HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Drainage Report_Goldsmith_200131_V1
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and
Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
January 2020
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Overview .................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Offsite Analysis .................................................................................................................... 4
Task 1. Define and Map Study Area
Task 2. Information Review
Task 3. Field Inspection
Task 4. Drainage System Description and Problem Description
3.0 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan ..................................................................................... ..7
4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis ................................................................. 8
Part A. Existing Site Hydrology
Part B. Developed Site Hydrology
Part C. Performance Standards
Part D. Flow Control System
Part E. Water Quality System
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Existing Site Aerial Photo
Figure 3 USGS Soils Map
Figure 4 Existing Conditions Map
Figure 5 Downstream Map
Figure 6 Preliminary Drainage Plan
Figure 7 Critical Areas Map
APPENDIX
A. City of Renton Drainage Complaints Map
B. Geotechnical Report by Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC., December
19, 2019
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
1
1.0 Project Overview
Introduction
This report provides design data and analysis for the improvements proposed for the Mitchell Short
Plat. The site is approximately 39,891 SF (0.91 acres) and is located west of Meadow Ave N in the
City of Renton, Washington, also known as Tax Parcel No. 3342700480, situated in the southeast
and northwest quarters of Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M.
As required by the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (COR SWDM), this report
includes a summary of the existing on-site and downstream conditions; proposed developed site
conditions; and the proposed stormwater control plan. This report also gives specific details on how
the project meets the minimum requirements specified in Section 1.2 of the 2017 COR SWDM.
Project Description
This project will provide the necessary site improvements required to serve the two single family
lots proposed with this short plat. The existing residence will remain, and a new single-family
residence will be constructed to the east of the existing building. Proposed improvements will
include utilities, driveway improvements, site grading for the new home, and on-site stormwater
management BMP’s. Refer to Figure 6 for the plat design and lot layout.
Summary of Proposal
This is a request for Preliminary Subdivision approval for two single family residential lots, public
roads, public utilities (water, sewer, stormwater), on the existing parcel. Stormwater control facilities
will be designed per the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual requirements as
identified above.
The total project site is approximately 0.91 acres. Currently located on the site is a single family
residence and its associated site improvements. Access to the site is provided via the existing
driveway off Meadow Ave N. The existing residence will remain and a new single family residence
will be constructed to the east of the existing residence. Proposed improvements will include utilities;
on and off-site driveway improvements, and on-site stormwater managements BMPs.
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
2
CORE REQUIREMENTS
The following is a preliminary description of how the Mitchell project will meet the Core
Requirements of the 2017 COR SWDM.
Core Requirement #1 – Discharge at the Natural Location
The proposed conditions will not alter the general downstream path. The proposed drainage
improvements will continue to treat runoff within the property to the maximum extend feasible before
discharging to the existing closed system within Meadow Ave N. Refer to the Offsite Analysis
section (section 2) of this report for a description of the existing discharge point.
Core Requirement #2 – Offsite Analysis
A downstream drainage analysis has been completed and is included in this report.
Core Requirement #3 – Flow Control
No public conveyance system is proposed with this project. The project is located in a site requiring
Peak Rate Flow Control Standard; however, based on the scope of the site improvements the
project is exempt from providing flow control facilities. The increase in the peak developed condition
runoff rate relative to the existing site condition is less than 0.15 cfs (based on continuous modeling
with a 15 minute time step); therefore, based on the evaluation provided in Section 4, the project is
exempt from requiring flow control. MGS Flood modeling was used to confirm compliance with the
2017 COR SWDM requirements. (Section 4)
Core Requirement #4 – Conveyance System
The design and analysis of the stormwater conveyance system for this project will comply with the
requirements of the 2017 COR SWDM. Detailed design and analysis of the conveyance system
would be completed if needed in future engineering plan submittals.
Core Requirement #5 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
The design of the construction stormwater pollution prevention (CSPP) plans for the proposed
improvements will be per the requirements of the 2017 COR SWDM and included with future
engineering plan submittals.
Core Requirement #6 – Maintenance and Operation
Proposed stormwater facilities will be privately owned or dedicated to the City of Renton by owner.
Core Requirement #7 – Financial Guarantees and Liability
This project will comply with all financial guarantees required by the City of Renton.
Core Requirement #8 – Water Quality Facilities
The project site is located in an area requiring Basic Water Quality Treatment. The Project proposes
to treat stormwater runoff from the proposed road and driveways on-site. As detailed in section 4 of
this TIR.
Core Requirement #9 – On-site BMP’s
Design and analysis of Flow Control BMP’s will be per requirements of the 2017 COR SWDM.
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
3
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Special Requirement #1 – Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements
The site does not fall under any other known adopted area specific requirements.
Special Requirement #2 – Flood Hazard Area Delineation
This project development is adjacent to a zone X flood hazard area per FEMA Flood Maps.
Special Requirement #3 – Flood Protection Facilities
This project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility for protection against hazards posed
by erosion or inundation or propose to modify or construct a new flood protection facility; therefore,
flood protection facilities are not required.
Special Requirement #4 – Source Control
The proposed development does not require a commercial building or commercial site development
permit; Therefore, water quality source control is not required.
Special Requirement #5 – Oil Control
This project does not have high use site characteristics; therefore, oil control BMP’s are not required.
Special Requirement #6 – Aquifer Protection Area
This project does not have high use site characteristics; therefore, oil control BMP’s are not required.
2.0 Off-Site Analysis
The following is a Level 1 downstream analysis, performed in accordance with the 2017 City of
Renton SWDM. A site visit was conducted by Goldsmith Engineering on January 7, 2020 to
investigate the onsite drainage systems, confirm downstream drainage paths, and evaluate
upstream tributary areas to the project site. The weather during the site visit was cloudy and wet
with a temperature of approximately 45 degrees Fahrenheit.
Task 1 – Define and Map Study Area
The topographical field survey was supplemented by City of Renton GIS drainage information, aerial
mapping, and information obtained by field investigation to further define and map the study area in
order to prepare the offsite analysis.
Task 2 – Information Review
As mentioned earlier, the City of Renton drainage maps show the project area within the May Creek
Basin. Based on the City of Renton GIS mapping data, there are no critical areas located on or
adjacent to the subject site. This on-site and adjacent evaluation includes streams, wetlands,
floodplains, steep slopes, landslide hazard areas, and seismic hazard areas. Per the COR GIS data
and the site visit, there are no drainage problems within the downstream system. According to the
Washington State Department of Ecology Flood Hazard Maps, the project area is not located within
a Floodway or 100-year Floodplain.
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
4
Task 3 – Field Inspection
The project area slopes northeast with slopes ranging from 5% to 15%. There is an existing single
family home to remain and a new single-family residence is proposed east of the existing residence.
The rest of the property is covered by grass, and scattered bushes and trees.
Task 4 – Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions
The downstream drainage path was determined based on City of Renton GIS storm drainage maps,
site survey, and information gathered during a site visit. Refer to Figure 5 – Downstream Drainage
Map. As previously stated, runoff from the site flows northeast towards Meadow Ave N. The
proposed drainage improvements will treat stormwater runoff on-site to the maximum extend
feasible before discharging stormwater to the existing closed system within Meadow Ave N.
1. Runoff is discharged from the site.
2. Stormwater sheetflows north along Meadow Ave N.
3. Runoff is collected by the public stormwater system within Meadow Ave N and piped north
via a 10-inch closed system.
