HomeMy WebLinkAbout03696 - Technical Information Report - Geotechnical . . $13ooZ-� � �
, . C,�i �T �
� 3� �- ' I
a
m Geotechnical Engineering Report
Renton Highlands Starbucks
Renton, Washington
May 2, 2013
Terracon Project No. 81135021
Prepared for:
SCM Solutions, LLC
Ft. Collins, Colorado
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, Washington
CITY O; - E,,r,��`:
RECEIVED
MAY 3 0 2013
BUILDING DIVISION
,� ��; :::�� ,,:
i e � : . � : �
� � � : , � � �
� ,r�- > �,� ,�-;
�>�- � .__:="> �{ ....
� � i � �
3 � �� �
.
�
1 r�rracon
May 2, 2013
SCM Solutions, LLC
1281 East Magnolia, Unit#186 �
Fo�t Collins, CO 80524
Attention: Ms. Lisa Sunderland & Ms. Elizabeth Hughes
RE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Renton Highlands Starbucks
NE 3`d Street & NE 4`h Street
Renton, Washington
Terracon Project No. 81135021
Dear Lisa and Elizabeth,
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed a geotechnical engineering evaluation for
the above-referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with our
proposal (Terracon No. P81130056) dated February 26, 2013. This report presents the results
of our evaluation and provides our geotechnical recommendations concerning design and
construction issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions
conceming our report, or if we may be of fu�ther service, please don't hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
�S�AKK
t�.�.,�18'r��
�� �� ~���
, �;.. � .�:
� � ,�� � �� �
� � ��` � ��2/��
� eT,6R� �'Jf9
i ,i ' � ��A �ISfti'��v�'...`�
t
. ' _ � IOIYAL t�u
Robert W. Sargent, P.E. James M. Brisbine, P.E., L.G.
Project Geotechnical Engineer Sr. Project Geotechnical Engineer
Copies to: Addressee(1 PDF copy via email)
Sara Martin/Sterling Design Associates (1 PDF copy via email)
, i B"��;. .,., .__ �8 i!� ._ �1�._ - =� ._ ..� , J.. ._ ��� ���C..f'�Z��'.@ TE["a�� i,�s''��.C� „'? ��'.,=3
- - ,.� - .. .. , _ cC: C_^ -
i :
l��rr�con
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................i '
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 �I
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION....................................................................................................1
2.1 Site Delineation ..................................................................................................................1
2.2 Existing Site Usage............................................................................................................2
2.3 Proposed Site Development...............................................................................................2
2.4 Scope of Work....................................................................................................................2
3.0 SITE SETTING ......................................................................................................................3
3.1 Regional Geography ..........................................................................................................4
3.2 Regional Geology...............................................................................................................4
3.3 Regional Zoning .................................................................................................................4
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................4 '
4.1 Development and Surtace Features...................................................................................4
4.2 Soil Stratigraphy.................................................................................................................5
4.3 Groundwater Levels...........................................................................................................6
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................6
5.1 General Design Considerations .........................................................................................6
5.2 Site Preparation..................................................................................................................7
5.3 Spread Footings.................................................................................................................8
5.4 Slab-On-Grade Floors......................................................................................................10
5.5 Drainage Systems............................................................................................................11
5.6 Pa�ement Sections ..........................................................................................................11
5.7 Structural Fill ....................................................................................................................14
6.0 CLOSURE............................................................................................................................15
FIGURES
Figure 1 — Site Location Map
Figure 2 — Site & Exploration Plan
APPENDIX A– Field Exploration Procedures, General Notes, and Logs
APPENDIX B– Laboratory Testing Procedures, Soil Classifications and Results
APPENDIX C–Supplemental Information
. �
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1��rr�con
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Terracon has completed a geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed construction
of a new Starbucks coffee shop at the project site. Our scope of work included five exploratory
borings, limited laboratory soil testing, geotechnical analysis, and preparation of this report. �
Based on our findings, we have derived the following geotechnical conclusions and
recommendations:
■ Subsurface Conditions: The entire site appears to be underlain at shallow depths
(typically about 1 foot) by generally medium dense, granular soils, which we interpret
as recessional outwash. One boring disclosed approximately 6 feet of loose fill soils ,
over the outwash deposit. None of our borings encountered groundwater within the �
depths explored (about 20 feet below the surface).
■ Geo/ogica/Hazards: Based on municipal zoning maps, the site does not appear to
be impacted by landslide risks, liquefaction potential, abandoned landfills, peat
deposits, or other geological hazards that would adversely affect site development.
E Building and F/oor Support: The proposed building walls and columns can be
supported by conventional spread footings that bear on undisturbed native
recessional outwash. A conventional slab-on-grade floor can be used within the
proposed building if the floor subgrades are properly prepared.
� Earthwork Considerations: The on-site soils are moderately silty, which renders
them sensiti�e to moisture conditions and difficult to compact when wet. As such,
earthwork should be performed during periods of dry weather.
- Infiltration Considerations: The native recessional outwash deposit that underlies
the site likely possesses a low to moderate permeability. Although percolation rates
will not be high, the site does appear to offer the potential for infiltrating stormwater
runoff.
This summary should be used only in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes.
It should be recognized that geotechnical details were not included or not fully developed in this
section; as such, the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of
the items presented above. Also, please refer to the GENERAL COMMENTS section for a
discussion of the report limitations.
, ' .
1��rr�con
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
RENTON HIGHLANDS STARBUCKS
NE 3RD 8� NE 4T" STREET
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Terracon Project No. 81135021
May 2, 2013
1 .0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation performed for the
proposed construction of a Starbucks coffee shop on the subject site. The purpose of our
evaluation was to provide geotechnical characterizations, conclusions, and recommendations
concerning the following elements of the project:
■ Building foundations ■ Flexible pavements
■ Slab-on-grade floors ■ Rigid pavements
■ Geological hazards ■ Structural fill
■ Seismic criteria ■ General earthwork
■ Infiltration potential . Building drains
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The following sections present information regarding site delineation, existing site usage,
proposed development features, and our geotechnical scope of work. Terracon should be
notified if any significant changes are made in the proposed site location, layout, or details.
2.1 Site Delineation
The project site comprises a vacant parcel located at the western corner of the intersection of
NE 3�d Street and NE 4`h Street in the Highlands area of Renton, Washington. Table 1, below,
summarizes our understanding of the site location and boundaries, as gained from maps,
survey plans, aerial photos, team communications, and a site reconnaissance. Figure 1 shows
the general site location. and Figure 2 illustrates the approximate site boundaries in relation to
surrounding features.
������ _�ns. 'a�t_ �, � �1�,.`_ - �4 _ , _ ��ii!� ?rr . .,, •ak: T_ �__ ;�a:� �°�'��
_ . _.. . F .�L: • : , ,
�
.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rr�con
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT SITE DELlNEATlON
Parameter General Description
Township!Range/Section NE '/.of NW'/<, Sect. 16, T23N, R5E
Latitude/ Longitude Lat=47.488 deg. Lon = -122.179 deg.
Overall Shape: Trapezoidal.
Geometry Approximate Dimensions: 130 feet x 240 feet overall.
Approximate Total Area: 25,363 square feet.
North Side: NE 4th Street; residential property beyond.
South Side: NE 3`d Street; commercial property beyond.
Visual Boundaries West Side: Abandoned gas station and parking lot.
East Side: Undeveloped grassy area.
2.2 Existing Site Usage
Most of the site is currently vacant and unde�eloped. However. the southwestern corner of the
site is currently occupied by a parking area and sign that are associated with the adjacent
abandoned gas station.
2.3 Proposed Site Development
Development plans call for constructing a Starbucks coffee shop on the site. According to a
conceptual layout plan, the new de�elopment will comprise a 1650-square-foot building situated
in the northwestern portion of the site, with a drive-through lane extending around the northern
and western sides of the building, and with an asphaltic parking lot located on the eastern and
southern sides. We anticipate that foundation, floor, and pavement loads will be relatively low.
It has not been determined whether stormwater runoff will be discharged into a municipal storm
drain system or infiltrated on site.
2.4 Scope of Work
We performed all geotechnical services in general accordance with our previously mentioned
proposal. It should be noted that our authorized scope of services did not include any
environmental characterization or testing of on-site soil samples. We ultimately completed the
following geotechnical scope items:
Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 2
�
� •
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rr�con
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
� Reviewed topographic maps, aerial photographs, surface photographs, municipal hazard ,
maps, and geologic maps regarding the site vicinity.
� Performed a surface reconnaissance of the site and immediate vicinity.
-. Advanced five exploratory borings (designated B-1 through B-5) to depths ranging up to
about 21 feet below existing grades, at strategic locations across the site.
� Performed limited geotechnical laboratory testing on representative samples of the near-
surface soils.
Analyzed subsurface conditions in relation to the proposed development, and prepared
this written report.
The functional locations, elevations, and depths associated with our recent on-site explorations
are summarized in Table 2, and their relative locations are illustrated on Figure 2. Appendix A
describes our field exploration procedures, and Appendix B describes our laboratory testing
procedures.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SITE EXPLORATlON PROGRAM
Functional Surface Termination
Exploration Location Elevation Depth
(feet) (feet)
B-1 Proposed Building Footprint 322 21'/z
B-2 Proposed Building Footprint 323 21'/
B-3 Proposed Parking Area/Drive Thru Lane 324'h 6'/z
B-4 Proposed Parking Area 324% 9
B-5 Proposed Entry/Exit Area 322 6Yz
Note: All exploration depths and elevations should be regarded as only approximate values.
Elevation datum: Concept Plan provided by SCM.
3.0 SITE SETTING
We obtained information concerning regional conditions in the site vicinity from a review of
topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), geologic maps published
by GeoMap Northwest, and on-line zoning maps prepared by King County. Our research
findings are discussed below, and excerpts from selected maps and photo files are contained in
Appendix C.
Reliable • Responsive � Convenient � Innovative 3
, �
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation l��rr�con
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
3.1 Regional Geography
Topographically, the project site is situated on the western edge of a large upland plateau
known as the Renton Highlands. Regional surface grades slope gently downward to the west
across this plateau, and surface elevations range from about 320 to 325 feet (USGS datum) in
the site vicinity. Judging by local topography, it appears that very little cutting and possible only
minor filling was performed near the site as part of the original development of neighboring
properties and streets.
3.2 Regional Geology
According to the 2007 Geologic Map of King County, the site and immediate vicinity is mantled
by a recessional outwash deposit. Recessional outwash typically consists of silty sands with
moderate densities and a thickness ranging from a few feet to several tens of feet. The geology
map shows that this su�cial soil deposit overlies a more-widespread glacial till deposit, which is
exposed to the north and east of the project site.
3.3 Regional Zoning
King County's on-line regional zoning maps show approximate locations where geological
hazards and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas are documented or suspected. According
to these maps, there are no potential or known landslide areas, wetlands, liquefaction zones,
abandoned landfills, or peat deposits within or near the site vicinity.
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS
Terracon representatives visited the project site several times during February and March of
2013 to evaluate surface and subsurface conditions. Due to the undeveloped nature of this site,
we had no communications with the current property owners and, as a result, did not obtain any
site information from them. Our geotechnical observations, measurements, findings, and
interpretations are described in the following text sections.
4.1 Development and Surface Features
The following paragraphs briefly discuss existing site deve�opment and surface features, as
observed or inferred during our site reconnaissance.
= Surface Grades: Most of the site is fairly flat, with a very gentle slope downward to the
west. We observed two gently rounded high points on the site: one in the central-
southern portion and another at the far northwestern edge. The site has an average
surface elevation of about 324 feet (USGS datum).
