The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03443 - Technical Information Report � TECHNICAL INFORMATI�N REPORT � m �.��:.��.��a:�-:-��-�- .j McDonald's Reconstruction Project 73 Rainier Avenue South Renton, Washington Prepared for: McDonald's USA, LLC Northwest Regional Office 12131 - 113th Avenue N.E., Suite 103 � Kirkland, WA 98034 January 28, 2008 Our Job No. 13338 �:�. _. .. .._ ., . - .r,.. __ � .,_. _ _� __.. _ . _. � ,,5�.... „�.. .. .._. ,._��___..b,.,..,� . _k_�_^..� .,...:;_.�.,,��...�:.�.,�a�� 1 •;-.� ' �r�:.��;� �; � ��'��F ��;� � �,'''� , a ~:�t Gy � y � ,�,�h . . -�:.°('J�Q ��' t'� �it-, ��'/$T::.+ `�. �SSlONAL��1G '.t�� v� EXPii��: F ! 1'; / � �-r-� N A a;y,aFH��;� ; . �� ►rvs� R ��'��,� _-, � `, Z CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENI��ERVtCES 1 H215 72N0 AVENUE SOUTH KENT,WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251�782�a,x Z `l, ? BRANCH OFFICES ♦ OLYIdP1A,WA ♦ TACOMA,WA ♦ SACRAAAENTO,��;��y¢�1C�4,C•A a� �Ij Ul y� www.barghausen.com <r�� ENc�NE�� 3 ��13 TABLE OF COtiTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIE�'�' Figure 1 —Technical Information Report(TIR)Worksheet Figure 2—Vicinity Map Figure 3 —Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions Figure 4— Soils Map 2.0 PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS Sli�IMARY � 2.1 Analysis of the Seven Core Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QL`ALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System � 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS A�1D DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES,FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 133;3.00 Ldoc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW This site, located at Rainier Avenue South and the Renton Avenue South extension road (Airport Way South), is at the southwest corner of the intersection. This is an existing McDonald's facility where the building recently burned down. This proposal is to demolish the existing site improvements (what was left of the existing building has already been demolished) and install a new building with associated parking and drive-thru lane. There will be a slight decrease of impervious surface on the subject site. The existing large McDonald's sign located adjacent to the property line on Rainier Avenue South will remain. Also, there are three existing driveway curb cuts which also«�ill remain. 1;338.00I.doc �--+ � � � � � L � � L.J�. � r � L � � � King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner McDonald's USA, LLC Project Name Address 12131 — 113`�'Avenue N.E., Suite 103 McDonald's Renton Reconstruction Kirkland, WA 98034 Location Phone (425)242-2421 Township 23 North Project Engineer Hal P. Grubb, P.E. Range 5 East Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Section 18 Address/Phone 18215 —72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032/(425)251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ Subdivision HPA ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline Management ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ COE 404 ❑ Rockery ❑ Grading ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural Vaults � Commercial ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ Other ❑ Other ❑ COE Wetlands Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Drainage Basin West Lake Washington—Seattle South Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ❑ River ❑ Floodplain ❑ Stream ❑ Wetlands ❑ Critical Stream Reach ❑ SeepslSprings ❑ Depressions/Swales ❑ High Groundwater Table ❑ Lake ❑ Groundwater Recharge ❑ Steep Slopes ❑ Other -1- 13338.002.doc Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities BeC -Beausite gravell sandy loam 6-15% BeD -Beausite � gravelly sandy loam 15-30% ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCT�ON ❑ Sedimentation Facilities � Stabilize Exposed Surface � Stabilized Construction Entrance ❑ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities � Perimeter Runoff Control � Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris ❑ Clearing and Grading Restrictions ❑ Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ❑ Cover Practices ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and Open Space Preservation Areas ❑ Construction Sequence ❑ Other p Other Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM ❑ Grass Lined Channel ❑ Tank ❑ Infiltration Method of Analysis � Pipe System ❑ Vault ❑ Depression ❑ Open Channel ❑ Energy Dissipater ❑ Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigation ❑ Dry Pond ❑ Wetland ❑ Waiver of Eliminated Site Storage ❑ Wet Pond ❑ Stream ❑ Regional Detention Brief Description of System Operation Install new catch basins and some conveyance pi es. Facility Related Site Limitations fteference Facility Limitation -�- 1333�.U0=_duc Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Part 12 EASEMENTSlTRACTS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Drainage Easeme�t ❑ Retaining Wali ❑ Access Easement ❑ Rockery>4'High ❑ Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Tract ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I,or a civil engine.er under my supervision,have visited the site. Actual site c�nditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. . /• �� d� Si ned/Dated i ��- �� -3- I 3338.002.c1oc Q � � � �--i .� �U � N � � � � L.L . , ,�� n_��c =�e�.�o. ._ zee n'� am s z� .. €~ �� t ��NE �ea. i��l. .,�2aT 6 � .. nrT f �� :.. t . :� 57 Z s R ar� ��st �' �TM' g a � si �, � ��, r�?, W�f� � � /Q� .. . ��. . � •�� .�..� 3I 5�.�(,/) �ai $ Q � �� ,-�:�r . j : R M` �• � a E :T ,/' 3 "' =�Y�'Yj � �.•',�'��t� �.,w� z _ BANGOR �T '� ` °4 �•� � ih�� Q 'fen�_�at.Q � f y.� �. v ` � so�r c�acv ��-�}'"�'�—�-i ��` � S� ��„I. ��\ �,bS/�� t `�qa� �_'� .:.�� !�i-�-�.' �I 3I �y r _ � x s `\'€rl -o ?' � r� �y�±�� s aEraxn �� '� itmiv� , � � ,�,� �R � � 3 ��, �r ��'�'�` s`" «�'�'illti s'r z�rrrrr we .�_�zn� sr ��t. s�¢M �,� � � _ . , _• YE; ..� ,� _.P.« � � �-._i�ni_ sr 3. 9•_ 1,1 ia� � 5. � u.n a �s uni s'"'i�TM N, ¢[xrow �'k d': QV.'J. ;S 57 5 LMl1�ST - XN/ClA9( � � oi e v 1 5 �1 5iS7 f AIPRRT O t $ �. ��113TN M,� � P �i� S . �'R`r 11! PL 1 :a soar t,v�'e / � ,,,�1i � � iE �ntx v` � 5T - n - s�Yna S ' ] � _�_ � �� ',.ailnc u�� p,Jj �c mn sr-. '.l.'B7y ,q�. r�y _5 '^� 117IN� '�5T RpTf1Y s � ME 9M Pl z�-� 118TN w�:�°�q'� i�n n 5 � 3'�18I` 5 �ll7N i p� �r.`� H,Nf ,1 � � ' ME �.��-� � s n � � a �'Z � t Y i -�9! � �� . ,+ ` ,�e � � 5 1191N i !# � ��BTM � � ^ w 5 I'9TN ^T = � �I 5T [fp,qp � Y ETX 5T s 3' _�. :��4%.� � "� "�''4 �� " 3 3; �_ s, �2tsr st p � afvta J �. �i. ��.H r.v � 5 F!"' : Q L.•'v a�� 3 � , � s�—17dO �-St ��...> , 1 7pAlt � ��3 ��t � . �'4 mr n ..-� � � � C.�� A'Y109Y ��'S' ST S- 6T� pip I ST� t o FY iiH SJ l.r� 7H r ST y� l�g� j'a . R�- (� �� \��X i�� I �; e� 1 � t T F e + � 4 w n.. 't}� 1 _ r P �, 1/� f� .KYWY � 4 +N��2snl� . S r '�� R Q 3 rr.' -k, . M 9➢1 5T ' i }�.w �'�t `�`i �PM 5 °Htt's� a, �s us �; ,an+� �� w •.., .. � =i � ' ' -, '�r f lr ..s �ynM..,s S ,, i� 'i . `i_.I `3 q i,i,3 F..x�>�6�d .st • �'� �� qj : ' _.� �'..N �i�M��" ,k'�_ _� ,i . . � �.� S. • . ,S R7 ��t �1en,�1' a� . 4=� STM .� 5T_: �(�,.,� f' .�!.+ i 1 �..ST� x S ❑S Rn�n '. �, ..p � �j �f3 �! �� . M r �� I .1 i8 � 3 I '¢ 'c - �%poso rlo5pe a � � � m s lz6Tx ! sr � s�� ]2en+ .m ST�� d i�. - ��g: : ! .- -r-�- srxrcu +c'r!�- .� r Q N .. (: ' . „ q arM (� . � ,y a: 0:. aC7Y . .__ � - 5 ]191X 'ST �� . ; � . 3 : .._3' � �•�. � .. S ISli tlp�� .��Y �,< - l � €��5 1907N. t S � en� � 3. �� W f -� � . i�wu .. �'�,� QO � �3,�un� . . 3 � � � � J � 3 . XQ � /� � / `_ .S_ � �AK36TID �.,' �p i .- '� � 3 �4 �.a�i ; � i�C. � Y � :ttis*n.�� 92 G �� .r E�; �no n f s� � �, � � � �rX~ N\j t l• D " , _ . - . � i33 Ri1�,, °"akr� 132 N �� w �SITE��KN "LL�� -4�� n� � ��°� �1 `=;Y S S JAD � ' � 11Q � x'ST s :� _'_ . ." �1_� /� "� 57 •y.� ' ..., sr :4 'M� �. W ,C � ��i '�.l37M. �T i4 S �°� 3 �• rann '^ 7 yrp �' .f �ls k�ryp � .t �_� i 5 Y K 135TH 5T ? ,#t'$.��M�- r', sl';Tea n � sr RIX7ClY � . ' � •�� €:� , �J Q A��v? �, SI � sr� � ��:S �,� �t w�' �3 `/ / tlJ�F� T�� .. ��C�� +��_w_Ltsra'--g�� ` ii � . • � .� �. � a� _._ o, rc�er F 5 W7M 57 i�� t� r�� ,► ��n s '^ SE?AD�4L ; I � �. Y n y j � � ,. � ue .�. � _- :� �k--i �.�.W��.,� ?� �� .a.. ,vr %4�,'^� � � � � ' . � —► ° i ti S ��\sr - ,� 3_;�'A t c" �?� �--�'7� ' `" � � 1� \ : s �:a.�?.�, °k� \ �� ec.Cc e�rse 'C � ��; .�,/ 3'� i' s _�?Te �T s �'�' � �� ;: .� st elAeel�v rae6r a a�'s' &\ 3:� ' «: 4�� s 1��,�, � ��i""� E 'C yeq�R i�� :�� asm � � r�`'G �� 3� \ .. , .�� ' � � � ry`.,_ .. .��61X ST �f d� j�p15T&f�fA � v- ��75 � �%�` �. ' � #�� .y.. y :�� N �<'s�srw st rp �� Ap —�-..t� rs .."�^,n , T M �°\ 5.6 ern:i.m. � js� i �.f „ -�kf � �_—_ � --.1 .__� � � T �y "N fIM 31 ��. A.SNr7 - gv ry,; N ; ' . r -- -- �v: � ;s m� sr-�. sG.�r- 1F �. r.r� ,�c +� 's CQM Y �� 8fF A�' i � � ..zxr� , �+ �*j�'o,.�\'� 3 � ��I I �z RP� . �r bs g sn+ s, wuu��`4�. w� 'f� a� . . � .sau�`� ,S�N --&��c� A 1`'a'� �a t �, + S a'�. s, a ,..e r l' � S F t�TM 51_ sr'�. - .,I '$� G7F Q04R Rr � a� �1� Sy � 5 RBrt01 Y[LLACE Os .�' ; I1N lO!!AV � � '° `( a : %,,,. �, �y �� t �� $�s a� � ` � ,� � 3. � ��^ f !A aa c� �� T �'�. i `� `y q ? � S� yy��'� �eix id sr �F„-5��'t,��v-'_. gi� , s � a��,, . /� 3 � a �F� /y s + f� O L� e�:V � � i � � �e�� s isnr sr .^�.+f �.s � 3� 4 "plF. Q � � - 3 -,: y 5 .,; sE uw t � E� .eE4 ' �' $ ?� �' � � g� �m+ 'r t'� 'ai�s� �s k`''� a �, °.yr' � ro�.� ( � s ieTM Z sr �e� a , `W �,`y /� i Q.�' � ��, a�0 ' � .Y � -.L'I '1 - _ _ "^� �. ., �)ST � '� . � J � . m'Y � ..� 5 791N �H ST -��Wo� O � ��+w;�t.�� #. :�,9 sc�arr�sr Y . ts rs i xr's� �n"s � A 11�'�.-T �R•�b'� _ x Y��a3 _ . i' � .: _ REFERENCE:Thomas Guide(2006) Scare: FO/;' Job Number Horizontal: N.T.S. VeRical: WA McDONALD's, RAINIER AVE. S. �GHA(,s RENTON, WASHINGTON 13338 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH � �►► F KENT,WA 98032 �l, � Z (425)251-6222 Tjr�g: o' S � (425)251-8782 VICINITY MAP s ? ��r�'� `¢.�� CIVILENGINEERING,LANDPLANNING, �N¢��a6 SURVEYING,ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: 12/15/07 P:V 3000s1133381exhibitlgraphics113338 vmap.cdr Figure 3 Existing and Proposed Drainage Cond itions °Y c� c� � � � D D � r � r� � � < � � O r*i C �0 U7 < � I I O �T� �1 C ' � � _ � �' �. cJ� (,a p� � ^� C� p� Oo �_1 (,� Cb C/� (l� � � \ ---" . �/'� �-' / - / � "�^o� // �£v cZs , �m �,�� _ � > �. �m , ��. . � J �� ' � //J �k�� . 9:E� \ .��' • .� J \ �'� 'f '� y�CS�/^�., � � � \ ,0 '",�,,jj� �; n \ � . , / r� �� . / �� y��' !� �� , �� .��,, � \ �. /: .;; � �;t�,, �� , � � i`'�,,=,- � � '�^.�°� /j' ,-�-. � � � � �F� '9C+ � � � � �� O,aO � / / ,' � \ �'''. � /% „ �`` '� �' '�� F�'� � � /�'/ .•� �`, �`�� - . � 9 %'`/,��'� ��y*'' ` - "� �', . �qp � �� . �%� �� A � �F AJo� � - rn / �� /// �, _J �; �p� vti. � � 9��`/� � , � i �� / /� ,. , �`� � µ� '� , ��,!Y�'�.. �s� ., �� -v�O ��a�� ;�� N� - �� Y� .�� ti rn �� '-'� /� � �/� �,�� -��`" � � ''�l i' � 9�t� � ' °//� i .,�' ��----- �� /�<� 'L�'�` I 1 I / / / �� ' ' ti_ -, � v . /� �`�' \ / � .� ^A .�� \ /� r> � ` ��j,� r � �� "y.. � � 3 '�a \.. , s �� .\ t ./_� O �w� ••i�� . , . t � . \� . 3 . / � �$ ^` \`/O�/- � . . •b . ... .d .�� _ y pLt�` \ _Y T m��o '. '.\. .f . . 1 - "a._,.,_.�. ��... "G �..b„F.`� � � �'a \ V ,z ., �, . �-�� a�� rn �_� .� .>�6` • - r�� _ @. �� '/�� \ �. �� ""' "' � ( l .�.._.._.._ �'i. ��:_ . �. �✓ � � _�0 OZ •�,� '► ,6 ZZ b -..1--�-- yynB .r` g� x .� �.1 �h -�y-"" . � . a�. r �/ y�,� � � � � � $rX`" �' _.1- � �� 'j`� �,�� '�� ' � -. Il � ��{ _'- . . : T� N> w µ M �� 7 � �� q - -�1- �� __,"�',a x� � � � p� \ L w �� 1 � " _. " � }£ �{ �� tti „4"�'"�� --j, \�Y �� oev .�. ,_,., _..i1... � s .sm.=•a-.m.s. ,.,...,� ��'p� € � �� i�� ' n5 ,,,,.�.-..---�'.. y ✓'� ° `�\ '9' � Cµ� z,ISL � __.. • 1 /�✓ . . � � � � � O �� I .�'I . '. �H�_- 1`.i -.��_Jb 95 �_' y r"`- o _ _.. /n. � . / � I�Y/ra /1 y�y, P � u � J,....-..3, 3 .. � �. \ � /`� A�`'y ]� �r \\\ L .. �`+�\ . yt �� i i=!-y.� � �� ti�: ,� V I � 4. � b �� 11 � . �/ AS � 'a - �F '' �— u, �_ //�� \ � �� o�c x,� �.:'t&`"t: __J� �� J �'.�A, \ \ I;_.J � ' ,pp'OSL 3.6t,OS•905 6 _ \�$' �#'� '� � � o � � �� _ " �n � � � .Z a ��:�� - � ��_,�.� �� 'a rzs.00= T _- � 69'99�1 � �� v 8� � J,,,- - i 4 N . -- '" � :� . �, ----' s � " � ,00'SS9S'N � �,. \ / r J,� "�i--' --- FR c � �g� z ,\ �/,r� ; �/ U�� _`�.-.T u_-�`-- ---'--- -- ---'-"--" �� r / , - _�� ; �. I � �� Avn��Nm1t�'� __ -- -- --- � .� ;: �;s .,p�� ' � , � -- - - , . .... . _��-- -`- .�. .. --"-"" ' � r:`-r'.�; .. . � ,r - � -- ^ ' ^ � �� • �a . .,� � ----------'--"------ � � � � ' ' � � ----"-'--'---'-'-'--'- �� `d --'--- . . � � . � v�� 'i$ � ______---- -- v.Z ___-- �� ,g __ lavo=�nuna)__-_-- _. �_,�.� __-- ----- ------ ---3nN3nv a3iNida Hinos ---------� _ - — ---- ___ No. f Datc �y Ckd. Appr. f Revision Job Number ��H A�� ;��IP: 18215 72NU AVENUE SOUTH °Ps�q�e`� -HP� Tlt�@: 13338 mP �`Z KENr, WA 98032 Drawn CRJ pREDEVELOPED CONDITIONS MAP Ho,aonta� �ti (425)251 -62?_2 '� � , Checked HPG 1"=40' sr,ee� n -fi'=ti" v (425)251-8782 FAX ° McDONALDS S ? Approved HPG Vertical For. 5' CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, G Q, <r�H�ENG�N�� SURVEYING, ENVIRONMFNTAL SERVICES Date 1 31 u8 N/A _1_ _ �f 2 � � -i o a -, -� � D 1 � r r r*i � < � _—� O rTt m (�j7 < � I I O r�Tt �J C p � . -P (� Co c„i �n 04 cr' c,� � � n� <,� cn r� � � � /��f�°� +� . i �� \ �' � /•^� ��...4 5 r �' J . /� , , �� i f�6 �� ^��y`;,� � �,, �, ,� ^ �: ' , . , , . � ��o�� ' , .. ._, �� <�-� ��, � , ,��' � ',, � . � -� - _ , � , � �� '�; � ��_� _ �, �� `� Y,�`�-� � , ' �" /�� ..`��, - _ ��, � ..��. . %/ �``��\� 4'`=-� ,`�� / ,'�� ; ��.:,� ��'� �` 4 „/ ' , �,, C� ,�/ �; , i `-....r �`� � �'F � ! -i "/ `,o� "�w.�. �f � . r,./ /�i ./._ Sp ' ...,��Y �.� ` .. � , , � , � �;, :�,, �a ��, rn �:-�%% ,� ;' _ _ -�:.,a�,.,�, � �'�p� rn ", ^';� j:. � _ .c.Y ,m ` ��'''oA. +''� 1 � / 8 ' �� y ",`, �Y � '' r p •l ` 9G� '� O / I i,' SB` _�_— . . ! `\�\` �� :\ V , . • ' _ : - - . � , „�_„��_,_ , ... � . , «.. — ��..r ... _�� .. �..- �f ��\ rn �� • • I_ —— £ ��/y � ` \` ��?.In �� ,,� e�� 1� f ' '� _ � 3,�: �� \ `�� v.'�"'i(r�... ` /\�\\/ �I �� . . I .� �, . � ^� , , . \�\ \ / � I • I ` \ O ;' . '�'.,r,.._...--...."'i. �_ ^"r'_'..�.� �; �.V . ��t 1t �` ' I , _._..-j.-v' —_ l �:: ._.✓. 'I C�l�� "— `�./� .. .. .... �` \ . . .. � 1Y ' ...r�«...�. ...n..-.-"" . � \\. � 1 � i " �� -� �` � � �� k' � ,•` \�\�•,� � . w_,w...-..r V� \l tly .. . �\ — � r''� j � `� � ` \ � / � \ • . �,�,�� ff �� P� \` ' 1 : _ ' ��g�_y¢�- yf ( '1:�� \ ', ``\ O .'� .; � p� '� 'd" ' , ;4. �� '� ��. _ ; :�',,,-,-- , � L • � �' E r � " t _r�� . 'A ; 1. , T . ,�,''�-� � � ' , ...J \ V, i I � = 3 { � ..Q `i ..,. � , � — , y:�. ` /�,. . t � � � 1 1\ i . � '� \�,�� J \ ... :� '. .. .. _ . ; . ,� ' �� .� / � • ...:.. '� 1 f / ��. ` :� . ,'� �_-- . 3� � 'f . � . / ��' ._' �..v��'_ � �� !I � 2._"__ _j`-�-a �-j'�..,_Y-..,-- �� i.l �s �,Y',�.� �� ':(��r V . - ..t I: � ..� i � - �,� i, i --- � I. / I _ 3µ-'. I , ..� � - l �f /i �.� i', � '� � � P � � - �� ° � � � � �� 1 , , . � ��, � 4 , � ' �i }�: F ::. -'� _- U `�„ � �." `� _ � s��. , �.,.. � _ __.- r � _ �_ � m _ , _v ,., �- ._ F� __ .__.� _, _ . �_ �, , �---� ,- ' � �t 4�� H1t�OS �t1N3l1a �►�INt`dk! � .�- - ______�.�..� �__;�._..�.:..;:..-.-��.�:�.�.`�.'v...�.. .�-- _ � No. Date By Ckd. �ppr.+ Revision Job Number �� ^�� Scale: ,1 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTf I Designed H�'� TIt�A: 13338 � : `" � KENT, WA 98032 prawn _cR�_ m ti (425�Zs�-6z22 "°r'Z°nt°' DEVELOPED CONDITIONS MAP o ; '� Sheet � ' �` � (425)251—8782 FAX Checked Hf'G �"=ao' ° For: McDONALDS y� � Approved HP� Vertical g' CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, G`T�NG ENG�N�� SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTA� SERVICES Date �.�-s�/�R N/A �� of ._� _.__ Q � � � .O V J � � L � � � ' � Q - Z 11%'H S- N T r�, y j '�, ` j , �� , P �� Y �11 cTH ST Q - � �.: �� ,�. � 511'TH ST �n �.�;'�s„� � � G9. -19 u� � _� _ u m w " 4 �' � .y _ N�'_H-�T _ � Q ,.a. ��115TH ST . 'y ��.� ` i� - `` � � � S 12tST ST S 120TH FL � ;- L � t 's. - m a q 3 r.2;G 3T 2^dC�5- y a � S i23RD°T 8 1Z;R.0 ST � A 5 12iP.D PL S 12cR.D P_ + iy�.. �"`' V 6Tti 3T 24TH ST � u� 5 124TH ST ' �-� - W i Li L� 4�N SY<... �� a y Q u .� NN �};�e ?�, i r � r�bti STN PL � �.��. � . �'' � _'�, a, �7 � �t ''�. N iTH G- �ry;.. � r'� y - -!.J z .;, - :S��eT � � a � �.o , z 'S'�, .r, 7� < Q c w z y � <�Q � Z 3 �z- W � Z W �v s-r,s- a �, z 5 =� Z w �, � -� � Z C, � � L T. j� � a, a� Z Q� > >' j ❑, J Z � .:n W � . Ll �' w j z' n r n �, w a. ¢ w ',...i w � w+ � N 3P.D ST > S 130TH ST -`'�i3_�7ii S7 � �� a � C � �� - " � 2 � � n 2 J � } � � � � ?1FA�`FL r'.?-�S . i` -�' - - N 2ND S' s =�=-r.•`'' �_`" NVY2NC S? 5�ILLICU`N�� `SR .Y.�T � � �y � �,; s T��iri sT UFks, °T r`' {� r � L --- �� ..oF ,�� S` ,SJ,Qy ; S4y:; T"uRW c7 `� ¢ �R 6�� e �sTh ,,�G e ��i ' � -- ,-? k ��'' � J � � � s�� l s i3a7H ,�b 3 a Z u 0 �� • � u r rHsT ''r w 'w� s 4 r,� '�iiy � 1 � S�ND ST y' m' o� y .. tt�n w � � s�� y��' Sx'4Aryas o �I a. - NARCO P.0 R � �GVR�S;q S�,y �Y � �� 5- � � - ` ys 3R�P� �, ,.f:S' =v �'`�L^ __ <J rL �5��z o7� 9w. �y � �C � _, -� SIYqrF'P! �g�Jv �n r;: �4TH uT f; _ � j w �O ,� � S�y Sl;NS.. � ..-Cy wj' � . a y `� . _ �-' � � NP'� G a .}- .�Ty .� '� �� t,-^� 7 Y C'� �'1,. � `i� ��' ,� g �• . .�'� �. � rpJ`,'�� g S-Fi�T � � � Vi 5 � � '�!CT ¢ Fy ",- �� s � n 5 �' �� . W -'.�T ;�Sti - �r Q � _ " �= SSTHST C W� - - m Q Q- � i z• ��- � �� u�, r � - � �lY�H ST - ' H,' Z. � � � �. � lV u' T s � 7 ,� z �` } Q ?� � � � � � �' • � � � � • �. � •�• � � � �. 1' ��' � �� - � � 1 , � ► � � • • \ � � � • ' • •:� „ -� . • � � . � . .. • �. � .,� 2.0 PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Seven Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: This site will be discharging the stormwater runoff from the impervious areas in the exact same location as the existing McDonald's project did. Core Requirement No. Z: O�Site Analvsis. Response: A detailed downstream analysis was not completed for this site since there is an overall reduction in proposed impervious surface on the site, and that the existing drainage piping systems are being utilized in their existing condition. Core Requirement No. 3: Runoff Control. Response: In accordance with the 1990 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and City of Renton, since there is an actual reduction in impervious surface proposed on the site,runoff control is not required. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance Svstem. Response: There will only be a very small amount of conveyance system proposed on the subject parcel for small areas. These conveyance systems will be done in accordance with the KCSWDM. Core Requirement No. S: Temporarv Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Response: A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan, including demolition measures, will be designed in accordance with the KCSWDM and City of Renton requirements. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: The required maintenance and operations of the on-site storm drainage facilities will be outlined in Section 10.0 of this TIR. This includes maintenance guidelines for the storm drainage catch basins and conveyance pipes. Core Requirement No. 7: Bonds and Liabiliry. Response: Not applicable for this project. 13338.00 I.doc 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS As mentioned earlier, downstream off-site drainage analysis was not completed for this proposed project. The proposed drainage patterns from the pavement areas and the building will match the existing drainage patterns from the site almost identically. There is a slight reconfiguration of the parking area and, of course, a new building being proposed but they exist in similar locations to the existing condition. All stormwater piping on the site discharges into the existing storm drainage system within Rainier Avenue South which will remain after construction is complete. � � 13338.00I.doc ,_ � F � u_�uc - = o � :�.. 0$i`___ -- �71 -- � 'ir - - — - :u � .. , •�, . ''-`, --- - -'- . � _ .037E ``� ... . _. _ r --- _ . 0316 , �'' _ � - - - ,� � �r, r; �. 6 �_ `g� _ '62 y .63 � -- V'/�- �it_ _ =,�__ _ `�_•_• wT 3 " '�. . "5�: ' /�� . SP LUA Y b - � ' / 876518902 `�' � i _ . i ` '� aa;f- �.,. . - � ' � � Oy� .,. .. , p3M} � � ' - „ . ,...� -------` ------ -� - �� . % _-. _-— __- = j�' - - -_!--- - _ — ;,. . . , - - ' '-�` � = SITE _ ' ,,>/ ,. % � e � � . , ��.� :, � ..� � � ':lli " .i .r':i ��w p734 D OB63 �6� � s�v :s 9 . - . . � . = ' � s' '��JJI - �. 3 f*r � G 1 �e�o m OB'/6 _ o � _ - 1 : :1 � _ __ �.-_ s�ro___ . . � ` S�l-p_��f 11651 Sf � � � � - � � .._. � I / • � • : , _ .. 's'q} Y,`''�1 _' „ • ,� , '..;' � - - • ,.. ,. I / _,, �� . � � ��r s _ _ _ S� �S1S Y � � � �� ' / �,,; . � � g-+ "�. •;;: . --' � 9CS1 _ --- -- " _ - - -_ � .y� . - � � _ . .y�s . _... .' � .. ��1 � •,� .. . . . , .�� tii��,� ` - _ }t'. `` , � � � ��a' t .p,>• I � . :':D0o0 ' " ,- �aaai�'1�t S � Q?� �' +' -- `{ }. � _ t,� ��:m_ _.. - - . I 4ro. ' E � ° . . - 1 , .�, �, �_r-�,__%1 1=��- �' 7� - �'"/s'=`' �' tf _:� � �: _ , �� j '• ' .,-� /;F �� yp6 0 =�• s ; �� - I:�Gn �,� s _ ye�t �'_ '� �..�. �k: � ' � �� ,. _ _. "' _ - :��: " ... - - i0B - _ pBi � - , -- ` `.s_• `.V C1d1�A ST_ ' --� - I � .. . ' - • x �._ �^ } �� Y" - REFERENCE: King Counry Department of Assessments(July 2006) Scale: FOr' Job Number Horizontal: N.T.S. VeRical: N/A McDONALD's, RAINIER AVE. S. 13338 �,HAv 1821572NDAVENUESOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON � �►► S� KENT,WA 98032 C� � Z (425) 251-6222 Tft�e: o' s � (425) 251-8782 ASSESSOR MAP � •'' _ a `�r�'�'c�N�E6�+ SURVEY NIGEENVIRONMENTAL SERV CES DATE: 12I15107 P:113000s1133381exhibiflgraphics113338 amap.cdr � i � ;-�""�r .� � . �`�- 9 �� ° � � S '� �--�; ' _.,.�,.� ` ZO N E X � ` �r� � ��r: NVv 4TH _ �'i-__�___--;--�- .€---4`r- �c" j STREET � ' ; � Z t ; � j ��} : . }4� ,�� \ / � — i t Y, 1' � ° ; �` i �;: � � ? Z j, 1 i �Q N1N 3RD PLACE "� = t- �`+��'�� ', "�, O �� Z ,: � � w p � �i � E � 'i' �v =� i \ n � � � � j �� ` �-�_ � .�;: O C�� ' --- � z Qs ��- �.;�� ' ' Vt i .. \�. `� I � � l , � `� ZONE X � -- � �� ` (� '� � � Z `��: � � � RMZ?�: � ' � �",. u, SOUTH AIRPOR �'-' � C S ',IYAY , ,�t� . G �I� - C ``� � y � � SOUTH TiLLICUM STREET � � 4�N�c� o = � ` s SITE o �Gj, SOUTH TOBIN � � y� A STRE�T � S 7C � ` �� 1` Z �'A � W � 1 > ' j � Q O Q � KPIG C�UNTY UNINCARPaRATED AREAS 530071 � � 7 Z , Y 'L � � Q 1 � � � � w � Z �t � � ca7 2 � 1 o SOUTH 2tdD S?REET �' � J � D 18 F ! � _ Z Z O � � I Q 9 � I O � � ; � SO�.�N�'f�sC� � � LEGEND I � I = �,��yfi15 P� � � OTHER AREAS SOUTH 3RD ZONE X v�a, �kte�m�.eed �a a_ .�,w� �uMa� � �t�..�„�. � REFERENCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency(Portion of Map 53033C0977 F, May 1995) Sca�e. FOr' Job Number Horizontal: N.T.S. UeRical: N/A McDONALD's, RAINIER AVE. S. 13338 �'�Av 1g215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON ¢ t►► SF KENT,WA 98032 m , Z (425) 251-6222 Title: o _ S � (425) 251-8782 ;G �,�� ,= FEMA MAP `r��'c EM�«+��! SURVENIMIGEENVIRO MEN A�L SEIRVICES DATE: 12115/07 P:113000s1133381exhibitlgraphics113338 fema.cdr 1 W I � `��,.�:j z � �� .__. � ' , ��`�--- � __ �.,,�� _ . � � _� ; � �� a � � �� _. � � � � � � � � � � � �. � �___.�e. ..� � .� � ��a _ �►�� .. � �� N At1iPpH f WpY �.sti� SITE � y i��,'.'.'� � . , �a � s rwcuM sT � �/�� /��- ��N� `� Y � � /. � � %,� • Renton a .- � :•: s ra�sr a� : �•,�''� ��`�i _ , . Yi � _ -- - p � SW viCTc�wsr 40� ,r ; � � N � �� q w �� a�� Q 1� z Legend �_I �Y�+��Y woi . . u�e...t.s SAO Erosion x Mounbin Peaks Parc�ls � Lak�s and Larga Riva►s ��Ys SAO Stream ` Straams N IncorporaMd Aroa �/ C�t � SAO YYNland I� Stnfet3 ^/ C�rs2P..�wa1 � SAOlindSUdf Mqr,..4r � C�szsr.o�w � S/l0 Coal!!'irw wn�rs v` �� SAO Svismic Ico�q ka^q REFERENCE: King County iMAP(2007) �a�e� FOr Job Number Honzon[af: N.T.S. Vertical. N/A M c D O N A L D`s, RA I N I E R AV E. S. 13338 �'�av 1g21572NDAVENUESOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON � �I► SF KENT,WA 98032 m � Z (425) 251-6222 Tlr�g: o s i (425) 251-8782 SENSITIVE AREAS , ��r�'� ��-'°� CIVIL ENGINEERING,LAND PLANNING, �NC EhG��aE SURVEYING,ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MAP DATE: 12115/07 I P.113000s1133381exhibitlgraphics113338 sens.cdr ,--- �T�.� r�'�� . �r` _ i � � ' 1 0 . , s �� t �Is � r x r� . �M� s�t# .. �:. �� . 5 R �'� . �� _ ` . . � �R�..: �� m'�' 1 '�.�� . . .. y �� _ '�' -� `� . " �.�: ��' �i � ��F:�� 4RFs, 1�1 i� � _ ;� ' " �" . ,� � �t,:—�,.�,,.. w �� ..---- � a � �. _�,.,,�;_ � � ��x ` ,.:..�� :��.�. � � � " r� '• .. �� . �' `�; �' � � � e � . �.: _ " � ... , � r � � ,- �� . � °" , - ��. � : +, , e. aw . . - .�, � � �. . � . - . :�' !,"�t�:.� � -, �a. . , � �� £ >t � r- �� —�` � �- �� __.a..� _ '� :�.�,� ��j , � - � _.,�, � n� .«�� - �; ��-� � .� �.�. LL� �-� �� , , _� �.�. � '�j� ,./� �.,�� ,,,._ . i'-. � F.* �� T s � +y 1� .. 'Y 1 � � � �� -3i �� - � ' �. � � �:y, i,s��- . .� �� {, � � � , � .rw� g p �. ._ � ��`.� ie� . •�� `�cxt-. � . � ! !- ! i." t I •� �... � 'f 1 . �. "_ . �� 1� , � ` <''. .�=-'I� ! . X ' .a ' , . �� w 3 t ��.. � � tI � x � # s�� 4� ' '� .'?g '�� _ �� S �c.:� `r ��.�1 4�,-s. . �. • - � .�, � ' � ,� � _ � .�. .,� -� � �'` . � ��,, �' !�. $,�► ��'. .'e.; � �` :.► i�~� 4 r i;. . � � �S'.: _,� / .f. �`f� �k .- � .c, , �� .� . ' �. 3+ �! '-'�� . � > � � t!; �• !r �.i , � r � � � � �� ,�� t . �•��[ r i'!'� ` :�� .�, �� . �.e �, . . �� _ • `� � � .>*� '� �7'.k_ � �o.- � ..ar ��...�e •`�3 � �"f ��Y ��. . � �s�� c��R �,�� +1 *;. � � ]��q.�.s .` !'�� ` . s�''"',!� '��I,��.�v'= � �i�`�� `� T � T� � ' i Z � �k ,. �t /r � • # t �, :.� .� aeT.�9lf15 . . � � � �� ' �« � `�� e�1 a� ..:♦ .� .M i�"'� � i � . f "! r � [- p`�. � � s ..!"�,� �F.. _�� M �� i!�'"}��, � � '� '�` � . ... � �j. �� -.