Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA87-082 (3)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS CENTRON CITY OF RCNTON "1 0 --S-FP7141V Centron Corporation 3025 112th N.E. BUILDING/ZON!NC, r)PPT Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 822-2888 • OF RF I � ECF: 0 z City of Renton Lu: -b9gr P ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ED sErott' Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse Impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify Impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental Impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline. and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining If there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as"proposal,""proposer,"and"affected geographic area,"respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lexington Ridge 2. Name of applicant: CENTRoN 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Colin Quinn - CEN RON 3025 112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98009 4. Date checklist prepared: 9/1/87 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Single Phase Project. Ojnstruction to commence upon issuance of building permits. Late 1987 or early 1988. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. - No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. July 1987 Transportation Planning & Engineerings, Inc. Traffic Analysis. A soils report is presently being prepared and will be submitted shortly. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Site Plan Approval Clearing, grading, and all other necessary Building Permits permits. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Construction of 360 multi-family rental units in approximately 15 buildings on a 13.4 acre parcel, together with recreation building and associated parking and landscaping. Approximately 40% of the site will be retained in open space. Recreational facilities include a swimming pool, sauna, weight room, lounge, sunbeds, racquetball court, tot lots, and trails. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topography map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The property is located between N.E. 3rd St. and N.E. 4th St., West of Edmonds Ave. N.E. and East of the Bronson/N.E. 3rd St. intersection in Renton, Washington. • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH • a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, oiling, illy, steep slopes, mountainous; other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 35%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of anrin,!Itural soils, specify them and note any prime tarmland. Sand, Gravel and Glacial Till. Soils report by Golder .Assoc to be Drovided d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. l .' - 2 - e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading,proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 250,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill will occur which will originate on site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as the result of grading on site. However, measures are proposed to minimize erosion (see h). g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example, asphalt,or buildings)? Approximately 60% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: During construction erosion will be controlled by means of a temporary erosion sedimentation control program approved by the City. A permanent City-approved drainage system, hvdroseeding and landscaping will control long term erosion. The project will comply with all recommendations of the soils report. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Some dust may occur during construction. Minor long term emissions will result from automobiles and fireplace wood smoke. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction dust will be controlled with water. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or In the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,. wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows Into. No. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. - 3 - 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximately quantities if known. Scffk surface water diversions may occur through the city-approved storm system. The quantity and outfall location will be controlled and approved by the City. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so. note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. Some storm water may be discharged to ground water through the city-approved retention/detention system. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, If any (for example: Domestic sewage; Industrial, containing the following chemicals .: agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. Site is served by sanitary sewers. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,describe. Storm water will be collected,and discharged by means of a system approved by the City. The water will be discharged at a rate approved by the City to the existing drainage course. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The storm water system will be designed to incoipurate both natural and mechanical f4.1tration to the greatest extent feasible. Site is almost all gravel, with a high percolation rate. - 4 - d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water Impacts, if any: The storm water control system will be reviewed and approved by the City. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ee deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other d evergreen tree:fir, cedar, pine, other d Shrubs o grass o crop or grain o Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other o other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be :-emoved or altered? Existing vegetation will be altered in the developed portions of the site where necessary for roads, building and utilities. c. List threatened or endange^ed species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The undeveloped Portions of the property will remain undisturbed. Supplemental landscaping will be provided in the developed areas of the site. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbird other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. - 5 - d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Supplemental landscaping will be added which will enhance wildlife habitats. Existing vegetation will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,etc. The primary energy source will be electricity for lighting, heat ar.'I other electric needs. Gas may be utilized as a minor energy source for the recreation building. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy Impacts, if any: The construction standard for this proposal will meet or exceed energy code requirements. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. I) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Minor traffic and residential noise currently exists. - 6 - 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term daytime construction noise and long term noise typical of residential uses will occur. Residential noise typically occurs during waking hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction noise will be muffled and limited to construction hours. Adjoining residents will be buffered by existing and new landscaping to avoid noise impacts to the greatest extent possible. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The property is currently vacant. The site abbuts road right of ways to the north and south. East of the site is multi-family residential. A church is located at the northeast property corner. Multi-family units abut the West property line. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-4 Residential Multi-Family. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? High Density Multi-Family. Small portion on the south is designated greenbelt. g. If applicable, what Is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The sloped frontage on N.E. 3rd Ave. frontage are designated as a greenbelt area. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 475. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A - 7 - I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. if any: See attachnxnt. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 360 Middle Income Rental Units. b. Approximately how many units, if any. would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed. 35 feet maximum building height. Principal exterior building material is cedar. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Structures will be residential in appearance to be compatable. The colors will be earth tones to blend with surrounding uses. 40% of the site will remain natural open spaces; the developed portion will be extensively re-landscaped. • 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The exterior lighting from this proposal will be typical of residential neighborhoods. Some light will occur from dusk to dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Exterior lighting will be designed to avoid glare to adjoining properties. - 8- 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal is designed to be compatible with the surrounding multi- family uses. Landscaping, retention of open space, and other features contribute to compatibility with surrounding uses. This proposal is also compatible with the City's existing comprehensive plan designation of High Density Multifamily on the site, as well as all Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for multifamily development, and is in confor- mance with the R-4 zoning designation. Site plan approval will further assure that the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. 12. Recreation - a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Cedar River Park and Liberty Park are located in the area. The open space on site and the Puget Power right of way adjacent to the east of the property function as possible recreation areas. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:, This development will include a recreation center including a swinming tool, sauna, weight roan, lounge, sunbeds, racquetball court, tot lots, trails and outdoor passive open space will be provided. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: significa E'disooveries will be retorted to the proper authorities. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See attached traffic analysis prepared by Transportation Planning and Engineering Inc. The site is served by Bronson Way, N.E. 4th, and N.E. 3rd. Access will be from driveways on Bronson and N.E. 4th. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? Transit service is available on N.E. 4th St. and Bronson. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?.____ Approximatee1v 580 parking stalIs—will.be provided. None will be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roau:, ur streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. ' - 9- • e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If kn WB_indicate when peak volumes would occur. proximateii 2535 hicular trips per day can be anticipated. Of these, 193 are expected during AM peak hour and 231 during PM peak hour. w ^ g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation Impacts, If any: 11\� None. The Traffic Analysis concludes that the development of the project is not expected••tb-cause a significant change in overall traffic operating conditions around the project. All intersections are expected to continue to operate at the sane LOS after completion of the project. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Minor increase in typical public services.demands will occur from this proposal. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The increased property tax resulting from development of this site will offset the minor increased demands. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities current -vailable at the site: cplectricit>) f atural gas n refuse servic; telephone sanitary sewer septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or • in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Water and sanitary sewer by the City of Renton. Power by Puget Power. Gas by Washington Natural Gas. Telephone by Pacific N.W. Bell. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: CENTRON/Colin .. nn • • • - 10- n Golder Associates CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MINING ENGINEERS September 11, 1987 Our ref: 873-1268 Centron 3025-112th NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 ATTENTION: Mr. Colin Quinn RE: DRAFT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY CAN-AM PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Quinn: We are pleased to present our preliminary geotechnical engineering study of the proposed Can-Am property in King County, Washington. The site is located as shown on the attached Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We have proceeded based on the August 19, 1987 verbal authorization from Mr. Darrell Fisher. Our scope of services for this project was outlined in our letter dated August 25, 1987. The purpose of our study was to explore and evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the Can-Am property. The results of our exploration are used as a basis for formulating preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding the proposed development will generally consist of a series of two or three story, wood frame, residential apartment buildings and the accessory paved driveways and parking areas. Although the project is in a very early stage of planning, we understand that a significant amount of material will be exported from the site and that rockeries will be used throughout the development. We expect the building foundation loads will be relatively light and that no below- grade structures will be included. GOLDER ASSOCIATES,INC.•4104-148TH AVENUE N.E.,REDMOND(SEATTLE),WASHINGTON 98052,U.S.A.•TELEPHONE(206)883-0777•TELEX 5106002944 OFFICES IN CANADA•UNITED STATES a UNITED KINGDOM•AUSTRALIA September 11, 1987 2 873-1268 2. SITE DESCRIPTION The site covers approximately 13.4 acres and is generally triangular in shape. The property is bounded on the northwest by an apartment complex and N.E. 4th Street, on the east and northeast by a church and the Puget Sound Power & Light Company right-of-way and on the south by N.E. 3rd Street. Access to the property can be made from Bronson Way N.E. and N.E. 4th Street. The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 5 horizontal to 1 vertical (5H:1V) from a topographic high in the southeast corner. In the northeast corner of the site the slopes dip steeply to the east and north down to an existing building and parking area. Although these slopes are vegetated, it appears that material was previously excavated from this corner of the site to form the existing slopes. In addi.tion, several small pits were observed along the eastern border to the property. The pits are about three to six feet deep and 20 to 30 feet in diameter. The south property boundary slopes steeply (1H:1V) to N.E. 3rd Street. An abandoned road exists on the property and generally runs east-west and bisects the site. The western half of the road is asphalt paved and covered in blackberry bushes and a few young alder trees, while the eastern half is an unpaved road grade and covered with a variety of bushes and grasses. The site is heavily wooded with fir, maple, hemlock, and cottonwood trees with ground cover consisting of a variety of bushes, including blackberry bushes. The property appears to be well drained with no wet areas observed during our site visit on August 24, 1987. 3. FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions were explored as part of this preliminary study on August 31, 1987 by excavating a series of ten test pits. The test pits had a maximum depth of 19.0 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits completed for this study are presented on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Logs of all the test pits are presented in the Appendix to this report. The test pits were located in the field by pacing from existing site features. The locations should only be considered approximate. Test pit elevations were interpolated from the boundary and topographic survey for the Can-Am property, entitled "Preliminary Site Plan ", prepared by Centron Development Corporation, August 4, 1987. The test pits were excavated under the observation of a staff engineer from our firm. Our engineer examined and retrieved disturbed but representative bulk samples of the soils encountered in the test pits. The soils encountered were classified and the pertinent information ! recorded, including soil sample depths, statigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence. Golder Associates September 11, 1987 3 873-1268 All samples were sealed to prevent moisture loss, and returned to our laboratory for further examination. The stratification lines shown on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The soil and groundwater conditions are those recorded for the dates indicated, and may not necessarily represent those of other times or locations. 4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Soils In general the soils encountered in our test pits consisted of the following: • Compact, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, little organics (SM) (TOPSOIL) (Unit 1) • Very dense, brown, fine to medium SAND and fine GRAVEL (SP) (FILL-OLD ROAD SUBGRADE) (Unit 2) • Loose to compact, brown, fine to medium SAND (SP) (Unit 3) • Dense, brown, sandy GRAVEL (GP) (Unit 4) • Dense, grey, silty, fine SAND, trace clay, trace gravel (SM) (Unit 5) • Dense, grey, silty, fine SAND and CLAY (SC) (Unit 6) • Very stiff, grey, sandy SILT, trace clay (ML) (Unit 7) The subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits indicated that the property is underlain by glacial deposits. The deposits consist of compact stratified sand and gravel and dense non-stratified silty sand. In general , the entire site was covered with a topsoil (Unit 1) which varied from 0 to 0.3 feet. Underlying the topsoil was a sand deposit (Unit 3) which was encountered in all of the explorations and is considered to generally exist across the entire site. During excavation of Testpit TP-2, a considerable amount of caving was observed in the sand in Unit 3. The thickness of Unit 3 varied between 4 to over 19 feet. Underlying Unit 3 the testpits encountered various mixtures of sand, sand and clay, gravel and silt (Units 4, 5, 6 and 7) to the maximum depths explored. Due to the nature of glacial deposition, the stratigraphy can be highly variable. It must be noted that it is not possible to ensure that the sand and gravel deposits are continuous at depth between the test pits and exposed cuts. Furthermore, although no buried deleterious material was found in the excavations, there is no insurance that areas adjacent to and within the site are free of organic pockets or other such debris. Golder Associates September 11, 1987 4 873-1268 4.