HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc-Ql
Ql o Ll.. o
C\J
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FINAL PLANNED URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
PURPOSE: The purpose of a final planned urban development review is to ensure consistency with the
approved Preliminary Planned Urban Development. In addition final review is to verify compliance with
any required conditions.
COMPLETE APPLICATION REQUIRED: In order to accept your application, each of the numbered items
must be submitted at the same time. If you have received a prior written waiver of a submittal item(s),
please provide the waiver form in lieu of any submittal item not provided. All plans and attachments
must be folded to a size not exceeding 8Y, by 11 inches.
PLAT NAME: Please ensure that the final planned urban development name is consistent with the name
used for the preliminary planned urban development application.
APPLICATION SCREENING: Applicants are encouraged to bring in one copy of the application package
for informal review by staff, prior to making the requested number of copies, colored drawings, or photo
reductions. Please allow approximately 45 minutes for application screening.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL HOURS: Applications should be submitted to Planning Division staff at the
6th floor counter of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. Monday
through Friday. Please call your assigned project manager to schedule an appointment or call (425) 430-
7200 extension 4 to reach the Planning Division. Due to the screening time required, applications
delivered by messenger cannot be accepted.
All Plans and Attachments must be folded 8 Yzllby 11"
APPLICATION MATERIALS:
WAIVED!Rl 1.
PRE SCREEN/':
Public Works Approval: Please provide 2 copies of confirmation that required improvements
have either been substantially installed or deferred.
Waiver Form: If you received a waiver form, please provide 5 copies of this form.
-1-
H :\C E D\Data \F arms-Templates \Self-Help Handouts \Planning\fpud .doc 05/14
L
Confirmation of Compliance with all Conditions of Plat Approval; Please provide 5 copies of
as atement detailing how all conditions of plat approval have been addressed.
::If;?:J ivr!ICl! ftJr?Pl-I&/~ ~/-iltr .:;/{;l.F~02c;,I,f)%iH:r
Plat Certificate or Title Report; Please provide 4 copies of a currellt PIa( Certificate or Title
Report obtained from a title company documenting ownership and listing all encumbrances
of the involved parcel(s). The Title Report should include all parcels being developed, but no
par th not ar h If the Plat Certificate or Title R ort references
any ecorded documents (i.e. easements, dedications, covenants) 5 copies of he referenced
rec rded document(s) must also be prOvided. All Ed!!eR'leRts FefEi Eilced iii tlill Plat
Certificate must be located, identified by type and recording number, and dimensioned on a the Site Plan.
ESM D 5. Land Use Permit Master Application Form: Please provide the original plus 11 copies of the
COMPLETED City of Renton Planning Division's Master Application form. Application must
have notarized signatures of ALL current property owners listed on the Title Report. If the
property owner is a corporation, the authorized representative must attach proof of signing
authority on behalf of the corporation. The legal description of the property must be
I ESM D Post Office Approval; Please provide Z copies of the Post Office confirmation that they 8 attached to the application form. ~E fr',IIE? c~/1t~E &,ne (4 ~l:S,
. approved your mailbox location(s). Contact Bill5ansaver of the Post Office at (425) 255-6389
or 1-800-275-8777.
LOZIER ~aft Legal Documents: Please provide 4 copies of any proposed street dedications,
restrictive covenants,ldraft Homeowners AssociationJor any other legal documents
--.----
LOZIERD
41/aMJ
ESM
pertaining to the development and use of the property.
8. Fees; The application must be accompanied by the required application fee (see Fee
Schedule). Checks should be made out to the City of Renton and can not be accepted for
over the total fee amount.
Neighborhood Detail Map: Please provide 5 copies of a map drawn at a scale of 1" = 100' or
1" = 200' (or other scale approved by the Planning Division) to be used to identify the site
location on public notices and to review compatibility with surrounding land uses. The map
shall identify the subject site with a much darker perimeter line than surrounding properties
and include at least two cross streets in all directions showing the location of the subject site
relative to property boundaries of surrounding parcels. The map shall also show: the
property's lot lines, lot lines of surrounding properties, boundaries of the City of Renton (if
applicable). north arrow (oriented to the top of the plan sheet), graphic scale used for the
map, and City of Renton (not King County) street names for all streets shown. Please ensure
all information fits on a single map sheet.
Kroll Map Company (206-448-6277) produces maps that may serve this purpose or you may
use the King County Assessor's maps as a base for the Neighborhood Detail Map. Additional
information (i.e. current city street names) will need to be added by the applicant.
·2·
H :\C ED\Data\F orms-Templates \Self-Help Ha ndouts \Planning\fpud .doc 05/14
Density Worksheet: Please submit 5 copies of a completed density worksheet for all
residential projects.
Overall Plat Plan: If the scale of the project requires multiple plan sheets, please enclose
5 copies of the entire plat plan on a single sheet (include with plat plan below).
·Av () JLA-<;i ·PttP!';~ :DE PI(::..n (j) ~
Plat Plan: Please provide 5 copies of a fully-dimensioned plan prepared by a State of
Washington registered professional land surveyor in accordance with RCW 18.43.020, drawn
at a scale of 1" = 40' on an 18" x 24" plan sheet (or other size or scale approved by the
Planning Division) and including the information required by the City of Renton Subdivision
Regulations:
• Name of the proposed plat and space for the future City file number
• Names and addresses of the engineer, licensed land surveyor, and all property
owners
• Legal description of the property to be subdivided
• Date, graphic scale, and north arrow oriented to the top of the paper/plan sheet
• Vicinity map (a reduced version of the neighborhood detail map defined
previously)
• Overall plat lavout with sheet key on a single page if the scale of the plat requires
multiple plan sheets
• Drawing of the subject property with all existing and proposed property lines
dimensioned
• Location ofthe subject site with respect to the nearest street intersections
(including driveways and/or intersections opposite the subject property), alleys
and other rights of way
• Names, locations, types, widths and other dimensions of existing and proposed
streets, alleys, easements, parks, open spaces and reservations. City code
requires that private access easements be created via easement rather than
creation of a separate tract
• Location and dimensions of all easements referenced in the plat certificate with
the recording number and type of easement (e.g. access, sewer, etc.) indicated
• Location, distances in feet from existing and new lot lines, and dimensions of any
existing structures, existing on-site trees, existing or proposed fencing or retaining
walls, free-standing signs, and easements
• Location of critical areas and any r"e""",~ ........ uffer on or adjacent to the site
identified by type (e.g. floodplain, Cate or Wetland, Class 3 Stream)
• Proposed square footage of each lot. I t ere are any pipestem lots with access
easements or any lots with portions of the lot narrower than 80% of the minimum
required lot width, then both the total square footage and the 'net' square
footage shall be provided (per RMC 4-7-170F1)
Certifications:
Certification by a licensed land surveyor that a survey has been made and that
monuments and stakes will be set
Certification by the responsible health agencies that the methods of sewage disposal and
-3-
H "Ie E D\Data \Farms-T emplatesl$elf ·Help Handouts \Plann ing\fpud .doc 05/14
ESM~H
water service are acceptable
Certification by the King County Finance Department that taxes have been paid in
accordance with section 1, chapter No. 188, laws of 1927 (RCW 58.08.030 and
58.08.040) and that a deposit has been made with the King County Finance Department
in sufficient amount to pay the taxes for the following year
Certification by the City Administrative Services Administrator that there are no
delinquent special assessments and that all special assessments certified to the
Administrative Services Administrator for collection on any property herein contained
dedicated for streets, alleys or other public uses are paid in full
• Certification of approval to be signed by the City Public Works Administrator
• Certification of approval to be signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Cierk
Site Plan: Please provide 12 copies of a fully-dimensioned plan sheet drawn at a scale of
1"=20' (or other scale approved by the Planning Division). We prefer the site plan be drawn
on one sheet of paper unless the size of the site requires several plan sheets to be used. If
you are using more than a single plan sheet, please indicate connecting points on each sheet.
The Site Plan should show the following:
• Name of proposed project
• Date, scale, and north arrow (oriented to the top of the page/plan sheet)
• Drawing of the subject property with all property lines dimensioned and names of
adjacent streets
• General location and sizes of buildings and uses
• Phasing of development
• Major access points and access to public streets, vehicle and pedestrian
circulation, public transit stops
• Environmentally sensitive areas
• Focal points within the project (e.g. public plazas, art work, gateways both into
the site and into the City, if applicable)
• Private and public open space and recreation areas
• View Corridors
• Public access to the water and/or shoreline areas
A legend/analysis of the following information MUST be included on one of the site plan
sheets:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Total square footage of the site
Square footage (by floor and overall total) for each individual bUilding and /or use
Total estimated square footage of all building/structure footprints
Percentage estimate of lot coverage (building coverage)
Square footage estimate of all landscaping (total and parking lot)
Allowable and proposed building height
Building setbacks required by code (N,S,E,W)
Proposed building setbacks
Square footage of anyon-site wetlands or slopes which are greater than 40%
Parking analysis, including estimated number, size, and type of stalls required, by
use, and number of stalls provided, by use.