�=� `"� � _� �� ,4 � s�'' ��+ �,�- •'� �r �L �. • � !� �� ' T�'!� ��f ��- `,��}�� '� �}' �`� �� ` � �• S,• �-- ,� :� � � �� .t. � s� �� ;�� '�� : '�� -� : ��`. '��.' `� �� ,i�� • . . �� ! �' ��, �.� �� t ` � �.� �: ��a�-,t , � � � �� ;� ' �: � , . �� #�� ;F y�� #�r� ;� , t, * �� i • ;�- ,-. - �� e �<� +�w •,:� � $. �.,.;� t � ,� , � „�; ,�,+ ��[� '�! - . �:. i ,� ��`��.�,-�h., - � 'r , �' :J 1 � � „.. '.,,�' �_. ..��. - ' .*a%.� � �� . �'�" � �� " ;'; Al.�:. "'� .�` _� . � - �"rz'� ) �� :� �l�i.� .�� - � . �. . . . w � � {�� A �!�/.`'"�� _{ � :�` ��:-.�;:c.,�'��_ .RiR' !. �_t j. � �/ r• � pi.; �' ,.�}. � �. �� F; !.. +6��8 �+ 6 '�� T t '� . � ...,__ � �'+ ��. `.� � {��- � � �.� ��s _ � �f�'it1. � � � < � ' `� � � � � ` !� �� 1 ,. a � ��. � _ �. �w�si� � i� � �� '��- ��,_ ��6�� .�., � t��.�� \ � � i. �* REFERENCE: King County iMAP(2007) Scale: FOr: Jo6 Number Horizontal: N.T.S. Vertical: N/A McDONALD's, RAINIER AVE. S. 13338 �,HAv 1821572NDAVENUESOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON � n► � KENT,WA 98032 � Z (425) 251-6222 m; '� Title: �� s (425) 251-8782 TOPOGRAPHIC � ` 2 +�� ,� p"� CIVIL ENGINEERING,LAND PLANNING, MAP T,~r'ENG�N�� SURVEYING,ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: 12l15I07 P:113000s1133381exhibitlgraphicsl13338 topo.cdr RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 28 LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN JUNE 1987 Natura{ Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division Kin; Countv, Washin;ton King Caunty Ezccutivc Tim Hill King Couaty Council Audrey Gru�er, District 2 Cvnthia Suliivan. District 2 Bill Reams. District 3 Lois North, District � Ron Sims. Discrict 5 Bn�ce Lain�, District 6 Paul Barden. District 7 Bob Grieve, District 3 Garv Grant. District 4 Department of Public Works Parics, Planning and Resources Don LaBelte, Director Joe �iagel, Director Surface Water Management Divisioa Natural Resouz�ces and Parks Dsviseou Josepi� J. Simrnler. Division Mana�er Russ Cahill, Division Mana;er Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Mana�er Bill Jolly, Actin� Division Manager Dave Clarlc. Mana;er, River �� Water Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Plannin� Sectien Resource Section Bi[I Ecicel, tiianager, Basin Pfannin� Pro�ram Larrv Gil�bons, '�'lana�er, Project Management and Desion Section Contributing Siaff Contribuiing Staff Dou; Chin, Sr. En;ineer Ray Heller, Project Mana�er �C Team Leader Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Matthew Clarfc, Project Mana;er Andv Le��esque, Sr. Enoineer Robert R. Fuerstenbera, Bio[o�,ist �C Team L�ader Bruce Barker, Enaineer Matthew J. Bruengo, Geolobist Arny Stonkus. Enoineer Lee Benda, Geolooist Ray Stei;er, En�ineer Derck Booth, Geolo�ist Pete Ringen, En�ineer Dvanne SheEdon, Wetiands BioloDist Cindy Baker, Earch Scientis� Di 3ohnson, Planninb Support Teclinician Robert Radek. PEanning Support Teclinici:. Randal Bays, Plannin, Support Techni�ian Fred Bentler, Plannin� Suppo��t Technician Consulting Staff 1�1ark Hudsoa. Plannin� Support Tcchnician Sharon Clausen, Ptannin� Support Technirian Don Spencer. Associate Geolo�ist. Ear�h David Tniax, �'lannin, Support Technician Consultants, Ine. Brian Vanderburg, Plannin� Support Technician Jol�n Betliel. Soil Scientist. Earth Carolvn M. Bverlv. Tecl�nical Writer Consultants, Inc. Sus�lnna Hornib. Technic;al Writer VirDinia Newman, Gnphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Tvpesetter hiildred MilEer, Tvpe.setter Jaki Reed, Tvpesetter Lela Lira. Office Technician l�tartv Cox. Office Techniciar P:CR TABLE OF CONTENTS f. SUMI�fARY 1 II. INTRODUCTIOI�T 1 III. FINDINGS IN LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN 2 A. Ovetview ? B. Ef[ects of Urbanization 7 C. Specific Problems 9 1. Threat of damage to properiy from landslides and erosion processes 9 2. Threat of damage ta property from flooding 9 3. Loss of fish habitat i0 FV. RECOtit�'fENDATFONS 11 A. �titigate current and prevent future threat of daEnage from mass-wasting and other forms of erosion 11 B. Mitigate current and prevent future [oss of fish habitat 12 V. MAP 15 APPENDICES: �PPENDIX A:Estimated Costs A-1 APPEND[X B: CapitaI Improvement Project Rankin; (for East B-1 Lake Washinb on and West Lake Washington) APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommenciations G1 I. SUMMARY Lake Washington Sasin combines the East and West Lake Washington $asins, which together consist of the catchments of many small streams thaE flow directiy into Lake Washington. Most of the combined basin lies within the iacorporated areas ot' Seattle and other cities surrounding the lake. The reconnaissance, therefore, focused on five small, somewhat isolated geographic areas on County-administered land. For purposes of the study, these have been named Sheridan, Bryn Mawr, Kenmore, Finn Hill, and Hazelwood. The Lake Washington Basin has been almost completety urbanized. Expansive areas of impervious surface and severely altere@ strearo systems have produced substantial increases in surface water runoff and attendant problems -- flooding, erosion, sedimentation, landslides, and loss of habitat. Evea the Hazelwood unit in the southeast quadrant of L.ake Washington, the least developed unit studied, shows severe signs of stream erosion caused by housing developments upstream. There were several specific problems found during reconnaissance. There is a thmat of damage to property from erosioq iQcluding fandslides and other forms of mass-�vastin� This is demonstrated by debris slides at the edge of the piateau above Tributary 0228, the more shallow slides on ihe lakeshore cliffs and ravine of Tributary 0464A, and the severe hiilside erosion aEong Tributaries 0224 and 0227. There is a threat of damage to property from ffooding due to t6e deterioration of soase culverts. In addition, t�ere has becn damage to fisb habitat where streams have been placed in cutverts, where there are barriers to fish migration, where the natural features of streams have been destroyed, and where water quality is poor. Recommendations in the Lake Washington Basin include 1} mitigating curnent and preveating future e�xiq usin; a combination of rea latory measures (such as stiffening requirements for permits and property transfers and implementing joint jurisdictionai basin planning) and structural measures (such as increasino R/D capacities where needed, rerouting surface runoff around sensitive areas, and employing instream erosion con[rol). Recommendations also include 2) mitigating curnent and prev�enting future loss of habitat with pianning and regulatory measures (such as developing water quality standards and treatment strategies and developing consistent guideiines for protecting wetlands and streams) and structural measures (including the elimination of barrien and the use of two-ce11 R'D nonds` II. IIVTRODUCI'ION: History and Go�als of the Pragr-a In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for ine Ylanning D,v�s,on �now ca�.. . Natural Resources and Parics Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Manage�:�C�r. Division, to conduct a reconnaissanee of 29 major drainage basins located in Kina Coun��. The effort be;an with an initial investigation of three basins --Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks -- in order to determine existing and potentiai surface water problems and to retommend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initiai investi�ations u�d available data and new field observations to examine geology, hyCrology, and habitat conditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution b013 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently estabtished, is now an important eiement of surface water management. The goais of the program are io provide useful data with regard to 1) criticaE problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detaiied basin management plans, and 3} capita] costs associated with the eariy resolutiort of drainage probEems. P:LWB 1 I T..ake Washington Basin (Continued) The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage conditions in the County in order to [ransmit information to policymakers to aid them in developing more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They are not intended to ascribe in any conctusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion problems; insread, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detaited engineering and other professional environmenta! analyses may be made. Due to the iimited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports rnust be viewed � as descriptive environmental narratives rather than as finai engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a descrip�ion of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capitai project construction or development approvaI conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case-by-case basis by County officials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among campeting projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site-specific hasis for any proposal. III. F[NDU�GS QI LAKE WASI-IINGTON BASIN Reconnaissance of the Lake Washina on Basin was condvcted in March 1987 by Robert Fuerstenberg, biologist; Matthew Brunengo, geoloo st; and Bruce I.. Barker, engineer. Their findings and recommendations are presented here. A. Oven+iew of the Basin Ccographic and land use features. Lake Washington Basin combines East L,ake Washington and West Lake Washington Basins. These consist of the catchments of many small streams that ffow directly into Lake Washington. Most of the combined basin lies within the cities of Seattle, Lake Forest Park, Kirkland, Hunt's Point, Yarrow Point, Medina, Clyde Hill, Bellewe, Beaux Arts, Mercer Island, and Renton or within the drainape basins of larger streams, such as Thornton Creek, McAleer Creek, Swamp Creek, Sammamish River, Juanita Creek, Forbes Creek, Mercer Slough, Coal Creek, May Creek, and Lower Cedar River, that are described in other recortnaissance reports. For the purpose of this study, the combined East and Wesi Lake Washinb on Basins will be termed "the basin." The unincorporated Counry Iand within the Lake Washington Basin may be divided into five small, somewhat isolated geographic areas. The findino and recommendations in this report have been organized according to these designated areas: The Sheridan area, north of Seattle, is bounded by McAleer Creek Basin on the north, 'Thornton Creek Basin on the west, and the city of Seattle on the south; The Brvn Mawr area, south of Seattte, is boundec! by the city of Seatt[e on the north, che city of Renton on the south, and on the west by the ridgetine between Renton Avenue S and Empire Way S; The Kenmore area, at the north end of L.ake Washington, is bounded on the north approximacely by 228th Street SW in Snohomish County, on the easc by the Swamp P:LWB 2 Lake Washington Basin (Coniinued) Creek Basin, and on the west by the Lyon Creek Sasin and the ciry of Lake Forest Park; The Finn Hill area, at the northeastern corner of Lake Washington between Kenmore and Juanita, is bounded on the north bv the Sammamish River Basin and on the east and south approximately by 34th Avenue NE from Northeast 145th Street to Juanita Point. , The Hazelwood area, in the southeast quadrant of L,alce Washina on east of Mercer ' Island, is bounded on the northeast by the Coal Creeic Basir., on the southeast by the Niay Creefc Basin, on the south by May Creek and Renton, and on the west by Lake Washina on. Oniy a smalE part af the shoreline is administered by King CountY; the rest is within Beilevue or Renton. The totat drainage area for Lake Washina on is approximateIy 603 square miies (not including the L,ake Sammamish Basin's 97.7 mifes}. While this basia is large, the actual area studied dur�ng reconnaissance is much smaller and inciudes only the geographic areas Iissed above. A total of 13 streams were included in the study. The total Iand area for each geographic unit, to�ether with the lengths of major tributaries, is as follows: Unit uare Miles Maj• Tribs Len�th Sheridan .S 00�8 0.4 Brvn Mawr 2.9 0464D 1.35 mi. Kenmore 2.2 Q056 2.00 mi. Finn Hi11 6.8 0227 1.00 mi. 0233 2.00 mi. Hazelwood 2.1 0231 3.30 mi. These five geographic units are distributed over fonr King County Community Pfannino Areas: The Shoreline Communitv Plannin� Area, which contains the Sheridan area, is a mature suburban community,,with appmximately 90 percent of its usable land afready developed. Singfe-E'amily residences dominate chis area, but the number of multi-family units is slowly increasing. The 5heridan area contains some of the highest densities in the ptanning area: 4-6 singte-famity units per acre and up to 48 uniis per a oss acre in multi-storied apartment structures in planned unit deveiopments. These maximum densiries are located in the sauth-central portion of the area aEong Bothell Way (State Road [SRj 522). Community-scale retail busine�.s is also located alon; Bothell Way in the same vicinity. Zoning changes are likeiy to occur as new multi-family unics are considered in sing[e- family zones. Cocscurrent changes in commercial and business categories should also be anticipated. These changes, hawever, are likely tQ occur along Bothell Way and not in the interior of the Sheridan area, which is an established single-family nei;hborhood. The �eneral characser of the area is therefore unlikely to be �eatly affected. The Northshore Communitv PEannino Area, which contains the Kenmore and Finn Hill areas, borders on ponions of the cities of Bothell, Kirkland, and Redmond. Woodinvifle, thouah unincorporated, is a sio ificant population and commercial center, and much of the recent growth of the Northshore Community Planning Area has been concentrated P:LWB 3 �_ Lake Washington Basin (Continued) there. In fact, the Northshore area is one of the three fastest-a owing planning areas in King County (the other two are Federa{ Way and Soos Creek}. From 1970 to I935, the Northshore area population increased more than 106 percent, from 33,000 to 73,000. The population is expected to reach 122,000 -- a 64 percent increase -- by the year 2000. Singfe-family urban and suburban uses are dominant throughout the western portion of the plan area, adjacent to Lake Forest Park. L.ow-density uses such as suburban estates and genera! classifications are found in the eassern portion of the plan area (�inn Hiil). Multi-family zones are located near and along major arterials, as are commercia[ and business facilities. Areas of concentration include Woodinville and Kenmore, atong Norrheast Bothell Way. Manufacturing and industriaE zones also exist in Kenmore alonp the northern shore of Lake Washington and the {ower reaches of the Sammamish River. So�rse agricultural land exists south and east of Bothelt, along the north shore of the river. Continued growth in population will be accompanied by pressure for varied types oi housing. Recent zoning changes have been directed toward an ortferly transition from rural and low-density suburban to higher suburbart and urban densities. Increased demand (and opportunity) for business and commercial services will accompan� chan�es in t'lOUSI[1a. The Newcastle Communicv Pianr,inr Area, which contains the Hazelwood area, is surrounded by three si;nificant urban centers: Bel(evue, Issaquah, and Renton. The northern and western partions of the planning area consist of rolling to moderate[y steep hilEs developed at suburban residential densities. The plateau above the Cedar River has an established character of lower-density residential uses interspersecf with pastureland. The eastern portion of the area fies an the steep stopes of Cougar and Squak Mountains and contains production areas for naiural resources such as tirriber, gravel, and sand. Old coal mines lie beneath Cougar Mountain east of Newcastte. The major commercia! center in the planning area is Factoria in the northwest. The poputation of the Newcastie Community Planning Area increased by 41 percent from 1970 to 1985. By the year 2000, the population is expected to reach 102,000, a 42 percent rise in 15 years. This dramatic increase in popuiation is expected to increase demand for single-family residences. Densities shauEd be expected to rise first in the northern ancf southern portions of the pian area and subsequentIy throughout the central portion. The Hi� line Commurtitv Planstinr Area, which includes the Brvn Mawr area, is physically and economically dominated by Seattle-Tacoma (Sea-Tac) International Airport. Approximately 20 percent of the area is occupied by the airport itself; additional space is devoted to "clear zones" below and adjacent to the glide paths. The remainder of this plan area is predominantly urban/suburban residential. Single-family units make up most housing, with mufti-family units generally clustered around existing commercial centers and the airport. These commercial centers include $urien, Des Moines, and White Center. Sianificant strip development is located aEong State Road 99 and First Avenue S. In 1970, the populacion of the plan area was approximatety 233,000. By 1930 that , fiwre had declined ro 129,000 (a 6�'c drop), and by 1985 the population had recovered ' P:LWB 4 Lafce Washington Basin (Continued) somewhat to I33,0�0. The estimated figure for the year 2QQ0 is 135,000. There are dense concentrations of people in White Center and the North Hiil neighborhoods. Existing development in the Highline Plan Area is substantial and genera[ly not subject to drastic reordering. Future zoning changes wil[ reinforce and improve existing residential neinhborhoods and business centers. Geologic and geomorphic featur�s The deep, elon�ated trough occupied by Lake Washington was carved mossty by glacial ice into unconsoEidated glacial and nonglaciai sediments. Those sediments reach thickrtesses of more than 3,000 feet north of Mercer , Isiand, but are tltinner where they are lapped onto the bedrock of the Newcastle anticline to the south. The North Seattle and Interlake drift plains (west and east of the trough, �nerging to the north) are similar in topography and strati�raphy: drumlinoid plateaus surfaced with titl overlying progiacial sands and �aveEs and lacustrine silt exposed mainly , in bluffs along the lake. Toward Renton, these materials are plastered over sandstones, siltstones, and volcanic rocks of the Puget Group and folded into a ridge perpendicular to the trough. The topography, which determines cuneni drainage patterns, was shaped by southward ice movements. Streams tend to flow north or south between drumlins. In the Kenmare and Bryn Mawr areas, at the northern and southern ends of the lake, respecrively, slopes are relatively gentle, and till mantles the surface to the lake shore. The larger streams in these units flow directly toward the Iake, and older sediments are exposed mainly in deep ravines. Along the eastern and western sides af the trough (where the Sheridan, Finn Hill, and Hazelwood areas are focacedj major streams rise on the pEateau and flow paraflei to the lake. Trough sideslopes, eroded by the sides of the glacier lobe, are steeper and generally expose the gravels, sands, and silts under till. The creeks in these areas are mostly smali and fed by seepage, except where they have captured the flow of plateau streams. The differences in topoo aphy and exposure of geolo�c materials in the various terrains produce differences in the intensity of geomorphic processes. In generai, the steep, hiah lakeshore bluffs have the highest levels of groundwater seepage, laadsliding, and actual or potential stream erosion. TrouDh sideslopes, originally carved by olacial ice, make up all of the Sheridan area, the west-facing hitisides of Hazelwood and Finn Hi11, and the biuffs west of Renton Airport in Bryn Mawr. in these areas, there is b oundwater seepage in exposed sandy layers perched over silt or [iEl. This seepage contributes to mass movement -- mostly shallow debris sEides in Siteridan and Hazelwood, commonly in artificial curs but includin; larper slumps in Bryn Mawr and Finn Hill and one lar;e, active slump northeast of the May Creek interchange in Hazelwood. Most streams are short and ephemeral and have not eroded far into the bluffs. But in Finn Hilt, a eater seepage has formed [arger streams; these have cut easnvard, expanding their catchment areas and increasin; their erosive potential. Likewise, one stream in Hazelwood has carved a deep ravine inco the edae of che plateau. These large ravines are quite sensitive to further slope and channei erosion. Where slope aspect is parallel to the direction of ice flow, there is relatively impermeable , rill at the surface, so that more of the precipitation runs off into numerous smatler streams. The largest of these have cut throu;h the till aad into erodible sediments below, iormin; ravines where sliding and channel erosion are much more active. This is P:LV✓B S Lake Washington Basin {Continued) especially true in the Lakeridge Park ravine in Bryn Mawr. Because lakeshore siopes in these areas are more oentle and experience Eittle seepage, the landslide rate is [ower than in similar areas. Slides of various magnitudes do occur, however, particulariy where slopes have been undercut during road construction as along Bothell Way, Juanita Drive, and Rainier Avenue S and where the stratio aphy is particularfy suitabte (e.g., the old sEide west of Kenmore). There are areas of rolting plateau in Ihe Hazefwood and Finn I-Iill areas, and the upland regions of Kenmore and Bryn Mawr are similar. Because of the gentle gradients and moderate levels of urbanization, there are few erosion problems. Water perched over till collects into wetlands and small streams, then flows to the lake; it is on the plateau edges that these creeks cause problems. Development activities that would increase the volumes and rates of discharge in these streams would aggravate erosion dow�nstream in the ravines. Majar hydrologic and hydrauGc featut+es. Lake Washington Basin, as the name is used here, is a collection of small, mostly urbanized basins ihat drain the piateaus around Lake Washington. Most of the drainage ori�nates as sudace runoff from urban areas, witti groundwater seepages contribniing sia ificantly to the fiow in the lower reaches and near the base of the bEuffs. The hydroio�c response to storms in the basin may be characterized as flashy {i.e., rapid increase and recession of fiows} because of the lar;e amount of impervious area, the steep ;radients in the lower reaches, the short lenpth of each tributary, and she lack of hydraulic controls such as lakes or wetlands. Particular hydro[oa c and hydraulic features of the five gcographic areas studied during reconnaissance are described below. Sheridan area. Most of the draina;e courses in the Sheridan unit have been piped directly into fake Washina on. There is a single open channel Ieft -- Tributary 0043. The voiumes of flow and peak discharge in this stream are relatively small, even though the drainage area that feeds it is almost fully urbanized. The reason for this is that some of the area runoff used to feed it is now piped directly into the lake. Many sprin;s exist between BothelE Way and the Burke-Gilman Trail. Sio ificant amounts of flow have emerged from thesc seepages and have ponded in terraced yards on the hillsides; ihis has undermined the subbase of pavements and caused the periodic flooding of basements. Most of the seepape is intercepted by storm sewers and discharged to Lake Washington. Brvn Mawr area. Bryn Mawr is almost fully urt�anized, with new construction proceeding in the few remaining undeveloped areas. Flow originates as runoff from impervious areas and oroundwater seepage in the lower reaches. There are five streams with open channels, most of which have been partially channelized or piped. One example is Tributary 0464A, which has been channeEized or piped along Renton Avenue for .30 miles. There is one large wetland in this area that was not covered by the Kin� Councv Wetland Inventorv. This wetland is located in subcatchment 4 on Tributarv 046dE at river mile .?5. It is one of the few wetlands located in the Lake Washington Basin and provides fiow attenuation and water quality enhancement for Tributaries 0464E and O�t6�D. Hazelwood area. A north-souch ridge bisects the Haze[wood area. Rain falling on the west side of the ridae f�ows into subcatchments 13 and 19, Rain fallin; to the east P:LWB 6 L.ake Washington Basin (Continued) flows into Tributary 0381. Drainage from subcatchments 13 and 19 is diffuse, ftowing into L.ake Washin,on at many points. There were few problems associaced with surface runoff in these subcatchments. Tributary 0231, however, has experienced severe channel erosion due to a combination of increased peak flows from new developments in the area and the highly erosive nature of the soils along the channel. Finn Hilf area. Fnn Hill is the most complex unit in the Lake Washin;con system. There are seven streams that dsain a flat, devetoping piateau. The D adients of these streams increase to a maximum of 8-12 pement as they approach Lake Washington. Most of the runoff in this basin originates as impervious runaff or seepage out of hillsides. There are several wetlands located in the Finn Hill area. Three are identified in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF� -- one along [he shore near In;lewood Country Club, anoiher irs Big Finn Hiii County Park, and the third near Northeast 141st Sireet and 34rh Avenue NE. During the reconnaissance, 10 other wetland sites were discovered, seven of them on the Tributary 0228 system. The