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits. The depth to the groundwater table on this site is expected to fluctuate with. changing seasons and local rainfall . We anticipate zones of seepage may be encountered during the wetter months of the year from the more granular native soils. 5. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Based on the results of our geotechnical engineering study, we believe the site can generally be developed as planned. The native soils ( encountered in our test pits are generally compact to dense and adequate to support the proposed structures with shallow conventional isolated or continuous spread footings. However, isolated areas of loose sand deposits may be encountered, similar to the materials in-Testpit TP-2. If loose deposits are encountered in excavations for footings, the material will have to be replaced or compacted prior to footing construction. 1 The procedures for overexcavation and replacement are discussed in the earthworks section of this report. These and other geotechnical related points are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. 5.2 Foundations Shallow conventional spread footings may be used throughout the site if they are founded in the compact to dense, native sand and gravel or very stiff silt. Conventional foundations may be founded on structural fill founded on the above mentioned native soils. The structural fill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D-1557-78. Foundations on the native soils may be designed for a minimum allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf. Higher bearing pressures can be assigned in some areas of the site once specific building locations are selected, and if a more detailed subsurface exploration and engineering analysis ( is completed. 5..3 Floors In general , the site soils are suitable to support conventional slab on grade floors. The slabs should be underlain by a capillary break consisting of at least 4 inches of clean free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing lesis than 3 percent fines based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction. A vapor barrier consisting of a reinforced heavy plastic sheeting, should be included beneath the slab and atop the capillary break. Golder Associates September 11, 1987 5 873-1268 Framed floors mayalso be used if a vapor barrier is placed over any P areas of bare soil and adequate venting is included in the crawlspace. • 5.4 Rockeries If permanent cut or fill slopes, steeper than 2H:1V are desired, they should ideally be restrained by a reinforced concrete retaining wall . However, if periodic maintenance can be tolerated, a rockery wall could be used to protect the cut face of stable, natural slopes. If a rockery is selected, it should be constructed according to King County requirements and be limited to less than 8 feet in height. Rockeries over 8 feet high are not recommended'. Rockeries greater than the 6 foot height should be constructed under full-time observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. The bottom course of each rockery should be founded on at least a medium dense native soil . It is our understanding that grading of the site will require substantial cuts of 6 to 30 feet across the site, which will result in the majority of the loose to compact, brown, fine to medium sand being removed from the site. Therefore, all rockeries will be located in the denser more well graded deposits. However, if retaining walls are located in the loose to compact, brown, fine to medium sand, rockeries will not be suitable and alternative methods for support will be required. It should be noted that rockeries are not designed to act as retaining structures. The primary functions are to face stable slopes and protect them from erosion and sloughing. Rockeries are not recommended for support of fill slopes. 5.5 Earthworks Site preparation in most areas will consist of stripping all vegetation, topsoil , and surficial materials from the areas beneath footings, floor slabs and pavements. We expect all the site soils can be excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment. We understand that the preliminary grading plans call for large volumes of material to be excavated and removed from the eastern portion of the site. Two sieve analyses were conducted on samples of the material from that portion of the site. The results are shown on Figure 3 and indicated that they are uniform to well graded sands. Based on our expectations, it is expected that at least portions of this material could be used for structural fill . However, cuts along the eastern boundary are expected to extend to over 30 feet but our explorations only extended to a maximum of119 feet. Therefore, the extent and continuity of the deposits at the base of the proposed cuts are unknown. Additional exploration with drilling equipment would be required to determine the suitability of the material for structural fill within the deep cut areas. ( I Golder Associates September 11, 1987 6 873-1268 If excavations are at a sufficient depth to expose the dense silty sand or silt and are allowed to become wet, the subgrades can be easily disturbed and stirred to mud. This soil is very moisture sensitive because it contains some silt. We recommend that the silt should not be used as fill because it is highly moisture sensitive and difficult to work in even the best conditions. To avoid excessive site disturbance the contractor should implement protective measures. These measures should include, but not be limited to, the placement of either a thin layer of pea gravel , crushed rock, or a lean concrete mud mat over the prepared and approved subgrade. We