4. Stormwater keeps traveling north via a 12-inch pipe.
5. Runoff discharges to an existing catch basin and travels north along Meadow Ave N. through
an 18-inch pipe system.
6. Stormwater travels west along N 40th St via an 18-inch closed pipe system.
7. Stormwater travels northwest starting at the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd N and N
40th St. through a concrete culvert
8. Runoff continues flow southwest through a 30-inch pipe
9. Stormwater eventually out falls to Lake Washington.
Task 5 – Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems
As indicated previously, there are no existing problems on-site or downstream of the site. The
design of a stormwater control plan meeting the City of Renton requirements, including
recommended BMPs will mitigate any potential problems related to the development of the subject
site.
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx 5
OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE -1
Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2
Basin: Lake Washington Watershed Sub-basin Name: East Lake Washington
Symbol Drainage
Component Type,
Name, and Size
Drainage Component
Description
Slope
(estimated)
Distance
from site
discharge
Existing
Problems
Potential
Problems
Observations of
field inspector,
resource
reviewer, or
resident
1 Site Boundary Property line N/A 0 None None N/A
2 Sheet Flow Sheet Flow to Closed Storm
System 0.5 to 12% 0 to 90 ft None None No signs of major
sediment, ponding, or
flooding
3 Conveyance System Existing 10-inch pipe 0.5 to 12% 90 to 125 ft None Under Capacity No capacity problems
were observed during site
visit
4 Conveyance System Existing 12-inch pipe 0.5 to 7% 125 to 265 ft None Under Capacity No capacity problems
were observed during site
visit
5 Conveyance System Existing 18-inch pipe 0.5 to 7% 265 to 1,000 ft None Under Capacity No capacity problems
were observed during site
visit
6 Conveyance System Existing 18-inch pipe 0.5 to 7% 1,000 to 2,100 ft None Under Capacity No capacity problems
were observed during site
visit
7 Conveyance System Existing concrete culvert 0.5 to 7% 2,100 to 2,200 ft None Under Capacity No capacity problems
were observed during site
visit
8 Conveyance System Existing 30-inch pipe 0.5 to 7% 2,200 to 2,440 ft None Under Capacity No capacity problems
were observed during site
visit
9 Lake Lake Washington N/A +/-2,440 ft None Sedimentation,
flooding
No signs of major
sediment, ponding, or
flooding
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
6
3.0 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
The stormwater control plan for the site encompasses all available information about the site and
its downstream drainage system. This includes site topography, geology, detailed field
investigations, and drainage complaints and observations. Flow control and water quality treatment
BMPs have been evaluated. Preliminary evaluation of proposed flow control and water quality
facilities is provided in Section 4.0. A preliminary drainage plan is shown on Figure 6.
FLOW CONTROL STANDARD
This section is prepared in conformance with the requirements of the 2017 City of Renton Surface
Water Design Manual (COR SWDM) guidelines for drainage review and for downstream analysis
of a preliminary subdivision. The following describes the preliminary storm drainage design
approach of the stormwater control facilities for the project.
The project has been evaluated for flow control requirements. The proposed project was evaluated
using the latest COR Surface Water Design Manual and the approved continuous model (MGS
Flood) to compare the developed peak rates to the existing ones. According to Section 1.2.3 of the
COR manual, the project Peak Rate Flow Control Standard is waived due to the evaluation of
increase in peak rate flows. See section 4.0 of this report and MGS Flood calculations for more
information.
WATER QUALITY STANDARD
The Basic Water Quality treatment for the proposed development is to be provided through the
proposed permeable pavement. The proposed permeable surface will include a treatment liner layer
to treat for water quality and will be designed in accordance with recommendations from the
geotechnical engineer and section 6.2.4 of the COR SWDM.
4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis
The following is the preliminary analysis and design of the proposed stormwater flow control and
water quality facility for the Mitchell preliminary plat. These facilities have been designed to ensure
that any adverse impacts from the proposed development on downstream systems are prevented.
Part A. Existing Site Hydrology
The parcel is currently developed and is vegetated with grasses, bushes, and scattered trees. The
existing residence will remain and a new single-family residence will be constructed to the east of
the existing residence. General site topography of the property generally slopes towards the
northeast. The project site consists of moderate slopes ranging from 5 to 15 percent, eventually
being collected by the closed piped system within Meadow Ave N. Greenes Creek flows to the north
and is located west of the property. As mentioned, in task 4 of Section 2 of this report, stormwater
runoff flows north through a series of existing pipes before discharging into Lake Washington.
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
7
Image 1 – Existing property looking west from Meadow Ave N.
Per the Flow Control Applications Map provided by the City of Renton, the project is located within
a Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area. The 2017 COR SWDM requires projects located in this
area to match the developed peak discharge rates to existing site conditions for the 2, 10, and 100-
year return periods. These assumptions have been used for calculating allowable release rates and
flow durations for the existing stormwater control facilities. Existing site hydrology has been modeled
using the approved continuous model (MGS Flood).
NCRS soils mapping indicates that the site is underlain by Indianola loamy sand (InD). SCS Group
A outwash soils (See Figure 3). Per the Geotechnical Report, the soils observed in the test pits are
considered suitable for foundation support and for infiltration of site stormwater. See Appendix B for
more information.
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
8
Part B. Developed Site Hydrology
The stormwater design has been developed to mitigate changes in stormwater runoff from the
proposed short plat. Per Section 1.2.3 of the 2017 COR SWDM. The project has been evaluated
for flow control requirements. The projects is located in a peak rate flow control standard area. The
project has been found to be exempt from requiring a flow control facility. Per Section 1.2.3.A, Peak
Rate Flow Control Standard Areas: Exceptions 1, the stormwater control facility requirement is
waived for any threshold discharge area in which the target surfaces subject to this requirement will
generate no more than a 0.15-cfs increase (when modeled using 15 minute time steps) in the
existing site conditions 100-year peak flow (modeled using same time step unit used to calculate
the developed flow).
Runoff modeling for this project has been completed using the hydrologic modeling software MGS
Flood as required by the 2017 COR SWDM. As specified by the design manual, changes in the
runoff rates are required to be evaluated against the existing site conditions.
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
9
Part C. Performance Standards
Flow Control BMPs
The project has implemented on-site flow control BMPs to the largest extend feasible for the project
target surfaces using the list approach per the 2017 COR SWDM. The project site was evaluated
per current code requirements using an approved continuous model.
Water Quality Standard
Proposed water quality facilities were designed to mitigate for future development of this site. The
basic water quality facilities were examined using the current City of Renton Surface Water Design
Manual to meet basic water quality treatment.
Part D. Flow Control System
As previously stated, this project is exempt from flow control because the difference between the
100-yr developed peak rates and the existing 100-yr peak rates are below the 0.15 cfs threshold as
indicated in section 1.2.3 of the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. The developed 100-
yr peak rate calculated is 0.246 cfs and the existing 100-yr peak rate flow is 0.231 cfs (using 15 min
time steps). The difference in rates is equal to 0.015 cfs, proving to be less than the 0.15 cfs
threshold; therefore, flow control requirements are waived. See MGs Flood calculations at the end
of this report for more information.
Part E. Water Quality System
As noted above, basic water quality treatment for the site is provided by the proposed permeable
pavement. The driveway surface area is the only area that requires water quality treatment for the
project and will be treated on-site via a treatment liner, designed by Section 6.2.4 of the COR
SWDM.