hydrologic response tc storms in the basin is typicaliy fast, except for Tributary 0288, which is buffered frorr� high peak ftov�:s by ihe many wetlands. Kenmore area. flow in the Kenmore area ori�nates as runoff from urban areas. The major tributary in the basin, 0056, has been channeiized over most of its len?th. The headwaters of this stream are located in Snohomish County near a major hoasing development. Althou;fi the gradients in the basin are rypically fow•er than those in the other areas, the hvdmlogic resoonse to storms is stilt fast due to the lack of ve�etatior. along Tributar size of the ba� Habitat ehaTactensh�s. t�abitai �i�vcrs�ty �n all strcam svste,n� �t [hc L�xc �tiiasn��. Basin has been sionificantly reduced by urbanization: Long reaches have been channelized or placed in culverts, reducing spawning and rearing areas. Numerous barriers, such as ruiverts, weirs, dams, and artificiaf cascades prevent access to uppe�- stream reaches or entry to entire streams. In many streams, urban runoff ca❑ses erosion and gravei movement. This fills pools, deposits silt in riffIes, and generall� causes unstable stream conditions. Headwater areas have lost wetlands and riparian vegetation. The most usable habitat exisrs in the Finn HiU area where manv streams descend fram the uplands through deeply incised ravines to Lake Washington. Vegetation in the ravines has generally been left undisturbed, and wide riparian corridors exist a!I che way to the lake st�ore. Through these reaches, gradients produce pool-riffle characteristics weU-suited ro fish use. Woody debris is abunclant but often unstable because of high I fEows. Debris jams are common and produce ephemeral barriers to fish movement. In I Tributary 0228, however, conditions for fish use are exceilent. Lower reaches of the stream have good pool-riffle sequences and reiatively clean, stabie ;ravels, as well as ]arbe, deep pools. Woody debris is common and stable; vegetation for stream cover is abundant. Benthic invertebrates are common and diverse, indicating a stable, balanced stream system. Only in this system were spawning and reanno salmonids observed. Even so, a 6•foot-hi;h weir at river mile .45 forms an impassable barrier and prevents upstream mi;ra�ion of anadro�nous fish. Resident cutthroat trout occupy the upper reaches, particularly in the Finn Hili Park area. _ >, P:LWB 7 L,ake Washinb on Basin (Continued) B. Effects of Urbaaization Intense urbanization of the Lake Washington Basin has had an adverse effect on ail of the natural systems within the basin. Large areas of impervious surface, channelized (and othenvise altered) streambeds, and the lack aE wetlands or lakes to attenuate ftows have severely altered the hydraulics of the basin. Surface erosion and mass-wasting, increased sedimentation of I.ake Washin,on, and flooding have resulted. Other prob[ems have been caused by excavation, clearing, and buildino on and along the tops of steep, sensitive areas. Some development of this kind has destabilized larger uphilt areas, as well. Environmental probtems are numerous in the basin, many of them refated to the destruction of fish habitat. Direct loss af habitat has occurred through the channelization of streams; indirect loss by using streams as urban stormwater conveyance systems {which raises peak flows and commonly reduces water quatity}, the fillina of wetEands in the heacfwater reaches, and the encroachment on riparian corridors (which results in the ioss of floodp[ains and vegetation}. These effecis of urbanization, as well as the measures that have aiready been taken to address them, will be examined within the context of the geographic areas in which they occur. In the Sheridan area, the creek does not carry a b eat deal of flow, because much of the area tributary to it has been diverted to storm drains that discharge directly to Lake Washington. Therefore, any future surface waser probtems in this area wilE be associated with seepa;e from hillsides. The combination of steep gradients and artificial channels makes it un[ikely that these systems can (ar poSsibly ever did} support anadromous fisi�► populations. In the Brvn Mawr area, much of the flow has been piped, but to a lesser extent than in the Sheridan area. Some of the tribntaries in this area show signs of stress from urbanization in the Eorm of sediment transport induced by increased peak flows and water quality problems from oils and greases. Most of these prablems stem from the fact that no onsite detention reo lations were in effect at the time most development occurred. Sediments carried downstream settle out in Lake Washinoton, forming a deita that makes navigation and moorage near the stream mouth difficuit or impossible. The worst case of sediment deposition occurs at the mouth of Tributary 0�6-3D; this problem origiaates wich sigr►ificant rates of mass-wastino upstream (see Appendix C for locacions). Although the Hazelwood area is the least developed area of the basin, its major creek, Tributary 0231, shows sin s of severe channei erosion attributable to runoff from recently constructed housing developments. Sediments transported downstream had settled in the Iower reaches of the creek, cause�i flooding, and formed a delta in Lake Washin�ton that posed a threat to navigation and moorage. The erosion problem was corrected by the installation of an instream detention pond a[ river miie .35 and a sedimentation pond at river mile .40. These ponds appear to be adequately handling currenc flows and sediment loads. Other problems still persist in the Nazelwood area, however. Shallow landslides have occurred in roadcuts aion� [nterstate 405 {I-405), for instance, and losses of habitat have been brought about through the e[iminarion of wetlands (at the headwaters of Tributary 0231); and poor water quatity resulting From parking !ot and road ruaoff. P:Lt�B � Lake Washington Basin (Coniinued) Development in the Finn HiII area began at the turn of the century alortg the lakeshore. As devefopment continued infand, new drainage systems were constructed and connected to existing ones downstream. The process created a complex drainage system with manv sections inadequatety sized to handJe the added flows. Low divides between manv of the subcatchments have compoanded the problem and made it easy to diven stormwater into streams other than those to which the water wouid naturalty flow. This cross-basin ditching resulted in one of the more severe probEems noted in this basin during reconnaissance. Flow from approximatefy 75 acres of subcatchment 22 was diverted to subcatchment 13 when a new deveiopment was constructed near the ridge (ine betw•een the two subcatchments. The increased flows to subcatchment I3 caused stream erosion and sediment deposition in Lake Washinb on. Some of the worst erosion discovered in the basin during reconnaissance occurs in the Finn Hill area on Tributary 0??9A. In addition to the hydrologic and geologic problems in Finn Hill, habitat has been ]ost on Tributaries Q222 and 0223 through the elimination of riparian corridors and wetlands. The Kenmore area has beea aEmost fully developed. Its major tributary (0056) has been channelized over its entire length. The tributary receives n►noff from Snohomish County and direct runoff from blst Avenue NE (a major arteria!). The mosi severe citannelization and piping occzsr along the major arterial where the road has been constructed up the ravine. The crowdino of the stream between the road and the valley walls has resufted in erosion of the shoulder and slopes. Tributary 0056 is a{so piped for approxima[ely 600 feet from 61st Avenue NE and Northeast 180th Streec to a condominium complea located on Lake Washington. This eliminates fish habitat and restricts access to upstream mi;rants. These and other problems are discut�d in �*reacer �e�ail �n rhe �ec*,i�� -�^ �re� �' problems (below) and in Appendi� G Specific Probiems Identifi� The diseussion oudinino the ettects ot urbanizanon in tnC ba�+n ;�ienuncei manv ot �i;: probEems found in the five geo,aphic areas studied during reconnaissance. The followin; discussion �ves further details of those problems and provides eaamples with regard to erosion, surface water issues, and habitat loss in the Lake Washington Basin. 1. T'here is a threat of damage to prnperty from laacislides aad other erosion proces.s�..� active in the basin. Specifie problems include: a. Mass movement, which oavts at all scales in the basin. Slumpin; takes plare in the alacialiy oversteepened trough sideslopes, usuaEly aided by seepaoe of �oundwater over perching Iayers. Slides have occurred in the lakeshare siopes of Finn Hill and Hazelwood; an ancient slump is mapped west of Kenmore. Most impressive of all are three prehistoric Iandslides, all now lying below Lake I Wahsino on and probabiy triggered by ;reat earthquaices. One other landslide is located west of the Finn HiEI area. Their existence demonstrates che ulcimate instability of most steep slopes in this region. b. High rates of mass-wa.sting in the laeger ravines. Examples incfude the walls of the Iakerid;e ravine, on Tributaries 0464D and E (in Bryn Mawr), and manv of the ravines in Finn Hill. Moverrsent ean occur far uphill, as in the cwo debris P:LWB 9 L.ake Washington Basin (Continued) slides at the edge of the plareau above Tributary �228 that contributed to guliying and sedimentation downstream. Most of the ravines should be considered sensitive, but tttose in which p oundw�ater emerges at the surface are particularly susceptible io future landsliding. c. S6allaw slides, commonly soil over ti[l or bedrock, occur where very steep slopes have been formed by glaciat or stream erosion. One example is the lakeshore bluffs and ravine of Tributary 046�3A in Bryn Maw•r. In addition, manv such problems have beeo created by excavation. For example, most of the steepest slopes in the Sheridan area are cuts made (in the I390s) for the SeattEe, Lake � Shore and Eastern Raitway, now the Burke-Gilman Trail, where slides are common. Likewise, shallow sliding has occurred in roadcuts along Juanita Drive (in Finn Hill}, I•405 (in Hazefwood), Rainier Avenue (in Bryn Mawr}, and Bothell Way (in Kenmore}. Some of these may have destabilized uphill areas as weli. d. HilLside erosioo fivm surfaoe water dis�chacging aver sieep bank.s. This occurred in the Finn Hill area (e.g., Trib. 0?24, RM .45 and Trib. 0227, RM .60) and in Bryn Mawr (e.g., Trib. 0464A, RM .b0). There is a potential for similar problems to occur as areas on top of the bluffs over Lake Washineton continue to develop. 2. There is a threat of dama�e to property fmm tlooding in the basin. Flooding is being caused by: a. Stream erosion and deposition transport. Urban development and its accompanyina increases in impervious surfaces, alteracions to stream channels (e.g,, the diversion of tlow on Trib. 0229A at RM .�}, and inadequate erosion-control measures at new housing developments {e.g., on Trib. 0464D at RM .70} have caused the lower reaches of many streams to fill with sediment. Sedimentation, in turn, has reduced the cftannels' capacity to carry flow {usually increased in volume and ratc fram upstreara development). b. Undersi��ed and faitiag cictverts The majority of the failing drain pipes found on reconnaissance were [ocated in the Finn Hill area near Lake Washington, along Juanita Drive. These have been in place for many years and may need to be repdaced to assure that their sizes are adequate for current and future flows and that they are otherµise properly functioning. 3. Mueh fish habitat 6as atready been lost. Much of the historic habitat in this basin has been lost or irreparably damaged by urbanization. In the Sheridan and Bryn :�iawr areas, for instance, most streams have been piaced in cviverts. In the Hazeiwood area, the sin�le perenniat stream has been piped beneath a park-and•ride lot and lost to fish use. On Tributary 0222 in Finn Hill. a 20 foot high dam near the mouth makes fish passape impossible. Problems identified here (as well as the recommendations that follow) wi]! relate anly to those systems in which fishery and habitat benefits mav be achieved with reasonable measures. a Barriers to fish migration. In urban systems, in �enera[, fish passa;e rhrou�h culverts and over weirs is a major problem. Numerous road crossincs and P:LWB 10 Lake Washington Basin (Continued} landscaping warks produce barriers of assorted kinds. Specific examples oE barriers included: 1} Drop barriers in the form of culverts, weirs and falls occurred in the following 3ocations: a) Tributary 0223 (RM .45}, where a concrete spillway is a complete barrier ta upstream migration. b) Tnbutary 0464D (RM .29), where a 3-foot drop from the cutvert to the stream surface is a compiete barrier. c) Tributary 02�7 (RM .18), where an impoundment dam 20-feet high and 60-feet wide is a complete barrier. d) Tributary 0056 (RM .OS), where condominium deveiopment has landscaped the stream wiih poots and weirs but provided no fish Pd55ao@. 2} Ftow barriers, formed by culverts without baff7es or with steep ,ades, have formed at the following locatioas: a) Tributary 0223 (RM .OS), where the culvert under Holmes Point Road lacks baffles for fish passage. b) Tributary 0056 (RM .10}, where a box culvert under BothelE Way mav be a velocity barrier at high flow. 4) Habitat has also been damag�ed or destrayed because of poor water quality, usually the result of direct entry of road runoff inio stream systems. The worsr cases of goor water quality found were in places where roads were constructed near stream corridors. This runoff contains greases, oils, oasoline, anti-freez� and other road-related pollutants. Such probEems were apparent in the Kenmore area where Tributarv 0(356 receives di - - and in Bryn Mawr, which i� ��m-,i<��•: ��!�a�� extensive problems identiCied an�i �iiscus�e�i ::, ..: . :: .: ..� �, •. -.:��_ ,. _�. , :. :. cooperation are included, where appropriate. A. Mitigate curnent damage from ma.ss-w-d.sting and otbcr fomv5 of c:rasion and prevcnt further probtems. 1. Adopt and implement plaaning and regulatory measures to protect sensitive areas in the Lake Washington Basin: a. ICiug Couety s6ould clasely regulate undeveioped areas within laadslide hazard zones that are not already dedicated open space (parks, school property, etc.j P:LWB II Lake Washinetan Basin (Continued) and designate them as open space. Priority should be given to the lakeshore slopes of the Fian HiIE area and the ravine of Tributary 0231 in Hazelwood. Vegetation removai should be minimized in all such areas. b. PubGc ageacies should exercise specia! care ia appmving the sitin� design, and mnstructioo of structur�s w+ithin as�d directly abave the landsiide-hazard zones. Permit applications in these areas should include professional evaluations of slope stabiiity conditions and potential for increase in erosion. � c. Maintain uplaads that curreatly act as natural water�storage areas (wet woodlauds and pastures as wel� as wetlands) as open space, in order to preserve their stormflow-detention function. This applies particularly to the plateau in the Finn Hill area and the uplands of Bryn Mawr. Both drain into channeis with I erosion problems caused at feasc partly by high flows. '� � d. Fstabtish interlocat agceemeats among King Couaty and the ciries of Seattle, �I Rentoq Bellevue, Lake Forest Park and other cities st�aring basins in order to coordinate a future basin plan and to institute a means by which the costs of future capital improvement projects may be shared. 2. Mitigate and prevent probtems using stiuctuiat measares: a. tacrea.se R/D rapacity on streams where needed. In some cases these can be integrated with wetlands. I. In Finn Hill, new or expanded sioraoe structures will probably be necessary for Tributaries 0223, 0?23, and 0229A. 2. In Hazelwood, the recentty rebuilt R/D structure abrne the damaged reach of Tributary 023I may ameliorate the situation; however, this ravine is so sensitive that additional controls may be necessary. 3. In $ryn Mawr, increasing R/D capacity and lowerin� dischartie rates coutd reduce erosion in Tributary 0454D. Some R/D facilities should be eapanded and others fitted with controi structures. King County should worlc with the city of Seattle on this project, as most of �he [ributary lies within city limits. , b. Reroute surface runoff around seasitiv+e reac6es, or tightline flaws tturough them. This is particularly important in Brvn Mawr. On steep slopes, ti�htlines shauld be made of flexibie materials, or the coupfino on corregated metai pipes sealed, to prevent leakage and faifure. c. Utilize inchaane( erosiom m�tro[ structures for damaged srreams, panicularly on Tributary 0281 (in Hazelwood) and �229A (in Finn Hili), In 0231, where access is easy, check-dams or gabion weirs mighi sIow the a Jlyin;, and reinforcement of the small bridge would prevent upsrream migration of downcutting. Access is much more difficult in 0229A, but small-scale broen;neering measures couEd retard erosion in that channei as well as in other ?ullies in remote places. P:L1�'B 12 Lake Washington Basin (Continued) B. Mirigate destructioa to fish habitat and prev�ent further damage. 1 Develop and implement plaaning and regulatory measures to protect fish habitat. a �stabiish appropriate interlocal agreements among public eutiiies during the basin planning process. Eaamples include Snohomish County, Lake Forest Park, Brier, and Bothell in the Kenmore area; Juanita, KirkIand, and Bothetl in the Finn Hill area: and Bellevue and Renton in the Hazeiwood area. Because of the potential effects to Lake Washington water quality, Metro shouEd also be included in these discussions. b. Fstablistt bilateia! agmements between King County and Snohomish County and betwcea King County and the various cities to develop consistent, comprehensive guidelines and reb tations for protection and enhancement of wetlands and stream systems throughout the basin. c. 'Ibe King County PubGc Works Department shoutd give immediate coasideratioa to the developmeat of water quality siandards and treatmeat sirategies for urban stormwater runoff that enters Lake Washington. d. Develop a citizen information and participadon prografln to educate the public on how to become involved with water-resouree issues. This is critical to nonpoint controf in the L.ake Washinp on Basin. e. Minimi7�e and prevent lost of habitat feat�nes: 1) Estabiish greenbeEts or obtain conseivacion easements for those critical stream corridors and wetlands that remain in the basin. Of particular interest are the headwater areas of streams 032? and 0223. 2) Cooperate with the Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game to detect hydraulic code violations throughout the suburban area, particularly in the Finn Hill area where homeowner landscaping causes the loss of quality habitat. 3) Consult with Washino on State Departments of Fisheries and Garrze prior to designing capita! improvement projects in order to work out cfetaiis prior to desi�n. 2 Design and implement structurai solutioaS ia order to r�store and protert fis6 habitat in Lake Washington Basin. a. Eliminate drop barriers. Construct downstream weirs or pool-and-weir Eish ladders as required. Barriers such as the large dam on Tributary Q227 shoutd be carefully eva[uated prior to any removal or construction. (In this case, no action is recommended for the dam.) b. Eliminate t7ow barriers. Insta[l baffles at i0-foot intervals through culverts. Several tvpes of structures are possible, e.g., slot weirs. angle weirs, and offset baffles. P:LWB 13 Lake w'ashington Basin {Continued) c. Prevent future barrier problems Require that future pub[ic and private cul4�ert instailations follow these standards: 1) Use bottomless arch or semi-elfiptical pipes; 2) Set culverts at mean grade for the reach; 3) Select sizes to accommodate the 100-year flood or fish passage, w•hichever is greater; 4) Set semi-elliptical (and round) pipes I foot below stream grade; 5) Equip tailwater devices with weirs to concentrate low fEows and not inhibit f;sh passage; 6) Equip cuiverts over 40 feet long with baffles; 7) Avoid multiple-culvert installations. 3. Lnprave water quality in t6e basin: a. Encourage use of two�ell It/D ponds with forebay and gravel fdter. and discha oe flows through grass-lined swales. b. Instalt oil water sepauators to improve water quality where necessary. _ I l , � P:LWB ,� .,__,_ 1=1 m �� LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN _ zaa:, .,; o -, 4= ' N p < rn (North Section) ( ��, - � � _� � �� 2 ! I i F, ..�� Basin Boundary oE� ' � �"'%�, • -.�-�. Subcatchment Boundary ' ; < _ - 5 �'q ;��: o O2 Collection Point <� � �:, o "y, " ` �' `� Stream 8eac N `�, � e � ooss Tributary Number EZ ch urid d �� e�� gh nds Q t75 = �1604 Proposed Project , ST C', �• �' N r ..� 1 , � 3 02� � ' � D � �� N N � � ... , �i � O N ` \ � � t S5 ��"'�"�-�S 0 8O � �a� 5 ti �, o , zM�ies -_j NE �c= Z b . �. � N W Q ! .. 6 �Q N � �^(,�ty � �Z�� Q�A N 7 July,1987 � �-t1E 1 ��' �� kv� � ' j � N / � cv ;��: !otrm `� $ N �' NE l.�ke s O ;t�� it T �oP � ` t��rt y�,cP g o r � �1 3 � N „ T � i ' Z� � ; ; NE ! --- . � �,�� ,��,�, � 74 � � ~ N L; Send P�rnt ( � �r ;: :i,�,.�: � , reen _ Finvc� na — Lake '`'" \� NE 65 ST - i W � �Z 1��.5'i K.-t! 1 � �: � �� ,r� �� , - .,� , . �"' � � ; ►� � . � n��_ R��,� � Hunis � ,` N ' _� ebster �f„ - �4; � 4� Point � �. a�� Po,�� . P ..i . � ' • s2o `� ,� -�{ � ; . Q `� 1f a��„ == . - -s�'r c�i� '�t��di�:' � z i O {, s",_ ; � �� H lf W _�. -- �` `"��. Medina Z 1�_ . - \�l fl � W ,'11I •: C_ 1.�. � Q > / # p e i - . � � - � ,, , ._ � Madre; _.� . _ .� �� ,�! o� .:� �� DabrTey PI —r . ' '�:- _.� �,- i � � _ � ��v �{ �L � ° 520 � �� - � � �� ►\ , < � , a _ Q' ., u�•<•n f C2 � ��in r � z: . _ Q ,� �`�� .f„ � �u � z � o � r . a �, .� � NII W � ,: � ' �''<,.,° l�� o �� z � -v.. . � m � �� > j _ �uant �_' E f�� _ Q i '-' :`�� >� ,. P A d! Q -. . �y •� - . ,�. . �dr�� - �� NE� � V4 --_ � .. — i . � � Dabney Pr � o � : �� i ` � �° � � ' B LI (,V Groat Pc L` -, ._, _, �za�� b' � � ; i _ ;; ¢ - ; 1 � ` 1\ � ,i= -- , 90 �`� Beaux � � � � .1 `� � S I ''a �. !� ( T .: arts �� , '= � ; ; � .�I (� � 1 � n - I � � ' � � S'� ` �' =a � � � ` ; �E 24 T � -i _ _ . , ,� M e rce � i � � ., _, = . �> island 0 99 \ � 1 ° �' 6 � i v l c,lunifli�i v N _`� O � - ' � �, `P � � lea, N , rg tc�wn � .`;. ti".-,�`_----��-' 'r' ,' e '; 3 ! �. -� � .r .��,- _ . .. 1 - � , ��.., '� I , �iii��: �c : . . , ?� SE 68 S 1 . � � ~ � ; i i ��tii�'i'�� LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN �. 9 (South Section) � • � i � �,`�. .�� Basin Boundary so�cn Pr \J -�� Subcatchment Boundary Ken�y�fa� � O2 Collection Point j ', " . r•o�cn,.+,; ,v ,...—� Stream �; 3 i oasao Tributary Number O i •6404 Proposed Project `�' _ ' ' � � � � , - - ---- �`' 8 ; � ' S' 9 � ��--%�_ : � � \ " { f N �` 6 w "' � � � a ;Ail� a �o � � � �� s t2, o O \ , C3 ., . ):�q•, et . JuIY.1987 ��s � � . i � ,: �. O 0�,4Q, eT ,f, . w �� '' -� � � , ,i � c �, - ; ;� � l �o,v o � z M�►� � , -- . I ��r; '1 _ � Gcad .� I ._ ��: _+�R'!'�'A� APPLNUTX A L'S`I'IMA1'ED CUS"I'S: PRC)POSEU CAPI"1'AL IMt'ROVCMENT PROJL(:'fS LAKG WA5II[NGTON BASIN " f�dicates project was identilied dy the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance. NOTE: All projects are located on map included in this repori. Projci�t Coliect. I�timatcd Costs Numhcr Point }'rolcct I�r:.xription I'roblcm Addre�.sc:d and Commcnts G402 4 Construct a proportional weir in the Increases detention of wetland located $129,0(H) cross culvert at Rcnton Ave. WeUand upstream of Renton Ave. will reduce (Project should be ana- has not be:en inventoried or rated. peak flows downstream. tyzed at time of t�asin Will require further study and analysis. planning.) G�03 S Iteplace failc:d sections of existing cross Project will stabilize eroding road embank- $S4,OQ0 culvcrt and stabilize failing road mcnt and reduce sediment to crcek. embankmcnt. Project is independenUy justifiable. (,-104 8 Install stai�dard control structure in f'roject wi11 incrcase detention to '1'rib. $41,0O(� cro�,s culvert at SSth and 13owling St. 0464F. (Depends on land Ucpression on upstrcam side is ideal for acquisition costs. dctention. Project should be ana- IY"LCI� at time of basin planning.) G�SOS Il Tm�rove drainabc system at 132nd anJ 80th Floodinb and ponding of watcr in interscc- $68,000 �vc- S. tion. {1'rojcct is incicpcn- dcnUy justifi�iblc_) I':I.Wl3.�'1I'i\ /1-1 Projc:ct Colicct. Gstimated Costs Numhcr Point Projcct Uescription Problcm Addresscd and Commcnts I1�2` 10 Inslall a standard contro) structure at Will miligate high peak flows discharging $136,0(� Wc:tlan�i the outlet to Wet�and 1602 (ratcd #2) to to '1'rib. 0228. (Uepends on land 1Gp? incrc:ast: Jetcntion. This wctland will acyuisition costs. reyuire furthcr biological evaluation Project should be before I2/D �esign and construction. anaiyzed at time of basin planning.) 1�iQ3 12,13 Install piping system necessary to dircct Streambed crasion in Trib. 0229A located $252,OOQ flows (which had bcen piped from sub- in subcatchment 13. ({'raject is indepen- catehment 12 to l3) back inta collection dently justifiable.) pt. 12. 1(>04 10 Replace existing undcrsized cross F'looding on upstream side of culvcrt, which $25,OOQ culvc;rt :u Juanita Drive. wilt worscn as development in area con- (Project is indepen- tinucs. dcntly justifiablc.) 1hOS 5 Install 40{)' of tightline. Ilillside �rosion and high sediment load in $75,000 'l'rih. 0224. (Projcct is indcpen- dcnlly justiCi�ibl�.) I':I.W13.