Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Drainage_Report_211222_v1DRAINAGE REPORT The Home Depot 901 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Prepared by: LARS ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4694 W. JACQUELYN AVENUE, FRESNO, CA 93722-6405 PHONE (559) 276-2790 FAX (559) 276-0850 WEBSITE: WWW.LARSANDERSEN.COM Project No: 19165 December 21, 2021 1 Table of Contents Section Page 1 Project Overview 2 2 Conditions and Requirements Summary 2 3 Offsite Analysis 4 4 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design 4 5 Conveyance System Analysis and Design 7 6 Special Reports and Studies 7 7 Other Permit 7 8 CSWPPP Analysis and Design 7 9 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant 8 10 Operations and Maintenance Manual 8 Appendix Title A Site Map B City of Renton Flow Control Applications Map C ALTA Survey D Conceptual Plans E CSWPP Plan F Existing Civil Plans G Operations and Maintenance Measures H Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet I Geotech Memo 2 Section 1 – Project Overview The project site is located at 901 S Grady Way, just Northeast of the 405 and 167 highway exchange. The site is fully developed and the former location of a Sam’s Club retail store. The site is approximately 15.4 AC with an existing building located on it that is currently 135,373 SF. The project calls for the redevelopment of the existing building and adjacent improvements, including pavements, curbs, and landscaping. Proposed grading activities will be limited and will aim to match existing drainage patterns. Section 2 – Conditions and Requirements Summary The site is fully developed with sections of concrete pavement, asphalt pavement, and landscaping. The existing landscaping includes lawn within the parking lot and adjacent areas and brushy sloped areas. See Table 2.1 for a breakdown of the existing areas. The site is currently designed to slope away from the existing building, primarily towards the adjacent streets of Grady Way and Talbot Rd S. The site is serviced by an existing, extensive stormwater system. Surface runoff is collected in various drain inlets throughout the site and then delivered via underground storm line system. Said water is treated with existing oil separators and biofiltration basins. Stormwater is then discharged via a storm drain at the northwest side of the site into the Grady Way South public storm system and through a storm drain at the south corner of the site that outfalls into a 48” culvert under SR-515 (Talbot Rd). See Appendix F – Existing Plans for more details. The proposed project aims to utilize the existing stormwater system as-is, not changing the current discharging locations. The proposed improvements will result in a reduction of impervious pavements and an increase in pervious area, specifically lawn area, by 1,527 SF. See Table 2.2 for more details. Because the project calls for over 2,000 SF of new plus replaced impervious surface but less than 50 acres of new impervious surface, it is subject to a Full Drainage Review per the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM). See Table 2.3 for complete pollution generated surface areas. As per the SWDM, a Full Drainage Review results in the project adhering to the 9 core and 6 special requirements (barring exception): Core Requirements Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location • The site currently discharges via a storm drain at the northwest side of the site into the Grady Way South public storm system and through a storm drain at the south corner of the site that outfalls into a 48” culvert under SR-515 (Talbot Rd). The proposed project intends to utilize the existing discharge points. Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis • Exempt on account of maintaining existing rate, volume, duration, and locations of discharges to and from the site. Core Requirement #3: Flow Control • The project does not intend to increase the peak flow rate. In fact, the project will reduce the peak flow rates slightly. The existing stormwater system also already incorporates flow control structures, and the project intends to continue utilizing them. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System • The existing conveyance system will continue to be utilized for the proposed project. 3 Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control • There is limited risk of erosion and sediment introduction into the existing stormwater system as there is limited grading activities. Regardless, the project will implement erosion and sediment measures per the SWDM during construction. Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations • All drainage facilities are to be located on-site and will be privately maintained by the site owner. A standard Operations and Maintenance Manual to be submitted. Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability • Not applicable as there will be no new structures installed. Core Requirement #8: Water Quality • The site is currently serviced by 3 separate biofiltration swales and oil separators. Core Requirement #9: On-site BMPs • The project will implement drain inlet protection, concrete wash outs, material storage area, and other measures per the SWDM. Special Requirements Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements • The project does not fall under any other known Adopted Area-Specific requirements. Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation • The project is not located within a flood hazard area. Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities • The project is not located near a Class 1 or 2 stream and does not propose to modify or construct a flood protection facility. Special Requirement #4: Source Control • Water quality source control measures will be utilized during the construction of the project in according to the SWDM. Special Requirement #5: Oil Control • This site does not fall under the requirements for oil control as the number vehicles/ day are expected is below the limit of 13, 500 vehicles/ day for this site nor does the project involve the maintenance storage and use of the site by a fleet of 25 or more diesel vehicles, heavy trucks, buses, etc. Therefore, special treatment of stormwater runoff will not be necessary or required for the proposed store. Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protection Area • This site does not fall within the City’s Aquifer Protection Area Zones 1 nor 2. Table 2.1 Existing Surfaces Surface Type Area (SF) Landscape 191261 (Lawn) 111902 (Light Forrest) 79359 Pavement 478539 Total 669800 4 Table 2.2 Proposed Surfaces Surface Type Area (SF) Landscape 192788 (Lawn) 113429 (Light Forrest) 79359 Pavement 477012 Total 669800 Table 2.3 Proposed PG Surfaces Surface Type Area (SF) Replaced PGPS 643 New PGPS 5553 Replaced PGIS 33909 New PGIS 4026 Section 3 – Offsite Analysis As stated in Section 1, proposed surface improvements call for matching drainage patterns. As stated in Section 2, the project will result in a decrease of 1,527 SF of pavement area and maintain the existing discharge points. For these reasons, the project will not change the rate, volume, duration, nor locations of discharges to and from the site; therefore, the project is exempt from Offsite Analysis. Section 4 – Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Flow Control Per the City of Renton Flow Control Applications Map (Appendix B), the project must adhere to Peak Rate Flow Control Standard. This means it must match existing site conditions 2, 10 and 100-year peak- rate runoff for areas draining to constructed (man-made) or highly modified drainage systems so as not to create a downstream flooding problem. See Tables 4.1-4.7 to see this done. More specifically, Table 4.7 shows that there is in fact a slight decrease in peak flows after improvements. For this reason, the project is exempt from installing flow control devices. It is also important to note that there already exist flow control structures within the stormwater system (see Appendix F). Existing structures shall be inspected, cleaned, and maintained for continued use. 5 Table 4.1 Ex. Runoff Coefficient Area Cx A (ac) C Ex. LS (L) 0.25 2.57 0.70 Ex. LS (LF) 0.15 1.82 Ex. Pavement 0.9 10.99 Table 4.2 Existing Tc Count Area kR so (ft/ft) V (fps) L (ft) tt (min) Tt (min) Tc (min) 14 XLS-L-1 7 0.015 0.86 10 0.19 2.7 43.7 1 XLS-L-2 7 0.025 1.11 40 0.60 0.6 1 XLS-L-3 7 0.005 0.49 345 11.62 11.6 12 XLS-L-4 7 0.01 0.70 10 0.24 2.9 1 XLS-L-5 7 0.05 1.57 130 1.38 1.4 1 XLS-L-6 7 0.105 2.27 75 0.55 0.6 1 XLS-L-7 7 0.02 0.99 30 0.51 0.5 1 XLS-L-8 7 0.015 0.86 70 1.36 1.4 1 XLS-LF 2.5 0.2 1.12 75 1.12 1.1 1 XP-1 10 0.01 1.00 665 11.08 11.1 1 XP-2 10 0.0175 1.32 265 3.34 3.3 1 XP-3 10 0.02 1.41 100 1.18 1.2 1 XP-4 11 0.015 1.35 40 0.49 0.5 2 XP-5 11 0.01 1.10 160 2.42 4.8 Table 4.3 Existing Intensity Storm Tc (min) aR bR iR PR (in) I (in/hr) 2-yr 43.7 1.58 0.58 0.18 2 0.35 10-yr 43.7 2.44 0.64 0.22 2.9 0.63 100-yr 43.7 2.61 0.63 0.24 3.9 0.94 6 Table 4.4 Pr. Runoff Coefficient Area Cx A (ac) C Pr. LS (L) 0.25 2.60 0.70 Pr. LS (LF) 0.15 1.82 Ex. Pavement 0.9 10.95 Table 4.5 Proposed Tc Count Area kR so (ft/ft) V (fps) L (ft) tt (min) Tt (min) Tc (min) 16 PLS-L-1 7 0.015 0.86 10.5 0.20 3.3 44.3 1 PLS-L-2 7 0.025 1.11 40 0.60 0.6 1 PLS-L-3 7 0.005 0.49 345 11.62 11.6 12 PLS-L-4 7 0.01 0.70 10.5 0.25 3.0 1 PLS-L-5 7 0.05 1.57 130 1.38 1.4 1 PLS-L-6 7 0.105 2.27 75 0.55 0.6 1 PLS-L-7 7 0.02 0.99 30 0.51 0.5 1 PLS-L-8 7 0.015 0.86 70 1.36 1.4 1 PLS-LF 2.5 0.2 1.12 75 1.12 1.1 1 PP-1 10 0.01 1.00 665 11.08 11.1 1 PP-2 10 0.0175 1.32 265 3.34 3.3 1 PP-3 10 0.02 1.41 100 1.18 1.2 1 PP-4 11 0.015 1.35 40 0.49 0.5 2 PP-5 11 0.01 1.10 160 2.42 4.8 Table 4.6 Proposed Intensity Storm Tc (min) aR bR iR PR (in) I (in/hr) 2-yr 44.3 1.58 0.58 0.18 2 0.35 10-yr 44.3 2.44 0.64 0.22 2.9 0.62 100-yr 44.3 2.61 0.63 0.24 3.9 0.93 7 Table 4.7 Peak Runoff Rates Storm Area C I (in/hr) A (ac) Q (cfs) 2-yr Existing 0.70 0.35 15.376 3.82 10-yr 0.70 0.63 15.376 6.82 100-yr 0.70 0.94 15.376 10.19 2-yr Proposed 0.70 0.35 15.376 3.78 10-yr 0.70 0.62 15.376 6.74 100-yr 0.70 0.93 15.376 10.06 Water Quality Because the project falls under commercial land use, it must adhere to Enhanced Basin WQ measures. As seen in the Existing Plans (Appendix F), the existing site currently utilizes (2) separate oil separator structures and (3) biofiltration basins to meet these WQ standards. The project intends to inspect, clean, and maintain said facilities for continued use. Section 5 – Conveyance System Analysis and Design The existing conveyance system was designed to serve the existing site during a 100-yr event. It includes the underground storm pipe system as well as the concrete aqueduct. The project intends to continue using and maintaining the existing system. Section 6 – Special Reports and Studies • There are no special reports nor studies required for this project. Section 7 – Other Permit There are no other permits required for the project. Section 8 – CSWPPP Analysis and Design The below measures will be implemented for the project per the SWDM. See Appendix • ESC Measures o Flow Control o Dust Control o Control Pollutants o Protect Existing Stormwater Facilities and On-site BMPs o Maintain Protective BMPs o Manage the Project • SWPPS Measures o Follow effective pollutant handling and disposal procedures. 8 o Provide cover and containment for materials, fuel and other pollutants. o Manage the project site to maximize pollutant control and minimize pollutant sources. o Protect from spills and drips of petroleum products and other pollutants. o Avoid overapplication or untimely application of chemicals and fertilizers. Section 9 – Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant There are no new facilities proposed for this project. Any further information shall be provided upon later submittal. Section 10 – Operations and Maintenance Manual All drainage facilities to be maintained privately as specified per the SWDM. A copy of the Operation and Maintenance Manual submitted as part of the permit application for flow control and water quality treatment facilities shall be retained on site and shall be transferred with the property to the new owner. A log of maintenance activity indicating when cleaning occurred and where waste was disposed of shall also be kept by the owner and be available for inspection by the City. See Appendix G for operations and maintenance standards. Appendix A – Site Map LakeDesire ShadyLake (MudLake) PantherLake LakeYoungs LakeWashington Bl a c kRi ver Gr eenRiv e r C edarRi verUV900 UV167 UV515 UV169 UV900 UV169 UV167BN IncBN IncBBNNIInnccSSEE RReennttoonn IIssss aa qquuaahh RR dd RReennttoonn MMaappllee VVaalllleeyyRRdd MMaapplleeVVaalllleeyyHHwwyy 110088tthhAAvveeSSEESSWW SSuunnsseettBBllvv dd RRaaiinnii eerrAAvveeNNNE 3rd S t NE 3rd S t SW 43rd StSW 43rd St SS EE CCaarrrrRR dd NE 4th StNE 4th St SSEE RReennttoonn MMaappllee VVaalllleeyy RRddLLooggaannAAvveeNN SR 515SR 515PPaarrkkAAvveeNNOOaakkeessddaalleeAAvveeSSWWSSuunnsseettBBllvvddNN EE DDuuvvaallllAAvveeNNEEI-405 FWYI-405 FWY II--440055FFWWYYSR 167SR 1671144 00tthh WWaayy SS EENNEE 2277tthh SStt 115566tthhAAvveeSSEEUUnniioonnAAvveeNNEE111166tthhAAvveeSSEESW 7th StSW 7th St N 8th StN 8th St PP uuggeettDDrrSSEE RR ee nnttoonnAAvvee SS SSWW 2277tthh SStt BBeennssoonnRRddSSWWiilllliiaammssAAvveeSSMMoonnrrooeeAAvveeNNEESE 128th StSE 128th St II nntt eerr uurr bbaannAA vvee SS HHooqquuiiaammAAvveeNNEE8844tthhAAvveeSSSSEEPPeett rr oovvii tt sskkyyRRddEEVVaalllleeyyHHwwyySE 192nd StSE 192nd St SE 60th StSE 60th St TTaallbboottRRddSSRRee nn tt oo nn AAvveeSS116644tthhAAvveeSSEESE 208th StSE 208th St SE 72nd StSE 72nd St RR aaiinniieerr AA vvee SS 111166tthhAAvveeSSEES 128th StS 128th St NNeewwccaassttllee WWaayy SS 221122tthh SStt SS 118800tthh SStt CCooaall CCrreeeekkPPkkwwyySSEESW 41st StSW 41st St 114400tthhAAvveeSSEE112288tthhAAvveeSSEE6688tthhAAvveeSSSSEE 116688tthh SStt NE 12th StNE 12th St BBeeaaccoonn AA vv ee SS FFoorreesstt DDrr SSEE SSEE 116644tthh SStt 114488tthhAAvveeSSEESSEE MMaayy VVaalllleeyy RRdd SS EE JJ oo nn ee ss RR dd SS EE 22 00 44 tthh WW aayySW 34th StSW 34th St SE 144th StSE 144th St 114488tthhAAvveeSSEE115544tthhPPllSSEELL aa kk ee WWaa sshhii nnggtt oonnBBll vvddNNEEddmmoonnddssAAvveeNNEEAAbbeerrddeeeennAAvveeNNEEEEMM eerrcceerrWWaayyWWeessttVVaalllleeyyHHwwyyEast Valley RdEast Valley Rd,§-405 ,§-405 ,§-405 µ0 1 2 Miles Flow Control Application Map Reference 15-A Date: 01/09/2014 Flow Control Standards Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions) Flow Control Duration Standard (Existing Site Conditions) Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) Flood Problem Flow Unincorporated King County Flow Control Standards Renton City Limits Potential Annexation Area TALBOT RD SS. GRADY WAY(WETL AND )CONCEPTUALSITE PLANSHEET 2HOME DEPOTRENTON, WA19165.00901 S GRADY WAYRENTON, WA 98057DATE: 12/22/20210'SCALE 1"=50'50'100'NWSE SITE AREATHE HOME DEPOT PARCEL11.40 AC496,765 SFOUTLOT 11.98 AC86,158 SFOUTLOT 21.99 AC86,877 SF TOTAL SITE AREA15.37 AC669,800 SFBUILDING AREATHE HOME DEPOT135,384 SFMEZZANINE1,692 SF SUBTOTAL137,983 SFGARDEN CENTER7,956 SFVESTIBULES0 SF TOTAL THD AREA145,939 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA145,939 SFLOT COVERAGE29%BUILDING HEIGHTMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT50'EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT24'BULK REGULATIONSREQUIREDPROVIDEDFRONT SETBACK (BLDG.)15'/20' MAX67.4'SIDE SETBACK (BLDG.)0'29.4'REAR SETBACK (BLDG.)10'*37.2'LANDSCAPE BUFFER 35'25'LOT COVERAGE65% MAX20%FLOOR AREA RATIOTBD20%*10' LS (FREEWAY FRONTAGE)PARKING REQUIREDTHE HOME DEPOT2.5/1000 SF338 STALLSGARDEN CENTER0.5/1000 SF4 STALLS TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED342 STALLSPARKING PROVIDEDFRONT FIELD175 STALLSSIDE FIELD / REAR183 STALLSROOF TOP / DECK PARKING0 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED358 STALLSINCLUDED IN PARKING PROVIDEDACCESSIBLE STALLS (8 req. @ 301-400)8 STALLSPRO PARKING8 STALLSSEASONAL SALES AREA9,737 SF40 STALLSNOT INCLUDED IN PARKING PROVIDEDLOAD-N-GO2 STALLSTHD TRUCK RENTAL6 STALLSTRAILER DISPLAY8 STALLSSHED DISPLAY8 STALLSTHD EQUIPMENT RENTAL10 STALLSCART CORRALS10 STALLS ACCESSORY PARKING NOT INCLUDED 44 STALLS TOTAL THD PARKING PROVIDED402 STALLSLANDSCAPEPARKING LOT191,261 SFPAVEMENTEXISTING478,539 SFZONING CLASSIFICATIONJURISDICTIONCITY OF RENTONZONING CLASSIFICATIONCOMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA)THD USE PERMITTED BY RIGHTYESAPN202305-9007, 172305-9183, 915460-0010 TALBOT RD SS. GRADY WAY(WET L AND )HOME DEPOTRENTON, WA19165.00901 S GRADY WAYRENTON, WA 98057DATE: 12/22/2021TOTAL SITE AREA669,800 SFWORK AREA39,355 SFCUT/FILLN/A**AMOUNT OF SOIL TO BE ADDED AND/OR REMOVED ISAPPROXIMATELY EQUAL DUE TO PROPOSED MATCHINGGRADES.EXISTING HD BUILDING FF38.80'1.SEE SHEET 2.1 FOR EASEMENTS2.PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ARE BASED OFF EXISTINGCONDITIONS. ALL PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ARE TOMATCH EXISTING.CONCEPTUALGRADING PLANSHEET 5 HOME DEPOTRENTON, WA19165.00901 S GRADY WAYRENTON, WA 98057DATE: 12/22/2021SSSSSSSSWWWWWOHEOHEEEEEW0'SCALE 1"=50'50'100'NWSE CONCEPTUALUTILITY PLANSHEET 6 TALBOT RD SS. GRADY WAY(WET L AND )HOME DEPOTRENTON, WA19165.00901 S GRADY WAYRENTON, WA 98057DATE: 12/22/2021··········0'SCALE 1"=50'50'100'NWSE CONCEPTUALCSWPP PLANSHEET 7 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-4 NO. 2 – INFILTRATION FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Trash and debris cleared from site. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to City personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where City personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Excessive growth of grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in height. Grass or groundcover mowed to a height no greater than 6 inches. Infiltration Pond, Top or Side Slopes of Dam, Berm or Embankment Rodent holes Any evidence of rodent holes if facility is acting as a dam or berm, or any evidence of water piping through dam or berm via rodent holes. Rodents removed or destroyed and dam or berm repaired. Tree growth Tree growth threatens integrity of dams, berms or slopes, does not allow maintenance access, or interferes with maintenance activity. If trees are not a threat to dam, berm, or embankment integrity or not interfering with access or maintenance, they do not need to be removed. Trees do not hinder facility performance or maintenance activities. Erosion Eroded damage over 2 inches deep where cause of damage is still present or where there is potential for continued erosion. Any erosion observed on a compacted slope. Slopes stabilized using appropriate erosion control measures. If erosion is occurring on compacted slope, a licensed civil engineer should be consulted to resolve source of erosion. Settlement Any part of a dam, berm or embankment that has settled 4 inches lower than the design elevation. Top or side slope restored to design dimensions. If settlement is significant, a licensed civil engineer should be consulted to determine the cause of the settlement. Infiltration Pond, Tank, Vault, Trench, or Small Basin Storage Area Sediment accumulation If two inches or more sediment is present or a percolation test indicates facility is working at or less than 90% of design. Facility infiltrates as designed. Liner damaged (If applicable) Liner is visible or pond does not hold water as designed. Liner repaired or replaced. Infiltration Tank Structure Plugged air vent Any blockage of the vent. Tank or vault freely vents. Tank bent out of shape Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape more than 10% of its design shape. Tank repaired or replaced to design. Gaps between sections, damaged joints or cracks or tears in wall A gap wider than ½-inch at the joint of any tank sections or any evidence of soil particles entering the tank at a joint or through a wall. No water or soil entering tank through joints or walls. Infiltration Vault Structure Damage to wall, frame, bottom, and/or top slab Cracks wider than ½-inch, any evidence of soil entering the structure through cracks or qualified inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Vault is sealed and structurally sound. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-5 NO. 2 – INFILTRATION FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Inlet/Outlet Pipes Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). No trash or debris in pipes. Damaged inlet/outlet pipe Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. Access Manhole Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Any open manhole requires immediate maintenance. Manhole access covered. Locking mechanism not working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover/lid difficult to remove One maintenance person cannot remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs of lift. Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access doors/plate Damaged or difficult to open Large access doors or plates cannot be opened/removed using normal equipment. Replace or repair access door so it can opened as designed. Gaps, doesn't cover completely Large access doors not flat and/or access opening not completely covered. Doors close flat; covers access opening completely. Lifting rings missing, rusted Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of door or plate. Lifting rings sufficient to lift or remove door or plate. Infiltration Pond, Tank, Vault, Trench, or Small Basin Filter Bags Plugged filter bag (if applicable) Filter bag more than 1/2 full. Replace filter bag or redesign system. Infiltration Pond, Tank, Vault, Trench, or Small Basin Pre- settling Ponds and Vaults Sediment accumulation 6" or more of sediment has accumulated. Pre-settling occurs as designed Infiltration Pond, Rock Filter Plugged rock filter High water level on upstream side of filter remains for extended period of time or little or no water flows through filter during heavy rain storms. Rock filter replaced evaluate need for filter and remove if not necessary. Infiltration Pond Emergency Overflow Spillway Rock missing Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of native soil at the top of out flow path of spillway. Rip-rap on inside slopes need not be replaced. Spillway restored to design standards. Tree growth Tree growth impedes flow or threatens stability of spillway. Trees removed. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-8 NO. 4 – CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Structure Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than ½ cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the structure opening or is blocking capacity of the structure by more than 10%. No Trash or debris blocking or potentially blocking entrance to structure. Trash or debris in the structure that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. No trash or debris in the structure. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Sediment accumulation Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the bottom of the structure to the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section. Sump of structure contains no sediment. Damage to frame and/or top slab Corner of frame extends more than ¾ inch past curb face into the street (If applicable). Frame is even with curb. Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than ¼ inch. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than ¾ inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Cracks in walls or bottom Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles entering structure through cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Structure is sealed and structurally sound. Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering structure through cracks. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. Settlement/ misalignment Structure has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the structure at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Ladder rungs missing or unsafe Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. Ladder meets design standards and allows maintenance person safe access. FROP-T Section Damaged FROP-T T section is not securely attached to structure wall and outlet pipe structure should support at least 1,000 lbs of up or down pressure. T section securely attached to wall and outlet pipe. Structure is not in upright position (allow up to 10% from plumb). Structure in correct position. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-9 NO. 4 – CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED FROP-T Section (cont.) Damaged FROP-T (cont.) Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight or show signs of deteriorated grout. Connections to outlet pipe are water tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes—other than designed holes—in the structure. Structure has no holes other than designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or missing cleanout gate Cleanout gate is missing. Replace cleanout gate. Cleanout gate is not watertight. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one maintenance person. Gate moves up and down easily and is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged. Chain is in place and works as designed. Orifice Plate Damaged or missing orifice plate Control device is not working properly due to missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. Plate is in place and works as designed. Obstructions to orifice plate Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation blocking the plate. Plate is free of all obstructions and works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions to overflow pipe Any trash or debris blocking (or having the potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. Pipe is free of all obstructions and works as designed. Deformed or damaged lip of overflow pipe Lip of overflow pipe is bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow overflow at an elevation lower than design Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). No trash or debris in pipes. Damaged inlet/outlet pipe Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. Metal Grates (If applicable) Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate free of trash and debris. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing grate Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Cover/lid protects opening to structure. Locking mechanism not working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover/lid difficult to remove One maintenance person cannot remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-10 NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Structure Sediment accumulation Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Sump of catch basin contains no sediment. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than ½ cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin by more than 10%. No Trash or debris blocking or potentially blocking entrance to catch basin. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). No dead animals or vegetation present within catch basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame and/or top slab Corner of frame extends more than ¾ inch past curb face into the street (If applicable). Frame is even with curb. Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than ¼ inch. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than ¾ inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Cracks in walls or bottom Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Catch basin is sealed and is structurally sound. Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. Settlement/ misalignment Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). No trash or debris in pipes. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-11 NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Inlet/Outlet Pipe (cont.) Damaged inlet/outlet pipe Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. Metal Grates (Catch Basins) Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate free of trash and debris. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing grate Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Cover/lid protects opening to structure. Locking mechanism not working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover/lid difficult to remove One maintenance person cannot remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-12 NO. 6 – CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Pipes Sediment & debris accumulation Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Water flows freely through pipes. Vegetation/root growth in pipe Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of water through pipes. Water flows freely through pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective coating or corrosion Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Damaged pipes Any dent that decreases the cross section area of pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of ditch and slopes. Trash and debris cleared from ditches. Sediment accumulation Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to City personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where City personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Excessive vegetation growth Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. Water flows freely through ditches. Erosion damage to slopes Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. Rock lining out of place or missing (If applicable) One layer or less of rock exists above native soil area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native soil. Replace rocks to design standards. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-13 NO. 7 – DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G., TRASH RACKS) MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED. Site Trash and debris Trash or debris plugging more than 20% of the area of the barrier. Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. Sediment accumulation Sediment accumulation of greater than 20% of the area of the barrier Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. Structure Cracked, broken, or loose pipe or structure Structure which bars attached to is damaged – pipe is loose or cracked or concrete structure is cracked, broken, or loose. Structure barrier attached to is sound. Bars Incorrect bar spacing Bar spacing exceeds 6 inches. Bars have at most 6 inches spacing. Damaged or missing bars Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. Bars in place with no bends more than ¾ inch. Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars in place according to design. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% deterioration to any part of barrier. Repair or replace barrier to design standards. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-14 NO. 8 – ENERGY DISSIPATERS MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED. Site Trash and debris Trash and/or debris accumulation. Dissipater clear of trash and/or debris. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Rock Pad Missing or moved rock Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in area five square feet or larger or any exposure of native soil. Rock pad prevents erosion. Dispersion Trench Pipe plugged with sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Pipe cleaned/flushed so that it matches design. Not discharging water properly Visual evidence of water discharging at concentrated points along trench (normal condition is a “sheet flow” of water along trench). Water discharges from feature by sheet flow. Perforations plugged Over 1/4 of perforations in pipe are plugged with debris or sediment. Perforations freely discharge flow. Water flows out top of “distributor” catch basin. Water flows out of distributor catch basin during any storm less than the design storm. No flow discharges from distributor catch basin. Receiving area over- saturated Water in receiving area is causing or has potential of causing landslide problems. No danger of landslides. Gabions Damaged mesh Mesh of gabion broken, twisted or deformed so structure is weakened or rock may fall out. Mesh is intact, no rock missing. Corroded mesh Gabion mesh shows corrosion through more than ¼ of its gage. All gabion mesh capable of containing rock and retaining designed form. Collapsed or deformed baskets Gabion basket shape deformed due to any cause. All gabion baskets intact, structure stands as designed. Missing rock Any rock missing that could cause gabion to loose structural integrity. No rock missing. Manhole/Chamber Worn or damaged post, baffles or side of chamber Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to ½ or original size or any concentrated worn spot exceeding one square foot which would make structure unsound. Structure is in no danger of failing. Damage to wall, frame, bottom, and/or top slab Cracks wider than ½-inch or any evidence of soil entering the structure through cracks, or maintenance inspection personnel determines that the structure is not structurally sound. Manhole/chamber is sealed and structurally sound. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the structure at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. No soil or water enters and no water discharges at the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-17 NO. 11 – GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Trash and debris cleared from site. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to City personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where City personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Excessive growth of grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in height. Grass or groundcover mowed to a height no greater than 6 inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard tree identified Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possible. No hazard trees in facility. Damaged tree or shrub identified Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or broken which affect more than 25% of the total foliage of the tree or shrub. Trees and shrubs with less than 5% of total foliage with split or broken limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or knocked over. No blown down vegetation or knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported or are leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. Tree or shrub in place and adequately supported; dead or diseased trees removed. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-19 NO. 13 – BASIC BIOSWALE (GRASS) MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Site Trash and debris Any trash and/or debris accumulated on the bioswale site. No trash or debris on the bioswale site. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Swale Section Sediment accumulation Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches in 10% of the swale treatment area. No sediment deposits in grass treatment area of the bioswale. Sediment inhibits grass growth over 10% of swale length. Grass growth not inhibited by sediment. Sediment inhibits even spreading of flow. Flow spreads evenly through swale Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to channelization or high flows. No eroded or scoured areas in bioswale. Cause of erosion or scour addressed. Poor vegetation coverage Grass is sparse or bare or eroded patches occur in more than 10% of the swale bottom. Swale has no bare spots and grass is thick and healthy. Excessive vegetation growth Grass excessively tall (greater than 10 inches), grass is thin or nuisance weeds and other vegetation have taken over. Grass is between 3 and 4 inches tall, thick and healthy. No nuisance vegetation present. Excessive shade Grass growth is poor because sunlight does not reach swale. Healthy grass growth or swale converted to a wet bioswale. Constant baseflow Continuous flow through the swale, even when it has been dry for weeks or an eroded, muddy channel has formed in the swale bottom. Baseflow removed from swale by a low- flow pea-gravel drain or bypassed around the swale. Standing water Water pools in the swale between storms or does not drain freely. Swale freely drains and there is no standing water in swale between storms. Channelization Flow concentrates and erodes channel through swale. No flow channels in swale. Flow Spreader Concentrated flow Flow from spreader not uniformly distributed across entire swale width. Flows are spread evenly over entire swale width. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). No trash or debris in pipes. Damaged inlet/outlet pipe Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-35 NO. 23 – COALESCING PLATE OIL/WATER SEPARATOR MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Site Trash and debris Any trash or debris which impairs the function of the facility. Trash and debris removed from facility. Contaminants and pollution Floating oil in excess of 1 inch in first chamber, any oil in other chambers or other contaminants of any type in any chamber. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vault Treatment Area Sediment accumulation in the forebay Sediment accumulation of 6 inches or greater in the forebay. No sediment in the forebay. Discharge water not clear Inspection of discharge water shows obvious signs of poor water quality – effluent discharge from vault shows thick visible sheen. Repair function of plates so effluent is clear. Trash or debris accumulation Trash and debris accumulation in vault (floatables and non-floatables). Trash and debris removed from vault. Oil accumulation Oil accumulation that exceeds 1 inch at the water surface in the in the coalescing plate chamber. No visible oil depth on water and coalescing plates clear of oil. Coalescing Plates Damaged Plate media broken, deformed, cracked and/or showing signs of failure. Replace that portion of media pack or entire plate pack depending on severity of failure. Sediment accumulation Any sediment accumulation which interferes with the operation of the coalescing plates. No sediment accumulation interfering with the coalescing plates. Vault Structure Damage to wall, frame, bottom, and/or top slab Cracks wider than ½-inch and any evidence of soil particles entering the structure through the cracks, or maintenance inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Vault replaced or repaired to design specifications. Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/or showing signs of failure as determined by maintenance/inspection person. Repair or replace baffles to specifications. Ventilation Pipes Plugged ventilation pipes Any obstruction to the ventilation pipes. Ventilation pipes are clear. Shutoff Valve Damaged or inoperable shutoff valve Shutoff valve cannot be opened or closed. Shutoff valve operates normally. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). No trash or debris in pipes. Damaged inlet/outlet pipe Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. Access Manhole Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Any open manhole requires immediate maintenance. Manhole access covered. Locking mechanism not working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Mechanism opens with proper tools. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-36 NO. 23 – COALESCING PLATE OIL/WATER SEPARATOR MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Access Manhole (cont.) Cover/lid difficult to remove One maintenance person cannot remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs of lift. Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access doors/plate Damaged or difficult to open Large access doors or plates cannot be opened/removed using normal equipment. Replace or repair access door so it can opened as designed. Gaps, doesn't cover completely Large access doors not flat and/or access opening not completely covered. Doors close flat and cover access opening completely. Lifting rings missing, rusted Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of door or plate. Lifting rings sufficient to lift or remove door or plate. CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-A-1 REFERENCE 8-A TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner _Home Depot, USA Inc__________ Phone _770-384-2543 x12543_______________ Address _2455 Paces Ferry, Rd C19________ ______Atlanta, GA 30339________________ Project Engineer _Daniel J Zoldak______________ Company _Lars Andersen & Associates, INC____ Phone _559-276-2790 Ext 117_______________ Project Name _Home Depot_____________ CED Permit # ________________________ Location Township _23N_______________ Range _5E________________ Section _SW1/4-17, NE1/4-19, NW1/7-20_ Site Address _901 S Grady Way__ _Renon, WA 98057________ Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS  Land Use (e.g., Subdivision / Short Subd.) Building (e.g., M/F / Commercial / SFR)  Grading  Right-of-Way Use ? Other __Site Plan Review_______________  DFW HPA  COE 404  DOE Dam Safety  FEMA Floodplain  COE Wetlands  Other ________  Shoreline Management  Structural Rockery/Vault/_____  ESA Section 7 Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review (check one): Date (include revision dates): 12/21/2021 Date of Final:  Full  Targeted  Simplified  Large Project  Directed __________________ __________________ __________________ Plan Type (check one): Date (include revision dates): 12/22/2021 Date of Final:  Full  Modified  Simplified ________________ __________________ __________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-2 Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Approved Adjustment No. ______________________ Date of Approval: _______________________ Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Start Date: _______________________ Completion Date: _______________________ Describe: _________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Re: SWDM Adjustment No. ________________ Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: __City of Renton_______________________________________________________ Special District Overlays: __N/A_________________________________________________________ Drainage Basin: _Black River Basin________________________________________________ Stormwater Requirements: _Full Drainage Review__________________________________________ Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS  River/Stream ________________________  Lake ______________________________  Wetlands _Adjacent to SW corner of Site__  Closed Depression ____________________  Floodplain ___________________________  Other _______________________________ _______________________________  Steep Slope __________________________  Erosion Hazard _______________________  Landslide Hazard ______________________  Coal Mine Hazard ______________________  Seismic Hazard _______________________  Habitat Protection ______________________  _____________________________________ REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-3 Part 10 SOILS Soil Type _Urban________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Slopes __0.5-25%________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Erosion Potential __Limited__________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________  High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet)  Other ________________________________  Sole Source Aquifer  Seeps/Springs  Additional Sheets Attached Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE _Core 2 – Offsite Analysis_________________  Sensitive/Critical Areas__________________  SEPA________________________________  LID Infeasibility________________________  Other________________________________  _____________________________________ LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT __Not exceeding existin peak flow.