Reliable ■ Responsive � Convenient � Innovative 4
.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rr�con
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
Pavements: Asphaltic pavement presently covers a roughly triangular area that I
encompasses approximately 3000 square feet at the southwestern corner of the site.
This pavement extends onto the site from the adjacent abandoned gas station. It
generally appears to be in fair condition, but the thickness of the pavement is unknown.
. Vegetation: Existing site vegetation includes several deciduous trees within the
landscaping verge at the northern edge of the site (alongside NE 4�' Street), several
evergreen trees at the northwestern edge of the site, and a clump of bushes near the
northwestern corner. The remainder of the site is predominantly covered by short
grasses with a few scattered deciduous trees.
h, Structures: No buildings currently exist on the project site. Near the southwestern
corner of the site, there is a two-leg sign that is associated with the adjacent abandoned
gas station.
� Utilities: We infer that the neighboring site to the west is serviced by underground
sewer and water, and possibly by underground gas. The electrical service appears to be
o�erhead. Utilities do not currently appear to be established on the project site.
4.2 Soil Stratigraphy
Our exploratory borings revealed two shallow soil deposits below the site, as described in the
following paragraphs. The boring logs contained in Appendix A and the lab sheets contained in
Appendix B provide details regarding on-site soil conditions. Although our scope of work did not
involve any sampling or testing for possible environmental soil contaminants, it should be noted
that we did not detect any petroleum sheens or odors in any of the soil samples that we
obtained.
� Surficial Fill Soils: One of our five borings (B-4) disclosed a deposit of loose, gravelly,
silty sand extending approximately 6 feet below existing grade. We interpret this deposit
to represent a pocket of either old fill soil or reworked native soils.
■ Recessiona/ Outwash: At a depth of less than 1 foot below existing grades, our
remaining four borings encountered silty, gravelly sand or gravelly sand with silt, which
we interpret as native recessional outwash. This deposit ranged from loose to dense but
was generally medium dense, and it extended to the termination depth of all five borings.
Our grain-size analyses performed on two representative samples revealed a fines (silt
and clay) content of about 4 to 12 percent, a sand content of about 56 to 65 percent, and
a gravel content of about 24 to 39 percent. Measured field moisture contents ranged
from about 4 to 12 percent.
Reliable � Responsive e� Convenient � Innovative 5
� �
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rr�con
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
4.3 Groundwater Levels
Our exploratory borings did not encounter groundwater at the time of drilling (March 28, 2013).
However, it is likely that perched water forms atop the glacial till deposit, which we infer to
underlie the site at greater depths. Over the entire site, groundwater conditions probably
fluctuate with season, precipitation patterns, on-site or off-site usage, and other factors.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, and document research, we
conclude that the proposed site development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint,
contingent on proper design implementation and construction practices. Our geotechnical
conclusions and recommendations concerning general design considerations, site preparation,
spread footings, slab-on-grade floors, drains, pavement sections, and structural fill are
presented in the following text sections. ASTM specification codes cited herein refer to the
2010 manual published by the American Society for Testing & Materials. WSDOT codes refer
to the 2012 edition of Standard Specifrcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction
published by Washington State Department of Transportation.
I 5.1 General Design Considerations
We offer the following comments, conclusions, and recommendations concerning general
geotechnical design issues affecting the overall development.
Geological Hazards: King County's on-line regional maps do not show any geological hazard
areas, such as steep slopes, landslide zones, peat deposits, landfills, and liquefaction zones, at
or near the subject site. Our surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration confirmed this
regional mapping. Consequently, the proposed site develoqment does not appear to be
constrained by anv municipal Sensitive Area Ordinances (SAO) of a Qeoloaical nature.
Earthwork Considerations: Our borings and laboratory testing disclosed generally silty soils
underlying the site. Because these soils are moisture-sensitive and easily disturbed when wet,
we recommend that earthwork be scheduled for extended periods of drv weather.
Foundation Considerations: Our borings revealed that the site is generally underlain by
medium dense recessional outwash soils. These near-surface soils are adequately suited for
foundation bearing due to their fairly low compressibility and moderate shear strength. We
therefore conclude that conventional shallow spread footinps can be used to support the new
buildinq if subQrades are properlv prepared and qrotected from weather.
Reliable � Responsive �a Convenient �� Innovative 6
f
. •
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rracon
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA �
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021 '
Seismic Site Class: The 2009 Intemafional 8uilding Code (IBC) assigns a seismic Site Class
on the basis of geological conditions prevailing within a depth of 100 feet below the local ground
surface. Although our borings did not extend to a depth of 100 feet, we infer from near-surface
soil observations and from available geologic maps that the overall subsurface conditions
correspond to Site Class "D" as defined bv the IBC.
Infiltration Potential: Our scope of work did not include infiltration testing or analysis, but we
infer from density and textural properties that the recessional outwash deposit underlying the
entire site would likely offer a low to moderate percolation rate (probably on the order of 0.5 to
1.0 inch per hour). As such, the on-site soil conditions appear to be suitable for some degree of
stormwater infiltration. We recommend that in-situ percolation testing and quantitative analvses
be performed if the development plans call for infiltratinq some or all stormwater at the site.
5.2 Site Preparation
Preparation of the project site will involve tasks such as temporary drainage, stripping, cutting,
filling, erosion control, and subgrade compaction. The paragraphs below present our
geotechnical comments and recommendations concerning these various issues.
Temporary Drainage: Any sources of surtace or near-surface water that could potentially enter
the construction zone should be intercepted and diverted before stripping or grading activities
begin. We tentatively anticipate that a system of temporary curbs or berms placed around the
upslope (eastern) side of the construction zone will adequately intercept most surface water
runoff. However, the selection of an appropriate drainage system will depend on the water
quantity, season, weather conditions, construction sequence, and contractor's methods;
therefore, final decisions regarding temporary drainage details are best made in the field at the
time of construction. The site is bordered by sidewalks with curbs on the uphill portions of the
site and we anticipate that current surface drainage features will control most surface runoff.
Clearing and Stripping: After surface and near-surface water sources have been controlled,
the construction zone should be cleared and stripped of all existing pavements, slabs,
sidewalks, sod, and topsoil. Stripping depths on the order of 6 to 12 inches appear adequate
over most of the site, but these should be adjusted as needed to remove all root mats, tree root
balls, muck, and other deleterious materials.
Weather Considerations: It should be realized that if the stripping or cutting operations
proceed during wet weather, greater stripping depths might be necessary to remove disturbed
moisture-sensitive subgrade soils. For this reason, site earthwork is best performed during a
period of dry weather.
Reliable :. Responsive -� Convenient � Innovative 7
.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rracon
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
5.3 Spread Footings
Conventional spread footings can be used to support the proposed building if the subgrades are
properly prepared. We offer the following comments and recommendations concerning design
and construction of spread footings. In the event that unfavorable soil conditions are revealed
by future excavations, then we might need to provide supplemental recommendations for
subgrade impro�ements or an alternative foundation system.
Footing Depths and Widths: For frost and erosion protection, the bottoms of all exterior
footings should bear at least 18 inches below adjacent outside grades, whereas the bottoms of
interior footings need bear only 12 inches below the surrounding slab or crawlspace level. To
reduce post-construction settlements, continuous (wall) and isolated (column) footings should
be at least 18 and 24 inches wide, respectively.
Bearing Provisions: We recommend that all footings bear directly on firm, undisturbed, native,
recessional outwash soils. In the event that localized zones of loose or soft native soils or
uncontrolled fill are encountered below footing subgrades, these deficient soils should be
overexcavated and replaced with suitable bearing material. This will involve overexcavating the
existing soil downward as needed to reach firm native soils, and outward a commensurate
distance as indicated in the sketch below. The resulting overexcavations should then be
backfilled to create aggregate bearing pads in accordance with the following paragraph.
(It�}11�t4t��� �{(�)It=�4l�1Vt
IS(:�l(—}4( t�ll(
�11�11�'
2/3D w 2� /3D �
� � }I(
Design Footing Level �
5t��
Compacted �ff
Fill p
S��
1��=��1� r.l(�U�
��`Sl �-
Bearing Pad Materials: We recommend using a fairly clean, granular soil for the aggregate
bearing pads where needed beneath footings. Suitable imported materials would include
"Ballast" per WSDOT: 9-03.9(1), "Gravel Borrow" per WSDOT: 9-03.14, and "Crushed Surtacing
Base Course" per WSDOT: 9-03.9(3). Portions of the on-site outwash soils might also be
suitable for this purpose if adequately moisture-conditioned at the time of placement. In all
cases, the bearing pad materials should be compacted to a uniform density of at least 95
percent (based on ASTM: D-1557).
Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 8
�
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rrac�n
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
Bearing Capacities: Based on the bearing provisions described above, we recommend that all
footings be designed for the following maximum allowable soil bearing capacities. These values
incorporate static and transient (wind or seismic) safety factors of at least 2.0 and 1.5,
respectively.
Design Parameter Allowable Value
Static Bearing Pressure 2500 psf
Seismic Bearing Pressure 3300 psf
Footing Settlements: We estimate that total post-construction settlements of properly
designed footings bearing on properly prepared subgrades will not exceed 1 inch. Differential
settlements between new foundation elements o�er horizontal spans on the order of 50 feet
could approach 3/4 inch. In all cases, these settlements would be reduced if the actual design
bearing pressures are lower than our recommended maximum allowable pressures.
Footing and Stemwall Backfill: To provide erosion protection and lateral load resistance, we
recommend that all footing excavations be backfilled on both sides of the footings and
stemwalls after the concrete has cured. Either imported or on-site granular soils can be used
for this purpose. All footing and stemwall backfill soil should be compacted to a uniform density
of at least 90 percent (based on ASTM: D-1557).
Lateral Resistance: Footings and stemwalls that have been properly backfilled as described
above will resist lateral movements by means of both passive earth pressure and base friction.
We recommend using the following allowable values, which incorporate static and transient
(wind or seismic) safety factors of at least 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. Allowable base friction,
which includes a safety factor of 1.5, can be combined with the respective passi�e pressure to
resist static and transient loads.
Design Parameter Allowable Value
Static Passive Pressure 275 pcf
� Transient Passive Pressure 375 pcf
Base Friction Coefficient 0.4
Subgrade Verification: Footings should never be cast atop loose, soft, organic, or frozen soil,
slough, debris, existing uncontrolled fill, or surfaces covered by standing water. We recommend
that the condition of all subgrades be verified by a Terracon representative before any bearing
pad fill is placed, and then again before any footing concrete is poured.
Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 9
.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rr�con
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
5.4 Slab-On-Grade Floors
In our opinion, a soil-supported slab-on-grade floor can be used in the proposed new building if
the subgrade is properly prepared. We offer the following comments and recommendations
concerning slab-on-grade floors.
Floor Sections: A slab-on-grade floor section typically comprises a concrete slab over a vapor
barrier over a capillary break layer and, where needed, a subbase course. We recommend the
following minimum thicknesses for these layers. Our specific recommendations for subgrade
preparation and layer materials are discussed below.
Floor Layer(top to bottom) Minimum Thickness
Concrete Slab (by others)
Vapor Retarder/Barrier 10 mil
Capillary Break 4 inches
Subbase Course 6 inches
Subgrade Preparation: After the slab-on-grade floor area has been cut down to an elevation
that will accommodate the appropriate layers, the exposed subgrade soils should be compacted
to a firm and unyielding condition by means of a vibratory-drum roller. Any localized zones of
soft, organic-rich, or debris-laden soils disclosed during compaction should be overexcavated
and replaced with structural fill material. If the subgrade is prepared during wet weather, it
might be advantageous to cover it with a separation geotextile (such as Mirafi 140N) before the
subbase course is placed.
