into the detention basin. The swale will outfall into the first of three water quality ponds. These ponds have been designed using the methodologies for a combined water quality/detention basin as outlined in the 1992 edition of the King County Stormwater Management (SWM) Manual. While the above mentioned grass lined swale will provide some water quality benefits, site constraints precluded the design of a bio-filtration swale meeting the requirements of the King County SWM Manual. To compensate for use of a smaller swale, additional storage has been provided in the proposed water quality ponds. Additional water quality storage has also been provided to compensate for paved areas downstream of the proposed facility ... The detention basin has been designed to release flows at or below the pre developed rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year storms per City of Renton standards ... The control structure in the detention system will discharge to a 15-inch storm drain pipe. The storm drain pipe will extend approximately 450 feet west to a connection with an existing 60-inch storm drain pipe on the west side of Lind Avenue. The 60-inch storm drain pipe continues approximately 1300 feet north, then 1,000 feet east to an outfall in Springbrook Creek.• The design of the existing facilities used a single basin with a tributary area of 13.23 AC. This was estimated by starting with the project site area of 12.28 AC, subtracting 0.86 AC of bypass area, and adding 1.81 AC to include the offsite wetland mitigation area, offsite areas (former Home Base and warehouse), and the area of Lots 4 and 6 of the Northern Railroad BSP No. 014-92. The bypass areas include landscaped areas that drain offsite along the south and east edges of the property, a portion of the driveway access to SW 41 '' Street, and the driveway access to E. Valley Road on the north side of the property. Although the initial drainage report was developed using a single basin, the site can be analyzed more effectively by examining five subbasins. There are five outfalls that discharge into the grass- lined swale in the rear of the building that lead to the water quality ponds before entering detention basin and discharging at the control structure. Starting at the north end of the swale and moving south, the first outfall discharges runoff from a half of the roof of the theater and approximately a third of the parking area in front of the building (Subbasinl). The next three outfalls each connect to single catch basins, capturing runoff from the parking area in the rear of the building (Subbasins 2, 3, 4). The southernmost outfall discharges runoff from the remaining portion of the roof, the southern portion of the parking area in front of the building, Lots 4 and 6, and the driveway access to the adjacent property to the west (Subbasin 5). See Appendix A Exhibit A-Existing Subbasin, detailing the subbasin characteristics, flow routes, and discharge points. PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 10 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Proposed Subbasins The proposed storm drainage system will be composed of the same approximate subbasins as the existing. See Appendix A Exhibit B-Proposed Subbasin, detailing the proposed subbasins. As shown in Table 2 -Site Areas, the impervious area is decreasing as a result of this development. Additional landscaping and a reduction in building square footage will allow for an increase in pervious areas. The areas below are based on the 12.28 acre project site since we are not proposing changes to the bypass, offsite wetland mitigation area, offsite areas, or the area of Lots 4 and 6 of the Northern Railroad BSP No. 014-92. Table 2 -Site Areas Existine Area (SF) Prooosed Area (SF) Surface Roof 61,856 20,221 Landscaping/Wetland (Pervious) 91,985 90,245 Pavement (PGIS) 345,918 389,293 Total 534,917 534,917 Site Characteristics The property is located at 3751 E. Valley Road in Renton, Washington. The site is bordered by SW 41" Street to the south, E. Valley Road to the east, a Harley-Davidson dealership to the north, and a medical and retail mixed-use building to the west. The site is currently developed as the Act Ill Movie Theater, which has a building footprint of 61,856 square feet, with associated parking and landscaping. Two wetlands and a stormwater detention and water quality facility is also located on the western 1.13 AC of the site. The entire lot is approximately 12.28 acres in size. This project proposes to demolish the existing theater and redevelop the site to become a used car dealership. The proposed project will include the construction of four buildings, named as follows; Sales (11,017 SF), Service (6,150 SF), Carwash (936 SF), and Presentation (2,118 SF) for a total building area of 20,221 SF. The overall sales display parking area will be approximately 4.07 AC construction of the sales display area will be completed in three phases. The customer and employee parking area will be approximately 2.00 AC. Although the change in impervious surfaces (roof and pavement) is negligible the pollution generating impervious surface are will be increased. Water quality treatment will be provided for an area equivalent to the increase in pollution generating impervious surface. PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 11 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Soils ·•··JI. Figure 3 -Site Soils (USDA SCS Soil Map) The site is mapped as Snohomish Silt Loam (So) and Tukwila Muck (Tu) according to the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey for King County Area, Washington. Section 2-Condition, and Requirf'mf'n/s As required by the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and City of Renton Amendment, this project is subject to a full drainage review. Therefore, the storm drainage design for this project is required to comply with all eight (8) Core Requirements, and six (6) Special Requirements. The requirements have been met as follows: Core Requirement #1: Discharge at Natural Location All surface and storm water runoff from a project must be discharged at the natural location so as not to be diverted onto or away from downstream properties. The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage systems. Response: Onsite runoff will be collected, conveyed and, when necessary, treated. All onsite runoff is subsequently conveyed to the City of Renton stormwater system. The city system discharges into Springbrook Creek (Black River). No downstream impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed improvements as the impervious area will remain approximately the same. Core Requirement #2: Off-site Analysis All proposed projects must submit an offsite analysis report that assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality impacts associated with development of the project site and propose appropriate mitigation of those impacts. The initial permit submittal shall include, at minimum, a Level 1 downstream analysis. PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 12 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Response: See Section 3 of this report for a complete off-site analysis. A Level I downstream analysis will be submitted upon civil plan submittal. Core Requirement #3: Flow Control All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide onsite flow control facilities or flow control BMPs or both to mitigate the impacts of storm and surface runoff generated by new impervious surface, new pervious surface, and replaced impervious surface targeted for flow mitigation. Response: Per the exceptions listed in section 1.2.3.1-A of the City of Renton Amendment to the KCSWDM the project is exempt from flow control requirements as it doesn't increase the I 00-year peak flow by more than 0. I cfs and it is not expected to significantly impact a critical area, or cause severe flooding or erosion problems. The proposed 12.28 acre site generates a 5.03 cfs, a 0.02 cfs increase in the I 00-year peak flow rate from the existing site conditions. Therefore additional flow control facilities, beyond the existing stormwater ponds and flow control structure, are not proposed as part of this project. A detailed summary and analysis of the existing and proposed conditions is provided in Section 4 of this report. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System All engineered conveyance system elements for proposed projects must be analyzed, designed, and constructed to provide a minimum level of protection against overtopping, flooding, erosion, and structural failure. Response: Portions of the existing conveyance system will be reused as part of this project with additional conveyance added to accommodate the new building configuration and site layout. The proposed conveyance system has been designed to convey the I 00-year peak flow. Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control All proposed projects that will clear, grade, or otherwise disturb the site must provide erosion and sediment controls to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, the transport of sediment from the project site to downstream drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties. Both temporary and permanent ESC measures shall be implemented. Response: Erosion and sediment control requirements will be an integral pan of the project construction documents. These measures will include methods to reduce erosion of onsite site soils and to prevent sediments from inadvertently leaving the project site. Additionally the ESC measures will prevent sediment-laden discharge from entering the wetland or existing stormwater water quality or flow control facilities. Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations Maintenance and operation of all drainage facilities is the responsibility of the property owner, except those facilities for which the City of Renton assumes maintenance and operation, and must be maintained and operated in accordance with King County or other maintenance standards as approved by the City of Renton. Response: An Operations and Maintenance Manual is included in this report-see Section I 0. PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 13 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability In accordance with RMC 4-6-030), RDSD shall require all persons constructing any surface water facilities (including flow control/water quality facilities, conveyance systems, erosion control, and road drainage), to post with the City of Renton a bond, assignment of funds or certified check. The applicant must also maintain liability insurance. Response: See Section 9-Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant. The Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet and Declarations of Covenants will be submitted upon approval of the Building Permit plans. Core Requirement #8: Water Quality All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide water quality (WQ) facilities to treat the runoff from those new and replaced pollution-generating impervious surfaces and new pollution-generating pervious surfaces targeted for treatment. Response: The proposed project improvements will increase the pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS) by 1.0 AC. The site has existing water quality in place, the existing swale and water quality ponds, for 7. 94 AC of PGIS. Enhanced Basic Treatment is required if more than 50% of the runoff that drains to the proposed treatment facility is from commercial land use. Additional Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment will be provided for the increase in PGIS. Additionally, an oil/water separator, which will discharge to the sanitary sewer system, will be provided for discharges from the service building and carwash. A detailed summary and analysis of the water quality basin and design is provided in Section 4 of this report. Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements The City of Renton may apply requirements for controlling drainage on an area-specific basis. Potential other adopted area-specific requirements may include: Master Drainage Plans, Basin Plans, Stormwater Compliance Plans, etc. Response: The project site is within Washington State Water Resource Inventory Area 9: Green!Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Recovery. However, the proposed project will have no effect on any salmon habitats. The project site does not lie within any City of Renton Master Drainage or Basin Plans. Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation If a proposed project contains or is adjacent to a flood hazard area as determined by the Renton Department of Storm Drainage, the project must determine those components that are applicable and delineate them on the project's site improvement plans and recorded maps. Response: The project site does not lie within or adjacent to a City of Renton Flood Hazard Area (determined by FEMA FIRM Panels 0978F and 0979F dated May 16, 1995) and therefore does not need to apply the provisions of this requirement. Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities Proper analysis, design, and construction are necessary to protect against the potentially catastrophic consequences if flood protection facilities such as levees and revetments should fail. Response: The proposed project will not rely on an existing flood protection facility, or modify or construct a new flood protection facility. PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 14 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton , Washington Special Requirement #4: Source Control If a proposed project require s a commercial building or commercial site development permit then the water quality source controls applicable to the proposed project shall be applied in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and Renton Municipal Code IV. Response: Water quality so urce controls will be applied in accordance with the KCSWDM and Renton Municipal Code IV. A pollution prevention plan ha s been included in section 8 of this report. Special Requirement #5: Oil Control Projects proposing to develop or redevelop a high-use site must provide oil control in addition to other water quality controls required. Response: High use sites area defined as a commercial or industri al site that (1) ha s an expected average daily traffic count equal to or greater than 100 vehicles /1,000 SF of gros s building area: (2) i s subject to petroleum storage in excess of 1,500 gallons per year; (3) is sub ject to use, sto rage, or m aintenan ce of a fleet of 25 or more diesel vehicles. The proposed development includes an 4,000 gallon, above ground fuel sto rage tank. Storm water runoff from the high-use portion of the site will be treated to capture and detain oil and associated pollutants. Only the impervious surface associated with the high-use portion of the site i s subject to treatment requirements. The site is considered high-use due to the anticipa ted storage /transfer of petroleum in excess of 1500 gallons per year. An oil water sepa rator will be installed to ensure that the runoff from within the proposed service building and car wash. Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protection Area If a proposed project is located within the Aquifer Protection Area as identified in the RMC 4-3- 050, this special requirement requires the project to determine those components that are applicable an delineate them on the project's site improvement plans. Response: The project is not located within an Aquifer Protection Area, and therefore this requirement does not apply. ' Section 3-Off-Site Analysis Upstream Analysis Based on topographic survey and field reconnaissance, there is minimal tributary area to this site. The original drainage report for the theater , completed by Horton Dennis & Associates lists a total of 1.53 AC offsite that contributes to the existing stormwater facility located onsite. City of Renton catch basins and inlets along E Valley Road along the eastern side of the site intercept road runoff before it reaches the site. Additionally, the existing topography surrounding the site prevents any significant amount of run-on. Downstream Analysis After the runoff passes through the ex isting stormwater detention /treatment facilities , runoff enter s the municipal stormwater system at Lind Avenue SW. This system continues north for PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 15 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton , Washington approximately 1300 feet, before heading west approx imately 450 feet to the discharge point of Springbrook Creek. To meet the requirements of the Le v el 1 down stream analysis, the area up to one mile downstream of the project site must be included . One mile downstream (for this project, downstream is north) from the point where the stormwater leaves the project site is approx imately at the intersection of SW 271h street and Springbrook Creek. As previously discu ssed, the storm runoff leaves the site near the southwest corner and enters in to the Renton Municipal storm system , before traveling along Lind Ave SW and SW 34th St. to the discharge point of Springbrook Creek. Springbrook Creek continues in a northerly direction for approx imately 1.35 miles to the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant. A site visit was conducted on the morning of January 10, 2014. All above ground facilities were examined on site including the wetland/stormwater detention area, catch basins, and swales. No drainage issues such as areas of ponding, overtopping of the detention area, and blocked inlets could be seen onsite. The analysis continued along Lind Ave SW and 34th Street before reaching Springbrook Creek . No drainage problems were observed . A map of the downstream analysis can be seen in Figure 4. Photos from the site visit are shown on the next page . 11 • i w -------~' Figure 4 -Downstream Area (Renton COR Maps) PACLAND Project #10 298005 Page 16 CarMax Auto Superstores # Photo 1 2 PACLAND Te chn ical Information Report Project #10298005 Renton, Washington Description Drainage ditch (swa le) on the north edge of the adjacent Lot 6 The runoff captured in this landsc aped area is routed through a storm pipe connect ing to a catch basin downstream, and then to the water qua I ity treatment ar ea in the rear (to the west) of the building. In the front pa rking area, ne ar the southeast corner of the bu i Id i ng A se ries of catch basins located in the parking area are connected v i a underground stormwater pipes before being discharged into the swa le and wat er qua lity treatment ponds in the rear of the bu i Id i ng. Page 17 CarMax Auto Superstores Technica l Information Report # Photo 3 4 Evidence of Existing or Predicted Problems Renton , W ashington Description To the rear (west) of the theater One of three existing water quality treatment ponds. Stormwater is discharged into the upstream swale, before passing through the treatment ponds and connecting to the City of Renton municipal stormwater system. Crossing of Springbrook Creek and 341h St This is the discharge point of the municipal stormwater system downstream of the site. There is no visible evidence of drainage problems on or near the project site. In addition, no drainage problems are predicted as a result of the proposed improvements. PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 18 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Section 4-Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design The City of Renton Amendment to the KCSWDM applies flow control standards based on geographic areas as determined by the Flow Control Application Map. The project site lies within the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard -Matching Existing Conditions. This area requires peak runoff control within the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area such that the post-developed peak rate matches that of the existing 2-year, 10-year and 100-year peak discharge rates. Also, if the proposed re-Oevelopment is located within the peak Flow Rate Control Standard Area, will not increase the existing condition 100-year peak flow be greater than 0.1 cfs, and the increased runoff (if any) will not significantly impact a critical area, severe flooding problem, or sever erosion problem than the facility requirement is waived. Hydrologic Analysis The existing and proposed site conditions were evaluated using both the King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) The detailed KCRTS output has been included in Appendix C -Design Calculations The historic 1-hour duration in the Sea-Tac rainfall region (location scale factor ST-1.0) was used to model runoff in KCRTS. Existing Site Hydrology The existing site includes a storm drainage system designed to collect storm water at strategically placed catch basins throughout the site. The storm water is then conveyed through underground pipes to a swale at the rear of the building. After traveling through the one of the two swales, runoff enters the first of three water quality ponds. The water quality ponds discharge to the detention basin. Stormwater runoff discharges to the municipal stormwater system in Lind Avenue SW via the existing flow control structure which has a 15-inch outlet pipe. The municipal stormwater system routes to a discharge point of Springbrook Creek. The existing detention basin was designed to release flows at or below the pre-<Jeveloped rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year storms. The pre- developed conditions and existing peak runoff rates for the project site area are shown in Tables 4 and 5 below. Table 4 Pre-Developed (Existing) Conditions Area Condition 7.94 AC Pavement (PGIS) 2.92 AC LandscapeMtetland 1.42 AC Roof Table 5 Existinll l'eak Runoff Rate Event Rate (cfs) 2-vear 2.54 10-vear 3.03 100-year 5.01 PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 19 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Developed Site Hydrology The proposed project will have similar hydrology to the existing site. It is anticipated that the existing systems (conveyance, detention, and treatment) will be utilized as the overall site hydrology and division of subbasins will remain approximately the same. The amount of pervious area is increasing due to a reduction in building size and additional landscaping, however the site PGIS will be increased as a result of the decrease in building size. The post-developed conditions and undetained peak runoff rates for the entire attributed basin area (12.28 acres) are shown in Tables 6 and 7 below. Table 6 Post-Developed Conditions Area Condition 8.94 AC Pavement (PGIS) 2.88 AC Landscape/Wetland 0.46 AC Roof Table 7 Existing Peak Runoff Rate Event Rate (cfs) 2-year 2.55 10-year 3.04 100-vear 5.03 Flow Control Analysis The post developed 100-year peak runoff rate for the overall site increase by 0.02 cfs from the existing condition. The increase in the 100-year peak runoff is less than 0.1 cfs, and the project is located in the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area, therefore any additional flow control facility requirement is waived for this project. The existing flow control facilities consist of the following structures inside of a 54 inch diameter catch basin manhole; a 1 inch diameter orifice with an outlet elevation of 10.87, a 3.5 inch diameter orifice with an outlet elevation of 15.00, a 6 inch diameter elbow with an outlet elevation of 15.50, and a 15 inch diameter restrictor with an overflow elevation of 16.50. The control structure discharges to a 15-inch storm drain pipe before connecting into the Renton Municipal storm system. See Appendix B for the Act Ill Theater Drainage Report, which includes illustrations and calculations for the existing flow control system. Water Quality System The proposed redevelopment includes demolition of the existing theater; construction of the sales, service, car wash, and presentation buildings, reconfigurations of landscape islands and repaving of the existing parking area. The roofs of the proposed buildings will be considered non pollution-generating impervious surfaces (NPGIS). The amount of pollution-generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) will be increasing as a result of the decrease in roof area. PACLAND Project #1 0298005 Page 20 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington There are two existing grass-lined biofiltration swales which discharge to three water quality ponds in series. The swales and water quality ponds were sized for the existing impervious area, as detailed by the drainage report by Horton Davis and Associates. The project will add 1.0 AC of new PGIS. This is more than 5,000 SF of new PGIS, therefore additional water quality treatment will be provided. A two-step treatment train including a StormFilter system with ZPG media followed by a StormFilter with CSF media is proposed to meet the Enhanced Basic Water requirement in King County Surface Water Design Manual. The Enhanced basic treatment will be provided for the increased PGIS. New PCIS Areas The new PGIS is a result of the revisions to the site layout and the reduced building size. It isn't possible to collect the exact area of new PGIS however the majority of the new PGIS, located within the existing building footprint, will be treated. The treated basin is part of the proposed vehicle storage area and will be greater in size than the increase in the new PGIS. The total area in the proposed Water Quality Basin is 1.63 AC, Exhibit 3 -Water Quality Basin in Appendix A depicts the area to be treated. Tables 8 and 9, below, contain the developed conditions of the treatment basin as well as the water quality design flow rate (60% of the developed 2-year peak flow rate). Table 8 Water Quality Basin Area Condition 1.63 AC Pavement (PGIS) OAC Landscape/Wetland OAC Roof Table 9 Water Quality Flow Rate Event Rate (cfs) 2-vear 0.776 60% of 2-year 0.466 Section 5-Conveyance System Analysis and Design Conveyance Per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Section 4.2.1.2, the on-site stormwater conveyance can be calculated based on gravity flow analysis of the piping network. Peak run-off associated with and up to a 25 year storm event has been determined to be adequate. Uniform flow analysis utilizing Manning's equation, shown below, was employed with a Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n) of 0.012. PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 21 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Manning's equation -Q= 1.4% xAxR 213 xS 112 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) Based on the revised basin areas and existing pipe sizes, the existing conveyance system is adequate for the 25-year storm event. All new conveyance pipes will also be designed to convey the 25-year storm event. Additionally, the overflow from a 100-year storm event will not create or aggravate a severe flooding problem or severe erosion problem. 100-Year Flood/Overflow Condition Review of the current FEMA FIRM maps (Panels 0978F, 0979 F) indicates that the project site lies within the Zone X, which is determined to be outside of the 100-year flood plain. If the existing storm system were to experience a major storm event, the stormwater detention area would overflow in to the rear access drive, and along the road westerly towards Lind Ave SW. The stormwater system for this project has been designed to address the storm events in accordance with design criteria described previously. In the event of a larger storm, it is unlikely that the system would fail. Based on a review of the site and immediate surroundings, the overflow of the stormwater conveyance system would allow surface water to sheet flow to the public storm system in Lind Avenue. Sf'ction 6-Spf'cial Rf'ports and Studies The following Special Reports and Studies were used or have been completed for this project: • Drainage Calculations for Act Ill Theaters, City of Renton, Washington-dated August 8, 1996 by Horton Dennis & Associates Inc. • Repon for Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan, presented to Act Ill Theaters, City of Renton, Washington-dated September 16, 1996 by W & H Pacific. • Wetland Study-dated approximately December 1991 by David Evans and Associates, Inc. • Geotechnical Investigation-by Zipper Geo Associates • FEMA FIRM Panels 0978F and 0979F dated May 16, 1995 • Wetland Study-by H & S Consultants PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 22 • • • CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Section 7-Other Permits The following governmental approvals or permits will likely be required for this project: • City of Renton SEPA Determination • City of Renton Site Plan Review • City of Renton Building Permit • City of Renton Construction Permit • City of Renton Demolition Permit • Washington State Department of Ecology, NOi Coverage under the NPDES Permit These permits will require approval by the City of Renton Planning Division or the Department of Ecology. Section 8-CSWPPP Analysis and Design All erosion and sediment control measures shall be governed by the requirements of the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Ecology. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared to assist the contractor in complying with these requirements. The Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) plan will be included with the construction plans. 1. Erosion Risk Assessment The degree of erosion risk on the proposed project site is minimal. The following factors contribute to a low degree of erosion risk: • Slope across the site is minimal. Runoff will not travel at high velocities across the site and, therefore, wi II not cause noticeable erosion impacts. • The si.te consists primarily of impervious surfaces. 2. Construction Sequence And Procedure The proposed development will include 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 stabilized construction entrances, 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 . Attend a pre-construction meeting with the City of Renton. 2. Install temporary erosion control features. 3. Demolish existing structure(s). PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 23 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington 4. Clear and grub expansion area. 5. Grade site. 6. Construct buildings. 7. Pave site and install landscaping. 8. Remove temporary erosion control features once site is fully stabilized. 3. Trapping Sediment Structural control measures will be used to reduce erosion and retain sediment on the construction site. The control measures will be selected to fit specific site and seasonal conditions. The following structural items will be used to control erosion and sedimentation processes: • Stabilized construction entrances • Filter fabric fences • Catch Basin Inlet Sediment Protection • Proper Cover measures Weekly inspection of the erosion control measures will be required during construction. Any sediment buildup shall be removed and disposed of off-site. A stabilized construction entrance will be installed at the site entrance to avoid vehicle tracking off mud off-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 of 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 14 days and, in some cases, immediate seeding will be required. 4. Wet Season TESC Operating Plan Work between October 1" and April 30th must adhere to the Wet Season Special Provisions noted in the 2009 KCSWDM. Section 9-Bond Quantiti<>s, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant The following items will be submitted upon application for the civil permits: • Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet • Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control BMPs • Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control and WQ Facilities PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 24 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Section 10-Operations and Maintenance Manual A manual detailing the operations and maintenance for all privately-maintained flow control and water quality facilities will be submitted upon application for civil permits. This manual will also include Appendix A of the KCSWDM (Maintenance Requirements for Flow Control, Conveyance, and WQ Facilities). PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 25 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Appendix A -Exhibits PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 26 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington EXHIBIT A -EXISTING SUBBASIN PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 27 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 28 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington EXHIBIT B -PROPOSED SUBBASIN PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 29 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report I .......__~.;;;,a: r'/1 I' ~ PACLAND Project #1 0298005 Renton, Washington \ I I I " I / J Ii Page 30 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington EXHIBIT C -WATER QUALITY BASIN PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 31 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington ~ Cl) ; J ~ ....... ...... ~ CJ 1~ ftj 1i ! a;;: I I I ~ a;;;. ifi Q:: c.f ~ ~ ),... ..... ...... ...... ~ I.Li ..... ~ ~ PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 32 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Appendix B -Act Ill Theaters Drainage Report PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 33 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR ACTfflTBEATRES CI1Y OF RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared By: HDA File No. 9S66.00 ····,·~. ' ·~--,,, ,· ;..,,..t'., \ ·~•.,:( Introduction: . . . . . . Summary of Results: TABLE OF CONTENTS • • • • • • • '< '' • •''' '••••••I•'•••'''••'••'•••''••''•• • o •'' • I I I I IO o o • • •'' '' • •''' •' o • • •' <' •' •''' • •' •' •',••••••I•'••• Basin Summaries: ............ . ......................... ''.' ........ ' 2 5 Detention Basin Design Data: • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Water Quality: ................................. . 11 Drainage Area Map: ...................................... . 17 4\'lt\ l;,~@;,t7~~Jit%."Si;';;i!t:[:1f~~;8.f:jli{G;:'.0 . , TIJ:r:St+:J:{l:;(U!l?, l ' i ,' i ' '.'