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
10
—————————————————————————————————
MGS FLOOD
FLOW CONTROL PROJECT REPORT
Program Version: MGSFlood 4.50
Program License Number: 201810008
Project Simulation Performed on: 01/31/2020 2:33 PM
Report Generation Date: 01/31/2020 2:34 PM
—————————————————————————————————
Input File Name: Flow Control & WQ.fld
Project Name: Mitchell Short Plat
Analysis Title: Flow Control & WQ
Comments: Total Site = 39,891 SF (0.916 ac)
———————————————— PRECIPITATION INPUT ————————————————
Computational Time Step (Minutes): 15
Extended Precipitation Time Series Selected
Climatic Region Number: 15
Full Period of Record Available used for Routing
Precipitation Station : 96004005 Puget East 40 in_5min 10/01/1939-10/01/2097
Evaporation Station : 961040 Puget East 40 in MAP
Evaporation Scale Factor : 0.750
HSPF Parameter Region Number: 1
HSPF Parameter Region Name : USGS Default
********** Default HSPF Parameters Used (Not Modified by User) ***************
********************** WATERSHED DEFINITION ***********************
Predevelopment/Post Development Tributary Area Summary
Predeveloped Post Developed
Total Subbasin Area (acres) 0.921 0.922
Area of Links that Include Precip/Evap (acres) 0.000 0.000
Total (acres) 0.921 0.922
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 2
---------- Subbasin : Existing Lot ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Grass 0.741
Impervious 0.175
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 0.916
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
11
---------- Subbasin : ROW ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Impervious 0.005
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 0.005
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 4
---------- Subbasin : Lot 1 ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Grass 0.346
Impervious 0.084
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 0.430
---------- Subbasin : Lot 2 ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Grass 0.233
Impervious 0.092
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 0.325
---------- Subbasin : ROW ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Grass 0.019
Impervious 0.005
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 0.023
---------- Subbasin : Access Tract ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Grass 0.101
Impervious 0.043
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 0.144
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
------------------------------------------
Link Name: New Copy Lnk1
Link Type: Copy
Downstream Link: None
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
12
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
------------------------------------------
Link Name: New Copy Lnk2
Link Type: Copy
Downstream Link: None
**********************FLOOD FREQUENCY AND DURATION STATISTICS*******************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 2
Number of Links: 1
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 4
Number of Links: 1
***********Groundwater Recharge Summary *************
Recharge is computed as input to Perlnd Groundwater Plus Infiltration in Structures
Total Predeveloped Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: Existing Lot 245.975
Subbasin: ROW 0.000
Link: New Copy Lnk1 0.000
_____________________________________
Total: 245.975
Total Post Developed Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: Lot 1 114.855
Subbasin: Lot 2 77.344
Subbasin: ROW 6.141
Subbasin: Access Tract 33.527
Link: New Copy Lnk2 0.000
_____________________________________
Total: 231.867
Total Predevelopment Recharge is Greater than Post Developed
Average Recharge Per Year, (Number of Years= 158)
Predeveloped: 1.557 ac-ft/year, Post Developed: 1.468 ac-ft/year
***********Water Quality Facility Data *************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
Mitchell Preliminary Short Plat January 2020
Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Preliminary Drainage Control Plan
r19133 Mitchell Technical Information Report 2020-01.docx
13
********** Link: New Copy Lnk1 **********
Infiltration/Filtration Statistics--------------------
Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 81.26
Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 81.26
Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 81.26
Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00
Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00%
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
********** Link: New Copy Lnk2 **********
Infiltration/Filtration Statistics--------------------
Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 100.65
Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 100.65
Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 100.65
Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00
Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00%
***********Compliance Point Results *************
Scenario Predeveloped Compliance Link: New Copy Lnk1
Scenario Postdeveloped Compliance Link: New Copy Lnk2
*** Point of Compliance Flow Frequency Data ***
Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position
Predevelopment Runoff Postdevelopment Runoff
Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Year 6.947E-02 2-Year 8.582E-02
5-Year 9.141E-02 5-Year 0.110
10-Year 0.118 10-Year 0.144
25-Year 0.155 25-Year 0.181
50-Year 0.186 50-Year 0.231
100-Year 0.231 100-Year 0.246
200-Year 0.257 200-Year 0.275
500-Year 0.290 500-Year 0.313
** Record too Short to Compute Peak Discharge for These Recurrence Intervals
0.231 – 0.246 = 0.015 CFS
Figures
Vicinity Map
3625 Meadow Ave N, City of Renton, WA 98056
Tax Parcel 3342700480
FIGURE 1
North
Not to Scale
Site
Pictom etr y, King C ou n ty, Ki ng Cou nty
FIGUR E 2 - SITE AERIAL
Date: 10/14/2019
Notes:±The i nfor ma tion inclu ded on thi s map has been c om pil ed by King Cou nty s taff from a vari ety of so urc es a n d is subject to c ha n ge w ith out n otice. King C ountymakes n o r epr e sentations o r w ar ra ntie s, express o r i mp li ed , as to acc ur a cy, co m pl ete ness, tim e line ss, or ri g hts to the use of s uc h i nform a tion . T hi s doc um e n t i snot intended for us e as a su rvey pr odu ct. King C ounty shall not be l iabl e for an y gene r al , spec ia l, in dire ct, inci de n ta l, or conse que ntia l dam a ges i nclu d in g,but n ot li mi ted to, lost reve n ues o r l os t p r ofi ts resulting fro m the use or mi suse of the i nfor ma tion contained on this m ap. An y s al e of this m ap or in form atio n onthis map is prohibited ex cept by wr itten pe r mis sion of King Cou n ty.