____________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________  Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Project Area Core Requirements (all 8 apply): Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 2 Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:_____N/A_____________ Flow Control (include facility summary sheet) Standard: _Flow Control Structure_(x2)_______________________ or Exemption Number: ____________ On-site BMPs: _Biofiltration Basin (x3), Oil separator (x2)________ Conveyance System Spill containment located at: _TBD_________________________ Erosion and Sediment Control / Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor: __TBD________________ Contact Phone: __TBD___________________ After Hours Phone: __TBD____________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-4 Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog or Exemption No. _______________________ Special Requirements (as applicable): Area Specific Drainage Requirements Type: SDO / MDP / BP / Shared Fac. / None Name: ________________________ Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _______________ Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control (commercial / industrial land use) Describe land use: Commercial Describe any structural controls: Oil Seperators (x2) Oil Control High-Use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: _________________________________ Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? _____________________________________ Other Drainage Structures Describe: REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-5 Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION  Clearing Limits  Cover Measures  Perimeter Protection  Traffic Area Stabilization  Sediment Retention  Surface Water Collection  Dewatering Control _ Dust Control _ Flow Control _ Control Pollutants _ Protect Existing and Proposed BMPs/Facilities _ Maintain Protective BMPs / Manage Project MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION  Stabilize exposed surfaces  Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities _ Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure operation of Permanent BMPs/Facilities, restore operation of BMPs/Facilities as necessary  Flag limits of sensitive areas and open space preservation areas  Other _______________________ Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description  Detention  Infiltration  Regional Facility  Shared Facility  On-site BMPs  Other ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ Existing flow control ________________  Vegetated Flowpath  Wetpool  Filtration  Oil Control  Spill Control _On-site BMPs  Other ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ Existing separators & biofiltration basins ________________ Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS  Drainage Easement  Covenant  Native Growth Protection Covenant  Tract  Other __Utility Easements_______________  Cast in Place Vault  Retaining Wall  Rockery > 4′ High  Structural on Steep Slope  Other _______________________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-6 Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. _________________________________________________________________________12/22/2021__ Signed/Date Terracon Consultants, Inc.21905 64 th Ave. W, Suite 100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 P (425) 771 3304 F (425) 771 3549 www.terracon.com LETTER HEAD September 15, 2021 The Home Depot 2455 Paces Ferry Road, C19 Atlanta, GA 30339 Attn: John R. Foy – Manager/Field Construction P:(678) 764-2837 E:john_r_foy@homedepot.com Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report –DRAFT Addendum Letter No. 1 Former Sam’s Club South Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton, WA Terracon Project No. 81195216 Dear Mr. Foy: This DRAFT addendum letter serves as an update to the existing geotechnical engineering report developed by Terracon (i.e. formerly Zipper Zeman & Associates; ZZA) dated December 6, 2002 (see attached). This addendum letter was developed consistent with our proposal dated July 13, 2021. Presented in this letter are the following: ■Liquefaction hazard analysis results performed using current methods with previously performed boring logs (ZZA; Terra Associates; GeoEngineers) ■Considerations for adding piles to the existing building and new piles to building additions ■Preliminary recommendations for downdrag loads on existing piles as a result of post- liquefaction settlement ■Preliminary lateral pile recommendations for use in LPile analyses performed by the structural engineer to assess adequacy of existing piles ■Overview of geotechnical data gaps and recommended additional analyses to support the proposed development (see attached proposed site exploration plan) ■Conceptual geologic cross sections: A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, and D-D’ ■Photography log from a site visit performed August 26, 2021 is also attached. This addendum letter should be used with the attached geotechnical engineering report. Based on review of the construction plans and drawings, the building is support by 18-inch diameter augercast piles founded in at least 2 feet of bedrock. The augercast pile schedule is presented in the photography log that is attached at the end of this letter. Floor slabs are supported by grade beams with piles spaced approximately 20 feet. Each column is supported by a pile cap with two piles. Additional single augercast piles support the grade beams for the floor slab. The allowable pile capacity presented in the plan set is 75 tons per pile. Photos of a portion of the plan set are included in the attached photography log. Geotechnical Engineering Report –DRAFT Addendum Letter No. 1 Former Sam’s Club ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 2 UPDATED SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The existing geotechnical engineering report for the project was originally published while the International Building Code (IBC) 1997 was the current code. Since that time, IBC 2018 has been adopted by Washington State, which references ASCE 7-16. This new code introduces different ground motion parameters than the previous version, including an increase in the peak ground acceleration (PGA) which is used for liquefaction evaluations. Updated seismic design parameters are presented in the table below: Description Value Site Class F Site Latitude 47.4727 Site Longitude -122.2061 SS –Short Period Spectral Acceleration, Site Class E 2 1.431 g S1 –1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, Site Class E 2 0.488 g PGA -ASCE 7, Peak Ground Acceleration2 0.609 g FPGA –Peak Ground Acceleration Site Coefficient2 1.1 PGAM –Site-modified peak ground acceleration2 0.67 1.The IBC requires a site profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. Borings were performed to the depth range of 50 to 100 feet where blow counts were used to define the site class. 2.These values were obtained using online seismic design maps and tools provided by ATC (https://hazards.atcouncil.org/). LIQUEFACTION The subsurface conditions are described and presented in the geotechnical report. In general, subsurface conditions consist of fill that includes some compacted structural fill near the surface underlain by uncompacted fill that includes very loose to loose coal mine tailings, cinders, and sandstone and shale fill. The uncompacted unit of fill is underlain by alluvial soil consisting of very loose to loose sand and silty sand, very soft to soft clay, silty clay, clayey silt, silt, and peat. Sandstone bedrock underlies the alluvial soil at depths ranging from 19 to 110 feet below the ground surface that existed at the time the subsurface explorations were performed. The bedrock is described as highly weathered but becomes more competent with depth. Liquefaction was evaluated for select, full-depth borings (i.e. advanced to bedrock) from the geotechnical report using the liquefaction triggering methods proposed by Idriss & Boulanger (2014). The borings selected for analysis were based on the boring location, depth, and available data. In general, the liquefiable unit is observed to extend from the water table to denser alluvium or cohesive soils. Liquefaction is assumed to occur no deeper than 60 feet bgs. The estimated Geotechnical Engineering Report –DRAFT Addendum Letter No. 1 Former Sam’s Club ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 3 range of liquefiable soils and the resulting free-field post-liquefaction settlement for the design level earthquake is presented in the table below: Locations 1 Depth Range of Liquefiable Unit (feet bgs)2 Estimated Total Settlement (inches)3 B-3 10 to 50 20 B-5 10 to 43 18 B-6 10 to 38 16 B-7 10 to 40; 55 to 60 18 B-8 10 to 28; 38 to 48 18 B-10 10 to 43; 50 to 56 26 1.Boring performed by ZZA that are presented in geotechnical engineering report. 2.Below existing ground surface (bgs) at the time of the explorations. 3.Field-field estimate. Although the borings selected were located within the building footprint, similar magnitudes of settlement should be expected for pavement areas. Smaller (but still significant) earthquakes could result in less settlement than the estimated total liquefaction as a result of the design earthquake. Considerations for differential settlement should be made for any areas of the planned development that are not pile supported. Over a span of 40 feet, we estimate the differential settlement will be on the order of 1 to 9 inches (per ASCE 7-16, Table 12.13-3). The differential settlement limit allowed by the code for preserving life safety is 4½ inches. The estimated differential settlement exceeds the code limit; therefore, mitigation (i.e. pile support) is considered to be necessary. DEEP FOUNDATIONS Conceptual Geologic Cross Sections The existing soil borings from the geotechnical engineering report and reports from others were used to generate conceptual geologic cross sections. The geologic cross sections are intended to conceptually present the extent of liquefiable soils and the sandstone bedrock contact. The cross sections can be used to evaluate pile stability with other recommendations presented in this report addendum. The cross sections are presented at this end of this letter and will be updated following the additional geotechnical explorations recommended herein and subsequent addendum letter No. 2. Geotechnical Engineering Report –DRAFT Addendum Letter No. 1 Former Sam’s Club ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 4 Existing Pile Design and Performance Observations As mentioned previously, the building is supported by 18-inch diameter augercast piles founded in at least 2 feet of bedrock. These piles are designed with an allowable capacity of 75 tons. This translates to an allowable end bearing capacity of 85 kips per ft2. A typical factor of safety of 3 is assumed. Based on our site visit and review of exterior walls, columns, and floor slabs, the building appears to be in good condition with no areas of significant cracking or structural distress noted on the exterior walls or floor slabs. We surmise that the existing pile foundation appears to be performing well for the near 20-year old building. Given this apparent satisfactory performance, similar pile sizes and capacities could be assumed for additional piles. However, pile installation within the building may be limited, alternative pile methods such as segmental torque-down piles, in addition to augercast piles, should be considered. Pile Downdrag The phenomenon of liquefaction can have a negative impact on pile capacity due to the induced vertical loading from ground subsidence, or liquefaction-induced settlement. The zone of liquefaction, as it settles, drags with it the overlying soil overburden. Rather than providing added vertical capacity via side friction, the overlying non-liquefiable soil and liquefiable soil impart a load on the pile. The downdrag load; however, is a function of the liquefiable zone thickness, overburden soil thickness, and soil overburden composition. In general, the soil overburden thickness is roughly 10 feet while the composition is relatively variable. For purposes of this addendum letter, an average condition (thickness and composition) is assumed for estimating the downdrag load. The table below presents a range of values that can be assumed for structural analysis of pile capacity: Depth Range of Liquefiable Unit (feet bgs)1,2 Estimated Downdrag Load per Pile (kips) (inches)1,2 10 to 20 18 10 to 30 33 10 to 40 50 10 to 50 68 10 to 60 85 1.For values between the ranges presented, linearly interpolate. 2.See the attached conceptual geologic cross sections for evaluation of other scenarios. As discussed in the Geotechnical Data Gaps section, additional explorations are recommended along the building perimeter to improve our understanding of the depth to bedrock which will facilitate estimation of downdrag and planning of pile embedment depths. Piles terminated short of the bedrock, or in weathered bedrock, may not achieve the recommended design capacities. Geotechnical Engineering Report –DRAFT Addendum Letter No. 1 Former Sam’s Club ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 5 The values presented in the table above are considered preliminary and are for planning purposes only. These values will be updated following completion of the soil borings as part of the recommended additional explorations and subsequent addendum letter No. 2. LATERAL PILE LOADING The following table lists input values for use in LPILE analyses. LPILE estimates values of kh and E50 based on strength; however, non-default values of kh should be used where provided, particularly for the sand strata. Since deflection or a service limit criterion will most likely control lateral capacity design, no safety/resistance factor is included with the parameters. Stratigraphy 1 L-Pile Soil Model Depth to Bottom of Stratum below existing ground surface (ft) c (psf)2 f 2 g (pcf) 2,3 ε50 2 K (pci)2 No.Material 1 Fill (above WT) Sand (Reese)10 0 30°120 ---25 2 Liquefiable Zone Liquefied Sand (Rollins) 30 to 60 0 30°120 ------ 3 Non- Liquefiable Alluvial Soil Soft Clay (Matlock)60 to 105 1,200 0 125 0.01 125 4 Sandstone Weak Rock ---28,000 ---145 0.001 1,000 1.See Subsurface Profile in the geotechnical engineering report provided by ZZA for more details on Stratigraphy. 2.Definition of Terms: c: Cohesive intercept f: Internal friction angle, g: Moist unit weight ε50:Non-default E50 strain K: Horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction 3.Buoyant unit weight values should be used below water table (i.e.g less 62.4 pcf) When piles are used in groups, the lateral capacities of the piles in the second, third, and subsequent rows of the group should be reduced as compared to the capacity of a single, independent pile. Guidance for applying p-multiplier factors to the p values in the p-y curves for each row of pile foundations within a pile group are as follows: Geotechnical Engineering Report –DRAFT Addendum Letter No. 1 Former Sam’s Club ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 6 ■Front row: Pm = 0.8; ■Second row: Pm = 0.4 ■Third and subsequent row: Pm = 0.3. For the case of a single row of piles supporting a laterally loaded grade beam, group action for lateral resistance of piles would need to be considered when spacing is less than three pile diameters (measured center-to-center). GEOTECHNICAL DATA GAPS Bedrock Depth Existing geotechnical engineering reports for the site include the ZZA report (attached) and reports by GeoEngineers and Terra Associates in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Collectively, there are 27 soil borings within 50 feet of the building; however, not all of the borings were advanced to bedrock. Along the northwest and southwest sides of the building, where the lumber rack and garden center expansions are proposed, respectively, additional explorations are necessary to understand depth to bedrock variations. Therefore, full-depth soil borings that penetrate into bedrock are recommended. The existing and proposed soil boring locations are included as an attachment to this letter. Floor Slab Evaluation Per the construction plans, the design floor slab thickness is 5 inches and is underlain by a methane barrier system. Per the recommendations in the geotechnical engineering report, the native soils are to be overlain by 12 inches of sand/gravel fill with possible use of a woven geotextile. Over the fill should be a methane/water vapor barrier followed by 6 inches of capillary break. It is not known if the layering beneath the slab was constructed as recommended in the geotechnical engineering report. Terracon proposes the following: ■Perform a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the building slab to estimate rebar spacing, slab thickness, and presence of voids that may exist beneath the slab. ■Where voids are identified, perform up to 6 cores to characterize the extent of the voids (if present) Geotechnical Engineering Report –DRAFT Addendum Letter No. 1 Former Sam’s Club ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 7 ■If voids are not detected, perform 6 cores evenly spaced across the main part of the slab to characterize slab thickness, capillary break thickness, and presence of the methane vapor barrier Deliverable The results of the soil borings, which includes updated geologic cross sections, as well as the results of the floor slab survey, will be provided in a second addendum letter. In this letter, we provide updated estimates of liquefaction downdrag loads and LPile parameters. These recommendations are subject to refinement and revision pending the results of additional field studies. LIMITATIONS Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration as well as those obtained by others. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations 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. Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations. Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of The Home Depot for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to The Home Depot. Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to The Home Depot, and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site characteristics as provided are for preliminary design purposes and not to estimate construction costs. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly Geotechnical Engineering Report –DRAFT Addendum Letter No. 1 Former Sam’s Club ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 8 impact construction costs. Any parties charged with estimating construction costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing. Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we may be of further service in the meantime, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. DRAFT Zachary L. Koehn, P.E. Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. Project Engineer Senior Engineering Consultant Attachments: ■Exploration Site Plan (includes existing and proposed explorations) ■Conceptual Geologic Cross Sections (A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, D-D’) ■Photography Log ■ZZA Geotechnical Engineering Report (2002) EXPLORATION PLAN AND CROSS SECTIONS Home Depot - Sam's Club Site ■ Renton, WA September 14, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)A'AEXISTINGGRADEBUILDING FOOTPRINTB-15 (GE)B-3 (120')PROPOSEDB-14 (GE)B-4 (100')PROPOSEDB-11 (GE)B-5 (60')PROPOSEDB-5 (GE)B-13 (GE)B-1 (GE)B-2 (ZZA)FILLFILLPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILSANDSTONESANDSTONEFILL????????????SCALE IN FEET03060HORIZONTAL1' = 30'VERTICAL1' = 30'NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILSANDSTONEPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILProject Mngr:Approved By:Checked By:Drawn By:Project No.Scale:Date:File No.CRQVXOWLQJ EQJLQHHUV DQG SFLHQWLVWVEXHIBIT21905 64th Avenue W, Ste 100Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043FAX. (425) 771-3549PH. (425) 771-3304 CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A - A'Home Depot - Sam's Club Site901 S Grady WayRenton, Washington181195216AS SHOWN*.dwgSEP 2021ZKTBZKDSLEGEND:BORING NUMBERB-1BORING END DEPTHSTRATAGRAPHIC CONTACTINFERRED STRATAGRAPHIC CONTACT??AVERAGE WATER TABLE (ASSUMED)SANDSTONENOTES:1.PRESENTED ARE POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOLLOWINGSTRONG GROUND MOTIONS. THE STRATIGRAPHY PRESENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS2.BASED ON ASCE 7-16 CODE AND CURRENT STANDARD OF PRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTIONEVALUATION. -80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130B'BEXISTINGGRADEBUILDING FOOTPRINTB-6 (ZZA)B-3 (ZZA)B-1A (ZZA)B-6 (GE)B-3 (GE)B-8 (ZZA)B-2 (120')PROPOSEDFILLFILLFILL??????DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET) DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)SCALE IN FEET03060HORIZONTAL1' = 30'VERTICAL1' = 30'SANDSTONESANDSTONESANDSTONE NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOIL??????????????????????Project Mngr:Approved By:Checked By:Drawn By:Project No.Scale:Date:File No.CRQVXOWLQJ EQJLQHHUV DQG SFLHQWLVWVEXHIBIT21905 64th Avenue W, Ste 100Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043FAX. (425) 771-3549PH. (425) 771-3304CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B - B'Home Depot - Sam's Club Site901 S Grady WayRenton, Washington281195216AS SHOWN*.dwgSEP 2021ZKTBZKDSLEGEND:BORING NUMBERB-1BORING END DEPTHSTRATAGRAPHIC CONTACTINFERRED STRATAGRAPHIC CONTACT??AVERAGE WATER TABLE (ASSUMED)SANDSTONENOTES:1.PRESENTED ARE POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOLLOWINGSTRONG GROUND MOTIONS. THE STRATIGRAPHY PRESENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS2.BASED ON ASCE 7-16 CODE AND CURRENT STANDARD OF PRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTIONEVALUATION. -80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130C'CEXISTINGGRADEBUILDING FOOTPRINTB-11 (ZZA)B-2 (100')PROPOSEDB-8 (GE)B-10 (ZZA)B-9 (GE)B-5 (ZZA)B-6 (60')PROPOSEDB-4 (ZZA)FILLFILLFILL?????????????????DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET) DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)SCALE IN FEET03060HORIZONTAL1' = 30'VERTICAL1' = 30'SANDSTONESANDSTONESANDSTONEPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILProject Mngr:Approved By:Checked By:Drawn By:Project No.Scale:Date:File No.CRQVXOWLQJ EQJLQHHUV DQG SFLHQWLVWVEXHIBIT21905 64th Avenue W, Ste 100Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043FAX. (425) 771-3549PH. (425) 771-3304CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C - C'Home Depot - Sam's Club Site901 S Grady WayRenton, Washington381195216AS SHOWN*.dwgSEP 2021ZKTBZKDSLEGEND:BORING NUMBERB-1BORING END DEPTHSTRATAGRAPHIC CONTACTINFERRED STRATAGRAPHIC CONTACT??AVERAGE WATER TABLE (ASSUMED)SANDSTONENOTES:1.PRESENTED ARE POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOLLOWINGSTRONG GROUND MOTIONS. THE STRATIGRAPHY PRESENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS2.BASED ON ASCE 7-16 CODE AND CURRENT STANDARD OF PRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTIONEVALUATION. -80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130D'DEXISTINGGRADEBUILDING FOOTPRINTSCALE IN FEET04080B-4 (100')PROPOSEDB-6 (ZZA)HORIZONTAL1' = 40'VERTICAL1' = 40'B-11 (GE)B-7 (ZZA)B-7 (GE)B-5 (ZZA)B-9 (GE)B-7 (50')PROPOSEDFILLFILLB-6 (GE)???????????????????DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET) DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET) NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILSANDSTONEFILLNON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILSANDSTONESANDSTONESANDSTONEPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL???Project Mngr:Approved By:Checked By:Drawn By:Project No.Scale:Date:File No.CRQVXOWLQJ EQJLQHHUV DQG SFLHQWLVWVEXHIBIT21905 64th Avenue W, Ste 100Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043FAX. (425) 771-3549PH. (425) 771-3304CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION D - D'Home Depot - Sam's Club Site901 S Grady WayRenton, Washington481195216AS SHOWN*.dwgSEP 2021ZKTBZKDSLEGEND:BORING NUMBERB-1BORING END DEPTHSTRATAGRAPHIC CONTACTINFERRED STRATAGRAPHIC CONTACT??AVERAGE WATER TABLE (ASSUMED)SANDSTONENOTES:1.PRESENTED ARE POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOLLOWINGSTRONG GROUND MOTIONS. THE STRATIGRAPHY PRESENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS2.BASED ON ASCE 7-16 CODE AND CURRENT STANDARD OF PRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTIONEVALUATION. Photography Log Home Depot – Sam’s Club Site ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 1 of 6 PHOTOGRAPHY LOG Store front entrance from inside From store front entrance looking toward middle of floor Photography Log Home Depot – Sam’s Club Site ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 2 of 6 Typical perimeter wall and column Loading dock area from inside the building Photography Log Home Depot – Sam’s Club Site ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 3 of 6 Typical interior column. Minor slab cracking. Slab cracking within loading dock area Photography Log Home Depot – Sam’s Club Site ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 4 of 6 Loading dock area from outside the store Southwest side of store Photography Log Home Depot – Sam’s Club Site ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 5 of 6 General notes for foundations and slabs from construction plan set Sample of augercast pile layout from construction plan set Photography Log Home Depot – Sam’s Club Site ■ Renton, WA September 15, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 6 of 6 Augercast pile schedule from construction plan set Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants J~1470 December 6, 2002 PacLand 1144Eastlake Avenue R,Suite 601 Seattle, Washington 98109 Attention: Subject: Mr. Joe Geivett,P.R Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Geivett: This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced project. The authorized scope of services for this project consisted of our field exploration programs for the slope stability analysis and site evaluation, field and laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. Our services were completed in accordance the scopes presented in our Proposal for Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services, Slope Stability Analysis, and Proposed Retail Development (P-1673) dated September 3, 2002 and September 13, 2002, respectively. Written authorization to proceed with this project was provided by PacLand on September 19, 2002. The purpose of this evaluation was to establish general subsurface conditions at the site from which conclusions and recommendations for foundation design, pavement design, and general earthwork construction for the project could be formulated. In the event that there are any changes in the nature, design, elevation, or location of the proposed structure, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. (ZZA) and modified, as necessary, to reflect those changes. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for the exclusive use of Pacific Land Design and their agents for specific application to this project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following is a brief summary outline of the geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for this project. The summary should be read in complete context with the accompanying report for proper interpretation. Review of Existing Literature • We reviewed two geotechnical reports completed for the project site that were provided to us by the property owner. In October 1999, a report was prepared by GeoEngineers titled Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Home Depot Development.Another report by 18905 33 rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington ~-~--_.._-------------~~~~~~ J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 2 Terra Associates, Inc. was prepared in September 2000 and was titled Geotechnical Report, Southpoint Corporate Center. Subsurface Conditions • The subsurface evaluation consisted of completing 43 hollow-stem auger and mud rotary borings, and 3 electric cone probes across the project site, as shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan.Of the 43 borings, 6 were completed in a separate phase in order to evaluate the stability of a proposed alteration to protected slopes along the east side of the site. The slopes were man-made as a result of placing coal mine tailings on the site. • A large portion of the site is currently covered with asphalt pavement and structural concrete floors. Elsewhere, the surface is covered with gravel. Surficial site soils typically consist of 4Y2 to more than 11Y2 feet of very loose to loose, moist, wet, and saturated, brown to black, coal, cinders, sandstone, and shale fill. Limited topsoil of variable thickness should be expected in areas that are not currently developed. • In general, the fill materials are underlain by alluvial soils consisting of very soft to soft peat, clay, silty clay, clayey silt and silt, as well as very loose to loose sandy silt and sand with varying proportions of silt and gravel. Sandstone bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from as shallow as 19 feet to greater than 110 feet. These generalizations should be used in conjunction with the attached exploration logs. •Groundwater depths varied across the site from 3 to 12 feet at the time of completing the explorations. The elevations of the groundwater levels vary between 23 and 34 feet with the highest groundwater elevation occurring near a small pond that is between the outflow from two discharge pipes at the base of the slope along the east side of the site and the north end of the aqueduct. Groundwater levels, including quantity and duration of flow, should be expected to fluctuate throughout the year due to on- and off-site factors. Site Preparation • Topsoil,if encountered in undeveloped areas, should be completely stripped and removed from the building pad and parking lot areas. Stripping should also include the removal of existing asphalt pavement, asphalt and concrete rubble, and vegetation that consists primarily of limited brush and trees. • The proposed 3H:1V permanent slope that will be created after removing the lobe of coal mine tailings on the east side of the site appears feasible, based upon our slope stability analyses. However, in order to maintain adequate slope stability safety factors, we recommend that a series of groundwater collection pipes be installed above the sandstone bedrock contact in order to limit the build-up of perched groundwater in the remaining loose fill materials that will comprise the finished slope. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 3 • All asphalt and concrete should be removed prior to placing fill in low areas. Existing asphalt and gravel surfacing should be left in place wherever possible to protect the site from construction traffic and provide laydown areas. • Pile foundations beneath the existing structural slabs on site should be cut off a minimum of 3 feet below slab and pavement subgrade elevations. Other concrete foundation elements, slabs, and walls should be removed and disposed or crushed for reuse as structural fill. • Exposed soils will likely consist of moist to wet coal tailings. As such they should be considered susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic. Existing fill soils (the entire site) should be covered with a minimum of 12 inches of pit-run sand and gravel, crushed recycled concrete, or other approved granular material to protect the sensitive subgrade. • Existing underground utilities should be removed or grouted in place. Excavations created in order to remove the utilities should be backfilled with compacted structural fill. Deeper underground structures, such as manholes, should also be backfilled with structural fill, lean- mix concrete, or controlled density fill. • Depending on the groundwater levels at the time of construction, dewatering may be necessary to lower groundwater levels if utility excavations or other underground structures extend below the shallow groundwater table. • Peat should be expected in some of the deeper utility excavations and should be overexcavated and replaced when encountered. Structural Fill • All fill used to raise grades should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. •It is our opinion that all of the existing coal tailings fill on site should be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Random areas of silty sand will likely be encountered and would likely be suitable for reuse as structural fill, although it is not possible to quantify the amount of this material. Granular material immediately below existing pavements and slabs should also be considered suitable for reuse. • The parking lots and building pad should be covered with a minimum of one foot of pit-run snad and gravel or equivalent. • Common fill used for general grading below the upper foot should have less than 15 percent fines passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. During periods when wet weather construction is necessary, we recommend that import fill materials consist of pit-run sand and gravel or crushed recycled concrete with less than 5 percent fines. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington Utilities J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 4 • Existing on-site,underground utilities should be removed, relocated or properly abandoned in place in order to prevent possible future settlement problems. All existing underground utilities should be decommissioned, abandoned, or backfilled in accordance with all applicable State and local regulations. • We anticipate that most utility subgrades will consist of very loose to loose coal tailings fill or possibly soft silt, loose silty sand, or peaty soils. Soils deemed unsuitable for utility support should be overexcavated a minimum of 12 inches in order to develop a firm, uniform base. Where peat is encountered, we recommend that the entire thickness of the material be removed and replaced. • Existing on-site soils are considered unsuitable for utility trench backfill. • The two existing mine runoff drain pipes that enter the east side of the site will be tightlined across a portion of the site. We recommend that the company or agency who owns or is responsible for their maintenance be determined in order to coordinate a long-term maintenance and inspection program. We further recommend that the peak flow in the drain pipes be determined in order to size the proposed tightline pipe. This should likely be done in the late winter or spring when groundwater would be anticipated to be at its highest. Building Foundations • Based upon the soil conditions encountered, we recommend that augercast pile foundations be used to support the proposed building. We recommend using I8-inch diameter piles with allowable axial compressive capacities of 75 tons, provided the piles penetrate a minimum of 2 feet into the sandstone bedrock or extend to a maximum of 85 feet below the pile caps. Building Floor Slab • Based upon a finish floor elevation of 37 feet, grading across most of the building pad will vary from a fill of up to about 3 feet to a cut of up to about 4 feet.However where the lobe of coal mine tailings is present along the east side of the site, cuts of up to about 20 feet will be necessary. Due to the presence of the very loose to loose coal fill and the potential for liquefaction of the underlying native soils, we recommend that the floor slab be pile supported. • Subgrade compaction may be difficult to achieve because of the existing very loose coal fill. Instead, it may become necessary to proofroll the subgrade with a loaded dump truck or other suitable heavy equipment to reveal areas of soft or pumping soils.Overexcavated materials should be replaced with non-organic compacted structural fill. The same process should be completed in cut areas of the building pad once the cuts have been completed. • A woven geotextile (as necessary) and a minimum of 12 inches of pit-run sand and gravel fill should be placed above floor subgrade soils and be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 5 the modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend that a durable methane/water vapor barrier be placed between the 12 inches of granular structural fill and the capillary break. A minimum 6-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of free-draining aggregate should be placed over the methane gas barrier. • We recommend that the building be underlain with a passive methane gas venting system that is installed in the 12 inches of granular soil below the methane gas barrier and be routed to the outside of the building.Confined spaces and underground structures should also be vented. Light Pole Foundations • Due to the loose fill conditions on site, we recommend that the parking lot light poles and large signs be supported on augercast piles.It may be possible to consider other pole support options, such as overexcavating the poor soils around the pole foundation and replacing it with compacted structural fill or placing the light pole in a larger diameter steel pipe to effectively increase the diameter of the foundation. Drainage • A perimeter footing system is recommended for the proposed structure due to the depth to groundwater at the time of our explorations relative to the proposed finish floor elevation. Retaining Walls •Cast-in-place concrete walls should be supported on augercast piles. •Backfilled subsurface walls should be designed using equivalent fluid pressures of 35 and 55 pcf for active and at-rest loading conditions,respectively.Surcharge pressures from backslopes,traffic, and floor loads should be added to the earth pressures. • Walls should be backfilled with a minimum of 18 inches of free-draining granular structural fill that communicates with a footing drain or weepholes at the base of the wall. Subsurface Walls •Relatively shallow groundwater levels should be expected across the eastern portion of the site. The highest groundwater elevation at the time of drilling was approximately 34 feet and occurred along the toe of the slope along the east side of the site.Waterproofing systems should prevent moisture migration through the walls, floors, and construction joints as necessary to satisfy the owners requirements. •Subsurface walls and floor slabs should be designed to resist hydrostatic lateral and uplift forces,additive to the lateral earth pressure. Along the east side of the site,structures that extend below elevation 34 feet should be designed for hydrostatic forces. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington East Slope Retaining Wall J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 6 • A cut of approximately 18 feet will be necessary in the slope along the east side of the site in order to provide access around the southeast comer of the proposed building.Permanent shoring using soldier piles set in drilled holes that extend into the native sandstone and retained by tieback anchors is recommended for the proposed wall.Soldier pile drilling within the water-bearing sand deposits will likely require stabilizing the holes because the saturated sands are very loose to loose. A program to maintain stabilized soldier pile holes should be the responsibility of the contractor.The contractor should also be required to have the capability to case holes when required. •Historical records indicate that there were mineshaft adits in the area of the project site. Review of the historical documents leads us to suspect that one of the mine openings may be along the alignment of the existing 48-inch drainpipe that daylights on the project site. We did not encounter conditions that would indicate the presence of the shafts. However,if a zone of fill and/or a mine adit exists in the anchor zone of the proposed wall, it may not be possible to install some of the tiebacks as recommended. •Permanent tiebacks will also be necessary to support the proposed cut. We anticipate that a single row of tiebacks will be sufficient.However,we would also anticipate that the tiebacks could extend beyond the limits of the site and into the Benson Road right-of-way.The feasibility of constructing permanent tiebacks in the right-of-way should be determined. •Tieback anchors should be performance and proof tested. We recommend that all of the tiebacks be performance tested to 150 percent of the design load and that that a minimum of 2 anchors be proof tested to 300 percent of the design load. •Recommendations for Further Study: We recommend that additional subsurface explorations be completed in support of the retaining wall design.If a mineshaft is present in the tieback zone, further definition of the conditions prior to bidding would reduce the possibility of change orders and delays during construction.Evaluations could consist of surficial geophysical evaluations using resistivity or magnetics and/or downhole geophysical methods in predrilled holes. We also recommend that the 48-inch pipe be logged with a camera to determine its alignment and where it terminates. Pavement •Based upon compacting the exposed subgrade to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density,standard pavement sections should consist of 3 inches of Class B asphalt over 4 inches of crushed gravel base course over a minimum of 12 inches of pit-run subbase.Heavy duty pavement sections should consist of 4 inches of Class B asphalt over 4 inches of crushed gravel base course over 12 inches of pit-run subbase.Depending on the actual level of compaction,it may be necessary to use a geotextile fabric and additional subbase. This would have to be determined at the time of construction.Asphalt-treated base (ATB) may be substituted for crushed gravel base course (CGBC)at a ratio of O.75"ATB:l"CGBC. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington Infiltration J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 7 • Due to the composition of the fill materials on site and the anticipated high groundwater levels across the site, we recommend that infiltration rates be considered negligible. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The approximate 16 acre project site is located east of the intersection of South Grady Way and Talbot Road (State Route 515), in the N.W.lf4 of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 5 East in Renton, Washington. The property is bordered to the north by the Renton City Hall Building, to the west and south by Talbot Road, to the north and west by South Grady Way, and to the east by Benson Road and undeveloped land. The site is currently vacant, and with the exception of an area along Benson Road, the project site is covered with asphalt pavement, gravel covered areas, and the remains of two structural slabs that supported former buildings that have been demolished. Slopes and a large lobe of coal mine waste fill on the eastern margin of the site are primarily covered with blackberry brush and maple trees. The slopes appear to be on the order of 20 to 30 feet in height and vary in steepness from about 1~H:1V to 2H:1V, or flatter. Based on topographic information provided to us,it appears that the flatter portion of the site varies in elevation between approximately 30 and 39 feet.It appears that Benson Road is approximately 30 feet above the project site. A concrete aqueduct is situated along the toe of the eastern slope and conducts water that appears to originate from the former Renton Coal Mine. There are many above- and below-ground utilities at the site, some of which are still live. High voltage electrical transmission lines also extend across the site. As a result of past environmental site assessments on the project site, there are numerous resource protection wells across the site. We estimate that there could be between 30 and 40 wells across the site. We understand that the proposed development will consist of an approximate 135,000 square foot building with associated parking and landscaping. At the time of preparing this report, the finish floor elevation is anticipated to be 37.0 feet. We anticipate that the exterior walls will be constructed of concrete masonry block or steel frame and metal stud, and that steel tube columns will provide interior roof support. Typical bay spacing between columns and walls is approximately 50 by 47 feet and exterior columns are typically spaced 47 feet apart. For purposes of preparing this report, the following structural loads are anticipated: Interior column gravity load Estimated maximum gravity load due to severe live loading Exterior column gravity load Maximum Column uplift forces from wind Uniform load on continuous footings Maximum uniform floor slab live load Maximum floor slab concentrated load 65 kips 150kips 50 kips 30 kips 1.5-2.0 kips/lineal foot 250 psf 16.0kips 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J·1470 December 6, 2002 Page 8 Zipper Zeman Associates should be notified of any deviation from the project description presented herein to determine its potential effect on the conclusions and recommendations presented herein. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface exploration program completed by ZZA at the project site included 43 hollow-stem auger and mud-rotary borings, the approximate locations of which are presented on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan, enclosed with this report.Of the 43 borings, 6 were completed in a separate phase in order to evaluate the stability of a proposed alteration to a lobe of coal mine waste fill along the east side of the site. We also reviewed the logs of subsurface explorations completed by GeoEngineers and Terra Associates for previous proposed projects on the subject site. Copies of the boring logs completed for this evaluation are enclosed in Appendix A. The borings electric cone probes completed in the building pad and parking areas for this study extended to depths ranging from 11'i'2 to 110'i'2 feet below the existing ground surface. Below the surface, soils typically consisted of 4'i'2 to more than ll'i'2 feet of very loose to loose, moist, wet, and saturated, brown to black, coal, cinders and shale fill. In general, the coal ranged in size from silt to gravel sized. In many borings loose silty sand fill that appeared to originate from the local sandstone formation was also encountered.Underlying the coal mine wastes, interbedded alluvial soils consisting of very loose to loose silty sand and very soft to soft sandy silt, peat, organic silt, and clayey silt extended to depths of 15 to 49 feet below grade. The alluvium graded to medium dense sand with varying proportions of silt and gravel and medium stiff to stiff sandy silt, silt, organic silt, clayey silt and silty clay that extended to depths of approximately 18'i'2 to 107 feet below grade. Very dense,weathered sandstone bedrock was encountered below these materials and extended to the bottom of the borings. The sandstone is part of the Renton Formation that is also the source of the coal fill encountered on the site. The sandstone appears to dip relatively steeply to the west. Borings B-IA through B-6A were completed on the lobe of coal mine waste fill along the east side of the site.Subsurface conditions consisted of 20 to 36 feet of very loose to loose, damp to wet, brown and black, coal and cinder fill with random layers of silty sand that originated from the sandstone bedrock. Because of the steeply dipping sandstone bedrock in the area, borings B- IA, B-2A, and B-3A, that were completed along the western margin of the fill,encountered 7 to 19 feet of very loose to loose sandy alluvial soils beneath the fill.Sandstone bedrock was encountered in borings B-IA and B-2A at depths of 29 and 47 feet below existing grades, respectively. In borings B-4A, B-5A, and B-6A, an approximate 3-foot thick layer of very loose, wet to saturated, silty sand was encountered between the tailings and the dense sandstone. The very loose layer was interpreted to be residual soil derived from the weathering of the sandstone. Dense to very dense sandstone was encountered at depths of 23 to 33 feet below existing grades. Four borings (B-4, B-9, B-36, and B-37) were completed in the area of the proposed retaining wall that is situated near the southeast comer of the proposed building. Boring B-4 encountered approximately 7 feet of loose silty sand fill over 8 feet of loose native soils consisting of sand with varying proportions of silt, gravel and organics. At 15 feet, a 3-foot thick 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 9 layer of medium dense, silty sand with some gravel, interpreted as highly weathered sandstone was.encountered. At a depth of approximately l8'i'2 feet, very dense sandstone was encountered. In borings B-36 and B-37, approximately 4'i'2 to 6Y2 feet of very loose to loose silty sand and coal tailings fill was encountered. In B-36, interbedded, very loose silty sand, sandy silt, and peaty organic layers were encountered between 6'i'2 and 13 feet. Between 13 and 19 feet, medium stiff sandy silt with interbedded silty sand and organics extended to a depth of approximately 19 feet. At his depth, very dense sandstone was encountered. In B-37, very loose to loose alluvial sand with varying proportions of silt gravel and peat was generally encountered. However, a 4-foot thick peat layer was encountered between 8Y2 and 28 feet below grade. Dense grading to very dense sandstone was encountered at a depth of 28 feet and continued to the bottom of the boring. Boring B-9 was completed above the site along the edge of Benson Road. Approximately 10 feet of loose to medium dense, silty sand fill was encountered below the surface. A possible relic, silty sand topsoil layer.was encountered between 10 and IOY2 feet. Between 1OY2 and 20 feet, medium dense silty sand was encountered. This material graded to a dense condition and extended to a depth of about 25 feet. At that depth, the material graded to very dense weathered sandstone. The enclosed boring logs should be referred to for more specific information. Figure I, the Site and Exploration plan includes information regarding the thickness of fill and depth to bedrock at each of the boring locations. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling in 39 of the 43 the borings. Excluding the topographically higher borings, groundwater levels varied in depth across the site from 3 to 12 feet at the time of completing the explorations. The elevations of the groundwater levels varied between 23 and 34 feet with the highest groundwater elevation occurring nearest a small pond that is between the outflow from two discharge pipes at the base of the slope along the east side of the site and the north end of the aqueduct. Based on information presented by GeoEngineers, it appears that the observed groundwater levels at the time of drilling coincide with their observations. Wet soils were encountered in borings B-4A, B-5A, and B-6A above the sandstone. Perched groundwater should be expected to develop above the sandstone in areas above the regional groundwater table. Variations in groundwater conditions should be expected due to seasonal variations, on and off-site land usage, irrigation, and other factors. Seismic Criteria According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in the 1997 Uniform Building Code,the project site lies within Seismic Zone 3. The Seismic Zone Factor (Z) for Seismic Zone 3 is 0.30 that corresponds Seismic Coefficients C,and C,of 0.36 and 0.84, respectively. Based on soil conditions encountered at the site, the subsurface site conditions are interpreted to correspond to a seismic soil profile type SE as defined by Table 16-J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.Soil profile type SE applies to an average soil profile within the top 100 feet consisting predominantly of soft soil characterized by Standard Penetration Test blowcounts 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 10 less than 15, a shear wave velocity of less than 600 feet per second, and an undrained shear strength less than 1,000 psf. Some of the near-surface soils are considered to be prone to liquefaction during a design earthquake with a 10percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. Results of pH and Resistivity Tt(stin~ Results of the pH and resistivity testing are presented in the following table. Borlna and Sample Number Depth (Feet)pH Resistivity (ohm-em) B-2, S-1 5-6'l'2 6.9 4,600 B-5 S-2 5-6'l'2 6.7 9,400 B-8, S-5b 15'l'2 5.6 3,300 B-26 S-2 5-6'l'2 5.6 4500 The electrical resistivity of each sample listed above was measured in the laboratory with distilled water added to create a standardized condition of saturation. Resistivities are at about their lowest value when the soil is saturated. Electrical resistivities of soils are a measure of their resistance to the flow of corrosion currents. Corrosion currents tend to be lower in high resistivity soils. The electrical resistivity of the soil varies primarily with its chemical and moisture contents. Typically, the lower the resistivity of native soils, the more likely that galvanic currents may develop and increase the possibility of corrosion. Based on .laboratory test results, resistivity values for the near surface native soils varied between 3,300 and 9,400 ohm-ern.Soils with resistivity values between 2,000 and 10,000ohm-em are generally associated with soils classified as "mildly to moderately corrosive". The pH of the soils is slightly acidic but is not considered significant in evaluating corrosivity. Therefore, it is our opinion that Type IIII cement is suitable for this project. With respect to the need for protection of buried metal utilities, we recommend that PacLand consult with the manufacturers of specific products in order to determine the need for protection. Climate Data According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Climatic Atlas of the United States, 1993, the project site lies within thePuget Sound Lowlands Region of Washington. Mean monthly rainfall varies from a low of 0.96 inches in July to a high of 5.56 inches in December. Between November and March, there are about 20 days per month where 0.01 inches or more of rainfall occurs. Normal daily minimum temperatures are above freezing throughout the year. Mean annual total snowfall is about 12inches. Weather data from the Western Region Climate Center (WRCC) for Kent, Washington (the nearest weather station) varied slightly from the Climatic Atlas and likely represents a more accurate representation of the local weather. The greatest mean monthly snowfall occurs in 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 11 January and averages 7.3 inches. Average monthly rainfall and snowfall amounts can be greatly exceeded as can be seen in the enclosed weather data. The mean total precipitation for each month at the Kent weather station is: January:5.73 in.July: 0.85 in. February:4.32 in.August:1.15 in. March:3.88 in.September: 1.78 in. April:2.70 in.October:3.49 in. May 1.86 in.November: 5.88 in. June:1.56in.December: 6.00 in. The WRCC Monthly Total Snowfall, Monthly Total Precipitation, and Monthly Normals data are also presented in Appendix D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The geologic conditions at the site are considered to be relatively poor from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The soil conditions generally consist of very loose to loose fill soils composed primarily of coal and cinders over very soft to soft peat, silt, clay, clayey silt, and sandy silt, as well as very loose to loose, wet to saturated silty sand and sand. The fill soils are considered unsuitable for shallow foundation support and the native peat, silt and clay exhibit relatively low strength and high compressibility characteristics that makes them susceptible to consolidation when loaded. Consolidation under normally loaded foundation elements would produce excessive total and differential settlements of the structure. Additionally, the cleaner, very loose to loose sands are susceptible to liquefaction during a design earthquake. Liquefaction susceptible sands were encountered in the borings within the building pad and the resulting settlement associated with the occurrence of liquefaction could result in relatively large differential settlements across the building pad. Preloading would not mitigate the liquefaction potential at the site. Environmentally Critical Areas -StelW Slope, Landslide, and Erosion Considerations The slopes around the base of the fill lobe are relatively steep and are considered sensitive and/or protected slopes as presented in the Municipal Code of Renton. As such, slopes categorized as sensitive or protected are also considered to be geologic hazards by the City of Renton. In order to modify the ridge, it was necessary to evaluate the soils and complete a slope stability analysis of the proposed modifications to the slope. Steep slope areas are classified as protected or sensitive. A protected slope is defined as a hillside, or portion thereof, with an average slope of 40 percent or greater with a minimum vertical rise of 15 feet. A sensitive slope is a hillside, or portion thereof,of 25 percent to less than 40 percent or and average slope of 40 percent or greater with a vertical rise of less than 15 feet abutting an average slope of 25 percent to 40 percent.It is our opinion that all of the affected area would be classified as protected or sensitive. 1890533rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Ipc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 12 Moderate landslide hazard areas are defined as those areas with slopes between 15 and 40 percent where the surficial soils are underlain by permeable geologic units. High landslide hazard areas are defined as those areas with slopes greater than 40 percent and areas with slopes between 15 and 40 percent where the surficial soils are underlain by low permeability geologic units.It appears that slopes are greater than 15 percent and are underlain by both permeable and impermeable soils. Therefore, it appears that the existing slope would fall within both categories depending on the subsurface conditions. The lobe of fill would also be defined as a high seismic hazard area due the hillsides being comprised of loose fill over alluvium and post-glacial silts and peats.It also meets the definition of a high erosion hazard area because the slopes are greater than 15percent. Slope Stability Analysis A slope stability analysis was performed for the site using the XSTABL5.2 computer program. The stability analysis was based on a generalized subsurface soil and groundwater profile through the existing and was developed using the site-specific subsurface data. Two direct shear test were completed on representative samples obtained in borings B-3A at a depth of 16 to 16~feet and B-5A at a depth of 21 ~to 22 feet. This provided us with strength parameters that were used in the slope stability analyses. A topographic and subsurface profile was developed along line A-A'as shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Based on the relative density, grain size distribution, depositional history, and the site specific subsurface and laboratory data, it is our opinion that the friction angle and cohesion values are reasonable estimates of the site soil strength parameters. SOIL PARAMETERS FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Soil Layer Friction Angle (<I»Cohesion (pst) Moist Unit Weight (pcf) Coal Tailings 37 0 70 Loose Sand Above Sandstone 33 0 120 Loose Alluvium 32 0 120 Sandstone 15 3,000 140 Our analysis evaluated both static and dynamic (seismic) conditions for the existing slope inclinations with and without an inferred perched groundwater table. The USGS Seismic Hazard Mapping Project earthquake hazard map for the area indicated a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration of O.32g for an earthquake with a 10 percent exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis used a dynamic (seismic) horizontal ground acceleration of 0.16g (1/2 the peak acceleration) conditions for the permanent cut slope inclination of 3H:1V, which is more indicative of the average ground acceleration during a seismic event of design magnitude. Figure 2, Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A', presents the subsurface soil and groundwater profile used for our analysis. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 13 The following table presents the results of the static and dynamic stability analysis conducted for this project. TABLE 1 RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Minimum Minimum Slope Configuration Static Safety Factor Seismic Safety Factor 3H:IV Permanent Slope 2.1*1.3* *Reduced factors of safety are possible if high groundwater or low shear strength materials are present in the slope. Based on our analysis, a permanent cut slope inclination of 3H:IV appears to be suitable for static and seismic conditions. The results of the pseudostatic stability analysis (lowest safety factor) are presented on Figure 3. The occurrence of perched groundwater above the sandstone and within the tailings would reduce the factor of safety and could potentially cause failure. In order to reduce the risk of groundwater and surface infiltration destabilizing the slope, a subsurface drainage should be installed to maintain groundwater levels as deep as possible. A series of perforated interceptor drains on about a 25-foot lateral spacing in a herringbone pattern and connected to a collector pipe will likely be necessary. The laterals would be connected to a collector pipe installed essentially down the middle of the proposed slope. We recommend that the laterals be installed on the sandstone and that the lowest set of interceptor pipes be installed to an invert elevation of 34 feet. We recommend that our firm review the design of the drains and that ZZA monitor their installation. The final depths and locations will likely require field adjustments based on the conditions encountered during construction. Erosion Mitigation The soils comprising the proposed cut slope are susceptible to erosion by flowing water. We recommend the following erosion control Best Management Practices be implemented during construction: • Establish well-defined clearing limits to reduce the amount of vegetation disturbed during construction; • Place silt control fence downslope of disturbed areas; • Cover excavated slopes with plastic sheeting during rainfall events; • Cover disturbed and graded areas with straw, excelsior blankets, or other appropriate erosion control materials, combined with seeding or other planting, to promote revegetation. Excelsior blankets such as Curlex®,jute matting such as Geojute®, or other rolled erosion control products, installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, are recommended for sloping portions of the site disturbed during construction. Such areas 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 14 include spots were the existing landscaping waste located at or slightly over the slope break is removed. • Perched groundwater could daylight on the proposed 3H:1V slope that generally is not evident on the existing slopes.If groundwater seepage daylights on the slope, it might cause shallow slumping. These areas,ifit occurs, should be covered with a minimum of 10 inches of riprap. We recommend that riprap conform to the specifications for Quarry Spalls as presented in section 9-13.6 of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Foundations Settlement Discussion There are three modes of potential settlement relative to the soil conditions encountered at the site. The existing fill soils are comprised primarily of very loose to loose coal fragments in the size range of silt, sand, and gravel. The composition and relative density of this material makes it unsuitable for support of shallow foundations. The very soft to soft peat, silt, clay, and clayey silt are expected to consolidate under the weight of static foundation loads and fill soil surcharges. Additional, long-term settlements are probable due to secondary compression of these materials. Finally, seismically-induced liquefaction in the very loose to loose saturated sandy soils below the water table is also a significant risk. We have estimated that seismically- induced settlements on the order of 4 to 7 inches could occur within the zones of sand that were encountered across the building pad. Because of the subsurface conditions encountered, we recommend that the building be supported on pile foundations or soils that are deeply mixed with cement. In our opinion, either option used to support structural loads for the new building would substantially reduce the risk of excessive post-construction settlement and transmit foundation loads through liquefaction susceptible soils. We recommend that the floor also be supported on piling or columns of cement- mixed soil that extends to the bedrock. Liqyefaction Analysis As part of this study, we performed a site-specific liquefaction analysis using the methods developed by Seed and Idriss for the soil conditions encountered in our boring. Liquefaction can be described as a sudden loss of shear strength due to the sudden increase in porewater pressure caused by shear waves associated with earthquakes.Based.on our liquefaction analysis, we estimate that there is a risk that liquefaction would occur at various depths between approximately 10 to 40 feet below the existing ground surface during a design level earthquake event, as discussed below. Laboratory testing was completed as a part of this liquefaction analysis, the results of which are attached or indicated on the boring logs, as appropriate. Based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines, seismic analysis should be based on an event having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years or return period of approximately 475 years. According to available historical data, this return period within the Seattle-Portland area would be associated with an earthquake of approximate Richter magnitude 7.5. According to the United States Geological Survey, the peak ground surface acceleration 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 15 produced by an earthquake of this magnitude will be about 0.3g at the subject site, which corresponds with the locally accepted acceleration values for fill or alluvial soils. Using these seismic parameters, we computed safety factors against liquefaction for the various soil layers below the water table using an analysis method developed by Seed and Idriss. Our analyses revealed a high probability of liquefaction (safety factors ranging from <1 to 1.3) within the zones of sand that were encountered at various depths below the water table down to depths of 40 feet and more. The report titled Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Des Moines and Renton 7.5-minute Quadrangles,Washington,(Geologic Map GM-41), prepared by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, delineates the site as being underlain by Category I soil deposits. Category I soil is defined having a high susceptibility to liquefaction. The report presents quotes from the Mayor and City Engineer of Renton after the 1965, Richter magnitude 6.5, Seattle-Tacoma earthquake. Reportedly, the entire lengths of Burnett Street and 7 th Avenue required filling and paving to repair settling. In some places, the settlement was reported to be as much as 2 feet. Burnett Street and 7 th Avenue are located just north and west of Grady Way, respectively, and within a few hundred feet of the project site. Liquefaction could produce surface disturbance in the form of lateral spreading, subsidence, fissuring, or heaving of the ground surface, which could result in cracking, settling or tilting of the building. Volumetric strain on the order of ~to 3 percent could be possible in the liquefiable layers which correlates the potential settlements of about 4 to 7 inches of settlement, depending on the thickness of liquefiable soils. Due to the potential for liquefaction, as well as the relatively high settlement potential for shallow foundations, a pile foundation system that transmits foundation loads to the competent bedrock or dense soils encountered at a depth of approximately 19to approximately 85 feet is recommended. Site Preparation Critical geotechnical considerations on the site include the moisture-sensitive soils encountered, high groundwater conditions along the east side of the site, the poor quality coal tailings fill across the site, and the deeper compressible and potentially liquefiable soils. The design recommendations presented in this report are therefore based on the observed conditions and on the assumption that earthwork for site grading, utilities, foundations, floor slabs, loading dock walls, and pavements will be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer. Any existing buried utilities, underground storage tanks or septic tanks on the site should be removed, relocated, or abandoned, as necessary, in accordance with all local, state and federal regulations. Localized excavations made for removal of utilities should be backfilled with structural fill as outlined in the following section of this report. The excavated soils should be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Stripping, excavation, grading, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide positive drainage at all times and provide proper control of erosion. Accumulated water must be removed from subgrades and work areas immediately and 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman As~ociates.Inc. Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 16 prior to performing further work in the area.If ponded surface water collects it should be pumped or drained to provide a suitable discharge location. The site should be graded to prevent water from ponding in construction areas and/or flowing into excavations. Exposed grades should be crowned, sloped, and smooth-drain rolled at the end of each day to facilitate drainage if inclement weather is forecasted. Equipment access may be limited if drainage efforts are not accomplished in a timely sequence. Project delays and increased costs could be incurred due to the muddy conditions if a working drainage system is not utilized. Site preparation will require the removal of limited surface vegetation and organic-rich topsoil across the site. Based on the conditions encountered in the explorations, we recommend that all organics, root mats, and topsoil be stripped to an average depth of 6 inches in those areas where topsoil is present. Additional removal of vegetation and/or organic-rich soils, such as in areas of heavy vegetation, should be determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer at the time of grading based on the subgrade material's organic content and stability. In general, relatively wet conditions prevail in the project area between November and May. During this period, the existing surficial fill soils could remain relatively wet and unstable. A relatively high groundwater table along the east side of the site and the probability of cutting this area down to approximately elevation 35 or 36 feet will expose very loose fill soils that are currently wet to saturated. The surficial soils are sensitive because of the elevated moisture contents and will become unstable if they are not protected from construction traffic. In wet conditions, additional soils will need to be removed and replaced with a coarse crushed or naturally occurring sand and gravel or crushed recycled concrete mat. Other stabilization methods such as lime or cement treatment are not recommended due to the high organic content of the coal tailings fill. Where overexcavation is necessary, it should be confirmed through monitoring and testing by a qualified inspection firm. We recommend that site preparation and initial construction activities should be planned to reduce disturbance to the existing ground surface. The severity of construction problems will be dependent, in part, on the precautions that are taken by the contractor to protect the moisture and disturbance-sensitive site soils. Construction traffic should be restricted to dedicated driveway and laydown areas to prevent excessive disturbance of the parking area and driveway subgrades.If site stripping and grading activities are performed during extended dry weather periods, a lesser degree of subgrade stabilization may be necessary. However, it should be noted that intermittent wet weather periods during the summer months could delay earthwork if soil moisture conditions become elevated above the optimum moisture content. The use of a working surface of pit-run sand and gravel, crushed rock, or quarry spalls may be required to protect the existing soils particularly in areas supporting concentrated equipment traffic. Prior to placing structural fill in the building pad, the subgrade should compacted to a firm and unyielding condition, moisture conditions permitting. Alternatively, the building pad should be covered with a woven geotextile equivalent to Mirafi 600X and a minimum of 12 inches of select granular structural fill. The building pad may then be raised to the planned finished grade with compacted structural fill. Subgrade preparation and selection, placement, and compaction of structural fill should be performed under engineering controlled conditions in accordance with the project specifications. We recommend that the building pad be surfaced with a minimum of 18 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington ------------------------------- J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 17 inches of "select"granular fill, or free-draining crushed ballast or base course, as defined by Sections 9-03.9(1) and 9-03.9(3), respectively,of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications Manual. Material considered to be "select" should meet the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications Section, 9-03.14(1), Gravel Borrow, or be approved by the owner's geotechnical engineer. Haul roads should be constructed by placing a woven geotextile such as Mirafi 600X or Amoco 2006 over the existing coal tailings with a minimum of 12 inches of select granular fill placed over the fabric. The fabric should only be placed in areas between the rows of augercast piles and not where the piles will be drilled. If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, all exposed subgrades should be allowed to thaw and then be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill or foundation components. Alternatively, the frozen material could be stripped from the subgrade to reveal unfrozen soil prior to placing subsequent lifts of fill or foundation components. The frozen soil should not be reused as structural fill until allowed to thaw and adjusted to the proper moisture content, which may not be possible during winter months. Structural Fill All structural fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented herein. Prior to the placement of structural fill, all surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended in Site Preparation section of this report. Structural fill includes any fill material placed under footings, pavements, or other permanent structures or facilities. The existing surficial fill soils should be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Limited zones of silty sand may be encountered in the large lobe of coal tailings fill on the east side of the site and should be considered suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, it appears that the majority of the lobe consists of coal. It appears that material used as structural fill will need to be imported. On-site soils considered suitable for reuse appear to be limited to the base course material beneath the existing asphalt pavement and limited pockets of silty sand that is layered in the coal tailings fill. Materials typically used for import structural fill include clean, well-graded sand and gravel ("pit run"), clean sand, various mixtures of sand, silt and gravel, and crushed rock. Recycled concrete, if locally available, is also useful for structural fill provided the material is thoroughly crushed to a well-graded, 2-inch minus product. Structural fill materials should be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter and should contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated". Import structural fill for raising site grades can consist of a combination of "common" and "select granular" material. "Common" structural fill consists of lesser quality, more moisture- sensitive soil, such as the soils encountered at the project site, that is free of organics and deleterious materials, is compactable to a firm and unyielding condition, and meets the minimum specified compaction levels. We recommend that common structural fill meet the requirements of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications Section, 9-03.14(3), Common Borrow. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J·1470 December 6, 2002 Page 18 "Select"granular fill consists of free-draining naturally occurring, crushed aggregate, or quarry spalls. Select fill is generally used when less moisture sensitive material is needed for structural fill applications."Select"structural fill should meet the requirements of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications Sections, 9-03.12(2), Gravel Backfill for Walls or 9-03.14(1), for Gravel Borrow. Structural fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Individual lifts should be compacted such that a minimum density of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM:D-1557) maximum dry density is achieved. Higher compaction levels should be achieved where called for in the project specifications of the local development standards. Subgrade soils below pavement areas and all base course materials should also be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. The top 12 inches of compacted structural fill should have a maximum 2-inch particle diameter and all underlying fill a maximum 6-inch diameter unless specifically recommended by the geotechnical engineer and approved by the owner. We recommend that a qualified geotechnical engineer from ZZA be present during the placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of earthwork may be evaluated as grading progresses. The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the fines content (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve)of a soil increases, it becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. We therefore recommend that grading activities be scheduled for the driest time of year in consideration of the moisture-sensitive nature of the site soils. Adjusting the moisture content of the site soils during the wetter and colder months between November and March would be much more difficult to accomplish.If inclement weather or soil moisture content prevent the use of imported common borrow material as structural fill, we recommend that use of "select"granular fill be considered. It should be noted that the placement of structural fill is in many cases weather-dependent and delays due to inclement weather are common even when using "select"granular fill. Reusing wet or excessively over-optimum on-site or import soils for structural fill would necessitate treatment of the soils to reduce the moisture content to a level adequate for compaction..In the summer, air drying is commonly incorporated.When air drying is not feasible, kiln dust admixtures are typically used to increase the workability of the wet soils to a level where the soils can be compacted. The admixtures are extremely alkaline and can increase the pH of the soil mixture. Before such admixtures are considered, we recommend that their use be submitted to the appropriate overseeing agency since some jurisdictions are putting restrictions on their use, in particular kiln dust.If moisture conditioning of the soils is required to increase the moisture content of dry-of-optimum soils, we recommend that the soils be uniformly blended with the added moisture. Based upon the nature of the existing fill soils, it is our opinion that the subgrade soils exhibit a low potential for swelling. However because the surficial fill soils consist primarily of coal, we anticipate that the material left in place could generate methane over time. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771·3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 19 Excess soils may require stockpiling for extended periods of time before they can be used. It is recommended that all stockpiled soils intended for reuse as structural fill be protected with anchored polyethylene sheet plastic strong enough to withstand local wind conditions. Utility Trenchin~and Backfillin~ Existing on-site, underground utilities should be removed, relocated or properly abandoned in place in order to prevent possible future settlement problems. All existing underground utilities should be decommissioned, abandoned, or backfilled in accordance with all applicable State and local regulations. Alternatively, abandoned utilities may be grouted in place. If the trench backfill materials above the existing utilities consist of coal tailings fill, we recommend that it be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill anywhere on site.If any existing utilities are to be preserved, grading operations must be carefully performed so as to not disturb or damage the existing utility. We anticipate that most utility subgrades will consist of very loose to loose coal tailings fill or possibly soft silt, loose silty sand, or peaty soils. Soils deemed unsuitable for utility support should be overexcavated a minimum of 12inches in order to develop a firm, uniform base. Where peat is encountered, we recommend that the entire thickness of the material be removed and replaced. The replacement fill will be difficult to compact due to groundwater seepage and/or the underlying soft, native soils. Where possible, the structural fill used to replace overexcavated soils should be compacted as specified and as recommended in this report. Where water is encountered in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement. Alternatively, clean (less than 1 percent fines) quarry spalls could be used for backfill below the water level. We recommend that utility trenching, installation, and backfilling conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations such as OSHA for open excavations. In boring B-37, approximately 4 feet of peat was encountered at a depth of about 812 feet below existing grade or about elevation 33Y2 feet. This is in the area of an alignment for a 4-foot diameter pipe that will convey mine runoff along the toe of a permanent retaining wall. We understand that the pipe may be covered with as little as one foot of soil. Given the proposed cut of about 5 to 6 feet in the area of boring B-37, it appears that the pipe invert will be situated in the middle of the peat.It is our opinion that the peat is not suitable for support of the pipe and should therefore be overexcavated and replaced with compacted structural fill.It appears that dewatering will be necessary to accomplish this since groundwater was encountered approximately 8 feet below grade at the time of drilling. We recommend that similar measures be taken for all deep utilities and structures, such as manholes and vaults, when peat or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered. We recommend that trench excavation and preparation for all utilities be completed in general accordance with WSDOT Standard Specification 7-08. Existing on-site soils are considered unsuitable for utility trench backfill. Instead, imported soils that can be compacted to the minimum recommended levels should be used taking into consideration the surrounding soil and groundwater conditions at the time of construction. Pipe bedding and cover should be placed according to utility manufacturer's recommendations and local ordinances. Generally, it is recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of bedding material be placed in the trench bottom. All bedding should conform to the specifications 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associate~.Inc. Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 20 presented in Section 9-03.12(3)of the WSDOT Standard Specifications Manual or be approved by the owners'geotechnical representative based upon specific conditions encountered at the site. All excavations should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of pipes and underground tanks. Otherwise, materials such as controlled density fill or pea gravel could be used to eliminate the compactive effort required. Backfilling for the remainder of the trenches could be completed utilizing common fill or select granular fill, depending on soil moisture and weather conditions, as well as groundwater levels. Compaction of backfill material should be accomplished with soils within ±2 percent of their optimum moisture content in order to achieve the minimum specified compaction levels set forth in this report and project specifications. However, initial lift thickness could be increased to levels recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from damage by compacting equipment. For planning purposes, we recommend that all native soils be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Filtered sump pumps placed in the bottoms of excavations or other conventional dewatering techniques are anticipated to be suitable for dewatering excavations that terminate above the water table,if seepage is encountered. Pumped dewatering well systems would likely be required to facilitate excavations below the water table. Pre-bid test pits could assist in evaluating the most economical means of site excavation. Relatively flat slopes, benching, or temporary bracing may be needed. Conventional trench box shoring is also an option for the project. Terrworary and Permanent Slopes Temporary slope stability is a function of many factors, including the following: • The presence and abundance of groundwater; • The type and density of the various soil strata; • The depth of cut; • Surcharge loadings adjacent to the excavation; • The length of time the excavation remains open. It is exceedingly difficult under the variable circumstances to pre-establish a safe and "maintenance-free"temporary cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe temporary slope configurations since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered.It may be necessary to drape temporary slopes throughout the site with plastic sheeting or other means to protect the slopes from the elements and minimize sloughing and erosion. Unsupported vertical slopes or cuts deeper than 4 feet are not recommended if worker access is necessary. The cuts should be adequately sloped, shored, or supported to prevent injury to personnel from local sloughing and spalling. The excavation should conform to applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 21 We recommend that all permanent slopes constructed in the coal tailings be designed at a 3H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) inclination or flatter. Temporary slopes should be excavated at an inclination no steeper than 2H:1V. Where wet or saturated coal tailings are exposed, temporary and permanent slope angles flatter than those may be necessary. Permanent structural fill placed on existing slopes steeper than 5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) should be keyed and benched into natural soils of the underlying slope. We recommend that the base downslope key be cut into undisturbed native soil. The key slot should be at least 8 feet wide and 3 feet deep. The hillside benches cut into the native soil should be at least 4 feet in width. The face of the embankment should be compacted to the same 95 percent relative compaction as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by overbuilding the embankment and cutting back to the compacted core. Alternatively, the surface of the slope may be compacted as it is built, or upon completion of the embankment fill placement. Shorinlj Desiljn Criteria Development of the site will require the construction of a permanent retaining wall near the southeast comer of the proposed building. The exposed maximum height of the wall will be approximately 18 feet. However, we understand that a 4-foot diameter pipe will be installed along the base of the wall to convey mine runoff that currently is routed to the site and then through an aqueduct to the south end of the site. Below the pipe, the native soils will consist of very loose sand and silty sand, as well as soft peat, and silt. Sandstone bedrock was encountered about 19 to 24 feet below the existing ground surface in the area of the wall. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site we recommend that the retaining wall consist of soldier pile shoring with permanent tiebacks. A permit to allow the permanent tiebacks in the Benson Road right-of-way will likely be necessary for a tieback-supported system.If permanent tiebacks are not permitted, it will be necessary to consider designing a cantilevered soldier pile wall or a temporarily tied-back wall that is integrated with a pile-supported concrete retaining wall. The lateral movement of soil and shoring surrounding the excavation will cause varying degrees of settlement of streets and sidewalks adjacent to the excavation. The settlement- sensitivity and importance of any adjacent structures and improvements need to be considered when selecting appropriate shoring system and design criteria. The excavation will be near Benson Road that contains utilities that may be settlement-sensitive. The shoring design criteria presented in this report should be used by the structural engineer and contractor to design an appropriate system. The shoring system design should be reviewed by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. for conformance with the design criteria presented in this report.It is generally not the purpose of this report to provide specific criteria for construction methods, materials, or procedures.It should be the responsibility of the shoring subcontractor to verify actual soil and groundwater conditions at the site and determine the construction methods and procedures needed for installation of an appropriate shoring system. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc, Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington Lateral Earth Pressures and Movement J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 22 The design of shoring is conventionally accomplished using empirical relationships and apparent earth pressure distributions. These earth pressure distributions or envelopes do not represent the precise distribution of earth pressures but rather constitute hypothetical pressures from which tieback loads can be calculated which would not likely be exceeded in the excavation. Additionally, pressures must be selected adjacent to existing settlement-sensitive utilities that will tend to limit deflections, both vertical and horizontal. Design of temporary shoring could be based on either "active"or "at-rest"lateral earth pressures, depending on the degree of deformation of the shoring that can be tolerated. Shoring which is free to deform on the order of 0.001 to 0.002 times the height of the shoring is considered to be capable of mobilizing active earth pressures. This lateral deformation is likely to be accomplished by vertical settlement of up to roughly 0.005 times the height of the shoring, which may extend back from the side of the cut a distance equal to roughly the height of the cut. Lesser degrees of settlement may also occur within a setback extending twice as far back. A greater amount of lateral deformation could lead to greater vertical settlements behind the wall.If no structural elements are located within this zone, or if any structural elements within the zone are considered to be insensitive to this degree of settlement, then it would be appropriate to design utilizing active earth pressures. An assumed "at-rest"earth pressure condition theoretically assumes no movement of the soil behind the shoring; however, some settlement should realistically be anticipated due to construction practices and/or the fact that it is not possible to construct a perfectly stiff shoring system. All deep excavations do invite a certain amount of risk. Since the selection of shoring techniques and criteria affect the level of risk, we recommend that the final selection of shoring design criteria be made by the owner in conjunction with the structural engineer and other design team members. The project shoring walls could be designed using active pressures, provided lateral movement and vertical settlement to the degree described above is considered tolerable. The anticipated lateral and vertical movements of l-inch or less with active earth pressures are typically tolerable for streets and buried utilities. For the case of a cantilevered shoring system, or shoring with only one level of internal or external bracing, the applied lateral pressure would be represented by a triangular pressure distribution termed an equivalent fluid density. Figure 4 of this report illustrates the recommended pressure distribution. We recommend an active pressure equivalent fluid density of 36 pounds per cubic foot (pet) for these conditions. Additional lateral pressure should be added to this value to model surcharges such as street or construction loads, or existing foundation and floor loads. For design of shoring for assumed "at-rest"earth pressure conditions, with cantilever piles or one level of bracing, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf. As noted on Figure 4, a backslope surcharge is recommended for shoring. The backslope surcharge load is added to the height of the excavation as an equivalent soil height of H/4,where H is the height of the wall in feet. We also recommend applying a uniform seismic pressure of 16H to the shoring wall.It appears that Benson Road is more than 25 feet away from the wall and 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc. Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington 1-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 23 should not impose a traffic surcharge. Other surcharge pressures acting on the shoring can be determined by the methods shown on Figure 5, and should be added to the lateral earth pressures as discussed above. Soldier Piles Soldier piles for shoring are typically set in pre-angered holes and backfilled with lean or structural concrete. Vertical loads on such piles could be resisted by a combination of friction and end bearing below the base of the excavation. We recommend neglecting the side friction throughout the loose and soft native soils and using a value of 2,000 psf in the sandstone. An allowable end-bearing value of 30 ksf (kips per square foot) can be used for soldier piles embedded at least 5 feet into the sandstone. The above values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Embedment depth of soldier piles below final excavation level must be designed to provide adequate lateral or "kick out" resistance to horizontal loads below the lowest strut or tieback level. For design, the lateral resistance may be computed on the basis of the passive pressure presented on Figure 4, acting over twice the diameter of the concreted soldier pile section or the pile spacing, whichever is less. We recommend that the passive resistance within the upper loose and soft soils be neglected and that an allowable passive resistance of 1,200 psf be used for that portion of the pile embedded in the sandstone. If excessive ground loss is allowed to occur during pile installation, increased settlement of the areas retained by the shoring would be more likely to occur. Soldier pile drilling is anticipated to extend through water-bearing coal tailings and native sand layers. Casing is recommended for these drilling conditions, in order to prevent caving. The contractor should be responsible for installation of casing, or using alternate means at their discretion, to prevent caving and loss of ground during pile drilling. We recommend lagging, or some other form of protection, be installed in all areas. Due to soil arching effects, lagging may be designed for 50 percent of the lateral earth pressure used for shoring design. Prompt and careful installation of lagging will reduce potential loss of ground. The requirements for lagging should be made the responsibility of the shoring subcontractor to prevent soil failure, sloughing and loss of ground and to provide safe working conditions. We recommend all void space between the lagging and soil be backfilled. The backfill should be free-draining in order to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. A permeable sand slurry or pea gravel should be considered for lagging backfill.If the lagging is exposed for the life of the wall, we recommend that it consist of concrete.If the wall is faced with a protective layer of concrete, the lagging should be adequately treated to resist rot. Lateral Support and Tiebacks Lateral support for the shored wall should be provided by tieback anchors. We anticipate that the anchors will be drilled into competent sandstone bedrock. However, historical records indicate that there were mineshaft adits in the area of the project site. Review of the historical documents leads us to suspect that one of the mine openings may be along the alignment of the existing 48-inch drainpipe that daylights on the project site. We did not encounter conditions that 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington ---------------------------- J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 24 would indicate the presence of the shafts. However,if a zone of fill and/or a mineshaft exists in the anchor zone of the proposed wall, it may not be possible to install some of the tiebacks as recommended. We recommend that additional subsurface explorations be completed in support of the retaining wall design.If a mineshaft is present in the tieback zone, further definition of the conditions prior to bidding would reduce the possibility of change orders and delays during construction. Evaluations could consist of surficial geophysical evaluations using resistivity or magnetics and/or downhole geophysical methods in predrilled holes. We also recommend that the 48-inch pipe be logged with a camera to determine its alignment and where it terminates. The anchor portion of the tieback must be fully located a sufficient distance behind the retained excavation face to develop resistance within the stable soil mass. We recommend the anchorage be attained behind an assumed failure plane that is formed by a 60° angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the retained excavation face for a horizontal distance of one- fourth the height of the soldier pile above the bottom of the excavation. The zone in front of the above-described plane is called the "no-load zone". The unbonded portion of the tieback anchor should extend entirely through the no-load zone, and should be a minimum of 15 feet in length. The anchor portion of the tieback should be a minimum length of 12 feet. All tieback holes within the no-load zone should be immediately backfilled. The sole purpose of the backfill is to prevent possible collapse of the holes, loss of ground and surface subsidence. We recommend that the backfill consist of sand or a non-cohesive mixture. Sand/cement grout could be utilized only if some acceptable form of bond-breaker (such as plastic sheathing) is applied to the tie-rods within the no-load zone. Anchor holes should be drilled in a manner that will minimize loss of ground and not disturb previously installed anchors. Caving will likely occur in the coal tailings above the sandstone and will likely require the use of casing. Caving could also occur if wet or saturated zones are encountered. Drilling with and grouting through a continuous-flight auger or a casing would reduce the potential for loss of ground. Using the design values presented herein is dependent on a well-constructed anchor. We recommend that concrete be placed in the drilled tieback anchor hole by tremie methods such as pumping through a hose placed in the bottom of the hole or pumping through the center of a continuous-flight auger. In this way, the grout is forced up through the anchor zone under pressure, with the resulting anchor more likely to be continuous. The grout should not be placed into the anchor zone by simple gravity methods such as flowing down a chute. We recommend that Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. monitor all tieback installation. With a low-pressure grouted tieback shoring system, we estimate an allowable concrete- sandstone adhesion of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended. We recommend that all anchors be located at least 10 feet below ground surface. For high-pressure grouted or secondary grouted anchors, the adhesion is highly dependent on grouting procedures. For planning purposes, a four-inch diameter pressure-grouted tieback can be assumed to have the same capacity per lineal foot as a 12-inch diameter low-pressure grouted (augered) tieback, or roughly 9 kips per lineal foot. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite II7 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington Tieback Testing and Lockoff J·1470 December 6, 2002 Page 25 All permanent tieback anchors should be performance tested to at least 150 percent of design capacity prior to lockoff. Performance testing should include increasing the load on the tieback to the test load in five increments. Each increment is to be held long enough to obtain a stable measurement of tieback deflection, and the 150percent load is to be held until five minutes elapse with less than 0.01 inch of creep movement. The anchors should then be locked off at 80 percent of design load. Tieback adhesion capacities presented in this report are estimates based on soil conditions encountered in the borings. The final adhesion capacity for each anchor installation method and soil type should be determined by field tests. We recommend that at least two, 300-percent tieback proof tests be completed prior to installing production tiebacks for each soil type and installation method.Proof tests should consist of applying the load in eight increments to the test load, with each increment held until 5 minutes elapses with less than 0.01 inch of creep. The 300- percent load should be held until 30 minutes elapse with less than 0.0I inch of creep. Acceptance criteria for tieback tests should include all of the following: 1. Hold maximum test load for required duration with less than 0.0 l-inch of creep; 2. Linear or near-linear plot of unit anchor stress and movement, with creep movement less than 0.08 inches per log cycle of time; 3. Total movement during performance test loading, from 50 to 150 percent of design load, exceeds 80 percent of theoretical elastic elongation of unbonded tendon length; 4. Total movement during test loading, does not exceed theoretical elastic elongation of unbonded tendon length plus 50 percent of bond length; 5. Performance of the anchor head/pile connection acceptable to the structural engineer. Failure of an anchor to meet the required test acceptance criteria should be brought to the attention of the structural engineer. In most cases, where total anchor movement is within tolerable ranges, a reduced capacity will be assigned to the subject tieback.If total anchor movement is in excess of 6 inches, we recommend that the anchor be abandoned and replaced. Shoring Monitoring Any time an excavation is made below the level of existing buildings, utilities or other structures, there is risk of damage even if a well-designed shoring system has been planned. We recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observations be conducted on adjacent facilities and structures. We believe that such a program is necessary for two reasons. First, if excessive movement is detected sufficiently early, it may be possible to undertake remedial measures that could prevent serious damage to existing facilities or structures. Second, in the unlikely event that problems do arise, the responsibility for damage may be established more equitably if the cause and extent of the damage are better defined. Monitoring can consist of conventional survey monitoring of horizontal and vertical movements. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 26 The monitoring program should include measurements of the horizontal and vertical movements of the retained improvements and the shoring system itself. At least two reference lines should be established adjacent to the excavation at horizontal distances back from the excavation space of about 1/3H and H, where H is the final excavation height. Monitoring of the shoring system should include measurements of vertical and horizontal movements at the top of each soldier pile.If local wet areas are noted within the excavation, additional monitoring points should be established at the direction of the soils engineer. Reference points for horizontal movement should also be selectively placed at various tieback levels as the excavation progresses. The measuring system used for shoring monitoring should have an accuracy of at least O.Ol-foot.All reference points on the existing structures should be installed and readings taken prior to commencing the excavation. All reference points should be read prior to and during critical stages of construction. The frequency of readings will depend on the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. As a minimum, readings should be taken about once a week throughout construction until the excavation is completed. A registered surveyor should complete all readings and the data should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Building Foundations We recommend that the proposed building be supported on pile foundations due to the risk of settlements that exceed the maximums presented in the Geotechnical Investigation and Report Requirements.We recommend that foundation support be provided by augercast piles, although other pile options such as timber or pipe piles could be considered.If steel piles are considered, the effects of corrosion will need to be taken into account. We can provide recommendations for alternative pile options,if requested. As noted in the Subsurface Conditions section of this report, the thickness of coal tailings fill, compressible soils, and potentially liquefiable soils, and the depth to sandstone bedrock varies across the site. In general, the depth to sandstone bedrock varies from about 19 to more than 110 feet below existing grades. We anticipate that the auger will be able to slightly penetrate the bedrock as it appears to be moderately to highly weathered at the contact.It is our opinion that piles can achieve the recommended allowable capacities with a maximum length of 85 feet. We understand that the former buildings on site were timber pile supported.Of the two pile supported buildings, the proposed building envelopes one entire building and a portion of another. Therefore, we recommend that the layout of the piles take into consideration the location of the existing piles. We also recommend that the location of the piles be surveyed in order to modify the layout of the new piles before construction begins. An augercast pile is formed by drilling to an appropriate pre-determined depth with a continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger. Cement grout is then pumped down the stem of the auger under high pressure as the auger is withdrawn. The final result is a cast-in-place pile. Reinforcing can be lowered into the unset concrete column to provide lateral and/or tension capabilities. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman AssOl;iates.Inl;. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 27 Pressure grouting methods typically result in a grout column diameter in excess of the nominal diameter of the drilled hole. The soft and loose soils on the site could provide difficult to augercast pile construction due to grout loss into the loose/soft soil strata. We anticipate grout volumes within the soil column could average about 150to 180percent of the theoretical volume of drilled holes. The contractor should be required to stagger the pile grouting and drilling operations, such that all completed piles within 10 feet of the pile being drilled have set for at least 24 hours. Greater spacings may become necessary due to the length of the piles and should be determined at the time of construction. Augercast piles would gain their vertical compressive capacity mainly from end-bearing on bedrock or end-bearing and skin friction in soils below the liquefiable zone where bedrock is not encountered. Vertical uplift pile capacity will develop as a result of side friction between the pile and the adjacent soil in addition to the weight of the pile. Due to the variable depth of the bedrock, augercast piles will likely vary in length from about 20 to 85 feet. Recommended augercast pile capacities are presented in Table I below. The vertical compressive pile capacities presented assume that adjacent piles are located at least three pile diameters apart and that the piles supported on the sandstone bedrock are embedded a minimum of 2 feet into the rock. Lateral pile capacities are also presented in Table 1 for l8-inch diameter piles. The allowable lateral capacities are based on fixed- and free-head conditions and limiting the deflection to 12 inch. Because augercast piles are drilled, obstacles such as rocks, utilities, foundations and other man-placed debris in the subsurface can cause difficult installation conditions.It is possible that obstacles encountered during drilling the piles would require relocation of piles at the time of construction if impenetrable obstacles are encountered at planned pile locations.It may be necessary to periodically remove the pile auger from the holes during drilling in order to verify depths of the various soil types, and penetration into the bearing soil layer. We understand that the proposed building will be designed for the typical structural loads as presented to ZZA in the Geotechnical Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements. Based upon these values, as well as the conditions that could develop during a liquefaction event, we have developed allowable compressive and uplift capacities for l8-inch diameter augercast piles. The recommended pile lengths and associated allowable capacities are presented in Table I below. The allowable capacities may be increased by one-third to resist short-term transient forces.If the piles are spaced closer than three pile diameters, the allowable capacities should be reduced. The reduction factor will be based on the actual center to center pile spacing and the configuration of the group. 18905 33rdAvenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 28 TABLE 1 ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES OF AUGERCAST PILES Pile Diameter Estimated Pile Allowable Allowable Allowable Lateral (Inches)Length (feet)Compressive Uplift Capacity Capacity,fixed Capacity (tons)(tons)*head/free head (tons) 18 (in bedrock)20 - 30 75 2 6.0/3.0 18 (in bedrock)30-40 75 4 6.0/3.0 18 (in bedrock)40-50 75 6 6.0/3.0 18 (in bedrock)50-60 75 10 6.0/3.0 18 (in bedrock)60 -70 75 15 6.0/3.0 18 (in bedrock)70 - 80 75 22 6.0/3.0 18 (in soil)85 75 36 6.0/3.0 *Does not mclude the weight of the pile Based on an assumed modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction of 3 pci in the loose and soft near-surface soils, the stiffness factor (T) for a fixed- and free-head, 18-inch diameter auger- cast pile was calculated to be 88 inches (7.3 feet). The recommended allowable lateral capacities are based on limiting deflection to 0.5 inch. We recommend that the reinforcing cages extend a minimum of 30 feet into each pile, or the full pile length if it is shorter than 30 feet. In addition to the reinforcing cages, we recommend that a full-length center bar be installed in each pile in order to develop the allowable uplift capacity. Some downdrag forces on the piles should be expected to develop over time as the peat and organic-rich soils consolidate over time. We estimate that forces of up to about 5 tons could develop on longest piles that penetrate through the greatest thicknesses of compressible soils. However, given the 2.5 safety factor applied to the ultimate pile capacities, it does not appear that the downdrag forces will adversely affect the performance of the piles. Provided the piles are designed in accordance with our recommendations and they are constructed in accordance with industry standards, we estimate that total settlements will be less than one inch.Differential settlements are estimated to be less than ~inch in 40 feet. The integrity of augercast piles is controlled in the field and can be affected by many variables. Unlike steel or timber piles with structural characteristics that can be predetermined during design, the construction of augercast piles must be continuously observed in order to determine that the piles have been constructed in a manner that will achieve the required design characteristics. Therefore, we recommend that ZZA provide construction observation services during the installation of the augercast pile foundations. This will allow us evaluate all of the variables that go into constructing an augercast pile and determine the adequacy of the piles as they are constructed. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington Methane Gas MitigatiQn J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 29 The presence of peat, organic-rich soils and coal tailings at the site can result in the generation of methane gas as the organics decay. Methane gas will follow the path of least resistance and has been shown to migrate laterally to find escape paths. It accumulates in pockets both inside and outside of buildings. Methane can present an explosive hazard if it concentrates in confined or enclosed spaces within a building, in underground vaults, conduits, and other collection points. We recommend that a methane barrier system that prevents the passage of methane gas into the building be provided under the floor slab and that a collection and venting system be installed below the gas barrier. We recommend that the vapor barrier be installed after the pile foundations have been constructed but before the capillary break is placed. The venting system should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated pipes fully enveloped in granular soils that is routed to the outside of the building. Further study of the development of methane at the site could be completed to determine hQW significant the development of methane is at the site. We would recommend that a minimum of four gas collection wells be installed at the site in order to collect samples of the vapor generated. The concentration of methane would then be determined in the samples and specific recommendations could be formulated based on the test results. Structural FIQors We recommend that all floor slabs be supported on augercast piles due to the thickness of very IQQse coal tailings and the risk of liquefaction induced settlements. We recommend that the slab be supported on a minimum of 12 inches of nonexpansive, granular structural fill compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). This will provide the SUPPQrt for the augercast pile construction equipment. We recommend that 6 inches of free-draining granular material be placed over the building pad to serve as a capillary break. Aggregates similar to those specified in WSDOT 2002 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, listed under specifications 9-03.12(4), 9-03.15 or 9-03.16 can be used for capillary break material provided they are modified to meet the fines content recommendation,Alternatively, we recommend that the capillary break consist of free-draining aggregate that conforms with ASTM D2321, Table 1, Classes of Embedment and Backfill Material, Class lA, IB, or II (GW or GP). The fines content of the capillary break material should be limited tQ 3 percent or less, by weight, when measured on that portion passing the U.S.NQ.4 sieve. A water vapor barrier is not considered to be necessary if a methane gas barrier is constructed. After the capillary break is placed, it will be required to SUPPQrt the reinforcing steel for the structural floor and its SUPPQrts (dobies). We understand that it is very important to maintain the proper clearance between the structural fill subgrade and the rebar. Therefore, we recommend that the contractor submit detailed information in a timely manner about the material they intend to use in order tQ determine its adequacy for the intended use. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington ----------~------------ J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 30 We recommend that all outdoor slabs and sidewalks supported on a minimum of 12 inches of nonexpansive,granular structural fill compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). We have estimated a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of approximately 150 pounds per cubic inch for a l2-inch thick layer of granular soil compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Conventional Retaining Walls The lateral soil pressure acting on backfilled walls will primarily depend on the degree of compaction and the amount of lateral movement permitted at the top of the wall during backfilling operations.lfthe wall is free to yield at the top an amount equal to at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall, the soil pressure will be less than if the wall structurally restrained from lateral movement at the top. We recommend that an equivalent active fluid pressure of35 pcfbe used for yielding walls and an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcfbe used for non-yielding backfilled walls. These equivalent fluid pressures assume the backfill is compacted to approximately 90 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend that we be allowed to review the design values and modify them,if necessary,if they are to be applied to walls greater than 12 feet in height. For those portions of foundations embedded more than 18 inches below finish surrounding grade, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure of 125 and 250 pcf in the existing loose fill and in structural fill that extends laterally beyond the limits of the footing a distance of twice the embedment depth,respectively.We recommend using an allowable base friction coefficient of 0.30. The above equivalent fluid pressures are based on the assumption of a uniform horizontal backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.Surcharge pressures due to sloping ground,adjacent footings, vehicles,construction equipment,etc. must be added to these values. For loading docks,surcharge loading on the floor slab above the dock will result in a horizontal,uniformly distributed surcharge on the wall equal to 40 percent of the distributed vertical loading. We can provide surcharge criteria for other loading conditions behind the loading dock wall,if requested. We recommend a minimum width of 18 inches of clean, granular,free-draining material should extend from footing drains at the base of the wall to the ground surface, to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces.Alternatively,weepholes on 4-foot centers could be constructed at the bases of the wall to provide a drainage path.It should be realized that the primary purpose of the free draining material is reduction in hydrostatic pressures.Some potential for moisture to contact the back face in the wall may exist even with this treatment,which may require more extensive water proofing be specified for walls which require interior moisture sensitive finishes. Care should be taken where utilities penetrate through backfilled walls.Minor settlement of the wall backfill soils can impart significant soil loading on utilities,and some form of flexible connection may be appropriate at backfilled wall penetrations. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington Drainage Considerations J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 31 A perimeter foundation drainage system is recommended for this site due to the proposed finish floor elevation and the depth to groundwater at the time of our explorations. All retaining walls should be designed to include drainage systems that drain by gravity to a storm sewer or other suitable discharge location. Water from downspouts and surface water should be independently collected and routed to a suitable discharge location. Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage from the building areas at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or to collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building area. We recommend that a gradient of at least two percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the building perimeter be provided, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. For design purposes, we recommend using a high groundwater elevation of 34 feet along the east side of the site. Permanent structures that extend below this elevation should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures and should be appropriately waterproofed. The two existing mine runoff drainpipes that enter the east side of the site will be tightlined across a portion of the site. We recommend that the company or agency that owns or is responsible for their maintenance be determined in order to coordinate a long-term maintenance and inspection program. We further recommend that the peak flow in the drainpipes be determined in order to size the proposed tightline pipe. This should likely be done in the late winter or spring when groundwater would be anticipated to be at its highest. Pavement Design Parameters The subgrade soils are anticipated to generally consist of very loose to loose coal tailings. As such, a CBR sample was not collected because it is our opinion that a minimum of one foot of structural fill will be necessary over the coal. Therefore, we have assumed that the fill will have a minimum California Bearing Ratio (CBR)of 50 percent. This would be similar to using a pit-run sand and gravel soil. All soil within the upper one foot of the base course must have pavement support characteristics at least equivalent to this and must be placed under engineering controlled conditions. A confirmatory CBR test should be completed on the proposed import road bed material. Asphalt Concrete Pavement It must be recognized that pavement design is a compromise between high initial cost and little maintenance on one side and low initial cost coupled with the need for periodic repairs. As a result, the owner will need to take part in the development of an appropriate pavement section. Critical features which govern the durability of the surface include the level of compaction of the subgrade, the stability of the subgrade, the presence or absence of moisture, free water and 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 32 organics, the fines content of the subgrade soils, the traffic volume, and the frequency of use by heavy vehicles. Our recommendations are based upon a 20-year design life. The pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade and any structural fill will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. The top 12 inches beneath the pavement surface should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, using AASHTO T-180 (ASTM: D1557) as a standard. However, the majority of the surficial soils consist of coal fill that may be difficult to compact and can break down over time. The pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade and any structural fill will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. All fill, as well as the upper 12 inches beneath the pavement surface should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, using AASHTO T-180 (ASTM:D1557).Specifications for manufacturing and placement of pavements and crushed top course should conform to specifications presented in Divisions 5 and 4,respectively,of the 2002 Washington State Department of Transportation,Standard Specifications for Roads, Bridges, and Municipal Construction.We recommend that the subbase course material conform to Sections 9-03.9(1), Ballast, 9-03.10, Aggregate for Gravel Base, 9-03.14(1), Gravel Borrow, 9-01.14(2), Select Borrow, or 9-03.11 Recycled Portland Cement Concrete Rubble, with the maximum aggregate size of3 inches. The crushed aggregate base course material conform to Section 9-03.9(3), Crushed Surfacing Top Course. In lieu of crushed gravel base/top course,asphalt-treated base (ATB) can be substituted. The ATB would provide a more durable wearing surface if the pavement subgrade areas will be exposed to construction traffic prior to final paving with Class B asphalt.Production and placement of asphalt should be completed in accordance with Section 5-04 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.We recommend using a Class B mix as described in Section 9-03.8(6), Proportions of Materials,of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.ATB should conform to the specifications of Section 4-06, Asphalt Treated Base of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Recommended Pavement Sections for 20-Year Lifespan ATB Substitute for Traffic Asphalt Crushed Top/Base Pit-Run Subbase Crushed Aggregate Thickness (in.)Course (in.) (Inches)(Inches)* Heavy 4 4 12 3 Standard 3 4 12 3 *ATB:Asphalt Treated Base may be substituted for crushed Top/Base Course beneath Class B asphalt. Pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade can be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density and that construction monitoring will be performed.If the subgrade can only be compacted to 90 percent of the modified Proctor or 95 percent of the standard Proctor, we recommend that an additional 5 inches of subbase be added to the pavement section. Continual flexible pavement maintenance along with major rehabilitation after about 8 to 10 years should be expected to obtain a 20-year service life. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S.Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington ---------------------------------------------, J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 33 If possible,construction traffic should be limited to unpaved and untreated roadways, or specially constructed haul roads.If this is not possible, the pavement design should include an allowance for construction traffic. Stabilizing the subgrade with a fabric such as Mirafi 600X or similar may be necessary during wet weather construction or wet subgrade conditions.Proper geotextile fabrics will maintain segregation of the subgrade soil and base course materials.If the subgrade soils are allowed to migrate upwards into the base course, the result would be decreased pavement support. The use of stabilization fabric will not reduce the necessary base rock thickness,as fabric does not provide structural strength at such shallow depths.If the subgrade is disturbed when wet, overexcavation may be required and backfill with import fill. Concrete pavement Concrete pavement design recommendations are based on the soil parameters used for the asphalt pavement design, and an assumed modulus of rupture of 550 psi and a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi for the concrete. For standard and heavy-duty concrete pavement sections,minimum concrete pavement sections are presented below. Recommended Base and Subbase Thickness Traffic Concrete Crushed Base Pit-Run Subbase (in) Surfacing (in) Course (in) Heavy 6 4 12 Standard 5 4 12 The materials and construction procedures should be in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specifications for concrete pavement construction. Stormwater Detention It appears that underground stormwater detention vaults may be constructed on site.If liquefaction related settlements can not be tolerated, we recommend that the vaults be supported on augercast piles. Even if the vaults are supported on piles, we recommend that the grading be completed prior to excavating for the vaults in order to preconsolidate the native soils around the limits of the vault. We recommend that the area of the vaults be preloaded with a 3-foot surcharge (using a soil with a unit weight of 125 pet)to reduce the effects of differential settlements around the perimeter of the vault that would likely be manifested in the asphalt surfacing over time. This surcharge should extend at least 5 feet beyond the limits of the vault and be left in place a minimum of 4 weeks. We estimate that the resulting consolidation could be on the order of 1 inch or more. Based on previous projects with similar conditions,we understand that settlement of this magnitude may not be acceptable with respect to the possibility of damage to the pipe connections at the vault. We recommend that a minimum of two settlement plates be installed on the existing subgrade at each vault location and that the elevations of the plates be determined prior to the 18905 33rd Avenue W _,Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington J-1470 December 6, 2002 Page 34 placement of any structural fill/surcharge soils. Readings made by a qualified surveyor should be completed twice a week until the finish subgrade elevation has been achieved. From then on,the readings should be taken once a week until it is determined that the vault excavation can begin. The survey information should be provided to ZZA in a timely manner for review. Because of the loose/soft, wet subgrade conditions below the surface, (even after preloading) we recommend that vault subgrades be overexcavated a minimum of 18 inches in order to replace the loose/soft soils with relatively uncompressible granular soils. These materials would also provide a working surface.If the vaults are not pile supported and peat is encountered in the bottom of the excavation, we recommend that all of the peat be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Prior to placing the granular fill, we recommend that a geotextile such as Amoco 1199,Layfield 104F, or similar (with an AOS of70 or less) be placed over the exposed subgrade except in those areas where the augercast piles will be installed. The fill should be placed in maximum 6-inch thick lifts and be statically rolled and compacted. Vibratory compactors should be used with extreme caution as these could soften and disturb the underlying native soils. Pumped sumps or well points may also be necessary around the perimeter of the vaults depending on groundwater levels at the time of construction.If groundwater is present, we recommend that the water level be maintained a minimum of 18 inches below the top of the gravel pad during construction. We recommend that the structural fill placed over the geotextile consist of select aggregate as described in the Structural Fill section of this report. At the time of drilling, the groundwater elevations varied between 23 and 34 feet. Where applicable, we recommend designing the vault for buoyant forces for that portion that extends below the interpreted seasonal high groundwater levels.If underground vaults are used and their locations are determined, we recommend that ZZA be contacted in order to determine if buoyant forces should be incorporated into their design. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations accomplished for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within the constraints of budget and site access so as to yield the information to formulate the recommendations.Project plans were in the preliminary stage at the time of this report preparation. We therefore recommend that ZZA be provided the opportunity to review the project plans and specifications when they become available in order to confirm that the recommendations and design considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented into the project design package. The integrity of earthwork, structural fill, and foundation and pavement performance depend greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. We recommend that a qualified geotechnical engineering firm be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork-related construction phases of the project.If variations in the subsurface conditions are observed at that time, a qualified engineer would be able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations to the contractor and design team in a timely manner as the project construction progresses. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton,Washington ~----~-~~------~ J·1470 December 6, 2002 Page 35 We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this project and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of this project with you at your convenience.If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Thomas A.Jones, P.E. Associate [~PIRES 4/~7{~:J ::::l Enclosures: Figure 1 -Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 - Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A' Figure 3 -Pseudostatic Seismic Stability Analysis Figure 4 -Recommended Design Criteria for Shoring,Cantilever or Single Row of Tiebacks Figure 5 - Surcharge Pressure Acting on Adjacent Shoring or Subsurface Wall Appendix A - Field Procedures and Exploration Logs Appendix B -Laboratory Testing and Classification Appendix C -Geotechnical Investigation Fact Sheet,Foundation Design Criteria, Foundation Subsurface Preparation Notes and AASHTO Pavement Design Appendix D -Climatic Data Distribution: PacLand - 7 copies 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Project Renton,Washington FIGURE 1 . SITEAND EXPLORATION PLAN Basemap DWGFile Provided by PACLAND,dated9/13/02. Date:Oct.2002 Project No:J-1470 Drawnby:J.Duncan Scale:As Noted 18905 33rdAvenueWest, Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 Tele:(425)771-3304 Fax:(425)771-3549 Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting ). o 120 240 i i APPROXIMATE SCALE INFEET APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATiON AND NUMBER APPROXIMATE DUTCH CONE PROBE LOCATION AND NUMBER APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXPLORATION COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS ( )AND TERRA ASSOCIATES ( GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A A' U ...P-1 EB GB-1/TB-1 LEGEND: SB-1 --~~----- A 80 GB-12 (OFFSET 6' NORTH)B-1A (SLOPE EVALUATION) (OFFSET 4'SOUTH) At 80 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE B-3 (SITE EVALUATION) (OFFSET 20' SOUTH) 8 501~ 50/~~~ ~--- ---<;~~ ~---<; 40 Q) CD LL .5 20 ~ ~ jjj o 60 3 3 5 5 10 8 17 50/5" 22 Interbedded very looseto loose, silty SAND,sandy SILT,andSILTwith variable gravel,wood,and organic debris content.(ALLUVIUM) 5 4 ~---~------Loose,siltySAND ---::::___ ---------Verydense SANDSTONE Verydense SANDSTONE 40 60 o Q) CD LL l: ~20 ~m -20 5011"-20 -40 -40 EXPLORATION NUMBER,APPROXIMATE LOCATION, AND OFFSET FROM PROFILE A-A' STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING OR DATE NOTED THE STRATA ARE BASED UPON INTERPOLATION BETWEEN EXPLORATIONS AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.SIMPLIFIED NAMES ARE SHOWN FOR SOIL DEPOSITS,BASED ON GENERALIZATIONS OFSOIL DESCRIPTIONS. SEE EXPLORATION LOGS AND REPORT TEXTFOR MORE DETAILED SOILAND GROUNDWATER DESCRIPTIONS. LEGEND: B-1 OFFSET 4' SOUTH 7 Note: See Figure 1 for location of profile. o i 20 HORIZONTAL 1"=20' VERTICAL 1"=20' 40 I NOTES: Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting 1890533rd Avenue West,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 Tele:(425)771-3304 Fax:(425)771-3549 Project No:J-1470 Drawn by:J. Duncan Date:Oct.2002 Scale:As Noted Renton Retail SlopeStability Analysis Renton,Washington FIGURE2 - GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILEA-A' Pseudostatic Seismic Stability Analysis J 1470A 1 10-29-......9:36 200 160 Renton Retail 10 most critical surfaces,MINIMUM BISHOP FOS 1.312 SOIL STRENGTH VALUES Soil Type I: Loose to medium dense coal tailings (Fill),0=37',C=O psf. SoilType 2: Interbedded very loose to loose, silty sand, sandy silt, and silt with variable gravel, wood, and organic debris content (Alluvium), 0=32°,C=O.O psf. 1 Critical Failure Surface FOS =1.312 U1 X«80 I>- 40 o o 40 4 80 120 160 200 X-AXIS (feet) 2 240 280 Soil Type 3: Loose silty sand (Residual Soil),0=33°,C=O psf. Soil Type 4: Very dense sandstone, 0=15°,C=3000 psf. 320 ZIPPERZEMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Project No. J-1470 Date: September 2002 Scale: Noted Renton Retail Renton, Washington Pseudostatic Seismic Stability Analysis Fi~re3 Hs =EQUIVALENT SOIL ~]I NOTES: SURCHARGE FOR BACKSLOPE A E!!!1 !/1 1. SOIL SURCHARGE "Hs"APPLIES TO V~-2H:1V BACKSLOPE SURCHARGE.EXCAVATION BASE GROUN~Y GR~UND'S~RF:CE -.l /ADDITIONAL SURCHARGE REQUIRED ~,ASSUME NO RESISTANCEAS NOTED ON FIGURE 4,AND/OR FOR (APPROXIMATE 2H:1V) / SLOPE ABOVE TOP OF PILE. t t (fs)SURFACE I\2. ACTIVE, AT-REST, AND SURCHARGE \PRESSURE ASSUMED TO ACT OVER tc-t (fs)(qa) \I PILE SPACING ABOVE EXCAVATION ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE ttt FRICTION END BEARING NOLOAD ZONEJ \ \ /BASE AND OVER PILE DIAMETER BELOW EXCAVATION BASE.NATIVE SOIL 0 ksf o ksf /SANDSTONE 2.5ksf 30 ksf LOCATE ALL 3. PASSIVE PRESSURE ASSUMED TO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM EMBEDMENT ANCHORS BEHIND \ \ I .>ACT OVER TWICE THE GROUTED DEPTH 5 FEET INTO SANDSTONE THIS LINE \SOLDIER PILE DIAMETER OR THE PILE V ~SPACING,WHICHEVER IS SMALLER.B.VERTICAL CAPACITY OFHPASSIVEPRESSURESINCLUDE FACTOR OF SAFETY OF ABOUT 1.5.SOLDIER PILE/\.>TIEBACK ANCHOR NEGLECT LOOSE/SOFT NATIVE SOILS. (TYP.)<»:36 (H+D)36 Hs 16 H 4. SEISMIC PRESSURE =16 H, Hs =H/4 ~\5.0 =DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT INTO ':\SANDSTONE. FRICTION I \6. ALL DIMENSIONS IN FEET.SOIL TYPE (ADHESION) \NATIVE SOIL o ksf /\SANDSTONE 3.0 ksf (augered) I 60r 9.0 kif (pressure grouted) \------EXCAVATION BASE VERIFY WITH LOAD TEST 300% OF DESIGN STRESS I !-H/4- y/LEVEL, SEE TEXT. .r >. /(--l-PROPOSED PROOF TEST TO 150% OF DESIGN ANCHOR LOAD, J 4-FT DIA. PIPE SEE TEXT. I -,-r-=-:::::.- - ---..J>ANDSTON~I C.TENTATIVE ANCHOR PULLOUT___0 RESISTANCEI."I PASSIVE PRESSURE ACTIVE PRESSURE 36(H+D)+ 36(Hs) + 16 H 100 0 (psf) in loose/soft native soil AT-REST PRESSURE 50(H+D) + 50(Hs) + 16 H 1200 0 (psf) in sandstone A.LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE·NO LOAD ZONE NOTE:Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.Project No. J-1470 PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT FIELD VERIFY BACKSLOPE ANGLE Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Renton, Washington Date: Nov. 2002 BETWEEN WALL AND BENSON 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117 ROAD BEFORE DESIGN.Lynnwood,Washington 98036 Drawn by: J.D. Figure 4:Recommended Design Criteria for Tele: (425) 771-3304 Fax: (425)771-3549 Shoring Cantilever or Single Row of Tiebacks -roc: II,N1----1 BASE OF EXCAVATION POINT LOAD (FOR m > 0.4) 1.77q m 2 n 2 O'h =[)2.(m2+ n2)3 (FOR rn <0.4) 0.28q n 2 O'h =~.(0.16+n 2 )3 ft)q 0'I h =O'h cos2 (1.1-&) 0"h q,Ib per ft2 D BASE OF EXCAVATION BASE OF EXCAVATION PLAN VIEW OF WALL STRIP LOADING PARALLEL TO EXCAVATION O'h =~(~-sin ~cos2a.) 1t UNIFORM LOAD DISTRIBUTION O'h =0.4 q q =VERTICAL PRESSURE in psf Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Tele: (425) 771-3304 Fax: (425) 771-3549 Project No.J-1470 Date:Nov.2002 Drawn by: J.D. PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Renton,Washington Figure 5:Surcharge Pressure Acting on Adjacent Shoring or Subsurface Wall APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS J-1470 Our field exploration program for this project included 43 borings and 3 cone penetrometer probes advanced between September 19, 2002 and October 10, 2002. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined by measuring distances from existing site features with a tape relative to an undated Draft Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by PacLand. As such, the exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the exploration. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosedin this appendix. Soil Boring Procedures Our exploratory borings were advanced using track- and truck-mounted drill rigs operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to our firm. The borings were completed utilizing hollow-stem auger and mud rotary drilling methods. An experienced geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite clay. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- to 5-foot depth intervalsby means of the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM: D-1586). This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "blow count"(N value). If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing a 3-inch outside diameter, seamless steel Shelbytube into the soil using the hydraulic system on the drill rig in accordance with ASTM:D- 1587. Since the thin wall tube is pushed rather than driven, the sample obtained is considered to be relatively undisturbed. The samples were classified in the field by examining the ends of the tube prior to sealing with plastic caps. The samples were then transported to our laboratory where they were extruded for further classificationand laboratorytesting. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples.If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, is FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS J-1470 Our field exploration program for this project included 43 borings advanced between October September 19, 2002 and October 10, 2002. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined by measuring distances from existing site features with a tape relative to an undated Draft Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by PacLand. As such, the exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the exploration. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosed in this appendix. Soil Boring Procedures Our exploratory borings were advanced using track- and truck-mounted drill rigs operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to our firm. The borings were completed utilizing hollow-stem auger and mud rotary drilling methods.An experienced geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite clay. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- to 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM: D-1586). This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "blow count" (N value).If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density.of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing a 3-inch outside diameter, seamless steel Shelby tube into the soil using the hydraulic system on the drill rig in accordance with ASTM:D- 1587. Since the thin wall tube is pushed rather than driven, the sample obtained is considered to be relatively undisturbed. The samples were classified in the field by examining the ends of the tube prior to sealing with plastic caps. The samples were then transported to our laboratory where they were extruded for further classification and laboratory testing. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples.If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, is depicted on the log.Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted portion of the drilling rods, the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. The boring logs presented in this appendix are based upon the drilling action,observation of the samples secured,laboratory test results, and field logs. The various types of soils are indicated as well as the depth where the soils or characteristics of the soils changed. It should be noted that these changes may have been gradual, and if the changes occurred between samples intervals, they were inferred. Electric Cone Penetrometer Probes A local exploration company under subcontract to our firm performed three electric cone penetrometer probes for this project on September 26, 2002. The descriptive soil interpretations presented on the cone penetrometer probe logs have been developed by using this classification chart as a guideline.It consists of a steel cone that is hydraulically pushed into the ground at up to 40,000 pounds of pressure. Sensors on the tip of the cone collect data.Standard cone penetrometers collect information to classify soil type by using sensors that measure cone-tip pressure and friction. The detailed interpretive logs of the static cone penetrometer probes accomplished for this study are presented subsequently. .. L SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION BORING LOGS ----------------------------------------, PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-1A PAGE 1 OF 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56.5 feet Soil Description II) -II)Q.Q. E >-~t- II).._II) Q..Q E El'll :;,tnz Penetration Resistance III Cl"C ...~l:::.II)c:II):;,e:;,-Ii ;::e~Standard Blows per foot Other III::r II) C)Z t- O 10 20 30 40 i" - Loose, moist, brown, silly,gravelly SAND (Fill)------------------------------------------------- --- ---Loose to medium dense,moist, dark brown to black, ~silty SAND with some gravel,trace organics interbedded with COAL fragments (Fill) --- ---+----___.1-_ ----T--- ----±--- S-1 S-2 -'- _ ..!._.1...!. 5 18 Loose, moist,dark brown-black,silty SAND with trace I--gravel and organics interbedded with COAL fragments (Fill) I-- I------------------------------------------------ ~ Very loose, moist, dark brown-black and reddish-pink, I--silty SAND with trace gravel interbedded with COAL and SANDSTONE fragments (Fill) I-- ---1--- ------------ ---T--·- ---±---- S-3 S-4 __~~~!..__.!.__l._:A I - -.---r-- r --r -T - - T - - T --l'--l' - - . , -- -I --r - r -T -T - T - - T --I - -1 --. .: 7 3 MC I------- ----- ---- --------- - ------------------------------------ I-- ~ Very loose, moist, black, COAL fragments with some _ silty SAND (Fill) - - ,-- 25 ---T---- ---±----S-5 ,, - - - - -- - - I I I - -- - I -- , Explanation I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:::z:J Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®e29 BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout --Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9119102 Figure A-1 Logged By: CRT ---------------------------------------""""l PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-1A PAGE20F 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56.5 feet Soil Description QI -QICoCoE>. Illl- l/) QI ... -QICo.QE E III ::I l/)Z 'C .... Penetration Resistance III CI...6.QI C QI ::I C ::I'-iii :;::e;:Standard Blows per foot Other III::r QIeZI- 0 10 20 30 40 __I.-__!.._!.._~1.._!.__!. ____1 _ ,, Very loose, moist, black, COAL fragments with some I--silty SAND and SANDSTONE fragments (Fill) ~---------------------------------------------- 2Q Very loose to loose, saturated, brown-gray, SAND with I--some silt and gravel and trace organics and wood fragments I-- _L.- ---T--- ~---±--- S-6 S-7 T ATD .: • , -_I- - -I- -I-_ -I-- -I-_I-- --I-_-of - -.._ 3 4 MC GSA ---T--- ----±----S-8 __ _ _ _i...••5 200W Grades to very loose, saturated, brown-gray, silty I--SAND with some gravel and trace organics ---T--- ----±----S-9 , __L L L _ L __.I-_J._-l _.1 _J __., , - -I - -I -T - -r -r --T - --'I - -"I - -• ~I I I I Ie: _""__l..__l.-_L __L __..._-l._J __..l __, 4 200W ~ Medium stiff to stiff, wet, brown-gray, sandy SILT with ,...-some clay and organics interbedded with silty SAND with some gravel """-Dense to very dense, moist, tan-brown, silty, weathered """-SANDSTONE 50 ---T---- ---±----S-10 ,,- --- - ----- - - - ---- - --- ---_., ---r --r --r --T --r --r--T--,--'---,, _L __L !._l __l __l 1 __, Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample E2J Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e ~BentoniteNo Recovery T -Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content , Plastic Limit Natural liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/19/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-1A PAGE30F 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56.5 feet Soil Description Q) -Q)a.a.E >. ~... Q)'"-Q)a..QE E 111 :Jrnz Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl"C '"...~Q) C Q):J C :J ....iii ;o 111 Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1'"3:::r Q) C)z ... 0 10 20 30 40 Very dense, moist, tan-brown, silty SANDSTONE S-11 .50/3" -------------------------------------------------------------- - 55 Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE ~I--------------f...::r::-._- Boring completed at 55.5 feet on 9/19/02 -Groundwater seepage observed at 29 feet at time of drilling ~ S·12 -"-i,-"-"--"--"---"--"--.. 50/1" -_!..._!..- -!...- -!..- -!..--!..--1.__..!.__~__, ~ -- - - - - - - - - ----,, ,--- - - - - - ---- - - - - ---, , -,,-- - - -, --r -- r - -r - -r -T - -T --T - -"I -1 -- 75 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 •Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit liquid Limit1----------1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery 1129 Bentonite ••Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/19/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-2A PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56 feet Soil Description CI> -CI>CoCoE>.~I- CI>..._CI> CoDE E 111 ::I 0Z Penetration Resistance UI Cl'tl L-A 6 CI>c CI>::I C ::1-'jij ;o 111 Standard Blows per foot Other UI...;::=r CI>C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 Loose, damp, brown, silty SAND with some gravel, coal I--and sandstone fragments (Fill)I...L 1._ ,,-_. Loose, moist, dark brown-black, silty SAND with some I--gravel with interbedded COAL and pink-orange SANDSTONE fragments (Fill) ----T--- ----±---S-1 5 ~pink-orange SANDSTONE fragments (Fill) Loose, moist, dark brown-black. silty SAND with I--interbedded COAL and SANDSTONE fragments (Fill) ---T--- ----:t---- ,,,- ------ S-2 ",-r--T--T--"--'--',, 9 MC __!...!._ _ _ _ 1 _ !.1 __, , - --;-- r - - - -I - -T - -T - T - - 1 --t- --T---- ---±----S-3 -r r --I -"I -T - -T --"i - -i --,- ~11 I-- I-- I------------------------------------------------ I I I I I- - - ---- - - - ---- - -. I I I I Loose, moist, tan-brown, silty weathered SANDSTONE _ and COAL fragments with some wood fragments (Fill) - ---T---- ---±----S-4 •- - - - -'---!...--!.-- -~-!. --r -- r - - r -r - -T - T - - T - - -,.- -, 5 MC I----0·..0-----------_____________________________ _ Very loose, moist to wet, brown-gray, silty SAND with _ some gravel, interbedded with sandy SILT with some organics 25 _!...._l _L .!..__!.1 __1 _ Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid limitIf--------I I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0,split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery l1:2:,l Bentonite ~•Grout --Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/19/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-2A PAGE 2 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56 feet Soil Description Gl -GlCoCoE>. 1111-tn Gl ..Q.~E E 111 :stnz "...C Gl:s ....e~C)- Penetration Resistance 1/1 CI...6.Gl:s c iO :;:; Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1::-~z 0 10 20 30 40 Very loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some I--gravel,intebedded with sandy SILT with some organics S-5 -L ATD A :.2 MC I-- 30 ---------------------------------------------- ~ Very dense, moist,tan-brown,silty weathered I--SANDSTONE - ----I-- -.....---S-6 ..,..T t -.,I"I" "5015"MC ....------------------------------------------------------------- I-- I-- Very dense, moist to wet, light gray, silty SANDSTONE ---::c--- S-7 I I I I I I ~~--- ------ -_. "50/3"MC --- r -r -- r - - r - - r --T --T --1 - -1 - -, , ~1_-----------__1---T--- I--Boring completed at 40.4 feet on 9/19/02 Groundwater seepage observed 25 feet at time of I--drilling f-- ---T--- ----±--- 50 S-8 I I I I---- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -- Explanation I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample r;::;:,]Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e No Recovery 1129 Bentonite..•Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/19/02 FigureA·1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-3A PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:69 feet Soil Description QI -QIa.a.E >. J1Jt- QI ... -QIa.,cE E III ::IVJz "C ... Penetration Resistance III Cl.A-I::::.QICQI::I C ::I'-ii :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III...;:~QIC)Z t- O 10 20 30 40 ,, - Very loose. moist. dark brown-black, silty SAND with f--some gravel. COAL.SANDSTONE.SILTSTONE fragments and trace organics (Fill) - ----T--- ----±---S-1 __!.._L __L __.!..__1 __! _.1 __.!_ 2 -- - ------ - --------I ,I I ----------------------------------------------- ~ Loose, moist, dark brown-black, COAL tailings with ~some silty SAND with sandstone and siltstone fragments (Fill) ~---------------------------------------------- Loose, moist. black, COAL tailings (Fill)~ I-- I------------------------------------------------ ~ Very loose. moist.tan-orange-white.highly weathered. ~silty SANDSTONE (Fill) ~ l- Very loose, moist, black. COAL tailings (Fill) I- ---T--- ---±---- -----1r--- -----It-- ---T---- ---±---- S-2 S-3 S-4 - - '-_.!...!...!..-.!..-!.- - -.!-_..I _.•- r r --r - - r - -T -T - - T -- T --,-, , -j -r - -r T --f --T - - T - - T - -1 - -•,, ___\..__L __L __L __.L __J. _.L _1 __..I __•, - - 1- - -I -1-r--"'I --.- -T --I"- -1 _. -- - -"I - - - - -...-- - -~-_!..._!...- -I .!.._ _ _ __• 9 6 3 MC 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample m Clean Sand J[2.5-inch I.D ring sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery 22SJ Bentonite ••GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural• Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/19/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT -----~---------------------------------, PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-3A PAGE 2 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:69 feet Soil Description CIl -CIlQ.Q. E >-c'.ll- CIl .._CIl Q..Q E Ecoj lnz "0 "- Penetration Resistance In Cl•6.CIlcCIlj C j-ii ;~==Standard Blows per foot Other In:r CIlC)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 Very loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill) I-- S-5 3 I-- ---T--- -_.-±---S-6 ~- -~-I"----I"-I -~i -- 3 MC I-- ~---------------------------------------------- Loose, moist, brown-gray, silty SAND with some gravel ~and trace organics ---T--- ----±----S-7 -~---~I.._!.._________ 7 MC ~---------------------------------------------- 40~Medium dense, wet, brown-gray, silty SAND with some ---T---~l_gr-a-ve-l-to-g-r-aV-e-lIy--Si-lty-S-A-N-D---------1 ± _ S-8 ATD I I I I - -I - -I -I ....- -T -T -i - -i -i - -. .~19 200W I--Boringcompleted at 41.5 feet on 9/19/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 40 feet at time of I--drilling ,,------- ,, , -- --- - - , - -!...- - - - - - -_!..- - - - - -_..!._..!.--..!.- -, , , ---r - - r - - r - -T - - T - - T - T - -,-- - T - -- ~ 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 •Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid limitIf---------I I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample f§3 Clean Sand ][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample WI Cuttings ®No Recovery ~Bentonite T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/19/02 FigureA.1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO.J-1470 A BORING B-4A PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:68.5 feet Soil Description Gl -GlQ.Q.E >. IV'"l/) Gl .._Gl Q..a E EIV:::l l/)Z Penetration Resistance lfI CD"C .....6-GlCGl:::l C :::l-l ~o IV Standard Blows per foot Other lfI..~GleZ... 0 10 20 30 40 Coaltailings over _L !._- - - Loose. damp, brown and black, mix of coal and cinders (Fill)- .1. Very loose. damp. brown and black. mix of coal and ~cinders (Fill) ----l=----___-1.._ ----T--- ----±--- S-1 S-2 ~ I -,-t r -T -T --F 1-"i ;- 9 3 Loose, damp, brown and black, mix of coal and cinders i--(Fill) 12 f--Loose. damp, brown and black. mix of coal and cinders (Fill) ----+---____...L _ ---T--- ----±---- S-3 S-4 ,,- ------- - -_.• I ,,I I------ - - - - ----- - - ---- 6 10 ,--Loose, damp, brown and black, mix of coal and cinders (Fill) f-- ~ Very loose. damp, brown and black,mix of coal and f--cinders (Fill) ----+---____-l _ --T---- ---±---- S-5 S-6 --,--,--,--,--,-,--T--'--I--- ~'.9 6 MC - - - - ---T---- ---±----S-7 •-_!..._!.._!..!..- - --- - -~- --- - --- -r-- -,- -r - -r - -T - - T - - T --"T --,._., ________!.__I..__1._ ___!__1 __1 __.,, 5 MC 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic LImit Liquid LImitIf-----al------II I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample C:z:J Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery ~Bentonite T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:10/10/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: TAJ PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-4A PAGE 2 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:68.5 feet Soil Description CIl -CIlQ.Q. E >-CGI-en CIl ..c..8 E ECG:;,enz Penetration Resistance Ul Cl"C .....6.CIlr::CIl :;,r:::;''lij iij :;:: Standard Blows per foot Other Ul2~~CIlC)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 ____L ~!._..I.._!.__ Very loose, moist, brown and black, mix of coal and I--cinders (Fill) S-8 •3 MC j'"--r - -j'"-T --T - -T -T 1 - 1,, __L._L _ L _I.._l._J.__.J.__.1 __J.__, --I"-,-;---,- -I - -T - -,.- -I - -i - - •e.e·.e·,...,.•.••MC=55%. .:• 38 I-Very loose, wet, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND I---------.--.----------....---------------------Wood debris I----------------------------------- Very dense, moist,orange-tan,silty SAND (Weathered I--Sandstone) ----T--- ---~±--- ---T--- ----±---- S-9 S-10 - - - -----,, .:2 --;-.,- MC MC Boring completed at 36 feet on 10/10/02 ~No groundwater observed at time of drilling S-11 ~-!.._!..-!.-.!.--.!.-I _ . •50/3" __I...__L __L __).__!.__1 _ ," ,, --- - -- - - -"I --"I --I"--- ,--- - - ------ - - ---T--- ----±---- ,,------ --- - --- --I I I I--- - - - --- - 50 , ,.i""-r - r -r T --T - T -1-, , 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural liqUid Limit I •I I ]I ® T ATD Explanation 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement MonitoringWell Key Q Clean Sand ~Cuttings I1S29 Bentonite • Grout E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:10/10/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: TAJ PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-SA PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:61.5 feet Soil Description (I) -(I)Q,Q, E >- 1111- (/) (I)...0.1:E E 111 :;, (/)Z "C "- Penetration Resistance Ul Cl..6-(I) C (I):;,C:;,....iii ;:;e~Standard Blows per foot Other Ul~(I) (l)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 Coal tailings S-1 ~---------------------------------------------- I--Loose, damp, brown, silty SAND with trace gravel (Fill) -'-- ----+----.._.-.L _S-2 __L L _!.__L _.J.__1 __1 _J __.,, •---t -i""-.--1--r -...-I -"I --.,-- 10 I--,- ,--- - - --- - - - - - -I--Very loose, damp, brown and black,COAL TAILINGS (Fill) I-- J.Q ----+---____--l _S-3 .&: ,, - - - ----,"- - --- - - ---- 3 I---- ,.. - - r -r -T -T - - T - T _.-"T _.-.,.-, I-- ~Loose, damp,brown and black. COAL TAILINGS (FiJI)----T----___.1-_S-4 10 , ___l...__l...__l...__.I._ _ _ _.L __J.__.I.__J.__• 6 11 33 5040302010 -- - -,----I - - - -"I - -"I - -I"-"i - - , _L __L __L L __l __l __l __l __ .&: -I"- -r --r - -T -T --T - - T -"[--1 - ",-- - ------- - - - --- - ---- , ---r--r--r--r--T--T --,--,--1---, o S-6 S-7 S-5 ----=r---____--l _ ---+----___-1._ Explanation I--Very dense,wet,mottled orange-tan,silty SAND 25 (Weathered Sandstone) I--Loose, wet, brown, silty SAND I-- Loose to medium dense,moist, brown and black, I--COAL TAILINGS (Fill) I-- 20 thin wood in tip of sampler ~----------------------------------------------.---T-------±---- I-- • Natural Moisture Content Plastic:Limit Liquid Limit11------1 -1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample EJ Clean Sand ][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample @'<]Cuttings ®No Recovery ~Bentonite T •Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:10/10/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: TAJ PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-5A PAGE 2 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:61.5 feet Soil Description Q) -Q)Q.Q. E >.~~ Q).. -Q)Q..cE E III ::JC/)z "t'"- Penetration Resistance III Cl..6 Q) C Q)::J C ::J'"ii ;;e~Standard Blows per foot Other III=r Q) C)Z ~ 0 10 20 30 40 IVery dense, wet, mottled orange-tan,silty SAND (Weathered Sandstone)S-8 .5014" Boring completed at 26 feet on 10110102 ~No groundwater observed at time of drilling I"i" -T "I -,-T --"j -"i -- - -I"- - - - - - - - - - - - - -'---'--_!..-_!..- -, I-- I-- , _ l-__l-l-_.l.__..__.j.__.j._.j._ ___ I-- I-- I--I I I I I I 1 I--------------------------,,, I-- I-- 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Liquid Limit 1----__--1Plastic Limit Natural I • a Screened Casing MonitoringWell Key rz:;'Zl Clean Sand ~Cuttings ~Bentonite • Grout 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement No Recovery ATD I ]I e T Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:10/10/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: TAJ --------------------------------------------, PROJECT:Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO.J-1470 A BORING B-6A PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:57 feet Blows per foot Other Penetration Resistance 6. 403020 't:I .....C Gl::s ....2;:Standard C' 0 10 , Gl .._Gl o...QE E III ::s l/)Z Gl -Gl0.0.E >.c'-lt- Soil Description Blackberry briars over- - _ L _L ~_~__.!.1 _.!.~_, - - 2.. Medium dense, damp, dark brown, COAL and COAL - CINDERS (Fill) I-- ----T--- ----±--- Medium dense, damp to moist, brown, red-brown and I--black, COAL, silty SAND and CINDERS (Fill) ---T--- ---±----S-2 I I I I I- - ------ - -- --------- ---_. ~19 I-- J2 Loose, damp, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill) I-- --T-----_...±......-S-3 , _ L _ L _ L _ L __.i _.1 _.J.__.1 __j _ ,,, -I - -i-I - -I - -T - -T --,.- -"'i - -• 10 I-- I-- ~---------------------------------------------- Very loose, wet, brown, silty SAND with trace to some I--gravel ---T--- ---±----S-4 •'---- - - - -------, 2 MC GSA I------------------------------------------------ Very dense, moist,orange-brown and gray-tan, silty I-SAND (Weathered Sandstone) 25 I I I.I I I I-- ----- - - - - -------- - - - - - - - - - -r - -r - -r - -r --r --T -- T - - T - 1 - -, Explanation I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample r:;:::IJ Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®~BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:10/10102 FigureA-1 Logged By: TAJ PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-6A PAGE 2 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:57 feet Soil Description QI -QIa.a. E >-~I- QI ... -QIa..Q E Eco::l !/)Z Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl"C L-A 6.QIl:QI ::l l: ::l1V iV ;: Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1e:;:>,QIC)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 ""'-..Very dense, moist,orange-brown and gray-tan, ~I "'-silty SAND (Weahtered Sandstone) Boring completed at 25.5 feet on 10110/02 ~No groundwater observed at time of drilling ~50/2" , _L __l.-_L _ L _.l _.L __.J._l __.l __ .--,.- -.,-T -I -....--;- - , , _I..I..__L _!.._!.._~__2.__.!.__.!__ - I--I - -...- -r -r -T - T --T -T -"1 - - , __L __L __L __L __L __.1 __.L __J.__.l __, , -I"--i --r - -I"- -T - -T - -j - -I - -I - -., , I--_ L.__L _L.J-__.l-__..1 __..l.__, t-- ,I ,I- - - - - - - - - - I----r --r--r--r---T --T --T --T--,--, I--I I I I I I !I I- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I- 50 - - r - -r - - r ~-T --T -- T - - T --"1 --"1 --, Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Liquid Limit1--------1Plastic:Limit Natural I • MonitoringWell Key Q Clean Sand ~Cuttings 1129 Bentonite • Grout a Screened Casing 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sampleI J[ ® T ATD Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:10/10/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: TAJ PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-1 PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description III -IIIa.a.E >-1111- UJ III ..._III a..Q E E III ::I UJz Penetration Resistance "0 '-...c:C III ::I'"~~Standard Blows per foot Other C) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Surfacegrassover tan-brown,silty,gravelly SAND ""-(Fill) • 3 MC MC MC4 3 200W 17 ___________I '' :A ~--I"--;---I --T --T --T - -T -I"- -1 - - . ,- - - - - ---- - - - 'Y ATDS-4 S-3 S-1 S-2 ----r-------- ----_..- ---T--- ----±---- ----1--- ....__.........------ ---+----...-.L _ f--Looseto mediumdense,moist,brown,silty,gravelly SANDwith trace organics(Fill) - Veryloose,moist,gray-black,silly, gravellySANDto gravelly,sandy SILTwith someorganics(Fill) ~Soft,wet, gray-black,silty SAND withsomeorganics - - - ~ --------------------------------.-------------u Loose,moist,gray-black,silty SAND with somegravel ""-and someorganics(Fill) f------------------------------------------------ , - ,- - -i"-,.- -;-- -r - -T -- T - - T --1 --•,, _ L _ L __L __1.__i __.l __.i __.1 _J _.,, Very loose,wet, brown-gray-black,silty SAND with ""-tracegravelinterbeddedsandySILTand organic SILT --T---- ---±----S-5 A,• ,,, --;---,----I--I"--7--i--- 2 GSA f------------------------------------------------ 20 ..;;,,;.Verydense, moist,orangish-tan-brown,weatheredsilty ---::c---- SANDSTONE--------------- S-6 ~50/6" -, - r - r - - r -r - -T - - T - - T --T --T- -_________L 1 __1 __1 __..! _ - 25 Explanation I ]I e 'Y ATD 2-inch a.D.split spoon sample 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling or date of measurement MonitoringWell Key ~Clean Sand ~Cuttings I:525l Bentonite • Grout E3 Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/23/02 Figure A-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-1 PAGE 2 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Penetration Resistance 6 Blows per foot Other g a G>c Soil Description Gl -GlQ.Q. E >. ~1- Gl .._Gl Q..cE E lU :::l l/)Z "C ... C Gl:::l ....2;: C) ... Standard o 10 20 30 40 50 III Gl :::l iii>, Z IVery dense, rnolst,light aray,silty ~ANu~UNt: I--Boring completed at 25.5 feet on 9/23/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 10 feet at I--time of drilling. I-- - - - ~ - - I-- I-- I-- I-- - - S-7 __L _!..__!..__i _1 __.!.__1 __1 __..l __ I I I I , - - r -r - -T --r --T --T - T -- T - - 1 - - , __L __L __L __L __1.__.1 _ .1 __1 _ J __,, , r -i""-I"--"I - -i"- -T - -T - -\- -"'i - - -- - - -- - -- ----------I I I I 1 ,, -_I..-_!...__!..__.!.__.!-__.I.-__..!.__..!.__..!.__ ,, __!..__!..!.. _ !..__1.1 __l __1 __ ,, --i --i --,- -I - -T - -T - -T - -T --i - - ,,, - -..- - - - - - ----I --I"--i --I - - -- I - - - - - - - - ------j --I - - , --!..--I..-__!..__!..__!..__1.__1.__.1 __..!.__ ..50/5" - - 50 --,--r--r--r Y--I--1--1--1-- , E3 Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I I ]I e T ATD Explanation 2-inch a.D.split spoon sample 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement MonitoringWell Key IZ"J Clean Sand ~Cuttings f'S29 Bentonite • Grout Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/23/02 Figure A-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-2 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet g .c Q. CII C Soil Description CI)..Penetration Resistance III 0'1CI)'tl ....oA 6.CI) -CI) _CI)c CI):J Cc..oc.c.E E :J-iij ;;E»o III Standard Blows per foot Other III~~III :J ..;:~CI) I/)Z C)Z ~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 2 inches asphalt and 2 inches crushed rock over I-brown, silty, gravelly SAND (Fill) I----------------------------------------------- I--Loose, moist,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel, sandstone fragments and trace organics (Fill) ---=l=----___-L~__S-1 , -..--r -r -T -T -T -T --1 --"T -- , , _L __L _L _L __L __.L __.L __.i _.l _ 7,, , ---i--i--1--1--"1--1--1--T--,--- 5~---------------------------------------------- Very loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with interbedded I--sandy SILT ----T"- ----±---S-2 ATD 2 -----------------I I I I GSA ~Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND to sandy SILT with some wood ~ ~----------------------------------------------Loose, saturated, gray,gravelly SAND with some silt, I--trace wood and organics -----it------s---I--- -.----- S-3 S-4 ,I I I I--_.----- - ---- --- - --_. 9 ~___L __L __!..__l_.l __l._!.1 __.! _, , ~----------------------------------------------, - - I· -r --r - - r - -r - -T --T - -7 - -;r -- , - -i --I -~T --I --I --T - -i - -I"- -1 - - , ,----------- - - -----I 'j I , _ L _.L __L __1.__L _ .L __.\.__.1 __.1 __ ~ Soft, wet, brown-gray, sandy SILT with interbedded silty ~SAND and organic SILT --T---- ---±----S-5 A:MC=64% •3 MC ~----------------------------------------------, I I I !---- - - ----- - I I I I Very soft, moist to wet, dark brown, PEAT,ORGANIC _ SILT with interbedded silty SAND - ---T--- ---±----S-6 A :. ",-- - - --- - - -------- --- ------ 2 MC '--Soft, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND interbedded with sandy SILT and WOOD 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 •Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit11---------1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch D.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e No Recovery ~Bentonite ~•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/23/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: CRT --------------------------------------~ PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-2 PAGE20F 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet g .c Q. CI> C Soil Description Ql -Qlc.c.E»~I- Ql ... -Qlc..cEE I'll ='rnz Penetration Resistance Ul Cl"C .....6.QlCQl='C ='-iV ;::o I'll Standard Blows per foot Other Ul...:=:r QlC)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 Soft, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND interbedded with ;--sandy SILT and wood Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel ,.....interbedded with sandy SILT f-- f-- ---T--- ----±---- ---T--- ----±---- S-7 S-8 S-9 -I'I"-I"-"I -i --T --T --T --"I ---, •,- ---------- ----- --,I I I I L ,,I L----- - ------- ----- - , ,..--r - r --i -T -T --,.--7 -"(-- 5 4 GSA 6 ~------------------------------------------------------------ ~ Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel I--and trace organics f------------------------------------------------ f-- 45 ..;.;;.Stiff, wet, gray,sandy SILT with some gravel with _interbedded silty SAND - Medium dense,moist,tan-brown,weathered silty -SANDSTONE - 50 ---T--- ----±---- ---T--- ---±---- S-10 S-11 :A 7 ,, ,-----------------------,, 10-I....!._1 _ ,, - -r - -r - -r - -T -T - -T - T --T --T --- Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand ][3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample WI Cuttings ®~BentoniteNo Recovery y •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/23/02 Figure A·1 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-2 PAGE30F 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet Soil Description CIl -CIlc.c.E >. III I- II) CIl .._CIl c.oCE E III :::l II)z Penetration Resistance II) Cl"Cl ...•6-CIlr::CIl :::l r:: :::l1O ~; 2;:Standard Blows per foot Other II) C)Z ~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Medium dense, moist,tan-brown,silty, highly ___weathered SANDSTONE ------------------------------------------------- --- ---:1----S-12 ~26 --- ,, __.l-J-__.l-_.l-_..I __ 650/3"S-13~~~~~~~ 1--------------1 ±- ~ Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE I-- I-Boring completed at 56.3 feet on 9/23/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 5.5 feet at ~time of drilling. ,,- - ---------- ----- , ,,-----,, ,- - ----- - , -r - r - - r --r --T --T - -j - -1 --1 - , __L _ L __L __1._1. _J..__.J.__.1 __J _ , --I"-I"-;-- -'I -I - -T - -j - --;- -"I - ~ ~ ~ 12. ,,- - - ------- --- - - ---- ---I I I 1 I I I I I- --- - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - ---- --- --- --- 75 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample [:;'a Clean Sand K 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e No Recovery I1Q9 Bentonite •-GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 ScreenedCasing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/23/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-3 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet Soil Description CIl -CIlQ"Q" E >. ~I- CIl ""_CIl Q".Q E E III ~ fl)Z "0 "- Penetration Resistance III Cl..b"CIlcCIl~C ~....ii :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III"";::r CIleZI- 0 10 20 30 40 50 13 Inches asphalt over 9 Inches loose to medium dense, moist. brown. sillv.oravellv SAND IFiIIl ~---------------------------------------------- ~ ~Very loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill) ~ ~ ---=r----~__-L _ ----1--- -..._--....-..---- S-1 S-2 --r --r -f --i"--T -~T -r --1 -- 1 --- 3 3, , ---I --;--!-"I --,.- -I"- -"I - -. ----+---____.1-_S-3 ATO --, ,,2 Very loose, wet, gray,silty SAND interbedded with ~organic SILT and PEAT - ---1--- ------ ------ S-4 ,"------- ----------------- --, , -r-I--r--T--T-T--T--,--'--- 2 200W , ___L __L __L __1.__1._1.__.1 __.1 _..I _, Very loose,wet, brown-gray, silty SAND with trace ~gravel interbedded with ORGANIC SILT to sandy SILT ---1---- ------.-----_.. S-5 _!-__L __L __.L.__.I-__...__.I-__.1 __..I __•, 3 -1--- --I - -I - -1---;--1--, ~---------------------------------------------- 12- Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel ~interbedded with organic silt, peat, charcoal, sandy silt and some organics- ---T---- ---±----S-6 ,-- ------- - - - ---, , -r ---r -T --T - -.,.- - - - .,. --"t _. _____!._.!..__!.1-__I _,, , - - r --,--r - -T - - T -- T - - T --,- - 1 - -• 10 _ L _ L __L 1 1 1 _, ,- - 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1'---------1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ffil Clean Sand li 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®329 BentoniteNo Recovery ~•Grout Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/23/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-3 PAGE 2 OF 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet Soil Description Q) -Q)0.0.E>.~I- Q)... -Q)o.J:l E E III :scnz Penetration Resistance en C)'tl ....A-D.Q) C Q):s C:s-~~o III Standard Blows per foot Other en ...::~e z 0 10 20 30 40 50 Soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT interbedded with organic I _ silty, peat, silty sand and trace gravel ----i---S-7 _L __L _!.._.L _.!.__l __1 __1 __J _ ," - - - 1.Q. Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel- - ----T-- -----±---S-8 -----------------------------------------"----- - 2? Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel -interbedded with sandy SILT and trace organics ---T--- ----±----S-9 I !j!I I I-- --- - - ---- ---- ---- - - - --,, 5 I-- ----------------------------------------------- - ~ Medium dense, saturated, gray, SAND with some - gravel and silt - ---T--- ----±----S-10 :~,22 , ,--- --- --- - - - - - --, , , ~---------------------------------------------- Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel to - gravelly, trace organics ---T--- ---±----S-11 8 I I I I I ·1 I I I- - -~------- --- - - - ---- I--I I I I j I I I I---- - ---- --- ---- --- --- - - - - - I-------------------------------------------------------------- 50 , - - r - r --r --T - - T - - T -- T -- T --1 - - Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 •Natural Moisture Content Plastic limit liquid limit I-~----I I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch 0,0.split spoon sample EJ Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery ezJ Bentonite ~•Grout --Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/23/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-3 PAGE30F 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel I I--and trace organics ±_ Soil Description Q) -Q)Q.Q. E >.~I- Q)~ -Q)Q..QE E III ::I C/)z S-12 "Q "- Penetration Resistance III CDA6-Q) C Q)::I C::I ...."iii ;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III~;:::-Q) C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50:., ,17, I-- I------------------------------------------------ ~Very dense, moist,orange-tan,weathered silty SANDSTONE I------------------------------------------------ ----I--- ------- S-13 , _L ___....__....__.\._....__.J._...__ A 50/5" ----- ------ - - -----I I 1 I I I I , ,--- - - - - - --- ------- -- _!..._L A 50/1"S-141------------1---:c--- I-- ~Very dense, moist, light gray, silly SANDSTONE I--Boring completed at 60.5 feet on 9/23/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 8.5 feet at time of I--drilling -r - r -r -T j -'i --i"--1 --"'i --, ",- -r - -i - -;---T - -T -1--i --I - -I - , __I->-_I.-__...._...__.I-__.J._ ,,- --- --- - - - - ----- - ---- , - -l-_ - ....__.._ -__+__+__+__1-__-i-_, ",--- - - --- ------------- - , r - r - r -T - T - -T - - T - -T -")- - I-- 75 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid LimitIf--------I I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample I2ill Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample WI Cuttings ®No Recovery 1129 Bentonite T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/23/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING 8-4 PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:39.5 feet g .c: C. CII C Soil Description CIl -CIlQ.Q. E >-J1J1- CIl ..._CIl Q.DE E CII :::lIJ)Z Penetration Resistance II)01'tl .....b.CIlcCIl:::l C :::l ....~;:o CII Standard Blows per foot Other II) ...;:CIlC)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 3 inches asphalt over 1.5 inches gravel over 2 inches ___asphalt over loose to medium dense, damp, brown, silty,gravelly SAND (Fill) -------------------------------------------------------------- _~_L __L __1 __1.__1 __1.__1 __1 _,, MC MC GSA 4 5 5 9 • ~.' - - ,---j'"-,--T - -T - -i"-,.--'I - -I - - __L __L __L i 1 __1 __,, I I I I- - - ----- --- - - - ", , ---I --r--r --r --T--T--T --T--T-- , ---r --r-- r --T --T --T--T--1--1--- ~ ATD S-3 S-4 S-2 S-1 ----+----___-L _ ----+---____-.L _ ---T--- ---±---- ----1--- --------.....--- ---Loose, moist, dark brown. silty SAND with some gravel and organics (Fill) ---Loose, moist,tan-brown,silty,gravelly SAND with trace organics --- --- ------------------------------------------------- --- --- 2.. --- --- 10------------------------------------------------- Loose, wet,tan-brown,SAND with some silt and gravel --- .22 Medium dense, moist,tan-brown,silty SAND with ---some gravel (Highly Weathered SANDSTONE) --- --T---- ---±----S-5 ,,, ------"1---7--1--1"--'---1--- 19 --- --- 12.Very dense, moist,whitish-tan-brown,silty SANDSTONE--- ---:r---- S-6 I I I I j-- - - -- ---, , ~50/6", , ,---- --- ----- ---- - --- --- ___L L __!.__1 __1.__.!__1 __l _, ,, --r - - r --r --T - - T --T - - T - -1 --1 - - - ------------------------------------------------- Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE --- 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit I--l--------I I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Q Clean Sand ][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Ii'2ZJ Cuttings ®No Recovery f'SC]Bentonite ~•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 Figure A-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-4 PAGE 2 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:39.5 feet Soil Description Gl -GlQ.Q. E >-~... Gl ..._Gl Q..QE E co =t/)Z Penetration Resistance en Cl"C ...•6-GlCGl=C=..."iii :;::; E!;:Standard Blows per foot Other en>.GlC)Z ... 0 10 20 30 40 Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE I-- S-7 A 50/2" , --r --r -- r --f --T T - T --T -1--, __L __L __L __L __1. _J. _.1 __.I.__J.__, 10- 2Q ---:::c---I------------i I--Boring completed at 30.2 feet on 9/24/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately10 feet at I--time of drilling. S-8 , ,-I - -r -T -i -T -"i --"I --I - -, --- - - - - - - --- - -," A 50/2" __i..-__!...__!...__.!..!.__1.__.!.__ _ _ _ , - - r - - r - -r - -r - -T --T --T - -1" - -"l - -, , -r-'--,--,--,--T--l--1--'-- ,, __L __l.__l.__L __l.__.1_.1 __-1 __..1 __, , --r--i--l--r--j"-,--1--1--'- ,--- - - - - ---,, ___~_ __ _ I __2._ ____I __ -_:..__!...__!..._--_!..__.!.__L __.!._---, --r-r--,--"--T--T--T--'--'--, Explanation I-- 50 ,, 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural liquid Limit I •I MonitoringWell Key rzm Clean Sand ~Cuttings ~Bentonite • Grout E3 Screened Casing 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement ATD Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-5 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet Soil Description .!!!Q)a.a.E >. ~... Q).... -Q)a..QE E III :::s (/)Z "0 "- Penetration Resistance III til...6-Q) C Q):::s C:::s'-iij ;~~Standard Blows per foot Other III>,Q) C)Z ... 0 10 20 30 40 50 -t -r --r -..--T -T --T --i --1 -, 5 inches asphalt over concrete rubble over medium I--dense, moist, brown. sandy GRAVEL (Fill) I--Soft, moist. black, COAL TAILINGS with some silty SAND and sandy SILT (Fill) I-- I--Very loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some wood and organics ~---------------------------------------------- Loose, saturated, gray,gravelly SAND with some silt I--and wood and peat I-- ----+----___--L.__ ----T--- ----±--- ----=r---____-l.__ ---T--- ----±---- S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 T ATD __L __L ~_l __1.__1.__1.__.1 __J.__J.__ , - - -~- - - -!.--------- - ,, - r - - r - -T - -f -T - -T - -i - -1 - - 1 - -.,, 4 3 3 4 GSA I------------------------------------------------ I-- --T---- ---±----S-5 ---- - - - - --- - - - - -I I I 1 ,,,----- - - - - - - --- 12.Loose, saturated, gray, silty SAND with interbedded sandy SILT with some wood- - - I-- 25 ---T---- ---±----S-6 •,,,- - - - - - - - - - - - --,, , -,--r -r--,--I--T -1--1--1--- 4 200W Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample f§:J Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®1129 BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-5 PAGE20F 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet Blows per foot Other Penetration Resistance l:J.g .J:. Q. Ql C Soil Description Q) -Q)Q.Q. E >.~... Q)... -Q)Q..Q E E III :IUJz ~Gi A:I ....e ~Standard C) o 10 20 30 40 Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel and I--interbedded sandy SILT with some organics I------------------------------------------------ S-7 1-- - ,- -r r r - -T --T T --1 -,- 7 Me Very loose to loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with I--interbedded sandy SILT with some organics ---T---- ---±----S-8 ,.-1"-- - -----, , 4 I------------------------------------------------ Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel and I--organics ----T--- ---~±--- S-9 --,-- - - I --- I 1 , --,...-t---,...--,...-1"-'f-- ,. --1"_.-.,-_., _!...-!..- ----.!.- - - - - - -. , l.-__L __1.._1._!._1.__1 __1 . 5 I--------------------------------------------------------------r T -r -T -..- T - -1--T - -1-_., Loose, saturated,greenish-gray,silty SAND with some I--gravel ~---------------------------------------------- ~ 45~Stiff, moist,orange-brawn-gray,sandy SILT with some clay (Highly Weathered SANDSTONE) I------------------------------------------------ I--Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE I-- 50 ---T--- ----±--- ---T--- ----±---- S-10 S-ll , --'---1-i--j"--r--i--"'j--l--"'i-- :A _l-_ ____1.-__-I._-I.__J.__-1_, I ,,I j- - - - - - --- - - ---, _L __!.L 1.__1.__!__1.__1 _ , , --,--,--r--r--T--T--'-,--,-- 7 35 Explanation I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Q Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®t'29 BentoniteNo Recovery ~-Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I \ Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-5 PAGE30F 3 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:34.5feet Soil Description CIl -CIlc.c.E >-~... CIl ~_CIl c..c E E III ;,If)z Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl'C ~•6.CIlcCIl;,c ;,-iij :;::e~Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1>,CIlC)Z ... 0 10 20 30 40 l--""v_e_ry_d_e_n_se_,_m_o_is_t'_li_9_ht_g_ra_Y_,_Si_ltY_S_A_N_D_S_T_O_N_E 1----d:----S-12 A 00/3" _J __ I--Boringcompletedat 50.4 feet on 9/26/02. Groundwaterencounteredat approximately8 feet at ~time of drilling. ~ - - - ~ 75 -r - r -r -T --T -- T --T -I --1 - -, _ L __L __L __L __J.__.1 __.1 __.1 __.J __, -~- ----.!..--!.--.'..--!.------,, , , , --r-r--r--r·--r--T-,.--,.--,-- __L _L __1.__1 __.l..__1 __1 __1 __1 __, , , , , --r-r--,--r--r--T--l--1--1-- , -,-I"- -j -T -'j"- -T - -I - -"I - -"'i - ,, - - - - - --!- -"I -----;---i --i - - - - - --- I -- - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - -I.._ _ _ _!...__!...__.!._.!._.!.__~_ ___, , -1-r -f --T -T - -T - T --"I -1--, Explanation I ][ e.. ATD 2-inch a.D.split spoon sample 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling or date of measurement MonitoringWell Key D CleanSand ~Cuttings ~Bentonite • Grout a ScreenedCasing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-6 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet Soil Description Q) -Q)a.a.E >. III I-U) Q).. -Q)a..cE E III ::I U)z Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl"0 ..•6-Q) C Q)::I C ::I ....iii :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1..~~Q) C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 17 GSA 3" Asphalt over 6" base- - -loose,moist, orange-gray, silty fine to medium SAND with some gravel and occasional cinders (Fill)- 2.. loose,moist, orange-gray, silty SAND with occasional - cinders (Fill) ...... ~Medium dense, gray, saturated, gravelly fine to coarse SAND with some silt ----+----___-.L _ ----T--- ----±--- ----+---____-L _ S-1 S-2 S-3 T ATD -1--r --j-~f --,--T --,--T --,-- T --,-_. •,----_.- - --------- ----- ----I I !1 I I I I , , -- - ---I I - I !I I 4 5 GSA MC Very soft, wet, dark gray-brown,SilT with some fine ~sand and fine woody derbis ...... ---T--- ---±----S-4 - -_!..-_!.- -1.1..!.,__ I I I I __1 __L __I __L __,__1 __,_1 __1 __l __,__. 