Subbase Course: A subbase course provides structural support for a floor slab and helps to
reduce long-term differential settlements. For this purpose, we recommend using imported,
well-graded sand and gravel, such as "Ballast" per WSDOT: 9-03.9(1) or "Gra�el Borrow" per
WSDOT: 9-03.14. Alternatively, an angular material such as "Crushed Surfacing Base Course"
per WSDOT: 9-03.9(3) could be used, although these materials would likely be more expensive.
In the interest of using recycled materials, it would also be acceptable to use crushed cement
concrete, provided that it meets the same textural criteria as the aforementioned WSDOT
materials.
Capillary Break: A capillary break is a layer of relatively porous material placed beneath floor
slabs to retard the upward wicking of groundwater, as well as to provide a smooth bearing
surface. Ideally, the capillary break would consist of clean, uniform, well-rounded gravel, such
as 5/8-inch or 7/8-inch washed rock. It would also be acceptable to use a clean, angular gravel
such as "Crushed Surfacing Base Course" per WSDOT: 9-03.9(3) for this purpose.
Reliable ;� Responsive � Convenient � Innovative 10
�
� � I
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rr�con
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
Floor Settlements: If the subgrade and floor layers are properly constructed, we estimate that I
total post-construction settlements of the slab-on-grade floor will not exceed 3/4 inch. Differential
settlements across the length of the floor could approach one-half of the actual total settlement.
Subgrade Verification: Floor slabs should never be cast atop loose, soft, organic, or frozen
soil, slough, debris, existing uncontrolled fill, or surFaces covered by standing water. We
recommend that the condition of all subgrade areas be verified by a Terracon representative
before any underslab fill is placed, and then again before the slab is poured.
5.5 Drainage Systems
In our opinion, the new development should be provided with permanent drainage systems to
reduce the risk of future moisture problems. We offer the following recommendations and
comments for drainage design and construction purposes.
Foundation Drains: We recommend that the building be encircled with a perimeter foundation
drain to collect exterior seepage. This drain should consist of a 4-inch-diameter rigid, perforated
pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides of
the pipe. The gravel envelope should be wrapped with filter fabric (such as Mirafi 140N) to
reduce the migration of fines from the surrounding soils. Ideally, the drain invert would be
installed no more than 8 inches above or below the base of the perimeter footings.
Subfloor Drains: Based on the groundwater conditions obsenred in our site explorations, we
currently do not infer a need for drains beneath floor slab if the foundation drains are properly
installed. Howe�er, the final decision regarding the need for subfloor drains should be made at
the time of construction, after the floor subgrade has been exposed and the foundation walls
have been cast.
Runoff Water: Roof downspouts, parking lot drains, and drains from any other runoff surfaces
should not be tied into the perforated piping system of the foundation drain. Instead, the runoff
water collected from such sources should be routed through a separate tightline piping system.
Also, final site grades should be sloped so that surface water flows away from the building
rather than ponding near the foundation walls.
5.6 Pavement Sections
We anticipate that some combination of flexible and rigid pavements will be used in new parking
lot and drive-through lane. The following comments and recommendations are given for
pavement design and construction purposes.
Soil Design Values: Soil conditions can be defined by a California Bearing Ratio (CBR), which
quantitatively predicts the effects of wheel loads imposed on a saturated subgrade. Although
Reliable � Responsive � Convenient � Innovative 11
, • ,
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation ���rr�COn
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
our scope of work did not include a CBR test on the surficial site soils, we infer from our limited
textural testing that a CBR value of 10 to 15 would likely be appropriate for pavement design
purposes. Correlation charts indicate that this CBR range corresponds to a subgrade reaction
modulus range of about 200 to 250 pci.
Traffic Design Values: Traffic conditions can be defined by a Traffic Index (TI), which
quantifies the combined effects of projected car and truck traffic. Although no specific traffic
data was available at the time of our analysis, we estimate that a TI of 3.0 to 4.0 would likely be
appropriate for the car-parking lot and drive-through lane. A slightly higher TI of about 5.0
appears appropriate for an access driveway subjected to daily deliveries by small freight trucks,
but this does not accommodate frequent use by heavy freight trucks.
Flexible Pavement Sections: A flexible pavement section typically comprises an asphalt
concrete pavement (ACP) over a crushed aggregate base (CAB) over a granular subbase
(GSB). Although the GSB can be omitted in certain cases, we infer that it is beneficial at this
site in order to mitigate the moisture-sensitive subgrade conditions. Our recommended
minimum thicknesses for flexible pavement sections, which are based on the aforementioned
design values and a 20-year lifespan, are shown below.
Minimum Thickness
Flexible Pavement Layers
(top to bottom) Parking Lot 8 Light-Truck
Drive-Thru Driveway
Asphalt Concrete Pavement(ACP) 3 inches 3'/2 inches
Crushed Aggregate Base(CAB) 3 inches 4 inches
Granular Subbase (GSB) 6 inches 6 inches
Rigid Pavement Sections: A rigid pavement section typically comprises a cement concrete
pavement (CCP) over a crushed aggregate base (CAB) over a granular subbase (GSB).
Although the GSB can be omitted in certain cases, we infer that it is beneficial at this site in
order to mitigate the moisture-sensitive subgrade conditions. Our recommended minimum rigid
pavement sections, which are based on the aforementioned design values, are shown below.
Minimum Thickness
Rigid Pavement Layers
(top to bottom) Parking Lot& Light-Truck
Drive-Thru Driveway
Cement Concrete Pavement(CCP) 5 inches 6 inches
Crushed Aggregate Base(CAB) 2 inches 2 inches
Granular Subbase (GSB) 6 inches 6 inches
Reliable � Responsive � Convenient � Innovative 12
. •
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rracon
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
Subgrade Preparation: All pavement subgrades should be compacted to a firm and unyielding
condition before any pavement layers are placed. We recommend using a vibratory roller in
granular (sand or gravel) subgrade areas and a static roller in cohesive (silt or clay) subgrade
areas. The resulting subgrade condition should then be verified by proof-rolling with a loaded
dump truck or other heavy construction vehicle, in the presence of a geotechnical
representative. It should be specifically noted that boring B-4 disclosed up to 6 feet of loose fill
soils. We recommend that this existing fill material be overexcavated and then either be
recompacted (if properly moisture conditioned) or be replaced with imported granular material.
Granular Subbase: We recommend that all GSB material consist of imported, well-graded
sand and gravel, such as "BallasY' per WSDOT: 9-03.9(1) or "Gravel Borrow" per WSDOT: 9-
03.14. In the interest of using recycled materials from on-site or off-site sources, it would be
acceptable to substitute up to 20 percent of the GSB with crushed asphalt concrete or up to 100
percent of the GSB with crushed cement concrete, provided that the final mixture meets the
same textural criteria as the aforementioned WSDOT materials. Regardless of composition, all
GSB material should be compacted to a minimum density of 95 percent based on the Modified
Proctor maximum dry density (per ASTM: D-1557).
Crushed Aggregate Base: We recommend that all CAB material conform to the criteria for
"Crushed Surfacing Base Course" per WSDOT: 9-03.9(3). In the interest of using recycled
materials from on-site or off-site sources, it would be acceptable to substitute up to 20 percent
of the CAB with crushed cement concrete, provided that the final mixture meets the same
textural criteria as the aforementioned WSDOT material. Regardless of composition, all CAB
material should be compacted to a minimum density of 95 percent based on the Modified
Proctor maximum dry density (per ASTM: D-1557).
Asphalt Concrete Pavement: We recommend that the ACP aggregate gradation conform to
the control points for a 'h-inch mix (per WSDOT: 9-03.8(6)) and that the binder conform to PG
58-22 criteria (per WSDOT: 9-02.1(4)). We also recommend that the ACP be compacted to a
target average density of 92 percent, with no individual locations compacted to less than 90
percent nor more than 96 percent, based on the Rice theoretical maximum density for that
material (per ASTM: D-2041).
Cement Concrete Pavement: We recommend using Portland cement concrete with a
minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi and a minimum rupture modulus of 580 for the
CCP. We also recommend that the concrete be reinforced with a welded wire mesh such as
W2-6x6. positioned at a one-third depth within the layer.
Compaction Testing: Compaction of the CAB and GSB layers should be verified qualitatively
by method observations, proof-rolling, and hand-probing, as well as quantitatively by nuclear
densometer testing. Compaction of the ACP should be quantified by laboratory testing of core
samples, along with in-situ nuclear densometer testing.
Reliable � Responsive y: Convenient � Innovative 13
• �
, Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA 1��rr�con
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
Pavement Life and Maintenance: It should be realized that asphaltic pavements are not
maintenance-free. The foregoing pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations
for an average level of performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of
maintenance will likely be required. Furthermore, a 20-year pavement life typically assumes
that an overlay will be placed after about 10 years. Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase
courses would offer better long-term performance, but would cost more initially; thinner courses
would be more susceptible to "alligator" cracking and other failure modes. As such, pavement
design can be considered a compromise between a high initial cost and low maintenance costs
versus a low initial cost and higher maintenance costs.
5.7 Structural Fill
The term structural fill refers to any materials placed under foundations, retaining walls, slab-on-
grade floors, sidewalks, pavements, and other such features. Our comments, conclusions, and
recommendations concerning structural fill are presented in the following paragraphs.
Structural Fill Materials: For general use, a well-graded mixture of sand and gravel with a low
fines content (commonly called "gravel borrow" or "pit-run") provides an economical structural fill
material. For specialized applications, it may be necessary to use a highly processed material
such as crushed rock, quarry spalls, clean sand, granulithic gravel, pea gravel, drain rock,
controlled-density fill (CDF), or lean-mix concrete (LMC). Recycled asphalt or concrete, which
are derived from pulverizing the parent materials, are also potentially useful as structural fill in
certain applications. Soils used for structural fill should not contain any significant amount of
organic matter or debris, nor any individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter.
Soil Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily
on their grain-size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the fines confent
(that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to
small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight)
cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is
more than 2 percentage points above or below optimum.
On-Site Soils: Because only minor cuts are planned for the site after surface stripping, we
expect that only small quantities of on-site native soils will be generated during earthwork
activities. Most or all of these on-site soils will likely consist of sands with gravel and a variable I,
silt content. Depending on the silt content, most on-site soils will likely be reusable during dry '
weather, but they are moderately moisture-sensitive will be difficult to reuse during wet weather.
Any zones of organic soil should be excluded.
Wet-Weather Earthwork: As discussed above, most of the on-site nati�e soils would be
difficult to reuse as structural fill during wet weather. Consequently, the project specifications
Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 14
, • ,
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation l��rr�con
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
should include provisions for using imported, clean, granular fill. As a general structural fill
material, we recommend using a well-graded sand and gravel such as "BallasY' or "Gravel
Borrow" per WSDOT: 9-03.9(1) and 9-03.14, respectively. For combined structural fill and
drainage purposes, a relatively clean and uniform angular material such as "Crushed Surfacing
Base Course" per WSDOT: 9-03.9(3) is preferable.
Fill Placement and Compaction: Structural fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not
exceeding about 12 inches in loose thickness. Unless stated otherwise in this report, we
recommend that each lift then be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor to a
uniform density of at least 90 percent, based on the Modified Proctor test (ASTM: D-1557).
Compaction is not necessary for certain structural fill materials, such as pea gravel, drain rock,
quarry spalls, CDF, and LMC.
Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all
structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrades prepared in accordance with our
various recommendations for site preparation. The condition of all subgrades should be verified
by a Terracon representative before soil or concrete placement begins. Also, fill soil compaction
should be verified by means of in-place density testing, hand-probing, proof-rolling, or other
appropriate methods pertormed during fill placement so that the adequacy of soil compaction
efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses.
6.0 CLOSURE
Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments
can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations
in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and
testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction, and other earth-related
construction phases of the project.