�1'�� -2 APPEND[X B CAPITAL [MPROVEMENT PROJECF RANKING LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN (West Lake Washina an Projects} Prior to the Lake Washinp on Basin field reconnaissance, one project had been identified for the West L.ake Washington portion of the basin and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Naturat Resources and Parks Divisions. Fol[owing the reconnaissance, four projects remain proposed for the Wesi Lake Washington portion of the basin. They include four new, previousEq unidentified and unrated projecis. These dispEace the previously sefected project, which was eliminated based on Ehe consensus of the reconnaissance team. The previous SWM capita! improvement project list for the West Lake Washino on portion of tfie Lake Washin,on Basin had an estimated cost of S3Q0,000. The revised list increases that cost to an estimated 5301,000. The foltowing tab[e summari2es the scores and costs for the CIPs proposed for the basin. These ' profects were rated according to previously established SWM Prooram Citizen Advisory Committee , criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating quesiion, Element i: "GO/NO GO," could be ansvered affirmatively. These projects can be cortsidered now for meraino into the. "live" CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. Rr1TING COST 1 6405 75 $ 72,000 3 64Q3 60 56,000 3 6�302 44 132,000 -1 6404 32 42.000 TOTAL S 30I,OQ0 P:LWB.APB B-I APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN (East Lake Washington Projects) Prior to the Lake Washington Basin field reconnaissance, one project had been identified in the East Lake Washington portion of the basin and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reocnnaissance, four projects remain proposed for this area. They include three new, previously urtidentified and unrated projects. These do not displace the previously selected project, which remaias on the final list. The previons SWM capital improvement project list for the East Lake Washington portion af the Lake Washington Basin had an estimated cost of 5200,000, while the revised list increases to an estimated SSQ4.000. This 152 percent increase in estimated capital costs is due mainly to the addirion of new projects. The following table summarizes the scores and costs for the CIPs proposed for the basin. These projects were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question, Element 1: "G0/N0 GO," could be answered affirmatively. These projects can be considered now for merging into rhe "Iive" CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. RATING COST 1 16Q3 55 S 263,000 2 1605 40 79,OC^ 3 1604 30 25,00� 4 ]602* 23 I37.00� TOTAL � 504,OOc:� " Project identified bv the Surtace Water i�ianaoement Division prior to reconnaissance. P:LWB.APB B-? nt�t�i:tvutx c UL:'1'AfI,L'U I�iNUIN(iS ANU Rl:(`OhiMLNL>A"11ONS LnKL WnSI1INC;"I'ON [3�\SCN • All ilems listed here are tocated on final display maps in ihe otlices oi Surlace Waler Managemerit, Building arid Land Developmenl, and Basin Planniny. 'I'rih. �C Ct�llcct. Gxistino nnticipatcd Ilcm"' Rivcr Milc Point Catc�oiy f'r�. I'ro� Co�Jitions and Problems ('onditions anci Prohlcros Rccommcnda�ions_ _ I 0(lS�i L?1 I I.ihitat Condominium dcvelopment has Same .�s existino conditions. Recluirc devclopment to �rovi�le fish itl�1 .OS landscapcd stream but pro- ��s.�igc facilitics. vidcJ no [isl� pas.s�igc throufih ponds. ? 0OS�i L:1 Ilabit��t Box culvert undcr 13othell Same as existinF conditions. Construct fish-pas.s��ge faciliiy at ItM .10 Way is �t drop harrier to downstream end of hoa culvert. upstream migrants. 3 0OSh L't llahitat Stream receives road n�n- As upstream dcvelopment in- Isolate storm drains from crecks, if IZM .SO a[[ from numerous cltch- creascs, water qualiEy pos.siblc. Usc vegcl�ted swalcs and hasins. prohlcros will bccomc morc Iwo-cell R/U �onds to fiUcr runoCf. sevc;rc. 4 OOS4 L•1 I lahitat Creek has becn forced into Same as existing conditions. ndd habitat structures to cha�nel, ltN1 .YO roadsi�le �fit�h wilh road- reveget.�te hanks tc� provi�ie pro- way construction. 1labitat tcctivc scrccn. divcrsity lost. i�ish usc dcclining. S OOSh L2 Ifahitat WcllanJ fills occurring in I,c��.s of wctlandS will rcduce L'tilahlish a cooperativc basin 11�:<xJwatc;rs hea�lwatcr arcas of strca�n prociuctivity and planning lgrccmcnt with Snohomish Snohomish County (city of summc;r flows, incnnasing (_aunty �nJ city of i3ricr for I3ricr). pcaks �ind volumcs of winter Protcction of wcUands and strcams. flo�ti:ti to King (�ounly. I':1,1�'�_3.r1 I'(' ('-l 'I'rih. ��: ('olfurt. I��;isting Anticipatcd I�cm Rivcr Milc Yoint ('ategory i'rop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Con�itions and Prohlems RecommcnJations __ (> 0223 L3 flabilat Strcam has been piped under Same as existing conditions. - Construct ope;n channcl wilh hahitat RM .IO fairway for approximately enhanccm�nt through fai�way. 750'. liistoric fish uu - Rcmovc pipc: and dircct stream into through this rcach; ncw channcl. habitat lost. 7 0222 L3 Gcology Channel erosion in Ingle- Stream is channelized through - Maintain the upstrcam wcUands �8�)OVC I2M .20-.(itl woai golf coursc:, along most of this reach, and the RM .70) to buCfer high flows. Juanita Ur., and in vacant channel may be �oo sm�ll to - Assure that thc R/D pond at S. end lot upstream of Juanita accommociate prescnt (and of golf course: can accommoclate high Ur. Ueposition in pond anticipated fuiure) high flows from the upper basin and s�;rvc on tlte golf course. Some flows. Continued construction as a sedimcnt trap. sedintent may have come upslrcam will prob�bly in- - Rcbuild ch�innct upstrcam of Ju<�nita from recent construction crcase high tlows and act Ur. (RM 0.6) to stop crosion there. along Juanila Dr south as sediment �urce in the of the golf course and future. dcveloping arca to the east. 8 022? E3 Ilabitat Golf course ponJ us�d as Same as existing conditions. Establish minimum flow requirements IZM .30 water supply Cor fairways. to prevent dewatering. l..ower reaches of '!'rib. 0?22 occ.►sionally dewaterecl. May increas�; rcarinb mor�ality in wetland. 9 0222 L'3 Ilal�itat 7�ributary flows in slorm Samc as cxisting conditions. - Scal catchbasins to prcvcnt road RM 1.00 drain. Runoff from sl�ort runoff cntry to stream. Action portion of Ju<�nita Urive affccts only 2-3 ca(ch basins in cntcn 2-3 catchhasins a onc-block distance. and flows dircctly into - Uirect runoff into paraUct tight- strcam. linc systc;m that bypa�.x;s strcam. 1':I,W13.n['C C-2 'I�rih. .Sc Colicct. C:xisting Anticipatcd Itun ltivcr Milc Pc�int Cate o I'rop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and 1'rohlems Recommendations 1O 032? L'•3 1[abitat liis�oric encroachment on I.oss of wcllands may occur in Pre.se�ve thes�; headwater arcas from llcadwatcrs wctland. Some fill contin- this hcadwatcr arca. cncroaching Jcvclopmcnt. Rcmovc uin�; on perimctcr. Portion fill; cnhancc � portion for emcrgcnt of welland is bog. marsh hahitat. Nroblem was refc;rred to I3uilciing and I.and Development for action. 11 0224 LS Gcology Gullying of ravinc slopes The:re wi{I be some increase - Repair tightline. RM .10-.50 bclow street ends (Glst in [lows as canstruction - Route drainage on north side along PI. N� and 62nd Ave. NE), proceeds on the plateau. bench aUove the stream (county road cutvert outfall (ItM 0.45), Main problem, tliough, is poor :�nd sewer right-of-way) to the wcs�, and broken tightline dcsigo and/or failure of or tightline to the strcam in :� (RM 035). Sandy slopes drainagc structur�s. saCe, noncrosive manncr. arc naturally scnsitive - `1'ightlinc culvcrt at RM .45. to channcl erosion and sli�iing. Sc;dimcnlation in R/U pond at valley mouth. l� 022� LS Itydrology Privatcly c�wncd instream No future prohlems antici- None. RM .10 sc:dimenl pond exists at pated. this rivcr mile. I'ond was found to be ncarly filied with sedimcnt. This sediment �iccumulation appcars to be a natural procc�.s and not a result of incrcasc;d peak flows from upslream dcvelopmcnts. I:� 022=� L,S i lydrology lGUS Scvere hillsidc erosion Continucd hillside erosion "1'ightlinc �irainabc to bottom of hill RM .�15 S; Gcolo�,y causcd by surCace runoff until miti�;<riing measures and providc a�icquate encr�,ry dissipa- from NG 1Sqth St. dis- are taken. tion. �harging at thc top of a stecp siopc. f':I.WI3.�1PC (.'-3 I�rih. �t Collcct. L'xisting Anticipatc;�i Itu�n Kivcr Milc Point Calc��ory Prop. Prc�j. Condi�ions and Prohlcros Condi�ions and Prohlcros -- 12crommcn�iaiic>ns l� 0224 LS 1 ty�rology Ncw development is dis- Area draining to these triUu- Nonc. RM .35 charsinb storm runoff at tarics is ncarly fully devci- this river mile. Tight- oped. !t appears that adc- lines wcre used to route quate dctcntion and convcy- flow down erasive hill- ance systems diu:harging to slopes. thcse tributaries were in- stalled an�! arc functioning. IS U237 L7 Ilabilat [mpoundment dam. Impass- Same as existing conditions. None. RM .1�3 able barrier. 20' high a GO' widc. Ih 022'7 E7 lly�rolo�,ry O!d w�ter supply dam (2U' Reservoir will continue to N�nc. RM .18 high x 60' wide) at this fill up with scdiment. river mile. Dam is no longer usc;d for water supply; it is acting as a sediment trap and is attcnuating high flows. 17 f)?�7 E7 Ilydroloby Old water tank is disc:harg- Flow from tank could be None. RM .20 ing to creek at this river helpful in maintaining flows mile. }�low ratc is ap- during low-flow months. proximately �/o of total flow in crcek. 18 O2?7A Li7 liydrology Drainage system instalied Continued floo�iing and Problem referred to llrainage I ItM .1Y in new d�vclopmcnt is crosion of NL 135th PL [nvcstigation Scction of Surfacc � not adcyuatc to handlc Watcr Managcnicnt. f lows. P:I.wt3.nPC C-4 i 'l'rib. & Colicct. Lxisting Anticipalcd IICIlI Itive�• Mile Point Cate*ory t'rop. Proj. Conclitions and Prohlems Con�ii�ions and Prohlems Recommendations l�) 0227A L7 Geology Some channel erasion along Probably due to runoff from Control discharge of runoff from edge ItM .25-.4O small tributary chaonels. homcs along edpe of plateau. of platcau, cspcciaUy from any Some deposition above new Soils and slopes are very [uture sources. May be neccssary to hausing development. sensitive to erosion. Could tishtline somc of thc existing hecome a major prohlem for sources on the stcepest slopes 10 the thc downhill development, bottom of hiil in a sa[e, nonerosive especially since it is manncr. locatc� at tlic foc;us of a theater-shaped valley. 20 Q??713 1:7 Ily�lroloory "I'ightlinc has separated, Slopes will continue to be Repair tighiline in such a way that ItM .00-.25 & (ic:olo�,ry allowing water to ercxie severely erocied until lhe segments of culvc;rt can't become steep hillslope and cause pipe is fixed. 'T'his problem separated, or repiace line with gullying in small tribu- may be the major sourcc of flexible pipe. (!'roblcm referred to tary channel. Deposition sedimcnt filling the pond on King County Drainage Invesligation in 'i'rib. 0227 at IIolmes '1'rib. 0227. and Roads Maintenance scclions.) Yt. Dr. {I'roblem was first identificd in 1986,) 2l 022H C:') 1 Mabitat (.'oncrete eutvert undcr No change. Same as existing Install baffles in culvert. C3ack- RM AS llolmes Yt. Dr. is a partial condi[ions. floai to eliminate drop. migration barrier due to vclocity �nd outf�ll Jrop. ��:i.wi;.nt�c� c-s 'I�rih. �� ('ollcct. Existinb Anlicip<itcd Itc:m Itivcr Milc Point Catc o Prop. Proj. Conditions a�ci Problcros ,_ Conditions and Problems RceommcnJations _„ ?2 0??�i L9 Ilabitat Good habitat for residcnt Samc as existing conditions Con�rol stormwatcr flows from futurc RM _30 and anadromous fish. unless flows incrcase. '1'hen upstrcam dcvc;lopmcnts such that vol- Ucep pools and extensive expect inrreas�:d crosion and umcs do not increase. '!'his will rifflcs. Slight deposition sedimenl dcposilion Icading rcquire higher than normal R/U in pools at obstructions. to d�creased habitat diver- srorage an� r�lea.se rates below hed sity. scour limits. '!'his area should hc addcd to thc SAMI�. 23 0228 E9 I tabitat Cascade to 6' high. Im- Same as existing conditions. Place stecp-pass fish-way here tcmpor- RM .4S passable barrier. arily, then constn,ct permanent pool-weir fish laddcr to allow salm�nids upstrcam passage. 24 O22g L9 Geolo�ry Two small landslides at No direct sources of surface - As.Sure that no surface runoff is IZM .50 cdge of plateau; severe runoff were found, so it reaching the landslides (it may be gullying from slides appcars that water source necessary to tightline flow from downstream to the creek; is seepage. Crodible streets and homes directly to th� deposition above driveway materials in steep slopes creek). bridge. Most damage wilf continue to be eroded - Revegetate slide scars to inhibit prol�ably occurred during (dry ravel, spring sapping); erosion. Jan. '86 storm. gully walls arc continuing - Consi�icr installation of check-ciams to fall in. in the gu11y. ?S �??R LIO Gcology A hrcacli��i dirt road-fill The crcck will continuc to If thc road hcd is to bc: abandonc�f, RM f.15 is Ucing erodcd by ihe undercut thc sidcs of the nduce slope of faces along the slream; raw slopcs con- fill. strcam (or fix sitc: for usc as an R/U tributing sedimcnt. facility). 2�i 0228 L',10 Itycirc�lo�,ry 1604 Cxisting cros.s-culvcrt at Increased Crequency and Replace culvert with a higher-capa- RM 1.22 Juanita Dr. is undersizcd. areal cxtent of flooding city pipe. Water has recently ponded an upstream end of culvert. to a dep�h of 6' on thc u�strcam sidc. 1':I.W 13.��I'C C-6 -- __ _. - - _ � i , "1'rib. S: Collcct. Cxisting Anticipated Ilcm Itivcr Milc I'oint Ca1c�;ory 1'rop. I'roj. Conditions and Probl�ms Conditions and Prol�kms Recommcn�ia�ions 27 02��{ L•lU ilydrolobry 1GQ2 Projec� proposed by County Plateau area is developing. Analyze project at time of basin RM 1.45 Surfacc Water Managcmcnt 'This Icxation is ex�clicnt ptanning to delerminc if projcci is to acyuire wetland and Cor ad�ire�.sing increased nece�sary. Conduct thorough biologi- , construct control structurc pcak flows. cat analysis to dctcnninc cffccts at to increase storage that time. capacity. 2`i 0?2'i E11 1lydrolopry Road embankment is eroding Continucd embankmen� erosion Install riprap on eroding area. ItM 1.55 into 'I'rili. 0228 at this of N� 138th St. Problem referred to King County road location. Most of shoulder maintenance section of Public Works. has bcen tost. ?�) 0228 Cll Ilydrology Storm-drainage infiltra�ion Continued floociing and sub- Install underground vault in pface o[ RM 2.4U field is failing due to basin erosion unlil mitigat- drain field and discharge to nearby imEx:tvious soils. 7'his is ing mcasures are taken. drainage swalc. Problcm rcfcrrcd to eausing Crequent flooding Urainage [nvestigation Section of and failure of road sub- Surface Water Management. basc of 149th PI. 3Q 0239A L•13 Cicology Channel downcutting, bank- Recent roadside ditching - [ncrease R/U facilities north of NC RM .(�- and lower-slope erosian; has expanded the drainagc 120th St. .GO deposition at the mouth. arca, so downstream problems - Considcr inchannel chcck dams in l.��ndsliding on ravinc may incrcase. impervious middlc reach (state property). slopes. surface area may increase - Consider redirccting flow from area greatly upstrcam, causinb wcst of 7Gth PI. NE back to thc accclerating erosion in the sauthwest (tightline alo�g NE ll5�h ravine. St. and through small ravinc). 1':I.W13.APC C-7 _ _ -- - , _ � , , , J � � ' � _ � __..__- �-- -� - -� --- - -- - - -- - ___ _ - - -- —_ 7�rih. �C Collcct. Lxisting Anticipated ltcm ltivcr Milc Poinl Ca�C�;ory Prop. Proj. C;onditions and Proble:ms Conditions and Problems Recomm�ndutions 31 002�) L13 Ilydrolo�,ry 1GQ3 Incrcascd (lows to Trib. Lrosion will continue as - Redirect flow from collcction point IZM .QU-30 sc FfaUitat 0229A have caused severc de;velopment in collcction 1? away from 1'rib. 0229A. Pipe flow erosion in this r�ach. point 12 continues. direcUy to l.ake Washington. Approximalcly 75 acres of - Provide gre��ler R/D volume ai�ovc drainagc ana from col- Juanita Drive, along 7Gth I'1. NL: lection point 12 has been and from end of N� 112th St. divertcd to this tnbutary. 32 02?9A L13 Ilabitat Ra�d n�noff from numerous Same as existing conditions. I'rovide e�tchbasins with oil/water RM .3(} catcEi hasins along 7Gth separators to decrcase pollutanl load Ave. NC enters creek. to steam. Likely ncg�tive cffects on water quality. Down- strcam residcnts noticc turbidity, al in stream aftcr storms. 33 022�)A L:13 Ilabiiat Runoff from Juanita Urive Same as eaisting conditions. Fit catchbasin at last discharge point I 1tM .75 and adjacent parking lots with oil/water separator. is direeted into stream hcre. 'I'urbidity, oil film ' are apparc:nt after rain. ' 3d 0281 C:16 Ilydrology L.akehurst regionat deten- Pond appears to be function- None. RM .?5 tion and sedimentation ing normally. pond, construction com- plete. [.arge amounts of scdimcr�t have becn �eposited in pond. �':I.W13.nP(; ('-,4 'I'rih. & Cc�ilcct. Existing An�icipatcd It�it� Itivcr Milc I'oint Calc o� Prop, 1'roj__ Ccmditions and Prohlems Conditions an� Prohlcros Rccommcndations 35 p2�1 Llh (;colobry Activc, major downcuuing Lrosion secros to be a re- -A�.surc proFx:r funclioning of 1tM .30-.�5 c�: Ilydrofogy in thc r��vinc (RM .40-.C�S), sponsc to increasc in high upstrc:am It/U facilitics undcrcuuing lower slopcs; flows causcd hy dcvclopmcnt (cspccially at S� (>Oth St.). bank crosion upstrcam upstream. (�urthcr increases -Reyuire onsite R/U if/whcn the two (RM .bS-.R5). Vallcy is in impervious surfaces up- larre parcels along Ilfith Avc. SL cut into eraiihlc s��nds stream could agbravate are devcloped. Any runoff from and gravels. Cl�annel erosion. 'I'wo R/D facililies homes in I.ake Ilci�hts (easl o[ erosion is undercutling upstream at SG C,Oth St. may valley) should be routcd around to hills{opes in places. have already improved the the norlh; prohiUit uncontrolled Ei�avy dcposition in R/D situation but the sands and diu:har�c onto hillslopcs. pond (12M .40); dcposition gravels arc vcry susccptiblc -In thc ravinc, rcinforcc thc small also around docks at mouth. to erosion. bridgc; (RM .fi5) so Ihat downculting Problcm may be affcctcd can migratc no furthcr upstream. by pr�sc:nce of sewer tine Consider instaltation of check dams in ravine. or gabion wcirs in gully. Maintain natural vegctation in thc corridor. 3G 02Y1 L17 liy�irolubry L'xisting R/U facility is No change. None. RM 1.14 detaining watcr nearly ro capaciry. Providing gooci detention for tributary. aQ 0-3�i=1U W6 Ilydrolo�;y I�rge c�uantities of sedi- Problem will continue until !'roblcm referred to drainage RM .00 mcnt accumulating in lower groundcovcr is reestablished. investigation section of Surface rcachcs. New construction Watcr Managemcnt. upstrcam not controlling erosion into crcck. 1':I.W13.;�1'C ('-9 "l�rih. & Colicct. Yroh.Sitc/ L,xisting Antirip.itcd Ilcm Itivcr Milc Point Cate�o�y Prop. Proj_ ConJitions and Prohlems (:onciitions and Prohlems _ Recommendations 3S 04(iaD W3,5 C;colo�,ry Streamhank erosion and Prot�lcros will cantinue and in Maintain the targe wetlands west of RM .(x)-1.07 IanJsliding in steep-wal{ed some casc:s inenase. Slight Renton Ave. (()4b4L, RM. 20j and south ravinc. Channel crosion, incrcasc in impcivious-sur- of S 11Sth St. (04C>4U, ItM. 9h}. espccialty bclow culvert face areas upstrcam (especi- Sediment trap at RM. 15 would help (.�t RM. �)(�), throubh Ureach- ally in suhcatchments 4 and control deposition at thc moulh. ed ro�dfill (at RM. 7:t), 5) will incre�se peak I3e extremely careful with runoff from and along sewer. flows. "I'he steep slopes h�mcs along the ravine cdge; route it will continue to fail, con- around s�eep sections or tightline trihuting u;diment to the to thc bottom of thc stream. strcam. Ilomes arc Uuilt (or are bcintr built) a(I along the cclgcs of the ravine; somc may bc d�imagcd by future landsli�cs. 3�I 464U W3 1 tahital Sedim�ntation at culvert Samc as existing conJitions. IJredge s�;dimcnt from stream. Rcpla�c ItM .25 intc;t tr�tsh rack has causc;d existing Uash rack and culverl inlc� complcte migration barric:r. to provide Cish passage. qO U4fi4p W3 Ilabitat 3' drop from culvert out- Same as existing conditions. Replace eaistirtg culveR wilh 42" RM .29 fall to water level; com• semi-eltiptica! pipe s�;t at average plete upstream migration reach gr�dient, bouom at 1.0' bclow barrier. bed level. 41 O�l�=1A W 11 Ilydrolog,y G405 Drain��gc systcm at intcr- Continucd flooding and road- Install new systcm of caichbasins and RM .GO scction of 132nd and 80th bcd failures, as high ditch drainage pipc;. Avc. S is no1 adequate. flows have hcen eroding I�IooJing of tiie intersec- the subbasc. tion occurs regularly, according to residcnts. P:I.WI3.APC C-!0 7�rih. �C ('olicct. C.xistinb Anticipalcd licm Rivcr Milc I'oint . Ca�c�ory i'ron• Pr__o� ConJitions anJ Prohlcros ConJitions and ProUlcros Recammcndations 4? 046�U WS Ilydrology 6403 I3oilom $' sc:ction of cul- Roadhed erosion will continuc Replace l�ottom section of pipe, ItM _9�i vcrt cro�.sing S 115th St. until mitiguting mcasures install g�►bions to stabilizc failing has failcd, causing road- ar� employ�d. bank, and remove debris from upstrc��m bed erosion. Upstream end end. is blocke� with del�ris, causing watcr to pond to a depth of 4-6'. =13, 0�(,4L WS {tydrology 6402 A smali wctland exists on A!I of the flows generated Uy Acquire wetland and construct a KM .�)[; the upstream sidc of Renton subcatchment 4 could be control stn,cturc in thc culvcrt Ave., probably a result detained by a detention crossing Renlon Ave. oF thc high fill bcrm used pond 1t this location. for the road. a� -- W8,9 Gcology Runoff from roads, street Gullying will continue as Route flows {especially from culvert (hillsieics) ends, etc., is eraiing in- long as flows arc rouled NE of Dimmit Jr. ILS.) around the ta the hillside along onto the slope. Sediment arca, or tightline to Uottom of hill. several pathways, mostly may affcct homes downhill. within King C'ounty park land. qi OaC,41� W3 Ilydrology 6304 Smatl dcpres.5ion la;aled Loc;ation is ideal for Install standard control structure on ItM 1.32 at cc�rner af 85�h Ave S d�tention. With suitable on upstream side of cross-culvert �ui�l T3owlina St. contro! structure, detention ta detain flows in depression. can protect downstrcam rcachcs. 1':I.WL3.�1P(: C-1 1 ! 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY A1\`ALYSIS AND DESICN A. Existing Site Hydrology j This site is surrounded to the north, east, and west sides by public street systems and to � the south by an existing gas station . The street systems have their own storm drainage control systems. The existing gas station to the south has its own storm drainage system as well. The McDonald's parking lot consists of catch basins, as well as 6-, 8-, and some 12-inch diameter storm drainage piping. The area of the existing building, as well as the parking located adjacent to the building and to the northwest, drains into an existing 8-inch diameter pipe system which connects directly into the storm drainage system within Rainier Avenue South. A portion of the parking lot located in the very northeastern comer drains to a catch basin system which, in turn, drains to a short, grass-lined/biofiltration swale. This portion of the parking lot appeared to be developed in the late 1980's where some water quality may have been necessary. This area also drains directly into the storm drainage system within Rainier Avenue South. B. Developed Site Hydrology The developed conditions proposed for this project are meant to match very closely to the existing conditions. T'herefore, the design of this project is utilizing as much of the existing storm drainage catch basin and conveyance system as possible. The northeastern portion of the parking lot will also be routed through the existing grassed swale as it was originally designed. C. Performance Standards This project is being designed in accordance with the 1990 KCSWDM. D. Flow Control System As allowed by the KCSWDM, since we are actually slightly reducing the amount of impervious surface proposed for the project, detention is not required for this project. E. Water Quality System As mentioned earlier,the northeastern portion of the parking lot currently drains through a short, grass-lined/biofiltration swale. The proposal is to route approximately the same amount of new pavement area into that existing swale. The remainder of the site will not be constructed with new «�ater quality facilities as allowed by the KCSWDM. I;338.00l.doc 5.0 CONVEYAI�CE SYSTENi A`ALYSIS AND DESIG\ There is only a small amount of piping and a couple of catch basins proposed to be installed on this project. This includes a catch basin within the trash corral, which will be installed with a downturned elbow and 6-inch diameter pipe to accommodate the flow that is isolated within the trash enclosure. The other portion of the piping will be for a small portion of the drive-thru lane as shown on the design plans. This area will be collected and connected to the existing storm drainage pipe. This will ensure that the drainage pattems remain similar to the existing conditions. ' i��?s.00i.ao� 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS �VD STUDIES The following special reports and studies are included: 6.1 Geotechnical Report prepared by Golder Associates dated January 4, 2008. ; , ,' � � ', r- i ; _ ' I 13338.001.doc -=i GO{der ASSOCiCltes IflC. � _tir�`' 18300 NE lJnion tiiN Road,Sulte 200 � �V�1�� Redmond.WA USA oans�.�zzz �, � Telephone(425)8j fax(425)882-� ,,�.,nv aelder��- vieV iLLll:ilt.=11. L_� T LJ11V.