recommend using an asphalt treated base (ATB) to protect all areas which will recieve construction traffic. Any fill placed beneath building foundations, floors, or pavements should be placed in maximum 81-inch loose lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM:D-1557-78 laboratory standard. We recommend a large steel wheeled vibratory, roller be used to compact the fill . If density tests taken in the fill indicate compaction is not be being achieved the fill should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted. 5.6 Drainage Control Measures We recommend footing drains be included in all the building designs where portions of the structure are below grade. Footing drains should consist of a 4-inch diameter, perforated, rigid plastic pipe embedded in a clean free draining sand and gravel meeting the requirements of the Section 9-03.12 (4) of the 1984 Washington State Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. We recommend both short and long term drainage measures be incorporated into the project design and construction. Surface runoff can be controlled during construction by careful grading practices. Typically, these include the construction of shallow upgrade perimeter drainage ditches or low earthen berms,' and the use of temporary sumps to collect seepage and prevent water from damaging exposed subgrades. All collected water should be directed under control to a positive and permanent discharge system such as the storm sewer. 6. USE OF THIS REPORT This report has been prepared, exclusively for the use of Centron Corporation and their consultants for the specific application to this project. Once the proposed site development plans are finalized, we should be contacted to review our conclusions and recommendations. The exploration has been performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice to provide information for the area explored. L • Golder Associates September 11, 1987 7 873-1268 There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the explorations and in the groundwater conditions with time. We recommend a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in the construction schedule and budget. Further, we recommend that we be retained to perform monitoring and testing during construction to confirm the conditions indicate by the explorations and/or provide corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions revealed during the work. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES Ron Uhle Staff Engineer Patrick G. Corser, P.E. Associate RU/PGC/i rw Attachments s_ I Golder Associates FIGURES Golder Associates i • ,•': I i a.�EwECNNwra-- —W.'- 'T '-.) x > taCT .. Z aa 1 SE LTN.STuR - j _ ; aMrLI �• \ < .1 - 4 Y < I ° --- ----N• . i [ aTN ST c S.E. 100TM ST E_ z NE m N 2 N ST m F 1 - ..= s[ 2 I aE SE 100TM ST 5 .1 ILL c v y •� GIST henw I rM m V r,1!l HE M.Pt \f 1 7 t SE 107N0 A�,'?r s i g \ \.., x NE MO ST E.�%Li•��g I r N m SE !,14 r SE ION ! _` W F i`77N0 ST L'. 4' '•\ E`w .•- •"SE%'OETN T i M.r,I S _:""'• � NE 70TN sT� o,Ii,., ;.Ir el.., �•�� LEE S[IelTM ` :l r 5 1 rN I a , • _W�t�, ,5 I S_ z• s i _ SE IOETM sT W;SE IOETN ST " - ZI NEI TN sT ,e r'F T .q =' ryw� 4 y w g N Ni 19EN_sr < E� li , > °W I• l� i I SE 101TM ST' N',1� u vrtW I `L SE IOeTN ST 1 FINFOri ,I.P •r/`\1 S E -M r•;y \ trrm r �r I=_, N SE Ism.ST 52 �. z• .El 3 ow y^z >� sT ���f— 'F NE Ili i 3 g l" J '-E ` ;Nci11TMST I� SE _'•• n i S -<il, An IeTN Z1a m V Ip�I "'i 3 , ...,R I - 4 .. 1 �:.. ....t4 � Ni SS VCIA�•' NE IeM 3 rE iit NF IIEM ' c JK.MS ® [ iST� _ �F y)� 112TMI 5T I i elm.111rN L - ir P©� <el iI rp� ;d NE INNell, •,. „. mt. Ira` z� aLrvER N.!II SE 117TN 01 •1 SEI al al (11'� w iu e.N! IITN 11st 7,_,II 3C NISEN r I .,.tl I SE I IOTN 5T 1 X. {{��t]•j{1 `<� z=r NE 10TN Pt 0 1,.E I"" -y+ 4. 11.I I M ::•'N.L F.. SE.I1.TN<\eL I=a SE,IIETN ST 0 Nf:OTM.I \ HE p1,0�T�M . N MTN 3 :i igr.";;. ��� 'A '-r x t cm, ST 'y? TIT r J� i F ,•t't"� SE Il6tn n[ETM w o � '_ ' • E .imWp I - --Z > —' O —i yW '•� W 2ST1 ST „1 i� f "MST ST . 't ?. to WO = < I I f ST �� �ILErE al wE•.• PMRi �: SE IISTM - wJ A' "Y N N sT it.a5' O lit* ^TH Y & 9 N;N.�. .,` t• I �< = s� { 5T NE I ST < i !] -6E• 1fitM_ ST I ' f ETG w u l W N! rTM IST Z�l 1 SE IATM AO v O ST ,u E I7I5T Si ' •R Jr• '.NE.Es.- < ;.NE TT isr�R 'N j t t _ NE erM.Q z I A V • v� a VIM.. ® � .- .JR.M.1i I �2-lj�T A !1 I Z ' I 1 $E IvTM < E E STM SE IDTM ST rE IT ,PROJECT SITE a I'I SST • E. i N<ETM ST —1--✓• ——r--6Ipr I--.— _—_.._2_-____—1- r:4 1 -�_. Ne" ETN Sr 91a I,SE 173TN ST ' 1 7 N�ANION,, E a I -.RMILLS • w1 �� I dtl �.077 ST „I a .REIle G.rF)HN000.'� 1 ul SE i 170TN I ST v ] ::".f: C4 •. ' >! NI SE 1031•ST _.tp-.�t.�=__ SE� <y f37t1!{ ST z. . , y SE '.7:+0 /, A ... . 1 • 1 :'wr Z _ ..., I ![,IS?ISMS rL- 1R� r, IJf)1RIST = I �� ..S(Nr O[/Vfr NE ISr Ps. _ .I : EEf I $ 9 i'/ ....if NI c lc _, xi SNTM ST > i i W IevETSr,��-'rE 'l m,. ©h F I SE 1.• ♦ 13 I !F 1781H I ._St- ,,, �iSc•r S(fl c'4 CEDAR �A i L ¢• 5T r!I .a�s TN l wr- -- yi < v�.Q ��� L.F, • 4 �i M •r y RANK..fir_es Is,:DrM = �m ,. 44 tn• EN Jf/41. -PIS!\7.41i.t,...3E 5E a NL a•• - __ 0�a.4. 'L� /�Q ,rE SE 'c N .'�`• .,.,SE IIOTN sTI z `',SEA=�4� r ± N . ° 1 QlN jr es °o-4 ^.. L DES t V. Iul `�Tar.I§r sE Iµ IM i t `•yN lTN ST yfH� rjQ Jr' I sE I r PA'' •; T g,t r y 1EOTM _I S I SET E15 S =! sT 3�,j4.1'4*°j"a. • - /1 '' ,`J�•,vt .vall1 Is`E,;Nola plzl R`li�,, SE`s' fa„vM tr:. / SI1'4..-/._I• : 'T'JRO;PL 3:liSE'lls?:P .e MAEDP -_�a JflapLtEvood �,s= a 1 sT= I„ e e �RRAVEn-' ` ° ''`Goff/ Jli Q = - SF.r ` = p _ ST rARR VV / •fi5 w�l.,t,{p I' • A 1 44rT 'S Ili _ I 1� •.Course _ ';° ^is LeT�s• C Ili N • - 0 - 5000 Scale in Feet - FIGURE 1 { Reference: 'Thomas Guide: King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties.. VICINITY MAP Thomas Bros. Maps, 1986. CENTRON P°r;JECT NO 873-1268 DWG NO 3369 DATE 9/11/87 DRAWN SL APPROVED RU Golder Associates I , 2 i ; " " N 0 co i . _ TP-10 - 1. L ° G. / . cP a- n/ o py I N LEGEND: , T I 'O TP-1 - � • / El Test pit number and approximate location L i \\'' --Approximate. boundary of old previous excavation r�° 0J ' / ® / TP-8 ( T2 • 1lipT1 rn c, A TP-9 i\ I \rise / ) c TP-7 /9./ o o . .TANK I Old Road With Asphalt Top 9. El r_ I C iAo TP-3 ? o Zsa n Scale in Feet L- \\\ 73 El \ - • Old Road—Unpaved TP-6 �\,����j L , t ° ElTP-4 Property Boundary reo TP-5 --' N r4o J F, 3gp �Rt�FT _____.) --Ni- _ r L • N.E. 3RD STREET FIGURE 2 a „. _ SITE PLAN Reference: The property boundary, street, and building locations are from o . oo_ IP° o the topographic survey entitled,'Preilmiriary Site Plan, Can-Am Property% - • CAN—AM prepared by Centron Devebpment Corp., 8/4/87. - CENTRON- ` PROJECT NO 873-1268- DWG NO. 3558 DATE 9/11/87 DRAWN TB APPROVED RU Golder Associates US Standard Sieve Sizes 0. ' 10 3" 2" 1"3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 4 60 0 200 R 100 t I f I 1 1 I I I I. I W 90 i 1 i I F I .