• INTRQDUCTIQN The following computations present the preliminary design of a stonnwater detention system for the proposed Act III Theater Facility. The proposed 12.28 acre development, comprised of a 56,896 square foot theatre with 13 screens and 3,584 seats, is located on the west side of East Valley Highway, north of SW 41st Street in the City of Renton. EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS The project site is presently a vacant parcel (Lot 3 of the Northern Railroad Binding Site Plan No. 014-92). The parcel was tilled approximately 18 years ago. The existing ground cover consists mainly of grasses in poor condition over the fill material. The western portion of the parcel has several low areas identified during early project review as wetland areas with low functional values. The site generally drains from east to west to the wetland areas at an average slope of 0.25 percent. The 1unoff curve number and time of concentration for the pre developed condition were obtained from the preliminary drainage calculations, prepared by Bush, Roed and Hitchings in support of the site plan application for the Pace warehouse development (SP-OOS-92). A copy of the preliminary calculations has been provided at the end of this report. PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS Runoff from the parking area in front of the proposed building will be conveyed in a storm drain pipe system to a grass-lined swale in the proposed wetland buffer at the rear of the building. The swale ha:. been designed with a flat slope to promote water quality through ponding prior to discharge into the detention basin. The swale will outfall into the first of three water quality ponds. These ponds have been designed using the methodologies for a combined water quality / detention basin as outlined in the 1992 edition of the King County Stormwater Management (SWM} Manual. While the above mentioned grass lined swale will provide some water quality benefits, site constraints precluded the design of a bio-filtration swale meeting the requirements of the King County SWM Manual. To compensate for use of a smaller swale, additional storage has been provided in the proposed water quality ponds. Additional water quality storage has also been provided to compensate for paved areas downstream of the proposed facility. Calculations for pond surface area and volume are detailed on page 13 of this report. .;•. ,1 •-:. • "'.{ · ~::~~·v7:r'~.~~~~~~~~~f:~:~->;'._~;:.~:x~/~_:_--~~·:.Y~~.~·-;;~.:·-~, .. ~,;:~~-i~ il' ' jjJ -' ,, ,.J ' ~i·\li: :""'L.~ ' '·->;;,>-~ '·{ l. l!.'1:,\; ... ,. .... '" ,.,.,:..,·· ;,~.'-'·;· .,.,,,t ·, '1' .• , •. ,._,;, ~:i . ·•' :11':,,,·, ~J·~: I '.?0 il) ·l,( ·:,,..tj~1 The proposed detention basin has been deaigned to maximize the volume available for storage of excess storm water runoff while maintaining the hydrology of the existing and proposed wetland areas. The detention basin has been designed to release flows at or below the pre developed rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year storms per city of Renton standards. Detention storage has also been provided fur lievelopment of Lots 4 and 6 of the Burlington Northern Binding Site Plan (BSP 014- 92), immediately south of the proje~.t site. The boundaries of the proposed drainage area tributary to the detention lacility as well as limits of the bypass and off site areas are delineated on the drainage area map at the end of this report. The "Waterworks" program with the Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph (SBUH) method and King County rainfall distribution (USER I) was used in the design of the proposed facility. Control in the detention system will be provided by the following set inside of a 54 inch diameter catch basin manhole. • A I inch diameter orifice with an outlet elevation of 10.87 • • • A 3,5 inch diameter orifice with an outlet elevation· of I S.00 A 6 inch diameter elbow with an outlet elevation of 15.50 An 15 inch diameter restrictor with an overflow elevation of 16.50 The control structure will discharge to a 15-inch stonn drain pipe. The storm drain pipe will extend approximately 4SO feet west to a coMection witn an existing 60-inch storm drain pipe on the west side ofLind Avenue. The 60-inch stonn drain pipe continues approximately 1300 feet north, then 1,000 feet east to an outfall in Springbrook Creek. 2 I I ~ j ' . . .. ~ · .. :·_~...,_~-~~'.~'~»·~"::~~~~~~-t~'M.l-""t:~"~"n .. 0.:----~~ -·.·: '·1 '·. ::::-~-r•:,.~"'-~:':~~ltf'.!~"-~\ ,. ,:,. ·., SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROPOSED DETENTION 5YSTEM Total Area of Project Site: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.28 Acres Less Bypass Area: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.60 Acres Les& Bypass Area Tributary to Home Base Detention Basin: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.26 Acres Total Area of Project Site Tributary to Detention Basin: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.42 Acres Plus Offsite Wetland Mitigation Area: , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.28 Acres Plus Off'site Areas (Home Base and Ex. Warehouse): ......................... 0.01 Acres Plus Area of Lots 4 and 6 (BSP 014-92) Tributary to Detention Basin: . . . . . . . . . . . 1.52 Acres Total Area Tributary to Detention Basin: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.23 Acres l YEAR STORM (WATER QUALITY) Peak Discharge for Pre Developed Conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NI A Peak Inflow to Basin: .............. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.17 cfs Proposed Release Rate: ..... , ............................................ O.OScfs Design Water Surface Elevation: ........ , ..... , ........................... , . 14.01 Approximate Volume of S1orage Provided: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,800 cf 2 YEARSTQRM Peak Discharge for Pre Developed Conditions: . , . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.66 cfs Peak Inflow to Basin: ............ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.53 cfs Proposed Release Rate: ............... , .......... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.55 cfs Design Water Surface Elevation: . , ..................................... , . . . . 15.61 Approximate Volume of Storage Provided: .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,800 cf lQ YE:\R STORM Peak Discharge for Pre Developed Conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. 76 cfs Peak Inflow to Basin: . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 94 cfs Proposed Release Rate: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 03 cfs Design Water Surface Elevation: ........... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. 95 Volume of Storage Provided: . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 63,400 cf 100 YEAR STORM Peak Discharge for Pre Developed Conditions: ........ , ...... , ....... , . . . . . . . 3 .28 cfs Peak Inflow to Basin: ................ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.66 cfs Proposed Release Rate: . , . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . 1.3 7 cfs Design Water Surface Elevation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.38 Volume of Storage Provided: .................................... , . . . . . . 85,300 cf 3 , ;,... .... ~ ~-~--·,:· ... .,..~~~.~'.":"'",-... ~:-. • ·-·1 "~1 -~- ' 3 ! . .., I j I ···1 '·"'"i '"j l\<1,1 ,,1 le ·i 1?s¥;! ,c) ,..J i >'""! ! ''1 ·~; <-I ,,,l .. ,.i ' J'~ ,A ' I ' ' . .:,·,;: '· . ' .·,.~ <;.,;I: BASIN ID: D1-ZX2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL .... : BIUIDf S~IIIS Pllll DKVIILOPZD CONDITIONS NJINII: BASIN 1, !IX. zn STORM 13.23 Acres BABEF!,OWS: o.oo ch USERl PERY 2.00 inches AREA.,: 13.23 Acres 10,00 min CN .... : 81.00 TC,.,,: 60.00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0,20 PEAi< RATE: 0.66 c!s VOL: 0,67 Ac-ft TIME: 520 min BASIN ID: B1-IIX10 SBUH METHODO!.OGY TOTAL ARIA,,, .... : HAMIi: BABIN 1, ZX. 101m STORM 13.23 Acres BASE FLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE ••.• : USERl PERY PRECIPITATION ..•• : 2.90 inches AREA •• : 13.23 Acres TIME INTERVAL ...• : 10.00 min CN .... : Bl. 00 TC .... : 60.00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 1.76 cfs VOL: 1.36 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min BASXN ID: B1-IIX100 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ..•.... : NIIMI!: BASIN 1, ZX. 100D STORM RAINFALL TYPE, •.. : PRECIPITATION ...• : TIME INTERVAL •.•• : 13.23 Acres USERl 3.90 inches 10.00 nu.n BASEFLOWS: AREA •• : CN ..•. : TC •.. ,: o. 00 c!s PERV 13.23 Acres Bl.00 60.00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 3.28 c!s VOL: 2.25 Ac-ft TIME: 190 min 6 IMP 0.00 Acres o.oo o.oo min IMP o.oo Acres 0.00 0.00 min IMP a.oo Acres o.oo 0.00 min ,· - :~ .. ' ,• ' ' ' ':; .•. ~-. ''-·. f'!: ,,,; 111' i,l.~ . BUIN ID: B1-WQ-1 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA,,,.,,.: BASIN S~IBS POST DBVZLOPIIID CONDITIONS N»1Z: BASIN 1, WA'l'ZR QUALITJ STORM BASEFLOWS: 0. 00 ch PERV IMP RAINFALL TYPE ••.. : PRECIPITATION •... : TIME INTERVAL •... : 13.23 Ac.res USERl 0,67 inches 10.00 min AREA,.: CN .... : 2,87 Acres Bl.00 10,36 Acres 98.00 TC., .. : 39.80 min 14,BS min ABSTRACTION COEFF! TcReach -Sheet L: impTcReach Sheet impTcReach -Sheet impTcReach -Chilnnel impTcReach -Channel 0. 20 190,00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0100 L: 20.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0200 L: 50.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0120 L: 990.00 kc:42,00 s:0.0038 L: 165,00 kc:17.00 s:0.0045 PEAK RATE: l,17 cfs VOL: 0.41 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BUIN ID: B1-DBV2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ..•...• : RAINFALL TYPE ..•. : PRECIPITATION •... : TIME INTERVAL .... : N»IZ: BABIN 1, DZV, 2YR S'l'ORM 13. 23 Acres USERl 2.00 inches 10.00 min BASEFLOWS: AREA,,: CN .... : 0, 00 cfs PERV 2. 87 Acres Bl. 00 IMP 10.36 Acres 98.00 TC .... : 39.80 min 14.85 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach -Sheet L: impTcReach -Sheet impTcReach Sheet impTcReach -Channel impTcReach -Channel PEAK RATE: 4. 53 cf., BASIN ID: B1-DZV10 SBUH METHODOLOGY 0.20 190.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0100 L: 20.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0200 L: 50.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0120 L: 990.00 kc:42.00 s:0.0038 L: 165.00 kc:17.00 s:0.0045 VOL: 1.68 Ac-tt TIME: 480 min Nl\M&: BASIN 1, DZV, 10YR S'l'01Vd TOTAL AREA ..• , ... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL •••. : 13.23 Acres USERl 2,90 inches 10.00 min BASE FLOWS: AREA,,: CN .... : 0.00 cfs PERV 2.87 Acres 81.00 IMP 10.36 Acres 98.00 TC.,,.: 39.80 min 14.85 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach -Sheet L: 190.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2,00 s:0.0100 impTcReach -Sheet L: 20.00 na:0.2400 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0200 impTcReach -Sheet L: 50.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0120 impTcReach -Channel L: 990.00 kc:42,00 s:0.0038 impTcReach -Channel L: 16S.OO kc:17.00 s:0.0045 PEAK RATE: 6.94 cfs VOL: 2,60 Ac-ft TIME: 7 480 min ' -i ~ ~ ' ' '.;'..'."/) •. ;•,,•,,"' ~"'.\'-:. '~I;:~~ :, :~:.':1,/i: ~ j··.\t;; ~ r·,T-i _:t ~ii~$ hl:( ., ,. ;!i.~/\' ~-.,:,\ ;t•-,;.;\ , BASIN ID: B1-DB100 SBUH METHODOLOGr TOTI\L AREA, ...... : !IP.INfl\LL TrPE.,.,: PRECIPITATION,,,,: TIME INTERVAL .• ,.: IUIM!:, MSIN 1, DJ:V. 100 YR STORM 13. 23 Ac1·e• USERl 3,90 inches 10.00 min ~l\SEFLOWS: AREA .. : CN,, .. : 0.00 cf• Acres IMP 10.36 Acres 98.00 TC .... : PERY 2,87 81. 00 39.80 min 14.85 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach -Sheet L: 190,00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2,00 s:0.0100 impTc!leach -Sheet L: 20.00 ns:0.14.00 p2yr: 2,00 ~:0,0200 impTcReach -Sheet L: 50.00 ns:0.0110 p2yt: 2.00 a:0.0120 impTcReach -Channel L: 990.00 kc:42.00 s:0.0038 impTc:Reach -Channel L: 165,00 kc:17.00 s:0.0045 PEAK RATE: 9. 66 ch VOL: 3, 65 Ac-tt TIME: 480 min 9 DETENTION BASJN DESIGN DATA ...... ' I .,.~i .,, -~,~~ 11.;;.I~ l c!.' ' ' •···1f:--~::t::,:·;}tld.'{~f~\··?){~!f:~'.·!j/;Jr,tr)·· -· _;,~t-t'.V~f ~:11};~rtzi.t?;lfi.:t1~;fHr?izrt.;f ltl~~~~1irt~~1W~};iw~~~;~.·1~itt.f~J:rrt1ttz,1.: M~#~7.Jk~~%;e~ziB {[i:fiM~!&JM!~~1h>i/i~:M11;~\1}~f:1~}~!I~~J~i~,~\;'!'ti~~~,\/t ~,•·:1·.~,~~,;J.p·,r·:'.ri[\if~~~i[t'4~rt'1' .• 11 W-,•.n•',(r-.~~r.L• .... -'it"Aw:'•,~Nffl,r.f'M,1'.-,.l):o;,,-,;!!~.,t~~~'-t;t'il/:'l,;11,'l,',,.:\."'~t g. -lf"..if ' • ~ ' ' . I· .; .; • ,.-.•. }t I I " i' ,' , .. ;,.-, ,: .:•-~: r:. ........ ,·:;,, ·~·! ,. , . CUSTOM STORAGE ID No. S-4 Descr.iption: P~0P0SED DETEN1'I0N STAG!: STORAG!l TABLE BASIN ST~QE <----~TORACE----> STAGE <-·--ST0RAO£----~ STAG£ <---•STORA.OE----> (!tl ---ct-----Ac-rt-! ftl ---er-----Ac•ft-(rt) ---ct-----Ac-rt- STAGE ~----STORAOt•••-> I ttJ ---et-----,ic-•·t- ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••~••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••w•••••••••••••••••• 1.J,00 o. oroo a. 0000 14.20 11!550 0, 4258 l 5. 40 Hi350 t. Oti40 16.60 91350 2,2Hfl lL 10 1470 0,0331 14, 30 20415 o.nao 15, 50 4'4;5CJ I, I J52 16,70 102150 2 :nee l J. 20 2'41') 0,0615 u. 40 .'.?2400 0.5142 l'!i, 60 5Z55Q I, 20ti4 16. 80 108150 2, 49211 l J. JO HlO o.un2 14. 50 202) 0.5584 15, 10 55fiSO I. :!115 16. 110 llHSO 2,6061 ll. 40 ~B80 0,1350 14,450 l6250 0, 6026 1~.80 5B150 1. J.f81 11,00 I 1B!J50 2, 1301 l l, 50 '1.l50 0. Hi87 14. '10 201,5 0.6466 15, 90 ,11sa 1.4199 J'l.10 1205,0 2.8!41 13.60 91120 0.2025 u .ao JOlOO 0.6910 16.00 fl-4950 l .OJO 11.20 11.9150 2,9'187 lJ, 70 102,;o 0,2J~2 It, 90 32025 a. 1152 U:.10 10J50 1.6150 11. 30 1351 SiJ J,1026 1). 80 11160 0.2100 u.oo llt50 o. ,,, .. 16,20 H150 1. '390 17,40 1404:iSO ). 2266 ll, 90 ll23D o, 3031 15, 10 ]1050 0.8506 1115,30 81150 1,862\l 11, 50 145950 J.3506 t•.oo I 4100 0, ]]1~ 15,20 ·.0150 0,9211 16. 40 86550 I, 9869 14 .10 16625 O,JIH1 13, JO 43250 0,9'i29 lllS,5D 9195D ::. uog ll'l'AGB DISCIIJIRG!l 'l'ABLB MULTIPLB ORIFICE ID No. 0-4 4A (USED IN DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE-DISCHARGE LIST D-2) Description: CATCH BASIN NO. Outlet Elev: 10.87 Elev: 8.87 ft Elev: 15.00 ft Elev: 15.50 ft Orifice Orifice 2 O.rifice 3 Diameter: Diameter: Diameter: 1.0000 3.5000 6.0000 in. in. in. STAG£ <--DISCHARGE. .. --::,, STAG& O.:•-DtsCHMCit• .. -> STAGE <--DlSCHI\RGE---:-STAGE <••DISCHAAGi:•••" lftl ---cf., •• -~-----(ft) ---ctia---------jCtJ ---ct.s---------lftl ---crs-· ------- -·············--·······················--·-··-----~---·-····-····································-------10,8'1 0.0000 U.30 10.,0 o.oon 12.40 ll ,CIO 0.0098 12 .50 11,10 0.01.lO 12.60 11,20 0,01S6 12. 'JO 1 l, JO 0.017B 12. P.O 11. 4 O 0,0198 12.,a 11, 50 0,021!'.i ll,00 11, liO 0.0232 U,10 11.10 (l,0241 il,20 11,110 o.n.u2 n .. 10 11, !)Q 0.02'15 lJ,40 11,00 o.OZ88 lJ.50 12.10 D, 0101 1J ,fiO l2 .20 O.OllJ ll, '10 DISCHARGE LIST Description: CATCH ID No. D-4 BASIi~ NO. 4A O,OJ25 13.80 0.0411i5 15.JO 0.2392 O.OJJ6 IJ, 'ilO 0.0~12 \'5,40 0,2680 0.0.)4ti 14, 00 0,0480 IS. ~O 0-293$ 0.0151 1 t. 10 0,04811 15.60 0. 62'5'5 o.o:wi 14. 20 0,0495 15,10 a. nn 0.01'11 14. JO 0.0503 lS,90 o.n21 0.0)01 14, 40 0.0510 1'5, 1.10 0.9UI 0.03'16 14, 50 0,0511 16,00 \ .0841 O.O~O!i 14. 50 0,052-4 \6, lO l.161,I O.OH4 lL70 o.o~JJ lli, 20 1.2442 (L 0423 1 ~. eo 0,0S38 16. )I) 1. 316i o.aui 1~.90 0,0545 16, 40 l, ll)'J o.ouo lS.00 0.0552 \Ii. so I.HUS 0.0449 1s. 10 o. Hi09 O.On'J 15.20 o.2os1 S'l'AGZ DISCIUIRGZ 'l'ABL!l STAG£ <·-DISCtWmF.---:. STAG£ •:--DISCIIAJl:Cif'.·--• !.TAGE <--OISCtw:lUE---:-S1'Ml ,:--DISCKAA.GE---;,, lftl ---r:r.:i---------trt) •••c(.s---------!Ct) ---d.:i---------(Ct! ·--~t.s--------- ·········································-·--·----·········-·········-----····----·-·-··············-··-13.00 0.0000 IJ, go 0.048') 14. BO 0,0580 IS, 'JI) o. 1100 lJ.10 0.0400 t 4, DO 0,0500 It. 'JO a. 059u l'!i,80 0.11111 IJ,20 0.0411 14, 10 (\,0510 15.00 0,0600 l~.'.10 0.916'1 11, JO 0.0422 14. 20 0.0520 15, 10 o.uoa lf;.00 1.0100 1l.40 O.OUJ 14, )0 0.0530 15, 20 0.1100 16, l(I 1.1600. ll,50 0,0444 14. 40 0.0540 15. JO 0,2400 1(,20 1,2400 ll,50 0.04!15 14. 50 0,0550 U.40 0.2ti50 16.10 l. l201J ll, 70 O.OU7 14.60 0.0560 1 ~.50 0,Z9Dtl 16. 40 I, l850 ll,80 a.one 14. 7C O.G5,'FO IS. 60 O.SJOO 16.50 1.000 JO ~-··· ,_..,-,.,,, . .,..,,!-<.,;·.'.~>' ,,.._,,·), t,•.'-,n,• • .; ( I I f [ l ' I i t ... ' -l .~ ~ ' ' WATER QUALITY ~ 1 ' •~i ! L,;,., '· , .... ._ .. ' > ,,; -J:, :~ ··~-·./_ >-.. :. .~-,' . WATER QUALITY Reference: King County Surface Water Design Manual BIOFil,TRATION Section 1.2.3 Core Requirement No. 3 Threaahold for Biofiltration: MIIXimum Allowable Impervious Area Subject to Vehicular Traffic, A imp: .................. 5,000 SF Proposed Condition: Total Impervious Area Subject to Vehicular Traffic, Aimp: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290,400 SF Biofiltration is required. Because of constraints on site grading, the surface area proposed in the grass-lined swale outfall to the water quality ponds does not meel the design standards outlined in the manual. In order to compensate for tl·,e loss ofbiofiltration area, the proposed wetponds have been enlarged to provide additional surface area and storage volume. The calculations for the proposed wetponds are presented on the following page. 12 ~:-A.• • 0 """", ·"'~~~~:~;~.1,.,.,,.,,. • "· t'. ·· .. ··. ,. . . ,_.., -~ . SPECIAL WATER QUALITY CONTROLS Section 1.3.5 Special Requirement No. 5 As outlined in the introduction, the proposed detention system outfaUs to an existing storm drain pipe system in Lind Avenua for eventual discharge into Springbrook Creek, a Class 2 stream. Since the project site proposes discharge within a one mile radius of a Class 2 Stream, a wetpond is required. The engineering plans propose a three cell combination wetpond -detention basin. Since the suiface area of the proposed grass lined swale could not meet the requirements outlined in the SWM Manual, additional surface area and storage volume has been proposed in the wetponds. As shown in the following calculations, the proposed wet ponds provide over four times the required wetpond surface area and over two time the required wetpond storage volume. This additional surface area and storage volume is intended to compensate for the :imited surface area in the proposed grass lined swale. WETPOND DESIGN Required Water Surface Area, Awq: ......................................... 3,496 SF Awq = One Percent of Impervious Area Impervious Area, Aimp: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349,600 SF Act m Project: ....................................... 290,400 SF Lots 4 and 6 (BSP 014-92): .............................. 50,000 SF Access Driveway tu Lind Avenue: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,200 SF Proposed Water Surface Area, Awq: ........................................ 11,900 SF Ratio of Proposed Water Surface Area to Required Water Surface Area: .................. 3.40 Section I. 3 .5(2) Storage Volume Required Storage Volume, Vwq: ........................................... 17,775 CF Vwq = Total Volume of Runoff from the Mean Annual Storm Vwq = 0.408 Acre-Feet x 43,S60 (See Page 4 for Storm Routing) Total Drainage Area, A: ................................................. 13.48 Acres Act m Project: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.71 Acres Lots 4 and 6 (BSP O 14-92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. 52 Acres Access Driveway to Lind Avenue: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.25 Acres Proposed Storage Volume, Vwq: ............•.............................. 27,350 CF Ratio of Proposed Sto;age Volume to Required Storage Volume: ....................... l.54 The volume calculations for the proposed wetponds are presented on the following page . 13 ...... ,. . .... -,. ··~--.... --· .......... _. . ,., \·: WATER QUALITY PONDS VOLUME CAI,CUALTIONS ,•.·• POND NO. l ws Area Avg. Arca Depth Inc. Volume Elevation Square Feet Squarc Feet Feet Cubic Feet 10.00 J,S00.00 3,850.00 1.00 3,850.00 ll.00 4,200.00 ... S,050.00 2.00 10,100.00 13.00 , .. , .. 5,900.00 .. . POND NO. 2. • . . WS Arca Avg. Arc.1 Dcplh Inc. Volume Elevation SquaniFcct Square Feet Feet Cubic Feet ·, .. 10.00 2,500.00 2,800.00 l.00 2,800.00 .. 11.00 3,100.00 -J,7SO.OO 2.00 7,500.00 13.00 4,400.00 PONDN0,3 WS Arca Avg. Arca Dcp!1' Inc. Volume . Elevation Square Feet SquaroFeet Feet Cubic Feet 10.00 600.00 700.00 1.00 700.00 11.00 800.00 1,200.00 2.00 2,400.00 13.00 1,600.00 Total Surface Area Provided: .............................................................................. . Total Volume Provided: ....................................................................................... . 14 ·-Tola! Volume Cubic Fee. 0.00 3,850.00 13,950.00 Total Volume Cubic Feet 0.00 2,800.00 -10,300.00 Total Volume Cubic Feel 0.00 700.00 3.1110.00 11,900.00 Squaro Feet 27,350.00 Cubic Feet 8/8196 l:13 PM WQSTOI.XLS '. i··.-· ·-·:; \~~ 1.-·,. \._.-. ,. ·~ ·.:,·\;. :c'\ ,· '.tr COALESCING PLATE OllJWATER SEPARATORS Section 1.3.6 Special Requirement No. 6 Threashold for Coalescing Plate Oil/W atcr Separntors Maximum Allowable Impervious Area Subject to Vehicular Traffic, A imp: ................. 5.00 Acres Maximum Number of Vehicle Trips Per Day: ........... , ....... , ... , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500 Trips Proposed Condition: Total Impervious Area Subject to Vehicular Traffic, Aimp: ............................. 6.67 Acres Proposed Number of Vehicle Trips Per Day: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,272 Trips See page 15 of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed theatre project (copy attached). IS ;l",..,.:.-.·,.-........... ~ ........... ~"Ji'g,;:,,~ ... ,,._ ......... . ':-~--:t·':-;:;,\ _-:..,-.(:,,_ ·,_:· .... ..-.·~~--. _:-_. . .. -~ ;;. •'I; :~ '· i ,',·/ ' .. i" ;··~. ,.,:.( .,. ,, , •• • • • . ,•;: .. DRAINAGE AREA MAP 17 ,, ' i ) .. l ' . r· ;· jr '. ~-• . .. -f~ ·., ;:} • 7. . ,} ,. f r I. ' • ....... w ::, z w > < 8W 38TH -.I!.~/ - I 1/ I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f WI: ·11 ! I· I I • .,/ • LOU MlfDDrl 11ft n.a .. 8RLDl9IOII' Ulln:Dlf Nl'SO,et•"N DRAINAGE OII/IOE--+ SITE ,t,.REA TRIBUTARY TO HOME BA-- AREA • 0.11 ACRES ......... )I • " " ...... M,l~,n,:-_) =-:,=. = :-'" -. ,,...,,,.,... .. • • • • I ,· 1· i, ;,: DEll!:LOPEO OFF SITE AREA BYPASSING BASIN • 0.25 ACRES ! :~i rx. ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING ;:" B'rl'ASS AREA • 0.07 ACRES •1 TOTAL AREA OF PROJECT SITE:. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . LESS 8'11'ASS AREA . . . . • . . . . . . . . ................ . LESS BYPASS AREA 'IRIBUTARY TO HOME BASE DETENTION BASIN. TOTAL AREA OF PROJE".:T SITE TRIBUTARY TO DETENTION BASIN . PLUS OFl'SITE WETLAND MITIGATION AREA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLUS OFFSl'IE AREAS (HOME BASE ANO EX. WAREHOUSE). . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLUS AREA OF LOTS 4 AND 8 (BSP 014-92) TRIBUTARY TO DETENTION BASIN. TOTAL AREA mfBUTARY TO DETENTION BASIN .. Off SITE AREA TRIBUTARY TO BASIN _/ • AREA • 0.005 ACRES • . 12.28 ACRES . 0.80 ACRES . 0.26 ACRES . 11.42 ACRES . 0.28 ACRES 0.01 ACRES 1.52 ACRES . 13.23 ACRES ---1 s. w. 4- • • • • • • • • • • ess AREA .. - • • • • • ACRES •. OETENTION BASIN. • OETENTION BASIN . .. . . r;:i1A\E{ TO 0 0ETENTION SAsiN. • IW,!~, Al:ICll"llllffl .. !la'•#olm-.,0,.,..,-.1, .. ~,. .. EX. ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILOINO B'IPASS AREA a 0.07 ACRES Of"F SITE AREA TRIBUTARY TO BASIN AREA • 0.005 ACRES .12.28 ACRES ··-·-·- 0.60 ACRES . 0.26 ACRES . 11.42 ACRES . 0.28 ACRES 0,01 ACRES 1.52 ACRES .13.23 ACRES --------'---~ s.w. 41 ST . .... LOT 6 (BSP 014-92) AREA • O. 76 ACRES BYPASS AREA • 0.04 ACRES STREET I ~ Silt AREA TRIBUTARY TO HOME BASE Orn'.NTION BASIN AREA • 0, 11 ACRES ..... IIIIIDllfO 11n n.AW nll llftUlr9'IOll •o•NDS ... 0..tM•N ammeaoxna.u1 SITE AREA TRIBUTARY TO BASIN • 0.005 ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES I ACRES • ACRgs ACRES ·-·-·- -----'----\- • LOT 6 (BSP 014-92) AREA • 0. 76 ACRES SITE AREA TRIBUTl'.R'( TO HOME BASE DETENTION BASIN = AREA • 0.1 !i t>dRE!; - OFI' SITE AREA TRIBUTARY TO BASIN AREA • 0.002 ACRES / ,, --··-~-----..... __ _ 1',Tw-· .... ,,__ DRA __ _ BYPASS AREA • 0.04 ACRES s. w. 41 ST STREET LOT 4 (BSP 014-92) AREA • 0.76 ACRES' ,...;,i~~~~~~~:---·7~~~·~~-~j~~q~-1;,-;:~~""'~",.:'~~P:,$,~~~ ... ~b\'.:i~~~,1•"'.:,;.~.,-...... ,.,,.,,,,,:..,.i-~-·~~··'"·"1·.~\:;.n_~.-:;h·,~>1·~~,. .. ~,._,_ .... ,. . ·-·. . . p II i' -I / , I I I • ~ i....-... Mhr / I -.... t'ii,. 7 , ..... ..,., / , ' I ~//// .//, I ~/;,-.L '-;; . .'... -:,-1 / . . I . · /.· ,· ·., I ~-··. I '/ / I U:t::~., l I .. I I Lr- I I l~h~: : : . it ,X· . '. , . , , = . ·-·- --4-·_;·=~ LOT 6 (BSP 014-92) AREA •" 0. 76 ACRES BYPASS AREA • 0.04 ACRES ST STREET • ; . . ·.· ·.· LOT 4 (BSP 014-92) AREA • 0, 76 ACRES I - DRAINAGE AREA MAP FOR ACT Ill THEATERS IOALI: 1• • 100' > < 3': :c C!J -:c > w ...I ...I < > I- (I') < w , . I ">. . .~: ri'. ::· .. .. 14...., ... 14 ..... 6 - .">I•_., -~ _ S88'09'51"E··227.95' -•-i .......... :, A ,,, , ,-,,- /;:{tI-=t==---+----==::J1Si \.J~Ji __ ... ·r· ·; ...... -" --.... ---~-----··11-· :~" ~ -ff ~~ ,1 ---:=11 11 sERv1a F=:!!.:==k== "'~=== I I :, ----: '---'====-r" 10 [ \..._ ___ ./ -8 BLACK ANGUS 6,700 S.F. LANDSCA1'£ AREA II AREA OF F.--:-CONSTRUCTION 7 r .tJ2 .... I I I I t I I-I ii I ·1 ...... · .... ,, I . ~,. . -,,,, 'I . :1 '; ._;:·_ •. d < .,. ;: ' tr . SW 114 SEC. 30, TWP. 23 N., Rt3E. a ' . . ' . . ' ' ·, I= I l ---~ ' t cu,-,,,--s'iF,5,•lll"i z~.£· ---• -~ EX ,,-WA EX. HO,fAE BASE/AC,.JllDiiiJli1.I w ... w :It .. w ..... ,,,.d,1--1-. \ ~--~ -----------~I --. . .------~, --------/--~ ' I . .• • ~I -2,-==l:-:. I I -i- 2040 20.9.J. •' . . •, ---~.~·-..;;;.rr .. :: ....... ;:_ .... .,"7 .. ,__.,~-'i"""' "'"1'·' .............. ,. ... ,..,,,.,,.,_.,.,...,. ......... r .. -... .,_'4'.,._ ... ] •.• -- 1, , I I 1 l ; I , ~ Jo I I I .J I I I L II ~ 21. 1 1 1 .ii!'·' 1 LANDrSCAPf 2u,40 ~ , : l : ; i I A~,lj I I ~ ~II I I 1 1 'J'-""'l"'t-. 21J,• l I __.J,•__.. I I J I I , ,- 1 I I I I I !. .1-2100! : ! I I J ; .:.'1 ' I I I I I I i! '--1":=:!I ,, ------- \ r\ V! I ! I i I I :~12~4Q ' ' ' ' ' ··-·i i i : ' ' ' ~• I .. . ----' ' ' • ;./860,r//.l t,.-' • I -----. . ~-. •, , ·' \_,.' 19.10 8.60 rx., .. so .... 19,TO 6 1£ 16.27 ' • .. !". ----~-- ' ' \ '""I I I I I I r. ·, .. ' ,·) ' I ~ ~ • I ~ -->~ .• ' . . :-..::..-~-"·t· .. ;--. ! ... , _·,:·:· I '· 1t-,o • •,I " P9.9p ' 19.70 · 1. · •.~ '. I • ' • I' •• . ' . ~- I L ' 18.80 ---'; : -9 ' .. ••.so \J!=-a--,l=·AL ' ' ' __ ., ~ ' / '•·_·(~-;;:;;··1 " .. ·' 'IS:9(\. \) ; : rp.4Q.~ .. ·. ~ ?W ••.• ., ..... ,..,.,~ ~ • 'J... • ... /' ...... ____ ..... ~_ .... .,.,.'"',.I I:' ' .. • • • •• _J ! ; : ... :· .. _. .• _. .. 19.20 r 1,s.80 19.'IO• • iil " 1p.sa} ~ I I •. • • ' •• • I v.· t .~ -· !i I '. .. . ~-.kiw ·w,~~·.'.;...::....;;'.:·--···· .. -· ...... ~ -r,,..,...--. . .. . .. ···---...... 11 .. / ··-· 'p,; CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington Appendix C -Design Calculations PACLAND Project #1 0298005 Page 34 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS !(CRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project location Sea-Tac Computing Series Carmax Pre-Developed.TSF Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File loading Time Series File C:,l(C_SWDM,l(C_DATA,STTG60R.rnf Till Grass 2.74 acres Scaling Yr: 8 loading Time Series File C:,l(C_SWDM,l(C_DATA,STW160R.rnf Wetland 0.18 acres Adding Yr: 8 loading Time Series File C:,l(C_SWDM,l(C_DATA,STEI60R.rnf Impervious 9.36 acres Adding Yr: 8 Total Area 12.28 acres Peak Discharge: 5.01 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 8 8 8 Storing Time Series File:Carmax Pre-Developed.TSF 8 Time Series Computed PRE-DEVELOPED PEAK FLOW RATES Flow Frequency Analysis -------------------------------------------------------- Time Series File:carmax pre-developed.ts£ Project location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 2.54 6 2/09/01 2 :00 5.01 1 100.00 0 .990 2 .13 8 1/05/02 16 :00 3.47 2 25.00 0 960 3.03 3 2/27/03 7 :00 3.03 3 10.00 0 .900 2.38 7 8/26/04 2 :00 2.85 4 5.00 0 .800 2.85 4 10/28/04 16 :00 2.68 5 3.00 0 .667 2.68 5 1/18/06 16: 00 2.54 6 2.00 0 .500 3.47 2 10/26/06 0 :00 2.38 7 1.30 0 .231 5 .01 1 1/09/08 6 :00 2 .13 8 1.10 0 .091 Computed Peaks 4.50 50.00 0 .980 PACLAND Project #1 0298005 Page 35 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Project location Computing Series Regional Scale Factor Data Type KCRTS Co1tmand CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Sea-Tac Carmax Developed .TSF 1. 00 Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File C :,Kc_SWDM,KC_DATA,STTG60R Till Grass 2.70 acres Scaling Yr: 8 Loading Time Series File C :,KC_SWDM,KC_DATA,STVL60R Wetland 0.18 acres Adding Yr: 8 Loading Time Series File c:,KC_SWDM,KC_DATA,sTEI60R Impervious 9.40 acres Adding Yr: 8 Total Area 12.28 acres Peak Discharge: 5.03 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 rnf 8 rnf 8 rnf 8 Storing Time Series File:Carmax Developed.TSF 8 Time Series Coaputed DEVELOPED PEAK FLOW RATES Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:carmax developed. ts£ Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 2.55 6 2/09/01 2:00 5.03 1 100.00 0.990 2.14 8 l/05/02 16:00 3.48 2 25.00 0. 960 3.04 3 2/27/03 7:00 3.04 3 10.00 0.900 2.39 7 8/26/04 2:00 2.86 4 5.00 0.800 2.86 4 10/28/04 16:00 2.68 5 3.00 0.667 2.68 5 l/18/06 16:00 2.55 6 2.00 0.500 3.48 2 10/26/06 0:00 2.39 7 1.30 0.231 5.03 1 l/09/08 6:00 2 .14 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 4.51 50.00 0.980 PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 36 CarMax Auto Superstores Technical Information Report Renton, Washington WATER QUALITY BASIN CONDITIONS KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location Sea-Tac Computing Series Carmax WQ Basin.TSF Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Reduced Creating 15-ainute Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C ,KC_SVDM,KC_DATA,STEI15R.rnf 8 !11.pervious 1. 63 acres Scaling Yr: 8 Total Area 1.63 acres 9 in Year 8 Peak Discharge: 1.92 CFS at 6:30 on Jan Storing Ti11.e Series File Carmax WQ Basin.TSF Time Series Computed WATER QUALITY BASIN PEAK FLOW RATES Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:carmax wq basin.ts£ Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Tillle of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.776 6 8/27/01 18:00 1. 92 1 100.00 0 .990 0.542 8 9/17/02 17:45 1. 4 7 2 25.00 0 . 960 1.47 2 12/08/02 17:15 1. 05 3 10.00 0 .900 0.625 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.868 4 5.00 0 .800 0.822 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.822 5 3.00 0.667 0.868 4 10/27/05 10:45 0. 776 6 2.00 0.500 1. 05 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.625 7 1.30 0.231 1. 92 1 l/09/08 6:30 0.542 8 1.10 0.091 Colllputed Peaks 1.77 50.00 0.980 8 PACLAND Project #10298005 Page 37 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED RENTON RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON, WASHINGTON Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Prepared for: CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, LLC Prepared by: ZGA Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 19023 36th Avenue W., Suite D Lynnwood, WA 9803 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Project No. 1217 .01 February 7, 2014 CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, LLC 1240 Bergen Parkway, Suite A-250 Evergreen, CO 80439 Attention: Subject: Ms. Morgan Landers, AICP Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Renton Retail Development 3751 East Valley Road Renton, Washington Dear Ms. Landers, In accordance with your request and written authorization, Zipper Geo Associates, LLC (ZGA) has completed the subsurface explorations and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed Renton Retail Development. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical recommendations for the project. Our work was completed in general accordance with our Proposal for Geotechnicol ond environmental Services (Proposal No. P-13191) dated November 22, 2013. Written authorization to proceed was provided by CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, LLC Agreement for Services dated December 3, 2013. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this projecl. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Zipper Geo Associates, LLC James P. Georgis, L.E.G. Principal Engineering Geologist Copies: Addressee (2) PACLAND (1) 19023 36'" Avenue West, Suite D JAfvlES P~ John E. Zipper, P.E. Managing Principal Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425) 582-9928 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING .................................................................................................................... 2 DOCUMENT REVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 3 Existing Geotechnical Report .......................................................................................................................... 3 Act Ill Theater Plans ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Regional Geologic Publications ....................................................................................................................... 5 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .................................................................................................................. 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 5 Soil Conditions ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 7 General Considerations ................................................................................................................................... 7 Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 8 Consolidation Settlement Considerations ..................................................................................................... 12 Ground Improvement and Deep Foundation Considerations ....................................................................... 14 Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Structural Fill Materials and Preparation ...................................................................................................... 18 Utility Trenches ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Temporary Shoring ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Temporary and Permanent Slopes ................................................................................................................ 23 Corrosion Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 24 Shallow Foundations ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Light Pole Foundations .................................................................................................................................. 26 Backfilled Permanent Retaining Walls .......................................................................................................... 26 On-Grade Concrete Slabs .............................................................................................................................. 27 Drainage Considerations ............................................................................................................................... 28 Pavements ..................................................................................................................................................... 28 Asphalt Pavements ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Concrete Pavements ..................................................................................................................................... 30 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................................... 