Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA16-000692 - Vol 3AHBLal TACOMA • SEATTLE Technical Information Report PREPARED FOR: Integrus Architecture 117 South Main Street, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98104-3496 PROJECT: New Sartori Elementary School 315 Garden Avenue North Renton, WA 98057 Project No. 2160339.10 PREPARED BY: Greg Tauscheck, PE Project Engineer REVIEWED BY: William J. Fierst, PE Project Manager Sean M. Comfort, PE Principal DATE: August 2016 Civil Engineers • Structural Engineers • Landscape Architects • Community Planners • Land Surveyors • Neighbors Civil Engineers • Structural Engineers • Landscape Architects • Community Planners • Land Surveyors • Neighbors h - tecnica .n orma ion Repprt PREPARED FOR: Integrus Architecture 1-17South Main Street,:Suite 100 8131/2016: Seat tle, WA 98104-3496 : C ol Jut* Op PROJECT: New Sartori Elementary School.: J 315 Garden Avenue North Ago m. Renton, WA 98057 ssroNAL 'G Project No::2160339.'f 0 PREPARED BY: hereb state :.that this Technical.:y Greg Tauscheck,;PE Information Report for the New Sartori Project Engineer Elementary School project :has been prepared by me or under:my.supervision, and meets.the standard of care .and REVIEWED BY. . . expertise that is usual and customary:in this community .':for professional William J; Fierst, PEengineers: I understand that City of Renton does not and will not assume Project Manager liability for the:sufficienc , suitability,::or: performance of drainage facilities prepared by me. ean M. Comfort, PE Principa I DATE: August 2016 Table: of Contents Section::Page 1.0 Project Overview 1 2.0 Conditions and Requirements Summary.: 2 2.1 CR:1 Discharge at the Natural Location 2.2 CR 2—Offsite Analysis 2 2.3 CR 3—Flow Control 3 2.4 CR 4-:Conveyance System 3 2;5 : CR 5—Erosion and:Sediment Control 3 2.6 CR 6=Maintenance and Operations 4 2.7 CR 7-Financial Guarantees and Liability 4 2:8 CR 8—Water Quality 4 2.9 Special Requirement SR 1.-.Other Adopted Requirements 4 2.10 SR 2.—Flood Hazard Delineation 4 2.11 SR 3—Flood Protection Facilities 4 2.12 SR 4—Source Control 4 . 2.13 : SR 5—Oil Control 4 2.14 SR 6—Aquifer Protection Area 4 3.0 Offsite Analysis 5 3.1 Task 1 —Study Area Definition and Maps 5 3.2 Task 2:—Resource Review 6 •. 3.3 Task 3—Field:Inspection 7 3.4 Task 4.-Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions 8 4.0 Flow Control and Water.Quality facility Analysis and Design 8 4.1 •Existing Site Hydrology(Part A) 8 4.1.1 Basin 1 (Central-West:Basin)8 4.1.2 Basin:2 (South Basin) :.:: • 8 4.1.3 ..Basin 3(East Basin) 9 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology(Part B) 9 4.2.1 Basin 1 (Central-West Basin)9 4.2.2 Basin 2 (South'Basin) 9 ; 4.2.3 Basin 3 (East Basin) 9 4.3 Performance Standards (Part C) 9 Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 0111C OProjectNo.2160339.10 4.4 -: Flow Control System (Part D) 10 4.5 Water Quality System (Part E)10 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design 10 6.0 Special Reports and Studies _: 10 7.0 Other Permits 10 8.0 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP)Analysis and Design 11 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant 11 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Manual 11 11.0 Conclusion 12 Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 11:1ProjectNo.2160339.10 Appendices Appendix A; Exhibits A-1 Vicinity Map A-2 Geotechnical.Report A-3 Existing Conditions Map A-4 ' ' Site Plan A-5 Existing Basin Map A-6 Developed Basin Map A-7 Aquifer Protection . A-8 FIRM ate.Map .. . A-9 KCRTS:Input and Discharge:Results A-10 Stormwater.Treatment Basins A-11 ' Filterra Guidelines:: A-12 Filterra Sizing Calculations: . A-13 Downstream Analysis A-14 Erosion Hazard.: A-15 .. Steep Slopes A-16 Slide Hazard A-17 Flood Hazard A-18 Soil Map A-19 Coal Mine Hazard: Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No.2160339.10 1.0 Project Overview The Renton School District(RSD)proposes to construct a new Sartori Schooliat:315 Garden. Avenue North in Renton,Washington. The project consists of anew school building,.parking lots, bus and:parent drop:-Off and pick-up areas,outdoor landscape areas, and sports field;:as well as utility and site improvements to support the program. The project site encompasses 14 Tax . . .. Parcels (7564600170, 7224000620;7224000615, 7224000610, 7224000605;:7224000600, : .. 7224000595; 7224000590, 7224000580, 7564600180; 75600181, 7564600183;7564600182, and 7564600184)and is bounded by North 491 Street to the north, Garden Avenue:North:to:the east, North 3rd Street to the south, and Park Avenue.North to the west. The existing Sartori . . . Elementary School (SES)building and:associated paved:parking, drive lanes, and field are located:on Parcel 7564.600170. The existing school parcel encompasses approximately.: 50 percent of the site. Existing residential:houses and a market are located along the:south and west perimeter of the site adjacent to Park Avenue North and North 30 Street.