� - I I I I I I a • 7 80 I i I 1 I i I I I I j 4 I I I I I 70 I I I I I o I 1 I I m t I I I I I I m 01 60 I I I I 1 iv' I I 1 I co I I I I I I V C) ° 50 I I I I I I 33 a`) i I I I 4 0 I I 1 I I g c 1 I I I , . N -n u 3 0 i i I I I ; I L. I I I I I I R1 C d I I i i „4 I I 1 I 0 CD 20 1 1 I 1 , I I I i (n I 1 1 ' 1 —1 W I / II' 1 I m` 'R 10 I i t f I I 1 1 a I 1 I x - 0 I I I I I • 0 100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 (4 o Z Grain Size in millimeters 0 Cobbles Gravel Sand Fines Coarse I Fine Coarse) Medium I Fine Silt or Clay gBoring No. i Elev. or Depth Wn WL Wp 1p Description or Classification E. TP-1 CD 1 5-2 5.0' • SW: Orange-brown, fine to medium SAND, little fine a gravel, trace silt ' 1 TP-1 5-3 10.0' A SM: Tan-brown, fine SAND, little silt PAT EASTER PROPERTY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Prepared for CENTRON 3025 - 112th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.. 2101 - 112th Avenue N.E.., Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 July, 1987 { TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE PROJECT 4 CONCLUSION 5 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP 6 FIGURE 2 PROJECT SITE 7 FIGURE 3 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 8 FIGURE 4 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 9 FIGURE 5 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT 10 FIGURE 6 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT 11 TP&E Staff Contributors to this Study Victor H. Bishop, P.E. , President David H. Enger, P.E. , Vice President Jacques Meijsen, Transportation Planner DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposed project is a 384 unit garden style apartment complex located between N.E. 3rd Street, N.E. 4th Street, and Bronson Way in the City of Renton (Figure 1 ) . The project will contain sixteen separate two-story over basement buildings (ap- proximately 290,000 square feet of floor space) on 13. 4 acres (Figure 2) . Entry and exit to the development will be provided at a driveway onto Bronson Way and a driveway onto N.E. 4th Street. There will be no direct access into the site from N.E. 3rd Street. The project will provide 582 off-street parking spaces or an average of 1.52 stalls per unit. EXISTING CONDITIONS Access to the project will be via N.E. 4th Street/Bronson Way N.E. , a two-lane arterial running between Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street. The roadway slopes downhill towards N.E. 3rd Street, particularly Bronson Way which also has several sharp turns. The intersection of Bronson Way N.E. and N.E. 3rd Street is controlled with a multi-phase traffic signal. At the intersec- tion N.E. 3rd Street has a left-turn only lane in addition to the two through lanes in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Edmonds Avenue N.E. is a two-lane arterial connecting N.E. 4th Street with N.E. 3rd Street to the south and Sunset Boulevard (SR 900 ) to the north. The intersection of Edmonds Avenue N.E. 1 with N.E. 4th Street is stop sign controlled for Edmonds Avenue, while the intersections with N.E. 7th Street and N.E. 9th Street have 4-way stop signs. The intersections with Sunset Blvd. and with N.E. 3rd Street are signalized. The north approach leg of Edmonds Avenue at the latter intersection has a separate left turn lane. However, currently that movement is prohibited and only right turn movements are allowed onto N.E. 3rd Street. N.E. 3rd Street has an exclusive left turn lane in the easterly direction at this intersection in addition to two through lanes in each direction. Between Edmonds Avenue N.E. and Jefferson Avenue N.E. , N.E. 4th has two lanes with a stop sign controlling access to Jefferson. To the south Jefferson immediately intersects with N.E. 4th/N.E. 3rd Street. A signal controls movements at this intersection. Manual sample turning movement counts were taken by TP&E for the intersections of N.E. 3rd Street and Bronson Way N.E. , N.E. 3rd Street and Jefferson Avenue N.E. and, N.E. 4th Street and Edmonds Avenue Northeast. Peak hour counts are shown in Figure 3 and 4. A capacity analysis was performed using the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209, methods for signalized and unsignalized intersections. During the PM peak hour the signalized intersection of N.E. 3rd Street and Bronson Way and the signalized intersection of N.E. 3rd Street and Jefferson were both found to have a level of service C. During the AM peak hour these levels of service were found to be D and C respectively. It should be noted that during the AM peak the westbound traffic on N.E. 3rd Street is often backed up from the signal at Sunset Blvd. all the way past the 2 Bronson intersection, in effect making the latter intersection operate at level of service F. The unsignalized intersection of Edmonds and N.E. 4th St. currently operates at level of service A for all legs in both the AM and PM peak period. Three Metro transit routes currently run in the vicinity of the project site. Route 110 and 142 stop on Bronson Way in front of the project site. Route 110 connects Lake Kathleen with down- town Seattle via N.E. 4th Street, Bronson Way, downtown Renton and Sunset Blvd. Route 142 runs from Kennydale via downtown Renton to the Seattle CBD. Route 111 connects Lake McDonald with downtown Seattle via N.E. 4th, I-405 and I-90 . TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION When completed, the proposed residential development is ex- pected to generate approximately 2535 vehicle trips per average weekday