30 FIGURES Figure 1-Vicinity Map Figure 2 -Site and Exploration Plan -Existing Condition Figure 3 -Site and Exploration Plan -Proposed Development APPENDICES Appendix A-ZGA Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs Appendix B -ZGA Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results Appendix C -LiquefyPro Summary Output Plates Appendix D -Subsurface explorations and Laboratory Test Results by Others Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT -DRAFT PROPOSED RENTON RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 3751 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON, WASHINGTON Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 INTRODUCTION This report documents the surface and subsurface conditions encountered at the site and our geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed Renton Retail Development. The project description, site conditions, and our geotechnical conclusions and design recommendations are presented in the text of this report. Supporting data including detailed exploration logs and field exploration procedures, results of laboratory testing, and other supporting information are presented as appendices. Our geotechnical engineering scope of services for the project included a literature review, site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering analysis, and preparation of this report. The subsurface evaluation consisted of completing twenty six exploratory borings (designated B-1 through B-26) across the site. The borings extended to depths of approximately 20 to 86.5 feet below ground surface. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site consists of King County parcel 125360-0030 totaling approximately 12.3 acres located at 3751 East Valley Road in Renton, Washington. At the time this report was prepared, the site was developed with a Regal Cinema Theater and asphalt paved parking. Assessor records indicate the theater was constructed in 1996 by Act Ill Theaters. A vegetated stormwater management area with a stormwater pond is located along the west side of the property. With the exception of the stormwater management area, the site is relatively flat and level with adjoining roads with ground surface elevations typically ranging from 22 to 24 feet. Pavement grades slope gently to stormwater catch basins, which appear to discharge to the western stormwater management area. The exterior walls of the theater building primarily consist of Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) construction. Open cracks on the order of 1/16 to 1/4 inch wide were observed in the elastomeric compound present in the CMU wall construction control joints. In general, the cement mortar at inter-block joints were free of significant cracking. Along the west side of the theater building, up to 2 inches of differential settlement Page 1 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 appears to have occurred, as the sidewalks adjoining the building have dropped. The asphalt pavement appears to be in serviceable condition and free of significant cracking or rutting. Existing underground utilities service the development and include storm water, sewer, gas, water, power, irrigation, and communications. Site vegetation primarily consists of lawn near the theater building and ornamental shrubs and small trees in planters and parking lot islands. The site is bordered to the north and west by retail developments, to the south by retail developments and SW 41 ~ Street, and to the east by East Valley Road. A railroad spur approached the site from the west, parallels a portion of the southern site boundary, and terminated about 60 feet south of the existing theater building. The approximate location of the site is shown on the enclosed Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Existing Site features are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan -Existing Condition, Figure 2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand the project will include construction of a new retail facility primarily located near the central portion of the site with a carwash facility located near the east side of the stormwater management area. The retail facility will include service, sales, and presentation buildings. The service building overlaps onto the east footprint and entry of the existing theater. The sales and presentation buildings are located east of the theater entry. The carwash facility is located in the current paved access drive between the theater and the stormwater management area. The development includes approximately 3.48 acres of customer/employee parking, 0.88 acres of sales/staging area secured by gates, and 3.39 acres of sales display area parking. We understand that the existing stormwater management facility will be utilized for this project without alteration. The enclosed Site and Exploration Plan-Proposed Development, Figure 3, shows a generalized depiction of the proposed development. The following table presents a more detailed description of individual development features and is based on the Preliminary Site Plan SP-06 dated November 21, 2013 and the June 18, 2013 Request for Proposal document provided by CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, LLC, unless otherwise noted. Development Feature DESCRIPTION Building construction Tilt-up or masonry structure with interior and perimeter columns and slab-on- grade concrete floor. • Maximum column load: 120 kips Building foundations • Maximum wall load: 4 kips per linear foot • Prototypical foundations bear around 3 feet below finished grade Building finished floor We understand that finished floor elevation will be within about 1 foot of elevation existing grade. (assumed) Page 2 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Development Feature DESCRIPTION • Prototypical slab subgrade support modulus: 100 pci • 3 kip rack post loads supported on 4"x4" base plates Floor slabs • 8 kip vehicle load with 7"x7" contact area (2 kips per tire) • Floor slabs are moisture sensitive and require vapor retarder and capillary break Maximum allowable settlement 1-inch total and Y,-inch differential over a distance of 40 feet Car lift loads 10 kip capacity with 2 kip self-weight Retaining walls are not included in the RFP document. However, we Free-standing retaining walls understand that the project may include short retaining walls less than about 4 feet tall and that geotechnical design recommendations for retaining walls have been requested. Masonry wall Free standing masonry walls will be constructed around the WIP area. Light pole foundations Prototypical light pole foundations are embedded about 7 to 9 feet below finished grade. Below grade areas None Grading Cuts and fills on the order of 1 to 2 feet are assumed. A grading plan was not available at the time this report was prepared. Permanent Cut and fill slopes Assumed to be no steeper than 3H: lV (Horizontal to Vertical). • Asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete pavement designed in accordance with AASHTO design methods • 20-year pavement design period Pavement • Light duty: 7,500 18-kip ESAL's • Heavy duty: 75,000 18-kip ESAL's • Terminal serviceability Index: 2.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW As part of our geotechnical evaluation, ZGA completed a review of an existing geotechnical report for the site prepared for Act Ill Theaters, plans for the ACT Ill Theater, and regional geologic and hydrologic publications. The geotechnical report and plans were provided to ZGA by CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, LLC. A summary of our review is presented below. Existing Geotechnical Report ZGA completed a review of the following geotechnical report prepared for the site. • Geotechnical Report, Act Ill Theaters, SW 41" Street and East Valley Highway, Renton, Washington, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 30, 1996. Page 3 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 The report included five boring logs (borings B-1 through B-5) and laboratory data including a consolidation test. Copies of the boring logs and laboratory test results from the referenced report are enclosed in Appendix D. The approximate exploration locations presented in the referenced report are shown on the Site and Exploration Plans, Figures 2 and 3, and should be considered approximate. The 1996 report concluded that the primary concern for construction of the site is consolidation and settlement of the building associated with new loads imposed on a two to four foot thick organic silt layer underlying existing surficial fill soils. The report provided recommendations for three foundation support options 1) a surcharge fill program within the building area and the use of conventional shallow spread footings, 2) the excavation of the organic silt soils and their replacement with structural engineered fill and the use of conventional shallow spread footings, and 3) the use of timber pile or augercast pile foundation support. Act Ill Theater Plans ZGA completed a geotechnical review of the following plan set for the Act Ill Theater provided by CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, LLC. • Act Ill Theoters, East Valley Cinema, Renton, Washington, 100% Issue, July 1, 1996, 10-21-1996 General Revision. Structural Sheets SlOl, 5102, and 5103 indicate the use of conventional shallow spread foundations. The Structural Notes on Sheet 5103 indicate a design soil bearing pressure off 3,000 psf (dead plus live loads) and reference the Geotechnical Report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 30, 1996. The notes indicate that foundations shall bear on undisturbed soil or approved structural fill. The plans and notes do not indicate the use of deep foundations such a driven timber piles or augercast pile systems. The referenced ACT Ill Theaters plan set did not include civil drawings either in the plan set or cover page index and did not indicate if a surcharge fill program or foundation alignment over-excavation and replacement plan was implemented to limit anticipated consolidation settlement as discussed in the January 30, 1996 Geotechnical Report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. In addition to the referenced ACT Ill Theaters plan set, ZGA completed a geotechnical review of approximately 180 AutoCAD files for the Act Ill Theater provided by CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, LLC. In general, the AutoCAD files appeared to be associated with the referenced ACT Ill Theaters plan set and did not disclose additional information relative to foundation design and remedial measures that may have been completed to limit anticipated consolidation settlements. Page4 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Regional Geologic Publications We assessed the geologic setting of the site and the surrounding vicinity by reviewing the following regional publications. • Geologic Map of the Rentan Quadrangle, Washington. United States Geologic Survey, GQ 405, 1965. • Liquefaction Susceptibility of the Des Maines and Renton 7.5-minute Quadrangles, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geologic Map GM-41, 1994. The project site is located in the Green River Valley about 1 mile east of the Green River. The valley is characterized by intermittent near surface deposits of peat and deep deposits of alluvium on the order of several hundred feet thick in the project area. Pleistocene glacial and non-glacial deposits and Tertiary sedimentary bedrock underlie the valley alluvium. The Geologic Map af the Renton Quadrangle, Washington maps the site as being mantled by Quaternary lacustrine peat (Qlp) deposits. The lacustrine peat is described as containing minor amounts of silt and clay, chiefly as basal beds, and a thin layer of volcanic ash. The surrounding area is mapped as Quaternary alluvium (Qaw) deposited by the White and Green Rivers. The alluvium is described as chiefly sand, silt, and clay containing curvilinear channel gravels and thin peat lenses. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The subsurface exploration completed for this project included twenty six borings (B-1 to B-26) completed across the site. Borings B-9, B-10, and B-11 were advanced to depths ranging from about 64 to 86.5 feet around the perimeter of the proposed retail building using mud-rotary drilling methods. The remainder of the borings were completed using hollow stem auger drilling methods within the building envelope and surrounding development area and extended to depths of about 20 to 21Y, feet. The approximate exploration locations relative to existing site conditions are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan - Existing Conditions, Figures 2. The approximate exploration locations relative to proposed development features are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan -Proposed Development, Figures 3. Soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptive logs of the subsurface explorations and the procedures utilized in the subsurface exploration program are presented in Appendix A. Generalized descriptions of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions are presented in the following sections, and laboratory testing procedures and results are presented in Appendix B. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Conditions The geotechnical borings completed for this project encountered asphalt pavement underlain by fill soils and undisturbed native deposits. For the purposes of this report, soils encountered below the asphalt Page 5 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 pavement have been divided into five primary deposits based on relative density/consistency, gradation, and depositional characteristics. These deposits consist of a top down sequence of fill soils, lacustrine organic silt and peat deposits, alluvial deposit, lacustrine elastic silt deposits, and estuarine deposits. A generalized description of the asphalt and underlying S primary soil units is presented below. Asphalt Pavement: Asphalt pavement was encountered in all 26 borings completed for this project. In general, the asphalt in travel lanes ranged from about SY, to 6 inches thick. Asphalt in general parking areas typically ranged from 4 to 4Y, inches thick with a few scattered locations up to about SY, inches thick. In general, the asphalt pavement was not underlain by a conventional crushed rock top course or base course material and was typically constructed directly on fill soils described below. Fill Soils: Import fill soils were encountered below the asphalt pavement and extended to a depth of about SY, to gy, feet below existing grade at the exploration locations. In general, the upper five to 6 feet of fill consisted of medium dense to dense, moist, gravelly sand to sandy gravel with some silt. The fill encountered below about 5 to 6 feet typically consisted of loose to medium dense, sandy gravel to gravelly sand with silt. The lower relative density of the lower portion of the fill is likely due to poor compaction associated with the presence of water during placement and/or the soft nature of the underlying native soils. Lacustrine Organic Silt and Peat Deposits: lnterbedded organic silt and fine, fibrous peat deposits were encountered below the existing fill soils in all 26 explorations. The interbedded organic silt and peat ranged from about SY, to gy, feet below existing grade to a depth of about 7Y, to 13Yz feet below grade. The thickness of the deposit ranged from about 1Y, feet to 4Y, feet thick with an average thickness of about 3.4 feet. We visually estimated the organic silt to typically constitute about 60 to 70 percent of the total deposit thickness. In general, the organic silt and peat were in a very soft to medium stiff condition. Alluvial Deposits: Alluvial deposits were encountered below the lacustrine organic silt and peat deposits in all 26 explorations and extended to a depth of about 32 to 33 feet below existing grade. In general, the alluvial deposits consisted of loose to medium dense sand with variable silt content. Lacustrine Clay and Silt Deposits: The 3 deeper mud-rotary borings (B-9 through B-11) encountered a layer of very soft, gray, elastic silt below the alluvium. The elastic silt layer was about 3 to 4 feet thick at the exploration locations and extended from about 32 to 33 feet below grade to about 36to 37 feet below grade. Estuarine Deposits: Borings B-9 through B-11 encountered estuarine deposits below the lacustrine clay and silt. The estuarine deposits typically consisted of loose to dense sand with variable silt content and trace shell fragments. The estuarine deposits extended to the total depth explored at 86.5 feet below existing grade. Page 6 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in all 26 borings at the time of exploration. Groundwater depths at the time of exploration were inferred from observations of soil sample moisture conditions, the wetted portion of sampling rods, and/or seepage from the boring sidewalls at the time of auger removal. In general, groundwater depths ranged from about 5 to 12 feet below existing grade at the time of drilling, with an average depth of about 7.5 feet. At five of the boring locations, our groundwater observations indicated the presence of a perched water table at a depth of about 5 to 7 feet above the lacustrine organic silt soils and a lower phreatic water table in the alluvial sand deposits at a depth of about 8 to 11 feet below existing grade. To better characterized site groundwater conditions, the drilling auger was left in borings 8-6, 8-18, and 8-23 for 20 to 30 minutes after reaching the planned boring depth of about 20 feet to function as a temporary well casing. Groundwater was measured in borings 8-6, 8-18, and 8-23 at depths of 8.9, 9.6, and 5 feet below existing grade, respectively. Fluctuations in groundwater levels will likely occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the explorations were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher than indicated on the logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations and perched water above the lacustrine organic silt and peat deposits should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Considerations Based on our subsurface exploration program and associated research, we conclude that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, contingent on proper design and construction practices. The subsurface exploration completed for our evaluation encountered soils susceptible to seismic induced liquefaction settlements and settlement associated with consolidation of fine-grained soils and peat under static loads as discussed below. The liquefaction potential of the development was evaluated relative to seismic hazards resulting from ground shaking associated with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEc) Peak Ground Acceleration in accordance with the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Based on our analysis, we estimate total seismic settlements of approximately 6 to 10Y, inches. We estimate differential seismic settlements of approximately 3 to SY. inches over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. We also completed an evaluation of static settlements associated with new building loads and new fill that may be placed to raise site grades. Based on our evaluation, we estimate total primary settlement Page 7 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 of about 2 to 3 inches associated with new foundation loads, caused by consolidation of organic silt and peat below the existing fill. A grading plan was not available at the time this report was prepared. However, we understand that significant alteration to site grades are not currently planned. To address potential changes to site grades, we evaluated consolidation settlements associated with raising site grades by 1 and 2 feet based on a moist unit weight of 130 pcf for new compacted structural fill. Based on our evaluation, we estimate total primary settlements of about Y, to 1 inches associated with raising site grade 1 to 2 feet, respectively. If grades are raised in the building envelope, these settlements would be additive to the settlements presented for foundation loads. We estimate the time required to achieve primary settlement to be about 3 to 5 weeks. Secondary consolidation would continue after primary consolidation over the life of the development, but at a much slower rate. We estimate secondary consolidation settlements on the order of 3 to 6 inches over 30 years. Settlements resulting from the weight of new fill could impact the performance of settlement sensitive improvements which are supported on-grade. In general, we recommend that the grading plan be developed to minimize the thickness of new fills, to the extent feasible. We recommend that new fill be placed as early as possible in the construction schedule to allow the fill to settle before constructing on- grade facilities which are settlement sensitive. To the extent possible, it may desirable to allow sufficient time for all of the fill settlements to occur before constructing on-grade settlement sensitive facilities. Based on our analyses, it is our opinion that the foundation and floor slab should be designed to mitigate post-construction settlement caused by both static consolidation of soft soils and liquefaction-caused settlement of deeper sands. We recommend that ground improvement methods such as GeoPiers or stone columns be considered for this mitigation. Discussions regarding seismic design, static consolidation settlement, and geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earthwork related phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results offield and laboratory testing (which are presented in Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. ASTM and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specification codes cited herein respectively refer to the current manual published by the American Society for Testing & Materials and the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, (M41-10). Seismic Design Considerations The tectonic setting of western Washington is dominated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone formed by the Juan de Fuca plate subducting beneath the North American Plate. This setting leads to intraplate, crustal, and interplate earthquake sources. Seismic hazards relate to risks of injury to people and damage to property resulting from these three principle earthquake sources. Page 8 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 The seismic performance of the development was evaluated relative to seismic hazards resulting from ground shaking associated with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEc) Peak Ground Acceleration and the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE,) Ground Motion Response Acceleration in accordance with the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Conformance to the above criteria for seismic excitation does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a maximum considered earthquake occurs. The primary goal of the IBC seismic design procedure is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Following a major earthquake, a building may be damaged beyond repair, yet not collapse. Ground Surface Rupture: Based on our review of the USGS Quaternary age fault database for Washington State, the site is located about 4 miles south of the Seattle Fault zone. The Seattle Fault zone is a collective term for a series of four or more east-west trending reverse fault splays located near the southern margin of the Seattle basin. The fault zone is about 2.5 to 4 miles wide (north-south) and extends from the Kitsap Peninsula near Hood Canal to the Sammamish Plateau east of Lake Sammamish. Most of the fault zone is concealed by Holocene glacial and post glacial deposits, and is primarily mapped based on the location of magnetic anomalies. Geologic evidence indicates that ground surface rupture from movement on the Seattle Fault zone occurred about 1,100 years ago. The geologic record suggests that potential future movement of the fault zone may not occur for several thousand years (Johnson, et al., 1999, 2002). Given the relatively long return period of the Seattle Fault zone and the location of the mapped fault zone relative to the project site, it is our opinion that the risk of ground surface rupture at the site is low. Landsliding: Based on the relatively level topography of the site and surrounding vicinity, it is our opinion that the risk of earthquake-induced landsliding is low. Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated cohesionless soils build up excess pore water pressures during earthquake loading. Liquefaction typically occurs in loose soils, but may occur in denser soils if the ground shaking is sufficiently strong. ZGA completed a liquefaction analysis in general accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2012 IBC and Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-10. Specifically, our analysis used the following primary seismic ground motion parameters. • A Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEc) Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.579g, based on Figure 22-7 of ASCE 7-10. • A Modified Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) of 0.52g based on Site Class E, per Section 11.8.3 of ASCR7-10 (Site Class modification to MCEc without regard to liquefaction in accordance with Sections 11.4.7 and 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-10). Page 9 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 • A Geometric Mean Magnitude of 6.84 based on 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project deaggregation data for a seismic event with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475 year return period) and a geometric mean peak ground acceleration of 0.585g. Our liquefaction analysis was completed using the computer program LiquefyPro Version 5.8 which is based on the simplified procedures originally developed by Seed and Idriss (1971). Our evaluation used a fines content correction per Idriss and Seed (1997) and saturated soil settlement calculation procedure per Ishihara and Yoshimine (1990). Our analysis was based on the three mud-rotary borings (borings B-9, B-10, and B-11) completed within the building envelope and site specific laboratory tests. Borings B-9 and B-10 extended 62Y, to 64 feet below the ground surface. Boring B-11 extended about 86Y, feet below grade. The approximate exploration locations are shown on the enclosed Site and Exploration Plans, Figures 2 and 3. Our analysis indicates the potential for liquefaction within the following depth intervals and soil deposits. LiquefyPro summary output files for our analysis of the 2012 IBC design ground motions are enclosed in Appendix C. • 7 to 23 feet: potential liquefaction in the lower portion of the existing near surface fill soils and underlying alluvial deposits. • 36 to 53 feet: potential liquefaction in estuarine deposits. • 63 to 86.5: potential liquefaction in estuarine deposits. The simplified procedures for liquefaction analysis were developed from empirical evaluations of field observations. Most of the case history data was collected from level to gently sloping terrain underlain by Holocene-age alluvial or fluvial sediment at depths less than 50 ft. Therefore, the simplified procedures are most directly applicable to these site conditions. The potentially liquefiable zone encountered from about 7 to 23 feet and 36 to 53 are generally suitable for evaluation by the simplified procedures, in our opinion. Based on the subsurface data, the potentially liquefiable zone encountered from about 36 to 53 is underlain by about 10 feet of medium dense to very dense sand with a low potential for liquefaction during the design earthquake. Based on historic records of relatively shallow liquefaction in the project area and the low potential for liquefaction in the 10 foot zone of medium dense to very dense sand below 53 feet, it is our opinion that the potential for significant surface manifestation associated with potential liquefaction and settlement within the soil zone located below 63 feet is low. Liquefaction Settlement: Based on our analyses, we estimate a total seismic settlement of approximately 6 to lOY, inches. We estimate a differential seismic settlement of approximately 3 to 5% inches over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. Soil liquefaction may be expressed at the ground surface as sand boils, ground cracks, vertical settlements, and lateral displacements. However, given the presence of non-liquefiable soils located above the water Page 10 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 table, surficial expression of soil liquefaction such as sand boils and ground cracking may not be observed at the project site during a 2012 IBC seismic event. If these levels of seismic induced liquefaction settlement are not acceptable, we recommend that mitigative measures be considered as discussed in the Ground Improvement and Deep Foundations Considerations section of this report. Lateral Spread: Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soil deposits which underlie a site can experience significant lateral displacements associated with the reduction in soil strength caused by soil liquefaction. This phenomenon tends to occur most commonly at sites where the soil deposits can flow toward a "free-face", such as a water body. The Green River is located about 1 mile west of the site and has a bank height of about 15 feet based on LIDAR data. We have assumed a free-face height of about 30 feet based on an assumed channel depth of 15 feet. Given the geometry of the free-face condition and the site distance from the free face, it is our opinion that the potential for distress at the site from lateral spreading is low for the 2012 IBC design seismic event. IBC Seismic Design Parameters: Per the 2012 IBC seismic design procedures and ASCE 7-10, the presence of liquefiable soils requires a Site Class definition of F. However, through reference to Sections 11.4. 7 and 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-10, the 2012 IBC allows site coefficients F, and F, to be determined assuming that liquefaction does not occur for structures with fundamental periods of vibration less than 0.5 seconds. Based on the results of the field evaluation, Site Class E may be used to determine the values of F, and F, in accordance with Sections 11.4.7 and 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-10. Site Class E describes soils that are considered soft with a shear wave velocity less than 600 feet per second, average Standard Penetration Test values less than 15, and an undrained shear strength less than 1,000 psf. Seismic Site Class F may require seismic (foundation) ties between isolated column footings, which should be determined by the structural engineering design of the foundations. Code Used Site Classification 2012 International Building Code {IBC) 1 F 2,3 S, Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.413g (Site Class B) S, Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.526g (site Class B) F,Site Coefficient for a Short Period 0.9 (Site Class E) F,Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period 2.4 (Site Class E) SMs Maximum considered spectral response acceleration 1.272g (Site Class E) for a Short Period Page 11 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Code Used SM1 Maximum considered spectral response acceleration for a 1-Second Period Sos Five-percent damped design spectral response acceleration for a Short Period So, Five-percent damped design spectral response acceleration for a 1-Second Period Site Classification 1.263g (Site Class E) 0.848g (Site Class E) 0.842g (Site Class E) 1. In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, Section 1613.3.2 and ASCE 7-10, Chapter 20. IBC Site Class is based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. 