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the explorations performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed
in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between explorations,
across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and
extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations
appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental
recommendations can be provided.
The scope of services for this geotechnical project does not include either specifically or by
implication any environmental or biological (such as mold, fungi, and bacteria) assessment of
the site, nor any identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions.
Our companion Phase 1 environmental report should be consulted regarding such information.
Reliable � Responsive �: Convenient � Innovative 15
.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1��rracon
Renton Highlands Starbucks Renton, WA
May 2, 2013 Terracon Project No. 81135021
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client, for specific application to the
currently proposed project, and in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety,
excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event
that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this
report in writing.
Reliable ■ Responsive • Convenient s Innovative 16
� , 'yC fi�F� ��. _ � �y_- 4,!5'. - � . ( '�:
� ^, �.
a "
N ��ai rC - '4� , _ I
�-7 � � `��� u� y�-,�t��_ �
T -
_ � .�
_ ...�.,. -
: � " �
� �
1 �
ti
1 S?'j��J � '
�'�'lq�, � '`�i�' G
,�
� J t�F �t��P; Y �,
�"r�s.� ��' ? � ��� m
.:, _.at_
;°y ti 'L �'ir'` �'C�� _
C�
,� .5 � ,=i �i� �����
t
, �,
,� �,.,- �.'�''��ti15�r �" ,�' ,i�-.;�
- H�ils Fark � �' � ±!
- ,���` t A
_^ � �8�'•� f''�� � r:
,-�F=.a`h.?r c
�,- - ' - t•,F df', ..- F'er'.�:,ti �
_. ,i�, ..Ni":. �.a
S'� `_rr;-r;
� r��er,�--
� � f-;i-�. .
`� :, i:F- -�i.:.�:, ■
r1 . -. � H �r�r�l,�r:,.�� 4=
_ L
=�o�.� —����1�� —
f?:�nt,�:n �.�i`���� y"t''ti^ti�� : .,
t r-,:�j�:s.� r���1a- 'td i� t� ` ,
,� ., i � � i•-
��3'f�'�t � t�,F .�ri�., :;`
� '�'� �;�d r,,,
t� �,i
� �
� :?:.���€, n• 1' �tr
�a f7 ,;�:-
m �1����i I ti�' �s�1 '� '
� .t.�fl'IC �f�j' ��Y. �4f+y-
m �a_-
M
y 5�
� i t���� � ��• -
.�C�� � �n�Af �!�„c�"` j
�� ��rk �`���_. �2ne vi � �'�� _E _ ,.i '1
=.,� +..s���,�'�,.
t'`�.� "L ?':�,;,r L'�` �'-t�
_-,,
, , . �= �`�
t . . � *��V�f lt���{f'tr 1.�4
('�_ a�rk ��ft'y� i�t�� a'�'}��,
� °f.��_
y� ���r=
� 'r=�e
Map data C2013 Google _.e.'
, P�,�_,M�9, �.R��No �E �N� �N�� FIG. Nc
Rws 8„3502, 1 t'�rrac�
°"�'B; "'� Renton Highlands Starbucks
RMS NottoScale
�hK�a�� Fee,�o ConsW6ngEngineersandSdenbsts
JMB Te�F� S. Renton, Washington �
�vede; ca�e z����E<„,we��e�.s��oo ������raa�e�•,�=�.: pranarari fnr• C(:M Cnlirtinne I I C:
.
NE 4TH ST.
----- __ - — _ —
__-�
---
— - — - --- � � —
-- — --- --
��. �__ -� r -s�.
� - �� � ;_� r � -
� ' � — .����
� -- �
�`-- B-2
� � 0 Bs
--- O
� --
� ,
; ;
I a
: I ---
� � B-� O
I = � �
_ 1 �� �.�
I O ,
------- / . . �
,
I B� o i, � ��
� � � ° ' �
� �
� .
:� , ,
., _� ,
�
. ,:
� �
� , --- , N
� , ,.,_ �,�.
� o
_ , e-
,
, `�
� , �
I , , �
I __ � ii � , .
,
i
I � , � �
� 30 0 10 20 3(
l�3daC
SCkLE IN FEET
�B-1 BORING NUMBER AND Basemap DWG file provided by Steriing
APPROXIMATE LOCATION Design Associates and modified by Terracon.
P�°"�'",¢ Rws '"R""° 81135021 SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIG. Nc
°'a""a' R�s S�k AssHowN ���«�� Renton Highlands Starbucks
��x�xe� Fk w Consult�ng Engineers and Sden6sts
�Ma Te�F Renton, Washington 2
apprc�eee; cai= ns�[[:nae�r.n se�x� r.�u,�ate-an-e;�a.nxma pranarari fnr• �('.M .Cnliitinnc � � r
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
PROCEDURES, NOTES, AND LOGS
81135021 �
€
1
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
The following paragraphs describe our procedures associated with the on-site subsurface
explorations and field tests that we conducted for this project. Interpreti�e stratigraphic logs of
our auger borings are enclosed in this appendix. Our scope of work did not include a precise
survey of each exploration location. Instead, all horizontal positions were determined by pacing
or taping distances from existing site features, and all depths were referenced to existing site
grade. As such, the locations and depths given in the report text, shown on the report figures,
and stated on the stratigraphic logs should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by
our measuring methods.
Auaer Borinqs
All borings were advanced with a hollow-stem auger, using a track-mounted drill rig operated by
an independent drilling firm (Boretec-1, Inc.) working under subcontract to Terracon. As each
boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with suitable materials and the surface was
patched with asphalt or concrete. Excess soil cuttings were deposited on site in discreet
locations.
A geotechnical specialist from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the
subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. Throughout the drilling
operation, soil samples were obtained at 2'/2- �r 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTM: D-1586. All samples were stored in watertight containers
and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination. Interpretive stratigraphic
logs of our explorations are enclosed in this appendix.
81135021
� �
GENERALNOTES
DRILLING 8 SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SS Split Spoon-1��8"I D_2' G D,unless ether��ise�oted HS Haila:.Ste�n Auger
ST Thin-4Valled Tube-2"O.D.,unless aihenvise notetl PA: Pov:er Auger
RS: Ring Sampler-2.42"I.D..3"O D.,uniess othern�se noted HA: Hand Auger
C�6 Diamond Blt Conng-4' N,B RB: Rock Bit
6S: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: NJash Bonng or�,Aud Rota^�
The number of blrnns reqwred to advance a starxlard 2-inch O D split-spoon sampler (SS)the last 12 inches ef the total 1?•-inch
penetrabon w�th a 140-pound hammer falling 3Q inches is considered the Standard P�n�tration'or�N-value'.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
4"JL Water Leve1 WS: 1Yhtle Sampling N:E Not�nco�ntered
ti'VCI VJet Cave in WD: Whle Onlling
DCi Dry Cave in BCR: Before Cas�ng Removal
AB After Bonng ACR: ARer Casing Removal
VJater levets indicated on the bonng logs are the leveis measured in the bonngs at the times indicatetl. Groundwater Ieveis a?ether
5mes and ott�er locations across the site couid varV. in pervious sals,the indicated levels may reflec[the localion af groundwater. In
low permeabiiity soils.the acwrate cletermination of groundwater levels may not be possible with onry short-term observations
DESCRIPTIYE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Sal classification is basetl on the Unified ClassiflcaUon S�^stem. Coarse Graine� Scils have
more than 50°b of their dry weighl retained on a#200 s�eve; their pnncipal descnptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand Fme
Grained Soiis have less than 50%of their dN weight retained on a#2D0 sieve:they are pnnclpall��descnbed as days if they are plastic.
a�silts if the��are slghtly plastic or non-plastic. PAapr constituents may be added as modifiers and minor cons(duents may!ae ad�ed
accortling to the reladve proportians based on grain size. In addilion to gradation coarse-grame�soils are deflned on tne bas�s c`their
in-place relafive densit�•and fine-gramed soils on the bas�s oi their consistency.
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
Standard
Unconffned Penetration or Standard Penetratfon
Compressive N-value(SS) or N-value(SS►
Strenath.Qu,qsf Blows/Ft. BlowslFt.
Consistencv Relative Densiri
<`00 Q Very•Son 0-3 '��ery Loose
500 - 1,�00 2-3 Soit 4-5 Loose
1 D01 - 2.000 4-5 Medium Stiff 10-29 f.ledium Dense
2.001 - 4.000 7-12 Stiff 30-45 Dense
3 001 - 8.000 13-25 ��ery Stiff 50+ Very•Densr
8 OOQ+ 26+ Hard
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRQVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY
Descn�tive Term(sl of other Percent of Mafor Com�onent
constituents Drv Weiaht of Samele Particle Size
Trace � 15 6ouiders Ov�r 12 in t3QOmm)
With 15-25 CobUles 12 in tc 3 in_(300mm to 75 mm)
�.todifier >30 Gravel 3 in.to+*»sieve(75mm to 475 mm)
Sand �cd to#200 sieve(4.75mm to 0.075rnm)
RELATIYE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Silt or Clay Passing�200 Sieve(O C75mmi
Descri�tive Termis)of other Percent of PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION
constituents Dry Wefght
Term Plasticitv Index
Trace � Non-plastic 0
ti"Jith P�_12 Low 1-10
Modifiers > 12 Medium 11-30
Hgh 30+
1 r�rr�con
81135021 I
, •
BORI NG LOG NO. B-1 Page 1 of 1
PROJECT: Renton Highlands Starbucks CLIENT: SCM Solutions, LLC
Ft. Collins,CO
SITE: NE 3rd and NE 4th Street '
Renton,WA
c� LOCATION See 6diibit A-2 �� w --
w0 a c r e
O = J Q w d' �J W~ 1 LL
Z
a a W� J � �� a F d
d J
� SuRace Elev.:322(Ft.) o ¢m a o '�� 3� a
3 0 � � c�
�Pni ELEVAl10N Ft.
— os FILL-SILN,GRAVELLY SAND(SMI.gray-brown,moist szts
° SILTY.GRAVELLY SAND TO GRAVELLY SAND WITH SILT(SMI,gray,medium
� dense to dense,moist
g
o`
'��
'' 6 �a9 11
�a N=17
� _
'a
j� 5
o' '`;��" 14 a-ia��
�e� N=2�
>� -
a,
.
�i }; 8 N�34� 7 12
0
e
� 10.0 312 .� --_ _ _
GRAVELLY SAND WITH SILT fSM1,mottled orangegray-bravn,medium dense. &12-13
moist 12 N=25
12.0 310
POORLY GRADED SAND(SPI,trace sitt and gravel,gray,medium dense.moist to
wet
,
�
1 - -
�8 &9 8 8
N=17
2
�s 8-��-�2
o zta 3oo.s N=23
� 8oring Terminated at 21.5 Feet
a
z
�
&
0
�
0
�
LL
O
w
Q Strabficabon lines are approbmate In-situ,the transiGon may be gradual. Hammer Type: cathead
� Groundwater not obsened ATD
a
a
w
'� Advancement Method: Notes�.
" HSA
0
¢
>
r -
� AbBndOfYflCfll�Aethod:
�
C�
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
z - 1��rracon BoringSlarted 328�2013 BoringCompleted 3�282013
�
Om - Dnll Rig:tradc Dnller Boretech
� - - -- - Zt?."i,'.iath A�e t J Sc��,te 1(x7
= 1.1-�u^�'�.�.-;G...-...r.,��� ',':�:�-��� �.�.;�i Pro�ect No�.81135021 6diibit: A�
�
, •
BORI NG LOG NO. B-2 Page 1 of�
PROJECT: Renton Highlands Starbucks CLIENT: SCM Solutions, LLC
Ft. Collins,CO
SITE: NE 3rd and NE 4th Street
Renton,WA
c� LOCATION See 6tiibit A-2 � w —
JZ ` r e
U V O
O ^ w H H > W H �� c
= J Q w � F J W Z l i
d H K� J j �� Q w C
� Surface Elev.:323(R.) o Q m Q O �� �� a
3 a � � c�
DEPTH ELEVATION Ft.