at full occupancy. Of these daily trips 193 are expected to occur during the AM peak hour and. 231 during the PM peak hour. During the AM peak period 155 vehicles are expected to exit while 38 enter. During the PM peak hour 155 vehicles are expect- ed to enter and 76 to exit the project. A vehicle trip is defined as "A single or one directional ve- hicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site" . The above trip generation pro- tections are based on data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in Trip Generation - An Informal Report, Third Edition, 1982. For apartments, this publication lists average trip generation rates of 6.6 trips per dwelling unit on an average weekday, 0 .5 trips per unit during the AM street traffic peak hour, and 0 .6 trips per unit during the PM street traffic peak hour. 3 The expected AM and PM peak hour vehicle distributions of the proposed development site generated traffic over the street network are shown in Figures 5 and 6. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE PROJECT The expected project generated vehicle trips for the AM and PM peak hours (Figures 5 and 6) were added to the existing vehi- cle movements observed by TP&E. A capacity analysis was then per- formed for the signalized intersections of N.E. 3rd Street and Bronson Way and, N.E. .3rd Street and Edmonds Avenue N.E. , as well as the unsignalized intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Edmonds Avenue Northeast. Table 1 shows the results of the analysis. As TABLE 1 198.7 1987 W/Project AM PM AM PM N.E. 3rd/Bronson Way D C D C (Signalized) N.E. 3rd/Jefferson C C C C (Signalized) N.E. 4th/Edmonds A A A A (Unsignalized) All Legs can be seen in the table, additional traffic from the proposed project is not expected to change any of the levels of service in the vicinity of the project. 4 Two road improvement projects located in the vicinity of the project are currently listed in the City of Renton 1987 - 1992 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. The first one is for Edmonds Avenue N.E. from N.E. 4th Street to Sunset Blvd. Northeast. This project includes widening, curb, gutter and side- walk, street lighting, storm drainage, channelization, signaliza- tion, water and sewer. It is slated for design and construction from 1990 to 1992. The other project is the extension of Edmonds Avenue from N.E. 3rd Street to Maple Valley Highway, a new road alignment also scheduled for design and construction from 1990 to 1992. It should be noted that an Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared for the development of the McMahon property lo- cated south of N.E. 3rd Street directly to the south of this pro- ject. This EIS will include a subarea traffic study that will include impacts of this project as well as others that are ap- proved and/or under construction. CONCLUSION it The proposed residential development on the Pat Easter prop- erty is not expected to cause a significant change in the overall traffic operating conditions around the project. All intersec- tions except the N.E. 3rd/Bronson intersection are expected to op- erate at LOS C or better. The latter intersection experiences some problems during the AM peak hour mainly due to the backup created by the intersection of N.E. 3rd and Sunset Blvd. This backup often makes turning right onto N.E. 3rd from Bronson Way very difficult even during the green signal phase. 5 r r . , f 'i . tooDLET,Y ' !, � ONLA . "7 I liMir lrlr '�?•, M A� li, us ►L ! 7A �I iG '7 , ••• 1 �,i r as / 1N AY►i � J r n s. • t; 76111. r•AV ,r5 61#, +`I. 139.. A D*1111a4137' La J - 4. I A.4 • r: N � -. A a . i w .u. f N A a a � C N— + . PI i * j 4;— D - - i .I Vi . a " . 74 9•• _- • i -':'?:: m - R --1 .40 PIN 44. 7 _ I 1 3; to Alt PA, • c1 ! • vd 4 I �1") Z. .wN :i .;, E J-I IFf7 �\ •-'• F ( '• o f Ia*I.W.AV, .; ', i D 1 A ®+r. .T, 1,0-0Apip ` ;iii 8./.5/44241. • iliwret:il ,F , .,. , , I v ... = ,,, .= 'I. • -A • I 1 7 a Es, n. .. F, . t n ,_,„r_, , : IQ 111r �,V''' rN•1i �Y,' r • /�. • •t. 1+,.%.rt..,�� P -1 i n jai . E -1 '� a �((NA w • 1• -yMIIMI 1r{'�.t10_11 .7 : Av f / /0,� I N r4 •AC EVi M; pwr l 4 m_mo t-i.2"N!itIO '. r irk? rP BRAN a F. .I Q aa •e•! ! V �SS V' I -%".e..,1 "„ It r ., _ amFg Is�'a .� 1i ::.r- y^. I " r f►♦ a r •�• rt` � l �� �r�i [i. tldl►r w 7f4 U • I `Y • .•.•Nrst AY 1 ► '• I. Fli •10 r*! ` "0.• .• r• M Ar ;' • 0 I H .et . J I -�ct�er / 'pC .,tea(4 1 " - I • 1 CO • , .r a • mp •. i . / sNAr v�e�r b 3 •"•' 70 T-{�� v 1 2 4. . `vim;_omit I .• i ' • B Ar..{- 1 r1 g 3 !IEL ! AY r N ttY e I AAI-A C!r n 1 AY 1 ' AJ t REtL!4, AY i N !i I♦� ` \• 4 \.° •► r + r.ply,. :•r•:..• ;:(. '''.i �M+'P� '� \ l i:}•j �n mr.s_ _:i"w^ . .. An A 3 ..:i�' .1.i';�j ±'' Y L-1-.RT '�J�I t i MFA AV N '• +;i A 1••���H��•d1 ,., , LpQ .. � • _o'er ") giffu___. b. _ . ....if 2 Tr AK A a 6 li ..,.....3/4":;:1 t I N 1�tr-N(! V1111D wn,w.r+, "� a $vN I ., ��ON+letr 4 1ut1►'1 N1Av Nt i .awsol .r • . la, ABERDEEN 1 AY NE . a \e,.� •. •� . i •���r rr^L a r. BLAINE FYI=E V. I. 1., 40 I ,....(.2 i, I 4k4111•A•A A iiil (.1),mat ay", Aik411 4.11415 : •..• •• . • 3 •Y oA ;oN AI I ti^ 1 {Y`-_. .• A•tiI. rr •is !�4 !. , L 1yr 9 Mb i v ' CA ± J� "e" w •AV. A Q Nr,'r!�•4.. AV ww. 1 1 Alt, 4:'r • I /� �!r AAINC1d«rAr r '', f1 AV L Nl ',Y IT pOilti {, I '- t O --t .....Jt1 A:•. '1• N It A. 1 ��• arAA A A . R7 �J—__ rR. 1 ' x, r p K ill �'' 71 tiy, ml J :.. y'.. =I A i At. 1 Ai'r/°.1 I f o. A 1 J 1 r,ww, i • �A — I ----1— ,•�.'•i• ..:,m _ V !.• .-an.ru Avt - .1 '.J �� 4. k— - I - ' I ._ r ;j1,�5 ►IFrc( 1.- . N a ! i : 2 IA AV 111 emu " ' 4 1 / m o Av A itl) a':::.:''I I I attw" A .. .0ti C .; to ;�` ,,+?0,'.I I 18 r �,I �."t�- ' Clam; v T i 11�'�I I ? I tAcwr& ll 1. i,1 A • / i t 1 • L INIQN A s N r�r 4.1 r f p{i• I .ram n 1 M! A . , • . . - --- . -r* . HE ilt INFoRMAT-le:4-4 (ta.) 2 trialleY C5.5Elt 15.554=1•••ra•Ir liii0=1.5.3. ='SIM ‘..15.1 Cr% dt4=1 COO 1.45.=7:=) • 5.2 06 ac.17.s.aKti.d.Stows = S.'IS 2A Boareimi*Roa.r10 . 1%4 fre.stBS e.pir-Sicl . =ay.4. . z.....• ..? .- . \ . .- -/- . .5 I. "RaP4M2° 1 . 151•04"\":::-''' r* a f•Xerre,‘ ' • .5. I . 1 .... 42 - . . 51?-....'''...5 . • V+ .- \f• 4 ,..