• Existing improvements include SES, residential properties, market, and associated parking lot and play areas. These:facilities will be demolished in their entirety as part of a separate project completed prior to site development for the proposed school. Existing sidewalks and curb and gutter are located along the adjacent roadways within the public right-of-way. :The adjacent sidewalks and curb and gutter are proposed for demolition and replacement with the current • : • ro ect. The entire site:area(all Tax Parcels is 5.28 acres. Right-Of-waydedications:areP .J.. required along all of the roadways, including approximately 12 feet along Park Avenue North, 8.5 feet along North 4th Street, 9 feet along Garden Avenue North, and 4.5:feet along North.371:: Street. After dedications, this proposed site area will be 4.88 acres. The site drainage area including offsite areas In the•proposed condition is 5.67 acres The:existing basin used to size the detention facilities contains 3.17 acres of impervious area and 2:50 acres of pervious area. The proposed condition contains 4.08 acres of impervious area and 1.59 acres of pervious area: • The site has:three separate discharge locations and is:divided into three basins, as described below. •Each discharge location and basin:is part of a separate threshold discharge area(TDA). Table 1: Basin 1 Land Cover Areas Aimp(ac) .::APery(ac) :: Total(ac) Existing 2.51 1.79 4:30 Proposed 3.07 1.23 4.30 Table 2: Basin 2 Land Cover Areas Aimp(ac) Ape,,,(ac) Total(ac) Existing 0.63. 0.40 1:03 Proposed 0.84 0.19 1.03 Table 3: Basin 3 Land Cover Areas Amp(ac). ' . . Aperv.(ac) Total(ac).. Existing: 0.03 0.31 0.34 .. . Proposed 0.17 0.17 0.34 Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 1 01100ProjectNo.2160339.10 : The engineered drainage system for the proposed site will not alter existing discharge locations from the site. Runoff from the north-central portion of the site(TDA 1)will.discharge to Park Avenue North and North 4th Street. Runoff from the south basin of the site (TDA 2)will discharge to North 3rd Street. Runoff from the northeast basin of the site (TDA 3).will discharge to the southwest corner of the intersection:of Garden Avenue North and North 4t"Street. The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual(KCSWDM) and City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual(February 2010)establish the methodology and design criteria used for the project, The Rational Method:was used to determine conveyance capacities. 2.0 Conditions and Requirements Summary; The project triggers Full Drainage Review:because it results in more,than 7;000'square feet of eland disturbing activity and over 2,000 square feet of new and/or:replaced impervious surface. Below is a summary of how the:proposed project will meet the Core Requirements (CR). 2.1 CR 1-Discharge at the:Natural Location: The site is:located within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. The site is divided into three : TDAs: TDA 1 is located in the central and north portion of the site and includes the building and residential properties;TDA 2 is located in the south portion of the site and includes residential properties and an existing parking lot, and TDA 3:is located in the northeast portion of the site and includes an:existing landscaped:field. The north and central basin (TDA 1)drains:to the public conveyance system that drains north along Park Avenue North-and west along North 4r1 Street, and eventually discharges to the:Cedar River. The south basin(TDA 2).drains:to the public conveyance system that drains west along North 3`'Street,discharging to the Cedar River. The northeast basin (TDA:3)discharges to the northeast to the intersection:of Garden Avenue:North and North 4th Street,drains north along Garden Avenue North, and eventually discharges:to the Cedar River. 2.2 CR 2—Offsite Analysis AHBL staff performed a Level One Downstream Analysis for the project on August 19; 2016. The analysis included:: Defining and mapping the study area.. Reviewing available information on the study area. Field inspecting the,study area. Analyzing the existing drainage system, including its existing and predicted problems, if. any. . Please refer to Section 3.0 for the full offsite analysis. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 2 Project No.2160339.10 CICBC/11' 2.3 CR 3—:Flow Control The King:County Runoff Time:Series(KCRTS) mode was used to model:the.existing stormwater.. ; :l conditions and design a detention pipe system for each of.the three.separate discharge points.. TDAs) Each discharge.point will have itaOwni detention pipe system and control structure. See the KCRTS Input and Discharge Results in Appendix;A-9. According to the City;of Renton 2009 KCS WDM Amendment Reference 11-A, Flow Control Application Map, the site is subject to the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Site-. Conditions).:This:standard requires the post-development peak flow rates to match the peak flow rates of the existing,condition in the 2-year design, and 10-year and 100-year storm.peak flow rates., Flow control will be:provided through the use of buried detention pipes. KCRTS-is.used to model the hydrologic conditions.. Detention Pipe Sizing,Results • Detention Detention Storage Pipe Diameter:Pipe Length Volume: : IN): . LF) CF) : Basin 1. 36 500 3,534 Basin 2 48 ::: 90,:;.: 1,131: Basin 3 • 36 220 1,555 2.4. . CR 4. Conveyance System : : :: There is one large building on the west side:of:the site: The building downspouts will:be.tight lined into a roof drain then piped to the detention system. The parking and vehicle'access areas will be collected:in catch basins end:conveyed in pipes to:the detention and treatment facilities..;: :: : The landscape areas will be collected in yard drains and Conveyed in pipes to the detention : i I: system; and the field:underdrain system will be conveyed to the detention system. Based on Section:1.2:4.1 Of the KCSWDM, new pipe.systems shall be designed:with sufficient.: :: capacity to convey and contain the 25-year peak flow,;with a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard ' between the design water surface and structure grate. In addition, runoff from the 100-year peak storm event cannot create or aggravate a•severe=flooding problem'or severe erosion problem. The new pipe system has sufficient capacity for 25-year peak flow. 