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
King County
Area,
Washington
Mitchell Property
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
October 14, 2019
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
52637305263740526375052637605263770526378052637905263800526381052638205263730526374052637505263760526377052637805263790526380052638105263820560170 560180 560190 560200 560210 560220 560230 560240 560250 560260 560270 560280 560290 560300 560310
560170 560180 560190 560200 560210 560220 560230 560240 560250 560260 560270 560280 560290 560300 560310
47° 31' 30'' N 122° 12' 2'' W47° 31' 30'' N122° 11' 55'' W47° 31' 26'' N
122° 12' 2'' W47° 31' 26'' N
122° 11' 55'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84
0 30 60 120 180
Feet
0 10 20 40 60
Meters
Map Scale: 1:690 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 16, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 1, 2019—Jul 25,
2019
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
InC Indianola loamy sand, 5 to 15
percent slopes
1.2 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 1.2 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
N88°40'46"W370.80N1°40'34"E 107.645018450185501865018750188 501895019050228503615036250363503645042450425504265042750429504305043150432N1°53'21"E107.65TAX PARCEL #33427004803625 MEADOW AVENUE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: TERESA K. MITCHELLTAX PARCEL #33427004843701 MEADOW AVENUE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: DONALD R. & DENICE DUNDASTAX PARCEL #33427004861409 N 37TH STREETRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: THEO A. & KIMBERLY A. BROWNETAX PARCEL #33427004821403 N 37TH STREETRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: ERIKA D. & MATTHEW E. JONESTAX PARCEL #3342700468(NO SITE ADDRESS)OWNER: RHONDA S. &WILLIAM J. COOKETAX PARCEL #33427004853714 PARK AVENUE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: RHONDA S. & WILLIAM J. COOKETAX PARCEL #33427004783708 PARK AVENUE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: ROY T. & SIRI M. DALYTAX PARCEL #33427004793702 PARK AVENUE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: LAURA L. &PAUL O. CLARKTAX PARCEL #33427004753603 MEADOW AVENUE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: KENNETH JOHNSTONN88°40'44"W 370.40TAX PARCEL #33427004733605 MEADOW AVE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: SEAMLENG TAINGTAX PARCEL #33427004723609 MEADOW AVE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: SYLVIA B. MATTHEWSTAX PARCEL #33427004813615 MEADOW AVE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: ANN PATRICIA KILLIANTAX PARCEL #33427004763619 MEADOW AVE NRENTON, WA 98056OWNER: MEGAN KUSSKEXSOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X
OHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSXXXXXXXXXXGGGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWW
G G G G G G G G G
W W W W W W W W W W
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
SSEEVERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988 PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL.MASTER BENCHMARK: CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT NUMBER 1836: FOUND 5 INCH DIAMETER CONCRETEMONUMENT WITH 1/8 INCH BRASS PLUG, DOWN 0.5 FEET IN A CASE AT THE INTERSECTION OF BURNETTEAVENUE NORTH AND NORTH 30TH STREET. ELEVATION WAS VERIFIED BY CHECKS TO THE ABOVE NOTEDCITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT NUMBER 1886 AND OBSERVATIONS USING THE WASHINGTON STATEREFERENCE NETWORK. ORTHOMETRIC ELEVATION = 120.03 FEET, NAVD 1988, PER CITY OF RENTON.SITE BM#1: GOLDSMITH CONTROL POINT TMS-1, SET REBAR AND CAP ON SOUTH EDGE OF GRAVEL DRIVEWAYTO HOUSE #3625, 1.4 FEET WESTERLY OF THE WEST EDGE OF PAVEMENT OF MEADOW AVENUE NORTH.ELEVATION = 161.65 FEET (NAVD 1988).SITE BM#2: GOLDSMITH CONTROL POINT TMS-2, SET MAG NAIL 0.2 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY EDGEOF PAVEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF MEADOW AVENUE NORTH AND 12 FEET NORTHERLY OF THESOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CORNER FOR THIS SURVEY. ELEVATION = 165.92 FEET (NAVD 1988).SITE BM#3: GOLDSMITH CONTROL POINT TMS-3, SET REBAR AND CAP IN FRONT YARD, 5.1 FEET NORTHERLYOF THE 3 BLOCK HIGH CONCRETE WALL, AND 50 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST END OF SAID WALL.ELEVATION = 180.79 FEET (NAVD 1988).TREES TABLES0SCALE:4010201" = 20'60SMEADOW AVENUE N.
(106TH AVENUE SE)LEGENDARBARBORAWNAWNINGBGBUILDINGBMBENCHMARKCONCCONCRETECORCORNERDIDUCTILE IRONELEVELEVATIONEMELECTRIC METERFNCFENCEINTINTERSECTIONIPIRON PIPEIPFIRON PIPE FOUNDMBMAILBOXMPMETAL POLEPEPOLYETHYLENEPVRPAVERSRBFREBAR FOUND (NO CAP) RCFREBAR & CAP FOUNDRETRETAINING WALLRPEROOF PEAK ELEVATIONSMHSANITARY SEWER MANHOLETMS-GOLDSMITH SURVEY CONTROLTSFTRANSFORMERUGUNDERGROUNDUPUTILITY POLEVERTVERTICALWMWATER METERFENCE LINEOVERHEAD UTILITIES LINEGAS LINESANITARY SEWER LINEWATER LINEXXOHUGSSSWDRAWN:APPROVED:PLOTTED:DESIGNED:L:\2019\19133\3 DEVELOPMENT\CAD\HOST DRAWINGS\PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT\19133X02.DWG2020/01/17 08:47ClatorreSHEETSE 1/4, NW 1/4 SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONTERRY MITCHELLJOB NO. 191333625 MEADOW AVE. N., CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONHGGEXH5H.dwt BGOLDS 10/21/14 08:42S:\DWTs\Shared Printers\TitleBlocks\HGG Standard\HGGEXH5H.dwt
FORMITCHELL PRELIMINARY SHORT PLATERMLDNKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallREXISTING CONDITIONS19133X02.dwg clator 01/17/20 08:46L:\2019\19133\3 DEVELOPMENT\CAD\HOST DRAWINGS\Preliminary Short Plat\19133X02.dwg
4,514752
City of Renton Downstream Map
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONWGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Notes
None
01/02/2020
Legend
512 0 256 512 Feet
Information Technology - GIS
RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov
Network Structures
Access Riser
Inlet
Manhole
Utility Vault
Clean Out
Unknown
Control Structures
Pump Stations
Discharge Points
Water Quality
Detention Facilities
Pond
Tank
Vault
Bioswale
Wetland
Other
Stormwater Mains
Culverts
Open Drains
Facility Outlines
Private Network Structures
Access Riser
Inlet
Manhole
Clean Out
Utility Vault
Unknown
Private Control Structures
Private Pump Stations
Private Discharge Points
Private Water Quality
Private Detention Facilities
Tank, No
Stormwater Wetland, No; Natural Wetland, No
Filter Strip, No
Infiltration Trench, No
Vault, No
Pond, No; Pond, Unknown
Bioswale, No
Stormtech Chamber, No
Other, No
Private Pipes
Private Culverts
Private Open Drains
Private Facility Outlines
Drainage Complaints
Known Drainage Issues
Renton
King County
Streets
Points of Interest
Parks
Waterbodies
Extent2010
50190502285042450425504265042750429504305043150432SLOT 2LOT 114,163 SF18,740 SF6,288 SFTRACT A(ACCESS & UTILITY)MEADOW AVENUE NDRAWN:APPROVED:PLOTTED:DESIGNED:L:\2019\19133\3 DEVELOPMENT\CAD\HOST DRAWINGS\PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT\19133P01.DWG2020/01/31 14:42ClatorreSHEETSE 1/4, NW 1/4 SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONCLTCLTKJGTERRY MITCHELLJOB NO. 191333625 MEADOW AVE. N., CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONHGGEXH5H.dwt BGOLDS 10/21/14 08:42S:\DWTs\Shared Printers\TitleBlocks\HGG Standard\HGGEXH5H.dwt
FORMITCHELL PRELIMINARY SHORT PLATKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRPRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN6.5' ROW DEDICATION700 SFEXISTING HOME TOREMAINPROPOSED 6" SANITARYSEWER SERVICEEXISTING UTILITY POLETO BE RELOCATED25'20'A A
WATER METER, TYP.BSBLR25.0'PROPOSED MAJOR 10' CONTOUR430PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PIPELEGENDSDPROPOSED SIDEWALKPROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVERDRIVEWAYPROPOSED CB TYPE IIPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MHPROPOSED CB TYPE IPROPOSED STORM PIPEPROPOSED MINOR 2' CONTOUR428PROPOSED BSBL060401020SCALE: 1" = 20'CONNECT TO EX.SANITARY SEWERRELOCATE EX.WATER METER28' ACCESS TRACTSECTION A-AROAD A ACCESS DRIVEWAYN.T.S.10'DRIVINGLANE10'DRIVINGLANE±2%8'PLANTERSTRIP±2%N88°40'44"W 174.3N88°40'46"W 174.30N1°53'21"E 107.65
N1°40'34"E 79.6
N1°40'34"E 107.6
N88°40'44"W 190.020'
4,514752
Figure 7 - Critical Areas Map
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONWGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Notes
None
10/14/2019
Legend
512 0 256 512 Feet
Information Technology - GIS
RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov
Environment Designations
Natural
Shoreline High Intensity
Shoreline Isolated High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy
Jurisdictions
Streams (Classified)
<all other values>
Type S Shoreline
Type F Fish
Type Np Non-Fish
Type Ns Non-Fish Seasonal
Unclassified
Not Visited
Wetlands
Streets
Points of Interest
Parks
Waterbodies
Extent2010
4,514752
City of Renton Drainage Complaints
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONWGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Notes
None
01/02/2020
Legend
512 0 256 512 Feet
Information Technology - GIS
RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov
Network Structures
Access Riser
Inlet
Manhole
Utility Vault
Clean Out
Unknown
Control Structures
Pump Stations
Discharge Points
Water Quality
Detention Facilities
Pond
Tank
Vault
Bioswale
Wetland
Other
Stormwater Mains
Culverts
Open Drains
Facility Outlines
Drainage Complaints
Known Drainage Issues
Renton
King County
Streets
Points of Interest
Parks
Waterbodies
Extent2010
Appendix B
Geotechnical Report by Mud Bay
Geotechnical Services, LLC.