-4-
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Tempiates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\fpud.doc 05/14
Special site plan requirements for Multi-family projects within the Center Downtown (CD) or
Residential Multi-family Urban (RMU) zones:
GMS /
• Site plans for these projects should also include the footprint of all proposed,
abutting, and adjacent buildings showing the location of building entrances, window
openings, and landscape features to indicate compliance with RMC 4-3-100.
& [s;:{ 14. Floor Plans: Please provide 5 copies of a plan showing general building layout, proposed
uses of space, walls, exits and proposed locations of kitchens, baths, and floor drains, with
sufficient detail for City staff to determine if an oil/water separator or grease interceptor is
CRAFT
/ required and to determine the sizing of a side sewer.
OLIVER G' 15. Landscape Plan, Detailed: Please provide 5 copies of a Landscaping Plan (Detailed) meeting
ESM rr:. the requirements of RMC 4-8-1200.
& 16. Landscape Analysis, Lot Coverage, and Parking Analysis (For commercial/industrial
OLIVER properties only): Please provide 5 copies of a landscape and parking analysis including the
following:
GMS
• Total square footage of the site
• Total square footage of existing and proposed impervious surface area(s)
• Square footage (by floor and overall total) of each individual building and/or use
• Total square footage of the footprints of all buildings
• Percentage of lot covered by buildings or structures
• Parking analysis including the total number of parking spaces required by City
code
• Number and dimensions of standard, compact, and ADA accessible spaces
provided
~ • Square footage of parking lot landscaping (perimeter and interior)
CR~FT 17. Architectural Elevations: Please provide 5 copies, for each building and each building face
(N,S,E,W), of a 24" x 36" fully-dimensioned architectural elevation plan drawn at a scale of
\i. 1/4" = l' or 1/8" = l' (or other size or scale approved by the Planning Division). The plans
• (\.V must clearly indicate the information required by the "Permits" section of the currently
~Iv ,<:... adopted Uniform Building Code and RCW 19.27 (State Building Code Act, Statewide ~~ )(\~I'\V _ a~ndments), including, but not limited to the following:
~\y. n I ,~llJ\ v ~\:I' • Identify building elevations by street name (when applicable) and orientation i.e.
. y!' fli Burnett Ave. (west) elevation ~ t G' . • Existing and proposed ground elevations f~ Existing average grade level underneath proposed structure
L,Lv\ Height of existing and proposed structures showing finished roof top elevations
t,< \ based upon site elevations for proposed structures and any existing/abutting
structures
Building materials and colors including roof, walls, any wireless communication
facilities, and enclosures
Fence or retaining wall materials, colors, and architectural design
• Architectural design of on-site lighting fixtures
-5-
H\CED\DataIForms-Templales\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\fpud.doc 05/14
• Screening detail showing heights, elevations, and bUilding materials of proposed
screening and/or proposed landscaping for refuse/recycling areas
Cross section of roof showing location and height of roof-top equipment (include air
'
conditioners, compressors, etc.) and proposed screening
OLIVER 18. Tree Cutting/Land Clearing (Tree Inventory) Plan: Please provide 4 copies of a plan, based
on finished grade, drawn to scale with the northern property line at the top of the paper if
ANY trees or vegetation are to be removed or altered (if no trees or vegetation will be
altered, please state so in your project narrative). The plan shall clearly show the following:
• All property boundaries and adjacent streets
• Location of all areas proposed to be cleared
• Types and sizes of vegetation to be removed, altered or retained. This
requirement applies only to trees 6" caliper "at chest level" and larger
• Future building sites and drip lines of any trees which will overhang/overlap a
construction line
• Location and dimensions of rights-of-way, utility lines, and easements
Any trees on neighboring properties which are within 25-feet of the subject property and
. ~ t which may be impacted by excavation, grading or other improvements
OLlVE~9. Tree Retention Worksheet and Plan: Please provide 2 copies of a completed City of Renton
~ tree retention worksheet and a Tree Retention Plan.
OLIVER 20. Ir' ation Sprinkler Plan: Please provide 3 copies of an Irrigation Plan meeting the
requirements of 4-8-1200.
ALTMANN Wetland Mitigation Plan: (Only for projects with wetlands). Please provide 3 copies of a
Final Mitigation Plan meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-1200.
WAIVED[Kj 22. Stream and Lake Mitigation Plan: (Only for projects with streams/lakes). Please provide
3 copies of a plan meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-1200.
WAIVEDIR] 23. Calculations: Please provide 3 copies of complete field calculations and computations noted
for the plat and details (if any) of all distances, angles, and calculations together with
information on the error of closure. The error of closure on any traverse shall not exceed l'
in 10,000'.
WAIVED[Kj 24. Standard Stream or Lake Study: Please provide 12 copies of a report containing the
information specified in RMC Section 4-8-1200. In addition, if the project involves an
unclassified stream, a supplemental stream or lake study is also required (12 copies). If any
alteration to a water-body or buffer is proposed a supplemental stream or lake study (12
copies) and a mitigation plan (12 copies) are also required. See RMC 4-8-1200 for plan
content requirements.
WAIVED 0 25. Habitat Data Report: If the project site contains or abuts a critical habitat per RMC 4-3-
OSOBSb, please provide 12 copies of a report containing the information specified in Section
·6·
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\fpud.doc 05/14
4-8-1200 of the Renton Municipal Code.
WAIVED ~ 26. Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study: provide 5 copies if the project is located in a
designated floodplain.
WAIVEO[Rj 27. Flood Hazard Data: Please provide 12 copies of a scaled plan showing the nature, location,
dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill,
storage of materials, and drainage facilities. Also indicate the following:
• Elevation in relation to mean sea level of the lowest floor (including basement) of
all structures
• Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been
floodproofed
• Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the
floodproofing methods criteria in RMC 4-3-050 have been met
~escriPtion of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of
proposed development
USE 28. Geotechnical Report: Please provide 5 copies of a study prepared and stamped by a State of
EXISTING Washington licensed professional engineer including soils and slope stability analYSis, boring
and test pit logs, and recommendations on slope setbacks, foundation design, retaining wall
design, material selection, and all other pertinent elements.
WAIVEO~ 29. Certificate of Incorporation: Please provide 3 copies of a State of Washington, Secretary of
State Certificate of Incorporation for the plat's Homeowner's Association.
WAIVED [Rj 30. Monument Cards: When a monument(s) is installed as part of the project, please provide
2 copies of a form obtained from the City Technical Services Division and filled out by a
surveyor providing information regarding a single monument, including the Section,
Township and Range, method of location, type of mark found or set, manner of re-
establishment of the single monument (if applicable), description, and a drawing showing
the location of a single monument and indicating a reference point to that monument.
Plan Reductions: Please provide one 8 liz" x 11" legible reduction of each full size plan sheet
(unless waived by your City of Renton Project Manager). The sheets that are always needed
in reduced form are: landscape plans, conceptual utility plans, site plan or plat plan,
neighborhood detail map, topography map, tree cutting/land clearing plan, critical areas
plans, grading plan, and building elevations. These reductions are used to prepare public
notice posters and to provide the public with information about the project. The quality of
these reductions must be good enough so that a photocopy of the reduced plan sheet is also
legible. The reduced plans are typically sent in PDF format to the print shop and then are
printed on opaque white mylar-type paper (aka rhino cover) to ensure legibility. If your
reduced plans are not legible once photocopied, you will need to increase the font size or try
a different paper type. Illegible reductions cannot be accepted. Please also be sure the
reduced Neighborhood Detail Map is legible and will display enough cross streets to easily
identify the project location when cropped to fit in a 4" by 6" public notice space. Once the
-7-
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-HeJp Handouts\Planning\fpud.doc 05/14
reductions have been made, please also make one 8 y," x 11" regular photocopy of each
photographic reduction sheet. Some of the local Renton print shops that should be able to
provide you with reductions of your plans are Alliance Printing (425) 793-5474, Apperson
Print Resources (425) 251-1850, and PIP Printing (425) 226-9656. Nearby print shops are
Digital Reprographics (425) 882-2600 in Bellevue, Litho Design (206) 574-3000 and
Reprographics NW/Ford Graphics (206) 624-2040.
All Plans and Attachments must be folded to 8Yz" by 11"
REVIEW PROCESS: Once the Final Planned Urban Development application is submitted to the Planning
Division, the materials will be routed to those City departments having an interest in the application.
