The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03737 - Technical Information Report i ,` ••7 M� ••1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Fred Meyer Fuel Center - #459 Renton Center 431 Rainier Avenue South ; , Renton, Washington � ; � \� ` Pre ared for: � P \�/ ��N E HqR The Kroger Co. ,Es��,,F��S�L,.R�s 3800 S.E. 22nd Avenue � ' �� '' Portland, OR 97202 � ^ � ••. �� r. �U `�� r� \� 3'1 �� ,'�►s��'3 ''' p ,� 42779 � t�� 00 3�l ��s, ��:,,,F:,1�- �: �1� \� •5��.�:�t.F y _�� '1'� Revised November 15, 2013 � ��''� ` Revised May 20, 2013 ° October 19, 2012 Our Job No. 13245 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVEC NOV 1 8 201:. � �. �i, •�; :� ^'. , ,.�.'_�i�: �GHAV �" �►/�s� m \� '� 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT,WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX � � - BRANCH OFFICES ♦ TUMWATER,WA ♦ LONG BEACH,CA ♦ WALNUT CREEK,CA ♦ SAN DIEGO,CA o � 2 www.barghausen.com sG .��U'� <r� r �`a-g, 3�,3 � ^r�.' ENGI�G� � TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 —Technical Information Report(TIR)Worksheet Figure 2—Vicinity Map Figure 3— Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4—Soils Map 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Six Special Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS I 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN I 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT , 10.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL V 13245 002 doc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Fred Meyer Fueling Facility project is a 1.13 acre site located within a portion of the Southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington. More specifically, the site is located at the southwest corner of Renton Center Way and Rainier Avenue South in Renton, Washington. The enclosed Figure 2 — Vicinity Map, depicts the approximate location of the proposed site. The site requires full drainage review per the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The site is currently a shopping center. The existing building was constructed in 1964 and the site is fully developed. The existing parking lot tends to slope to the north to the existing catch basins onsite. There is an existing masonry building onsite that will be demolished. Because this site was developed prior to May 1979, the storm runoff calculations are based on existing conditions rather than historic conditions. This site is currently fully developed. The site is located in the Peak Flow Control Area. The proposal for this project will not cause an increase in runoff of more than 0.1 cfs in the 100-year storm event, therefore no flow control is required for this site. There are no wetlands located on this project site and no road improvements to adjacent streets are required. The northern boundary of the project site is formed by Renton Center Way. Existing commercial developments are to the south and west and Rainier Avenue South forms the eastern property boundary. The proposal for this development is to construct a new fueling facility on the site with 9 fuel dispensing islands, a canopy and a kiosk with a restroom. Elevations on the site range from 30.5 at the northeast corner down to 27.2 at the southwest corner of the project site. This developed site currently contributes runoff west to the overall Fred Meyer development and will continue to discharge to the existing conveyance system. 13245.002.doc �--+ � � � � � r � 0 � � � � � - �..L � Rohini Nair I Subject: Sent from Snipping Tool -. � .. '9�"^rr:'� � y,� . � , �F �� - �� i � 13$ � � �' �'�� a�� , . �; 3 3G� � �,�€- " ��.., �,1 f11 � � 3.1 � ��•: 320 13U ,.+ ,�. �. � . ' � �, �.ari . " �',`_ � . ��ti'"�� ,�p',. 1 67 �� ,»„ � ! .�"",;�"``"� "'�',"� , . � • " •a o ,. . 3 6-1:�� ' ►�'"� ,,,, � . ,�►� � � � �. ��. .• �; '. 3C;1 �-� , �r:�. }tr� ��, - � . {�� ,�'� � � +w "�, ,, e TM . , ^� �, .e�w.— y; k-..r-` � � �ar" y � :�'"�� " \. 4� +'�� 3�7 �� q . t „ � �_ .. , '� �, ,.,, � -- ;: � , , _ � �*'�. ; , � .. , y� � �� ,. , g.�* .b� � ,,. ��' �� ,` ._ � � �- �� . - � . ; . �, ;: .� . , . .. ., �, - � _ � ..� ':: � �,� , �' � a s�� '��.. . � �, ��,.�'"« ,. _ P , ., ,:� -� . �.�� ; � $ -s-�o - �.. '� , �" � � ��` �� ,' � i:� ; �� «,' � ��k '► '�� , �31 �4 � i :� 325 � „�� +� .: ,�'� ,;r�� ,. �"�f +�k�� ,; •,� '�` , � � ;»•-.. ,,�w ��` -35�i ��` .,, , � '-l�t,'� . � � �+ :�� r �4 V� .� �" �` L�i� � � �,� ` "�;� �* .� � P ,� , �� '.� �� ,* `. � �' ..�i� - +��..4' a��, '� :;� 1� � ,� t.� . �� 3 ,�...� � "�� i ,�, ,,. ., a a�s � . ." � . � , � � � "�-��.`, .aa�, ��—.� ` .�C b'� e �G�i c yt � Y� . x e. . ,, r. , „�, �,. �, *.. •• �, � 133141 'r . � �� 1 1 � �' `.i�, .. .. � "y- "T1 . '' j�' � f '' v� , a�' r �a -�:-; � . �� , , �"� � *"�`� � ��, -'� +� �.. �„ 3 , . '?#, . �„'� # �'�;i 5".w�"' 2•I I. " � 1. . , , . _ _ ,+ L >� , � , R , ,, . .: " ' ' � � ' 167 �, � .,,�,� �� , � r '� r+��r� .� , 5 0 d •,,,., ,_ ..,<..- � „� n . . . � � c, �,..� .. �a} � .yi`w.e"'� a�"'.,� �� . .� ��,� � ' _ _.,. .� �'�' .+�fr �,.... -� ��'^"� � �.1� �� ,s. �. . . r.�:y.w�+a�' �r. ;'� .�t\,...� .�./ � �" �r "'7r '�� `+.� � „��' Y —•�� J.3(1 � 1�: '�i . _ ��';`,".r.�r�'� ._. .x _ _ ._.cw�� 52 8 '�g', http://rp08qis01/SilverlightNiewer.html?Viewer=COR-Maps i . ; KING COUNTY, ��'ASHII�GTON, SURFACE W'ATER DESIGN VIANLAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND PROJECT ENGINEER DESCRIPTION Project Owner Fred Mever Stores, Inc. Project Name Fred Mever Fuel Center#459 Phone DDES Permit# Address 3800 S.E. 22"d Avenue Location Township 23 N Portland, OR 97202 Range 5 E Project Engineer Jason Hubbell, P.E. Section 18 Company Barghausen Consultin�gineers, Inc. Site Address 431 Rainier Ave South Phone �425) 251-6222 Parcel: 000720-0209 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ Landuse Services ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline Subdivision / Short Subd. / UPD ❑ COE 404 Management � Building Services ❑ DOE Dam Safety � Structural M/F / Commercial / SFR RockeryNault/ � Clearing and Grading ❑ FEMA Floodplain � ESA Section 7 � Right-of-Way Use ❑ COE Wetlands ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review Full / Targeted / Type (circle one): Full Modified / (circle): Large Site Small Site I, Date (include revision Date (include revision II dates): dates): Date of Final: Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: _ _ — - - ?009 Surface Water Design Manual 1!1i09 1 13?4�.004.do� ., 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / � Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan : Green River Valley Special District Overlays: �� Drainage Basin: Black River Duwamish-Green ' Stormwater Requirements: Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS ❑ River/Stream ❑ Steep Slope ❑ Lake ❑ Erosion Hazard ❑ Wetlands ❑ Landslide Hazard ❑ Closed Depression ❑ Coal Mine Hazard ❑ Floodplain � Seismic Hazard Moderate to high liquifaction � Other 10-year well field capture zone ❑ Habitat Protection ❑ � Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential ' Urban 1 —3°/o � Sandv silt Silty sand j Sand with �ravel ❑ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet)below 5 ft ❑ Sole Source Aquifer ❑ Other ❑ Seeps/Springs ❑ Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design�4anual 1/1/09 2 13245.004.doc v 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION /SITE CONSTRAINT ❑ Core 2—Offsite Analysis ❑ Sensitive/Critical Areas ❑ SEPA , ❑ Other ❑ ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements(all 8 apply) Dischar e at Natural Location Number of Natural Dischar e Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated: None -exem tion Flow Control Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number <0.1 cfs increase �� Peak Flow Control Match Existing ; (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs iConveyance System Spill containment located at: i I Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Lo Re uired: es / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / No Liabilit Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landsca e Mana ement Plan: Yes / No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA/SDO/MDP/ BP/ LMP/ Shared Fac. I Non Requirements Name: Floodplain/Flo�dway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Blood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A 2009 Surface Water Design Manual I/1i09 3 1324�.004.doc _ ; KING COUNTY, Vl-'ASHIi�GTON, SURFACE WAT'ER DESIGN MANliAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Source Control Describe landuse: Fuel Station (comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: Canopy over fuel station. Oillwater separator for under canopy drainage. Oil Control High-use Site: es / No Treatment BMP: Filtena unit for oil control Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION � Clearing Limits � Stabilize Exposed Surfaces ❑ Cover Measures � Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities � Perimeter Protection � Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure � Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities � Sediment Retention ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas ❑ Surface Water Control ❑ Other � Dewatering Control � Dust Control � � ❑ Flow Control J Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Note: Include Facili Summa and Sketch Flow Control T e/Descri tion ' Water Qualit T e/Descri tion ❑ Detention ❑ Biofiltration ❑ Infiltration ❑ Wetpool ❑ Regional Facility � Media Filtration Filterra ❑ Shared Facility � Oil Control Filterra I' ❑ Flow Control � Spill Control ' BMPs �ill Control tee in ❑ Flow Control BMPs SDMH #3 i ❑ Other ❑ Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1;'1;'09 4 13?4�.004.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Cast in Place Vault IIII ❑ Covenant ❑ Retaining Wali ' ❑ Native Growth Protection Covenant ❑ Rockery>4' High I, ❑ Tract ❑ Structural on Steep Slope , ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER 1, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge th information provided here is accurate. l�ill� i� � ZG 20/ � Si ned/Date � 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 5 Q � N � � � L � � � �U L.L � AIRPORT WAY � I � I D < m RENTON AVE S "' S 2ND ST S 3RD ST SW SUNSET BLVD � SITE - 405 ti,�� o� �, 9L �� F S� S SW 7TH ST 5`N ��Y wAY � � 405 0 -� � 167 � VICINITY MAP �� N T.s. Figure 3 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics " -�m 'lc� rti. �:�( 'z�` v z� O � a- . ,�mm. i i i " F'�� '�`\�`1 \\`;o\ yog4� \r�, �,�o ��z n u o w Y /;' . o$ 7 � � n �� N � �c� e•coNc ,<'.� ��N c � ' � j i��,�� >:- �, _ r�i o o' " N .;, � .\� �� m 'bs �� O � � �� aN� � \�� / / � �i'�4 / � � �"' ' \nl i �\`� �a� \� / %��`}� \l'`� � °i=�/ i Ily � l�- ;f� °Q� � � � �„ \ ��''� � %� \ �� ', e� �'� � � `� /. g�,.✓�n�' i � O � / � /� � �� '�s % �. / ��i f�um i' O � � i� \ '�\�a� � .: V ''�� `A� /' �� i✓��_ /� � ,�O� \. �� `�� / ` / \\ � j . �� i , �N°�' � � � �y �. �� .-.-�� v�� ,�Um�,'� i�:. � ��Q � '�, � $a� g10 ,�+ � .� �� i/: i ��\ �\_y� - ,� i�� , � � � \� ��.\�`�'�a�� i � m� � -n��l v �� ;/ �� \ i�. � ' .`\ '.\ ii / .. '�� lU � �A c�l ,- � �--�� ..:. ��`o�� z`� ' � �� s � �� `, c`�`tr �� _ U� ; " ' � � g;m j.N :/��y4 \� . � ` s, � i� --.. '(� � Ea � ; - _ �.r 5 �'� ' l� i � „ e % �'_ "' a0` � ��a" �" � �`�``�?; _ - ��`�-__ ��' � �\�__-� � : , � � ., � s J. ,. ' - � __ �._ ''�,��.; �- � ' � � < �� - � _ - � � �., � "�� 5`cot�`' � � `\ K " "h �� i d�� . ��r �. . � \ :�� " `a' _ / �../ LLS` � \ R4� 1 �! �� </ _ �� ` ��"`'" , � � ��, � ��. �� T \ /' ,,� u C�" F�i i '.v� � \ � z o a i s r ' �4> i �\ � ��'// � �/, - '', / � e �j \ �� t. � ' . ��( \ �p` �� \ � f � a� \ ' S'I � dp15�i _ -= .�� . .�,4 ' � �� : d �''7 i Y ,. f �a p 3� r�✓�� "� : �N �o _ � �� \`� `• -�\ s� �UN °�;.. .. <•` � �� ^�� ,. . /vV = . . ; Ss``5� � °/� �_��-�� . v� i �i "-" Sb�N a�� i .�J � � M��1 � _ i ��o.l / n n a i n� /% / �� „�1-" �� \ _� f�fb� ��' m ^'W i �� y z..� � � . — '_'. Vv �� 0 I C `\ \ � � ��`` \\ b -" / - ��' 11 II �W \\�—_." �\\ \Y � \ �� \ D � 'PCl l '� \ \ \� �� \ • cI � (/(�� /\�_�\ /"� N�� N� �{ � _ \�\\` ��`�;� �l�' / \\�� \ � �'n \� �P �� U' � / / �_ �.4�' . �� \�� Q �\ a\ � ��j � �� _�:-' Y / �,��. / �� W� �� I� , . � . . � � \\ _ '.�".." /. \�`. N\ \� ��\ .. � I..� ^;�I� T ��\� JM_ �. ' �j• \ \ �\\\ \ �n c / \ � � O�J� �YH 00011 T V � - v.-' i�°�� ' ` �� 9�� / oa � �. /� � nn�m � . >- __� . �,X �a � qb�'a'�� v, � � �`� i � �o $ q �� mm� rn - .�s " ' ' `� �� '� �� v ��a� w o n -'�� g�• � � ��M� / �� ?�� o� `� TA � Y / /� �j F` oro�N � �� 1/� �� Q�d�� o �a�� rn�A,m � " �t� �`��_ ��tie � lN . e \\..,.�' .�� µ� \ tld }� �q�j n�N �� v�n • N� � T�C/�O� \�\ d25 �\ 7 t b ��, � � �, .., o �,,,, ��,,� �� -�� , ��. � rn O;;�� `�Sn � N� rr � (n s `1 Q \\ \\ /p��.�A � \\ �� _ , � r� �., .°� � �� °'d ��✓ �� v o o�""',.,'''��\ �� .9 � fu ��' ��Aa�' p .� � r^•��•�� p`\ \ � rn � A��; .�.� O �'_" / o'�n�F- „� \ �e�' 1 11 � �� , ��_ � � �� w,s r � �' � A��"' \\ P" �LZ� � � r 11-l� � � �� '� �� / � $ � V,"N'r �N� ��s��'��A,\ L� � ,J7 ��/-.C( .r Cr,� ��/p /� � Z �� 4� \ i$ O --� -�� n �� G� / � d� ti� ��a �"� � �`` F"� T � �� }',"� , � �� `, \ v � . �� ,... � �i�3� ��s �>j,•/ �mQ�,��.. � .� �� x� � 5pd�� ' �� $ ��,�', � � drn� ` .�,,� �� • �, � � � �gp� ��l.o�' � �� \•• � � ` p � �U = � m�;� �� d � ��, r� \ � ��n = y �� ' ��t � q _ �-_�` W �\J�, � Nn Q�'7�„� � $`��' : ��r? �� : 4 ��_� � , � � D d\d' N ^ Z w� \ - ' � ' ; \1 . . ' � \ . +`" _� '�A� g� � __=_- ' t ' .��'� �� ti s� , a � :y �°'�zw' - � z �� #�\.� J` `tN� ��j '� ,..��o z � / y•� � . ;- �590• . � � r ...Y ~� ` ir� i��.-.e`��M� ��"m /� �. m m �„ � ��--. „ � � � - - - � ` �� ,- � _ '.- 5\R�PE.. �n °V' C � y+� T� �' � o�i �' � s*"' '� .,NNRf/ . � gF��E�'� O1°1 �/ �� i � � ;�j - 'r� _ :�,e� g"~ � s g°�+ ' / _.:-��,y .^ / , l ��FN,�N�tt '�: rF��, V r� i�C •• / � A� ��p- 44� ,", m ' . . ; �i • / ,.6e" �` O�,p'� ��' � �D `�pB �� l_,�� _ __ ��o ozo��m -_��, q.NL�� `\� .i �v�Z �' V ,,�.\�`� l `. - �. r) , iN iN n°' ' _ � � . ,,, N N �, �N�t� � =m ' aE�J7M�� _ � � � � , " ' � ... ��f. . ` N� �R\PC � __="�� \ ' / _ 11ROK�N�N�{E ' _= :.,WH�tC `PE i- .. � �.�.i... � C � 1C7C7 I � Z rnZ ��TI � � � m < �i 7D � � Oon � �� '� � C m r .. � �D � � � � � � � m O c> � Omom c� z �icnz �n rn � � � � �' � v� n D oo <-> m ,� � r`' c� o � �� p p � �n � � co -- V � Z = m � � � D � z � n � D z n n � � �/ � No. Date By Ckd. Appr. Revision Job Number �� /�� Uesigned KDH Scale: ��' 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH Tltl@: 13245 m� � �Z KENT, WA 98032 Drawn Ro� PRE—DEVELOPED BASIN MAP Horizontal (425)251-6222 sneet � `� (425�251-8782 FAX Checked KRH i"=4o' U FRED MEYER FUEL CENTER � 0 s ? Approved JGH Vertical For: ��' CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, G�r� �� SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Date 10/18/12 NA 1 � �G ENG�N #459 RENTON CENTER of >,,o ''';� rv ��\ a 1 '', o � � �, � .: � l , � .��\ Nq\ ` \� .; � \`'"� / �` .•.l�l ��' \� �f � � . ,_, �� ` �\ \ � \ � � i�� a�� \ \, � � \ z / p O � � , n, � � �� .� �� a� �� . � � ,,;� � .� .. �\ a\\ . � /�� l��'� ''\ '� "� ' �� N �:� �a��\ �� A� �.:'i /��-' ��\. �� '�� -_ _' . �o g i ��. '��'� � / y� � °� ,i � �� ' '�. �.1 � o�v o�o ��>' � �� v' , / �'_� �� - � �'� " `�1 � , �. � i: � / � . ,d ,. _ ,� � �� o x.� �.- `�p . � ;. �O a, , � , � `� ;, :� \ , �^ ' •`�� / �� //� � .t�"� `, '� ��a / _ � � � --- � � `�- p � :_ �ma' < � „�� I "/ � � „ ' � \` �- �___ � \';�, „ � � � � ,�. ,� �, �` � ;, -y :— , � �- � �,,, w� ' �� '. , - � � �-=- __, �I� � � � `��d � / - I p0 � / 6 ! Gi"a ' ___ \ . �1/� _ i . '- � - �\N /l�� s `., �� "��\\�a''s '� � _ i ' ` ` � `\ a . _: : ..:-11I11� ._ ._== : =- Ll� _ - _ z � � �� „ :_ �� _ llll_1 =�� `�� , '�, _: .; � � � :=��=1lll� _ � '� :.� � � . . . . � ��\ -1 : _ , � � � �� :_ � � � ��=��:. , � ,__`\. . , � � -:- - : _ _ � �, - � � _ _- _ ,�-. . � ... _ � � , �,,,, - � �=K� - � _ - � ��:= �� e — , � : _��i .. ::: .- _ _ . �:, . :� �,,, , .. -_tl ,: , rn };,,,� _ _ _ � � . 6-� ��„ - � _ �„ C � �� " . . ° - " � ��°, :s. , __ _ _ J� �01: � rn _� �:�: -.. .. � . . _ - ' ' ,,\\ ,,�� :� � �� e .. �o� � _ �. , �, r r z . — . -� � - - \� �, O , _ ;�==� � \ � � � �� %� L�� ' "�f � - ��''� �\ � 4 v' � ' !`''� � �'��= rn . o � `�� /._ =' ��"\ � �� ,,��a;, � 0 �C� ' - '� ' �= ',, � �'"=� - = � .i�:.-� _ �===� ,� �'� /� =- � "� D _ ..�- , . . , - -�-= . �,� �^ :=— ,--- � - � a. _.. — ,-= ��—i ` �°.,\ �' V J -- ,G�''�- .;%" ' , : i� , Z - -. �'� / � ` � ` ! �� ;�aE? _ "� � :._ .-.__; _�% !� � � `£`- � ` �` � "Cy.°�� -��'��=,'=="��.►� �" � � �.�C��=_ 6! `' �i► � �:: \d� ' `.�. - ��.-� :,�i� d y��N � .. =:___-- . F 9 �,�,� '- ` - ��N�n __.,_ . . .: HIA"Nd . .�.- ^ �... .. . `.��.EN��y� j:- ON . " , ..__.— . . - - .,..� . . \ ^ Ny� �-:� ., , �:� , . , , .,�� :: �� - = ,. , f : , ,- , .,� , � �� -K ..��--�� " - _: - �� - � :. _ '�`. i K�� i_: _ � � � mz v � � ° � mv � my� „ D z u � O � � � � In D �� n n � a n No. Date By Ckd. Appr. Revision Job Number �H,4� Designed KDH Scale: �I}1e. �+. �1 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH ` DEVELOPED BASIN MAP 13245 � � KENT, WA 98032 o�aW� R�c Horizonta� I m �,_ ' 2 (425)251-6222 " � }� ' v �425�251-8782 FAX Checked KOH �"=40' Sheet � � FRED MEYER FUEL CENTER y ? Approved ��H Vertical For. s ��' CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, 1 of 1 G<T�NG ENG�N�� SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Date ��/18/12 NA #459 RENTON CENTER Q d' � � � L � � � •- � �..L V J �� Soil Map—King County Area,Washington fV N � fV N N � N 558980 558990 559�D0 559010 559020 559030 55904D 559050 559060 559070 47`28'42" . 47`28'42" 0 0 M � c� o y � � � �. ' ... . ... ��' ..n +� l c _x ,� o � � 'i� � R � . �t y _ ' r� ' ... �. ,�*� .�� '� �; � '�'' � � � � � � � � � � � ,. � � _ � � � �� . � � � � �` � , � �, _ . . .. . .. � N ,. . . .{J., �� _ +A` N � . � " .... . . O N �. r� � � N N N �`� � � �� . 0 � ;�-�- � � � � � ~ I � .� � � :� � - � - � N. � �. � � �� ,�, � o � o v g � � A � N � � � �` ;,. ,. . .. . ; . ' �.. c� 1 r�i . J � � �4 " .'�i � .. .. N #�R' N .a�� O � p J � N � � � � � . � N N N � . : y � � f � � p �i r X^ � N . . ..- �` . T � � N N 47'28'38" 47°28'38" ,__ ._.._... ... .,... .: . -.u02� ,,9J"s:: -�,:�47 559C�5�� _-+�:`_ �o9C;U (V r � Map Scale:1:61�if printed onAsize(8.5"x 11")sheet "' � (V N Meters � � ^ 0 5 10 20 30 � N Feet � 2� 4� 8� ,2� U�A Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/8/2012 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 � _ Soil Map–King County Area,Washington I MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION � Area of Interest(AOI) � Very Stony Spot Map Scale: 1:610 if printed on A size(8.5"X 11")sheet. I� � Area of Interest(Aop �. Wet Spot The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. '' Soils � Other � Soil Map Units Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Special Line Features Special Point Features Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause _ Gully misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line U Blowout , . Short Steep Slope placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting � Borrow Pit � soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. �.. Other --... � Clay Spot Political Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map � Closed Depression � Cities measurements. � Gravel Pit Water Features Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service „ Gravelly Spot Streams and Canals �Neb Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 � Landfill Transportation This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of ft Lava Flow +++� Rails the version date(s)listed below. ,�, Marsh or swamp ►�+ Interstate Highways Soil Survey Area: King County Area,Washington x Mine or Gluarry w us Routes Survey Area Data: Version 7,Jul 2,2012 p Miscellaneous Water Major Roads Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 p Perennial Water iv Local Roads The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background � Rock outcrop imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting + Saline Spot of map unit boundaries may be evident. Sandy Spot = Severely Eroded Spot � Sinkhole � Slide or Slip � Sodic Spot � Spoil Area d Stony Spot �� Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/8I2012 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 __ — _ ----� Soil Map—King County Area,Washington Map Unit Legend King County Area,Washington(WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ur Urban land 1.0 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.0 100.0% I �� Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/8/2012 �� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements Core Requiremenf No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. ! Response: This project currently sheet flows to existing catch basins north of the existing building and then flows west through the Fred Meyer site. The proposed project will continue to discharge to the existing Fred Meyer conveyance system. Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: This project is exempt from Core Requirement #2. This project will not change the rate, volume, duration or location of discharge from the project site. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: This project is within the Peak Flow Control Standard-Match Existing area. Existing conditions are the current developed conditions because the site was developed prior to May 1979. The proposed project will not cause an increase in the 100-year peak runoff of more than 0.1 cfs, therefore no flow control facility is required. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance system for this project site was sized according to the 2009 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Since the project site is less than 10 acres in size, the pipe conveyance system was sized based on the Rational method utilizing an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes and a Manning's "n"value of 0.014. The 100-year event was analyzed. Core Requirement No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: This project site will follow the erosion and sediment control measures as � delineated in City of Renton Core Requirement 5, section 8.0 of this report and the Demolition and TESC Plan included in the construction plans. Clearing limits will be specified, cover measures will be instituted, perimeter protection will be installed in the form of silt fences, a rock construction entrance will be installed, and the streets will be swept clean of sediment after construction at the end of each day. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project will concur with all maintenance and operations requirements as delineated in the 2009 KCSWDM for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: This project will concur with all financial guarantees and liability requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM as delineated for projects of this nature. 13245 002.doc Core Requirement IVo. 8: Water Quality. Response: The Water Quality Menu followed for this project site requires that the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu be followed for this development due to its commercial nature. A Filterra Bioretention system is specified to achieve Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment for this site. 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements Specia!Requirement No. 1: Other Adopied Area-Specific Requrrements. Response: To the best of our knowledge, the site is not located in an Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirement area; therefore, Special Requirement No. 1 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: This project does not contain, nor is it adjacent to a flood hazard area for a , river, stream, lake, wetland, closed depression, marine shoreline, or a King County mapped channel migration zone. Therefore, the requirements of this Special r Requirement do not apply. I ; ' Special Requrrement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilrties. , Response: This proposed project will not rely on an existing flood protection facility, nor ', does it propose to modify or construct a new flood protection facility. Therefore, the requirements of this Special Requirement do not apply. � ' Specia!Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: This project is a commercial site development; therefore, source control is required. Sources controls on this project include covering the fuel dispensing islands ' with an overhead canopy as well as routing the under-canopy drainage through an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer. , Special Requirement No. 5: OiI Control. itesponse: An oil/water separator will be installed to collect runoff from the under- ; canopy area of the fuel facility. Special Requrrement No. 6: Aquifer Protection Area. Response: This site is not located in an Aquifer Protection Area. 13245.002.doc 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Runoff from this site is collected in existing catch basins onsite. Runoff flows north and west through the Fred Meyer site. Flow continues west in underground conveyance pipes to Hardie Avenue SW. A 36"x60" CMP arch pipe collects the flow and it is conveyed south to the existing railroad, approximately 1500 feet from the project site. This project is exempt from providing a Level 1 Offsite Analysis. Per Core Requirement#2, in the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, a site is exempt if the project does not change the rate, volume, duration or location of the site discharge. This site has been developed since 1964, so the existing conditions can be used for runoff modeling rather than historic conditions. The new development will not alter the runoff profile from the existing site and the site will continue to discharge to the existing Fred Meyer conveyance system, also match existing conditions. i 13245.002.doc 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology The pre-developed condition for this site is the existing developed site because this area has been developed since before May 1979. The existing 1.13 acre project area is approximately 86 percent impervious. B. Developed Site Hydrology Under developed conditions, the site has 0.98 acres of impervious and 0.15 acres of landscape. The pollution generating surfaces of the site will be directed to a Filterra unit for water quality and then to the existing conveyance system through the Fred Meyer site. C. Performance Standards The Area-Specific Flow Control Standard required for this project site is determined to be Peak Rate Flow Control-Match Existing. The applicable conveyance system capacity standard was mentioned in the Conditions and Requirements Summary, which is to size the on-site conveyance system by the Rational Method utilizing an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes and a Manning's "n" value of 0.014 with the 100-year precipitation. The Area-Specific Water Quality Treatments Menu followed for this project was the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu, and the treatment selected is to use a 6'x13' Filterra Bioretention System. D. Flow Control System No Flow control is required for this project. Because this is a redevelopment project that will not increase the peak runoff rate of the 100-year storm event by more than 0.1 cfs, the facility requirement is waived. E. Water Quality System i The Enhanced Basic Water Quality requirement will be achieved with a 7'x13' Filterra , Bioretention System. Sizing calculations for the Filterra Unit are included. ', 13245.002.doc HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS � BASIN SUMMARY Peak Rate Flow Control Pre-Developed: 0.16 acres of landscape 0.97 acres of impervious surfaces Developed: 0.15 acres of landscape 0.98 acres of impervious surfaces Total = 1.13 Acres The KCRTS calculations are on the following pages. i 15432.001.doc �� Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:13295-pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.250 6 2/09/O1 2:00 0.492 1 100.00 0.990 0.215 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.356 2 25.00 0.960 0.301 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.301 3 10.00 0.900 0.249 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.292 9 5.00 0.800 0.292 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.266 5 3.00 0.667 0.266 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.250 6 2.00 0.500 � 0.356 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.244 7 1.30 0.231 0.492 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.215 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.447 50.00 0. 980 �ds ca�.c A�rea-� a rbac (m,�yt,�javs f�rca- �- 0,97a,C .._._-- - . �. l3 Ac ,Qe-l�e�ope�l C'�rdjh��s Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:13245-dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) {CFS) Period 0.251 6 2/09/O1 2:00 0. 495 1 100.00 0. 990 0.216 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.359 2 25.00 0.960 0.303 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.303 3 10.00 0.900 0.247 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.294 4 5.00 0.800 0.294 4 10/28/09 16:00 0.266 5 3.00 0.667 0.268 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.251 6 2.00 0.500 0.359 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.247 7 1.30 0.231 0.495 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.216 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.450 50.00 0.980 l,and S Ca�OI �'PA.- D,t 5 �9c. ,� (�viov5 �r�-� 0�9g A� 1, 13Ac• � � WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS � NNVHM3 13245 Fle Edit Yew Help ❑ a: � � � �" Ila - � ° 1� Schematic '� Basin 1 Mitigated SCENARIOS � I ' Subbasin Name Basin 1 (- DesignateasBypassfaPOC: r Predeveloped Surface Interflow Grou�ater Flows To: Sand FJter 1 Sand Flter 1 r hlitigatvd � Area in Bnsin f 5how Only Selected Run Scenario � I Available Pervious Available Impenrious � i �� j-A16,Foresl,Flat 0� j ROADS/FLAT 0� r A/B,Forest.Mod 0� � R�ADS/MOD 0� �� i I I�'AJB.Forest,5teep� 0� � ROADS/STEEP 0� �� ' � � ' r A/B,Pasture,Flat 0� r ROOF TOPS/FLAT � L=1� �• I � i , (-A/B.Pasture.Mod � � DRIVEWAYSIFlAT � �� „/� 1 I ' ('AlB.Pasture,Staep 0� j DRIVEWAYSlMOD p� �A/B,Lawn,Flat 0� (- DRNEWAYS/STEEP 0� � i I � I I� r A/B,Lawn,Mod 0� (- SIDEWALKS/FLAT 0� I � I r A/B,Lawn,Steep 0� i_ SIDEWALKSIMOD 0� j r C,Forest,Flat 0� (- SIDEWALKS/STEEP 0� � I i j- C,Forest,Mod � � PARKING/FLAT � .� ��' C,Forest,Steep �� r PARKING/MOD 0� li I ' I�' C,Pasture,Flat 0 f PARKINGISTEEP 0 i �i r C.Pasture.Mo� p� (- POND 0� r C,Pasture,S teep—�� j r C,Lawn,Flat � i � r C,Lawn,Mod 0 -Move Elements-- � .�� C,Lawn,Steep—� 0� � PerviousTotal 0.06 Acres Impuvious Total 0,68 Aaes �� ;� i ' ��' � BasnTatal Q74 Acres Save x.Y L°ad x.9 �__I - --- ,I • J X � Y � DeselectZero I SPlwrx RvC— GO.... 1_.. Filc�Edit Vie�,v ��ocm Efeip I ❑ � � � ,; - I I� � ; ILM '� - '� Schematic ��1 Ci•Sand Fker 1 fvlitigated SCENARIOS I � � FsCility Nsme Sand Flter 1 'i r"Predeveloped Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet 3 ' I Downstream Connections 0 0 � --t; i r I iit;aated ! Faciliiy Type Sand F�ter � ' ' I-' PrecipitationApplied to FaciTity Quick Filter � Run Scenario I �'�' II - I � Evaporation Appfied to Faciliry i Facility Bottnm Elevation (ft) 0 �� i ' Facility Dimensions I Bottom Length 13 OuUet StruCture � � Riser Height(ftJ 0.7 J • '�'�� e�.1 { Bottom Width � Riser Diameter[nJ 100 � � I � Effective Depth 0.75 � �� 'q 1 � Riser Type Flat J i Left Side Slope C� � � ' Bottom Side Slope Q� Notch Type I i Right Side Sbpe �0 � , Top Side Slope � i � ! i Infiltration YES :-� Orifice Diameter Height QMax I HydrauGc Conducti�ity(in/hrJ 24.82 � Number (In) (Ft) (cfs) I � � �� I Filter material depth(FtJ �.g -� Z �—'._., �� p TotalVolumeFltrated(acreftJ 82915 3 �� =�i 0 TotalVolume Through Riser(ac.�e•ftj 8•778 Fiker Storage Volume at Riser Head .001 ' Total Volume(acre-ftJ 91.033 -Move Elements---- , { � Pond Increment 0.10 � Percent F�i tered 91.08 � i Show Pond Table Open Table --; �� i I i�' --� � Save x,y Load x,y � 1 l�;� X � Y � �. � � erra Bioretention Systems Steps to Sizing A Filterra°Bioretention System 1. Use the Filterra Design Assistance (DAKit) 2. Follow Filterra Guidelines on page 7 and 8 in DAKit 3. Open and run WWHM- In the "Site Information"window, select the appropriate county from the pull down menu in the upper left corner and then click on the project location on the map. Next, click the "General Project Information" button and build your drainage basin (usually<1 acre of impervious) with the "Mitigated" Scenario check box selected. Enter all pervious and impervious areas that direct runoff into the basin. 4. Connect your"basin"to the Sand Filter Element (Filterra) 5. Connect both interflow to the Filterra element. � 6. Build Filterra using the Sand Filter module and enter the 1NWHM imputs as described on the following page. 7. Right click Sand Filter module to ensure the Filterra becomes the POC, Point of Compliance. 8. Ensure both OUTLET 1 and OUTLET 2 check boxes are selected when the POC screen appears. 9. Click on the "Run Scenario" button and verify that the Percent Filtered is equal or greater then DOE's 91% threshold for treated runoff(% of stormwater filtered through the Filterra). 10. Click the "Analysis" button and select the "Water Quality"tab. - 11. Select the "701 IN flow to POC 1 Mitigated" dataset and click the "Run Analysis" button. Send your Project Information Form, grading plan, drainage divides, profiles and cover sheet to design@filterra.com. www.filterra.com • Bioretention Systems Table 2: WWHM Sizing for Enhanced Treatment- Dissoived Metais Western Washinqton Region ONLY- v01a Available Filterra°Box Sizes Approximate Contributing ' (feet) Drainage Area(acres) 4 x 4 0.140 4x6or6x4 0.210 4x8or8x4 0.275 6 x 6 0.310 6x8or8x6 �.415 6x10or10x6 0.520 6x12or12x6 0.630 Notes: _ 1. Sizing table intended for planning level use.The design engineer must use the latest version WWHM to calculate the appropriately sized facility. 2. Sizing table meets WA DOE 2005 Stormwater Manual's 91%annual stormwater volume filtered. 3. Sizing table based on WWHM3 parkinglflat and the SeaTac rain gauge with a precipitation factor of 1.0. Other precipitation factors,geographic locations and site conditions will affect Filterra sizing. � 4. Sand Filter(Filterra)paramefers: • Filter material depth=1.8 feet • Effective ponding depth=0.75 feet • Zero slope(s)on the filter box • Riser height=0.7 feet • Riser diameter=100 inches • Filter Hydraulic Conductivity=24.82 inches per hour 5. All boxes are a standard 3.5 feet depth(INV to TC). 6. A standard SDR-35 PVC pipe coupling is cast into the wall for easy connection to discharge drain. 7. Dimensions shown are internal.Please add 1'to each external(using 6"walls). 8. Valid for Enhanced Treatment regiments(Dissolved Zinc and Copper). 9. For sizing in other areas of Washington State please contact Filterra. 13 �nvw.filterra.com 12/8/10 Dan Lamotte Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 300 Deschutes Way,#215 Tumwater, WA 98501 � � � rra May 29, 2013 n cn,�ing�iks i��timm�H:ttcr Fllr.qiun. Plan Review of Filterra� Fred Mver Fuel #13245, Renton, WA Dear Sirs Thank you for submitting the revised plans on OS-29-13 for our review of the Fred Myer Fuel #13245 project. Filterra�structure 11 (13x7 w/Internal bypass was studied for; • Planned Filterra�box size • Filterra�contributing drainage area meeting project's regional sizing specification � • Filterra�invert elevations are higher than effluent invert elevations • The bypass is lower than the Filtena0 elevation (spot elevations) • The grading pattern encourages cross linear flow and not head-on flow � • The Filterra�outlet drain pipe is sized correctly and exits perpendicular to the wall •For any conflicting shuctures such as storm drain pipes below Filterra� • For most efficient placement of Filterra�unit The plan review concluded that the Filterra structure listed above is sited and sized � - appropriately to treat stonnwater to our published specifications. Operational consistency with these specifications is contingent upon the stormwater unit � being installed correctly and according to the plans, as well as regular maintenance being performed. Installation Help documents will be forwarded to the Buyer at time of order. The Filterra�Installation, Operation and Mamtenance Manual will be made available upon request. Yours sincerely . � �� Duane Vincent Engineer Support FilterraOO Bioretention Systems Manufactured by Americast T:(804)798-6068 Q M E R 1 CAST 11352 Virginia Precast Road F: (804)798-8400 nat just concrete,concrete so(uGons. Ashland,VA 23005 E:design@filterra.com www.filterra.com �"_� �'-o" —s� � � . �-------�{��u.------�" IPiLET SHAPING I `�=Y I {BY OTHER5) I ' � 1 I tE I I ' ' I � I i i roP sus I i i I 7 O,G50 LBS � � � � A � Ea � A BOX AND TOP MUST BE ( LIFTEO SEPARRTELY � Q � i i j 1 �'_ [ � i I � �—r—f-i � I �� i i I ! �� i i I � i i � _ I � � I er,s� uwr � i t � vnrH uEDN � I 1 I 37,200 LBS ' � r � � ! t i i I I i � � �_ I i � I � � i � � I i � _ �--------i—�-------�-� CURB �— (BY OTHERS) SDR-3� PVC COUP�ING CAST INTO PRECAST Bb7C WALL PLAIV VfEW (OUTLET PiPE LdCATION VARIES} � PLAN7 AS StJPPLlED CIEANdUT gy AtvfER1CAST COVER (NOT SHOWN TREE FRAME & GRATE CAST IN FOR CLARfTY} GALVAtJfZfD �� CAST IN TOP StAB T�p ��8 ANGLE Nd51NG TOP SLAB CURB ANG GtJTTER � (BY OTHERS) INTERI.OGKING JOINT (lYP) � � { �STREET _ �o :{ _ t ,T-•- . � � ,z.`„ ,,.-:•�' ' iv � d ' ' ,� DOWEL BARS , , � M,� � - � 12" D.C. � .� .`�FILTER MEOfA PR�VIDEO I � BY AMERICAST .f. a t PERFQRATED - �AULCH PROVIDED BY AMERICAST � UNpERORAiN SYSTEM UNDERDRAII�! STONE PROVIDED BY A�AERICAST `A BY AMERICAST ' �� SECTION A-A tvtODIFICaTIONS �F ORAWINGS ARE ONLY PERMITTEU SY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIOiJ FROtvt FILTERRA DRAWING AVAiIABLE IN TIF F'ILE FORMAT. � DATE: 04-16-2008 �wG: 13'x7' � ; ; Q n/7 f��J�� 13'-�' x 7'-0' PRECAST � Ul.%l11� U L�=,�J FiLTERRA� UNIT ��Q��o� j ', _ ��,,;=i„�,�,�„�,,.,,,,.,;�,., NARROW WIDTH CONFIGURATION �s PAT s,a��,a�a I ,ontD 6.569,321 j --- -_ �= ---- Ms- _v__ _�_- - ---__._.��a.______�__�._�_� s� �'-o" s" r�D � � �o �-----------------� i i i i i i tor sue � � 10 125 L65 ' � � � II � '�, � � � � � � � � � � BOX AND TOP MUST BE i " i �IFTED SEPARATELY � � � i � � o � , � � ' M � II � I� ' ' I i ; ; i ', i � � i PL�1N VIEW '' ��fR ; I I � �rni umu SQR-35 PvC COUPUNG I ' ' I CAST INTO PRECAST BOx 37�200 �BS I ' ' I WALL BY AMERICAST (OUTLET PIPE i I I j • LOCATION VARIES) � 1 I i I � � ------ — L�—D---- CURB (BY OTHERS)� �n INLET SHAPIIdG (BY OTHERS) TREE FR�a�.�E PL4NT AS 5UPPLIED CLEANOUT COVER & GRATE BY AMERICAST GAWANIZED CAST IN TOP SLAB CAST IN (NOT SHOWN ANGLE N051NG TOP SlAB T�P S� FOR CLARITt) CURB AND GUTTER INTERLOCKING � (BY OTHERS} JOINT (TYR) �STREET ` I fo ' `, r .. s�-F-.,rz--r-�:-<----� �� - -�x.: �„,. �-'� I i�� ' I �� -,�.,� ��;: DO�YEL BARS ,�. � t2" O.G. �� Ev v Z �i �� TF�—i-� 1� �� ,�.� lt-�-1 �. � i i -.i�� = i i- i e�.7' I � SECTiOr� A-A � . MULCH PROVIDEO BY AhiERICAST � PEftFORATEO UNOERDRAIN SYSTEM UNDERORA►N STONE PROVIOED 9Y AMERICAST BY AMERICAST FILTER �AEOIA PROVIDEO BY Ah1ERICAST tv40DIFICAT10NS OF DRAWINGS ARE 4P�lY PERMITTED BY �VRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM FI�7ERRA DRAWING AVAIIABLE lN TIF FILE FOR6IAF. ' DnTE: 01-06-09 owc: 7'x13' � Q �]/��/-]�n[�?� 7=0' x i 3'•O' PRECAST �� UVLILSU\.] U �s+.�J STANDARD FILTERRA� UNIT ��,.,;��,�c_'�X�'bv.Lncrii�t NARR�W LENGTH CONFIGURATION �S PAT 6.z��,z�d rwo s,sss,s2� CROWNED FLUME FLUME - SLOPED PRECAST FlLTERRA TOWARDS FILTERRA THROAT TOP SUB (iYP) PRECAST FlLTERRA FlLTERRA THROAT TOP SlAB CURB ' ,�!��:L:. OPEMfING TYP •:•:.t:i°%��1t . �� E ( ) } . ,; . 4-6' FlLTERRA •:�^:�•�•��.�s`� •�'�F�.`+Y:tiF•?..� ` THROAT OPENIN6 :,<�+�j. „i,r,• a•- �:�:��,� • ... . r.''t,:'�.._;' • : 1.�: �15..i.`M.i' / '1,. r :..a `�� . �/ .t-:.`,". •.�. �'`s,'.<:r�...'' ��•_.��••�� :l�Ni�.f!�u�N :��4 4-6' OPEN�NG '� � • =:::z�'�,:1:" 4-6' OPENING .•'r :j,:.:� ~j-•.. '� .. . � ., , t_ -.�: . `,'; ••y:}• •Y CAST—IN—PLACE ..`;:.�';.+�: ..�-;- '`� "^' '{. FLUME dc GUTTER PRECAST 4� i .. .�':'"�� (SLOPED TOWARD •� %'�s; „,. DOYVEL FlLTERRA THROAT) ; 1�•� FlLTERRA �: r CAST—IN—PUCE s;, m•P� � BOX WALL FLUME dc GUTfER PRECAST ��,�� WEL (TYP) (CROWNED AND SLOPED FlLTERRA " '` TOWARD FlLTERRA THROATS) BOX WALL SECTIONS VIEWS OF FILTERRA IN TYPICAL FLUME APPLICATIONS SEE BELOW FOR DETAILS NOT SHOWN STANOARD 90' NOSING (OTHER NOSING AVAItABLE , UPON REQUEST) �� ' �� + PRECAST - .. , .. ��;. ..,•.. +�.�•. ': .•:+. � . -. TOP SLAB , . ..3 • � =� • , - � . '�: _ •'� .�� 'I� . .• ' . C .. . :. '.•r;•: �i. •�.. . . • ' . 4-6" CLEAR ;': ,.'�.�• .� �•.'e. ' e o� a• • " � . THROAT ; .;': ''' ' ' •+.• . a . . � . e. .... . ' . •a • d OPENING . � - �e.� � . �. .a..• � '. ' ' . . Q: , . ev. • d. e� . '_aod. . a •, . �a. :- . . _ , d a • a.• . eo . e . • • ad . • 'a . I . , . . . d Q . CAST—IN—PLACE • ' • a � ' . '. . ' �.' - ' . . DEPRESSED GUTTER ' "' • a• . ` � ` a AND THROAT OPENING e� . .. ° 'e (BY CONTRACTOR) � " _� j :� .� . THROAT PROTECTION DEVICE ��;;:i�• '. • : DO NOT REMOVE — LEAVE #4 DOWEL BARS � 12" O.C. BY AMERICAST • ��: .�••. IN PLACE UNTIL SITE IS TO BE BENT AS NECESSARY BY CONTRACTOR `..� i I.',. .. I �• ��' :; STABILIZED ANO FILTERRA ' PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FIELD POURED GUTfER ,. �I�: IS ACTIVATED ..�. . U . . � '''• .�•�..: .,:•:.�.: •t.• PRECAST BOX WAL� ' IMPORTANT - FILTERRA FLOWLINE MUST i I BE AT A HIGHER E�EVATION SECTION VIEW THAN BYPASS FLOWLINE I STANDARD FILTERRA THROAT OPENING �DROPINLEfOROTHER) � � MODIFICATIONS OF DRAWINGS ARE ONLY PERMITTED BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM FILTERRA DRAWING AVAILABLE IN TIFF FILE FORMAT. onTE: 02-26-09 owc: CGT-5 �� _ Q ��Q�Q�� FILTERRAO THROAT OPENING ��0�� AND GUTTER OR FLUME DETAIL Copyright€;2007 by Amcricest US PAT 6,277,274 � M!D 6,569,321 4' SOR-35 GASKEfED COUPLING CAST INTO PRECAST WALL ppRKING LOT OR 5TREET m (LOCATION VARIES) � 4" PVC OUTLEf PIPE (BY OTHERS) FACE OF CURB � CONNECT TO APPR�PRIATE � GRASS OUTFAII (LOCATION VARIES) 48" 'fHROAT � . � `4 � ___— . : Y ^ /..•• " I �p �� .� I ' ��.. t • Y, ' •• '� • , •• •+ e M +�• • • 1.T. '� •• L � I d' � �e .*.?�• M 'A••�. ° '' I I " '� . :,. ;. �., . :� %. � � •,°-� .y�' • • �� a'� •'e, . •°•. , ..... .,�� :y.. '�•.• �'' .a � � !a.� , �'• .., �:+�: ::e: i • •" '�• • •' •- O n;,po^� I �Q " a:. • ' v', .. : �- .� �' . �' '�.s • :'� • �;Q`22 . • ..' a. . ' . ' e � • , ' •'�. •' � ' � • 9�0� I r . -•S . , -'.��' � i'• ' `• '�'_ •.' '. � � �'c I .� '.i '�s , �' � ' � ,.• • .t•.J � , P •+ •• • n '� � • � �'c• • '� :. - �� ;.�0` '�:'a• • .� ., �'. . ' .-.. • er. a � o.Ov(%'' "lf��: I ',�a .�• 1 � MANHOLE ACCESS COVERt* L— —J MODIFlED RLTERRA TOP SLAB �� CENTER OF 3X3 TREE GRATE � s�� BOX SIZE DIM. A" TREE GRATE MANF40LE 4x8 9'-0" 3'x3' �S sxa 9�.-0� 4�x4�• �S MODIFIED NARROW LENGTH sx�o >>�-o^ (�) a'xa' YES FILTERRA UNIT 6x12 13'-0" (i) 4'x4' YES i3'x3' TREE GRATE IS OPTIOMAL ONLY FOR 4x8 (SHOWN) PLEASE NOTE **THE MANHOLE COVER IS REQUIRED ON SOME MODIFIED 6x8 AND 6x10 BOXES MODIFICATION TOP SL4BS FOR ACCESS DURiNG MAINTENANCE VISIiS ON PROJECT , s" SDR-35 GASKETED INFORMATION COUPLING CAST INTO FORM i PRECAST WALL pARK1NG LOT OR STREET 6" PVC OUFLET (LOCATION VARIES) PIPE (BY OTHERS) (�N�R OF 4X4 FACE OF CURB � CONNECT TO � ' APPftOPRIATE OUTFALL TREE GRATE v GRASS (LOCATI6N VARIES) io 144" THRQAT � ——————————— ———— � I � - � :�s d • O �a p0 Od � 0 0 � 0 � � � Oa 0 a a a 0 � 0 0 0 c I M 0 � 0 0 M I 0 D O O O D O O O �D O � Q D � D a a o � �o 00 � o n 0 0 0 O O G I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ d � �� b � � f� � � -'y ••,' . ' ' ' _ . . ..: ..: . I �� fi 0� �� 0 O I ."�:�� .a� •• - :" ''+, :' ' �. -7 ,'"�•�..�a..!�. • i.,.�:�m • I O�QQ��u�ys^��O� ��oo�OG�qOp`o�a I �.:� .: :'' :a ' •' .... t• .,a. e . •' � : d•. . .•e�' ' v00QQUU�Od c00��OD�Gd ' �•. '` ' .� w. � •� • a� � � '.�.•�.y. • ' •1. I � . ' • . : •.a'• � :'.t• :: ,. • � ---------� •:a'.,a ''-y. �:a` • ,•'.,. • � . �. •�.; �j•., �--'---- •� „ 'r - -.��.. •...e:. � � •' . ., . . • , • ` . �, •••.' � ._ •�-�''_ .'.• .• • . . ��.'. . . ,. ., .. ;�•.e '. t,a �' •:�'• . . •d S.p,'� .. a �'� �'i ' . . '156" . •. . � .'• �.: • : ,••: '�_ � • , . .s,.: �, w, . • � . .�' ;� . . SIDEWALK BOX SIZE DIM. "A" DtM. `8' TREE GRATE ax4 s'-o• s'-o' 3'xs' STANDARD NARROW WIDTH aXs ��-o- s'-o" 4'x4' FlLTERRA UNIT 1Ux6 7'-0' 11'-0" 4'x4'' SUITABLE FOR ALL �2xs ��-o' �3'-0" 4'x4'* STANDARD BOXES NiODIFICATIONS OF DRAWINGS ARE ONLY �3'x3' TREE GRATE IS OPTIONAL PERMITTED BY WRITTEN AUTHORfZATION FROM FILTERRA DATE: 12-09-09 Dw�: WWA FTSC-4 I� ( � �'vU��D��'U SIDEWALK CONF GURAT ONS �D��C��o�� WESTERN WASHINGTON us PAr s,s��,2�4 Copyright B 2007 by Americast TO[.L,FREB(866)349-3458 AND 6,569,321 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance system for this project is sized to convey the 100-year storm event based on the modified rational method with an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes. This site is � approximately 1.13 acres in size, which is significantly less than the 10-acre requirement for using the modified rational method. For this project, we are using the modified rational method. I 9 13245.002.doc � 13245-kingco.xls BARGHAUSEN CONSUL I ING ENGWEERS-PIPE FLOW CALCULATOR using lhe Rational Method&Manning Formula KING COUNTY DESIGN FOR 100 YEAR STORM JOB NAMt: Fred Meyer Fuel#459 NOTE:ENTER DEFAULTS AND STORM DATA BEFORE BEGINNING JOB#: 13245 DEFAULTS C= 0.9 n= 0.014 HEVISED: 10/18/2012 d= 12 Tc= 6.3 A=Conlributing Area(Ac) Qd=Design Flow(cfs) COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD"Ir"-EQUATION C=Runoff CoeBicienl Qf=Full Capaciry Flow(cfs) STORM Ar Br Tc=Time of Concentration(min) Vd=Velocity at Design Flow(fps) 2YR 1.58 0.58 1=Inlensily al Tc(in/hr) Vf=Velocity at Full Flow(fps) 10YR 2.44 0.64 PRECIP= 4 d=Diameler of Pipe(in) s=Slope of pipe(%) 25YR 2.66 0.65 Ar- 2.61 L=Length of Pipe(fl) n=Manning Roughness CoeKcient 50YR 2J5 0.65 Br- 0.83 D=Waler Deplh al Qd(in) Tt=Travel Time at Vd(min) 100VR 2.61 0.63 FROM TO A s L d Tc n C SUM A A'C SUM A'C I Qd af adl�f Uld D Vf Vd Tt ----- ------ ----- ------ ------ ----------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ - .. ---- ------ ----- ---.. Filterra SDMH 4 0.74 0.50 60 12 6.3 0.014 0.9 0.74 0.67 0.67 3.27 2.18 2.34 0.933 0.758 9.10 2.98 3.37 0.30 SDMH 4 SDMH 3 0.06 0.50 68 12 6.6 0.014 0.9 0.8 0.05 0.72 3.18 2.29 2.34 0.979 0.799 9.59 2.98 3.37 0.34 SDMH 3 SDMH 2 O.10 1.91 67 12 6.9 0.014 0.9 0.9 0.09 0.81 3.08 2.50 4.57 0.546 0.526 6.32 5.82 5.94 0.19 SDMH 2 SDMH 1 0.00 0.50 106 12 7.1 0.014 0.9 0.9 0.00 O.B1 3.03 2.46 234 1950 0.875 10..50 2.98 3.37 0.52 SDMH 1 Ex MH 0.00 0.50 42 12 7.6 0.01A 0.9 0.9 0.00 0.81 2.90 '1.35 ?.34 1.004 0.010 9.62 2.98 3.37 021 Paye 1 0 »; r� �� m � f4l�, o, p x . N '�� N � �] �� O �� II � � = a' cn i— %� �.a ��:> . � C7 �. �� TI y � �r�.,a�� '� , �r'' cr � �� iv �� II � - .. �,�,%�, y � r— � �'�:�?� ,�\ �, �� Q � / %� � N°�� (n C�-� � � . � � � �� (1 �� z��. .� . �� I / � �',?� r�'_� �r,.� � � , � , ' � '� � � ^z ��— �. , - � �'�,4� O� r*� � :� .�`� � i'f�7.�fTl � m\ �,��:y �� /�`�G OOo�7,::dv � / � o � � `�_. -6�G � � � , \� �/'`� �.W N O p� �� ' �\ �`� y � � i�\ 00 �].-� ,.' ��C�l, � `��CJi O �� W. ' ,�,�� . O �, � N ^ ?� r O �v� �° � O � �� 7�� . /� � m r� �� v� �� -y� / ` � U 2 � � � , �� m � � � ,� " � z II ��,v� � � � � mZ< m � (v v'�, � Nwo �� o�a N �'��, ,� � . N . � ��.o �j, � - �. ,- ___, - � _= � " ' �.✓ � d��0 � " ��`_ �.Cp � D � � . _ . . \�� ` � \ • I�� `� � �� D�`(,/) �\`�� j_ / _ _ S�P `9 . / ' ��e� � � C7 � Z I`�k,N : O ��:� ��\ '�j T = � N��\:. .'j �� - t„ � , � r r + � ��,�`r*' X O0 0 0�0 � / /.� �.� _ � �� . �� ,�� — II - — . a . . �� ',', .� �" / ' ��' J" �-;,�� =`'�'�:�, ��Pa �1- ",. � :�., � ,,, ,,. . 1� - : �� ' � �� -- ' � I'��'-- � � � '<.a, \`u, �,� ,,, I(=_ - _ `> " "� � I(--=- .=_ .- a' � N � �.� ` \ a� I \ - t ...\\\\�` a\ \ � � {{�� q\ ` �� ' \\\\ _..� �Q.� —- � � _ � 6 \\ .�\� \\\� �.� �\ \ ��\ . � . � ' '" . `� e • \� " \ N�� _ ' � • _ " / � V .� k� �� . ` - - � ., a \. � p� �v. ?z _ � _ . �. �"` �� _t.`�" _ = i �\\ Q ,� au� `�n �-" " .�� ' . ," �,� ,� , .�� • � , ' ^� �� a\� `°�� -� i \ ♦ � \ • , :% / C`l ° `'� ��` a"`\ �`"v "� � ' � .. ' D � � ""� i ,\ 'o� '�o� •" O � . � •= I ��'� �� a� � ��`\ �'' O`;� j" �� "" �� , � C� :- �C�� ^: ^�� ` �\ °�� Z �c �� c,,, � '� '• � � ` � .� "� ;�_`� �� ;,\� � . r � � N � - w� `� ��1� -} O\ D• �=>=�'=-= � / � - � rn iva' mr ' � � � - � f" �r� `/ 1 c� �, m �. � - � a': �� o C�. �. ��,,, � � /�=':• / a, � �� D ' � \��\ �" � / l � Z /� x � r �, ` J � z � �. /��' _ �.`�� ` �,!;� �,i-'' � \ 6�l � � � � �� m � � = �� \ � _�,,,i-� � __ � . -. ,:�:��` \� ,��"� �t - 'J�-. D \ '-' . ' � r _- : . �.c. � �� . . . . : ._ �� ° - =� - � .. \ d �� _ '� , . • \ .: _,.r ��' _ � __;- . . . .�. • : .=:- . � o a_ :� .:�� - �T ,; �: . . ,. . � ; .' / � � _( � � .��:� ,� � . � " ��. _ �_ � _ � :%/�, yr �� N�d "� .. ------ - �; _ �jr`d ��' -''�;� � � / pS��N , ,, ��/ �: — Nl� , � _ _= , — , � � , .., , C � 1 -=� �` �- � ' '�� .- -/� , _ ' <� ��'�_ � / � �_"- , .`" ' ° - 1 _ . �!'