'Catch basin rims will not..: :: overtop in the 100=year peak storm event, and there'will be more than 6 inches Of freeboard ' . .. .. between the design water surface and structure grate during the.25=.year peak storm:event: No severe flooding problems orsevere.erosion problems are will be created or aggravated in the 100-year storm:event. Conveyance:calculations-will:be provided with the permit submittal: : 2.5 ,CR 5—Erosion and Sediment Control :.: Onsite land:disturbance will consist of clearing the work site, demolition,and regrading. Erosion and sediment control will be provided with the use of temporary and permanent seeding within the work limits, silt fence or wattles, inlet sediment protection, stabilized construction:entrance, and sedimentation ponds: A Temporary-Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be included in the permit:plan set. See Section 8.0 for Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan :: CSWPPP)analysis and design. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 3 DIIICIEIProjectNo.2160339.10 : 2.6 CR 6—:Maintenance and Operations . .. Maintenance and operations of all drainage facilities.will.be maintained bytheowner. The project proposes new area drains and catch basins onsite. The Operations and Maintenance Manual will be provided in a future submittal. 2.7 CR 7—Financial:Guarantees and Liability This project will provide financial guarantees and liability per City of Renton requirements. The City of Renton Bond Quantities Worksheet will be provided in a future submittal. 2.8 CR 8-Water Quality The new pollution generating impervious surfaces (PGIS).for the proposed site include the paved .. parking areas, maintenance,fire access loops, parking lot,and vehicle access. Onsite flows will be treated to meet the performance standard of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu by utilizing Contech Filterra structures. The site is within Zone 1:of the Aquifer Protection Zone. Therefore, bioretention:and stormwater wetlands are prohibited:. Filterra structures will be provided for stormwater treatment for pollution generating surfaces. See Appendix A-11 for:the Filterra design.guidelines per Department of Ecology approval. :See Appendix A-12,.Filterra Sizing Calculations for sizing. 2.9 Special Requirement(SR).1 —Other Adopted Requirements The project is included in the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin: City and County basin requirements will be followed where applicable. 2.10 SR —Flood Hazard Delineation The proposed project is not in or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. See Appendix A-8 for the FIRM Rate Map. 2.1:1 . SR 3-Flood Protection Facilities This.project does not:rely:on existing flood:protection facilities nor will it modify or construct:new flood protection facilities: 2.12 SR 4—Source Control The proposed project is an educational facility;therefore, it does not fit:the definition of a commercial, industrial, or multi-family site for source:control:purposes. 2.13 SR 5—.Oil Control The site does not meet high use.criteria and is not subject to oil control measures. 2.14 SR 6—Aquifer Protection Area The project is located within an Aquifer Protection Zone 1:per the City of Renton Sensitive Areas Aquifer Protection map. See Appendix A-7 Aquifer Protection. Ponds, stormwater wetlands, infiltration, and bioretention are prohibited within Aquifer Protection Zone 1. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 4 al : alProjectNo.2160339.10 3.0 Offsite Analysis: There are no upstream tributary areas contributing drainage to the basin'area . 3.1 :'Task.1 —Study Area'Definition and Maps The Renton School District(RSD) proposes to constructa new Sartori Sch'oola1315 Garden'.": • . Avenue North in Renton,Washington. AHBL staff visited the site on August 19;•2016. :' : - ' The project.site:lies within the Lower_Cedar River Drainagee Basin; as'delineated:bythe KinPJ9 9 County Water Features Map. • . - The project site basin receives no upstream stormwater. The project discharges to three separate discharge'locations that will be'referred to as Basin'1', Basin 2, and Basin 3:(TDA 1,TDA 2, and TDA3,:respectively).:. . Basin 1'(TDA 1) Downstream:... . Discharge'1 from Basin 1:is defined as the.west and'central portion:of:the site. 'It'is the largest. . .. Basin, and has an area of 4.3 acres. The basin discharges west:to the flow line in Park-Avenue North;and:to the north to a storm:line in North 4th Street.:: : Stormwater flowing west is intercepted by:one of three catch basins in:the'east'flowline of Park' ' Avenue North. One catch basin is mid-block adjacent to 326 Park Avenue North, th'e second , catch basin is et 340 Park Avenue North, and the third:is just south of North 4th.Street. All three: : of these datCh basins are tig tine west to a 12-inc h conveyance line running north on the west. • ' . side of Park Avenue North that enters into a line flowing west on North 4th Street. Stormwater:that flows north off the site is intercepted:by a catch basin midblock in the south side of North 4th Street.