Reviewers have approximately two weeks to return their comments to the Planning Division. All
comments and any requests for revisions will be sent to the applicant. Once all comments have been
addressed, the applicant re-submits the revised plans and/or documents for review. The time frame for
Final Planned Urban Development processing is largely dependent upon application completeness and
prompt turnaround time of revisions.
As part of the review process, the Planning and Public Works Plan Review Divisions will ensure
improvements have been installed and approved and that all conditions of the preliminary planned
urban development approval have been met.
DEFERRAL OF IMPROVEMENTS: The Final Planned Urban Development may not be recorded until all
improvements have been completed and approved by the Planning Division or a letter of deferral has
been obtained. The applicant may request a letter of deferral from the Board of Public Works and post
security for any improvements that have not been completed.
If a developer wishes to defer certain on-site improvements for more than 90 days after obtaining Final
Planned Urban Development approval, then a written application shall be made to the Board of Public
Works. Should the Board of Public Works so rule, then full and complete engineering drawings shall be
submitted as a condition to the granting of any deferral. Upon approval by the Board of Public Works for
such deferment, the applicant shall thereupon furnish security to the City in the amount equal to 150%
of the estimated cost of the installation and required improvements.
Time limits: Such security shall list the exact work that shall be performed by the applicant and
shall specify that all the deferred improvements shall be completed within the time specified by
the Board of Public Works, and if no time is specified, then no later than one year.
EXPIRATION: The applicant shall prepare and submit bUilding permit applications which are accepted as
substantially complete to the Department of Community and Economic Development within six (6)
months of the effective date of approval. The developer shall complete the approved planned urban
development or any phase thereof included in the approved final plan within two (2) years from the
date of the decision to approve the final plan by the Community and Economic Development
Administrator, unless a shorter time is designated. Failure to complete the planned urban development,
or any phase thereof, within this time limit will require the submittal of a new preliminary and final plan
application in order to continue construction of the planned urban development. Failure to submit a
·8·
H. \C E O\Data\F orms-Templates \Self-Help Handouts\Plann ing\fpud. doc 05/14
new application or to complete the planned urban development once construction has begun shall
constitute abandonment of the planned urban development subject to subsection K of RMC 4-4-150.
Expiration of any building permit issued for a planned urban development shall be governed by the
provisions of the applicable Building Code. Construction of any portion of the planned urban
development requires a current approved planned urban development and a current building permit.
(Ord. 5519, 12-14-2009; Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012)
REMAINING PRELIMINARY PHASES WITH COMPLETION OF ONE PHASE: Approval of a final plan for any
phase of the approved preliminary plan shall constitute an extension for two (2) years of the remainder
of the preliminary plan from the effective date of Hearing Examiner action on the preliminary plan. (Ord.
5153,9-26-2005).
-9-
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templa\es\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\fpud.doc 05/14
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
D[J~~[Rj
Serving the Pacific Northwest Since 1981
December 16,2013
Project No. KE130602A
Lozier Development, LLC
1300 114" Avenue SE, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Attention: Mr. Paul G. Ebensteiner
Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Whitman Court Townbomes
351 Whitman Court NE
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Ebensteiner:
We are pleased to present these copies of our prelintinary report for the referenced project.
This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazards, and
geotechnical engineering studies, and offers preliminary recommendations for the design and
development of the proposed project. Our report is preliminary since project plans were under
development at the time this report was written. We should be allowed to review the
recommendations presented in this report and modify them, if needed, once final project plans
have been formulated.
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations
presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you shonld
have any questions, or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland Washington
Bl.BIpc
KEI30602A2
ProjeclsUOI30602\KE\WP
Kirkland
425-827-7701
Everett
425-259-0522
www.aesgeo.com
Tacoma
253-722-2992
tiL, -{I eoteclinicaf TntJineerintJ
~ --., -,
Water Resources
'\.' .....
'" , .
Tnvironmenta{ J\ssessments
anti Remetiiatton
Sustaina6{e VevelOyment Services
~.:."'"
, ~ . .... "
{leo{oBic J\ssessments
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Serving tlie 'Pacific Nortliwest Since 1981
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
WHITMAN COURT TOWNHOMES
Renton, Washington
Prepared for
Lozier Development, LLC
Project No. KE130602A
December 16, 2013
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
WHITMAN COURT TOWNHOMES
Renton, Washington
Prepared for:
Lozier Development, LLC
1300 114th Avenue SE, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Prepared by:
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
911 5th Avenue
Kirkland, Washington 98033
425-827-7701
Fax: 425-827-5424
December 16, 2013
Project No. KE130602A
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsulface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proiect and Site Conditions
I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazards, and
preliminary geotechnical engineering studies for the proposed Whitman Court Townhomes
project. The site location is shown on the "Vicinity Map,» Figure 1. The approximate
locations of exploration pits completed for this study are shown on the "Site and Exploration
Plan,» Figure 2. Logs of the subsurface explorations completed for this study are included in
the Appendix.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical engineering design recommendations to
be utilized in the preliminary design of the project. This study included a review of selected
available geologic literature, excavation of six exploration pits, and performing geologic
studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface
sediments and shallow ground water. Geotechnical engineering studies were completed to
establish recommendations for the type of suitable foundations and floors, allowable foundation
soil bearing pressure, anticipated foundation and floor settlement, pavement subgrade
recommendations, and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our fieldwork and
offers preliminary recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. We
recommend that we be allowed to review the recommendations presented in this report and
revise them, if needed, when a project design has been fmalized.
1.2 Authorization
Our work was completed in general accordance with our scope of work and cost proposal
dated November 8, 2013. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Lozier
Development, LLC, and its agents, for specific application to this project. Within the
limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in
this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
This report is based on review of a conceptual site plan prepared by GMS Architectural Group.
The project, as we understand it, consists of the construction of multifamily residential
housing, with associated access and parking, at the existing property located at 351 Whitman
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KE13060z..t2 -Projectsl20130602IKEI WP Page 1
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
SUbsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Pro;ect and Site Conditions
Court NE in Renton, Washington. In addition to the proposed housing, a bank building is
planned for the northernmost portion of the site. We understand that previous grading
activities have occurred at the subject site, including the construction of a storm water pond,
and that the existing pond is currently under consideration to provide storm water storage for
the currently-proposed project. Also, we understand that infiltration of storm water is
currently under consideration for the area of the proposed bank at the north end of the site,
The subject site encompasses three parcels (King County Parcel Nos. 5182100020,
5182100021, and 5182100022) totaling roughly 5.13 acres in size. The site fronts the south
side of NE 4th Street and the west side of Whitman Court. The topography of the site is
generally flat-lying to gently sloping downward to the west and south, and is currently
vegetated with grass. A wetland, delineated by others, is located along the western portion of
the site. The southern portion of the site extends eastward, up a moderate slope, along the
southern boundary of an adjacent post office property. The subject site appears to have been
previously developed, with a storm water pond at the southwest portion of the site and utility
stub-outs extending onto the site from Whitman Court.
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Our field study included excavating a series of exploration pits to gain subsurface information
about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of
the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The
depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations
between sediment types in the field. Our explorations were approximately located in the field
relative to known site features shown on the topographic site plan. The locations of the
exploration pits are shown on Figure 2.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the
exploration pits completed for this study. The number, locations, and depths of the
explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of
exploratory work below ground, interpolation of subsurface conditions between field
explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may
sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography
by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field
explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that
time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make
appropriate changes.
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KE13lA'lllU2 -Projecls12OJ306021KElWP Page 2
Whitman Coun Townhomes
Renton, Washington
3.1 Exploration Pits
Subsulface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Repon
Project and Site Conditions
Exploration pits were excavated with a track-mounted excavator. The pits permitted direct,
visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration pits were
studied and classified in the field by a representative from our firm. All exploration pits were
backfilled immediately after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported
to our laboratory for further visual classification.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished
for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of selected applicable geologic
literature. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, interpolation of
subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing
subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and
the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any
variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction.
4.1 Stratigraphy
Fill
Fill soils (soils not naturally placed) were encountered at the locations of exploration pits EP-I
through EP-4 to depths ranging from 2 to 5 feet below the ground surface. Fill encountered
generally consisted of loose to medium dense silty fine to coarse sand with gravel. The
encountered fill generally included scattered organics, wood debris and, at exploration pits
EP-I and EP-4, other assorted debris, such as plastic pieces, concrete and rubber. At EP-I
through EP-3, the fill was underlain by a 6-inch-thick buried topsoil layer. The exact extent
and depth of fills can vary widely over short distances. Fill is also expected in unexplored
areas of the site. Due to their variable depth, density and organic content, we recommend that
the existing fill soils be evaluated at the time of foundation excavation to determine the
suitability of the existing fili for foundation support.
