The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-08-042_MiscRagle Short Plat Preliminary Technical Information Report Ragle Short Plat Prepared: April 1, 2008 OCT Project: 07804 Duncanson Company, Inc. 145 SW 155'" Street, Suite 102 Seattle, Washington 98166 (206) 244-4141 4/1/08 DC! 07804 Table Of Contents 1. Project Overview Figure 1.1 -Technical Information Report Worksheet Figure 1.2 -Vicinity Map Figure 1.3 -Basin Map Figure 1.4-SCS Soil Survey Map 2. [Preliminary] Conditions and Requirements Summary 3. Offsite Analysis Offsite Analysis Drainage System Table Figure 3.1 -Offsite Analysis Map Figure 3.2 -Critical Areas Map 4. Runoff Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design KCSWDM Table 3.5.28 KCSWDM Isopluvial Maps Figure 4.1 -Existing Conditions Map Figure 4.2 -Developed Conditions Map 5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design 6. Special Reports and Studies 7. Other Permits 8. CSWPPP Analysis and Design 9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant 10. Operations and Maintenance Manual Note: Sections 5 -10 are not prepared at the preliminary short plat stage. The appropriate design information and supporting documentation will be prepared at the final engineering stage. RAgle Short Plat 411/0fl DCI 07804 1. Project Overview Ragle Short Plat 4/1/08 DCI 07804 1. Project Overview The proposed Ragle Short Plat is a 3-lot single family project, averaging 6,500 square feet per lot. The project is located on tax parcel 008700-0181 and is approximately 0.45 acres. The project address is 168xx 1CJ6'h Avenue Southeast in Renton, Washington, and is located in the R-8 zone. The current site is vacant. The site consists mostly of mowed lawn with a scattering of trees located along the southern and western property lines. The overall elevation change within the site is on the order of IO feet, sloping down from the NW to the SE portion of the site. The gradient throughout the majority of the site is in the range of 5 percent or less and ranges up to 10 percent at the SE corner of the site. The site is bordered to the north, south, and west by single-family residences. The site is bordered to the east by J 06'h A venue Southeast. Site development will include a new private access road extending into the site from 106th Avenue Southeast. Other site improvements will include utilities, street trees, and wetland protection. No existing structures are onsite and 3 new single-family residences are anticipated. Ragle Short Plat ,111/08 DCT 07804 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET FIGURE 1.1 Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner R.W. Puget Sound Holdings, LLC Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Ragle Short Plat - Phone ___ 2_5_3_-8_35_-_18_0_2-'(R_u_s_s_H_ib_b_ar_d)~ DOES Permit# _________ _ Address __ 2_0_1_1 _so_u_th_3_4_1_st_P_la_c_e __ _ Federal Way, WA 98003 Project Engineer Harold Duncanson, PE 206-244-4141 i Company ___ D_u_n_ca_n_so_n_C_o_m__cp_a__cny"-,_ln_c ____ _ I Phone - Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION l!l Landuse ~l'.Yices Subdivison /hort SubDi UPD D Building Services M/F / Commerical I SFR D Clearing and Grading D Right-of-Way Use D Other Part5 PLAN AND.REPORT INFORMATION ... _--,' Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review <'.fyj[)1 Targeted (circle): Large Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Location Township _2_3 _N ___ _ Range 5 E Section _ _::S_W_1cc_/4_of_2:cc9_~ Site Address 168xx 106th Avenue Southeast Renton, WA 98055 Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D Shoreline Management D DFWHPA 0 COE404 D DOE Dam Safety D FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Structural RockeryNault/ __ D ESA Section 7 D Other __ _ - . -- Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): ~ Modified I Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard / Complex I Preapplication / Experimental/ Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 111/05 1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGT01', SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET - Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - Monitoring Required: Yes@ Describe: _____________ _ Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN ------ Community Plan : __ _cNc,iceAc__ ________ _ Special District Overlays: ---"N"'-/A,__ __ _ Drainage Basin: Duwamish -<3_r:e~n~.R_,.iv..,e,,_r ___ _ Stormwater Requirements: Exempt. Less than 0.5 CFS chanqe in ore and post developed runoff peaks. Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS -. . . ' - D River/Stream _____ _ D Steep Slope ________ _ D Lake D Erosion Hazard -------- [3 Wetlands Onsite, non-regulated (2,144 SF) ! D Closed Depression _______ _ 0 Landslide Hazard _______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard _______ _ D Floodplain _______ _ D Seismic Hazard _______ _ D Other __________ _ D Habitat Protection _______ _ D _________ _ -;;·' ' -- Part 10 SOILS - -- Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential AgC 4-10% Low ----- D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Sole Source Aquifer D Other Cl Seeps/Springs D Additional Sheets Attached 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1/1/05 2 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGEDESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT !!I Core 2 Offsite Anal¥sis --~- D Sensitive/Critical Areas D SEPA D Other D ------ D Additional Sheets Attached -- Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summarv Sheet ner Threshold Discharne Areal Threshold Discharge Area: Duwamish -Green River !name or descriotion\ Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharne at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: 1 I Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number Nagllglblepeakn.moff#1 (incl. facilitv summarv sheen Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: TBD Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: I Private'/ Public If Private2 _ Maintenance Loa Reauired: Yes INo'> Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes No Liabilitv Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. NPg, ¥. \ Landscape Mana<1ement Plan: Yes f'No"i Special Reauirements las annlicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: GOA/ SDO / MOP/ BP/ LMP / Shared Fae. I None Reauirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control Describe landuse: (comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1/1/05 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Drainaae Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS I MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION l!l Clearing Limits l!l Stabilize Exposed Surfaces l!l Cover Measures GJ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities l!l Perimeter Protection l!l Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure l!l Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities l!l Sediment Retention l!l Flag Limits of SAO and open space l!l Surface Water Control preservation areas 0 Other (!I Dust Control _j GJ Construction Seauence Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facilitv Summarv and Sketch) Flow Control Tvne/Descriotion Water Qualitv Tvne/Description I O Detention 0 Biofiltration 0 Infiltration IJ Wetpool 0 Regional Facility 0 Media Filtration 0 Shared Facility 0 Oil Control , D Small Site BMPs D Spill Control D Other D Small Site BMPs -- 0 Other - 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1/1/05 4 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTO:-;, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part15 EASEMENTSffRACTS I Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS I D Drainage Easement 0 Cast in Place Vault 0 Access Easement D Retaining Wall l!l Native Growth Protection Covenant 0 Rockery> 4' High 0 Tract I D Structural on Steep Slope 0 Other I D Other - Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONA.~L~E~N~G=IN=E=E=-R~.-------------------1 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 know! e th infor ion provided here is acc:/lti~ Si ned!Date 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1/1/05 5 '"' • s " SllstSt __,. se21stPl " ,c ,;;;, .... ·:.--1 ~ t .,. ,, /;:,-~ ~ ~ S-e 161::.th St iii S 23rd St u ~: • Si: 16-0th 1-'I .. i ~ it , -" > ~ Thoma$ § " g ~ TN$dlth: -;,: .. Pad --" -~ 0 j: v, t S 16th Sr 0 " "' \ ! S 26th Ct \ S-e 164th St Q - 6tt, St ~ <P S 271.'·. :,,, q..~ ' ~ 16~th St 1~ ~ ,;1--·\ 9. ;-~L -S 1.~\) 0 :!ffS:: ~ ~J"''f!- 0 w J: ~ g ;ii 1'}\Y;,. . ~ 0 ;-< ~ S· ' .~;., ~-~ :61:>th St > ~ 0 0: " ~ ~ ~ " "" 0 ;; ~ L681h St g ~ c.:: ;- 0 ~. Sf.\l-.o,\t;o.V\ g ~ > ~ 169th St " " ~ i\ ;-£ . '.lh 5t i ;: ro ~ :,·· ,, l< ~ ,,, " ~ " " :( ' '€ ~ " Se 1 J 1st Ln ..,.,#' " ,1 ,, :( ~ " "' ~ 5c 112nd St .!oa ""' /::_ .. ,('. '-,I_ ·,:; i -Se 1/2.nd Ln ~ ~ 0 (5f§; ~ '$.::. t7"',rd 5\ ,, 't , ,, .,, ..!t-1,-s ~ ~ :-~ S,c 173rd St ~ 'I /, < ".'?, ~~ ' < ;->:.;..-J ·< " a ~ ' Sic' U'-ili; ,,-, R <, ~ Si ., " ;; ''..., :,: '%: J, ~ 1/~tll St - <,4 Se L<1rr l"id • \. = Se 116th St ~ , s: ::, > « "' ~ ~ % ~ " :( 31 -.,., ,0 :( iAveS se. Carr Rd Benson Hill 2aa m ~e 119th Pl 0 6DD ft I ~ ,\ e DUNCANSON COMPANY, INC. Ci\1! Enginccnng · Suri.·c, mg · L~nd Planning J.15 SW 155th S1, S11i1e !()2 J Seal/le, Washi117fon 98166 ' . Phone 206J.f.U/-II Fax 206.N-1.-1-155 Figure 1.2 -Vicinity Map Site@ 168xx 106'h Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Scale: As specified Drawn: KCF JnbNo: 07804 N8S'14°06 00 W , 40.08' o.O \. - c.o, lfl1 0 tj- 'c_J 1 6,3:ss SF ~ I ~ 25' WFTLAND BLFFER, TYP. /,~C:7 SF) / '"' z r,.,.~.,,,,------ Zl · I . 4: r ~ ~ I \bl "E! 2 I 1~ r 3~ r SF I o o, .!:J I " NE1 5,325 SF II \ ~ ~ ... -~ ~- " ,15 n N88'14'21 "W 140.06' X• \Pro jec:s \2007 Pro jec ls \07804RoglePropert ySP\C7804LJT\dwg \07804MO~. dwg I I / Jil d ;::: I I I ~ \ ' \ ' . I ' \ \ \ .\~ 0 ,, ,__.__ 30 T~~r~ ~-jQ ~ - ® 7,028 SF N[T 6,028 SF ~ ~ NGPE " ~J~E ~ ~ I \ \ l[)/ l[) ~ ci tj-tj- ecJ ,, ;T C z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w (/) r------- w =:i I z --· w > <( II f-I e.o I ~I J J ~~ BASl,N i30U~DA.RY, rYP. (0 5/ ACRES) GRAPHIC SCALE EB) ~-~ 20 40 BO (IN FEET) I inch -40 ft PAN Y. INC JUNCANSCN C0\1. ---··-- Civil Engineering Surveying Land J'lannmg 145 SW 155th Street, Suite i02 Seattle, Washington 98166 Phone 206.244.41·11 Fax 206.2·14.4.J55 Figure 1.3 -Drainage Basin ~ap Scale: l 1 1 = 201 Drawn• KCF Job No. 07804 AgC = Aldenvood (lravdly Sandy Loam, 6-15% slopes. e DUNCANSON COMPANY. INC. (·n ,11-n,em,·crrn~ :,.,,.,,,,, rnµ I ;md l'l.rnrna~ I ./5 SH" I 55111 Sr. Sim,• /11_' .