% E,,,gris-m• • ft - 7--.:1.7r. a _. Amer& I . ' 1 .., 1 11 r . • I lb -- .: t El- . ... ' IzEr-- a. Iiii a. ' e.A.crs; '•-•'.7. , `I' .. .... -• I — so/P2IPS. i'.. rillE .5, •17.‘4'. 1121 .1 .Z.....- .... & 't • .. .. ,.. a/r, ,1 . • liga 4. .5. I I I IF 4. ' 114 -2. HE. 33-= ---7.----\ \*"...... • . 1 I." . ......\ • PROJECT SITE FIGURE • PAT EASTER PROPERTY (CENTRON) I !lilt 2 \.... i in 0 z z O 0 z in cr 0 w Lwi.. loco w 66 0 N g2 w m \1/4 f— 18 N.E. 4TH Ai �?) > 6 � 5 6N\t le 24 —0. ') ‘*.. 4( c9 0 0coN i/e cpo cio Co PAT EASTER PROPERTY ono o `n cki3 Al\k 0 — 1527 - 1S N ' \ 14 d O not to scale 9 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES / FIGURE ! - - PAT EASTER PROPERTY (CENTRON) � 3 J 9 0 z o o w w F- z N N CD o 0 U) i— � b0 �, 20 2 m m ii\k �— 20 N.E. 4TH 22 w � $ 5 LQ 44 ..11 N\tie 104-So" C4) keb. 4(0 oc' 4 o N d- c bc (,, ), Tn cb PAT EASTER O PROPERTY . 1 N , 4 �� 570 - 1s46�. 10 ��• 18 1� N coo not to scale } - -\ I EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE PAT EASTER PROPERTY (CENTRON) 4 J (I) z z 00 0 G V) oLI 0 w w z IL O Z CC O OD8 � N.E. 4TH If w � 23 � > 10 ``icy /i 21 2 3`► 4 h 16 23 —► 1 \:\ 0 Mk x- I ,7' °,D PAT EASTER ON 2� \ PROPERTY o c0 0 �� X i Al 0 twr IL -C-. '5"P 0 I\ o N 11 not to scale I / / FIGURE AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT I PAT EASTER PROPERTY (CENTRON) / 5 --_ , -� - - _ .- _ cn z z 0 0 z Q Cl) O w z lL ~ O w Z m 21 c0 O N.E. 4TH > ^ N\ "......•9'1 L.LJ 11 27 '`` I /1 �5 11''4"' ,/l N� 8 1 11 —► \ rp o � S A PAT EASTER O Ni PROPERTY ��0 SQ o NJ io oI\tir iis� o N 11 not to scale PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT / 1. FIGURE PAT EASTER PROPERTY (CENTRON) I 6 9 F APPENDICES 1 I, f L F f_. Golder Associates II APPENDIX A { TEST PIT LOGS l . L Golder Associates Test Pit Logs TEST PIT TP-1 Approximate Surface Elevation: 256 feet 0 to 0.3 ft. Compact, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, little organics (SM) (TOPSOIL) 0.3 to 1.0 ft. Compact, light brown, fine to medium SAND, trace silt, trace gravel (SP) 1.0 to 9.0 ft. Compact, brown, fine to medium SAND (SP) with a 2.5 feet thick lense of compact, brown, fine to medium SAND and coarse GRAVEL, some cobbles (SP) at the top 9.0 to 19.0 ft. Compact, brown-grey, fine SAND (SP) No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 19.0 feet. 8/31/87 TEST PIT TP-2 Approximate Surface Elevation: 282 feet 0 to 0.3 ft. Loose, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, little organics (SM) (TOPSOIL) 0.3 to 12.0 ft. Loose, brown, fine to medium to coarse SAND (SP) with occasional stingers of gravel and becoming compact at a depth of 4.0 feet 12.0 to 14.0 ft. Dense, brown, sandy GRAVEL (GP) � . " 14.0 to 19.0 ft. Dense, brown-grey, fine SAND (SP) No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 19.0 feet. 8/31/87 Golder Associates TEST PIT TP-3 Approximate Surface Elevation: 271 feet 0 to 2.0 ft. Compact, brown, fine to medium SAND and fine GRAVEL, trace silt (SP) 2.0 to 19.0 ft. Compact, grey-brown, fine SAND (SP) No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 19.0 feet. 8/31/87 TEST PIT TP-4 Approximate Surface Elevation: 254 feet 0 to 1.0 ft. Very dense, brown, fine to medium SAND and fine GRAVEL (SP) (OLD ROAD SUBGRADE) 1.0 to 19.0 ft. Compact, brown-grey, fine SAND (SP) with 2.0 feet thick lense of compact, brown, fine to coarse SAND, trace to little gravel (SP) at the top No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 19.0 feet. 8/31/87 TEST PIT TP-5 Approximate Surface Elevation: 248 feet 0 to 0.2 ft. Loose, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, little organics (SM) (TOPSOIL) 0.2 to 7.0 ft. Compact, brown-grey, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel (SP) 7.0 to 11.0 ft. Dense, grey, silty, fine SAND, trace clay, trace gravel (SM) No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 11.0 feet. 8/31/87 Golder Associates 1 TEST PIT TP-6 Approximate Surface Elevation: 213 feet 0 to 1.0 ft. Loose, brown, fine SAND, little silt (SP) 1.0 to 5.0 ft. Compact, brown, fine to medium SAND (SP) 5.0 to 13.0 ft. Dense, grey, fine to medium to coarse SAND, little silt, trace clay (SM) No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 13.0 feet. 8/31/87 TEST PIT TP-7 Approximate Surface Elevation: 233 feet 0 to 0.2 ft. Loose, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, little organics (SM) (TOPSOIL) 0.2 to 5.0 ft. Compact, brown-grey, fine to medium SAND (SP) 5.0 to 7.0 ft. Compact to dense, grey, silty, fine SAND, trace clay (SM) 7.0 to 15.5 ft. Dense, grey, silty, fine SAND and CLAY (SC) No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 15.5 feet. 8/31/87 Golder Associates TEST PIT TP-8 Approximate Surface Elevation: 222 feet ( 0 to 2.0 ft. Loose, grey-brown, fine SAND (SP) 2.0 to 6.5 ft. Compact, brown-grey, gravelly, fine to medium SAND (SP) 6.5 to 10.0 ft. Compact, brown-grey, fine to medium SAND (SP) ( 10.0 to 13.0 ft. Dense, brown-grey, fine SAND, trace clay, trace to little silt, with some iron staining (SP) 13.0 to 15.5 ft. Dense, brown-grey, clayey, fine to medium SAND, trace to little silt (SC) No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 15.5 feet. 8/31/87 TEST PIT TP-9 Approximate Surface Elevation: 205 feet l. 0 to 0.2 ft. Loose, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, little organics (SM) (TOPSOIL) 0.2 to 5.0 ft. Compact, brown, fine SAND (SP) 5.0 to 8.0 ft. Compact, brown-grey, fine SAND (SP) 8.0 to 11.0 ft. Dense, brown, fine to medium SAND and GRAVEL (SP) 11.0 to 13.5 ft. Dense, grey, silty, fine SAND, trace to little clay, trace gravel (SM) No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 13.5 feet. 8/31/87 Golder Associates TEST PIT TP-10 Approximate Surface Elevation: 214 feet 0 to 0.3 ft. Loose, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, little organics (SM) (TOPSOIL) 0.3 to 7.0 ft. Compact, brown GRAVEL, some fine to medium sand, trace cobbles (GP) 7.0 to 13.0 ft. Dense, grey, fine to medium SAND (SP) , with ( occasional layers of brown, GRAVEL, some fine to medium sand (GP) 13.0 to 14.0 ft. Dense, grey, fine to medium SAND (SP) 14.0 to 15.0 ft. Very stiff, grey, sandy SILT, trace clay (ML) No seepage observed. Test pit terminated at a depth of 15.0 feet. 8/31/87 Golder Associates