- It is conveyed north to the north side of North 4th Street;and then west to'a ' ' catch:basin. It is then directed south to a,manhole in the south side of North 4th Street, where' stormwater is conveyed west on North 4th Street. At the intersection with Park Avenue North, stormwater then is combined with the stormwater that:flows:west of the site. Stormwater then_: : flows westin an 8-inch PVC pipe120 feet to another manhole. Stormwater is conveyed west : another 134 feet in an:8-inch concrete pipe:to a catch basin at.the intersection of Pelly Avenue North. . Stormwater travels west another 144 feet in an 8-inch concrete pipe to a Type 2 manhole. Water is conveyed 131 feet west in an 8-inch concrete pipe to a Type:2 manhole at the intersection of Wells Avenue North• Stormwater is conveyed 142 feet west in an 8-inch concrete pipe to a Type2 manhole. Stormwater is piped 204 feet west in an 8=inch:concrete pipe to a catch basin in Williams:Avenue North. : Another 8-inch pipe conveys water west 148 feet to another catch basin: An 8-inch concrete pipe conveys water west.169 feet to another catch basin at the intersection of Burnett Avenue North. Stormwater:is then conveyed south on Burnett Avenue North in a 21-inch pipe 430 feet to a Type 2 manhole. The storm drainage system ultimately duffel's to the Cedar River. See Appendix A-13, Downstream Analysis,for a map of the downstream piping. Technical information Report New Sartori Elementary School 5 H • ProjectNo.2160339.10 ' Basin 2 (TDA 2) Downstream Basin 2 stormwater discharges to the south flowline of:North 3 Street, whereat is intercepted:by an existing.Type.2:patch basin in the north flowline of North 3rdStreet. Stormwater flows west.. 419 feet in a 12-inch pipe to another Type:2 catch basin in the east side of the intersection of Park Avenue North and North 3`d Street. A40-foot pipe conveys water across Park Avenue North to the west to another Type 2 catch basin., A 12-inch concrete pipe conveys stormwater west 255 feet to another Type 2 catch basin in the intersection of North 3`d Street and Petty Avenue. Another 12-inch concrete pipe conveys stormwater west 151 feet to a Type 1 catch basin. Stormwater is conveyed west in another 12-inch concrete pipe 124 feet to a stormwater Type 2 catch basin in the intersection of Wells Avenue and North 3 Street. Stormwater is then conveyed to the northwest in a 12-inch pipe 148 feet to a Type 2 catch basin. Stormwater continues to the northwest in a 12-inch pipe 216 feet to:a Type 2 catch basin at the intersection of Williams Avenue North. The storm drainage system ultimately ouffalls to the Cedar River.: See Appendix A-13, Downstream Analysis;for a map of the downstream piping. Basin 3 (TDA 3) Downstream Basin 3 stormwater discharges overland from the grass field to the south flowline of North 4th Street and drains east, where it is intercepted by a catch basin:at the southwest corner of the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North el Street. Stormwater will flow east in a:35-foot, 8-inch pipe to a.catch basin in the east side of Garden Avenue North. An:8-inch.pipe conveys. water 52 feet north across North 4th Street to a Type:2 storm catch basin:.'A.12-inch concrete : pipe conveys water 38 feet north to a Type.1 L catch basin: Another:12-inch concrete.pipe . conveys water north 241 feet to a Type 2 catch basin. An 18-inch CPEP pipe conveys water 173 feet north to another Type 2.catch:basin. An 18-inch concrete pipe conveys stormwater north 186 feet to a Type 2 catch basin in the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North 5th Street. . Stormwater.is then conveyed west in a 24-inch CMP pipe:316 feet to a Type 2:catch basin. Stormwater continues west in a:24-inch CMP pipe 136:feet to another Type 2 stormwater catch basin,at the intersection of North 5th Street and.Park Avenue North..:A 24-inch CMP;pipe conveys water west 28 feet tO:the west side of Park Avenue North to a.Type:2 catch basin. : . . :. Stormwater is then conveyed in a 36-inch CMP pipe_West_258 feet to another Type 2 catch basin - etthe intersection of North 5th Street and Pelly.Avenue: The storm drainage system ultimately outfalls:to the Cedar River. See Appendix A-13, Downstream.Analysis,for a map of the downstream piping. 3.2 Task 2—Resource Review The following resources were reviewed to discover any existing or potential:problems in the study . area: Adopted Basin Plans::The project site lies within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. Requirements for the Lower Cedar River Basin Plan will be followed:where applicable. ... Offsite Analysis Reports: AHBL staff:has not located offsite analysis reports for:projects near the Sartori Site Improvements project site: Technical information Report New Sartori Elementary School 6 0© OProjectNo.2160339.10 FEMA Map: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 53033C0977 F, dated May 16; 1995(see Appendix A-8), indicates that the project site lies outside the categorized flood.zones.. City of Renton Sensitive Areas Landslide.Hazard Map (see Appendix A-16):. The project site is not located within the sensitive areas Landslide Hazard.Area. . City of Renton Aquifer Protection Zone Map (see Appendix A-7): The project site is within . :. Aquifer Protection Zone 1: Requirements for Zone 1 of the Aquifer Protection.Zone will be followed where applicable. City of Renton Coal Mine Hazard-Map (see Appendix A-19): The project site is located : outside the coal mine hazard area: City of Renton Erosion Hazard:Map (see Appendix:A-14): The project site is not within an: :: erosion hazard area. City of Renton Flood Hazard Map (see Appendix A-17): The project site is not within:: Zone X-Non Regulatory flood hazard area: City of Renton Steep Slopes Map (see Appendix A-15): The project site is not within the steep slope area; Soils Information: Site soils have been classified by the WA633 Soil Survey of King County Area,Washington and the City of Renton as Ur, Urban Land (see Appendix A-17): See Appendix A-2 for the Associated Earth Sciences Incorporated Geotechnical Report. 