Vashon Recessional Outwash
At exploration pits EP-5 and EP-6, and below the fill at EP-I through EP-4, Vashon
recessional outwash sediments were encountered, extending to a depth of 7.5 feet below the
ground surface at EP-6, and beyond the depths explored of 8 to 12 feet below the ground
surface at the remaining exploration pits. The outwash sediments were deposited by meltwater
streams flowing from the receding Vashon glacier approximately 10,000 years ago. The
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED £ARm SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KK1306fJ2A2 -ProjecIs\20130602IKEIWP Page 3
Whitmill' Court Townhomes
Renton. Washington
Subsulface Exploration. Geologic Hazards. and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proiect and Site Conditions
outwash material consisted primarily of a medium dense. moist to wet, fine to coarse sand with
gravel, gravel beds, and varying amounts of silt. This unit is generally suitable for support of
light to moderately loaded foundations and for pavement subbase when properly compacted as
discussed in this report.
Vashon Lodgement Till
Sediments encountered below the Vashon recessional outwash at EP-6 generally consisted of
very dense silty fme to medium sand with gravel. We interpret these sediments to be
representative of Vashon lodgement till. The Vashon lodgement till was deposited directly
from basal, debris-laden glacial ice during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation
approximately 12,500 to 15,000 years ago. The high relative density of the unweathered till is
due to its consolidation by the massive weight of the glacial ice from which it was deposited.
The Vashon lodgement till extended below the depth explored.
4.2 Geologic Mapping
Review of the regional geologic map titled Geologic Map of King County, compiled by Derek
B. Booth et aI., dated May 2006, indicates that the area of the subject site is underlain by
Vashon lodgement till (Qvt), with Vashon recessional outwash (Qvr) mapped in the vicinity.
Our interpretation of the sediments encountered at the subject site is in general agreement with
the regional geologic map.
4.3 Hydrology
We encountered ground water seepage in exploration pits EP-l, EP-2 and EP-4 at depths of
10 feet, 11.5 feet and 10 feet, respectively, below the ground surface. We expect ground
water seepage across much of the site to be limited to interflow. Interflow occurs when
surface water percolates down through the surficial weathered or higher-permeability
sediments and becomes perched atop underlying, lower-permeability sediments. It should be
noted that the occurrence and level of ground water seepage at the site may vary in response to
such factors as changes in season, precipitation, and site use.
4.4 Laboratory Test Results
Grain size analysis tests were completed on two samples selected from the explorations.
Results are included in the Appendix.
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KEJ30602A2 -Projl!ctsl201306021K£1.WP Page 4
Whitman Court Townhomes
Remon, Washington
Subswface Exploration, Geologic Hazprds, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geologic Hazards and MitigaJions
II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and
ground and surface water conditions, as observed and discussed herein, The discussion will be
limited to seismic and erosion issues.
5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
Earthquakes occur regularly in the Puget Lowland. The majority of these events are small and
are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the
1949, 7.2-magnitude event; the 2001, 6.8-magnitude event; and the 1965, 6.5-magnitude
event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this region during recorded
history and was centered in the Olympia area. Evaluation of earthquake return rates indicates
that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within a given
20-year period.
Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic
events: I) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and
4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed
project is discussed below.
5.1 Surficial Ground Rupture
Based on the reviewed geologic map, the project site is located approximately 3 miles to the
south of the Seattle Fault Zone. Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (e.g.,
Johnson et aI., 1994, Origin and Evolution of the Seattle Fault and Seattle Basin, Washington,
Geology, v. 22, p.71-74; and Johnson et aI., 1999, Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and
Central Puget Sound Washington -Implications for Earthquake Hazards, Geological Society of
America Bulletin, July 1999, v. 111, n. 7, p. 1042-1053) have provided evidence of surficial
ground rupture along a northern splay of the Seattle Fault. The recognition of this fault is
relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the studies still ongoing. According
to the USGS studies, the latest movement of this fault was about 1,100 years ago when about
20 feet of surficial displacement took place. This displacement can presently be seen in the
form of raised, wave-cut beach terraces along Alki Point in West Seattle and Restoration Point
at the south end of Bainbridge Island.
The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still unknown. However, due
to the distance between the subject site and the Seattle Fault Zone, the potential for surficial
ground rupture is considered to be low during the expected life of the structures, and no
December 16, 2013 AssoaATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC.
JPUpc -KEJ 30602A2 -Proj«Js1201306021KEI WP Page 5
Whitman Coun Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
mitigation efforts beyond complying with the current 2012 International Building Code (lBC)
are recommended.
5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides
It is our opinion that the potential risk of damage to the proposed development by seismically
induced slope failures is low due to the lack of steep slopes in the project area.
5.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a process through which unconsolidated soil loses strength as a result of
vibrations, such as those which occur during a seismic event. During normal conditions, the
weight of the soil is supported by both grain-to-grain contacts and by the fluid pressure within
the pore spaces of the soil below the water table. Extreme vibratory shaking can disrupt the
grain-to-grain contact, increase the pore pressure, and result in a temporary decrease in soil
shear strength. The soil is said to be liquefied when nearly all of the weight of the soil is
supported by pore pressure alone. Liquefaction can result in deformation of the sediment and
settlement of overlying structures. Areas most susceptible to liquefaction include those areas
underlain by non-cohesive silt and sand with low relative densities, accompanied by a shallow
water table.
The subsurface conditions encountered at the site pose little risk of liquefaction due to
relatively high density and lack of shallow ground water. No detailed liquefaction analysis was
completed as part of this study, and none is warranted, in our opinion.
5.4 Ground Motion
Structural design of the buildings should follow 2012 IBC standards using Site Class "C" as
defined in Table 20.3-1 of American Society oj Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 -Minimum Design
Loads jor Buildings and Other Structures.
6.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
As of October 1, 2008, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Construction
Storm Water General Permit (also known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System [NPDES] permit) requires weekly Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(TESC) inspections and turbidity monitoring of site runoff for all sites 1 or more acres in size
that discharge storm water to surface waters of the state. We provide in the following sections
recommendations to address these inspection and reporting requirements, should they be
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLlpc -KEl30602A2 -Projects\20J3lA502IKEIWP Page 6
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsulface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
triggered. The following sections also include recommendations related to general erosion
control and mitigation.
The TESC inspections and turbidity monitoring of runoff must be completed by a Certified
Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) for the duration of the construction. The weekly
TESC reports do not need to be sent to Ecology, but should be logged into the project Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Ecology requires a monthly summary report of the
turbidity monitoring results signed by the NPDES permit holder. If the monitored turbidity
equals or exceeds 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (Ecology benchmark standard), the
project best management practices (BMPs) should be modified to decrease the turbidity of
storm water leaving the site. Changes and upgrades to the BMPs should be documented in the
weekly TESC reports and continued until the weekly turbidity reading is 25 NTU or lower. If
the monitored turbidity exceeds 250 NTU, the results must be reported to Ecology via phone
within 24 hours and corrective actions should be implemented as soon as possible. Daily
turbidity monitoring is continued until the corrective actions lower the turbidity to below
25 NTU, or until the discharge stops. This description of the sampling benchmarks and
reporting requirements is a brief summary of the Construction Storm Water General Permit
conditions. The general permit is available on the internee.
In order to meet the current Ecology requirements, a properly developed, constructed, and
maintained erosion control plan consistent with City of Renton standards and best management
erosion control practices will be required for this project. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
(AES!) is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing site-specific erosion control
plans. Based on past experience, it will be necessary to make adjustroents and provide
additional measures to the TESC plan in order to optimize its effectiveness. Ultimately, the
success of the TESC plan depends on a proactive approach to project planning and contractor
implementation and maintenance.
The most effective erosion control measure is the maintenance of adequate ground cover.
During the local wet season (October 1" through March 31'~, exposed soil should not remain
uncovered for more than 2 days unless it is actively being worked. Ground-cover measures
can include erosion control ruatting, plastic sheeting, straw mulch, crushed rock or recycled
concrete, or ruature hydroseed.
Surface draiuage control measures are also essential for collecting and controlling the site
runoff. Flow paths across slopes should be kept to less than 50 feet in order to reduce the
erosion and sediment transport potential of concentrated flow. Ditch/swale spacing will need
to be shortened with increasing slope gradient. Ditches and swales that exceed a gradient of
about 7 to 10 percent, depending on their flow length, should have properly constructed check
darns installed to reduce the flow velocity of the runoff and reduce the erosion potential within
I http://www .ecy. wa. gov Iprograms/wg/stonnwater/constructionlconstructionfinalpermit. pdf
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC.