December 19, 2019
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC• 2724 Langridge Loop NW • Olympia, WA 98502
360-481-9784 • cheathman@mudbaygeotech.com
December 29, 2019 Job:1172-KIN
Page 1
Terry Mitchell
3625 Meadow Ave N, Renton WA 98056
Renton, WA 98056
Subject: 3625 Meadow Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Site Development Geotechnical Recommendations
Dear Ms. Mitchell,
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and contains geotechnical
recommendations for the project taking place at 3625 Meadow Ave N, Renton WA.
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations in this report are based on three boring
(designated as BH-1-19, BH-2-19, and BH-3-19) completed specifically for this project,
published geologic information for the site and vicinity, USDA textural analysis of retained
samples, and our experience with similar geologic materials. The conditions observed in the
bore holes are assumed to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the
project area. If during construction, subsurface conditions differ from those described in the
explorations, we should be advised immediately so we may reevaluate the recommendations.
Location and Description
The parcel number 3342700480 is located at 3526 Meadow Ave N in Renton, WA. The site
location and vicinity for the property are presented in Figure 1. The scope of the project, as we
understand it, is to develop the site with a new access road covering 0.097 acres of the 0.91-acre
parcel, in addition to construction a shop on the southern boundary of the parcel. Proposed
development can be viewed on the provided Site Plan, attached to this report as Figure 2. It is
anticipated the structure will be supported on shallow strip footing foundations and shallow pier
foundations.
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC• 2724 Langridge Loop NW • Olympia, WA 98502
360-481-9784 • cheathman@mudbaygeotech.com
The site currently accommodates one single-family residence, a detached 2-car garage, a small
section of asphalt drive, and a gravel access road. Surface conditions on the parcel consists of
manicured and landscaped lawn, with the entirety of the site having a gentle grade projecting
down-slope to the west and north west. Discussions with the client suggest the site is well
draining, with little to no standing water being present following rain events. Several fruit and small
native trees exist in the current front-yard. A retaining wall ranging in height from 2 to 4 feet spans
the southern boundary of the neighboring parcel and appears to be in good condition.
Site Soils and Geology
As part of this project, we reviewed geologic data from the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources available at the 1:100,000 scale and prepared a site-specific geology map,
attached as Figure 3 to this report. The project vicinity geologic map indicates the project site is
directly underlain by Pleistocene continental glacial drift, and the site vicinity consists generally
of Pleistocene continental glacial till and Quaternary alluvium. Conditions observed at the site
are generally consistent with the mapped geology.
Along with the site geology, soil data was also reviewed and is represented in attached Figure
4, USDA Soil Map. The soil in this area was mapped by the United States Department of
Agriculture, USDA, as Indianola loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes. The USDA describes
Indianola loamy sand as being "somewhat excessively drained" and forming often in sandy
glacial drift deposits. Consistency across field classification, mapped soils, and soil descriptions
all indicate the soil conditions at the site are consistent with the USDA mapping. See the
Subsurface Exploration section below for a detailed soil characterization. It should be noted the
percent slopes associated with these soils is an approximation and does not necessarily reflect
the true surface topography.
Subsurface Exploration
As part of the geotechnical investigation, three shallow hand augured borings were completed.
The borings were completed using a Humboldt Manufacturing model H-4414QC hand auger
with a 4-inch diameter bucket tube sampler. In situ testing was performed at selected depths
using a Humboldt Manufacturing model H-4202A dynamic cone penetrometer to estimate the
density of the soil. The dynamic cone penetrometer uses a 15-lb steel mass falling a height of
20-inches onto an anvil to penetrate a 1.5-inch diameter 45-degree cone tip seated into the
bottom of the hole. The number of blows is recorded to achieve at total of ¾ inches of
penetration into the soil. This recorded blow count is correlated to the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) field N-value blow count determined in accordance with ASTM D1586, which is the
standard in situ test method for determining relative density of cohesionless soils and the
consistency of cohesive soils. Hand auger samples were removed from the bottom of the hole
after the dynamic cone penetration testing was performed in order to observe the soil material at
the approximate depth the test was performed.
The soil samples were classified visually in the field in general accordance with ASTM D2488,
the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).
Once transported back to the office, the samples were re-examined, and the field classifications
were modified accordingly. We then selected representative samples for a suite of laboratory
tests. The overall soil-testing program included moisture content analyses, Atterberg limits, and
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC• 2724 Langridge Loop NW • Olympia, WA 98502
360-481-9784 • cheathman@mudbaygeotech.com
particle-size analyses. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B.
Summary logs of the borings are included in Appendix A. Note the soil descriptions and
interfaces shown on the log are interpretive, and actual changes may be gradual. Upon
completion, the holes were backfilled to the original ground surface using excavated material
from the spoil piles.
Soil and Groundwater Conditions
Three hand augured borings (designated BH-1-19, BH-2-19, and BH-3-19), were performed to a
depth of 72 inches, 84 inches, and 72 inches, respectively, below the current ground surface in
order to explore the subsurface conditions at the site location. The approximate locations of the
borings have been included as Figure 5 attached to this report, Site Exploration Map. The
subsurface conditions observed in all three of the borings consisted of very loose to loose,
moist, brown, silty sand (SM) to a depth of 72 to 84 inches. It was noted that groundwater, likely
a result of localized seepage, was present in boring BH-2-19. Boring BH-1-19 and BH-3-19 had
moist soils throughout the entire depth.
Shallow Foundation Support
Shallow strip footings will be used to support the new addition and above ground structure
loads. Based on the conditions observed in the boring, we recommend locating the bottom of
the new footings on the native soil deposits at a minimum depth of approximately 1.5 feet below
the existing ground surface.
If the footings are placed on the native material at or below a depth of 1.5 feet, then the
subgrade at that elevation should be cleared and grubbed and the exposed native subgrade
soils should be compacted in place. The subgrade should be inspected for any pockets of loose
material. Loose material should be removed and replaced with a minimum of 6-inches of
crushed surfacing base coarse (CSBC). The CSBC should be placed in layers no greater than
6-inches and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Prior to placement
of the CSBC, we recommend placing a construction geosynthetic directly on the native
subgrade within the footprint of all strip footings, piers, and slabs-on-grade. The geosynthetic
used should meet the requirements of a construction geotextile for soil separation in accordance
with Section 9-33.1 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.