� K�_�� - �o m D � O � � r � ' 0 V � D n i � � � � �_— No. Date By Ckd. Appr. 1 Revision Job Number Scale: Q.G'H'4�S 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH Designed KDH Title: CONVEYANCE MAP 13245 m� � �2 KENT, WA 98032 Drawn R�c_ Horizontal � , �425�251-6222 Checked KDH �"=ao' Sheel � ` . � �� (425)251-8782 FAX 2 � ? Approved JGH �e�t;�a� For: FRED MEYER FUEL CENTER sL �° Q5' CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, �T� �� SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Date �0/18/12 NA #459 RENTON CENTER 1 of 1 NG ENG�N 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES A geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this site by The Riley Group dated June 5, 2012. The report is enclosed. I 13245.002.doc The Rile�� Grorrp, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BI': THE RILEY GROUP, InC. 17522 BOTHELL WAY NORTHEAST BOTHELL, WASHIl�'GTON 9HO11 PREPARED FOR: FRED MEYER STORES, INC. 3gOO SOUTHEAST 22ND AVENUE PoRTL��n, O�con 97202 PROJECT NO. 2012-247 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERItiG REPORT FRED MEYER FUELING FACILITY 431 RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH RENTOl�,WASHINGTON 9HOS5 JLT�E S, 2012 SER�I.\G THE P.�CIFIC\ORTH\\FtiT If'estern�1'ashrngton,Corporate Offrce Easlern{f ashington&Oregon Offrce 1752?Bothell[i irti�.Uor�heast 1838 South[�'ashington Stree�r Bathell, T'Y'ashi�agton 98011 Kenrrex�i��k, Fi-'achni,�to�i 993;� Phone425.41?.OSSI�Far42_5.41.i.0311 l'i;�;,��5��.��'6.a��aC�•h�u� �n9. �hh»,Yh; ititi��r.r'ile)'-grotrp.com �_ � The Riley G�•oup, I»c. June 5,2012 Mr. James Coombes Fred Meyer Stores, lnc. 3800 Southeast 22nd Avenue Poi-tland, Oregon 97202 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Fred Meyer Fueling Facility 431 R�inie�•Avenue South Renton,Washington 98055 Project No. 2012-247 Dear Mr. Coombes: As requested, The Riley Group, Inc. (RGI) has performed a Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) for the Fred Meyer Fueling Facility located at 431 Rainier Avenue South in Renton, Washington. RGI understands that Fred Meyei• Stores, Inc. is planning to construct a fuel station at the site. Our services were outlined in our proposal dated May 18, 2012 and authorized on the same day. This GER presents our geoteclulical findings and recommendations for the proposed project. These recommendations should be incorporated into project design and constiliction. RGl also recommends that a representative of our fii-�n be present on site - during poi�tions of the project construction to confirm that the soil and groundwater conditions are consistent with those that foi�n the basis for the engineering recommendations in this GER. If you have any questions ar require additional information, please call us at (425) 415- 0551. , . Respectfully submitted, Q�U N QI y oFW��,ti� THE RILEY GROUP�INC. � �' C�,9 � � �2 � o{ Wash� ¢' y . � w� � hgfo �:� � ��'�.,'� � � � �, 10NAL � �� _ �.c 2 G 9 8 , •�y �`'/Zo12 ` �/,S ZO I 2 Eric L. Woods, �f�S p� � �-; Ricky R. Wang, PhD, PE O ProjectGe � ' t e� Ge �—,- Principal Engineer Cf21C l. WOODS EW/RT3�/sp --------- SERVI\C111E PACIFIC i�iORTII\�'LST IVesfern►Vasl�ingfon,Corpornle Ojfrce Enstern IVns/iinglon und Oregon Office 17522 L?o�he!!l f�iry Norlheasl,Snite A 1838 Sot�lh IVnslri»glan Slreel Bolhell, !I'nshinglar 98011 Ken��eiric% �Vnslringlo�r 99337 Phone d25.d15.0551�Far d25.d15.0311 Phorre 509.SSG.�I��l��Fac 509.58G.d8G3 u•u•n�.rileP-K�'o�rp.com � Geotechnical En�i�aeering Report Page ri J:u7e?, '01= Fred.11ei�er•Fucli�tg Fncilin�.Re�ttort, fi�asltinglo�r RGI Project.A�o. _'01?-?47 TABLE OF CONTE:VTS 1.� PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................1 2.0 SCOPE OF VVORK.............................................................................................................................1 3.0 SITE COVDITIONS............................................................................................................................2 3.1 SLRFACE...............................................................................................................................................2 3.2 SOILS.....................................................................................................................................................2 3.3 GROLtiDVI'ATER.....................................................................................................................................2 3.4 SEISMIC CONSIDERr1TI0I�S....................................................................................................................3 4.0 DISCL'SSIOn AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................4 4.1 GErEttnL...............................................................................................................................................4 4.2 SITE PREPARATION A_\D GRADING........................................................................................................4 4.3 STRUCTURr1L FILL.................................................................................................................................S 4.4 EXCAVATIONS.A\D SHORING................................................................................................................S 4.5 UNDERGROL�D STORAGE TANKS(USTS�.............................................................................................6 4.6 FOUNDATIONS.......................................................................................................................................6 4.7 KIOSK SLAB-ON-GRADE........................................................................................................................7 4.8 D��rrAGE.............................................................................................................................................7 4.9 UTILITIES...............................................................................................................................................7 4.10 PAVEn�E�rS...........................................................................................................................................8 5.0 ADDITIOnAL SER�'ICES.................................................................................................................9 6.0 LIAiITATIOnS....................................................................................................................................9 FIGURES AND APPENDICES Figure1 ................................................................................................................... Site vicinit)':11ap I Figure 2............................................................................................. Geotechnical E_xplos-ation Plan =4pPer7dir A........................................................................Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing :4pper�dix B........................................................................................................ Liquefaction Anall�sis THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical E��gineering Report Page 1 June S,2012 Fred Meyer Fueling Facilit�-,Renton, YVashirrgton RGI Projecl No. 2012-247 1.O PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Riley Group, Inc. (RGI) has performed a Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) for the Fred Meyer Fueling Facility located at 431 Rainier Avenue South in Renton, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure 1. The site is currently occupied by a commercial building in the south portion of the site. The proposed project consists of a fueling facility including two underground storage tanks (UST). Our understanding of the project is based on the Detailed Site Plan (DD2) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated May 20, 2012. At the time of preparing this GER, detailed design plans were not available for our review. Based on our experience with similar projects, RGI expects that the proposed kiosk will be a one-story, light-weight structure supported on perimeter walls and spread-footing foundation. Steel columns at each pump island will support the pump island canopy. The maximum load for the canopy is expected to be 50 kips per column. RGI expects that excavations up to 20 feet in depth will be needed for the UST installation. The recommendations in the following sections of this GER are based upon our understanding of the above design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, RGI should review them in order to modify our recommendations as required. In addition, RGI requests to review final design drawings and specifications to verify that our project understanding is correct and that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. 2.O SCOPE OF WORK On May 24, 2012, RGI drilled two test borings to a maximum depth of 26.5 feet below� I ground surface (bgs). Three attempts were made to drill an additional boring, however, a concrete obstruction was encountered at 1 to 1.5 feet below grade in all three locations. The borings were drilled with a trailer-mounted, hollow stem auger drill rig within the proposed fueling facility and UST area. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, RGI developed geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction for the following: %' Soil and groundwater conditions ➢ Underground storage tanks > Seismic considerations � Foundations � Site preparation and grading > Slab-on-grade ➢ Excavations ➢ Utilities and pavements Field screening of the soils and sampling of the groundwater was completed as part of the explorations on site. The result of the field screening and testing of the groundwater is provided under separate cover. THE RILEY GROtiP, INC. Geaechnica!En��ineerrng Reporl Pcr��c�' Junc�?, _'(11' Frec!.'Ilerer Fuclri�g Facrlitr, Reiuor�. }i��cJrr�z�tu�r RGI Projc�ct J'o. 'O1'-?-1- 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE The site is a rectangular-shaped property located to the east of the existing Fred Meyer store at the southwest corner of the intersection of Rainier Avenue South and Renton Center Way. The site is bound to the north by Renton Center Way, to the east by Rainier Avenue South, to the south by a commercial property, and to the west by Fred Meyer parking. The site is currently occupied by a commercial building in the south portion of the site (Unoccupied Blockbuster Video and Torero's Mexican Restaurant) and asphalt pavement in the remaining area. The site is relatively flat ��ith overall elevation differences of less than 3 feet. 3.2 SOILS The site is underlain by 3 feet of fill over native soil. Based on the depth of the concrete obstruction encountered in three locations on the site, a concrete slab or pavement is located under a large portion of the proposed canopy area. The native soils include 5 feet of very soft to soft sandy silt over � to 10 feet of loose silty sand over medium dense to dense sand with gravel. Our review of the Geologic 11�Iap of King Cot4nty Washington b1' V. E. Livingston Jr. (1970) indicates that the native soil was mapped as Alluvium (Map unit Qa). The soil is mostly unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel valley fill with some clay. It may include artificial fill and peat locally. This description is generally similar to the soils encountered in our field exploration. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encotn�tered are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. Grain-size analyses were performed on selected samples and ; the results are located in Appendix A. 3.3 GROUNDWATER The groundwater table was encountered during the field exploration at 9 to 10 feet b�s and wet soil layers and seepage were encountered as shallow as 5 feet. y Fluctuations in groundwater level should be expected on a seasonal and annual basis. The level will be highest during the extended periods of heavy seepage in the wet winter months. Given the time that the field exploration was performed, RGI expects that the groundwater should be close to the seasonal-high level. Groundwater should be expected in excavations that extend more than 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). THE RILE�' GROUP, I\C. Geotechnical Engineering Report Page 3 June�, 2012 Fr•ed!lTever Fueling Facilih�,Renton, Washington RGI Project,'�'o. 2012-247 3.4 SEISMic CorrsinE�Tiorrs Based on the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), RGI recommends the following seismic parameters for design: Table 1 2009 IBC Parameter Value Site Soil Site Latitude 28' 40.2"N Site Longitude 12' S8.8"W Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, (percent g) 143 1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, (percent g) 48.9 Seismic Coefficient, 1.00 Seismic Coefficient, L�11 1.Note:In general accordance with the 2009 IBC,Table 1613.5.2. IBC Site Class is based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. 2.Note: The 2009 IBC requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope of our services does not include the required 100-foot soil profile determination.Borings extended to a maximum depth of 26.5 feet,and this seismic site class definition considers chat similar soil continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths «ould be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of erploration. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations from a seismic event. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands that are I below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from intergranular � friction. The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains �' and eliminates this intergranular friction, thus reducing or eliminating the soil's strength. For liquefaction analysis, soil information obtained from borings B-2 and B-3 was used I «�ith the groundwater at 5 feet bgs. Analysis indicates the loose layer between 9 and 20 feet bgs in borings B-2 and B-3 may liquefy under severe earthquake ground motions (Magnitude 7 and horizontal acceleration 0.25 gram) or moderate ground shaking of sib ificant duration. However, the upper 5 to 9 feet of soil above groundwater level will not likely be liquefied during the earthquake event. Based on our analysis and depth of the non-liquefiable soils, a spread footing foundation ��ould not experience a bearing capacity failure. However, total ground settlement up four inches is possible upon dissipation of excess pore pressures generated during a seismic event. Due to the size of the kiosk, the resulting differential settlement should be less than 2 inches along the building length. The canopy may experience up to 2 inches of differential settlement bet��een supports. The analysis is attached in Appendix B. THE RILEY GROUP, I\C. Geotech»ica!Engirzeeri�rg Report Page 4 Ju�re S. ?Ol? Fred_Lfel•erFuelingFacilih•, Rento�r, Ii"aslringta� RGIProject:l'o. 201?-24i 4.O DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL ' Based on our explorations, the site is suitable for the proposed project from a geotechnical � standpoint. The native soil at shallow depth is not suitable for direct support of the proposed foundations. The canopy for the proposed fueling facility should be supported on column footing foundations bearing at least 2 feet of structural fill. The proposed kiosk can ' be supported on spread footing foundation bearing on a 2-foot structural fill mat. Pavement should be supported on at least 12 inches of structural fill. Detailed recommendations regarding the above issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. 4.Z SITE PREPARATION �1D GRADING The site should be prepared for construction by removing the asphalt surfacing. A concrete slab or pavements were encountered in the borings that may extend over significant areas of the site. Utilities to be abandoned should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Proofrolling and subgrade verification should be considered an essential step in site preparation. After stripping and prior to placement of structural fill, RGI recommends proofrolling subgrades of the canopy area, pavement area, and areas to receive structural fill. These areas should be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition in order to achieve a minimum compaction level of 95 percent of the modified proctor maximum dry density as determined by the American Society of Testing and Materials D1557-09 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified � Effort (ASTM D1557). Proofrolling and adequate subgrade compaction can only be achieved when the soils are within approximately� 2 percent moisture content of the optimum moisture content. Soils which appear firm after stripping and grubbing may be proofrolled with a heavy , compactor, loaded double-axle dump truck, or other heavy equipment under the � observation of a RGI representative. This observer will assess the subgrade conditions prior to filling. The need for or advisability of proofrolling due to soil moisture conditions �I should be determined at the time of construction. In wet areas it may be necessary to hand probe the exposed subgrades in lieu of proofrolling with mechanical equipment. Subgrade soils that become disturbed due to elevated moisture conditions should be overexcavated to reveal firm, non-yielding, non-organic soils and backfilled with compacted structural fill. In order to maximize utilization of site soils as structural fill, RGI recommends that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of warm and dry weather, if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November through May) it will be necessary to take extra precautionary ' measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork will require additional mitigative n�easures beyond that «�hich«�ould be expected during the drier summer and fall months. THE RILEY GROCP, INC. Geotechr�rcnl Ertgi�7eeri�ig Report Page� Jin�e 5, '012 Fred�ti1et er Fueling Facilitt'. Rerata�. )t'ashrngton RGI Project.A��_ '011-34' I 4.3 STRucTURaL FiLL The native soil contains a lot of fines with trace organics and it is not suitable to be used as structural fill. RGI recommends that the import material is used as structural fill for all site grading and backfill. The imported material should meet the following grading requirements: , Table 2 Structural Fill Gradation U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 No. 4 sieve 75 percent No. 200 sieve 5 percent * *Based on ininus 3/4 inch fraction. Prior to use, a RGI representative should observe and test all materials imported to the site 'I for use as structural fill. Structural fill materials should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 10 inches and compacted as specified in Table 3. The soil's maximum density and optimum moisture should be determined by ASTM D 1557. Table 3 Structural Fill Compaction ASTM D1557 Minimum Moisture Content Location Material Ty�pe Compaction Percentage Range � Foundations Approved imported till soils: 95 +2 -2 Slab-on-grade Approved imported fill soils: 95 +2 -2 General Fill (non- Approved imported fill soils: 90 +3 -2 structural areas) Pavement— Subgrade Approved imported fill soils: 95 +2 -2 and Base Course Placement and compaction of structural fill should be observed by RGL A representative number of in-place density tests should be performed as the fill is being placed to confirm that the recommended level of compaction is achieved. 4.4 EXCAVATIONS AND SHORING Site excavations for USTs, pump island dispensers, and utility and piping trenches must be completed in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health i Administration (OSHA) and American Petroleum Institute (API) or other requirements. ' Based on OSHA regulations, the native soil classifies as a Group C soil. In addition, seepage and the groundwater table should be expected at 5 feet b�s. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Gcotechnrcal F.��rgi�te�ring Rc��ort Puge h Juue 5. -'01' Frc•cl:lferer Fi�e/rirg F��ciliti�. Reiztar, f['�rslri�r��lo�i RGI Projec�t_'�'o. '01?-'-�? In all cases, ho��ever, appropriate inclinations will depend on the actual soil and groundwater conditions encountered during earthwork. Ultimately, the site contractor must be responsible for maintaining safe excavation slopes that comply with applicable OSHA or Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) guidelines. Accordingly, for excavations more than 4 feet but less than 20 feet in depth, the temporary side slopes should be laid back with a minimum slope inclination of 1'/ZH :1 V (Horizontal: Vertical). Following excavation, all exposed slopes must be covered with reinforced plastic sheeting that is securely anchored to the slope face. This sheeting will contain loose soil conditions that may develop on the slope face and ravel off, therefore, preventing erosion of the slope face during periods of precipitation. RGI expect a temporary shoring system or dewatering of the tank excavation will be required. Based on the similar projects and local practice, slide rail or sheet pile shoring system can be used for the tank excavation. The shoring system must be designed by structural engineer and follow manufacture's specifications. 4.S UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (USTS� RGI understands that two USTs will be installed to the northeast of the canopy and near the existing Fred Meyer sign, The installation of the USTs will require an excavation of up to 20 feet bgs. The USTs can be installed in a single excavation. The depth to the top of the USTs is typically 3 feet below finished grade with at least 2 feet of appropriate backfill material. The backfill can be either pea gravel or other material per API specifications for setting the tanks. Based on the groundwater conditions encountered during exploration, around«�ater seepage should be expected in the excavation below 5 feet. A dewatering system or the use of sheet pile shoring will be needed durinQ excavation. De«�atering or shoring systern design is not included in this scope of work. y The installation will require tank hold down slabs or anchors to accommodate possible buoyant forces. The UST system installation and design must be in accordance with API regulations. 4.6 FovNnaTioNs Following the site grading and UST installation, the proposed canopy can be supported on column foundations bearing on at least 2 feet of structural fill. The proposed kiosk can be supported on continuous footing bearing on a 2 foot-thick structural fill mat. The structural fill mat should extend under the entire kiosk area. The slab for the kiosk should be tied to the continuous foundation system. The structural fill should extend a minimum of 2 feet beyond the edge of the foundations. The use of a woven geotextile separation layer below the structural fill may be necessary depending on the soil conditions encountered in the foundation overexcavations. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotec/vtical Ertgineering Report Page? Jtnte?, ?01? Fred:llc�re�r•Fzrelrn�Facrlrti�, Re�tto�t. Ii'ashirr;�tu�t RG/Project��o. ?�1?-?4' RGI recommends designing foundations for a net allo��able bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (ps�. For short-term loads, such as ��ind and seismic, a li3 increase in this allowable capacity can be used. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.23 can bc used. Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing can also be considered for resisting lateral loads. RGI recommends calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pc�. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent structural fill as described in Section 4.2. The recommended friction and passive resistance values include a safety factor of 1.5. With foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations in this section, maximum total and differential post-construction settlements of 1.5 inches and 3/4 inches in 50 feet, respectively, should be expected. Liquefaction settlements discussed in Section 3.4 will be in addition to the static settlements provided above. 4.7 KIOSK SLAB-ON-GRADE RGI recommends that slab-on-grade be supported on the structural fill mat placed for the kiosk foundations. Immediately below the floor slab, RGI recommends placing a 4-inch- thick capillary break layer of clean, free-draining pea gravel, washed rock, or crushed rock that has less than five percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, an 8- to 10-millimeter-thick plastic membrane should be placed on a 4-inch-thick layer of capillary break. 4.g DRAINAGE Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from building. Water must not pond or collect adjacent to kiosk or within the immediate canopy area. RGI recommends providing a minimum drainage gradient of 3 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the canopy perimeter, 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 ��-ater adjacent to the structure. 