3.3 Task 3—Field Inspection On August 19, 2016,AHBLstaff performed a Downstream Analysis of the drainage system: receiving stormwater runoff from:the proposed Sartori Elementary School 1: Investigate any problems reported or observed during the resource review: No problems were reported or observed during the resource review. 2. Locate all existing/potential constrictions or lack of capacity in the existing drainage system: No constrictions or lack of capacity iin the existing drainage system was observed.: 3. Identify all existing/potential downstream drainage problems as defined in Section 1.2.2.1 No existing/potential downstream drainage problems were observed.. . : 4. Identify existing/potential overtopping;scouring, bank sloughing, or sedimentation: No existing/potential overtopping, scouring, bank sloughing, or sedimentation was observed.. . 5. Identify significant destruction of aquatic habitat or organisms (e.g., severe siltation, back erosion, or incision in a stream): .No significant destruction of aquatic habitat or organisms was observed. 6. Collect qualitative data on features such as land use, impervious surfaces,topography, and soil types for the site. Land use on the project is a school site. Impervious.surfaces include parking areas, buildings, and sidewalks. The topography is flat on the site, and the soil type is Ur,Urban Land. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 7 0180111ProjectNo.2160339.10 7:I Collect information on pipe sizes, channel characteristics;drainage structures,'and relevant critical areas(e.g., wetlands, stream, and steep slopes): -Pipe sizes were determined by using survey information and.City of Renton COR Maps. 8. Verify tributary;basins delineated in Task 1: Based on th_etopography onsite,=the basin delineation based on the survey was confirmed. 9, Contact neighboring property owners or residents in the area about past or existing drainage problems,;and describe these in the report (optional): This requirement is not applicable for this project. Properties on the site basin are proposedfor demolition. 10. Note the date and weather conditions at the time of the inspection: The site visit occurred on August 19, 2016. The weather wassunny and 70 degrees. 3.4. Task 4—:Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. The-site is divided into three TDAs: TDA.1 is located in the central and north portion of the site, TDA 2 is located in the south . . portion of the site, and TDA 3 is located in the northeast portion of the site: The north and central basin (TDA 1)drains to the public conveyance system that drains north along Park Avenue North and west along North 4t Street,and eventually discharges to the Cedar : River. The south basin (TDA 2)drains.to the public conveyance system that drains west along North Ord Street, discharging to the Cedar River. The northeast basin (TDA 3) discharges to the northeast to the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North:4th Street, drains north along Garden Avenue North, and eventually discharges to the Cedar River. No signs of flooding, overtopping, or erosion were evident at the:time of the inspection. 4.0 : Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology(Part A) 4.1.1 Basin 1 (Central-West Basin) Area;(Acre) Peek:F low(cfs) Till Impervious Total 2-Year 10-Year : 100-Year Grass 1.79 2.51 4,30 0.77 . : 0.93 :1.56 4.1.2 Basin 2 (South Basin) I Area (Acre)Peak Flow(cfs) Till Impervious Total : 2-Year 10Year 100-Year. Grass 0.40 0.63 1.03 0:19_0.23 0.38 Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 8 O© : OProjectNo.2160339.10 4:1.3 Basin 3 (East Basin) Area(Acre)Peak Flow(cfs) Till Impervious Total 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year Grass 0.31 . 0.03 •0.34 0.02 :. 0.04 0.08 See Figure A-5, Existing Basin Map,for delineation of the existing drainage areas. 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology(Part B) 4.2.1 , ; Basin 1 (Cenral-West Basin) _ Area(Acre) I Detained Peak Flow(cfs) Till Impervious Total .. . 2-Year . .10-Y.ear 100-Year.. Grass Detained. 1.23 3.07 4.30 0.77:: . 0.93 1.56 4.2.2 Basin 2 (South Basin) Area(Acre) Detained Peak Flow.(cfs): Grass Till Impervious_ Total 2-Year 10-Year , 100-Year Detained 0.19 . . .. 0.84 1..03 0.19 0.23 0:38. . .. 4.2.3 Basin 3 (East Basin) Area(Acre) Detained Peak Flow(cfs) Till; Impervious Grass :.. Total 2-Year. 10-Year 100-Year Detained 0.17 0.17 0.34 I • 0.02 0.04. :0.08 .. See Figure A-6 Developed Basin Map,for delineation.of the developed drainage areas and flow routes. 4.3 Performance Standards:(Part C) Per the City of Renton 2009 KCSWDM Amendment Reference 11-A, Flow Control Application: Map, the site is subject:to:the Flow Control Duration Standard (Existing Conditions).. The flow control duration standard requires runoff from urban developments to be detained and released at a rate that matches the flow duration;of the existing condition rates from.the 2-year,the 10-year, and the 100=year peak flow. Developed peak discharge rates shall match existing peak discharge rates for the 2-,.10-, and 100-year return periods. The.proposed detention:pipes:will detain and release at a required rates, meeting the Flow Control standards. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 9 Q© OProjectNo.2160339.10 In:accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM and City of Renton Amendments, onsite flows from the PGIS will be treated to meet the performance standards for the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. The proposed Contech Filterra structures will exceed the performance:standards of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. 