\,·"11k. 11;1,!111,x1,m')S/M /'hwre :116,_'/ I II I! 1-ar :11r, _'-f-1. U55 Figure 1.4 -SCS Soil Survey Map Site@ 168xx 106'' Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Scale: As specified Drawn: KCF Job No: 07804 Ragle Sno:1 P:at 2. Preliminary Conditions and Requirements Summary DC! 07W! 2. Preliminary Conditions and Requirements Summary The City of Renton requires comp I iaucc "ith the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). This section describes how the project will meet the Manual's Core and Special Requirements. King County Surface Water Design Manual Core Requirements: 1. Discharge at the Natural Location The existing site runoff sheet flows generally southwest into a non-regulated wetland localed onsite. During heavily rainfall periods, it appears the wetland outlets towards the southwest comer of the site. De\'eloped flows will maintain this natural drainage location. 2. Offsitc Analvsis A Level I offsite analysis has been performed for this project. See Section 3 for more information. 3. Runoff Control This site is exempt from runoff cuntrul because the developed site peak JOO-year runoff is less than a 0.5 CFS increase from the existing. See Section 4 for further analysis. 4. Conve\'ance System 1\"o conveyance systems are proposed. 5. Erosion and Sediment Control Implementation of 1990 KCSWDM TESC measures will be used onsite during construction activities. A TESC plan will be included at the final engineering stage. j ;"•;: DU 07804 King County Surface Water Design \fanual Special Requirements: I. Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements This requirement docs not apply. 2. Flood Hazard Arca Delineation This site docs not lie within the I 00-ycar flood plain. 3. Flood Protection Facilities This requirement does not apply. 4. Source Control This requirement does not apply. 5. Oil Control This requirement does not apply. 3. Off site Analysis Ra.~ic Shu,: Pie' DCJ 07804 3. Offsite Analysis Task 1 -Studv Arca Definition & Maps The study area was determined b, licld observation and a review of the City's aerial topography maps. The study area consists of the downstream flow path generally extending south for a distance of ~/,-mile from the site. Sec Figure 3.1 Off-Site Analysis Map. Task 2 -Resource Review 1. Adopted Basin Plan Not applicable 2. Finalized Drainage Studies Not applicable 3. Basin Reconnaissance Summar\ !fr ports This project is in the Duwamish -Green River Basin. 4. Critical Drainage Area Maps Not applicable. 5. FElvlA Maps Not applicable. 6. O!her off-site analyses Not applicable. 7. Sensilive Areas Folio The King County Critical Areas i:v1ap shows the site as a low condition. See Figure 3.2. Ragle SChW r:.,1 DC! 0780·1 8. Drainage Complaints and Studin Drainage complaint summaries were obtained from King County. The drainage complaint parcels are shaded orange and have been assigned a drainage complaint number (DC2 for example). Sec Figure 3.1 -Offsite Analysis Map. Three drainage complaints were found to be in the d,mnstream flowpath. Below is a description of how each drainage complaint has been addressed. DC!: 1997-0088 This drainage complaint was submitted in January 1997 and is more than IO years old, therefore it is not applicable. DC2: 2006-0470 This drainage complaint was submitted in June 2006. This was a private property issue between Neighbor "A" and Neighbor "B". Recent landscaping was done by "leighbor "A" and Neighbor "13"" complained about how the landscaping had caused a flooding issue between the properties. The site runoff will not contribute to this area. No additional investigation is warranted. A copy of' the drainage complaint summary has been included at the end of this section. DC3: 1990-1553 This drainage complaint is more than IO years old, therefore it is not applicable. 9. USDA Soil Survey See Figure 1.4. Soils noted as AgC--Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam. Till Soils. No problems were identified. I 0. Wetland Inventory Not applicable. 11. Migrating River Studies Not applicable. Ragle Sh,,rt Pl~: ,:-; ncr 11n1,4 Task 3 -Field Reconnaissance A Level I field recom1aissance was conducted on September 17, 2007. Weather conditions were overcast and rainy. The downstream flow path was observed for 1,1,-mile. A discussion of the various downstream runoff system components is contained under Task 4 below. Task 4 -Drainage Svstem Description And Problem Screening Component A -Sheet Flow (O' -75 ') Site runoff appears to exit the onsitc wetland at the southwest comer and sheet flow south along the property line. It appears the natural drainage path was altered by the neighbor to the west of the site, parcel #0087000 J 82. It appears site runoff would naturally sheet flow west onto the neighbors property but because of mounded debris near the property line the current drainage path sheel Jlows to the south for approximately 75 feet. No visible erosion or concentrated lhrn path were observed. Component B -6" Pipe (75' -225') Site runoff appears to be collected by a ,ard drain and routed by a 6-inch PVC pipe to the drainage system along 105 1h Avenue Southeast. The 6-inch PVC pipe is located between parcels 008700-0184 and 008700-0183. l\ o problems were observed. Component C -12'' Pipe (225' -325 ') Site runoff is collected by a catch basin on the eastern side of 105 111 Avenue Southeast and is directed south along the road in a 12-inch pipe for approximately 100 feet. No problems were observed. Component D -Ditch and 12" Culvert Srstem (325'-1.125') The 12-inch pipe system daylights into a ditch and 12-inch culvert system. Site runoff flows south along 105'" Avenue S,,utheasl for approximately 800 feet until it reaches a catch basin at the intersection of I 05 11 ' /\. \'enuc Southeast and Southeast 172nd Street. The ditch has an 18-inch average depth and conwins vegetation. The ditch contains 12-inch concrete and CPEP culverts at the driveway entrances. No problems were observed. Component E-18" Pipe (1,125' -1,225') Site runoff from the ditch is collected hv a catch basin at the intersection of 105 111 Avenue Southeast and Southeast 172nd Street. i-wm the catch basin, the runoff is directed under Southeast 172nd Street, in the soutlmcstcrn direction, in an 18-inch ductile iron pipe for approximately 100 feet. The catch basin at the intersection is heavily covered with vegetation and debris, which could create a standing water problem during heavy storm events. No other problems were observed. Ragk Shen Plat I, .. , Component F-12" Public Drainar;c Sptem (1,225' -1,320'+) The upstream 18-inch ductile iron pipe connects with the public drainage system along Benson Drive South. The public drainage system consists of 12-inch pipe and catch basins that direct the site runoff in the northwestern direction. No problems were observed. This component carries the runoff" ,iver '!,,-mile downstream from the site. Task 5 -Conclusion It is recommended that the debris be rcmo\ ed and that the vegetation be cut back to prevent clogging from the catch basin in Component E. Given the negligible peak flow increase together with some attenuation likely provided by the wetland (which is being retained), it is Duncanson Company's opinion from the available information that the developed site will not create or aggravate any downstream conditions. R,1gl~ %on Pla1 ,s DCJ 07804 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL, CORE REQUIREMENT #2 Rasin: Duwamish -Green River Subbasin Name: ------'----~---------- I ::~e:I I ,r ' B C D E Drainage Component Type, Name, and Size Type: sheet flow, swale, stream, channel, pipe, pond. Size: diameter, surface area. Sheet Flow 6'' Pipe 12 " Pipe D1 itch & 12" Culvert System 18 "Pipe - F 11:1 t=i "Public Drainage System . ----"= ! ! Drainage Component Description Drainage basin, vegetation, cover, depth, type of sensitive area, volume. -·· -- I i ' ! ' ' I Slope % ±2% ±5% +5% I ' ±5% · 1 ±5% ±5% i l Distance from site discharge X ml = 1,320 ft. O' -75' 75' -225' 225' -325' 325' -1,125' -~---- 1,125' -1,225' + 1,225' -1,320'+ -- Subbasin Number: Existing Problems Potential Problems Constrictions, under capaCffy, ponding. overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism destruction, scouring, bank sloughing, sedimentation, Observations of field inspector, resource reviewer, or resident Tributary area, likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential impacts incision. other e!.~~si~o~n·~--~---- ~ Standing The natural drainage path None None None None None None I water appears to he disturbed hv , mounded dchris along the None None None Standing water None \\cstern prnpcrtv 1 inc of the I ! site. Upstream catch basin has overgrown vegetation and debris. Crosses under SE i 172"" St. DUNC A NSO N CO M PA N Y. I NC Ct\11 i!n~1n...:..::nm.: · "iun..::, UtJ:!: · I :mJ Pl:uuuni,: 145 SIi" 155th St. S1111,· IIJ:! .\t•a11t,•. U"t1'1mr,.:11m 1).'1/(,(; /'/,<#It' JO(. .'.J.I . .J/.J/ 1-ar :or. :!././.U55 Figure 3.1 -Offsite Analysis Map S ite @ 168xx 106'h A ve SE Renton, WA 98055 Scale : As s pecified Drawn: KC F Job No: 07764 KING COUNTY FILE :SO. 2006-0470 ','AM£ Kym Kinoshita Depamnent ofN arural Resources ADDRESS 17022 1051h AVE SE Water and Land Resource Division PHONE 206-972-6894 TB PAGE 656D6 DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT FIELD INVESTIGATION KROLL PAGE 6 01 DATr 7-10-06 MAINT. DIVISION 4 INITIALS. SAR DETAILS 0Fl','V£STIGATI0:S: NTS 7-10-06 met Kym on site to provide technical assistance with the drainage issue between her and the neighbor to the south. According to Kym her backyard prior to the recent landscaping had drained to a ditch between the properties. Now that the landscaping is complete the neighbor feels that she has caused a flooding issue on his property. I explained that this was a private property issue between her and the neighbor. I gave her some technical assistance and left the mediation flyer. SKETCH: : I l;;;L-______________ _l :~I I ! I \ I ii ,'1 ii ,' I ' i I \ I I SWS Drainage Investigation C.A.R. RFD bjo':: CAR Number: Type: Problem: Received: 08,'28/2008 C D?.Ail,/,GE ,ECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Complainant: KINOSHITA, KYM Business/Agency: Address: 17022 Facility#: Parcel: 0087000207 Facility Name: Thomas Brolher·s 65606 Section Township: Range: Sub Basin: 29 23 5 BLK Disposition: lnfci P:TIVJJed Comments: Phone Kroll pg: 601W SE Service Area: ', ·.._,, J ':;-,: CLOSED: 0712012006 Contract City: Questions re:ditch w/neighbor. Inv founci drnir•.agG di:ch along prop line, used by both sides. Gave TA & media:ion info. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I v: ~ .