Footings bearing on a subgrade prepared as described above can be designed using a
maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,200 psf. We recommend a minimum footing width of
18 inches be used in the design. The maximum allowable bearing pressure may be increased
by up to one-third for short-term transient loading conditions such as wind and seismic loading.
We anticipate that total settlement will not exceed one inch, and differential settlement along an
equivalent 50-foot length of footing will not exceed half of the total settlement. The settlement is
expected to be elastic and will occur as the footings are loaded.
We recommend footing subgrade preparation be evaluated by Mud Bay Geotechnical Services,
LLC prior to placement of concrete. Foundation subgrade preparation should not be performed
during periods of wet weather. We recommend staging the foundation subgrade ex cavation,
compaction of native subgrade soils, and placement of CSBC to limit the time the foundation
subgrade is exposed to weather.
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC• 2724 Langridge Loop NW • Olympia, WA 98502
360-481-9784 • cheathman@mudbaygeotech.com
Lateral Earth Pressures
The portion of the new footings and stem walls below final grade should be designed to resist
lateral earth pressures of the backfill placed behind the walls. For lateral load analysis, we
recommend the geotechnical parameters in Table 1 be used for lateral design and analysis.
Table 1 : Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters
Parameter Design Value
Backfill Unit Weight (γ) 135 pcf
Wall Backfill Soil Friction Angle (φf) 37°
Coefficient of Sliding (tan φf) 0.55
Active Earth Pressure (Ka) 0.23 (EFP 31.1 psf)
At Rest Earth Pressure (K0) 0.40 (EFP 54.0 psf)
Passive Earth Pressure (Kp) 4.02 (EFP 542.7 psf)
The passive earth pressure coefficient and coefficient of sliding presented in Table 1 are
ultimate values and should be reduced by a factor of safety equal to 1.5 for final design. The
lateral earth pressure coefficients provided in Table 1 are based on the use of Gravel Backfill for
Walls. Active earth pressures can be assumed for design, provided that the walls can yield
laterally at least 0.001H (where H is the exposed wall height in feet). If the wall is not capable of
yielding that amount, then at-rest earth pressures should be used.
Seismic loading represented as a rectangular shaped dynamic uniform lateral surcharge equal
to 8H psf should be applied, with the resultant acting at a height of 0.5H, where H is the height
of the wall. This value, which was calculated using the Mononobe-Okabe method, is appropriate
for yielding walls designed in accordance with the 2015 IBC.
Drainage Considerations
We recommend including a perimeter footing drain system, consisting of a 4 -inch diameter,
perforated or slotted, rigid plastic pipe placed at the base of the wall footings. The drain should
be embedded in a clean, free-draining sand and gravel meeting the requirements of Section 9-
03.12(4) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Gravel Backfill for Drains. The drains should
be sloped slightly to drain to an appropriate discharge area. Appropriate water and weather
proofing measures should be used in order to reduce the potential for leaks through the stem
walls.
Utilities
Utilities may need to be temporarily or permanently relocated as part of the project. The utility
subgrade (base of trench excavation) should be relatively firm prior to placing bedding
materials. Subgrade that is observed to be soft, pumping, or containing abundant organics or
refuse should be sub-excavated to firm subgrade soil or a maximum depth of 2 feet. Sub-
excavated areas should be backfilled with structural fill.
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC• 2724 Langridge Loop NW • Olympia, WA 98502
360-481-9784 • cheathman@mudbaygeotech.com
Material placed directly below, around, and above utility pipes should consist of Gravel Backfill
for Pipe Zone Bedding as described in Section 9-03.12(3) of the WSDOT Standard
Specifications. The pipe bedding materials should be placed and compacted to a relatively firm
condition in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Bedding and cover should be a
minimum of 6-inches thick.
Earthwork Considerations
Soils placed as fill beyond the limits of foundation subgrade, wall backfill, and pipe zone areas
described previously should be considered structural fill. Structural fill should consist of material
meeting the requirements of Common Borrow as described in Section 9 -03.14(3) of the WSDOT
Standard Specifications. Based on the conditions observed in the boring, the onsite material
that will be removed for construction meets the requirements for Common Borrow, provided that
it can be moisture conditioned to achieve proper compaction. The onsite material contains a
fines content great enough that it is considered to be moisture sensitive. This material may be
difficult to compact if exposed to wet weather. Drying excessively wet soil will be easier during
the drier time of the year.
Structural fill should be placed and compacted in lifts no greater than 8 inches when using
relatively large compaction equipment, such as a vibrating compaction equipment attached to
an excavator or a drum roller. If small, hand-operated compaction equipment is used to compact
the structural fill, fill lifts should not exceed 6 inches. Based on the small size of the project and
difficult access, most likely small hand-operated equipment will be used.
Structural fill should be placed and compacted to between 92 and 95 percent of the maximum
dry density. All other fill material should be placed and compacted as described previously. Fill
placed in softscape, landscape, or common areas that can accommodate some settlement
should be compacted to a relatively firm and unyielding condition.
Stormwater infiltration Design
On site stormwater facilities will be used for stormwater treatment and flow control. The soils in
the upper 4 to 6 feet were classified for USDA soil texture in order to estimate the long-term
infiltration rate. Based on the conditions observed in the bor ings and laboratory testing for soil
gradation, the soils at the site are classified as a sandy loam to loam soil. We recommend
assuming a long-term infiltration rate of 1.0 inches per hour.
Erosion Control
Erosion control should be implanted during construction with the use of silt fences and
construction fencing around the perimeter of the work area. Jute, coir, or turf reinforcement mat
should be placed on the surface of all exposed ground surfaces with slopes greater than 15
percent, pinned a minimum of 30 inches below the surface. The erosion condition of slopes should
be monitored periodically during construction for any signs of surface erosion or degradation. If
significant erosion is observed, then it should be mitigated as soon as possible. To redu ce the
potential for long term erosion from occurring, it is recommended the surface all bare ground are
vegetated following construction with a combination of native plants and hydroseeding.
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC• 2724 Langridge Loop NW • Olympia, WA 98502
360-481-9784 • cheathman@mudbaygeotech.com
Recommended Additional Services
Before construction begins, we recommend a copy of the draft plans and specifications
prepared for the project be made available for review so that we can ensure that the
geotechnical recommendations in this report are included in the Contract.
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC is also available to provide geotechnical engineering and
construction monitoring services throughout the remainder of the design and construction of the
project. The integrity of the geotechnical elements of a project depend on proper site
preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may need to be
made in the field if conditions are encountered that differ from those described in this report.
During the construction phase of the project, we recommend that Mud Bay Geotechnical
Services, LLC be retained to review construction submittals, observe and evaluate subgrade for
footings, structural fill placement and compaction, and provide recommendations for any other
geotechnical considerations that may arise during construction.
Intended Use and Limitations
This report has been prepared to assist the client and their consultants in the engineering
design and construction of the subject project. It should not be used, in part or in whole for other
purposes without contacting Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC for a review of the
applicability of such reuse.
This report should be made available to prospective contractors for their information only and
not as a warranty of ground conditions.
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on Mud Bay
Geotechnical Services, LLC understanding of the project at the time that the report was written
and on-site conditions that existed at time of the field exploration. If significant changes to the
nature, configuration, or scope of the project occur during the design process, we should be
consulted to determine the impact of such changes on the recommendations and conclusions
presented in this report.