-111Vi\ � MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT NO.46-0017 73 RAI1vIER AVENUE SOUTIi RENTON,WASHINGTON Il."QS � ��1N a S,�I �� . �� ;�,,� � Submitted to: '�. "�� =': y � :�:,1� �. r McDonald's iISA, LLC :�-.� �:_'��=+:�... .:sEse�c Ga,�nis��`'�, 12131-113�'Avenue Northeast,Suite#103 �r�` �gr�7 , f/,� Kirkland, Washington 98034 � ,�� 3�5� ��9 Attention:Mr.Jeff Chapman Richard o.La,ark Submined by: �`�� E y;f`� �9'1�;vr""�,j"'^.'" �`y's - �,1��- �; ;ij�;.i .:� :l �:'�- ' Golder Associates Inc. :.;�;; ,;� 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 -� �'�� ' �` �;� Redrnond, Washington 98052 - - �� .,:, �"'� .c',a�� ^ ';�"r� �>is V.�� tJ : .5'�� {��Uiti� . r' � . ., ':t� '�!'�' �'�'��:•� �.'��'�ti �r�,,'..`e:_..✓,.�.3 - v�Jl�'ti� t,',r�� a _ E� �F,�S �o e� �' 4. ,,,;�., Mitche G.McGirniis,L.E., . d D.Luark,P.E.,L .G. � Senior Piaject Engineering-'Geologist Associate and Se�ior Cons�ultant , „ „ � Distribution: ' 6 Copies- McDonald's USA,LLC+PDF January 4,2008 073-93755.000 oioaosm�i_n��w��.n« nGci�Gc er�oncc emi�^a ene eiicroeiie cironac AIFIDTU A�ACOI!`A nn�nmiiru n��cni�n January 4,2(?08 ES-1 073-93755.000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject site consists of an irregulaz shaped commercial property located at 73 Rainier Avenue South in Renton, Washington. We understand it is planned to construct a new McDonald's restaurant and asphalt-paved parking and drive areas at the site. Based on our review of design information provided by the client, the new building will have a footprint of approximately 4,089 square feet and will be located in the approximate area of the former restaurant that was recently razed. We anticipate the proposed restaurant will likely consist of a one-story strucUue that will be of concrete masonry unit construction with a slab-on-grade floor. Based on the results of our investigation,the proposed redevelopment is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The majority of the proposed building azea is underlain by moderately to highly compressible alluvial soils that will need to be considered in the project design. Due to the very loose to loose soil conditions encountered at four of our five exploration locations, the site soils are unsuitable for direct support of the proposed building in their present condition. As such, it wili be necessary to support the proposed structure on either conventional footings bearing on a minimum of two feet of newly placed structural fill or on a pite foundarion system The decision to support the new restaurant on either shallow or pile foundations wi11 depend on the amount of induced settlement that can be tolerated if the underlying loose, saturated soils liquefy during the design seismic event. Seismically induced settlement could be in the range of 4 to 6 inches should the soil liquefy. If this amount of settlement cannot be tolerated, we recommend the building be supported on a pile foundation, where the piles are driven to refusal in the underlying weathered bedrock. Competent, native soil was encountered neaz the proposed south«-estern bt�ildine cor.zer ar.d sh�uid be svitablc for direct support of the proposed building foundation.�. The existing fill and native soiis located above the groundwater tabie should generally be su�table for use as structural fill provided they remain neaz their optimum moisture content,they contain less than 5 percent organic debris; and provided they can be compacted to the requirements of structural fili. Based on soil condirions eneountered at our exploration locations, the near surface soils haye a relatively high fines content and should be considered moisture sensitive. Soils that aze moisture sensitive may require moisture conditioning prior to placement if the moisture content at the rime of construction is above optimum levels. The seasonal groundwater tabie was encountered at 7.5 to 15 feet below e�cisting grade at three of the five boring locations at the time of our field exploration. Based on observed conditions and on our experience with other projects in the Renton area,we anticipate groundwater levels may rise to within 7.5 to 10 feet of existing grade throughout the entire site during the wet season. As such,moderate to heavy groundwater seepage could be encountered in site excavations, particularly deep excavations, such as those that may be needed for the installation of underground utilities and stormwater detention facilities. The project was in the concephial design phase and no grading plans were available at the time of our study. We recommend that the final grading plans and specifications be reviewed by Golder to verify that they are in accordance with the conditions and recommendations presented in this report. o�000s��_�womcao�.�n« GOIV�f ASSOCI�eS January 4,2008 -i- 073-93755.000 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECLJTIVE SUNIMARY.............................................................. ............................................................ 1 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................2 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVES"I'IGATION..............................................................................................3 3.1 Field Investigation........................................................................................................3 3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions...........................................................................................3 4.0 ENGINEERiNG RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................5 4.1 General..........................................................................................................................5 4.2 Seismic Design Considerations.....................................................................................5 4.2.1 Liquefaction.......................................................................................••--..........b 4.2.2 Driven Piles.....................................................................................................6 4.3 Conventional Foundations............................................................................................7 4.4 Slab-on-Grade Floors....:...............................................................................................9 4.5 Excavations and Slopes................................................................................................9 4.5.1 Temporary Slopes........................................................................ ....................9 4.5.2 Permanent Siopes...........................................................................................IO 4.6 Retaining Walls and Bac�lled Wa11s........................................................................10 4.7 Suggested Pavement Sections.....................................................................................10 4.8 Permanent Drainage Provisions..................................................................................1 l 5.0 EARTHWORKS...........................................................................................................................12 5.1 General........................................................................................................................12 5.2 Construction Drainage................................................................................................12 5.3 Erosion Control...........................................................................................................12 5.4 Site Preparation and Stripping....................................................................................12 5.4.1 Fili Materials and Placement........................................:................................13 5.4.2 Subgrade........................................................................................................14 5.5 Pipe Pile Installation...................................................................................................14 5.6 Utilities............................ .---.............................................................................14 6.0 CONSTRUC'I'ION GEO'TECHTIICAL MONITORING............................................................ 15 7.0 ADDI'TIONAL SERVICES.......................................................................................................... 16 8.0 USE OF THIS REPORT............................................................................................................... 17 9.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 18 010408 mmg 1_Rc ntotuncdo nalds.Doc Gotder Associates January 4, 2008 -ii- 473-93755.000 LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1 Pite Capacities I�I Table 42 Capillary Break Gradation Table 43 Recommended Pavement Structure Designs,Lightly Loaded Table 4-4 Recommended Pavement Structure Designs,Truck Traffic LIST OF FIGURES �igure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Boring Location Plan LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Soil Classificarion Legend/Rock Classification Legend/Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results o�oaos��_xe�rcao�.o« Golder Associates January 4, 2008 -1- 073-93755.000 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this geotechnical investigarion is to provide a description of the site geologic conditions and hazards,and to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed restaurant. Our scope of services consisted of a field invesrigarion, engineering analysis, and completion of this geotechnical report. This report includes conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Surface and subsurface soil and water conditions; • Site preparation, grading and earthwork procedures, including stripping depth recommendations,details of structural fil(placement and compacdon; • Suitability of existing on-site materials for use as structural fill, and recommendations for imported fill materials; , • Seismic hazard analyses,including evaluation of potential liquefaction hazard; • Short-term and long-term groundwater seepage and erosion control measures; • Conventional foundation design recommendations, including bearing capacity and lateral pressures and recommendations for deep foundation option; • Estimates of potential total and differential settlement magnitudes; • Temporary and permanent slope recommendarions; and . _ • Suggested pavement sections. otoaas�i_�co �,a•,.,�+�<.n« Golder Associates January 4,2008 -2- 073-93755.000 , 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of an approximately 46,250 square-foot, irregular shaped commercial property located at 73 Rainier Avenue South in Renton, Washington (see Figure 1). The site is bordered to the north by Renton Avenue South,to the south by an existing Chevron gas station,to the west by Hayes Place Southwest, and to the east by Rainier Avenue South. The site contains an existing McDonald's restaurant and associated asphalt paved parking and drive areas. 'The existing � building was being razed at the time of our field exploration. The lot is relatively level with little to no elevation change within the limits of the site. The site contains localized grass areas and decorative shrubs and plants in planter azeas located in the north, east, and west portions of the site. The southwestem corner of the lot is bordered to the west by an east-facing slope that steps up to Hayes Place Southwest along the western property line then continues up to the west. We understand it is planned to construct a new McDanald's restaurant at the site appro�mately as shown on Figure 2, Boring Location Plan. Based on our review of design infomiation provided by the client, the new building will have a footprint of approxima.tely 4,089 square feet and will be located in the approximate area of the former restauran� We anticipate the proposed restaurant will consist of a one-story structure that will be of concrete masonry unit construction with a slab-on-grade floor. The proposed buiiding will be surrounded by paved paridng and drive areas. Existing pavement areas located away from the proposed buiiding azea that remain in good condition will likely remain. Based on our experience with simitar structures,we estimate wall loads for the proposed building will be in the range of 2 to 4 ldps per lineal foot, and column loads will likely be 40 to 601cips. We estimate slab-on-grade floor ioads of 150 pounds per square foot (ps fl. We anricipate the proposed buiiding and pavement areas will be constructed at or near existing grades with esrimated cuts and fills of 2 to 4 feet. The conclusions and recommendations in this study aze based on our understanding of the proposed site development, which are in turn based on the conceptual drawings and design information provided to us. If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, Golder should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. jn any case Golder should be retained to provide a review of the final design to confirm the geotechnical recommendations have been interpreted and implemented in the construction drawings. O I0008rmng[_Reotonnr.dona3dz Doc Gvlder Associates Jan 4 2008 -3- 073-93755.(}00 �' , 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 3.1 Field Investigation Our field investigation was conducted on December 19, 2007. The field explorarion consisted of drilling Borings B-1 through B-5 at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Plan, Figure 2. The locations shown on Figure 2 should be considered approximate as the locarions were determined and plotted by pacing from site features shown on a site plan provided by the client. Boring logs are included in Appendix A. The borings were drilled using a CME 85, truck-mounted drill rig equipped with an automatic �' hammer. The drill rig was operated by Gregory Drilling, under the full-time observation of a Golder geologist. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 11.5 to 51.5 feet below existing ground surface using hollow stem augers. Drilling and sampling of soils were performed in accordance with Golder Technical Procedure TP-t.2-5, "Driiling, Sampling, and Logging of Soils". Standard Peneiration Tests (SP'I� were performed at 2.5 to 5-foot intervals using a standard, 2 inch diameter split-spoon sampler. "The sampler was advanced with a 140 pound drop hammer falling a distance of 30 inches for each strike, in accordance with ASTM D-1586. "The number of hammer blows for each six inches of pene�ation was recorded. The standazd penetration resistance (N-value) of the soil is , calculated as the sum of the number of blows reqtrired for the final 12 inches of sampler penetration. ', The N-value is an indication of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of ' cohesive soils. If a total of 50 btows are recorded for a single 6-inch interval, the test is temunated and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the total inches of penetration. At the complerion of our investigation, the borings were backfilled with bentonite in accordance with the appropriate Washington State regulations. The soil samples collected in the borings were cIassified in accordance with Golder Technical Procedure TP-1.2-6, "Field Identification of Soil." The samples were collected and representative samples were retumed to our Redmond,Washington laboratory for testing. The stratification contacts indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate depth to groundwater and boundaries between soil units. Actual transitions between soil units may be more gradual. In addition, the subsurface descriptions are based on the conditions encountered at the time of our exploration. Soil and groundwater conditions between our exploration locations may vary from those encountered and groundwater conditions may vary during certain times of the year. The nattu�e and extent of variations between our explaratory locafions may not become evident until cons�uction. If variations do appear,Golder should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the grading and construction. 3.2 Subsarface Soil Conditions Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site were assessed as described in the Field Investigation section of this report. Subsurface condirions were further assessed by reviewing the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington (Mullineux, 1965) and Preliminary Maps of Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Renton and Auburn 7.5' Quadrangles, Washington (Palmer, 1992). Review of the geologic map indicates that the site is underlain by existing fili(Map Unit Af}. Based on subsurface condirions encountered at our exploration locations, the site is underlain by existing fill over what we interpreted to be alluvium (Map Unit Qac) and weathered bedrock(Map Unit Tt)which aze mapped in the vicinity of the site. 010408rrmg I_Rrntonmcdonalds.Doc Golder Associafes January 4,2008 -4- 073-93755.000 Please refer to the boring logs contained in Appendix A for a deta.iled description of the subsurface conditions encountered at each explorarion location. The foilowing is a generalized summary of the soil conditions encountered. � Asuhalt Pavement — Three of the borings (Borings B-1, B-4, and B-5) were drilled through existing pavement in the parking lot adjacent to the restaurant. The asphalt was in the range of three to seven inches thick. • Fill — At four of our boring locations (Borings B-1 and B-3 through B-5) the site was underlain by 10:5 to 12.5 feet of existing fill. The existing fill was very loose to compact and was comprised of fine to coarse sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel (LTnified Soil Classification, SIVn and silt with varying amounts of sand (ML). The fill was similar to the underlying alluvial soils but was characterized by its disturbed appearance, the presence of trace amounts of wood, plastic, and concrete debris, and occasionally higher"N-values." � Alluvium �1VIap Unit Qaw)— The e�cisting pavement and fill were underlain by what we interpreted to be alluvial sediments that were tikely deposited along an old alignment of the Black River which extended through the center of the site prior to construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. These sediments consisted primarily of interbedded sequences of fine to coazse sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel (SM, SP-S11�, and SP) and silt (ML) with varying amounts of sand. The alluvial sediments were typically very loase to loose and contained trace fresh wood debris and thin interbeds or pockets of dark brown organic silt. The alluvium did contain localized interbeds that were compact to dense. • Tukwila Formation (MaQ Unit Tt� — At the locations of Borings B-1 and B-3, the alluvium was underlain by sligiitly to moderately weathered siltstone and sandstone bedrock. At the location of Boring B-1,weathered bedrock that was altered to clay(CH} and elastic slit (MI-�) was encountered at the existing ground surface to 10 feet below grade. The altered bedrock was underlain by slightly weathered sandstone. 3.3 Groundwater � The seasonal groundwater table was encountered at approximately 7.5 to 15 feet below existing grade ' at our boring locations at the time of our �ield exploration. No groundwater was encountered in Boring B-2 or B-5 to the maximum exploration depth. Based on our experience with other projects in the area of the site, the ground., - , ' . �' , . � throughout most of the site. Groundu±ater leveis are not s� depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and seepage rates are greater in the wetter, winter months (typically October through May). 0(0408mmg1_Rcotonmcdonslda.Doc Golder Associates January 4,2008 -5- 073-93755.000 4.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report presents our engineering recommendations that are based on: � Our anderstanding of the proposed development plan as defined by the client at the time of our study; • Subsurface soil and groundwater condirions encountered at our exploration locations; and � The results of our geotechnical analyses. The professional services completed for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site. T'he presence or implication(s)of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous site acrivities and/or resulting from the introduction of materials from off site sources are outside the scope of services for this report and have not been invesrigated or addressed. � 4.1 General Based on the results of our investigation, the proposed redevelopment is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The majority of the proposed building area is underlain by moderately to highly compressible alluvial soils that will need to be considered in the project design. The very loose to loose fili and underlying native soils encountered in Borings B-1 and B-3 through B-5 are unsuitable for direct support of the proposed restaurant. As such, Golder recommends supporting the proposed building on a pile and grade beam foundarion system. Alternatively,provided the structural engineer can design for the estimated liquefaction induced settlement, buiiding support.can be provided using a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system provided the foundation elements aze supported on a minimum of two feet of newly placed structural fill. Footings can be directly supported by the weathered bedrock encountered near existing grade in the ' southwestern portion of the site. Recommendations for a pipe pile foundation and conventional foundation systems are provided in this study. The primary geotechnical issues that will need to be considered at the �ite are the presence of� moderately to highly compressible soils,the liquefaction potential of the very ioose to loose site soils, the presence of a moderately high groundwater table,and the presence of moisture sensitive soils. These and other geotechnical recommendations suitable for planning and desi�n are discusseca �� followir 4.2 The 2006International Building Code(lt3l,� ��i�iiuc ��i�l �e cuun pru��ici�s � �c;nc� ui s�te classes ti�� are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Washington State adopted the Internationai ' Building Code(IBC)on July 1,2007. Based on the encountered soil conditions,Site Class D,Stiff Soil _ profile as identified in Table 1613.5.2 of the IBC should be used for design. This conclusion is based on an assumed average"N-value"of 15 to less than 50 in the upper 100 feet of the site. The following design parameters are based on the peak ground acceleration (PGA), the 0.2 second spectral acceleration (Ss), and the 1.0 second spectral accelerarion (S,) for the project site latitude of North 47.484142, longitude West— 122.217953. These parameters were taicen from the United States Geological Survey website for Earthguake Hazazds Program Probabilistic Hazard Lookup by latitude and 010108mng I_Rentoumcd000lds.Doc Gokie�Associates January 4,2008 -6- 073-93755.000 longitude (USGS 2004). 'The following (un-modified) interpolated probabilistic ground motion values (2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years)can be used for seismic design. • PGA=.575 g • SS= 1.438 g • S,=0.492 g 4.2.1 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a process that can occur when soils lose shear strength for short periods of rime during a seismic event. Ground shaking of sufficient strength and duration results in the ioss of grain-to- grain contact and a rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. Soils with a potential for liquefaction must be cohesionless, predominately silt and sand sized, must be loose, and be below the groundwater table. Based on our field exploration, the site is underlain by very loose to compact silty sand, sandy silt, and silt. In our opinion, this soil has a moderate to high liquefaction potential. We estimate liquefaction induced settlement could be in the range of 4 to 6 inches in response to the design seismic event The foundations for the southwestem portion of the buildings may be founded on weathered bedrock. Weathered bedrock is not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. As such, the potential seismically induced settlement could result in differentiai settlement af 4 to 6 inches across the building. If this amount of settlement cannot be tolerated by the structural engineer's " design,then we recommend supporting the building on driven pipe piles. 4.2.2 Driven Piles I The fust foundation option that can be considered for support of the proposed restaurant is the use of a pipe pile and grade beam system. Small diameter driven piles are a deep foundation alternative for lightly loaded structures. For this option, the pipe piles are driven through the fill and narive soil to the underlying competent native soil encountered. 