-. Page 1 of3 Mckay, Candi From: Lew, Tom Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:26 AM To: 'kyml\ino@hotrnail.com' Subject: FW: Residential Property Question I'm so:[]• that King County has not responded to your dra'nEge issue in a timely manner_ Water and Land Resources Division w111 research and investigate your concerns. b:;: we neuc more information from you. What is your address? Do you want to be on-site when we conduct our field Yisit? I: sc, ;an WE get a telephone numbe' where our field investigator can contact yoc to arrange arr on-site appointmen\? Th~nks' Please 1et me t(now if you have any questions. Tori Lew 206-296-8327 From: Mckay, Candi Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:21 AV, To: :..ew, Tom Subject: PN; Residential Property Question &uuli 5. JlfoJ&u;, &ig-ineewig: (! eduiicia1t J J Kmg Coumy Water and Land F,esources Division Storm water Services Section 201 S Jackson St. Svite 600 Seattie, WA 98104 ?iwne. 206-296-8045 ~AX: 206-296-0192 '..:an'.!, McKay@Metrokc.gov From: Reception, Desk-WLRD Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 7:50 AM To: Mckay, Candi Cc: Sen,ler, Fred Subject: FW: Residential Property Question Ju.ne Budmats Kin, Cou:1ty Departmen1 oiNatural Resource" ai:::: Parke YV4ter and Land Resources Division 201 S. Jackson St .. Ste. 600 Seattle, WA 88104-3855 (206; 2S6 ,65 !8 ---------------·····---------·------------- ~rom: Web, Master Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 7:23 AM To: Reception, Desk·WLRD; Bentler, Fred Cc: kyrnkino@hotmail.com Subject: FV/: Residential Property Question 09!] 7/2007 v, "page 2 of3 DNRP staff: Could you follow up on this ~nd msie sure Kym Kinoshita receives a response? Thanks, -tom -· :orr: bramc1r.1 Kin~ COJiitY 'Neb Team www.melrokc.gov: Always at your se1v1ce From: DD!:S Web Inquiries Sent; Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:54 PM To: Web, Master Subject: RE; Residential Properly Question This needs t8 go to Oi,RP -1 thougl1l I sent tnet u;s;:ior.se ~efore, but maybe I missed it. WLR.D has ad drainage investigatior, unit. From: Web, Master Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8; 13 AM To: DOES Web Inquiries Cc: kyrr.kino@hotmail.com Subject: FW: Residential Property Question Importance: High Co,1lcl somebody ~et back to Kym Kinosbit:l':' Kvm wrote over a month ago and hasn't received a response. Thanks. -~ torn brarn~n 1 Kln;;i County Web Team www.metrokc.gov: Always at your servi:;e From: kym kinoshita[mailto:kymkino@hotmail.corrj Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:13 AM To: Web, Master Subject: RE: Residential Property Question Hello le has been over a montb and no one has gotten bad,: to me on this issue. -·----·----·------ . F1orr.: 'Web,. Mast~r" <W~bmaster@METROKCGOV;. To: <kymkino@hotmaJ1.com> CC: "DDES Web Inquiries,. <ddesweblnqulries@/1ElROK::.GOV> Subject RE: R~sidential Property QtJ6J:km Date: Fn; 12 May 2006 15:00:21 ·0700 ! > Dear Kym: '> ; >I am ~orward1ng your message along to the King ::oL'nL;' '.J an11ng, zoning, : >a:-id perml~tir1g e::qerts (Dep2rt ... 11enl c;f Oeveloprrn•:1~ Jct EnvL-onr.1enla: > Se,-vic.es, or DD.ES). Thank ~·ou fa:-u.s!:,g the K!ng County· 1.Veb s:te. > :;, --------------------------------------------- >--A! Bos::;1 J(lng county Web :t'i?lrn 09/17/2007 '_' i.[-,' >w,w,·.me.tri:ikc:.gov: Always at your service > >--···Original Mes.sage•n- >rrom: kymi<lno@hotmail.com [rnailLo;kymkino@h:_il1r1d1 .w:1,J > Sent· Thursday, May 11, 2006 6:38 PM >To: Web, Master >SubJect: Residenti~I Property QuesL1on > > >On "05/11/2306 11 at "06:37Pl'I.'': A cu:,"t.omer comrrp1~ trorr Ky;n Kinoshita was > ,osted from the King County web page http://wwv: .: netcokc .g:JY ano mailed :. to webmaster@metrokc.gov > >Subject: Residential Property Question >Comment Type: Questior >Emai:· Address: kymklno@ho:mall.com > >My neighbo~ and I sha:-e a common ;::iropetty boundarv an: his :xoperty is >aboJt 3 feet elevat:on change below mine I re:::~:1tly (De:: .!COS) >lns--..ailed 2. retaln!n~ wall to help with erosion of r:iy yard 111to h·1s. > There is a ditCl that runs between our lots. It begin: lfl my Dro;x~rty >and eventually c..-o~ the boundary line and becc:m~s his r:-·:perty. I :.~have drainage pjpes running from u~der my retaining 'Nall the: drain >water in:o this ditch as it is stil: on my propi:rty. t-1<.: 1s claliill:".g >:hc.t: am draining w~ter into his ;J:"Operty and fiood:n9 111s f,)1mdation. >W~en in ac.:uality: am dralnlng water Into the ditch v.·hile it i;; still >i~1 my yard. k the point tna: the ditch becomes his i.:, fa: a1,:' water >d-::ie:s no:. tlow d~wn towards the stree:t as it is su;:i;i0:,2d w. r~o·,1, he is >digging a trench that runs from his storage shed ana con'.'.2cL :.c the >ditch Oti our property line. He wanbi to install rain gJ.ter~ c1n::i :un >dra:nage from the storage shed into tne dftcn. The pro'."Jlc.n·,. Is tl\:1~ >where he is c'o1ng this, the ditch is on my proper:',' an:l he is c·oi:'.IJ >ex;:;ctly what he told me I can 1t do which is drai.i w1:iu.:-011:c sor;1eone >else's property. I'd like to have a surveyor come ou~ t::i rr,a\i:c sure that >the wr.ite posts marking my property boundaries e,e CJrre~L ;:::n:l figure. >ou: wh=i's got the right cf wa.y in this my ditch/hi~ di:r.h 1ssu2. \'.'nere >Co : ever begin? ,;ny help you coul:l provide, I wo:;ld great:r· >appreciate. > >An ei.',ai! response has been requested. > > > 091)72007 Page 3 of3 ' '"-'i:!·'Cl'.IC,/ .'U " ;a~1!JiC''-''-' ! _.' / Legend l!I Highlighted Feature County Boundary '.'~'~-:,,,,~·.' .'b I I - X Mountain Peaks CAO Shoreline Condition ~ r/ thgh ~ r -Modtum ~ ~ ,~ '.!'.18/cl[IC•18/ ~ • < Highways ~ /V Incorporated Area ' rJ"' ~ Streets lhghw3Y ,· .. ;. - Ar1onal5 !I• ,~, Parcels ' Lakes and Large Rivers :OC•!.</'.1;:c1.'c;,; i_• ., Streams 11:,, CAO Basin Condition 1~1 L- 11,gh fconO LI Med,um ' •.. ; D Low ~,,; . ')'.'~:~:,,~'.'cl!.< Shaded Relief ,_,_,~(:_:;,~1.,;_,i; 0 135ft ( 8 DUNCANSON COMPANY ING f"I\II ! 11/:11"-'•'!ul~ ,unc;m;' L1ml l'l.1111u11~ J.15 .\II' !55rh V S1111,• ill:! S,·r10!,·, lf'H,irill,~/U// ')S/M1 l'l1m1<· _'IM._'{-1 JI-II Im _'llti __ , l-f.-f-15.i Figure 3.2 -Critical Areas Map Site@l68xx 106'h Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 I Scale: As specified Drawn: KCF Job No: 07804 4. Runoff Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Ra~k Sh011 Pict DCI 07W4 4. Runoff Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Part A -Existing Site Hvdrology The existing site is vacant and consists mostly of mowed lawn with a scattering of trees located along the southern and western property lines. The site is 0.45 acres. The overall site basin is approximately (l.51 acres. Sec Figure 1.3 -Basin Map. The site basin naturally drains to an onsite non-regulated wetland, which appears to sheet flow towards the southwest comer of the site. The existing site basin conditions are shovm below: EXISTING SITE BASIN SITE BASIN TOTAL IMPERVIOUS Vacant Total TOTAL PERVIOUS Total 22, 140sf Osf Osf 22.140sf Design Storm 24-Hour Precipitation Values 2-year design stom1 event 2.0 inches 5-year design storm event 2.4 inches JO-year design storm event 2.9 inches 25-ycar design storm event 3 .4 inches 100-ycar design stom1 event 3. 9 inches R1.gi, Shor1 l'la: I . -~ 0.508acres O.OOOacres O.OOOacres 0.508acres DCI 0780"- K I :-; Ci C O l. :-; T Y. W A S JI I :-; G . , , '. , ·, R F .\ C E W A T E R D E S I G ,; M A '-/ L A L TABLE 3.5.21l scs \\'ESTERN WASHI\(;T()', Ft·,on CLR\'E :-.LMBERS ~-------~-----------~---·--· ----~----·--- scs WESTERN WASHIIH.,-J\ H,\JFF CURVE NL.:MBERS (Publisced by SCS ill 1982) I Runoff curve numbers for sr_:l~:cted ac;ricultural. suburban and um.an land use for Type 1A :ainfall distribution. 24-hcilJ~ stcrm c.Juration. ··,--· I CURVE NUMBERS BY I HYuROLOGIC SOIL GciOUP A B C D LAN'.) USE DESCRIPTION 86 91 94 ::-~ 74 82 89 winter cond1:1ur: CJltrvated landi1 I 1--------- 1 Mountain open areas low growi:-HJ on;st· and grasslands ____ ...J Meadow or pasture: \Vcod or forest land: Wood or fores: land: Orchard undisturbca or oiCt:' second groYVth young scc,rc· g~J\'.'":~-or brush \t,'lth cover c;rc,::-, Open spaces, iawns, ;)arks. golf courses. cerT1i::ter;es. landscapin·;;. goOO condition grass cov1;r or 7 5~'c. fair condition: Grave1 roads anc· parking lots 1 Dirt roads ano ;:,arking ,o~s or more of t'""\~ aroa grass cover ,_:,,r s::··:v to 75%. of ::-,e :;.~;..ca 65 42 S5 81 68 ,, '' 76 72 78 85 89 64 l!TI 81 72 86 88 92 94 so 86 90 85 ~ 92 85 89 91 82 87 89 i ___ .., [ffi 98 98 ~ ;oo 100 ..• lmper,,1ic,us surfaces, ;)avement, roofs, etc. Open water bodies: lakes. wetlrrn:Js f"YJri-Js eic Singie Far:1ily P.esidential (21 Jwelling Unit/Gross Acre 1 D DU/GA 1.5 DU;GA. 2.0 DU/GA 2.5 DU/GA 3.0 DU/GA. 3.5 DU/GA 4.0 DU:GA 45 DU/GA 5 J DU/GA 5.5 DU/GA 6.0 uu.1GA 6.5 DU/GA 7.0 DU/GA P:anned unrt developmenis c::mdom:niums, apanments. commercial t,usiness ana 0 -:., lmper1ious (_3) 15 20 25 30 34 ~.s Separate curve number shall be selected for pervious and impervious portion cf the site or basin Lustria! areas. __ . __ _______ _____ _ ______________ _ (1) For a more de'.ailec description of agricuit~rt1I ;~wd use curve m .. maers refer to National =ngineer1rii:;; Handbook, Section 4, Hycrology, Chc:q/(~~ 9 .. :,.J,.1ust 1972 (2) Assumes roof a:1d driveway runoff is r_:•r1;::;'.ed ino 3treet.:storm systei7"', (2) T:le remaining per.;ious areas (lawn:, :-:ir•} :~'.):1::i:;er;:d to be in good c:mdition for these cur,.•e numbers. I 1 1 /()'.:'. \ ·; . r {, I ' L : _'\ Ci , ' ~~-~-~.-~CM'=·-~,s·- :i :1J ,(J•:J•' jj ! -~ (, i-! _'\ \' F . \\ 1189_// :: r.~ , .. /~. ;\~--:-'\ -1\ , ___ \ J;, / .)'.·\ \ 20....__,,..---, :: J/'.' / .. . \ · \ <7----:''i. · /' · -··'·/ '\ 2 ·1 ,,,,,·"···y· 2 . / ·= . ') . ;""-,-\ ~ . • , ,.._,n~ <."3 + 24 .,,,, . - . /". · .. 25 l/ -- ---J- C J 2 3 ,1 '., ;., ;, ,,1, ~; ~-.....---, __ _ l: )D'.),.i0.l <r,· r, ,;· . -·~-- 1/GC I I_ ; ~ t '] L : _'-. C, C O l_' h '1 Y, \\ :-., . ------ 10-YEAR 24-HOUR PHECIP!T/J.TlOt,1 j.4-ISOPLUVIAI.S 0" ·1[1-YUcF: 2'1·ri?UF' TOTAL PRECIPIT.L'TiC)h l!·~ i!,JCH::.0 (, : 2 ~~~;;_--.,..~--c-·--,._ ____ _ 1· F :\ c E \\ 1', 1 !_-I< U l. \ I l: !\ M A J...: l /', ,;.-:. r, ·-· I I . _j I _.3,4- ' ' 1 \ , '. I . \'. ·, !~ : ISOPLUVIALS OF 25-'/EAR :4.i-JOcJ: TOT AL PREC:PJT.A T!ON !N INCHES I: f ·'· :· \\:.,--;--r:p . 5.5 , 1,ilj(', I -IJ [ ", 11 (;t iii:~<0 .1 1iI11o-,1\H >1-111,,r, isop1: ' / I ·' I ., L --~ ---· -~--··- .,... 3.4 -lSOPLUV!AL~l GF -! J[ .. \.rr_:_.:"<? ::.-~ .. :..iCU! TOTAL PREC/P;TA-:·1e:r~1 :r.. ;J,!Ci-iE.: L \ f : , . . ·v-, \)< •• Part B -Developed Site Hydrolob" The developed site shall consist or 3 new single-family residences and a new private access road extending from I 06 1h i\ venue S lo. The developed site basin conditions are shown below: DEVELOPED SITE BASIN SITE BASIN TOTAL IMPERVIOUS: Lot Coverage Private Access Road Total TOTAL PERVIOUS: Total Ragle Shan Pia: 22,140sf 7,500sf 2,318sf 9,818sf 0.508acres 0.172acres 0.053acres 0.225acres 2,500 sf per lot 12,322sf 0.283acres : i ·1,g DCI 07804 Part C -Performance Standards The City of Renton drainage design standards specify that the flov.rntes from the existing and developed conditions shall be calculated using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph to see if the drainage threshold e:\cmption (0.5 cfs) is exceeded. See Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 for existing and dcvdopccl llowpaths used to determine the respective flov.Tates. Below are the results from th,· analyzes: As shown in the tables below and the following page, the developed I 00-ycar peak does not exceed the existing by more than 0.5 cfs. Therefore. no flow control is required per the 1990 KCSWDM design criteria as adopted by the City of Renton. Exist Event Summary Event Peak Q (cfs) Peak T (hrs) H)<l Vol (acft) Arca (ac) 2 year 0.0643 8.17 0.035 l 0.5100 5 year 0.0952 8.17 0.fN81 0.5100 IO year 0.1369 8. I 7 (i.06°7 0.5100 25 year 0.1808 8. I 7 (1.11840 0.5100 100 year 0.2263 8.17 11.1028 0.5100 Design Method SBLII Rainfall type Hyd Intv l O.UO min Peaking Factor Abstraction Coeff Pervious Area (AMC 2) 0.51 ac DCIA Pervious CN Pervious TC Type """ --·---____ ,, ____ 85.59 DCCN ::Z:2.14min DCTC Pen ious CN Cale Description Open spaces, la\vns, park:-. (50-750-o grass) \Vood/forcst land (young ::Zml grO\\ th -'brush) Pervious Compu'.1itcd C"\ (AMC 2) Pcn:ious TC Cale Description Length Slope Sheet Dense grasses : 0.24 21111 011 Ii 4.80% Pcrviouc; TC -i I ·r:~ Coeff 0.2400 Method SBlJH SBUH SBUH SBUII SBUH ·-·--·--. --·- SubArea 0.26 ac 0.25 ac Misc Raintype TYPElA TYPElA TYPEIA TYPEJA TYPEIA TYPE IA 484.00 0.20 0.00 ac 0.00 0.00 min Sub en 90.00 81.00 85.59 TT '.2.00 in ::Z::Z.14min 22.14min DCJ 07804 Developed Event Summary Event Peak Q (cfs) Peak T (hrs) 2 year 0. I 688 5 year 0.2159 IO year 0.2763 25 year 0.3374 100 year 0.3988 Design Method Hyd lntv 8.00 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83 Hnl Vol (acft) Area (ac) Method IJ .11,9 I 0.5080 SBUH (1.