4.9 UTILITIES Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. For site utilities located within the City of Renton right-of-ways, bedding and backfill should be completed in accordance with City of Renton specifications. The trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 4.?. Where utilities occur below unimproved areas, the degree of compactio�l can be redticed to a minimum of 90 percent of the soil's maximum density as determined by the referenced ASTM standard. As noted, excavated native soil should not be used as backfilL Imported THE RILEY" GROUP, INC. Geoteclnaical Eraginee�•iiag Report Page 8 Jt�ne 5, ?01' Fred�lerer Fuelirt��Fucilih•,Rentor7. Ii�crs/iirzgion RGI Project.�'o. ?013-_'4' structural fill should be used for all backfills. The backfill material should satisfy the structural fill requirements listed in Section 4.3. �� Product and vent piping trenches should be sloped, bedded, and backfilled in accordance with the API specifications. 4.IO PAVEI�'IENTS Pavement section may match the existing pavement section on the site. For new pavement, the subgrade should be prepared as described in Section 4.2 of this GER and as discussed below. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. This condition should be verified by proof-rolling with construction equipment or hand probe by an RGI representative. With the pavement subgrade prepared as described above, RGI recommends that the area be paved «-ith flexible pavement surface. The follo�i-ing pavement sections are recommended: ➢ For heav�� truck traf�c areas: 4 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over� 8 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) over 1? inches of structural fill i� For general parking areas: 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB over 1? inches of structural fill The asphalt-paving materials used should confornl to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Hot-Mix Asphalt '/�" Class and CRB surfacing. Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface �i�ater infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. For optimum pavement performance, surface drainage gradients of no less than 2 percent are recommended. Also, some degree of longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks ��hen they occur. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. � Geot�c7zrrical E��gi��eeri�a,Repa�t Page 9 Ji��ae 5. _01' Fred 111ei�ei�Fueliirg Facilih�.Re��to�i. 61'aslinzgto�i RGI Projecz-'�'o. Z01'-?4' S.O ADDITIONAL SERVICES � -- ' RGI is available to provide further geotechnical consultation as the project design develops. RGI should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that , earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. RGI is also available to provide geotechnical engineering and Inonitoring services durin� construction. The integrity of the earthwark and construction depends on proper site preparation and 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 scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know and RGI will prepare a cost proposal. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This GER is the property of RGI, Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., and their designated agents and was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. i � This GER is intended for specific application to the Fred Meyer Fueling Facility at 431 Rainier Avenue South in Renton, Washington. This GER was prepared for the exclusive use of Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. and its authorized representatives. It should be made available to prospective contractors for information or factual data only and not as a warranty of ground conditions. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any biological (far example, mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. Field screening of the soils and sampling of the groundwater was completed as part of the explorations on site. The result of the field screening and testing of the groundwater is provided under separate cover. The analyses and recommendations presented in this GER are based upon data obtained from the test borings drilled on site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. Site safety, excavation support. and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this GER are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this GER shall not be considered valid unless RGI is requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this GER prior to proceeding with construction. It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designers, contractors, subcontractors, are made aware of this GER in its entirety. The use c�f information contained in this GER for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. � � f _ -. .�,l,��.. + 1-' � �� ^^s - ;� C - � 1, �-_ � - ' � -�: - � - �' � - � . �:� �.� � _ � �� ^�` � ��: ' 7 - ` �, �# ]�r:. .,,,,,.� �,:�,, , ::t y L� ' ■ t � - ':-+.... "�. � _ ` f { tL � � 1 � ' 6 _ :. -- — - ':�.r+.�� _' � , 'n � , � , _ _'��N�.�► {. _ � �Y. � j _ - ' " _ �� 1 '�i .� ' / ; ��" � - ,� _ � � '�� - S - �` ��.•_ � ' � 1 �.. � - - - �; - '* -_ _ � - - - � - _ _ _ :� _ ' � - - => - l \ 4 i' 1...�� _ - - y ...��., - �■� �' P ric �� - � - _ . y� .�. r . \ � ' _ _ _ �.ti�. - -, 3 -_ ' � � �: � � i . � , _ - ,_:- __ � - ' . _ . t� � ` A _ - � +��,} 1 I __ �t� - _�. . �� - : �.� - � � � � ` ! ,_� ti. �r ' Power. , �1 � 7 � � � ��_ = Picint �� _ .� _�--`� :�_,,.�.� � r� ,_�� - � _ _-�-�. � ��' . --- . � .r�': ■• �r�� - � � M � � . �l � •r � � ,,•r . _ �• _ . . � �,.� , � 1 �_. ' � �ti� . ~r _ - ■ �. . r • � ' � � � ' ;� - r� '* s 1 ■ ` _ 5 USGS, 1994,Renton,Washington Approximate Scale: 1"=1000' � 7.5-Minute Quadrangle 0 500 1000 2000 N � The Riley Group, Inc. Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Figure 1 RGI Project Number Date Dra�vn: 17522 Bothell Way Northeast,Suite A Site Vicinity Map Bothell,Washington 98011 2012-247 06/2012 Phone:425.415.0551 ♦Fa�c:425.415.0311 Address: 431 Rainier Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055 v S`f� �� 11 cf��f 1 J J'r, � �1 �� 1 � � � � yf�t , ,1 r�.. �.i fir�i �l i' ' � � 1� y , �� t% �rf� l � s�r M �� rfs�%s`�('"�i' � �1 . tt r.rdsfC� �^'� S :i��,B-G 1� ysr�-' � 3 � �� k � �� ;-' � . ,//� ,• -srrsffsy�fsf ``1,�'� e,ti'; �,`,SS��M ` ,``5 �`:l r�' � � s s��f�� ,�� i��A �,1� � 1,, .� I�, .�r . � s rS- � � � r � � ` �S,p ��`� � 1 __. .io,�:�'`� _ `� •►'• • ��s�"� `�, ��-'�` L` � Vi h � •:"s..', r Fs�� \ ��' �� 1 : � �Jh � \ �_:✓> _.•S��f;-� � �— ,` ,� v � ' 4, l `1\ ,.,.� � � 11 �..i � \ 1 \ _ � � 1 v'�' �`�y�B-3 �, '�� ,�,w�t ,� C�, '� �`� , � ,� , , �. � � ' �� ; ,,, , `4�.� r � , , h � ;�,,�` �-�� 't �, 5„ , � "K �'� �:4,., ss�� Yy �s.. r�� , O ' y ` � ,� `1�� 4k `�� ; � � � � � � � �� '� J � y � . � , 1 �� , , �.�5 1 `� �°� ' `{. 1 '`'�', A� �, 1 �;�, �" �, �. 1 `�.;�?�. �`��1 1 L`�� `�, �`, `., � �� ;�>?� `, �� B-1 C� `, � �, _,F:," ,,, _ -•, y,� `, , \, ,lN Vp:- ' y-. , ,. , . � l -� 4 1` �, 1 \, 1 .� � � 1 �` 1 � � y �\ 1, �' ,1� ,,, . �� `�, h� � ; � �� VY,� r 1 B � � �� ', ti�s� L � � �y , ��,�`, `,,, B-lA�� :�.� �`, :-� . .'` ; `} , 1`�, [C.ss�� 1` �' 'i �y4 , � + � � .i � , � � 5 � , . \ L � � \ / L'�� `� `� \ ' S `��1 `� � � � 4}a , �� y � �� tY '�a'� � l . � �� ti � �.�' S h � �1 � � �` �s°��ti5�-� � ti � ,-� � a . ��` �` V` � �y ,1��t` u- 1� yh� � , � � � � �J�' � - ,. ', � �, t ^' \` ji\�_ \ � �•�l 1 `t \ ` �� ;'= ,� ,, , , ; , ; , �, , � ��' , "� l,� 1� ,1 �1 \ �4�� 1 Q 1 �.� '` 11\ '�t`�� `\1 �\ �i�l �� / / , r��' � '� r .��; °� � ,' ': � _ ��, `. �' �`�, �;"�, `, ';`�, �`, �, ��=�' �, ,� -� �, `�;;: \ � 4 } � � � � � � -�i �,� 4 ` ` � ` � � � j ��, .�` ` t ` ` ti , � � � � � � � �� '�~/ = - � � � � \ � � `iC' i, 1 � � > > � 4�. � � L..��" `" / ,'` /,'C/, �� `` `' ,,1,, `` ' ' � •,\ •�` �`` t` ,,�� l� �� '� � � � � / � ,�' \ ', �+� ``�\',`�� , _-' � , � '\i j'� `, ` , , Y - / ,� , ` � ��.s:-� � ��. -' p � y.�"" t � . `,L ��.{}� 1 i� .r J' r .•� � "�,,%, � '�•./ _ i/� � y f�r . y �. '`�/_' ��f� �' �/� \ �ki"` , � ��• , �I�/ `.\ ��\ ' � •� � . `��, `� . . � �r � =B-lA to B-1C Test Borings terminated due to obstruction � =B-2 and B-3 Test Borings Approximate Scale: 1"=40' � Drawn from Barghausen Consulting Engineers,Inc., DD-2 Detailed Site Plan, dated OS/18/12. 0 20 40 80 �J � The Riley Group� ItZC. Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Figure 2 RGI Project Number Date Dra�vn: 1?�22 Bothell Way Northeast,su[cc A Geotechnical Exploration Plan Bothell,washington 980]1 2012-247 06/2012 Phone:425.415.0551 ♦Fa�c:425.415.03ll Address: 431 Rainier Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055 �i Geotechnrcal E�tgineernrg Reporl Jtute J, ?01 Z Fred,'Lfeyer Fueling Facilih�,Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2012-297 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Fred Meyer Fueling Facility 431 Rainier Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 On May 24, 2012, RGI performed our field exploration using a trailer-mounted drill rig. RGI explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by advancing two test borings to a maximum depth of 26.5 feet below existing grade. The boring locations are shown on Figure 2. The boring locations were approximately determined by interpolating from existing property features. The boring logs are presented on attached boring logs. A geologist from our office conducted the field exploration and classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test boring, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on the sheet behind the boring logs. Representative soil samples obtained from the borings were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content selected samples were measured and are reported on the boring logs. Grain-size analyses were performed on selected samples. THE RILEY GROUP, I�IC. Project Name: Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Boring No.: B-1A Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. Date(s)Drilled: 5/24/12 Logged By: ELW Surface Conditions: Asphalt Drilling Method(s): Hollow Stem Auge� Drill Bit Size/Type: Total Depth of Borehole: 1 Drill Rig Type: TrOile�Mounted Drilling Contractor: BO�eteC Approximate Surface Elevation: Groundwater Level Not Encountered ATD Sampling Method(s): SPT Hammer Data; 140 Ib,30 in drop,rope and and Date Measured: cathead Borehole Backfill: Bentonite Chips Location: 431 Rainier Avenue South,Renton,Washington 98055 ai C N N .N "'�' '� � � � E p� c c � H- � o� Z, �, -� O .... N d C � N � U � _ _ > a E E E 3 c°� U a v' a� � w p � � � —�° � j � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � � spha Asphalt-3" Fiu Brown silty SAND with some gravel,medium dense,moist(FILL) ncr goring terminated at 1 foot due to concrete obstruction. 5 �o � 15 20 25 I� 30 The Riley Group,Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE.Bothell.WA 9B01� '. 1838 South Washing[on Street,Kemewica,WA 99337 Project Name: Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Key to Log of Boring Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. � C � N N ^ O � ^ N � o � � � p o C � H � m � T d O � N N � � N � U L a a t� � � L 7 47 � w p � � � � � � � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation(feet): Elevation(MSL,feet). ❑6 Recovery(%):Core Recovery Percentage is determined based on 2 Depth(feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. a ratio of the length of core sample recovered compared to the 3 Sample Type:Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval cored interval length. shown. 7 USCS Symbol:USCS symbol of the subsurFace material. B4 Sample ID:Sample identification number. 8 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material 5 Sampling Resistance,blows/ft:Number of blows to advance driven encountered. sampler one foot(or distance shown)beyond seating interval 9� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. using the hammer ident�ed on the boring log. May include consistency,moisture,color,and other descriptive te�. � Moisture(%): Moisture,expressed as a water content. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM:Chemical tests to assess corrosivity PI:Plasticity Index,percent � COMP: Compaction test SA:Sieve analysis(percent passing No.200 Sieve) CONS:One-dimensional consolidation test UC:Unconfined compressive strength test,Qu, in ksf LL:Liquid Limit, percent WA:Wash sieve(percent passing No.200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS ■ Asphaltic Concrete(AC) � AF � .4 '0q Portland Cement Concrete �� TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS `� Shelby Tube(Thin-walled, �� CME Sampier � Pitcher Sample water level(at time of drilling,ATD) I,_, fixed head) ` 2-inch-OD unlined split � Water level(after waiting) � Auger sampler Continuous Core Sampler � '� spoon(SPT) Minor change in material properties within a � Bulk Sample Grab Sample �' Shelby Tube(Thin-walled, � stratum � �� fixed he8d) - Inferred/gradational contact between strata � 3-inch-OD California w/ ' 2.5-inch-OD Modified � brass rings Califomia w/brass liners � clueried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1:Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System.Descriptions and stratum fines are interpretive,and actual lilhologic changes may be gradual.Field descriptions may have been modified to reFlect results of lab tests. 2:Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced.They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. The Riley Group,Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE,Bothell,WA 98011 1838 South Washington Street.Kennewick.WA 99337 Project Name: Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Boring No.: B-�B Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. I Date(s)Drilled: 5l24I12 Logged By: ELW Surface Conditions: Asphalt Drilling Method(s): Hollow Stem Auger Drill Bit Size/Type: Total Depth of 8orehole: 1 Drill Rig Type: Trail2r Mounted �rilling Contractor: BofeteC Approximate Surface Elevation: Groundwater Level Not EnCounte�ed ATD Sampling Method(s): SPT Hammer Data: �40 Ib,30 in drop,�ope and and Date Measured: CatheBd Borehoie Backfill: Bentonite Chips Location: 431 Rainier Avenue South,Renton,Washington 98055 m I U f9 N d � m C � � � m Z+ � JO � �. � d U7 C � N � V � . L Q a N > � L 7 O � y w o in in in � � � c9 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �° 0 pha Asphalt-3" Fill Brown silty SAND with some gravel,medium dense,moist(FILL) ncr goring terminated at 1 foot due to concrete obstruction. 5 70 I 15 20 25 � The Riley Group,Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE,Bothell,WA 98011 1838 South Washington Street,Kennewick,WA 99337 Project Name: Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Key to Log of Boring Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. � � � � .y ^ o w ^ �' � � � o 0 � � � p � � T J � O � N N C � d � V � > N > n E E E 3 $ U � m w p � � � � � � � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION g° 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation(feet): Elevation(MSL,feet). 6❑ Recovery(%):Core Recovery Percentage is determined based on 2 Depth(feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. a ratio of the length of core sample recovered compared to the 3 Sample Type:Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval cored interval length. shown. 7 USCS Symbol:USCS symbol of the subsurface materiaL 4eSample ID:Sample identification number. 8 Graphic Log:Graphic depiction of the subsurface material 5 Sampling Resistance, blows/ft:Number of blows to advance driven encountered. sampler one foot(or distance shown)beyond seating interval �9 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. using the hammer identified on the boring log. May include consistency,moisture,color,and other descriptive text. � Moisture(%): Moisture,expressed as a water content. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity PI: Plasticity Index,percent COMP:Compaction test SA:Sieve analysis(percent passing No.200 Sieve) CONS:One-dimensional consolidation test UC:Unconfined compressive strength test,Qu,in ksf LL:Liquid Limit,percent WA:Wash sieve(percent passing No.200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS ■ Asphaltic Concrete(AC) � AF .e�.� q,r+Q. Portland Cement Concrete .n..e TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS _,I fi edbheadbe(Thin-walled, k CME Sampler � Pitcher Sample water level(at time of drilling,ATD) ) ` 2-inch-OD unlined split ' water level(after waiting) � Auger sampler Continuous Core Sampler � spoon SPT � ) _ Minor change in material properties within a � Bulk Sample — Grab Sample -' Shelby Tube(Thin-walled, . stratum J fixed he2d) Inferred/gradational contact between strata Z3-inch-OD California wl ' 2.5-inch-OD Modified brass rings California w/brass liners ? Queried contaa between strata GENERAL NOTES 1:Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System.Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive,and actual lithologic changes may be gradual.Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2:Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced.They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. The Riley Group,Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE,Bolhetl.WA 98011 �838 South Washingto�Street.Kennew�ck,WA 99337 Project Name: Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Boring No.: B-�C Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. Date(s)Drilled: 5/24/12 Logged By: ELW Surface Conditions: ASphelt Drilling Method(s): Hollow Stem Auge� Drill Bit Size/Type: Total Depth of Borehole: 1.5 Drill Rig Type: Trailer Mounted Drilling ConVactor: BoreteC �1PProximate Surface Elevation: Groundwater Level Not EnCounte�ed ATD Sampling Method(s): SPT Hammer Data: 140 Ib,30 in drop,rope and and Date Measured: Cathead Borehole Backfill: Bentonite Chips Location: 431 Rainier Avenue South,Renton,Washington 98055 ai c �,o � a� '� —• a w ^ � � � � o 0 C w ~ � � � T J � O � N N C � d � U 7 � n E E E 3 ° U � N > w o in cn <n � � � c� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � � SPh Asphalt-3" Filt Brown silty SAND with some gravel,medium dense,moist(FILL) ncre goring terminated at 1.5 feet due to concrete obstruction. 5 i �0 15 20 25 30 The Riley Group.Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE,Bothell,WA 98011 1838 South Was��gton Street.Kennex��ck_1^JA 4933' Project Name: Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Key to Log of Boring Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. � U N y .� w ^ � � ° � � � � � o � � H � m � a N O � d N C � N � U L 0. a N � Cn L 7 o a � � � w p � � � —�° � � � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation(feet): Elevation(MSL,feet). O6 Recovery(%):Core Recovery Percentage is determined based on 2 Depth(feet):Depth in feet below the ground surface. a ratio of the length of core sample recovered compared to the 3 Sample Type:Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval cored interval length. shown. B7 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material. 4eSample ID:Sample identification number. 8 Graphic Log:Graphic depiction of the subsurface material 5 Sampling Resistance,blows/ft:Number of blows to advance driven encountered. sampler one foot(or distance shown)beyond seating interval �9 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION:Description of material encountered. using the hammer identfied on the boring log. May include consistency,moisture,color,and other descriptive text. � Moisture(%):Moisture,expressed as a water content. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM:Chemical tests to assess corrosivity PI: Plasticity Index, percent COMP:Compaction test SA:Sieve analysis(percent passing No.200 Sieve) CONS:One-dimensional consolidation test UC:Unconfined compressive strength test,Qu,in ksf LL:Liquid Limit,percent WA:Wash sieve(percent passing No.200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS ■ Asphaltic Concrete(AC) ��4c AF 5� e••1 1 q Q:° Portland Cement Concrete .�'eL.7 TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS �I� Shelby Tube(Thin-walled, �� CME Sampler � Pitcher Sample water level(at time of drilling,ATD) , fixed head) � �T! �i 2-inch-OD unlined split � Water level(after waiting) � Auger sampler ', Continuous Core Sampler �; � spoon(SPT) Minor change in material properties within a � Bulk Sample Grab Sample , Shelby Tube(Thin-walled, + stratum J flxed he2d) Inferred/gradational contact between strata Z3-inch-OD California w/ ' 2.5-inch-OD Modified brass rings Califomia w/brass liners - ? Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES � 1:Soil Gassifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System.Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive,and actual lithologic changes may be gradual.Field desc�ptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2:Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced.They are not wananted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. The Riley Group.inc. �7522 Bothell lh'ay NE,Bothell,WA 98011 t838 South Washingto�Street.Kennew��ck.N�'A 99337 Project Name: Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Boring No.: B-2 Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. Date(s)Drilled: 5/24l12 Logged By: ELW Surface Conditions: Asphalt Drilling Method(s): Hollow Stem Auge� Drill Bit Size/Type: Total Depth of Borehole: 26.5 Dnll Rig Type: TrBiler Mounted Drilling Contractor. BO�eteC Approximate i Surface Elevation: Groundwater Level 140 Ib,30 in drop,rope and I and Date Measured: 9'0 Sampling Method(s): SPT Hammer Data Cathead I eorehole Backfill: Bentonite Chips Location: 431 Rainier Avenue South,Renton,Washington 98055 ai c :° � .N � ^ °' � o � O o I C N � � � � >+ --� � . � � d � � N � U L 0. O.N � � L � f6 � W p � � � ,-a° � � � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � 0 P� Asphalt-3" Fill Brown silty SAND with some gravel,medium dense,moist(FILL) ML Blue-gray sandy SILT,soft,moist to wet s No recovery 3 �� h�� Blue-gray SILT with trace sand,medium stiff,wet 5 ��:Q SP-Sti�. Blue-gray SAND with some silt,loose,water beanng,trace organics '' 15 SM � Blue-gray silty SAND,loose,water bearing 5 Contains 2"bed of sandy silt with iron oxide staining,6"layer of wood debris,15.8% 32.7 fines zD SW Brown gravelly SAND with trace silt,medium dense to dense,water bearing 30 3.2%fines �D.a 25 Becomes dense,contains wood debris 41 37%fines ��4 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet. 30 The Riley Group,Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE.Bothell,WA 98Dt 1 �838 South Washington Street,Kennewick.WA 99337 Project Name: Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Key to Log of Boring Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. � U C ..�. y N � ^ � .�-. w ^ � � � E Q o � Q � T J � O � N � �� N � U > n E E E 3 ° U @ N w p � � � —�° � � � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation(feet):Elevation(MSL,feet). ❑6 Recovery(%):Core Recovery Percentage is determined based on 2 Depth(feet):Depth in feet below the ground surface. a ratio of the length of core sample recovered compared to the 3 Sample Type:Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval cored interval length. shown. 7 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material. e4 Sample ID:Sample identification number. 8 Graphic Log:Graphic depiction of the subsurface materiai 5 Sampling Resistance, blows/ft:Number of blows to advance driven encountered. sampler one foot(or distance shown)beyond seating interval 9Q MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. using the hammer identified on the boring log. May include consistency,moisture,color,and other descriptive text. � Moisture(%):Moisture,expressed as a water content. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM:Chemical tests to assess corrosivity PI: Plasticity Index, percent COMP:Compaction test SA:Sieve analysis(percent passing No.200 Sieve) CONS:One-dimensional consolidation test UC:Unconfined compressive strength test,Qu, in ksf LL: Liquid Limit,percent WA:Wash sieve(percent passing No.200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS ■ Asphaltic Concrete(AC) •s;';' Well graded SAND(SW) �AF � SILT,SILT w/SAND,SANDY SILT(ML) IIIIIII I�� Silty SAND(SM) '•:'�Zr Poorly graded SAND with Silt(SP-SM) _ ltt TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS CShelby Tube(Thin-walled, '� CME Sampler 1 Pitcher Sample Water level(at time of drilling,ATD) fixed head) � Auger sampler �' Continuous Core Sampler ` 2-inch-OD unlined split • water level(after waiting) \ Spoon(SPT) Minor change in material properties within a � Bulk Sample Grab Sample � Shelby Tube(Thin-walled, . stratum �, fixed head) Inferredlgradational contact between strata �, 3-inch-OD California wl ' 2.5-inch-OD Modified brass rings California wl brass liners ? Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1:Soil Gassifications are based on the Unifed Soil Classification System.Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive,and actual lithologic changes may be gradual.Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2:Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced.They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. The Riley Group,Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE.Bothell,WA 98011 1538 South Washington Street,Kennewick.WA 99337 Project Name: Fred Meyer Fueling Facility Boring No.: B-3 Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 I Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. Date(s)Drilled: 5124/12 Logged By: ELW Surface Conditions: Asphalt Drilling Method(s): Hollow Stem Augef Drill Bit Size/Type: Total Depth of Borehole: 16.5 Drill Rig Type: Traile�MOunted Drilling Contractor: Bo�eteC Approximate Surface Elevation: Groundwater Level 9 88 Sampling Method(s): SPT Hammer Data: �40 Ib,30 in drop,rope and and Date Measured: cathead Borehoie Backfill: Bentonite Chips Location: 431 Rainier Avenue South,Renton,Washington 98055 ai c m w .� a�a�i ^ � � o � " � o 0 c y F p � `-' T J ., O �• N N S � N � V j , > L � a E E E 3 �U V � 'V7 W p �j � � —a° � j � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � � Fill Brown silty gravelly SAND.medium dense,moist(FILL) ML Tan SILT with some sand,soft,wet Mottled,trace organics 5 3 42.9 Becomes very soft to soft,contains silty sand interbeds with light seepage 2 37.1 = SP-SM . Brown SAND with some silt,loose,water bearing I 7 25 5 15 SP-SM�. Gray SAND with some silt and trace gravel,medium dense,water bearing 20 Trace organics 2z2 Boring terminated at 16.5 feet. zo 25 II � The Riley Group.Inc. �I'� 77522 Bothell Way NE,Bothell,WA 98011 1838 South Washington Streel Kennew�ck.VJA 99337 J Pro'ect Name: Fred Me er Fuelin Facilit I � y g y Key to Log of Boring � Project Number: 2012-247 Sheet 1 of 1 Client: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. � � � � p) � tn ^ O w ^ � � � � � C � � 0 � � � J o � d d C � N � U � L d d Vl 0 (n L 7 � n E E E 3 � U � N u� p in u� in � � � C� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation(feet): Elevation(MSL,feet). �6 Recovery(°/a):Core Recovery Percentage is determined based on 2 Depth(feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. a ratio of the length of core sample recovered compared to the 3 Sample Type:Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval cored interval length. shown. e7 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material. 4 Sample ID:Sample identification number. 8 Graphic Log:Graphic depiction of the subsurface material 5 Sampling Resistance,blows/ft:Number of blows to advance driven encountered. sampler one foot(or distance shown)beyond seating interval �9 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. using the hammer identfied on the boring log. May include consistency,moisture,color,and other descriptive text. � Moisture(%):Moisture,expressed as a water content. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM:Chemical tests to assess corrosivity PI: Plasticity Index, percent COMP:Compaction test SA:Sieve analysis(percent passing No.200 Sieve) CONS:One-dimensional consolidation test UC:Unconfined compressive strength test,Qu,in ksf LL:Liquid Limit,percent WA:Wash sieve(percent passing No.200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS �AF *��FE�! Poorly graded SAND with Silt(SP-SM) '�11 I�� SILT,SILT w/SAND,SANDY SI�T(ML) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Shelby Tu;e(Thin-walled, I� CME Sampler � Pitcher Sample water level(at time of drining,ATD) , fixed head � Auger sampler �I I Continuous Core Sampler � 2-inch-OD unlined split � Water level(after waiting) __ 1 SpoO�(SPT) Minor change in material properties within a � Bulk Sample Grab Sample I� Shelby Tube(Thin-walled, -� stretum �fixed he8d) Inferred/gradational contact between strata � 3-inch-OD California wJ ' 2.5-inch-OD Modified ,� brass rings Califomia w/brass liners ? Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1:Soil classifications are based on the Un'fiied Soil Classification System.Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive,and actual lithologic changes may be gradual.Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2:Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specifc boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced.They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. The Riley Group,lnc. 17522 Bothell Way NE,Bothell.WA 9801� 1838 South Washl�gton Street,Kemewick,WA 99?37 Geotechnica!Engineering Report June 5, 2012 Fred!Lfever Fueling Facilih>,Renton, Washington RG/Project 1Vo.2012-247 APPENDIX B LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Liquefaction analysis was completed using the LiquefyPro software from CivilTech Software USA. Soil and ground��-ater conditions from boring B-2 and B-3 «-ere used. � THE RILEY GROL'P, ItiC. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Renton Fred Meyer Fuel Station Hole No.-B-2 Water Depfh-9 ft Magnitude-7 Acceleration-0.25g I Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement Sor!Description Raw Unit Fines lfrl� 0 1 0 1 5 0(in.) 10 6 T�10 h35� �, , �. . . . ' iJ u Q G �� a �O OO , ' o � O - 5 O I ?�� ' O i o0p I Q OO _— _------ — 0 0 C�i -- 10 �0 5 110 35 , 0 O� O 4 _ O� 0 0 � -- 15 �o0 5 110 15 O — �I �00 - I °�' I _ o , o0 _ , � —20 � 30 125 5 � O ' _ O� _ I 4p� O I ou _ o —25 �� 41 125 5 ' O U_ fs7=1. 0 S=2.71 in. ;�j ;_ CRR — CSR fst— Saturated — > ' Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Unsaturat. — � � a �-30 m' �'— 3 0 �— U U H - � U 0 a`-35 T m 3 U J CivilTech Corporation 2012-247 Plate B-1 __ ._ _ _ - - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS ' Renton Fred Meyer Fuel Station ' ' Hole Na-B-3 Water Depth-9 ft Magnitude-7 ! Acceleration-0.25g Shear Stress Aatio Factor of Safety Settlement Soif Description Raw Unit Fines ,(N)� 0 1 0 1 5 0(in.) 10 S5 T W10 h35� I � i c7 � oqp I �� _ �O — o pp � I �o —5 I p oDQ � — i O 4 00o i, - I Q, �0 2 110 35 i _ — - — _ — fl�o — 70 �o0 7 110 15 O — O o {7 p __ � _ .�� QOp �� I p — 15 -� � o 0 0 20 125 5 — fS1=1 b I � S= 1.15rn. , pa _ CRR — CSR fsf— Saturated — Shaded Zone has Liquelaction Potential Unsaturat. — --20 � --25 0 L V. 0- > U. � ', I Q I �—30 ' d �_ 3 0 m I U' N H - ) U 0 a-35 m , � Q __ ___ ___ _ -- _ -- -- _ _ __ - _ _ I CivilTech Corporation 2012-247 Plate B-2 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Other permits for this project include: • Building Permit • Right-of-Way Use Permit • Approved adjustment for Filterra Unit for Water Quality (attached) 13245.002 doc � ; Fred Meyer Fueling Facility No. 459—Americast Filterra Adjustment 2013-01 The City of Renton Surface Water Utility has completed review of the adjustment request dated ' April 2, 2013,for the Fred Meyer Fueling Facility No.459 Project, as submitted by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc, in accordance with City adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and associated City Amendments. The adjustment request proposes to use the Americast Filterra� Bioretention System for Enhanced Basic Water Quality. The Washington State Department of Ecology has approved the Filterra� Bioretention System for General Use Level Designation for Total Suspended Solids, oil and grease, and enhanced dissolved metals. Based on the information provided in the adjustment request, the Americast Filterra� Bioretention System for Enhanced Basic Water Quality and Oil Treatment is approved with the following conditions; 1. Each Filterra� unit shall be sized for Enhanced Treatment using a filter hydraulic conductivity of 24.82 inches/hour (assuming a hydraulic gradient of 1.41 inch/inch as listed in the TIR) using the sand filter module in the latest version of the WWHM or � other Ecology-approved continuous runoff model. The model must indicate the unit is capable of processing 91 percent of the influent runoff file. The use of the Filterra� Bioretention System to comply with the Oil Control {Special Requirement#5) requirement for a High Use Site, in addition to Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment, is also approved. The same Filterra� unit can be used for both Enhanced Treatment and Oil Control, provided it is sized as specified above. 2. Each site plan must undergo Filterram review before the unit can be approved for site installation. This will ensure that site grading and slope are appropriate for use of a Filterra� unit. 3. Filterra� media shall conform to the specifications submitted to and approved by Ecology. 4. Facility inspection, maintenance, and reporting are required by the City of Renton Surface Water Utility perthe Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Section S5.C.4.c.iii). Facility owners are responsible for ensuring that stormwater facilities are properly maintained and functioning as designed and permitted. The facility shall be inspected every six months by the supplier during the first year of operation as offered with the purchase of the Filterra� system. Inspections will be used to determine the site-specific maintenance schedules and requirements. Maintenance of the facifity shall include removing trash, degraded mulch, and accumulated debris from the filter surface and replacing the mulch layer. Maintenance procedures should follow those given in the most recent version of the Filterra� Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Manual. During the first year of operation of the facility, written records of the inspections and maintenance shall be submitted to the City of Renton Surface Water Utility,to the attention of Edward Mulhern, Surface Water Utility Engineer. S. The owner shall have the Filterra� Bioretention System maintained by the supplier or approved contractor during the first year of operation as offered by the supplier with the purchase of the Filterra�system. Following the first year of operation,the property owner or owner of the facility shall annually have the Filterra� Bioretention System inspected and maintained perthe procedures in the most recent version of the Filterra� Bioretention System Installation, Operation and Maintenance Manual. Written records of the inspection and maintenance shall be submitted to the City of Renton Surface Water Utility, to the attention of Edward Mulhern, Surface Water Utility Engineer. If more frequent inspection and maintenance of the Filterra� Bioretention System is required by the manufacture or is needed to insure performance of the facility, then the additional inspection and maintenance reports completed within the year shall be provided with the annual report. 6. The final project TIR must be revised to include the use of the Filterra� Bioretention System and this adjustment approval. This is a conceptual approval for using the Filterra� Bioretention System for Enhanced Basic Water Quality and Oil Control (Oil Treatment). Further analysis and design calculations shall be included in the TIR for final approval. 7. The Filterra� treatment facility shall be installed in accordance with the approved drawings and shall not be located within City right-of-way or easements. 8. The applicant will need to submit a Drainage Facility Covenant for inspection and maintenance of the Filterra�treatment facility. The Drainage Facility Covenant can be found in Reference J of the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. A site pfan showing the location of the treatment facility must be included as Exhibit A with the declaration of covenant. 9. The approval of this adjustment does not relieve the applicant from other city, state, or federal requirements. 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This project will utilize appropriate erosion and sediment control measures in order to protect the site and adjacent properties. 1. Clearing Limits - The clearing limits are shown on the Demolition and TESC Plan, part of the site development drawings. 2. Cover Measures-Cover measures are added in the TESC notes on the engineering plans. 3. Perimeter Protection- Perimeter protection is shown on the engineering plans (silt fencing). 4. Traffic Area Stabilization - A stabilized construction entrance is shown on the engineering plans. 5. Sediment Retention -Catch basin filters will be used for sediment retention. 6. Surface Water Collection -Onsite surface water will be routed through an onsite BMP prior to being discharged from the site. 7. Dewatering Control - Dewatering may be necessary during onsite excavation. Only clean water may leave the site. Dewatering may be accomplished through the use of sump pumps. 8. Dust Control- Dust control by sprinklering will be utilized if needed. 9. Flow Control- Flow c�ntrol is not required for this project. Because this site is more than 1 acre, a General Permit from the Department of Ecology is required. 13245.002.doc 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT The Bond Quantity worksheet is attached. I 13245.002.doc i Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet S15 Webdate: 02/22/201: � King County Department of Permitting & Environmental Review 35030 SE Douglas Street, Suite 210 Snoqualmie, Washington 98065-9266 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600. 206-296-660Q TTY Relay 711 Pro�ect Name: Fred Meyer Renton Center �ate: 8/6/2013 �ocation: 431 Rainier Avenue S. Renton Project No.: Activity No.: Note: All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead and Clearing greater than or equal to 5,000 board feet of timber? profit. Prices are from RS Means data adjusted for the Seattle area or from local sources if not included in the RS Means database. yes x no If yes, Forest Practice Permit Number: (RCW 76.09) Page 1 of 9 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 11/26/2008 13245 FM Renton Center li-wks-sbq.xlsx Report Date: 8/7/2013 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet S15 Webdate: 02/22/201: Unit #of Reference# Price Unit Quantity Applications Cost EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL Number Backfill &compaction-embankment ESC-1 $ 5.62 CY Check dams, 4" minus rock ESC-2 SWDM 5.4.6.3 $ 67.51 Each Crushed surfacin 1 1/4"minus ESC-3 WSDOT 9-03.9(3) $ 85.45 CY Ditching ESC-4 $ 8.08 CY Excavation-bulk ESC-5 $ 1.50 CY 2000 1 3000 Fence, silt ESC-6 SWDM 5.4.3.1 $ 1.38 LF 300 1 414 Fence, Temporary(NGPE) ESC-7 $ 1.38 LF Hydroseedin ESC-8 SWDM 5.4.2.4 $ 0.59 SY Jute Mesh ESC-9 SWDM 5.4.22 $ 1.45 SY Mulch, b hand, straw, 3"deep ESC-10 SWDM 5.4.2.1 $ 2.01 SY Mulch, by machine, straw, 2"deep ESC-11 SWDM 5.42.1 $ 0.53 SY Piping, temporary, CPP, 6" ESC-12 $ 10.70 LF Pipin , temporary, CPP, 8" ESC-13 $ 16.10 LF Piping, temporary, CPP, 12" ESC-14 $ 20.70 LF Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandba ed ESC-15 SWDM 5.4.2.3 $ 2.30 SY 300 1 690 Rip Rap, machine placed; slopes ESC-16 WSDOT 9-13.1 2 $ 39.08 CY Rock Construction Entrance, 50'x15'x1' ESC-17 SWDM 5.4.4.1 $ 1,464.34 Each Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1' ESC-18 SWDM 5.4.4.1 $ 2,928.68 Each 1 1 2929 Sediment pond riser assembly ESC-19 SWDM 5.4.5.2 $ 1,949.38 Each Sediment trap, 5' high berm ESC-20 SWDM 5.4.5.1 $ 17.91 LF Sed.trap,5'high,riprapped spillway berm section ESC-21 SWDM 5.4.5.1 $ 68.54 LF Seeding, by hand ESC-22 SWDM 5.4.2.4 $ 0.51 SY Sodding, 1"deep, level ground ESC-23 SWDM 5.4.2.5 $ 6.03 SY Sodding, 1"deep, sloped round ESC-24 SWDM 5.4.2.5 $ 7.45 SY TESC Supervisor ESC-25 $ 74.75 HR Water truck, dust control ESC-26 SWDM 5.4.7 $ 97.75 HR WRITE-IN-ITEMS **** (see paQe 9) Catch Basin inserts $ 100.00 Each 6 1 600 ESC SUBTOTAL: $ 7,632.68 30%CONTINGENCY&MOBILIZATION: $ 2,289.80 ESC TOTAL: $ 9,922.48 COLUMN: A Page 2 of 9 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 11/26/2008 13245 FM Renton Center li-wks-sbq.xlsx Report Date� 8/7/2013 — - � Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Webdate 12/02/2008 Existing Future Public Private Quantity Completed Right-of-Way Right of Way Improvements (Bond Reduction)* 8 Draina e Facilities Quant. Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Complete Cost GENERALITEMS No. Backfill&Com action-embankment GI-1 $ 5.62 CY Backfill&Compaction-trench GI-2 $ 8.53 CY 500 4,265.00 Clear/Remove Brush,b hand GI-3 $ 0.36 SY Clearin /Grubbin /Tree Removal GI-4 $ 8,876.16 Acre 0.9 7,988.54 Excavation-bulk GI-5 $ 1.50 CY 5000 7,500.00 Excavation-Trench GI-6 $ 4.06 CY 180 730.80 Fencin ,cedar,6'hi h GI-7 $ 18.55 LF Fencin ,chain link,vin coated, 6'hi h GI-8 $ 13.44 LF 48 645.12 Fencin ,chain link, ate,vin coated, 2 GI-9 $ 1,271.81 Each 1 1,271.81 Fencin ,s lit rail,3'hi h GI-10 $ 12.12 LF Fill 8 com act-common barrow GI-11 $ 22.57 CY Fill 8 com act- ravel base GI-12 $ 25.48 CY 280 7,134.40 Fill&com act-screened to soil GI-13 $ 37.85 CY 660 24,981.00 Gabion, 12"dee ,stone filled mesh GI-14 $ 54.31 SY Gabion, 18"dee ,stone filled mesh GI-15 $ 74.85 SY Gabion,36"dee ,stone filled mesh GI-16 $ 132.48 SY Gradin ,fine,b hand GI-17 $ 2.02 SY Gradin ,fine,with rader GI-18 $ 0.95 SY 2926 2,779.70 Monuments,3'lon GI-19 $ 135.13 Each Sensitive Areas Si n GI-20 $ 2.88 Each Soddin , 1"deep,slo ed round GI-21 $ 7.46 SY Surve in ,line 8 rade GI-22 $ 788.26 Da 5 3,941.30 Surve in ,lot location/lines GI-23 $ 1,556.64 Acre 1 1,556.64 Traffic control crew 2 fla ers GI-24 $ 85.18 HR Trail,4"chi ed wood GI-25 $ 7.59 SY Trail,4"crushed cinder GI-26 $ 8.33 SY Trail,4"to course GI-27 $ 8.19 SY Wall,retainin ,concrete GI-28 $ 44.16 SF Wall,rockery GI-29 $ 9.49 SF Page 3 of 9 SUBTOTAL 62,794.31 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 `KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 11/26/08 13245 FM Renton Center li-wks-sbq.xlsx Report Date:8/7/2013 i Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Webdate: 12/02/2008 Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction* Right-of-way Right of Way Improvements &Draina e Facilities Quant. Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Com lete Cost ROADIMPROVEMENT No. AC Grindin ,4'wide machine<1000s RI-1 $ 28.00 SY AC Grindin ,4'wide machine 1000-200 RI-2 $ 15.00 SY AC Grindin ,4'wide machine>2000s RI-3 $ 7.00 SY 2800 19,600.00 AC Removal/Disposal/Re air RI-4 $ 67.50 SY Barricade,t e I RI-5 $ 30.03 LF 8arricade,t e III Permanent RI-6 $ 45.05 LF Curb&Gutter,rolled RI-7 $ 17.00 LF Curb&Gutter,verticai RI-8 $ 12.50 LF 583 7,287.50 Curb and Gutter,demolition and dis osal RI-9 $ 18.00 LF 890 16,020.00 Curb,extruded as halt RI-10 $ 5.50 LF Curb,e�ruded concrete RI-11 $ 7.00 LF Sawcut,as halt,3"de th RI-12 $ 1.85 LF 550 1,017.50 Sawcut,concrete,per 1"de th RI-13 $ 1.69 LF Sealant,as halt RI-14 $ 1.25 LF Shoulder,AC, see AC road unit rice RI-15 $ - SY Shoulder, ravel,4"thick RI-16 $ 15.00 SY Sidewalk,4"thick RI-17 $ 35.00 SY 210 7,350.00 � Sidewalk,4"thick,demolition and dis os RI-18 $ 29.50 SY 440 12,980.00 � Sidewalk,5"thick RI-19 $ 38.50 SY Sidewalk,5"thick,demolition and dis os RI-20 $ 37.50 SY Si n,handica RI-21 $ 85.28 Each 1 85.28 Stri in , er stall RI-22 $ 5.82 Each 10 58.20 Stri in ,thermo lastic, for crosswalk RI-23 $ 2.38 SF 70 166.60 Stripin ,4"reflectorized line RI-24 $ 0.25 LF 860 215.00 500 125.00 Page 4 of 9 SUBTOTAL 381.60 64,523.48 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 "KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 11/26/08 13245 FM Renton Center li-wks-sbq.xlsx Report Date:8/7/2013 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet webdate 12/02/2008 Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction* Right-of-way Right of Way Improvements 8 Draina e Facilities Quant. Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Com lete Cost ROAD SURFACING (4"Rock=2.5 base&1.5"top course) For'93 KCRS(6.5"Rock=5"base&1.5"top course) For KCRS'93, additional 2.5"base add RS-1 $ 3.60 SY AC Overla , 1.5"AC RS-2 $ 11.25 SY AC Overla ,2"AC RS-3 $ 15.00 SY AC Road,2",4"rock,First 2500 SY RS-4 $ 21.00 SY AC Road,2",4"rock,Qt .over 2500SY RS-5 $ 19.00 SY AC Road,3",4"rock,First 2500 SY RS-6 $ 23.30 SY 905 21,086.50 AC Road,3",4"rock,Q .over 2500 SY RS-7 $ 21.00 SY AC Road,5",First 2500 SY RS-8 $ 27.60 SY AC Road,5",Qt .Over 2500 SY RS-9 $ 25.00 SY 2926 73,150.00 AC Road,6",First 2500 SY S-1 $ 33.10 SY AC Road,6",Qt .Over 2500 SY S-11 $ 30.00 SY As halt Treated Base,4"thick RS-1 $ 20.00 SY Gravel Road,4"rock,First 2500 SY S-1 $ 15.00 SY Gravel Road,4"rock,Qt .over 2500 SY S-1 $ 8.50 SY PCC Road,5",no base,over 2500 SY S-1 $ 27.00 SY PCC Road, 6",no base,over 2500 SY RS-1 $ 25.50 SY 1200 30,600.00 Thickened Ed e RS-1 $ 8.60 LF Page 5 of 9 SUBTOTAL 124,836.50 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 'KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 11/26/08 13245 FM Renton Center li-wks-sbq.xlsx Report Date:8/7/2013 -__ -- -- --- — — — _ _- _ _ ___ — I Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Webdate: 12/02/Z008 Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction* Right-of-way Right of Way Improvements 8 Draina e Facilities Quant. Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Com lete Cost DRAINAGE (CPP=Corrugated Plastic Pipe,N 12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, Avera e of 4'cover was assumed.Assume perforated PVC is same price as solid i e. Access Road,R/D D-1 $ 21.00 SY Bollards-fixed D-2 $ 240.74 Each 4 962.96 Bollards-removable D-3 $ 452.34 Each * CBs include frame and lid CB T e I D-4 $ 1,257.64 Each 3 3,772.92 CB T e IL D-5 $ 1,433.59 Each 2 2,867.18 CB T e II,48"diameter D-6 $ 2,033.57 Each 3 6,100.71 for additional de th over 4' D-7 $ 436.52 FT 15 6,547.80 CB T e II,54"diameter D-8 $ 2,192.54 Each for additional de th over 4' D-9 $ 486.53 FT CB T e II,60"diameter D-10 $ 2,351.52 Each for additional de th over 4' D-11 $ 536.54 FT CB T e II,72"diameter D-12 $ 3,212.64 Each for additional depth over 4' D-13 $ 692.21 FT Throu h-curb Inlet Framework Add D-14 $ 366.09 Each Cleanout,PVC,4" D-15 $ 130.55 Each Cleanout,PVC,6" D-16 $ 174.90 Each 7 1,224.30 Cleanout,PVC,8" D-17 $ 224.19 Each Culvert,PVC,4" D-18 $ 8.64 LF 180 1,555.20 Culvert,PVC,6" D-19 $ 12.60 LF 180 2,268.00 Culvert,PVC, 8" D-20 $ 13.33 LF Culvert,PVC, 12" D-21 $ 21.77 LF 343 7,467.11 Culvert,CMP,8" D-22 $ 17.25 LF Culvert,CMP, 12" D-23 $ 26.45 LF Culvert,CMP, 15" D-24 $ 32.73 LF Culvert,CMP, 18" D-25 $ 37.74 LF Culvert,CMP,24" D-26 $ 53.33 LF Culvert,CMP,30" D-27 $ 71.45 LF Culvert,CMP,36" D-28 $ 112.11 LF Culvert,CMP,48" D-29 $ 140.83 LF Culvert,CMP,60" D-30 $ 235.45 LF Culvert,CMP,72" D-31 $ 302.58 LF Page 6 of 9 SUBTOTAL 32,766.18 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 "KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 11/26/08 13245 FM Renton Center li-wks-sbq.xlsx RepOrt Date: S/7/2013 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet WPhdate 12/02/200II Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction" Right-of-way Right of Way Improvements DRAINAGE CONTINUED 8 Drainage Facilities Quant. No. Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Com lete Cost Culvert,Concrete,8" D-32 $ 21.02 LF Culvert,Concrete, 12" D-33 $ 30.05 LF Culvert,Concrete, 15" D-34 $ 37.34 LF Culvert,Concrete, 18" D-35 $ 44.51 LF Culvert,Concrete,24" D-36 $ 61.07 LF Culvert,Concrete,30" D-37 $ 104.18 LF Culvert,Concrete,36" D-38 $ 137.63 LF Culvert,Concrete,42" D-39 $ 158.42 LF Culvert,Concrete,48" D-40 $ 175.94 LF Culvert,CPP,6" D-41 $ 10.70 LF Culvert,CPP,8" D-42 $ 16.10 LF Culvert,CPP, 12" D-43 $ 20.70 LF Culvert,CPP, 15" D-44 $ 23.00 LF Culvert,CPP, 18" D-45 $ 27.60 LF Culvert,CPP,24" D-46 $ 36.80 LF Culvert,CPP,30" D-47 $ 48.30 LF Culvert,CPP,36" D-48 $ 55.20 LF Ditchin D-49 $ 8.08 CY Flow Dis ersal Trench 1,436 base+ D-50 $ 25.99 LF French Drain 3'de th D-51 $ 22.60 LF Geotextile,laid in trench, ol ro ene D-52 $ 2.40 SY Infiltration ond testin D-53 $ 74.75 HR Mid-tank Access Riser,48"dia, 6'deep D-54 $ 1,605.40 Each Pond Overflow S illwa D-55 $ 14.01 SY Restrictor/Oil Se arator, 12" D-56 $ 1,045.19 Each Restrictor/Oil Se arator,15" D-57 $ 1,095.56 Each Restrictor/Oil Se arator,18" D-58 $ 1,146.16 Each Ri ra , laced D-59 $ 39.08 CY Tank End Reducer 36"diameter D-60 $ 1,000.50 Each Trash Rack, 12" D-61 $ 211.97 Each Trash Rack, 15" D-62 $ 237.27 Each Trash Rack, 18" D-63 $ 268.89 Each Trash Rack,21" D-64 $ 306.84 Each Page 7 of 9 SUBTOTAL Unit prices updated: 02/12IO2 'KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 11/26/08 13245 FM Renton Center li-wks-sbq.xisx Report Date: 8/7/2013 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet W�'��ate: 12/OZ/2008 Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction' Right-of-way Right of Way Improvements 8 Draina e Facilities Quant. Unit Price Unit Quant. Price Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Com lete Cost PARKING LOT SURFACING No. 2"AC,2"to course rock&4"borrow PL-1 $ 21.00 SY 2"AC, 1.5" to course&2.5"base cour PL-2 $ 28.00 SY 4"select borrow PL-3 $ 4.55 SY 1.5"to course rock&2.5"base course PL-4 $ 11.41 SY UTILITY POLES&STREET I.IGHTING Utility pole relocation costs must be accom anied b Franchise Utility's Cost Statement Utilit Pole s Relocation UP-1 Lum Sum Street Li ht Poles w/Luminaires UP-2 $90,000.00 Each 1 90000 WRITE-IN-ITEMS Such as detention/water ualit vaults. No• Oil/W ater Separator vault W I-1 $ 6,500.00 Each 1 6,500.00 Storm Filter Vault W I-2 $25,000.00 Each 1 25,000.00 W I-3 $ 35.00 LF WI-4 LF WI-5 FT WI-6 WI-7 WI-8 WI-9 wi-io SUBTOTAL 90,000.00 31,500.00 SUBTOTAL(SUM ALL PAGES): 90,381.60 316,420.47 30%CONTINGENCY 8�MOBILIZATION: 27,114.48 94,926.14 GRANDTOTAL: 117,496.08 411,346.62 COLUMN: B C D E Page 8 of 9 Unit prices updated: 02112/02 'KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 11/26/08 13245 FM Renton Center li-wks-sbq.xlsx Report Date:8/7/2013 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet webdate: 12l02/2008 Original bond computations prepared by: Name: Dan Lamotte Date: 8/6/2013 PE Registration Number: Tel.