Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Misc
E D C 8 A ,.-,~Y "!'• ... ---:_,,.. ..... ~ ~~--- CEM -Ola CEM -Olb CEMENTITIOUS PANEL A CEMENT ITI OUS PANEL B , .,-!'I , 'J ~ ~ .t ·e:e::.;;:-~~....--~ ... fl ,., .. _,.,..,..,..,. ,....!'... -- ~.:-·.:}=.~~~;,_ .-.,--~ ~ --r-,;.r. ... ,,, .. _.,.,~ ',;, !1~9'.~~,:.-'"" ' ' --.':-_'°'-.... ._.,.. ___ :I::----------'----» . .. ---· . ___ ,. -~-. --· CON-01 CON-02 CAST IN PLACE CONC. PR EC AST CONC. PANEL 6 M TL-01 MTL-02 MTL-03 r· -:-----1 .. , .. 'i -·~ ., tl ! ' . :· r '.-..i l . ~ METAL PANEL CORRUGATED LOUVER '~1· , ,i· , *'"' : ~! •' .1-.• ? _ .. -.... '· ..... -•. --·-··-·t-- . _.., -~,_::.~..-:· ;·--r;J .. I • ; :.1 .. t ~ .J ..... • ~ i l . ,1 "-~-~ ·,-:Ji -1-- . c.....i ,._' l. .- i • .,,.,;-~-·,t.· .... , .. ,·. j • . :~·--:; ~--.:~r~~~~=~:\.~ ,-· l : I '~ :. • --,-~·-, .....::. .. ~ __ · 2! ii -r • '1 l MAS-02 ~ --, .··- l ... ·-'""' 1: 'I ,. I l . -~ ~:1 l~'"'.""";,!-. ·l ·.•I>•, -f: _'. -~~~j.~-_::r.~-j ..:. .. ~ -,1 , :--;·:;?11' ... -/-: ~ J· -~·,.·-~ l ___ .;._ ··---. . . r ,L I BRICK RtCF\VrD ~p {:i,~ 1 6 cnv N 9 THE HO TE L A T SOUTH PO RT ........,...... Sou Tu PonT R ENTON, WASH INGTO N S FC O DC\ELOP M[~T . I\C. MULv',..>..L'I..L.1....1~'-"- 11101 121HAVE NE I SU1TE500 BELLEVUE WA I 9800I 14~46;)2000 fA25 '632002 Muh·lklnyG:2 a,m I SITE PLAN 5.16.2014 o~..,,,,_ ... ::?:..rw:::::::::::::-~M -.. ~.O"'~-- PM DAVEN PORT DRA'M,J BY Author BU ILDING EXTERIO R MATERIALS & COLORS A405 COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN STRUCTURAL CIVIL SEISMIC ENGINEERING / DATE 04/25/14 / CLIENT Mulvanny G2 Architecture / PROJECT Southport Hotel / CONTENT Technical Information Report COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN ENGINEERING REPORT Technical Information Report Site Plan Review Southport Hotel Renton, WA PREPARED FOR: SECO Development 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite 50 Renton, WA 980 56 (425) 282-5833 PREPARED THROUGH: Mulvanny G2 Architecture 1110 112th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425) 463-1371 PREPARED BY: COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN 801 Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 P 206.343.0460 CONTACT/ Bart Balko, P.E ~ Section TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT AND HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS Southport Hotel Coughlin Porter Lundeen Project No. C140507-01 April 25, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION.................................................. . ................................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM.................................................................................. . .............. 1 II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 2 CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENTS TO THE KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL CORE REQUIREMENTS:........................................... . ....................................................................................... 2 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: ................................................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT Ji'ECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: ..............................................................................................•.................... 2 Ill. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 3 TASK 1 -STUDY AREA DEFINITION ANO MAPS . .. . ...... .. . .. ........ ......... ....... .. . ...... ...... .. . .. . ...... ..................... . .. 3 TASK 2 -RESOURCE REVIEW.................................................................................................................... . .. 3 TASK 3 -FIELD INSPECTION ...................................................................................................................... . .. 3 TASK 4 -DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS................................................. . .. 3 UPSTREAM ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 3 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 3 TASK 5 -MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS ............................................................................. 3 IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ..................................... 4 EXISTING SITE HYOROLOGY (PART A) ................................................................................................................ 4 DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY (PART B) ........................................................................................................... 4 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM (PARTS C AND D) ................... . .... 4 WATER QUALITY SYSTEM (PART E) .................................................................................................................... 5 V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .................................................................................... 6 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS (BASED ON KCSWDM AND SAO): ........................................................................... 6 ON-SITE CONVEYANCE.................................... . .................................................................................... 6 VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES ............................................................................................................ 7 VII. OTHER PERMITS ......................................................................................................................................... 8 VIII. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ........................................................................................................... 9 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 9 IX. BOND QUANTITY, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT ............................ 10 X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL. .......................................................................................... 11 STANDARD MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................ 11 COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Southport Hotel Renton, Washington Figure 1 -TIR Worksheet Figure 2 -Parcel Conditions Figure 3 -Site Location Figure 4 -Proposed Conditions Figure 5 -Drainage Basin Map Figure 6 -Flow Control Map Figure 7 -King County iMAP -Floodplain Figure 8 -City of Renton Soil Survey Map Figure 9 -Drainage Complaints Map LIST OF FIGURES Figure 10 -Water Quality Treatment Calculations -. LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -Existing Site Conditions Area Breakdown .......................................................................................... .4 Table 2 -Developed Site Conditions Area Breakdown ...................................................................................... 4 COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN ii Southport Hotel Renton, Washington I. PROJECT OVERVIEW General Description The following preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) provides the technical information and design analysis required for developing the Drainage and Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESC) for the Southport Hotel. The stormwater design for the project was based on the requirements set forth in the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) (See Figure 1 -Technical Information Report Worksheet) and the 2009 KCSWDM. The Southport Hotel project is located within the City of Renton, situated at the southern tip of Lake Washington to the west of the Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park (See Figure 3 -Site Location). The site is in the NW Y. of the NW Y. of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. The site will occupy parcels 0823059216 and 0523059075, with areas of 187,460-SF and 296,821-SF, respectively. It should be noted that approximately half of the latter parcel (0523059075) extends into Lake Washington. Overall, the project will include a 10-story hotel and general site improvements including landscaping, a parking area, and a fire lane. The existing site consists of 2.5 acres of impc.,,ious area and 5.49 acres of pervious area. The proposed conditions will consist of approximately 7.09 acres of impervious area and 0.9 acres of pervious area. Soils for the area were mapped using the King County Soil Survey maps (See Figure 8 -Soi/ Survey Map). Runoff from the site will be discharged directly to Lake Washington via pipe flow. Existing Conditions The existing site consists of asphalt and gravel parking lots as well as open grassy areas. See Table 1 for site surface cover information. The site was previously home to the Shuffleton Steam Plant, which was built in the 1930's and demolished in 2001. Portions of the steam plant infrastructure are still in place, including a large underground concrete vault, which this project proposes to reuse to provide water quality treatment for runoff from the surface parking lot. Refer to Section IV for more information. Proposed Drainage System According to Table 1.1.2.A of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Manual (COR-SWM), this project meets the criteria for a Full Drainage Review, including flow control and water quality requirements. Since the project is within a basic water quality treatment basin, Basic water quality treatment for runoff from all target pollution generating surfaces will be provided by either one of two wet vaults or a cartridge filter system before being discharged to Lake Washington. Conveyance for the site will be a combination of closed 6 to 12-inch pipes and sheet flow. Storm water runoff from the parking areas will be captured by a series of catch basins and routed the large wet vault. All conveyance on site will be designed according to Chapter 4 of the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 1 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY This section will address the requirements set forth by the Core and Special Requirements listed in Chapter 1 of the City of Renton's Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Management Design Manual Core Requirements: 1. Discharge at the Natural Location (1.2.1): All runoff from the site will be conveyed to the natural discharge location {Lake Washington). 2. Off-site Analysis (1.2.2): Refer to Sections Ill and IV. A Level 1 downstream analysis has been performed 3. Flow Control (1.2.3.1): Refer to Section IV. Since the project discharges directly to Lake Washington, flow control is not required. 4. Conveyance System (1.2.4): Refer to Section V. Closed pipe systems trave been provided for on-site stormwater conveyance. 5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control (1.2.5): Refer to Section VIII. The project will construct a series of sediment controls to address the specific conditions at the site. 6. Maintenance and Operations (1.2.6): Refer to Section X. The proposed storm drainage system will be owned, operated and maintained by the owner. 7. Financial Guarantees and Liability (1.2.7): The owner and contractor will obtain all necessary permits and bonds prior to the beginning of construction. 8. Water Quality (1.2.8): Refer to Section IV.E. Water quality treatment for runoff from target pollution generating surfaces will be provided by a wet vault or Storm Filter cartridge system. Special Requirements: Special Requirement #1. Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements Section 1.3.1 • Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs): Not Applicable • Master Drainage Plans (MDPs): There are no known master drainage plans covering this project site. • Basin Plans (BPs): The project is located within Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. • Lake Management Plans(LMPs): Not Applicable • Shared Facility Drainage Plans(SFDPs): Not Applicable Special Requirement #2. Flood Hazard Area Delineation, Section 1 .3.2: See Figure 7 for 100-yr flood zone. No work affecting the flood storage will take place within the 100-yr flood zone. Special Requirement #3. Flood Protection Facilities, Section 1.3.3: Not Applicable Special Requirement #4. Source Controls, Section 1.3.4: See attached Activity Worksheet and Required BMP's. Special Requirement #5. Oil Control: Minimal traffic is anticipated in this area. No oil control is required. Project Specific Requirements: There are no additional requirements for this portion of the project. Design and construction will abide by requirements set forth in these documents and King County. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 2 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington Ill. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Task 1 -Study Area Definition and Maps The Renton drainage basin map was used to verify that the site was fully in the Lower Cedar River drainage basin (See Figure 4 -Drainage Basin Map). Task 2 • Resource Review a) Adopted Basin Plans b) Floodplain/floodway (FEMA) Maps c) Off-site Analysis Reports d) Sensitive Areas Folio e) Drainage Complaints and Studies f) Road Drainage Problems g) King County Soils Survey: h) Wetland Inventory Maps: i) Migrating Rive," Study j) DOE's Section 303d List of Polluted Waters k) KC Designated Water Quality Problems I) City of Renton critical maps: Task 3. Field Inspection Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin Site is not located in the floodplain (See Figure 7) N/A See Figures 7 -King County iMAP See Figure 9 N/A See Figure 8 -City of Renton Soil Survey Map No Wetlands N/A No WQ Problems No Critical Areas Site visits have been made to gather information including an analysis of the discharge from the site. Please refer to Task 4, Downstream Analysis below for more information. Task 4 -Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions Runoff from the site will be conveyed to an existing storm system that discharges directly to Lake Washington. The parking area will be routed to the wet vault before being pumped out to the existing storm system in the private access road to the northeast of the site. Similarly, runoff from the building roof and surrounding hardscapes will be collected and routed to the same existing storm system. Upstream Analysis The site is within the Lake Washington East drainage basin. An existing conveyance pipe is routed through the site and discharges runoff to Lake Washington. This existing bypass pipe conveys runoff from the adjacent PSE property to the south. This pipe will be intercepted at the property line and rerouted along the perimeter of the site, discharging to the existing tunnel as it does currently. Downstream Analysis The site discharges directly to Lake Washington via existing pipe conveyance and existing outfalls to the lake. Task 5 -Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems There are no known problems drainage complaints downstream of the site (See Figure 9). No mitigation is proposed. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 3 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) The existing site totals 7.99 acres and consists of an existing asphalUgravel parking lot and a grass field. The site generally slopes to the northwest with drainage described in Section Ill Downstream Analysis. These conditions are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1 -Existing Site Conditions Area Breakdown Land Cover Impervious Area Pervious& Landscape Total Project Area Percentage of Impervious Area Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) Area 2.5 acres 5.49 acres 7.99 acres 31% Description Asphalt and gravel parking areas Grass field Total site area The developed site hydrology will increase the amount of impervious area by approximately 4.59 acres. A summary of the basin information is shown in Table 2. Table 2 -Developed Site Conditions Area Breakdown Land Cover Impervious Area Pervious& Landscape Total Project Area Percentage of Impervious Area Area 7.15 acres 0.84 acres 7.99 acres 89% Description Building roof, parking areas, drive aisles, fire lane Associated landscaping, undisturbed areas Total site area Performance Standards and Flow Control System (Parts C and D) According to Section 1.2.3.1 (and the Flow Control Basin Map) of the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, this project is located within the Peak Flow Control area. However, since this project discharges directly to Lake Washington and satisfies all of the Direct Discharge Exemption criteria (discussed below), flow control is not required. Direct Discharge Exemption Criteria: a. The project site discharges to Lake Washington b. The conveyance system between the project site and the major receiving water (Lake Washington) will extend to the ordinary high water mark, and will be comprised of manmade conveyance elements (pipes) and will be within a public or private drainage easement. c. The conveyance system will have adequate capacity to convey the 25-year peak flow (per Core Requirement #4, Conveyance System) for the entire contributing drainage area. d. The conveyance system will be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion e. The direct discharge proposal will not divert flows from or increase flows to an existing wetland or stream sufficient to cause a significant adverse impact. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 4 Southport I To tel Renton, Washington Water Quality System (Part E) Section 1.2.8.1 (A) of the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM outlines the specific land uses within Basic WQ Treatment areas which are subject to providing Enhanced Basic WA treatment. Being a commercial land use, the Southport Hotel project falls into the category of Enhanced Basic WQ Treatment. However, exception number 3 of Section 1.2.8.1 (A) states that "The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is discharged directly, via a non-fish-bearing conveyance system, all the way to the ordinary high water mark of a stream with a mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or more (at the discharge point of the conveyance system) or a lake that is 300 acres or larger'' Since this project will discharge runoff directly to Lake Washington (approximately 21,500 acres) via a piped connection, it would follow that the project is exempt from providing Enhanced Basic WQ treatment. Similarly, the "Intent" paragraph of Section 1.2.8.1 (A) states that, "projects that drain entirely by pipe to the major receiving waters listed on page 1-33 [one of which is Lake Washington] are excused from the increased treatment and may revert to the Basic WQ menu because concentration effects are of less concern as the overall flow volume increases." 1 herefore, basic water quality treatment for all new and replaced pollution generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) will be provided by either a wetvault or a Storm Filter cartridge system, depending on location. As shown on Figure 4, the project will have three separate pollution generating surfaces; the 4.61 acre parking lot, the 0.55 acre porte cochere, and the 0.4 acre loading dock. As shown in Figure 4 -Proposed Conditions, the parking lot will be treated by an existing underground vault. Following the procedure outlined in section 6.4.1.2 of the KCSWDM, the required wetpool volume for the parking lot is 20,007 CF (see Figure 10 -Water Quality Treatment Calculations). As mentioned in Section I, the existing underground vault which was previously used by the Shuffleton Steam Plant to store distilled water. The project proposes to retrofit and reuse the existing vault as a wetvault to provide basic treatment for a portion of the new PGIS. The information available indicates that the vault has inside dimensions of approximately 178.5'x45'x10' and has a series of baffles. More information about the existing vault and any required modifications for the retrofit will be provided to the City as the design progresses. Also shown in Figure 4, the loading dock will be treated by a Storm Filter cartridge system before discharging to Lake Washington through the existing discharge tunnel. The cartridge filter system was sized using the water quality design flow rate (60% of the 2-yr peak flow) of 0.086-cfs. Each cartridge has a 0.025-cfs treatment capacity, so 4 cartridges will be required. Runoff from the porte cochere will be routed to an existing water quality treatment vault, installed with the development to the east of the site. Previous calculations (from the Master Plan) for the existing vault show that it was sized for future build-out conditions, which included the porte cochere area of the hotel. More information regarding the original design of this vault will be included with future editions of this report. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 5 Southport l Iotel Renton, Washington V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This section discusses the criteria that will be used to analyze and design the proposed storm conveyance system. Standard Requirements (based on KCSWDM and SAO): 1. Facilities must convey the 100-year flow without overtopping the crown of the roadway, flooding buildings, and if sheet flow occurs it must pass through a drainage easement. All stormwater conveyance will be designed such that the 1 DO-year flow is conveyed without overtopping the crown of the roadway (or drive aisle) or flooding any building. 2. New pipe systems and culverts must convey the 25-year flow with at least 0.5 feet of freeboard. (1.2.4-1). The new pipe systems will be designed to convey the 25-year flow with at least 0.5 feet of freeboard. 3. Bridges must convey the 100-year flow and provide a minimum of two feet, varying up to six feet, of clearance based on 25% of the mean channel width. (1.2.4-2)(4.3.5-6). N/A. This project does not propose a bridge. 4. Drainage ditches must convey the 25-year flow with 0.5 feet of freeboard and the 100-year flow without overtopping. (1.2.4-2). N/A This project does not propose a drainage ditch. 5. Floodplain Crossings must not increase the base flood elevation by more than 0.01 feet [41(83.C)J and shall not reduce the flood storage volume [37(82.A)J. Piers shall not be constructed In the FEMA floodway. [41(83.F.1)]. No work is being proposed within the base flood elevation or within the FEMA floodway. 6. Stream Crossings shall require a bridge for class 1 streams that does not disturb or banks. For type 2 and type 3 steams, open bottom culverts or other method may be used that will not harm the stream or inhibit fish passage. [60(95.B)]. There are no new stream (river) crossings associated with the construction of this project. 7. Discharge at natural location is required and must produce no significant impacts to the downstream property (1.2.1-1). The project will discharge to the existing storm system. On-site Conveyance Existing Conditions: Runoff from the existing site is generally collected into catch basins via sheet flow and is routed directly to the outfall to Lake Washington. Developed Storm system description: Runoff from the building roof will be collected into roof drains and routed directly to Lake Washington via pipe flow. Site runoff will generally be collected by catch basins and trench drains before being routed either directly to Lake Washington (NPGIS) or to one of two water quality treatment facilities (PGIS) COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 6 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES None at this time. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 7 Southport 1 Intel Renton, Washington VII. OTHER PERMITS This project will require building and demolition permits from the City of Renton and a CSWPPP. See Section 8 for the CSWPPP (not included at this time). COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 8 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington VIII. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This section lists the requirements that will be used when designing the TESC plan for this site. A copy of the Draft CSWPPP has not been included at this time. A draft CSWPPP will be provided before permit is issued. Standard Requirements Erosion/Sedimentation Plan shall include the following: 1. Facilities required include: Catch basin filter socks. (1.2.5-1). The project will provide sediment protection at existing and proposed catch basins. 2. Timing -For the period between November 1 through March 1 disturbed areas greater than 5,000 square feet /eh undisturbed for more than 12 hours must be covered with mulch, sodding, or plastic covering. A construction phasing plan shall be provided to ensure that erosion control measures are installed prior to clearing and grading. (1.2.5-1). The TESC plan will include provisions for disturbed areas to be covered in accordance with City of Renton requirements and that all TESC measures are in place before any construction activity occurs. 3. Planning -Plan shall limit tributary drainage to an area to be cleared and graded. Delineate dimension, stake and flag clearing limits (1.2.5-1). The clearing limits will be indicated on the TESC plan. 4. Revegetation -Revegetate areas to be cleared as soon as practicable aher grading. (1.2.5-1). Notes addressing this item will be included on the TESC plan. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 9 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington IX. BOND QUANTITY, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantity Worksheet is not included at this time. A Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet outlining the proposed water quality system will be submitted following approval of the plans. Any required Declarations of Covenant will be included prior to issuance of the permit. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 10 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Standard Maintenance Per standards set forth in the King County Surface Water Design Manual, the owner will maintain facilities. Sections of the King County Storm Water Management Design Manual outlining the Operations and Maintenance of these facilities have been included in this section on the following pages. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 11 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES AT SOUTHPORT HOTEL NO. 2 -CLOSED DETENTION SYSTEMS (VAULTS) Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Component Needed Storage Area Plugged Air One-half of the cross section of a vent is Vents blocked at any point with debris and sediment Debris and Accumulated sediment depth exceeds Sediment 10% of the diameter of the storage area for Y, length of storage vault or any point depth exceeds 15% of diameter. Example: 72-inch storage tank would require cleaning when sediment reaches depth of 7 inches for more than Y, length of tank. Manhole Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in place. Place Any open manhole requires maintenance. Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism maintenance person with proper tools. Not Working Bolts into frame have less than Y, inch of thread (may not apply to self-locking lids.) Cover Difficult One maintenance person cannot remove to Remove lid after applying 801bs of lift. Intent is to keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance. Ladder Rungs King County Safety Office and/or Unsafe maintenance person judges that ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Catch Basins See "Catch Basins" Standards No. 4 COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 12 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Vents free of debris and sediment All sediment and debris removed from storage area. Manhole is closed. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder meets design standards allows maintenance person safe access. See "Catch Basins" Standards No. 4 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington NO. 4 -CATCH BASINS Maintenance Defect Component General Trash & Debris (Includes Sediment) Structure Damage to Frame and/or Top Slab COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Trash or debris of more than 1/2 cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of the basin by more than 10% Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 1 /3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking more than 1/3 of its height. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume Corner of frame extends more than 3/4 inch past curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch (intent is to make sure all material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. 13 Results Expected When Maintenance is performed No Trash or debris located immediately in front of catch basin opening. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or debris. No dead animals or vegetation present within the catch basin. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Frame is even with curb. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Southport Hotel Renton, Washington NO. 4 · CATCH BASINS (CONTINUED) Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Components Needed Cracks in Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer Basin Walls/ than 3 feet, any evidence of soil Bottom particles entering catch basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/ outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Sediment/ Basin has settled more than 1 inch or Misalignment has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. Fire Hazard Presence of chemicals such as natural gas, oil and gasoline. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more than 10% of the basin opening. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints that is more than six inches tall and less than six inches apart. Pollution Nonflammable chemicals of more than 1 /2 cubic foot per three feet of basin length. Catch Basin Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in Cover Place place. Any open catch basin requires maintenance. Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by on Mechanism maintenance person with proper tools. Not Working Bolts into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult One maintenance person cannot to Remove remove lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift; intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance. Ladder Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Unsafe misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. Metal Grates Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. (If Applicable) COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 14 Resu Its Expected When Maintenance is Performed. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. No cracks more than 1 /4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. No flammable chemicals present. No vegetation blocking opening to basin. No vegetation or root growth present. No pollution present other than surface film. Catch basin cover is closed Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover can be removed by one maintenance person. Ladder meets design standards and allows maintenance person safe access. Grate opening meets design standards. Southport Hotel Renton, Washington Trash and Debris Damaged or Missing. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. 15 Grate free of trash and debris. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Southport Hotel Renton, Washington NO. 7 -FENCING Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Components Needed General Missing or Any defect in the fence that perm its Broken Parts easy entry to a facility. Erosion Erosion more than 4 inches high and 12-18 inches wide permitting an opening under a fence. Wire Fences Damaged Post out of plumb more than 6 inches. Parts Top rails bent more than 6 inches. A, ,y part of fence (including post, top rails) more than 1 foot out of design alignment. Missing or loose tension wire. Extension arm missing, broken, or bent out of shape more than 1 1/2 inches. Deteriorated Part or parts that have a rusting or Paint or scaling condition that has affected Protective structural adequacy. Coating COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 16 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Parts in place to provide adequate security. No opening under the fence that exceeds 4 inches in height. Post plumb to within 1- 1/2 inches. Top rail free of bends greater than 1 inch. Fence is aligned and meets design standards. Tension wire in place and holding fabric. Extension arm in place with no bends larger than 3/4 inch. Structurally adequate posts or parts with a uniform protective coating. Southport Hotel Renton, Washington NO. 9-CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (PIPES & DITCHES) Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Component Needed Pipes Sediment & Accumulated sediment that exceeds Debris 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through pipes. Damaged Protective coating is damaged; rust is causing more than 50% deterioration to any part of pipe. Any dent that decreases the cross section area of pipe by more than 20%. Open Ditches Trash & Debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of ditch and slopes. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20 % of the design depth. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. Erosion See "Rain gardens" Standard No. 1 Damage to Slopes Rock Lining Maintenance person can see native Out of Place or soil beneath the rock lining. Missing (If Applicable). Catch Basins See "Catch Basins: Standard No. 4 Debris See "Debris Barriers" Standard No.5 Barriers (e.g., Trash Rack) COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 17 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Pipe cleaned of all sediment and debris. All vegetation removed so water flows freely through pipes. Pipe repaired or replaced. Pipe repaired or replaced. Trash and debris cleared from ditches. Ditch cleaned/ flushed of all sediment and debris so that it matches design. Water flows freely through ditches. See "Rain gardens" Standard No. 1 Replace rocks to design standards. See "Catch Basins" Standard No. 4 See "Debris Barriers" Standard No. 5 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington NO. 10-GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Component General Defect Weeds (Nonpoisonous ) Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Weeds growing in more than 20% of the landscaped area (trees and shrubs only). Safety Hazard Any presence of poison ivy or other poisonous vegetation. Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Weeds present in less than 5% of the landscaped area. No poisonous vegetation present in landscaped area. Trash or Litter Paper, cans, bottles, totaling more than Area clear of litter. 1 cubic foot within a landscaped area Trees and Shrubs Damaged COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN (trees and shrubs only) of 1,000 square feet. Limbs or parts of trees u;· shrubs that are split or broken which affect more than 25% of the total foliage of the tree or shrub. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or knocked over. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported or are leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. 18 Trees and shrubs with less than 5% of total foliage with split or broken limbs. Tree or shrub in place free of injury. Tree or shrub in place and adequately supported; remove any dead or diseased trees. Southport Hotel Renton, Washington NO. 11 -ACCESS ROADS/ EASEMENTS Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Component Needed General Trash and Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot Debris per 1,000 square feet i.e., trash and debris would fill up one standards size garbage can. Blocked Debris which could damage vehicle Roadway tires (glass or metal). Any obstruction which reduces clearance above road surface to less than 14 feet. Any obstruction restricting the access to a 10 to 12 foot width for a distance of more than 12 feet or any point restricting access to less than a 10 foot width. Road Surface Settlement, When any surface defect exceeds 6 Potholes, Mush inches in depth and 6 square feet in Spots, Ruts area. In general, any surface defect which hinders or prevents maintenance access. Vegetation in Weeds growing in the road surface that Road Surface are more than 6 inches tall and less than 6 inches tall and less than 6 inches apart within a 400-square foot area. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 19 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Roadway free of debris which could damage tires. Roadway free of debris which could damage tires. Roadway overhead clear to 14 feet high. Obstruction removed to allow at least a 12 foot access. Road surface uniformly smooth with no evidence of settlement, potholes, mush spots, or ruts. Road surface free of weeds taller than 2 inches. Southport Hotel Renton, Washington N0.12-WATER QUALITY FACILITIES A.) Cartridge Filter Vault Maintenance Defect or Condition When Maintenance is Component Problem Needed Below Ground Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 0.25-inches. Vault Accumulation on Media. Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 6-inches in Accumulation first chamber. in Vault Trash/ Debris Trash and debris accumulated on Accumulation compost filter bed. Sediment in When drain pipes, clean-outs, become Drain full with sediment and/ or debris. Pipes/Clean- Outs Below Ground Compost Drawdown of water through the media Cartridge type Media takes longer than 1 hour, and/ or overflow occurs frequently. Short Circuiting Flows do not properly enter filter cartridges. Damaged Any part of the pipes that are crushed, Pipes damaged due to corrosion and/ or settlement. Access Cover Cover can not be opened, one person Damaged/ Not cannot open the cover, corrosion/ Working deformation of cover. Vault Structure Cracks wider than 1/2-inch and any Includes evidence of soil particles entering the Cracks in Wall, structure through the cracks, or Bottom, maintenance/ inspection personnel Damage to determines that the vault is not Frame and/ or structurally sound. Top Slab Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint of any inleUoutlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering the vault through the walls. Baffles Baffles corroding, cracking warping, and/ or showing signs of failure as determined by maintenance/ inspection person. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 20 Recommended Maintenance to Correct Problem No sediment deposits which would impede permeability of the compost media. No sediment deposits in vault bottom of first chamber. Trash and debris removed from the compost filter bed. Remove the accumulated material from the facilities. Replace media cartridges. Replace filter cartridges. Pipe repaired and/ or replaced. Cover repaired to proper working specifications or replaced. Vault replaced or repaired to design specifications. No cracks more than 1 /4-inch wide at the joint of the inleU outlet pipe. Repair or replace baffles to specification. Southport Hotel Renton, Washington Access Ladder Damaged COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, not functioning properly, missing rungs, cracks, and misaligned. 21 Ladder replaced or repaired and meets specifications, and is safe to use as determined by inspection personnel. Southport Hotel Renton, Washington !Figure I -TIR Worksheet I King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND PROJECT ENGINEER DESCRIPTION Project Owner: Project Name: SECO Development Southport Hotel Address: Location 1083 Lake Washington Blvd. Suite 50 Renton, WA 98056 Phone: Township: 23N (425) 282-5833 Range: 5E Project Engineer: Section: § Bart Balko, D.E. Comoanv: Couahlin Porter Lundeen Address/Phone: 801 Second Avenue, Ste 900 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 343-0460 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS APPLICATION D Subdivison D DFW HPA D Shoreline Management D Short Subdivision D COE 404 D Rockery D Grading D DOE Dam Safety D Structural Vaults D Commercial D FEMA Floodplain D Other [2] Other: SPR D COE Wetlands Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community: Green River Valley Drainage Basin: Lake Washington East Drainage Basin Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS D River D Stream D Critical Stream Reach D Depressions/Swales [2] Lake Washington D Floodplain __ D Wetlands __ D Seeps/Springs D High Groundwater Table D Groundwater Recharge I D Steep Slopes ~~ Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Very loose to medium 0-5% dense, non-silty to silty Sand Very soft to medium stiff and stiff Silt and Clay Soft to medium stiff and stiff Silt D Additional Sheets Attached Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE Ch.4 -Downstream Analysis D Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION D Sedimentation Facilities [21 Stabilized Construction Entrance [21 Perimeter Runoff Control [21 Clearing and Graing Restrictions [21 Cover Practices [21 Construction Sequence D Other D Other Erosion Potential Erosive Velcoties LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION [21 Stabilize Exposed Surface [21 Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities [21 Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris [21 Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities D Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas D Other Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM D Grass Lined D Tank D Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel [2J Vault D Depression -- [2J Pipe System D Energy Dissapator D Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigati D Open Channel D Wetland D Waiver on of Eliminated Site D Dry Pond D Stream D Regional Storage D Wet Pond Detention -- Brief Description of System Operation A wet vault will be used to provide Basic water quality treatment. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS D Cast in Place Vault [2J Retaining Wall D Rockery> 4' High D Structural on Steep Slope D Other Limitation Part12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS D Drainage Easement D Access Easement D Native Growth Protection Easement D Tract D Other Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Sianed!Date 4122/2014 King County Districts and Development Conditions for parcel number 0823059216 tQ King County ,...I F-ig-u-re_2 ___ P_a-rc_e_l -C-on_d_i-ti_o_n s--.! King County Districts and Development Conditions for parcel 0823059216 Parcel number 0823059216 Drainage Basin East Lake Washington -Renton and Water - Lake Washington Address Not Available Watershed :RJ,\ PLSS Ccclar_8._iy_§_i ; __ l,.ake Wc1s_[__i __ i_ngt_qr_ f,;:_f; __ da rHs~ n1 rn a m_i\.) Jurisdiction Renton Zipcode Kroll Map page Thomas Guide page 98056 309 and319 626 Electoral Districts NW -8 -23 -5 Latitude 47 .50291 Longitude -122.20596 RNT 37-0991 District 5, Pa ye l.)p_t_t_1egrove (206) 296-1005 Congressional district 9 Legislative district 37 School district Renton #40) Seattle school board district does not apply (not in Seattle) Fire district Water district Sewer district Water & Sewer district Parks & Recreation district Hospital district Rural library district "T"-:1-.-1 I --.J-..... King County planning and ;;rt, :;c;I 3'Pd';, designations NA, check with jurisdiction None does not apply Urban __ H \ cl i ~; .;;, j does not apply does not apply does not apply does not apply does not apply Public Hospital District No. 1 Rural King County Library System ··- does not apply No does not apply 111 and112 does not apply does not apply Green River Valley None mapped None mapped None mapped None mapped Forest Production district? No Coal mine hazards? Erosion hazards? Landslide hazards? Seismic hazards? Agricultural Production district? No ,,· :,? None mapped 100-year flood plain? None mapped WeUands at this parcel? None mapped .:::..:jj_'.:_;_ r·· t.:"ic Tc-,.:;c:;~· a $_!_"Li '.=:l1p; PiL;;r<'~? Non-Detect to 20.0 ppm Estimated Arsenic Concentration in Soil This report was generated on 4/22/2014 1:55:30 PM Contact us at O , "· · :;~. © 2010 King County http:/MVM5. • ng county.g o'1KCG ISReports/dd _refX)rt_pri ntaspll'PIN = 0823059216 1/1 4124/2014 King County Districts ard Development Corditions for parcel number 0523050075 t,i King County !Figure 2 -Parcel Conditions (cont.)! King County Districts and Development Conditions for parcel 0523059075 Parcel number 0523059075 Drainage Basin East Lake Washington -Renton andWater - Lake Washington Address Not Available Watershed Cedar Rive__t_/_J-~k~ Was hinqton ~_,:j_2] L:Sa_m ma m!sh_(fil Jurisdiction Renton Zipcode Kroll Map page Thomas Guide page 98056 309 and319 626 Electoral Districts PLSS NW -8 -23 -5 Latitude 47.50269 Longitude -122.20562 RNT 37-0991 Ki; :::: CUL_,_:lt· :;:: c'.' ___ . -.'....'.-2L ,_._ District 5, P~.i.'.~ UptheOI.Q.Y!:? (206) 296-1005 Congressional district Legislative district 9 School district Rento_n H403 Seattle school board district does not apply (not in Seattle) nic:.trirt rr.1,rtPIPrtnr::il rlic::trid Sn11tho::1c:;t Fire district Water district Sewer district Water & Sewer district Parks & Recreation district Hospital district Rural library district T-:1-.-1 I --..J-"1 King County planning and :::rL:a' T:~,as designations NA, check with jurisdiction None does not apply Urban Water service planning area Forest Production district? J does not apply does not apply does not apply does not apply does not apply Public Hospital District No. 1 Rural King County Library System ··- does not apply No does not apply 111 and112 does not apply No Coal mine hazards? Erosion hazards? Landslide hazards? Seismic hazards? does not apply Green River Valley None mapped None mapped None mapped None mapped Agricultural Production district? No Cr lic:-'i CLI·_.: ;·~;,·:·>il:SJi-' ;~1(-c.1 ? None mapped 1 OD-year flood plain? None mapped Wetlands at this parcel? None mapped \i',1i:'m1 tnc, L sun-, s '"' _0_ r·:, :,:, ~? Non-Detect to 20.0 ppm Estimated Arsenic Concentration In Soll This report was generated on 4/24/2014 12:03:31 PM Co n ta ct us at 1 _ _e __ :_i_.0 ·:_1 •J. © 2010 King County http://w.w.6_ lo ng county.g 0\/KC GISReportsl dd _report__pri ntaspx?P/N = 0523059075 111 NTS Project: Southport Hotel Pro ject No: C 140507-0 I Client: MG2 801 SECON D AVEN UE. SUITE 900 SEATTLE WA 98104 · P: 206/343-0460 · F: 206/343 -569 1 COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN STRUCTURAL C I V I L SE I S MI C E NG I NEERING -Site Location De sig ned By: BGG Checked By: BSB Date: 4/24 /20 14 She et: www.cpli nc.com • Table 2 -Developed Site Conditions Area Breakdown Area Description ----:-~L~an~d~C~o~ve~r::::-----77:i.155~a~cr;ess-Building roof, parking areas, drive aisles , fire lane Impe rv ious Area Pervious& Landscape 0.84 ac res Ass ociated landscaping, undisturbed areas T otal Project Area 7.99 ac res T ota l site area A 89 % Percentage of Impervious rea Existing Drainage Tunnel -Discharge to Lake Washington Boeing Property Stormfilter Manhole Sc ale: I " = 80' Lake Was'r 1ngton r· -.------;---------------------1 I I .. The Hotel at Southport Loadtng Area (treated by StormFilter cartridges) I ~-' ' ' ' ' l-+-L j / ·-~ ' : : : ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' -----~-------~-----~---t-------------t--------------i Su~ace Par ing Lot \ ' ' (treat~d in existing a ult) i ' ' ' 0 : ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' : : ' ' ' ' ' i ___________ ---------------r---------------------------· :-------------- . ' : I : ' ' ' PSE Upstream Drainage Bypass ·----'- ' I : : ' ' ' ' : : ' ' : : ,-j~L ' ' ~: : ' ' ' ' PSE Property Exis'ting Outfall to Lak.e Washington ·-r-----------------------------------------1 ---- ~-i r l ~ ' ' -I ;rj'-i • I : I I .-.· I I :) : r ~ : l Phasf~ 1 Development I~ . / r.-t-- ' 7 / i JI Existing wet vault installed with Phase 1 development r .._ ___ -------_.__ .... I . ,I " ' • : J .\ i l-~: i JI I ' ' <l) ' : ' "' ' ,k ' ' • : ' ' • : ' I ' I ' ( I I • / <J . ----------------r------------------------------1 J_ t ' .. Existing vault to be reused for basic treatment of parking lot { I , "" I l I I 1- ,.;i I I I ' COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN !Figure 4 -Proposed Conditions 80 1 SECOND AVENUE , SUITE 900 / SEATILE, WA 98104 p 206 .343.0 46 0 I F 206 .343.569 1 / cplinc.com 6 N K ing County Basin Locations Surface Water Util ity Comprehensive Plan Printed 10/1 6/2009 0 Jl 0.5 1 Miles l·wwmul ~ -' -0 \ ,-··-l-.. J Renton C ity Li mits ,-··-l-.. J Potential Annexation Area Basins Black River Duam ish Lake Washington East L_ J Lake Washington West Lower Cedar R iver L_ May Creek :_::___j Soos Creek ! -- Figure 5 -Drainage Basin Map Figure 6 Flow Control Map Peak Ra te Flow Cont rol Slandard (Exisl in g Sile Condilions) t< Flow Conlrol Duralion Standard (Exisling Site Conditions ) Flow Control Duralion Standard (Foresl ed Condit ions) Flow Control Application Map N A Printed 1/14/2010 0 2 --==•-==•-----Miles Seattl e (./) ,n l! 1-; 0 I '( 'iSE4QT HI ..s ,_:...... :..;. ,_ "tERc ,/1\ ). "'. _J M e r cer-Isl and --~c >-I i" 5 ' s;r ,-:.. 'm .... L-,. ~ (/) w « <.> The information included on this map has been compiled by K ing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject lo change wtthout notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as lo accuracy , completeness, timeff ness, or rights lo the use of such information. ) l This document is not intended for use as a survey product King County shall not be llabte for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential ti damages including. but not limited 1o. lost revenues or lost prorrts resulting from the use°' misuse o f the information contained on this map. Any sale o f . K·,ng County this map or information on t his map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 10/10/2013 Source: King County IMAP -Hydrographic Information (http://www.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP) J ~, / ,·-~ • Ag D ...... J •• • "' :...~ ~D .......... -tic • eec i. ·, ,~ ............. ~ i .. ...,. \ _._.._; BeD 1••- ~ BeD Tu ' PITS ··, Wo ~g ··, •., BeC .. , '· -~, ··, \ I (' ·, Py Pu I \ Py PuBoD Pu i i ,Ng : ! ! ! / ' ' ~ / 7 \ Py Tu ' i WO So / I I ( , "'\ i f, \ I '.;.) /. i tu i : Pu I i Py .. ·-··--·-··-··-, ............. .., ------~ / i jr ( ;AgD iSo ; -l.! M a i . i • !AgD Sk ;·~ .. ~ , ... , Sk ~- •• •' Bh #" KpC .PD i" r : ~ I No j : . J EvcR!E I • • I i : ~ I I • I I i AgD AgD BeC AgD PITS AgD Sm AgC AmB AgB AmB Eve AgB No No AgB AgB AmB AmB AgB lnC ....... .._..._. ____ _ \ An An An An 1<i1 ~s \ EvC AgD ~F. Ame AgC Sk Sk Sk Figure 8 -Soil Survey Map RdC Ev€ EvC \ I Sm AgC \ I \ \ AgD AgD AgB Al<F \ B ~' \ \ I \ \ ..J r- City of Renton Soil Survey Map c:J Groundwater Protection Area Boundary 6 Publ ic Works Surface Water Uti li ty G . Del Ro sa r io 12/22/2009 0 0.5 Mil es 1 Aquifer Protection Area Zone 1 c:J Aqu ifer Pro tection A re a Zone 1 Modified .... _ ,.,.J Ren ton City Limits N • W<1'>hinq1 Seattle :;;w lfH sr Drainage Complaints I ( Newcastle &91ST ST - N 30TH sr "'~sr Project Site -ST No Drainage Complaints •<J:: 191'1 ST ... z ... ::,. < ~l( t7Tl1 ST 4'1£ tCJT'lt ST \E9THST Renton 2: '!I < f ~ ~ j 'l~T tST ! NI:. 4TH ST ~ ..... 'i2'mST t,l'c. ~9" z ,., ',£ t2T•1 ST 'IE~:>CT "1£ t2T'1ST NE:4JH SI '<£ 21',0P,_ : ~o sr/ff~-,\.(i'~-9-00_2_f .......,.-- ~> ~ '{£~:>ST ,S). ..... ---------------- /. / County Bou ndary x Mountai n Peaks • • • • Drainage Studies Neighborhood Drainage Projects Re g ional Stonnwater Fa c i lities Residential Stonnwater Fac ili ti es Commercial St ormwater Fa c ilities Highways CJ D JV legend King County Water Re sou r ce Inv ent ory Area s King County Dra i nage Bas ins Incorporated Area Stre ets 11,gh""'Y Art...- L.od Lakes and Large Rive rs Stre ams Drai nage Complai nts 0 ~-------,2541ft ~ The Information included on this map has been comptled by Killjl County starf from a vanety of sources and is sub)8CI to change without notJCe. Kong Coun ty makes n o representations or warraflties, express or Implied, as to accuracy, completeness, llmelin ess, or righ ts to the use of such information. This document is not inten ded for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, speoal, indirect. Incidental, or consequential ti· K"1ng County damages in cluding, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on thos map. A.rry sate of this map or ,nformatJon on this map la prohibited except by written perrniss,on ol Kong County Date : 10/10/2013 Source : King County iMAP -Stormwater (hllp ://www.