— -o s FILL-SILTY.GRAVELLY SAND(SMI.gray-broNm,moist 322.5
SILTY.GRAVELLY SAND TO GRAVELLY SAND WITH SILT(SMI,gray to
�I gray-brown,medium dense to dense,mast
:( 6 11-13-18 7
N=31
5
18 6-9-11 4 4
N=20
t,, 12 �-9-10 4
N=19
1
% 12 7-13-16
N=29
�s.o 3oe 15
SAND[SPI,trace gravel,trace to with silt,gray-brovm,medium de�se,moist �8 9
�8 N=17
2
� '' �s �0-�3-�a
0 2t5 301.5 N=27
a
� Boring Terminated at 21.5 Feet
a
z
c�
�
0
�
0
�
LL
�
W
� Stratification lines are appropmffie.Ir�siN,ihe transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: cathead
a Groundwater not obsened ATD ��
w
LL Pdvancemerrt Method: Notes: i
0
HSA
J
�
F
� Abandonment Method:
�
c�
0
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
Z ---- Boring Started:3/2&2013 Boring Completed:3r28l2013
�
- �rr�con - ---
o _ __ _ __ _ __
m a;u w9 ,� Q;u�e«�,�r,
✓> -- - 2i90554th,ave l'v.Su,?et��
i �� ��9o;�nr.ake-erac� !�^;aeh�oq;o�� Projeci No.:81135021 Ediibit A-5
, •
BORI NG LOG NO. B-3 Page 1 of 1
PROJECT: Renton Highlands Starbucks CLIENT: SCM Solutions, LLC
Ft.Collins, CO
SITE: NE 3rd and NE 4th Street
Renton,WA
c9 LOCATION See E�ibit A-2 �Z w � _,
o a
O � W F- H � w J W~ �
S
_ � W ~ W
a
Q w Ww a o �w �z m
� Surface Elev.:3245(Ft.) O Q m Q w '�� � a
DEPTH ELEVAl10N FL 3� � �
— `0.5 FILL-SILTY.GRAVELLY SAND(SMI.gray-brown,mast 32a
GRAVELLY SAND(SMI,with silt,gray-brown.medium dense to dense,mast
; 14 15-13-18 4
N=31
5
,z: 18 a-9-7 4
6.5 318 N=16
Boring Tenninated at 6.5 Feet
�
0
w
�
a
z
c�
�
0
�
0
�
0
w
Q Stratification lines are approzmate.ln-situ.the transilion may be gradual. Hammer Type: cathead
� Groundwater nol obsen�ed ATD
a
a
w
� Advancement Mefhod: ry��:
`—` HSA
0
<
>
�
� Abandonment MeThod:
�
c�
0
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
Z -- Boring Staried:3J28I2013 Boring Completed:3/28I2013
�
1��rr�con _- --
m _ -- �riu w9:aac� a;uer eore,eu,
� 2i�564ih A�e !^!.Swte�00 �
� �.1��u�-�'!ake Terrace S'Ja�hinaton Prqect No._81135021 6diibit: A-6
� •
BORI NG LOG NO. B-4 Page 1 of�
PROJECT: Renton Highlands Starbucks CLIENT: SCM Solutions, LLC
' Ft. Collins, CO
SITE: NE 3rd and NE 4th Street
Renton,WA
c� LOCATION See E�ibit A-2 �Z w �
� � w� � wr �� a�
U �
= J Q w �J W Z l LL
Q W
a W ww a �w �Z �
� Surface Elev.:324.5(Ft.) O a m Q �� O a
DEPhi ELEVATION Ft. 3 O �
— 'o.e FILL-SILTY.GRAVELLY SAND fSMI,gray-brown,moist sza
FILL-GRAVELLY.SILTY SAND(SM1,brown,loose,mast to wet
12
5 —
� 6.0 318.5 11
GRAVELLY SAND(SPI,trace to with silt,gray-brown,medium dense.mast to wet _
9.0 315.5
Boring Terminated af 9 Feet
�
0
w
�
a
z
c�
�
0
�
0
�
0
w
Q Stratification lines are approbmffie.Ir�situ,the transilion may be gradual. Hammer Type: cathead
� Groundwater rwt obser�ed AlD
a
a
w
'� Advancement Method: Notes
`—` HSA
�
a
>
�
� Abandaiment Method:
�
�
O
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
Z -- -- Boring Started:3128I2013 Boring Completed:3/28J2013
� 1��rr�con -
m Drill Rig:track Driller:BwetecFt
� 2�90554ih Ave V'J.Suite 100 ---- -- --- -. ..- _ .
F �.'buntlake Terrace.1Nashingten Prqect No.:81135021 6diibit A-7
. r
BORING LOG NO. B-5 Page 1 of�
PROJECT: Renton Highlands Starbucks CLIENT: SCM Solutions, LLC
Ft. Collins, CO
SITE: NE 3rd and NE 4th Street
Renton,WA
c� LOCATION See 6triibit A-2 �� w
� ^ wZ a r o
V LL. WO H W F �� c
= J Q w F.J W Z ILL
a F 4'� J �� Q w C
� Surface Elev.:322(Ft.) o Q m Q �� �O a
�PTM ELEVATION FL 3� � U
— '0.5 FILL-SILTY.GRAVELLY SAND(SMI,gray-brown.moist 321.5
GRAVELLY SAND{SP-SM�,trace to with silt,gray,medium dense,moist
�'�'� 5
5
X 6
6.5 315.5
Boring Terminated at 6.5 Feet
�
0
w
�
a
z
�
�
0
�
0
�
� LL
0
w
Q Stra6fica6on lines are approbmate.In-situ,the Vansition may be gradual. Hammer Type: cathead
� Groundwaler not obsen,ed ATD
a
a
w
� Advancernent Method: Notes:
" HSA
0
a
>
�
� Abandonmeni Metl�od:
�
C�
O
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
z 1��rr�con Bonng9tarted 3/28/2013 BoringCompleled 3/26/2013
�
� Drill Ri :track Driller:Boretech
m
m ----� - --_. . ._--- ---- � �r c,.,�,n�, --� ---
,,�, :
- - _ . ._ ._._ .. _ ._ , „�., . ., � -� �
• �
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
PROCEDURES, CLASSIFICATIONS, AND RESULTS
81135021
. +
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
The following paragraphs describe our procedures associated with the laboratory tests that we
conducted for this project. Our test results are enclosed in this appendix and/or are shown on
the exploration logs contained in Appendix A. As part of our testing program, the samples were
examined in our laboratory and classified in accordance with the attached General Notes or the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), based on the texture and plasticity of the soil. A
brief description of the USCS is included with this appendix.
Visual Classification Procedures
Visual soil classifications were conducted on all samples in the field and on selected samples in
our laboratory. All soils were classified in general accordance with the United Soil Classification
System, which includes color, relative moisture content, primary soil type (based on grain size),
and any accessory soil types. The resulting soil classifications are presented on the exploration
logs contained in Appendix A.
Moisture Content Determination Procedures
Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples to aid in
identification and correlation of soil types. All determinations were made in general accordance
with ASTM: D-2216. The results of these tests are shown on the exploration logs contained in
Appendix A.
Grain Size Analvsis Procedures
A grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular
sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance
with ASTM: D-422. The results of these tests are presented on the enclosed grain-size
distribution graphs and were used in soil classifications shown on the exploration logs.
81135021
� �
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Crrteria for Assi�ing Group Symbols and('xoup Narnes Using Labaatory Tests` Sal Classrt�ca6on
Group
Symbol Group Namee
Coarse Gr�ned Sois Gravets C�ean Gravds Cu_4 and 1_Cc_3` G'T; 'ldell-gradeC gravel`
More than 50�o reta�ned h7ore than 5Q%of coarse Less tRan 5%fines` C� 4 and!or 1 Cc 3` G? Poorty gratled graret`
fracoon retained on
an No 200 siere � 4� Gravels with Fnes More Fines dass�fij as M�or MH GM Sil^�gravei`O"
than 12%fines Ftnes classfi as�L or CN GC Ga
i yey Oravef=•
Sands Clean Sands Cu_6 a�i_Gc-3` SW ��.'4'e1-graOeC sa�'
`-0q6 or rrqre of coarse Less than 596 fines- Cu o and)or 1 -Cc 3` SP Foaty gradec sand
frac�passes
� y�ve Sands wi�Fu�es Fines dassrry as�.1L or MH SM Slwy santl'-^
More than t 2%fines- Fines Gassifyr as G�a GH SC Clayey sand°"'
Fi�e-Grained Soils S�Its and GFa;s inorganic FI -7 and plots on or above"A"line CL Lean cla�f`"
_��0�or more passes m�e �qud limit less chan�� FI 4 or pb:s tx�ow`A'I�ne� ML S�IY_"
Na 20C siev2
Off�fVlc �1qUPd IlRlit-01+Qf1�REd �f3ftlC G2j/-'�"
���e, o�
Lrqud 4rnd-not dned c�arnc s�ft'"'
S Its a^d Clays i*n;�gas�c PI pbts on or�ove'�'line CN Fat ctay`"
Liq,:ic Ilmi:�:r_r rwre
PI plats below'A"line MH Efasoc Sil"'`"
crgan� Lqu�1 ii^ut-ov�n dneC rxganic da;�-"''
�,�q �,f
Liquid iimR-np:dneC Crganic s+tt" "�
Hi�hly Ofga�iC SOi15 Ftim2nly(Xg211iC�"18�2f.��k in cobr.and organic odor PT Pe3�'
"Based on the matenai passing the 3-in.(75-mmj sieve "If fines are organw.a�'Yr�th orgarnc fines'to group name
��f field sarriple contairied cobbles a boulders,or both.add"with cobi�les if soil coritains�15%gravel.add`wrth gravel'to grcxip name
or boulders.or both`to g•oup narr�e -If Atterberg limits pbt in shaded area sai is a CL-ML,silty clay.
'Gravets wilh 5 to 12°�fines require duai syn�ois: GVi�-GM wel�-graded 'If soil contains 15 to 29°k plus No.200-add`with sand'ar`mth
gravel with silt G1h'-GC vrell-graded gra�el with clay.GP-GM poorty 9��e�,-���ver is predonNnarit
graded gra+el wrth sift,GP-GC poorly graded grave�with clay -ff�I contains�3d%plus No 2(Mi predommantly sand,add
`Sands wrth 5 to 12°ro fines require dual symbols S1A'-SM well-graded •�x}y to group name.
sarid�mth silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay.SP-5M poorly graded u ff�I contains�30°!� lus No 20G_ edorrtina ravel.add
sxid with silt SP-SC poorlY 9raded sand with clay P Pr �Y 9
`gravelly`Fo group�ame-
`�u=D;�,/D,- Cc= ��) °PI_4 and plots on o�above-A-line
_ D c x Deo '`PI-. 4 or plots belo'�'`q, i,ne
`If sai coniains�15°io sand,add'wdh sand"ta group na��e 'PI plots on or�ove`A'I�ne.