JPUpc -KEJ30602A2 -Projectsl20J30602IKBIWP Page 7
Whitman Coun Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsulface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Repon
Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
the ditch. Flow paths that are required to be constructed on gradients between 10 to 15 percent
should be placed in a riprap-lined swale with the riprap properly sized for the anticipated flow
conditions. Flow paths constructed on slope gradients steeper than 15 percent should be placed
in a pipe slope drain. AESI is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing a
suitable erosion control plan with proper flow control.
Silt fencing should be utilized as buffer protection and not as a flow-control measure. Silt
fencing should be placed parallel with topographic contours to prevent sediment-laden runoff
from leaving a work area or entering a sensitive area. Silt fences should not be placed to cross
contour lines without having separate bermlswale flow control in front of the silt fence.
6.1 Erosion Hazard Mitigation
To mitigate the erosion hazards and potential for off-site sediment transport, we would
recommend the following:
1. Construction activity should be scheduled or phased as much as possible to reduce the
amount of earthwork activity that is performed during the winter months.
2. The winter performance of a site is dependent on a well-conceived plan for control of
site erosion and storm water runoff. The TESC plan should include adequate ground-
cover measures, access roads, and staging areas to maintain a workable site. The
contractor should implement and maintain the required measures as necessary through
all phases of site work. A site maintenance plan should be in place in the event storm
water turbidity measurements are greater than the Ecology standards.
3. TESC measures for a given area to be graded or otherwise worked should be installed
soon after ground clearing. The recommended sequence of construction within a given
area after clearing would be to install sediment traps and/or ponds and establish
perimeter flow control prior to starting mass grading.
4. During the wetter months of the year, or when large storm events are predicted during
the summer months, each work area should be stabilized so that if showers occur, the
work area can receive the rainfall without excessive erosion or sediment transport. The
required measures for an area to be "buttoned-up" will depend on the time of year and
the duration the area will be left un-worked. During the winter months, areas that are
to be left un-worked for more than 2 days should be mulched or covered with plastic.
During the summer months, stabilization will usually consist of seal-rolling the
subgrade. Such measures will aid in the contractor's ability to get back into a work
area after a storm event. The stabilization process also includes establishing temporary
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KE130602A2 -Projectsl20J30601IKEIWP Page 8
Whitrnnn COU!1 Townhomes
Remon, Washington
Subsu/face Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Repo!1
Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
storm water conveyance channels through work areas to route runoff to the approved
treatment facilities.
5. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. If it is outside of the
growing season, the disturbed areas should be covered with mulch, as recommended in
the erosion control plan. Straw mulch provides a cost-effective cover measure and can
be made wind-resistant with the application of a tackifier after it is placed.
6. Surface runoff and discharge should be controlled during and following development.
Uncontrolled discharge may promote erosion and sediment transport. Under no
circumstances should concentrated discharges be allowed to flow over the top of
steep slopes.
7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to
reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not
limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the
use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During the period between October 1st and
March 31 st, these measures are required.
8. On-site erosion control inspections and turbidity monitoring (if required) should be
performed in accordance with Ecology requirements. Weekly and monthly reporting to
Ecology should be performed on a regularly scheduled basis. A discussion of
temporary erosion control and site runoff monitoring should be part of the weekly
construction team meetings. Temporary and permanent erosion control and drainage
measures should be adjusted and maintained, as necessary, for the duration of project
construction.
It is our opinion that with the proper implementation of the TESC plans and by field-adjusting
appropriate mitigation elements (BMPs) throughout construction, as recommended by the
erosion control inspector, the potential adverse impacts from erosion hazards on the project
may be mitigated.
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KE130602A2 -Projects\201306021KEIWP Page 9
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminmy Geotechnical Engineering Report
Preliminary Design Recommendations
III. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
7,0 INTRODUCTION
Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the
proposed development provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed.
The foundation bearing stratum is relatively shallow, and conventional spread footing
foundations may be utilized for the proposed structure. Consequently, foundations bearing on
either the medium dense to very dense natural sediments, or on structural fIll placed over these
sediments, are capable of providing suitable building support. The infIltration of storm water
into the soils underlying the fill encountered below the proposed parking area for the bank at
the north end of the site may be feasible based on our preliminary explorations and laboratory
testing.
The site is underlain by existing fill material which varies in thickness, density, and content.
Based on this variability, we recommend that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated during
excavation to determine the suitability of the existing fill for foundation support. If foundation
areas determined to be underlain by existing fIll that are deemed unsuitable for foundation
support, we recommend that the existing fill be removed and replaced, as described in the
following sections of this report.
8.0 SITE PREPARATION
Existing buried utilities, vegetation, topsoil, and auy other deleterious materials should be
removed where they are located below planned construction areas. All disturbed soils should
be removed to expose underlying, undisturbed, native sediments and replaced with structural
fill, as needed. All excavations below fmal grade made for clearing and grubbing activities
should be backfilled, as needed, with structural fill. Erosion and surface water control should
be established around the clearing limits to satisfy local requirements.
Once clearing and grubbing activities have been completed, existing fill, where encountered,
should be addressed. We recommend that existing fill be removed from below areas of
planned foundations to expose underlying, undisturbed native sediments, followed by
restoration of the planned foundation grade with structural fill. Where deemed necessary
removal of existing fill should extend laterally beyond the building footprint by a distance
equal to the depth of overexcavation. For example, if existing fill is removed to a depth of
2 feet below a planned footing area, the excavation should also extend laterally 2 feet beyond
the building footprint in that area. Care should be taken not to disturb support soils of existing
foundations. Support soils should be considered those soils within a prism projected
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KEJ30602A2 -Projects\20130602IKEIWP Page 10
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsutface Exploration, Geologic liazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Preliminary Design Recommendations
downward and outward from existing footings at inclinations of lH: 1 V (Horizontal: Vertical).
Where existing fill must be removed and replaced with structural fill, conventional shallow
foundations may be used for building support. The required depth and extent of removal
should be determined by an AESI representative in the field based on actual conditions
encountered during excavation.
8.1 Site Drainage and Surface Water Control
The site should be graded to prevent water from ponding in construction areas and/or flowing
into excavations. Exposed grades should be crowned, sloped, and smooth drum-rolled at the
end of each day to facilitate drainage. Accumulated water must be removed from subgrades
and work areas immediately prior to performing further work in the area. Equipment access
may be limited, and the amount of soil rendered unfit for use as structural fill may be greatly
increased if drainage efforts are not accomplished in a timely sequence. If an effective
drainage system is not utilized, project delays and increased costs could be incurred due to the
greater quantities of wet and unsuitable fill, or poor access and unstable conditions.
We anticipate that perched ground water could be encountered in excavations completed during
construction. We do not anticipate the need for extensive dewatering in advance of
excavations. The contractor should be prepared to intercept any ground water seepage entering
the excavations and route it to a suitable discharge location.
Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building at all
times. Water must not be allowed to pond or to collect adjacent to foundations or within the
immediate building area. We recommend that a gradient of at least 3 percent for a minimum
distance of 10 feet from the building perimeters be provided, except in paved locations. In
paved locations, a minimum gradient of 1 percent should be provided, unless provisions are
included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structures.
8.2 Subgrade Protection
To the extent that it is possible, existing pavement should be used for construction of staging
areas. If building construction will proceed during the winter, we recommend the use of a
working surface of sand and gravel, crushed rock, or quarry spalls to protect exposed soils,
particularly in areas supporting concentrated equipment traffic. In winter construction staging
areas and areas that will be subjected to repeated heavy loads, such as those that occur during
construction of ntasonry walls, a minimum thickness of 12 inches of quarry spalls or 18 inches
of pit run sand and gravel is recommended. If subgrade conditions are soft and silty, a
geotextile separation fabric, such as Mirafi 500X or approved equivalent, should be used
between the subgrade and the new fill. For building pads where floor slabs and foundation
construction will be completed in the winter, a similar working surface should be used,
December 16, 2013 ASSOClATED EARm SCIENCES, 1NC.
JPUpc -KEI30602A2 -PrQjectsI20130602IKEIWP Page 11
Whitman Coun Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsulface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Repon
Preliminary Design Recommendations
composed of at least 6 inches of pit run sand and gravel or crushed rock. Construction of
working surfaces from advancing fill pads could be used to avoid directly exposing the
subgrade soils to vehicular traffic.
Foundation sub grades may require protection from foot and equipment traffic and ponding of
runoff during wet weather conditions. Typically, compacted crushed rock or a lean-mix
concrete mat placed over a properly prepared sub grade provides adequate sub grade protection.
Foundation concrete should be placed and excavations backfilled as soon as possible to protect
the bearing surface.