'The piles are driven to refusal, are capped then tied into a grade beam system. Driven piles can be designed and installed at various diameters. We are providing design recommendations for 4 and 6-inch diameter piles. A minimum center to center pile spacing of 1.5 feet is recommended for design and the piles should be driven to refusal in the underlying bedrock Based on"N-values"recorded at our boring locations,we estimate refusal depths will likely be in the range of 10 to 50 feet below grade throughout most of the building area. Although no targe obstructions were encountered at our boring locations, large, buried logs are often encountered in alluvial sediments, therefore, obstructions during pile driving should be anticipated. The pile installation contractor should be made aware of the potential for encountering debris and other potential obstnsctions and should be prepazed to pre-drill or pre�xcavate the fill as needed. Based on the materials encountered in our subsurface borings, and our previous experience with _ similar soil conditions, the allowable capacities contained in Table 4-1 are recommended for driven piles. The driven pile capacities have been reduced to account far downdrag loading during a seismically induced liquefaction event. The City of Renton will liicely require pile load tests to verify the capacity of the piles. The pile should be tested to two times the driven capacity in general accordance with ASTM 1 i43-81 using the quick load test method. oi000a��uo„�doo.w.n« Golder Assoclates January 4,2008 -7- 073-93755.000 TABLE 41 Recommended Driven Pile Capacities Driven Piie Driven Allowable Hammer Size Diameter Vertical Capacity Vertical Capacity (Class)* inches ' s ' s 4 20 15 1100 lbs 6 30 25 30001bs #Pile driven to refusal When refusal is achieved,the pite should be cut off at the pre-determined elevation and subsequently. incorporated into the grade beam supporting the building. We estimate settlement of piles installed to refusal due to dead and live loads will be about 1/2 inch. The struciural engineer should evaivate the pile sizing and spacing based on the anticipated loads. Due to the slenderness of the pin piles, no lateral pile capacity should be assumed. Instead, lateral resistance should be resisted using the passive earth pressure values provided in the conventianal foundation section of this report. However,if additional latec�al resistance is needed,battered piles may be used. We can provide recommendations for battered piles,if needed. Pipe piles are typically provided in manageable lengths with straight cut ends. As each length is driven into the ground, additional lengths can be added using a friction coupler. Welded joints should not be used,as it has been our experience welded joints may break undetected during driving and the pile will not achieve the required capacity. 4.3 Conventional Foundations As an alternative to a deep piie foundation system, in our opinion, the proposed restaurant can be supported on a convenrional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on at least two , feet of newly placed structural fill, provided the potential for 4 to 6 inches of liquefaction induced , settlement is acceptable in the struchual design. In order to achieve two feet of structural fill below foundation elements, the foundarion bearing soils will need to be overexcavated to a minimum depth of two feet below foundation subgrade elevations and the overexcavation backfilled with structural fill. Prior to placement of the two feet of structural ' fill, the surface exposed at the base of the overexavation should be observed by Golder and compacted in place. The width of the overexcavation should extend beyond the width of the foundation elements by a least the depth of overexcavation. Based on subsurface conditions encountered at our boring locations,the site is underlain by up to 12.5 feet of existing fill. The footing excavation/overexcavarions will likely extend to around 3.5 to 4.0 feet below existing grade. As such, the excavation and bottom of the excavation will be within existing fill materials. If organic or construction debris laden soil is encountered at the overexcavation subgrade elevation, the debris laden soil should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Therefore, overexcavation in excess of two feet ma.y be necessary where debris or organic soil is encountered at the foundation overexcavation subgrade elevarion. Conventional foundations should be designed based on the following parameters: OIOIOBamg l_RentonmcBonalds.Doc Golder Associates 3anuary 4,2008 -8- 073-93755.000 Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures: Structural fi11....................................................................................2,(?00 psf Dense to very dense native soiUweatheredBedrock........................................3,000 psf Includes a factor-of-safety of 3.0 against shear failure.The bearing capacity values may be increased by 1/3 for short-term wind or seismic loading. Passive Pressure:(equivalent fluid density) .............................. ......300 pcf Coefficient of Friction: .................................................................................0.30 Minimum Embedment for Frost Protection: Perimeter footings ..........................................•--.................................18 inches Interior footings(below exterior grades).....................................................12 inches Minimum Footing Widths: Perimeter footings...............................................................................18 inches Interior isolated footings........................................................................24 inches Based on the anticipated loading, we estimate settlement due to dead and live loads could be about 1.5 inches with differential settlement of about 0.75 to 1 inch. Most of this settlement will be realized during construction, as the dead loads aze applied. However, in resporlise to the design seismic event, liquefaction may occur, which could result in an additional 4 to 6 inches of settlement. The foundations for the southwestern portion of the buildings will Iikely be founded on weathered bedrock. Weathered bedrock is not considered to be susceprible to liquefaction. As such, the potential seismically induced settlement could result in differential settlement of 4 to 6 inches across the building. The foundation bearing soils should be observed by a representative from Golder prior to placing forms or rebar to verify the bearing soii conditions are as anticipated at the time of this study. . 010408iiengl_3tertto�mcdonalds.Doc ' Golde�Associates January 4, 2008 -9- 073-93755.000 4.4 Slab-on-Grade Ftoors If conventional foundations are used, the slab-on-grade floor should be supported on a minimum of 12 inches of granuiar structural fill. I.00se native soils, or structurai fill disturbed during grading must either be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with structuial fill. If organic or debris laden soil is encountered at the pavement subgrade elevation,it should be overexcavated and repiaced with structural fill. If the buiiding is to be supported on pipe piles,a pile and grade beam struchu-al slab is recommended. In either case we recommend that the slab be underlain by a capillary break material, consisting of at least four inches of clean, free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 3 percent fines passing the US No. 200 sieve (based on the minus US No.4 sieve fraction)meeting the following specification: ' , TABLE 42 Capillary Break Gradation Sieve Size of diameter in %Passin 1" i00%Passing � No.4 0%-70% No. 10 0%—30% No. 100 0%—5% ' No.200 0%—2% Vapor transmission through floor slabs is an important consideration in the performance of floor coverings and controlling moisture in structures. Floor slab vapor transmission can be reduced through the use of suita.ble vapor retarders such as plastic sheeting placed between the capillary break and the floor slab, and/or specifically formulated concrete mixes. Framed floors should also include vapor protection over any areas of bare soils and adequate crawl space ventilation and drainage should be provided. The identificarion of alternatives to prevent vapor transmission is outside of our expertise. A qualified architect or building envelope consultant can make recommendations for reducing vapor transmission through the slab,based on the building use and flooring specifications. 4.5 Excavations and Siopes 4.5.1 TemQorary Slopes T'he inclination of temporary slopes is dependent on several variables, including the height of the cut, _ , the soil type and deasity, the presence of groundwater seepage, construction timing, weather, and surcharge loads from adjacent struct�ures, roads and equipmenk In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state (WISHA), and Federal (OSHA} safety regulations. Safe temporary slopes aze the responsibility of the contractor and shauld comply with all applicable OSHA and WISHA standards. , Golder should observe temporary slope exca.vations diaing conshuction to verify soil and groundwater conditions. If temporary slopes cannot be constructed in accordance with OSHA/VVISHA guidelines, � o loaob�g�_xaxoon,�do�.tei.n« Goider Associates 11 January 4,20t}8 -10- 073-93755.000 temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse and will provide protection to workers in the excavatiai. If groundwater seepage is encountered in site eacavations, the excavation should be sloped to an inclination of 2H:1 V or fl�tter to reduce caving or sloughing of the excavation face or sidewalls. In addition, the contractor may need to install temporary drainage measures to protect the cut face and prevent degradation of the excavation azea until permanent drainage measures can be constructed. 4.5.2 Permanent Slopes Pennanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Alternatively, 3H:1V slopes or shallower should be considered for ease of maintenance and application of landscaping. C�t slopes should be observed by Golder during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsi,n-face drains. In our experience,2H:1 V and steeper siopes are significantly more likeiy to experience erosion or sloughing during the first winter season, until vegetation is well established. Aggressive erosion control measures, including plastic sheeting are somerimes needed to prevent significant slope damage. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. 4.6 Retaining Walls and Backfilled Walls If the proposed site development is to include retaining walls, the walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained soils and applicable surcharge loads. The following equivalent earth pressures may be used for design of retaining walls in conjunction with the foundation recommendations given in Section 4.3, and the drainage recommendations given in ', ' Section 4.8. I Earth Pressures for retaining structures or backfilled walls: � Restrained Walls(Apparent Earth Pressure) 55 pcf ' Cantilevered Walls(Apparent Earth Pressure) 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf The earth pressure values provided in this section aze based on the assumption the retaining wall will I have a flat backslope, the,bac�ll will be horizontal, and wili be fu11y drained. Surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structurai loads, or other surcharge loads should be ' added to the above design lateral pressure. A uniform seismic surcharge pressure equal#0 8H, where H equais the height of the wail,is recomrnended. 4.7 Suggested Pavement Sections We anticipate that pavement areas located away from the proposed building and construction areas will iikely remain provided they aze in good condition. However, for those areas that will inciude new pavements, the recommended pavement structure thiclrnesses for pazldng and drive areas are shown in Table 4-3 and 4-4. These sections are based on our e�cperience with similar soils under similar txaffic conditions. For areas where truck tra.ffic may occur, we recommend increasing the asphalt concrete thickness to 3 inches as shown in Table 4-4. �, 010448mmgf_Rencoomcdonalds.Doc Gotder Associates January 4, 2008 -11- 073-93755.000 TABLE 43 Suggested Pavement Structure Designs Lightly Laaded(Parldng and Drive Areas) Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Treated Crushed Aggregate Alternative (Class B)Thickness Base Thickness Base Tluckness inches inches inches I 3 N/A 4 II 2 4 N/A TABLE 4-4 Suggested Pavement Structure Designs ', Truck Traffic(Delivery or Garbage Truck Areas) - Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Treated Crushed Aggregate Alternafive (Class B)Thickness Base Thickness Base Thickness - inches inches inches I 3 N/A 6 II 3 4 N/A Regardless, of the section used, the pavement materials should conform to City of Renton specifications. The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a proper subgrade for pavements,the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the Earthworks section of this report. 4.8 Permanent Drainage Provisions Perrnanent control of surface water should be incorporated in the final grading design. It is important to separate all surface water drainage including roof downspouts from building underdrain system such as footing drains. The water coliected from roof downspout and fooring drains should be separately tightl'med to an appropriate discharge point Cleanouts should be installed at strateg-ic locatians to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Foundation drains should include: • WALL DRAINS: Drainage behind bacl�"illed walis can consist of a full face geocomposite drainage mat or a minimum of a two-foot-wide zone of clean sand and gravel fill with less than 5 percent passing the No.200 sieve. • FOOTING DRAINS: A perimeter footing drain should also be placed consisting of a 4 inch diameter heavy-walled perforated PVC pipe or equivalent. The pipe should be sucrounded by at least 12 inches of drainage material wrapped in filter fabric. Cleanouts should be provided. 010.70Bmmg I_Rentcnmcdonakis.Da; Golder Associates January 4,2008 -12- 073-93755.00(} 5.0 EARTHWORKS 5.1 Genera! Excavating and compacting fill on the site will require careful site preparation, surface drainage control, soil handling procedures, dust control, and sequencing on the. part of the earthworks contractor. We discuss these issues in the following sections. 5.2 Constraction Drainage Surface and shailow groundwater should be collected and tightlined to an approved surface water collect�on systems. Surface water drainage from the site must be controlled during and after construction to avoid erosion and uncontrolled runoff. Underdrains should be instalied where seeps are encountered. Underdrain installation will depend on specific site condirions, but will generally consist of a suitably sized PVC pipe surrounded by ctean, free draining gravel and wrapped in a filter fabric. All gravel drains should be sloped to drain by gravity to a positive discharge. Prior to any structural fill placement, a representative from Golder shouId visit the site to provide recommendations for underdrain installation. 5.3 Erosion Control Erosion control for the site should include best management practices incorporated in the civil design drawings and may contain the following recommendations: • Complete the primary site grading during the summer months; • Limit exposed cut slopes; • Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed slopes; • Use silt fences, straw bales, and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded material on the site; � Seed or plant vegetation on exposed azeas where work is completed and no buildings are proposed;and • Retain existing vegetation to the greatest possible extent. We recommend the grading contractor sequence excavations so as to provide constant positive surface drainage for rainwater and any groundwater seepage that may be encountered. This will require grading slopes, constructing temgorary ditches, sumps and/or berms. Permanent slopes shall not be graded steeper than 2H:1 V and,unhl vegetation is established, should be protected with plasric sheeting during adverse weather conditions. 5.4 Site Preparation and Stripping Based on available pro}ect information, following demolition and removal of the existing building, we anticipate the site earthwork for the proposed project will include grading and overexcavating to establish building pad and footing subgrade, installmg underground utilities, connecting to existing utilities, and grading for pariang and drive areas. O I Q108��g I_Rento nmcdooaldt.Doe Qolder Associates January 4,2008 -13- 073-93755.000 At the time of our fieldwork, the vicinity of the proposed restaurant was covered hy the existing building and adjacent pavement areas. As such, we anticipate only limited stripping should be necessary. Existing pavements and foundations should be removed from the proposed building area and areas to receive structural fi1L However,outside of construction areas,the existing site pavement may be left in place to provide an all-weather construction surface. The existing pavemen#s may also be incorporated into the final design provided they remain in good condition after the new building and urility installation are cornpleted. In no case should the stripped or grubbed materials be used as structural fill, nor should they be mixed with material to be used as strucrival fill. The stripped materials may be utilized on site in non-struct�al landscaping area.s,or they should be exported. Excavations should be sequenced to limit the amount of exposed subgrade particularly if construction starts during the rainy season. The existing fill and native soil, and weathered bedrock identified on site are considered moisture sensirive and may become unworkable when over the optimum moisture eontent Conversely,if allowed to dn�the silh� soils can hecnme ar airh�rre dt��± ^rnhl�t". 5.4.1 Fill Materials and Placement Structural fill should be free of orga,,.� ..,:._� ,,:...��.,..� .._, .. . .. ,..�.. ..-- , , ,,,,,,,,;, ,,,, ,, ,�.,. _. and capable of being compacted to the required specifications listed below. If the on-site soils do not meet these criteria, or cannot be reworked, we recommend using imported granuiar 611 consisting of well graded material free of organic material, with less than 5 percent fines (that portion of the soil that passes the US No. 200 sieve). Other fill materials may be used with approval of the geotechnical engineer. Ma�mum Lift TWckness: • On-site native soils or importe.' � - � Minimum Compaction Requirement • Beneath BuildinpLFoundation: 95 percent of the ASTM Di557 maJumum dry density value (modified Proctor value) for the material. The strucbnal fill beneath footings should at a minimum extend laterally at a 1H:1V slope projected down and away from the bottom footing edge. • Beneath Roadwavs. Slabs and Pavements — Three feet below final grade, structural fill '� should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density I value for the material. Within about three feet of subgrade elevation, the fill should be compacte� . _ _ . _.- - - - -- material. � ��1��TI'C;lil:il Ui.t�hlill - LiiC Llll JiiVillli Y�CI1C:l�illj UC �:liiil�i�l�.��u �V dl il;:l�� 7V �i�i��iii v. the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except within three feet of subgrade elevation, where the fill should be compacte' - � ' ' "� - � `� `' ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the materia � Non-structuraULandscaped Areas - Firmly compact tl SC�e121621t 3Tld SIOU�11T1', Tnncnil r.��^,r�r•,��ri .-��t_:nn c'r-�� suitable for these areas. January 4,2008 -14 073-93755.000 Structural fill should be compacted with equipment suitable to achieve proper compaction. If density tests taken in the fill indicate that compaction is not being achieved due to high moisture content,then the fill should be scarified,moisture-conditioned, and recompacted. If the required densities cannot be met then the material can be replaced or a soil admixture used to dry the soil. 5.4.2 Subgrade Subgrade preparation will consist of cuts into existing fill and undisturbed native soil, or weathered bedrock, and placement of structural fill. The subgrade soils should be prepared in accordance with the recommendarions in this section to achieve a firm and unyielding condition. Prior to paving the subgrade should be observed by a Golder representative during a "proof roll" completed by a fully loaded dump truck. Soft or excessively yielding areas should be remediated or removed and replaced prior to paving. The site soils will be sensitive to disturbance from construction activities and moisture. Pavement and foundation subgrades should be maintained in a well compacted state and protected from degradation prior to paving or concrete placement. Dist�ubed or wet areas shall be remediated by a method determined suitable, based on the observed field conditions. The options may include excavation and replacement of the disturbed soil, placement of a geotextile separation fabric (such as Mirafi 600x or equivalent), chemical stabilization and/or drainage improvements. Protecrion measures may include restricted traffic, perimeter drain ditches, or placement of a protective gravel layer on the subgrade. 5.5 Pipe Pile Installatiou As it is not possible to observe the completed pile below the ground,judgment and experience must be used as the basis for determining the acceptability of a pile. Therefore,all piles shouId be installed under the full-time observation of a representative of Golder. 'This will allow us to fully evaluate the contr�actor's o�exation,collect and interpret the installation data,and verify bearing stratum elevations. Furthern►ore,we will also imderstand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria The contractor`s equipment and procedures should be reviewed by Golder before the start of construction. � 5.6 Utilities Maintaining safe utility excavations is the responsibility af the utility contractor. The soil and groundwater conditions in the utility excavations will vary across the site. We expect excavations in the site soils to cave easily and moderate to heavy groundwater could be encountered at around 7.5 to 10 feet if the grading is completed during the winter. As appropriate, trench shoring or dewatering should be employed by the utility contractor. Existing underground utilities to be abandoned should be plugged or removed so they do not provide ' a conduit for water and cause soii saturation and instability problems. u�oeoanvr�g�_RrnconnrAo�a�c�oc I Golder/lssociat�es January 4,2008 -15- 073-93755.000 6.0 CONSTRUCTION GEOTECH1vICAL MONITORING Critical aspects of the foundation and earthwork should be observed and tested by Golder. Construction observation and testing services may include but not be limited to foundation subgrade verification,instailation of pipe piles,pavement subgrade verification, and placement and compaction of structural fills. a10408mng1 Ra¢onmcdonaldt.Doc Golde�Associates January 4,2008 -16- 073-93755.000 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES As the geotechnical engineer of record, Golder should be retained to provide a review of the draft plans and specifications. The purpose of our review will be to verify the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented in the construction drawings and specifications. In addition,the review will allow a discussion of possible changes prior to ftnalization of the drawings. Golder should also be retained to observe the geotechnical aspects of the pro}ect during construction. The purpose of construction observation services is to verify that the actual conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the conditions encountered at our exploration locations. Our construction observarion services will also allow us to facilitate changes in the design in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of consttuction. 010408 im�g I_Rea[onmcdonslds.Doc Golder Associates January 4, 2008 -17- 073-93755.000 8.0 USE OF THIS REPORT This report has been prepared exclusively for the subject property of this report for the use of McDonald's USA, LLC. We encourage review of this report by bidders and/or contractors as it relates to factual data only (logs of borings, conclusians, etc.). The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations and observations completed for this study and conversations regarding the proposed site develop and are not intended, nor shouid they be construed to represent, a watranty regarding the proposed development,but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. Judgment has been applied in interpreting and presenting the results. Variations in subsurface conditions outside the actual exploration locations are common in glacial environments such as those in the Puget Soand azea. Actual conditions encountered during construction may be different from those observed in the borings. When the site project plans are finalized, we recommend that Golder review the plans and specifications to verify that they are in accordance with the conditions described in this report. The borings were drilled in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice, subject to the time limits and fmancial and physical constraints applicable to the services for this project, to provide informarion for the areas explored There are possible variarions in the subsurface conditions between the test locations and variations over time. OIOdOB�migi_Renonmcdonalda.Doc Golder Associafes January 4,20(38 -18- 073-93755.000 9.0 REFERENCES IBC(2006).International Building Code. International Code Council, Country Club Hilis,Illinois. Palmer, S.P., 1992, Preliminary Maps of Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Renton and Auburn 7.5' Quadrangles, Washington: Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Open File Report 92-7,scale 1:24000. Mullineaux, D.R, 1965, Geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey,Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-40, scale 1:24000. ;� �� _ ; � � r � ' � --1 - � `� � r,_� J I oioaos�i t�uam��.no� Golder Assodates FIG U RE:S __ Golder Associates t �#�`�,»yi� � �� -�t4g�� ,,�.,..,i ,�,�,. c�i � ` ` � s1� ... L � '� "r'�� , �` � �� I�" t� � ti 1. �'� '°� ��'+� � ' .1 � +�►'�. � �� ' �►�I►'N1� '�,t w�. � �r'��.\il�� :�t , \ �� ,� �� `��►� '1�� ; � ��: ��' ' �� '; ,�'�� ,��, _ � w� yI � , nRK" � �S�! �I.:r+i4��i`�� ( .rYill � � � . , �� - \ � '��` ,`+r��' �� '� �. -�� , �� '�''' F� �� li� � � �.