#: 425-251-6222 Firm Name: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. ,nddress: 18215 72nd Avenue S. Kent, Wa Project No: ROAD IMPROVEMENTS&DRAINAGE FACILITIES FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS PERFORMANCE BOND" PUBLIC ROAD&DRAINAGE AMOUNT BOND'AMOUNT MAINTENANCE/DEFECT BOND` REQUIRED AT RECORDING OR Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control (ESC) (A) $ 9,922.5 TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY"" Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (B) $ 117,496.1 Future Public Right of Way& Drainage Facilities (C) $ - Private Improvements (D) $ 411,346.6 Calculated Quantity Completed (E) $ - Total Right-of Way and/or Site Restoration Bond*/'" (A+B) $ 127,418.6 (First$7,500 of bond'shall be cash. Performance Bond*Amount (A+B+C+D) = TOTAL (T) $ 538,765.2 T x 0.30 $ 161,629.6 OR Minimum on amount is Reduced Performance Bond`Total ""` (T-E) $ 538,765.2 Use larger o x o or - (B+C)x Maintenance/Defect Bond"Total 0.25 = $ 29,374.0 NAME OF PERSON PREPARING BOND`REDUCTION: Date: *NOTE: The word"bond"as used in this document means a financial guarantee acceptable to King County. *" NOTE: KCC 27A authorizes right of way and site restoration bonds to be combined when both are required. The restoration requirement shall include the total cost for all TESC as a minimum,not a maximum. In addition,corrective work,both on-and off-site needs to be included. Quantities shall reflect worse case scenarios not just minimum requirements. For example,if a salmonid stream may be damaged,some estimated costs for restoration needs to be reflected in this amount. The 30%contingency and mobilization costs are computed in this quantity. "*NOTE: Per KCC 27A,total bond amounts remaining after reduction shall not be less than 30%of the original amount(T)or as revised by major design changes. REQUIRED BOND'AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MODIFICATION BY DDES Page 9 of 9 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Check out the DDES Web site at www.kinpcountv.qov/permits Version: 11/26/08 13245 FM Renton Center li-wks-sbq.xlsx Report Date: 8/7/2013 10.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL r i { 13245.002.doc OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Fred Meyer Fuel Center - #459 Renton Center 431 Rainier Avenue South Renton, Washington Prepared for: The Kroger Co. 3800 S.E. 22nd Avenue Portland, OR 97202 October 19, 2012 Our Job No. 13245 �GHA� � � CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING m 1� x 1 H215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT,WA 98032 ,� - (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 F,ax i � ? BRANCH OFFICES ♦ OLYMPIA,WA ♦ TACOMA,WA ♦ CONCORD,CA ♦ TEP.^�CULA,CA '�� ., www.barghausen.com (rA'G rN(j1" k� s TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION EXHIBIT A MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 13245.003.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION Catch basins are located on the Fred Meyer Fueling Facility site that collect runoff from the project site and route that runoff through conveyance piping to the northwest corner of the site where runoff enters the existing Fred Meyer conveyance system. Flow Control is not required for this project. Water quality treatment will be provided in a Filterra Bioretention System to meet the City of Renton's Enhanced Basic Water Quality. All facilities on the project site should be maintained on a regular basis of at least twice a year at an interval of every six months. Should vegetation become sparse or should it die out, then it should be replaced around the site to match what the design conditions of the site were when the site was initially constructed. The following pages of this report delineate the requirements for conveyance and water quality facilities maintenance. Please refer to these documents when performing your maintenance on the project site. 13245.003.doc Exhibit A Maintenance Guidelines APPGNDIX A MAINTENAVCG REQUIREIvfE�1TS FOIt FLOW CONTROL,CONVGYANC�,AND WQ FAC[Lfl'IGS NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Perfo�med Structure Sediment Sediment exceeds 60�0 of!he depth from the Sump of catch basin contains no bottom of the catch basin to the invert of fhe sediment. lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of fhe invert of the lowest pipe info or oul of the catch basin. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than Y:cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immedlatefy in front of the catch basin potentiafly blocking entrance to opening or is bfocking capacity of the catch basin catch basin. by more than 10%. Trash or debris in the catch basin fhat exceeds No Irash or debris in tha catch basin. �13 the depth irom the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Oead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within catch basin. gases(e.g„methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage!o frame Corner of frame extends more than'/.inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street(1(applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than Y.inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab,i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than'/.inch of the frame from ' the top slab. Cracks ir.walls or Cracks wider than'/:inch and Ionger than 3 feet, Calch basin is sealed and bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch sUucturally sound. , basin through cracks,or rnaintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Cracks wider than Y�inch and longer than t foot No cracks more than'la inch wide at I at the joint of any inleUoutlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. of soil partides enfering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ Catch basin has se#tled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Qamaged pipe joints Cracks wider than'/:-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than'/.-inch wide at inleUoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inleUoutlet pipes. the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of confaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. ,I Source control BlV1Ps implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. InIeUOutlet Pipe Sediment Sediment 511ing 20%or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes{includes floatables and non-Boatables). Damaged Cracks wider than%z-inch at the joint of!he No cracks more than '/.-inch wide at inleUoutlet pipes or ary evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints o(lhe inleVoutlet pipes. � 2009 Surface Water Design Mauual-Appendix A U9/2009 A-9 APPEND[X A MA[NT�NANCE R6QU[REi�•tENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AVD WQ FACIL[TI�S N�. 5- CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Probfem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than'/a inch. Grate opening meets design (Catch Basins) standards. Trash and debrts Trash and debris lhat is blocking mare ihan 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(sj of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design Any open structure requires urgent standards. maintenance. Manhole CovedLid Coverllld not in placa Coverllid is missing or onty partially in place. CoverAid protects opening to Any open stntcture requires urgent structure. matntenance. Lockirtg mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools.Bolts cannot be seated. Seff-lodcing coverllid does not work. Coverllid di(ficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 Ibs.of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance � person. I/9.%2009 2009 Surface«�a�cr Design'�tanu�l- .nppendix A A-]0 APPEND[X A MA[NTENANCE RCQUIRGi�tE�TS FOR FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND 4VQ FACIL[T1GS NO. 6- CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Pipes Sediment&debris Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds Water flows ireely through pipes. accumulation 20%of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetationlroots Vegetation/roots that reduce Eree movement of Water flows freely through pipes. water througfi pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. accorciing to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surtace oil filrn. Damage to protective Protective coaUng is damaged;rust or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. coating or corrosion is weakening the strucfural inlegrity of any part of pipe. Damaged Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20%or is determined to have i ` weakened strudural integnty of the pipe. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris cleared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20%of the Ditch cleanedlFlushed of al!sediment accumulation design depth. and debris so liiat it matches design. fVoxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County pe�sonnel or the public might normaily be. Contaminants and ' Any evidence of confaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source conUol BIvSPs implemented if appropriafe. No contaminants -- present other than a surtace al film. I Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Water flows treely ihrough ditches. through ditches. Erosion damage to Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. slopes Rock lining out of One layer or less oF�ock exisis above native soil Replace rocks to design standards. place or missing(If area 5 square(eet or more,any exposed native i Applicable) soil. 2009 Surface W:►tcr Design Manual—Appendix A I f9/2009 A-l1 APPEVDIX A i4tAINTENANCE REQLIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AVD WQ FACIL.IT[ES NO. 11 - GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING} Maintenance Oefect or P►oblem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Pertormed Sita Trash or litter Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. per 1,000 square feet{lhis is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can}. In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation consfitute a hazard to County personnel or fhe removed according to applicabte pubEic. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of conlaminants or pollution such i+Aaterials remaved and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or palnt. according to applicable regulations, Source contro!B{�APs impiemented if apQropriata. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard Any tree or Iimb of a tree identified as having a No hazard trees in facility. potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree Identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possibte. � , Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than 5°� i broken which affect more fhan 25�0 of the total of total foliage with split or brafcen foliage of the tree or shrub. timbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blow�down or No biown down vegetation or knocked over. knocked over vegelaGon. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and I supported or are leaning o�er,causing exposure adequately supported;dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. � I I 1J9/2009 2009 Surfacc Water Design N(anual—Appendix A A-l6 � m PREPARED FOR � . � KBS IlI, LLC October 17, 2005 .� _ �\ �jC S��.co#�S:kR�egel P�'��e�6��01.o��ist . �� ;��_`•.,,,�-, :��` { �;� ,. � �r � �� .�� 1 � !7 ti ;� � ' �a� � t � , . � � 8 � �, , � . � .��-.�._...-- - '�Ip'�� 712�t! �e� ' � Raymond A. Coglas, P.E. Principa) I I GEDTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT — ALLEN PROPERTY 126T" AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-0208 Earth Solutions NW, LLC � 2881 – 152nd Avenue Northeast, Redmond, Washington 98052 Ph: 425-284-3300 Fax: 425-284-2855 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 3737 . • m � � � October 17, 2005 �a�� Sp��jp�� N�11/ LLC ES-0208 c,� �� KBS III, LLC •Geotechnical Engineering th •Construction Monitoring 12320 Northeast 8 Street, Suite 100 •Environmental Sciences Bellevue, Washington 98005 �. � ( . - .,.. Attention: Mr. Curtis Schuster �! �� j , �;� a �- �' � � �'� ' � � if 1� � . r.,- Dear Mr. Schuster: Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Residential Development, Allen Property, 126th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington". Based on the conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the site is underlain primarily by native soils consisting of loose to dense silty sand with gravel. Localized areas of fill consisting primarily of silty sand with gravel associated with past grading of the property was also encountered. Groundwater seepage was not encountered at the time of our fieldwork (September 6, 2005). However, localized perched zones of groundwater seepage could be encountered during site grading operations, depending of the time of year and depth of excavations. Due to the presence of steep slopes at the site, we have included a landslide potential, coalmine, seismic, and erosion hazard assessment for the subject site, in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. In our opinion, the proposed residential structures can be supported on competent native soils or structural fill used to modify existing site grades, as appropriate. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill, may be necessary. The loose fill soils encountered along the top of the slopes located along the central portions of the property should be re-graded and compacted to structural fill specifications, as appropriate. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. S' , EART S I S NW, LLC ymond A. Coglas, .E. Principal 2881 152nd Avenue NE•Redmond,WA 98052•(425) 284-3300•FAX(425) 284-2855 •Toll Free(866)336-8710 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont'd ES-0208 GRAPHICS PLATE 1 VICINITY MAP PLATE 2 TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN PLATE 3 SLOPE FILL DETAIL PLATE 4 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL PLATE 5 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL PLATE 6 COMPACTED FILL ROCKERY APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Sieve Analysis Results Appendix C ARC Guidelines GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALLEN PROPERTY 126T" AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-0208 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed residential development to be constructed at the southern terminus of 126th Avenue Southeast, southeast of the intersection of 126th Avenue Southeast and Northeast 19th Street in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this study was to excavate a series of test pits throughout the site, perform appropriate geotechnical analyses, and develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Subsurface exploration and characterization of the site soil and groundwater conditions, including a site geologic description; • A Critical Areas Hazards assessment in general accordance with the City of Renton Municipal code, Section 3-5-050; • Recommendations for site grading, drainage, cut and fill slopes, structural fill requirements, erosion control, and recommended pavement sections; • Soil bearing capacity, subgrade preparation, and foundation recommendations, including recommended building setbacks from steep slope areas; • An assessment of the suitability of site soils for use as structural fill, and; • Geotechnical recommendations related to the proposed detention pond, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations, as appropriate. Earth Solutions NW, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS ES-0208 PAGE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 General ........................................................................... 1 Project Description ........................................................... 2 Surface............ ................................................................. 2 Site Reconnaissance ................................................ 3 Subsurface......................................................................... 4 Gro u n dwate r....................................................................... 5 CRITICAL AREA ASSESSMENT..................................................... 5 Landslide Hazard Assessment............................................. 5 Erosion Hazard Assessment............................................... 6 Seismic Hazard Assessment............................................... 6 Coal Mine Hazard Assessment............................................ 6 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... 6 General.........................................................:................... 6 Site Preparation and Earthwork............................................ 7 In-situ Soils.............................................................. 8 Struetural Fill Placement............................................ 8 Slope Fill Placement .................................................. 9 Excavations and Slopes ..................................................... 9 Detention Pond Recommendations....................................... 9 Utilitv Trench Backfill........................................................... 10 Pavement Sections.............................................................. 10 Cement Treatment..................................................... 11 Foundations ..................................................................... 11 Foundation Setbacks................................................. 12 Slab-on-Grade Floors.......................................................... 12 Retaininq Walls.................................................................. 12 Drainaqe........................................................................... 13 Rockeries and Modular Block Walls..................................... 13 Seismic Considerations.............:........... ................................. 14 LIMITATIONS.................................................................. ............ 14 Additional Services... ......... ...... .............................. ... ......... 14 � KBS III, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 2005 Page 2 Project Description We understand the site will be developed with single-family residences, an access road, and infrastructure improvements. The site layout was being developed at the time of this report. Due to the topographic relief throughout the site, we anticipate a series of cuts and fills will be required to achieve design elevations. We anticipate the mass grading at this site will largely use a balanced approach, with cut soils utilized elsewhere on-site as structural fill. We anticipate rockeries or modular block walls may be constructed at the site as part of the overall site grading activities. Construction of a stormwater detention pond is planned as part of the proposed development. At the time this study was prepared, the location of the proposed pond had not been finalized. However, preliminary plans are to locate the detention pond along the westerly side of the property, within an existing topographic low area near the west to southwest portions of the developable area. The detention pond will likely be constructed within competent soils encountered in the native cuts. The proposed residential structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations. We anticipate the majority of the residential structures will incorporate crawl space and slab-on-grade garage floors. Due to the topographic relief across the site, several of the residential structures may utilize daylight basement construction. Based on our experience with similar developments, we anticipate wall loads on the order of 2 kips per lineal foot and slab-on-grade loading of 150 pounds per square foot (psfl. I If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change,.ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated. , � Surface The site is located at the southern terminus of 126th Avenue Southeast, southeast of the I intersection of Southeast 126th Avenue and Northeast 19th Street in Renton, Washington. The i approximate location of the subject property is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site is roughly rectangular in shape with a gross area of approximately 4.9 acres. The property is bordered on the north, east, and northwest by residential properties, and to the south and southwest by steep slope areas that descend to Honey Creek. There is a Bonneville Power Authority easement and associated utility tract trending diagonally through the upper northeast corner of the property. The approximate limits of the property are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Earth Solutions t�Ml, LLC KBS III, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 2005 Page 3 The topography throughout the north and central portions of the property is roughly terraced, with the northern upper terrace occupied by an existing single family residence and associated outbuildings. The property descends moderately to a lower terraced area trending roughly north-south throughout the westerly portions of the property. Throughout roughly the south and southwesterly portions of the property, steep slope areas descend to the south and southwest property line. The Honey Creek stream channel is located along the base of the steep slope areas, along the margins of the south property line. Based on our observations, vertical relief throughout the steep slope areas is on the order of eighty (80) to one hundred (100) feet, and slope grades are on the order of 40 percent or greater. With respect to the proposed development areas of the site, slope grades transitioning between the existing terraced areas are generally less than 40 percent. A localized area of 40 percent slope was identified on the recent survey completed for the site. This area is located adjacent to the existing garage structure located in the northwesterly portions of the property, and is limited in extent. Based on the current survey for the property, the overall height of the 40 percent slope area is on the order of twelve (12) to fifteen (15) feet. Vegetation throughout the upper terrace consists primarily of general landscaping and groundcover. The lower terrace is vegetated with dense blackberry brambles and brush, with occasional deciduous and fir trees. The steep slope areas are densety vegetated with forest and native understory species. Site Reconnaissance As part of our investigation, we visited the subject property on September 6, 2005 to observe � the property for signs of soil movement or severe erosion. Based on our observations, soil ' stability is good, and no indications of severe erosion were observed. Soil creep as evidenced ; ' by arched tree trunks and hummocky terrain was not observed. In our opinion, based on our j observations, overall site stability can be characterized as good. Due to the nature of steep slope areas, however, the potential for relatively shallow debris flow � type failures, particularly during periods of extended rainfall or during a seismic event does exist. This potential is common for most sloped topographic settings. The potential for shallow � debris flow activity can be mitigated through controlling drainage above the slope areas and maintaining vegetation on the slopes. In our opinion, based on the results of our slope stability assessment, the soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork, and our understanding of the proposed developrnent, the steep slope areas are in a generally stable condition and the proposed development will not increase the potential for slope instability, provided the ' recommendations detailed in this report are followed. � Earth Solutions NW,LLC , I I � KBS III, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 2005 Page 4 Subsurface Seven test pits were excavated throughout the subject site for purposes of assessing soil conditions, and for purposes of characterizing and classifying the site soils. Access restraints targely controlled the location and number of our test sites. Please refer to the test pit logs provided in appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Topsoil was encountered at all of our test sites and ranged in depths between four (4) to twelve (12) inches. Topsoil is not suitable for foundation or pavement support, and should not be mixed with soil to be used as structural fill. The topsoil can be considered for use in landscape or non-structural areas, if desired. The geotechnical engineer should observe stripping operations, and provide supplement recommendations for stripping depths, as appropriate. Fill was encountered at test sites TP-2, and TP-5 to TP-7. The fill consisted primarily of loose to medium dense silty sand and silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). Isolated zones of increased organic content were observed in the fill portions of Test Pits TP-5 through T P-7. Underlying the fill and in the remainder of the test sites, we encountered native soils consisting primarily of up to three feet of loose silty sand and silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). Underlying the loose soils, medium dense to dense silty sand and silty sand with gravel (SM) was encountered extending to the maximum exploration depths. In several test sites, layers of poorly graded sand (SP) and poorly graded sand with silt and gravel (SP- SM) were encountered. The geologic map of the area identifies glacially consolidated till soil (Qvt) underlain by advance sand (Qva) deposits throughout the site and surrounding areas. The advance sand deposits are mapped primarily along the sloped areas of the site. The till soils consist primarily of a non- sorted mixture of compact silt, sand and gravel, while the advance sand deposits generally consist of compact sand and gravel with occasionat silt. The King County Soil Survey (SCS) indicates the site is underlain by Alderwood Series gravelly sandy loam (AgC and AgD) soils. The Alderwood series soils are characterized by a matrix of non-sorted silt, sand and gravel in a compact or dense condition at depth. The SCS describes Alderwood series soils as having moderate to rapid runoff with a moderate to severe erosion hazard. The soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork generally correlate with the geologic map designations and the SCS classification. Earth Soluticns NW, LLC � KBS III, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 2005 Page 5 Groundwater Groundwater seepage was not encountered at the time of our fieldwork (September 6, 2005). Due to the anticipated grading for the site, the presence of groundwater seepage should be anticipated in the deeper site excavations. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT As part of our report preparation, we perFormed a critical area assessment in general accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-3-050. An ESNW representative reviewed the current critical area maps at the Development Services department map room on the sixth floor of City Hall. A representative of the City of Renton assisted ESNW with locating and interpreting the pertinent maps and critical areas designated for the subject site. Landslide Hazard Assessment Based on our review of the Landslide Hazard map at the City of Renton, the slopes located within the subject site are not designated as a landslide hazard. We reviewed the Steep Slope map atlas at the City of Renton City Hall, which identifies slopes with gradients befinreen 25 to 39.99 percent along the terrace divide, and 40 to 89.99 percent along the southwestern and southern portions of the site, which includes the descending slopes that lead to Honey Creek. However, our review of the City of Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-3-050B(c)iii indicates the slopes along the southwestern and southern portion of the site meet High Landslide Hazard � (LH) criteria, which includes any sfopes over 40 percent. In our opinion, based on our review and site reconnaissance, the subject property contains steep slope areas with gradients of 40 percent or greater. However, throughout the proposed development areas of the property, steep slope areas are not present. Evidence of soil creep, groundwater seeps, and evidence of recent slope movements that are often associated with a landslide hazard area were not observed throughout the steep slope areas of the property. Based on our site reconnaissance, subsurFace exploration, and overall characterization of the geologic setting, the steep slope areas of the property generally exhibit good stability. I Earth Solutions NW,LLC � KBS IIi, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 2005 Page 6 Erosion Hazard Assessment Based on our review of the Erosion Hazard map at the City of Renton, the site is considered an erosion hazard by the City of Renton. In our opinion, based on the soil and topographic conditions, the proposed development areas of the site can generally be characterized as a moderate erosion hazard. As such, Best Management Practices (BPM's) should be implemented during and after construction to minimize the potential for excessive erosion or instability. Exposed earth surFaces should be appropriately vegetated or mulched to reduce erosion during construction. Surface water runoff should be controlled and not allowed to discharge over the top of the slopes. Final erosion control measures should consist of surFace water controls and appropriate species of vegetation where exposed earth surfaces are present. Provided the recommendations detailed in this report are followed, in our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the erosion hazard on the property or on adjacent properties. Seismic Hazard Assessment Based on our review of the Seismic Hazard map at the City of Renton, the site is not classified as a seismic hazard. Based on the soil conditions observed during our fieldwork, we are in agreement with the City of Renton mapping of the site. Coalmine Hazard Assessment Based on our review of the Coalmine Hazard map at the City of Renton, the site does not contain a coalmine hazard. As such, our report does not include a coalmine hazard assessment. � DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include site grading and earthwork, foundation support and ; setback criteria, structural fill placement, temporary and permanent slope construction and � stability, and the suitability of the on-site soils for use as structural fill. ' Based on the results of our study, the proposed residential structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous foundations bearing on competent native soils or structural � fill, as appropriate. Throughout the proposed cut areas of the site, we anticipate that competent � native soil suitable for support of foundations will generally be exposed at the footing elevations. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. j Earth Solutions NW, LLC I � KBS III, LLC ES-0208 � October 17, 2005 Page 7 Where structural fill placement is planned throughout the site, the fill should be benched and keyed into the existing slope areas, as appropriate. Recommendations for structural fill placement are discussed in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this study. In our opinion, the soils generated from cuts throughout the site should generally be suitable for use as structural fill. The silty sand, silty sand with gravel, and sand soils encountered at the majority of the exploration sites will generally exhibit good soil strength when compacted to structural fill specifications. The presence of groundwater seepage in deeper utility and site excavations should be anticipated. Supplement recommendations for controlling groundwater seepage should be provided by the geotechnical engineer during the grading activities, as appropriate. However, based on the data obtained from the test sites, and our overall characterization of subsurface conditions, extensive site dewatering is not anticipated to be necessary for the proposed site development. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of KBS III, LLC, and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork The primary geotechnical considerations during the proposed site preparation and earthwork activities will involve structural fill placement and compaction, site drainage and erosion control, and permanent fill slope construction. We anticipate the mass grading for the project will utilize a largely balanced approach, with cut soils used as structural fill elsewhere on-site. In general, alteration to the steep slope areas of the site is not planned. The limited area of 40 percent sfope adjacent to the existing garage structure on the west side of the property will likely be altered as part of site grading activities. Due to the limited extent of this area, stability of the site or surrounding properties will not be impacted. As previously mentioned in the Surface section of this study, the area of 40 percent slope is limited in extent, and has an overall height an the order of twelve (12) to fifteen (15) feet. Earth Solutions NW, LLC ` KBS III, LLC ES-0208 � October 17, 2005 Page 8 In-situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the silty sand and sand soils encountered at the test sites are generally suitable for use as structural fill. Due to the generally granular nature of the native and existing fill soils, use of these soils throughout the structural fill and permanent fill slope areas of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The moisture sensitivity of the native soils can be generally characterized as moderate. Because the native soils are moderately sensitive to moisture, successful use of the on-site soils will largely be dictated by the moisture content of the soils at the time of placement and compaction. The soils encountered at the test sites were generally in a moist to wet condition at the time of the exploration (September 2005). Soils encountered during site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content may require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction. Conversely, if the native soils are found to be dry at the time of placement, moisture conditioning through the application of water may be necessary prior to compacting the soil. If the on-site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a maximum aggregate grain size of four inches, and a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural Fill Placement In general, areas to receive structural fill should be sufficiently stripped of organic matter and other deleterious material. In our opinion, where structural fill will exceed a depth of four feet above the existing native ground surface, stripping of the topsoil layer may not be necessary. The majority of the organic matter associated with trees, brush, root balls, and groundcover should be removed from the fill areas. The observed topsoil and forest duff layer throughout the majority of the site is relatively thin, and is not highly compressible. However, the geotechnical engineer should observe cleared and stripped areas of the site prior to structural fill placement. Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557-02} and placed in maximum twelve (12) inch lifts. In pavement areas, the upper twelve (12) inches of the structural fill should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. Earth Solutions N'JV,LLC KBS III, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 2005 Page 9 Slope Fill Placement in general, fill placement throughout the existing slope areas separating the terraces of the site is feasible, provided appropriate measures to bench and key the fill into the existing slope surFaces are utilized. General guidelines for slope fill placement are provided on Plate 3 of this report. The geotechnical engineer should be on-site during the fill placement to assess the slope fill construction, and to provide supplement recommendations for the fill placement, as appropriate. During the construction of the fill slopes, appropriate means for compacting the slope face should be utilized. As previously mentioned, the existing fill soils located along the upper terrace should be re-graded and compacted, as appropriate. Excavations and Slopes The Federal and state Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA/WISHA) classifies soils in terms of minimum safe slope inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the site soils encountered to depths of up to four feet would be classified by OSHA/WISHA as Type C. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical}. The site soils encountered to depths of greater than four feet would generally be classified by OSHA/WISHA as Type A and B. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 0.75H:1V and 1H:1V, respectively. If appropriate slopes cannot be achieved, temporary shoring should be used to support the excavations. ', Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. ; i The geotechnical engineer should observe temporary and permanent slopes to verify that the � inclination is appropriate, and to provide additional grading recommendations, as necessary. ' Detention Pond Recommendations j A detention pond may be constructed at the site, within a topographic low area on the west side i of the property. Final plans were still being developed at the time of this study. In accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, silty sand soils with greater than 25 ; percent fines are generally considered suitable for use as a compacted till liner for detention i ponds. We anticipate soils suitable for use as a compacted till liner should be encountered in site excavations. We will work with the contractor to achieve appropriate compacted till liner recommendations, based on the soils encountered during the mass grading. 1f soils suitable for ; use as a compacted till liner cannot be generated on-site, then a soil meeting the specifications � for a till liner may need to be imported. A compacted till liner should be at least eighteen (18} I inches thick and the till soil should possess a moisture content that is slightly above the ! optimum level. � Earth Solutions IVW,LLC c � KBS III, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 2005 Page 10 Utilitv Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils observed at the test sites are generally suitable for support of utilities. Organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used fior supporting utilities. In general, the existing fill and native soils observed at the test sites should generally be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable specifications of the city or county jurisdictions, as appropriate. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade will require remedial measures such as overexcavation and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. Cement treatment can also be considered for stabilizing pavement subgrade areas. For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to automobiles and occasional truck trafFic, the following pavement sections can be considered: � � Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Two inches of AC placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The AC, ATB and CRB materials should confarm to WSDOT specifications. Heavier t�uck-traffic areas generally require thicker pavement sections depending on site usage, pavement life expectancy, and site traffic. ESNW can provide appropriate pavement section design recomrnendations for truck traffic areas and right-of-way improvements, as necessary. Additionally, the city or county Road Standards may supersede the recommendations provided in this report. Earth Solutions NW,LLC � � KBS III, LLC ES-0208 I October 17, 2005 Page 11 Cement Treatment Where determined necessary, cement treatment can be considered for stabilizing pavement subgrade areas. For preliminary design purposes, the following guidelines for cement treated base (CTB) can be considered: • Cement Application — 5 percent to 6 percent (typical) • Treatment Depth — 12 inches (typical) • Approximate Weight of Cement (per Square Yard) — 60 to 70 pounds • Crushed Rock Leveling Course— 2 inches (typical) The above guidelines for cement treatment can be modified based on the degree of subgrade instability encountered during construction. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed residential structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous foundations bearing on competent native soils or structural fill, as appropriate. Throughout the proposed native cut areas of the site, we anticipate that competent native soil suitable for support of foundations will generally be exposed at the footing elevations. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. Throughout the areas where existing fills were identified, the fill soils should be re-graded and compacted, as appropriate. Foundations bearing on competent native soil or structural fill should be designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) psf. For short term wind and seismic loading, a one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of approximately one-half of an inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Passive resistance and friction acting on the foundations can be assumed for purposes of calculating resistance to lateral loading. Assuming the foundations are backfilled with structural fill, passive resistance can be calculated using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pcfl. For calculating friction, a coefficient of 0.40 should be used. A factor-of-safety of 1.5 has been applied to these passive resistance values. Earth Solutions NW, LLC � e KBS III, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 2005 Page 12 Foundation Setbacks In accordance with City of Renton Development Standards, ailowabie building setbacks from steep slope areas are typically specified by the geotechnical engineer with sufficient data to support the recommendation. The soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork indicate the site is predominately underlain by dense, stable soil deposits. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions encountered at the site, and our understanding of the proposed development, the following minimum building setback distance from the top of the steep slope areas or structural fill slopes should be incorporated into the preliminary design: • Native Cut Bldg. Pads or Structural Fill Slopes 10 — Foot Setback (Min.) The geotechnical engineer should review the final design to verify building setback distances, and provide supplement recommendations, as appropriate. The geotechnical engineer should observe the building pad construction, and verify the minimum allowable building setback recommendations at the time of construction. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors for the proposed buildings should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of competent native soil or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. Retaininq Watls Retaining wafls should be designed to resist earth pressures and any applicable surcharge loads. For design, the following parameters can be assumed for retaining wall design: • Active Earth Pressure (Yielding Wall) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) • At-Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) 50 pcf • Traffic Surcharge (Passenger Vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution) • Passive Resistance 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) • Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Earth Solutions NW, LLC • � KBS III, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 200� Page 13 Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be included in the retaining wall design, as appropriate. Drainage should be provided behind retaining wa11s such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design, as appropriate. ESNW should review retaining wall designs to verify that appropriate earth pressure values have been incorporated into design, and to provide additional recommendations, as necessary. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable (surFace seal) soil, if desired. A rigid, perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an appropriate discharge location. A typical retaining wall and drainage detail is illustrated on Plate 4 of this report. Drainaqe Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of our fieldwork (September 6, 2005). However, localized perched zones of groundwater seepage could be encountered in the site excavations, particularly during the wetter winter months. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. In our opinion, perimeter drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 5 of this report. Rockeries and Modular Block Walls We anticipate that rockeries or modular block walls may be utilized at this site. In our opinion, the use of rockeries or modular block walls at this site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Rockeries or modular block walls over four feet in height will require an engineered design. ESNW can provide engineered rockery and modular block wall designs, upon request. The geotechnical engineer should review the final wall alignments and wall heights with respect to the proposed site grading. With respect to rockery construction, we have provided preliminary recommendations for compacted fill rockeries up to eight feet in height. These preliminary recommendations are provided on Plate 6 of this study. Rockery heights greater than eight feet are feasible. The geotechnical engineer, however, should review the alignment and rockery heights, and provide supplement recommendations for the rockery construction, as appropriate. Rockery construction should generally conform to the Associated Rockery Contractor Guidelines provided in Appendix C of this study. Earth Solutions NW, LLC f � KBS ill, LLC ES-0208 October 17, 2005 Page 14 Seismic Considerations The 2003 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, Site Class C, from table 1615.1.1, should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction susceptibility at this site is low. The relative density of the site soils and the absence of a uniform, shallow groundwater table is the primary basis for this designation. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test sites may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this repo�t. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. i Earth Solutions NVU, LLC c � i s� .. . � . �n� - i S=Ra�; " - PARK�:I .P.� v _- r ly?T'i'=- ,:,°t,� - -r�_ .oi I � �jE . 0 �iT� nJT I � L '1"2G�/i` S��S1jI� `tiy-:�``.��J , IV`C�,P�S�f/T` �lq ~ I OTii +_S�,-- —'_ ��—F= � S7 . f�•?� _.StiL.^� � ___J` .9 � _ . •r�-_- �'�.�,• _ y' S_ � _..SF 857H � W SE'�SS � � �'S f 0��.� �f 5�E3(eJ = d"TI . � ^ � �7 �f' , "rt�' S SS � 1- �SE z�+x � 5 .. j p�� `�ti �o f Y�? � � ^ �' �`�<��=COUGAR -:� y N jl � ��" ;=9�TX 5� B6'H m � i `!'� �9}�� L�� .� � N N � I � � l�MJd1.NTA1N; �'L Si 5 x:r, y.r�.'�i� � C�s.�$ �tiJJ !I s- �s_ $E �TH _ -- ��5T e� ._. =`I i �sTH' o aS.�N`�S REGIONl�L •2 , . ,. r� s �t•ti - h77�0 =E y 8 ee�i v, NILDIAND;� ��"l�•?' p y� '.'9��,..eP�:,�• . `�, 9TH e9� �, v m � 1 SE c6TH ` �i ��,ti'y 6 SE 89TH_ST N , I Sc � ;� � = .,�y�j �� ^ PARK . .. � y P` u . .� . ' . ;` ,�� i�-�� SE 90TH ST. �' I ,k+ty o '�'ta � J``, c ? �n�B�Ty i '. - ca tcar.^:6�� - S£ 915Tf ST C�E�.�- � �o�,*.:� .s;; � u''yoSE 9�+t�`, J4.��,Q ... � �: i � �'2�]:UI Cr�c'fKl_.---\� I �,S[.-,� '� �� _ 5� .. ' '��' � 52N� Si - c.� 9 , ; � �� S� y- ' ; PAkK `� Y�� e L ^iSr ST y • .' `- � ; i ��y;a�` i u� N l w� ,� r ht�` 5� gZ'y t„ � ,31ST_. S7 �i ==< r, j �< � ; � v%S� � gE, 93Rp i . = gt /t� s I �_, �I,� I S7 ST i SE_' 93AC y{'{ � S I �2Q}� �� %J g�r+ 1,,.�-, _ _ ^.9ST �+�fI�.. �-�J�AL�EY RD i g � �� / � _�1'LFk� �' F _"_''___-14}.3i}'^"'._ ` i •28TH_*y� ST._cr-_`L y=�-�-—� � : s � � —5 �� i'��hJ nc__'---—�_ ?7T4 ST �E � �\ ��f�� - �k, a ,SI�R2a �,r 2�r+ ^� s �� " etr _ 277y �- � NFI(�7lTS I ,.,c��'a ! � .,,�rr�r. l ^-' �� 5. �.N AARK z � ,;:v ,KEMYYWI� w `�;3> ` �•, r ,� e -. � 51 W _- O HEc.,2�iH PL � �4. i�� j z a� .J�j, N �'SE 1C0T}i . ST � � o` 5� N; 25P. C? ' I s.".� (r 1 u;5 = tii�25TH� � �r�+ ryc 7�r';o. . - W � � x � �_ � �li 0t�. � SE�1.'0'.Ifi .