(1747 0.5080 SBUH 11 094 7 0.5080 SBUII 111149 0.5080 SBUI! II. Ll53 0.5080 SBUH SIJUI I Rainfall type Hi.OU min Peaking Factor ... -··. ----- Pervious Area (AMC 2) Pervious CN Pervious TC Abstraction Coeff 0.28 ac .DCIA 90.00 DCCN 5.35 min DCTC Pcrvious C1'" Cale Description Open spaces, lawns, parks ( 50-7~U-'o grass) Pervious Co111pos1lcd C>l (AMC 2) Pcrvious TC Cale SubArea 0.28 ac Rain type TYPE IA TYPE IA TYPE IA TYPE IA TYPEIA TYPE IA 484.00 0.20 0.22 ac 98.00 0.41 min Sub en 90.00 90.00 Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc TT Sheet Short prairie grass and lawns.: 0.15 35.00 ft 2.00% 10.1500 2.00 in 5.35 min Pcrvious TC Directly Connected CN Cale Description Impervious surfaces (pavcmcnb. roofs. etc) DC Composited CN I AMC 2) Directly Connected TC Cale Type Description Length Channel (cont) CONTlNOUS FLOW -R 04 95.00 ft Channel (intcnn) CMP pipe (n~0.024 l 35.00 ft Dircctl:, Conn~·ctcd TC Ragl~ Sholl Plal ~" (:8 Slope 7.40% .3.00% SubArea 0.22 ac Coeff 0.0350 0.0240 Misc 5.35 min Sub en 98.00 98.00 TT 0.25 min 0.16 min 0.4 lmin DC! 07804 lO l[) 0 z __J 'O sr, N 7 0 z: ,\J88°H-'06"W R1=200 LF @ 4,8% ~ 140, 08' ~ ~ NGPE LI~> ~ WETLAND A 2,; 44 SF · N88''.4'21"W 140.06 X: \?co jects \2007 ?rojec ts \07804RoglePropertySP\07804l OT\cwg \01804MOD.dwg I LI) LI) 0 v u1 "' ,::-: :') "' I I I 30'-~~:~~~ ,30' -~1 l f w (/) w =:i z w > <( I f- C.D 0 .,-- I ,, ,'J'/ \, ) I r I ~ GRAPHIC SCALE 20 a ffi 10 20 40 (TN FEET) I Inch~ 20 It DUNCANSO,~ COMPANY, INC Civil Engineering Sun'eying L:md Planning 145 SW 155th Streo. St1ite 102 Seattle, fVash111g1on 98 I 66 Phone 206.244 . ./141 Fax 206.2./4.-/.155 Figure 4.1 -Existing Site Conditions Scale: l" ~ 20' Drawn: KCF Job :'lo. 07804 (D C') 0 'T ·;c ,v, 1 @ u.. ~ 11~ I~ ~ 25" WE !_Af\:0 J, g!JF=-~R, TVD_ ,,.~ / 7 1 , _,--~~--------~--- 01 r.·. "C/"\ r N88"14'06'"w ~ 2 -~ 140.08" ~ I I ~ I \ ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ \ \ \ 3 ~ \ ~ "(Q,( NG?E ~L,NE \ ~ WETLAN·o· A -I . , ~-1 ~4 _sr _ . -J N88'14'21 "'W 140.06" X: \Fro jects \2007 Projects \078C4~agle 0 ropertySP\07804LC T\dwg \C 7804M0Cl. dwg \ ·------.30' L[) cl 0 'T L:J ,"") C z --~1----30' ----, w Cf) w ~ z w > <r: I f--- (.D 0 -s-- I l {\ 'Fl r,:t:/ \ ..... ../ I ~ GRAPHIC SCALE 20 rmi C[} ~-f 0 10 20 40 (IN Fl:ET) I inch~ 20 tl. DUNCANSON COMPANY, 1NC. Civil Engineeri11!,: Surv~yrng · Lind Plnnuing /.f 5 SW I 5 5th Street, Suite 102 Seattle, Washington 98166 Phone 206 244.4Ul Fax 206.244.4455 figure 4.2 -Developed Site Conditions Scale: l"" = 20" Drawn: KCF Joh No. 07804 Part D -Flow Control Svstem The developed JOO-year peak docs not exceed the existing by more than 0.5 cfs. Therefore, flow control is not required per the 1990 KCSWDM design criteria as adopted hy the City of Renton. It is antiei pated that the future homes would include dispersal systems or other appropriate BMP. s near the wetland huff er edge. Part E -Water Quality System The new private access road will create 2,318 square feet of new impervious subject to vehicle traUic. Water Quality is not required for this project because it will produce less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious subject to vehicle traffic. Ragle Sh,m P:at :JC! 07804 5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design Ragle Shor: Plal DCI 0780~ S. Conveyance System Anal~·sis and Design No conveyance systems are proposed. DC! 07804 6. Special Reports and Studies Rar-.lc Sha. t Plat DCJ 07804 6. Special Reports and Studies J\ wetland report and geotechnical report ifrorn abutting project Talbot Highlands) have been prepared and included with this submittal. Rag]~ 5'"·"1 Pie· ' ; I 8 DC! 07804 7. Other Permits fb~LL· Shc11t Plal ·, ,, nu v;~o4 7. Other Permits This section shall be provided at the /1nal engineering stage. DCI 078C-1 8. CSWPPP Analysis and Design Ra~k Sho,: Pia: DCI 0/XO~ 8. CSWPPP Analysis and Design This section shall be provided at the lirnt! engineering stage. Ragle Short P.at 't8 DCI O?XU,l 9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant .I, I.,.~ DC! 07RM 9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant This section shall be provided at the final engineering stage. Kagle Shnn l'la: DCJ 0780·1 10. Operations and Maintenance Manual Ragk Shon Pia: ' '.:i~ DCI 07804 10. Operations and Maintenance Manual This section shall be provided at the Ii nal engineering stage. Kagle Sho11 Peal DCI 8780"- .. ,-. ·1· . ·,. l\)\i\< ,';,\'l' . [. .. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY TALBOT HEIGHTS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT 16808 AND 16816 106TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON October 29, 2007 Project No. E-13050 Prepared for RW Puget Sound Holdings, LLC 2011 South 341 st Place Federal Way, Washington 98003 C, EARTH CONSUL TING INCORPORATED 1805136th Place Northeast Suite 201 Bellevue. Washington 98005 [4251 643-3780 Toll Free 1-888-739-6670 C, EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED :.J C1eotecl1nical Ell October 29, 2007 Mr. Russ Hibbard RW Puget Sound Holdings, LLC 2011 South 341 st Place Federal Way, Washington 98003 Project No. E-13050 Dear Mr. Hibbard: ...J Co,1slruc.10··1 fv'.a.terials -:-esting ..J Special Inspections Earth Consulting Incorporated (ECI) is pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Talbot Heights Single-Family Residence Development, 16808 and 16816 106th Avenue Southeast, King County, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study were outlined in our September 12, 2007, proposal. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSUL TING INCORPORATED Steve J. Scharf Senior Staff Geologist SJSIKMW/skp . . . ro/2.9fo7 ~ m--00-oji ' Kristina M. Weller, PE Principal 1805 136'" Place Northeast #201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 643-3780 • Fax (425) 746-0860 eci@eci-mti.com • www.eci-mti.com TABLE OF CONTENTS E-13050 PAGE INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 General ..................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ................................................................................................. 1 Scope of Services ................................................................................................... 2 SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 3 Surface ..................................................................................................................... 3 Subsurface ............................................................................................................... 3 Geologic Map Review .................................................................................... 3 Subsurface Exploration .................................................................................. 3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 4 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................. 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 5 General ..................................................................................................................... 5 Site Preparation and General Earthwork .............................................................. 5 Stripping ......................................................................................................... 5 Structural Fill .................................................................................................. 6 Foundations ............................................................................................................. 6 Retaining Walls .........•............................•................................................................. 7 Slab-on-Grade Floors ............................................................................................. 8 Seismic Design Considerations ............................................................................ 8 Ground Rupture .............................................................................................. 8 Liquefaction .................................................................................................... 8 Ground Motion Response .............................................................................. 9 Excavations and Slopes ......................................................................................... 9 Site Drainage ......................................................................................................... 1 O Utility Support and Backfill .................................................................................. 10 Suggested Pavement Sections ............................................................................ 1 O LIMIT ATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 11 Additional Services ............................................................................................... 11 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 APPENDICES Appendix A Plate A1 Plates A2 through A9 Appendix B Plates B1 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued E-13050 Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Field Exploration Legend Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Grain-Size Analyses General GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY TALBOT HEIGHTS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT 16808 AND 16816106TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST KING COUTNY, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consulting Incorporated (ECI) for the proposed Talbot Heights Single-Family Residence Development. 