2 ATT Soft, wet, dark gray-brown,SilT with some fine sand ......and fine sand interbeds and fine woody debris ~ ~ ...... --T---- ---±----S-5 -- - - - - ---, 4 MC 12- Very loose, wet, dark gray-brown,silty, fine SAND- - - - 25 ---T---- ---±----S-6 •,"-------------------- I I I I I I I I, , , , , - -,--r --,- -r --1-- T --,-- T --1-- T - -1-- 1 200W Explanation I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;z:J Clean Sand ][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®f29 BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Moisture Content Plastic limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24102 Figure A·1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B·6 PAGE20F 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet g a Glc Soil Description Q) -Q)c..c..E >. ~I- Q).. -Q)c...cE E IV ~ l/)Z Penetration Resistance Ul Cl'tI ......6 Q)C Q)~C ~-l ;:l~~Standard Blows per foot Other UlQ)C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 Very loose,saturated,gray, silty, fine SAND with fine ......woody debris and interbeded silt S-7 ,,,------I I I I- --~------- - - - - - - - 3 _I-- - - r - -r r -r -T - -T - - T -1--,---, Stiff, wet,brown-gray,SILT with fine sand interbeds ......and some woody debris - ----T-- ----±---S-8 :.' ----- ", 9 Me - - 1§. Medium dense. wet,green-gray,silty fine SAND with _ fine sand interbeds S-9 - - - --- --- -, I I It'1 I------- - - - - - - - --------_. 5 200W ___L L __!..__1_...!__1 __1 __1.:._, ~----------------------------------------------. - -r -r - -i"- -r - -T - - T --T - - I - - 1 - Very dense, saturated, gray,gravelly SAND ~ ~ ---T--- ----±----S-10 , -I"-I - -r -'I - -I --T --i - -"'i -"'i- .A 51 --------- -- -~- - --- ----- I I "I . __'I _.!.__.!.__~__~__.!.__., ,, Dense. saturated. gray. gravelly, fine to coarse SAND ----T--- ----±---S-11 ~46 , -- r - - r -. - r - -r - -T - - T - - T -T - -"T - - ~ ~ 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit II-------~-I I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery ~Bentonite..•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 Figure A-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-6 PAGE 3 OF 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet l-L _____1 _.!...!__..!__, Soil Description Dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND CD -CDQ.Q. E >-J1J1- ----1---- CD .._CD Q.,c E E III ;:,tnz S-12 Penetration Resistance en Cl"tl ....~6-CDcCD;:,c ;:,-c;;: E!;:Standard Blows per foot Other en:r CDC)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 :~32 """- """- I t I I I I I - - 1- - -I --r --T --r --T --1 - -I"- -i --"""- ~----------------------------------------------Very stiff, moist, light green-gray,CLAY with interbeds ~~!~~:_~~~~------------------------------------ Dense, moist, light brown grading to gray, fine to _ medium SAND with trace to some silt ---T--- ._-±----S-13 , , __l.-__I.-_L __J.. _ _ _.I.__J._.I.__-I __. 32 ,~63,, --r-r--r--r--T--T--r--,---,---,,, __l..__!..__L _.!.__1.__.!.__!__..I.__1 __. __I !...__!....!.__.!.__!__..:__ I I I I I ----, S-14----------------------------------------------~----T-------±---_ Very dense, saturated, orange, gravelly, silty SAND - ------------------------------------------------------------- - ..29. """- Very dense, damp, light gray,SANDSTONE ----T--- ----±---S-15 ~5011" - -j --;---I"---;--"I ---I --1--, """- """- Very dense, damp, light gray,SANDSTONE 29.----:::c---1--------------1 _ Boring completed at 70.2 feet on 9/24/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 7.5 feet at time of _ drilling - S-16 , ,---- - - - - - - I I 'I ~~.~~.~~.~~-~~-~~-~~.~~:~~~~~.. 50/2" !...L - L -.!.-_.!._.!.- -I , - r - r - - r - -T - - T -T --T - -"T --,.- -• , , L _.!._!.1.• -, ---I -r--r--l--r--T--T--T--l--- 75 Explanation MonitoringWell Key I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample fiill Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample f2'tZI Cuttings ®229 BentoniteNo Recovery ~•Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement El Screened Casing ,,,, , , 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA.1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-7 PAGE 1 OF 4 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet Soil Description CII CII ~""- Penetration Resistance III Cl•6.CII-CII _CII C CII ::::l Cc.c.c..cE E ::::l-iV ;lE:>0 o III Standard Blows per foot Other III~....III ::::l ~::>,CIIcnzC)z .... 0 10 20 30 40 50 3 inches asphalt over 6 inches gravel base ---Very loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS ----T----___-.1-_S-1 •, 3 I ,.-.-- - --,.- -.,- -"I ~-1 -"I - Very loose, wet to saturated,gray, silty, fine SAND ----T--- ----±---S-2 .: - ------ - - - - - ------- --I I )I I I 3 MC ---Very loose, wet to saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND with some silt and trace gravel I-- ~ Loose, saturated, gray, fine to coarse SAND with trace '""-silt ----=r---____..1-_ ---T--- ----±---- S-3 S-4 ... ATD ---• ,,- - - - - - - - - ---- - - -----, 2 GSA 6 _ _ _ _L __!..__ _ _!_ ,, - -I - -r - - r - -T T - -I"- -"I - -7 - -1 - -. Very loose, saturated,gray-brown,silty fine SAND with ~wood 1/4 inches in tip --T---- ---±----S-5 ,-C ,,-T-T--T--;-MC=93 •• 2 200W I--I I I I ! ---1--1--'1--1--,--7--7-- '""- Loose to medium dense, saturated, gray,gravelly ~SAND with some silt ---T--- ---±----S-6 A • ~-_!.._!...- -!---~---- -I _., 11 GSA - - - -r -,- - r - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - - , - - .,-----------------------------------------------Stiff, wet, brown, organic SILT 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 •Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample [Z}3 Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e I'S3J BentoniteNo Recovery...•Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-7 PAGE20F 4 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:34.5feet Blows per foot Other 403020 Penetration Resistance 6. 10o Standard G).._G) c..cE E I'll :::Jenz G) -G)c.c.E >. I'll I-en Soil Description -"-- S-7 _L __J..~_1.__.1-__L __.!.__1 __l __J __, 19 ~~:;;:""~::I:~_":~~Y:_~"_~~:~_,,,---:=±~ I----------------- S-8 , , __L __L __L __1.__J.__J. _.1 __.1 __.1 __, .: --- -,.-I - - --- 13 , _.-- - - -- ----- Soft. wet, dark gray-brown, SILT with sand interbeds I--and thin organic layers ---T--- ----±----S-9 •,,,I I I I----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,•3 Me --r--,--r--r-T--r--T--l--1 -, I------------------------------------------------- ~ Medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly fine to coarse I--SAND with trace silt ---T--- ----±----S-10 - ----- - - - - --- - -.--- -I I ,I I I 17 Medium dense to dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine I--to coarse SAND to fine to coarse sandy GRAVEL ---T--- -±-S-11 _!...--~---'-- - - -.I.___ _ _ _.!.__, , , - r - r - - r r --T --"r --T --l'--,.- -, 34 __L __L __.l __!.__!.__!.__1 __J __1 __,, 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand ][3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e No Recovery P29 Bentonite T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a ScreenedCasing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24102 FigureA-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-7 PAGE30F 4 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet g Soil Description G)..Penetration Resistance II)ClG)"...•6-G) Q.G) _G) c::::s c:c...c SaEc..E E :::s iG ;::; ~e '"Standard Blows perfoot Other II) Gl '"'":::s ;:~G) 0 en en z C)z .... 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,saturated,gray with orange and brown,....:b--_.S-12 :A 26 ~silty gravelly SAND c ,-c ,,,-,-J -, I------------------r - -r -r - -r - -r -T - -T -T - -T - - , I------------------t,- - L - - t,--,-j,-,- - ,- - ,- - ,- -,, ~----------------r -r -,-T -T - -T - -T --T - -,--,, ~'-'1-'"- - ,--,,--,-,-,- - ,- -"- - - - Dense,saturated,gray,sandy GRAVEL .__._-..._..-S-13 ,~39 ~- - - - - - - - -,- -- -T - -T - - I---.....-..----------~-~- -~- - -·-·- - .- - .--.-- , I-----------------------------------------------------...----------- -- - - --- - - ,, ~_..--------------c - -c - - - -·- -·- -·--T --T --T --, ~,,,, - - c - - c - - ,- - ,- - ,- - ,- -"--"-- ------1"-Stiff,wet,green-gray,clayey SILT with occasional ------~-..---- S-14 •,9, I--interbeds of fine SAND - -r-- -c --r-- -·- -t---,--T --T - -T -- ~---------...----- - c -c - - L -,- - ,- - ,-J --J - - J -- I----------------------...-----------------------------..-..........----- -r -r - -r - -r --T - -T --T - -T --T --,, I--------...--.....--...--t,--t,--,- - i,--,- - ,-,-,-,- ~···I··--,--r -T -T -T -T - -T - -T --,- Loose,saturated,gray,fine to medium SAND with ------------S-15 :A 7 ~J~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~!______________________________-,- - ,- - ,-·-"- -"--"- - Medium stiff,wet,gray,fine sandy SILT and SILT with ,, ~trace clay -----..-..-..-........- - - - - - - - - -- -T --,- - , I--------------------------------------------------------------- -~- -~--~- -·- -·- -·- - .- - .- - .--,, ~- - - - - - - ,-,---,- -- - ----_.._------........, ~- -"-c -c - -·- -·- -·--T --T --T -----I---Medium dense.saturated,gray,fine SAND with trace ---...-------- S-16 :.16 ~silt - - ,- - ,-c --,- - ,--,- - ,- -"-"-- ~--..-..-_.......----- -c r-- -r-- -r-- -r-- - ,--T - -T - -T -- I---t,-t,- - c -,- - ,-1 -1 - - 1 --J ----...---------_... , I--- -r -r - -r--,- -T -r - -T --T --T ----------------, 75 , Explanation 0 10 20 30 40 50 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample m Clean Sand Moisture Content ]I 3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I®I1.QSJ BentoniteNo Recovery ••Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG FigureA-1 Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/24/02 Logged By:EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-7 PAGE40F 4 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet Penetration Resistance I::::. Blows per foot Other Soil Description Q) -Q)Q.Q.E >. ~1- Q)..ii.! E E 111 ~rnz -g~• g 10 Standard(;~ o 10 20 30 40 Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine SAND with trace ~silt 80~Medium dense, wet, gray with some orange, gravelly SAND with some silt I-- """-Dense to very dense, light gray, SANDSTONE in tip ---T---- ---±---- S-17 S-18 , -- -I --I - -I - -'I - -T --T --T - -I"-1- ;& I"-..-..-"1--I"--i -- , ..-j-.-l--l----I--..-+---+- -_. -- - - ---, , 26 26 ~ ~Very dense, light gray SANDSTONE """-Very dense, light gray SANDSTONE 90 Boring completed at 90 feet on 9/24/02 ~Groundwater seepage observed at 9.5 feet at time of drilling I-- ---:c--- S-19 S-20 I I I I I I----------------------------, ,, A 50/3" - r - r - - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - - T - - T --•, ,- -i"-r - -T -T -T - T --;- -1-_., - -I - -I -r - -T - -T --T - - T --~--~--A 50/2" ,, - - -I -i - - - - - -I"-I"- -. ,- - ----- - ---- - --," ,,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---_., f I I I I I I I I._---------------------------, , f-- 100 Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample l'z:::zJ Clean Sand J[3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery ~Bentonite T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 ScreenedCasing , - - -I - - T - -r - - r - -T - T - - T - -T --1 -- ,, 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plntie Limit Natural liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE 1 OF 5 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description GI -GIQ.Q. E >-~~ GI .._GI Q..Q E E l'O :::J (J)Z Penetration Resistance III Cl"tl ....A 6.GI C GI :::J C :::J-~;::~~Standard Blows per foot Other III GIC)Z ~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 3 inches asphalt pavement over 5 inches base ______1.._1 _l ~_!__1 __.!_,, Loose, moist, black, COAL tailings (Fill) I------+----___-1-_S-1 - -r - -r --,- -T - - T - - T - - T - -"'1 - -1 --, , A: --,-r 1--1--"1--'--1--1-1-- 18 Loose, damp,orange-brown,silty fine to medium SAND I--with trace gravel and some cinders, and coal tailings (Fill) ----T--- ----±---S-2 -- ---- - - - - - -I I I I 4 GSA I-- - Loose, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND with trace 10 gravel ~ I--Loose,saturated,gray, silty fine to coarse SAND with some gravel I-- I-- ~Very loose,saturated,gray, fine to coarse SAND I--Soft to medium dense, wet, brown, sandy SILT with wood debris 1/2 inches thick I-- I-- Soft, wet, brown, SILT with some fine sand and _abundant wood derbis (PEAT) - - I-- 25 ----=r---___.-.L _ ---T--- ----±---- ---T---- ---±---- ---T---- ---±---- S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 T ATD --- - - - -!..-!..----!.- - - - - --- - - --••--r ,--r -r-T-T -T--'---'-- __l- ___ _ _ _.._ _.j._.;._..r.__.j.__•, , , -- -...- -t"- -,.--,.--,.--T - -T·--1"MC=70%•- - -!..- -I __!..____ _ _ _ ___ _!..__!.._!...!.__!__1 __1 __1 __, 4 9 5 3 MC GSA MC 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I I ]I ® T ATD Explanation 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement MonitoringWell Key o Clean Sand ~Cuttings I125J Bentonite • Grout E:3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA.1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE20F 5 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description CIl -CIlc.c. E >-IIlI-en CIl .._CIl c..cEE III :::Jenz ".... Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl~c:CIlCCIl:::J C :::J-ii ;:;e~Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1:r ~C)z 0 10 20 30 40 Medium stiff, wet, brown, PEAT -'-- 5-7 MC=93% •6 Me ~---------------------------------------------- Dense, saturated, gray, fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL I--to gravelly SAND with trace silt ---T--- ----±----5-8 47 200W I-------------- ---------- -----------------------------_ , -r-- -r -t"--,.--...--.,.--...-.,.-.,- - Dense, saturated, gray, fine to coarse sandy GRAVEL Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND I-- ~ Medium dense, saturated, gray. silty, fine to medium I---SAND with trace gravel ---T--- ----±---- ---T--- ----±--- ---T--- ---±---- 5-9 5-10 5-11 I I ,,,I I- -- - --- - - --- --- - - -- - ---•- - r r - - r -- r - -T --T -T - - T -"l-, , , -- r -- r --r - - r --T - - T - - T - -,.--"T - - __L __L __L _ L __L _.L __.1 __.1 __.1 _ ", I I I I -I -,.- ---T --T -T --T --"'i --I - - - - - - - -.,--- ,----- - - - - - - - - - - --- ~,:. I I +I I-- - - - --- - - - - - - - --------,, 44 18 11 GSA 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch a.D. split spoon sample Q Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e No Recovery 229 Bentonite ~-GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE30F 5 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description CII -CIIQ.Q. E >-~I- CII ""_CII Q..Q E E IV ~rnz Penetration Resistance III Cl"tI ""..6.CIIcCII~C ~-iii ~o IV Standard Blows per foot Other III "":l::r CIIC)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 Medium dense,saturated,gray, gravelly, fine to coarse I . .....SAND ±_S-12 _L 1.__1 __!__J.__1 __ -r -r -r -T - -T -T - - T --T --,--, 22 Dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND - - ----T--- ----±---S-13 33 - ~ Medium dense, saturated, gray,gravelly SAND with - some silt to silty SAND - ----T--- ----±~-- S-14 , -t"--...-r-- -r -T - -T --,.--,.-.,--- , ,,- - - - ---- - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - 18 f-- ~Medium dense,saturated,green-gray,silty, fine to medium SAND with some gravel f------------------------------------------------Medium dense, saturated, brown, silty, fine SAND with f--thin seams of black, cinders, coal pieces at 66 feet ---T--- ----±._--S-15 , __L __L __L __L __L __.1.__.1 __.1 __..1 __ -- --- - - - - --- ---------.I I I I I 33 f-------------.------.-----------------.--".------------------- - - - - -- - -1-- - - - - Soft, wet,green-gray,silty CLAY ---T--- ----±----S-16 MC=57% • 4 - - - - - - - - --- - - ----- I I I I , -r--r--..---,-r--T--T--T--,--- ATT 75 I ][ ®... ATD Explanation 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement MonitoringWell Key r:z:;;::J Clean Sand ~Cuttings 112'9 Bentonite • Grout a Screened Casing ,, 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE40F 5 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description .!!!Glc.c. E >-~I- Gl .._Gl c..aE E I'll ~cnz Penetration Resistance III Cl'a ...~6.GlCGl~C ~-~+:~~Standard Blows per foot Other III GlC)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 ~~<:!i~~~~~~~:~~t:il:~~~:.g!~y:~~aJ..eJ..~~~!_ ~Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty, fine SAND -'- S-17 _L..1._1 _ __.!.__.!__1 _ ___., - - r --r - -,--T --T - - T - - T --T - -1 --• , _L _ L __L __L _1._.1 __.1 _..l __.1 __ 16 Loose, saturated, gray, silty fine to medium SAND with ~trace gravel - - - 85 ...;";,,Dense, saturated, brown, fine to medium SAND - - - I-- 90 Medium dense to dense, saturated, brown, fine to ~medium SAND ---T--- ---±---- ---T--- ---±---- ---T---- ---±---- S-18 S-19 S-20 ••- - - - - - - - - ----_. --- --- - - - - - - - - - - --- -., __L L _ L _ L __.L _.l-__J._ .1 _.J_,.. __1-__1.-__"-__1.-__1.-__1.-__.I.__.1 __.1 __, , j j I I I I ---1--1--- --1"--1"--"1--,-- ,---- - - - - - - - --- 9 45 30 GSA Dense to very dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND I--with 4 inches yellow-brown,SANDSTONE fragments I-- 100 ---T--- ---±----S-21 6 58,"- - - - - - - _.- - - - ----- - - - -_. ___.L L .\.__1 __J _ , ---r--r--r--r--T--T --T --,--,-- Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;:]Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery 1129 Bentonite ~•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural• Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE50F 5 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description Gl -GlQ.Q.E >.Jgl- Gl .._Gl Q..cE E 111 ~cnz "... Penetration Resistance III Cl...D.GlCGl~C ~...iii ;::2~Standard Blows per foot Other III~GlezI- 0 10 20 30 40 __L __'-__L __L , '_, ,--,---,--,--- ---,-- - - - - - - - - - - i-- ...:!.Q2. Dense, moist, gray, silty SAND- ---T--- ----±----S-22 ,,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :...47 -'--'--'--- --- - - - - - - - , __I.-__l.__I...__I...__I...__I...__1 1 1 _ A 50/5" , , ,- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- S-23I-----------I----:r--- f-- ~Very dense, moist, gray, silty SAND i--Boring completed at 110,5 feet on 9/24/02. Groundwater seepage observed at 9.5 feet at time of f--drilling. - -I..__'-__1 t, _ _ _ _ __, , , - -r - - r - -r - -l - -,.- - ,- - - ,--- ,- - -,-- - _L-_L._1..__1...__1...__•1...__1 1__, ---- - - - --- - - ------- I I I I , I I I t- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---, f-- ,, --,--r--r--,--,--,---,---,--,--- __L __L __L __L __L ' , ,_ , ------- - - - - - - - - - - - -----------I I I I I I - -, --r--'--,--r--r--,---'--,---,--- -__L __L __'L _ - 125 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 •Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1'--------1 --1 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings Q9 No Recovery I1S2SJ Bentonite...•Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24102 FigureA-1 Logged By:EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING 8-9 PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:71 feet Soil Description G> -G>CoCoE>.~t- G>..._G> Co.cEE ClI :::Jfl)z Penetration Resistance UI tll'tl ...•6-G>C G>:::J C :::J-l :;::e~Standard Blows per foot Other UI G>C)Z t- O 10 20 30 40 Gravelly, silty SAND shoulder w~e-wrapped-wood:Stave-~pe--------------------- ~---------------------------------------------- , __L _L __L __L __1.__.1.__..L __J.__..L __• .'MC6 12 16 GSA 11 I I I I I I---_._-----------------_.,,, --r--r--r·--T--T-T--T--T--,---, - - ---'..-_.:--- - 1 __•• .,~ S-3 S-4 S-1 S-2 ----1-------- ------- ----T--- ----±--- ---T--- ---±---- ----+---___.-.L _ Medium dense, damp, light brown, gravelly SAND with i--some silt _~:>:>.:'~:~~~'::"~:.:'~I~~~~~_~~~~~~~l)_ loose,damp,orange-brown to brown, silty SAND with - trace gravel - Medium dense, moist,orange-brown,sillY SAND with ~trace gravel (Fill) - -loose to medium dense,orange-brown to black, silty SAND with trace gravel (Fill)-..!Q black coal from 8 1/2 to g feet Medium dense, damp, light to buff, silty SAND with ~trace gravel ---T--- ---±----S-5 .:...17 MC ,,--- ---- ----, 20~Dense, damp, strongly mottled orange and tan, silty SAND ~---------------------------------------------- Dense, damp, strongly mottled orange and tan, fine, ~sandy SilT to silty fine SAND ---T---- ---±----S-6 •, ,.----- - - - - - - ---, ,, - -r -- - r -T - - T - T -,.- - ,. - -""I - -•, 34 MC ~ 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch a.D.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand K 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e No Recovery ~Bentonite ~-GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural• Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:10/10/02 FigureA·1 Logged By: TAJ PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-9 PAGE 2 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:71 feet Soil Description CIl -CIlc.c.E >-Illt-en CIl ..._CIl c..QE E III :Ienz Penetration Resistance III Cl'tI ......6-CIlc:CIl :I c::I ....iii ;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III ...~>,CIlC)Z t- O 10 20 30 40 Very dense,moist,mottled orange and tan, silty SAND I--(Very Weathered Sandstone) S-7 • ,~50/3"MC ___L_~1..__1 __1 1 __ _I.- , - -r - - r - -f - -T - - T - - T --I"-T --"'i-, Very dense,moist.orange-brown-tan,silty SAND I--(Weathered Sandstone)S-8 ~50/2"MC !I I I---------------------_.I I I I I I I--Boring completed at 35.5 feet on 10/10/02 No groundwater observed at time of drilling ~50/2" ,,- - - - - - - --- - - --- S-91-----------1---:1:--- ---Very dense.moist.mottled orange and tan, silty SAND~(Weathered Sandstone) I-- I-- , ,, •__L __L __L __1..__J.__.1 __.1 __.1 __.1 __•, , , I-- I j 1 I- - - ----- ----- ------I I I I I I _ I _I _. -- --- - - -- - - - - I I . I-- , - - r - - -r - -r - -T -- T - - T - - T - - , - - • , ,, -r r -r --T - - T - - T --T - - T - - 1 - - 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample r:z:;:;:;J Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®1029 BentoniteNo Recovery...•Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:10110102 Figure A-1 Logged By: TAJ PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-10 PAGE 1 OF 4 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description Q) -Q)c.c.E >-~I- Q)...Q.~E E l'll ;:, l/)Z 'C "- Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl...c:Q) C Q);:,C;:,....iii ;e;:Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1>,Q) C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 3 inches asphalt over 5 inches base I.-Very loose, damp, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill)---+----___-1-_5-1 --r --r - - r - r -T -T --T --1 --1 --, 3 MC Loose, damp to moist, black, COAL TAILINGS mixed ~with brown cinders (Fill) ----T--- ----±---S-2 •, -...- - - - - --I"- -1- 5 MC I.-Very loose, wet, black, COAL TAILINGS mixed with cinders (Fill) Soft, saturated, green-gray, clayey SILT with interbeds f--silty, fine SAND seams ----+---____..1._ ---T--- ----±---- S-3 S-4 ~ ATD , I I I I I I I I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---.~ 3 MC 4 200W ~1 __1 __1 __1 1 _ f-----r--,--,--,--T--T -T--'--,--, _L _ L __L _...._1._.I._.1 __1 __.i __ Loose, saturated, gray, silty SAND in tip f-- f-- I.-:~~u~ltd:~~~;a::t~~:~~i~~t~~~t~r~~~~oT~~~;,ith organic SILT with wood derbis (PEAT)I.-..._ 22. Medium dense, wet, brown, organic SILT with abundant - wood debris (PEAT) - ----~---- ----------- ---- ---- ----=t=----___--1.-_ ---T--- ---±---- S-5 S-6 S-7 , __l.-L _J.__.j.J.__.1 _..I _ .', , , --- --- -- - - - - ---------, -- -r - -r -r _ -•__•__•- _~- _MC=119%• , --r---r - - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - -,.- --r -- 6 5 GSA MC - I--- r - r --;--T - - T - T - - T -1 - -1-, 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Liquid Limit1---------1PlasticLimitNatural I • a Screened Casing MonitoringWell Key rz:::zJ Clean Sand mJ Cuttings ~Bentonite • Grout No Recovery 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample I ]I ® ~ ATD Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-10 PAGE 2 OF 4 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description Stiff, wet, brown, fibrous PEAT Q) -Q)0.0.E >. ~I- Q)'- -Q)o..QE Eca:IU)z S-8 "C "- Penetration Resistance III Cl....c:Q)C Q):I C :1"-iU :;:;o ca Standard Blows per foot Other III'-:=:r Q) C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 A:, , , MC=168%•9 MC _:.... ,, -I -r - -..- -r - -T - -T - - T --T --1 -- _ L __L __L __l.__l.__l._l __.l __..l __, Medium dense, saturated, gray-brown, fine interbeds of ~silty, fine SAND and fine, sandy SILT with occasional wood debris ---T--- ----±----S-9 .:. - - - -I"- -I - -i"- -"I --I --- -"'j - - 13 200W - - - ~----------------------------------------------~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~_ ~~~~~~_~~9~~~_~~~~~i!~~~~~~~!_ Stiff, we, brown, fibrous PEAT ~~~~~:~~a~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---r-------..--..------ S-10 - - - - - - -----, ,, , __~__~1_-, :.MC=109% •7 MC -r --r - r --r - -T - - T - - T - -T --,.- -, Medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse ~SAND with trace silt ---T--- ----±----S-11 24 - -I'-1'--;---'I --1"- -"I - -t - -"'i - -1-- ~ ~ ~ Dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND ~with trace silt ~ ---T--- ----±----S-12 A 52,- - - - - - - - - - - ---- --- ~-_!..._!...- -!..- -!.- -!.- -1..__.!._.!._..!_, ~ , -r--r--r--r--T--1--1--'--,--,, 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid limit1-------1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;z]Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample I<@ Cuttings ®No Recovery ~Bentonite 'Y •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-10 PAGE30F 4 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description ell -ellQ.Q.E >. CIIt-en ell '""'Q.il E E CII ;:,enz 'tl ...Penetration Resistance Ul Cl...6.ellCell;:,C;:,....iii :;:;o CII Standard Blows per foot Other Ul'"";::r ~C)z 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse I ~SAND ±_S-13 _L _____!.__l _.!.__1._1 ___ 15 I-- ~, ~Medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND I------------------------------------------------ Medium dense, saturated, green-gray, silty CLAY with _ some sand ---T---- ---±----S-14 __I-_____J._.j._.j.__.j._.J _, 24 - --------------- ~---I---Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND S-15----..-..--.---- ------.....-....-...-- --------------- I---........_----_.._-- ~---I---Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND S-16 I--with small (1/8")clumps of yellow SAND ---------....- I-----..-..........._--- I--------..-..----- ---------------------------------------------- I---------------- 12.---I---Stiff, wet, green-gray, silly CLAY with fine sandy SILT S-17interbeds1/4 inches thick-..-.........------ I I I I I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - --- - - -. .&:13 __L __L __1.__L __L __.L __1 __1 _1 __., - -r -- r --r --r --r --T --1"--"j"-1 - -., __L __L __j,._..__1._.1.__.1 __.1 __J __• , ",- -I - -I - -;---r --"I -T -.,-"i - -1 - - 19 ,"--------- - - - - -_. ,,- - ---- -- - - - -_. 9 til I I I------~~---- - - - - - - -, ----------------------------------------------- -I I I I I I I 1--~---~---------------------- , - - r - - r -r r - - r - - r - -T --1 -- 1 - -I-- 75 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Liquid Limit ~-------I Plastic Limit Natural I • E3 Screened Casing MonitoringWell Key rz:;z:j Clean Sand ~Cuttings I32Sl Bentonite • GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample No Recovery ATD I ]I ® T Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-10 PAGE40F 4 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet Soil Description Gl -Glc.c.E >. lilt-en Gl ..._Gl c..cE E III :Ienz Penetration Resistance III Cl"C ......6 es::Gl :I e :1-m :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III...;:::r GlC)Z t- O 10 20 30 40 IVery dense, moist,orange-brown.silty ::iANU with some gravel~---------------------------------------------- "'-"Very dense, damp to moist, light gray.SANDSTONE -'-- S-18 __!..__!.__L __L __.L __I..__1.__1 __..!.__, L _ L l-_.L _.I.-_.l _.1.._.1 _.1 _ ,6 52 80 Boring completed at 80 feet on 9/30/02 f--Groundwater seepage observed 9.5 feer at time of drilling "'-" "'-" "'-" S-19 -"----_.•-"-"---,6 50/1" - -r---r - -1""- -,..- -,.-T - -,.- - - -"T --, , I I I I I I I I--- - --- - - - --- -------------- -, "'-",1 I I I I-- - - ---- - --- - - - - - ~ I-- ~ I-- "'-" "'-" ~ ,, -;-- r --r - -T -T - - T - -1--1--1-- _ L _L __L __i._l._J.__.1 _ .1 __J __,, , --I"-1"--\--T--I--T--l--1--1-- ,, - - - - - --- - -;-- --- -I"- - -I - - ---------, , -r---,...----"..--,..--".--1;--;--"-- ,I ,I I- -- - - - - --- __L __!..__!.__!.__!..__1 __.!__1 _ -r - -.-- -r - r -T - - T - - T - - T - -1 --,, ~ 100 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample [';'ill Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®I1QS]BentoniteNo Recovery T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 ScreenedCasing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural• Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA.1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-11 PAGE 1 OF 4 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet Soil Description Q) -Q)a.a.E >. ~... Q)... -Q)a..Q E E nl :;, I/)Z Penetration Resistance "C ......6CQ):;,-e~Standard Blows per foot Other e 0 10 20 30 40 50 III Q) :;, l Z 2 " Asphalt, 2" Base Loose, moist, black Coal Tailings with orange cinders '------+----___-1-_S-1 , , -I --I --I -T -T - -T - -I"- -"i - -"I - -• 4 MC ~ Soft, moist black (clayey texture)Coal Tailings ----T--- ----±---S-2 , _l.._L.__l-__l.-_.I._ _ _J.__J.__.l _ ~.: I -;--I -i"-i""I j - -j -1- 4 MC MC=59% •MC MC 4 2MC=62% • - - - - ---- -- ---, A., ATD S-4 S-3 ----=r---____.1-_ ---T--- ---±---- I-- I--Soft, wet, black Coal Tailings I-- ..!.Q. Very soft, wet, black,fine-grain Coal Tailings '-- ~----------------------------------------------10------------_ ~ ,, - - -r - - r - - r - - r - - r -T - - T - - T --"1 - - Medium dense,saturated,gray,gravelly SAND with ~tracesill ~ ---T--- ----±----S-5 _____L 1 _ _ _ _ 1 __1 __1 __..1 __ :_12 GSA ~ '-- , -I -i--i--'!--T--T--i--"j"-1--- , ___I.._ _ _ _L.__l.-__l.-__J.__.1 __.1 __-I __•, '-- 12. Loose,saturated,gray, fine SAND with some silt ------------------------------------------------- ___Medium dense,saturated,green-gray,clayey SILT with occasional wood debris ---T--- Ir---±----S-6 -- - 1- - -,.- -I"- -I - -;-- -'I - -I"--I -I - --, 7 ATT --'- I-- 25 Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®~BentoniteNo Recovery••GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing , 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-11 PAGE20F 4 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND with I--occasionaly fine wood debris Penetration Resistance !::l Blows per foot Other g ..ca. G>c Soil Description CIl -CIl0.0.E >-1Il!- (/) -"- CIl .._CIl 0..0 E E III ::::I (/)Z S-7 'gQj ~ ::::I-e ~Standard C) o 10 20 30 40 I/)ClCIl ::::I C iii ;l I/)=r CIlz!- 12 200W 22 Medium dense,saturated,gray, silty fine SAND with ~occational wood debris ----1-- ._---------- S-8 ~ ----;-~~I"--i --"I - -"I -- 11 - -~- - ---!..-1-_.!.-_, Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND ---1--- -----...--.......... S-9 •, r - -r - -r - -T - - T - - T - - T -;-_.,- --,, 13 200W ~-----------------------------------------------------------, - - - r -T - -T - -f - -1 - -"I - -"I - -1 - - 1 - - -,, Stiff, wet, brown, organic SILT (Peat) with I--interbedded of fine to medium Sand with silt lenses I------------------------------------------------ ---T--- ----±---S-10 MC=113% •15 ,,, --1--1----i---i--i--i--i-- Me Stiff, saturated, gray, fine sandy SILT I--Dense,saturated,gray, fine ,coarse sandy GRAVEL ----T--- ----±---S-11 ;&' , - r - r - - r --T -r --T - - - T - - 1 - - ,, --r - - r - r - -f - -T - - T - -T - - T - - 1 - - - 31 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;'ZJ Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®~BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-11 PAGE30F 4 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet ~_l __L 1 __1 _1 __,, Soil Description I--Medium dense,saturated,gray fine-coarse sandy GRAVEL to gravelly fine to coarse sand with trace Gl -GlQ.Q. E >-~... ----1---- Gl .._Gl Q..cE E I'll :;,cnz S-12 Penetration Resistance VI C)'C .....6-GlCGl:;,C:;,....ii ;e~Standard Blows perfoot Other VI:::GlC)Z ... 0 10 20 30 22 , ___L __L _ L __!.__1.__.I._.l __.1 __.i __. ---I"--.-.--"1--T --1--I"-"I --"1- Medium dense,saturated,ary,fine to coarse SAND I--with trace siltand some gravel - ---T--- ----±----S-13 ~,------------_. 25 - MCMC=103% •10•, , ,----- - - - - - - ------- -., S-14 ----T--- ----±---_Stiff,moist,dark brown,organic SILT and PEAT and 1"thick fine sandy siltinterbedded - .22. -----------------------------------------------'--------------, -- - r --r - - r - - r --T - - T - - T - - T - - , - - - ....- Medium dense,saturated,green-grey,silty fine to ~=:~=:~_:~_:;:=_O~_~=:~:'::~I~ Medium dense,wetgray,fine to medium SAND with ....-trace gravel S-15 19 - - Stiff,wet,green-gray and blue-gray,highly plastic CLAY with thin fine sand Interbeds ----T--- ----±---S-16 ..~~--..-._-._-L _.--.~~- , 9 ATT I-- --r - - r - -r - - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - -"1 - -•, 75 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 Moisture Content Liquid Limitf--...---a__--IPlasticLimitNatural I • a Screened Casing Monitoring Well Key I2J Clean Sand ~Cuttings 1129 Bentonite • Grout 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement ATD Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-11 PAGE40F4 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet Soil Description CI> -CI>Q,Q,E>o \'Gl-en Penetration Resistance I/)C)"~A /::;.CI>C CI>::I C ::I-ii ;le~Standard Blows per foot Other I/)~t!C)z 0 10 20 30 Medium dense, saturated, brown, fine SAND with ~tracesilt S-17 __L __L_1..__,1..1__1 '__ 19 I-- S·18 34 29 ,- - - - -,,,- - ------, ,, -,- - 1--- ,- - - ,- - -1-- -1-- -!-- - - - - 1- - -, ___L __I..__1.._1..__1..1 1 ' _ S-19-------------------------------------------------T-------±---- - ~Brown sand I--Medium dense to dense, saturated, gray, fine SAND with green-gray clayey silt interbeds ---T---- ---±---- I------------------------------------------------------------- ~Dense, wet, gray, with light gray and black organic I--fragments, blue-gray sand seams, silty sand with some gravel S-20 ,,- - - - - --- _L _L _L L _ _ _ _ _1 1 _ ,,, -- 1---1- - -.,---,-- - ,- - -,-- -,-- -,-- -,-- - 34 I-------------------------------------------------------------- , __...__l-__I-_I-__I-__I-__1 I-__1 _, ",- ------ - - - ----- --- Dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel and _ light gray sandstone fragments - ---T---- ---±----S-21 _!...L __L ' ' ' _ ,, ---,-- -j---,-- -,---,-- ----,-- -1- - --- 32 --_I _____1 :_ ___ Explanation -S-22 o 10 20 ..50/0 30 MonitoringWell Key I 2-inch O.D. split spoonsample Clean Sand Moisture Contentr:.::;;] ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit Q.9 I1QSI Bentonite I •INo Recovery...•GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 ScreenedCasing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled: FigureA-1 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-12 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet Soil Description Q) -Q)CLCLE>.~I- Q).. -Q)CL..a E ECO~rnz Penetration Resistance UI Cl"tl ...~6 Q)C Q)~C ~-iU ;~~Standard Blows per foot Other UI:r Q) C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 3"asphalt over loose, moist, brown, silty,gravelly I--SAND (Fill) I--Very loose, moist,brown-black,COAL TAILINGS with silty SAND (Fill) ----T----___-.L _S-1 L _L ~L __.L __.L _.I.__.1 __J.__..1 _, 3 MC MC 6 MC 8 8 e:A, I I I !- -,- -I - -- -"I - -"I - -"'i - - . --I.-!..__!.._ e: ATD S-2 S-4 S-3 ----+---____.L _ ----T--- ----±--- ~~~=r=~~~1--------------1 .L --Loose, moist,whitish-brown,silty SAND to sandy SILT with some sandstone and coal (Fill)-- ------------------------------------------------ ..:!.2. Loose, wet to saturated,whitish-brown,weathered __SANDSTONE,SILTSTONE fragments (Fill) Loose, moist,brown-black,COAL TAILINGS with silty I--SAND (Fill) __Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 11.5 feet at time of __drilling -- , --i --I"--I"-f - -..-T -.-T - -"I - -"I - , --;--I ------ , I--- -....-I---....--..--+----+----+---..- -of __, I-- , -t'"- -,..- -r - -r - -l'--'t-----...- -"f -- --- , I I I I I ~------------------------- --- I-- 25 Explanation 0 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Contentrz:;z] J[3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit e ~Bentonite I e INo Recovery ~•Grout --Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-13 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35 feet Soil Description (J) -(J)0.0. E >.~... (J).._CI) o..c E E l'Il :;, l/)Z Penetration Resistance I/)til~.....6-(J) C (J):;,C:;,-iii ;e~Standard Blows per foot Other I/)~CI) C)Z ... 0 10 20 30 40 50 Surface grass over loose to medium dense, damp, ""-?~~~!:':~~~~.!l!~~~~~?_':~~_~~~_ , - r - - r - r - - r -T - - T - - T --1 - - 1 - - MC ATT2 8 L __L _ L __L __.I.__.1 __.l.__.1 __.1 __., S-1 S-2 ----+----___-.L _ ----T--- ----±--- Loose, moist, dark brown-black, COAL TAILINGS with f--some silty SAND,SANDSTONE fragments (Fill) Very soft, moist, blue-gray, sandy silly CLAY with :..-some organics - 2. ~Very soft, wet, blue-gray, sandy SILT interbedded with some silty SAND and some organics ----+---____-L _S-3 ATD ---T--- ""-t----------------1---±---- S-4 _!...- - - -!...- -.!..- - - -1._ - - - r - - r -r T - T - - T - - --T --1"--•, , ""-Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 8.0 feet at time of ""-drilling , -,---r - - r - -..-T - T - -I --T --I --• , L __L _ L __L __1 _J.__.1 __.1 __..1 __, , , __l.-__..__L __J..__.l-__.I.__...__.4 __..__ , ,, --,--,- ---1"--"1--\--,-- - - - - - - - - - ---- - -, , - - -___'-_ _ _ _1._1 __.!.__1 __!__.!__..\__., - 25 Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand ][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery 22.9 Bentonite..•Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing - - ,- - - r - - r - -T - -T - - T - - T --T - - 1 - - •,,, 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-14 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet Soil Description (I) -(I)c.c.E >. ~I- (I).. -(I)c..cEE III ::srnz Penetration Resistance 1II CI'C ...•6-(I) C (I)::s C::s"iii :;::~~Standard Blows per foot Other 1II:r (I) C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 Surface grass over loose to medium dense, damp, I-brown, silty,gravelly SAND (Fill) MC MC 3 8 4 _!...- - --- - - - - - - - -!--- A: - - r --- - r - -T - - T - T - - T --,.--.,.-..- .: , L _ L _L __1 __ _ _.!..1 _.!__., , r - r - -r ~-T --T ..-T - -T - - T - - 1 - - ., A:~ --,- - -I - -I --"I --..--T - -T - -I - -1 - - ... ATD S-3 S-4 S-2 S-1 ----1-------- ------- ----+----___-.1-_ ----T--- .._--±--- ---1--- ----........_---1--------------1 ~---------------------------------------------- Loose, moist, brown, silty SAND with some organics ~mixed with COAL TAILINGS (Fill) ~ ~---------------------------------------------- Very soft. wet, blue-gray, sandy SILT interbedded with I--silty SAND and some organics us ~Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 7.5 feet at time of I-drilling I----------------------------------------------- Very loose to loose, moist to wet, blue-gray, silty SAND I--interbedded with sandy SILT with some organics I-_'-__l.-__l-_..__l-__.l-...l-__.1 .._.l __•, .,, -,---1--'1 - --7--7--i----;-- I I!I I I I - I -- -----i--7--~--I--' I 1 I I I ---- --..--_.----- - ---- I-- , .--- - r - - - -T - - T -- T - -l'--T ..-.,-, __L __L 1 __!__.!.1._.!__1 __, I-- 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Liquid Limit -------1 --1PlasticLimitNatural I • MonitoringWell Key rzs::J Clean Sand ~Cuttings I12SI Bentonite • Grout E3 Screened Casing 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement I ]I ®... ATD Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-15 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:32 feet Blows per foot Other Penetration Resistance Dog i CIlc Soil Description Q) -Q)Q.Q. E >.cal- C/) Q).... -Q)Q..Q E Eca~ C/)z 'tl ....C Q) ~­o ca....;: C) Standard o 10 20 30 40 50 Surface grass over loose to medium dense, damp, ___brown, silty,gravelly SAND (Fill) .~~1 __i __1 _, Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty,gravelly ___SAND with some organics (Fill) ---Loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS mixed with silty 5 SAND, some gravel and organics (Fill) --- I--Very loose, wet, blue-gray, silty SAND with some gravel interbedded with sandy SILT and some organics ----+----___J...._ ----1--- ..._----------- S-1 S-2 •ATD ~ --r - -I"- -I -I -j"-T - -I"-"'j - -I _. A • - - - -i"--"j -1--- 12 2 MC GSA 2 I I I I ~-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A 1S-4 S-3 ----=J=---____-L _ ~~~=r=~~~1--------------1 .L I-- ~Very soft, wet,brown-gray,sandy SILT with some organics with interbedded organic SILT--- I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 6 feet at time of I--driling - - - ---!.- , - - 1- - - - -- - --t --- ,- - - - - -- -_., , --...---r--r -r--T--T--T--'--'---, I-- 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample [:3 Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e ~BentoniteNo Recovery•-Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement El Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-16 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet g s:c.. C1lc Soil Description 41 -41Q.Q.E >. III I-en 41 .._41 Q..Q E E III ::Jenz 't:l ... Penetration Resistance III C'I...6 41C41::J C::J-"i ;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III..;:~41ClZI- 0 10 20 30 40 50 3 ±inches of ASPHALT above 7.5 ±inches of ~medium dense, damp, brown, sandy GRAVEL (Crushed Rock Base Course) I-- I--Medium dense, moist, brown and gray, silty sandy GRAVEL (Fill) ---+----___.1-_S-1 , - - r -r -- r --r --T - - T ~~T T - 1 - -.~ -r -I - -I - -T - -I -T - -I - -T --"I - 21 MC GSA I-- ~--------------------------------------------.. ~Medium dense, moist to wet (below 10 feet) brown and gray, silty, gravelly SAND (Fill) ----T--- ----±--- ----+---____--l _ S-2 S-3 ..~ -,-I"-.--,-"1--I -"'i I _. ,, - -- -- - - - -I 1--I... MC 20 GSA 15 MC ------,---I--- '"""------- ------......-----------1 I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 10.5 feet at I--time of drilling. S-4 T ATD :.& ~- - I I I I-- - - - - --- 12 I-- - - - - 25 Explanation I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch a.D.split spoon sample rz:::;:'J Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery ~Bentonite T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing _L _L __1._1.__'-_1 __1 __1 __1 __., , - r - -r r -T -T - - T --T --1 -1-_. , __L __L _ L _ L __L _.I._1.__J.__.1 __ , - -I"- -I"--f - -"I - -T - -T -T -"'j --"'i -- --- I --- -I I ,- - - - - --_. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-17 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35 feet Soil Description CI) -CI)c.c.E >-~I- CI)..._CI) c..cE E III ::Irnz 'tl ...Penetration Resistance CIl CI...6-CI)c CI)::I C::I ....ii :;:;o III Standard Blows per foot Other CIl...;::r CI)C)z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 13Inchespver3 Inchesasphalt.crushed rockover mediumdense. moist.brown. silty.gravellySAND(Fill)~---------------------------------------------- ---Loose,moist.black,COALTAILINGSwith reddishash cinderswith somesilty sand (Fill) ~ ~ ----+----.__-L__~ ----T--- -~--±--- S-1 S-2 _L __L __L __L __.I._.L _.l __.J.~_.1 __, A: -;-- - r >-..- -T -'I - -'1--i -i --i --- 8 11 ---------------------------------------------"---- - Looseto mediumdense. black,COALTAILINGSwith reddishash cinderswith somesilty sand(Fill)- ..!.Q - ----+---.-l_~_ ---T--- ----±---- S-3 S-4 -- -I.._ _ _!..., 14 10 10 ATD S-5 Looseto mediumdense,wet to saturated,whitish-brown- I--gray, SHALEfragmentsmixedwith COALTAILINGS (Fill)t--t----_~:::f~ Boringcompletedat 14 feet on 9/26/02 Grounwaterseepageobservedat 14 feet at time of drilling ,- - - --- - - - - ----- - -,, ",-- - - - --- - - - --- !...__L __!.._ !.1 _1.__1.__1 _, ~ 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rill Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample t:@ Cuttings ®No Recovery 629 Bentonite T •Grout --Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural• Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled: 9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-18 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35 feet Blows per foot Other Penetration Resistance 6. 40302010o A Standard (I)"- -(I)a..cEE III :lVJz (I) -(I)a.a.E >.~1- Soil Descriptiong ..c Q. QI Q 4 ±inches ASPHALT and 2 ±inches medium dense, I--damp, brown. sandy GRAVEL above loose, damp, reddish-brown and black, silty SAND with some I--gravel (coal and sedimentary rock fragments, Fill) ---+----....-.L _S-1 , -;--r --r - -T --T -- T - - T - T --,- 8 2001/\ - ----T--- ----±---S-2 ~' --t --i - -i""- -'1--'I I -I"-i -,- 6 MC I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 10 feet at I--time of drilling. MC 5 6 - - - ------------- - - - - ---, T ATDS-4 S-3 ----+---____-L _ ---I--- ...............------1--------------1 I-- ~Loose, staturated, pale gray, silly SAND with gravel- size friable sedimentary rock fragments (Fill) _________L __1 __L _1 _.!_ .1 __1 __., , , --,--,--,--T--T--T--T--T --,--- , , -,.-..-f --I"- -r -T ~T --i -i - - . __L._ L __L __L __.I.__.j.__-I.__.1 __.l __•, --I - -;-- -i'"-'I - -'I -I -I I -I - - ., - - 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 •Natural Moisture Content Plastic:Limit Liquid Limit1---------1 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample EJ Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e ~BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-19 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet Soil Description GI -GI0.0. E >-~I- GI .._GI o..Q E E 111 ~ l/)Z Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl'tl ......6-GIc::GI ~e ~-l :;::o 111 Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1"3:GIC)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 1.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 3 ±inches medium '--dense, damp, brown,gravelly SAND ~------------------------------------------------------------- MC MC 7 9•I"- -'I -I -I --"'i --"'j -- e ~ ..-I",- ... S-2 S-1 ----T----___...L _ ~Loose, moist, black, pink, gray, silty SAND with trace gravel (coal and shale fragments-fill) I--Stiff, moist, black, fine and fibrous ORGANICS '-- u ------------------.-------.-_.----------....---~~~~±~~~ I-----------.-.---------..-------...---------.--.--------------- '"'-Loose to very loose, moist to saturated (below 8.5 '"'-feet), black, pink and gray, silty SAND (coal and shale fragments-fill) ----=r---___.--l _S-3 ATD -~-,.--- - - -I e:8 MC S-4 ..:3 ,"--- --- - - - ~- - __L __L __L 1 __!