�4 <,,�:•N � < s- � c � sE �=ican+ j PA�I: a"' _�T :}2 � a _"9Q7H �E 1?�'JTH � .. . 5' . z�- ' �= t—�~-�r<-.-- —}C��3 k .lF . ' . . .� =Ynkc F � � ST�.�. a�PL Z '—��- � g � �'��.��6 �'�.�� . � _ $ 102117 . ST 'T.i' h! Z.ih� y{�'T.iR.T'J �5_ ��ZiD STI � �. < �3 3 � T 3- .4"4� ..9PY "; .I. S rh q" �I�I 2�tDI S� 9'2 � �n -N[a 22t�D ST �� '�, M1C >�"��E; d �� `t• C• � 23?J S�iC F2� � �� ' 2` ^ N �y�5� � � ��y�, �22�J�PL Q =s'"' Cr `�I I I 4'.'A � nI Si�= �., = S> N5 22MD 5T 3 Lr a- NE ` 21ST ..$7 r >� ar�2u� Y � .`• . � = 1'ry �,�i - �J ` ¢?�I !e - G� i �.. l 119L0 _ . r�sc ` _ _ o �n xezmi�� I S .n� � 'r ; �� .�t�• � -rE Q z'.�'� �<ST-� '< + � ,��'�' � �. _�1.'r,tq � . 52 ''Y� W NE 20TH ST �Nc i9TH � �i�� . JOix Sf_ -' �• ' " ttE 201X 5T a�a' +eE S�l�'` HDN �.CRELX �� Z � _ ST o � �F 1�'�� `` r3 0� I ` u �oi�� `` CQ ��l9TH S7 ' �_ J . 'r. �� i _ � NE i4�M Si - �_ w ��,_GPEI( S7ALE L -, ��. ,y b m HE�`��. ��- - v SE lOSTIi PL '� 3 NE .c Q -- � � ' = n !Pos*x== � ;_ u ,,� ,;�. a �� o �> .ar� �,� _ %",� p :> v'- - c b�i si p Jir!6N�5 S i .q! �_�V' ■ ` �'M;.a g.� t- +�i. -' c- iem , 5 9 v 7 hE s� Y. dt �' < < i v� I .ARX Q S . �Ty a`' v� `/b :[., C� i F �' i < � �RIJ. E 1 �y .�,. � ?�_ �P( NE' :ITi�_: S i '�'�� r:J � � SE 197]I PL i 10 � .� g a 6-� <I 4- s� ' f� Si� ____ ..�. - _ ��.�__ ' �� -_� =J�,�-� . �sFr ,\, , =., �= _ �o ,�. - - , Q ,c- >��: ,r Q ` 6� ~ - � K : HE �„o � AE:a�' � <-_'..v.rn i,t<;.i t_ ��;s r v� � v' J. i e,� a �_ - �n rp � ti�� c �.,i .� _r[;a�x��t srn 1...,.r . <t` �, . � � "` S ^ � RE �3TN S7 � � S•ti>:x'. _. � '< � ~ �I 7E�13TH PL -. nE ll�µ5'� ..._ 4`� __ __ _- ,._.,-2_ ' P�. < ^ 0�4. i �12TH ST - :; �E ets'; ��,-- � 12ZH - ' ST ::E ur�� SE 112TN' - S�TO� lSSP�O'� ni 5= l� �n " �na�� .�y >� _...7�:. :.y c _ -'.: � ` S� 'I � . z['i7�r ci ' a _ a�� .. . � �t.:��C � K [ '-� 9 �`` �6 in� �' K ti: :�n! 1 _ 'U✓iP.;! _ .� `�ur .�` ,-'QD F� � � .;F�FD :" �.: � l llf [' i y. -i,.i:; " S �� V i:AZ�f,' '' ± � �[ �_� �`.y`� _�� 17N ,? � a S• �E 1'?' . �'., S s .� � '�Si� < i�^ '� �r i G` "' �,:�c�r.; xu !0'M Pl� �[ fs„� 5� � '�"c� �:'- �� ' �� T("_�_ 1 _ f Q NE 1GTH j x� •,-A„� �<` ` ` ` ,_� MF..;lp �C,H,�o e W ��NE °OyHsr. ..L`l i� 4 < I =x'e�sT 1 i. ~ .. _o� i t : � a_ � Di �� . 2 i o,.rmm V i � T- - a >A�`�""'.._--�-- i E"'<—��j, �., *QTH i$T�x"--r ;-r-- KE 10T?i ST .. .,o� = . < . lOTH !K . _.. . . .� - = ..., _.. 1 NE lOTH ^�' ST E ' v s �,` _i I_I � 'I c �a,u s-i !4. F` °i° � � c � l• 'iy_�; .. 9i.Yt NC� a-in vWi `NE NE °TH PL � �R.I ��- � o � �� .��97H PL � � S - + o Nt < 9TH ST s-H w i'" _ � � I:8 H < c� NE � z`. � SS � _ n p �'� KINAHIS ME 9TN=� � S�� ST HE BTH=� � _ f�F -7' FSt� . �'`� '' J .- � _' ' � �s,,,�ARKo . =� p Y =. �^ . I _ -y�� I C. . o ' ' _ _ e •- _< an i H � `� � x[C,u_ x J .I �'c � A'6iy Z �� _ r "t= C I'� I C r�Ev� � NIGtr�s o � ;c S� - � , WE 8TH`ST ` E 711+ u[ HE '�STH � S7 � + .� • � I " �)jh P� � rE gt� w c� NE 7TH¢ t ST�=rnt at=` "s= h'E Tih a�6 5� SE cir. � ` ' . � '(. o. . HE -� �� r�. Sr��2?ST ST i u� > v� � ; ,�` g S z i7; ST Z � iT4 $r- NE R xF TII, c �: __—� I iR_, `-� �_AT`� i ✓p� ��, IT ��.F�." 4 N 5E S.a 1 ik ST Si . v x� S� 22flD o ' w- NE 6T`.i o c-� y. .�t K f � 1�- S7- c�,, - NE _ I � `.:. ��'�-c�%i � 1 NORTH i � `��'�- � � Reference: : '��,-,"�,� _ _ - - I King County `-="� - I Map 626 i By Thomas Brothers Maps Vcinity Map , � Dated 2006 Allen Property ; Renton, Washington ' � NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be p�. GLS Date Sept. 2005 Proj. No. 0208 � responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information iresufting from bladc 8 white reproductions of this plate. Checked SSR Date 9/20/05 Plate 1 �� I t • 1 I - — - ' '� t�o »5 �2o r2� I 7 � �. •� �rsa � �os� � . \ \ � 1 � , � � � ; ', , I + y � � i � � � \ ' I\ � � --_ lor.`� \ 1 � •• 1 ' 1. �. I P �� \ KGng CSounty� �— , � '�, , -�- —�— --� —�— —� — — � � _ � �` � Ciry�ci Rgrton ' '— — T — — — .___ r ` --� � �.. 95 \ \' \ �'\ '�t •'l � i tiy l i , i:t `\ ' 1` ,\ \ � ', } + ♦ � 1 � � � i � �� ` '. I , � f ti � '`- �� :,` � �� \ �, �, \ �� i TP-1 - I TP-7� i . � � � _�_ � � , �� ` '`� � I —iy t � � � ` I 95 � � � \ \ `� �,� I ' ' ', ,NOTE: Contour � `;S'�� `� �� `� � ��, ; •� , ` � ' �i�:B�'1�eiS !11 I�'✓Bi2rS. '0°� \� �Oy �� • t '� �TP-�L 1 � __ � � `' � � �� \ \4 \ j� !—�— + � '' ' �?G � r y '�5 � � �\'':'��0�� \1�\ i� , � ` �I { � � � �` . , � I , � \ �, ' � ■— i� , i �',. � _ �.\'-;.� ��'� �,,�fP-3 F-IP�-�4� �� -6 �, , �,,Zs , ��\ �. `: � �, \�� __ � �\ � �. � i _ \ � ` '': ,, � �, �� .■— , � �� -c � � � ` i � � � --� `T,P�5��. , � � `', 1 , .�zo "J \ ,_\ ,` ! .�\ �–� . � ` i –_a-�–ts � � / � _� •� '�� i __ . , �. � i � � . . I � � � `, �� _I � � 1',/ � � \ \ ...:_,.`a . � '� � � —_ _,_,� , +�s ` ' '�. ' � i� , �\ �.\ �`-;,; '�\ �1 � \ � I ?r�, /� .. � � 1 1 fl' �`-� � � �� \ ti �--�_.� u+ �' i � �� .\�'4.�. \ \ ` 1�� i / / �^ �75 � I � � � 1\ _�_�_ `'�p \ 1� � / �/ � �� ___- ' i � \ --� � � i�� •f �1� / ! � �'c `-' ,—�\ — — ��— — — — � �� r J NORTH ,20 `�� • ` `'� ';' --__ \�� \`;:' � ,'� i � � `� � _ – _� �� i i �'`_ __� �� \.� -�� ---� t�.� �_�;,' 't'' „�o , ,_ �� '- -___-::ti� �– � `, --- �� 1 ��os . � _ \\�_' �- - �'�" �_ _105� - --_--_ __ _ \� - ` ��\ \ .� `�'---`� �_71G - �__,_ �� \ /i_-__�1 � 1�J _`��_` - �`\ -� i ___� ��_ -� `_.� � �T-i� SUNSE7- \ ---��"-� ', `L _„�, BLVD. N.E, � Not -To - Scale �` �, i LEGEND TP-1—�—Approximate Location of � �� ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. .j�, , q � ES-0208, Sept. 2005 ' ' _ �.A `- ' - -; � . �. �. � � � ' r , Subject Site - - — -� Test Pit Location P1an - - - Contour Intervals in Meters Allen Property � ; V� Renton, Washington � NOTE:This plate may contain areas of coloc ESNW cannot be D►wn. GLS DBte OCt. 2005 P�oj. No. 0208 responsible for any su6sequent misinterpretation of the information : i resuwng from black 8 white reproductions of this plate. CheCked SSR Date 10/12/05 Plate 2 C � SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOTACONSTRUCTION DRAWING Final Slope Gradient � � � � Compacted Slope Face \\ ��\ �� , Bench and Keyway Fill to � consist of suitable ranular � � 9 material approved by the 2 — � Geotechncial Engineer. � (� � Existing Grade �/ � J \ y , � Typical"Bench" �\'� — ` Keyed into Existing Slope Face J _ �� Geotechnical Engineer to Verify i �� . � Key (Minimum 2' Deep by 6' Wide) i NOTES: o Slope should be stripped of topsoil and � Structura!fill should be placed in thin loose unsuitable materiats prior to excavating lifts not exceeding 10 inches in thickness. j Key Way or benches. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the "Site Preparation o Benches will typically be equal to a dozer and Earth Work" section of this report. No blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a additional lift should be placed until compaction minimum of 4 feet. is achieved. o Final slope gradient should be 2 : 1 (horizontal : vertical). o Final slope face should be densified by __ over-building with compacted fill and - � trimming back to shape or by compaction � ' � ' ;�'� �. � with dozer or rollec �' ; �: � .� , ,, �, �� Planting or hydroseeding slope face with ' � �` ~ a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat SLOPE FILL DETAIL will reduce erosion potential of slope area. Allen Property o Use of pegged in place jute matting or Renton, Washington geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root Drnrn. GLS Date Sept. 2005 Proj. No. 0208 ! system has an opportunity to germinate. � Checked SSR Date 9/21/05 Plate 3 i � I i � <� . , .�---2;_�c. � _ ��f�� 4 0_P :�:� �.o'`. �;�. I :� ..:� ,�. � s=�' ::�''>{�' a.�� . .. o � � � ,. '' . • ' s:��. ` �'��'- Slope � �� ..� �� -•�-= ;� �'�.:�`�4 s ✓� : -�`!� :�8":fMm-):� � 8 -� :•:•:•:•:•:•: � , �� + � .lti�til:�ti11f.�� . ' $� � - O�". ti•ti•ti•ti•ti•ti• �� s ;� • �F y:-- w l.r.r.r.f.r. ti• ti•ti•ti •.A e . ��. ..O a.-��,L�, �ti�. `-. -.- a= f�5 :-�" - c� :- •rti tir � •�~�'�~�• � 2" (Min.) Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) � NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT OT SCALE j • Surface Seal to consist of NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. j LEGEND: I � Surface Seal; native soil or _ other low permeability material. :1 f�f�f1 f 1 ' ��_@ i � 1'•r•l•l•J n � ti.ti•1•ti• 1 Drain Rock �� -= _ f tirti?tif ti� '�� - - �;_, - FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Allen Property Renton, Washington � I � Dnrvn. GLS Date Sept. 20Q5 Proj. No. 0208 Checked SSR Date 9/21/05 Plate 5 � i I i 18" Min. i a _ 12" ;.a �'': � :.�. : 4 `� o •O• o•O �o �o Q Q • �O � . • �J, •;• � � � � o o I •'" o� c Q o � o o fy � � o p o lJ o �. � �� o o � ��•� � o Q � I r o��• � � o � o � o o � •�«._. � ' � o Q o o O o0 0 o � �. •� � �o o Q � � o � o � o �o �� o �t.. '� o0 0 �0 0 o O o � � ` � � Structural �� oa o0 0 0 00 0 0 00 � • o � � o o ° o° o°` ° � Fill • s '� ' � � � 8 00000 00 00 0 ��4 c� o o O I � Q8• o p O p o O ��O o O p O .��-.�� O po �p Q j�' o ��,• `�oo� ''° o � no0 � � �Q � O � o �b 0 I I I -I I - @�,�.�+ o � o � Q o � � •_ �O B� o O O000 000 O �o I I I esa•-; o � � o � •' ti=�rti•ti . � . �, ..a• �r• �r _ Y��& �: -��: .��..': •�- . . •�:r � ' . .-•.� - �a.• �� •r s' .q � . ._.� ��. - ti• •'t .�1��f. � Perforated Drain Pipe NOTES: (Surround In Drain Rock) ' • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing#4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: =�{`, ->�� :=� � � Surface Seal; Native Soil or other � ' � j`� �_ 1 ��' � Low Permeability Material _^�� .;, _� ,. _ --•�:�.,V _ y=�.o e o0 0 ::`:<::..: ' - . - o 'op Free Draining Structural Backfill RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL 00 � Allen Property •'ti?:rti'ti 1 inch Drain Rock Renton, Washington .�.r.r.r. t•ti•ti•1 �� Drwn. GLS Date Se t 2005 Pro No. 0208 I P � �� Checked SSR Date 9/21/05 Plate 4 I • � GENERAL NOTES: Rodcery construction is a craft and depends largely on the Geogrid Reinforcement skill and experience of the buildec A rodcery is a protedive (As Specified by Geotechncial system which helps retard the weathering and erosion Engineer) process on an exposed soil face.The degree of retention 1, achieved is,in part,dependent on the size of the rock used. Rodceries should be considered maintenance items that will ? ��f'�°i r require periodic inspection and repair. � � ;o-• ,. o� •o � _:i�. , .v: . . •� _� ...Maximum indination of the slopes above and behind i . '•, b':•I 'o — rodcenes should be 2:1 (Honzontal:Vertical). o,-�p�;.�,=;,;-o•_ ...Minimum thidcness of rock filter layer behind rodcery is . 12 inches. 3�-+N,a;�RocN 6 I .."�=- 0�•�.' ...Minimum of 12 inch embedment into undisturbed na6ve -,�'�•. --�, • I I I soil or compaded fill placed in accordance with report .0�.�•4�o-��:=0 recommendations. -o. o:• .;. -�'• ...Maximum rodcery height H= 8 feet. ...Rodceries greater than 8 feet in height to be installed — H 'Q:�0'.°�;o•;• under periodic or full time observation of the geotechncial I' '. 'o '�•0.o�, � engineer. ,� .�'..p-;,A , . :o.•. .4::o Compacted Unless otherwise specified in writing by the rodcery o:-.o o•'�::o FIN "desi ners',all rocks laced in the lower two-thirds of the �� o�� — 9 P 'o.'•. • •• .o — wall should be 4 to 5 man rock,2,000 Ibs.or larger.Rodcs ?& 5 R�ian Rock 1 ' ' — placed above this level should gradually decrease in 1 ..o•�.."0 I = s¢e with increasing wall height using 3 to 4 man rodc, ,o Q';'�.:o.',�_ � 700 to 6,000 Ibs. ''o o.• — '.0''.'• ' , o.- o I—I I I;, �.�o . The long dimension of the rodcs should extend back '°, o,o I I I 2 �TYP��) towards the cut or fill face to provide maximum stabil i t y. I I I 1 2 m i n. �• Rodcs should be plaoed to avoid continuous joint planes in . � vertical or lateral diredions.Each rock should bear on two -I � ;o�p or more rocks below it,with good flat-to-flat contad. �.��` 0 Approximate Approximate Size Weight-Ibs. Diameter 1 man 50-200 12-18" 2 man 200-700 18-28" NOTE:Geogrid Reinforcement to consist of Fortrac 35/20-20 3 man 700-2,000 28-36" or approved equivalent placed every 2 feet(vertical).Geogrid 4 man 2,000-4,000 36-48" length 6 feet or as specified by the geotechncial engineer. ' 5 man 4,000-6,000 48-54" � ' 6 man 6,000-8,000 54-60" I i ' Reference:Local quarry weight study using average weights of no less than six rocks of each man size conduded in January 1988. �EceND: NOT TO SCALE -SCHEMATIC ONLY I I NOTACONSTRUCTION DRAWING � � . Drainage materials to consist of Uean angular I ��'�':='� well-graded quarry spalls,with 4inch maximum i .o.p,.�.6 s¢e,or other material approved by the geotechnical engineer. � Surface seal;may consist of impervious soil or a fine free draining granular materiaL Undisturbed firm Native SoiL �a�; III y �-� - Drain pipe;4-inch minimum diameter,perforated _ '^a ! 1 or slotted id IasticADS � , � _ �`; �'- rig p pipe,laid with a positive s-�;�� - � f I O gradient to discharge under control,well away from =��=��>�-- - the wall. ',��' ' I . :.yy.., _ � NOTEs: COMPACTED FILL ROCKERY Allen Property � Rockery construction to be completed in accordance with ARC Renton Washington Guidelines. ' I Earth Solutions NW representative to observe completed rockery and prepare final report. DfW�. GLS Date Oct. 2005 Proj. No. 0208 I' Checked RAC Date 10/05/05 Plate 6 i APPENDiX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ES-0208 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating seven test pits. The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The subsurface exploration was completed in September 2005. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of ten feet below existing grades. Logs of the test pits excavated by ESNW are presented in Appendix A. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. I Earth Solutions NW,LLC � � Earth Solutions NW�� SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS . CLEAN '�� LL-GRADED GRAVELS.GRAVEL- GRAVEL GRAVELS ��'�� GW F�SMIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO AND S' GRAVELLY ,Qo �Qa POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) o O�o 0 GP GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE Q Q aQ OR NO FINES GOARSE ° GRAINED GRAVELS WITH •� • � SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- SOILS MORE THAN 50% FINES � Q o GM SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- AMOUNT OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES CLEAN SANDS SW WELL-GRA�ED SANDS,GRAVELLY MORE THAN 50°� SAND SANDS,LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS AND LARGERTHAN SANDY NO.200 SIEVE SOILS P�RLY-GRADED SANDS, S2E (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP GRAVELLY SAND,LfTTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH SM si�rr sallos,SAND-SILT MORE THAN 50°� FlNES MiXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ' ML SANDS.ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CIAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO I FINE AND �UID LIMIT CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY GRAINED CLAYS LESS THAN 50 CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS S,SILTY SOILS =__ ' EaRh Solutions NW, LLC TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 � 2603 151st PI.NE � � � Redmond,WA 98052 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 4252843300 Fax: 4252842855 CLIENT KBS III, LLC PROJECT NAME Alien Property PROJECT NUMBER 0208 PROJECT LOCATION Renton.Washington DATE STARTED 9/6/05 COMPLETED 9/6/OS GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavatinq GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY 5SR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 10":forest duff&huckeiberry brambles AFTER EXCAVATION — w _ �� U W = a� �� TESTS v a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ui�- a� vi qQ� � Q z � c� � 0 Brown silty SAND, loose,damp 5M : ':'3.5 Brown siRy SAND,medium dense,moist MC=3.10% 5 -dense,slightty cemented SM . -becomes gray MC=9.20% I Fines=24.80% :�:e.5 Gray pooriy graded SAND with siK,dense,moist � MC=6.10% Sp_ ::�� SM :.� 10 MC=10.80°�6 - 10.D , Test pit teRninated at 10.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encouniered during I excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. N O O N OI 1-- 0 C'1 h � H Z i � a � .o 0 r 0 J > a �- = i m � � w Z w c� � Earth Solutions NW,LLC TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 � 2603 151st PI. NE � PAGE 1 OF 1 ' ' ' Redmond,WA 98052 Telephone: 4252843300 Fax: 4252842855 CLIENT KBS III, LLC PROJECT NAME Allen Property PROJECT NUMBER 0208 PROJECT LOCATION Renton.Washinqton DATE STARTED 9/6/05 COMPLETED 9/6/05 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION MEiHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 10":heavy blackberry brambles AFfER EXCAVATION — w �� U �-w _ a� �� TESTS v a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w" a� ui �� Q Z � C9 � 0 Brown siity SAND, loose, moist(Fill) SM 2.0 Brown silty SAND,loose,moist -medium dense MC=11.90% Fines=33.40% 5 SM �: MC=14.40% MC=7.50% '' e.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. 0 s � � 0 � vi � F- Z � � a' c� m 0 N 0 J J � a H 2 m J � W Z w � ' EaRh Solutions NW, LLC TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 � 2603 151st PI.NE � � � � Redmond,WA 98052 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 4252843300 Fax: 4252842855 CLIENT KBS III,LLC PROJECT NAME Allen Propertv PROJECT NUMBER 0208 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washinqton DATE STARTED 9/6/05 COMPLETED 9/6/05 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavatinq GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil 8 Sod 12":heavy blackberry brambles and brush AFTER EXCAVATION — w = F-w �? _ w� �� TESTS � �O MATERIAL DESCRIPTIaN � a� aZ = � 0 � Brown silty SAND,loose,damp SM : 3.0 Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel,medium dense,moist MC=2.70% Fines=6.90% SP- :� SM 5 MC=5.70% �::5.5 Fines=19.40% Grayish brown silty SAND with gravel,dense,moist SM •' �� MC=8.60% �� Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. 0 0 N m � � � Z U a � m N 0 JW > a F S m J � W Z w � � Earth Solutions NW,LLC TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 � 2603 151st PI.NE ' � � � Redmond,WA 98052 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 4252843300 Fax: 4252842855 CLIENT KBS III, LLC PROJECT NAME Allen PropertV PROJECT NUMBER 0208 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washinqton DATE STARTED 9/6/05 COMPLETED 9/6/05 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Depth of Topsoil 8 Sod 10":heavy blackberrY brambles AFTER EXCAVATION — w _ �� U w = n~.� �g TESTS v a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WQ„ a= � �J Q Z � (7 � 0 Brown siky SAND,loose, moist SM � -�' 1.5 Brown poo�ly graded GRAVEL, loose,damp MC= 1.60% Fines=0.50°k SP -maist 5 MC=5.30% -medium dense s.5 Gray silty SAND with gravel,medium dense, moist MC=7.50°�6 I ' SM �� ense I � :�9.5 �� gp �o o Gray poorfy graded SAND with gravel,dense,moist � MC=3.40% Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. I � 0 0 � m H O � vi � z c� a c� � N 0 J(�J > d r x m J � W Z w � • � Earth Solutions NW, LLC TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 � 2603 151st PI.NE � � � Redmond,WA 98052 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 4252843300 Fax: 4252842855 CLIENT KBS III. �LC PROJECT NAME Allen Property PROJECT NUMBER 0208 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 9/6/05 COMPLETED 9/6lOS GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZF EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END�F EXCAVATION — NOTES Recently Graded AFTER EXCAVATION — w �� U 2 W� �� TESTS � �O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a� QZ � � � 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist(Fill) -trace to moderate debris -becomes gray MC=11.10% SM Fines=21.80% 5 7S Gray silty SAND with gravel,dense, moist MC=6.60% � SM ' �� MC=6.20°k � �� Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. ' � I 0 0 rn 0 c� � � I � z c� a I t� � 0 0 � � � � i d � S K I W 2 w � � EaRh Solutions NW, LLC TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 � 2603 151 st PI.NE � � � ' Redmond,WA 98052 PAGE 1 OF 1 Te lep h o ne: 425284 3300 Fax: 4252842855 C�IENT KBS III, LLC PROJECT NAME Al�en Property PROJECT NUMBER 0208 PROJECT LOCATION Renton.Washinqton DATE STARTED 9/6105 COMPLETED 9/6/05 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE DCCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION MET4iOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Lawn Grass AFTER EXCAVATION — I W a _ �W `� _ W� �g TESTS � �p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION p d� Q Z � (� � 0 Brown silty SAND, loose,moist(Fill) SM -moderate to high organic layer at 2'-4' MC=13.00% -with gravel Fines=16.60% 4.5 Gray silty SAND with gravel,medium dense,moist 5 MC=8.20% I SM �� i MC=8.80°� ��9•0 Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. I � � r � r 0 � ' � H z � 'a � m 0 N O J JW 3 I a H x m J � W Z w � � Earth Solutions NW, LLC TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 � 2603 151 st PI.NE • PAGE 1 OF 1 � � � Redmond,WA 98052 Te lepho ne: 4252843300 Fax: 4252842855 CLIENT KBS 111, LLC PROJECT NAME Allen PropeRy PROJECT NUMBER 0208 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 9/6/05 COMPLETED 9/6/05 GROUND ELEVATION TES7 PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED 8Y SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil 8 Sod 4":qrass AFTER EXCAVATION — w �� U Hw _ w� �� TESTS � �O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION O a� Q z � (� � 0 Brown sitty SAND with gravel, loose,moist(Fill) -organic zones SM -4-man boulder MC=10.00°� Fines=17_60% 5 5.5 Brown silty SAND, medium dense,moist MC=11.90% SM -� �ray,dense �� MC=10.20°k .�� Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. 0 0 N rn F- O � � Z � a' � m N O J J � a ' h 2 m J � W Z W C7 • � Y APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ES-0208 Earth Solutions NW, LLC CIi� •/ • • - • � _ � • �50�UtlOf1 -. • . :1 h'1Y,�� -. . �� - -• ..- -• �: -� • • - . •• �-• � � � �� .� �� •� �� " Il�rlll11111��lYIIYIIYIIIIIIYIIIIIYI�IIIIIIII��IIIIII�� ., 11■■II�IIII��c�:�.�1��IIIIli1��1111111��1111111�� . 11�■IIIIIII�►�IIIIC,►��1111111��1111111��1111111�� :, II��IIIIIIIi�i�ii�llll�`!�IIIIIII��IIIIIII��IIIIIII�� 11�■1111111�1111111�1�►\\IIIIIII■�IIIIIII■�IIIIIII�� , II��IIi1111�1ii�lllll��i�!1111��1111111��1111111�■ 11��1111111�/�1111��1��111�►11��1111111��lIIIIII�� .. 11■■IIIIIII�i�llil11�1�IIIIIf�1��1111111��1111111�� 1��I��11��'��1,��1'��I��11��1,�� , 11��1111111��11111111��1111111\1�11�1111��1111111�� 11■�II�IIIi��lllillll�■IIIII�1��1111111��1111111■� :, 11��1111111��11111111�■111111►1►\ "i1111111��1111111�� 11■�IIIIIII■�IIIIIII■�IIIIIII\��IIIIII�■IIIIIII�� , II��IIIIIII��i11111��11111111\t�If�1111�■IIIIIII�� 11��11�1111��1�11111��1111111�1l��IIIIII��IIIIIII�� , 11��1111111��11�1111■�IIIIIII��I�IIII��IIIIIII�� 11��1111111��111►111��IIII III�I�IIi1111�■fl11111�� , II��II�IIII��IIfI�,1��iIII111�i►ill�llll■�IIIIIII�� 11■�IIIIIII��IIIIIII��IIIIIII■��IIII��IIIIIII�� , ��■��'��`��:��wii�� .. , . , . . ., . • : �� -.� . _ ._ _ ._ _ . _ . mm�mm .o - : , � . �� . .. . , : . . ��■.�.. . o . . , . . . . .. . . . _ . . . . . . . . � �� o � � � ��.� o , . . .. . . . . . �� .- .- . . „ .., . , �� a � ��■ � �� o � �� o ��s�� o � ��■�� E.�trth .� . - �� 'Solution -. . . :� NW�« - -. . �� - -� - ..- -� �: �• � • - . •- �•• . � � � �� .� �� •� �� .. ��iiin�i��w�vii�ii��iiiyiii��ii�i��iii�� ., ��i��►.�iiiii��iiiii��iiwi��iii�� . �u�ii�i��►�'�iiiii'��iiii�,��ii'i��iiii�� :, ��iiiii�u�`;+ii��iii��i�i��iiiii�� II��II�IIIIi i11111�,1■�IIIIIII��IIIIIII��Ifllll�� , 11��1111111�\!!�IIIII��IIIIIII��II�IIII��IIIIIII�� 11��1111111■�111�IIIli\IIIIIII��II�IIII��IIIIIII■� ., 11■�IIIIIII■ii�I1��,1��i�11111��1111111��1111111�� 11��1111111■�llt��l\�III�III■�IIi1111■■IIIIIII�� , 11��1111111�■111111►�►11111�I��II�t111��1111111�� . II��IIIIIII��Illlllli\II�'ll\��IIIIIII■�IIIIIII■■ , ,, 11��1111111■■II11111��11��1111111��111111�� 11■�IIi1111��1111111��11111�1\�IIIIIII��IIIIII��■ , 11��1111111��1111111��1111111��1111111��111111�� 11��11�1111��1111111��1111111\`i11�1111��1111111�� , 11��1111111■�IIIIIII��IIIIIII�L1�;�1111��111111�� 11�■IIIIIII��IIIIIII��IIIIIII��s1111�■IIIIIII■� , 11■�IIIIIII■�1111111��11111�1��1111111��1111111�� II��IIiI111��IIII111��IIIIli1��1111111��111111�� , 11��1111111■�IIIIIII��IIIIIII��IIIIIII��IIIIIII�� ,, , , . , . ,, ' � ' � � .: : �� ._ .. . .- - .- _ . - . mm�mm _o - : , . . . - - �� . .. . , : . . . . . - ��■■� .o . � . , : . . . , . . - ��■�� ■ ��■�� .- - .- . . . „ .., . , . , �� o � � � �� - , �� o - � � � �� ■ �� ■ ��■� � A � ' REPORT DiSTR1BUTION ES-0208 4 COPIES KBS III, LLC � 12320 Northeast 8th Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Mr. Curtis Schuster Ea�th Solutions NW, LLC