16808 and 16816 106th Avenue Southeast. King County, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the "Vicinity Map," Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and, based on the conditions encountered, to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for developing the site with a single-family residence development Project Description The subject site consists of two parcels that make up the approximately 1.8-acre site, located at 16808 and 16816 106th Avenue Southeast, King County, Washington. We understand it is planned to develop the site with a 15-lot single-family residence development. We anticipate the buildings will be of relatively lightly loaded wood-framed construction with a combination of wood joist and slab-on-grade floors. We anticipate wall loads will be on the order of 2 to 3 kips per lineal foot and column loads will be in the range of 20 to 40 kips. We estimate slab-on-grade floor loads will be up to 150 pounds per square foot (psf). We understand that access to the site will be provided from the east side of 106th Avenue Southeast. The access road will extend approximately 150 feet east from 106th Avenue Southeast to a T-intersection. Two roads will extend from the intersection to the north and south property lines. We anticipate maximum cuts and fills in the range of 1 O feet or less will be required to reach construction subgrade elevations within the limits of the site. We understand that stormwater from the site will be disposed of into a stormwater control facility located at the southwest corner of the site. At the time our study was performed, the site and the exploration locations were approximately located as shown on the "Test Pit Location Plan," Plate 2. If the above project criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING ST\JDY October 29. 2007 E-13050 Scope of Services We performed this study in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in our September 12, 2007, proposal. On this basis, our study addresses the following: • Evaluation of general subsurface conditions and description of types, distribution, and engineering characteristics of subsurface materials • Evaluation of geologic hazards, including site seismicity, slopes, liquefaction, and seismic settlement potential, and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures • Evaluation of general groundwater conditions and potential impact on design and construction • General recommendations for earthwork, including site preparation, excavation, site drainage • Determination of the seismic design parameters • Evaluation of project feasibility and suitability of on-site soils for foundation support • Recommendations for suitable foundations, including allowable soil bearing capacities, associated settlement estimates, and lateral pressures and resistances • Recommendations for the design of retaining walls • Recommendations for subgrade preparation for floor slab and slab-on-grade support • Recommendations for temporary and permanent slopes • Recommendations for utility support and backfill • Suggestions for pavement sections EARTH CONSUL TING INCORPORATED Page 2 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINeERING 51\JDY October 29. 2007 Surface E-13050 SITE CONDITIONS The rectangular-shaped site is located along the east side of 106th Avenue Southeast, approximately 900 feet south of the intersection of Benson Road South and 106th Avenue Southeast, King County, Washington. The site is bordered to the north, south and east by single-family residence lots and to the west by 106th Avenue Southeast. The topography of the site is relatively level. The overall elevation change within the site is on the order of 15 feet, sloping down from the northeast to the southwest portion of the site. The gradient throughout the majority of the site is in the range of 4 percent or less and ranges up to 13 percent at the northeast quadrant of the site. The site is vegetated primarily with grass lawns and landscaping shrubs and trees. The northeast quadrant of the site is vegetated with deciduous trees and evergreen trees, with an undergrowth of sword ferns and miscellaneous brush. Subsurface Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by reviewing a geologic map of the site and excavating eight test pits at the site. Geologic Map Review Based on review of the Geologic Map of King County, Washington compiled by Booth, Haugerud and Sacket (2002), the subject site is mapped as glacial till (Qvt). Glacial till is described as a compact diamict of silt, sand and gravel deposited by glaciers. Subsurface Exploration Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating eight test pits on October 4, 2007, at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 10 feet below grade using a rubber-tired backhoe. The test pit logs are included as Plates A2 through A9. Please refer to the test pit logs for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at each test pit location. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. At the test pit locations, 4 to 6 inches of topsoil was generally encountered. The topsoil was characterized by its dark brown color and the presence of sod and organic material. Underlying the topsoil at the location of Test Pit TP-2, 3 feet of fill comprised of loose silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) was encountered. The fill was characterized by its loose condition and disturbed appearance. Underlying the fill at the location of Test Pit TP-2, 1.5 feet of medium dense brown silty sand (SM) overlying dense glacial till was encountered to the maximum exploration depth of 8.5 feet below grade. The glacial till was comprised of moderately cemented silty sand (SM) with gravel. eARTli CONSUL TING INCORPORATED Page 3 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING 51'\JDY October 29, 2007 E-13050 Underlying the topsoil at the location of Test Pit TP-4, very dense glacial till was encountered to the maximum exploration depth of 5 feet below grade. Underlying the topsoil at the remaining test pit locations, 1 to 3 feet of loose to medium dense silty sand with variable amounts of gravel (SM) overlying dense to very dense glacial till was encountered to the maximum exploration depth of 10 feet below grade. Based on the subsurface explorations and our review of the geologic map of the site, the soils encountered in the test pits correspond with the mapped soil unit. Groundwater No groundwater seepage was encountered in the test pits at the time of our exploration, October 2007. Iron oxide staining was commonly observed in the zone between the surficial silty sand and the glacial till encountered in the test pits. The mottling at this location is likely indicative of groundwater percolating through the relatively permeable soils and becoming perched over the relatively impermeable dense glacial till. The contractor should be aware that groundwater levels should not be considered static. Groundwater levels fluctuate depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the groundwater level is higher in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual classifications were supplemented by grain- size analyses on representative samples. Moisture content tests were performed on representative samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided at the appropriate sample depth on the individual test pit logs or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical engineering recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Professional Services Contract, the soil samples from this project will be discarded following completion of this report unless we are directed otherwise in writing. EARTl-1 CONSUL TING INCORPORATED Page 4 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STIJDY October 29, 2007 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General E-13050 Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The proposed buildings may be supported on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on competent native soil or structural fill used to modify site grades. Concrete slab- on-grade floors should be similarly supported. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. This report is for the exclusive use of RW Puget Sound Holdings, LLC and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork Review of the preliminary site plan indicates site earthwork will consist of installing erosion control measures, stripping the site, grading the site to provide building and access road grades, constructing the stormwater facility, installing underground utilities and drainage, and completing footing excavations for the proposed buildings. If desired, the vegetation at the location of the lots may remain undisturbed during construction of the access roads and stormwater facility to aid in erosion control at the site. Stripping Prior to stripping, on-site erosion control measures consisting of silt fencing and surface water controls should be installed around the perimeter of the site. The building and pavement areas and areas to receive structural fill should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation, organic matter, existing foundations or pavements, and other deleterious material. Based on the thickness of the topsoil and vegetation cover encountered at the exploration locations, we anticipate a typical stripping depth of 4 to 6 inches. The actual stripping depth should be based on field observation at the time of construction. Root balls from vines, brush, and trees should be grubbed out to remove roots greater than about 1-inch in diameter. The depth of excavation to remove root balls could exceed 2.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Depending on the grubbing methods used, disturbance and loosening of the subgrade could occur during the grubbing process. Soil disturbed during the grubbing process should be compacted in place to the requirements of structural fill. In no case should the stripped or grubbed materials be used as structural fill or mixed with material to be used as structural fill. The stripped materials may be "wasted" on site in non- structural landscaping areas or placed on finished lots as topsoil, or they should be exported. EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 5 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING ST\JDY October 29, 2007 E-13050 Existing utility pipes to be abandoned should be plugged or removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and instability problems. Following the stripping operation, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be placed should be observed by a representative of ECI. Proofrolling may be necessary to identify soft or unstable areas. Proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Soil in loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with a granular structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may also help to bridge unstable areas. ECI can provide recommendations for geotextiles, if necessary. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, floor slabs, pavements, or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. In our opinion, the native soils that will be encountered on site can be considered for use as structural fill provided the soil is near its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. The site soils have a relatively high fines content of up to 47 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, resulting in very moisture sensitive conditions. Moisture conditioning the soils, adding water or aerating, to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions will be difficult. Subsequently, a contingency in the earthwork budget should be included in the earthwork contract for costs associated with importing structural fill. An imported granular structural fill may be a necessary alternative to using the existing site soils for raising site grades, utility trench backfill, and road base fill. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well-graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near its optimum moisture content and has a maximum aggregate size of 4 inches. During wet weather conditions or where groundwater seepage is encountered, structural fill should consist of a fairly well-graded granular material having a maximum aggregate size of 4 inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. Foundations Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, the proposed building may be supported on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on competent native soil or structural fill used to modify site grades. If loose native soil or existing fill is encountered at subgrade elevation, the loose soil should be compacted to the requirement of structural fill. Alternatively the foundations may extend through the loose soil to suitable bearing soils. We anticipate suitable bearing soils will be encountered between 0.5 and 3 feet below existing grade. EARTH CONSUL TING INCORPORATED Page 6 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING 51\JDY October 29, 2007 E-13050 Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grade for frost protection. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of 16 and 18 inches, respectively. With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2500 psf may be used for medium dense to dense native soils or structural fill. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor-of-safety in excess of 3.0 against shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a 1/3 increase in the above allowable bearing capacity can be used. With structural loading as expected and provided the above design criteria are followed, total settlement of less than approximately 1 inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of approximately 0.5 inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.30 should be used. Resistance due to passive earth pressure may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for footings backfilled with structural fill. These values are allowable values; a factor-of-safety of 1.5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. Unless covered by pavements or slabs, the passive resistance in the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected. ECI should be retained to observe the foundation subgrade prior to placement of structural fill, forms, or rebar. Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained soils and applicable surcharge loads. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 35 pcf. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to 50 pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions. Surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other surcharge loads are assumed to not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressure. The passive pressure, allowable bearing capacity, and friction coefficient previously provided in the "Foundations" section are applicable to the retaining wall design. EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 7 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STIJDY October 29, 2007 E-13050 To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to build up behind the walls, retaining walls should be backfilled with a free-draining material extending at least 18 inches behind the wall. The free-draining backfill should consist of either pea gravel or washed rock. A rigid, 4- inch-diameter, schedule 40, perforated PVC drain pipe should be placed at the base of the footing of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of 1 cubic foot per lineal foot with pea gravel or washed rock. The pipe should be placed with the perforations down. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on competent native soil or structural fill. Loose or disturbed subgrade soil must either be compacted to the requirements of structural fill or replaced with structural fill. Slabs should be provided with a capillary break comprised of a minimum of 4 inches of free- draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab. Seismic Design Considerations Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity; however, the majority of these events are of such low magnitude they are not detected without instruments. Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area and the 2001, 6.8 magnitude earthquake in the Nisqually area. There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response. Ground Rupture The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from 30 to 55 miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site during a strong motion seismic event is negligible. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to- grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain-size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt), it must be loose, it must be below the groundwater table, and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. EARTH CONSUL TING INCORPORATED Page 8 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY October 29, 2007 E-13050 In our opinion, the liquefaction potential at this site is low to negligible. This conclusion is based on the dense soils encountered at the test pit locations and the lack of a shallow groundwater table. Ground Motion Response The 2003 International Building Code® (/BC) regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design-base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion Site Class C, 'Very dense soil or soft rock," as defined in Table 1615.1.1 of the /BC, should be used to characterize the site soils. In accordance with Section 1615.1.2 of the /BC, seismic values, Sms = 1.218 and Sm1 = 0.642 should be used for design. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state (WISHA), and federal (OSHA) safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the loose fill and medium dense surficial soils encountered in the test pit locations would be classified as Type C by WISHNOSHA. Temporary cuts greater than 4 feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1.5H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical). The underlying dense silty sand encountered in the test pits would be classified as Type A by WISHNOSHA and should be sloped at an inclination of 0.75:1V. If seepage is encountered in the excavation, the soils should be classified as Type C and cut accordingly. An ECI representative should observe temporary excavations to verify soil and groundwater conditions and the soil type. If slopes of the above inclinations or flatter cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse and will provide protection to workers in the excavation. If additional temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. EARTH CONSUL TING INCORPORATED Page 9 GEOTECHINCAL ENGINEERING STUDY October 29, 2007 Site Drainage E-13050 During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is collected and tightlined to an appropriate drainage facility. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Loose soil surfaces should be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundation. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 2 percent in paved areas and 3 percent in landscaped areas for a distance of at least 1 O feet from the buildings. Footing drains may be installed around the perimeter of the building at or just below the invert of the footing, as shown on the ''Typical Footing Subdrain Detail," Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Utility Support and Backfill The site soils should generally provide adequate support for utilities. Where loose soils or unstable conditions are encountered, remedial measures, such as compacting subgrade soils exposed in the trench bottom, may be required. In addition, caving of trench walls should be anticipated in trench excavations in the loose soil or where seepage is encountered in the excavation. Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to provide support around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to approximately 12 inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than 12 inches and compacted to the requirements of structural fill. Suggested Pavement Sections The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a proper subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the "Site Preparation and General Earthwork" section of this report. The pavement subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet, or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Additional subgrade preparation, such as overexcavation of the soft soil and replacement with crushed rock, may be needed. The recommended pavement sections assume the pavement subgrade soils will be compacted and in a firm and unyielding condition. Proofrolling should be performed to identify soft, unstable areas. Proofrolling should be performed using a fully loaded dump truck and should be observed by a representative from ECI. EARTH CONSUL TING INCORPORATED Page 10 GEOTEOIINCAL ENGINEERING ST\JDY October 29, 2007 E-13050 Assuming a properly prepared subgrade, either of the following pavement sections for lightly loaded areas is suggested: • 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material • 2 inches of AC over 3 inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material The above pavement sections may be superseded by minimum sections required by King County. These pavement sections may need to be modified based on anticipated traffic loads and frequency. Pavement materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. Class B asphalt mix should be used. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the observed site conditions, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided for us, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between the exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the grading. Additional Services As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. EAR1li CONSULTING INCORPORATEO Page 11 ~--·~Cllllh f"ls, :,..5'; <c-, ~v. "' V, ~ > -< ~ < SIi RENTON SW 3:<RV Sr SW 1/jl{T(}N SIi 8TH liETLA\'!lS SI w ... .. t'1t SW ~~ ... z:,. .;: <[ ~ -,,. •' 1 ~-RR •. , ·~ . .. ---.,,." t .