'If fines dassify as C=ML use dual syrnbol GC-GM,or SC-SM. �PI pbts beiow'A"line.
r,:i
For classifxation of fineyrained
solls a�d flne-prelned Tractio�
� of coarse-gralned soils 5���,• +P�re
�
- 'qua'��'M'A -Inn
?� io�¢un:�at PI-4 t�LL-25 5
X qp then PI.O 7's 1L401 Q� . .
pEquahor M•U'-Yr� �,�
z ��er6ca�atLL=181oPi=Z G
> 3p ther Pi.p 9 f11�81 . - �
U � � O� ,
,n � G\.�.
a
y MH c-OH
i
�'� �`
t --� ML or OL
0
0 10 .^ 2�J 30 4p :r:i x %�_ _. '.3I; I;J:1 "IU
LIQUID LIMIT(LL?
1��rracon '��
81135021
, � , � GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
,asTnn�azz
U S SIEVE OPENWG IN INCHES U S.SIEVE NUMBERS ITYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1 5 � 3!4 1/23/8 3 4 6 $'I D �416 20 30 40 50 60 100140 200
100 , ,
95 --- —
' I � i i
�
so — . .
. � .
85
80 ,
75
70 � �
65 �
� i� '
2
� � 60
� � 55 I �
r
a m
M � ,1,1
m Z 50 �I
� � �
w Z 45 1,
o w �
� � 40
a
zwW I I
d , '
w 35
� I
� 30
�
0
� 25
,
�
� 20 ' �
� i : ; :
n
0 15
c�
Y 10
S I
� 5
Y ' I
0
°° 100�� 10 1 � 0.1 � 0.01 0.001
�
�
� GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
�
N COBBLE� GRAVEL SAND i
Z ' I coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY I
a �
�
�
� Boring ID Depth' USCS Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu
� -
a • &1 7.5 2.45 13.67
w
�
a
z
�
�
0
�
0
�
�
� Boring ID Depth D,� D� D,� D,o %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
< -
Q • B-1 7.5 25 0.811 0.343 23.8 64.4 11.9
a -- - -------
w
�
�
O �
Q
>
H I
� �_ -___. . _ _
Z i
W
�
Q PROJECT: Renton Highlands Starbucks
� PROJECT NUMBER: 81135021
� _ __ l��rr�con __ _ _
> SITE: NE 3rd and NE 4th Street CLIENT: SCM Solutions,LLC
o Renton,WA I Ft.Collins,CO
� - ---- -- --i 21905 64th Ave W. Suite 100 �- --- - -
m Mountlake Terrace, Washington '�� EXHIBIT: B-1
. �
, GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422
U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS ITYDROMETER
6 4 3 Z 1.5 1 4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 sp 100140200
100
•
95 -- - - —
�
90 -- —--
85 I
80 .
75
1,1
70
65
F- I
= I
� ��u 60
� 5 �
� r 55
a m
L9 i�
m W 50
Z I � li
� � I i
� F- 45
u' Z \ I I
O W �
� U
a
w W 40 \
U
z a
LL 35
a
'� 30
� �
m � �'�
0
� 25 '
� , I
m , ' ''� : �
o I '
� 20 � i
m
� j Ii
0 15 i
J i I
Z ,O � i
�
o ' �
m
� 5
m .� . � � �. �� ,
�
� �OQ�I" �0 � �f� � �.�� I �.���
N
�
� GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
�
� COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
? coarse fine coarse medium fine
a
�
c�
� Boring ID Depth USCS Classification LL PL ' PI Cc Cu
�
a • &2 5.0 POORLY GRP�DED SAND with GRAVEL(SP) 0.38 16.91
w
�
a
� �
� , -
0
�
0
�
LL
� Boring ID Depth D,� D� � D� D,o %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
a - - . _
Q • B-2 5.0 19 4.496 0.678 0.266 39.0 56.7 4.3
a - --
w ,
�
LL
�
J
Q
J
f
� -_-- _- . .__.._.
Z I
W �
�
a PROJECT: Renton Highlands Starbucks
� PROJECT NUMBER: 81135021
N - - 1f�rr�con -
W
�
> SITE: NE 3rd and NE 4th Street CLIENT: SCM Solutions,LLC
o Renton,WA Ft.Collins,CO
� - - - - 21905 64th Ave W. Suite 100 - - -
m Mountlake Terrace Washington , EXHIBIT: �1
J I
, •
APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
81135021
I
� � NE 4TH ST. -
- -,- - - - -- ---— - _
- — - -- - - ---r� _
\.. I E.� PSPAd.�AS�MENT P�R� .. I �_--,---'
���C. h.,� R p .�,�Qz� --
�_H'- `� :� ORDER BOARD
_�-; : ; _- :-_--_ _ - __ _ - - _ -- --'-
�,,_��:; - S89'13'02"E 131.34 CLEARANCEBAEi �`"�*' `
-- — — '
— — — .,.,,}
,
— __.. �.�_.�_ __ _ :.�
� . -_ ._
LS 1ADA _— �`[_�-
,�� ��-�� �,, �_ ACCESS
I S 1�:�'` '`�'� _ i �.�_
� �, ✓'� 5 ' t� il �
�- "-' LS
� �
� � � 9.0� � � �C -
I�S _.� I,650 SF � � _ ,�J
0
s.z� _- ss.r a o� 20.o�-�k—za.o�---�I�zo.o� o � �,
' � �� o �, .
PATIO "' �`//' �,° � �
BIKE -� LS _ ,,I�'� �.
RACKS Q J'�
�o' -�/ ,�
_ LS v �,
� - is.o� f ��
u.ss
�"
TRASH I iz.o� O 8.5
2a.o� � ,
�r-> L5 i
� 16.0' y `
- - - - - � � 20. .� � '
�� � 9.0' �� � �y '��
0 5.D' ,sot6'a;;'
I O Q � �/qJ� � ' :^�
o ` 24,�0' �,��u.z6
z � j i ` /
DIRECTIONAL � ��1' ��
SIGNAGE � j ' � �� /"�
� .�' �� /`
I EXISTING F1RE
HYDRANT
n / �o'�o,
^��o� ,- y� 'y� �.J'�
�'�' ,'.,, � �, '��`°` Q,Q
I y� � �` �
.���°` , ' , , ��� �°`� ��.
,
I �� ,: �� ;
, /
;' �
� ' ��' ; i / ��_� �F
� 'I� �s�E�.;
� � . --_
� , �
,':�
. , ; , CONSTRUCTION TYPE:V-B
�
' ' ' OCCUPANCY:A-3
� STARBUCKS-CONCEPT PLAN PARKING REQUIRED-22
RENTON,WA PARKING PROVIDED-22
GONCEPT SITE PLAN � Sterling Design Associates, Ilc
SCALE I"=30' 'PROPERTY AND REGULATORY
NORTH DATE 02/07/13 INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN
VERIFIED
�
� �
Excerpt from 1994 USGS map titled "Renton, WA" (contour interval = 25 feet) �,
, i (� � 1 'y ��i ' � ' +L+.� + • � '
,� :'CD , 5 r �`ft '� 'V . _� �L_�a�� .�L ��'�.,�` i
� ��t'} ,'�1 ,' t�lE dTi�l � � �a� •'.`• �r�,._ ; ,� '
�i { � � � 4
!�. ' � �� �� , .
� ;�� ;g�� �� _ � T N , . . _ -: , �-�_..
�� ` w � � -,�_�t„ `��-.�
+..? ;, +3 • ,ti •� � • _��t�- i
r • .._ . ' .�� : � � .
„� ; •' � �:�_:� 3 a ,��• , . � _ , �
• '' F�o,rver l� t .� �. : .'. ! � ,..•
_ ME � 1 le�.. a �' -� .
� - �- �,�- i �, . � . �. '. 1 �B TT
- ♦ �.'� ,�_ _� R�� R o .$ � sta . '>�. .. � �. .
, . � .�°�A� _�_-_ ��
.
. . .. _ .� ,
, , � Pk
- + - - - -.�. � � ,.��� �",�._�-;� :�� '.•'� . :. . �• .; _..___
�
� , , -_ . 41 . _ 1�,� �
. �
bst�• � ',r ,. . , R.----s �� � ;. � - ' .� �� t i. '
---� ��� : , r E �
. �-- \ ��
`�r � _ � ���t � i��• � '3 \ ' ,� �� I ` }t
`+`�, �'�'` - -- �. r �
.
,� , � � � .�,.
� �� t , . -� .....- K , �.
� � •�\ .
�
1
��
�
.�—,�,���. r �, . � , �.\�t f
� � '�`y � , ;� ' � ,t � �' � ' �—
� �. '�-�..: �� � , �:�, _; r ;
■ / "�. -��x,. � , , �°" , ' '�a�,
� ! �,, ` � ,ti _ .. � 1
� �� , ,
� ��� s� ; ,ti, � 4 � rk �''? ,
;
:�ad � j ;� I i i 4 r �
` � !■ ,\ � � � (
; � � �`�.ti •�_ _ 4� � - �
� � , ' � - � � `Y'� � �-�,
i!� �� � �� ,�- ..s 3 _ ��
; r' l � �. � _ �
f , �� � ��' � �ti{._� ,� � ,� to� - `,.
� j� r �J __' � ,' s�
�. � • ` 4 r--,�� � 1
� ,
i � � , � i�f _
�r �"� � ' , � f •. i
� � r- y '"— ' � � � .
ti / ;, ��.� �
�-` ' � ��_��'+. .�
' f i :� r"..r__� - -- y 1 '.
,� - �Gf��nv�c�a¢ ��
� = j � ,.
34 G Sq '� f,_ � ,f ' , _ �ern .� � 1
�. � t � '�, � `- . ,�„ , � �� ,r.. � ,t � �
�� � �`� ' `r_ � �3 1f , F`— �aF �4 �� �.:.
t
C�" -- ,- PROJECT SITE -. �r` �--,'---�— �"�� �4,4
, � �
. �
_ 1�, ,, -.:�. . .V : , '��� '
r t .���1:j' a� + '� � ��� `i ,\l�� �'� �i.,� � � -��'.
I�k� � Far•k�r�f 1 ,� 1 „� + i � Jf • � �;�
.` -� _ /� � � " 11 �� '
Pa r�C�,� � � , .�-� rr'
i •f�'� "=l' l i � ��l� ,".
� Mt Ve1 � , .
� �;�f �����'� , `�C�m '; �; �.��
�
- �,. � .� ��__
g � �- � � r ' �•�` -� f`,J.�� � %', �� ��
�� �' �. .*'.1 ♦.r
-- , 1' � ` < , ,_ ', �.�'
� Y� (/\• � �%, � � ��,�+ ��,,
..� '�'' i ��' 1,�` �..'�'^+'e�.`�� ���. _ 4 e 1 '- -!' ' �['�i �j Y
;� '�b`�k .. �\... 1�f`:�_ �,1� + � � � � � � ; .�.:� -��,_ ���`•" - — � � � '�vl
'�„' `, '� ��� � € - _} ���.�. f' . �I ..'�. --
•4 �1 �''` 1 .
v, , .
f� ` .,—� �,. ~`t. �t� `� j _. - S,
. � .
_, . q . � ,� _ { . �;.r
� • �--� } ,r '1
i ��
f;� �'L `�. :` e �(_` ' r _�� �` -
' i: '�,��`` ,r: �����J •• � j -=:=�;� -' ,�n- �� �` -
, � . _
� ' � � �k�. : -- ��. -•
�a� 2 � ° i ==--"�-�-. �'� --_ ��`.;, �� ��
1� , , > r _� ,�� : ��� -.
�r �. --� , -- ;', � .� � `�Pa �
,�:- � _ ��:�� � ,- �
��created with:, , o �cQ2010.National Geograp c� '� • � � ;� 'S� - � '
TN MN
NATIONAL o.o o.l o.Z o.3 0.4 0.5 miles 16'/z
GEOGRAPHIC o'a � ' 0.5 km � �;
03/20/13
J4.�h � .�� � v� f 'yI � .� � ��Z
�* ��.y P r.?.ta':�. �r 1��'j ' �� �l 1 `+j ��, t J
. ��+ 'i.9 ..`w' .. �.« � . ' " I' I tl Tl��:� � � .