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP) 3 jFigure I 0 -Water Quality Treatment Calculations I COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Southport Wetvault Sizing Calculations Following the procedure outlined in 6.4.1.1 of the King County Stormwater Design Manual: Step 1: Identify required wetpool volume factor {=3 (since basic) Step 2: Determine rainfall (R) for the mean annual storm Using Figure 6.4.1.A, R = 0.47" = 0.039' Step 3: Calculate runoff from the mean annual storm V, = R(0.9A; + 0.2SA,g + 0.lOA,r + 0.01A 0 ) V,. = ( 0.039 PT)(0.9)(190,000 SF) V,. = 6,669 CF Step 4: Calculate required wetpool volume v, = fV,. Vb = (3)(6,669 CF) Vb = 20,007 CP A; = 190,000 SF A,g = 0.00 SF Atf = 0.00 SF A0 = 0.00 SF With inside dimensions of 178.5' x 45', and a live storage depth of 4.8', the provided volume of the existing vault is approximately 38,400 CF, so, 38,400 CF> 20,007 CF Vµrotiided > Vrequired Therefore, the existing vault is adequate for reuse as a wetvault to provide basic water quality treatment. PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER Southport Hotel C140507-01 CLIENT MG2 DESIGNED BY BGG CHECKED BY BSB ... ·------:--.. t1i"1fi1 rttt"if· 71 Southport Hotel Renton, Washington Prepared for Seco Development April 18, 2014 19014-02 -- This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. .. .. HIJRTCROWSER Southport Hotel Renton, Washington Prepared for Seco Development April 18, 2014 19014-02 Prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc. David G. Winter, PE, LEED AP Vice President Matthew Veenstra, PE Senior Project Geotechnical Engineer This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. Contents PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Groundwater GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Considerations Geotechnical Recommendations Supporting Structural Design Seismic Design Issues Ground Improvement and Spread Footing Foundations Spread Footing Design and Settlement Pile Foundation Design Lateral Pile Capacity Pile Installation Floor Slab Design Below-Grade Elements and Structural Fill Fill and Settlement Underslab Drainage for Buildings Pavement Support Excavation Groundwater Control RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Ground Improvement Verification LIMITATION TABLES 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 6 8 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 1 Pile Group Reduction Factors for Coefficient of Variation of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction 8 19014-02 April 18, 2014 ii I Contents FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Map 3 Generalized Subsurface Cross Section A-A' 4 Generalized Subsurface Cross Section 8-8' 5 Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Subgrade Deflection and Moment Criteria 6 Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Subgrade Deflection and Moment Criteria APPENDIX A Field Explorations Methods and Analysis APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Program APPENDIX C E><ploration Logs Completed by Geotech Consultants, Inc-1999 19014-02 April 18, 2014 --HIJRTCRoWSER Southport Hotel Renton, Washington PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY The purposes of this study were to: • Collect data and reports and assess subsurface conditions for the planned hotel; • Assist the structural engineer with establishing foundation design criteria; and • Provide geotechnical engineering recommendations related to design and construction. The scope of this study included: • Reviewing field explorations and a report for the site completed by Hart Crowser, dated December 15, 2000; • Reviewing earlier work for the site completed by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (Geotech), dated April 9, 1999; • Identifying and analyzing the geotechnical engineering considerations; and • Preparing this report. Applicable logs of Hart Crowser and Geotech explorations are included in this report. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located on the southern edge of Lake Washington, in Renton, Washington, as shown on Figure 1. The project consists of a hotel and conference center constructed at grade. The development area immediately fronts Lake Washington, and is located between The Bristol residential units and the Boeing property. A Site and Exploration Plan showing the approximate location of the soil borings and cone penetration tests is presented on Figure 2. Reprinted logs of Hart Crowser's soil borings, and corresponding geotechnical laboratory testing, are included in Appendices A and B, respectively. Figures 3 and 4 show applicable cross sections, A-A' and 8-8' (as depicted on the site and exploration plan) for the site, which are based on the site explorations. It should be noted that the depth to, and th.ickness of, the soil layers vary greatly throughout the site, as discussed later in this report. Within the proposed development site, starting at the ground surface and moving downward, we typically encountered the following soils: • Very loose to medium dense, non-silty to silty Sand. This layer extends from the existing grade to a depth of about 20 to 50 feet below the existing ground surface. lnterbedded with only a few --HIJRTCRoWsER 19014-02 April 18, 2014 2 I Southport Hotel thin layers of soft silt, this sand layer is considered to have the potential to liquefy during a seismic event. This layer will not provide adequate foundation support in its current condition. • Soft to medium stiff and stiff Slit. This layer varies from Oto about 35 feet thick, and is also unsuitable for foundation support. • Medium dense to dense, slightly silty Sand. With a thickness of about 10 to 45 feet, this layer is considered a bearing unit for deep foundations. • Very soft to medium stiff and stiff Silt and Clay. With a thickness ranging from Oto about 45 feet, this layer is likely to cause elastic and/or consolidation (time-dependent) settlement of the deep foundations. • Dense to very dense, slightly silty Sand. This layer is not encountered until about 130 to 140 feet below existing grade, except in the southern part of the site, where the layer appears at a shallower depth, approximately 70 to 100 feet below existing grade. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in the explorations at depths ranging from 3 to 9 feet below existing grade. Note that the groundwater levels were identified at the time of the explorations, and that the groundwater elevation will be tied primarily to the level of Lake Washington, which varies by only about 3 feet annually. The groundwater gradient is from south or southeast to north or northeast, as groundwater flows from the upland areas toward the lake. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following section includes design criteria addressing site preparation, structural design issues, civil design issues, and seismic design. These design criteria are based on the preceding site description, applied loads as provided by the design team, and the subsurface conditions revealed by the explorations completed at the site. Note that subsurface soil conditions are based on explorations accomplished at discrete locations at the site. Soil properties inferred from the field and laboratory tests formed the basis for developing our geotechnical recommendations contained in this report. The nature and extent of variations between the explorations may not become evident until construction begins. If variations then appear, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations in this report. As the design criteria continue to evolve, we need to continue to consult with the team so that our recommendations remain current. General Considerations The soil conditions and the structural load requirements have led us to consider two potential foundation support alternatives. The first is driven piles-either precast concrete or driven grout. These piles can be installed in a conventional fashion around the site, with the pile lengths governed primarily by the thickness of the supporting layer. The pile support alternative does not address the site liquefaction potential. The piles and floor slab will be designed so that even if a major earthquake 19014-02 April 18, 2014 .. -HIJRrCROWSER Southport Hotel I 3 causes widespread liquefaction and ground surface settlement, the building foundations, floor slabs, and underslab utilities would continue to function. The second alternative is to complete ground improvement using stone columns or Geopiers across the entire site and constructing spread footings to support the building loads. The ground improvement will mitigate the shallow liquefaction potential for the site, allowing spread foundations to be used with slabs-on-grade, and grade support for the utilities. With each alternative, the timber piles supporting the existing steam plant will remain and will be relied upon for support of the new building. Geotechnical Recommendations Supporting Structural Design Seismic Design Issues Based on our review of the borings drilled and cones pushed at the site, we have concluded that the average Standard Penetration Test blow counts and nature of site soils in the upper 100 feet represent an IBC Site Class F, which would be improved to Site Class E with ground improvement. During a significant seismic event, there is a risk of liquefaction of the site soils through the upper 20 to 50 feet, as disclosed by materials encountered in the borings. Widespread liquefaction could result in ground surface settlement both below the buildings and in the access areas around the buildings. Unless ground improvement techniques are used, we recommend that underslab utilities be hung from the slab and/or grade beams rather than grade-supported. Exterior pavement, walkways, utilities, and grade-supported structures are subject to distress from liquefaction and may not function after a major seismic event. Foundation piles for the buildings (if used} should be largely unaffected, except that they may not be designed for lateral resistance or frictional support in the liquefaction zone. Deep foundations designed in liquefied soil shall be classified as columns per IBC section 1810.1.3. Ground improvement alternatives to reduce the areas of potential liquefaction are probably limited to stone columns or Geo piers. Other methods such as deep dynamic compaction are apparently not applicable at the site, because the groundwater table is too high to be effective. Even if no ground improvement steps are taken, the installation of driven piles at each of the column locations will result in some increased soil densification, and will reduce the likely extent of liquefaction. Ground Improvement and Spread Footing Foundations As an alternative to driven piles, ground improvement such as vi bro-replacement stone columns or Geopiers combined with spread footings can be used to support the buildings. Ground improvement beneath the building not only densities the soil to allow use of shallow foundations, but also mitigates the seismic risks associated with liquefaction (see subsequent discussion}. --11/JRrOKJWSER 19014-02 April 18, 2014 4 I Southport Hotel Ground improvement design for this site is governed by the liquefaction mitigation, control of post- construction settlement, and by the foundation support requirements. Ground improvement effectively prevents soil liquefaction in the improved zone by increasing the density of the soil, providing for stress redistribution during a seismic event, and by providing enhanced drainage paths for pore water dissipation. If liquefaction occurs below the improved zone, the ground improvement provides a buffer between the affected soil and the foundations. Liquefaction Design. Hart Crowser has estimated that the site is susceptible to liquefaction during a Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) (2012 IBC). That event has a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. Without ground improvement, the estimated liquefaction settlement is as much as 2 to 3 feet. The degree of densification is a function of the soil type, silt and clay content, plasticity of the soils, pre-densification relative density, installation methods, and specific design and spacing between columns. Soils with less than 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve with a clay content of less than 2 percent will usually density upon vibration. Soils with higher fines and/or clay content will be improved less by ground improvement, and a tighter spacing will be required for effective mitigation. The stress redistribution effect assumes that the relatively high stiffness of ground improvement will absorb more shear stresses than the weaker surrounding soils during ground shaking, thereby, reducing the shear stresses applied to the soil. In addition, the improved columns provide a path for excess pore water pressures, which result in soil liquefaction, to dissipate during the earthquake. Another potential negative effect of liquefaction is lateral spreading, or movement of the soil near the shoreline. Properly designed ground improvement will mitigate the risks of lateral spreading by stabilizing the block of soil supporting the building. Performance Criteria. Ground improvement shall meet the following minimum requirements: • Improved ground shall be capable of providing an allowable bearing capacity for individual and combined footings of 6 kips per square foot (ksf). • Post-construction static settlement of footings should be less than 1 inch. • Post-construction differential settlement of footings should be less than 1/2 inch over a horizontal distance of 50 feet. • Improved ground shall be capable of providing an allowable bearing capacity for tower crane footings of 6 ksf with less than 1/2 inch of post-construction differential settlement across the crane foundation. • Improved ground should limit post-earthquake differential foundation settlement to 1-1/2 inches over a horizontal distance of 50 feet. • Improved ground shall extend at least 20 feet beyond the building footprint on the lake side of the building and provide adequate soil resistance to the foundations in a post-earthquake condition. 19014-02 April 18, 2014 --IWlTCROWSER Southport Hotel I 5 • Ground improvement shall extend to a minimum depth of 45 feet below the planned footing base elevation within 100 feet of the seawall/revetment on the Lake Washington shoreline, and to a minimum depth of 35 feet below the planned footing base elevation beyond 100 feet from the shoreline. Assume the bottom of the footings is at an average depth of 5 feet below the existing grade. Final depths of ground improvement shall be established by the Specialty Contractor. Verification Testing. The effectiveness of ground improvement should be verified during construction by establishing performance criteria and quality control procedures. These criteria and procedures ensure that the design criteria are achieved following installation. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and cone penetrometer tests (CPT) are often performed in soil zones between stone columns to verify the densification effect. Based on our design assumptions, minimum SPT blow counts of 30 should be achieved in footing areas with slightly lower values acceptable in slab areas. CPT tip resistances of 150 tsf are required below footings, and 100 tsf below slabs. Due to the requirements for high load- bearing capacity, we recommend conducting a load test in each test section in the selected footing areas to verify design bearing capacity. Spread Footing Design and Settlement After the ground improvement has been completed, the footings are constructed in the usual fashion. The contractor should ensure that loosened material is cleaned from the excavations, and the surface is firm and non-yielding. We expect approximately half of the settlement could be time-dependent, resulting from consolidation of the lower silt/clay layer. If the building is constructed in phases, there could be abrupt differential settlement between the phases. Pile Foundation Design If piles are to be used, we recommend using only driven piles at the site for two reasons: it is easier to identify the sometimes irregular bearing layer if the piles are driven rather than drilled; and the driving process will increase the soil density and reduce the potential for liquefaction. Appropriate types of driven piles, based on the load-carrying requirements, are the DeWitt driven grout pile and precast concrete. Pile lengths will vary from 60 to 75 feet across the site. For planning, we recommend assuming an average length of 70 feet. Because the supporting sand layer is of limited thickness, we will put limits on the driving and penetration lengths to avoid punching through the layer. In all likelihood, these piles will not be driven to refusal. The following allowable pile capacities apply across the site: • 16-inch DeWitt driven grout • 16-1/2-inch precast concrete lOOtons llOtons These capacities take into account strength loss in liquefiable soils during a major earthquake and the downdrag loads that could result after the event. They include a factor of safety of about 2.0, and assume a load test will be used to confirm the capacity. --HLIRTCROWSER 19014-02 April 18, 2014 6 I Southport Hotel The following uplift capacities apply across the site, assuming no friction contribution in the upper potentially liquefiable zone: • 16-inch DeWitt driven grout • 16-1/2-inch precast concrete 25 tons 30 tons Soils below the bearing layer are loose in many areas. In addition, at depths of about 100 to 120 feet is a compressible soil zone in some locations, as disclosed by several of the explorations. We estimate that the piles could experience an initial compression of as much as 1 inch as the building loads are applied. Over a period of several months following construction, an additional 1-1/2 to 2 inches of deep-seated soil consolidation and building settlement could occur. We do not expect this consolidation to result in abrupt differential settlement, but portions of the structure built at different times could experience differential settlement. The capacity and settlement estimates are based on assumed column loads of as high as 1500 kips. Lateral Pile Capacity Lateral resistance and deflections of vertical pile foundations are governed primarily by the lateral capacity of near-surface soils and the strength of the pile itself. The design lateral capacity of the vertical piles will depend, to a large extent, on the allowable lateral deflections of the piles. Use of the procedure discussed below, incorporating the design charts on Figures 5 and 6, will allow the structural engineer to estimate the pile deflection and moments within the pile at any point at or below the pile cap for a given loading. Note, however, that if no ground improvement is completed, under severe seismic loading the piles will experience no lateral resistance in the zone of liquefaction, which could extend to depths of 50 feet. In addition to the design charts provided on Figures 5 and 6, we can also provide input soil parameters for a computerized laterally-loaded pile analysis (LPILE). These input parameters include soil unit weight, shear strength, and lateral subgrade reaction modulus (k). Once the pile type and pile sizes are determined later in the detailed design stage, we can either perform the LPILE analysis to provide deflection, shear force, and bending moment of the pile; or we can provide input soil parameters to the structural engineer for their LPILE analysis. Development of lateral pile criteria requires an assumption of the degree of fixity at the pile head by the structural engineer. A pile is considered free-headed if the top is free to rotate. If the top of the pile is fixed against rotation by embedment in a pile cap that is sufficient to develop a fixed-end moment, the pile is considered restrained and fixed-headed. We recommend that the structural engineer evaluate the degree of fixity and then linearly interpolate between results outlined from Figure 5 (true fixity at head) and from Figure 6 (true free-headed condition). In addition to the pile head fixity condition, the following information is required to determine lateral pile deflections and moments: 19014-02 April 18, 2014 --ffMTCRowsER Moment and Deflection Equations: Free-Headed Condition Fixed-Headed Condition 3 2 Y= AyPxxT +ByMxxT El El M = Am Pxx T + Bm M,, M = A,, Pxx T Where: y M P,, M"' Av, Bv Am, Bm El T 2T = = = = = = = = = = Deflection at any point at or below the ground surface, Moment at any point at or below the ground surface, Shear applied to the pile at the ground surface (x-x plane), Moment applied to the pile at the ground surface (x-x plane), Deflection coefficients from Figure 5 or 6, Moment coefficients from Figure 5 or 6, Flexural stiffness of the pile, Constant of horizontal subgrade reaction, Assumed depth to point of zero deflection. Southport Hotel I 7 The rate of increase of horizontal subgrade reaction, nh, is related to the stiffness and density of the soil. The soil above about 2T (two times the relative stiffness factor) usually controls the lateral capacity of the pile. For site soils encountered in this zone, an appropriate general value of nh is estimated to be 10 pounds per cubic inch (pci) under static loading conditions. The coefficient of variation of horizontal subgrade reaction should also be modified for pile group effects. Table 1 outlines the recommended reduction factors depending on pile spacing. 