8.3 Proof-Rolling and Subgrade Compaction
Following the recommended clearing, site stripping, and planned excavation, the stripped
subgrade within the building areas should be proof-rolled with heavy, rubber-tired constrnction
equipment, such as a fully loaded, tandem-axle dump truck. Proof-rolling should be
performed prior to structural fJ.!1 placement or foundation excavation. The proof-roll should be
monitored by the geoteclmical engineer so that any soft or yielding subgrade soils can be
identified. Any soft/loose, yielding soils should be removed to a stable subgrade. The
subgrade should then be scarified, adjusted in moisture content, and recompacted to the
required density. Proof-rolling should ouly be attempted if soil moisture contents are at or
near optimum moisture content. Proof-rolling of wet subgrades could result in further
degradation. Low areas and excavations may then be raised to the plarmed finished grade with
compacted strnctural flll. Subgrade preparation and selection, placement, and compaction of
structural fill should be performed under engineering -controlled conditions in accordance with
the project specifications.
8.4 OverexcavationiStabilization
Construction during extended wet weather periods could create the need to overexcavate
exposed soils if they become disturbed and cannot be recompacted due to elevated moisture
content and/or weather conditions. Even during dry weather periods, soft/wet soils, which
may need to be overexcavated, may be encountered in some portions of the site. If
overexcavation is necessary, it should be confirmed through continuous observation and testing
by AESI. Soils that have become unstable may require remedial measures in the form of one
or more of the following:
1. Drying and recompaction. Selective drying may be accomplished by scarifying or
windrowing surficial material during extended periods of dry and warm weather.
2. Removal of affected soils to expose a suitable bearing subgrade and replacement with
compacted structural fill.
December 16. 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC.
JPUpc -KE130602A2 -Projectsl2013G\502lKEI \¥P Page 12
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Repon
Preliminary Design Recommendations
3, Mechanical stabilization with a coarse crushed aggregate compacted into the subgrade,
possibly in conjunction with a geotextile.
4. Soil/cement admixture stabilization.
8.5 Wet Weather Conditions
If construction proceeds during an extended wet weather construction period and the
moisture-sensitive site soils become wet, they will become unstable. Therefore, the budget for
site grading operations should consider the time of year that construction will proceed. It is
expected that in wet conditions additional soils may need to be removed and/or other stabilization
methods nsed, such as a coarse crushed rock working mat to develop a stable condition if silty
subgrade soils are disturbed in the presence of excess moisture. The severity of construction
disturbance will be dependent, in part, on the precautions that are taken by the contractor to
protect the moisture-and disturbance-sensitive site soils. If overexcavation is necessary, it
should be confirmed through continuous observation and testing by a representative of our firm.
8.6 Temporary and Permanent Cut Slopes
In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and
should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, however, we anticipate
that temporary, unsupported cut slopes in the existing fill or recessional outwash can be made
at a maximum slope of 1.5H:IV or flatter. Temporary slopes in lodgement till deposits may
be planned at IH:IV. As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling
may occur, and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. If ground water seepage is
encountered in cut slopes, or if surface water is not routed away from temporary cut slope
faces, flatter slopes will be required. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be
followed at all times. Permanent cut and structural fIll slopes that are not intended to be
exposed to surface water should be designed at inclinations of 2H: I V or flatter. All permanent
cut or fill slopes should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum
dry density, as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1557,
and the slopes should be protected from erosion by sheet plastic until vegetation cover can be
established during favorable weather.
8.7 Frozen Subgrades
If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, all exposed sub grades should be allowed to
thaw and then be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill or foundation
components. Alternatively, the frozen material could be stripped from the subgrade to reveal
unfrozen soil prior to placing subsequent lifts of fill or foundation components. The frozen
soil should not be reused as structural fill until allowed to thaw and adjusted to the proper
moisture content, which may not be possible during winter months.
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KE130602A2 -ProjeClsl20130602\KEIWP Page 13
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
9.0 STRUCTURAL FILL
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Preliminary Design Recommendations
All references to structural fill in this report refer to sub grade preparation, fIll type and
placement, and compaction of materials, as discnssed in !bis section. If a percentage of
compaction is specified under ano!ber section of this report, the value given in that section
should be used.
After stripping, planned excavation, and any required overexcavation have been performed to
!be satisfaction of !be geotechnical engineer, !be upper 12 inches of exposed ground in areas to
receive fill should be recompacted to 90 percent of !be modified Proctor maximum density
using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If the subgrade contains silty soils and too much
moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably
not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fIll should be blanketed wi!b
washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet
subgrade. Where the exposed ground remains soft and fur!ber overexcavation is impractical,
placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of
!be free-draining layer by silt migration from below.
After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free-draining rock
course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as
non-organic soil, acceptable to !be geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch loose
lifts, wi!b each lift being compacted to 95 percent of !be modified Proctor maximum density
using ASTM:D 1557 as !be standard. In !be case of roadway and utility trench filling, !be
backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance wi!b current City of Renton codes and
standards. The top of !be compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum
distance of 3 feet beyond !be locations of !be roadway edges before sloping down at an angle
of2H:IV.
The contractor should note !bat any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to !beir
use in fills. This would require !bat we have a sample of !be material 72 honrs in advance to
perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which !be amount
of fine-grained material (smaller !ban !be No. 200 sieve) is greater !ban approximately
5 percent (measured on !be minus No.4 sieve size) should be considered moisture-sensitive.
Use of moisture-sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry wea!ber
conditions. The native and existing fill soils present on-site contained variable amounts of silt
and are considered moisture-sensitive. In addition, construction equipment traversing !be site
when !be soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet wea!ber
or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean,
free-draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free-draining fill consists of non-organic soil
wi!b !be amount of fme-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on !be
minus No.4 sieve fraction with at least 25 percent retained on the No.4 sieve.
December 16, 2013 ASSOGATED EAR11l SCIENCES, INC.
JPLlpc -KE130602A2 -Proj£ctsI20130602IKEI WP Page 14
Whitman Court Townhomes
Rentol!, Washington
Subsulface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Preliminary Design Recommendations
A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped sub grade and be present during
placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of
in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling
progresses, and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand
that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or
acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid in developing a suitable
monitoring and testing program,
10.0 FOUNDATIONS
For footings bearing directly on the medium dense to very dense natural sediments, or on
structural fill placed over these materials, as described above, we recommend that an allowable
foundation soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (pst) be utilized for design
purposes, including both dead and live loads. An increase of one-third may be used for
short-term. wind or seismic loading.
Perimeter footings should be buried at least 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost
protection. However, all footings must penetrate to the prescribed bearing stratum, and no
footing should be founded in or above organic or loose soils. All footings should have a
minimum width of 18 inches.
It should be noted that the area bound by lines extending downward at IH: I V from any footing
must not intersect another footing or intersect a filled area that has not been compacted to at
least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.5H:IV line extending down from any
footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing.
Thus, footings should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in the bearing soils.
Anticipated settlement of footings founded as described above should be on the order of % inch
or less. However, disturbed or otherwise unsuitable soil not removed from footing excavations
prior to footing placement could reSUlt in increased settlements. All footing areas should be
inspected by AESI prior to placing concrete to verify that the design bearing capacity of the
soils has been attained and that construction conforms to the recommendations contained in this
report. Such inspections may be required by the governing municipality, Perimeter footing
drains should be provided, as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations" section of this
report.
10.1 Drainage Considerations
Foundations should be provided with foundation drains placed at the base of footing elevation.
Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KEI30602A2 -Projl!Cls120130602IK81WP Page 15
Mitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsurface Exp/oraJion, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Preliminary Design Recommendations
washed pea gravel. The drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity
discharge away from the proposed building. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into
the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In
planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the
proposed structure to achieve surface drainage.
11.0 FLOOR SUPPORT
Floor slabs can be supported on suitable native sediments, or on structural fill placed above
suitable native sediments. Floor slabs should be cast atop a minimum of 4 inches of clean,
washed, crushed rock (such as '/B-inch "chip") or pea gravel to act as a capillary break. Areas
of subgrade that are disturbed (loosened) during construction should be compacted to a
non-yielding condition prior to placement of capillary break material. Floor slabs should also
be protected from dampness by an impervious moisture barrier at least 10 mils thick. The
moisture barrier should be placed between the capillary break material and the concrete slab.
12.0 FOUNDATION WALLS
All backfill behind foundation walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our
recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally
backfilled walls, which are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height, may be
designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained,
horizontally backfilled, rigid walls that cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid
of 50 pcf. Walls with sloping backfill up to a maximum gradient of 2H: 1 V should be designed
using an equivalent fluid of 55 pcf for yielding conditions or 75 pcf for fully restrained
conditions. If parking areas are adjacent to walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil
should be added to the wall height in determining lateral design forces.