2. The borings completed for this study extended to a maximum depth of 86.5 feet below grade. ZGA therefore determined the Site Class assuming that medium dense alluvial soils with an average n value of 15 extend to 100 feet as suggested by published geologic maps for the project area. 3. Per the 2012 International Building Code, Section 1613.3.2 and ASCE 7-10, Chapter 20, any profile containing soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils. Consolidation Settlement Considerations The previous section of this report addresses potential seismic settlements at the site associated with seismic induced liquefaction. This section addresses static settlement associated with consolidation of fine-grained and organic rich soils encountered at the site. The native organic silt and peat deposit encountered between about SY, to 7Y, and 7Y, to 13Y, in our explorations will tend to consolidate in response to new loads imposed by building foundations and fill used to raise site grades. The deeper lacustrine elastic silt deposit encountered from about 32 to 37 feet will tend to consolidate in response to new loads imposed by fill used to raise site grades, but is not anticipated to settle significantly in response to new foundation loads given the decrease in foundation load stress with depth. Settlement of these fine-grained and organic deposits will result from primary and secondary consolidation, which are relatively slow processes. We evaluated settlements associated with new foundation loads based on a 4 foot thick layer of organic silt and peat located 7 feet below grade. We further assumed a column foundation depth of 3 feet below grade, a maximum column load of 120 Kips, and an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 psf to proportion the column footing. Based on our evaluation, we estimate total primary settlements of about 2 to 3 inches associated with foundation loads as described above unless the site is surcharged prior to foundation construction. It should be noted that the assumed maximum foundation load of 120 kips (as presented in the owner's 2013 Request for Proposal) includes live loads. We anticipate that consolidation settlements calculated for dead loads only would be slightly lower than those presented above. A grading plan was not available at the time this report was prepared. However, we understand that significant alteration to site grades are not currently planned. To address potential changes to site grades, Page 12 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 we evaluated consolidation settlements associated with raising site grades by 1 and 2 feet using a moist unit weight of 130 pcf for new compacted structural fill. Based on our evaluation, we estimate total primary settlements of about Y, to 1 inches associated with raising site grade 1 to 2 feet, respectively. If grades are raised in the building area, these settlements would be additive to the settlements presented above for foundation loads. We estimate the time required to achieve 90 percent of the primary settlement to be about 3 to 5 weeks. Secondary consolidation will continue after primary consolidation over the life of the development, but at a much slower rate. We estimate secondary consolidation settlements on the order of 3 to 6 inches over 30 years. Settlements resulting from the weight of new fill could impact the performance of settlement sensitive improvements which are supported on-grade. In general, we recommend that the grading plan be developed to minimize the thickness of new fills, to the extent feasible. We recommend that new fill be placed as early as possible in the construction schedule to allow the fill to settle before constructing on- grade facilities which are settlement sensitive. To the extent possible, it may desirable to allow sufficient time for all of the fill settlements to occur before constructing on-grade settlement sensitive facilities. Consolidation settlement can be mitigated using several commonly employed methods as outlined below. Delayed Construction: Settlements associated with raising site grades are often mitigated by placing fills and allowing primary settlements to substantially complete before progressing with the construction of settlement sensitive site improvements. This method is not appropriate for settlement associated with new building loads. Preload and Surcharge Fill Programs: A preload can be used to mitigate settlements associated with new building loads. A preload consists of temporary fill placed in the building area to load the compressible soils and induce primary consolidation before the building is constructed. The extent and thickness of the pre load are determined based on the pre load soil unit weight, design building loads, and anticipated levels of consolidation settlement. A surcharge consists of addition temporary fill that can be placed above the preload in building to speed the rate of consolidation and reduce the preload period, if required by the project schedule. Zipper Geo associates is available to develop preload and surcharge programs for the planed site development, at you request, once a grading plan and allowable settlement period have been developed. Ground Improvement and Deep Foundations: Ground improvements or deep foundations can be used to mitigate consolidation settlements for proposed buildings. Deep foundations would not address potential settlements associated with raising site grade outside of the building envelope and ground improvement beyond the building area is typically cost prohibitive. When these options are used to mitigate building settlements, delayed construction is typically employed to address potential settlements outside of the Page 13 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 building envelope if grades are raised. Ground improvements or deep foundations are discussed in more detail in the following section of this report. Ground Improvement and Deep Foundation Considerations Our analyses indicate the potential for seismic induced liquefaction settlement due to ground motions associated with the 2012 IBC seismic Design event. The foundation recommendations presented in this report assume that the levels of potential seismic settlement presented in the Seismic Design Considerations section of this report are considered acceptable, and that the conventional spread footing foundation system is designed to meet the Life Safety and Collapse Performance objectives of the 2012 IBC. If these levels of potential seismic settlement are not acceptable, we recommend that ground improvement be considered to reduce total and differential settlements to acceptable levels. Our analyses also indicate the potential for consolidation settlements associated with new building loads as discussed in the Consolidation Settlement Considerations section of this report. Based on the allowable total and differential settlements presented in the owners 2013 Request for Proposal, we anticipate that ground improvement or deep foundations will likely be required to mitigate seismic settlements. We anticipate that the use of ground improvement or deep foundations would also mitigate potential static settlements in the building envelope associated with consolidation of the site fine-grained and organic rich soil layers. A general discussion regarding ground improvement and deep foundation options is presented below. Ground improvement is typically completed by a specialty contractor on a design build basis to meet performance criteria (allowable total and differential settlements) established by the owner or structural engineer. The contractor would use the data (boring logs and lab data) in this report as the basis for the specific design. The cost of ground improvement is strongly affected by the lateral extent and depth of treatment required by the performance criteria. For example, if ground improvement is limited to reducing foundation settlement and interior slabs are allowed to settle under seismic conditions and consolidation, then the area of improvement would be greatly reduced (limited to foundation alignments) and result in a decreased cost. Alternatively, the entire building envelope could be improved to reduce settlements for both foundations and interior slabs at a higher cost. ZGA is available to assist the owner in the design-build process if deemed necessary. Ground improvement methods are somewhat proprietary and differ between contractors to some degree. We have therefore generalized ground improvement and structural support methods that could be considered for the site conditions in an effort to clarify the primary mitigation alternatives. Geo Piers: GeoPiers are an intermediate depth ground improvement typically constructed by drilling a hole in the ground then ramming gravel into the hole in lifts to generate a stiff stone column and densify the soil between columns (provided the soil between the columns has a gradation which will allow for Page 14 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 compaction). This system typically results in improved bearing capacity, sliding resistance, reduced static settlement, and reduced potential for liquefaction within the treated soils. Potentially liquefiable soils extend to depths of 53 feet at the site and consist of relatively clean, saturated sands which will tend to cave during the conventional GeoPier drilling process. Therefore, GeoPiers do not appear to be the most appropriate method of ground improvement for this site. However, GeoPier has recently developed methods for construction below the water table that do not require drilling an open hole and it may be advantageous to request a bid for comparison to other improvement methods typically considered better suited to saturated sands, such as stone columns. Stone Columns: Stone columns are typically constructed by lowering a vibratory stinger into the ground to a depth determined necessary to achieve the performance criteria. Gravel is then introduced to the tip of the stinger by top-feed or bottom-feed methods and compacted in place by the vibratory action of the stinger head. Soils between the stone columns are densified through vibroflotation (liquefaction and subsequent settlement and densification) provided the soil between the columns has a gradation which will allow for vibratory densification. The result is a stiff aggregate column similar to a GeoPier. However, this method does not require drilling an open hole as with GeoPiers and is well suited for saturated ground conditions. Stone columns can also be constructed to greater depths than GeoPiers. As with GeoPiers, stone columns typically result in improved bearing capacity, sliding resistance, reduced static settlement, and a reduced potential for liquefaction within the treated soils. Based on the depth of the potentially liquefiable zone, we anticipate that stone columns installed using vibroflotation methods could likely reduce seismic settlement to generally acceptable levels. Vibroflotation: Vibroflotation (also known as vibrocompaction) is similar to stone columns in that a vibratory stinger is lowered into the soil to the design improvement depth and withdrawn. Ground improvement comes from liquefaction and subsequent settlement and densification of the surrounding soil. No aggregate is introduced into the ground. Vibroflotation is suitable for relatively clean sands below the water table. No significant improvement is typically achieved above the ground water table. This method may be applicable to reducing the potential for liquefaction induced settlement, but would likely not result in improved subgrade foundation support conditions relative to static loads. Structural Support: Deep foundation systems such as auger cast piles or driven steel piles could be considered to limit potential seismic settlements. However, given the depth of potentially liquefiable soils, anticipated high down drag forces on pile foundations, and costs associated with pile foundation design and construction, it is our opinion that deep foundations are not a cost effective mitigation method at this site. Based on the site soil and groundwater conditions and prototypical building loads, we anticipate that stone columns or Geopiers will likely be the most cost effect method of ground improvement to limit static and seismic settlements to tolerable levels. ZGA completed a preliminary evaluation of stone column and GeoPier ground improvement options to mitigate seismic settlements with local design build Page 15 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 contractors Hayward Baker and GeoPier for the owner for a project in Puyallup, Washington with similar prototypical development features and loads. For the Puyallup project, the contractors estimated that a 7 foot center-to-center pier spacing would be adequate to limit static and seismic settlements to a preliminary performance criteria of less than %-inch of differential settlement over a distance of 40 feet provided by the project structural engineer. Relative to ground improvement treatment depth for the Renton Retail project, our liquefaction analysis indicates two primary liquefiable zones located about 7 to 23 feet below grade and about 36 to 53 feet below grade. Compressible organic soils associated with estimated static settlements are located within the upper zone of potential liquefaction (7 to 23 feet). A deeper zone of potential liquefaction is indicated in our analyses below 63 feet, but the potential for significant surface manifestation associated with potential liquefaction and settlement within the soil zone located below 63 feet is considered low, as discussed in the Soil liquefaction section of this report (page 10). We therefore recommend that minimum ground improvement treatment depths of 25 feet and 55 feet be considered for this project. The owner specified differential settlement performance criteria and the level of ground improvement developed by the design build contractor's improvement methods will control the ground improvement treatment depth. A minimum treatment depth of 25 feet would likely result in a non-liquefiable zone of soil below the site improvements on the order of 35 feet thick and may be adequate to limit differential seismic settlement to the performance criteria. If the design build contractor determines that a treatment depth of 25 feet is not adequate to meet the performance criteria, deeper improvement to about 55 feet may be required. For preliminary cost estimating purposes, we recommend that a center-to-center pier spacing of 7 feet and treatment depths of both 25 feet and 55 feet be considered. ZGA is available to work with local design-build contractors to better define treatment configurations and costs, at your request. Site Preparation Existing Structure Removal: The site is currently developed with a relatively large theater and is services by varies underground utilities. Foundation elements or other below grade structures, if encountered, should be completely demolished and removed from the proposed development areas. Existing Utility Removal: We recommend that all underground utilities within the proposed building pad be completely removed. Utility pipes outside the building envelope could be abandoned in place, provided they are fully grouted with controlled density fill (CDF) and the trench backfill is density tested to verify that it meets the compaction levels presented in the project specifications. Localized excavations made for removal of utilities or existing unsuitable trench backfill should be backfilled with structural fill as outlined in the following section of this report. Erosion Control Measures: Stripped surfaces and soil stockpiles are typically a source of runoff sediments. We recommend that silt fences, berms, and/or swales be installed around the downslope side of stripped areas and stockpiles in order to capture runoff water and sediment. If earthwork occurs during wet Page 16 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 weather, we recommend that all stripped surfaces be covered with straw to reduce runoff erosion, whereas soil stockpiles should be protected with anchored plastic sheeting. Temporary Drainage: Stripping, excavation, grading, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and provide proper control of erosion. The near surface site soils have a low to moderate fines (silt and clay) content and are considered moderately susceptible to disturbance and erosion when wet The site should be graded to prevent water from ponding in construction areas and/or flowing into and/or over-excavations. Exposed grades should be crowned, sloped, and smooth-drum rolled at the end of each day to facilitate drainage if inclement weather is forecasted. Accumulated water must be removed from subgrades and work areas immediately and prior to performing further work in the area. Equipment access may be limited and the amount of soil rendered unfit for use as structural fill may be greatly increased if drainage efforts are not accomplished in a timely manner. Successful drainage of saturated zones due to accumulations of surface water would be moderately slow due to the moderate fines content of the surficial soils. Instead, aeration, chemical treatment, or removal and replacement would be more expeditious. Clearing and stripping: The majority of the site is surfaced with asphalt and concrete. Vegetation is limited to patches of lawn near the existing theater and ornamental shrubs and small trees in planter areas and parking lot islands. We therefore anticipate that clearing and stripping will generally be limited to less than 6 inches in landscape areas. We anticipate that isolated areas of deeper stripping will be required to remove tree roots. Subgrade Preparation: Once site preparation is complete, all areas that do not require over-excavation and are at design subgrade elevation or areas that will receive new structural fill should be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition, and to achieve the recommended compaction level within the upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soil. Some moisture conditioning of site soils may be required to achieve a moisture content appropriate for compaction. This is generally within ±2 percent of the soils optimum moisture content. Our laboratory testing indicates that, at the time our explorations were completed, in- situ moisture contents within the upper 2Y, feet of the existing site fill soils ranged from about 4 to 10 percent. The optimum moisture content of a representative sample of the existing fill soils collect from boring B-5 was about 5.7 percent determined in accordance with the modified Proctor maximum dry density test method (ASTM d 1557). As a result, we expect that some moisture conditioning of site soils during construction may be required to achieve suitable moisture contents (plus or minus two percent of optimum) for compaction in areas. Earthwork should be completed during drier periods of the year when soil moisture content can be controlled by aeration and drying. If earthwork or construction activities take place during extended periods of wet weather, or if the in-situ moisture conditions are elevated above the optimum moisture content, the soils could become unstable or not be compactable. In the event the exposed subgrade becomes unstable, yielding, or unable to be compacted due to high moisture conditions, we recommend Page 17 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 that the materials be removed to a sufficient depth in order to develop stable subgrade soils that can be compacted to the minimum recommended levels. The severity of construction problems will be dependent, in part, on the precautions that are taken by the contractor to protect the subgrade soils. Once compacted, subgrades should be evaluated through density testing and proof rolling with a loaded dump truck or heavy rubber-tired construction equipment weighing at least 20 tons to assess the subgrade adequacy and to detect soft and/or yielding soils. In the event that compaction fails to meet the specified criteria, the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified and moisture conditioned as necessary to obtain at least 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density (per ASTM D1557). Those soils which are soft, yielding, or unable to be compacted to the specified criteria should be over-excavated and replaced with suitable material as recommended in the Structural Fill section of this report. As an alternate to subgrade compaction during wet site conditions or wet weather, the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be over-excavated to a firm, non-yielding and undisturbed condition and backfilled with compacted imported structural fill consisting of free-draining Gravel Borrow or crushed rock. Alternatively, over optimum soils could be treated with cement as a method to stabilize and strengthen soft, wet soils. Where needed to protect stable subgrades, either inside or outside the building excavations, we recommend using crushed rock or crushed recycled concrete. The thickness of the protective layer should be determined at the time of construction and be based on the moisture condition of the soil and the amount of anticipated traffic. Freezing Conditions: If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, all exposed subgrades should be allowed to thaw and then be compacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill. Alternatively, the frozen material could be stripped from the subgrade to expose 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 Materials and Preparation Structural fill includes any material placed below foundations and pavement sections, within utility trenches, and behind retaining walls. Prior to the placement of structural fill, all surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended in the Site Preparation section of this report. Laboratory Testing: Representative samples of on-site and imported soils to be used as structural fill should be submitted for laboratory testing at least 4 days in advance of its intended use in order to complete the necessary Proctor tests. Page 18 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Re-Use of Site Soils as Structural Fill: It is our opinion that the existing granular fill soils typically encountered within the upper SY, to 9Y, feet are suitable for reuse as general structural fill from a compositional standpoint provided it is placed and compacted in accordance with the moisture content and compaction recommendations presented in this report. The moisture content of the existing site fill soils typically increased with depth and the bottom of the fill layer was saturated in some areas due to perched groundwater above underlying native organic silt deposits. Selective drying of over-optimum moisture soils may be achieved by scarifying or windrowing surficial materials during extended periods of dry weather. Soils which are dry of optimum may be moistened through the application of water and thorough blending to facilitate a uniform moisture distribution in the soil prior to compaction. The native site soils encountered below the existing fill at depths between about SY, to 9y, feet and 7Y, to 13Y, below existing grade consist of wet to saturated, soft organic silt and peat. These organic soils are not suitable for reuse as structural fill and should be used in landscape areas or removed from the site. The native alluvial soils below the organic silt and peat typically consist of saturated sand with variable silt content. These soils are considered acceptable for reuse as structural sill from a compositional standpoint, but will be very difficult to adequately compact due to their saturated nature and moderate to high fines content. Extensive draining of these soils after excavation and subsequent aeration would likely be required. For planning and cost estimating purposes, we recommend that these soils not be considered for reuse as structural fill. We recommend that site soils used as structural fill have less than 4 percent organics by weight and have no woody debris greater than Y, inch in diameter. We recommend that all pieces of organic material greater than Y, inch in diameter be picked out of the fill before it is compacted. Any organic-rich soil derived from earthwork activities should be utilized in landscape areas or wasted from the site. Imported Structural Fill: Imported structural fill may be required due to weather or other reasons. The appropriate type of imported structural fill will depend on weather conditions. During extended periods of dry weather, we recommend imported fill meet the requirements of Common Borrow as specified in Section 9-03.14(3) of the 2012 Washington State Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (WSDOT Standard Specifications). During wet weather, higher-quality structural fill might be required, as Common Borrow may contain sufficient fines to be moisture sensitive. During wet weather we recommend that imported structural fill meet the requirements of Gravel Borrow as specified in Section 9-03.14(1) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Retaining Wall Backfill: Retaining walls should include a drainage fill zone extending at least two feet back from the back face of wall for the entire wall height. The drainage fill should meet the requirements of Gravel Backfill for Walls as specified in Section 9-03.12(2) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Page 19 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Structural Fill below Foundations: Crushed Rock Base Course meeting the requirements of Section 9- 03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications is recommended. Pavement Subgrades: Any structural fill used within the upper one foot below pavement sections should have a minimum California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 20 percent when compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. A CBR value of 20 is representative of the soils encountered at the site and has been used to develop our pavement section recommendations. This has been assumed for the pavement design recommendations presented subsequently in this report. Moisture Content: The suitability of soil for use as structural fill will depend on the time of year, the moisture content of the soil, and the fines content (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) of the soil. As the amount of fines increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (such as most of the on-site soils) cannot be consistently compacted to the appropriate levels when the moisture content is more than approximately 2 percent above or below the optimum moisture content (per ASTM D1557). Optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density with a specified compactive effort. Fill Placement: Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness. Each lift of fill should be compacted using compaction equipment suitable for the soil type and lift thickness. Each lift of fill should be compacted to the minimum levels recommended below based on the maximum laboratory dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 Modified Proctor Compaction Test. Moisture content of fill at the time of placement should be within plus or minus 2 percent of optimum moisture content for compaction as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. Compaction Criteria: Our recommendations for soil compaction are summarized in the following table. Structural fill for roadways and utility trenches in municipal rights-of-way should be placed and compacted in accordance with the jurisdiction codes and standards. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer be present during grading so that an adequate number of density tests may be conducted as structural fill placement occurs. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as it proceeds. Page 20 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 RECOMMENDED SOIL COMPACTION LEVELS Location Minimum Percent Compaction* All fill below building floor slabs and foundations 95 Upper 2 feet of fill below floor slabs and pavements 95 Pavement fill below two feet 90 Retaining wall backfill less than 3 feet from wall 90 Retaining wall backfill more than 3 feet from wall 95 Upper two feet of utility trench backfill 95 Utility trenches below two feet 90 Landscape Areas 90 • ASTM D1557 Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density Placing Fill on Slopes: Permanent fill placed on slopes steeper than SH: lV (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 8 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 relative compaction as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by over-building 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. Utility Trenches We recommend that utility trenching conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such as OSHA and WISHA, for open excavations. Trench excavation safety guidelines are presented in WAC Chapter 296-155 and WISHA RCW Chapter 49.17. Municipal utilities such as water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater should be installed in accordance with City of Renton standard plans and specification, if applicable. Trench Dewatering: Groundwater was encountered in all 26 borings at the time of exploration. Groundwater depths ranged from about 5 to 12 feet below existing grade at the time of drilling, with an average depth of about 7 .5 feet. At five of the boring locations, our groundwater observations indicated the presence of a perched water table at a depth of about 5 to 7 feet above the lacustrine organic silt soils and a lower phreatic water table in the alluvial sand deposits at a depth of about 8 to 11 feet below existing grade. Groundwater was measured in borings B-6, B-18, and B-23 at depths of 8.9, 9.6, and 5 feet below existing grade about 20 to 30 minutes after drilling, respectively. Excavations for utilities and underground structures may extend into perched groundwater zones and the groundwater table, depending on the depth of excavation, and should be expected to encounter some water seepage. The amount of seepage will likely be a function of the lateral extent of the excavation and how long the excavations remain open. The type and extent of dewatering measures will be a function Page 21 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 of the groundwater conditions at the time of construction. Temporary systems could include sumps and pumps, wellpoints, or pumped wells. Depending on the season of the work, groundwater seepage elevations may be higher than that encountered in our borings. At times, seepage could be heavy enough to require flattening the sidewalls of excavations to reduce the risk of caving. Some caving of utility trench sidewalls should be anticipated in association with groundwater seepage. We recommend that any excavations within groundwater seepage zones be undertaken only when suitable dewatering equipment and temporary excavation shoring are available, or where space is available to flatten the sidewalls. If dewatering becomes necessary, it should be designed and maintained by the contractor. The appropriate type of dewatering system should be determined by the contractor based on the conditions encountered. Utility Subgrade Preparation: We recommend that all utility subgrades be firm and unyielding and free of all soils that are loose, disturbed, or pumping. Such soils should be removed and replaced, if necessary. All structural fill used to replace over-excavated soils should be compacted as recommended in the Structural Fill section of this report. If utility foundation soils are soft, we recommend that they be over- excavated 12 inches and replaced with crushed rock. Structures such as manholes and catch basins which extend into soft soils should be underlain by at least 12 inches of crushed gravel fill compacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. This granular material could consist of crushed rock, quarry spalls, or coarse crushed concrete. Alternatively, quarry spalls or pea gravel could be used until above the water level. It may be necessary to place a geotextile fabric over the native subgrade soils if they are too soft, to provide a separation between the bedding and subgrade soils. Bedding: We recommend that a minimum of 4 inches of bedding material be placed above and below all utilities or in general accordance with the utility manufacturer's recommendations and local ordinances. We recommend that pipe bedding consist of Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding as specified in Section 9-03.12(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. All trenches should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of the pipe, or material such as pea gravel should be used below the spring line of the pipes to eliminate the need for mechanical compaction in this portion of the trenches. If water is encountered in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement. Trench Backfill: Materials, placement and compaction of utility trench backfill should be in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. In our opinion, the initial lift thickness should not exceed one foot unless recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from damage by compacting equipment. Light, hand operated compaction equipment may be utilized directly above utilities if damage resulting from heavier compaction equipment is of concern. Page 22 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Temporary Shoring We recommend that temporary shoring systems be used where excavations will be located adjacent to property lines, roadways or utilities, and might result in ground loss and damage to these facilities. A trench box is one type of support system which might be used. The zone between the trench box and the excavation face should be backfilled as necessary to limit ground movements. As an alternate, braced or unbraced shoring of various types could be considered. We anticipate that some form of temporary shoring system may be needed for utility installations, depending on their location and depth. The lateral soil pressures acting on temporary excavation support systems will depend on the ground surface configuration adjacent to the trench, and the amount of lateral movement which can occur as the excavation is made. For support systems that are free to yield at the top at least one-thousandth of the height of the excavation, soil pressures will be less than if movements are limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. We recommend that yielding systems be designed using equivalent fluid densities of 35 and 85 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for horizontal ground surfaces and ground surfaces inclined at l.SH: lV above the horizontal, respectively. For non-yielding systems, we recommend that the shoring be designed for a uniform lateral pressure of 25H in pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the depth of the planned excavation in feet below a level ground surface. Similarly, for a ground surface inclined at l.SH: lV, we recommend that non-yielding shoring be designed for a uniform lateral pressure of SSH. The above recommended lateral soil pressures are based on a fully drained condition and do not include the effects of hydrostatic water pressures. In addition, the above values do not include the effects of surcharges (e.g., equipment loads, storage loads, traffic loads, or other surface loading). Hydrostatic water pressures and surcharge effects should be considered as appropriate. Temporary and Permanent Slopes Temporary excavation slope stability is a function of many factors, including: • 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; and • The length of time the excavation remains open. As the cut is deepened, or as the length oftime an excavation is open, the likelihood of bank failure increases; therefore, maintenance of safe slopes and worker safety should remain the responsibility of the contractor, who is present at the site, able to observe changes in the soil conditions, and monitor the performance of the excavation. Page 23 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 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. 