~ 7TH 1, SW 19TH ST FS ='iii ~::; (/') i'l SIi 23RO ST 27Tk > < I/Hu.NOS SIi 30TH ST 34TH 0 :z :; ST SIi 29TH ST w ST .., < SIi 39TH ST 13 i=- "" !ii"' ~ SW ~~ 41ST ST < )> r- 1 n, -< $ QJ I CJ/Ef/( ll[fL4'1[! s F .. , t I I I I I Map © Rand McNally & Company, RL.07·S·23, re produced with permission. It is unlawful to further copy or reproduce wi th out se pa rate pe rmission from Rand McNally. A NORTH NOT TO SCALE 5l H _..,· , ..... AJ.80T il}ILI PARK ST i ,, TR t :: ., LU 27TH ST ;! SE JMTH ST V) w V, > <( I " ~ ~I 1' a, 8 '" EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED .., V, > <( " I § - VICINITY MAP TALBOT HEIGHT S SE ;,.6'Tli w :;; V1 ;; ~ > < S 169 a = = 'h fl KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DRWN. DNM PROJ . NO. 13050 C HKD . SJS DATE 10/22/07 PLATE 1 SE 16611-1 ST TP-1 I -•-I if '(;<,h -,, .. ,, ",-· ,w ' '' r I 4.1,'' :·: I ! 3 •,,'.'!, I -. --- ' 1'/1 I/;!, -----···=, •. -------"-----~.,---~ TP-61 -•-2 I ' 'l,', I ,, J 6 -• ' 9 1 TP-5 -•- "' I 10 ,_.,,.,.,, TP-7 1 l~.,-·,, '~ , . I ,., ., I ~ TP-81 ...-~~--~~'"''-" ' ! ! ' I -------------- I TP-1 -•-I TRACT A '1.J)'_, '".> TP-2 •·· 1 -•-' I 13 14 .. /' TP-3 ' I --•=-I ~·----~··~·-····· .. ---.. -··----~-~"~-~~"~~--~··~· ---~ i SE 172ND ST LEGEND Approximate location of ECI test pit, Proj. No. E-13050, October 2007 0 A NORTH 60 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET REFERENCE: DUNCANSON COMPANY, INC., PROGRESS DRAFT 9/5/07 C, EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED DRWN. DNM CHKD. SJS TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN TALBOT HEIGHTS KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON PROJ. NO. 13050 DATE 10/22/07 PLATE 2 4 INCH MIN. DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE l SLOPE TO DRAIN 0 t2 t2 z ~ :c u z CX) ~ 2 INCH MIN. 2 INCH MIN. 1 41NCH MAX. 12 INCH MIN. 1 l'.\~':?.Fi::'.:::;i;] ~ 0 LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material Washed rock or pea gravel Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid Schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35 pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING C, Earth Consulting Incorporated TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL TALBOT HEIGHTS KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DRWN. DNM PROJ. NO. 13050 CHKD. SJS DATE 10/22/07 PLATE 3 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-13050 Earth Consulting Incorporated (ECI) performed the field exploration on October 4, 2007. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating eight test pits to a maximum depth of 10 feet below existing grade. The test pits were excavated by Aikins' Excavating using a tracked excavator. Approximate test pit locations were estimated by pacing from site features depicted on a site plan. The test pit elevations were estimated based on topographic data depicted on the site plan. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by Mr. Steve Scharf, a representative from our firm, who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative samples, and observed pertinent site features. The samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), which is presented on the "Legend," Plate A 1. Representative soil samples were collected and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Logs of the test pits are presented on Plates A2 through A9. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. MAJOR DIVISIONS Gravel and gravelly soils Clean gravels (little or no tines) GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no tines Coarse-grained soils More than 50% coarse fraction retained on No 4 Sieve GM// Gravels with tines 1~-~·~·~·~-~~~:::/::_/_._'g~m~-S-ilt_y_g_,a_v_e_1s_,_g_ra_v_e_l--sa_n_d_-_s1_11_m_ix_1_ur_e_s _____ ---l (appreciable amount f 11 ,,, of fines) v " GC /,,,.,.,,. More than 50% material larger than No. 200 sieve size Fine-grained soils More than 50% material smaller than No. 200 sieve size Sand and sandy soils Moro than 50% coarse 1raction passing No 4 Sieve Silts and clays Silts and clays Highly organic soils Topsoil Fill Clean sane {little or no fines} Sands with fintc:> (appreciable arnou·1t of fines) Liquid lirrn: less than !JO Liquid limit greater than '.:ll /,,,, /~ / ./.... ,,..,....--gc 0 00 "0 0°0 0 0 o Q O Q O Q Q <) Q ~> o~:"oo<oooa:\"o 0 0 0°0 0 "..-o to ooo<>o<>oo I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OL / _/,., /./··· ol Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands, gravelly sands. little or no irnes Poorly-graded sands gravelly sands, little or no fir1es Silty sands, sarid-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty-clayey fine sands, clayey silts with slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silly clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, m1caceous or diatomaccous fine sand or silty soils Inorganic clays ol high plasticity, iat clays Organic clays of medium lo high plasticity, organic sills ;:,.,_,. ~ ~ PT //. Peat. humus, swarnp soils with high organic ~ ~ / ___ ,.,/ pt contents , , ' • ' Humus and duff layer ~ ~ Vv'VV'/V ~ flighly variable constituents The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Dua! symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. C qu w p pcf LL Pl C, TORVANE READING, tsf PENETROMETER READING, tsf MOISTURE, % dry weight SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED DRY DENSITY, lb. per cubic ft LIQUID LIMIT, % PLASTIC INDEX Earth Consulting Incorporated 2" O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER I; 2.4" I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER I WATER OBSERVATION WELL DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER DURING EXCAVATION y SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL WITH DATE LEGEND -A1 Test Pit Log Project Name: of 1 Talbot Heights JobNo.-\ Logged by: 13050 ; SJS ----------- I Sh 1 eet ~-;st -P-it_N_o_.: __ _ \ TP-1 -- 1 Date: ~ :;; N ~ ~ D "' i3 w ii " 0 ~ 0 ~ " g c ~ ~ 1014/07 ------------,-------------~ Excavation Contractor: ______!<ikins' Excavatin~g~-- Notes: Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: I 420· ___ _ -- General Notes I u 0 w E .0 0. E (%) ~ >. (9 {/J '' ! ~ V 0. _. a. E V IL Cl "' {/J {/) 0 (.) .0 f/J E ~ J, Surface Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 4"; grass lawn Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, dry -iron oxide staining ' 11 SM "" :11!i i : r~ SM -1-----------------Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Glacial Till) -iron oxide staining -moderate cementation -occasional cobble :1_--j; .:._ n 1:. :1~ 1Jilllll 10H- I . I I 12.4 -46 7% fines [ __ Test pit terminated at 10' below existing grade No groundwater I encountered during excavation. Earth Consulting Incorporated Test Pit Log Talbot Heights King County, Washington --- ~1---------,----------,,--------1---------,----------,-------i ~ Proj. No. 13050 Dwn. DNM Date 10122/07 Checked SJS [ Date 10/22/07 I Plate A2 Subsurface cond1t1ons depicted represent our observations at the time and focat1on of this exploratory hole, modified by eng1neenng tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sheet of Talbot Heights Job No ___ ~ge~ ------ ___ __ ___ ~--__ 1 _1 ___ 1 __ _ , Date: _ ~--Tesstt Pit No.: ____1]Q_50 , __ll& ~----_ _ Excavation Contractor: ~ikins' Excavating Notes: 10/4/07 l__IP-2 --_JApprox. Ground-Surfa~~ Elevation: --- 422' --------------------~ General Notes w :2 :g :5 . !I Cf)" g-E fil-U: E ~i (%) .... » o (1j I :, Cf)"' ('.) Cf) Cf) I Surface Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 4"; grass lawn ~i +---! SM I :~ 1 '-1 I ~> 2t 1 "·" ·~~ :~~SM i 10 -6 lill!~ 5 ij, SM-1 -Brown silty SA-ND with-gr-ave-l,-d-ens-e,-moist-(G-lacia-l -Ti-11) 1111 -iron oxide staining I I 1!1111 :f~ I Brown silty SAND, loose, moist (Fill) Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist --------~ i 10 9 11111 8 1~-1 I -moderate cementation I I -1··"uJI 1 11 11 I_--II -Test pit terminated-at 8.5'below existin-g-grade Nogro_u_n_d-water --- encountered during excavation. : i I I I I ! I I I I I I I I ' I I ' I I i I : I ' I ! : I ! I I I I ! I I I I ! gf------'----'-------'----'-------~----------------------1 g Test Pit Log g Earth Consulting Incorporated Talbot Heights a: King County, Washington si1-------~-------~-------1-------~--------~------i i Proj. No. 13050 Dwn. DNM I Date 10/22/07 Checked SJS I Date 10/22/07 I Plate A3 Subsurface condrt1ons depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this Jog. Test Pit Log Project Name: Talbot Heights J~~o IL1~by ______ - ------------------ Excavation Contractor: Aikins' Excavating -------------------- ! 1 . Sheet of 1 1 --------------·------~ Date I Test P,t No· 10/4/07 __ __ TP-3 ________ _ Approx Ground Surface Elevation _J_ 425' -------------------- Notes: General Notes I ! .2 0 I .<!! I O I Surface Conditions: W·..c.o:S D..~.DI I (%) I i 1 i i[ l 1 ~ 1 Depth of topsoil and sod 4"; grass lawn I ]1111 1 t ~ :~ l Brown silty SA_N_D w_ith-gra_ve_l, m_e_d_ium-de-ns_e._m_oi-st __ _ 1 11100 ,r- 1 I I '" 11111111 t1 I I lul ~ s 1=l --I-Test pit terminated at 5' bel;;-wexisting grade.No-groundwater 1 1 ! i i I encountered during excavation. I I : i I I I I I I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I i I I I I I I I II I I I I I --- Light gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, dry (Glacial Till) -moderate to strong cementation --- I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I i : § I I I I I ; I I [ I I i ~1-----~-~--"----"----~-------.-----------------------t 0 ~ -Test Pit Log g Earth Consulting Incorporated Talbot Heights a: King County, Washington in1-------~-------~--------J-------~--------~------1 i'! I I I ,;; Proj.No. 13050 Dwn. DNM Dale 10/22/07 Checked SJS Date 10/22/07 Plate A4 Subsurface cond1t1ons depicted represent our observat,ons at the time and Jocat1on of thts exploratory hole, modified by engrneenng tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. " g ,_ a: I;; i" ~ Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sheet of _Talbot Heights 1 1 ------------- Job No. I Logged by Date: Test Pit No.: 13050 10/4/07 TP-4 SJS --------------i ----- Excavation Contractor: Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: - Aikins' Excavating 428' -- Notes: I .Q O ! ..c ~ Cf) 0 Surtace Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 4"; sword ferns, misc. brush General I w ..c ..0 ! a. . a. 0 .D I Notes (%) fil-E<VILE Cf) E Cl Jj' 0 u5 ::J >, Cf) I ' Ii -·-SM Light gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, dry (Glacial Till) 11- •• ~ ! 