19014-02 April 18, 2014 8 I Southport Hotel Table 1 -Pile Group Reduction Factors for Coefficient of Variation of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction Pile Spacing in Direction of Loading Subgrade Reaction Reduction Factor D = Pile Diameter R SD 1.00 60 0.70 40 0.40 3D 0.25 For the pile to develop fixity, a total embedment of at least 4T (four times the relative stiffness factor) must be attained. With 4T or greater embedment, the ultimate resistance to an applied lateral load is governed primarily by the strength characteristics of the pile and not the strength of the soil. In contrast, should the pile be embedded to a depth of only 2T or less, the ultimate resistance to lateral loads would be governed primarily by the strength of the soil with the pile acting as a rigid member {or pole). An embedment of between 2T and 4T would be considered an intermediate case, i.e., the ultimate lateral loading depends on both the soil and the pile strength. For the typical case at this site, we anticipate that an embedment greater than 4T will be realized, given the embedment requirements for vertical capacity. The moment formulations calculated using the procedures do not contain a factor of safety. The structural engineer should incorporate a suitable factor of safety in the lateral load design or adopt an allowable deflection criteria, and should verify the strength of the pile to resist the applied lateral loads. The pile cap, upon deflection, will contribute some lateral resistance to the foundation system. The equivalent fluid weight for passive resistance of compacted fill above the water table is 300 pcf. This is an ultimate value that assumes that the pile cap can move laterally at least 1 percent of its height (height defined as depth from adjacent grade to the bottom of the pile cap). For less lateral movement, the ultimate passive resistance should be reduced linearly to zero for no lateral movement. The lateral resistance against the pile cap assumes the confining soil is compacted structural fill. Pile Installation We recommend the following: • Space piles within groups no less than three times the pile diameter on center. • Verify pile capacity in the field based on a wave equation or a dynamic pile driving formula used in conjunction with the final few driven feet. Such a formula should take into consideration various physical factors such as energy of the hammer, the size and length of the piles, and modulus of elasticity of the pile materials. In our opinion, an appropriate formula would be the Danish (S 0 ) pile driving formula. 19014-02 April 18, 2014 Southport Hotel J 9 The S0 pile driving formula is presented below: Where: = (aE,L)112 S, 2AE And Q = Ultimate pile capacity in pounds E, = Rated hammer energy in foot-pounds a = Hammer efficiency= delivered energy+ rated energy= (about 0.8 unless measured) L = Length of pile in feet A= Cross sectional area of pile in square inches E = Modulus of elasticity of pile material in pounds per square inch S = Final set (penetration per blow) in feet. • To correspond to the allowable design value, apply a factor of safety of 2.5 to the ultimate pile capacity as determined by the wave equation or the above pile-driving formula. • We expect that a certain percentage of the piles will need to be red riven on the day after the initial driving. Redriving is a better way to apply the wave equation or pile driving formula to estimate the capacity, since the ground has a chance to "set up" following initial driving, and regain the long-term strength. For planning, assume that 10 percent of the piles will be redriven. Hart Crowser should review the pile plans and specifications, and estimate the design pile lengths prior to construction (and ordering piles, if precast concrete are used). As noted earlier, a length of 70 feet is appropriate for planning, and the lengths in the field will be carefully monitored to protect against overdriving, and punching through the bearing layer. To assess stresses within the pile the contractor should provide a driveability analysis for the driving setup they plan to use. Hart Crowser should review the analysis. Floor Slab Design For the pile foundation support alternative, we recommend designing the floor slab as a structural slab, supported by the pile caps and grade beams. For the stone column/spread footing alternative, a -.. HIJRTCROWSER 19014-02 April 18, 2014 10 I Southport Hotel grade-supported slab can be used. As subsequently recommended, a 6-inch layer of clean sand and gravel should underlie either slab alternative. A vapor barrier is not required. Below-Grade Elements and Structural Fill Footings, pile caps, or other below-grade elements backfilled on one side only can be designed using soil pressures estimated using equivalent fluid weights for the soil. For active conditions, where the wall is free to deflect slightly, the appropriate fluid weight is 35 pcf. For passive resistance, the appropriate fluid weight is 300 pcf. For at-rest conditions, where no deflection is allowed, the appropriate fluid weight is 55 pcf. Structural fill will be required in some areas around the site. Generally, the structural fill should consist of clean, well-graded sand or sand and gravel to allow placement and compaction under wet conditions. Compaction to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density is required in bearing areas or slabs-on-grade. Lower compaction levels are acceptable in non-bearing areas. For example, in paved areas, a level of 92 percent is acceptable. In landscaped areas, 88 to 90 percent is acceptable. Beneath structural slabs, the fill needs only be compact enough to support the curing slab. Crushed concrete can be used as fill below structural slabs, and at depths greater than 2 feet below the slab in slab-on-grade areas. Crushed concrete should have a maximum size of 4 inches. Fill and Settlement Placement of more than a few feet of fill outside improved ground will include consolidation settlement of several inches. Roadway fill areas could be preloaded or surcharged to induce the settlement before paving. Another alternative could be the use of a lightweight embankment fill called Geofoam. This is a material supplied in blocks or sheets that is strong enough to support some fill and pavement loads. Utilities will settle with the surface of the fill, since the settlement is deep-seated. If the fill is placed first and the utilities after, some of the utility settlement will be eliminated. Utility connections should be as flexible as possible, and utility grades and slopes should be adjusted, as appropriate, to adapt to the expected settlement. Improved areas will settle less than non-improved areas. Below the water table (estimated to be as high as elevation 17 and 19 feet, or about 3 feet below the current site grade), our ability to dewater sufficiently to allow for a stable trench and workable conditions is uncertain. Old photographs of construction at the steam plant, and our experience nearby, suggest that the groundwater can be controlled using well points, sumps, or wells. If this is the case, then a traditional trench box to support the excavation combined with area dewatering could be cost-effective and efficient. If the water cannot be controlled, more costly alternatives such as ground freezing may need to be considered. In either case, the pipe bedding and backfill should consist of high quality sand and gravel with a low fines content, since the work will be completed in wet conditions. A well-graded sand and gravel can even be placed with some water in the excavation. If the bottom of the excavation is in peat or soft 19014-02 April 18, 2014 --HIJR1CRoWSER Southport Hotel I 11 silt, which is possible, based on the explorations, a separation fabric should be used to line the pipe trench and keep the clean bedding and backfill from becoming contaminated with fine-grained soil. Underslab Drainage for Buildings We recommend that no underslab drain network be installed for either a pile foundation or a spread footing foundation system. The slab should be underlain by at least 6 inches of well-graded sand or sand and gravel with a fines content of no more than 3 percent by weight, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. Perimeter drains and drains at the base of below-grade walls may still be needed, although we can review requirements on a case-by-case basis across the site. Pavement Support Haul roads, depending on their location around the site, could travel over relatively firm ground or across pockets of soft soil. We have flexible requirements for the haul road base. It can consist of quarry spalls, or crushed rock, or crushed rock with an ATB surface. This is a decision that the contractor should have some control over, since the nature of the ground, the traffic loading, the weather conditions, and other non-design factors will affect the subgrade needs. For the permanent roadways, (not considered to be arterials) we recommend that the upper two feet of fill or natural ground be well-compacted (to at least 92 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density) and firm and non-yielding. The pavement subgrade could consist of 4 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of crushed rock, with heavier sections in the major truck access areas, and lighter sections in low-traffic areas. We expect that the roadways will undergo some widespread settlement over time in the high fill areas, but abrupt differences in settlement are not expected. Excavation Groundwater Control Our exploration program consisted of limited test pit excavations to observe the shallow excavation conditions. We noted that while groundwater is present in the excavations, it should flow slowly enough to be controllable using conventional means. Team experience at nearby sites and historical photographs of work at the steam plant support this position. In some locations this will not be the case, but in general, shallow excavation for construction of pile caps or footings do not require a detailed dewatering plan if the depth of the cut is less than about 7 feet below existing grade. Reasonably dry conditions should be able to be maintained by pumping from one or two sumps located within each excavation. The excavation side walls should be protected from sloughing by using steel sheets or similar protection. An alternative method would be to install a number of separate sumps just outside the excavation footprints to lower the water table over a wider area than just one pile cap. A 12-inch slotted plastic casing or culvert pipe placed about 2 feet below the bottom of excavation and backfilled on the outside with pea gravel would serve as the sump. Deeper excavation (such as may be required for elevator shafts) will most likely require an active dewatering system using drilled wells or well points. We would expect to pump significant quantities --H/JmOKWl/5Bl 19014-02 April 18, 2014 12 I Southport Hotel of groundwater below depths of about 10 feet, and excavations of this depth should be conducted with great care to avoid sudden collapses of side walls and loss of soil integrity in the base. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES We see the potential for Hart Crowser to complete additional services in support of the design and construction of the proposed facility. Ground Improvement Verification Liquefaction mitigation of improved ground conditions should be verified by Hart Crowser using cone penetration tests (CPTs) at selected locations. A set of pre-and post-installation CPTs should be completed for every 15,000 square feet to a minimum depth of 50 feet below ground surface, located midpoint between adjacent piers. We should do a minimum of 5 CPTs before ground improvement and a minimum of 10 CPTs after ground improvement. Daily records during improvement should be kept and signed by the Specialty Contractor and verified by a representative of Hart Crowser. Daily records should include for each installation, at a minimum: • Reference number or installation location • Date and time of installation start and complete • Depth of penetration • Quantity of stone/rock/sand used • Densification and installation forces used • Obstructions or delays • Unusual conditions encountered Services during Construction. During the construction phase of the project, we recommend that Hart Crowser observe the following activities: • Placement of structural and drainage fill at the site; • Observation of the installation of pile foundations or stone columns; • Observation and verification of the suitability of all excavated surfaces; • Excavation and placement of foundations floor slabs; • Other geotechnical considerations that may arise during the course of construction. The purpose of these observations is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes or evaluation of appropriate construction measures in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. LIMITATION We completed this work in accordance with our proposal dated February 26, 2014. Our report is for the exclusive use of Seco Development and their design consultants for specific application to the 19014-02 April 18, 2014 Southport Hotel I 13 subject project and site. We completed this study in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. We make no other warranty, express or implied. We trust that this report meets your needs. If you have questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call at your earliest convenience. L;\Jobs\1901402\Design Report\Geotechnical Engineering Design Report.docx --11/JRTCROWSER 19014-02 April 18, 2014 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. Vicinity Map (:,, I \.: ;, I I'\:'_· -.. \ \ . ,, / Subject Property I c/ ' , i ,i . . l. I :i.,, 0 2000 \ 1 4000 Scale in Feet .. .. HARTCROWSER 19014-02 4/14 fiqure 1 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. I ! ~ i Site and Exploration Map Southport < £:;:i:____ . efB-2 . 'I ;- /' ' ~ "·'' ', ' ' . .,.. ~ \ \ -. ' ' ~:· No!it: Base map prepared from ~ectron,c fi~ oo~llad. "99323SRH.dwg" provided by Bush. Ri>ed. & H1Leh1ngs dalO<I Sepl8mber6. 2000 a 100 200 Scale in Feet B0e;,,g _) \\.I . f'-1 -~ '·;' J .• --(" • ~/" ·~ ,·' . ~/ "' .____ ,, ' " ' ' \• \, ./' ' ·"' \ ~(!,....,. . ,. -.. ---' '\...,-/ ' CPT-8 -.:. "-· ~----.. _/,,., • ~ . .;;. ,• _., ·--... _ --.,_,_ ~--.,....___ ~-....... • 'C -,,._-..... -,-..:__ -~- Exp!orallon Location and Number !'.al HC-1 ~B-1 ·-CPT-1 Boring oonducted by Hart Crowser. 2000 (Approximate location) Boring oonduct&d b~ others (Approl\imate location) CPT Test conducted by others (ApproJ\imate hication) Approximate Construc~on Llm~s ' ,. [j cpr:6 I. 0. i .. ·.":;/ ,·. • •. :; j_j~: l{\·', / ',' ~'<: I • . i{ A A' t_j Cross Section location and Designation ~ C, •') • ; }fj,, 8 " ' ' ' ' Q\ I / I /, I . I I I I 19014-02 Flr,ura 2 I I I I ; 1: I . ! 1· I ! J ; ' I j I l 4114 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. I Generalized Subsurface Cross Section A-A' Southport ~ " ~ A ;j; 01 ? 15 30 45 ---- 60 \l 1l ~ N :;; I ------------ Very loose to loose. slightly silty SAND ---~--------------~~ ~ w g_ ~ ~ 0 a. u I ---,;;------------------,/ Loose lo medium dense clean to slighUy silty SANO ------------ Medium stiff SILT and sandy SILT ---- ------------ Medium dell% to dense slightly si~ $AND ~ ~ J, ' ' ---- ' ' ' '-' ~ t ~ u A' ---? --? ~ 75 ~ ? ;:::::+---=-::: -·-------------- --~<1~~SILT ------• -g 90 ~ ~ j 105 t ~ 120i 135 150 --------- (---- ----- ,--------------- r>IDL<l,: Canlacis between •ml un,ls an> ba..,d "I""' in\<t<i><>"'h"" b<11w,...n l><lnll!iJ• "'1<I ra~aHm our 1nterp,elation of aub..,rface condiuons ba..,<I an c ... renU~ avaiabla ~- - TIie gruund ourlace ele•a\lcn of all uplorabur'ls i• between 20 and 24 leel Nane of tho I~ or ele~alloos hall$ b<len sur.8)1(>d D = Liquefiable Malarial D = Bearing Unit D = Cohesive Material undarlying Bearing Unit -----------Dense SAND --------------1-------------, ---., Soft to medium stiff. --~-? and stiff SILT and CLAY ------------?-------"'iL-----4 ____ ? Dense to very dense. silty SAND B-1 (40'W) r --T-- Exploration Number (Offset Distance and DirecUon) Exploration Location Water Level al Time of Drilling Inferred Geologic Contact (Major Unrt) Honzontal Scale in Feet 0 60 160 0 30 60 Vertical Scale in Feet a IIJJRJCROWSER. 