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 from local sloughing and spalling. The excavation should conform to applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations. According to Chapter 296-155 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), the contractor should make a determination of excavation side slopes based on classification of soils encountered at the time of excavation. Temporary cuts may need to be constructed at flatter angles based upon the soil moisture and groundwater conditions at the time of construction. Adjustments to the slope angles should be determined by the contractor at that time. We recommend that all permanent cut or fill slopes constructed in native soils be designed at a 2H: 1 V (Horizontal: Vertical) inclination or flatter. All permanent cut and fill slopes should be adequately protected from erosion both temporarily and permanently. If the slopes are exposed to prolonged rainfall before vegetation becomes established, the surficial soils will be prone to erosion and possible shallow sloughing. We recommend covering permanent slopes with a rolled erosion protection material, such as Jute matting or Curlex II, if vegetation has not been established by the regional wet season (typically November through May). Corrosion Considerations The near surface soils encountered within anticipated foundation depths are considered to be very slightly corrosive to concrete features. Soils in the vicinity of the project site are not typically associated with high sulfate contents. As such, the relative degree of sulfate attack would be considered negligible and ASTM Type 1/11 Portland cement is suitable for all concrete below and at grade. Shallow Foundations Our analyses indicate the potential for liquefaction induced settlement due to ground motions associated with the 2012 IBC design seismic event. Our analyses also indicate the potential for static settlements associated with new building loads due to consolidation of fine-grained soils and peat deposits at depth as discussed in the Consolidation Settlement Considerations of this report. The foundation recommendations presented below assume that potential seismic settlements due to liquefaction and static consolidation settlements are mitigated through ground improvement within the building envelope. Foundations for other structures outside the building pads will be subject to post-construction settlements as described within this report, unless ground improvement is completed. Page 24 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Based on our analyses, conventional spread footings designed as outlined above will provide adequate support for the proposed building, retaining walls, and free standing CMU walls near the WIP area provided that the foundation subgrades are properly prepared. Foundation Subgrade Support: We anticipate that foundation subgrade soils at foundations depths of 1.5 to 3 feet will generally consist of existing fill consisting of medium dense to dense sandy gravel to gravelly sand with silt. It is our opinion that foundation support for the proposed structure may be obtained from either the medium dense to dense existing granular fill soils or from new engineered fill placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report. The upper one-foot of foundation subgrades should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted to a firm and non- yielding condition and to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density per ASTM:D- 1557. If loose subgrade soils are encountered and they cannot be compacted to the specified degree due to high moisture content, we recommend that they be removed and replaced with structural fill consisting of Crushed Rock Base Course meeting the requirements of WSDOT Section 9-03.9(3). The zone of structural fill should extend beyond the edge of foundation elements a distance equal to its thickness in order to provide a lH: lV bearing splay through the working pad. The crushed rock should be placed above compacted native subgrade prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation section of this report and compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition and to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density per ASTM:D-1557 Allowable Bearing Pressure: Continuous and isolated column footings bearing on structural fill placed and compacted in accordance with this report, or suitable native soils compacted as recommended, may be designed for a maximum allowable, net, bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. A one-third increase of the bearing pressure may be used for short-term transient loads such as wind and seismic forces. The above- recommended allowable bearing pressure includes a 3.0 factor of safety. Shallow Foundation Depth and Width: For frost protection, the bottom of all exterior footings should bear at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent outside grade, whereas the bottoms of interior footings should bear at least 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. We recommend that all continuous wall and isolated column footings be at least 12 and 24 inches wide, respectively. Lateral Resistance: We recommend using allowable base friction and passive earth values of 0.45 and 250 pcf equivalent fluid pressure (triangular distribution), respectively, which incorporate a factor of safety of 1.5. We recommend that passive resistance be neglected in the upper 18 inches of embedment. Estimated Settlement: Assuming the foundation subgrade soils are prepared in accordance with recommendations presented herein and that seismic settlements and static consolidation settlements Page 25 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 have been addressed though ground improvement or preloading, total and differential settlements will be controlled by the extent and details of the ground improvement. If ground improvement and/or preloading have not been completed, static and seismic settlements would approach the levels outlined in the Seismic Design Considerations and Consolidation Settlement Considerations section of this report. Light Pole Foundations We understand that the project will include concrete cast-in-place light pile foundations with a prototypical embedment depth of around 7 to 9 feet. The site is mantled by about SY, to gy, feet of fill consisting of sandy gravel to gravelly sand with some silt. In general, the upper S feet of the fill is medium dense to dense, while those portions of the fill bellow about S feet are typically loose. The fill is underlain by very soft to medium stiff organic silt and peat which typically ranged from about SY, to gy, feet below existing grade to a depth of about 7Y, to 13Y, feet below grade. The thickness of the organic silt and peat deposit ranged from about lY, feet to 4Y, feet thick with an average thickness of about 3.4 feet. The organic silt and peat deposits are underlain by loose to medium dense alluvial sand deposits. Section 1807.3.2 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) provides design procedures for restrained an unrestrained pole or post foundations. Non-constrained and constrained pole or post foundations embedded in the existing fill soils or new compacted structural fill may be designed for a maximum allowable lateral soil-bearing capacity of 150 psf per foot of embedment below finished grade to a depth of 5 feet in accordance with Table 1806.2 of the 2012 IBC. We recommend that lateral soil bearing capacity be neglected below 5 feet due to the soft, compressible nature of the organic silt and peat deposits. Vertical foundation support may be provided by skin friction within the upper 5 feet of the existing fill deposits. We recommend an allowable skin friction value of 250 psf. If skin friction is not adequate to support the foundations, end bearing may be utilized as outlined below. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the explorations, we anticipate that the prototypical light pole foundation excavations will likely terminate near the bottom of the existing fill layer or extend through the existing fill and penetrate the organic silt and peat deposits. Given the soft, compressible nature of the organic silt and peat, we recommend over-excavating light pole foundations through the organic silt and peat to bear on the underlying alluvial sand deposits. Pole or post foundations supported on undisturbed native alluvial sands may be designed for a maximum allowable, net end bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. Pole or post foundations supported on GeoPiers or stone columns may be designed for a maximum allowable, net end bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. Lateral and vertical capacities may be increased by 1/3 to resist short term transient loads such as wind and seismic loads. Backfilled Permanent Retaining Walls Retaining walls are not described in the RFP document. However, we understand that the project may include short cast-in-place concrete retaining walls less than about 4 feet tall and that geotechnical soil Page 26 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 properties for use in retaining wall design have been requested. The following table presences recommend soil design values for retaining walls. Soil Parameters for Design of Retaining Walls Design Parameter Recommended Design Value Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (Horizontal Backfill) 1 0.33 Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (2:1 Sloped Backfill) 1 0.54 Dry: 110 pcf Soil Unit Weight Moist: 120 pcf Saturated: 135 pd Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient 2 3.0 Allowable Soil Base Friction Coefficient 0.40 Soil Internal Friction Angle 30 degrees Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity 3 2,500 psf 1. Active earth pressure calculations do not include wall friction. 2. Assumed that all fill placed in front of the wall is compacted in accordance with the recommendations in this report. We recommend that passive resistance in the upper 1.5 feet of embedment be neglected. 3. Assumes that foundations are supported as presented in the Shallow Foundations section of this report. Design of permanent retaining walls should consider additional earth pressure resulting from the design seismic event. Section 1803.5.12 of the 2012 IBC requires the inclusion of dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet of backfill. A uniformly distributed pressure of 12H and 24H in pounds per cubic foot (rectangular distribution) may be applied to yielding retaining walls with level backfill and 2H: lV sloped backfill, respectively, to account for seismic pressures. Additional lateral earth pressures resulting from surcharges such as traffic loads, other surface loading, or hydrostatic pressures, should be added, as appropriate. Adequate drainage measures must be installed to collect and direct subsurface water away from subgrade walls. All backfilled walls should include a drainage aggregate zone extending two feet from the back of wall for the full height of the wall. The drainage aggregate should consist of material meeting the requirements of WSDOT 9-03.12(2) Gravel Backfill for Walls. The zone of Gravel Backfill for Walls should extend down to a 4-inch diameter perforated footing drain system as outlined in the Drainage Considerations section of this report. On-Grade Concrete Slabs We understand that the retail building will include moisture sensitive on-grade concrete floors requiring a minimum subgrade modulus of 100 pci. Page 27 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 Subgrade Preparation: Subgrades for on-grade slabs should be prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation and Structural Fill sections ofthis report. Capillary Break: To provide a capillary break, uniform slab bearing surface, and a minimum subgrade modulus of 150 pci, we recommend the on-grade slabs be underlain by a 6-inch thick layer of compacted, well-graded granular fill contain less than 5 percent fines, based on that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve. Alternatively, a clean angular gravel such as No. 7 aggregate per WSDOT: 9-03.1(4)C could be used for this purpose. Alternative capillary break materials should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for review and approval before use. Vapor Retarder: The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture or is otherwise considered moisture-sensitive. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer and contractor should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. Drainage Considerations Surface Drainage: Final site grades.should be sloped to carry surface water away from buildings and other drainage-sensitive areas. Additionally, site grades should be designed such that concentrated runoff on softscape surfaces is avoided. Any surface runoff directed towards softscaped slopes should be collected at the top of the slope and routed to the bottom of the slope and discharged in a manner that prevents erosion. Building Perimeter Footing Drains and Retaining Wall Drains: We recommend that the new building and retaining walls be provided with a footing drain system to reduce the risk of future moisture problems and the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40, rigid, perforated PVC pipe placed at the base of the heel of the footing with the perforations facing down. The pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of clean free-draining granular material conforming to WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4), Gravel Backfill for Drains. A non-woven filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent, should envelope the free-draining granular material. At appropriate intervals such that water backup does not occur, the drainpipe should be connected to a tightline system leading to a suitable discharge. Cleanouts should be provided for future maintenance. The tightline system must be separate from the roof drain system. Pavements We understand that the project will include flexible asphalt concrete pavement and ridged Portland cement concrete pavements. Pavement design criteria provided in the project RFP is presented below. • Flexible & ridged pavement design in accordance with AASHTO design methods Page 28 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 • 20-year pavement design period • Light duty traffic loading: 7,500 18-kip ESAL's • Heavy duty traffic loading: 75,000 18-kip ESAL's • Terminal serviceability Index: 2.0 • 85% reliability Asphalt Pavements Pavement Life and Maintenance: It should be realized that asphaltic pavements are not maintenance- free. The following pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations for an average level of performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely be required. A 20-year pavement life typically assumes that an overlay will be placed after about 12 years. Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase courses would offer better ling-term performance, but would cost more initially. Conversely, thinner courses would be more susceptible to "alligator" cracking and other failure modes. As such, pavement design can be considered a compromise between a high initial cost and low maintenance costs versus a low initial cost and higher maintenance costs. Soil Design Values: The pavement subgrade soils are anticipated to consist of existing import fill consisting of sandy gravel to gravelly sand with some silt or new import structural fill consisting of Gravel Borrow. Our analysis is based on an assumed California Bearing Ration (CBR) value of 20 percent. Recommended Pavement Sections: For light duty pavements (parking lot areas), we recommend 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 5 inches of crushed rock base course. For heavy duty pavements (main access roads, truck delivery routes, etc.), we recommend 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 7 inches of crushed rock base course. Materials and Construction: We recommend the following regarding asphalt pavement materials and pavement construction. • Subgrade Preparation: Upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report. • Asphalt Concrete: We recommend that the asphalt concrete conform to Section 9-02.1(4) for PG 58-22 or PG 64-22 Performance Graded Asphalt Binder as presented in the 2012 WSDOT Standard Specifications. We also recommend that the gradation of the asphalt aggregate conform to the aggregate gradation control points for Y,-inch mixes as presented in Section 9-03.8(6), HMA Proportions of Materials. • Base Course: We recommend that the crushed aggregate base course conform to Section 9- 03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Page 29 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 • Compaction: All base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM: D 1557. We recommend that asphalt be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the Rice (theoretical maximum) density or 96 percent of Marshall (Maximum laboratory) density. Concrete Pavements Concrete Properties and Thickness: Concrete pavement design recommendations are based on an assumed modulus of rupture of 600 psi and a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi for the concrete. For light duty pavements, we recommend 5 inches of concrete over 3 inches of crushed aggregate base. For heavy duty pavements, we recommend 6 inches of concrete over 3 inches of crushed aggregate base. Concrete Pavement Joints and Reinforcing: It is our opinion that concrete pavements should be reinforced and have relatively closely spaced control joints on the order of 10 to 15 feet. We recommend that minimum reinforcement consist of 6x6-W2.0xW2.0 welded wire fabric or equivalent. We further recommend that loading dock pavements be reinforced with #4 bars at 15 inches each direction. CLOSURE The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations completed 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 our recommendations. Project plans were in the preliminary stage at the time this report was prepared. We therefore recommend Zipper Geo Associates, LLC be provided an opportunity to review the final plans and specifications when they become available in order to assess that the recommendations and design considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented into the project design. A large portion of the planned building area is covered by the existing theater and entry and was not accessible for explorations for this study. We recommend that additional explorations be completed in this area for final design of ground improvement for the new foundations. The performance of earthwork, structural fill, foundations, and pavements depend greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. We recommend that Zipper Geo Associates, LLC be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork-related construction phases of the project. If variations in subsurface conditions are observed at thattime, a qualified geotechnical engineer could provide additional geotechnical recommendations to the contractor and design team in a timely manner as the project construction progresses. Page 30 Zipper Geo Associates. LLC Proposed Renton Retail Development Project No. 1217.01 February 7, 2014 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, LLC, and their agents, for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Zipper Geo Associates, LLC reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Page 31 N REF EREN CE : GOO G L E MAPS 2013. NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED RENTON RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 3751 East Valley Road Renton , Washing ton VICINITY MAP DATE: Janua 20 14 Job No. 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC FIGURE 1 19023 36th Ave. W .,Sui te D Lyn nwood, WA SHT. 1 of 1 c..._,: '; ·,;.~'.-' }::::; ' ,------~ .. 1 ;·:'' -"-C::°;' .:rr·, -' > •, --• • ,, --1n-' . ~'.~-, .;,<::s.:•:,;,·Ce; ;::,::,;_ J L I I I L ,, i B-23-·~ --·" '" ' ,.,;_ ' -··· I I I -I" ~-~ Ill --""" l I ~ ' ' .. ,,:·:" ,:,~. _., !1 ,1,1 I" -'"'"'":: .. 1 ' ' ' -TAB -B 2 -' --' --" •• -' --cl,"", --__ --2-~-2-•·----"----~~--."/':'" 1i1'-'1 =:i ... /.. ----1c.--=--l!1~ --= ~--:::-':' --~-'-' De,-'.~·-;::-----~/ ',, ~-----.-./~ I~,, --1 f --., ~ I , ~ ~~-,,l!,--" ~' ;el-'" -!-i-1 , -'1,-::-••'-'i-F 'cc' -~-~ ~ ~ ~-JJ ~i~ I, • :-I I,,,'",.,:,. I = ~\\' ; ---~h--'r------~ca = ·E" --rr ~~----'°___"' -'~ ~ ':" i-''i--, ·_,_,.;-~ ~~' ,,11 -,----',.-,-.~1__j',ri1 1 1 \; .' l -" '-~1---J_ -~1s __ -l 1 / I 'Li_, ~dffc-~-~---~-, , cc~--, iil/ , ., -I I ' -~ ., --.·. -,--~ -' ' ----•--,-I,+ ' I --' -= ' l • --" ---;-~ -"" .. I ! I I I I 1 I I ~ --~--'/.--'=-• ~I I '1 '!'','Ii ,-----' ' -' -' --' ' ' -, ., I --I I ... , .... "'' ,, ' -• '' B-,S .,, ' " ' --' CJ ' 1 ,,-., H<"-"' ,,,,,,r< 'A-B-1ic.'' ,, -1"1, -, .. ,.,1_--,--,c:·,':i,:":.... l2' ,~ ---f JJ1·1:c---t-'%'11 1,, ·111·· .... _B-26 In 1·-_ ...... ,,--_cJs, -;-. "' '""''''" -j ji'if_ '_I, = B I f ',",,;,,!:,: j , "'"" m•, I I j I ' j I~> u I I , ~"-'"""'" _I" -,,-,; •r I ·"' 'Cl -" -1 _ .. ,,_ .. ,, 1 -1 , ---, [," ~ ,. ..... -" _ , : ,,,,_"'i'.:C\:;~::.·,t~'.-Y.--c,,','u! I--"' ' ," '! ! 11 , : 'i I-:: _ 'I I 1 1 ~ 1 1 ,,,,,,.,,."."' j I ' " .,,, " ! ~"' -V I I i I I~ ' I -' " • ' 1----J--'' -l1· "= f ' J "' ' -I I I I ' ' A' -' . . ' ' . . . -. $11 ''§ TAB3 :pTi,I,, ,, 'I ,.,,, -""-B19 . I, ; 11·: j ' 1i 11:· ,:.; --op·c•I•• """'"' --.• -,., )t;-B-17._ ,~; .. -,: -" 1 , ,tt 1' ,--,j"I I r = : 1 1 c+t:t; ! / , , \_ ,,_, .. ;:.,: • I v"f.· / / _, ,, I " ! ' ' I I I . I I I I ; I I -" ,,, I ' I I " ' ··" ,i,' '" "'" ,. , -,, l ; I ,_, i-/ ;:,," ' ' " ' " I I ' i ' ,, I ' /> I I i\l,,;c L: 7~ • ' I $ I I I -,'~11 I I I ' I ,, -•-. -~ .. ,, -~·;;,;;" 1 1,:::; I: ,-:-0 ,, / ' ""'"''"'' --[ ~ -" / B-2 ~"~·-·v)' 1 I I I s----, ocl,I I . ' ' -· ·-· H ' ,=-', •. • ' " . I ,,,"''l_L. ~-;",.:;'' ~ ,ci1tr-,,~~1<?rn~~ ,,,--B-10 _ ... ,,I I I, c"il 1 ,/ , _J .'"'"'""_"' _ , _____ , I-' -,;I -B g 2!:]'11 , I , ::· -, -~(ii\::,,, J , --... ,.. -" , •, ' • , ' • , -I " ••--• "' -I , ,_,, -• ' " .. ,.. .. , ' , '.:[/~; ---,-:;;,,:-/,'_,,, ---, ..• ;,.,:::,C.,\.:· tii:~/~'n ~ il////:rl 1 =+'-I B- 1 8~-LCJ_T_:c--ll,r.!-[r#'I , .. 1.--2~,lwll lu "" • • '"' •• •,i -' ' " ' • " •" ' ' ' ,. " ' • ' -,,, C 1 IF-__ ; -'~' u -" --' ' ' " " I '--l_LJ .---1 j_ i', ," \\'.~r;1,~:.:.:'.i_fr:--~ __ (,@-[p~.;:::i...._ .---~:;:':_:'."-I lit '""' 1'::'1:l,I, ~ ~ul '''1'1 >o>"•' 11111, rv It,*=(" '''";-12,1' I. ....,,._.., .. -.~' --' "I -~-. ' --. ' -' ---1l l:;i1 11 iii r-_ ~ ~:'s; qc1-,':/--'_ ',, .. ,,_,~-----,_ .. _-;·:;<,:,,.,,-TA-B:4_,~_ ,J ; :-, -, _:_m.-1· __ -__ 1, I I I I I f-ttl I !I I I u n I ., .. , ! I~ ';; 1 " "'"''""" ·-~-i.~•-•• -, , , ' ' . --_ .. ----, --.-, -, , . ' ' -. ' ' I , ' , ' . ------~g;F·-------====-----. ~!-'''"'.,__~ I 'I' s . , =~""'~ •• _tj' .,,.,~tJ-"" ~ ,-,, .. ,,._L-is' ' i ' ' ' ' I 1i1' , , i n, i 1 --I ,:;--B-U -I ' -' • ' .,, ' ' ''"'" ' ' ' " " -" ... ,,-\~ '"-,--'=--1~-,,,_Jr····-:;=2<lL,-'11 ~9·:_cg'"•' ~I,,-,,,,:'"'''/ --B-5 , _-~ ' --,,~:t_;-,,, ,,c" II' 1' 1 I B4' >aO• o, """"" --... -~, -~:;,'_; +-+---,, ,,! ' "!I' J', "I' ,! --- "'"""" ~7"'77.., ,-.,,.~--,.,_,,_ ---'·~ ' =-"''":: ;i~"-Wa.l1b!~;;~1i 1;?'"~; ~~ ~\I; i : : ~: : : : : : f ~ , ,I , ' • ' • . ' r-~1--'8 -) • Ji'~""_ 111 I I I i I I i ~,"'; 'i'"'tC:o'o'S -' -: 1 : c_:, _-:::-4J~-:-, ~ ! ' ' -'""" : i f , i ; / , • :'I),'.~• -="']:•fl;, ./}!:~ c,-:-_;_ rJ. IJ n1 n : -_-1 1-1 /rnJI _I , , , 1 B 6 _ . -· •, lf--jf/-, 1-, I ~I I I -' -f' ', I ' -/ I I I ' -' ,,,,, "" .':!S' " i 1-,- 1} ~ '&\;//,,J,.; a:(;,i,.N>< t_ - --=r::::-~-:.-=-:::::: ~-!<=, - "''" --I <:, r,_,_ '.. ··, u·r ,:•,ao ,,,., '':d'."f '--,~-" ·,·,~W:\:\ci "-,.~-:-.;~ ~::-:·-. s:<:·_~7-~(J'\_ f _, -- 1 -:. ;= . .J -· REFERENCE: DRAFT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR PACLAND. PREPARED BY PACE, DATED 12/12/13. VERTICAL DATUM NAVO 88_ I I 1' :=-r---j' r.! t '.'.::_l I _J----• ,.,,_,, ~: i LEGEND S 8-1 ffi TA--8--1 ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION_ BORINGS COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT IN DECEMBER 2013_ TERRA ASSOCIATES BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION_ BORINGS COMPLETED FOR ACT Ill THEATERS PROJECT IN JANUARY 1996. PRIMARY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEATURES. SEE FIGURE 3_ N 100 50 SCALE IN FEET 100 PROPOSED RENTON RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 3751 East Valley Road, Renton, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN EXISTING CONDITION DATE: January 2014 Job No. 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC / FIGURE 2 19023 36th Ave. W.,Suite D Lynnwood, WA , SHT.1of1 I NOT APART NOT A PART I r--------------------------- I I I ) I I I I I ( I I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA (1.14 ACRES) B-23 s .. TA-B-2 SALES STAGING 145 (00.88 ACRES) B-24 B-17 ~ B-16 B-22 ACCESS ROAD (0.51 ACRES) :IA-B-3'" -:®~ 0 S t'--,I ..... ,I ~ 111 nrr1-r11 hlJ ~ 1111111 160~2 04 nr1Er111,,~ TA-B-4 .. Q) 1111 .. 1 l'r::J B-3 B-5 Q 11111111'0 ~"111111111111111 I_D L--------~~--- IT'IIIIIIIIIIIIIO ~lllllllllllll'TI ~- ---I I NOT A PART NOT APART I I I NOT APART I I 11 CJ I I SW 41 ST STREET REFERENCE: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SP-16 DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2013 I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 <( 0 a::: >-w ...J ...J ~ I-- Cf) <( w LEGEND S B-1 ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION. BORINGS COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT IN DECEMBER 2013. E!) TA-B-1 TERRA ASSOCIATES BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION. BORINGS COMPLETED FOR REGAL CINEMA PROJECT IN JANUARY 1996. N 100 0 50 100 i-7~ I SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED RENTON RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 3751 East Valley Road, Renton, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DATE: Janua 2014 Job No. 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates, LLC FIGURE 3 19023 36th Ave. W.,Suite D Lynnwood, WA SHT.1 of 1 APPENDIX A ZGA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES & LOGS APPENDIX A ZGA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS Field Exploration Description Our field exploration for this project included 26 borings completed between the 4th and 10th of December 2013. The approximate exploration locations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plans, Figures 2 & 3. Exploration locations were determined by measuring distances from existing site features with a fiberglass tape measure relative to a draft topographic site survey prepared by Pace Engineers dated December 12, 2013. The approximate ground surface elevation at the exploration locations was determined by interpolating from topographic information provided on the survey. As such, the exploration locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them. The topographic survey vertical datum is NAVD 88. Boring Procedures The borings were advanced using a Mobile B-59 truck-mounted drill rig operated by an independent drilling company working under subcontract to ZGA. Borings B-9, B-10, and B-11 were advanced using mud rotary drilling methods. The remainder of the borings were advanced using hollow stem auger drilling methods. An engineering geologist 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 evaluation and testing. Samples were obtained by means of the Standard Penetration Test and thin wall Shelby tube sampler at 2.5-to 5- foot intervals throughout the drilling operation. The Standard Penetration Test (ASTM: D-1586) 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. The Shelby tube sampler (ASTM: D-1587) was used to collect relatively undisturbed soil samples for laboratory testing and consists of a 2.5 foot Jong, 3-inch outside diameter, thin wall steel tube. The tube is hydraulically pushed into and extracted from the soil, consequently no blow counts are recorded. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications. 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 number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring. If groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, are depicted on the log. Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 23.5 Feet Date Drilled: 1214/2013 s .c C. '" 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices tor additional information. Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto Mobile 8-59 Logged by: JPG 2 PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) <1l s: B-1 2 C :, 0 (.) "' C :, A. Standard Penetration Test ~ Hammer Weight and Drop: -------1 ~ e (!) 0 60 in 20 40 o-1---------------------4----1---4-~-~-+-------;~-~-,--ril---+---I 1 i ! 1 , i : : 11 , 5-112inchesASPHALT -------------------------' -, Medium dense, moist to wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL to , _ \ gravelly SAND, some silt (Fill) ____________________ / - - -5- - - Medium dense, wet grading to saturated, gray-brown to gray, gravelly SAND, with silt (Fill) -L-------------------------------------------- Very soft, wet, brown, organic SILT -------------------------------------------- 10 · Soft, wet. brown, fine fibrous PEAT ------------------------------------------- -Very soft, wet to saturated, brown, organic SILT .,, ', ________ .,. ... -Loose, saturated, dark gray, silty fine SAND to fine SAND with L__ silt 15· - L- $-1 I , .. S-2 I 8" S-3 I 14" ss I 18' :J._ ______________________ __, SB I 14' L- L- L- Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-4~2013 Perched groundwater encountered at about 7 feet at time of exploration. Groundwater encountered at about 11 feet at time of exploration. H--H •-·· 1 i i. i, . ·1· : • 1 . ·-H j ! ii i Iii, ! , ! 1 , : i +-111-r--1 : ioir1 i 1-i ,: 'I : I -1tritrl I I i i I i , r 28 1 i iidil i 11111 I 1 1 1 , I j,,,, .. ,, 16 ___ , ' ~-l+h11~ 1 1 iU! i ~I : f ;qi : 1 J 1 1 1 : I 1 ·11 , • ! !, '!! -:.1.-r.--l----'--,rv,.·,~n)1 : : 1 I 1 1 • -f-+--~J_-~~!-! , , ! i 11' I I i ·1. ' :11 I Ii I I I I i : 'I '!: ' T e\ 0 25 . i 'I 11' ! 11' I T _.a_.,' W-1 4-_l__W-J_J!_J.___L-++l_µl-1-, P,,td1~% , , ' I I ! i ! !, I --;-f .H'Tl !. ---~,-c+----r+~1-+---'-,--,:1+1 -;--, J----,. .. ;-' -- ~-1,-l.J. , ii •... I ·1 , _: i : ' , ! ', : 11 i ··t, ... -t · 1 I I ! ! I I Ii Ii t---~-~--1-""-'- . ',. 1 1: I! i, -· I!! ! 111 ! I ' 1 i i I ii I.I ' . . ! • • i ~--~ Ii. i. I• -i (L( ! ---+'I-+! ~-++1 l+J0~ 1-+H·-I i · IHt-++, ··_ ~' +! --'-1 1 +' -Y-+i---+: +, --+, +! c,•t-t-'1-11~ ! I 9 -H-' 6 i I i I i ! ! f. H -h --+-+I;+!-,~-.. ~-'--1-+-~~-1 ,.-'-'-+I '!I! ! I ii it I ! if' Ii, I! 1'. I i: Ii 'i: I '' ! i j i I: ! I , : ! I 1 I 1111 -1hti·~, ---'1-'-'-11 -I -i --'-' '--'-'-' I 25,.J.. ___________________ __. ___ _,_ _ __..:...,-'-----'-'-'-'-'---'--'-'-'-'--'---'-'-'-'--'-'--'-'--L---'------I SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch 1.0. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND LJ Clean Sand l'i'8l Bentonite • Grout/Concrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing ~ Groundwater level at ~ time of drilling (ATD) or on date of ~ measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit I O I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-1 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Comgany:: Holocene Bore Hole Dia :6" Tog Elevation: 23 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Tyge: Auto B-2 Date Drilled: 12/4/2013 Drill Rig: Mobile B-59 Logged by:: JPG SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) • Cf) ~ 2 g ,g w ~ ~ ... Standard Penetration Test C "' :, , _J • 0 C .c The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries z a. ij. "O 6 0 ~ ii between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to ~:a: a:l C Hammer Weight and Drop: ;:: " " E <( oc :, f-0 report text and appendices for additional information. !J, Cf) e 0 (!I 0 20 40 60 m "0 11 I I i I ' ' , 6 inches ASPHALT , ' ' ~ -----------------------------------------' ----· I ! I I I ~ Dense, moist grading to moist to wet, gray, gravelly SAND, with silt (Fill) I ! I I '-- S-1 12" ' I 1•1• ! 36 I ! '-- ' ' •5-I I I S-2 14" ' : ' 31 '-- I i i '--~ ... I I ~ -------------------------------------------· I .. --~ Soft, wet, brown, organic SILT. S-3 4" I 3 i ~ 10 I I '--5-4 I 2" I ' .... I I ! '---------------------------------------------I soft, saturated, gray, fine sandy SILT I ~ ! .. 1 I '--0 • ',. ! S-5 14" I, I . 4 ! i i ,__ ' ' I -------------------------------------------· ' 15· Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine SAND, with silt grading to I fine to medium SAND, some silt s-, I ' I ' I ! : 14" i ! ' 10 '-- I ' ! '--- I I I ' ! I ,__ ! I ' s-, I ' I I ~ 15" • ' ! 10 20 i ' ! Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-4-2013 i I '--Groundwater encountered at about 12 feet at time of I• '-- exploration. I ~ ·-· I ,__ i I I I ,__ ' I I I! 25 , I. SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample CJ Clean Sand 0 % Water (Moisture) Content li 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample 0 Bentonite Plastic Limit I 0 I Liquid Limit • GrouUConcrete Natural Water Content ~ Screened Casing Proposed Renton Retail TESTING KEY D Blank Casing 3751 East Valley Road GSA= Grain Size Analysis .Y. Groundwater level at Renton, WA § time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 1/10/2013 Project No., 1217.01 ~ measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Att. = Atterberg Limits 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: B-2 Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 23.5 Feet Date Drilled: g '5. " 0 12/4/2013 SOIL DESCRIPTION Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) • Standard Penetration Test ~ Hammer Weight and Drop: ---------l B-3 "' 1= ::, 0 (.) ~ The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. 20 40 60 00 O -t-,-6-in_c_h-es_A_S_P_HA_L T-_-_-_-_-_ --------_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_t----t---+--,-, --,--,-,,-,i-t-,-,-~-,"CT 'l'i 'l-t--r,-.,.-,--,--+--t---t -Medium dense, moist grading to wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, S-1 l Oi P. i , , ! i ' I i I ·111~~~ , I! 1 GSA =:: -~ ... ,, . .,_, ~, -... ,,,, ~ ,. ~* f ff J I '~-··-1-=i-;,_-=i-:1:~========== ' :I i ' ! ! I ' ' , I i 27 ' ' i ! 5- - -r------------------------------------------- -Medium stiff, wet, brown, organic SILT, trace fibrous organic material. - 10--------------------------------------------- Soft, wet to saturated, gray SILT, some fine sand, trace -fibrous organic material -r-------------------------------------------- -Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, with silt - t-- ,-. S-3 I 14" ... I 1,· ~, I 12" :+-----------------------, S-7 I 16" Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-4-2013 i--Groundwater encountered at about 10 feet at time of exploration. Sample S-1 consists of auger cuttings collected i--from 0.5 to 2.5 feet. ,-. ,-. SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. ::: Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND CJ Clean Sand ls8l Bentonite • Grout/Concrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing T Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or ~ on date of ~ measurement. i' i ' i ' : ! i ; i : ! ' % Fines (<0.075 mm) % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~1---0H----<I Liquid Limit Date: 1/10/2013 Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Project No.: BORING LOG: 26 3 9 12 1217.01 B-3 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Com(;!any: Holocene Bore Hole Dia :6" Tog Elevation: 22 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Ty(;!e: Auto B-4 Date Drilled: 12/4/2013 Drill Rig: Mobile B-59 Logged b~: JPG SOIL DESCRIPTION 2 PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) "' g i U) "' ... Standard Penetration Test "E E W ,c $'. ::, "' , ...J • 0 C .c The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries z a. > 6. u ~ 15. t:ad "' Hammer Weight and Drop: between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to C " ~ " E <{ a: ::, Cl report text and appendices for additional information. ~ U) e 0 (!) 0 20 40 60 io 0 i I ' I ' , 5-1/2inchesASPHALT --------------------------Ii ! I . i • - j 1 i Medium dense, moist grading to wet, gray, gravelly SAND, • ! ' -some silt (Fill) -f-c- I! I I I . ! --S-1 13" u. Ii I i 21 -. .. L . --. - I . . 5-I ' -S-2 13" r, i ! 4 --------------------------------------------i I ! Soft, wet, brown, organic SILT, trace fibrous organic material . I -+ - -I T tA L--------------------------------------------S-3 15" B . I ~ Loose, wet to saturated, gray, silty fine SAND to sandy SILT 'a L--------------------------------------------I 0 ' i 10 Soft, wet, brown, organic SILT S4 I I --------------------------------------------I 12" ' 4 '--Loose grading to medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND some silt : I 11 I '--. i ! I ' I ! I j i '-- I i ! ! I ! '--! ' I ; , I 1 I I I i I ! ii ! ' 15 I S-5 I I .i I I ' ! '--12' ' 6 J ! '---- I I '--I ~ S-6 I I 16' 'j, 16 20 . Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-4-2013 i I '--Groundwater encountered at about 8.5 feet at time of exploration. , I . '--• i '--I .