1\r�� �
(y\°�.r4N r I
�
& �r p
". .,� . ....: l . y�
, '��. Rr..". w y %f 5 a.".'�P �
� ,% .. `y� .M,l � � ' �^�"�n."ww:':'e. s " y�p� p��� l Y � .�_..��i� II
... 'v . �� _ �% ,`.l� 1 I
� � � i „,g"',,: � � �..� ��,� . .•�f ' � —��p~ ,
. , ., � ? � � r .,,,��, �" ��_ .
�, �o � � ; � ;� _ ,
f ti �
, -� /^�, ��r� r�'
; • ,
� ; ,4 .,,� � r � VJ r � � t � � �
. . ,
;,
� •
�- '�, � �I � � � ��
i +-' ' _ ; ` y �
1
j r
U1 a f . A �
„ M� .,,�� �iu'��F � � � "&Ndkk>.�a3A*M.taa�'o'w�z.r:r.- � � .M1 A" �� � � �-�.
3 � 1�+'.;� � ;� �r � '� , � i ��' � ;',� �. �.�-1
f, � �
,� 'r"� �''f ---� ,°�` `� �` I �,-, '
� .. ' � w` � !;" ,
o �'��-- f � � _�� � � —
_ � � � ��� p - ..� r � �
LL f •�'� �
�
G. �,''�'t �' � �� --� I+.� �-
� 4 ' ' t �` �� � � r--*'�i:��
� W
o � .�' � � _ � I �� ,.��- �` "
a� � � '
� W� f , � � � � I 1 r �a'
,, � ' ,�� 'J�� '� � U' � �"�� �
i ,a
� ��� � � �
,
� � �F.� �� �, ��:�.
� �
. r �ti 4
,
. �.
. �
� .w , ,�,, til ��, r .... �.�., ,.�,:.b�:�.,-.
�
� :
,�r:4�,�,.. �
� ��r� •,..a _._. . ,.. .:,e—• �i. O � • „.,,IM
� . �� I' �pa� � f • �y .��.:
� � �r� �N �! ll�n�1 Z ` ,� � �
� � � -�r � � �, �
� � � . �, m ,
, I ��.ti:fr•. � _. I
� r ��w�G....J.`. � �:.::....., r :vw3e„" �.?rui:.W„ry.e�.. .i.iv..Yl..�. '.. ....eR�W/�"d`u'��rf:a;A , . . ��t...�., r.
. %
.� I 1 . . . :..�.... � .. .; ,..�.. .� _�
o �-,��� � an y uoiun s an d ..�. n �.��m _�_,�� �M-y �---�,.,
I � _Y��^---..
a 'f; , ,.+''� �_,.r/��. � �- � �.�.�-
� � — � �• � �r' i� :`��!� ++���
. I .'
L� r {� � �'' `�,.�"�
� y �:�— � ���;. _���..������.a. , ,ri.�::;�`; �; �wa
1 �1� r� � '� ' � f
'o �y �,� ,, � �► � �
��y � � � A �
O '�I �5�y n.:, §e — � � ,..r'^ 1
� � ��� �{ � �e.rr ' '" O ••+ .
� tti ti,� � � � r �f 5�
4 1 � �
.
+. :� �
f -: •,� � .
r` . . .t�i � .9r��'�`�..k• L� r
� �
o --_ _' .�; ? �� M �... �n��,�� �4,��,��-�.¢.,,m, ...�„,�
� � Q��''. ..����.;,L
_ �-
" , '.- 1 �..--.� w �I � � ,- ����� b'�G
� �� � ... ° �"k �'q'w ��
0 i I � Il��s�t` �" �b' 1 .�,.
�i � I �. 1;���� ��+�..' �"'„��,.`�� �'t�'�
i r .o,,y'"'f �r.�.,e� z ...: P w . I'
++ ` — ' �r�' ,1
�
�..� j �► � �
� r �� c h
Q -'� ,- I-; _`Z.r���� ,,Y' �"
�
• ""• �
L µ M . ;:;� ,, .� r� .. '
1 r
V ( , .. .ff' �. a,. �k ��,v '� a .�.'. �_ ��__J ' r�, ,.p{�'
��
+�"�` �_
�• � ._, f �y�
x . � M°. -�—_ :
� "� _y_ � �., �_ ti� .. ti �", �� �'�
���___r-- w �� ��. �; �S ,�,
;� :�� � �' '�" �-- -� ,.. e°�"I �
� � ��. ,�+� � � g ,.µ�
,
``,�.4 r'°.� . � .
_.
, ���,�;� .-�, ,.,��
�•°� µ�
. � .��.
� �-�_ ,,�' . . — -
� �
_ ,ti f " :_,� *,.
:�
;
_ _ , .
- A ,.
� � 5
� .
n�
M
�
_ •
T���� „+ . . �, . � i� . .n , �� �
,_ ,
� � ,
..•.s� -�
",� '
,�...
. .
�" � �
. �
'�� � �,��, _ " ��
, .
. '• �r� ' .'' _ � .
r ; `' ., �, ..-., ,:. "<•,,a. -'�Tr •�•• � -L,r�:._ l _.�.? . . � -'"t.+�••- ..
�,t
1 � � .,;: .- ..
� �� ... � �. .� �
, �
"''�,Il+yy ,� .Y.�: �'�d "� ,.�� ��.'' 'k �„ _v"�--�—*`_
. ^ �y
e.
,,F ��� w , y� ,
�� .vYti=J.' ^'�� � _ . . ..V"� . 3 !G���. . �� T�*. �� � �,
�. Y � •�::-' � .
. �
Excerpt from 2013 King County iMAP
`: � i ,-' .- {�r;r, ' ti i`� � `� � -� � �--� { ��..•;
'r � ��_ �� �ft ' '�'� -- ��ti`� � (� � ��.-�t.1 i� � _� � �` / '
-i ��:���.��E �; �., ,`r-�� - . - �� � p � 4 _' � - � I ,�� ,d
-�� ` � r ,` `�-.�,: ,,`, y ��� ( --
�-�___�,� _ .t,.-�'� ="#1 ��r=-z.�.Q ~, � W`t 1 �t�L `� � ' �- ,� f ;,�_�
ti� y�4 �' ,�,-_ �r�- _�@ ''�, yz� �-,,��, •��, I � � �-, � r � �ti} � ,l �,
�� ti � � r-y',�' 1 ? ''� � L� i � �. '� ���1
1, i� � k � r' �5 �
.y �``_r-' < '-`- ' '" �t�`� 1\� ��'.
ti.. 1Y £ � � �N4T� P� � -�,'�1 i
'-� , i y,� � �,� � __ �^ � E� , t �� � � � ;�' f+ t�` �;iy�� � `��
��i-.�� , ���,� � � r , �'��, --�„s � — ` -
�. � ��� � / { �•�"- �
; �j �,, i �.•.`� ��y-- �� �r t� � �� ( � �l` �ti_
�yi., ti�1�.'� �.� �_�,�_n �J � �'� I i� ` � rr ! � t,1, ��l_ '� l
' - ������ 7``}�, y "r N65TH� 1 �.. t �1� �t�. ~"'.� � 1 �t ~`�S r I
�� �;'��'��,'�L_y t f _(� -'�, } ,,_� �' ������ .� �_-_•�� _ `� � �..
lti .�� �ii- r^LS ��� t � !'` '1, �r i
�_�{�,��, ��,.'� ^..�- , r�z r="� $ � � � ,� 1 ,� �1 �t '`� �
''''�i.`_'����-�',��,''�i•1`}�, t_ (.. -��q��� �,t �J �� } rL-� / �� '-� C I
f �III,����� �`'l i— Y1 ^''� � K � �� Sr`1��.�� �_Jf`�,(� �� i I
_ ,.,� , � ��r y s �� � � ` � Z�
+m�{,����1C�u�SCT�I_'�,�ti5tti,�1 f•--� �='�,( _� { �i� A'y,�y ����'` cr� � � '"; � �
t(� 1�tt �.�� � �=,-- -•ti,+ �� �) I
r( t�s� � t l i�t�_� �'`t ' Q � r-`� _ � J '� ~`1 t y —� ��
t '-. -- �``�,� f„ �1'� 'ti ti
a�i`�'���.�, ��r i �,--�z;�� ~'�.� _ c �- -�.� i � �. '� �.
,;�� �`�,fj,Z '� � .��'y ��. ----.-�-_. I' � �`ti----'`� �'`- �� 'r i � '�,
� � ' ' ,� � �_ -� r 'a r {
---�._ �
��� � !� t �' � ��, l �� � � 1 ,=`
�'���/�#�.� f�'_f�'„���,��-:3 �'�f J�j ,j�} �� �� �=� � �.�f`� Project Site
� (! ��� �F'�til i �^'- j"'`y �~ I 1 frr`� f{ t� -�'�`- .�F 1 �
���{ft .� �ty� ���� r��r�� �__ ��y ---�••��.-���� �t i� � ,>� �•- � ��;
-- �'!�� �.-s�� �� �"�`-,..�! ( H£aTMC7 � � �
, t,--�,.� �'l. ,4 `i� � b I !
'._�-.f_.� �iif (' ' " �r J
-_.�,''=;rj' ��I�-��---��3U0 -_ _=�--��:rf:���,��l �� � �� _
,'1- i�j r�lff!I'� �} � � j - ' ,-' .
-_ �� t � __ i � NEjiH <.. ,� �� �� Wt 3tH
�J�'!'/�� � 5 1 J .''.� . _-`'^--�� {� -
{ � r _" '
r{ y�. ��-. � ��ti 1 f.+-,,' ��' .l� _
��� ��,'�r�; �'�y - _ ���.�;�r� �'; Renton �' ,� �--
�`` �� �.--�--�. �_ ��-t f - -- - � _
4� -��'�'� t '1..+`~ �'i i I � „�, 1 � �,
'1 �� ,� -�.t.:�-��'�-"'��-`�-.� � � ��� `� � �.���3 �- - 4 -
w1�,.��.�,, 7 �i � -�, : �'; ��� y -
-,
�-- f, � j i - ��:,
� �,i 1� I`�i� l _,, ,--� �` ;� � `j � _.._.-y-- �. — � _
'° '` t� '� ,f � - - -
� �, �..� �-
� �� �i j ����� �`i"�.� ��" 1�� � �I _j � ����_---` �� � �
� f �, .�
S� �� ��--��-�,, f_�-;�— ;a� �� s-r` �' __ �
�1i�t ,.�"y,,l�_-;�--�'fs rs: i 'ti � ', _�,. �r _
� �� � r., � � (,Y''' �-- � U .
�� S �f r r-r _ f 1 " ,y.� '�) .
r•-.` .` 1}-�j,�----'_ J,y --� _. ` . 'f �'�
i_, �1 �� � -l._� -� ����� � � { _'` `y, �� ���
t�-•`^ r �'1 1�1 S � t�4' �5 `� ���,�
r -' f�� ,, � 1 ' � I
__t'�-. � l}�'y-_��-���=��,ti�,.,�� I 1jy (�i r�. � �-� �} +�-� r ,�i'�1��'k'� `� �II
�,� � �.�;� f
`,_ \1 �,�.,r �;�E'���lµE 1,�r— •I 1��� �� � I_ � 4�� �ti�� �� Ii
; `'�-f'����ry�'' i r, ���i '4s � � �, � �I a � �, �'' �,(
'��a`'''�. V��y•y-~14'f�� ci.' �t�q � t� I j �}�^�� �r +�� L)�� I�
_`fr����~3��t'���� �:f�� � '.z- � � � �� j� 1 �f� f ( r ri,f 1� ;
�w` ,1 l�yi ti �"Ir2 � �'�rr�`W-�'�` �C � I�i �1 � ��lt 1 � r_. , is�+�r'�i���} i �Sj����'i
� '�'F' ,.����t �� �����,� � �S '; �� � �.-_.��
l���� �ti! I 3� � � � � (�� � � �F} �`'^� �'f � ��J;' l_T ���I
��'�}�1('-�` � (� � .1}� � r--. Fr+J�'`��}f [ :`L�". '3�4 a �
-'f t�i .a. T 1.2 !� i�, 1 r.'��) ''~r�} �+ -�F' t�!