Site exploration and testing describes subsurface conditions only at the sites of subsurface
exploration and at the intervals where samples are collected. These data are interpreted by Mud
Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC rendering an opinion regarding the general subsurface
conditions. Actual subsurface conditions can be discovered only during earthwork and
construction operations. The distribution, continuity, thickness, and characteristics of identified
(and unidentified) subsurface materials may vary considerably from that indicated by the
subsurface data. While nothing can be done to prevent such variability, Mud Bay Geotechnical
Services, LLC is prepared to work with the project team to reduce the impacts of variability on
project design, construction, and performance.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve your geotechnical needs on this project and look forward
to working with you in the future. Please contact us at your earliest convenience if you have any
questions or would like to discuss any of the contents of this report.
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC• 2724 Langridge Loop NW • Olympia, WA 98502
360-481-9784 • cheathman@mudbaygeotech.com
Sincerely,
Chris Heathman, P.E.
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC
Figure 1: Site Map
3625 Meadow Ave N,
Renton WA, 98056
Site Development Geotechnical Report
JOB #:1172-KIN Date: Nov., 2019
Site Location
Figure 2: Site Plan
3625 Meadow Ave N,
Renton WA, 98056
Site Development Geotechnical Report
JOB #:1172-KIN Date: Nov., 2019
LEGEND
Figure 3: WA DNR Geologic Map
3625 Meadow Ave N,
Renton WA, 98056
Site Development Geotechnical Report
JOB #: 1172-KIN Date: Nov., 2019
Site Location
200 ft
100 m
LEGEND
Site Location
Figure 4: USDA Soils Map
3625 Meadow Ave N,
Renton WA, 98056
Site Development Geotechnical Report
JOB #: 1172-KIN Date: Nov., 2019
BH-1-19 BH-2-19
Site Location
Figure 5: Site Exploration Map
3625 Meadow Ave N,
Renton WA, 98056
Site Development Geotechnical Report
JOB #:1172-KIN Date: Nov., 2019
Sample Location
BH-3-19
APPENDIX A – FINAL BORING LOGS
Completed: Hammer Type:
Backfilled: Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop:
Groundwater Depth: Total Depth of Boring:
Lithology
Very loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Very loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT)
Blows/3/4"Density
0-4 Very Loose
5-10 Loose
11-24 Medium Dense
25-50 Dense
>50 Vey Dense
Project: Client: Boring No. 1 of 3:
Site Development Terry Mitchell BH-1-19
Project Number:Drilling Contractor:Drill Rig Type:
1172-KIN n/a Hand Auger
Address:DateStarted: Bit Type: Diameter:
3625 Meadow Ave N, Renton
WA 98056
11/6/2019 n/a 4 inches
Fluid:
11/6/2019 Steel n/a
Logged By:
Logan Krehbiel 11/6/2019 15lbs 20 inches
Drill Crew: Elevation:
Samantha Denham none Existing Surface 72"DepthSample TypeSample NumberBlow Counts (blows/3/4")Graphic LogDry Density (pcf)Moisture Content (%)Additional TestSoil Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size, other
descriptors
Rock Description: modifierm color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding and
joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
Bore Log Symbols Soil Density Modifiers
Gravel, Sand, Non-Plastic Silt Elastic Silts and Clays
California Sampler Blows/3/4" Consistency
Shelby Tube 0-1 Very Soft
CPP Sampler 2-4 Soft
StabIlized Ground water 5-8 Medium Stiff
31-60 Hard
31-61 Very Hard
Groundwater At time of Drilling 9-15 Stiff
Bulk/ Bag Sample 16-30 Very Stiff
18"S-1 1
36"S-2 3
54"S-3 6
72"S-4 6
Completed: Hammer Type:
Backfilled: Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop:
Groundwater Depth: Total Depth of Boring:
Lithology
Very loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Very loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Sharp increase in moisture content @ 68".
Very loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT)
Blows/3/4"Density
0-4 Very Loose
5-10 Loose
11-24 Medium Dense
25-50 Dense
>50 Vey Dense
Project: Client: Boring No. 2 of 3:
Site Development Terry Mitchell BH-2-19
Project Number:Drilling Contractor:Drill Rig Type:
1172-KIN n/a Hand Auger
Address:DateStarted: Bit Type: Diameter:
3625 Meadow Ave N, Renton
WA 98056
11/6/2019 n/a 4 inches
Fluid:
11/6/2019 Steel n/a
Logged By:
Logan Krehbiel 11/6/2019 15lbs 20 inches
Drill Crew: Elevation:
Samantha Denham none Existing Surface 84"DepthSample TypeSample NumberBlow Counts (blows/3/4")Graphic LogDry Density (pcf)Moisture Content (%)Additional TestSoil Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size, other
descriptors
Rock Description: modifierm color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding and
joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
Bore Log Symbols Soil Density Modifiers
Gravel, Sand, Non-Plastic Silt Elastic Silts and Clays
California Sampler Blows/3/4" Consistency
Shelby Tube 0-1 Very Soft
CPP Sampler 2-4 Soft
StabIlized Ground water 5-8 Medium Stiff
31-60 Hard
31-61 Very Hard
Groundwater At time of Drilling 9-15 Stiff
Bulk/ Bag Sample 16-30 Very Stiff
18"S-1 1
36"S-2 6
54"S-3 5
72"S-4 4
Completed: Hammer Type:
Backfilled: Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop:
Groundwater Depth: Total Depth of Boring:
Lithology
Very loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Very loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Loose, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT)
Blows/3/4"Density
0-4 Very Loose
5-10 Loose
11-24 Medium Dense
25-50 Dense
>50 Vey Dense
Project: Client: Boring No. 3 of 3:
Site Development Terry Mitchell BH-3-19
Project Number:Drilling Contractor:Drill Rig Type:
1172-KIN n/a Hand Auger
Address:DateStarted: Bit Type: Diameter:
3625 Meadow Ave N, Renton
WA 98056
11/6/2019 n/a 4 inches
Fluid:
11/6/2019 Steel n/a
Logged By:
Logan Krehbiel 11/6/2019 15lbs 20 inches
Drill Crew: Elevation:
Samantha Denham none Existing Surface 72"DepthSample TypeSample NumberBlow Counts (blows/3/4")Graphic LogDry Density (pcf)Moisture Content (%)Additional TestSoil Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size, other
descriptors
Rock Description: modifierm color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding and
joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
Bore Log Symbols Soil Density Modifiers
Gravel, Sand, Non-Plastic Silt Elastic Silts and Clays
California Sampler Blows/3/4" Consistency
Shelby Tube 0-1 Very Soft
CPP Sampler 2-4 Soft
StabIlized Ground water 5-8 Medium Stiff
31-60 Hard
31-61 Very Hard
Groundwater At time of Drilling 9-15 Stiff
Bulk/ Bag Sample 16-30 Very Stiff
18"S-1 1
36"S-2 3
54"S-3 5
72"S-4 6
APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Date Revised:Date Sampled:
Test(s) Performed:Test(s) Performed:
X
X
X
Respectfully Submitted,
NW Region Laboratory Manager
Atterberg Limits
Asphalt Extraction/Gradation
Moisture Content
Specific Gravity, Coarse
Specific Gravity, Fine
Hydrometer Analysis
Proctor
Sand Equivalent
Fracture Count
See Report
WSDOT Degradation
Bulk Density & Voids
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
If you have any questions concerning the test results, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance please call on us at the
number below.