__ ~- I, I I ! 25 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND <> % Fines (<0.075 mm) I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample CJ Clean Sand 0 % Water (Moisture) Content ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample [2Sl Bentonite Plastic Limit I 0 I Liquid Limit • Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content 8 Screened Casing Proposed Renton Retail TESTING KEY D Blank Casing 3751 East Valley Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis T Groundwater level at Renton, WA § time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 ~ measurement. Consol. = Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING Alt. = Atterberg Limits 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: B-4 Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 1 • Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Top Elevation: 22 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto B-5 Date Drilled· 1214/2013 .c li " 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundades between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. 2 "' 5' Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowsffoot) A. Standard Penetration Test .11 C: ::, 0 0 -0 C: ::, 6 Hammer Weight and Drop: -------1 ~ 60 ai e (_') 0 20 40 Ol C: ~ " f- o+_-_-4-in_c_h_e_s_A_S_P_H_A_L_T __ -_-_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-,+--l--t---+,-,---,-,--,-~,..,..,,.,.~,-,i~l+,'-,-1~ 1 J,--~Hi~'+---+- -Medium dense grading to loose, moist grading to wet, gray-S-1 H-+~-,--.-~:-:+-~.-!~-:-'I~ r1 !--i ! GSA i--brown, gravelly SAND, some silt (Fill) , -,----------. 1 lL'I i;i i!, i ! ,'I' 1--"I ;., S2 14 I ! i H ..; i i I I ! • 23 1--i 1 ! tttl---+-1---r--··--·· -H-i-.+-+ '-t-----+I i i ! ! ' ! : I I ! ! ! ! I ' s.3 I O" Soft, wet, brown, organic SILT ------------------------------------------- ... ~ 3-inches soft wet, brow11, fine fibrous PEAT __________ ,, ,, S4 I 13" Loose, wet, gray, silty fine SAND to fine sandy SILT 10· 1--Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium sand, some silt s, I 1S' - - 15 -S·6 I 14" - ------------------------------------------, --I _ 20 ~'-2_-_in_c_h_e_s_s_o«_s-at~u-ra_t_e~d-, g~r~a-y,_s-il-ty_C_LA~Y--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_---ls-? 16 .. ..,. Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine SAND, with silt - - - - Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-4-2013 Groundwater encountered at about 11.5 feet at time of exploration. Sample S-1 consists of auger cuttings collected from 0.5 to 2.5 feet. SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample D [Z Clean Sand Bentonite TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol.= Consolidation Test Att. = AtterberQ Limits • ~ D T g N Grout/Concrete Screened Casing Blank Casing Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or on date of measurement. .Y ~ ~ 0 '! i Iii Ii I i +:¥ . I · 1 ' i ; 1 I : 111----t i : 1 , , 1 I : , ; d+t----•---1- : i I : t'+ -+---1 ! '. :-+-"-' ·'--'-+-! ---'---l Hj+ +-hi , i 1 1 1 i I' . ! 11 _ 1 1 u_~ i i ! ii ! ,i j , I c " • 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit >-1---+0+----<I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA 7 4 7 9 Date: 1/10/2013 Project No,: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-5 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Top Elevation: 22 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto B-6 Date Drilled: 1214/2013 = .c 1i Q) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. . (/) ~w~ , ..J • z a.. ~ %~ E <( ~ al (/) ~ 2 (ll 5' "O C :, e (!) Mobile 8-59 Logged by: JPG 0 PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .A. Standard Penetration Test 6 Hammer Weight and Drop: ------I 20 40 O -l-,-6-in_c_h-es_A_S_P_HA_L T-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_ -_ -__ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-,+----+---+--,: .,..,l--,--,,--+•..-,-.,...,.1-,--,-,-,-t-,---r.,...,.-,-,--,--+---f--l - Medium dense, moist to wet, gray, gravelly SAND, some silt (Fill) S-t I t2" L-- L-- 5- -------------------------------------------S-2 1--Very soft, wet, brown, organic silt (wood in sampler tip) I , .. I 18" ~ I-____ ------_____________________ ------____ -· S-3 Loose, wet to saturated, gray, silty fine SAND, trace fine , organics / 10 ~~~-l~~;e~;;t~~~~.~~;y-;l~~:;;;;~~;;;n~~;r;~e-iin_e_; S-4 I 18 .. 1--organics I-- 15 L-- ------------------------------------------- Loose grading to medium dense, saturated. dark gray, fine to medium SAND, trace to some silt S-5 I 18" ~-l-----------------------1 S-6 I 14" Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-4-2013 L--Groundwater measured at 8.9 feet 20 minutes after drilling. SAMPLE LEGEND I 2~inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand ~ Bentonite • GrouUConcrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing .Y. Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or ~ on date of ~ measurement. - ! ! . i~ . i I ' . 11• t- I ! !1 I,: i I I ! ' I ! I ! i I I d-- I I I i ' I I I I I i I I : ,.. i • i ' I I I I ' ····-i '! ~ f-H-lli-'---!, ++-+++-+++++++- I ! I ! i I I ~ I -H+++f+-f+-f+-f+-+--+--+++++-++++-H I I I I I ! i I I "T ' ; i - I I I -·-J I i I I ' ' I ! : I .. i I I i ' 11 ii ~ I I ' I - ! I I I I ! - ! I i i I I i ! I I ' -i +1 I. 11 I I I i i ! ·· 1 ·· i I. I ! ' ' I i 1 I I I <> % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~1-----<'0'l-----ll Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA 16 t 5 2 8 12 Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-6 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22 Feet Date Drilled: 12/4/2013 .c a. Q) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to reporl text and appendices for additional information. -4-1/2 inches ASPHALT-------------------------- -Medium dense, moist, gray-brown, sandy GRAVEL, some _',silt (Fill) ___________________________________ /' Medium dense, moist to wet, gray, silty SAND, some gravel -(Fill) - -5- - - - - Medium stiff, wet to saturated, PEAT and organic SILT Very soft, wet to saturated, gray SILT, with fine sand, trace fine organics ------------------------------------------. 10 • Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, some silt - - - - 15 Grades to medium dense - - - Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto ~ Q) ~ "O C => Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowsttoot) A Standard Penetration Test l::. Hammer Weight and Drop: ------i B-7 "' c => 0 u " 0 e (.') 0 20 40 60 1ii S-1 I 14" I T S-2 3" ~ 0 I ~ S-3 14" ~ ~ 0 S4 I 12' 29 -,1 , : ' ! !'i I i i i j Iii ~ I i~i i . i I i 1 ' i I Ii 11 I ! 1 .. 1· 'J. i .... _J1., !_,_J_ 11 i 11 i ! Ii I! i ! ! I ' I 5 ..l I i ! i , i ! i ! I I I I i i I , i , i ' j -+- I!! ! ! I I ! : ' I 2 I I I ,I i I -t' · 1 . : r 8 S5 I 16' 15 :~------------------------1 S-6 I 18" ~ , I I i I i i I 11 ' ' I! '1 1' 1· '1 - - - Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-4-2013 Perched groundwater encountered at about 5.5 feet at time of exploration. Groundwater encountered at about 8 feet at time of exploration. i ! ! t-----c-+c-+-H-t--+-c-t--t--t-+--H-t-H-i---i-+-+- 1 1 111 I ! ! ! I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! :;_._ __________________ _._ __ __. __ ... __,_'-! '-I -'- 1 "';-'t-'-'-+i:==·=':=:i :=::-'-1-'-i-'-I'-· --'-1 .. i .. 1...._ _ _.__--1 SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample ]I 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND m Clean Sand [Qg Bentonite • GrouUConcrete 8 Screened Casing D Blank Casing T Groundwater level at § time of drilling (ATD) or on date of " measurement. <> % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit >-I ---<OH----<j Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood,. WA BORING LOG: 8-7 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 12/412013 g .i:: 1i Q) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification Jines represent the approximate boundan·es between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia.: 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto ~ .lien 2 "' E W ~ s: , .J • z 0.. > " Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .&. Standard Penetration Test 6 Hammer Weight and Drop: B-8 2 C: :::, 0 0 C, C: ~ i:,d C: E ,0: " :::, _____ _. ~ Q) f-,ii en e (.') 0 20 40 60 1ii -o-+-,-.-~-!."-f-~e-.~-~-~-f-!:IA-.-~-I-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_,-,-+----l----+-~1-,--,...,...1'1,-+-,! '! 'I -rr-T'I' ,I'! t-rr,,rr-r--rl----+---1 -H-i-1--'--+-i-,++ 1+-+-H1' ! I . I-H-11++-++ 1+-+-L..!-I I I: i - Medium dense grading to loose, moist, gray-brown, SAND, i I 1 1 I :--with gravel, some silt (Fill) 1-1-' -1-i H+'-+1-H+f-if-i' +-+-H-·. 1 I ' I - ~s- L- L- L- 10 L-- 15· L-- -------------------------------------------· Medium stiff, wet, brown, PEAT and organic SILT ------------------------------------------. Loose, wet to saturated, dark gray, fine SAND, with silt ------------------------------------------. Loose to medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, trace to some silt -------------------------------------------- Loose, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND -------------------------------------------- Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, some silt S-1 I 14" S-2 I O" s-, I 1,- ... I 18" S-5 I 18" (10-inches of heave, blow count understated) I :..-----------------------! S-6 14" L-- L- Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-4-2013 Groundwater encountered at about 9 feet at time of exploration. I 11' Ii Ii I I I' I j I I ' I • I I I i I ! I ! ' I I I ! I g= i l ii ' I I I 11 ! I. I i ' ' ! I! ! I ' ' I 11 ! I 1 i . ' ! ;ii ! I ! ' ' ! I ' ' e-----~--j ' r i 22 I ! I ' i I 7 I i 11 i i ((_:_ I i i 9 I I I II ' , I i . 'i 11 t I I ! I I I ' ---·- i I 2 ' I I I I ' I 11 I I! 11 I 25..L....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-~~....L.~....L.L..!...l.~"-'-'--'-'-..C...C.."-'-'--'-'-..C...C..i ,L___J-'-!...C...C..--'-'....l....~-L----1 SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand i2Sl Bentonite • Grout/Concrete 8 Screened Casing D Blank Casing .Y. Groundwater level at ~ time of drilling (A TD) or on date of ~ measurement. <> % Fines (<O.o75 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~1--....,:;9:,....---11 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-8 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 121512013 g .c C. " Cl SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratihcation lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Drilling Company: Holocene Drilling Method: Rotary Wash Mobile B-59 Bore Hole Dia : 6" Hammer Type: Auto Logged by: JPG ~ " ~ PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) A Standard Penetration Test 8-9 2 C :, "O C :, h. Hammer Weight and Drop: ----~ 8 ~ e (!) 0 20 40 60 in o-1--4-in-c-he_s_A_S_P-HA_L_T-----------~.---'-------l---+I--!' -•. ---, -.. 1 -, -,,'. -1. l.--!4------'----1---1 -,~ense grading to loo:~.-~~i:t-;~~i~~ ;o-:.~:r~;e~: ~~~~--,, ~. :.:.,~ 1 1---r, i+~,...1,.J,.---·· .... ~--~,'e-, :__L',,~--...1--~···,~~---'+-'-'-l' = brown, gravelly SAND, with silt (Fill) s- 1 I 12 ,, L---! mt-Tli ] j ·~ : ; I ; ~ 51 5- - - - - 10 '-- L------------------------------------------- Medium stiff, wet to saturated, brown, organic silt with 1/2-inch thick fibrous peat interbeds L--------------------------------------------. '-- '-- 15 '-- '-- '-- 20, '-- Loose to medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND Medium dense, saturated, dark gray SAND, with silt Medium dense grading to dense, saturated, dark gray SAND, trace silt I I : I i I I ii . , i . 1 Ii ~I.. : i i+-: +-1 Hi i-+:+._~;-, !1 I, i-1 !iHi " •-, I 4 7 --rr f{ • __ : t. L, 1 .. i. i,. i .. ' :._: I : 5 0 -r-J----·· r : ! : -i I ;-+--1 i i I i ... I 1,· , -+1 1+ 1 1 r 1 _JJillU .. _: : _ _L' •. __ 11T: -i 1,: ! 111: Ii : ._._ , r !-! i ·--·---• --~~ S-5 I 14" i i ... , '1 I I I I i d :_ :I ··, II 11_:jl II_. Ii I I , i i i 1 1 1 1 I 1 -·-i-trrL 12 9 S-6 I 18" 12 ! ~ 11 i I· I ' -t, . i I I~ : I I : ! i '--------j,-1 ~,nr·-.--l----4' . -W-, . ~' . ~, -I-+-, '---'--C-h-i S-7 I 14' , I ! 17 GSA GSA GSA --T! ! I : ! I ! :11 i JI !1---1--j:, _,_i-'-' '1...Ljl ~1'+,-i-:+-i,, 1 '1 1·,' I -1-'1-1-:I i , Ii 11·' i 25.J_--------------------'-----.....1...-.....L·---'---.--'.' -'--.· .C..· '-..!· ..1l..1....._'--!...L...!...L.....L'--!...L...!...L-w..t._--L_---I SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol.= Consolidation Test Att. ::: Atterbeq::i Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand K8l Bentonite • Grout/Concrete E Screened Casing C Blank Casing .... Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or 2 on date of measurement. <) % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~1---0A------JI Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: 8-9 Page 1 of 3 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 12/5/2013 is .c C. Q) 0 - 30 35. SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Medium dense grading to dense, saturated, dark gray SAND, trace silt Very soft, saturated, light gray, ELASTIC SILT l.......-.L-------------------------------------------- '--- Loose to medium dense, saturated, gray SANO, with silt, trace shell fragments '--- 40· '--- '--- '--- 45. '--- SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample I 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol.= Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND CJ Clean Sand E8l Bentonite • GrouUConcrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing ,, Groundwater level at ~ time of drilling (ATD) or on date of ~ measurement. Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia.: 6" Hammer Type: Auto Drilling Method: Rotary Wash s-, I 1•· S-10 S-11 I 12" S-12 I 14" Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) A Standard Penetration Test ~ Hammer Weight and Drop: --------1 ! i ! ' I ' I I ' ' I ' . I -· _L : I : ; ' ' -----1······ 20 40 • I ----~--- . ' ! I i I I I ! -• I I I I ' • ' ' ~ ~ . ; ' . i I I ; I ----+- . • . -----1-1~1-e++--++1-+-e--+-e+++., . <> % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~1--~0~----,j Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA B-9 27 36 0 12 9 GSA Date: 111012013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-9 Page 2 of 3 • Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation· 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: g .c 15_ Q) 0 12/5/2013 SOIL DESCRIPTION Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Hammer Type: Auto Drilling Method: Rotary Wash 2 "' ~ "O C ::, Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .A Standard Penetration Test h. Hammer Weight and Drop: ------I 8-9 "' c ::, 0 (.) ;: 0 The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to repo,t text and appendices for additional information. e (!) 0 20 40 iii 60 _:-1-s-L~-~-~-~ra-,a- 9 -~-=-~ 1 -i~-m-d_e_n_s-e.-s-a-tu_ra_t_e_d,-g-,a-y_S_A_N_D_,w_i_th_s_i_lt,-t-,a-c-e-+s--t-,-1.-1-,"' .. f---,h-'h:-!'"'~"":-.''.'!_'l•';Tl+,1.---__ )-_(-l---.-! .. -: .. ,:.l.-i-+-,-.--.-!,~jl-[i- 1 -1 ... 1-i·-:.+--16-1---1 _l_J_11 Iii 1 : 1-!!!! :--~-.. ! '-rn-r 11: 11 , l'i 'I · 'TT L--oe-n~~~~~;~d~~;;~~~~t~~.-g~~y-~~~~~~rth;ilt~t~c~--. f: !.;---:+-11 ! 1·! r I ttr shellfragments t,,1,-1 1 -1':-, '!,~ , I ,fl' '- 55 .. S-14 I 14" 60 S-15 I O" 1--------------------------------------------' 1--Loose, saturated, gray, silty SAND, trace shell fragments I L-...1-----------------------,S-16 13" Boring completed at 64 feet on 12-5-2013 65 Groundwater encountered at about 8 feet at time of exploration. '- '- 70 '- '- I ! I! i ! I j I i 41 I i ' i I ! '---'-'-'---'-'-'-'-! L! ,! _____ J__j_ ! U ____ ~L I----H--c-t+-----+-1--1--1 1Utf• i W_1_1 : i 11 111 i ----'---1--1--L ! I i . I 1 11 1--~-+,-+-,:-'-----+-·.: i,, I 1 1 i ! [ j I ! ' i 11 I I T1 I I ' : ! ! ' ! I i ' I I I 62 8 ! 1!:!!, I-I-mt' ! 'i : 111n~-I i I , : I i i • , ~Tf.i! ! L;: I! l+j I [[IT~ I I Ii 11 i . iii 11: I I ! ! ! i I, 1. 1, i ! ! I ! ! 1111 i I ~I : .,.-r, ... 1· .. . '1 '1 , ', '1 i ' ' i ----,,+ri+ 'G' ,l ' i : H-i i 11 i I i i i ' 11 · I I ' I : : ! :I ; ' I I I i I I I ·l·-+tt-i,, !I i : i ! ! ; ' I : ! : < ' ·-i-·r+-------+-i--+--- 11 ' · , 1 ! ! ! iii i I! I ! 1 1 -~ 1 , ' ,1 1 I ! , . i ii . : , , 1 , I ---'--''-'~~' '' ' ' ,, ''II,' i'LJ1T-ITl.ill ~~· ·----l~ !II_, __ , Ill----~-- ' . . :: ,, i I ! ! : I 1-I ! H I 11 i i I i I i i ir-r .. I_ , I . I . '1··1 : HI"~ I ', ! ! I Ii Iii I; i ' 75-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'-~~--''--~J..!..'--'-.J..J-'--1-'--1~..LL..LL-'-C_J_~'-'-'-'-'---'-~--'-~--I SAMPLE LEGEND 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample J 3-inch J.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND ZJ Clean Sand IZl Bentonite • GrouUConcrete l=! Screened Casing D Blank Casing ,, Groundwater level at ~ time of drilling (ATD) or on date of ~ measurement. 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~1--~0<+---II Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/1012013 Project No., 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave_ W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: 8-9 Page 3 of 3 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 121512013 g: ,:; li Q) 0 - SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information Dense grading to loose, moist grading to saturated, gray- -brown, gravelly SAND, with silt (Fill) -- 5- 1 O· Loose, saturated, gray, silty SAND, trace fine organics --------------------------------------------. Soft, saturated, brown, organic SILT ------------------------------------------. 1--Loose, saturated, dark gray, silty SAND 15· -- 20, -------------------------------------------- --, Soft, ~aturated, light gray SILT, some wood debris, trace fine , , organics / --'----------------------------------------- Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, some silt ------------------------------------------- Medium dense to dense, saturated, dark. gray SAND, trace to some silt Drilling Company: Holocene Drilling Method: Rotary Wash Mobile B-59 Bore Hole Dia : 6" Hammer Type: Auto Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) A Standard Penetration Test I::,. Hammer Weight and Drop: ------I B-10 .!!l C => 8 ~ 20 40 60 i'ii S-1 I 12" S-2 I 12" S-3 I , .. S-4 I 12" S-5 I , .. S-6 I 15" 11 i I i ' I I I ' I I ! i I . ~--LL: I r . ' --+ i i i i --... --11-l. ! 1 I' I y_ H--H------++t+++-----,H' +++I f~l== '• I< -. , .. ' I I ..: ... ).1. J I ' ' -'··- -•-- ' ' I i :~ -- I -- ' i ' I i . ! i . --t---1-H-++---,-l ! i i i ! i I I I - i ' I I 1 I ' I I I ' I ! ! I I I ! -···-. ! ' ! ! ' -"t . ' i I 41 34 12 GSA 7 GSA 9 GSA 5 f1 I ii 25~-----------------------'------'--..... ~-'--',-'--'-'--'-----'--'--'--'--'--'--'--~I -'--'--'--'-'--'-'--'-'--'--''----'----I SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand ~ Bentonite • Grout/Concrete l:::l Screened Casing D Blank Casing I Groundwater level at ~ time of drilling (ATD) or on date of ~ measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Lim it I O I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-10 Page 1 of 3 • Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 12/5/2013 g .c li (1) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification Jines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Drilling Company· Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Hammer Type: Auto Drilling Method: Rotary Wash . (/) s EW~ "' a -' • s: z 0. > "O Mobile 8-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowsfloo1) A. Standard Penetration Test B-10 2 C :, 0 u t~§ C E <( ~ :, D:.. Hammer Weight and Drop: ------I ~ ,ii (/) e (!) 0 20 40 in 60 S-7 114" 25-t----------------------t--~....---tr---+-,----,-.,..--,-----,-,---,----,-,.,...,.-t-,-,--,-,-,-,-.,-t---r---f ~ 0 e~~u~/ense to dense, saturated, dark gray SAND, trace to -+---c+---+-r-H' ++'_,.A...__i4-I ++ I I I I I I _I_!__ . 30 -- 35 - 40 - 45 - - - - ------------------------------------------. Very soft, saturated, light gray, ELASTIC SILT, trace fine organics Loose, saturated, gray SANO, with silt, trace shell fragments Medium dense, saturated, gray SAND, with silt, trace shell fragments SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample I 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample D IQsl Clean Sand Bentonite TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits • t=l D ~ § ~ Grout/Concrete Screened Casing Blank Casing Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or on date of measurement. S-8 I 14" S-9 I 18' S-10 I 14" S-11 I 13" S-12 I 15" Ii ··-·· l ! ' I ' I I '. I u_ I ! ! I . ' -+·-·-+---~ ·t-t+++~+-t+H I I I ~ L I ·i I H-+------H-++i-----+ I J I L i I I i i r 1T -;-ri--f----,-+-+----1 ---+-,---4-1· · n-:---1 = , -----+-++, ++: -, -1 -+-+r 1 HI,.,_ L,---:-! +++I +---l--'---1--:-! J:-++-+HI : I ' I f -~----.) ----, i . i i I : I <> % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit 1--I -----<0'-+-----11 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA 31 26 0 4 10 GSA 16 Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-10 Page 2 of 3 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 12/5/2013 g .r::: li " 0 - - SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to reporl text and appendices for additional information. Medium dense, saturated, gray SAND, with silt, trace shell fragments ~L------------------------------------------- Medium dense to dense, saturated, gray SAND, with silt, trace -shell fragments 55 - - - - 60· - - '-- 65· '-- '-- 70· '-- '-- Boring completed at 62.5 feet on 12-5-2013 Groundwater encountered at about 8 feet at time of exploration. Drilling Company: Holocene Drilling Method: Rotary Wash Bore Hole Dia : 6" Hammer Type: Auto B-10 S-14 I 16" S-15 I 14" L " ~ "O C ::, e Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .A. Standard Penetration Test I::,. Hammer Weight and Drop: ------1 2 C ::, 8 ~ (9 0 20 40 ijj 60 i J I, i , -"11--i ', I I C -+-1-.-i-+--+-J+++++++-++-'-+----~ • i ' ! i I I ! ! I • I . -IL I ,_cl ___ ' '--'-'-'-! _w.__, 111 I '! i ! I 1-W-l---l-! l-H---i-+-l-1-+:-i-!-W-W-+-l-+-IC. , , I : I I ! ' I ' ' I I i ! i ' I ii1H: ++H-+---+++-!,1-+·I ++-!, 1.1-+-H-++-'--l W--l-l-+--1-1-+-i- ! I i I I i ~-++++ . . I I I I i 1-1-+++-+++++++---+++++++-! - ! I I I ! i I ! l -----r-1--I, CU-I~ I I I --,-i ; -1 I ' ! I l 11 I! , I ', i 15 31 26 Cl C ! L1.-, h-,-·1 i. 1--'-+-++++++<-,++ ,+++-H 75-'------------------....L. __ _l__..LL.LI LJI I_:__ i.L!'L. ;· LL1.Ll...l c.:i .J..J. 1 .!..I LJ..J..Ll.... 1..I '--'l-'-iJ..l..L...........L---1 SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample li 3-inch J.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand K3l Bentonite • Grout/Concrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing ... Groundwater level at ~ time of drilling (ATD) or on date of ~ measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit 1-I ---OA----<I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-10 Page 3 of 3 • Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 121612013 % " 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Drilllng Company: Holocene Drilling Method: Rotary Wash Mobile B-59 Bore Hole Dia : 6" Hammer Type: Auto Logged by: JPG 2 "' ~ PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .A. Standard Penetration Test B-11 .l'l C ::, 0 0 "' C ~ "O C => 6 Hammer Weight and Drop: -------1 ,: 0 0) f--e (.') 0 20 40 60 cc o +---------------------+----+----+--,-,--,---t---,---,----,...,..,...,..,-...,...,..,...,...,..t--+---t 11 · • ! I I : I I I l I 5.5 inches ASPHALT ' , -' , '-----------------------------------------' - - - -5- - - - - 10· - - - - 15 - - - - 20· - - - - Dense to very dense, wet, gray, SAND, with silt and gravel (Fill) Grades to loose, wet to saturated, gray-brown, silty SAND, some gravel ------------------------------------------- Medium stiff, wet to saturated, brown, fibrous PEAT Loose, saturated, dark gray, silty fine SAND Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SANO, with silt ------------------------------------------- Dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, trace to some silt S-1 I ,, .. S-2 I 12" S3 I 4' S-4 I a· S-5 I 14" S6 I 11' S-7 I 14" ---Ii-~.-l~f---'---~! ~---t-i Hl ! ! ! I 1-c--+++I +'--+--'-+-~· ~' t-+-i -++'--+'-+ I ; : ! ' I i ----;----i----! I ! j ~ i i I i · r i I i ----,1-,1--+l--+--+.++c-i-t-i' -t-! -t---c-----t-t-+-t--+--.----ti---tl---tl---t-Til ,~!--+-il-+l-+1-+I+_ 1 .-,--I , + ! i ! 1 I . I· 11. I i i I l i ! ! I j I I ---: : 1 ------t·-1-+-+-t-t---'I 1 , : j i I I : j i . · 1 I'' 1 ·1 1,1 · I ',· I i _.. i ! i ~1 1 ~~~1~',+i~"+~~Lil -~I~!~ i ,i i I i i i ! I -ir,, -Mrtrlr I 1 ! I ! , ! ! ! ! I I I I I .... 1 Jt ' ' I Iii f-. +-ie-·······+!ili~-H·++--!"--ci-++I +-~--+i+i +II i '1.'.1' i Ii I ! I __ L. I L 1 I 1--: I 1 ' .•• -..• ' I i I I-+-: +-1 -++1--+--+1 1-+--+-: 1r r+-+1~-h Ii 11 I i j i i I I ! I ! I i I ! Ut M-t -!fit-:: : ; : , i I : ' :, i i i i : · · · H+,----t--t--+--1 j-1 t--c~,-f : 1 , 1 ~-r! 43 52 10 7 9 GSA 9 18 GSA f-'-1 _! ! --'--f ·!-W--11 i I ·1 '111· : i I Iii . ! I I 25-'-----------------------'-----'-----'--'---'----'---'--'--'----'--'-'-'--.................. _ __....., __ .___~ SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W;;: 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND [] Clean Sand ~ Bentonite • Grout/Concrete 1:::1 Screened Casing D Blank Casing I Groundwater level at ~ time of drilling (A TD) or on date of N measurement. <> % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit >-1---<QH----<I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Date: 1/10/2013 Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Project No.: BORING LOG: 1217.01 B-11 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 4 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Comgan:t Holocene Bore Hole Dia.: 6" Tog Elevation: 22.5 Feet Drilling Method: Rotary Wash Hammer Tige: Auto B-11 Date Drilled: 1216/2013 Drill Rig: Mobile B-59 Logged b:t: JPG SOIL DESCRIPTION 3 PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) . (/) .l!l g t w i!"' "' A Standard Penetration Test C en $'. :, , _J • 0 C .c The stratification fines represent the approximate boundaries z 0.. • "O t:, (.) ~ C. between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to t:;; ~ C: Hammer Weight and Drop: ~ " " E <( ~ :, f-Cl repol1 text and appendices for additional information. /l, (/) e 60 m (!) 0 20 40 25 SB 1 i I I ' Dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, trace to ' 12" i 'I 34 L--some silt ' ' L--- I ' L---------- : ! -1 I ... :.: ' L-- I I I i i 30 S-9 I 10' ' ' I ' I I 36 L-- I -' i L--_ _,_ -- L---------------------------------------------· I Very soft, saturated, light gray, ELASTIC SILT L------ I ' . ' 35 S-10 I 12" i i-l' 0 At!. L--------------------------------------------- Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND, with ! I I L--silt, trace shell fragments ' i ' i i i i I L--' I ' L-----·----C----- 40-' i S-11 I 16" I ll 17 -I ' ' I -' ! i L--I ' Jl I I L--I I i 45. S-12 I ... ' . i I ' ' I i 13 GSA L-- ' ' ' I ' L-- L--~-------------------------------------------I Loose, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND, trace shell fragments I ' L-- I --. 50 SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample D Clean Sand 0 % Water (Moisture) Content ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample ~ Bentonite Plastic Limit I 0 I Liquid Limit • Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content 8 Screened Casing Proposed Renton Retail TESTING KEY D Blank Casing 3751 East Valley Road GSA = Grain Size Analysis I Groundwater level at Renton, WA § time of drilling (ATD) or 200W = 200 Wash Analysis on date of Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 N measurement. Consol.= Consolidation Test Zipper Geo Associates BORING B-11 Att = Atterberg Limits 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D LOG: Lynnwood, WA Page 2 of 4 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 12/6/2013 g .c a. (l) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to reporl text and appendices for additional infonnation. Drilling Company: Holocene Drilling Method: Rotary Wash Mobile B-59 Bore Hole Dia.: 6" Hammer Type: Auto Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowsfloot) A Standard Penetration Test .6. Hammer Weight and Drop: B-11 J!l C: ::, 0 0 ------< ;, 0 20 40 iii 60 _:+--Lo_o_s_e-. s-a-tu-r-at_e_d_, g-r-ay-.-s-ilt_y_fi_n_e_S_A_N_D_, -t,-ac_e_s_h_e_ll_fr_a_g_m_e-nt-s-l- 5 -_ 1 -,-i~,-,-I .. e---lWi-·---, -~-j -1-i -i--+-1-.=,=~~~--+-1: __ -__ -__ :1====-1;1;1_.-l--,-e---l ! i 11 i I I I I iii ii I : --------------------------------------------1_1 ! m --[ j , I [ j~l-11 1.....-fr!~~~n~!turated, gray, fine SAND, with silt, trace shell -1-··--···· I ! 11 : . ! I I : i J ! i j i.l .. I ! i ! 11 ! I 1 ! I! : ! Ii!! ': I 55· ~L-------------------------------------------- - 60- - - 65 '-- '-- 70, Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND, trace shell fragments -------------------------------------------- Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND, with silt, trace shell fragments S-14 I 13" S-15 I 12' S-16 I 10· S-17 I 4" I ! I' I!. • I .I i I . j ~---:-ij+H , ... ,. i I i I • • • ! i I i : . i 40 11: 11,,1--mrL 11.1. 1, 1 I r1rrn i i I i 1I : i 1 1 I I ! I I ! ! I I _.! i ! ill i I i I ! ! i -··-·+ i ; , j ! I I ·-··.,.•-+-' '-I---'--' Uil~-J_ ii l 1 ! ! [!!. I I 1-mft-lii ~·: ! 1:1 I I I! ! I I!'!! I 25 16 GSA i i i ! " ' " .. I I ii I!! i i' I_! -*-----~-! J~-rt$-tl '1 1 1 11: .' ! '1·. 1' ·1· _T_:_ ' ! . I I I ! " I i i i '! 27 : 1 1 1 1 i I it::···, 1 1 r r -ni-75-'--------------------..J...----'--'-'--'--'-'-L.!---'---1._Ll._Ll._:___LL.L!_LJ_l__Cl.J..J..._..J..._--I SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample I 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand ~ Bentonite • GrouUConcrete ~ Screened Casing C Blank Casing "' Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or ~ on date of ~ measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~1---.CQ'l------ll Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-11 Page 3 of4 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Hammer Type: Auto Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Drilling Method: Rotary Wash B-11 Date Drilled: 12/6/2013 g .c: 15. " 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE iblowsifoot) A Standard Penetration Test !!l C :, 0 () ~ Hammer Weight and Drop: -------l ~ 20 40 in 60 c» .s 1n " f- 75+--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1---~1~-1------l~~~l ........ ~~~ ......... ~~~1------1--------,1 Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND, with 5 _18 12 L__ silt, trace shell fragments and organics l '-- '-- 80 '-- '-- ------------------------------------------- Loose, saturated, gray, fine SAND, with silt, trace shell fragments Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND to sandy SILT, trace shell fragments S-19 I ,, .. 85 I '--._ ______________________ _,s-20 12" '-- '-- I-- 90 '-- '-- I-- 95 '-- '-- I-- Boring completed at 86.5 feet on 12-6-2013 Groundwater encountered at about 9 feet at time of exploration. . I ' I (.__.__._ . '' '' 11 '' . . I . 7 I ----- : 11 ! -++-++-+-+--c++-++-+-+---.C-, i i . ! . ---. i . I I ---I------ I' I 100,..._ ___________________ ....,_ ___ ..,__....,_.c..;_--'-J...J._.l..i-J...J._-'--..1..J-..I..J-_J__;_-L..J.-L..J.-L..J.-L..J._...!..J __ .__-----4 SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample K 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberi:i Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND CJ Clean Sand l'Zl Bentonite • Grout/Concrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing _y_ Groundwater level at § time of drilling (ATD) or on date of ~ measurement. (> % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit •l---+04---...JI Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-11 Page 4 of 4 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: g '5_ 12/6/2013 SOIL DESCRIPTION Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto • (J) 2 ~w~ "' , -' . s: z 11. ~ "C t~ ijJ C E <( ~ ::, Mobile 8-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) A. Standard Penetration Test ~ Hammer Weight and Drop: ------; B-12 !!l C ::, 0 (.) ~ C> .~ 1n Q) f-Q) 0 The stratification Jines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. ~ (J) e (:> 0 20 40 60 a'i , o-+--4-in_c_h-es_A_S_P_H_A_L_T---------------+----+--t---,-.-~-+-~1-._-_-.. -.i,. 1 -1 .. -. 1 [·.~-+--,~!,~1 1 -i' .. ~ 1 1-+ _ \Medium dense to dense, moist, gray-brown, gravelly SAND, / ' ~ittrsilt"(f'il~---------------------------------i I i ! I! - - - 5- - - Grades to loose, wet to saturated, gray, SAND, with silt and -gravel ~------------------------------------------- -Soft to medium stiff. wet to saturated, brown. fine PEAT 10- - -~------------------------------------------- -Loose, saturated, dark dray, silty fine SAND - 15-~------------------------------------------- Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine SAND, with silt - - - - S-1 I 13" S-2 I 15 S-3 I 12" s~ I S-5 I 18 S.6 I 11" ; I ! I I 11 11 : !JI i I ! I , I i ! 9'111 i i i n+-j IC...~;C--+-+-+-++~-l, -,Tri-~,-~T"--,,1 "1 •·· , , . ! 11. I 1 ' , ,, , !,1 Willi i '1'1 ~,, 1 I ! , , I I , 1-------_ ~ -~ -r ------i--+------>------r--_ --+i,-+-f-f-"--' ' : ' • " ' ' i i i ' I ---1-1,-'·i-11 Hi :I i I I ! I ! ; ! ! ! i Ii ; : ! ; ! ! : ~r:1 1·Tr 11111 ·1 -1, • '' ! ' ! I I I I I i . ·1 · 't Li 1-rrr1--i ~~· - . '! ! ! ! I 11 i; 38 5 4 10 7 11 20 I ' ! ! ! ! ! I i I, 1' -1----------------------;S-7 11" =.tJ i : , i ----;:' I . : i : · ! I ~~;_:_,~_:~_~a_+_i:a_J_~_::_t~_i_oa-ut_n~-~-;:_~_:_f_ao_b~-~-~-:-fe-2e-o/_;_t _tim_e_o_f ____ ~--~--~··_· ·-I~'~ •i~•i~:_-_i.;.i '~-~-1~I~-·~i1_--~~:-,:~1::i~+-l~::1~·~~~~,.~~1_-1•~: _.,.~;'~L~I ~··~·-~--1 SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample ]I 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberq Lim its GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand 2Sl Bentonite • GrouVConcrete =cl Screened Casing =:J Blank Casing ... Groundwater level at § time of drilling (ATD) or on date of N measurement. <> % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit I O I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-12 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto B-13 Date Drilled: 121612013 g ~ Q) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. ~ • lf) Q) 1ii ~w~ 3: , _J • z 0.. ~ "O t~ :ii C E <( ~ ::, s; lf) e (!) Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .& Standard Penetration Test .!!l C ::, 0 u l::i,, Hammer Weight and Drop: -------1 ~ 0 20 40 60 a, Cl C ! : I ; I I o+------------------+----+---l~-,-,-.,...,..,---+,...,..,..,...,..--,-,...,..,"T"T~.,...,...,..,-+-+---1 , 4 inches ASPHALT ,- L..-, 6-inches dense, moist, gray-brown, gravelly SAND with silt , \ (Fill) ,' L..-~----------------------------------------' Dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with gravel to silty gravelly 1----SAND Grades to loose, wet, gray, silty SAND, some gravel Soft, wet, brown, organic SILT, with peat 10 ------------------------------------------· Very stiff, saturated, light gray, SILT, some fine sand, trace 1--clay and fine organics 1---L~~;;, -s~;u~~t~~.