19014-02 Figure 3 4114 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. " ~ 8 i ~ e ~ E _g ~ i 0 Generalized Subsurface Cross Section 8-8' Southport z ~ B d, z ~ " ,: z ! "I m '" b "- 3 ,: z ~ ;'.! 0. " '" b 0 "1 B' m '::::-. .,,, i , I , 4 f.!-_ _/-I I ,_L..t-------------------------.L__ ------ 15 30 45 60 -5 90 105 120 135 150 ' ! 1, !, ----- 7---~ ---- Very loose to loose. slightly silty SANO --------- -,-~ .. --. ''· -~ -------- --/--~ ,...., -..... -- ----~~ ~ff SILT ;n; s~n::s~T----== __________ ..,. -.~---""---- ,[~ <;_.-~-;--------·=~=~~~: Loose to medium dense. slightly silty SAND ----------------------- ------:.--:------------------------' --------- -? ,, ,....;.. ---· ' SAND ~:::;.,a::.. --·.;:-=;-:c::---~~~:~~::;: __ ;j'"-1t~'---~s======-==02 :: -::=:-:.:.:::::::=.:::;...-'---: -------c - ------ ________ -.._ __________ __ ? / --/ , / ---Dense to 11ery dense SAND -., ____ ------? --1 -----------------------------~ ----------------~---------- ,-----··:' .. -_,,.. ="~'--ti ~ ~~~-----------------, Dense to very dense SAND V•1>"'9111o""l~#f ""4tllf/$!\T""~~· .. · ,:::;. ? Nou,s C<>r>t,,cis betwe~n s,:,i units aro based upon mtacpolabon t>etm&n bomgs and represent our inlerpretabon ol s.ubsurfac,o c:und/lJornl based on cvrrently avadabk, "" The g,ound sur!ac,i eleva~on ot all o.<pit>1a11o:>r1• i• t>etw&en 20 and 24 feet. Nooe or the locabons or <,lerabuno tlave baen surv<Jyed D = liQuefiable Material D = Bearing Unit D = Cohesive Material underlying Bearing Unit B-1 (60' N) r ---!;I--- Exploration Number (Offset Distance and Direction) Exploration Location Water Leval at Time of Drilling Inferred Geok>Qic Contact (Major Unit) Horizontal Scakl in Feet 0 80 160 0 30 60 Vertical Scale 1n Feet --111.UrrCRoWSER. 19014-02 Flgure4 4/14 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Subgrade Deflection and Moment Criteria Fixed-Headed Pile Condition (a) Deflection and Moment Coefficients Deflection Coefficient, A, -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 0 Y/f / ,/ T ,, ~-_., I -' i ,; ,.... --I -. ~ ~ 0 -' ,-- v -;· I E_ 2T " 0 /3 / ' I/ I i I ----t-: '4 i i 3T 4T i i Moment Coefficient, Am -1 --0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 --------: .::::------==--:::------T -'--t-t-t-+--+--+'<t:--3--d--+-+--+-----J .......... _, - ~=2', \ " E_ 2T -,--t-+-+-+--+--+--+'--+--+---+---+---+------< Q) _ _.:,_,.-1---+---+----+----+---+---+---+--<-'-+-/-+I--+---< C 1 3/ / 3T -!---t-+--1---- / -,--t-t-+-+--+--+-+-+----1-f-+-'·· - 4 i 4T -,--t-t-+-+--+--+-+--+---+---+-'---+---, ' ' L_______;__-,_i__L___L____L____L__L__L_...L....L. _ _L.~ (b) Typical Deflection and Moment Curves X P~ y D j m LOAD DEFLECTION MOMENT HCS/Fix Hear:J.cdr P ~ Pile Shear at Ground Surface or Mudline T Relative Stiffness Factor -.. 19014-00 Figure 5 4114 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Subgrade Deflection and Moment Criteria Free-Headed Pile Condition (a) Deflection and Moment Coefficients Deflection Coefficient, A, -1 0 1 2 0 ~-- 3 ~ -0.1 0 0 ' ' -/, q" I·· ······ 0=2 ······ T .. -·· ······ ······· I ' f T t ~ 2T , 3 I , -3T ~- 4T 41 5 Deflection Coefficient, B, -1 0 1 0 4' ,,, , /., / ,. .... -·· ... --- 0=2 /··· .. -_T··r .... ·•···· ,,,•' I T t i 3~ , ~ 2T . i ' , i I_ 3T . 4 &5 ~- I 4T '--------- 4 ···•·· ······· •. 2 ······· ····· --- L--- i ' I I i --. i I ";.." ... 3 ······· T .c fil-2T Cl 3T 4T . -0.1 0 0 T .c fil-2T Cl 3T 4T - -- ! ( .. 5 (b) Typical Deflection and Moment Curves HCS/Free Head.cdr DEFLECTION y x-- MOMENT m Moment Coefficient, A,. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ---. ... ::,.:-,.. .. .... -, D=2 J ••••••• ) T ••••••• 1 ~ ····· ' .... / .. ····· ' ,, _,, ,, / ,, ,, ,, / -,, _,,, ., V "3 .... :., 4., /~ -'I . /5 --···· Moment Coefficient, Bm 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 . I I i ... .) ! : J. ... ,·+···::., / ' ,•''-t ' ······ D=2 ······· "' -,,,,,· "'f ····· ······· -······ :;;,-······· -------,.,r .,.,,,. 3 .... / ., ' ;;-' /,; /.'' . ' /41 ---~- I ! ' I I P"' Pile Shear at Ground Surtace or Mudline M,, Pile Moment at Ground Surtace T Relative Stiffness Factor -.. 19014-00 Figure 6 ----- I ' ' i i I 4/14 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. --HllRTCJtoWSER APPENDIX A Field Explorations Methods and Analysis 19014-02 April 18, 2014 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS This appendix documents the processes Hart Crowser used to determine the nature of the soils underlying the project site addressed by this report. The discussion includes information on the following subjects: • Explorations and Their Location • The Use of Auger Borings • Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures • Use of Shelby Tubes Explorations and Their Location Subsurface explorations for this project include two borings, HC-1 and HC-2. The exploration logs within this appendix show our interpretation of the drilling, sampling, and testing data. They indicate the depth where the soils change. Note that the change may be gradual. In the field, we classified the samples taken from the explorations according to the methods presented on Figure A-1 -Key to Exploration Logs. This figure also provides a legend explaining the symbols and abbreviations used in the logs. Location of Explorations. Figure 2 shows the location of explorations, located by hand taping or pacing from existing physical features. The ground surface elevations at these locations are between 20 and 24 feet, and were interpreted from elevations shown on base map provided by Bush, Roed and Hitchings, dated September 6, 2000. The method used determines the accuracy of the location and elevation of the explorations. The Use of Auger Borings With depths ranging from 129 to 149 feet below the ground surface, two hollow-stem auger and/or mud rotary borings, designated HC-1 and HC-2, were drilled from September 18 to 20, 2000. The borings used a 3-3/8-inch inside diameter hollow-stem auger and were advanced with a truck- mounted drill rig subcontracted by Hart Crowser. The drilling was continuously observed by an engineering geologist from Hart Crowser. Detailed field logs were prepared of each boring. Using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and thin-walled Shelby tubes, we obtained samples at 2-1/2-to 5- foot-depth intervals. NOTE: Boring HC-1 and the latter portion of boring HC-2 were advanced using mud rotary technique. The borings logs are presented on Figures A-2 and A-3 at the end of this appendix. -.. HIJRTO«JWSER 19014-02 April 18, 2014 A-2 I Southport Hotel Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures This test is an approximate measure of soil density and consistency. To be useful, the results must be used with engineering judgment in conjunction with other tests. The SPT (as described in ASTM D 1587) was used to obtain disturbed samples. This test employs a standard 2-inch outside diameter split-spoon sampler. Using a 140-pound hammer, free-falling 30 inches, the sampler is driven into the soil for 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches only is the Standard Penetration Resistance. This resistance, or blow count, measures the relative density of granular soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The blow counts are plotted on the boring logs at their respective sample depths. Soil samples are recovered from the split-barrel sampler, field classified, and placed into water tight jars. They are then taken to Hart Crowser's laboratory for further testing. In the Event of Hard Driving Occasionally very dense materials preclude driving the total 18-inch sample. When this happens, the penetration resistance is entered on logs as follows: Penetration less than six inches. The log indicates the total number of blows over the number of inches of penetration. Penetration greater than six inches. The blow count noted on the log is the sum of the total number of blows completed after the first six inches of penetration. This sum is expressed over the number of inches driven that exceed the first 6 inches. The number of blows needed to drive the first six inches are not reported. For example, a blow count series of 12 blows for 6 inches, 30 blows for 6 inches, and 50 (the maximum number of blows counted within a 6-inch increment for SPT) for 3 inches would be recorded as 80/9. Use of Shelby Tubes To obtain a relatively undisturbed sample for classification and testing in fine-grain soils, a 3-inch· diameter thin-walled steel (Shelby) tube sampler was pushed hydraulically below the auger. The tubes were sealed in the field and taken to our laboratory for extrusion and classification. l:\Jobs\1901402\Design Report\Geotechnical Engineering Design Report.docx 19014-02 April 18, 2014 Key to Exploration Logs Sample Description Classification of soils in this report is based on visual field and laboratory observations which include density/consistency. moisture condition. grain size. and plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field nor laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual-manual classification methods of ASTM D 2488 were used as an identification guide. Soil descriptions consist of the following: Density/consistency. moisture. color. minor constituents. MAJOR CONSTITUENT. additional remarks. Density/Consistency Soil density/consistency in borings is related primarily to the Standard Penetration Resistance. Soil density/consistency in test pits and probes is estimated based on visual observation and is presented parenthetically on the lo~ Standard Standard ~proximate S DorGRAVEL Penetration SILT or CLAY Penetration ear Strength Density Resistance (N) Consistency Resistance (N) lnTSF in Blows/Foot in Blows/Foot Very loose O to 4 Very soft 0 to 2 <0.125 Loose 4 to 10 Soft 2 to 4 0.125 to 0.25 Medium dense 10 to30 Medium stiff 4 to 8 0.25 to 0.5 Dense 30 to50 Stiff 8 to15 0.5 to 1.0 Very dense >50 Very stiff 15 to30 1.0 to 2.0 Hard >30 >2.0 Sampling Test Symbols ~ 1.5" I.D. Split Spoon IZl Grab (Jar) ~ 3.0" I.D. Split Spoon rn Shelby Tube (Pushed) [2J Bag IIllJ Cuttings D Core Run SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERW. IS LARGER THAN NO 200SEVE see GRAVEL ANO GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% I OF COARSE FAACTION RETAINED ON NO 4 SIEVE SAND ANO SANDY SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS lUTTLE OR NO FINES] SYMBOLS GW GP GM GC • SW • • SP TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS WELL-GRADED GRAVELS GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES. LITTLE OR NO FINES POORL Y--GRAOED GRAVELS GRAVEL -SANO MIXTIJRES. LITTLE OR NO FINES SL TY GRAVELS. GRAVEL -SAND - SL T MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS. GRAVEL· SAND· CLAY MIXTURES WELL.GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANOS. UTTLE OR NO FINES POORLY--GRAOED SANDS GRA\/£1.LYSAND LITTLEORNO FINES C--------+~~-C--------·--·-----------1 FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERW. IS SMALLER TKAN NO. 200 SIE',IE '"' MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FAACTION PASSING ON NO 4 SIEVE SILTS ANO CLAYS SILTS AND ClAYS SANDS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN SO uaum L1~1T GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS .--_·-_J _ili _,J NOTE DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SM SC OL PT SILTY SANDS. SAND -Sil T MOCTURES CLAYEY SANOS. SAND -CLAY MIXTURES ORGANIC Sil.TS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PL.ASTICIT'I" INORGANIC Sil TS MK:ACEOUS OR DlATOMACEC'JS FINE SAND OR SU..rYSOLS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDJUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC SllTS PEAT HUMUS. SW/.MP SOILS WITH 1 HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS I I ' Moisture Dry Little perceptible moisture Damp Some perceptible moisture. likely below optimum Moist Likely near optimum moisture content Wet Much perceptible moisture. likely above optimum Minor Constituents Trace Estimated Percentage <5 Slightly (clayey. silly. etc.) Clayey. silty. sandy. gravelly Very (clayey. silty. etc.) 5 -12 12 -30 30 -50 Laboratory Test Symbols GS Grain Size Classification CN Consolidation UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial CU Consolidated Undrained Triaxial CD Consolidated Drained Triaxial QU Unconfined Compression OS Direct Shear K Permeability PP Pocket Penetrometer Approximate Compressive Strength in TSF TV Torvane CBR MD AL PIO CA DT OT Approximate Shear Strength in TSF California Bearing Ratio Moisture Density Relationship Atterberg Limits I • I Water Content in Percent I L____L:: Liquid Limit Natural Plastic Limit Photoionization Detector Reading Chemical Analysis In Situ Density in PCF Tests by Others Groundwater Indicators Groundwater Level on Date or (ATD) At Time of Drilling y ( Groundwater Seepage (Test Pits) Sample Key Sample Type ---. ,,----Sample Recovery I S-1 Samp~_J Number -.. 12 23 50/3" \_ Blows per 6 inches HNlTCROWSER J-7452 Figure A-1 10/00 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. Boring Log HC-1 Soil Descriptions Depth in Feet Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: -·~srown-: slightly silty. graY-etty·_-fine to medium SAND over medium dense. wet. brown-gray. slightly gravelly SAND. y r ATD Loose. wet~ia}'. silty. fine SAND. Loose. wet. black. gravelly SAND. 10 15 Loose to medium dense. wet. dark gray. non-gravelly to slightly gravelly. fine to medium SAND. -20 25 f......___ Slightly silty. 30 35 Medium dense. wet. dark gray. slightly silty. gravelly SAND. Medium stiff to stiff. wet, dark gray to gray. 40 fine. sandy SILT. 45 C • ' ~ f- ~ 50 0 Medium dense. wet. gray. silty. fine SAND " ~ with trace organic material. ~ 0 u c} 55 :I:: ~ "' Medium stiff. wet. dark gray. slightly fine 81 N" sandy SILT. ~ • ~-60 " g Medium dense to dense. wet. gray. silty to ~: ~' slightly silty. fine to medium SAND. O! m -65 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater level. if indicated. is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Sample S-1 Q S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 ·s-11 ~s-12 S-13 S-14 S-15 S-16 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE ~ BIO\\'S per Foot 12 51020 50 100 11 i T C I • ' -! ~ I I --·. - \ ' ' • - ' I ' c I !!I c c ' • r I ' ' L I -- I I • I i I ! ' I ' ' I - ! -I ' I ; -i 1, I 1/ ' I ,1 ! + c c c I c I I i I I I c ' ! -Li C '' ! '\ ' c 'I c ' I \ r\ i i ' ' ~---V I c ! V • I --·· ~ ' • ' I ' i --. 2 5 10 20 50 100 • Water Content in Percent .. ... LAB TESTS I "GS GS GS -------- IIARTCROWSER 19014-02 FigureA-2 09/00 112 Boring Log HC-1 Soil Descriptions Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: ~ ~ ~ ~ 81 ~' ~' z Medium dense to dense. wet. gray. silty to slightly silty. fine to medium SAND. Stratified layers of organic material. Very stiff to hard. wet. gray. non-sandy to fine to medium sandy SILT. MediUm stiff to hard. wet. light gray CLAY. Trace fine sand and gravel. Trace fine sand. ~----~~~-~=~~------___j m Bottom of Boring at 129.0 Feet. Completed 09/20/00. Depth in Feet T65 [ _'._70 75 80 85 90 -95 100 105 -110 115 120 125 130 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater level. if indicated. is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Sample S-17 'S-18 S-19 S-20 S-21 S-22 S-23 ·s-24 S-25 S-26 S-27 S-28 S-29 S-30 S-31 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE .& Blow.; per Foot 1 2 5 10 ~ ~ -I • • j I ' 100 • . 1-~f-H+++t+t----'s--i --t-,+cffi ' I f--l---L-t - ' C C C C C C C C C " C C C C " C C C C " i I I ! i I, ' ii; 'I I lr ! 1. ' I I ," I .. ~ ' ----+--lY-++++ :'>I ! ; i i ; I/ ~ I I; 1 I i I ,-. ' / I i ' I • I I ---• --,-+-J-+++fj I ~, , : I I \I~! '-----------'--··+-++++I-H---1-\ -+,~' +J-_j.Jj I, ' 2 5 I \ l' 10 20 50 100 • Water Content in Percent .. .. LAB TESTS AL AL ALCN I ~AL HIJRTCROWSER 19014-02 FigureA-2 09/00 212 Boring Log HC-2 Soil Descriptions Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: IMPORT FILL Very loose. moist. brown and gray. slightly gravelly. silty. fine to medium SAND with interbedded silt. Organic silt and fibrous peat within sampler --s~~·----------------_; Loose to dense. wet. gray. non-silty to 1 slightly silty. fine to medium SAND with ~ trace scattered gravel. Grading to less silty. .._____ Trace wood fragments. 1.5 feet of heave observed. Stiff. wet. gray. fine. sandy-SILT. thinly laminated. 1.5 feet of heave observed. -~ ' -sott--:-wecgraYsiLT.ThintY1i3mTnated.----_, • ~ Abundant organic material noted. Mediu-m dense. wet. gray. slightly silty: fine to medium SAND. 2.5 feet of heave observed . :~-= ~~;:~~~~s~t zone~ an~o~".": =·~rial / ~: Very dense. wet. gray. slightly silty to silty. - ~~ fineSAND. ~1 1.5 feet of heave observed. IL C: --4 feet of heave observed. " § " z ~ • -Medium dense tO dense. wet. gray. slightly- silty to silty. fine SAND. Depth in Feet 15 20 25 30 -'--40 50 55 60 65 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater level. if indicated. is at time of drilling (ATO) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Sample I S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 S-13 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE • 810\W per Foot 1 2 5 10 20 ~ C I ' C i • L C C 't C • C I I C ! !1 C I • C L L C • ' " L " C ' • " C 1" L I il/l • -- I/ 11 -I/ :1 -i I ", ~ I ·; 11 : I I i ,, L ' --- ' i i ! i ' ' ' I I I ' ' N • -I !_ I -i ' i i • ' L I ' ~~- 2 5 10 20 • Water Content in Percent I 11 • I ' 50 -.. I \ 100 I ' 5 0/6" I I 5 0/5" 100 19014-02 FigureA-3 LAB TESTS -GS ~GS I LJ 09/00 1/3 Boring Log HC-2 Soil Descriptions Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: Medium dense to dense. wet. gray. slightly silty to silty. fine SAND. Lamination of organic material noted. :----....... Silt zones and 1-inch organic layer. (PEAT) M"ediUin stiff to stiff. -nioist. gray. slightly fine to medium sandy to non-sandy SILT. Dense to very dense. moist. gray. silty to very silty. fine to medium SAND. --Abundandt organic material (shell fragments) noted. Very soft. wet. gray. slightly sandy to non-sandy SILT. ~ Very soft. wet. gray CLAY. ---- Depth in Feet 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 f- ~110 §I ~ ::; · Very soft to very stiff. wet. graYSTL f. ----115 ~ ~ ~' I ~ 1J ~ ~ Medium stiff to very stiff. wet. QfaY. S1i9htly --- fine to medium sandy StLT. 120 f125 1130 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriplions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater level. if indicated. is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Sample S-14 S-15 S-16 S-17 S-18 S-19 S-20 S-21 ~s-2rn S-22 S-22B S-23 S-24 S-25 S-26 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE .& Blows per Foot 1 2 5 10 ~ ~ ! I I I i I " L ' -• ' ' I / . - '/ -: ,( 100 ~- ' ' i..:. "'--' '• " I " i • L ! ' L • ' " : L I I 1. : i ~- ' L ~-,_...------, - ! ~"'; " ~ ! L ~-- C:o.. , ----p:: ' • -:::.__ '' I '--. ,, 1-!--1 ' ' '\ ' ! i I . 2 5 10 20 50 • Water Content in Percent .. .. ' ! ' ' ~ i '! ' ' i 100 LAB TESTS AL AL ALCN AL IIARTCROWSER 19014-02 FigureA-3 09/00 213 • § " e D " C " 0 " ' " I " " 0 0 N ~ • ' " 0 ~ " z " 0 • Boring Log HC-2 Soil Descriptions Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet ! Medium stiff to very stiff. wet. gray. slightly fine to medium sandy SILT. i --very1oose.-wet:-gray--:-stttY. tine tO 111ediu-m -- . SAND. --oenSelo-ve-ry-d"enSe~ WECgFclf slightly - gravelly. fine to medium SAND. Bottom of Boring at 149.0 Feet. Completed 09/18/00. Depth in Feet 135 140 145 ~ 1150 f- 155 160 165 ' 170 175 · 180 185 190 195 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater level. if indicated. is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Sample S-27 S-28 S-29 ~s-3o STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE & 810'-M> per Foot 12 5102050 I 1/ ' • f- / e / ' K I • . L ~-.. I • ""'~ I : } I \' I I ii I • ··-·. ----... ·----... I ' ,: 1' -i, I L ' f- ' i ' ! • ! I ' I I' I -I i I I ! I ' c c ---- r I c c i c ~ ' --i - ' -I 100 I . I i ' ' i i I I I I i 2 5 10 20 50 100 • Water Content in Percent .. .. 19014-02 FigureA-3 LAB TESTS 09/00 3/3 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. --11/JRTCROWSER APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Program 19014-02 April 18, 2014 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM A laboratory testing program was performed for this study to evaluate the basic index and geotechnical engineering properties of the site soils. Both disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples were tested. The tests performed and the procedures followed are outlined below. Soil Classification Field Observation and Laboratory Analysis. Soil samples from the explorations were visually classified in the field and then taken to our laboratory where the classifications were verified in a relatively controlled laboratory environment. Field and laboratory observations include density/consistency, moisture condition, and grain size and plasticity estimates. The classifications of selected samples were checked by laboratory tests such as Atterberg limits determinations and grain size analyses. Classifications were made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System, ASTM D 2487, as presented on Figure B-1. Water Content Determinations Water contents were determined for most samples recovered in the explorations in general accordance with ASTM D 2216, as soon as possible following their arrival in our laboratory. Water contents were not determined for very small samples nor samples where large gravel contents would result in values considered unrepresentative. The results of these tests are plotted at the respective sample depth on the exploration logs. In addition, water contents are routinely determined for samples subjected to other testing. These are also presented on the exploration logs. Grain Size Analysis (GS) Grain size distribution was analyzed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. Wet sieve analysis was used to determine the size distribution greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the tests are presented as curves on Figures B-2 and B-3 plotting percent finer by weight versus grain size. Atterberg Limits (AL) We determined Atterberg limits for selected fine-grained soil samples. The liquid limit and plastic limit were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 4318-84. The results of the Atterberg limits analyses and the plasticity characteristics are summarized in the Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report, Figures B-4 through B-7. This relates the plasticity index (liquid limit minus the plastic limit) to the liquid limit. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are shown graphically on the boring logs as well as where applicable on figures presenting various other test results. --11/JRTCROWSER 19014-02 April 18, 2014 A-2 I Southport Hotel Consolidation Test (CN) The one-dimensional consolidation test provides data for estimating settlement. The test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2435. A relatively undisturbed, fine-grained sample was carefully trimmed and fit into a rigid ring with porous stones placed on the top and bottom of the sample to allow drainage. Vertical loads were then applied incrementally to the sample in such a way that the sample was allowed to consolidate under each load increment. Measurements were made of the compression of the sample (with time) under each load increment. Rebound was measured during the unloading phase. In general, each load was left in place until the completion of 100 percent primary consolidation, as computed using Taylor's square root of time method. The next load increment was applied soon after attaining 100 percent primary consolidation. For selected tests, loads were left in-place for as long as 24 hours to record secondary consolidation characteristics. The test results plotted in terms of axial strain and coefficient of consolidation versus applied load (stress) are presented on Figures B-8 and B-9. L:\Jobs\1901402\Design Report\Geotechnical Engineering Design Report.docx 19014-02 April 18, 2014 --HIJRTCROWSER Unified Soil Classification (USC) System Soil Grain Size S,ze al Opening ln Inches ------NU~'Tiber ai-MeSt'~per·1nc~. (US Standard) ~----· s 0 ~ :€ 0 0 0 s N • ~ ; ! I: -m ~ • M N -m :€ 0 Grain Size ir. M1lhme1res COBBLES SAND Grain Size in M11!1metres • M N m § • M N 0 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 '' r • M N og 8 • 8 N 0 0 0 C 8 C SiLT and CLAY [ ___ _ GRAVEL . J _____ _ --------··· ---- Coarse-Grained Soils Fine-Grained Soils Coarse-Grained Soils G C SW s p SM SC 8 § GWjGP GM Clean GRAVEL <5% ,;;;;---< *~-R-AV_E_L_wi_t_h_>_1_2_%_f_in-es-----C-le_a_n_SA_N_O_< __ S_%_f_1n-es---<(: >---SA-NO with > 1~1,,-;~-•• ------ SAND >50% coarse lraction smaller !han No 4 I GRAVEL >50% coarse fracUon larger than No. 4 -T I-! ---------------C-o-a-rs-e--G-r-.,--.n-ed_So_i_ls_>_50%~·-1-a,-g-er-t-ha_n_N_o_200_s_,e_v_e----------·-------- 1._ ,'D60 \>4forGW G wand SW 1 ---i \D,o}>6 for S w '(D )2 ' .30 ' &1< ----"c3 -\D,0 X 0 60 / G M and S M Allerberg limits below A line with Pl <4 G P and S P Clean GRAVEL or SAND not meeting requrrements for G W and S W G C and S C Atterberg limits above A Line w11h Pl > 7 * Coarse-grained soils with percentage of fines between 5 and 12 are considered borderline cases requrred use of dual symbols 0 10 , o.,. and 0 60 are the particles diameter of which 10. 30, and 60 percent. respectively, o1 the soil weight are liner. Fine-Grained Soils ----- ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt SILT CLAY Organic SILT CLAY Organic i f- Saris with Liquid Lim1t <50% -----~----- Soils with Liquid Ltmit >50% --------·-·---·----- Highly Organic Soils l 50 CL 10 CL· ML Fine-Grained Soils >50% smaller than Ne 200 sieve ML orO L CH 50 40 30 M Hor OH 20 10 ~ O o""----,Lo ___ i20 ___ _J30 ____ 4L0 ___ _,50 ____ 6LO ___ J..70 ___ i80 ___ _J9L0 __ ___,100 O .i, Llquia· Limit :: E i\l HtlRTCROWSER 8 J-7452 Figure B-1 12/00 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT .. ~ .. ! s < 0 ~ 0 g '1 ~ < .£ 1 ! i ii ~ N _._ " ~ " • .£ ~ ,,,, "' I 1 ! :, 100 90 ,, :l' 80 ~ \ \ l\ \' ,, ' /! 70 0:: 60 w z u: I-50 z w () 0:: w ,4() D.. 30 //, 20 t ' N :, t.. .',,.;_ 10 ~ 2'N1. 0 , I 1 200 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE· mm % GRAVEL %SANO % + 3" CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE 0 0.0 0.0 18.4 18.6 44.9 15.2 D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 42.1 49.6 A 0.0 0.0 16.8 12.0 45.5 20.2 LL Pl Das Dso D50 D30 D15 0 5.64 1.77 1.21 0.630 0.376 D 0.689 0.440 0.389 0.308 0.223 <'> 5.92 1.23 0.871 0.485 0.282 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o Gravelly SAND O Slightly silty, mediwn to fine SAND A Sli tl siltv avellv SAND Remarks: 0 0 A Project: Southport Client: o Source: HC-1 o Source: HC-1 L> Source: HC-1 ... ... I I O.D1 0.001 % FINES SILT CLAY 2.9 7.7 5.5 0.295 0.76 5.99 0.135 1.59 3.25 0.199 0.96 6.16 uses NAT. MOIST. SP SP-SM SP-SM Sample No.: S-3 Sample No.: S-6 Sample No.: S-8 J. 7452 Figure No 8-2 16% 31% 16% J0/4/2000 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT 0:: w z ~ I-z w (.) 0:: UJ a. 0 0 0 0 100 90 80 70 60 so 40 30 20 ,o 0 • ~ l ii I ,. I' T I!' I ,I • ~ • • -' " • • ~ $ -1 ' \ ' I ; I I I I ; 1: 11 I ' I r I ! ;. I i: 1[ : ill 200 100 10 %+ 311 % GRAVEL CRS. FINE 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 LL Pl 095 l.14 0.762 • 0 • .. :.. -,;i....._ : 11 :1 1 • I i ..._I',,.. I ' j I : I • , . I . I I , I I i I 1 GRAIN SIZE -mm %SAND CRS. MEDIUM FINE 6.2 40.5 47.3 2.3 37.1 52.6 Dso D50 030 0.505 0.424 0.314 0.424 0.363 0.267 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o SAND o Slightly silty. mediwn to fine SAND Remarks: 0 0 Project: Southport Client: o Source: HC-2 o Source: HC-2 ... &JI 8 s ; I I I' (! I 0.1 015 0.238 0.177 I 11 I I I i 11' ' [ I 1 1 I I I. 11 0.01 0A. FINES SILT 2.9 7.6 010 Cc 0.201 0.97 0.120 140 ! I ' 0,001 CLAY Cu 2.51 3.52 uses NAT. MOIST. SP SP-SM Sample No.: S-3 Sample No.: S-5 J-7452 Figure No. B-3 23% 21% 10/4/2000 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT / / /" Dashed line indicates the approximate / / 110 -upper limit boundary for natural soils .V / / / / / / 1,/ 0~ / 90 - / / ~ // 'o'<. '/ / / v' / I ~ I/ / -0 70 '-- ;;:; / // V ~ / / (.) / / V ;:: /, "' :'.'i 50 '-- / ,, V a. // i ,,,, / I/ V / / / 30 ,__ / // o' I V /0 I / //C,VJV 10 ,__ 7 '/ /; '/ / /. ML~r OL Ml-or,OHI 4 ~ : I ' 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 LIQUID LIMIT Location + Description LL PL Pl ·200 uses • Source: HC· l Sample No.: S-21 Elastic SILT 119 59 60 MH • Source: HC-1 Sample No.: S-25 CLAY 38 22 16 CL " Source: HC-1 Sample No.: S-30 CLAY 38 24 14 CL Remarks: Project: Southport • • " Client: Location: Renton, WA ... aJI J-7452 10/5/2000 H/.tm'CROWSER Figure No. B-4 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate / / / V / / upper limit boundary for natural soils / / , / ~ 50 - / // 0~ / / c,~ / / • 40 I- / / V >< / / UJ C / ~ / ~ 30 / / I- ~ / I, V / ,,, / s / Q. / 20 I-/ o'v ,, / / ov / ~ / / / 10 ~ /i / I/ 7 ~; ~//A~~'l'////# ML 1roL MH 1r OH 4 10 30 50 70 90 110 LIQUID LIMIT location + Description LL PL Pl -200 uses i • Source: HC-1 Sample No.: S-27 I Fat CLAY 69 28 41 CH Remarks: Project: Southport • Client: Location: Renton, WA -... J-7452 9/29/2000 HARTCROWSER Figure No. 8-5 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate / ' V / I/ / , upper limit boundary for natural soils / / ,/ 0~ 50 I- / I// o<-/ c,~ / / / 40 I- / I/ V >< / • w / C / ~ / ~30 ./ '- <.) / ,// o'·, / ~ 5 0.. 20 -/ / ov 10 I- //// : ~ /I / I/ 7 ~ --#$//A~1~'/'////# 4 MLorOL MH °Ir OH / I I I I 10 30 50 70 90 , ,c LIQUID LIMIT Location + Description LL PL Pl -200 uses • Source: HC-2 Sample No.: S-17 Elastic SILT 82 45 37 MH • Source: HC-2 Sample No.: S-21 Elastic SILT 54 30 24 MH "' Source: HC-2 Sample No.: S-25 SILT 38 25 13 ML Remarks: Project: Southport • • I • Client: I Location: Renton, WA ,,.,, /UI J-7452 10/5/2000 HMTCROWSER Figure No. B-6 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate / / ., / / / / upper limit boundary for natural soils / / / 50 -~o I / 1,/ / 0 / c,~ I / / 40 >- / / V ~ / / C / ,!; / ~30 / , '--() / I, V ;= / :5 / / 0.. / / o" ~ 20 '-- / . / ov / / v) / / ' ,o >-/1 _/ I/ I 7~--///////A(-¥(/)////# I ML Ir OL MH ~r OH I 4~/ I : 10 30 50 70 90 110 LIQUID LIMIT Location + Description LL PL Pl -200 uses • Source: HC-2 Sample No .. S-22b Fat CLAY 54 25 29 CH Remarks: Project; Southport • Client: Location: Renton, WA .. ... J-7452 9/22/2000 HMTCROWSER Figure No. 8-7 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Stress 1tons/ft2 I 1/32 1/16 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 4 8 16 32 0 · 00 ,11ITFffl~=--Ti-..._1TTffi111TITITTrr-111!1JTiITT /Ii: "~~ ~~~ , i I / / " 0.05 l----+-+--+--+-1--+t+l----+-+-+-l--+-H-++----'-c""-+------l-f-t-+++++---+--+--+-+-H-++ \ \ 0.10 1---1--+--+-+-H-++f---+-t-+-H++-t+--+------l----''+,+-+-+++f----+-+-+-+-++-1+ 1 \ I I I I \ 0.15 f---+-f-+--l---+-++-1-+-----i-+-+-+-J--i-,f-++--+----+---+---+--lf-+-+++---+-+-+--l---+-+-'-l--, ! I 1 , , i I : i 0.20 f---+-+-+--l-+++++-----1~++-H-+f-++--+--+--+-++-i+++-----+-+-+-1-++++-11 , I I , i I i' 0, 2 5 L._ _ ____L_...J....__J__...J...._L..l....LLL.__......L._L_.L_L.L...L..1--LI..--...J...._-----l_'--l....L.LL.LL __ ..,_,___L__I.-LI __L_J_L_L -.,> 0.00 ~-~---,-~--,-,-,-rr-~---,--,---,-,-,,--,-,..,.,---,-----,-,---,--,-, 1 ,,.. 1 ,---~---,-. 1 ~. ,,----.rn 1 l,J 1 ~ I!! i :E i...-i--. ! : I '::! 0.20 f----+-++++-t++t-------+-t-+-lf"l+i4.===i==I-HH-+++t--+----t-i-t+t-r+i, , ::, § 0.40 1---+-+-+-+---l++-Hf---+-J,<'--+/-+-H-t++---+-+--++-+-+++f----+-+-+-+--t-+-~, i o 60 f---+----+----+-++t++-+-""74-,,/---+---+-+++++f---+-t---+-+++++f---+---+---+-++++n I j ~ I 8 0.80 l----+-+-+-+-1-+/M-l---+--l--+-1-+-+-+-l+--+----+-----l--+-+++++---+--+--+-+-H--+-H 0 / -1 .00 f-----+-+-++f-+t+f----+-+-+-H-+-l-t+---+--l'--H-+++++---+--+-1-t-+-H+i .; 8 , .20 ;_ _ ____L_...J....__j__...J...._L,L.LJ...L,__..._L_L_.L_L_.l....L..1...,_J._i ----'-----'-'--'......L..J.. ,· .J...J..J.__,___L_...J...._...l.._-'---'....LL..~ Exp/. No. HC-1 Sample No. S-27 Depth (ft) 109'-111' w.c. % Before After 57% 47% Atterbera Limit LL PL Pl 69 28 41 Wet Wt (Def) 110ocf use Description CH Fat CLAY jRemarks: i [HNUCROWSER J-7452 Figure B-8 9/29/2000 CONSOLIDATION TEST RES UL TS Stress (tons/ft2} 1/32 1/16 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 4 8 16 32 0.00 ! I 'I!. -r-, 'I ! ) . "' I ' I ['- I 'r-. 0.05 I \ I I I ! 0.10 \ \ C: ·~ -\ (/) .. I ·;;; I <{ \ 0.15 I \ I I I \ I . I /' I ·~ I I 'I I I I I 0.20 I I ! i I I ! I I I i I 1 / : I . i I j 0.25 ! 1 0.00 '! ! 11 I ' I I: :!: I N 0.20 I! ~ y I C: 0 0.40 . . ,, "' :g 0.60 0 ., i C: 0.80 0 u I/ -I 0 1 .00 --. "' i I 0 1 .20 I I! u Expl. Sample Depth w.c. % Atterbera Limit Wet Wt USC Description No. No. (ftl Before After LL PL I Pl Inell HC-2 S-22b 12.5'·115.1 56% 40% 54 25 I 29 110 ocf CH Fat CLAY Remarks: -.. J-7452 9/21/2000 ffNUCROWSER Figure 8-9 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. --HIJRrCROWsER APPENDIX C Exploration Logs Completed by Geotech Consultants, Inc. 1999 19014-02 April 18, 2014 This page is intentionally left blank for double-sided printing. --... I - 5 -5 ---- 10 -1 ---- 15 -1 -.... ... .... -8 20 I- .... -.... 25 -6 -.... .... -30 ---4 .... --.... 35 ---2 ---- 40 - Description Gravel Dark brown, gravelly SAND, fine-to medium-grained, moist. loose -becomes wet 1 I ~ !i 2 B Dark gray, silty SANO, fine-to medium-grained, wet, very loose . 1 I ;1 Light gray SILT, low plasticity, wet, very loose 3 R I I -becomes gray-green Light gray, gravelly SAND, medium-to coarse grained, wet, loose 4 a 5 ffl ~ sm -becomes very loose : 1 · i 11 Light gray to brown, slightly sandy SILT, low plasticity, wet, very loose 7 m I i! , i BORING 1 IS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 4 BORING LOG GEOTECJ-I 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington CONSULTANTS, INC. Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 February 1999 SES 3 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-1 1 /4 --- 45----- 50 M=29.0% ---... 55 ...-... ... ... .. 60 ..- M=Zt.9% .. 65 ...---.. ... 7 0 M=43.1% ---- 75 ----- 80 - Description Dark gray SAND, medium-grained, wet, very loose E) 2 9 a -contains some sill layers 25 25 I 19 13ft'I . , 'I 2 15 Light gray, silty SAND, fine-to medium-grained, wet, medium- dense Dark gray SAND, fine-to medium-grained, wet, medium-dense Light gray, silty SAND with interbedded silt layers, fine-to medium- grained, wet, medium-dense -becomes very loose BORING 1 IS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 5 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington Job: 99037 Logged by: Plate: SES J-7452 Figure C-1 4 12/00 2/4 .... ... ... 85 ,-... .... ... ... 90 ..- .... .... .... - 95 ----- 100 - ,- -.... ... ... ... .... ... 110-... .... ... ... 115 ..-... ... 120 ..._ 2 25 25 33 2 2 2 4 ML Light gray Sil T, low plasticity, wet, very loose Light gray, silty SAND inlerbedded with silt layers, fine-to medium- grained, wet. medium-dense Bluish-gray SILT, low plasticity, wel, medium-dense Light gray, silty SAND interbedded with sand layers, fine-to medium- grained, wet, medium-dense -becomes dense -becomes very loose Light gray, clayey SILT, medium-plasticity, wet, soft :r11 22 U i j -sand lenses noted I I ~ Light gray GRAVEL. wet, very loose 23g 111111 I .UW Light gray, clayey SILT, low plasticity, wet, soft ML ,TTIT GEO'fECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING 1 IS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 6 BORING LOG 11 O 1 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton. Washington Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 February 1999 SES 5 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-1 3/4 --- 125- M=43.5% --- 130 M=23.4% ... - 135 ----- 140 - ---... 145 ...-... --- 150 ----- 155 --- ... 