As required by the 2012 IBC, retaining wall design should include a seismic surcharge
pressure in addition to the equivalent fluid pressures presented above. Considering the site
soils and the recommended wall backfill materials, we recommend a seismic surcharge
pressure of 5H and lOH psf, where H is the wall height in feet for the "active" and "at-rest"
loading conditions, respectively. The seismic surcharge should be modeled as a rectangular
distribution with the resultant applied at the mid-point of the walls.
The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill
consisting of excavated on-site soils, or imported structural fill compacted to 90 percent of
ASTM:D 1557. A higher degree of compaction is not recommended, as this will increase the
pressure acting on the walls. A lower compaction may result in settlement of the slab-on-grade
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLipc -KE130602A2 -Projecul2013lAi021KEIWP Page 16
Whitman Court Townhome ..
Renton, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Preliminary Design Recommendations
or other structures supported above the walls, Thus, the compaction level is critical and must
be tested by our firm during placement. Surcharges from adjacent footings or heavy
construction equipment must be added to the above values. Perimeter footing drains should be
provided for all retaining walls, as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations" section of
this report.
It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that hydrostatic pressures do not develop
against the walls. This would involve installation of a minimum, I-foot-wide blanket drain to
within 1 foot of finish grade for the full wall height using imported, washed gravel against
the walls. A prefabricated drainage mat is not a suitable substitute for the gravel blanket drain
unless all backfill against the wall is free-draining.
12.1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and the natural glacial soils or
supporting structural fill soils, and by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of
the foundations. The foundations must be backfilled with structural fill and compacted to
at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density to achieve the passive resistance provided
below. We recommend the following allowable design parameters:
• Passive equivalent fluid = 350 pef
Coefficient of friction = 0.30
13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
All retaining and perimeter foundation walls shonld be provided with a drain at the base of the
footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by washed
pea gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set at or slightly below the
bottom of the footing grade beam, and the drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient
to allow gravity discharge away from the buildings, In addition, all retaining walls should be
lined with a minimum, 12-inch-thick. washed gravel blanket that extends to within 1 foot of the
surface and is continuous with the foundation drain. Roof and surface runoff should not
discharge into the foundation drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline
drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from
the structures to achieve surface drainage.
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KE130602A2 -Projecrs\20130602IKEIWP Page 17
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
SubsUlface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Preliminary Design Recommendations
14.0 PRELIMINARY INFILTRATION EVALUATION
Much of the subject site is underlain by fill material that is not a suitable infiltration receptor.
However, the grain-size analysis test results for samples collected below the fill at the
proposed bank parking area at the north end of the site indicate fines contents ranging from
roughly 8 to 9 percent of the fraction passing the No. 10 sieve. The classification of the
samples tested most closely fits the texture class "sand" referenced in Table 3.7 in the 2005
Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (Ecology Manual). For preliminary planning purposes only, this material has an
uncorrected short-term infiltration rate of 8 inches per hour, with an Estimated Design
(long-term) Infiltration Rate of 2 inches per hour. Should a design infiltration rate be needed
for site-specific design, we recommend that AESI perform infiltration testing using a
large-diameter infiltrometer, generally corresponding to the procedure described as a pilot
infiltration test (PIT) in the Ecology Manual, at the proposed infiltration location(s) prior to
final design in order to provide site-specific rates of infiltration. The PIT testes) should take
place at the bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration system. AESI is also available to
conduct cation exchange capacity or organic content testing of site soils for in situ treatment of
storm water, if requested.
The suitability for the infiltration of storm water can be limited by the presence of a seasonal
high water table. For seasonal high water table monitoring, we recommend that AESI install a
pressure transducer connected to an automatic data logger in a well point which wonld be
installed to less than 10 feet in depth. After the well point has been completed, we will
develop the well and record the initial depth to ground water. The data logger would record
hourly water levels, and would be installed and left in place for up to approximately 1 year to
capture ground water levels during the coming winter and the following summer. Bimonthly
hand measurements of the water level in the well would be collected in conjunction with
downloading of water level data recorded by the data logger. The data would be downloaded,
entered into a spreadsheet, compensated for barometric pressure effects, and calibrated with
the manual water level measurements.
15.0 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
Site preparation for areas to be paved should consist of excavating to remove the topsoil and
the loose portion of the upper soils, exposing the underlying stable sediments. Since the
density of the upper soils is variable, random loose areas may exist, and the depth and extent
of stripping can best be detennined in the field by the geotechnical engineer. In addition, the
subgrade should be slightly crowned to drain toward the edges of the paved area. After the
area to be paved is excavated, the exposed ground should be recompacted to at least 95 percent
December 16, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUpc -KEJ306lJ2A2 -Projeds12DJ3060Z1KE1-wJ> Page 18
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, Washington
Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Preliminary Design Recommendations
of ASTM:D 1557. If required, strucrural fill may then be placed to achieve desired subbase
grades, The appropriate pavement section may then be placed over the prepared subgrade.
16,0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Our report is preliminary since project plans were not finalized at the time this report was
written. We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final
design completion, In this way, we can confirm that our earthwork and foundation
recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design,
We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during
construction. The integrity of the foundation system depends on proper site preparation and
construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field
in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring
services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us
know, and we will prepare a cost proposaL
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations
will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or
require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
Senior Project Engineering Geologist
Attachments: Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Appendix:
December 16, 2013
Vicinity Map
Site and Exploration Plan
Exploration Logs
Laboratory Testing
JPUpc -KE130602A.2 -Projeclsl'lOlJ0602\KEI WP
Bruce L. Blyton, P.R
Senior Principal Engineer
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 19
1000
FEET
2000
I
FIGURE 1
DATE 11113
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF EXPLORATION PIT :,'1
TYP
'j V ::
N
I
I REFERENCE: GMSARCHITECTURAL GROUP FEET ]====================================================
A
40 so
!
~. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 2
i IBn I ~I ~ IZ2 IilIiI WHITMAN COURT TOINNHOMES DATE 11/13 ~ __ ~ _________ ~ ____ "' ____ ~ _____________ R_E_N_T_O_N._W_~_S_H_IN_G_T_O_N __________ ~PR~O~J,~N~O,~~~13=~~02~A~ __
APPENDIX
Tenns Describing Density and Consistency
Coarse~
Grained Solis
Density
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
SPT(2J blowsJfoot
0104
41010
10t030
30 to 50
>50
Test Symbols
G= Grain Size
Consistency SPTl21,lowslfoot
Ot02
M = Moisture Contenl
A = Atterbarg limits
C -Chemical Flne-
Gralnad Salls
VOI)ISoft
Soft
MadiumSUff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
2t04
4t08
8to15
151030
>30
DD = Dry Density
K -Permeability
Component Definitions
Descriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number
Boulders Larger than 12"
Cobbles 3' to 12'
Gravel
Coarse Gravel
RneGravel
3'10 No.4 (4.75 mm)
3"to 314"
3/4' to No.4 (4.75 mm)
Sand
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand
Fine Send
No.4 (4.75 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
No.4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm)
No. 10 (ZOO mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm)
No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
Silt end Clay Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm)
Estimated Percentage
Percentage by
Weight
Trace <5
Few 5tol0
Utile 151025
With -Non-primary coarse
constituents: 2:. 15%
. Fines content between
5% and 15%
Moisture Content
Dry -Absence of moisture,
dusty, dry to the touch
Slightly Moist -Perceptible
molstute
Moist -Damp but no visible
water
Very Moist -Waler visible but
not free draining
Wet -Visible Irae water, usually
from below water tabfe
Symbols
Sampler
Type
BIOWS/S"· or
portion 01 6'
",/ Sampler Tvpe
• Descrtptlon
3.0' OD Spllt·Spoon Sampler
3.25' OD Spilt-Spoon Ring Sampler
(.J
(4):·
Cement groul
surface seaf
Ben""". seal
:;"='=ln~lh
' .. section
:: Screened casing
... orHydrctlp _+ ________ -lGrabSemple
3.0' 00 Thin-Wall Tube Sampler
Qncludlng Shelby tube) '; with IIt.r peek
". End cap
o Portion not recovered
PeroentagB by dry walght ('J Depth of ground water
(2) (SPT) Standard Penetration rest 1: Am = At time of drilling
""11,, ii9---I----------l(3) i~~er:!~~~~~enoe_ ~ Static water level (date)
~ ~ S Stendard Praclice lor Descrtptlon (~ Combined USCS symbols used lor
:r 0 and Identification 01 Solis (ASTM 0'2488) fines between 5% and 15% i . Classifications of .sols In !hIs report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations, which Include densUy/oonslslency, moisture candilion. grain Sl%.9,
.. plasticity esllmates and should not be construed to Impl)' field Of laboratory tesUng uriass presented I'Ierein. VisuaJ-manuai and/orlaboratoJy dassffication
~ methods of ASTM 0·2487 and p..2488 were used as an identlncallon guide for the Un1fied SoB Classlflcallon System.