4.4 Flow Control System (Part D) The proposed stormwater flow control system is designed to meet the requirements of the 2009:KCSWDM with City of Renton Amendments. Flow control will be provided through:the use detention within buried'detention pipe. KCRTS was used to size the detention tank and outlet structures: Section1.2.3.3 of the City:of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual states that"all proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide onsite. flow control facilities to mitigate:the impacts of increased storm and surface water runoff generated by the addition of new impervious surface and any related land conversion." Based on the site being in the Aquifer Protection Zone,1, infiltration is not allowed onsite. In addition, the geotechnical report indicates the site soils are not conducive for infiltration. Therefore, a detention.system is proposed for the project area.. .. Flow control.calculations were performed using KCRTS. Calculations are provided as Appendix A=9. :. 4.5 Water Quality System(Part E) The new PGIS:for the proposed site:include all paved parking and maintenance access areas. As mentioned above, onsite.flows will be treated to specifications provided by the Enhanced Basic Water Quality standards of the City's drainage code, using:Contech Filterra structures. See the water quality analysis.in Appendix A-10 for.the Stormwater Treatment Basins, and Appendix A-11:for the Filterra Guidelines. Per the City of.Renton 2009 KCSWDM Amendment, Section 3.2, the 2012 version of the Western Washington Hydrology.Model (WWHM)_was used to size the Filterra structures(see Appendix A-12, Filterra Sizing Calculations). 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis-and Design The project proposes collection of storm drainage from the buildings, field, landscaping area, and parking areas. :Catch basins and pipe will be used to convey water to the detention pipe where it will be detained before it is released to:the discharge points: Roof, plaza;and landscape drains will typically be 6 to 8 inches in diameter, and conveyance pipes will:typically be 12 inches in diameter. Both roof anddconveyance drains:will be Corrugated:Polyethylene Pipe (CPEP). Foundation end:wall drains will typically be 6-inch diameter perforated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Detailed conveyance calculations will be provided in a future submittal. 6.0 Special Reports and Studies A Geotechnical Report dated August 4, 2016, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., can be found in Appendix A-2, 7.0 Other Permits No other permits beyond the building permit,the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) General Permit, and the site development permit are required for this project. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 10 01000ProjectNo.2160339.10 8.0 : Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan CS PPP Analysis and Design : . The proposed development shall comply with guidelines set forth in:City of Renton drainage requirements. The plan will include erosion/sedimentation control features designed to prevent sediment-laden:runoff from leaving the:site or adversely affecting critical water resources during :: : construction: The following measures will be shown on the ESC plans and will be used to control sedimentation/erosion processes: Clearing Limits t,All areas to remain;undisturbed during the construction of the:project will be delineated prior to any site clearing or grading. Cover Measures—Cover measures will be implemented for the disturbed areas. Perimeter Protection H Filter fabric fences for site runoff protection will be provided at the ownstream site perimeter. Traffic Area Stabilization—Traffic area stabilization is nOt applicable for this project. Sediment Retention- Inlet sediment protection will be utilized as part of this project. Storm Drain Inlet Protection—Inlet sediment protection:Will be provided on all new and existing catch basins;downstream of construction activities: Surface Water Collection-Catch basins and conveyance pipes will provide surface water collection. Dewatering Control—Dewatering Control is not applicable for this:project. Dust Control=:Dust control measures, including sweeping and water truck,will be . implemented when exposed soils are dry to'the:point that wind transport:is possible; and.: : roadways, drainage ways, or surface waters are'likely:to be impacted._ _ _; Flow Control :Flow control is provided with three gravel=filled trenches along the south side of the project site. 9.0 Bond Quantities,:facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant Bond Quantities will be prepared:for_the construction submittal. 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Manual Maintenance and:operations of:all drainage facilities will be maintained by the owner. The project.. proposes new catch basins onsite. The Operations and Maintenance Manual will be prepared.for be construction submittal: Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary:School 11 Project No.2160339.10 11.0 : Conclusion This site has been designed to meet or exceed the:requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design:Manual, as amended:by.the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual(February 2010). Flow calculations and modeling utilize City of Renton standards for sizing stormwater conveyance. This analysis is based on data.and records either supplied to or obtained by AHBL. These documents are referenced within the text:of the analysis. The:analysis has been prepared using procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. AHBL, Inc. Greg Tauscheck, PE Project Engineer GT/el/Isk August20:16 Q:\2016\2160339\WORDPROC\Reports1201 