Rice Density
Loamy Sand
Non-plastic
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
Test Results
Olympia, WA 98502
Chris Heathman
December 10, 2019
19S056-07
B19-1174
Project #:
1172 - KINAddress:
As requested MTC, Inc. has performed the following test(s) on the sample referenced above. The testing was performed in accordance with
current applicable AASHTO or ASTM standards as indicated below. The results obtained in our laboratory were as follows below or on the
attached pages:
Test Results
Client:
Sample #:
Date:
Project:
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC.
2724 Langridge Loop NW
Attn:
Sulfate SoundnessSieve Analysis
Not Reported
Project:Date Received:4-Dec-19
Project #:Sampled By:Client
Client:Date Tested:5-Dec-19
Source:Tested By:A. Eifrig
Sample#:B19-1174
D(5) =0.010 mm % Gravel =1.0%Coeff. of Curvature, CC =1.31
Specifications D(10) =0.020 mm % Sand =60.5%Coeff. of Uniformity, CU =6.87
No Specs D(15) =0.029 mm % Silt & Clay =38.4%Fineness Modulus =0.74
Sample Meets Specs ?N/A D(30) =0.059 mm Liquid Limit =0.0%Plastic Limit =0.0%
D(50) =0.107 mm Plasticity Index =0.0%Moisture %, as sampled =n/a
D(60) =0.134 mm Sand Equivalent =n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent =
D(90) =0.482 mm Fracture %, 1 Face =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 1 Face =
Dust Ratio =3/7 Fracture %, 2+ Faces =n/a Req'd Fracture %, 2+ Faces =
Actual Interpolated
Cumulative Cumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs
US Metric Passing Passing Max Min
12.00"300.00 100%100.0%0.0%
10.00"250.00 100%100.0%0.0%
8.00"200.00 100%100.0%0.0%
6.00"150.00 100%100.0%0.0%
4.00"100.00 100%100.0%0.0%
3.00"75.00 100%100.0%0.0%
2.50"63.00 100%100.0%0.0%
2.00"50.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%
1.75"45.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1.50"37.50 100%100.0%0.0%
1.25"31.50 100%100.0%0.0%
1.00"25.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%
3/4"19.00 100%100%100.0%0.0%
5/8"16.00 100%100.0%0.0%
1/2"12.50 100%100%100.0%0.0%
3/8"9.50 100%100%100.0%0.0%
1/4"6.30 99%100.0%0.0%
#4 4.75 99%99%100.0%0.0%
#8 2.36 99%100.0%0.0%
#10 2.00 98%98%100.0%0.0%
#16 1.18 94%100.0%0.0%
#20 0.850 92%100.0%0.0%
#30 0.600 91%100.0%0.0%
#40 0.425 90%90%100.0%0.0%
#50 0.300 79%100.0%0.0%
#60 0.250 75%100.0%0.0%
#80 0.180 68%100.0%0.0%
#100 0.150 66%66%100.0%0.0%
#140 0.106 50%100.0%0.0%
#170 0.090 44%100.0%0.0%
#200 0.075 38.4%38.4%100.0%0.0%
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written
approval.
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
Sieve Report
ASTM C-136, ASTM D-6913
19S056-07
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC.
BH-3-19 S3 @ 54''
ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System
ASTM D-2216, ASTM D-2419, ASTM D-4318, ASTM D-5821
SM, Silty Sand
brown
Sample Color:
1172 - KIN
8"6"4"2"3"1½"1¼"10"1"¾"5/8"½"3/8"¼"#4#8#10#16#20#30#40#50#60#80#100#140#170#2000%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000% Passing% PassingParticle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Sizes Max Specs Min Specs Sieve Results
Project:1172 - KIN Date Received:4-Dec-19
Project #:19S056-07 Sampled By:Client
Client :Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, LLC.Date Tested:5-Dec-19 Sample Color
Source:BH-3-19 S3 @ 54''Tested By:A. Eifrig
Sample#:B19-1174
Assumed Sp Gr :2.70
Sample Weight:50.07 grams
Hydroscopic Moist.:6.31%Sieve Percent
Adj. Sample Wgt :47.10 grams Size Passing
3.0"100%75.000 mm
Hydrometer 2.0"100%50.000 mm
Reading Corrected Percent 1.5"100%37.500 mm
Minutes Reading Passing 1.25"100%31.500 mm
2 7 14.5%0.0371 mm 1.0"100%25.000 mm
5 6.5 13.5%0.0235 mm 3/4"100%19.000 mm
15 5.5 11.4%0.0137 mm 5/8"100%16.000 mm
30 5 10.4%0.0097 mm 1/2"100%12.500 mm
60 4.5 9.3%0.0069 mm 3/8"100%9.500 mm
250 3 6.2%0.0034 mm 1/4"99%6.300 mm
1440 2.5 5.2%0.0014 mm #4 99%4.750 mm
#10 98%2.000 mm
% Gravel:1.0%Liquid Limit:0.0 %#20 92%0.850 mm
% Sand:60.5%Plastic Limit:0.0 %#40 90%0.425 mm
% Silt:30.8%Plasticity Index:0.0 %#100 66%0.150 mm
% Clay:7.7%#200 38.4%0.075 mm
Silts 37.8%0.074 mm
22.7%0.050 mm
12.7%0.020 mm
Clays 7.7%0.005 mm
5.5%0.002 mm
Colloids 3.7%0.001 mm
Particle Size
% Sand:77.0%2.0 - 0.05 mm
% Silt:17.4%0.05 - 0.002 mm
% Clay:5.6%< 0.002 mm
Loamy Sand
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from
or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
USDA Soil Textural Classification
ASTM C-136
Soils Particle
ASTM D-422, HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
Sieve Analysis
Grain Size Distribution
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
USDA Soil Textural Classification
Hydrometer Report
SM, Silty Sand
Diameter
brown
Soils Particle
Diameter
ASTM D 2487 Soils Classification
Project:
Project #:
Client:Sample Color
Source:
Sample #:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6
Weight of Wet Soils + Pan:
Weight of Dry Soils + Pan:Non-Plastic
Weight of Pan:
Weight of Dry Soils:Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows:N/A
Weight of Moisture:Plastic Limit:N/A
% Moisture:Plasticity Index, IP:N/A
Number of Blows:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6
Weight of Wet Soils + Pan:
Weight of Dry Soils + Pan:Non-Plastic
Weight of Pan:
Weight of Dry Soils:
Weight of Moisture:
% Moisture:
Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-98
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Meghan Blodgett-Carrillo
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspections • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Regional Offices: Olympia ~ 360.534.9777 Bellingham ~ 360.647.6111 Silverdale ~ 360.698.6787 Tukwila ~ 206.241.1974
6-Dec-19
BH-3-19 S3 @ 54''
Mud Bay Geotechnical Services, L
A. Eifrig
4-Dec-19
Client
ASTM D4318 - Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils
1172 - KIN Unified Soils Classification System, ASTM D-2487Date Received:
B19-1174
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
Corporate ~ 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980
Liquid Limit Determination
threads. Non-plastic.
Liquid limit cannot be determined as the material displays rapid dilation. Plastic limit cannot be established as the material does not roll down to 1/8"
Sampled By:
Date Tested:
Tested By:
Plastic Limit Determination
All results apply only to actual locations and materials tested. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or
regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval.
19S056-07 SM, Silty Sand
brown
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 100% MoistureNumber of Blows, "N"
Liquid Limit
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%110%Plasticity Index Liquid Limit
Plasticity Chart
MH or OH
ML or OLCL-ML