~================================================== ! Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
i.~!tili. ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPLORATION LOG KEY FIGURE A1
~
,,;
j
E
~
2
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1
r--~---r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-"~--~~-'-'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 -
16
17
18
19
-----£0
This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, (AESI) for the named project and should be
read logelliar with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the
time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage 01 time. The data presented are
a simplfication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Fill
Loose to medium dense, moist, brown and gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, with gravel, scattered
organics, burned wood fragments, plastic and rubber pieces, concrete.
1---____ , ________ ~;___;___-'B:::u:_r-le-d-T'70-'ps__,o_=ilo_o-_;_-----------,-~
Vashon Recessional Outwash
Loose to medium dense, mOist, reddish brown (5.5 to 6.5 feet) to brown, fine to coarse SAND, with
gravel.
Medium dense, moist to wet, brownish gray, GRAVEL, with sand, with silt.
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet
Seepage at 10 fest. No caVing,
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, WA
Logged by: JPL
Approved by:
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE130602A
11/21/13
i
~ --------------------------------------------------
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. Ep·2
g This log is part of the report ~repared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named Eroject and should be
~ read together with that repo for comR'ete interpretation. This summary a~Plies only to the loea ion of this trench at the
time of excavation. Subsurface condi ions may change at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
0 a simplfication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Fill
1
Loose to medium dense, moist, brown and gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, with gravel, wood debris
and scattered organics.
2
3 Buried Topsoil
4 Vashon Recessional Outwash
Loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown (3.5 to 4.5 feet) to brown, fine to coarse SAND, with
5
gravel.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 11.5 feet
Seepage at 11.5 feet. No caving.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26 ~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
~
Logged by: J PL
Approved by:
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE130602A
11121/13
i
~ --------------------------------------------------
f
I
g
:;
"-~
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
29
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3
This log is part of the report frepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named ecfOject and should be
read tqgettier with that rep<? for comftlete interpretation. This summary a~plies only to the loea ion of this trench at the
lime of excavation. Subsurlace condl ions may change althis location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
a simplfication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Fill
Loose to medium dense, moist, brown and gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, with gravel, wood debris
and scattered organics.
Buried Topsoil
Vashon Recessional Outwash
Loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown, silty SAND, with gravel.
Medium dense, moist, brownish gravel, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel.
Medium dense, mOist, brownish gray, GRAVEL, with fine to coarse sand.
Medium dense, moist, brownish gray, fine to medium SAND, with silt, with gravel.
Bottom 01 exploration pit at depth 12 feet
No seepage. Caving 4 to 6 feet.
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, WA
Logged by: JPL
Approved by:
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE130602A
11121/13 ~ --------------------------------------------------
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-4
g This log is part of the report rrrepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named ~roject and should be
~ read togettier with that repq tor comRlets interpretation. This summary a~Plies only to the loea on of this trench al the
time of excavation. Subsurface condi ions may change at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
0 a simplficatlon of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
---Fill
1 Loose to medium dense, moist, brownish gray, silty SAND, with gravel.
2
Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty SAND, with gravel, with wood debris, plastic, concrete,
3 and scattered organics.
4
5
Vashon Recessional Outwash
Loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, with gravel.
6
7 Loose to medium dense, moist to wet, brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, with gravel.
S
9
10
11
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet
Seepage at 10 feet. No caving.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
28 ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------j
I Logged by: JPL
Approved by:
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE130602A
11121/13 ~ -----------------------------------------------------------
2
3
4
5
6
7
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-5
This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
read togettier with that rep()rt for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location at this trench at the
time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage 01 time. The data presented are
a simplfication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil
Vashon Recessional Outwash
Loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown, fine to medium SAND, with gravel.
Medium dense, moist, brownish gray, fine to medium SAND, with gravel.
Medium dense, moist, brownish gray, fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel.
8 1-------------------------------------------------------------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 8 feet
No seepage. No caving.
20 ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------j
Logged by: JPL
Approved by:
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Projecl No. KE130602A
11/21/13
$
~
~ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
~
.c
0.
" 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-6
le~~ ~~~!~tfe~~f~ trtfa~~~g~K~~~~~e~ ~~t:~~t~:r~t~~~~~i;I~Z~~~~ca (~rr;~) d~l~ t~e t~:rc:6~8~~j~1\~i~~r~~~~I~tbthe
time of excavation. Subsurtace condifions may change at this location wit~ the passage of time. The data presented are
a simplfication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil
Vashon Recessional Outwash
Loose to medium dense, mOist, reddish brown to brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, with gravel,
with roots.
Medium dense, moist, brownish gray, fine to medium SAND, with gravel.
Vashon Lodgement Till
Very dense, moist, brownish gray, silty fine to medium SAND, with gravel.
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 9 feet
No seepage. No caving.
Whitman Court Townhomes
Renton, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Logged by: JPL
Approved by:
Project No. KE130602A
11121/13
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS· MECHANICAL
Date Sampled Project Project No, Soil Description
12/6/2013 Whitman Court Townhomes KE130602A Gravel with sand trace silt
Tested By Location EBIEP No I Depth
MS Onslte EP-1 7'
Wt. of moisture wet sample + Tare Total Sample Tare
Wt. of moisture d Sam Ie + Tare Total Sample wt + tare
WI. ofTa,e 11)0:61 Total Sample Wt
wt. of moisture D Sam Ie 323,6 Total Sample Dry Wt 1341.0
Moisture % 3%
~Ieve No. DlalT,(mml WI. Retained (0) %Re ,talned % Passino Minimum Maximum
3 . iC'", 10 --
2.5 64 , ... 100 -
2 100 -
'137;39'/· =-2.18
10 2 ',,:.,;, 69.
'.85 ,c,: 1.0
'.4: .' ".;:. 1.5
'.25 1;'-' ,,9
1.149 1.3
)74 .. ..;,; '.3
.u:,<
US STANDARD SIEVE NOS.
3" 314" NO.4 NO.16 NO.40 NO.200
100 1\
BO 1\
\.
~ 60 ~
i:i: ;:
,
to..... . ~ 40 " 0. I""" ~ ...........
20 II I
I i"""" ....
o
100 r-____________ ~ ____ ._----------~---------------0-.1_,r_----------~0"'.01
Silt and Clay
Fine
Grain SIze, mm
ASSOCIA TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
911 5th Ave., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 425-827-7701 FAX 4~27-5424
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS -MECHANICAL
Date Sampled Project Project No. Soil Description
12/6/2013 Whitman Court Townhomes KE130602A Gravel with sand trace silt
Tested By Location EBIEP No liDepth
MS Onsite EP-1 9.5'
Wt. of moisture wet sample + Tare 4M.1S Total Sample Tare
Wt. of moisture d Sam Ie + Tare 40$,07 Total Sam Ie wt + tare
wt. of Tare 98.15' Total Sam Ie Wt 1056.6
Wt. of moisture 0 Sam Ie 304.92 Total Sample Dry Wt 988.3
Moisture % 7%
S ecification Reauirements
Sieve No. Diam. mm WI. Retained (a) % Retained % Passino Minimum Maximum
a;
c u: ;:
~ ~ ..
3
2.5
2
1.5
3/4
3/8
#4
#8
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
#270
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
3"
76.1 ~ .~~< "0,:> ;-.:::~:' ,!"o)~~~ '/~" 0.0 100.0
64 .-~--0.0 100.0
50.8 -,~~'::";.::...~ .. -" 0.0 100.0
38.1 '1'32i'llF:~~ 13.4 86.6
25.4 175,9;E, 17.8 82.2
19 26'1.46, ','" 26.5 73.5
9.51 458.66 46.4 53.6
4.76 61.7.45 62.5 37.5
2.38 707.26 71.6 28.4
2 725.86 73.4 26.6
0,85 806,1~ :. 81.6 18.4
0.42 892,64 :: ~~-90.3 9.7
0.25 "'-c9~t.5t"· . 95.3 4.7
0.149 ;,;95~;51-:: :.,': 96.6 3.4
0.074 .. , 961~94· '. 97.3 2.7
0.053 97.5 2.5
US STANDARD SIEVE NOS.
3/4" NO.4 NO.16 N0.40 NO.200
\ ..........
!Ii..
"
!loo .....
"'" ..........
-"" roo ....
0.1 0.01
Silt and Clay
Fine
Grain Size, mm
ASSOCIA TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
911 5th Ave., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 425-827·n01 FAX. 425-827-5424