-d-a-;; ~;a~~ fl;e-t~ -~;dj~~ SA-N-0, ~~~~ -si1; . - - 15- 0.5 to 1.5 inch thick dark gray silty fine sand interbed obseived -at 15.5 feet - S-1 I 13" S-2 I 12" :·: l .,.... 12" ~, I 14· ~-I 1--1-----------------------t S-6 12" - Boring completed at 21.5 feet on 12-6-13 Groundwater encountered at about 8 feet at time of exploration. I I 1, I ' : I I ' I I ~ Ii I I, I I ' '~ i . ' - i I ! I I . ' L i i I I I l-l-'-----1--l--l-l-+l-l-----+-i--+--H--+-__j_l 1-++-e--···! -~ ··t I i I I IT i : f I I I I i I ,. ' I ' i ' I I i I I I 11 ! i I i I ! !J i I I ' ··-.. I . i·:·r· ! : : I I I I ! I l-+-i-+l+'--1-l-+-+-l-+-i-'-+-l-l--l-l-+-,-H-I ! I i I I .:: I ! ' ' I . I ' ! ' I ' i ' .... - ' . ' ' -' 44 7 0 7 9 26 i I I I ! II 25.l...---------------------'------'-----'--l-l--l-l--l-l--.l!...LL...LL...LL_...!...!-'-J...!...!-...!...!...!...!w...J'-----'----I SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch 0.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand t,8l Bentonite • GrouUConcrete 8 Screened Casing D Blank Casing ... Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or ~ on date of ~ measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit •1----"'0"---al Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-13 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22 Feet Date Drilled: 12/9/2013 £ c_ "' 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .A. Standard Penetration Test I:::,. Hammer Weight and Drop: B-14 .!'l C: :, 0 u _____ _, ;: 0 20 40 60 ci5 •o-+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+-~~~t-~--t-,,rr,,-,,~,1-lrl--, -,, ,,---1-,-,---,~~, --,--,~+-~-+~--1 -, 4.5 inchesASPHALT __________________________ ,-' I 'I 11 j' :, +Lu_ _ _j-+·~-'---' Dense, moist, gray-brown, gravelly SAND to sandy I I I I ,, GRAVEL, with silt (Fill) _________________________ ,' ' ! : ! ! : t ~-ll J 1 _ 1 j_ Very dense, moist to wet, gray, SAND, with gravel and silt I ill I 11 1 ' I 1 ' (Fill) s-, ,,.. ~-!. i-:.~, -:. r:_-rr1 I ---+-: r_1-+,--+-+,~-::::,::-i+~,:+-,.-i:, 55 as- - 10 15 - Grades to loose, saturated, gray, SAND, with silt, some gravel S-2 I 14 Medium stiff, wet to saturated, brown, organic SILT I --------------------------------------------5-3 16' Medium stiff, saturated,_brown, fine fibrous PEAT _________ _ Medium stiff, saturated, gray, SILT, some fine sand, trace clay and fine organics ------------------------------------------. Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine SAND, with silt Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, some silt S-4 I 16 S-5 I 12" ,--.. _G_ra_d_e_s_t_o_t_,a_c_•_to_s_o_m_e_s_il-t _<s_-_e_b_lo_w_co_u_n_t_o_v_e_rs_t•_t_•_d_-__ --1 5 _8 I 18,. heave in sampler) 20 -- Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-9-13 Groundwater encountered at about 5.5 feet at time of exploration. '. I 'I . ! I, ', ,,' I ... 1 ::I ·;' iri 1 -:-----'1-c_jJ_Q-i-it+-H,---+++~++-IH'++i+i+ i'-H i " i I • I I ! I I Jill ----:::+1 ~·-++-++-~+-!I ·++-"+-i ____ -_ --I 1 _L'l. t- -~,: . ii i fT ' I ' I ' i I i J-+--~+-+-+~+-+-i ·-·~! --;HI~' -1-! ! ! I ! ! ! ! -! ! 1 . ' i i I : I I i J-+---++-i-+-++!, 'I,-'--'! ·--r;-! , ' I i i , • 1 : i '--4LU 1,4 '·, 111 !, !, . l !, ' I! ' ,.! I I 1-+-+1-+++-H1-c,+ 1 1 r111-r1 , 1 , . 1 , i lH HtH I ! I ! ! 1 ttt 1 i I ' 1 111 . 1 !)~-', -~ -in1-1 ~-,~-[T ' I ! I I I ' I II ' I ' I I I I I ' ,,-i I 11,,]~I !1'! .. i I I I' I 'i I i i ! i ! i ! I' ! ! I I 1 ! , I , ! ,i' ,i 1 i I 1 1-t1~-J :I i, !! '· ! ! ! ~I II l-1 1 1 1 I ! ,l, _ __l_ 5 7 8 17 51 11 11 i ! 1 I i. i. 'I iTfl , 1 1 ' ! , II ! ' ' ! ! ! ! ! 25-'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'-~~~-'-~--'--'-'--'-'--'---'--'--'--'-~--'----'-'---'----'---'-'--'---'--'~~L-~~ SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND G Clean Sand ~ Bentonite • Grout/Concrete ~ Screened Casing =i Blank Casing ... Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or g on date of N measurement. 0 % Fines {<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit I O I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date, 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: 8-14 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 23.5 Feet Date Drilled: <2 .c C. 0) 0 12/912013 SOIL DESCRIPTION Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto • U) 2 ~ w 1:-m , ..J • ~ z a_ ~ 'O ~~ lrl C E <( ~ ::, Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .A. Standard Penetration Test /Ji.. Hammer Weight and Drop: ------1 B-15 .!'l C ::, 0 (.) ~ 0) C fil f- The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for addWonal information. !f, U) e (') 0 20 40 60 in o...J...--------------------4----1---4---- ' ii .. I. I I ' . ! ,, 4.5 inches ASPHALT __________________________ ,- -\ 3-inches medium dense to dense, gray-brown, gravelly ,' , SAND, some silt (Fill) , -,_ ---------------------------------------_, - - -5- - - Dense to very dense, moist to wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND, some silt (Fill) _L-------------------------------------------- Soft, saturated, brown, organic SILT -L------------------------------------------- 10-Soft, saturated, brown, fine fibrous PEAT --------------------------------------------Soft, wet to saturated, gray-brown, silty CLAY, trace organics -------------------------------------------. 1--Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, silty fine SAND 15· L-- 1--L------------------------------------------- S-1 I 1,· s-, I 1,· s-, I , S-5 I 14" Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SANO, I :J-_s_om_e_s_il-t ------------------~ 5 _ 6 14 .. L-- L-- L-- Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-9-13 Groundwater encountered at about 7 feet at time of exploration. ! i : I I ! ' LI, ! i '' i I ' 11 I I I I 11 I • ' I . ' I ' ! ' ' I 'i I I i . I i· 1· ! i '' 11 I I +++,,.,__--+++++-'--+I -! ii iii ! ! ' +-I-W-C--~+11 i I . I I ! ' I j r1t I I I ~- I I ! I I ' ··- ~-- -f l+++-+---1 ! I ....... +1~ i_J>'-'-W-.l---l '-li-l-,_ 1 i.,_ 1 1-+--_, 45 56 3 4 14 19 ~ '--c+++-+---l--l-+-1--1-·l·~· .-1 ++-l-0-'-'-I ++-1-1 !1-1-__,· 25-'----------------------'-----'-----'-~-'-'-'--'--'--'-~·-'-'-'-'--'-'l...!1...!l...!...!...!...!--':~,--'i...!...!..,l-'-...J...-....L---I SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND CJ Clean Sand [)8l Bentonite • Grout/Concrete 8 Screened Casing D Blank Casing T Groundwater level at § time of drilling (ATD) or on date of N measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~, ---OR----,1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 111012013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-15 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia.: 6" Top Elevation: 23 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto B-16 Date Drilled: 121912013 $ '5. Q) 0 -,__ •5- ,__ SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some silt (Fill) Grades to medium dense, saturated, gray-brown, SAND, with gravel and silt 1--Medium stiff, wet to saturated, brown, organic SILT, with 2 inch fibrous peat interbeds 10 Soft, saturated, gray-brown, SILT, with clay, 0.125 to 0.25 inch thick peat and organic silt interbeds -------------------------------------------- Loose to medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND to i--fine sandy SILT 15· -Loose to medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium, SAND, some silt - . (/) ~w § ...J i" • z n. ~ t~~ E <( ~ ~ (/) S-1 I 8" S-2 I 12" S-3 I 18" S4 I 15" $-5 I 18" _ 1 ' Soft, saturated, gray-brown. organic silt ', I ,# Loose, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND. some sill .. 8-6 18 " 20->----------~~-------------< Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-9-13 -Groundwater encountered at about 7 feet at time of exploration. - - ~ 2 "' s: u C: :, e c., Mobile 8-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .A. Standard Penetration Test Di.. Hammer Weight and Drop: 2 C :, 0 u ~ 0 20 40 60 a, ! ! .i ; : i I! i I I ! ! A' ... .L '.. 1_1 MCctio/, · , , .. ! ! ! I ~, I 1 ! • i I, . 1 i i : i I: I Ii I : 1----+ !++ 11-1,-:H-+. ++-ti++-, -+,-+ ,. ++---+-t'-+i +; 1---!'+c+I +' .,.· +--+·i-h .l__~L ... ,. . ! I Iii i I!!! ! ! i ' 17 i'JI it;,_• i I ,i ! J 'I i I I Iii ' ' I i ! ! i I' • . , 1 1 .. i 11 :--rr! ,__ 1 -i--a-i-~' +-+-+-j-+-1 1 I i UU.l 1 . ~ i If 1 1111 I ilT 5 '+-·. i ·.' i ','.!ii . !_ ', '. ! 1111 I '---Htt' --'--!-++l---I I i i i I . ! i I : I i : : ! 11 . J I ! i ! : i : •. '. . . '. . i 1_ I . ' ·r· ~· ·u---'--'-: ! i.. • ! ! '1 I! Ii ': ': I i I ! ! ' ! I I ' . I j', i • i 11 'T'1 r: -:;..__ ____________ __._ __ _,____._-'-'--·-; --'-i-'-t'-'-T-'--1 ~, w.l i_,_i '-! _,_ 1 wl_,_iw 1' ----'. 1 ..w..,i --'---I SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample JI 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol.= Consolidation Test Att. = Atterben:i Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand IQll Bentonite • Grout/Concrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing T Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or ~ on date of ~ measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit t-l ---tO+----tl Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Date: 1/10/2013 Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Project No.: BORING LOG: 1217.01 8-16 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Top Elevation: 23 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Ty12e: Auto B-17 Date Drilled: 12/9/2013 @: '5_ "' 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional infonnation. Drill Rig: ~ "' ~ i::, C: :, e (') Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .A. Standard Penetration Test .!!l C: :, 0 u l::i.. Hammer Weight and Drop: ------1 ~ o 20 40 60 a, i : i i: I I LO-i-_-2-.5-in-ch_e_s_A_S_P_H_A_L_T_o_v_e_r_3-in_c_h-es_A_T_B _______________________ -_-_-_-_+-----1---1-------~ ,___ .3 inches sand~ GRAVE[.. §gme sill(Filll ______________ • - ,___ L5. ,___ ,___ ,___ ,___ 10 ,___ Dense, moist to wet, gray, gravelly SAND, with silt (Fill) Grades to medium dense, saturated SAND, with silt and gravel ------------------------------------------. Medium stiff, wet, brown, organic SILT ------------------------------------------. Medium stiff, wet, brown, fine fibrous PEAT -------------------------------------------- Soft, wet to saturated, brown, organic SILT, trace fine fibrous organic material L---------------------------------------------- L-- L-- 15 L-- Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND to fine sandy SILT ------------------------------------------- 1--Loose, saturated, dark gray, silty fine SAND to fine sandy S-t I 14" S-2 I ,, .. S-3 I 14' S-4 I 16" S-5 I 18" SILT, with 0.5 to 1.5 inch interbeds of fine to medium SAND, I :J..-_so_m_e_si-lt-------------------1 s-6 18" L-- L-- L-- ,___ Baring completed at 20 feet on 12-9-13 Groundwater encountered at about 6 feet at time of exploration. .Y. ~ : I I ! I I I I ~l,T ,----· I I I ' . i :" I • i ! I I : i c, .. I i' 'I I Ir---I, I , i ..J_ l. --W-+W---W--,1_' ++---1-1· I 11 I ' I i ! I I I ' I '!"--++++++-h-+-l - I . ! ! I • I ' I i ' ! i ' i ! i -1 ! ! I • I ! r Tl 1·1 ' W-i-l------"l-l--H-l----+11 1 1 Ii I -H'+++-Hi..J.•+I -H H-t+~t+t+-f-----i-1---i-, .W..W--1---1--1-1--_L; I . ! ! I --- ! : I ! i '' I ' I Ii ' ! M i ; I -~. I 1 1 Ii ---:t Tf , I I ! ' I ' I I i 36 16 9 4 11 8 I I I i I ! I I ! i 'i i 25-'----------------------'---..L.-.....1..W..W..W..W..W.-'-------'--'--'---'-'---'-'-'---'--'-'--'-""'-''---.L...--1 SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample ][ 3--inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand IQ<l Bentonite • GrouVConcrete i=l Screened Casing D Blank Casing ,,. Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or ~ on date of ~ measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~1--..;:9:,._----11 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-17 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22 Feet Date Drilled: g '5_ <t> 0 12/9/2013 SOIL DESCRIPTION Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto 2 "' s: "' C => Mobile B-59 Logged by: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) A. Standard Penetration Test 6 Hammer Weight and Drop: -------l B-18 2 C => 0 u t The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. 2 (!) 0 20 40 60 in co-l-----------------------l----"--..... -----.._ ____ _,_ ____ .....1---1---1 -4.5 ins,h~sASPHALT_____________________________ i I I ! ' I , Medium dese to dense, moist, gray-brown, sandy GRAVEL to , : : i ; : i ------i i 1 -f,, Ii ]1----,. ,gravelly SAND, some silt (Fill)_______________________ ! ! , ! 1 1 . 1 Dense, wet, gray, SAND, some gravel and silt (Fill) ti_t,---tn--'-,-,-f-c-1 c--c---+-~~-+ S-1 I 14 -t+-u, ~ ! i i i I I ! ~+tL1' .. t··-m-M : j i -~:-'-: -· -' [ -'I ---- 1 ! ! i i I ! I I i, I I 1 ! 1 i L--Grades to loose and saturated 1~----' I-----'--· . , ·,II I s-, I ,,.. T 'I : i .. i 0·ll ! : ! 11 .·' I I ! ! 1 1. __ 1 0~ I 11 I j I ' i I ! ' ! •· I ! C- C- 15 ------------------------------------------. Loose, saturated, gray to dark gray, silty fine SAND to fine sandy SILT ------------------------------------------- S-5 I 16" L--Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, trace to some silt I C-'------------------------l S-6 14" 20, L-- Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-9-13 Perched groundwater encountered at about 5.5 feet at time of exploration. Groundwater measured at about 9.6 feet 30 minutes after drilling. I ! I ' ' I '' -,t~j I i I ii: i : IHI ! I : ' -~Uf !ril--H-1:Tf--c-, 11---nrtr I Iii i ' I I 1, ! 11 rt I I 1, 11 ~-, 1 , 1 i[ITll iii iii: 'I'' ,""TTl: II ':, I I I !! !I i I I i 'I ! I I!! Iii I I: '1 I I : I i ; I i11i-'1· ·1· ' ! : : +-i '-'-!++i~ ,+.j:-l,--J..ju_.L._._W..l,_!-,, '--'-_,_I _' -W--l i ' ; l!-W4i i 11 l'i ' i 44 9 7 5 14 1 1 ;1 1 1 ·1 ' I . I . I . I ,-H+t-25.1-________________ ...1-__ -1.._-1.J..L!..w..-'-'..L!.-'-i .!..I L'c...._.w..' .!..· L''---'-' .!..' .!..' L' 'c.....l _ __L_--1 SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample :[ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol.= Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand KSl Bentonite • Grout/Concrete 8 Screened Casing [] Blank Casing I Groundwater level at ~ time of drilling (ATD) or on date of N measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit el ---OA---.. 1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-18 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 12/9/2013 ;;;_ .c 15. Q) Cl SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional infonnation. , 4.5 inches ASPHALT --------------------------- 1.....-, 4 inches medium dense to dense, moist, brown, sandy , \ GRAVEL to gravelly SAND, some silt (Fill) / L--'----------------------------------------J 5- 10· 15. Dense, moist to wet, gray, SAND, with silt and gravel {Fill) Grades to medium dense and saturated ------------------------------------------- Soft. wet brown..1. om_anic SILT ,_trace fibrous organic material . Soft, wet, brown, fine fibrous PEAT ------------------------------------------- Soft, wet, brown, organic SILT _____________________ _ Loose to medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine SAND, with silt ------------------------------------------. Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, silty fine SAND, to fine sandy SILT, with occasional 0.25 to 0.5 inch brown silt seams ------------------------------------------. L--Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto ~ • Cf) 2 ~w ro § ..J ~ ;,;: • z a.. ~ "O *-~ :ii C E <( oc :, Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) A Standard Penetration Test ~ Hammer Weight and Drop: -------1 B-19 J!l C :, 0 l) ~ ,ll Cf) e (.') 0 20 60 i'li 40 S-1 I 12" I y_ S-2 13" ~ 0 S-3 I 18" ... I ... ! I i ii . I ! I I I i i .. : i ! I I I ! i • I i 11 Ii ' [_ (. --i ! 11 · i t I --- . i . I i ! . -i1 i U-W-l-Ul•L,-11-l-1-1-W-+1 ---1-C-I-W---,- ! i I I ,' i I : i i I ! . ! ! 66 13 7 i 13 I i 1 __ , 11 ~ I 13 ~-'--tra-ce-to-so_m_e_s-ilt ________________ _, &< I O" ! I I i ! I I I 11 Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-9-13 L--Perched groundwater encountered at about 5 feet at time of exploration. >-+++-+-++---' ' H I It I : : I I ! I i I! 11 I i I I 25,-'----------------------'---..L.-.....L.L.!..L.!..L.!.-'-C..l...!..l..!..l..!...!....-l...!-l...!...!......L...L...L._!_L__.J...__...j SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch 0.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND CJ Clean Sand ~ Bentonite • Grout/Concrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing I Groundwater level at ~ lime of drilling (A TD) or on date of N measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit I O I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-19 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 22.5 Feet Date Drilled: 12/9/2013 g ~ "' 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification fines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional informahon. Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto ~ "' ~ Mobile 8-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) .6. Standard Penetration Test B-20 J'l C :, 8 C, C ~ 'O C :, ~ Hammer Weight and Drop: -------1 ~ 0 "' f-e (') 0 20 40 Go ca o;,-_-4-i-nc-h-es_A_S_P_H_A_L_T ______________ t----+--+-,-, -,-, ,...,,_·.,..,,-,I-,-,'' 1·1-+,I--,-,,-,-!-,-'""'!+,----..-,-,, ,-t--t----1 ,, S-1 I -H1-W-~-+--,-----..l_~-----! ; ! ; = \_!~r~!~:_;;!~~!~:1~;:~~;~~!;~i~;:e~~-~~~~,-~i~h_/ ! I I i I ! I i i i i ! I ' ;~J~+~ -Dense, moist to wet, gray, SAND, with gravel, some silt (Fill) ·n i,~-,.1-r· ,_ 11 I, -11.1, '!.I i j i ' i ~. '1· ii ',. ··----i---_ ..J i I I i I -1. I ' ' ! 11---ti,,-!~T, -t-T--t-M-: -tl-t,-~ 5-2 I 12" 49 -5- Grades to medium dense and saturated - -~-------------------------------------------Soft, wet. gray-brown, organic SILT, trace fibrous organic -~ material____________________________________ _ ._Medium stiff, wet, brown, fine fibrous peat _____________ .,., -Soft, wet, gray-brown, organic SILT, trace fibrous organic 10 _ material -Loose, saturated, gray to dark gray, interbedded silty fine SAND and fine sandy SILT - -~------------------------------------------- -Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, some silt 15· - - - 5-3 I 10'' S-4 I 18" .. , I 18" S-6 I 13" Grades to loose I -~------------------------1 S-7 14" 20~ - - - - Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-9-13 Perched groundwater encountered at about 5 feet at time of exploration. Groundwater encountered at about 10.5 feet at time of exploration. SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample JI 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample CJ EZl Clean Sand Bentonite TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = AtterberQ Limits • i=l [_] ... ~ ~ Grout/Concrete Screened Casing Blank Casing Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or on date of measurement. T -1-,-,~' +-' +1---,i-+-! +-+i --,...,...'' +-1 +1 +t+~' ~' +tl-+-1--1 "i I I i=I' I, I I' i ' 1 ' 0 ~nT i C '1 : ; i ,, ! , Ii , I , ; I c· Iii H--t-.-f I ii·T-··- H-1!1_ IJ. I 1. I i I ! i H+ ! 1_-: - I I I i I I' i I T ;I'''',, i ' i I l!!I -;-~j_!I ; I 1' , ii II ++r···-1--, r r i I 0 H+1 ·1 I I .. 1 • • I , 1-'-+4+--. Ii' · ' I ! I I f.--.-.--f-;_.:...~. I , : ' I i I I I i I' 11 -T ·._,.: i i 1' i ,--,~-----+-I ~ I I I ! i j ! ' 1----: Ii I, 'I '. --· ! ! I ' I r ! I ! <> % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit 1-I ---+0+---•I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA 12 6 7 12 10 Date: 1/10/2013 ProjectNo.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-20 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Top Elevation: 22 Feet 12/9/2013 Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Mobile B-59 Bore Hole Dia : 6" Hammer Type: Auto B-21 Date Drilled: g .c li Q) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Drill Rig: 2 "' ?; ,, C: ::, e (!) 0 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowsfloot) .6. Standard Penetration Test ~ C: ::, 0 u ~ Hammer Weight and Drop: -------I ~ 20 40 60 ixi 0) C: l o+-_-A-~-,-~-~-~-~-~~-L-1 _______ -_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_f----+--+-1~,~~.,..,...,-,---t-.-,-TT,-,-1~1--+-.-,-~Ll~l-r,,1~,1+--+-~ -\ 4 inches medium dense to dense, moist, brown, gravelly , -t--:-_: _ 1 _l+++-;-i -''++++-+++-'--H--1-1--l-l-je-i: c--'. -l-1--l \ SANO to sandy GRAVEL, some silt (Fill) / ~ '----------------------------------------~ Dense, moist to wet, gray, SANO, with gravel, some (Fill) 1 ! j = S-1 I 16" I ! i I~ i ! -5- -Grades to loose and saturated S-2 I 12" -.,, Soft, wet, brown, organic SILT, trace fine fibrous organic ...... material -L-------------------------------------------' .. Soft, wet, brown, fibrous PEAT ___________________ .,,... S-3 I 18" - 10- - - 15· Loose, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND grading to fine to medium SAND, with silt --------------------------------------------Very loose, wet to saturated, gray, silty SAND to sandy SILT, trace fine organics 54 I 18 •. S-5 I 18"" L__ / 3 inches medium stiff, saturated, brown, organic SILT, with \ ~20 J,_:_, _p"-M":a.,dte.iu-"m"-"de"-",,,-s"--e"'~"'·~·'_"_'a_i_;;_ci"_, d_;_,_k-_g_,;_;_, -_fi-_n -_e_io_-_m_e_d_iu_~_-_s_A_N_D_~_--1~\ S-6 I 18" trace to some silt Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-9-13 L--Perched groundwater encountered at about 5 feet at time of exploration. 34 ! I ! i I 8 i I ' I '1 ~-'--'- 1 -+1•t-++'+-++H-I-J -· l---'----li+++++++++-1-1+++++-+-+.+l-H.',-+-_:-1 --,-j--HI ! I I T ··.-,, ++++++-rn++++-·i-+-++-++ct-cc+t,1-.., , -; i I IA1:=74P, 1 1 I i 6 i,.. I I 1-,c.1'.a+1 ++++-1 I i . I ! i ! ! ! 1 I ' I i I ; . : ! ! I : I ! : I 10 ' ! 16 I I ~~II I i : f+H--'--'-H--+++--~-++++-P-~I -- -~ -I ll1 ' .!____,-J...1-+I -1--.J.--+-I--Wi it-i ! __ I I i I " I . ··---+l4-++--+-+-e++++l-l-l . 1-l-+-+---+-+i -·+ 1' .f+li : .. ~,-'+++-1-4--H-l-·,! I _ :, 11 1-C---WI I , r I I . I I i . I : :-'-----------------'------'-----'-'-t.!...i '--''...!..!...j !..'-'.-'--'-'I..C.l ....!..L..'-W...W...l.c.Ji ...!.1.!...·!..W.L...J......_..____. SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch 0.0. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA= Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND CJ Clean Sand IQsl Bentonite • GrouUConcrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing T Groundwater level at § time of drilling (ATO) or on date of N measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit •1---<Q-'+----'I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-21 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Top Elevation: 24 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto B-22 Date Drilled: 12/1012013 g .c li " 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundades between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG 2 "' ,;; "O C => e (!) a PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blow,noot) .A. Standard Penetration Test $ C => 0 (_) 6. Hammer Weight and Drop: --------l ~ 20 40 60 in "' C ~ " f-- 0+------------------+----+---+--.,.......~1,-+-l~'~1t,----,-1,-+-~,-,~.--,~.+--+--I ,, 6 inches ASPHALT -I , -\ -2in~h;;;;,~di~~-d;n~;,-br~;~,-~r;c;11YSANDto-;-ndY __ ,./ 11; r-'1 -r,--,~-t~1 ', ', '; I' -.. _'?~':1~~'.~':~:~i~!~i~) _______________________ _,, f--'-------!IT'-u i-u, ---11·-"i~-H Medium dense, wet, gray to gray-brown, SAND with gravel, I I j I j -some silt (Fill) s-1 14" f----o/1-1 ~l I 11 l1 ~ :i 23 -I I I I I I -1-+-r-1 I I ---, , : ! I I I I 1 11 I ~ S-2 I 12' :-:-:f: ' .. ii i 'H 1111+-H 37 _ I:!' i 'Ii''! I T II ,1 1 1: !Ii '! !I ! ! S-3 14" H-c----tt-rrrl"""iitti-,+tt ~i-·t > !I i,t-·1 11!! I!!'! cl • 1 i ! -+1++t·-r--H-4--t-- -Grades to saturated - 10-------------------------------------------· Soft, wet, brown, organic SILT -r------------------------------------------. S-4 I 16" _ Soft, wet, brown, fibrous PEAT t--r------------------------------------------- -Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine SAND, with silt 15 S5 I 10" Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, finely interbedded silty I t---,___fin_e_s_A_N_D_•_n_d_fi_n•_••_n_d_y_s_1L_T--------------l 5-6 14 .. 201 Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-10-13 -Groundwater encountered at about 8 feet at time of exploration. ~ : : : ii ! ii! I I I! Ii ' I ' ! I : Ii 11 i : • I! I I ! -----' I, I I i I j i I L ]11.--I --HI i. i i1 • I ·,' '1' ' .. 1 ! ' I ! ! : I I Iii I 1i 1 !!---~r------ -++---r ' I I ' ! 11 I I I! I I!! i ! : I i: ! 1 Ii , , -I, , Ii i i I' i ' ! ! ' I I 24 6 13 15 f-++-++i----i-i, ,-+++------: I +~ ~-1-t-'--t I I I 11 1 i1 -I lt1 I -25-'-----------------------'-----'-----'-._._._._.._-'-"'--'-'--'--~--'--'-'-'--'---'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'---~ SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3~inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits CJ ~ • ~ D T § ~ Clean Sand Bentonite Grout/Concrete Screened Casing Blank Casing Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or on date of measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit ~I --~Oo-+----11 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/1/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-22 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 24 Feet Date Drilled: 12/10/2013 g a Q) Cl SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto I Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) A Standard Penetration Test !:::. Hammer Weight and Drop: 8-23 !l C: :, 0) C: ~ "O C: :, _____ _, 8 ~ Q) f-e 0 0 60 1ii 20 40 111~ I I' o+--------------------1----+--1-~~~~-~ , 6 inches ASPHALT----------------------------- -Medium dense, moist, brown, SAND, with gravel, some silt , I i _ \.(.FilO. Bulk samele collected from 6 to 12 inches. _______ ./f - - 5- - - - - 10· - - 15- Medium dense to dense, moist to wet, gray-brown, gravelly SAND, some silt (Fill) grades to wet to saturated -------------------------------------------- Soft, wet, gray to gray-brown, organic silt -------------------------------------------- Soft, wet, brown, fibrous PEAT L-------------------------------------------- Loose, saturated, dark gray, finely interbedded silty fine SAND and fine sandy SILT L-------------------------------------------- 1....__ Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, some silt '--~------------------------------------------- 20 Medium dense, saturated, dark rirav, fine SAND, with silt Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-10-13 ~ Groundwater encountered at about 5 feet at time of exploration. SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample :[ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand [Q\l Bentonite • Grout/Concrete t=I Screened Casing D Blank Casing I Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or §1 on date of ~ measurement. S-1 I S-2 I 12" S-3 I 12" S-4 I 14" S-5 I 16" 5-6 I 16" 5-7 I O" .Y. ,. 0 ~i . i ! ' I ' _J ! -- I I ,- I i I I ' . I i • ' • - , __ I i i ! : y • ~J I i ' I ! ! I! . ! I i i i ! I ' I ' I i f j I . 11 I ! I . I ! I I I 11 I I I ' ! ' . I! i I I LI 11 -·;- I ! I I I ' • i I I i I ! .. -. ' ' . I j 4-ln Ii ! I I '. -I I ! ! I~ I I I I I ! i ' I . i I: I ! ! ' I ' i I ! I I I 1 <> % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limrt •I ---f.Q-l----11 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA 23 37 24 6 13 15 Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-23 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia.: 6" Top Elevation: 23 Feet Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto B-24 Date Drilled: 12/10/2013 g .c C. "' 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transWon may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information . (/) 2 ~w "' § _J "' s: z 0.. ~ %~~ " <:: E <( « ::, ~ (/) 2 (9 Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE lblowsffootl A Standard Penetration Test !:::. Hammer Weight and Drop: 2 C :, 0 0 -------1 ~ 0 60 ai C, C ~ "' f- 0 --1---------------------1---4---1~----,-i-----,----- I I • !! :._ :. I , 5.5 inches ASPHALT __________________________ , - I...__ \ 6 inches medium dense, moist, brown, sandy GRAVEL, , L.....-\ some silt __________________________________ ,' '--Medium dense to dense, moist to wet, gray, SAND, with I gravel, some silt 5-1 12" '-- 5-I ~ 5-2 12" ~ Grades to loose to saturated I ~ S-3 16" -------------------------------------------· '--Soft. wet brown-' org_anic SILT_____________________ . 10· Soft, saturated, fine fibrous PEAT I -------------------------------------------· -Soft, saturated, organic SILT S-4 18" ----------------------. -Soft, saturated, gray to dark gray, fine sandy SILT ~ I S-5 18" ~ -------------------------------------------· 15· I Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, silty fine SAND, with S-6 16" '--sandy silt interbeds '-- L.,__ -------------------------------------------· '--20· 1--L-o_o_.cse_._s_a_tu_r_a_te_d_. _d_a_,k_g_r_a_y._i_nt_e_,b_e_d_d_e_d_s_il_ty_ri_,n_e_s_A_N_D_a_n_d--1 S-7 I 14" 1 _ SILT, with fine sand '-- L- Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-10-13 Groundwater encountered at about 7.5 feet at time of exploration. I I:! j : -1~--e+· +-----++-+-+~+ -+-+---+++++--llUJ; 1.11. ! i I iii i' 1 1 , .i ii I ! , 1-+:f-Jf-, i! I.µ 1 s-L--+-++,·-+t,rr' ,, ~++++--++++-, H j . J I I ! ! ! I ! -'---'--+A-+---+--'-+-f------+--e+-,-,-,-_j Ii!! i 1 1 : 25 44 T ,. ~ 4 0 1 I! I 11 I I i , 1 I 1, • l : :r11',. :1: 11 tn+ 1 1 • '1-~!; : Iii H,' '.• I •• i ! i.. 1, 11 i ' I . . ··-· j+lt-, ,-+t: i i I i I : ; i Ii! Ii ! I 4 4 Ii 1 .. i 1 , 1 I 1 ! I ! 12 _j_[ ____ : ! l I ! : ! I : : I I I 11 ' I i ! ! ' " I :•1 1: ,: :,, 11 1111 1-I !ll,l ii: iii +-++-e-+---J i i "'. 1, I I 1 1. '1 . I ,-1 I !I 11 r, · , , , 1 i I I I I I I 11 ! i I I -+,t--lth+--1 r · ' ii I I!···-u LI I : i ! I i i ll I I , 11 ! ! h- i II ; i I · 11 !~i _LIii i. I! J I I I miH!H-tl 1 , 1 : it-1 -1 I ; I 25i.l...--------------------'----'--.L!.-'-.!...L..!...L.L.Ll-'-'-.!'-'-.!-'-'...!...l...!...l_.:....L..!...L..L.L _ __,__--l SAMPLE LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand r:8l Bentonite • Grout/Concrete ~ Screened Casing D Blank Casing I Groundwater level at § time of drilling (ATO) or on date of N measurement. 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit fl--4QCl------,I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-24 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" Hammer Type: Auto Top Elevation: 23 Feet 12/10/2013 Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Mobile B-59 B-25 Date Drilled: g: .c: 1i Q) Cl SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. ,_ 4 inches ASPHALT ________ ••• ____ ---_________ ,-' -, 8 inches dense, moist, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt , ..._ \ (Fill) _____________________________________ ,' Dense, wet, gray, gravelly SAND, with silt (Fill) -5- -Grades to and saturated -~------------------------------------------- -Soft, wet to saturated, brown, organic silt, trace fibrous organic material ~~-------------------------------------------Soft, wet to saturated, gray-brown, interbedded organic SILT 10~ ~~~~~~~~~~~p~~~---------------------------_ - - - - 15- - - - Soft ... wet to saturatedLbrown, organic silt______________ _ Soft, saturated, gray, fine sandy SILT --------------------------------------------Loose, saturated, gray to dark gray, interbedded silty fine SAND and SILT with fine sand -------------------------------------------- Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, Drill Rig: &t I 12" &2 I 4" &3 I 12" S-4 I O' S-5 I ta" some silt I -~-------------------------!S-6 16" 20~ Boling completed at 20 feet on 12-10-13 -Groundwater encountered at about 6.5 feet at time of exploration. - - - 2 ~ "O C :, Logged by: JPG PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) A. Standard Penetration Test I:!,. Hammer Weight and Drop: ------I J!l C :, 8 ~ e (!) 0 60 iii 20 40 ' .l I: I '; ' ------c : I ' I ! Ii I ii I I I ! ! ! + I-,, i' 46 I '' ! I I ' I ! I i-- I i I ! ! ' ' .Y. • ! ~ 0 I i I I i I I i --'-- I i I I ! I ' ! 11 ' I I I ! ' ' 13 I h ! i '' I ' I ! 111 ! ! ' ' I ! I I ' I J + I I I ! I I ·-----I I T I -r1·-- I I ! ' i i i 4 IL i I ! ' I i 5 --. -.. : I ! I -1-----··· i i i I 1'\ I tt I I I ! I I ! I I I I ' I 11 I I , I - I I I I I I I I t-H--t-----H---H-t---t---t-t--t-H---'--7-t-H1 ---t-c-t-S-+ 1 ' ' ' i 25 ! ' ~-------------------~---~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~--! SAMPLE LEGEND I 2·inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3·inch 1.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits GROUNDWATER LEGEND D Clean Sand ~ Bentonite • GrouVConcrete l::al Screened Casing D Blank Casing I Groundwater level at § time of drilling (ATD) or on date of ~ measurement. 0 % Fines (<0,075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit I O I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Date: 1/10/2013 Project No.: 1217.01 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA BORING LOG: B-25 Page 1 of 1 Boring Location: See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan Top Elevation: 23.5 Feet Date Drilled· 12/10/2013 .c 15. Q) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information. Drilling Company: Holocene Bore Hole Dia : 6" DrilHnq Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Auto . (/) 2 DW "' § _J ~ s: • z a. > "O ~~~ C: E <( ~ :, (JI, (/) e 0 Mobile B-59 Logged by: JPG 0 PENETRATION RESISTANCE !blows/foot) £ Standard Penetration Test L Hammer Weight and Drop: 20 40 B-26 "' 1= :, 0 () ~ 60 iii •o+_-4_i_n-ch_e_s_A_S_P_H_A_L_T __ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-,-,+----+--+-,"'i""':---,-:-+~, -~,~~.~ j+...,,~ I~!!"'·-~• l--+---1 1--I 4 inches medium dense, brown, gravelly SAND, some silt ,' l _.i .. :. .. :. ; 1. • I .. ··-~.-+u !' •. I I ii I!! ! i I : '~;:~~l~:s:i~:t~~in~;;~~~r:i~~~:;-;~~~~::~~:i~t~;i;I'; ::: ~~: 1~---. +i-+1-+i-+-i---~-+c~· ,_' --,~ l,. 1 .i, i !~ ,_ r;r!---rh · , 11, 'r: • 5-I S·3 12' i :dii l ! ! I I I I i ,-!ill Ii !! ' r--,.-'jll ;1 1·1 I I -Grades to loose, saturated, gray, SAND, with gravel and silt I ~ ·1r·11!---i --i -1 : '. 1 ! I I --··i : -Soft~~~;t~ -s~lu-r;t~d,-br~~~.-;r~;~i~ SILT------------· s-< 6 0 :=~I I ' ~,-· H-+-+~~++'r-+j-+-,c--"--i lJ_J . ··:. -~o~~ ~:~~-s~:u!~t~~·-~~~,-~n:_r~b~~u_s_~':~~ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ I Medium stiff, saturated, gray-brown, organic SILT, some s-5 18" fibrous organic material 10· 1--Medium dense, saturated, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, some silt 15 S-6 I 18" :+---S---7-bl __ o __ w __ c __ o __ u __ n __ i __ ov __ e __ r __ st __ a __ te __ d __ . __ H __ e __ a __ v __ e __ in_sa __ m_p __ le __ r. ______ --ls-, I ,, .. Boring completed at 20 feet on 12-10-13 i--Groundwater encountered at about 7 feet at time of exploration SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND I 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample ][ 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample TESTING KEY GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits C 1:/Sl • !:::I [J .... § N Clean Sand Bentonite Grout/Concrete Screened Casing Blank Casing Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or on date of measurement. ' ii ! I 11 Ii ! i 1---'.c.;.' ..c'___:..:,-1-·..:_J..I ~--!...cl-1'-1.L , I i ! i ' L.', __ ,; ', "·· L ____ LI !