2 _J ' ' -moderate to strong cementation I ~-I 7.3 i I 3~ ' -- 4• -- -becomes moist --- 51 -------------- Test pit terminated at 5' below existing grade. No groundwater I ' encountered during excavation. ' I ' I I I I I I I i ' I ' I Test Pit Log Earth Consulting Incorporated Talbot Heights King County, Washington Proj. No. 13050 Own. DNM J Date 10/22/07 Checked SJS I Date 10/22/07 I Plate A5 Subsurface cond1t1ons depicted represent our obseivat1ons at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. - "' s a: @ ;;; Test Pit Log Project Name: ! Sheet of Talbot Heights I 1 1 I Logged by: ------- ~itNo.: - Job No. I Date: 13050 SJS I 10/4/07 TP-5 ' I Excavation Contractor: _Lpprox. Ground Surface Elevation: Aikins' Excavating 435' ---------- Notes: u-ID U) 0 I Surface Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 6"; sword ferns, misc. brush General w --0 E. ....; Q_ ~-" 0-" '" E E Notes (%) ~ >-ID LL ro <f! E 0 :, >-0 if) U) U) Ill! '1:-1 SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist -contains gravel 2~, ~I -21.3% fines 10.2 :8-sM ' ------------------- I Light brown silty SAND, dense, moist {Glacial Till) -iron oxide staining . s~l -contains gravel 'Jlii~ 10.0 6 1 -moderate cementation --I 7!-~i I--------------------------- I ' Test pit terminated at 7.5' below existing grade_ No groundwater I encountered during excavation. I I I I Test Pit Log earth Consulting Incorporated Talbot Heights King County, Washington Proj. No. 13050 Own. DNM J Date 10/22/07 Checked SJS I Date 10/22/07 I Plate A6 Subsurface cond1t1ons depicted represent our observations at the trme and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Talbot Heights Job No. 13050 I Logged by: SJS Date: I 10/4/07 Test Pit No.: TP-6 of 1 ~----- ~ 0 (') Excavation Contractor: _l\_ikins' Excavating __ Notes: I_ lu-© -0 %....: General w -C .D a_ Notes (%) ~t © LL E i 0 ro CD "' "' I I ~ I 1 -- I, -- ! :g j ::1 I j 6.5 ' ' i : :1= 9.7 11111111 I ' "'0 0 .D C/J E :, >, "' SM ' I SMt _______ _[_ Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 430' surtace Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 6"; misc. ground cover Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, dry -root mass at 2_5' -------~----------- Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Glacial Till) -moderate cementation -becomes very dense; strong cementation ------- Test pit terminated at 6.5' below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. ; I I 01-----~----~-~-~--~--------,-------------------------; g Test Pit Log ~ Earth Consulting Incorporated Talbot Heights le King County, Washington ~1--------,--------,---------+---------,.---------,.-------, ~ Proj. No. 13050 Own. DNM J Date 10/22/07 Checked SJS Date 10/22/07 J Plate A7 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by eng1neenng tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Talbot Heights ~ ~---,--------- Job No. I logged by: 13050 SJS >--------_J__ ----------- Excavation Contractor: 1 1 Sheet of 1 1 ------------r;:-. ---~----I Date: I Test Ptt No.: , 10/4/07 TP-7 -' -------1 Approx. Ground Surface Elevatio;--- Aikins' Excavating -------------------L 425' ----------------------- Notes: General Notes 0 I Surface Conditions: "' .D u E I Depth of topsoil and sod 4"; grass, misc. brush "' >-::, "' I 111 1l1 __ 1IIIJ:lll!I i-1 SM I I I 11 1 r-~ I I 11111111 --1 , I 11111111 2 L_ 1 I I llllllliJ I --l I 1 mrrn11 31 --~ SM-1 I 11111111 4[=-1 I I 1111111 1 1 16.sillifll 5~-J / - 1 - 1 -1-1 I I 111. II 6 1-1 I 111111111 1--1 I 111111111 7 1--l : ,-· ~, i -----1 ' I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : I I I I 1 I i I ·Ii : I ! I I I ' I I ! I I I I I I I I i i I I I I : : I I : I I I 1 ! I I 1 1 I I : : I § I j I 8 I , I I I I Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Glacial Till) -- -moderate cementation -becomes very dense Test pit terminated at 7.5' below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. ~ I I I I ! I ~>----~-~-~~~--~----~-------T-e_s_t_P-it_L_o_g ______ __, s Earth Consulting Incorporated Talbot Heights ls King County, Washington >-~..---------.--------,--------+--------r----------,,------, > Proj. No. 13050 Dwn. DNM I Date 10/22/07 Checked SJS I Date 10122/07 Plate A8 '"~------~-----~------~------~------~-----~ Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and locatron of thrs exploratory hole, mod1f1ed by engrneenng tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sheet of ----: --1 ___ _1_ ___ _ Talbot Heights ~Job No. l Logged by: - --------------------T--------- Date: 1 Test Pit No_: _ 10/4/07 __ ---------~-TP-8 _____________________ _ 13050 1 SJS --_______ _L_ ---------------- Excavation Contractor: ! Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: Aikins' Excavating -------------------------------------__________ L __ 4?Q~_ -------------- ~ :,; ~ ti " i3 w a'. '-' " 2 Notes: General Notes I w (%) 18.8 0 ---0 .c _p "-E ~ ,_, Cl lfl I ii I 1 'i 11 , I 111 Ill 111,11111 1111 jf 11, 11111! I 1!11\ll I ' ' I " I I : l I 11111 LI i I _I_Jjj 1:TGI 11111 \111111 I 1'11 11 1:'1 ii ii I I I ' [ I , "' I' 9 8 I '''I' I 111\t .111 t!UlJ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I : I I I I I I I i j (/) 0 () _Q (/) E :::, J;- i I SM I i--~ I I ! 1 r---~ I I I -r---1 ; 2 1---.J 11 I ! 1----' I Surtace Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 4"; grass lawn Reddish brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist I I I 3 f----1-------,-· +--! SM I ------------------------------------------------- Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Glacial Till) I I I 4 f----1 I I I I -l---1 I ' 1 , -moderate cementation 5 f----, I I I I 1----i--------,--. -... ------------------------------------------------------ : , 1 Test pit terminated at 5.5' below existing grade. No groundwater 1 I I encountered during excavation. I I I I I I I I I I I : t j I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I : I Test Pit Log ~ Earth Consulting Incorporated Talbot Heights Ii: King County, Washington ~1---------~-------~--------+--------,-,---------,-,------l ;,; Proj. No. 13050 Dwn. DNM I Date 10/22/07 Checked SJS Date 10/22/07 Plate A9 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS E-13050 Particle Size Distribution Report ' ' lj I J...... I I I jl "I: 1; : : ;---, ( : '.1 80 I--!-: ---H~: -++--JL+-:-: -4!:---,L, --jl: 1+'"1c~-*, -+-·-+-+--+!!:I+,+~: ,,-+-+:-t~:'--!:tl-1!:H++-+-+--ti-t++,H-t--+---t I I I I I I ~. "-.. I I \.! I I I I I I I t I I 1-..., I I ' I I I 70>-->----+l4H-t-1--t!--t~..,._->--1H-+++-,,-1 -l-"l::tJ--~H'.+4-t-f-4--1--"c-+--~--'1-+f<-1-t--+--l---l----t---t++,-+-t--t---t---t-----l I f I I I I I I ' l: I !' I I I ~ : \ 1. 1 f ) ; ) I U :1 ) \)): ~ oo : : 1; : : : i:,' '1'!,Ho, .1,-1"4-i;t-1 +-:--: +~Nii, -it: ttrt: ++-t-+-t---Jtt-H4-t-t-+--i f-I I \I I f I I: I "\I.I I I z oot-~,--ti-t,i,+i-t,c,i--:---1:,-~,1-~,+rr-17,++-+---H,~,'t-H~,"n~,+--c,-~,1"1<11:t-H--t-t---t--++rr+t--+-i----1 w I I I l I I I': I ii' I l I ~ : : : 1: : ; ; I \ : : : ~ 40t-~, ---, --t-+-i,,-,f-,---t,i;,-~,~'", -+-r+,,d, +-+---l-h-,l+-H-./;1-f-l;,<+~;-~,++h-,1-++++-+---H-l+-H'-f-l-+---1 , , ' i: I I I I '.\ :, \.: :, , 0 D 30 t-L: -+t+t: -+-+--!':-,--"--+' -~:,_,,a: -hr+,,L: +--+--I: : I Vi : : : ; 1 : : : : : : : "' : I I I I I I I ! I I ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' ' 20 J--->---ttfl-++-+--+<--t>--~-t+H,-+-+--+--+-· ! I I l I I I I ! l f I I I I I I I I I J 101-~'--H--IM'+...-,r' +T'--ii'-+' --lc'l+i-+-lr'-+- ' 1; ' ' 0 ' ' ,, 200 100 % COBBLES % GRAVEL 6.0 23.5 SIEVE PERCENT FINER """"' 0 D '"" 1 . .5" 100.0 100.() 3/411 100.0 87.6 3/8 11 95.9 83.3 >< GRAIN SIZE Dao D30 D10 0.156 0.837 0.141 >< COEFFICIENTS 10 %SAND 47.3 55.2 SIEVE number '"" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE -mm %SILT %CLAY 46.7 21.3 PERCENT FINER () D 94.0 76.5 92.6 69.8 90.8 62.8 87.6 56.6 75.4 44.4 59.1 31.0 46.7 21.3 0.01 0.001 uses AASHTO PL LL SM SM SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 TP-1; 9' -SM Light brown silty SAND; 12.4% moisture 0 TP-5; 2.5' -SM Brown silty SAND with gravel; 10.2% moisture REMARKS: 0 Sampled by SIS on 10105/07. Tested by MS. 0 SampledbySJSon 10/05/07. Tested.by MS. R .. eviev . ,d o Source: o Source: Sample No.: TP-1 Sample No.: TP-5 Elev JDepth: 9' Elev./Depth: 2.5' vv I I O Lllfl ,,_;, _,,</-I p,-c.e, ·-..• ~ Abe Heman"• .. Earth Consulting, Inc. Bellevue, Washington Client: RW Puget Sound Holdings, LLC Project Talbot Heights Proiect No.: E-13050 UDOrato.ry Mallll er Fioure Bl 4 Copies to: DISTRIBUTION E-13050 Mr. Russ Hibbard RW Puget Sound Holdings, LLC 2011 South 341 st Place Federal Way, Washington 98003 CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING LABORATORIES HEADQUARTERS 2001 Crow Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Ramon, CA 94583 Telephone (925) 314-7100 Facsimile (925) 855-7140 e-mail: INFO@celhq.com web site: www.cel-qa.com HONOLULU, HAWAII PO ffox 23140 Honolulu, Hawaii 96823-3140 Telephone (808} 864-5778 Facsimile (808) 521-8508 MODESTO 5466 Pirrone Road Salida, CA 95368-8200 Telephone (209) 543-1740 Facsimile {209) 543-17 48 OAKLAND 534 23rd Avenue Oakland, CA 94606-5307 Telephone (510} 436-7626 Facsimile (510) 436-7699 SACRAMENTO 950 Riverside Parkway, Suite 60 West Sacramento, CA 95605-1501 Telephone (916) 617-2448 Facsimile {916) 617-2459 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2130 S. 3140 W., Suite C Salt Lake City, UT 84119-1284 Telephone (801) 972-8200 Facsimile (801) 972-8272 SANTA ROSA 7757 Bell Road Windsor, CA 95492-8519 Telephone (707) 838-1113 Facsimile (707) 838-1114 SUNNYVALE 1010 Morse Drive, Suite 18 Sunnyvale, CA 94086-1607 Telephone (408) 752-8960 Facsimile ( 408) 752-8963 -EBEHHART/U ... '/TEO- -CONSIJLTA.VTS HEADQUARTERS 1031 Segov·1a c·1rcle Placentia, CA 92870-7137 Telephone (714) 632-5555 Facsimile (714) 632-0855 m U8ArlfflCorpa otene--,-. MEMBERS OF THE CONSOLIDATED GROUP Bellevue -\ Walla Walla --------------* * *Id ho Falls Headquarters -B*se * Pocatello -----1 ~ ___ ___J __ Tr,w~inr,_IF~a""lls~-=t____ \::J Salt La~e City Sac mento Santa Rosa Headqua rs -San Ramon Oakland Sunnyvale Modes D ~ Honolulu "" 0~ 0 rl * Headquarte -Moreno Valley Headquarters -lacentia "Partners in Quality" \ MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION HEADQUARTERS 2791 S. Victory View Way Boise, ID 83709 Telephone (208) 376-4748 Facsimile (208) 322-6515 e-mail: mti@mti-id.com web site: www.mlHd.com CASCADE, IDAHO 11 O E. Pine Street Cascade, ID 83611 Telephone (208) 382-5282 IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO 1230 North Skyline Drive, #C Idaho Falls, ID 83402 Telephone (208) 529-8242 Facsimile (208) 529-6911 TWIN FALLS, IDAHO 304 Blue Lakes Boulevard Twin Falls, ID 83301 Telephone (208) 733-5323 Facsimile (208) 733-5323 POCATELLO, IDAHO 450 East Day Street Pocatello, ID 83201 Telephone {208) 233-9500 Facsimile (208) 233-9900 ONTARIO, OREGON 110 SE 2nd Avenue Ontario, OR 97914 Telephone (541) 889-3602 Facsimile (541) 889-3605 WALLA WALLA, WASHINGTON 800 A Street Walla Walla, WA 99362 Telephone (509) 526-2573 Facsimile (509) 526-2576 EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 1805 136th Place NE #201 Bellevue, WA 98005 ( 425) 643-3780 Facsimile (425) 746-0860 web site: www.eci-mti.com -~~1,T,f,,1! - &Tlc.lTPW;/NC -i, HEADQUARTERS 22620 Goldencrest Drive Suite 114 Moreno Valley, CA 92553-9033 Telephone (951) 697-4777 Facsimile (951) 697-4770 web site: www.uit-inc.us American Concrt"te lnstilute" • 1:tif:1 ASCE