6 0 631 Rpt TIR\20160631 Rpt(TIR)2160339.10.docx Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School 12 OProjectNo.2160339.10 Appendix A Exhibits A-1 Vicinity Map 2 eotec.nica Report A-3 Existing Conditions Map A-4 Site Plan A-5 Existing Basin Map A-6 Developed Basin Map A-7 Aquifer Protection' . :. . A-8 FIRM Rate Map A-9 KCRTS Input and Discharge Results A-10 Stormwater Treatment Basins A-11 Filterra:Guidelines A-12 Filterra Sizing Calculations A-13 Downstream Analysis; A-14 Erosion.Hazard A-15 Steep Slopes A-16 Slide Hazard A-17 Flood Hazard A-18 Soil Map A-19 Coal Mine Hazard Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Q© : O_Project No.2160339.10 N 6th St N bth 5t N bth St N bth St Kenworth O 3 0 N n_ d a tD 1 F J z 1 A lo I j i A a z z w i N 5th St N Sth St O z z 3m Benton School d' PROJECT SITE h`tn`t an N4thSt n N4thSt N4th., it C Stadium D PT 2 02 N 3rd gt z n g Z z i y z Barger Kmg II S. r 43rd St Michael N 3rd St N 3rd St xak; oI 4n Wa,Pro•Flight cAviationPi2/id Sr n o f F3, a y z 2 Sr a F D t Wsy 4,z z s z z c Salvation co A Army Chinch d N aoo: C co Oh it-onson Way Tobin St 1. Pi 4 D CT.:),i. quality n t 4 t 4. g Ao.Wu Pik 4 wv 4 T y I LibMy Park 4 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE N to fil Liri. 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 1620, Seattle,WA98101 SARTORI ELEMENTARY Fa Q 206 267 2425 TEL e I 206.267.2429 FAX VICINITY MAP a t: J a • a a. ass o c i a t e d earth sciences inc or p o r a t e d is"; _2N•,,,,,, .11,‘ , 4 • 0. , ...Arit., :e.... 7.' I" ,', l A1 p .I may , ' A..' • 1"41\ 11 , 1 ,'‘ 4' is if.; .,. Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington Prepared For: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT Project No. KE150719A August 4, 2016 z b« Associated Earth Sciences, Inc ti. • A.:, 911 5th Avenue y, ii, ' Kirkland, WA 98033 i.i „ y P (425) 827 7701 F (425) 827 5424 a e a a s r t s h a s c c i ie n a t cees d August 4, 2016 Project No. KE150719A Renton School District 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178-4830 Attention: Mr. Rick Stracke Executive Director Facilities and Operations Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Sartori Education Center 331 Garden Avenue North Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Stracke: We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above-referenced report. This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering studies and offers recommendations for the design and development of the proposed project. We should be allowed to review the recommendations presented in this report and modify them, if needed, once final project plans have been formulated. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington 1i fi,..;4.4.--m-- Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer KDM/pc KE150719A3 Projects\20150719\KE\W P Kirkland Office 1911 Fifth Avenue I Kirkland,WA 98033 P 1425.827.7701 F 1425.827.5424 Everett Office 12911%2 Hewitt Avenue,Suite 2 I Everett,WA 98201 P 1425.259.0522 F 1425.827.5424 Tacoma Office 11552 Commerce Street,Suite 102 I Tacoma,WA 98402 P 1253.722.2992 F 1253.722.2993 www.aesgeo.com SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington Prepared for: Renton School District 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178-4830 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 9115th Avenue Kirkland, Washington 98033 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 August 4, 2016 Project No. KE150719A Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering study for the Sartori Education Center located at 331 Garden Avenue North in Renton, Washington. The site location is presented on Figure 1, "Vicinity Map." The existing building locations and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the "Site and Explorations," Figure 2. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the aforementioned project. The study included drilling eight test borings and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and ground water conditions. Geologic hazard evaluations and engineering studies were also conducted to determine suitable geologic hazard mitigation techniques, the type of suitable pile foundation, pile design recommendations, anticipated settlements, floor support recommendations, and site preparation and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers geologic hazard mitigation and development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Rick Stracke of the Renton School District No. 403 (District) by means of a signed Renton School District Purchase Order PO#2011500071). Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter dated January 8, 2016. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the District and its agents for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KEIWP Page 1 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on discussions with the design team. The project site is that of the existing Sartori Education Center (King County Parcel No. 756460-0170), located at 331 Garden Avenue North, and 13 adjacent parcels in Renton, Washington. These combined properties make up the subject site. The parcels encompass the city block bounded by Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North on the west and east, respectively, and by North 3rd Street and North 4th Street on the south and north, respectively. The existing Sartori Education Center parcel includes a two-story brick building built in 1929 located near the southeast corner of the parcel, a paved parking area to the west, a large open lawn to the north, and smaller lawn areas on the east and south. A paved, locked bus parking