160 ._ LJ'\.,l'I\.U't'-,;J I \JVIILIIIU"t;;U 2 241 i'j1 j ':: 1 1 ! I I I ~I Description Light gray, slightly clayey SILT, low plasticity, wet. soft Ji\ qj 2 2sl ,Ii !ti l-,.,-11~1---------------- Light gray, slightly silty SAND. fine-grained, wet. medium-dense to de%e : I II I , 56 26.: I ! I 11 19 27Eil I SP SM 34 28 I I I -becomes fine-to medium-grained I I I ! I: 55 29 m i I . becomes very dense 11 I 50 30 ~ ; j t:..:...:.:...:...:..!.L------------------------- T est boring was terminated at 151.5 feet during drilling on February 16 & 17, 1999. • Groundwater seepage was encountered al 3 feet during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 11 O 1 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 Februa 1999 SES 6 J. 7 452 12/00 Figure C-1 4/4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 OU t'l.ll'i '-' L Description Gravel over I-Light brown, sandy SILT with gravel, low plasticity, moist, loose (FILL) I-... FILL ... i--I I-Push 1 ;i: ii! II Dark brown, sandy SILT interbedded with sand layers, very moist, very ... :g1 loose ... " II I 'Y 11 '1; i I ... = ) ' 111, ! -21 Light gray SAND with gravel, medium-to coarse grained, wet, loose 4 -----10 31 ---... i--7 4 I .... I-... I- 1--4 s I EJ -becomes fine-to medium-grained I- I- I- I- 1--Push 6 e I-... ... I- 1--6 1 g ... .. ---............. -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-···-·-·-···-·-·····-·-·-·-·-·-···-·-·-·-·-·-·-·····-·····-···-·-···-·-·····-- BORING 2 IS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 8 ' -lJ 2~2.J&sS!t. l,_zb=, BORING LOG 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington Job: Date: Logged by: . Plate: 99037 February 1999 SES 7 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-2 1 /3 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 I-11 8 I -some gravel noted. medium-dense ... ... @] ... -8 9 I -becomes loose -'II;, Light gray, silty SAND interbedded with sill layers, fine-to medium--El -grained, very wet, loose I 11 ! 11 -: ii 11 M=50.8% 2 101 Light brownish-gray, slightly sandy SILT, low plasticity, inlerbedded wilh -I/ I i I sand layers, wet, very loose -I I -i I ... , , ll. -3 11 I ML -no sand layers -... ii 11 -: If -i 11 1 ! , I -' I • i' I 1, I -40 12 ! 111 ti I -Light gray SAND, fine-to medium-grained, wet, dense -~ -... -2 13; ·~ Light brownish/greenish-gray, slightly sandy SILT, low plasticity, wet, I-... very loose ... . ML ... idl! -24 14 i Light gray SAND, fine-to medium-grained, wel, medium-dense -~ --- ! I Ii I -4 1 s g Greenish-gray, slightly sandy SILT, low plasticity, wet, very loose -~ -I 'I' -I 11 I -Is"': I J Gray, silty SAND interbedded with sand layers. fine-to medium-grained, wet -I. L ..• ·•· •• ) ••••••• ••• ............... , •• .............................................. ••• .................................. ·-·-••••••• ........ • •• BORING 2 JS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 9 .. _,, GEOTEC1I CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington ~ 1=0~--Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 Februarv1999 SES B J-7452 Figure C-2 12/00 2/3 I . M=25.4% --... 85 1-----... 90 1-- ... ... ... ... 95 ---... ... 100 -... ... ... ... 105 ..._ ... ... -- 110 ----- 115 ----- 120 - PVl"\11"11\.:J L \,VllllllUCU Description I ~'I 41 16 11111 1 . dense 84 18 Gray, slightly gravelly SAND, fine-to medium-grained. wet, very dense 1 s I. ~I Light gray, slightly sandy Sil T, wet, medium-dense • Test boring was terminated at 91.5 feet during drilling on February 24, 1999 . • Groundwater seepage was encountered at 9 feet during drilling . GEOTECI-1 CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington Job: 'Date: 'Logged by: I Pia re: 9903i Februarv 1999 SES 9 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-2 3/3 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Description Gravel over ... -FILL light brown, silty SAND with some gravel, fine-to medium-grained, ver; moist, loose (FILL) -... ! 1111 ! -Push 1 I Light gray, silty SAND, fine-grained, wet, very loose ij ... ... T i =-... light gray SAND, medium to coarse-grained, wet, loose ... -21 8 -----31 6 ----~ - 4 i 11 -----5 B -7 ----6 m 4 • becomes fine-to medium-grained ---- ! ! ! 11 -1 7 ~ Light grayish-brown, slightly sandy SILT, low plasticity, wet, very loose -i --• becomes sandier -- BORING 3 JS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 11 BORING LOG __ ,, GEOTECII CONSULTANTS, INC. ll-.,,,~:b==:::::, -===~ 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington Job: Date: Logged by: Plate.· 99037 Februacv 1999 SES 10 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-3 1 /4 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 e I .. i 11 (continued from previous page) ... 2 < !l j i~~/ ... ... ... : 1 ! Ill 1--11 9 ffl ... ... !sMII Light gray SAND. fine-to medium-grained, wet. medium-dense ... 'i ! 111 Light gray, sandy SILT interbedded with layers of sand. low plasticity, ... . I I J wet. very loose 1-- 101 EJ 2 - 111111 ---Light gray, gravelly SAND, medium-to coarse grained, wet, medium--11 B dense to dense 48 -----12; 34 ----EJ 1--131 ... 29 ... ... ... -141 27 -----: ! I 1 ! I 1 N Light gray, silty SAND, fine-to medium-grained. wet, medium-dense -23 15 ~ -JsMJ'. -i ! 111 I -I ML 11 I Light greenish-gray, slightly sandy SILT. low plasticity, we!, loose -.. -... · .... -·-·-·-·-· -·-·-· ---~---·-·-. -·-. ---·-·-·-· -· -· -·-·-. -•---. -·-· -. -·-·-·-·.' -·-·-... ---·-· ··-·-· -·- BORING 3 IS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 12 ~!1 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, TNC. BORING LOG 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington i l.-~-,-Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 Fcbruarv 1999 SES 11 J-7452 Figure C-3 12/00 2/4 M=40.2% --- 85 -.... .... .... .... 90 -.... .... .... .... 95 -.... --- 100 ----- 105 ----.... 110 -.... .... .... .... 115 -M=40.2% ... ... .... 120 ,.._ 4 68 1sl ~ ~ ii 1' 11 · 1 : ' Description (continued from previous page) Light gray, silly SAND, fine-lo medium-grained, wet, very dense Light gray, slightly gravelly SAND, medium-to coarse grained, wet, very dense 5015" 181 ~ -less gravel 73 26 21 2 3 191 1 I' i 11 . I Light gray SAND, fine-to medium-grained, wet, very dense I 201 SM I 'T j 1 ' -becomes silty and medium-dense I I I 21H 11 1, I 11 ' I Light gray, clayey SILT, medium-plasticity, wet, stiff 221 I 11 I ML -becomes soft 23! 11 r l 1 I I I , ..J JJ. ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·····-·-·-·-·-···-·-·-·····-·······-·-·-···-·-·······-·-···-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· BORING 3 JS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 13 BORING LOG GEOTECH 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington CONSULTANTS, INC. Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 SES 12 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-3 3/4 ---- 125----- 130 i-- .... I- .... 135 ,..._ .... ~ - 140----- 145 ----- 150 ----- 155 ----- 160 ...... 40 271 oun.ll'H.l ,J l.UIIUIIUt:U Description (continued from previous page) • becomes medium-stiff • becomes soft Light gray SAND, fine-to medium-grained, wet, dense 52 28 ! ~ -becomes coarser, very dense 57 29; L---'-------------------------- • Test boring was terminated at 146.5 feet during drilling on February 24 & 25, 1999. • Groundwater seepage was encountered at 7 feet during drilling. BORING LOG GEOTECH 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington CONSULTANTS, INC. Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 Februarv 1999 SES 13 J. 7 452 12/00 Figure C-3 4/4 .... .... --'f' 5 = -5 ----10 -7 -----6 15 ---- 20 -8 ---- 25 -14 -----10 30 ---- 35 -13 ---- 40 - BORING 4 Description Gravel over FILL light brown, silty SANO with gravel, extensive organics, fine-grained. very moist, loose (FILL) Light gray SAND, medium-to coarse grained, wet, loose 1 i 21 . 31 -with some gravel 4 ~ -becomes gravelly ~ s ID -becomes medium-dense 6 ~ -becomes fine-to medium-grained 7 m -with trace of silt §] I Light brown, sandy SILT interbedded with sand layers. low plasticity, .. M~ . I wet, very loose ,·-'·-• I·--• • •-•••• • ••••• •••••••••-•"' •••••••-•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • •••••• • • • ••-·•••' ••••• ·-. •. BORING 4 IS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 15 BORING LOG GEOTECI-1 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington CONSULTANTS, INC. Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 Februarv 1999 SES J-7452 Figure C-4 14 12/00 1/3 M=51.7% 2 --- 45 -6 -----M=22.1% 27 50 .... ... ... 55 ---38 ... ... --60 -22 ---- 65 -13 ---- 70 -6 ---- 75 -28 ---- 80 .__ 8. 1 i I ii I (continued from previous page) i ! I I @ 91 L -becomes light gray ; 1 11 I I 10ft Light gray, gravelly SAND, medium-to coarse grained, wet, medium- dense 11 & -becomes dense 121 -becomes fine-to medium-grained, medium-dense 13m -becomes gravelly 14m ~ -becomes medium-to coarse grained, loose 1 sfi] -becomes medium-dense [~L[ Greenish-gray, sandy SILT, low plasticity, wet, very loose -·-·-·-·-·-···-·-···-·-·-·-·-·-···-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·····-·-·-·-·-·-·-···-·-·-···-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· BORING 4 IS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 16 BORING LOG GEOTECH 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington CONSULTANTS, INC. Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 February 1999 SES 15 J-7 452 12/00 Figure C-4 2/3 M=53.1% --- 85 ----- 90 -... ... ... - 95 -... --- 100 ---... ... 105 -... -... - 110 ----- 115 ---... ... 1120 - I 3 30 50/5" 53 161 i'ljj ' {continued from previous page) I [ :E L . '' 1111 111 I! I E)' Gray, silty SAND, fine-to medium-grained, wet, .dense Gray, gravelly SAND, fine-to coarse-grained, wet, very dense 181 ~ 191 ' Test boring was terminated at 96.5 feet during drilling on February 18, 1999. • Groundwater seepage was encountered at 4.5 feet during drilling. GEOTECI-I CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington ?~- Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 February 1999 SES '.6 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-4 3/3 L.. L.. L.. L.. 5 '-- L... 1 --- 10 -7 --... ~ 15 '--... 18 L... ... - 20 -18 --- '- 25 ,__ -2 ~ ... ~ 30 '-- M=41.4% 2 '-... ... 35 '-- 17 L... L... ~ ... 40 '-- t:SUKJN(.j b Description FILL Gravel over Light brcwn, sandy SILT with some organics. low plasticity, moist, very loose (FILL) Light gray, silty SAND, fine-to medium-grained, moist, very loose Light gray SAND, fine-to medium-grained, wet, loose 3 I r;;;:;i -with trace gravel, medium-dense ~ Light gray, sandy SILT. low plasticity. wet. very loose Dark gray SAND, fine-to medium-grained, wet, medium-dense GEOl'ECfI CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING 5 IS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, PLATE 18 BORING LOG 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington Job: Date: Logged by: Plate.· 99037 Februarv 1999 SES 17 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-5 1 /2 I-9 I--... 45 -16 I----50 -3 ---- 55 -3 --... ... 60 -2 ---::. -- 65 -M=12.9% 28 --- 70 -40 ... I---75 -53 ---- 80 - 8 I -with trace gravel. loose g fi El -becomes medium-grained, medium-dense rn I : 11 ill Dark gray SILT. low plasticity, wet, very loose , 11! 1 ll I I i -becomes olive/greenish-gray 11 Ml . ~1 II I ij ii 12 I I I : I I -becomes sandy : ,I I ·-----: i I I =rk gray. gravelly, silty SANO, medium-to coarse grained, wet, 13 g l ,1 medium-dense II :1 I ii ] I ffl: SM -becomes dense to very dense 14 --;,t I Iii ' I I I I I I' ,I I [. I I 1 15 6 :1 I 'I I, I • Test boring was terminated at 76.5 feet during drilling on February 18 & 19, 1999. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 99037 Februa 1999 SES 18 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-5 2/2 T"" ' l-a. () C 5! .. .. .. • D. • C ~ • • • C "' • E. • ' • .,, e C ' ~ • 0 e :;; ,, 1/) :: .. ' ,. ,, E E • • :: • e " ,, u. 0 • !:. z • £ • • < E • .. .. C E e 1/) 0 > z 0 0 >, z ~ u u < • • < " "' .D .D "' "' -- • • • C • • C ,, • " >, ' -E >, • > :: • ,, • 2 " • C • • • • E • C ,, ..: • • • " ~ ..: >, :! C -' -• z • • ., ,, < • ., > >, "' E >, ,, " 0 ,, C C z >, u C z • ,( • • ,( I "' "' "' .D "' "' A-:~~----~----- 0 !!'r----------,-------------------- 1 I I : 0 -------~-----·-----·-·---------·------ -----=-----_ .-.. ------------------_-:·--::-=. -----------_·::-:~~----,-~.-::-:-::_-_-___ -~=----------- :H I l ~-:,-,': I ' I 8 ,---~-___ ! __ ------' ----I . 0 0 GEOl.'ECH CONSULTANTS, INC. CONE PENETR01\1ETER TEST 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington 'Job No: 99037-1 I Date: April 1999 I Plate: J-7452 Figure C-6 19 12/00 N I .... a.. (.) I • u C :!. . 0 "' l £ • a: C £ u ~ . -"' " C 0 " = ~ • C ~g C • 0. • C 0 u =>--.., .. _ <I> 0 I? 6l • • C • " 8 • • C • " I E .:!. " • E 8 ~ ...... --------,-----.,.----.,.----,------------~ I '" 0 ~ ~ il § 0 0 ,, I ! ! -1--··· :--·-: -- . I ' I , I I -----·--1-·Jhl\h/ j__· -·-~ ~ ··--·---·-----1· I ·=======c I -·,------. ----,--------------. /' J ._,_ ' ----·-·---' ----- P. \? 6l iii § p, I? 8 ,. [_ . . " 5 3:]; C. 0 :i ..., 41 &i (I ... oait,'§ "' -------------·---------------------- GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. CONEPENETROMETERTEST 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington I Job No: 99037-1 I Date: Apnl 1999 I Plate: J-7452 Figure C-7 20 12/00 C .5! • • • !: • c I 0 " j M I t-a.. !! () .!? • 0: C .!? _;; .;: • u C .. • ·-0: C C l[ ~ c • 0 .; .::.. C • .. • C 0 u • • • • C e • • -,, • • " • • ' ' " C 0 • f E . • • C • ,, • 2 2 > ' " .., .., ,, E . ' • • 2 2 • E E • E > , • • ,, =.: 0 0 ,_: • • ,, .': C E u. ..., • z :! • ~;;; E "' • ., ,, • "' • • • ,.. 0 e " 0 E > ,, z ,.. 0 "O z 0 • C 0 C u . • "' • • < • " (/) (/) "' "' (/) "' "' " • • • C • " "O ,_: ?: = • ., > " ci "O z C • -< "' "' '~ • ~-·---- C e ,l R ,; 5l e I i I ~ --T- o l_ __ J __ _ ----i---:---·r --·i ~ ~ § f----·: ___ : __ _J___ . ; : I , __ I ~ I I . ' I 1 1 r i 0 I 0 &J 8 GEOTECH CONSIJLTANTS, INC. CONE PENETROJVIETER TES1' 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington I Job No: 99037-1 I Date: April 1999 I Plate: J-7452 Figure C-8 21 12/00 'o:t I I- Q. 0 C !: • • • • • • C 2 C • • • " .., e-2 I -E • • = .. I ~ • E ,, C • • • " E 0 . .., ,, • ., o, E 2 • 0 E • .: . " .: • ..: "'a 'o • ..J "-z • -' D iii ..., ~~ E " 2 (/) ,.. • 0 .. 0 • ,.. > > z .., z .. ,, .. -C .! C .... :: ,o( • < • C !,? a, "' "' u "' ·---··-·~---•. ---------·-'ti ... C, p, "' l " E " 0: C E .;; ,;: ' I r--====-c===-c _____ :-·::-_-_:::.:...-: . • ~ .!! • ·- • • C • .., 2 .. • >, C • • .., ,, • • ' ~ C E .. • • ~ " = ,, • • ..: .! " .., >, • -' • • • E ., > • • E E C ,.. 0 0 0 z .., z u u C • • < • < " " u, "' 2 17 --·-~------ I ·--;-- 1 ' ' 0: C .§ t I +----'----------·----~----1----......C ii i ~g C • C. • C 0 u p, GEOTECI-I CONSULTANTS, INC. i ·,-···--1·- 1 ! ------- 8 CONE PENETROl'vlETEll TESl' 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard Nor1h Renton, Washington I job No: I Date: 99037-1 April 1009 I Plate: 22 J-7452 12/00 Figure C-9 U') I I-a. (.) C £ • • !: • £ 0 "' s g: .2 ;; C: "' C g .,, .:: 0 ~ • j;! u C I ~ I " ·-I C: " ~ I C . I 0 0-=~ o C ~ g_ ! C § • .. ! • C I 0 u I 0 ' -_,, 1, • • C • ,, • 0 • C • • • • • • ,, C C 0 I "' • • £ e -,, E • >, I > E >, ,, • • 2 > E • e " > • • • • • • E 0 .... C C ::! • £ • • U) ,, >, • • • a E e "' a" >, z C C " z • u u C < < • • • () U) D e_ "' "' 0 fl - I ___ I __ --, ··-·-·· ··' ___ , ---, --------- I : I I I : I I +----,,---------·j--·'-·- 1 \.cJ ' 0 I I ' , . ·.. I ! · ~;,,---1-··r - i -I !1 I ··-·-;--··--,·-·/--,--- s Fl R GEO"TECH CONSlJLTANTS, INC. 11 lil lil 0 ~ .c 3: ,:i E 0. E § ~ &, ~ 0 ,i:i 0 ti) ei "'§ "' CONE PENETROlVIETER. TEST 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington l~:b==i~--.:::,. =y=--;,;; .. :,,:. ===~ I Job No; I Date: I 99037 -1 April 1999 I Plate: 23 J-7452 72/00 Figure C-10 e 0 .. ? 0. .! .!a 0 ., L_ CD I I-~ a. £ (.) -. a: e £ :g ~ • • • • • • • e 2 e C • • • " " .,, = 2 :,. ~ • • • • • I • > • • • E • e • e , e 2 .,, • e • ;; • • .,, • .,, .,, • I .,, 0 ' • • I • ,:. E • E • E E ,. e t -= 0 , • ,_: .:! • = I-2 ...-;; • .,, =! .,, > -..J " ..J • • ... _ • • • "' E • ., E • "' E • • • • E E ,. ti E ,. E :,. 0 • .. • C 0 0 ,. 0 > ,. 0 .,, z u z u z u e u • ~~ < • • < • • u < • " 0 "' ,, m U) ,, ,, U) .c - """'~ -· J '·..r"l;}~ ~ . '" , I 0 2 P. R (I Q ~ 2 ·-------,--------------------- 1 i I ----·-- I I J __ "' I 0 ... ····--·-----· ~ , ___ _ . " -·~ ·' i • A ------~--~l I i i .:;. j', ! -11----,--- 1 , • • . I --; . ,. 1-i ----·-------+ -I-! 8 I ··----' I ' J! 0 0 2 5l --------------------- GEOTECl-1 CONE PENETROJ\1ETER TEST 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, Washington CONSl/1.TANTS, INC. r JOb No: 99037-1 j Date: ~ril 1999 I Plate: J-7452 Figure C-11 24 12/00 ...... I l-a. u C .!! • Cl e • ~ 0 "' I • i u ll_ I~" I E [ I ~g .:; =- C • ' .. [j Note: • • • C • -• • • • " C C I • • E 2 • " " , • I ;; C 2 E Cl • • • • -= E C "' • I • • • " • E C • C • .2 "' • C • E ' , "' • "' :: 0 E ;; -I 'C 1 0 0 E • • E E • -• E i:: " E , . • ,: • • ,: • -... • " " .., • E 0 > . -0 ., 0 z ., • .!! .!! E • E o, "' • < "' • • o· >, ,.. e "' ,. c E • 0 0 " 0 z >, z " z 0 ),. C z u C u < .! < • < • " < • "' !,> "' "' "' ,, ;;; "' "' ,, -----. ------· 0 P. " ,----,------! ! I "' -···--1-· I ________ i _______ . _____________ ' __ . I -T·---:--., -1--~ 0 e ~ ~ 8 0 ---···-·------·---·-----!·---··-· _j ··-··-·-··-·--·. ·---···-------- l--+-l _ __:_ __ _J...l __ --i----'----1--_J I ' I I I ·-·I -, --r-· 1 --i ---- 1 : I 0 ·-· ' 1-·· ·-· --. -------· !a! P. R GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 9 lil 8 [,J c = 3: ~-; Q.. .2 ;, l,,j .... Q .. C Ul l5" ~ .;; CONE PENETROMETER TEST 1101 Lake Washing1on Boulevard North Renton, Washington I Date: April 1999 I Plate: 25 12/00 This CPT log was not included in our analysis and is submitted only to complete the Geotech exploration package. J-7452 Figure C-12 co I ..... a. u C 0 • • ~ "' • E 0 U) ~ 2 ;._ C 2 .ii .:: 0 8 "' • ' E -= " • E 8 fl R 'ii 5l ,2 &l 0 --I _____ I_________ / ------------------ ' ------·---·--·--··------------··---·--· ' • u C ~ • ·-"' C g Q' ~ "2 ~ g_ C • "-• C 0 0 ~ii GEOTECI-1 CONS! TLTANTS, INC ~~~~;;::=~-===- CONE PENETROl\1ETER TEST 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North· Renton, Washington I Job No: 99037-1 I Date: ~ril 1999 I Plate: 26 J-7452 Figure C-13 12/DD