_~ ~ i 11 I , I ' 1 1 >-----+-+-+-·--C-H-+-+----+ ',1-ilc_j.al····:_-_·+·f,! .-+:~i--:.c---1 __ LI i 1------+-H-+-f--~-+-+-+-+ , ii,·,' I i ,i l~I 'I! 'i ! i; i I:!;... 1 11 I i : .. l--·-·-·-,~~-+-~++--+-'f---~+-i+++--Y+J-C I I' '1 ! 11 I' I I ii Ii ,:.1H-1-++~i L,~~;+--+-1 -~,-'-+-1 - L~.~n~,-~-t-+-i+-i 'l I lu .. ~J--~L~- i 11JI I [iii i , j ! i ! ! i f i Ii 0 % Fines (<0.075 mm) 0 % Water (Moisture) Content Plastic Limit I O I Liquid Limit Date: 1/10/2013 Natural Water Content Proposed Renton Retail 3751 East Valley Road Renton, WA Project No.: BORING LOG: GSA 69 48 5 5 17 2B 1217.01 B-26 Zipper Geo Associates 19023 36th Ave. W, Suite D Lynnwood, WA Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX B ZGA LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES & RESULTS APPENDIX B ZGA LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS A series of laboratory tests were performed by ZGA and a subcontract testing laboratory 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 ASTM D2488. 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. Moisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples obtained from the explorations 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. Moisture contents are presented 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-2487. The results of the grain size determinations for the samples were used in classification of the soils, and are presented in this appendix. Laboratory Maximum Density Test The laboratory maximum density represents the highest degree of density which can be obtained from a particular soil type by imparting a predetermined compaction effort. The test determines the "optimum" moisture content of the soil at the laboratory maximum density. The laboratory maximum density test was performed on a bulk sample of material in general accordance with ASTM: D-1557. The test result is shown in this appendix and presented as a curve where the soil dry density is compared to the moisture content. Atterberg Limits Atterberg limits are used primarily for classification and indexing of cohesive soils. The liquid and plastic limits are two of the five Atterberg limits and are defined as the moisture content of a cohesive soil at arbitrarily established limits for liquid and plastic behavior, respectively. Liquid and plastic limits were established for selected samples in general accordance with ASTM: D-423 and ASTM: D-424, respectively. The results of the Atterberg limits are presented on a plasticity chart in this appendix where the plasticity index (liquid limit minus plastic limit) is related to the liquid limit. The plastic limits and liquid limits are also presented adjacent to appropriate samples on the exploration logs in Appendix A. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36" 12" r 3" , "" 314· 318" i r ,, ., ·r r ,,, 100 -,J,.,.~~.1,--..,..J.-.,... ........ , ....... , ..,.__....,..,-,-l-l-,-~-\---,.,1,-,~.l,--..-L-~--'---'-.,..,J.~~-~~-~~-~ ' ' ' i 90 -1++1++-+-+--+-----+1+++-++-+--+---l++l.++-+-+--l----+++++-++-+--+--+++f++-+-f--l----1++++-++-+--+-----I i I I ~ 80 +++, ++-++-+--+-+HI++-'-: +-+-++-\-++++++-I-+-+--++++-+-+--; +-+---+++++-+-+-+--+-+-1+++-+-+-+--J iii 1 1 3: 70 -H-l+++-H--"1---+-l+l++-+-+--+-+-+1-1+++-H---l---+-l+l++-+--+i---l----l-+++1++++--+----l+++++--l-+-+----l ~ : \ I ! Cl:: 60 -i..+++-+-+-+--+-+Hl+++-+-+--+-.\+l-++++-l-+--'·--++++-+-1-+---l---+l++++-~-+-----l+++-++-+--+--+--__j ~ I 1-50 -1+1-W+--+---l----+'++-+-H-t---H*-l+-l++---+--++++-+-H-+--t++++-+-+-+--+---++++-t++-+--'----j z I I : i ~ ,,:1 I ,' Cl:: 40 thl++++-+-+---++++t--H-+-+--H+,-H~~+-+--+t+++-++-+--+--+rl++++-"---+---++++-+-++---+-----1 ~ 'I I'"-I I I' i 30 tht++-f-+--+--++-l++-l-+-+--+-----ll+++t-l-+-~"',---+,"+1++-+-1--+~+1+++++--+,--+-----,+++t-++-l--f----1 I I I"" +tt+++++-+--+tl+t+t-+-t--ttt+'++++-+-+Hi-t~-f'l;..l-t-+--+H+t+t-+-t--ttt+-t-t++-+--1 20 I ' I I I I ! I r-.. ............. 10 ++++1-+-+-+--+---++--+·++-+-+-+--+++.i' -+-+-+-+--+--+++++--+-+--+-.':""'-....i.!++-+-+--+--1+-1-1++-+-+-+- o .µJ..U..J...J-+---L-HJ.LI..J..1.+-.l.-+--..,UI..U..l.l-'--'--'--...U-1 -'--'--'--'--'--4,Ui ..U..J...J-+-l---+J.U..J..1.i..J1...J.-l_--J 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: GP-GM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines(%) Description B-3 S-1 0.5 to 2.5 4.2 Poorly graded 9.1 GRAVEL with silt and sand Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1mer Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/11/2013 Proposed Renton Retail I-::c Cl iii s: >-Ill ii:: w z u. I-z w (.) ii:: w D.. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 36" 100 90 80 ,: 70 60 50 I I; 40 I 30 20 10 i 0 1000.000 12" ' ' ' ' : i i I r 3" 1 1/2" I ' ' j ' ' ! : ' ' : I ' i I ' ' 100.000 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3/4" 318" 4 10 20 40 60 140 200 I I I I I I ! \ ' ! ' : : \ ' \ i ' ! ! I ': ' ' I\ 11 ! - \ '. ' I: ' \. I '\' ' ' ' [\ I\ --: I I -....: ! : : ' 10.000 1.000 0.100 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS ASTM D 422 HYDROMETER ··- I ' I I : . ' : ·-'. ' ---e------- ! I i i 0.010 0.001 Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC} designation: SP-SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%) Description B-5 S-1 0.5 to 2 4.9 Poorly graded 6.5 SAND with silt and nravel Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1!1!er Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/11/2013 Proposed Renton Retail I-:c C) w ~ >-ro It: w z ii: I-z w u It: w ll. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 36" 100 90 80 70 60 50 ! ' ' 40 I I 30 20 10 0 1000.000 12" ! I ' ,. 3" 11/2" I ' ' i ! ' ! I ' ' ' ' I ! I i 100.000 3/4" 318" • . I \ \ '• ' i i ' I ' i I 10.000 Test Results Summary U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 10 20 40 60 140 200 I I ' ! I ! \ ! I '' ' I r, ' I I", " I I \ i. I \ ' ' ' \. " 1.000 0.100 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS ASTM D422 HYDROMETER ! I I I I ! : ' ! ! ' i ' ' ' • I I 0.010 0.001 Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt \c1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%) Description B-9 S-3 7.5 13.0 15.1 Silty SAND with gravel Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1111er Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/912013 I-::c C) iii s:: > al 0::: w z ii: I-z w (J 0::: w a. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36" 12" 6" 3" 1112" 314" 318" r 10 20 40 60 140 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 ' ! ! 40 30 20 10 0 1000.000 ' I I I I I . ! ' ' I . 100.000 . . C I ' ! ! ! ' i I ' I I: I ' I ' I, 10.000 1.000 I I I\ I ' 1\ I ! ' I ! i I I ·•- i I ' ! ' I I ' I ' ' I ' ' ' ' ! -- I i i i I ' ! 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines(%) Description B-9 S-5 12.5 33.0 40.5 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1111er Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/9/2013 Proposed Renton Retail I-:c C) w 3: >-aJ a: w z ii: I-z w (..) a: w D.. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 36" 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000.000 ' ' ,,. I : I I : ! , .. 3" 1112" I ' ! I I I ' I I i I ' I I I ' I ! ' ! I 100.000 314" 316" 4 l ' ' ' ' I ' ! i ' 10.000 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 10 20 40 60 140 200 I ' I ' I I ' I I ! I I : \ +--L I I ' I ~ i I i ' \ I \ I I ! ' I I I I i I 1.000 0.100 0.010 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse \ Medium I Fine Silt I Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%) Description B-9 S-7 20.0 28.6 20.9 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi(mer Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/9/2013 Proposed Renton Retail 0.001 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 100 r3r-6"---:-n~','"T~' 1",rr3"T~ .' i .. nr" ."1''/4_"_3~/8i" Ff=!'Ff'F~110==R2.=0 l+i:::,on~'10T-114<ln2tlOTO ,-T-""TT"ITTT:"----r---, ' I -;--I ' 1 1 ... r-,. I I 90 '. I + • 11 ! i i I I I-80 -t-+--H-tc-+-+-+-+-+--tt+t-H-+--+--+---+++++-+-+-+--tt---+Hf+++-+--+--+++++-H-+---+----1 a I ~ ! ! 70 -t+++-+-+-+--+1--+---+t+-++-+-f---+-e++H-+-+--+-ll--++'+++-,--+--+--+---++++++-+--e- lll ! I ' II:: 60 tt+++-+-+-+--+----+rr+---+-+-+----+' ++-++-r+--+--+++-f-+-+--+---++----+++++++--+-----+++++++-+--+-----1 w i • z i ~ j . I t-50 -t++++---+~-+----+rf++---+--+--+++-+-+---+---+--+++-H-+-+----l-+--+l+++-+-+-~+-----1+++++-+-+-+-----I ffi I I (.) ! ffi 40 -t++++--c-+--+----+rf++-~-+----+++-+-+---+---+,--- a. 1 1 i i, \ I 30 +++++++-'-+-----++++-+++-~+--,+' +-1 rH-+-+---+t+++-1--++-+---'.-H+t-t-+-+--+--H+ I : ! I ---- ---++---n-+--+--+---+++++-+-+-+--+----t.c.a' r+++-+-+--+--+-+++-H-+---+----1 ! I 10 -t++++-t--+--+---+Hf+++-+-+--+--++++--Hr+---+---+l++-H-+-+--1--- . . I I 0 -1-'-'.U...t-~~--~+-+~-+---+'-++---'-''--'---'----+".U...W....'-'--'----+'-U..U....l----+t----j.U...J...I....L...t-.i.....----1 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt lc1a.y BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments; Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines(%) Description B-9 S-12 45.0 28.8 17.5 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME, Zi1111er Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING, 12/9/2013 Proposed Renton Retail I- :i:: (!) jjj :!: >-al 0:: w z ii: I-z w u 0:: w D. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 36" 100 90 80 70 60 50 I I ' ' ! 40 ' i 30 20 10 0 1000.000 12" I ' I I I ' r 3" 1 1/2" I I I I ! I I I I I I 100.000 3/4" 318" 4 . I ~ '"'- ~ .. ~ I I 10.000 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 10 20 40 60 140 200 I I I i: " I ' ' . ' '' ', I' ' ~ \ I I I I \ I I : I I \ ii I i : I 11 \_ : r I . I ' i I I I I I i I I i I ' 1.000 0.100 0.010 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse l Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines(%) Description B-10 S-3 7.5 16.5 19.8 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1!1!er Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/9/2013 Proposed Renton Retail 0.001 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 100 T,h,.,TTTl-','_" l""'i_"~1n3i"''t11~1/2r"~~~ .. ·"-===:.3ffiR"rt~i~~~!==~2~0lII410""l"1 .. '-,--'l'ont10To~-r--i--r----ri---r-i---------i I I ! ! I ..... r,. 90 -l-l-l-!-!--l-l--l---!----!-1 W'-!-!-'-l-l--l---!---l--'--l--l--!--l-----1-+-l-l--l-l--l-l'\-\-- I I I ! : I-80 ::c (!) w ;!: 70 ~ 1+---+-1---1--------··· - ! i I' I . I i i I . 0:: 60 -l-l-l+-i---l--1--I--W-l---1--e--e-----l-l-l-l--l-+-+--1----l-----1+-W-l-l-l--l---+-w i I ! z ' I I ii: .1 I 1-50 -l-l-l-W--l--1---+----~ - z w u ' ! I : I 0:: 40 .1.U-W-L-...J....--1----l..W-W--l--1--1---l---l-l-++-+-W-l---!-- w cl--J---!--!--l---!--+:-11++-H--l---!----!-+++-l--l--!--l---!----I ' II.. 30 -1-1-l-!-!--1-+'--l---+---!-W-+-l--l--!--l---'-----l-l-l-l--l-+-'--1---+---!-w+!-1--1--1--1---1 I ---+H+-+-+-+--+---++++-+-+-'-+-~-----l 20 -l-1-l-W-+-+--l 10 -l.L!-W--l--1--l---!----!--W-.... +-+----+----W-l-W--l--l--l---!------"11-!-!------+---+-l----++-+-+---++l++-H-+---+----l 11 ; : i 0 1-,C-W-l....l....J....--1---l,.W..U..L..1.--1---l----!-l-ll.J...J....l--!--L----1+.LLCLL!.....J._j_....j.w..;......C..J...J-l-----l.Lll.LI.-!-l-.--l--_____j 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%) Description B-10 S-4 10.0 3.4 37.8 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1!1!er Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DA TE OF TESTING: 1219/2013 Proposed Renton Retail I- :i:: (!) iii ~ >-[II a:: w z ii:: I-z w u a:: w D. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36" 12" 6" 3" 11/2" 314' 3/B" 4 10 20 40 60 140 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000.000 I I I I I ' ' I I ' I I 100.000 . . ! 1 · "'-' ·. I I I ' ' ' ' l t ' I I 10.000 I I I ' ! ' I I ' '\ --~ I \ ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I i : I ' I i I I 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System {UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth {feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%) Description B-10 S-5 15.0 31.0 44.9 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zieeer Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/9/2013 Proposed Renton Retail I- J: C) w ;: >-re It: w z ii: I-z w u It: w D.. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 36" 100 90 I 80 I I 70 i' ' 60 I: I' ' 50 ! : I 'I I: 40 I I ' 30 20 10 0 1000.000 12" -~ i ' I I ! , .. 3" 1 112" I I -- I I I 100.000 Coarse U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE r 318" 4 10 20 40 60 140 200 I I i I i ~" I \ i ' . I I I ' . I I I i I -C ·-- I ' I ii ·11 I ' I ' ' -- I I ' : I ! ' ' i ' 10.000 1.000 0.100 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt ASTM D 422 HYDROMETER -- i I ' ' ' --·-- ! I ! I I I I ' i i I I i I I I 0.010 0.001 lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines(%) Description B-10 S-11 40.0 26.8 15.9 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1111er Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/11/2013 Proposed Renton Retail I-:c C, iii 3:: >-al a: w z u:: I-z w (.) a: w 11. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 36" 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000.000 12" I I i ' ! i I I r 3" 1 112" I I ! I I I ' 100.000 3/4" 318" 4 I I I I I I 10.000 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 10 20 40 i 140 200 I ' i '' ' I '' 11 I \ I l I I I I ! i I I j I I , I I i 1.000 0.100 0.010 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium 'Fine Silt lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines(%) Description B-11 S-5 12.5 33.0 36.0 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1111er Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/11/2013 Proposed Renton Reta ii 0.001 I-:c C) iii == >-ID 0:: w z ii: I-z w (.) 0:: w a. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 36" 100 90 '! 80 ': i 70 • 1 60 50 40 30 20 10 ' 0 1000.000 12" I ' i ' r i' 1 112" i 1 I : I ~ ! ! i I . : : ' I I! I I ! 100.000 3/4" 318" ' I I, ' ' I 10.000 Test Results Summary U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 1Q 20 40 60 140 ro I ........_: ... : I I I ' I ' \ I i i I \ I ! \ ' '. ' ''' ': Iii 1.000 0.100 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS ASTM D 422 HYDROMETER ' 11 ' : ! I I' I ! ' ' ' ! I I I ! ' i ' I ' , I ---;--- ' 'I I ' : 0.010 0.001 Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt Jc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System {UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth {feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%) Description B-11 S-7 20.0 28.2 15.5 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1111er Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/11/2013 Proposed Renton Retail I- :i: (!) i!i ;:: >-ID IX w z ii: I-z w u IX w a. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 36" 100 ' 90 80 70 60 50 40 I 30 20 10 0 1000.000 12" -~ ~ ' ' 1 ' 6" 3" 1 1/2" I . I I ' I ' ' I ' I i ! 100.000 3/4" 318" 4 . I - I I I ' ' I I ' ' 10.000 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 10 20 40 60 140 200 I I ' , I ~-' ' . I ' \ ' i ! I ' ' ! i ' I I . I ' I I : I I ! I ' ' I I I I ' I I I I 1.000 0.100 0.010 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines(%) Description B-11 S-12 45.0 30.0 22.8 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1!1!er Geo Associates, LLC Proposed Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/11/2013 0.001 I- :i: (!) w ~ > ID 0:: w z u. I-z w (..) 0:: w a. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 36" 100 T I' ' I I I 90 I ' 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 .. 10 ! 0 1000.000 12" i • i r 1'" 1 1/2" l i . ! ' ' I ! I I I -----. I - 100.000 3/4" 318" 4 I ~ 11 ! i I ' 10.000 Test Results Summary U.S STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 10 20 40 60 140 200 I I I I f.. ... , '- I :') ' I i ! ! ' I I i . I ' ''' I ''' 11 I I I I . i I 1.000 0.100 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS ASTM D422 HYDROMETER I ' I i ·- ' : ! . __ :__ I I I i Ii ' ' : 11 0.010 0.001 Coarse I Fine Coarse l Medium J Fine Silt jc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines(%) Description 8-11 S-16 65.0 29.0 29.2 Silty SAND Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zigger Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/11/2013 Proposed Renton Retail GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 1 00 -r',na··.,..,...,_~'r-'··...,...~, 1·_,_,·.,...-j11l-12r"..._ _,1,_· -31-r/6..-" ,+,·..,...,......,'°--r,''r' .,,..,....'°,.....,~'i'-r-_',,_'°,..,,+201.,.'. .,..,....,......,...--,,-, r,-,-r-,--,---,--~ \ I i ! ) : 90 +++++-1-+--t--t--H+-1-++-+--+--+--\-t+t+++-+-+---+---++++-l-+-1--+---+---++c++++-+--+---+++++-1-+-+--'------I I : \! 1' I ii I I-80 +++++-+-+-+--+---++--++-+-+-+----t---ec\++-t-+--tf-+--+----H++-t-+-+-+----,---+++++++--f----+------,-'-+-l-++-+-+--~'----1 a I ; 1 , I i ijj I I : I I ~ 70 ttt-t-+++--,---t---tti-tt-H--+--·l--------t-h\t+++-+----++++-1-1-~-+--+t-'-t-+++-t--+--+++++++-l---i'---I I I I I ~ 1 I I! 1 0:: 60 +++++-+-+-+--+---++-f-++-t-+-+----t----++++-t-t-\'r,--+---+++++-t-t--r--+----+H-+++-+-+--+----+++++-+--t---+---+----1 ~ : I I I\ : I I 1-50 ++++++-+-+--+---++--++-+-+-+----+----++++-+-+-f-+'\---',-f----H++-t-+-+-+----,---+++++++--f----+------,+++-++-+-+--+-----+ z ,I ""' , I I WU I ', ' I ; I ~ 40 -1-H-l++-I +-+--+----i1+l,++++-+-+--+++1++-+-+--+-----1...i+f-+!-+i +-+-----+++++++-+-li'------+++++++-+-+----1 i : I \I I I 30 tt++++-1, +-f--+-----+!+++++-+--+---+--t+i++-+-+----+----+---++++-f--'lr, +-1\-+---+--·--++++++-+--+--~,l---++++-+-+-f-+--+--l , , I 20 ++++++-+-+--+---++--++-+-+-+----+----++,++-+-+-f-+--+----H++-t-+-+-->----,f------+++++++--f----~, --++++++-+-+---+---I . ' j 10 ttt++.c..+-+---t---+tftt+-f--+---+---++:+++-+----+----+---++++-+-+-+--+---+rs...i---'-ctt++++·+-f--~l_--++H++-l--+--+----l : -I 1· i 0 -++--+t-~f-+----++~~-++--1-+-=-'----+--+---1"++-t-+-+-+----,f------++++-++-"'--'--'-----+f'-LI..LI.-'---'--"'--------l 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt lc1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Unified Soil Classification System (UCSC) designation: SP·SM Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%) Description Poorly graded B-26 S-1 1 to 2.5 8.6 7.6 SAND with silt and aravel Project No.: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Zi1111er Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 12/11/2013 Proposed Renton Retail ! :E Job No. 1217.01 Job Name Renton Retail Sample No. B-5 5-1 Location Renton WA LABORATORY COMPACTION CURVE Date Tested 12126 '2013 Denth / Elevation 0.5 to 2 feet 150 -r',::,:-;-:a:;p,::~-r,~~r"r"i""i"T""':'", 'j"""r"""""'F="""'""'~c==i::=i::,,,,,,.,;;;;,;;;~,:,,;;;;,;;,;;"""';,,,,....~~~~~ l---+----+---+---l--0---l-\ ! I 1 145 J.-i--+--l1-.ii.,~~ \ I I \ ' I ' Test Resu Its Compaction TestSlandard ASTM 01557 Test No. Field Moist Dry Density (lbs/cu.ft.) 145.0 Moisture Content(%) 6.4 Size Mold 2 136." 4.3 6-inch 3 4 144.7 5.2 11 140 t:t:t~:t"f::fsj:~l::t::t:t:C:tjtj""j""j:!:J-M~ax;i~m~u;m~D;ry~D~e;n;si~ty~l~O~v~e~rs~iz~e~C~o~r;re;c;te;d~(~p~cD~_!l~4~5~.2:...j_:!1~4~6~.6~ \ , \ Opt. Moisture Content/ Oversize Corrected(%) 6.0 5.7 \ \ Oversize Fraction(%)/ Sieve Used 8 3/4 ,_,, \ Sample Description: FILL: uses Designation SP-SM 135 ~ ................ 1--,...,~...,i;..+..,.' .......... -... ,1 •........... 1--+--+-t l-+-+--1-1----ll----l-\\.l-I \ Comments: \ \ ' \ ' : i--. --+-+--<-+-'ll-+1\r+-\+-~-\--+--+-+-+-+-+-+-I 13ot-.,..,-+++-t>rr--ll-+ltt--'H~+HH-++i-,-~-~-~-~~~-~~-~~~-..--1 l--+-+-Hl-!- 1 -'l--l++'-4--c \• l+I* 1 -1--+-----1-t--HH-+1-+1-+-1 t-+-,-t--HH'H-+--+--I-+ 1 1-+-+-+-Hl-,H\--l-',._+\-.;.:-\f-1-11--1-+.-i--+-+-+--I-+-' -+-+-+-+-+-++-'-++--,'-1-+-+-+-+++---] l- 1---1---1--1--1----lC----"-' 1 0 _ ' : i -1- \ I\ ' I I I \ I I I 125 .............. ,...., .............. 1 ..... ,-+-+-+'l,,'-, ............ , ..... -+-~..-+-+--,-1...;.-+-+--l--.i-+-+~-+-+-~t-,--+-+-+--+--I-..-.... ,..., ,-~·---1-+-l--+-~_+->.H>\I \+-+-~-++-+\41--+-+--+-+-t-+-+-+-+-~l-l--+-+-+-+--1--1-+--l-+-+-+--l-t-t--l- 1 ,-I-I l--l-----1--Hl----l---- l-+-+-+-HH-+'-+--+'-\-1--1\-+' '*--,\c-1-'",+--I I ' i ~ \ ' ~ 120 -1-..-..-,-1-,1--1-1-1-+i,.,,-:i,.,_~!:t::::+-1!1,~\;:;~1:!;!:!:!:t:::;:;:;~:!;! ............... -1--1--1-.+-..-+-..-,-,-+-1 \ \ ' I I --_[__ _[__ -' \ I ~ ______ I -1--1-+-+--'--+-t-J..1 '~_µ,.-1-'-1--+':\-I-\J-,-+-+-+-+.-I---I-._---+-+-+-+-+---'-' .-1-.-1--1--+-+-+-t-_J.._-='c.::--+-: __ _, ~ ! \ \ C I \ \I \ I 115 ~-++~~+.:.I ""'1-+++i.~,..t,.;~li,\+.lii-+-,,-+++-l~++-i1-+++-i-+++-i-++-H-++.,.... 1--1--C-l----l-'-l--l--l---·----+-+1-\t--¥.+-1-'/---j\---l-'1 <t--+-+-+-I-HH~-I-I I \ \ -·-~ ,_f--,--+-l--+-+-+-+--+-1 -++-+-+--+-'---,--'---l\1 ,--~-' 110 -1-..-,1-,-1-,1--1-1-1-+ ....................... ,-1-......... ,-+"''t-,l,\,-+-,.-1--+--1--1-.+-..-+-..-,-.-, -..-1--1--,1--+-l-+-+1 .................. 1---1--1---H---IH-+--+-+--- 1-+-+-+-+-1-+-+--J.--J---jl-+--l-+-----I --j..\-',--+\-11-\\1-lr-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-f--+--1--+-,- \ ' I\ I l-t--l-H-l-+--+-+-+-+-++--+-~-l--l-'~-t\-,+-l-1-\\1-\l-.-l--l-+--"--+-+--l-+-+-I--IH-t--+-+- I-HI-HH-+-l-+--4'rl--+-l-'l-l--+.*+--I-+----C---l,_l----l-l-l-l--+-+--+-t--'-l-+-+-1 105 \ '1\ 1--+---e---J-'-+-+-+-+-+--+--+-+-+-+-+--,++--1.-+\-\-l-1 --1.--Ac-1-.-1-+-+-+--l-+-+-+-HHH-+-+-~-l-+-1 -+-+--1 \. " '\. \. I I\ \ I " \ ,, H--+, ++-H-+++-,H-'-+nH-+-t--tx , I I 100 t-:.~:.,.._~.._~~1:_~.._.._~.._~..,~~----,c--~ ... ~~;-~ ... ~ ... ;-~_"°"~~,~~_:-~~c'\'"\l,ll-""t,~-~-0.;.---j-!--"!----_-+!---l-l--.l.l-l--l-.,....,-..,...+...,..-,..-l...,..-I L ~-1--1-+-+-+-Hl--l----l-l-+-l--l--+-+-+' -1--+--,..-+--'ol-\_,..__,_, \.' -f--t- t--t--t-f-HH~--f-t-t'\->,--f',.f-1\-\--f' 2.80 -L_ _ Zero Air Voids Curves For -+---+--1 95 -l-..-,l-,l-l-,l--l-l-1-'....,-,.-,.-,.-l-..:..-1--:i1::.-:it-l_-,:_-1.,.-_-1 .. -_-+i,.'-}1,,-.,l.!-"~J.."-"d., 2:70 ,\ l-L_ Various Specific Gravi~i~-~---"-,.-_;-_ _,-I I -1-+-+-t-HI-H--1-t-l-+-+-+-+\+-'c,\. 2~6(1 +"'<+'-'J--"-' -+--+-+~+-+-+--l-t-t--1--1 1--1--C--'-+-+-+-+-+-+-1--'--~-+-1-~+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-~ ,, -"l-'-tc-+-','-+-+-1 I --._:. ~-~O ~~µ..jl-"-'",.~\-',-...1 ,-+-1--+' -+-+-1--1-.-1--+-~-- 1-+-;-i -l-+-+--+--1---+-+-+-Hl-,-+-+--+-I 2.40 -1--' --t."-+''\sl---'",.c--1-1--+-+-+-++-+-.-i-+---I 90 .L..I...J....l..-,!,.-1...J....l....:...,1-J...1.-..:...,1-J...1...J....:...i...:...1....1....J...J1--~ ........... l,.l,l....:....1.:>.~ .... ...1....:...~...1...J....:... ....... 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Moisture Content (%) Zipper Geo Associates, LLC 19023 36th Avenue West, Suite D Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 582-9928 60 50 40 '#- " Low nlast ,.1,..,,., ,...,.,r a, 'D 30 .E _,_,,_ . .?;-·c:; :;:, ' ' "' 20 .. a: ;;:>l11y c1avs; cla ?v silts OM <oM< -"' 10 7 ·-------"' CL-ML--,<-,,</ 4 ,/ . 0 /', PLASTICITY CHART ASTM D 4318 :/ / /. / / ' / ,. / J ./ / -.. •' -./ / ..... / ~ / / CH / / / c inoraanic / sanyy anu 1,,i.,,.,..,.,-1 ... ;1+., / 19-an1cs111 / / / _, __ ,,_ ' / / ·-v, / ,, / ./ or '\ / / V .. / '\, ~--· ' ./ ... -.... .. _,,_ 7//// ' ... ' .................. ,, ..... , .. / anas './ / / ·-· / / / u, ·-----.... _ IHY so11s; e as11c s11ls; , clays, an Slnv c1avs 1 -~ ' -· , ..... 0 10 20 30 40 50 Liquid Limit% 60 70 80 90 100 uses Received Liquid Plastic Plasticity Symbol Boring Sample Description M.C. (%) Limit Limit Index Comments • B-11 S-10 MH 55 52 30 22 Elastic Silt .A. B-17 S-4 OH 78 71 42 28 Organic Silt Remarks: Zi1!1!er Geo Associates, LLC PROJECT NO: 1217.01 PROJECT NAME: Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants DATE OF TESTING: 1/15/2014 Renton Retail APPENDIX C LIQUEFYPRO SUMMARY OUTPUT FILES APPENDIX C LIQUEFYPRO SUMMARY OUTPUT FILES The computer program LiquefyPro Version 5.8 was used to evaluate potential seismic induced liquefaction and settlement for this project. Select summary output files for borings B-9 through B-11 for ground shaking associated with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEc) Peak Ground Acceleration in accordance with the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) are enclosed in this appendix. The enclosed summary output files are provided for informational purposes and do not constitute our entire liquefaction evaluation. Please refer to the liquefaction section of this report for our conclusions relative to liquefaction for this project LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Renton Retail Development Hole No.=B-9 Water Depth=5 ft Surface Elev.=22.5 (It) 0 10 20 --30 Soil Description Gravel~ SAND, with silt Organic SILT & PEAT Silty fine SAND SAND, w tth silt SAND, trace silt i CLAY,sorresilt 8 j --40 -- 50 :-· :~ 60 ·. ! :% - ~ SAND, with silt, trace shell fragrrents SAND, with silt, trace shell fragments Silty SAND, trace shell fragrrents Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio SPTWeight % 51 130 22 130 5 100 15 12 70 t>bLq 9 105 40 12 105 40 17 115 21 27 120 36 125 0 90 t>bLq 12 100 18 9 100 18 16 110 18 41 130 62 130 8 100 0 fs1:1 CRR CSR fs1- Magnituc/e=6.84 Acceleration=0.52g Factor of Safety Settlement O 1 5 O (in.) 10 I I I I _,-~ S: 5.87 in. Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Saturated Unsaturat. - Zipper Geo Associates, LLC. B-9: 2475 yr Return Period Plate C1 (ft) -0 -20 70 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Renton Retail Development Hole No.=B-10 Water Depth=5 ft Surface Elev.=22.5 Magnitude=6.84 Acceleration=0.52g 1111111 Soil Description Gravelly SAND, w nh silt Silty SAND, trace fine organics Organic SILT Silty SAND SAND, trace to sorre silt CLAY, wnh silt SAND, w Ith silt SAND, with silt, trace shell fragrrents SAND, w Ith silt, trace shell fragmants Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio SPT Weight % O 41 130 34 130 12 105 20 7 100 38 9 105 45 5 100 45 31 120 26 120 0 90 NcLq 4 90 NcLq 10 100 16 16 110 15 15 110 15 31 130 26 130 fs1=1 CRR CSR fs1- Factor of Safety Settlerrent O 1 5 O (in_.)_ _ _ 10 S=7.14in. Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Saturated Unsaturat. - Zipper Geo Associates, LLC. B-10: 2475 yr Return Period Plate C2 (It) 0 15 :• -30 --45 60 ·. 75 .· LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Renton Retail Development Hole No.=B-11 Water Depth=5 ft Surlace Elev.=22.5 Soil Description SAND, with silt and gravel Fibrous PEAT Silty SAND SAND, w tth silt SAND, trace to sorre silt CLAY, some silt SAND, with silt, trace shell fragments Silty SAND, trace shell fragments SAND, w tth silt, trace shell fragments Silty SAND, trace shell fragments SAND, with silt, trace shell fragments SAND, with silt, trace shell fragments Silty SAND, trace shell fragments Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio SPT Weight % O 43 130 52 130 10 105 7 70 Nolq 9 105 36 9 105 36 18 110 15 34 120 36 120 0 90 Nolq 17 110 23 13 110 23 9 105 30 40 130 25 125 16 110 29 27 125 29 12 110 29 7 100 11 110 fs1=1 CRR CSR fs1- Magnitude=6.84 Acceleration=0.52g Factor of Safety 0 1 5 I I I Settlement O (in.) S = 10.42 in. 50 Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Saturated Unsaturat. - Zipper Geo Associates, LLC. B-11: 2475 yr Return Period Plate CJ APPENDIX D SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS & LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS BY OTHERS APPENDIX D SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS & LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS BY OTHERS As part our geotechnical evaluation for this project, ZGA completed a review of the following geotechnical report prepared for the site. • Geotechnical Report, Act Ill Theaters, SW 41" Street and East Valley Highway, Renton, Washington, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 30, 1996. Copies of the subsurface explorations (borings B-1 through B-5) and laboratory test results from the referenced report are enclosed in this appendix. The approximate exploration locations presented in the referenced report are shown on Figures 2 and 3 and should be considered approximate. ~ 0 r./J Cl LJ.j z 'ci c.., LJ.j r./J a:: ti u '.'.3 0 r./J Cl LJ.j z r2 c.., LJ.j z LL ~ 0 0 z c'i a ~ OJ l:D -~.§ rn "' ·;;: (1) OJ > ~-~ E "' ~g ON LO cO "'z £; C "' !!! .c 0 ... :ii: MAJOR DIVISIONS i GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve. SANDS More than 50% of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve. Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines) Gravels with fines Clean Sands (less than 5% fines) Sands with fines SILTS AND CLAYS LffiER GRAPH SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION GW 1 '~: 0 : •9 Well-graded grave/s 1 gravel-sand mixtures 1 little .Q 'ti, • or no fines. GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ............. •••••• ........ ~ ..... . ••• .1. -• ~ -~ • } • • Poorly.graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non- plastic fines. Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-day mixtures, plastic fines . Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. Poo~y-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or .no fines. Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. Clayey sands, sand-<:lay mixtures, plastic fines. Inorganic silts and. very fine sands, rock flour, silty or ML clayey tine .sands or' clayey silts with slight plasticity. CL 1%;. Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly ~ clays, sand,! clays, silty c!ays, lean clays. 1-------l"~ 11 11 1 I I! l I . · Liquid limit is less than 50% SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit is greater than 50% HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS OL ,',',',',',',', Orgamc silts and organic clays of low plasticity. ! I I I I I t MH CH OH PT I! I I 11 11 I I I I I I I JI I I IP I JI I If --- Inorganic silts, micaceous or dlatomaceous tine sanely or silty soils, elastic. . _________ __, Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. -,.':' ~ .... ,.. .... "". Peat and other highly organic soils. ,.. .,.. ,, ,.. ... _ .... _ .... DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS Density Very loose Loose Standard Penetration Resistance in Blows/Foot Medium dense Dense 04 4-10 10-30 30-50 >50 Very dense Consistency Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard Standard Penetration Resistance in Blows/Foot 0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32 >32 TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants I I p * sz ['] C qu w pcf LL Pl N 2" OUTSIOE DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER LEVEL (DATE) WATER OBSERVATION STANDPIPE TORVANE READINGS, tsf PENETROMETER READING, tsf MOISTURE, percent of dry weight DRY DENS11Y, pounds per cubic foot LIQUID LIMIT, percent PLASTIC INDEX STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ACT Ill THEATERS RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-3062 I Date 1/96 I Figure 3 L.. Boring No. 8-1 Logged by: DBG Dated: Graph/ uses :,:,:,>:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,: @Jf:~:/it:: ML 3-17-93 Soil Description Consistency Depth (ft.) FILL -Gray-brown, gravelly Medium dense SAND with silt, wet. to dense Brown, organic SILT with Soft root fibrils. Gray-black, fine SAND with Loose to silt, wet. 2-inch thick layer Medium dense of peat at 11 feet, water- bearing. Dense to Very dense Q-ay SILT, with shell fragments, wet. Stiff Boring terminated at 34 feet. Groundwater encountered at 10 feet. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants 5 10 15 ~20 ~25 30 Proj. No. (!) (N) Water n. E Blows Content a (ft) (%) (/) 27 13 I 35 13 I 3 15 I[ 13 111 I 5 27 I 12 36 I 20 40 I 57 26 I 50/6" 24 10 36 BORING LOG. ACT lit THEATERS FORMER HOME BASE SITE RENTON, WASHINGTON - 3062 Date 1 /96 Figure 4 Boring No. 8-2 Logged by: DBG Dated: 3-17-93 Graph/ Description Consistency Depth uses Soil (ft.) FILL • Brown-gray, gravelly Dense SAND with silt, wet. 5 ;:::;:;~] Ol.'~i::;:;:; Brown, organic SILT with peat 10 seams and la ers. Medium dense 15 Gray.black, fine to medium SAND with some silt and slit 20 interbeds, waterbearing. 25 Very dense 30 Soft Gray SI LT, wet. 35 Boring terminated at 39 feet. Groundwater encountered at 10 feet. <1) (N) Water Q. E Blows Content 0 (ft) (%) C/) 30 11 I 47 9 I 2 65 JI 4 I 18 30 I 22 24 I 20 42 I 19 26 I 50/5' 26 I 7 39 2 36 BORING LOG ACT III THEATERS FORMER HOME BASE SITE RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 3062 Date 1/96 Rgure 5 Boring No. Logged by: DSG Dated: Graph/ uses 3-17-93 Soil Description Consistency FILL -Brown-gray, gravelly Medium dense SANO with slit, wet. Brown, organic SILT and Soft PEAT, wet. Gray-black, fine SANO with silt, waterbearing. Medium dense Oense to Very dense Gray SILT, wet. Soft Boring terminated at 34 feet. Groundwater encountered at 10 feet. • See Attached Consolidation Curve, Figure 9. TERRA ASSOCIATES B-3 Depth (ft.) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Q) Dry Q (NJ Water Unit E Blows Content Wt. 0 (%) Cl) (ft) (pcf) 29 13 I 30 10 JI 10 63 JI p 126 36.4* I 12 35 I 31 25 I 35 22 I 62 24 I 50/4' 25 2 39 BORING LOG . ACT Ill THEATERS FORMER HOME BASE SITE RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants ProJ. No. 3062 Date 1/96 Rgure 6 Boring No. Logged by: DBG Dated: Graph/ uses 3-17-93 Soil Description Fl LL. Brown-gray, gravelly SAND with silt, wet. Brown, organic SILT with peat, wet. Gray-black, fine SANO with silt, waterbearing. Gray SILT, wet. Boring terminated at 34 feet. Groundwater encountered at 10 feet. TERRA ASSOCIATES Consistency Medium dense to dense Soft Medium dense Dense to Very dense Soft B-4 Depth (ft.) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Geotechnical Consultants Proj, No. OJ Water Dry 0.. (N) Unit E Blows Content Wt. 0 (ft) (%) (pcf) (J) 24 16 I 45 10 JI 9 61.5 58.3 I 13 28 I 10 32 I 15 34 I 17 35 I1 41 31 I 50/5" 25 1 49 BORING LOG ACT Ill THEATERS FORMER HOME BASE SITE RENTON, WASHINGTON 3062 Date 1/96 Figure 7 Boring No. Logged by: DBG Dated: 3-18-93 Graph/ uses Soil Description Consistency FILL. Brown-gray, gravelly Medium dense SAND with silt, wet. Brown, organic SILT with peat · seams and la rs wet. Soft Gray to black, fine SAND with silt and silt lnterbeds, Medium dense waterbearlng. Black, medium to coarse SAND, waterbearlng. Dense • No Recovery Very dense Boring terminated at 34 feet. Groundwater encountered at 10 feet. ~ TERRA ~ ASSOCIATES B-5 Depth (ft.) 5 10 15 20 25 30 · • · · · Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. (l) Dry a. (N) Water Unit E Blows Content Wt. 0 (ft) (%) (pcf) U) 28 11 I 25 14 JI p 71.8 53.2 JI p 102.5 40.9 I 20 32 I 12 31 I 36 20 I 30 22 I 50/3' • 42 26 BORING LOG ACT Ill THEATERS FORMER HOME BASE SITE RENTON, WASHINGTON 3062 Date 1/96 Figure 8 3 . 0 2.8 . -,._ 2.6 'r,., ~1' ro 2. 4 ' -~ 0 ·-< m 2. 2 \ n H rs 2.0 \ 1. 8 ... --~ ... \ ---\ 1 . 6 1. 4 • 1 .5 1 5 10 1 00 Pressure (tsf) Boring Depth Moisture Ory Key No (ft.) uses Soil Description Cr Cc eo Content. W% Density Before After (pcfi 3 8'-9 1 OL Organic Silt .22 1.36 2.77 126.0 109.2 36.4 Cr= Recornpression Index Cc= Virgin Compression I ldex eo = Inplace Void Ratio ----·-·----- .. IUI~ I c::, I UAIA ~TERRA ACT Ill THEATERS ASSOCIATES FORMER HOME BASE SITE ---" · Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 3062 Date 1/96 Figure 9