��.� �� , �� 11, �� „�,,,�,__ _ � e.. ;; � �,� �� _� /�,��II�� ' _� ' el�. J '"�� , � ��.►�''!�z � ��`; � '� � ' � / �' `�.ir /� .�4�� ! •j� ��i'��il1� �.t - ��►�S`��'��'�t �. t - �"0�� .�� , -,. ,� , � _:, � � ° � ... ��..,�._..-- �J'`�'��M� �� '� �� . � ": ' � �` � ��: �� 'e�"—„�� ,''� -� ��` ,{ t ' .��' �� _ �.._.A,�;/"��`� -�..t. �',� - , ,!. � � .�►�"�'�" ��% �.� . .,y .'�� ,�,-: � �.� � �� ,.��. _ �� If � , , ., , . � ,� '�► � r�` , � 3� - -- - �►'/��:,l� .�� io � . . � �� ,,.� .�.....l� � ,, ri ,-' ��:ar°' �' �� r .�� .f� ;�� rc ��:'_'- � � ��_. ` %`. , � — .�"�� tt�'� , ��-� � `` � �� o�� w /'�![ � � � -� Qr j � , �� ;' �� '' �� '� �� - �� ; `� �� r�3l� r,.� .� � �" � � '!�� • �: ►,. �Y��zs �� r � . � � {��1�• :''�• � f • � � •` •�� i � _�� 1� - _ � _ -�� .. � `�a...� � .��►� �1 � �,�-- �e � 1� . , �'�! �;' � ' ,• i �� T �" ��'�► :; ��.� .� �� ' . �' , �� m �� ;,� , ,; „ �''. ., �i� -�,�► ro,., ._ � ,�e'�' �� ; � ; ' -.� ��"",�� e� I ; � - �� , '�� :, ,-. ��II� � � - ��- - ��'/�� .. � :; �,�� r. �,G, � � t t�- �. �j�n l�� iL�. ' � �� il. � . � �rsr�r�v'"�if' � �� i • I /�I• .1 � .t . 1 : .I � �� ' � � 4. N �....- . ��Q° / �o�� ` � �1 y� -'�� D I p`�� , R ,�+`.°_', � 's �ON ``' ! I TM'• I �. I v �� ` , R . ' . .,r `�� .�...'`'`, , � _..._---- �+ �� g�/ a f�`' �Y,s � , i --- � �' .,�+. `�°s� `�� `',, ' jl B5 .. N 'II �''.,+ ..,.� . .e•'"� __ � � 5 .. '��''-' I� i^' b I�� I ��., y .., W :=59.18' i 6 �'� � � � W o a 10'I'08'Z9' � R•300.27' .�,� � � a . �� -� .� i w ' B1 � w�!i!r' r-io i�• 'P � ,Y, `\ �Q. � ��rr"`� • B3 —► � 13 � oc y •'�JC► � :•; �3 � N�', N�v�„cuar4uos 7 � ��, � y t� aEsrau�wr - a`�, Y. � � °<. �5/e7 ,�, +� :+,o ''i �.oees.v. ' �•86b9' ,q a. � � n•00'S2'42 `,� �; 70-- �7-0' r•�r�� !S4 y�' ��•�' �'8' � R•5655.00' �� '% , �'�+r �,�c �,$, � �``�, ,, � 62 84,�.• ��d.• . ` �, � � � . + R.�wo ��, " � � — � � `��• '~' � R �� 0 Ll ....._.._..__—_—'..__.._.....__ _....._ ' _ *.,� � § Q--- N4 US -- N 81'55'40'E ' �7958� �'�� i�h LEGEND ; � Approximate Location of Golder Associates Bonng (December 2007) NOT TO SCALE FIGURE � BORING LOCATION PLAN Source:Freiheit and Ho MCDONALD�S/GEOTECH INVESTNVA 07393755000fig02.a1 � Mod:12/20/07 �AMP Golder ABsociates APPENDIX A BORING LOGS Golder Associates iJnified Soil Classf8catlon System Component DefiniHons by Gradation � Soil Gassification Criteria forAssigning Group Symbds and Names GeneraBzed Group �mponent Sae Range Descriptions ' �� Boulders Above t2 4t. � COARSE-GRAINW SOILS GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well-graded Gravels CobWes 3 in.io 52 m. -� More tlian 5096 retained on More ihan 50;6 ot No.200 sieve �parse��a�liort Less ihan 596 fnes GP Poaty-graded gravels relained o�No.4 Gravel 3 In.to No.4(4.76mm) G0.1 C'��'�t Coarse ravel 3 in.to 314 in. Sieve GRAVELS WITH FINES MlMures 9 ; More than 12%fir�es � Gravel and Clay Fine gravel 314 in.to Na.4(4.76mm) S'�� CIEAN SMf�S SW Well�raded Sands �� No.4(4.7fimm)to No.200(O.OT�mm) 50q.or more d Coa►se sard No.4(4.76mm)to No.10(2.�nm) coarse fracUan Less than 596 fnes SP Poo rfy-greded Sands Me�um sand No.10(2Amm)to No.40(0.42mm) � passes No.4 Sleve Fine san6 No.40(0.42mrn)to No.200(0.074mm) SANDS W1TH FINES SM SarW and SA[Mixtures � �� Mae than 12%fnes SC Sartd and Clay Mixhxes ��d Clay Smater than No.20Q(0.074mm) — FINE-GR4INED SOILS SILTS AN�CLAYS INORGANIC � ��asqciry Clays � 50%or more passes Liquid limit less on as c an ow- '� Ihe No.200 sieve than 50 ML p��d S�� on-p as c an ow. SSmpleS ORGANIC OL Plastictty Organic Clays Non-plasdc and Lar- SS SPT Sampler(2.0'00) PlasOcit Or anic Sills HD Heavy Outy Split Spoon ; ' SILTS AtdD CLAYS CH H INORGANIC ��g�'Gry qays SH Shelby Tube �_ . Liquid limit greater P Pitcher Sampler than 50 MH High-plas2idty 5111s B Bulk �g as ci ORGANIC OH Organic Clays C Cored High-plasUciry O anic Si[s UNess otherwise noted,drive samples HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Primarily organic matter,da�k in cdar,and advanced with 140 Eb.hammer with 30 ot anic odor PT Peat in.drop. I �__ Relative Density or Consistency Laboratory Tests Utilizi�g Standard Penetration Test Values _ Test Designatton Cohesionless Sals�a� Cohesive Soils �b� Masture (t) Denshy � �� (�� Rela6ve ��} Undrained (dy Grafn Size G Density N,Wowslft. Density ��5��Y N,��• Shear Strenglh Hydiometer H (�} �P� Atterberg Limits (1) Very bose 0 to 4 0-15 Very soft 0 l0 2 <250 ConsaYdatiai C LOase 4 to 10 15-35 Soft 2 to 4 250-500 Unconfined U Compact 10 to 30 35-65 Firm 4 to 8 500-1000 UU Triax UU Dense 30 to 50 65-85 SGft 8 to 15 1000-2000 CU Triax CU Very Dense wer 50 �85 Very StiR 15 to 30 2000-4000 CO TAax CD I ` Hard ove�30 >4D00 Permea611ity P � (a}Sois consisdng of gravel,sand,and silt,eilher separately or in comMnatlon,possessing no characterlstics (1)Moisture and Atterberg limiLs of plasRciry,and exhibi6'mg drairted behavia. plotted on lag. (b�Sois possessiig tlie characlerisGcs ot plastidty,and exhibiting undrained behavia. (c) Refer to teM of ASTM D 1586-84 for a definiUon of N;in nortn�y consdtdated mhesionless soik, Relative Densily tertns are 6ased on N va�ues carrected for overburden piessures. {a� u�dra�nea Snear sv�a,_�n�nconnnea com�s�o�Sve�m. Silt and Clay Descriptions Description Typical Unified DesignaUon SII[ ML(non-ptastic) Descriptive Terminology Denoting Qualitative Descript3ve Tenninology aayey sac CL-Ml(low plastidiy) Component Proportions for Moisture Content sacy aay c� qay CH Descriptive Terms Range of Proportion Dry Na Giscemible moisture present Plastic S7t n,w Enaugh molslure present to darken the ��9anic Soils OL,OH,Pt Trace 0-5Yo Damp appearanca but no moisWre on ma[erials Some or Adjedive (a) 12-3% adheres to the ha� Md 30-SQ°,(o Moist WW molsten the hand (a) Use Gravelly,Sandy w Sity as appropriate. Wet V'�sible watsr preseM on materials Descriptive Tertninology For Soil Cover Note following soild color description(e.g.2.5+5/3)denotes cdor as determined using Munsetl Sal Colw Charts SOIL CLASSIFICATION K:iCAOtProjeds�PRWR1004301500430.dwg�LayaR1 �Afod:07109I2007,1524�Platted:6T1092D07,15:41�KNe�Wy Golder Associ�tes GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION GRAIN SIZE CLASSES AND SILICICLASTIC ROCKTYPES STRENGTH INDEX boulders Approximate Range 25s mm ��bm�� Grade Des«iption Field Identification Com resslve Sben th ca6blss I(rounded dasts) P 9 Ba �„d MPa (ps � Pe�es b�� SSt Very soR day EasNy penetrated several irx;hes <0.025 <4 (angular dasls) bY flst 2 mm 9��s SZ SoR ctay Easily penU2ted severel Nchea Q.02SOA5 47 v.waise by thumb t S3 ��`� �� Flrtn day inches by thumb with moderaie '.OS0.10 7-1 S Spp p,,, sand eRort � medfum SANDSTONE gq S� Readily Mdented by Vium6 but 2`� � penetrated only with great eRon 6.10-0.25 15-35 fine �Z5 SS V stlflrJa Readil hidented thum6nail v.fine �Y Y Y bY 0.25-9.050 3570 63 rNcrw+s S6 Hard day Indented wtth dHkulry by �0.50 >70 v.warse thumbnal 32 RO E�dremeM Indented hy ihumhnail p.2S1.0 35150 coarse MUDROCKS weak rock � 76 SILT/SILTSTONE other types: Crumbles under firtn btows wllh medfum sitt �0�� R1 Very vreak rock �M d gaobgipl liamrtier.can ti.�`.0 150-725 B m� be peeled 6y a pocket knife &,e s�n slate � 4 mlcrons {32 Weak rodc Can be peeled by a padcet knfle CIAYlCLAYSTONE with 6fliwlry,shalbw 5.0•25 7253,500 Indentatbns made by tim dow CRYSTALLINE ROCKS w1Ui potnl of geologlcal hammer _ R3 Medhan Cannot De sttaped ar peeled �Sp 3,500-7,500 s�9� wM a pockat knHe,spacimen can be lractured with singla Orm �� 2mm Mow of qedogical bammer v.coarsely crystsHine �.0 R4 strong rock Specinen requires more than �100 7,500-15,000 coarsely uysta4ne one dow d gaotogcal hammer 0.50 W fracture it rtied'ium ays�ne RS Very Spedmen reQures many blawa d 025 SUO^9� geobgical hammer to hacWre k 104250 15,000-35.000 �- fnely crysfaNine 0.125 R6 Eztremely Spedmen can only be chipped >250 >35,000 _ v.Bney aystalqne stron9� with gedogic�hammer .0.63 microaystalli�e �� 4 Nota: Cxades S7 to S6 appiy ro cohesive so0a,for example,days,siry days,and _. �,P�� comdnations of sills and clays with sand,generally slow draining. Some rounding of the strength values has been made when converting to S.I unks. FRACTURE ORIENTATION MODIFIED CORE RECOVERY(RQD) WRT CORE AXIS AS AN INDEX OF RQCK QUALITY WEATHERING INDEX Mgle Schematic RaD Desoription of (%) Rock Quality Tertn Descriptlon Cxade �' �C 0-25 Very Poor Z� Paor Fresh No visiDle sign oi rock maleriai weatherin8�Pe�Ds su9M I 60' �C �'75 f2ir {FR) discobra[bn on major dlscontlmi{ry suAaces. 7590 C,00d Sq�htly Dlscobradon InCicates weatherk�g af rodc mateAal antl �� 90-100 Excellent WeaTherad disconuty suAaces. All Ihe rodc material may be � 30' �� {� discdored by weather'v�g and rnay be somewfial weaker �� eutemally Ihan in its Gesh condition 0' Weaetlt�BrEd Less than halt o(the rock material fa decomposed andAor III �� dlsintegrated W a soa. Fresh or diecobred iodc is preseM eitF�e�as a continuous hamewak a as corestones. i F1��ghly More Ihen half of thr�odc material is decomposed andla IV '��. Wealhered disintegrated Oo a soi4 Fresh w discobred rack is present 'i J01NT TYPE AND SURFACE DESCRIPTION �H� either as a dlscontlrnious hamewak ar as mrestanea. I Completety Ail rock material is decomposed andlor dlsintegrated b V �I J-Jdn[ U Undulatlng VR-Very Rough Wealhered yoi. The o inal mass stiudure is s611 la el Inbct. � F-Fautt ST-Ste�petl- Fr-FrecWre (CIA� � � Y S-Shear I-Irregu ar CA-Calate B-Bedding P-Porished CL:qay g yqpE Residual MI rock material is converted W sdl.The mass sVucture VI FO-FdlaUon K-Slkkensided CT ContaU Soil PL-Planer SM-Smoath RD-Redrilled (RS) �"��fabric are deswyeu.There is a laige cha�e C-Curved R-Rough Fe-Iron O�ades in wlume,but the wi has no�been significantly vansported. i Planer{PL) Curved(C) Undulating(U) Stepped(ST) IrtegWar(I) �-.,-`...�.�.....� .v-vv�� PoGsheG(F) Smoolh(SM) Rough(R) Very Rough(VRJ Sfickensided(K) ROCK CLASSIFICATION K:oCAD7Prqecis�PROPR1004307RackStuB.dwg �B.Sx17 �Mod:07l132007.1028�Ploqe�071t32007.50:3t I KNev.by Golder Associates • � RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-1 s�Er,�r 2 PROJECT: McDonalds 46-0017 DRILLING METFiOD: 41/2 inch HSA DATUM: AN�.SL ELEVATION: 100 F'_ROJECT NUMBER 073-93755 DRILLING DATE: 12/19/07 AZIMUTH:�WA INCLINATION: -90 LOCATION: 73 Rainier Ave.S. Renlon DRILL RIG: CNtE 85 COORDINATES: not su � SOII PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE i BIOWS!ft■ � � �0 20 3o a NOTES w� � % _� ��' m w BLOWS ¢ WA7ER LEVELS o Z � DESCR�PTION � aa O � a P�s m N WATER CONTENT(PERCENn � K� ] � U m C7 �� 2 1IOlbhammer K W,i 9W i W, O 30 Nth dop 0.0-0.6 gg.4 ASPHALT _/ 0.6 0.6-2.0 SM �.9�N�brv�n.nanahatified.fine 99.0 W ooarse SAND and GRAVEL,�slt, - 1 damP(3M)iF�LL) --------r 2A '-5 ■ 2.0-10.0 S1 SS 141a13 23 Cortpac4 brwm and blue 9raY. 1.5 non-stratified,fine to coerse SAND.sane sit,some fine lo coarse gravd,damp(SI� 5 (FILL) ■ - Irace an9ular cancrete deDris,Pockets of gM S2 SS 7-7-7 14 �5 Q deen sand'n fll at 5(eet bgs ■ - bbw caunt elevated due to obstnution n S3 SS 517-17 '34. � fil a17.5 feet . 1.5' . 90.0 •. :• 10 10.0-120 ---------- - 50.0 � Loose 1u cmipact due gray.rnn-stratif+ed. S� S4 SS 3,3-2�t 24 �5 fine to rt�rn SAND and SILT,trace fine yra�ei.+�csa�)(Flu) ee.o -�9ular silt ct25is in Gp ------ � 1 z.o 12.0-152 � very wose m�oose,srarsn brown. ss ss � ••.z-2-z .� a �-5 non�stratified,sardy SILT,trace pockels d � : 1.5 dark brawn organic silt,Uace charred wood. wet(ML)(ALLWIUh� � • 15 84.8 � � 162 Ground�rater at -becarr�es dark gray al apprwdrreley 15 I SM -: � 84:0 •'S8. .SS 232 5 �5 a�proxirtately 15 fe�bgs � `feel------------� 16.0 .: '-��..... m12/2(ll07 E � 152-16.D I o � Ltoarse 9S/1�ND,sorne sltrior�stratified.�� + ' •- I gravd,wet(SM}(ALLWIUM) _� ¢ 16.0-21.0 --- ML D Very loose to base.9rayish bram, � non-shaGfied.SILT,trace fine grdvel,wet 20 t (ML)(ALLUVIUM) ■ 3 �.0 S7 SS 1-2-4 8 1S a -------------- -' � ' 1.5 y 21.0-25.0 :' �:� •• 2t.Q......-: = Loose,9raYish brown.non-stratified�fine to • .. . .: u coarse SAND.some siit arW fine to coarse �• -�` .. . ..... ..... N gravcl,vralerb�ring(SM)(ALLWIUM) . SM v ..'' ' '•.. .:�. :. 25 -------.-� - ' 75.0 � 25.0-30.0 • • - 25.0 �_5 Loose.gray,nars�tified.fine tocuarBe S8 SS 334 7 SAND,trace sdt sane fine to ov�se`•. 1.5 gravel,xatabeamg(SP){ALLUVN.IM) ''•. . � ;�:,:,::: 0 0 � __ '''�� 70.0 �" � 30.0-35.0 -------- - . 30.0 � 7S c� Cortped,gay.non-stralieQ Hne to coarse S9 SS 7-&11 19 1S � SAND and GRAVE�.tcace stlt, e i �raterbear(ng(SP)(ALLWIUAQ � o SP :. � a' c9 � � ;:,:;:': ? 35 ---------- - ' 65.0 � � 35.0-40.0 35A �i. O Frtn,grayish brown,non-stralified,sandy 510 SS 2-3-3 6 � CLJ1Y,wet(Cl)(ALLUVIUM) 1.5 O J Q Z � ' 8 U � � � w� _______.___-___ - �.0 � � L con6rMied on next -- � � 1 in to 5 R LOGGED: M.McGinnis >- W DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Gregory Dnlling CHECKED: - ��r o DRILLER: Cory DATE: :Lti.SOCic1tCS m RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-1 sH�r2�2 PROJECT: M�o�lds 46-0017 DRILLING METHOD: 41/2 inCh HSA DATi1M: A�ASL ELEVATION: 100 PROJECT NUMBER: 073-93T55 DRILLING DATE: 12/19/07 AZIMUTH: WA INCLINATION: -90 LOCATION: 73 Rainier Ave.S. Renton DRILL RIG: CME 85 CAORDINAFES: not surv � SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE = BLOWS/ft■ � � �o zo ao ao �,�p�g av o y =� ELEV. m W BLOWS ¢ WATERLEVELS o• z DESCRIPTION Vy aQ O g a> P�5 in N V WATER CONTENT(PERCENT) � � C7 �ft�� Z ~ 740Dhamma � Y1Ir i H i W, � 30�1a1 dOp 40.0-45.0 40A �_5 Very bose to loose,gay and brown, S71 SS 0-0-4 4 non-stratified.SILT,trace pockets of elastic 1.5 sift.trace organics.charred wood debris, saturaled(ML){ALLWIUM) E ML E x 0 5 < � 55.0 45 0 45.0-50.0---------- — .. 45.0 � � Moderately to slightly w�lhered,rressive to •• S12 SS 79-2328 >50 � ; thiny bedded.9raY.fine grairred,e�dremely :: 1.5 wrak(RO).SAI�D6TONE(iUKWILA = FOR�AATIO� :: c� .- c ... � ,., � ... � ---�_�� ...� $�.� ■ 50.0-51.5 ...: 50_0 � SAghtly w�thered,rressive,I'gM gray,fne -• St3 SS 21-17-t8 � 1.5 grairmed,e�Crert�elY weak(f�3, ...� 48.5 SANDSTONE,hace coarse angular santl 51 S grains{TUKWILA FORMATION) Boring completed at 51.514 56 � 65 m � 0 P � 7Q � � � 0 � Q � � � Z �5 � O m N i O a z 8 � 0 � U � w � � 1 in to 5 ft LOGGED: M.McGinnis °s DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Gregory Drilling CHECKED: o DRILLER: Cory DATE: ` ASS� m - - RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-2 SHEEf 1 oE 1 PROJECT: McDonalds 46d017 DRILLING METHOD: 4'l/2 inch HSA DATUM: AMSL ELEVATION: 100 PROJECT NUMBER: 07393755 DRILLING DATE: 12/19/07 AZIMUfH: WA INCLINATION: �0 LOCATION: 73 Rainier Ave.S. Renton DRILL WG: CME 85 COORDINATES: nol surv � SOIL PROFILE SAAAPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE F BLOWS!ft■ x to zo ao so p�p� C v Z DESCPoPTION � a o ELEV. � � �s n N ¢ WATER CONTENT(PERCEWn WATER LEV�S � �� 7 U w � C7 �TM Z 110 b hamma � W�i t7 i W, m �� 30 iKfi Oiop � 0.0-7.5 No groundwater Stdf.motlled orange and brown. encanlered rqnatrdtifified,dasGc SILT,moist(R�W) (delived from iiuitu WEATHERED BEDROCK-TUKWILA FORMATION) E ■ = St SS 4�f'r8 14 �5 Q o MH 5 ¢ 5 0 ■ L - becanes very stilf S2 SS 6373 72 1 5 3 Q � ;" :. _ -------------- — .. ... 92.5 . � L 7.5-11.5 .. . 7.5 � c Slightly w�thered.massive.IigM gaY.tne :: S3 SS 11-19-34 �>SQ �. N 9rained,e�trertieN weak(R0� . . � SMIDSTON�Uace coarse angular sand :: grdins(ilNCWILA FORMATIOt� •. 10 " � ::. S4 SS 9��13:1 >50 �=5 ...: 88.5 1.5 Barirg cortpleted at 11.5 R 11.5 15 20 25 m ' 0 � H � O C7 < C� I G � a' � ui z 35 � m 0 a z 0 U � 0 � U � W � � 1 in to 5 ft LOGGED: M.McGinnis W DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Gregory Drilling CHECKED: o DRILLER: Cory DATE: ` A.SSOCiat�L'S m RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-3 s��,or , PROJECT: McDonakJs 46-0017 DRILLING METHOD: 41/2 inch HSA DATUM: AMSL ELEVATIOPt 100 PROJECT NUMBER 07393755 DRILLING DATE: 12/19/07 AZIMUTH: WA INCLINATION: -90 LOCATIOfV: 73 Rainier Ave.S. ftenton DRILL RIG: ChAE 85 COORDINATES: not surve , � SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANCE I ? BLOWS 1 ft■ �.�. � U ELEV. � � �0 20 3o ao NOTES W� � , v xa� m wa BLOWS ¢ WATER LEVELS o Z DESCRIPTION N O � � P�6� N WATER CONTENT{PERCEPlT) O � �J DEPTH Z tA01b1ienMnef K W�i H i W� O m ♦ � � 30 bdl dmp 0.0-8.0 Very bose,gray and brown,nonJstradfied, fine to coarse SANO,some siN,some fne to marse 9ravel,rtaist(SM)(FILL) ■ S7 SS 0-0-3 3 �--5 Q 1.5 SM 5 � – beoorties loose at 5 fed S2 $4 p.4J 7 �5 I -------------- 92.0 S3 SS 50 60 �.0_2 8.0-10.0 8.0 Q.5 Loose to cortpact,dark brown to bladc, non-stratiFed,fine ta coarse GRAVEI, Gld some silt trace wood.Plastic debris.Oartq 90.0 10 (GAA)(FILL) — t0.0 t – blow caxk elevaled due ta absbuclion in � � S4 SS 1 z 16-t4 30 5 -. � fiAat7.5feetbgs --------� ' � 10.0-72.5 E Dense.brown�nonsl2Gfied.Fine to caase _ �-5 �• � � � SAND,some fine to caarse gravel,dartip I • 'I2.5 '•.: �_� .,.. , . 0 1 tsMf�i��)----------� -'.':.:'. ss ss �'�•.ai.� :•' z �s > >i.s-2o.o a Very loose.9ray and dartc brown,thiny a bedded,fine to corrse SAND,Uace dark i5 v san .d we!(SAI)A WIU�ets af dean � GrouWweter at � t ) �S6• .SS 5-3-3 6 �=� apprwdmately 15 feel bgs 3 � '• 1.5 on 1?I10/07 � _ .. cti ' c N Y .,.. . , '. . .'.• •• .' � ____�� 2�.0-24.� - 20.0 ,;�.. �oose,9raY.non-stratified,fne M coarse ..,�• : S7 SS 6&2 5 �-5 Q . ._. . ' " '-' ' ... 1.5 SAND, little sitt,trace fine to coarse graveJ, . � waterbearing(SP-SM)(ALLWIUMJ =. �.� . .... - SP�SM •.{ • r ---• -•-' —————————————— — � �'•.7&0 24.0-31.4 x x 2d.0 Sli�tly w�thered.massive to thinly._''•.... ., x x 25 bedded.<YeE,ytigh gray,p.iArer�ely w�k(Rp)-� , •. x x � toveryw�k(R1�,SILTSTONE(fUICYYtLA K x SB SS 2&1528 43 �=5 FORMATION) •, x x 1•5 : x x " •k x . x x .' x x ' x x m . z x a x x v x x X X F � X X � x X S9 SS 23-34-50/5 SO/5 t=4 3 se.s 1-5 8oring cort�leted at 31.4 ft. 31.4 � t7 'a c� vi z �5 � m 0 � 0 � 0 � U � W � � 1 in to 5 ft LOGGED: M. McGinnis W DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Gregory Drilling CHECKED: � o DRILLER: Cory DATE: A,SSOC�2t�g m RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-4 SHEEf 7 of 2 PROJECT: McDonalds 46-0017 DRILLING METHOD: 41/2 inch HSA DATUAA: AhASL ELEVATION: 100 PROJECT NIJNSER: OT393755 DRILLING DATE 12l19l07 A7IMUTH: WA INCLINATION: -90 LOCATION� 73 RainierAve.S. Rer►ton DRILL WG: pNE BS COORDINATES: not surv � SaIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETRATtON RESI3TANC:E = BLAWS/R■ f- 10 20 30 b O v Z DESCRIPFION r� a O E� � � per fi n N a WATER CONTENT(PERCENn WAT R LEEVELS � �� U �W Q: V, DEPT}I Z 710 D hemrnC K W,: l•7 i W, m �ft� 30 indi doD � 0.0-0.6 ASPFWLT - ��4 --------------� 0.6 0.6-3.0 ��.9�Y,non-sdatified.fine to coarse � SAND and GRAVEL,lrace pockels of dean � sand,sarne sit,damp to rtqist(SM)(FILL) g�� 'Q 3.6-5.0 ----------- - 3.0 S1 SS 2-2-1 3 �erY loose.9re�tish 9raY,non•stralified. 1.5 sandy SiIT.damp(Ml)(FILL) ML -------------- 95.0 5 5.0-7.5 5.0 0_8 ■ Vay bose.g2y.non-stratified.fine to S2 SS 32-1 3 1.5 ooarse SAND,sortie silL 1rece fne b SM medium gravel,trace podcets d sik,damp (SM)(FILL) 92.5 �' '�. t 7.5-10.5----------- - 7.5 ' � Grdndwateral - Very toose,gray,non-shatified,frie to S3 SS 7•2-2 =4.. �'�, appro�cirretey 7.5 feet bgs coarse SAND,some 5fll,trace to litlle S� . 1.5 . on t2/2QI07 gravel,trace aganic sip pockets. waterbearing(SM){FILL) 10 �.5 ,i '■ -6 inch interbed ot dean,fine to coarse 10.5 S4 SS $�6�8. 14 : :. ,. �sand at 10 feet bgs � �•� �• '� . t S --------- •... . _ . 10.5-15.0 Carpect,gay,non-stratified,fine to coarse SAND,some silt,trace fine gravel, SM vrale�m9(Sl�(ALIWIUI� .. - eievated blwr cant ffi�OS may be due to recortpaciion prior to placement a the e»assting fill �� . 15 ---------- - ' 85.0 � 15.0-20.0 15.0 �_� Very loose to loose,gray,norrstralified,fine �'S6- _SS 42-2 4 Q to coerse SAND,sane silt.trace fresh 1.5 Ewood debns.waterbearfn9(SM) m {ALLWIUM) . = SM •� � 0 � Q a - .: :•:. . e _ :-%: .�'�gp.0 '.�.' � 5 20.0-30.0 --------- - - 20.0 p_9 i 3 Very loose.9raY.non-stratdied,fine ro S7 SS 0-2-1 3 1.5 < caarse SAND,trace siq,waterb�ring(SP) - _ (ALLWIUM) - . .;•..�.. � � -. . ,-:�... . ..... .... c N V 25 • Sp•. �::'•�:::� ■ beoanes cortipact,Mace subroundgd to SB SS 612-15 27 � randed fine lo ooerse gravel : 1.5 m ' 0 e � � � 70.0 ~ 30.0-30.5 ---------- SM 69.5 c�7 Laose,9raY,non-strat�ed.fne to med'um � 30.5 S9 SS 2-3-6 9 � a � SAPO and SILT,waterbeamg(SM) ., . •,. LLWIUM � ,-. :•:•: �' ��--�---------- . . 30.5-35.0 � Loose.9raY.lartrnated,fne SAND and � ��. SILT,trace organics,walerb�ring(SM) a (ALLWIUM) � � ...., . ? 35 -- .: : :•: 65.0 � 35.0-40.0 -------- - • 35.0 O Dense,gray,non-slralified,fine to coarse S9 SS 17-21.23 qq 0_5 y SAND and GRAVEL,trace sill, �•5 o wate�beating(SP)(ALLUVIUM) a z SP � 8 U � O .�•. ;,,':..: p ..•..-.. 60.0 V � ______ - • • � w L continued on neM � W 1 in to 5 ft LOGGED: M.McGinnis w DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Gregory Drilling CHECKED: ��r $ DRILLER: Cory DATE: A.4SOCic1tCS RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-4 SHEET2of 2 PROJECT: McDonalds 46-0017 DRI�LING MEfHOD: 41/2 inch HSA DATUM: AMSL ELEVATION: 100 PROJECT NUMBER 07393755 DRILIING DATE: 12/19J07 AZIMUTH: PUA INCLINATION: -90 LOCATION: 73 Rainier Ave.S. Rentan DRILL RIG: CME 85 COORDINATES: nd surve � SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES PENETR4TION RESIS7ANCE i BLOWS/ft■ t=--� � y = ELEV. W W BLOW$ � to 2o so �o NOTE$ o v Z DESCRIPTION ,� a O � a P�6 n N a WATER CONTENT(PERCEHn WATER LEVELS i � �-' � � � w,� � �w, m U` �ft� 2 1101bham�er K ; 40 �� 40.0-41.5 • 40.0 �—� Canpact.gray.non-stralified,fine to coarse SM S9 SS 6-8-14 � 1.5 SANO.some silt.trace podcets d darlc • 58.5 br�own arganic s�t 1►ace fresh wood. 41.5 waterD��g{SM)(ALLWIUM) Bomg cortpleled at 41.5 ft. 45 I 50 55 60 65 m ' 0 a F 70 G U', 3 � � 'a � y Z 75 � m 0 ¢ z °o � 0 � o � w � W 1 in to 5 ft LOGGED: M.McGinnis W DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Gregory Driiling CHECKED: ��r a DRILLER: Cory DATE: ASSOCic1tCS m RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-5 SHEEF 1 of 1 PROJECT: McDonalds 46-0017 ORILLING METHOD: 41/2 inch HSA DATUM: AMSL ELEVATION: 100 PROJECT NUMBER 07�93755 DRILLING DATE 12/19/07 AZIMUTFt WA INCUNATION: -90 LOCATION: 73 Rainier Ave.S. Renton DRtLL RIG: CME 85 COORDINATES: not su � SOIL PROFlLE SAMPLES PENETRATION RESISTANf;E = BLOWS!ft■ ��. � c� ELEV. � � 7o zo 30 �o NOTES W� � V a� wm a BLOWS Q WATER LEVELS o z DESCRIPTION y p � P�6� N WATER CONTENT(PERCENn m � �J �R� i � t�o m hsm,er � W.: 9�" ;w, 3o:�d�woD � 0.0-0.3 — No groundwater ASPHALT J encqurtered `————————————— 0.3-5.0 Laose,gay,nanatratfied,fine to warse a SAND,some siG�d fine to coarse gavel, E Uace pockels of sa4 damp(SM)(FIIL) SM � = S1 SS 5-44 B 1.5 0 5 a 5 � -------------- 95.0 $ 5.0-8.0 5.0 � Very bose to bose.brown.non-slratfied, S2 SS 2-13 4 � = fine to aarse SAND,sane sit,sane fne to �� coarse 9�`�.demP(SM)(FRL) ShA _ ' ■ � ----------- — 92.0 • 1. 5 8.0-11.0 8.0 S3 SS 2-4-10 ."1q � �' �.9��h 9�Y.non-Stratifred,SiRy ;� fine SArD and san0y SIIT,irace aganic SM siM,wet(SM)(FILL) ' 10 89.0 S4 SS 3d�. 70 �=5 .- —————————————— — • 1.5 11.0-t1.5 ML Loose to compact,bro�m,nan-sf2Gfied, 11.5 SILT,Uace ixganics,damp(N1)(FILL) Barirg completed at 1 t.5 R. 15 20 25 m • 0 v` H � O C'J Q 3i 0 � a' c� vi z � z 0 � 0 a z g � 0 � o � W � � 1 in to 5 ft LOGGED: M.McGinnis W DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Gregory Drilling CHECKED: ��r o DRILLER: Cory DATE: AS.SOC12teS m APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESL'LTS � - � l Golder Associates ASTM GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 421, D 2217,D 1140, C 117,D 422, C 136 PROJECT TITLE McDonalds/Geotech Invest!WA SAMPLE ID B-1 S-2 PROJECT NO. 073-93755.000 SAMPLE TYPE se'I' REMARKS SAMPLE DEPTH sfc Hygroscopic Moisture For Sieve Sample WATER CONTENT(Delivered Moisture) Wet Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Wet Soil&Tare(gm) (wl) 749.00 Dry Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Dry Soil 8c Tare(gm} (w2) 695.40 Tare Weight(gm) Weight of Tare(gm) {w3) L94.00 Moisture Content(%) Weight of Water(gm} (w4--wl-w2) 53.60 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygrosco ic Moisture Weight of Dry Soil(gm) {w5=w2-w3) 501.40 Weight�f Sample(gm) 695.40 Moisture Content(%) (w4/w5)*100 10.69 Tare Weight (gm) 19a.00 (W6) Total Dry Weight(gm} 501.40 SIEVE ANALYSIS Cumulative Tare Weight Wt Ret (Wt-Tare) (%Retained) %PASS SIEVE 194.00 +Tare ((wcmuw6)•too} (100-%ret) 12.0" 194.U0 0.00 0.00 100.00 12.0" cobbles 3.0" 194.00 0.00 0.00 1 Q0.00 3.0" coarse gravel 2.5" 194.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.5" coarse gravel 2.0" 194.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.0" coazse gravel 1.5" 194.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 I.S" coarse gravel 1.0" Z 14.20 20.20 4.03 95.97 1.0" coarse gravel ' 0.75" 239.10 45.10 8.99 91.01 Q.75" fine gravel 0.50" 0.50" fine gravel 0.375" 25i.80 63.80 12.72 87.28 0375" fine grave] #4 304.50 110.50 22.04 77.96 #4 coarse sand #10 349.50 155.50 31.01 68.99 #10 medium sand #20 387.80 193.80 38.65 61.35 #20 medium sand #40 446.30 25230 5032 49.68 #40 fine sand #60 533.70 339.70 67.75 32.25 #60 fine sand #100 580.40 386.40 77.06 22.94 #100 fine sand #200 611.80 417.80 83.33 16.67 #200 fines PAN 17512.80 17318.80 PAN %COBBLES 0.00 %C GRAVEL 8.99 Descriptive Terms > 10%mostly coarse(c} LL - %F GRAVEL 13.04 trace 0 to 5% > 10%mostly medium(m) PL - %C SAND 8.97 little 5 to 12% < 10%fine(c-m) PI - %M SAND 1931 some 12 to 30% < 10%coarse(m-� Gs - %F SAND 33.0 i and 30 to 50% < 10%coarse and fine(m) %F[]YES 16.67 < 10%coarse and medium(f} D10(mm) 0.03 %TOTAL 100.00 > 10%equal amounts each(c-� D30(mm) 0.22 D60(mm) 0.78 DESCRIPTION C-F SAND Cu 22.9 somc c-f gravel,some silt Cc 1.8 USCS SM TECH CM DATE 12/27/07 CHECK TC�I REVIEW Golder Associates Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 421 AND D 422 US STANDARD SIEVE OPENING SIZES 100 i 12�� '.