__!__1 __1 __. I--__L _ L L L _L __L __J.__J.__.1 __•, I-- '"'- I-- ,- - --- - -,- -_.,,, I-- 25 Explanation MonitoringWell Key I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Q Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®I1SCl BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing ,, 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA·1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-20 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35 feet ~ ~ Soil Description 1.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 1.5 inches medium dense, damp, brown, sandy GRAVEL above loose grading to very loose, moist grading to saturated (below 7 feet), black, silty SAND (coal fragments-fill) Q) -Q)a.a.E >-~I- ---1=----___-.L _ Q).. -Q)a..c E E I'll ::I lI'JZ s-i Penetration Resistance III Cl'tl ...•l:::.Q)l:Q)::I l: ::I-ii ;;o I'll Standard Blows per foot Other IIICi3:~Q) Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 _L .L __L __1 __1 __1 _ _ _ _J __, .;e:4 GSA -.-I I -T -"I -T -"j -I -..-- 4 GSA I- - - - ..1.2. - ~ - I-- 25 ----T--- ----±--- ----1-------- ------- S-2 S-3 S-4 T ATD e:-.--- - - --- MC=58%.2 , ,,---------- - - ----- .&:3 I I I I I--- - - - - ------- - - - - - - - , _ L __L __L __L __...__.1.__.L __.1 _.1 __ , j'"- - - -I"-"I --..--.,--'i ...-I -- ---'--- - - - --, ,, , -r--r -r - -r - -T - - T - -l'- -,.- -"T - - • Me Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample fZZ]Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e No Recovery l'2'5I Bentonite T -GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I e I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 Figure A-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-21 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet Soil Description QI -QIa.a.E >. III I- W QI .. -QIa.J:lE E III ::::lWz Penetration Resistance l/)Cl"C ....•6.QI C QI ::::l C ::::l-iii ;o III Standard Blows per foot Other l/)..~~QI C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 , ~_l..__L ~~!..1 __1 ~_.!._, A:•3 --1"---1---..-..__"'__"'__-+__-+__-1 __' 1.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 3.5 ±inches medium dense. damp, brown, sandy GRAVEL above medium dense, damp to moist, black. gray, and beige. SAND (reworked coal and shale rock fragments-fill) I-- --------------~--------------------------------~ ~Very loose, wet to saturated. black SAND with horizontal bedding (coal fragments-fill) I-- ---+----__....L _ ----T--- ----±--- ----r-------- ..._--_...- S-1 S-2 S-3 T ATD , - - - r - r - r --T -- T - - T - - T --T -- 1 - -- A'I I I I ---,--1--I--t--I--7--7--j--j--- 11 2 MC MC MC I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02 Groundwater encountered at approximately 8 feet at I--time of drilling I-- I-- I-- I-- - - I-- I-- S-4 ___~_ _ _ _ _ _t I __! A:3 __l..__~_ _!..!._ __L L __L __l __l_1 __1 __1 _, , - - -r - -r -r - -T - - T --T - - T --"T -i --., _ L __L __L __L __L __.L __.1 __.1 __.1 _, , ---I -1--'--1--'--'--'--1--1--- I , ,,--- - - ------- , ~-r-- -r-- -r --r - -r - -T - - T - -,.- -"t - -•,, 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;z:j Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample m:'<J Cuttings ®I1'Q9 BentoniteNo Recovery T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural• Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-22 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet Blows per foot Other Penetration Resistance 6.g a <II Q Soil Description Gl -GlCLCLE>.Illl- C/) Gl ..._Gl CLJ:IE E III ;:, C/)z 'gQj ... g 'lii Standard(5== o 10 20 30 40 2 ±inches ASPHALT above 2.5 ±inches medium I--dense, damp, brown, sandy GRAVEL above loose, damp to moist, black, silty SAND (coal fragments-fill) ----"T----___.1-...__S-1 , -,-r - r T - - T - T --T --1"--..--,, 6 MC :.----1--- ............_-----...-S-2 •-- --I - - - - -'I --i --I --I - - 5 MC Grades to wet at 8 feet ----+---____-l _S-3 ATD ,, ,--------- - - - -...; - ------.,, :.3 MC ---I--- I-------- ------1---------------1 S-4 _I !...!.__!__..!._ I I I I , -- -r --.--- - - - r - -T - - T - - T - --r --, - -- 3 I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at 8 feet at time of drilling. r r ..- - r -T -1 -"T - -i -1-, , _L __l.__L _ L __J._ .I.__.1 __.1 __-.l __, ,, -1--1--1---'i."--1--- I-- , ---I--__.._ _ _ _..__...__...__...--...- -...- ____I __I 1 __ - , , - -r - -r - -r - -t---'l"- -'l"-.,.- - .,. - --- ,"---- - - - - - - - - - --- - ------- -,, - - r - - - - r --1""- -T - - T - T - --,-- - - -r - -f -r - -T - - T - T - T --1 - -1 --•,, ,- 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Liquid Limit1---------1PlasticLimitNatural I • a Screened Casing MonitoringWell Key ~Clean Sand ~Cuttings ~Bentonite • Grout No Recovery 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement ATD I ]I ® T Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA.1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-23 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet Soil Description CIl -CIl0.0. E >-~... CIl .._CIl 0.'"E E III :;,cnz Penetration Resistance III Cl'C ..£8 CIlcCIl:;,c:;,-ii :;:le~Standard Blows per foot Other III>,CIlC)Z ... 0 10 20 30 40 1.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 3 inches medium dense, damp, brown,gravelly SAND above loose, moist, black, pinic, and red, silty SAND with trace GRAVEL (coal and shale fragments) ----+----___.1-_S-1 , , I I I I I I I -~-r--r--r--r--T--T--T -1--1--, 10 MC MC3 2 6 MC MC=53% • ~., L --..,.-J --"I --1-- -~!...-!..---------.:.- -.!.- - - --, ,•---r--r--r--r--r--r --T--"--"'1--, , ~ ATD S-2 S-4 S-3 ----+---____..l._ ----T--- ----±--- Very soft, wet, gray, SILT and fine sandy SILT _ Very loose, wet, black, pink, red, silty SAND (coal and shale fragments) - ---1----------------1--------------1 - ..!Q. _ Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at ___time of drilling. ___L __L __L __L __L __!__l __.i __l _, ,, , - ,- - -r -r --r --T - T - - T - - T - -1 - - . , -I"--I--I--I--T--I"-1"--1--1-- - - - - ----- ", -I 'I I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_. - -________L 1 1 __1 _ , , - ,- - r - r -T - - T -T --T -:-1 - -1 _.- 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic limit liquid Limit11---------1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:,;:'.j Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0Shelbytube sample ~Cuttings ®f'S29 BentoniteNo Recovery ~•Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA·1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-24 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet g ..c 15. Gl C Soil Description Ql -Ql0.0. E >.~I- Ql .. -Qlo..aE E 111 :::Jrnz Penetration Resistance III CI't:I ...A f:::,.Ql C Ql :::J C :::J-iii ;;e~Standard Blows per foot Other III>,Ql C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 '-_!.. 4 ±inches ASPHALT above 4.5 ±inches medium ~dense, damp, brown, gravelly SAND above very loose, moist, grading to wet, black and reddish orange, silty ~SAND (coal and sedimentary rock fragments-fill) ~ ----+_._-___-.1-_s-t -1'"--r -r - -r - -T - T - T -"I --1 -- , A:•3 MC --I -....--I -T - -T -"I --"I -.,- MC MC 2 3 :.,- - --- --- , -- - - - -\-- - -- - - - - I __1._•, A 0 T ATD S-4 S-2 S-3 ----+---____..l...__ ----T--- ----±--- ---I--- ..._----------1--------------1 ~ ~ ~ ~Very soft, wet, gray, SILT and sandy SILT ,.1Q I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 6.5 feet at I--time of drilling. , --I -r-r--r-,--T--l--'-- ~ I-- ~ ~ --- - - - --, ..... ..... - - - - I I !._, , , I-- __L __L __1..1 __1 __L __1 __1 _,, , - - r -- r - -r - - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - - 1 - -I-- 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Monitoring Well Key I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®f'29 BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-25 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet Soil Description Cll -Cll0.0.E >. Jl.lt- Cll .._Cll o..cE E Cll ::l l/)Z Penetration Resistance III Cl"tl ......6.Clls:Cll ::l s: ::l1O iii ;: Standard Blows per foot Other IIIe::~Cll~Z t- O 10 20 30 40 12 Inches asphalt over 0 mcnes loose, moist, oarx brown, silty,gravelly SAND (Fill)---------------------------------------------------------------, _L _L __L __l _1-!__.1 _.!__ ~6 f--Loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill) ---~ Very loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill) - - _ Soft, wet,dark brown,ORGANIC SILT with some sand interbedded with gray, SAND with some silt and gravel10~---------------------------------------------- _ Loose,saturated,gray SAND with some gravel and trace silt - ----------------------------------------------- ----+----___-.1-_ ----T--- ----±--- ----+----___-.1-_ ---T--- ----±---- S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 ATD .: -- -,-- - -+-1--1-1-- , - -....- - - -.-----+ - - + - - + - - + - - - --, , ... - - -~- - - -!...-.!.- - - -1._ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___L _ _ _ _L !._1._ _ ___ __ r - -I - -r --T - -r --T - - T - -,- -1 - -, , 3 5 7 GSA Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some organics,trace f--gravel interbedded with sandy SILT --T---- ---±----S-5 .:MC=54%•8 200W ---12- Grades to medium dense - - 100- 25 ---T---- ---±----S-6 ,"- - - - - - - - - -_. •-- -I.._ _!.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___~__,, , , ______L 1 __1_1 __.1 _, 11 GSA Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch a.D.split spoon sample r.::::zJ Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e No Recovery 1329 Bentonite T -GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-25 PAGE 2 OF 3 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet Soil Description ..!!!CIIQ.Q. E >-lilt- In CII ""_CII Q..Q E E III :::J Inz Penetration Resistance III Cl'tl ...A 6 CIIcCII:::J C :::J"i1i ;:o III Standard Blows per foot Other III"";:::r CIIC)Z t- O 10 20 30 40 Medium dense to dense, wet, gray,gravelly SAND to f--sandy GRAVEL with some silt, trace organics - - _...... ----T--- ----±--- S-7 S-8 36 28 ~---------------------------------------------- ----T--- ----±--- , , ,- - - ---- --- ,I I I I- - ---~-- - - - - - - S-9 , --r - r T --T --.--- T - T -T --1 - - 20 Loose to medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with ~some gravel with interbedded PEAT (3") ---T--- ----±----S-10 , , - - - - - ----- ----- --.," 11 f--------------------------------------------------------------__1-__1-__1-_l---+--+--+--+---I---, ..§. Medium dense to dense, wet, gray,gravelly SAND with - some silt and trace organics - ~---------------------------------------------- Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel ~and peaty organics (1") ---T--- ----±---S-11 37 - -'--- - -!.._!.._!.- - -_..!. - - - - --- , __L L __1.__1.__!__1._.!__1 __, , , - -r - -r - -I --r -- r --T --T - -.-- - 1 --., 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample I:Z.}J Clean Sand ][3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e ~BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout --Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement El Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-25 PAGE30F 3 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet Soil Description <II -<IIC1.C1. E >-COl- (/) <II ..._<II C1..QE Eco::I(/)Z Penetration Resistance til Cl'tl ...•6 <IIC<II ::I C ::1-iii ;:l~~Standard Blows per foot Other til:r ~C)Z 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel I ~and peaty organics (1")±_S-12 20 ~----------------------------------------------_ L _ L __L _L __.L ~_1 __1 __.1 __.1 __ , , - -t --,-- -I -.,- -T --"I - -i --I"- -1 _. Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND ~---------------------------------------------- Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND interbedded with sandy ~SILT ----T--- ----±--- S-13 S-14 17 -- - -!...-!..--!..._.!.._.!.- --- - -, •9 - -,-r r --T -T --T --,- -"'I -, ~ Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty SAND interbedded ~with sandy SILT ---T--- ~-_.±---- S-15 , _ L __L __L __.L __.I._.L __.1 __.1 __.l __ , ,-+-- 20 ~-----------------------------------------------.------------ ~Very dense, damp, light gray, silty SANDSTONE 70 Boring completed at 70 feet on 9/24/02 ~Groundwater seepage observed at 6.5 feet at time of drilling - S-16 ,,--- - - ------- -""-"--"-------------6 00/1" , --r - -r--r --T - -r--T --,--j--,--- 75 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample f2z:J Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®I'2Sl BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 ScreenedCasing Plastic:Limit I Moisture Content Natural • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FlgureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-26 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:32 feet g s: Q. Gl C Soil Description CII -CII0.0.E >.1lI!-en CII ..._CII o..cE E III :::senz Penetration Resistance Ul Cl"Cl ....A 6 CIIcCII:::s c:::s-~+loIIIStandardBlows per foot Other Ul"'3:CIIC)Z !- 0 10 20 30 40 50 I Surface gravel over medium dense. moist, orown, Silty. ~~~~~~_~~~~~!~~9 _,, _~L __L !. _ !.__1-__.!__1 __J.__ I--Loose, moist. black, silty SAND, COAL TAILINGS, some organic wood debris (Fill) ----+----___-.L _S-1 11, , , - -I"-I --;---I"--"I --T - -.,- -.,- -I - - . Very loose, moist. block, silty SAND with COAL I--TAILINGS wood debris and organics (Fill) ----1--- ...--.........------S-2 3 - - - --- - - - - - - - - ----- - - -I I I I I I------------------------------------------------ I--Very soft. wet, black. organic SILT with some wood fragments I-- ~---------------------------------------------- Very soft, wet to saturated,greenish-gray,sandy SILT I--with some clay interbedded with silty SAND ----+---____-.L _ ---T--- ---±---- S-3 S-4 ATD ,, ,,MC=132% ~- - -:--H • I I I I----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---, ATT MC I------------------------------------------------ ~ Very soft, wet, brown-gray, silty SAND interbedded with I--silty SAND and PEAT (4") ---T--- ---±----S-5 L L _L _1-_.L __.l _.L __.1 _.L __, , --I -i--I--I"--I--T--I---------A MC=116% •2 200\11 ---I--- ---......------1------------1- Boring completed at 21.5 feet on 9/26/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 8 feet at time of I--drilling S-6 ----- - I I I I I I, ~, I I I I I-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _.--- ,, ---r - -r - -r -- r - -r - -T - - T - -,.- -,- - • __!..__L 1 __!.__! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___, 16 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 •Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample f2J Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e No Recovery ~Bentonite T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/26/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-27 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:31 feet g a Glc Soil Description (I) -(I)Q.Q.E >. ~I- (I)... -(I)Q.J:lE E III ::lcnz Penetration Resistance en Cl"C .....I:::.(I) C (I)::l C ::l"-iii ;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other en...:;::r (I)e z I- 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense grading to very loose, moist grading to ___wet (below 4.5 feet), brown, gray, and black, gravelly, silty SAND (Fill) , _L !..__L _.L _ 1 __.J._, ----+----___.1-_S-1 ___L __L-__t.__L __1.__.1 __J.__J.__-.I _ •A;, -r ,.- -I --"I -'I -T -I"-"i I - - . 18 MC ----T--- ----±---S-2 ATD 3 MC - - - --~- - Soft to very soft, weI, gray, SILT with interbeds of saturated,greenish-gray,fine to medium SAND, _irregular horizons of fibrous organics up to 0.25 inches thick - ..!Q ----+---____-L _S-3 S-4 A: I I I t-------- - - - - - - - --- ,, , ,--------- 3 --Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 4.5 feet at ~time of drilling,---r - - r - - r - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - -"1 - -, ___L __L __1.__1.__1,.__.L __.1 _.1 __.1 __, - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -.I I I I I I I -- - - - -!..- - - - - - - -.!.- - - - - - - -.!.- - - - - - ..- 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Liquid Limit1--------1Plastic Limit Natural I • MonitoringWell Key !Zi"'J Clean Sand ~Cuttings ~Bentonite • Grout E3 ScreenedCasing No Recovery 2-inch a.D.split spoon sample 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling or date of measurement ATD I J[ e• Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING lOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-28 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:32.5 feet Soil Description ell -ellQ.Q. E >- I'll I-en ell .._ell Q..Q E E I'll :::Jenz Penetration Resistance III Cl'tl ......6 ellCell:::J C :::J-iii ;o I'll Standard Blows per foot Other III..:::r ellClzI- 0 10 20 30 40 loose to medium dense, damp, brown, gravelly SAND _(Fill) ----------------------------------------------- - Medium stiff to soft, moist to wet, dark brown, sandy SILT with some fine organics (Fill)- ....+...-__..-.L _S-1 5 MC - ····T···----±---S-2 ~-- - - - - - - - -," •3 MC MC 2 e: I I I I I - - - - - - - --------- - - - - - - - -..S-4 ATD S-3···-1-·- --..-- ·-·I··· ---------.---1--------------1 ~---------------------------------------------- Very soft, wet, gray, SILT with some wood fiber I--horizons ~ ~Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at I--lime of drilling. __'..._L _ L _1...1 _1 _ _ _ _1 _ , -r - r --r -,-r -T --T --T -,-_. ~ ,,, ----------------------I 1 I I I I I-- , __...--...--...--...--...._-.---+--...---.1-- -- - -:..- -!..- ------!-- ----- - ---r--r --r --r--T--1 --T--l--1--', __1..__1...__1..__1 l __.1 •,- - 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Liquid Limit------<.---1PlasticLimitNatural I e MonitoringWell Key rzs:.:J Clean Sand ~Cuttings f'Q9 Bentonite • Grout E3 Screened Casing 2-inch a.D.split spoon sample 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample No Recovery Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement ATD I ]I e ~ Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA·1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-29 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet g a Q)c I-- Soil Description 3.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 4 ±of medium dense, damp, brown, gravelly SAND above very loose, moist, black, silty SAND (coal fragments)with scattered horizons of brown, gravelly SAND (Fill) Q) -Q)CoCoE>. Ill ....en ---+----___.1-_ Q)... -Q)Co.cEE III :::J enZ S-1 Penetration Resistance 1Il 01"C .......6-Q) C Q):::J C :::J'"iii ;;o III Standard Blows per foot Other 1Il...::~Q) C)Z .... 0 10 20 30 40 A:.3 MC --~,--J --I !-..-T --I -..--I"-- I-- I------------------------------------------------ Very loose, saturated, gray, fine SAND with some silty "--zones and scattered fibrous organics ----T--- ----±--- ----+---____-L _ S-2 S-3 T ATD , ,- - - - ----,,• MC MC ---T--- I--t--t---±---- "--Boring completed at11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.0 feet at "--time of drilling. I-- I-- S-4 ____ _ I I _!..t _ , __L _ L _ L _L __.l _1.__.1 __J.__J_ I I I I---1--1--'-,--,--T--l--,--I--, , I I I I-- --- - - - - - - - ---- ---- - - - - - - - - r - - r - - -r - -T - - T - - T - - T - -"'f - -, , i'"- -r --r - -r - -T - - T - - T --T - - , - - . 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample IZSJ Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®~BentoniteNo Recovery T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled: 9/25/02 Figure A-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-30 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet Blows per foot Other Penetration Resistance b. 30 402010o ... Standard "0 ....e Q) ;:''''o I'll..::e CII .._CII a..QE E I'll ;:, l/)Z ..9!CIIa.a.E >. I'll I- l/) Soil Description Medium dense, damp, brown,gravelly SAND (Fill) I-- Very loose, moist grading to saturated, black, red, and I--beige, silty SAND and sandy SILT (coal fragments-fill)----+----__.-1.._S-1 , --r -~,--r--T --T --T--l--1--1--- ", _ L __L __L _1.__1._1.__.1 __.1 __l __. MC=58% •3 MC MC=58% • MC=69% • - - - ----T--- ----±--- ----+---____-L _ S-2 S-3 ~ ATD •--t --- - - - --I - -"I --"I -- . 2 MC MC -~I _!..__!.__ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ A '0 - r - r - - - - r - -T ---- - T -r -_. S-4---I--- ------.--.----.....-------------1 ~Very stiff, wet, gray, SILT with trace fine SAND and fibrous organics f-- I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 5.5 feet at f--time of drilling. ,, _ L _ L __L __1._.L __.l-__.1 _ .1 __.J_, , -- - ,- - -I - -i - -i --,.- -T - --;- -I - -..- ,,, - - -I - -I ---"I --I"--i -- f-- ,- - - - - - - - - --_.,,, , - - -r-- -to - -r-- -.,..- -.,..- -T - - T - - ,. - - .1 - - -~- -----!.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --, f-- --r--r-r--T--T--l--1--1--1--, 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®~BentoniteNo Recovery ~•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natutal • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-31 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:32 feet Soil Description G).._G) a.J:lE E l'll ~ fl)Z Penetration Resistance III Cl"C .......c:G) C G)~C ~..iii :;::le~Standard Blows per foot Other III~G) C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense grading to very loose, damp to moist, I--brown and dark gray, silty SAND with trace gravel (Fill)---_ f-- 5 ---------------------------------------------- ....;;..Very soft. wet. dark brown and gray, SILT with some fine sand and organic material interbeds- I--Loose to very loose, saturated, gray, fine SAND with some fine and fibrous organics f--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at I--time of drilling. - - - - 25 ----l"=----___-.L _ ----T--- ----±--- ----+---____--l _ S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 'Y ATD , --r - -j'"--r --r - -T - T - - T -1 -I --, , A: -;-I -T --;---T - -i - -..,- -.,- -- I I I I- - - - - - - - - ----, , ,.. ..I-_ , - - r -- r -T - T - - T - T - - T - -.,- -1 - -- ,,-------------------. I I I I I, ,, , - --I- _I-__I-__I-__+-__I-_.j.- -.j.- --I - -'...- - - -!...-!..- - --!..- --- --- - - - - __1..1.1 __1_l __!__!__l _, , 3 o 5 4 MC MC MC Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery ~Bentonite 'Y •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-32 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet Penetration Resistance 6- Blows per foot Other Soil Description Medium dense, damp. brown. silty,gravelly SAND (Fill) CIl -CIlQ.Q. E>. CllJ- t/) CIl .._CIl Q..Q E E Cll :::l t/)Z "gQj ... :::l-2 ~Standard C) o 10 20 30 40 '--r--r--,-,--r--T-,--1--1---,~---------------------------------------------- ~Medium stiff. moist to wet. black and brown. silty SAND (coal fragments-fill) I-- ~---------------------------------------------- Very loose. wet, black, SAND with some fine roots and ~wood fibers (coal fragments-fill) ---+----___.1-_ ----T--- ----±--- S-1 S-2 .. ATD .'MC=51% • 5 200W 2 MC ~Very loose.saturated.gray-brown.fine SAND ~Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 4.5 feet at '--time of drilling. I-- - - - ---+---____-.L _S-3 S-4 ----- ----,I.:. , - - -r -f --r -- r - -T - - T - - T - - T - - 1 - -- I I I t ---1----j--i--i--i--i--"'i-- -~_!...- ---!..--_.--j I _,,, - - r - - r - -r - -I - -T --T - - T - - T - - , - - ., __!...1 __.!__J.__1 __1 __, , --r - -r--,--r --r--T--I--7--1--, 4 3 MC 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample !'L::TI Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®~BentoniteNo Recovery..•Grout--Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing Plastic Limit I Moisture Content Natural • Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-33 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet Blows per foot Other Penetration Resistance c:g a CIlc Soil Description CIl -CIlc.c.E >.C111- (f) CIl ..._CIl c.,c E E CII :I (f)z 'gQj .... :I-E!~Standard C) o 10 20 30 40 Medium dense to loose. damp, brown,sandy GRAVEL ~(Fill) MC MC MC 7 2 2 4 :., ,- - - - - - - , __L __L __L __L _1._.1 __J.__.1 __.1 __ •'MC=81:%. r -I"--I -T --'I -,.-T --I --;- , -~- - -!..--!..--!..---- ----- -. ", :..:ATD S-4 S-2 S-1 S-3 ----+----__.-.L _ ----+---___.-l _ ----T--- ----±--- - Loose,saturated,gray,gravelly SAND ----------------------------------------------- - ~-----------------------------------------------~~~-I----~~~Medium stiff wet brown oroanic SILT - ~-----.---------------------------------------- Very soft. wet. dark brown. SILT with abundant fine ~and fibrous organics.and thin interbeds of sand size coal fragments (Fill)u I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.0 feet at ,..-time of drilling. __!...__L . , _ L __L __L __L __.I.__.I._.1 __J.__J __, , --I"--1--,.-I --,.- -T -T --"i --"'i -- I-- , ___I.-_L _ L ;j._.j.__..._ _ _ _.j.__..I __, I-- ,----- _.- --- - - - - - ---I I I I I-- -I I I I I I------------------------------ I j I I I I I, _ L __L __L __1 __!1 _.!.__1 __., I-- 25 Explanation 0 10 20 30 40 50 MonitoringWell Key I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture ContentI'Zi"Z1 J[3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample WI Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit ®229 Bentonite I •INo Recovery ~•Grout --Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-34 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet Soil Description Gl -GlQ.Q. E >-~1- Gl ..._Gl Q..Q E E III :;, I/)Z Penetration Resistance CIl Cl'tl ......6..GlCGl:;,C:;,-iii ; e$Standard Blows per foot Other CIl>,~C)Z 0 10 20 30 40 MC3, - -I --,-I"--.,--T --p - -T --I"- -i - -. _~_L __l _ L __L _J.__.L __.1 _1 __j __e:~ ATDS-1 ----+----___..1.-_ 4 ±innches ASPHALT above 2 ±inches of medium dense, damp, brown,gravelly SAND above very loose, moist to wet, black and brown,silly SAND (coal fraqments-flll) I-- I-- ----1--- --------S-2 2 MC I-- I--Very soft, wet, gray, SILT with saturated fine sand interbeds ----+---____-.L _S-3 -- - - - -••MC ---I--- ...._---.----...-....-------------1 S-4 ",---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --, , o I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 3.5 feet at I--time of drilling. ___________1._1 __1 __1 __.!__1 _. , , ___L __L __L __L __l.__.L _ .I.__i __.1 __ I-- I---c i" - I-- I-- , -r-- - -r - - - - - -"t - -,.- - .,. - -"'t -- I-- ,, - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- I-- I-- ,, , --r --r--r --r --r --r--T--'--'--- , ________l __i l . 25 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Contentf'L::'a ][3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit ®~Bentonite I e INo Recovery ~-GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 Figure A-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-35 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet Blows per foot Other Penetration Resistance 6. 40302010o 'gCii ~ 5 1li Standard(;:i: CIl ..._CIlc..QE Eco:::Itnz CIl -CIlc.c. E >-COl-tn Soil Description 3 ±..ASPHALT above 7.5 ±inches medium dense. I--damp. brown.gravelly SAND (Fill) above very loose, moist. black SAND (coal fragments-fill) ----+----___..1-_ ----T--- ----±--- S-1 S-2 I ATD , __L _ L __L _I.._.L __1._.I.__.1 _.1 __A: - - ,- - -;--;-- -I - -T -,.- -T - -I - -...- - 3 2 MC Me ,"--- I -I I ,--1--- A' - Very soft. wet. gray, SILT and sandy SILT with some fine and fibrous organics- - ~ ----=r---____.1-_S-3 S-4 I I I I I------ - - - - - - - - - - - - ---, •o MC - Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 5 feet at _ time of drilling. ___L L __L __L __1 __1 __1 __1 _,,, , - r -r-- r --f --T --T -- T - -,- -"I - - . ,,, '--r--r--1--'I--,--I--,--i--- ~ I-- I-- 25 ---r--r--r--r--r--T--T--T-1---, , Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 • Natural Moisture Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1 I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rzs:.:J Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®No Recovery I1Q9 Bentonite T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/25/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-36 PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet Penetration Resistance 6- Blows per foot Other Soil Description CD -CDQ.Q. E >-~1- CD '"_CD Q..cEE III ::Ifl)z "C ...c CD::1-o III'":=C) ~ Standard o 10 20 30 40 3 inches asphalt over loose to medium dense, moist. brown, silty, gravelly SAND (Fill)~---------------------------------------------- ~Very loose. moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill) ~---------------------------------------------- ~Very loose. moist.brown-gray-black,silty SAND with some gravel interbedded with COAL TAILINGS (Fill) ~ ~Very loose. moist to wet. gray. silty SAND with some gravel interbedded with black sandy SILT and peaty ~organics (2") ~ ----+.._-___.1-_ ---·T--- ----±--- ----+---____.1.._ --·T--- ---±---- S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 ATD .: --~--!..- -!...-!.-I .!.__.!__, ,, -r -r - - r - -l'-T - - T - - T - --r --.,.- -,, 3 2 3 4 ~---------------------------------------------------_..-._-----r--r--r--T--T--T-~T--T--'-- ~ ~ Medium stiff, moist to wet, brown-gray, sandy SILT with ~some interbedded silty SAND with some organics --T····---±-._-S-5 __L __L __L __L __L _.1 __J.__.l __..I __•,:. --;---- - ---I - -.,, 7 -.-::c---- I------------------------------------------------.-.-------.--. ~Very dense. moist, tan-brown, silty weathered SANDSTONE- - I----------------------------------------------------------.-.- Very dense, moist. light gray, silty SANDSTONE I-- 25 S-6 ___I_!I I _~__~__. A 50/6" I I I I I I- - - - ---- - - - - --- , - r f --T - - T - T --T --,- , -- - r - r -f - -T --T -T - - T ~-T --,- - Explanation Monitoring Well Key I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample r;::;:a Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®~BentoniteNo Recovery T •Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9124102 Figure A·1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-36 PAGE20F 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet Soil Description (I) -(I)Q.Q.E >.~I- (I)... -(I)Q.J:IE E 111 :Icnz Penetration Resistance III Cl't:l ...•6.(I) C (I):I C :1-iii :;:le~Standard Blows per foot Other III1-(I) C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE I-- S-7 .5014" , __L _I..__L __1.__.L __.L __.1 __.1 __.1 __, , , - -r - -I - -I --I - -T - -T -1--i --1- ---:::c---1--------------1 I--Boring completed at 30.4 feet on 9/24/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 9.5 feet at time of '""-drilling S-8 A 50/4" - - -- - -, _ L _!..__1.__!._1.__1 _!__.!__1 __,, , - -r -r - - r - -T -r - -T - T - - T - - 1 - - __L __L __L __L __L __J.__J.__.1 __.1 __ , - -- - - - - - - -----,, ~-+--+-__1-__-1-_...__..__+__+__+__, - - , - - - - - - -!..- -.!..- -1._1.__.!.__..!.___,, ,, - - r -- r - - r - - r - -,..--T - -,.-- T - - ,. - - - 50 Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Liquid Limit f----a__--I Plastic Limit Natural I • E:3 Screened Casing MonitoringWell Key EZJ Clean Sand ~Cuttings I32SI Bentonite • Grout No Recovery 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Groundwater level at time of drilling or date of measurement ATD I ][ e T Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 Figure A·1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-37 PAGE 1 OF 2 Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:42 feet Soil Description G) -G)a.a. E >-~I- G).._G) a..Q E E III :JU)z Penetration Resistance CIl Cl"C .......6-G)c:CI):J c: :J'"iU :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other CIl..~:::-G) C)Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 50 Surfacegrassover I-- I--Looseto mediumdense,moist,brown-black,silty SANDwith somegravel,coal tailings andorganics (Fill) I-- ----+----___-.L _ , .--r -- r - - r -r --T - - T - - T -"I -"I --. _ L _ L __1..__1.l.__J.__J.__.1 __J _. S-1 11 5 ---------------------------------------------- I-- Veryloose,moist,brown-black,silly SANDwith trace I--gravel,interbeddedwith sandySILTand PEAT ----T--- ----±---S-2 -I ,-- --- ---- ---I I I I 3 I--Very soft,wet, brown,PEAT .lQ. I--Veryloose,wet, gray, silty SAND interbeddedwith organicSILTand PEAT Loose,saturated,brown-gray,gravelly SANDwith I--somesilt I------------------------------------------------ Veryloose, saturated,brown, silty SAND with some I--graveland trace organics I-- 25 ----+---____-1-_ ---I--------------- ------- ----+----___.1-_ --T---- ---±---- ---T---- ---±---- S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 ATD ,-- - ------ A; -_I..__!...__!..__!"..!., , - - r -r -T - T - - T T --1--,-r -- - - - ----- - - --_.-- - I I I I I I I I I-- - - - - - ------ - - - - _!..!.__1 __l _!_.t _1_.1 __, 3 2 10 2 Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample D Clean Sand ]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings ®~BentoniteNo Recovery T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA-1 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-37 PAGE20F 2 Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:42 feet Soil Description CI) -CI)a.a.E>o I'll I-en CI).._CI) a..cE E I'll ;:,enz Penetration Resistance II)Ol"'C ...A 6.CI) I:CI);:,e ;:'''l tioI'll Standard Blows per foot Other...;::CI)e Z I- 0 10 20 30 40 Loose, wet,brown-greenish-gray,silty SAND with I--some gravel and trace organics I-- ~---------------------------------------------- _L-. S-8 6 , I"-f -f -i"--,--,.-,.-"'i --;-- 30~Dense, moist, tan-brown, silty weathered SANDSTONE I------------------------------------------------ I-- ---T--- ----±----S-9 , I-L __L L __..._.i._ _ _ _ ___, 40 --- - - ------- - - - - - ---,,, I-- Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE J§..........---::c---- .....-Boring completed at 35.2 feet on 9/24/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 8 feet at time of I--drilling I-- I-- I-- I-- S-10 ..50/2" , - -r - -r - -T - -r - -T - T --T -- T -- 1 - -, , , - -I"- -I - -f - -i"- -I --T - -T --I"- -"j - - ,, -- - - - ------ - - - - ---, - -~-!...--!...- -!..- -.!.- -.!.-..!.- -..!.---.!- -, I-- 50 Explanation I MonitoringWell Key 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample r,:;;;]Clean Sand ]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample ~Cuttings e \l25I BentoniteNo Recovery ~•GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling ATD or date of measurement E3 ScreenedCasing , , - -r - -r - - r - -T - - T - T - - T - - T -- , - -,,, 0 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture Content Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit I •I Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants BORING LOG Date Drilled:9/24/02 FigureA.1 Logged By: CRT ---------------------------- APPENDIXB LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS J-1470 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES All drilling samples were collected using split-spoon and Shelby tube sampling techniques as described in ASTM D-1586 and D-1587, respectively. Samples collected from test pit excavations were obtained from discrete soil layers in order to have a representative number of disturbed, but representative samples. A series of laboratory tests were performed on representative samples during the course of this study to evaluate the index and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Descriptions of the types of tests performed are given below. Visual Classification Samples recovered from the exploration locations were visually classified in the field during the exploration program. Representative portions of the samples were carefully packaged in moisture tight containers and transported to our laboratory where the field classifications were verified or modified as required. Visual classification was generally done in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system. Visual soil classification includes evaluation of color, relative moisture content, soil type based upon grain size, and accessory soil types included in the sample. Soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Moisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples obtained from the exploration in order to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The determinations were made in general accordance with the test procedures described in ASTM: D-2216. The results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Grain Size Analysis A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM: D-422. The results of the grain size determinations for the samples were used in classification of the soils, and are presented in this appendix. Atterberg Limits The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plastic index of representative cohesive soil samples were determined using standard Atterberg limits testing procedures in general accordance with ASTM:D-4318-84. The Atterberg limits are presented in this appendix. Consolidation Test A one-dimensional consolidation test was performed in general accordance with ASTM:D-2435 on a selected sample of the site soils to provide data for developing settlement estimates. The undisturbed soil sample was carefully trimmed and fit into a rigid ring. Porous stones were placed on both the top and bottom of the sample to allow drainage. After seating loads were applied, the sample was inundated and the swell was measured. Vertical loads were then applied to the sample incrementally in such a way that the sample was allowed to consolidate under each load increment over time. The rebound of the sample during unloading was also measured. Direct Shear Test Two direct shear tests were completed in support of the stability analyses completed for this project. The tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D-3080. Samples were subjected to four stress increments (500 to 2,000 pst) and the shear stress was determined at each point. The apparent cohesion and friction angle of the soil for peak and/or residual conditions could then be inferred from a best-fit line through the four points. Organic Content Test The organic content of three near-surface samples were determined by AASHTO T-267, Organic Content by Loss on Ignition. pH and Resistivity Tests Soil chemical analytical tests were completed on three representative soil samples by AMTEST Laboratories in Redmond, Washington. The results of the pH and resistivity tests were used to assess the corrosion potential to concrete and unprotected steel. PLASTICITY CHART ASTMD4318 "/I; 1// //' // /·A.linQ // / // .//' /..'J ./ 1/III~II ./ /•V /l.N /-//11111" Low plast C Inorganic //sana~iIIry SOliS;e CIS IC suts: "1::Iv,,·"::II Inv ..nn siltv /orqanl t clays and silty clays ~I~..~/Medium ./... /I nl",c:til'/ \.//'...vr \.1/-"•/Iv,ay"'/v, '::>1Il}Iclays;\.//UI-l clay ev silts V V ..nn I"..nn"/~l.L/01 "'/n V /...h.._----------/-'...........~ vI..·."~/'"V//U <,,..J IVvf'.IU\,AI,F'''y VI """'y ~y '"'''' 1/hI /'anas /1/ " 60 50 40 ~0 ><CP "30.5 ~ CJ;: III 20IIIn: 10 7 4 o o 10 20 30 40 50 Liquid Limit % 60 70 80 90 100 USCS Received Liquid Plastic Plasticity Symbol Berino Sample Description M.C.(%)Limit Limit Index Comments •8-8 S-16 MH 57 60 33 27..8-11 S-6 MH 57 59 37 22 •8-6 S-4 MH 55 78 47 30 •8-11 S-16 CH 44 66 29 37 Remarks: Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME: Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting DATE OF TESTING:10/7/02 Renton Retail PLASTICITY CHART ASTMD4318 / /'"/./ /./ /./ /"iU;no /./ ./ /./ ././ /..-J ./ /"'!:I''J ./ /""/(jH ./ /./",.....v Low plast C morqaruc /./sanoyano my SOliS;e asnc snts: clavs:~~,r1"~~r1 siltv ./oraanic silt clavs and siltv clavs "b""/Medium ./ /nl"c:ti,.../,././vr \./.&./ /".ay~v, vlll~clays;-,/./U\..I c1av ~v silts V / /~l;L./()I "./ny./UI ..~~r1 "•.,<._----------/--..........-J -J l;L-"////./'"JOO ,IV""'"IIVY',""'y U.v •.,y ry ....'" 1/h,./anos /./ / 60 50 40 ~0 )( CJ) '0 30.E ~'u ~ I/)20IVc:: 10 7 4 o o 10 20 30 40 50 60 Liquid Limit % 70 80 90 100 USCS Received Liquid Plastic Plasticity Symbol Boring Sample Description M.C.(%)Limit Limit Index Comments •B-26 S-3 CL 132 42 34 8 •B-13 S-2 ML 39 46 26 20 •• Remarks: Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME: Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting DATE OF TESTING:10/9/02 Renton Retail CONSOLIDATION TEST BASED ON ASTM D 2435 AND ASTM 0 4546 J-1470 Renton Retail B-37 S-4 10-10.5 Peat Exploration No.:--=:.....::.:...-_ Sample No.:~___=:~_ Depth (tt):.....:..::.....:..::.:~_ Description:....:...:=_ 10/1/02 ELIME Job Name: Job No: Date:-------~....;.;..;;=----'---'---Tested By: Moisture Content (%): Atterberg Limits:LL : Before: 60.3--PL: After: 107.4 PI: Wet Unit Weight (pcf): U.S.C. 73.6 10.00 Stress (tsf) 1.000.100.01 100.00 10 -.-----....--....-,..----....----.oT---....--....-,..,..,..-....--....--"""""1".,..,-20.0 •-.- -10 +--------+--------'-+-\---i---:..-...,.....-H-+t------'"--!-~~+1 ..'"........ ·30 +-----'---'-!---_--__i_--i-..:..,.f ---.:-H----+-____i_........__+! 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 o< 10.0 -=-!:! Q. III~ 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 -50 ~I--__.............u.__'____"_"'_'_'-'-'-__i___-'-'_"'"'-0.0 Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 01140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"11/2"314"3/8"i 10 20 i 50 100 200 ~I I Iv \- ,~ - I I ~"'v"\-I 'n v -1\, 'n -1\ 'n ~'v ...... - "'v I-~ !n 1\ \ -1\.n .V -1\n - " 1 9 2 3 10 .... J:8 C) W 3:7>-m ffi6z LL ....5Z Wo 0:::4W Q. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine COarse 'IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description B-1 S-7 30-31.5 20 7.4 gravelly SAND with some silt PROJECT NO:J-1470A PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc, Renton Retail Slope DATE OF 10/2/02 Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:Stability GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 01140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1 112"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 T50 100 200 I -I I Irv .............. -~r--rv -\ n I~ V" -\"v -I II I I 1\," \- "1\ -\"v \- 0 - ,".v - n - n 2 9 3 10 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description 8-6 S-4 20-21.5 20 30.0 silty SAND with some gravel Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. PROJECT NO: J-1470A PROJECT NAME: DATE OF 10/14/02 Renton Retail Slope Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:Stability GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARDSIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1f'2"3/4"3/8" f 10 20 T50 r 200 ,.. v "l-t-.~- ,.. -~ ,..1\'v , - ',..1\v 1\- ,,.. 'v -\n 'v"\- ,.. -~ 0 - ,,.. .v - n ... - ,.. v . 2 1000.000 9 3 10 I-~8 C) iii 3:7 >-m ffi6z u. 1-5Z Wo 0::4Wa. PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-1 S-5 15-16.5 39 28.9 silty SANDwith trace gravel PROJECTNO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsultingTESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36'12'r 3'1f'2'r 3/S'j 10 20 4,50 r 200 ~ -r-.~ rv 'v 1\- ,,..~ 'v I'- 'n -1\.~ -\:n 'v"\- In 'v - 0 - .,.. .v - (\ - ,.. v 2 9 3 10 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-2 S-2 5-6.5 29 32.3 silty SAND PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Renton Retail DATE OF 10/9/02 Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: ,,, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"6" 3" 1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 T50 100 200 ~I I I -<, ,n 'V '~- n ~'v ""- n -1\ ,n ~ 'v 1\-1\:n -1\n ·v \- ,n - ,n - 0 - n v 2 9 3 10 ~8 C) iii ~7 >-m ffi6zu:: 1-5Z Wo 0:::4W D. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt ICla y BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-2 S-8 30-31.5 25 25.3 silty SAND with some gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton Retail Geotechnicaland EnvironmentalConsulting TESTING: ~-~-----------~------~----~~--~~....., GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"i 10 20 T50 100 200 n I Iv-..... -~~ n -r'.~rv '"- 'n v -~ ·n \'v ~ - 1\'n -\ n 'v 1\- ,n \ -1\,n .v \- n... - ~ 2 9 3 10 I- ::I:8 ~ W 3:7 >-m 3]6 Z LL 1-5Z Wo 0:::4wa. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description 8-4 S-4 10-11.5 20 7.2 SAND with some silt and some gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsultingTESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES u.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"6"3'1(2'3/4"3/8"4 10 20 4\50 100 200 ~I I I -1\nv - ,.. v -~ ,..\ v '\- ,,..~ -\ n 'v - 0 1\ -1\ n \'v \ -f\1(\ -1\1"1 - ,.. v 2 9 3 10 !i:8 ~ W 3:7 ~ ffi6 Z ii: 1-5Z Wo 0:::4wa. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description 8-5 S-4 10-11.5 27 8.4 gravelly SAND with some silt Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME: DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1(2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 T50 100 200 h I I--"'r-.- h V -\ h V I~I- I'I'!I I , t"'L I -,\ 'h 'v -1\n -'\ h 'v 1\-I'I 0 \-i I ," -I " - h V 2 9 3 10 I- ::I:8 ~ W :5:7 )0-m 3]6 Z i:i: 1-5 Z Wo 0:::4W Q. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%) Description 8-6 S-1 2.5 16 20.8 silty SAND with some gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc, DATE OF TESTING:10/4/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 01140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"6"3"11/2"314"3/8"4 10 20 T50 r 200 rv I 1v - rv -1\ ~ 0 I 1\II I I II I-I f\~II I I I-rv v I i I I <,-I I!i I ·n 'v - 'n -\ n 'v 1\- 0 1\, I \I I I I III i I i i-I il. I I I I I .n .v 1\-I 0 f\. '"- " 2 9 3 10 I-~8 ~ W 3:7>-m 3]6 Z LL 1-5Z Wo 0:::4Wa. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay. BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description 8-6 S-3 7.5 18 5.4 gravelly SAND with some silt PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF TESTING:10/4/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsulting ~-----------------------------, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"6"3"1 112"r 3/8"4 10 20 T 50 100 200 ~I I I "l-i-..- ~1\ v I'- "v 1\- rv - ~ -1\nv \- ~ v 1\- 0 \- ," -\ 0- - ~ v 2 9 3 10 ~8 S2w:=7 >-m 3]6 zu: ~5Z W (J 0:::4W D. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description 8-7 S-3 7.5'35 9.7 SAND with some silt and trace gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Iuc. DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES u.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"11/2"r 318"4 10 20 i 50 r 200 ~I -~ ~ v -!\~ "i',. v ~--. " - ~\ -1\ "v \- 0 -\0 -1\,n -\ "... - " 2 9 3 10 I-::I:8 C) W 3:7 >-!Xl ffi6 Zu:: 1-5Z Wc 0:::4W Q. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse TMedium IFine Silt /Cla y BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%) Description 8-7 S-6 20'25 11.2 gravelly SAND with some silt PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsultingTESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1112"r 31a"4 10 20 T 50 r 200 10" -"I"- grt ~ <, - ~eo C)1\ w -1\3:7~ >- 1\m - ffi 6" Z , i:i:- ....5"Z ,,~ 1\w -0 D::4"W D.-1\3n \- 2~ - 1n - ~ 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-8 S-2 5'14 18.1 silty SAND withtrace gravel PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES u.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1 112"r 3/8"4 10 20 T50 r 200 .n -<, ,n. -"'~~ 1'\ , ....... - ·n v -1\ .1'\1\ I~- o,\ \- i"'L v -\.n --, ,n - n ~ - n v 2 9 3 10 ~8 C) W 3:7 >-a:l ffi6 Z u::: 1-5Z Wo ~4W D. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description 8-8 S-4 10'20 22.2 silty SAND with some gravel Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME: DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"11/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 4\50 100 200 .~I I-~r-,- .~ 'v -~ ."1\'v -\."v , - 'n 1\ -\:n."\- .0- - :0 - .n - 0 - "v 2 9 3 10 ~8 ~ W ~7 >-a:l ffi6 Zu:: 1-5Z Wo 0:::4W D. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-8 S-11 45'22 33.1 silty SAND with trace gravel PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SiZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARDSIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1 1/2"r 3/8"4 10 20 T50 100 200 -I Iv -r-, n V - n 1\ -\n v -1\n v \- nv 1\- n v , - 1\0 \- .n .v \- nv - ~ v 2 9 3 10 ~8 C) iii 3:7 >aJ ffi6 Zu:: 1-5Z W CJ 0:::4wa. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description 8-8 S-18 80'19 10.4 SAND with some silt and trace gravel PROJECTNO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1f'2'r 318"4 10 20 4150 100 200 I I"v 1\- I(}j I \- 0 -I I I I r-."I ,r-, "vr ~~- In ,!i ii 1\-i I 1\,0 1\- 1'\ -ill'l i I ~rll·:\o- JI-I IlftlIrl , -1\I{\ \-i II ,.i i 1 i '!'I "re-.L , ~- n 1 2 9 3 10 I- ::I:8 C) W:=7 >-m ffi6 Z LL 1-5Z W U ~4W Q. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description B-9 S-4 12.5-14 2 5.3 gravelly SAND with somesilt PROJECT NO:J-1470A PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/14/02 Renton Retail Slope Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:Stability GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"6" 3" 11/2"r 3/8"4 10 20 \50 T 200 ~I I ""'"~- ,~ '" - ,~ 'v - '''- - ,~1\,,, - '~1\ -I~ "-·v - ,n '" - .~.v -1'\Inv"""'II - ~ " 2 9 3 10 I- :1:8 C)m ~7 >-EO 3]6 Zu:: 1-5Z Wo ~4Wa. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description 8-10 S-6 17'31 9.1 SAND with some silt and trace gravel PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES u.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1f'2"r 3/8"4 10 20 40 50 r 200 1Qn I - 9"\- ~8" C) W - 3:7r1- >1\a1 - a:so ~W 'v 1\z LL - I-5"~ Z , W -f\oa:4"W 'v \ D.- 30 -1\ 2~1\ 14 -1\ 1n I'l. ~- n 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse IMedium Fine Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description 8-11 S-5 15'12 4.6 gravelly SAND with trace silt PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: -----------------------_._._-------------, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1 f/2"3/4"3/8" 4 10 20 T50 100 200 ~I I -~, ~r-, \J ~- "\J 1\-\.\~, -1\"v \- "\J 1\- "v \- 0 ~- ," - n - "v 2 9 3 10 .... J:8 C) jjj 3:7 >-m ffi6 Zu:: ....5 Z Wo 0:::4W D. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description 8-15 S-2 5-6.5 36 20.8 silty SAND with some gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"6"3"1(2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 4\50 100 200 I I In - n \ v \-~n 'v'\- (\. I - J\. -1\ ,n ~v -1\ rv.[\. -i I -. 0 -.....~ ",n -.... -~ 1"1 - n 2 9 3 10 ~8 C) W 3:7 )0-m 3]6 Zu: ~5Z Wo 0::4W D. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration 8ample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description 8-16 8-1,8-2 2.5-5.0 11 14.4 silty sandy GRAVEL composite PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/3/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 T50 100 200 .~I I - .~ 'V" -, .n ~ 'v" -~'nv ~ -1\'1'\ -\:1'\ 'v \- n 'v - iO - ,1'\ -1\n \ -~~~ v 2 9 3 10 ~8 C) iii 3:7 >-III ffis Z u::: 1-5Z Wo 0:::4wa. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description 8-25 S-4 10-11.5 14 2.5 SAND with some gravel and trace silt PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36"12"r 3"1r2"3/4"3/8"i 10 20 T50 r 200 ~ -""~ v - n 'v ~- 'n I~- n 1\--'v -\'n 'V'\- rv 1\'v \- 0 \- In - 0- - 0 2 9 3 10 !i:8 C) jjj ==7>-m ffi6z LL 1-5Z Wc 0::4W D. 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse IFine Coarse 'IMedium IFine Silt 1C1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description 8-25 S-6 20-21.5 29 18.4 silty SAND with trace gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsultingTESTING: ----------------------- SAMPLE I DEPTH (tt)CLASSIFICATION J147083 1 S-3 16.0 -16.5 COAL TAILINGS TEST CONDITIONS: 1.50 1.30 1.40 1.70 I / V V /' V /' t- 17 /' 1/ /' /' .> V / V v 1/ V I / V / 1/It V 1/ V 1.20 0.90 1.00 0.60 0.70 0.80 1.10 0.50 0.40 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.60 if) if) W ~ I- if) ~-cw I if) 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 NORMAL STRESS (ksf) FRICTION ANGLE (degrees) 37 APPARENT COHESION (psf) 340 AVERAGE DRY DENSITY (pet) 49.9 AVERAGE WATER CONTENT ("!o)18.9 Zipper Zeman and Associates, Inc. Miscellaneous Testing Services DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULT PROJECT NO.:2002-092 FIGURE:1 HWADIRS 2002092.GPJ 9/26/02 SAMPLE DEPTH (tt)CLASSIFICATION J1470A 851 6&7 21.5 - 23.5 (SM) silty SAND, occasional organic inclusion TEST CONDITIONS:RESIDUAL 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.30 2.001.751.501.251.000.750.500.25 1/ / /" V .> -: V /"-: V-: / / /" V V /'-: /" V /" V V / V v -: V 0.70 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.60 0.50 0.80 1.20 0.20 0.40 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.50 2.00 1.90 1.40 (f) (f) Wc::: I- (f) c:::«w I (f) NORMAL STRESS (ksf) FRICTION ANGLE (degrees) 35 APPARENT COHESION (psf) 120 AVERAGE DRY DENSITY (pet) 91.0 AVERAGE WATER CONTENT (%)30.4 Zipper Zeman and Associates,Inc. Miscellaneous Testing Services DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULT PROJECT NO.:2002-092 FIGURE:2 HWADIRS 2002092.GPJ 10/25/02 ------_._---------------- Organic Content Test Results ASTMD-2974 Test Location Moisture Content (%)Orzanlc Content (%) B-2 @ 20-21.5 ft.97 12 B-26 @ 7.5-9 ft.57 19 SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION DEPTH (FT)pH RESISTIVITY (ohm-em) B-2, S-2 5-6Y2 6.9 4,600 B-5, S-2 5-6Y2 6.7 9,400 B-8, S-5b 15Y2 5.6 3,300 B-26,S-2 5-6Y2 5.6 4,500 APPENDIXC GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET, FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA,FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION NOTES, AND AASHTO PAVEMENT DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET Include this form in the Geotechnical Report as an Appendix. PROJECT LOCATION:S.Grady Way and Talbot Road.Renton.:Washin~ton Engineer:Thomas A.Jones Phone #:425-771-3304 E-mail:tom.jones@zipperzeman.com Geotechnical Engineering Co.:Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc.Report Date:December 6.2002 Ground Water Elevation:23 to 34 feet Fill Soils Characteristics: Date Groundwater Measured:October.2002 Maximum Liquid Limit: 40 in UL!l?er 4 feet Maximum Plasticity Index: 12 in uvper 4 feet Specified Compaction:95%ASTM:D-1557 Moisture Content Range: -2 to +2%granular -1%to +3%fine-grained Topsoil/Stripping Depth: 6 inches min..limited areas, (see text) Undercut (If Req'd):18 inches below structural slab Compaction:95%ASTM:D-1557 or 98%ASTM D-698 Modified Proctor Results:Not completed on existing coal tailings fill, see report Recommended Compaction Control Tests: 5,000 10,000 8StructuralFillMaximumLiftThickness_-->.<.__in.(Measured loose) Subgrade Design CBR value =N/A for coal tailings fill.assumed 50% at 95%relative comvaction of ASTM D- 1557A for subbase material.see text COMPONENT ASPHALT Standard Heavy CONCRETE Standard Heavy Stabilized Subgrade (If Applicable) Subbase Material (Pit-run Sand and Gravel) 12 12 12 12 Crushed Gravel Base Course 4 4 4 4 Leveling Binder Course Surface Course 3 4 5 6 NOTE:Asphalt and concrete sections are based on minimum subgrade compaction levels of 95%of the modified Proctor maximum dry density.All compacted subbase should have a minimum CBR value of 50. This information should not be used separately from the geotechnical report. ----------------------------------------- FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA Include this form in the Geotechnical Report as an Appendix. PROJECT LOCATION:S. Grady Way and Talbot Road. Renton.Washington Engineer: Thomas A.Jones Phone #:425-771-3304 E-mail:tom.jones@zipperzeman.com Geotechnical Engineering Co.:Zipp~r Zeman Associates.Inc.Report Date:December 6. 2002 Foundation type:Augercast piles u.p to 85 feet IQng and grade beams (see r~ort) Allowable bearing pressure: 75-tons per pile.supported on bedrock. or dense soils Factor of Safety: 2.5 Minimum footing dimensions:Individual:.---"'2.....4ui""n""'ch...,e""s'--Continuous:24 inches Minimum footing embedment:Exterior:----'2=.;;4l..1w·n~chu:e""'s!...-Interior: 12 inches Frost depth: 18 inches Maximum foundation settlements:Total: <1 inch Differential:<0.5 inch in 40 ft. <%4 inch below slabsSlab:Potential vertical rise:_---'''''''-'.....".,.........~..............'''''__ Capillary break (describe):6 inches free-draining sand and gravel.see floor slab section ofr~ort Vapor barrier:Recommended for methane gas and soil moisture Subgrade reaction modulus:150psi/in at 95%compaction ASTM D-1557 Method obtained: CBR correlation Perimeter Drains (describe):Building:4 inch dia.perfQfated PVC Qr corrugated plastic Retaining Walls: 4 inch dia. perfQfated PvC or corrugated plastic. or we~holes Cement Type:_....I __ Retaining Wall: Active: 35 pcf,At-rest pressure:~,Passive: variable. se r~Qrt Allowable Coefficient of Base Friction:--!U..Q. COMMENTS: NOTE:This information shall not be used separately from the geotechnical report. AASHTO 1993 METHOD FOR DESIGN OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT STRUCTURES FOR:PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT,RENTON,WASHINGTON DESIGN LIFE: 20 YEARS DESIGN CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 50%(imported pit-run sand and gravel) INPUT VALUES FOR STRUCTURAL NUMBER (SN) Estimated ESAL (20 yrs)=43,800 (Std.), 335,800 (heavy duty) Reliability (R)=85% Standard Normal Deviation (Z)=1.037 Overall Standard Deviation (So)=0.45 Resilient Modulus (MR)=12,000 psi Effective Resilient Modulus (M R,seasonally adjusted)=4,600 psi Initial Serviceability (Po)=4.2 Terminal Serviceability (Pt )=2.0 Design Serviceability Loss (PSI)=2.2 Structural Number (SN): Hvy =3.4, Std =2.5 Input values for thickness calculations Asphalt layer coefficient (at)=0.37 Base course layer coefficient (a2)=0.14 Base course drainage coefficient (m.)=1.35 Subbase layer coefficient (a3)=0.13 Subbase layer coefficient (m-)=::1.30 Recommended Pavement Section Thicknesses (inches) REFERENCE Specified Specified 1-62 Specified 1-14 II-IS Specified Specified II-I0 II-35 II-18 II-19 II-25 II-21 II-25 Asphalt Concrete Crushed Base Course Pit-Run Subbase Imported Roadbed Standard Heavy 3 4 4 4 o o 12 12 Imported roadbed must have a minimum CBR value of 50 when compacted to a minimum of 95 of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Add 5 inches subbase if subgrade compaction is 90 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density. Verify CBR of import sample. AASHTO 1993 METHOD FOR DESIGN OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT STRUCTURES FOR:PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT,RENTON,WASHINGTON DESIGN LIFE: 20 YEARS DESIGN CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 50%(imported pit-run sand and gravel) INPUT VALUES FOR STRUCTURAL NUMBER (SN) Estimated ESAL (20 yrs)=::43,800 (Std.), 335,800 (heavy duty) Reliability (R)=::85% Standard Normal Deviation (Zr)=::1.037 Overall Standard Deviation (So)=::0.35 Resilient Modulus (M R)=::15,000 psi Effective Resilient Modulus (M R,seasonally adjusted)=::4,000 psi Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction =::300 pci Initial Serviceability (Po)=::4.2 Terminal Serviceability (P t)=::2.0 Design Serviceability Loss (PSI)=::2.2 Input values for thickness calculations: Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture =::550 psi Base course layer coefficient (az)=::0.14 Base course drainage coefficient (m-)=::1.35 Base Modulus (EsB)=::30,000 psi Subbase layer coefficient (aj)=::0.13 Subbase layer coefficient (m.)=::1.30 Subbase Modulus (E sB)=::20,000 psi Recommended Concrete Pavement Section Thicknesses (inches) REFERENCE Specified Specified 1-62 Specified 11-15 11-39 Specified Specified 11-10 Recommended 11-19 11-25 11-19 11-21 11-25 11-21 Standard Heavy Concrete 5 6 Crushed Base Course 4 4 Pit-Run Subbase o o Imported Roadbed 12 12 Imported roadbed must have a minimum CBR value of 50 when compacted to a minimum of 95 of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Add 5 inches subbase if subgrade compaction is 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Verify CBR of import sample. --------------------------------------, FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION NOTES UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE IN THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE LIMITS OF THIS SUBSURFACE PREPARATION ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THAT PORTION OF THE SITE DIRECTLY BENEATH AND 10 FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING AND APPURTENANCES.APPURTENANCES ARE THOSE ITEMS ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING PROPER (REFER TO DRAWING SHEET SP1), TYPICALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE BUILDING SIDEWALKS, GARDEN CENTER, PORCHES, RAMPS, STOOPS, TRUCK WELLSIDOCKS, CONCRETE APRONS,COMPACTOR PAD, ETC. THE SUBBASE AND VAPOR BARRIER, WHERE REQUIRED, DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING AND THE APPURTENANCES. THE SURFICIAL COAL TAILINGS AND EXISTING FILL SOILS SHALL BE COVERED WITH GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL TO ACHIEVE SUBGRADE ELEVATON BENEATH THE FLOOR SLAB AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR ALL FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. THE UPPER ONE FOOT OF EXPOSED FILL SOILS SHALL BE PROOFROLLED AND COMPACTED TO A FIRM AND UNYIELDING CONDITIN PRIOR TO PLACING THE GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL. A PASSIVE METHANE GAS VENTING SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN WASHED ROCK FILL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE METHANE GAS VAPOR BARRIER. A 2-INCH THICK LAYER OF PROTECTIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED OVER THE METHANE GAS BARRIER THAT IS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING REINFORCING STEEL SUPPORTS. ESTABLISH THE FINAL SUBGRADE ELEVATION AT 23 INCHES BELOW THE FINISHED CONCRETE ELEVATION WHEN USING A 9 INCH SLAB TO ALLOW FOR THE SLAB THICKNESS, A 2-INCH METHANE BARRIER PROTECTIVE LAYER, MINIMUM 10-MIL METHANE GAS VAPOR BARRIER, AND 12 INCHES OF 7/8-INCH MINUS WAHED ROCK. SIX-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED METHANE VENTING PIPES SHALL BE EMBEDDED IN THE WAHED ROCK PER THE PROJECT PLANS. THE 2-INCH METHANE BARRIER PROTECTIVE LAYER SHALL BE CONTROLLED DENSITY FILL OR APPROVED IMPORTED GRANULAR MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS FOR ALL CUT AND FILL DEPTHS REQUIRED. EXISTING FOUNDATIONS, SLABS, PAVEMENTS, UTILITIES, AND BELOW-GRADE STRUCTURES SHALL BE REMOVED FROM OR PROPERLY ABANDONED IN-PLACE WITHIN THE BUILDING AREA. EXISTING PILING SHALL BE CUT OFF 3 FEET BELOW THE NEW SLAB AND THEIR LOCATIONS PRESERVED FOR FUTURE REFERENCE DURING INSTALLATION OF THE NEW PILE FOUNDATIONS. REMOVE SURFACE VEGETATION, TOPSOIL, ROOT SYSTEMS, AND UNSUITABLE ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM THE BUILDING AREA. STRIPPED SOILS SHOULD NOT BE REUSED AS STRUCTURAL FILL UNLESS APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. PROOFROLL EXPOSED SUBGRADE. REMOVE AND REPLACE UNSUITABLE AREAS WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL. FILL SHALL BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIALS AND SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO FINAL GRADE BUILDING AREA, BELOW UPPER 4 FEET BUILDING AREA, UPPER 4 FEET P.I. 20 MAX. 12MAX. L.L. 50 MAX. 40 MAX. STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN LOOSE LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 8 INCHES IN THICKNESS AND COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE MODIFIED PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM: D-1557) AT A MOISTURE CONTENT WITHIN 2 PERCENT BELOW TO 2 PERCENT ABOVE THE OPTIMUM. THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PILES BELOW COLUMNS, WALLS, AND FLOORS AS DESCRIBED IN THE SOILS REPORT BY ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED DECEMBER 6,2002,OR SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES APPROVED BY THE OWNER. THIS FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE· A COMPLETE SITE WORK SPECIFICATION. IN CASE OF CONFLICT, INFORMATION COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION NOTE SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. REFER TO THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION NOT COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS MAY ALSO BE FOUND IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED DECEMBER 6,2002.THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS NOT A CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION. APPENDIXD CLIMATE DATA The following climate data was obtained from the internet web page of the Western Regional Climate Center KENT.WASHINGTON Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Page I of 1 KENT,WASHINGTON (454169) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Period of Record :111111948 to 12/3112001 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 5.73 4.32 3.88 2.70 1.86 1.56 0.85 1.15 1.78 3.49 5.88 6.00 39.20 o 4.0 42.1 61.5 o 0.9 ooooooooo 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 oo 1.6 0.5 33.5 35.0 36.5 39.8 44.6 49.7 52.4 52.2 48.3 42.6 37.0 33.9 45.9 50.7 54.6 60.7 67.4 72.5 78.0 77.5 72.0 61.3 51.5 46.0 Average Max. Temperature (F) Average Min. Temperature (F) Average Total Precipitation (in.) Average Total SnowFall (in.) Average Snow Depth (in.) Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 91.5% Min. Temp.: 91.5% Precipitation: 91.9% Snowfall: 90.4% Snow Depth: 88.9% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data coll1pleteness. Western Regional Climate Center,wrcc@dri.edu http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?wakent 10/29/02 KENT,WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary -Precipitation KENT,WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary ..Precipitation I Station:(454169)KENT I I From Year=1948 To Year=2000 1 I Precipitation "Total Snowfall I B~BEJBI 1Day Max.Ilo.;in.llo.;o~in.llo.;in.lk~~m.lIMeanllHi~ly earl tJBDtJDtJb!JBBBBtJtJD I January II 5.731111.751~1 0.831[§]12.3011 19/196711 2011 1311 411 11m1 18.21021 IFebruary II 4.3211 8.8510]1 0.37ICBI2.9511 08/199611 1611 1111 311 1lrnm~ I March II 3.8811 7.901C2Z11 0.441[~12.2511 05/197211 1711 1111 211 01031 10.01021 I April II 2.7011 6.821C2TI1 0.251~12.1911 04/199111 1411 811 111 010][Q]~ I May II 1.8611 4.391~1 0.38IGZlI1.7911 31/199711 1111 611 111 010][Q]~ I June II 1.5611 3.931~1 0.1010]12.2411 12/200011 911 411 111 010][Q]~ I July II 0.8511 3.531~1 0.001~11.1511 01/195411 511 211 011 01 O][Q]0] I August I[IJ]~~I 0.00IGZlI1.7311 18/197511 611 311 011 010][Q]~ ISeptemberl~1 5.751~1 0.001~11.9711 23/197811 911 511 111 010][Q]0] I October II 3.4911 8.211~[Q1!]02I12.1611 09/195511 1411 811 211 110][Q]0] INovemberl1 5.881110.331Q211 0.881~12.5611 20/195911 1911 1311 411 1IrnG]G2l IDecemberI16.001110.791~~~16.0011 27/194911 2111 1311 411 1Irnl13.2I~ 1 Annual 1139.2oI154.541~121.691~16.0011 1949122711 16111 9611 2311 510]1 18.21021 I Winter II 16.061123.621Q211 6.5910Z116.001i 1949122711 5711 3611 1011 31CIQ1131.4102l http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStP.pl?wakent Page 1 of2 10/29/02 KENT,WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary -Precipitation Table updated on Jun 4, 2001 For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums: Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1or more missing months are not considered Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons Winter =Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring =Mar., Apr., and May Summer =Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall =Sep., Oct., and Nov. Western Regional Climate Center,wrcc@dri,(?qy http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStP.pl?wakent Page 2 of2 10/29/02 KENT,WASHINGTON Periodof RecordGeneralClimate Summary -Temperature KENT,WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary -Temperature Page lof2 I Station:(454169)KENT I I FromYear=1948 To Year=2000 1 IMonthly Averagesll Daily Extremes II MonthlyExtremes II Max.Temp.II Min.Temp.I BBB~BBBHighestBLowestB[;J[;J[;J~Max. Mm. Mean HIgh Date Low Date Mean Year Mean Year 90F 32F 32F 0 F ~0[][jZdGZdEJDGDI#DaYsIE}DaY+DaYsl January II 45.91133.511 39.8[]~1 20/1981 I[ill1 18/195011 45.710]1 29.51[¥-1 0.011 0.811 12.611 0.01 February II 50.71135.011 42.910I11 29/1968101 011195011 47.71UDI 34.71[J2J1 0.011 0.211 9.611 0.01 March II 54.61136.511 45.610i11 29/196410Q11 04/195511 49.71~1 40Almi 0.011 0.011 7.911 0.01 April II 60.71139.811 50.31~1 30/19761~1 20/196111 54.31~1 46.3lml 0.011 0.011 3.211 0.01 May II 67AI144.6100~1 20/1963 IOIl I 01/195411 61.31~1 51.91~1 0.111 0.011 0.511 0.01 June II 72.511 49.7I[illl 10011 09l19551rnl 19/195611 65.61~1 57.510I11 0.611 0.011 0.011 0.01 July II 78.011520411 65.21D211 12/19511~1 03/196211 69.71~1 62.01~1 2.011 0.011 0.011 0.01 August II 77.51/52.211 64.810211 09/19811rnl 29/198011 69.510211 60.81~1 1.311 0.011 0.011 0.01 ISeptemberll 72.01148.311 60.1IL§]l 07/198110ill1 27/197211 64AI~1 56.51[J2]1 0.311 0.011 0.211 0.01 I October II 61.31142.61[ill~1 01/19751ml 28/197111 55.51~1 49.11~1 0.011 0.011 20411 0.01 INovemberl[JD]137.011 44.210i11 02/1970101 23/198511 49.31~1 34.71[J]1 0.011 0.311 8.211 0.01 !Decemberll 46.01133.911 39.91~1 27/1980101 23/198311 44AI~1 34.71[J]1 0.011 0.811 12.811 0.01 I Annual 1@]142.110TIlIl0011 195506091[ill1 1950011811 54.31~1 49.3lml 4.311 2.111 57.311 0.11 I Winter II 47.51134.111 40.910I11 196802291[ill1 1950011811 44.61~1 36AI~1 0.011 1.811 35.011 0.01 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?wakent 10/29/02 54.9103l1 67.110]]1 Page 2 of2 0.0110.111 11.611 0.01 3.911 0.011 0.011 0.01 0.311 0.311 10.811 0.01 46.71~1 60.9ICElI:=::::== 48.810]1 I Spring II 60.911 40.311 50.61~1 1963052010Ql1 1955030411 I Summer II 76.011 51.4[§]1 10011 195506091rnl 1956061911 I Fall 1~142.61[}D]~119810907IDI1985112311 55.51~1 KENT,WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary -Temperature Table updated on Jun 4, 2001 For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums: Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons Winter =Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring =Mar., Apr., and May Summer =Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall =Sep., Oct., and Nov. Western Regional Climate Center,l1!r~q[L~du http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-binicliGCStT.pl?wakent 10/29/02 Monthly Average Temperature, KENT, WASHINGTON KENT,WASHINGTON Page 1 of2 Monthly Average Temperature (Degrees Fahrenheit) (454169) File last updated on Oct 24, 2002 ***Note ***Provisional Data ***After Year/Month 200207 a =1day missing, b =2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc.., z =26 or more days missing, A =Accumulationspresent Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not sum (or average)to the long-term annual value. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLENUMBER OF MISSING DAYS:5 Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing. Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing. ~~AR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN nn.AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Am 1948 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z44.28 36.35 40.32 1949 29.47a35.08i 45.98 50.20 57.00 58.98 -----z 62.98 -----z -----z -----z 36.44n50.77 1950 25.73i 39.04 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z47.38g39.04 1951 38.82 41.86 42.08 52.63c57.39 63.83 67.34 64.56 61.24c51.47 44.05a37.40 51.89 1952 36.98 41.83 44.27 51.02 56.82 59.50 66.42 66.61 60.83a54.38b40.10 41.13 51.66 1953 45.66b42.48 46.10 49.82 55.82a58.87 65.21 65.00 60.09b51.68 45.90 41.71 52.36 1954 36.45 43.75 42.98 48.65 55.95 58.65 62.23 61.79 59.62 50.69 49.08 40.81 50.89 195540.1539.54 40.3546.3353.29 60.68 62.18 62.90 58.85 51.21 38.81a37.89 49.35 1956 38.82 35.72 42.02 50.87 58.70a58.70 66.77 64.94 59.13 50.50 41.74a40.58 50.71 1957 32.15 a40.00 45.72a52.45 60.24 62.62 63.60a 63.05 62.43 50.15 41.23 41.29c 51.24 1958 41.63 47.14 44.85d50.95 61.28a65.37 69.66 66.15 59.28 52.77 42.95 44.35d53.87 1959 40.83b41.02a44.81 50.45a53.77 61.02 64.82 61.74 56.45 50.61 42.05a39.05 50.55 1960 38.06 41.00a43.88b49.70 52.92 59.38 65.52 62.68 57.24a51.95 43.10 38.00 50.29 1961 42.85 44.20 45.88b47.75 54.93a63.57a66.48 67.16 57.1Oa49.24 40.03a39.40 51.55 1962 37.42a42.15a42.57a50.93a51.94 59.30 63.85 62.96d60.02b52.27 45.62a41.70a50.89 1963 34.17a46.80 43.92a48.62 55.38f59.65 62.61 62.95a62.75 52.78f44.40 41.03 50.69 1964 41.48 41.41 45.15 47.55a53.65 60.18 64.15 63.26 58.08 52.31 41.37 36.44 50.42 1965 40.45 42.75 44.87 51.02 53.28b60.97 66.68 65.85 57.42 55.19 47.90 39.16 52.13 1966 40.32 42.80 45.50 50.13 55.15 59.90 63.53 64.50 61.32 51.31 45.07a44.21 51.98 1967 42.34 42.93 42.48 46.53 55.89 64.38 65.61 69.15 63.52 54.02 45.73 40.35 52.74 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtavt.pl?wakent 10/29/02 Monthly Average Temperature, KENT, WASHINGTON Page 2 of2 344949434849494946515152 1968 39.85 45.98 47.97 48.95 56.52 60.43 67.03a63.29 59.33 50.84 44.95 35.90 51.75 1969 32.40 40.89 45.79 49.53 58.23a65.63 64.26 61.83a59.78a50.50 44.83 42.31 51.33 1970 40.16 44.88 45.27a47.52 55.12a63.22 65.10 63.68 56.84a50.03 44.73 38.37 51.24 1971 39.90 41.52 42.12a49.18 55.88c 57.55 65.77 67.14c 58.03 50.87 45.25 37.71 50.91 1972 36.71 41.62 47.37 46.98 58.06 60.27 64.63 64.26 56.48 49.08 44.83 37.47 50.65 1973 38.73 43.71 46.26 49.47 56.37 60.62a63.98 60.77 59.37 51.15 41.95 43.26 51.30 1974 38.08 43.57 45.80a50.10 53.50 60.80 62.81 64.98 62.17 -----z -----z42.90 52.47 1975 39.95 41.88 43.84 46.48 55.43a59.75 65.52d62.34 60.38 52.08 44.75 42.48 51.24 1976 42.55 41.53 43.12a49.57 56.22b54.94v63.75a62.63a61.26a51.62a45.21 b42.24 50.88 1977 36.63 45.61 44.18 51.80 53.45 61.27 63.13 68.34c 57.02 -----z42.82 -----z 52.42 1978 43.63 45.54 47.85 -----z 54.90a 63.55b65.76 64.94 58.42 52.97 -----z 36.23 53.38 1979 35.36b41.57 -----z 50.17c56.15h60.60 66.08 65.03a -----z -----z43.27 44.10 50.77 1980 33.36f44.00 -----z52.97a -----z -----z63.63 62.52b60.50k -----z45.80 43.85 52.13 1981 42.76 43.66 48.56 50.07c54.20a58.22c63.09c66.92a59.90 -----z44.27 -----z53.17 1982 40.02 42.38 44.77 47.93 55.35 63.63 62.32 64.45 60.98a52.10 41.33 39.44 51.23 1983 43.76 46.39 48.03 49.83 -----z60.50 64.26 65.45 58.37 50.31 47.33 35.27 51.77 1984 42.94 44.81 49.03 49.23 54.55 60.13 65.45 64.42 60.26a49.18 44.35 36.47 51.73 1985 36.39 39.00 42.95 50.20 55.68 60.97 67.34 64.13 56.82 -----z34.70 34.73 49.35 1986 44.18 43.29 49.60 49.07 55.69 62.80 62.05 67.21 j 58.50 53.60 44.98 40.21 51.27 1987 39.53 45.18 47.87 53.33 56.77 62.13 63.45a64.98 61.20 53.10 47.47 37.79 52.73 1988 39.50 43.55 45.23 50.88 -----z59.48 65.11 64.23 60.02 -----z45.57 40.56 51.41 1989 40.84 34.70 43.63 53.03 55.92 62.77 -----z -----z -----z 51.91c46.08 41.17k48.61 1990 42.85 -----z47.74 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z64.18 51.74 -----z34.9248.29 1991 39.53 47.70 44.27 50.07 55.08 59.80 67.55 67.63 62.00 52.73 47.40 42.95 53.06 1992 43.92 47.02 49.71 54.30 60.61 -----z -----z67.35 60.28 54.00 45.22 38.62a52.10 1993 37.48 40.93 48.24 50.93 -----z61.65 62.45 66.16 61.78 55.53 41.13 40.08a51.49 1994 44.39 40.25 48.34 53.20 59.08 60.98 68.60 67.08 64.38 52.26 41.83 41.05 53.45 1995 -----z45.54 47.56 52.05 60.11 62.98 68.34 64.00 64.43 52.82 49.30 41.65 55.34 1996 40.74 43.78 47.97 53.38 54.66 61.31 a68.87 67.42 58.65 52.35 43.98 39.71 52.74 1997 41.29 42.98 46.40 51.50 60.53 61.82 66.68 69.50 63.25 52.48 48.77 41.21 53.87 1998 43.21 46.46 48.00 51.65 57.13 62.65 69.39 68.03 63.45 53.26 47.02 40.87 54.26 1999 42.93 b43.46a45.84b50.60d53.62c 60.43b64.67 a 66.50d61.98d51.65 d48.38a42.24b52.69 2000 40.85a44.33 45.87a52.75 56.05 62.48 65.85 64.42a61.32 52.89d42.58 41.05c 52.54 2001 42.62 a41.02 b46.55 a49.26c 57.32 59.95 64.50 66.13e60.50b 51.43c 47.14a41.83 a52.35 2002 41.79 42.91 43.18 50.30 55.29 63.18 66.68 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z51.90 Period of Record Statistics 42.85 45.54 50.23 56.07 61.17 65.20 64.87 60.14 51.91 44.30 39.97 51.81 2.65 2.22 1.91 2.22 1.87 1.99 2.08 2.20 1.49 2.84 2.60 1.13 -0.63 -0.08 -0.08 0.60 0.45 0.36 0.27 0.15 0.30 -0.72 -0.30 0.29 47.70 49.71 54.30 61.28 65.63 69.66 69.50 64.43 55.53 49.30 44.35 54.26 34.70 40.35 46.33 51.94 57.55 62.05 60.77 56.45 49.08 34.70 34.73 49.35 MEAN39.87 S.D. 3.35 SKEW -0.92 MAX 45.66 MIN 29.47 NO YRS 51 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtavt.pl?wakent 10/29/02 Monthly AverageMinimum Temperature, KENT, WASHINGTON KENT,WASHINGTON Monthly Average Minimum Temperature (Degrees Fahrenheit) (454169) Page 1 of3 File last updated on Oct 24, 2002 ***Note ***Provisional Data ***After Year/Month 200207 a =1day missing, b =2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc.., z =26 or more days missing, A =Accumulationspresent Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not sum (or average)to the long-termannual value. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLENUMBER OF MISSING DAYS:5 Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing. Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing. r~AR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN.JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN 1948 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z 35.80 29.65 32.72 1949 20.55 29.75 36.61 39.77 43.87 44.03 -----z 50.42 -----z -----z -----z27.41 n37.86 1950 15.77i 31.39 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z42.50g31.39 1951 33.26 35.11 34.52 38.44c44.45 49.37 52.74 50.13 48.63 43.42 36.62a32.16 41.57 1952 31.10 35.34 36.52 38.33 44.13 47.97 51.97 53.45 47.00 44.03b31.60 34.71 41.35 1953 40.90a 35.89 38.32 39.97 44.27a49.23 51.71 51.90 47.20 41.58 37.93 35.42 42.86 1954 30.55 37.04 32.13 39.10 43.81 47.87 49.10 50.84 50.17 41.84 43.40 34.52 41.70 1955 35.52 33.32 33.10 36.90 43.32 49.97 52.10 50.03 48.40 44.42 32.31a31.74 40.93 1956 31.90 29.34 33.77 38.07 45.00a48.43 53.19 51.81 48.07 42.77 35.55a35.29 41.10 1957 25.90a32.86 38.27a42.40 48.74 51.43 51.27a50.13 48.23 40.97 33.23 36.18c41.63 1958 36.61 41.36 35.11d39.47 47.53a53.53 54.42 50.52 47.17 42.03 35.03 37.57c43.36 1959 34.35 33.96a36.65 40.45a41.90 50.17 50.26 47.97 46.40 41.10 32.55a32.55 40.69 1960 31.48 32.75a34.17a39.07 42.84 46.67 49.68 52.03 45.62a43.03 34.97 30.68 40.25 1961 34.61 37.93 37.28b38.37 43.33a50.14a 52.10 51.77 44.03a39.13 30.17a33.03 40.99 1962 29.17a33.19a32.73a40.48a42.61 46.17 50.10 51.17b47.lOa42.81 37.62a35.30a40.70 1963 27.33a37.21 34.07a39.10 41.92e49.13 51.39 50.13a49.93 42.00e 36.87 35.13 41.19 1964 35.58 32.28 36.97 37.43 40.97 49.73 52.23 51.74 46.73 41.16 35.67 30.71 40.93 1965 35.19 35.89 31.61 39.73 41.28b47.47 52.00 53.26 44.70 44.00 40.43 32.55 41.51 1966 34.39 34.39 35.19 38.50 40.94 48.30 51.13 49.84 49.07 41.29 37.72a38.68 41.62 10£::"7 'J£::"I£::'JA A£::'J'J 'JO 'JC £::0 A'J £::C CO O'J C1 'J"I Cl0A AO 1'J AA 0"7 'J"70"7 '1A 0"7 Al0A http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-binicliMONtmnt.pl?wakent 10/29/02 Monthly Average Minimum Temperature, KENT,WASHINGTON Page 2 of3 17U/JU.4.U J"t."tu JJ.J7 JJ.uu "tJ.UJ JU.OJ J1.J4.J1.O"t "to.IJ "t"t.O/J/.7/J"t.7/"t1.7"t 1968 33.87 34.66 39.48 38.57 45.00 49.27 52.87a51.55 49.37 41.19 37.57 30.06 41.95 1969 27.23 32.43 34.45 39.80 44.60a54.07 50.10 48.67a48.77 39.32 37.73 35.42 41.05 1970 33.87 34.57 34.53a37.83 42.48 48.93 50.42 49.13 44.76a39.42 36.67 32.61 40.44 1971 34.00 34.86 34.30a37.60 44.11 c47.97 52.06 53.14c45.70 42.00 39.03 32.52 41.44 1972 30.61 34.28 39.45 37.77 44.74 49.47 50.90 49.81 44.23 37.68 37.10 32.19 40.69 1973 31.16 34.18 38.10 37.47 43.29 49.93a49.77 47.65 46.13 42.26 35.37 37.97 41.11 1974 31.29 37.36 37.50a41.87 44.03 47.73 50.32 50.45 45.63 -----z -----z36.61 42.28 1975 34.10 34.50 35.19 36.23 43.00a48.53 52.00d51.84 45.43 44.45 37.60 36.81 41.64 1976 36.52 34.97 34.53a38.23 44.17a44.96d51.00 53.03a49.83 40.57a36.86a34.81 41.62 1977 29.81 36.07 35.97 39.30 43.19 49.50 50.39 54.10b45.77 -----z35.23 -----z41.93 1978 37.87 38.54 38.03 -----z43.57a50.21 b52.84 53.55 50.03 41.39 -----z29.87 43.59 1979 28.07b 35.18 -----z 39.57b43.86c 47.43 52.39 52.53a -----z -----z 35.37 37.74 41.35 1980 25.68f36.31 -----z41.48a -----z -----z50.81 49.52b47.17 -----z38.07 37.55 42.99 1981 34.42 34.07 37.13 39.48c42.70a48.52c50.31 b50.81 45.50 -----z33.80 -----z41.67 1982 34.06 35.07 34.97 35.43 42.77 49.97 49.45 50.87 48.28a42.03 32.20 32.16 40.61 1983 36.61 38.00 38.19 36.43 -----z50.17 53.55 53.29 46.33 39.13 40.80 28.90 41.95 1984 36.61 36.76 39.87 38.57 43.39 49.43 51.45 49.84 47.90a38.97 37.97 30.06 41.73 1985 29.32 30.39 32.39 40.00 42.42 48.43 50.26 49.45 45.13 -----z27.03 28.48 38.48 1986 36.65 34.79 39.84 38.90 44.13 49.80 50.81 52.48j 48.30 43.84 39.90 33.48 41.86 1987 32.71 36.93 39.06 41.63 45.68 48.93 52.30a51.23 48.40 40.16 40.20 31.55 42.40 1988 32.94 35.52 35.90 41.00 -----z48.27 51.35 51.00 47.53 -----z40.10 34.52 41.81 1989 35.68 25.68 35.32 41.23 45.10 51.37 -----z -----z -----z43.21 c39.90 34.85k39.69 1990 37.97 -----z 38.55 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z 53.93 43.26 -----z29.29 40.60 1991 33.39 40.04 36.71 41.63 47.77 51.40 56.39 57.52 50.67 43.06 42.00 37.45 44.84 1992 37.55 38.76 39.45 44.73 48.55 -----z -----z 55.77 50.20 46.23 39.17 33.13a43.35 1993 30.84 31.04 39.48 43.67 -----z 53.33 54.52 56.10 49.57 47.26 33.03 33.87 42.97 1994 39.26 33.93 39.29 44.87 49.39 51.03 57.00 56.39 53.83 44.13 36.17 35.06 45.03 1995 -----z38.86 37.52 43.10 49.6853.2358.4554.6553.97 44.48 43.23 35.35 46.59 1996 35.58 35.03 39.19 44.73 46.58 51.34a57.52 56.42 50.60 45.48 38.30 34.65 44.62 1997 35.65 35.64 39.61 42.73 50.87 53.80 57.06 59.00 53.43 46.29 40.37 34.00 45.71 1998 37.58 39.54 40.23 41.83 49.71 53.17 59.23 57.39 52.77 45.29 41.03 35.71 46.12 1999 37.86b37.44a 37.86b38.73 d44.36c 52.21b54.57 a 57.22d49.38d42.63 d42.00a37.62b44.32 2000 34.73a36.24 38.07a43.53 47.97 52.73 56.35 54.70a52.23 45.48d35.00 34.61c44.30 2001 36.13a32.15b 38.00a 40.67c46.58 51.30 54.58 56.15e51.14b44.25 c41.38a35.73 a44.01 2002 37.26 35.29 36.29 42.07 46.32 53.13 56.55 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z43.84 Period of Record Statistics MEAN33.64 34.95 36.57 39.84 44.68 49.80 52.54 52.28 48.34 42.59 37.05 33.89 42.16 S.D.3.78 2.84 2.35 2.33 2.44 2.24 2.54 2.73 2.63 2.20 3.42 2.66 1.62 SKEW -0.97 -0.53 -0.29 0.37 0.83 -0.07 1.01 0.64 0.50 -0.09 -0.46 -0.25 1.05 MAX 40.90 41.36 40.23 44.87 50.87 54.07 59.23 59.00 53.97 47.26 43.40 38.68 46.12 MIN 20.55 25.68 31.61 35.43 40.94 44.03 49.10 47.65 44.03 37.68 27.03 28.48 40.25 NO 51 53 51 51 48 50 49 49 49 44 49 49 36YRS http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtmnt.pl?wakent 10/29/02 Monthly Precipitation, KENT, WASHINGTON KENT,WASHINGTON Monthly Total Precipitation (inches) (454169) Page 1 of2 File last updated on Oct 24, 2002 ***Note ***Provisional Data ***After Year/Month 200207 a =1day missing, b =2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc.., z =26 or more days missing, A =Accumulations present Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not sum (or average) to the long-term annual value. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MISSING DAYS:5 Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing. Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing. JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN YEAR (S) 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.91 7.51 3.51 2.25 0.49 1.23 O.OOz 0.42 O.OOz O.OOz 0.00 z 0.00x 0.00 z 2.33 1.90 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 7.39 7.31 3.68 0.62 1.23 0.10 0.64 1.00 2.38 6.09 4.08 2.66 2.86 1.95 1.03 0.75 0.54 0.56 0.17 1.08 11.75 3.42 3.04 2.70 3.26 2.33 0.67 1.86 1.18 4.97 7.93 3.98 2.45 2.81 2.04 1.97 1.92 1.29a 1.85 1.54 3.22 4.04 3.02 4.18 1.64 1.20 1.96 0.35 1.31 7.52 8.65 1.81 5.76 0.25 0.70 1.94 0.52 0.91 2.26 6.95 3.19 5.49 6.25 2.61 1.72 1.11 1.21 1.17 0.86 3.53 7.52 6.18 2.34 3.64 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.35 1.29 3.82 8.25 2.95 4.06 3.47 1.50 2.13 0.66 0.42 3.57 2.69 5.65 4.00 3.99 3.18 3.43 0.87 0.00 1.78 1.38 4.43 7.90 8.85 4.55a 2.68 3.43 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.67 3.20 2.40 2.48 3.13 2.10 2.20 0.83 0.54 1.42 2.13 3.67 2.27 5.30 2.47 3.14 0.82e 1.91 1.22 0.95 1.17 3.38 9.92 1.48 3.70 1.10 0.97 3.04 1.10 1.49 2.11 1.20 5.80 3.85 0.44 3.68 1.56 0.48 0.47 2.59 0.54 2.93 5.00 2.07 4.31 1.80 1.47 1.25 1.34 0.47 1.82 2.58 9.48 2.93 3.90 2.34 0.38 1.83 0.05 0.00 0.99 6.91 6.85 6.32 O.OOz 30.70n O.OOz 6.75f 4.90 3.75 0.88 5.13 7.02 6.31 7.16 5.75 8.48a 10.42 2.07 5.79 3.21 6.36 8.13 7.87 7.03 6.59 8.37 2.70 3.81 6.20 8.96 5.48 8.86 4.86 8.51 6.01 4.58 6.69 5.56 7.59 2.62 3.98 13.17 16.32 4.23 39.09 21.69 48.51 40.69 47.34 37.61 36.71 42.58 43.32 39.78 42.96 35.34 36.35 40.63 33.61 35.26 35.41 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?wakent 10/29/02 Monthly Precipitation,KENT,WASHINGTON Page 2 of2 1968 6.91 5.51 5.09 1.43 1.57 3.49 0.66 5.13 2.12 4.18 5.99 8.39 50.47 1969 6.43 3.71 2.12 4.45 3.00 1.23 0.47 0.21 5.70 1.47 2.76 6.95 38.50 1970 8.49 2.47 3.63 3.58 1.48 0.67 0.55 0.57 2.84 2.84 5.82 9.92 42.86 1971 5.78 4.05 7.54 2.65 1.59 3.13 0.48 0.60 4.27 3.75 5.84 6.78 46.46 1972 6.65 8.80 6.39 5.17 0.67 1.85 1.59 1.45 4.36 0.90 3.91 8.70 50.44 1973 4.59 1.81 2.38 1.35 1.69 3.30 0.08 0.18 2.12 3.33 8.33 8.71 37.87 1974 8.12 4.90 5.98 3.09 2.44 1.31 1.47 0.02 0.17 O.OOz O.OOz 6.63 34.13 1975 6.83 5.86 3.35 2.80 1.57 1.02 0.71 4.36 0.00 8.21 5.45 7.35 47.51 1976 5.81 4.82 2.95 2.28 1.68 0.65 1.16 3.22 1.21 2.18 0.99 2.68 29.63 1977 2.51 1.40 4.08 0.67 3.73 0.75 0.42 3.98 2.59 O.OOz 5.69 O.OOz 25.82 1978 5.67 3.59 2.79 O.OOz 1.96 1.27 1.52 1.30 5.75 0.85 O.OOz 1.86 26.56 1979 2.55 6.17 O.OOz 1.49 1.33 0.36 1.02 1.24 O.OOz O.OOz 2.56 10.79 27.51 1980 4.68 5.03 O.OOz 3.64 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.69 0.88 1.77 O.OOz 9.92 7.98 34.59 1981 2.83 5.15 2.87 2.07 2.60 2.78 1.23 0.37 3.53 O.OOz 5.23a O.OOz 28.66 1982 4.98a 7.25 3.95 2.00 0.69 1.11 0.72 0.59 1.84 4.18 5.20 6.25 38.76 1983 7.07 4.76 4.40 1.51 O.OOz 2.45 3.53 2.33 2.24 1.17 8.76a 5.56b 43.78 1984 4.21a 4.51 4.40a 3.06 4.39a 3.93 0.00 0.12 1.13 3.12 8.64 5.57 43.08 1985 0.83 2.66a 3.35a 1.32a 1.24 2.33 0.05 0.86 2.11 O.OOz 4.60 2.34 21.69 1986 7.54b 4.34 2.69 1.79 1.97 0.69 0.87 0.05 1.80 4.01 8.19 3.33a 37.27 1987 5.42a 3.13 5.53a 3.10 2.68a 0.16 0.52a 0.36 1.27 0.31 2.76 6.96 32.20 1988 4.24 1.13 5.10 3.98 O.OOz 1.64 0.59 0.36 1.88a O.OOz 9.04a 3.53 31.49 1989 3.29 3.16 5.21b 2.79 2.63 1.40 O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz 3.08c 5.51 5.04i 27.07 1990 8.35a O.OOz 3.05 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.10 6.90 O.OOz 3.20a 21.60 1991 4.49 5.33a 5.67 6.82 1.63 1.37 0.29 1.97 0.01 1.76 5.38 3.02c 37.74 1992 7.04c 2.98b 1.09 3.40a 0.40 0.00 z 0.00 z 1.26 1.00 2.75 5.77b 4.07 29.76 1993 4.20 0.37 4.67 4.84b 0.00 z 1.89e 1.50a 0.28 0.00 1.88 1.34a 5.16b 26.13 1994 3.07a 6.36 3.71 3.30 1.29 1.39 0.32 0.32 1.28 3.59 5.35 7.71 37.69 1995 O.OOz 4.49 3.89 1.69 0.75 1.68a 1.30 2.22 1.36 4.23b 8.98 6.50 37.09 1996 7.69a 8.67 2.17a 6.12 2.74 0.52 0.91 1.31 2.08a 5.77b 6.16a 10.40a 54.54 1997 6.35a 2.12a 7.90 4.12a 3.85 2.32 1.57 1.09 3.05 5.56f 3.61a 3.12b 39.10 1998 7.57 2.76 3.56a 0.90 2.45c 1.34b 0.50 0.29 0.62 3.12a 10.24a 9.43 42.78 1999 7.38b 6.81a 4.64b 1.45c 2.01b 1.78a 1.10 1.56 0.12 2.38b 10.33a 4.95 44.51 2000 3.71a 5.71 2.42a 1.50 2.85 2.94 0.50 0.39 1.22 4.15 2.85 2.49 30.73 2001 2.74 1.59 3.00a 3.72b 1.36 3.92 1.22 1.85 0.79 3.27b 11.23 6.39a 41.08 2002 5.92 4.31 3.31 3.48 1.25 2.00 0.84a 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z O.OOz 21.11 Period of Record Statistics MEAN 5.68 4.27 3.85 2.74 1.84 1.62 0.85 1.17 1.76 3.49 5.99 6.01 40.03 S.D.2.39 2.04 1.48 1.35 0.97 0.96 0.64 1.12 1.34 1.90 2.66 2.28 6.51 SKEW 0.04 0.41 0.55 0.68 0.67 0.68 1.59 1.72 1.18 0.67 -0.07 0.15 -0.22 MAX 11.75 8.85 7.90 6.82 4.39 3.93 3.53 5.13 5.75 8.21 11.23 10.79 54.54 MIN 0.83 0.37 0.44 0.25 0.38 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.88 1.86 21.69 NO 52 52 51 52 49 50 49 50 49 43 49 49 36YRS http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.p1?wakent 10/29/02 Monthly Total Snowfall,KENT,WASHINGTON KENT,WASHINGTON Monthly Total Snowfall (Inches) (454169) Page 10f4 File last updated on Oct 24,2002 ***Note ***Provisional Data ***After YearlMonth 200207 a =1 day missing, b =2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc.., z =26 or more days missing, A =Accumulations present Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not sum (or average) to the long-term annual value. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MISSING DAYS:5 Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing. Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missmg. ~~AR JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN ANN 1~~7-O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz 0.00 1948-49 0.00z 0.00z 0.00z 0.00z 0.00 0.00 2.30 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.80 1949-50 O.OOz 0.00 O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz 2.00n22.l0i 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 1~5l0-O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOf 1.10 0.00 7.60b 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.70 1951-52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.10 1952-53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1953-54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30 0.00 O.OOb 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30 1954-55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 1955-56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50a 7.00 0.30 6.lOd 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.90 1956-57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5.80 3.00e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.30 1957-58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1958-59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOc 0.00 O.OOa O.OOw O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1959-60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOa 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtsnf.pl?wakent 10/29/02 Monthly Total Snowfall,KENT,WASHINGTON Page 2 of4 1960- 61 1961- 62 1962- 63 1963- 64 1964- 65 1965- 66 1966- 67 1967- 68 1968- 69 1969- 70 1970- 71 1971- 72 1972- 73 1973- 74 1974- 75 1975- 76 1976- 77 1977- 78 1978- 79 1979- 80 1980- 81 1981- 82 1982- 83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.20 18.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00s 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 b 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 3.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 z 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00e 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 e 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00z 0.00 0.00z 0.00z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtsnf.p1?wakent 10/29/02 --- Monthly Total Snowfall,KENT,WASHINGTON Page 3 of4 1983-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0084 1984-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0085 1985-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00z 0.00z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0086 1986-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0087 1987-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.0088 1988-0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 0.00z 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.0089 1989-0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.0090 1990-0.00 z 0.00z 0.00 0.00 0.00z 0.30 b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3091 1991-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.0092 1992-O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.0093 1993-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0094 1994-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0095 1995-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0096 1996-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.3097 1997-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0098 1998-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0099 1999-0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 2000-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001 2001-0.00 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0002 Period of Record Statistics MEAN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.86 1.55 0.51 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.48 S.D.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 2.31 3.49 1.58 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.40 SKEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.99 3.91 3.20 3.22 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.48 MAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 13.20 18.20 6.50 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.40 MIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NO 48 50 49 44 48 46 47 50 50 52 49 50 30YRS http://www.wrcc.dri.edulcgi-bin/cliMONtsnf.pl?wakent 10/29/02