,;�`..,�e: �J�_r.=-_u ,�i,� �����t,�'_ ' - _- - -- '`+ t�`---=�r�f� r—==�� — �F`
(�� ! f " f'. '�' .+. ( _- _ �-- �'' I � '� --�f 1 -
' �,�,t� 4L � __�__�_��_�;YS �ti `"+�r� r�._ ' �" r=
� �� ; � '`~"``. --__� i�"''� `l". ��
;5��i�,�ti� �_ �i "'t �� �e,�ii�s� j�� �` � f`-',�_ ��'`�
E �; , , `r-�-'�"' ,,--
`��F �t��l� s �t� `,•( � �--...-- � •- � liJ � �-., :,-'�_;:.-�:.,�- :`� _
_� 1`ly'''.5 ( 1-.- � ',,.\ Z ( .31 �•r"S t� .�.^'1 1 —'.y�^�`– _
� y `4"_,.1`-� r �:�ri} Ey� �'�-�� '.� � I �,'„�� f �� �`?�?� 5`4``l t
, t������� ��C`� � '��-�'"ti {� . � � ,4
'� �4 �� 3-� �I. �,�i !t�~ �."��� i V'.r'!�}l r�.f'---
� t .�=-ya, �` ''� � `�� r� �-. ��! r l C.,;� � t i .
ti�ifl(�'t;t`• j �� •`?, Z�, i �',7tJ' � f 1� ',����� -"�� `'^•-'
�it i t , ``�. '� '^�!� i� �.:� �� 1� ; � 1� �'f
,',5��'� - �:'r r''� ti`i i ' �'' -f�� '� � (�' ���
= _ ,�,,rjl � - ,�,;,f� �� ,'� ; ,, �F 'I (
.i � ��� •�Y� E r t +.,�:
�;CI�KmgCounty .�r� __- r�� r 0 445ftC.. � ! : i ��.,
i
The infamation incfuded on,this map�has been compled by King Counry staR from a variery ot sources and is subject to change without nolice.King
County makes no representations w warranties,express or im�lied,as to accuracy,completeness,timeliness,or rghts to the use of such infom�ation.
This dxumen[is no[intended tor use as a survey producl Kmg County sha�l not be liable fw any general,special,mdirect.inadental,or consequenual a �
damages induding,but no[limited to.lost revenues or los[protits resulhng hom the use o�misuse oi the mfonnation contained on th�s map.Any sale of K�ng County
this map a information on this map is prohibiled except by written pertnission of King County.
Date:��9;20�3 Source�King Coun[y iMAP-Sensi6ve Areas(http:i/www.metrokc.govlGlSliMAP)
t �
� Excerpt from 2013 King County iMAP
Le ge nd
�_� County Boundary Streets 5A0 Erasion
� Mountain P�aks ��+peway CAO Basin Condition
Contours (5ft dark f �r�� � ��,�„
,i{f IOD:500:100D Lawl � A1 a1�u m.
r �
, o�nor Parcels � �ox,
CAO Shoreline Condition Lakes and l.arge Rivers
� ���h Streams
Modrum 5Aa Wetland
�� � 5A0 LandslidQ
Highways r=-�. 5A0 Coal Mine
��,
�f Incorporated Area ::.\ SAO 5eismic
The information included on this map has been compled by Ring County staft!rom a vanety of sources and is subject lo change wi[houl noUce.King
County makes no representa6ons or warranties,express or�mplied,as to accuracy,completeness.Gmeliness,or nghts to the use of such information.
This document�s not intended for use as a survey product.K�ng County shall not be hable fa any general,speciai,indirect.incidentai,or consequential a �
damages indudmg.but not limded to.lost revenues or lost profRs resulhng From the use w misuse of the infonnation contamed on this map.Any sa�e of King County
tt�is map or infama8on on this map is prohibrted excep[by wnrien permission of Kmg Counry.
Date:479f2013 Source:King Couniy iMAP-Sensi6ve Areas(http:t.'www.metrokc.gov/GIS(iMAP�
� • ,?908 �lortheast 4th Street - Goo`�le Maps Page 1 of 1
Address 2908 Northeast 4th Street
��. ��i�' ��„� ���� ,,����.x�,,�,��
�
-�, ,f x � ,j
i `\,�F� ,� ��� �� .
; � �,�* � ` �
t-`,_ �_. �F. �/��.i.' ��G�'.L. Y.► .4
, ,� , �s��. Y
� `��i: F�, � -A i�K� �� �'�:
!f�; .�... `r` _'_.�;�«�- e� ...'��r `7r -�i-_-_._ _. . __ y
• Y« '� ;L �s rC7;�:�J��� "y C a � -
_ * �,� .a r�
iY . lr" e�l��p f�t�..� . - �'. : -
'�+ ;1.�'t � .
���`� w"��'�•"• b �� `�s � . f-��'�-:�;''_ �% i �
� � t ;�" , ,� y ��,�
��� - ^h,�;;�.
,S
,*` ,"'"'�' ,, � t= �
"�.. �: � .� .}.�
_ a�'� r„
. .� ���.� ,
.�'� z� w
'� '���
: -����-:, `�`."�
�; �•t-
- 'pt'. �-+�:>` '�
a *
��.+�►'�i�y�z�f� �, � -
r9',.a;���.;�;�- � _ .
..... ,
. . ,
_ �... ;- , .
� � _-� .-.�- �
,...�•� � � �3- ' �._.�:__ ._ . w�,,,.:., . ... .:-..r.-�.�,.- -• -�_ -- ... -
- '�: -_ . - .....- . . . .
ii r .
_ �� ,�f .�srr _ :ss4t-�^'
http://maps.google.com/maps?f q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Renton,+Vl�'A&aq=0... 4/9/?013
< <� ,29?0 Northeast 4th Street - Google :�1aps Page 1 of 1
E ``j�` ����, Address 2920 Northeast 4th Street
�<.J
� ,�_r,r-_ _.,�---__
�_�--- _� —_
�� _,�' �P�_�`�'� -- _
��.r��`�F"`�� �
- _ � . ��� �+ ''r
_ ___
,
_. �
#- �
�w -� `��` .�
. '�' � � '�:.;'-'��:*�
�' ;��,,.��,. � :-�
� '� ;_�� �,;,��;.
.t . ;� �
,a. .
,�e �> ..
...►- ..... - - _ � ___'.._--�.._._.._. —> f�� ���
"t�= ,� _ *` -�.`
9
, . �� . 4E�.�u
r��
N
a `�
'�� _��'�>,:�"' .ri`�-""`, , � -:`� � .
� < -
��Mrs�_-iw-� ' •,. ' �k.s�i����a�y
±� —�-1i �� __ � • �,��'.
-a._, _ -
► _"_"rn- � :
��- ..�;, ;'#'Y.,'
r4--'
_-,��{�. .
�_} � ,:: „ �� :;_ ,
�, „ : _ �,,�,,,,,,.
-�cr��.- ,�' _
r-
- £:..
-�,,�,�, _.
e •'�'�,��F�' __.� _ �.a,=---�_�°
http://maps.google.com!maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Renton,+Vl�'A&aq=0... �l!9/2013
� �� ,Northeast 3rd Street - Google Maps Page 1 of 1
�`�� ���� Address Northeast 3rd Street
�,� .. s apGr�-.nmrrt_
�.__.�a_ -'`-�__
:_-_ _. �E. . _ �`:.__. ^'"����-_ ' '.
� __..._-�.-._ '-�---•-. ' .. .:.
_,_._.,,.__ - � . -^-.�...*�,,,.,,,-..,. -...�
- -_"ry'__,`'^'._� -- - 1�.
. .�-
+Y
- - '��:
:� _`�f,M1 .
♦ s.
.h'. x• `.<^
i ,` ,
, '
� . '!F
` � � �$��� _.:. �i3 L` �.� ,# .
i� � � '
q y �, � 4. . �1��, �} y * �.�y
�R
. .� ��� ��t _ � � _ �.,
T • �
ee �
. i -�` `�'^-f�` . .�� �
� ;, ,
. ��� �-�-` � , �4 n�#. :..
♦
y } .F�� � '� \:. � ��,;A` � �'�'1 .. .. .._..
j �',� • ?� �.
t
'.""`�>,..,+s. ,,,� - ._ - _
��'�i�,� �' �„-.. . ._ ' ' _. <. . '���.�.�._ � _.�.... ,.
�
�.,* 'r ... . . . � . �y .
,. � `'�'� f �t �, .s .as' s_ 3 r :'
� . ..i"�� � :E�� s� ���� .._��_`��£4�"'�� � # i' '�°.
=# � yd . -. Syw.e`� > "X .sP�� ��'ttr'��$��` d q� ��rt _
^�,+^�' ��'� R � ,�a_ ���� ..�~+'A� �E�£�. = r^�Yrr s ' �
af •,� �
n.� �
'�4@ r.�.#�r�.. '�^.:a.
$-�€. �� "'+ae.s '�_� .`.�F3. _ �-w '°t+ , ".�*``*�
http:�'/maps.google.com!maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Renton,+Vl`A&aq=0... 4/9I2013
� �• ,.2129 Northeast 3rd Street- Google Maps Page 1 of 1
�� �`�.�r, Address 2729 Northeast 3rd Street
ti � L L�.:..' ., .f,F,.r�.�.i.r.�(i. .
.r�r„`..� _.-. ., I �I
__ _"'_- _ __ i
�,�,^._"'".".'_ ._�_ _ `� I
_�^� .t��Y+��`- I
I
._.__.......r.� � - . ' . ,
�._.._ . ,.b �y�g��zq ��.. �..__`-.. II
-'�`��-+..�< .'� -
a '�� I I- �J� � w _
.y 'r
i
� I
,..�� _- S� . ' .. . _- ' _ _����-
`_
� .
� �
� '•
„ _. '.��,'��j
,_,_._ � _ .__
� .:.,�,�a.�,.�==_.x. __. `�
.�� ��
�,.r.. �
http://maps.google.com,�maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&eeocode=&q=Renton.�«'A&aq=0... 4!9,��013
, �• ,.2517 Northeast 3rd Street- Google Maps Page 1 of 1
�O ��� Address 2517 Northeast 3rd Street
� � kucress is aNprcxunate
� � .. - _
� _
_ ,.�z - ..x -:-
x';�
" _.�� . � y+�i " �-.tL. I& _ �`=c�' _
I � �
�-�. � �� 3 _ -
'-�;�_
_� " - -�
T
-: -.
- — - �T _ - _
_. _, �
• -- _ . . .. . _I._ e
>.� - _:= � :- ,<_ -.,
�r_ . ,y _
,,
-Y��.
..,
�:,
� '
r�'
�[� ��` �� � F` 'y^��Y. '.
�.$ � � � -
� �,
,. � '� �IIR' 9a� ,
� - ...
_ .-. .,�
-. - -.. ` �- ---. '��
- ;. ,x• ��
�= . _
:
- �
, - ;_.� '
--- : -
- .;;�-
http://maps.goo�le.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Renton.+Vb'A&aq=0... �!9!2013