�s' 375• aa aio aio xao aao �iao 00 i I . � , � i I � � I I 90 i ; ; � � 80 � I I � i I � 70 � o�� , ! � • � � P 60 � I , , S , � ` I f S 50 ; i I � i ' � N � � I l � i ` � ' G 4p � + i i I 30 � ' • { ' 'I i ( � � 20 � ' � ? � � : � � I � ( 10 �, �; i � i i ' � j � � ', I 0 � � � i � I � I! ' 1000 ]00 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain size in millimeters Coarse Fine Cor Med Fine SILT OR CLAY Boulders Cobbles Gravel SAND FINES SAMPLE ID B-1 S-2 LL - ' SAMPLE TYPE SPT PL - i SAMPLE DEPTH Sft PI - ' DESCRIPTION C-F SAND some c-f gravel,some silt USCS SM i i McDonalds/Geotech Invest/WA TECH CM 073-93755.000 DATE 11/27/07 CHECK I REVIEW I Golder Associates Inc. AST1�1 GRAI�i SIZE AI�iALYSIS ASTM D 421,D 2217,D 1140, C 117, D 422, C 136 I , PROJECT TITLE McDooalds/Geotecb Invest/WA SAMPLE ID B-1 S-8 PROJECT NO. 073-93755.000 SAMPLE TYPE swr REMARKS SAMPLE DEPTH zse Hygroscopic Moisture For Sieve Sample WATER CONTENT(Delivered Moistnre) Wet Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Wet Soil&Tare(gm) (wl) 904.20 Dry Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Dry Soil&Tare(gm) (w2) 7b9.80 Tare Weight(gm) Weight of Taze(gm) (w3} I58.70 Moisture Content(%) Weight of Water(gm) (w4--wl-w2) 134.4� Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygrosco ic Moisture Weight of Dry Soil(gm) {w5=w2-w3) 611.10 Weight Of 5ample(gm) 769.80 Moisture Content(%) (w4/w5)*100 21.99 Tare Weight (gm) 155.70 (w6) Total Dry Weight(gm) 611.10 SIEVE ANALYSIS Cumulative Tare Wei ht Wt Ret (Wt-Tare) (%Retained) %PASS SIEVE 158.7a +Taze {(wtret/w6)►ioo} (100-%ret 12.0" 158.70 0.00 0.04 100.00 12.0" cobbles 3.0" 158.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 3.0" coarse gravel Z.5" 158.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.5" coarse gravel 2.0" 158.70 0.00 0.40 100.00 2.0" coarse gravel 1.5" I58.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.5" coarse gravel 1.0" 158.70 0.00 0.00 ]00.00 l.0" coarse gravel OJS" 188.50 29.80 4.88 95.12 0.75" fine gravel 0.50" 0.50" fine gravel 0.375" 264.40 105.70 17.30 82.70 0.375" fine gravel #4 297.00 138.30 22.63 77.37 #4 coarse sand #]0 33�.50 176.80 28.93 71.07 #10 medium sand #20 366.50 207.80 34.00 66.00 #20 medium sand #40 437.20 278.50 45.57 54.43 #40 fine sand #60 650.10 491.40 80.41 19.59 #60 fine sand #100 73230 573.60 93.86 b.14 #100 fine sand #200 750.70 592.00 96.87 3.13 #200 fines _ ' PAN 17512.80 17354.10 PAN °/a COBBLES 0.00 %C GRAVEL 4.88 Descriptive Terms > ]0%mostly coarse(c) LL - %F GRAVEL 17.75 trace 0 to 5% > 10%mostly medium(m) PL - %C SAND 6.30 little 5 to 12% < ]0%fine(c-m) PI - , %M SAND 16.64 some 12 to 30% < 10%coarse(m-� Gs - %F SAND 51.30 and 30 to 50°/a < 10%coarse and fine(m) %FINES 3.13 < 10%coarse and medium(� D10(mm) Q.I S %TOTAL 100.00 > 10%equal amounts each(c-� D30(mm) 0.30 � D60(mm) O.GO DESCRIPTION C-F SAND Cu 33 ,I some c-f gravel,trace silt Cc 0.8 USCS SP TECH C�t DATE l2/27/07 ; CHECK TCM RE VIEW Golder Associates Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBtiTION ASTM D 421 AIVD D 422 US STANDARD SIEVE OPENING SIZES t00 �Z" •.�s• 3�s^ aa k�o zo aao a6o aioo a o0 i j � I i i I I ' . I + ; I � � I i ' � ! I � I 90 I I I ' ' f ' I I i I � I ' � � � I I � i � I 80 � � � � • � i ' ; �i I 70 i I � i I ' % i II � �� i � i� p � i i ; � A ! I ! , I{ � ' I i i . � � I � I S 50 I � I � ' j I ( �I; � ,. I ; � � � N � ' G 4p � � i � i j j , � 30 � ' ' i � I I i i , I � ; I 20 � � ' , , I � ; I � ' ' i j I i � � � i I � � LO I If I i I ; I 1 � ' ' j j; i i i � : � , j . ! �I � o ' t000 ioo io i o.i o.oi o.00i Grain size in millimeters Coarse Fine Cor Med Fine SILT OR CLAY Boulders Cobbles Gravel SAND FIIHES SAMPLE ID B-1 S-8 LL - SAMPLE TYPE SPT PL - SAMPLE DEPTH 25R PI - DESCRIPTION C-F SAND some c-f�avel,trace silt USCS SP McDonalds/Geotech Invest/WA TECH CM 073-93755.000 DATE 12/27/07 CHECK REVIEW Golder Associates Inc. ASTM GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS � ASTMD421,D2217, D1140, C117, D422, C136 PROJECT TITLE McDonalds/Geotech Invest/WA SAMPLE ID B-3 S-1 �- PROJECT NO. 073-93'755.000 SAMPLE TYPE sr'r i REMARKS SAMPLE DEPTH z.ss't Hygroscopic Moisture For Sieve Sample �- WATER CONTENT(Delivered Moisture) Wet Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Wet Soil&Tare(gm) (wl) 762.50 Dry Soil&Tare(gm) ' Wt Dry Soil&Tare(gm) (w2) G92.10 Tare Weight(gm) Weight of Taze(gm} (w3) 205.30 Moisture Content(%) Weight of Water(gm) (w4--wl-w2) 70.40 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygroscopic Moisture Weight of Dry Soil(gm) (w5=w2-w3) 486.80 Weight Of Sample(gm) 692.10 Moisture Content(%} {w4lw5)*]00 14.46 Taze Weight (gm) 205.30 I (W6) Total Dry Wei ht(gm 486.80 SIEVE ANALYSIS Cumulative Tare Weight Wt Ret (Wt-Tare) (%Retained) %PASS SIEVE , 205.30 +Tare {(wtretlw6)•�o0) 100-%ret) 12.0" 20�.3U 0.00 0.00 100.00 12.0" cobbles 3.0" 205.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 3.0" coazse gravel , 2.5" 205.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.5" coarse gravel 2.0" 205.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.0" coarse gravel 1.5" 205.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.5" coarse gravel ' 1.0" 205.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.0" coarse gravel ;_ 0.75" 223.10 17.80 3.66 9634 0.75" fine gravel 0.50" 0.50" 6ne gravel 0.375" 252.10 46.80 9.61 90.39 0.375" fine gravel #4 277.50 72.20 14.83 85.I? #4 coarse sand #10 3Q6.40 101.10 20.77 ?9.23 #10 mediumsand #20 338.10 132.80 27.28 72.72 #20 medium sand � #40 39220 186.90 3839 61.61 #40 fine sand #6Q 465.10 259.80 53.37 46.63 #60 fine sand #100 S 19.00 313.70 64.44 35.56 #100 fine sand #200 561.20 355.90 73.11 26.89 #200 fines '- PAN 17512.8Q 17307.50 PAN °/a COBBLFS 0.00 %C GRAVEL 3.66 Descriptive Terms > 10%mostly coarse(c) LL - � °/a F GRAVEL 11.18 trace 0 to 5% > ]0%mostly medium(m) PL - °/a C SAND 5.94 little 5 to 12% < 10%fine(c-m) PI - %M SAND 17.63 some 12 to 30°/a < ]0%coarse(m-� Gs - ' %F SAND 34.72 and 30 to 50% < 10%coarse and fine(m) %FINES 26.89 < 10°/a coarse and medium(� Di0(mm) 0.02 %TOTAL 100.00 > 10%equal amounts each(o-� D30(mm) U.10 ' D60(mm) 0.40 - DESCRIPTION C-F SAND Cu 22.2 some silt,some c-f gravel Cc 1.3 USCS SM TECH CM DATE 12/27!07 CHECK TCM REVIEW GolderAssociates lnc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 421 AND D 422 - US STANDARD SIEVE OPENING SIZES 100 �Z' ",7s a�s xa rio zo aoo aso aioo �o0 � ' i i i ' � I I ' � i i j i i , � � , � i � I i i � ; 90 � � i ; , ' i � , + � � l � � go j : , � ! I i I I i i � i �I ' i { I I � ji � i � I I o/a �� ! i � F � ' � � , P 60 I � II � � ' ' � � � A � � ' ; � � , : , � i ' '� � � � ; � , � S i I i i ' . i � S gp ' ' ' ' ' ' � � ; � � � � ' i i � ' � � i G 40 � �I I ! , I i I I I I � : � ', � � i 30 ' I ; `. 1 ' ! � I i k i j i I i 20 i i i � ,I I 1 . i . � i � io :. i ; � , , , , , ; ; i : , I � 'I ' � ' 1 I , , I ' ' I � , ! � 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain size in millimeters Coarse Fine Cor Med Fine SILT OR CLAY Boulders Cobbles Gravel SAND FIIVES SAMPLE ID B-3 S-1 LL - SAMPLE TYPE SPT PL - SAMPLE DEPTH 2.Sft PI - DESCRIPTION GF SAND some silt,some c-f gravel USCS SM McDonalds/Geotech Invest/WA TECH CM 073-93755.000 DATE t2/27/07 CHECK REVIEW Golder Associates lnc. ASTiVI GRAIl�1 SIZE ANALYSIS I�I ASTM D 421,D 2217,D 1140, C 117, D 422,C 136 PROJECT TITLE Mcllonalds/Geotech Invest/WA SAMPLE ID B-3 S-6 ' PROJECT NO. 073-93755.000 SAMPLE TYPE srr REMARKS SAMPLE DEPTH 2or� Hygroscopic Moisture For Sieve Sample WATER CONTENT(Delivered Moisture) Wet Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Wet Soil&Tare(gm) (wl) 918.20 Dry Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Dry Soi!&Tare(gm) (w2) 786.70 Tare Weight(gm) Weight of Taze(gm) (w3) 321.40 Maisture Content(%) Weight of Water(gm) (w4�v1-w2) 131.50 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygroscopic Moisture Weight of Dry Soil(gm) (w5=w2-w3) 465.30 Weight Of Sample(gm) 786.70 Moisture Content(%) (w4lw5)'100 28.26 Tare Weight (gm) 321.40 (W6) Total Dry Weight(gm 465.30 SIEVE ANALYSIS C�mularive Tare Wei ht Wt Ret (Wt-Tare) (%Retained) %PASS SIEVE 321.40 +Tare {(wcndw6��o0► (100"/oret) 12.0" 321.40 0.00 0.00 100.00 12.0" cobbles 3.0" 321.40 0.00 0.00 100.00 3.0" coarse gravel 2.5" 321.40 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.5" coarse gravel 2.0" 321.40 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.0" coarse gravel 1.5" 321.4U 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.5" coarse gravel 1.0" 321.40 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.0" coarse gravel 0.75" 345.20 23.80 5.11 94.89 0.75" fine gravel 0.50" 0.50" fine gravel 0.375" 365.10 43.70 9.39 90.61 0375" fine gravel #4 376.60 55.20 11.86 88.14 #4 coarse sand #10 384.00 62.60 13.45 86.55 #10 medium sand #20 399.50 78.10 16.78 83.22 #20 medium sand #40 435.90 114.50 24.61 75.39 #40 fine sand #60 587.00 265.60 57.08 42.92 #60 finesand #100 707.80 386.40 83.04 16.96 #100 fine sand #200 756.80 435.40 93.57 6.43 #200 fines PAN 17512.80 17191.40 PAN %COBBLES 0.00 %C GRAVEL 5.11 Descriptive Terms > 10%mostly coarse(c) LL - %F GRAVEL b.75 trace 0 to 5% >10%mostly medium(m) PL - %C SAND 1.59 tittle 5 to 12% < 10%fine(c-m) PI - %M SAND 1 I.15 some 12 to 30% < 10%coarse(m-fl Gs - %F SAND 68.97 and 30 to 50°/a < 10°/a coarse and fine(m) %FINES 6.43 <10%coarse and medium(� D10(mm) 0.09 %TOTAL 100.00 > 10%equal amo�nts each(c-fl D30(mm) 0.19 D60(mm) 0.33 DESCRIPTION C-F SAND Cu 3.5 little c-f gra�cl,little silt Cc 1.2 USCS SP/SM TECH CM DATE 12/27l07 CHECK TCM REVIEW Golder Associates Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 421 AND D 422 US STANDARD SIEVE OPENING SIZES 100 �Z� s^ •.�s 3�s� ao a o zo aao a6o a�oo a o0 � ` I � i �. � � � � � � ; , � , , , ': � � 90 � � I � � ' I � i � I ' ; � k i 80 I i ' ' ' � iI ! �. � � ' � � � � � , � 70 ' ' � � % i ' � i ', i � � i ' � � P 60 ' I A i i i ; '. � S Sp � � i � ' I i I � i � ' � � ' , �_ � � i � G 4p � � � , � � � ': �I , , 30 � � I� , � I ' I � I ; + � ; ; I . � I i � 20 ' ' � ! I � � ; 'i � I I I 10 ' � , I I � i � ; I � i I I � ' I I O ! I �000 ioo io i a_i o.oi o.oai Grain size in millimeters Coarse Fine Cor Med Fine SILT OR CLAY Boulders Cobbles Gra�el SAND FINES SAMPLE ID B-3 S-6 LL - SAMPLE TYPE SPT PL - SAMPLE DEPTH 20ft PI - DESCRIPTION C-F SAND liule c-f gravel,little siit USCS SP/SM McDonalds/Geotech Invest/WA TECH CM 073-93755.000 DATE t 2l27/07 CHECK REVIEW Golder Associates lnc. � ASTM GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 421,D 2217,D 1140,C 117, D 422, C 136 ' PROJECT TITLE Mcuonalds J Geotech lnvest/WA SAMPLE ID B-4 S-5 PROJECT NO. 073-93755.000 SAMPLE TYPE sp'[' REMARKS SAMPLE DEPTH istt Hygroscopic Moisture For Sieve Sample i WATER CONTENT(Delivered Moisture) Wet Soil&Tare(gm) I Wt Wet Soil&Tare(gm) (wl) 526.30 Dry Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Dry Soii&Tare(gm) (w2) 456.0(1 Tare Weight(gm) Weight of Taze(gm) (w3) 311.60 Moistwe Content(%) Weight of Water(gm) (w4--wl-w2) 70.30 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Correcied For Hygroscopic Moisture ', Weight of Dry Soil{gm) (w5=w2-w3) 144.40 Weight Of Sample(gm) 456.OQ � Moisture Content(%) (w4/w5)*100 48.68 Tare Weight (gm) 311.60 (W6) Total D Weight(gm) 144.40 SIEVE ANALYSIS Cumulative Tare Weight Wt Ret (Wt-Tare) (%Retained) %PASS SIEVE 311.60 +Tare {(wtrcVw6)•too} (100%ret} 12.0" 31].60 0.00 0.00 100.00 12.0" cobbles 3.0" 311.60 0.00 0.00 I00.00 3.0" coarse gravel 2.5" 311.60 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.5" coazse gravel 2.0" 311.60 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.0" coarse gravel 1.5" 311.60 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.5" coarse gravel 1.0" 311.60 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.0" coarse gravel 0.75" 311.60 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.75" fine gravel 0.50" 0.50" fine gravel 0.375" 312.6U 1.OQ 0.69 9931 0.375" fine gravel #4 314.70 3.10 2.I S 97.85 #4 coarse sand �10 318.20 6.60 4.57 95.43 #10 mediumsand #20 322.80 11.20 7.76 92.24 #20 medium sand #40 335.00 23.40 16.20 83.80 #40 fine sand #60 366.00 54.40 37.67 62.33 #60 fine sand #100 398.60 87.00 60.25 39.75 #100 fine sand #200 423.10 11 l.50 77.22 22.78 #200 fines PAN 17512.80 17201.20 PAN %COBBLES 0.00 %C GRAVEL 0.00 Descriptive Terms > 10%mostly coarse(c) LL - %F GRAVEL 2.15 trace 0 to 5% > 10%mostly medium(m) PL - %C SAND 2.42 little 5 to 12% < 10%fine(c-m) PI - %M SAND 11.63 some 12 to 30% < 10%coazse(m-� Gs - %F SAND 61.01 and 30 to 50% < 10%coarse and fine(m) %FINES 22.78 <10%coarse and medium(� D10(mm) 0.04 %TOTAL 100.00 > 10%equal amounts each(c-fl D30(mm) 0.10 D60(mm) 0.24 DESCRIPTION C-F SAND Cu 5.7 some silt,trace f grar-el Cc 1.0 USCS SM TECH CM DATE 12/27IQ7 CHECK TCM REVIEW Golder Associates Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 421 AND D 422 US STANDARD SIEVE OPENING SIZES 100 12�. ".�s 3 s xa a�o a aao aeo nioo a � ; i, � � , i I I j il j ' � 90 ' � ,i � I � � 80 � � i � �, I , i � 70 ,I � I ` ' � ' ; % ' � � j � I I i ;' p 60 � � I p � i �, ; �' I S ' ' ' � S 50 � � , � � ; i N � ; ! ; I G , I ; � 40 , i ; � � i i � I � ' i 30 � ' � � � ' i 20 i � i I I j � � ` i ' � ( � I i i � I �' � 10 ' I . i � � I I I � , � � � I � ',, � � I ' � ! I i I II � � i ! . j � � � ' � I I ' �� 0 i I I i 1000 i 00 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain size in millimeters Coarse Fine Cor Med Fine SILT OR CLAY Boulders Cobbles Gravel SAND FINES SAMPLE ID B-4 S-5 LL - SAMPLE TYPE SPT PL - SAMPLE DEPTH 15ft PI - DESCRIPTION GF SnND some silt,trace f gravel USCS SM McDonalds/Geotech Invest/WA TECH CM 073-93755.000 DATE 12/27I07 CHECK REVIEW Golder Associates Inc. ASTM GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 421,D 2217, D 1140,C 117, D 422, C 136 PROJECT TITLE McDonalds/Gc�otech Invest/WA SAMPLE ID B-4 S-8 PROJECT NO. 073-93755.000 SAMPLE TYPE SPT REMARKS SAMPLE DEPTH 3ort Hygroscopic Moisture For Sieve Sample WATER CONTENT(Delivered Moisture) Wet Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Wet Soil&Tare(gtn) (wl) 559.40 Dry Soil&Tare(gm) Wt Dry Soil&Tare(gm) (w2) 707.30 Tare Weight(gm) Weight of Tare(gn) (w3) 323.80 Moisture Content(%) Weight of Water(gm) (w4--wl-w2) 152.10 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygrosco ic Moisture Weight of Dry Soil(gm) (w5=vv2-w3) 383.50 Weight Of Sample(gm) 707.30 Moisture Content(%) (w4/w5)"100 39.66 Tare Weight (gm) 323.80 (W6) Total Dry Weight(gm) 383.50 SIEVE ANALYSIS Cumularive Tare Wei ht Wt Ret (Wt-Tare) (%Retained) %PASS SIEVE 323.80 +Tare {(wtreUw6)•lo0} (lU0-%ret 12.0" 323.8U 0.00 0.00 100.00 12.0" cobbles 3.0" 323.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 3.0" coarse gravel 2.5" 323.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.5" coarse gravel 2.0" 323.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.0" coarse gravel 1.5" 323.8U 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.5" coarse gravel 1.0" 323.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.0" coarse gravel 0.75" 323.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.75" fine gravel 0.50" 323.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.50" fine gravel 0.375" 323.8U 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.375" fine gravel #4 323.80 0.00 O.OA 100.U0 #4 coarse sand #10 323.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 #10 medium sand #20 323.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 #20 medium sand #40 325.70 1.90 0.50 99.50 #40 fine sand #60 349.50 25.70 6.70 93.30 #60 fine sand #100 42].30 97.50 25.42 74.58 #100 fine sand #2U0 547.40 223.60 58.31 41.69 #200 fines PAN 17512.80 17189.00 PAN %COBBLES 0.00 %C GRAVEL 0.00 Descriptive Terms > 10°/a mostly coarse(c) LL - %F GRAVEL 0.00 trace 0 to 5% > 10%mostly medium(m) PL - %C SAND 0.00 little 5 to 12% < 10%fine(c-m) PI - °/a M SAND 0.50 some 12 to 30% <10%coarse(m-� Gs - %F SAND 57.81 and 30 to 50% <]0%coarse and fine(m) °/a FINES 41.69 < 10%coarse and medium(� DI O(mm) 0.04 %TOTAL l Oq.00 > 10%equal amounts each(c-� D30(mm) O.OG D60(mm) 0.1 l DESCRIPTION M-F SAiVD and SILT Cu 3.0 Cc 0.9 ' USCS SM TECA CM DATE 12/27,`07 CHECK TCM � REVIEW Golder Associates lnc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTNi D 421 AND D 422 US STANDARD SIEVE OPE1vING SIZES 100 �Z�� ".�s� a s- ato mo uao aeo x�oo a I ' i i i � i ` j I I 94 I � i i ; ; ', : � i � � • 80 ' ! ' j � i I � I, �� ; ; ; ' ' I � i i i I� ' i i � 70 � � % I I ' � I i P 60 I i I A � �i I � ; I S i ! � ; I ! ' � : ' �I � S 50 , � � f ; ' � � I Ii I , j ;i ` N � �� I � , G 40 + i ! � i i i � I � _ ' � � � ! j 30 � , ! � I ; ; i � � ; j j � . 20 ' ' ; , ' ' j i i ; { ;I, i ; ' ' , 10 � I I� f �I I I I I I I I i � I � i ' ' ', � i i I { , � � i I � O � � , 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain size in millimeters Coarse Fine Cor Med Fine SILT OR CLAY Boulders Cobbles Gravel SAND FINES SAMPLE ID B-4 S-8 LL - SAMPLE TYPE SPT PL - SAMPLE DEPTH 30ft PI - DESCWPTION M-F SAND and SILT USCS SM McDonalds/Geotech Invest/WA TECH CM 073-93755.000 DATE l2/27I07 CHECK REVIEW Golder Associates Inc. ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D-4318 PROJECT TITLE �IcDonalds/(;eotech Invest!WA SAMPLE m B-2 S-1 PROJECT NUMBER 073-93755.000 SAMPLE TYPE SPT '� SAMPLE DEPTH 2.Sft � SAMPLE PREPARATION Wet or Dry Dry Minus#40 Sieve NO PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION NATURAL MOISTURE Weight of Wet Soil&Tare(gm) (wl) 27.50 27.60 27.40 33.30 Weight of Dry Soil&Tare(gm) (W2) 26.80 26.90 2(.80 3130 Weight of Tare(gm) (W3) 25.U0 24.90 25.00 24.80 Weight of Water(gm) (W4=wt-W2) 0.70 0.70 0.60 2.00 Weight of Dry Soil(gm) (w5=W2-W3) 1.80 2.00 1.80 6.50 Water Content% (W4/W5)•100 38.89 35.00 33.33 30.77 LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Number of Blows 14 19 33 39 NOTE: Weight of Wet Soil&Tare(gm) (W6) 32.9Q 31.80 30.10 29.90 Weight of Dry Soil&Tare(gm) (W7) 29.60 29.00 28.00 28.00 Weight of Tare(gm) (W8) 25.00 25.00 24.G0 24.90 Weight of Water(gm) (w9=w6-W7) 330 2.80 2.10 1.90 Weight of Dry Soil(gm) (Vv10=W7-W8) 4.60 4.00 3.40 3.10 Water Content% (w9/w10)•100 71.74 70.00 61.76 61.29 74 73 � � , 72 , '71 ° �� i i F' 69 W 68 F• 67 z 66 � 65 � 63 a 62 � bl ; 0 60 � 59 ' 58 i 5� i i 56 � 55 10 20 25 30 40 100 NUMBER OF BLOWS LIQUID LIMIT{WI) 65.83 66 DESCRIPTION PLASTIC LIMIT(Wp) 35.74 36 PLAST[CITY INDEX(Ip) 30 LIQUIDITY INDEX(1) -0.17 liSCS �1H MOISTURE CONTENT 30.77 TECH CM i DATE 12/27;200? CHECK TCM REVIEW Golder Associates Inc. 7.0 OTHER PERMITS To be determined. ' �z;�s.00�.�o� 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS Ai`D DESIGN There has been a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan, including demolition measures that have been designed for this project. Since the building has already been demolished after burning down a few months ago, the remainder of the improvements on site consisting of existing pavement, curbs, landscaping, and some concrete areas, will be removed. All of these areas will need to be demolished to accommodate the updated site plan, double drive-thru lane, and the new building. Typical erosion control measures have also been designed for the project, including locations of silt fence, construction entrance, and related notcs and dctails. '� 13338.001.doc 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVEtiA.VT Not applicable for this project. I '�� I;33�i.001.doc 10.0 OPERATIONS A�tiD MAINTENANCE MANUAL The drainage system for this project is entirely privately owned and maintained by McDonald's USA, LLC. Enclosed are some general maintenance standards for catch basin and conveyance lines that can be utilized for procedures on this project. 13338.00l.doc AAPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREI�IENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONV�YANCE,AND WQ FACILITTES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS 'I Maintenance � Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed General Trash 8 Debris Trash or debris of more than Y�cubic foot which No Trash or debris located (Includes Sediment) is located immediately in front of the catch basin immediately in front of catch basin opening or is biocking capacity of the basin by opening. more than 10°k. Trash or debris(in the basin)that exceeds�13 the No trash or debris in the catch depth from the bottom of basin to invert the basin. , lowest pipe into or out of the basin. , Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or more than'/s of its height. debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within the catch basin. gases(e.g.,methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. , Structure Damage to Comer of frame extends more than'/,inch past Frame is even with curb. � Frame andlor Top curb face into the street(If applicable). Slab Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches Top slab is free of holes and cracks. or cracks wider than Y.inch(intent is to make sure all material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab,i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than'/,inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in Basin Cracks wider than Y:inch and longer than 3 feet, Basin replaced or repaired to design �I Walls/Bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch standards. � basin through cracks,or maintenance person ' judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than'/x inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than�/4 inch wide at at the joint of any intet/outlet pipe or any the joint of inieUoutlet pipe. evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. I SettlemenU Basin has setded more than 1 inch or has rotated Basin replaced or repaired to design Misafignment more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Fire Hazard Presence of chemicals such as natural gas,ofl No flammable chemicals present. and gasoline. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more No vegetation blocking opening to than 10°/a of the basin opening. basin. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints that No vegetation or root growth is more than 6 inches tall and less than 6 inches present. apart. Pollution NonFlammatrle chemicals of more than%:cubic No pollution present other than foot per three feet of basin length. surface film. Catch Basin Cover Cover Not in Place Cover is missing or only partially in place.Any Catch basin cover is closed open catch basin requires maintenance. Locking Mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by on Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools.Bolts into frame have less than%z inch of thread. Cover Di�cult to One maintenance person cannot remove lid after Cover can be removed by one Remove applying 80 Ibs.of lift;intent is keep cover from maintenance person. sealing off access to maintenance. Ladder Ladder Rungs Unsafe Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design sfandards and misalignment,rust,cracks,or sharp edges. allows maintenance person safe access. APPENDIX A MAINTF,NAVC�RI:QUIRE:�fENTS FOK FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 10-CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance � Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Pipes Sediment&Debris Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20%of the Pipe cleaned of ail sediment and diameter of the pipe. debris. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movemeni of water All vegetation removed so water through pipes. flows freely through pipes. Damaged Protective coating is damaged;rust is causing Pipe repaired or replaced. more than 50%deterioration to any part of pipe. Any dent that decreases the cross section area Pipe repaired or replaced. of pipe by more than 20%. Open Ditches Trash&Debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris Geared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20°/a of the Ditch cleaned/flushed of all design depth. sediment and debris so that it matches design. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Water flows freely through ditches. ' through ditches. Erosion Damage to See`Detention Ponds"Table No. 1 See"Detention Ponds"Table No. 1 Slopes Rock Lining Out of Maintenance person can see native sal beneath Replace rocks to design standards. Place or Missing(If the rock lining. Applicable). NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Mafntenance Defect or P�obfem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed General Weeds Weeds growing in more than 20%of the Weeds present in less than 5%of (Nonpoisonous,not landscaped area(trees and shrubs only). the landscaped area. noxious} Safety Hazard Any presence of poison ivy or other poisonous No poisonous vegetation present in vegetation. landscaped area. Trash or Litter Paper,cans,bottles,totaling more than 1 cubic Area clear of litter. foot within a landscaped area(trees and shrubs only)of 1,000 square feet. Trees and Shrubs Damaged Limbs or parts of Vees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than 5% broken which affect more than 25%of the total of total foliage with split or broken toliage of the tree or shrub. limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or Tree or shrub in place free of injury. knocked over. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and supported or are leaning over,causing exposure adequately supported;remove any of the roots. dead or diseased trees.