area is located in the southwest corner of the parcel. The 13 additional parcels front along Park Avenue North and North 3rd Street. Of these 13 parcels, 11 are occupied by small, single-family homes built between 1915 and 1955. Gravel/asphalt/concrete driveways and small lawns also occupy these parcels. One of the 13 parcels (722400-0600) is owned by the District, is entirely paved by asphalt, and provides access to Sartori Education Center from Park Avenue North. The last of the 13 parcels 722400-0580) is located on the southwest corner of the city block and contains a small coffee shack and a separate commercial structure. With the exception of the structures, the parcel is entirely paved in asphalt. Site topography across the city block is relatively flat. To our understanding, the proposed project will consist of removal of the existing structures on the 14 parcels and construction of the new Elementary School #15 and associated structures such as parking and outbuildings. The type, size, and location of the new school on the parcel has not yet been determined. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included drilling eight exploration borings with a track-mounted drill rig to gain subsurface information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix to this report. The depths indicated on the boring logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the eight exploration borings completed for this study. The number, type, locations, and depths of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DM6/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KEIWP Page 2 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions are sometimes present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 ,Exploration Borings The exploration borings were completed by advancing an 8-inch outside-diameter, hollow-stem auger with a trailer-mounted drill rig to depths ranging from 60 to 90 feet. Below the water table, the borings were successfully completed with little or no heaving conditions with bentonite mud stabilization drilling techniques. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 5-foot-depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an engineer from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard, 2-inch outside-diameter, split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split-barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of selected applicable geologic literature. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, interpolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing August 4 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projectsl201507191KElWP Page 3 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. 4.1 Stratigraphv Sod/Topsoil Sod and organic-rich topsoil were generally encountered in the non-paved areas of the site to depths between 6 and 8 inches below ground surface. Sod and topsoil should be removed from below construction areas prior to site development. Fill/Modified Ground Man-placed fill was not encountered in the explorations completed for this study. However,fill is expected in unexplored areas of the site, such as the area surrounding and under existing paved areas, structures, and in the existing underground utility trenches. Fill is typically loose to medium dense and can contain high percentages of silt or deleterious material. Due to their variable density and content, existing fill soils are not suitable for foundation support. Quaternary Alluvium—Cedar River Sediments encountered beneath asphalt and sod/topsoil generally consisted of bedded sandy gravel, clean sand, silty sand, clayey and lean silt with occasional lenses of peat and other organics scattered throughout the soil column. We interpret these sediments to be representative of recent alluvium deposited in former channels of the Cedar River. The alluvium extends beyond the depth of our deepest exploration (91.5 feet). The sediments appear to have been deposited in four separate "fining-upwards" packages, as shown on Figure 3, "Geologic Cross Section A-A'." Each depositional package contains gravel or sandy gravel at or near the bottom, with sediments becoming more fine-grained as you move up in the package, transitioning from gravels, to predominantly sands, and then silts/clays with peat lenses near the top. Each silt/clay bed is capped by gravels which mark the bottom of the next, younger depositional package. In general, the silt/clay and sand alluvium encountered in our explorations is loose/soft to medium dense. Starting at roughly 40 to 45 feet in explorations across the site, the alluvium consists primarily of gravels and occurs in,a dense condition. These gravels extend to a depth of about 60 feet in most borings and are underlain by silt/clay of an older depositional package. In borings EB-7 and EB-8, the dense gravel zone was shallower, extending between 40 and 50 feet. Although we believe the blow counts in this zone may be overstated due to gravels, these sediments will provide end bearing capacity for a deep foundation system. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KE1WP Page 4 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions The saturated soil in which "N" values do not exceed about 25 has a high potential for liquefaction-induced settlement. This roughly corresponds to sediments between depths of 9 and 30 feet. In addition, the abundant layers of very soft clayey and lean silt are subject to consolidation settlement under the new building loads. Therefore, structures will require deep pile foundations for support. In general, the soil where moisture content is within the compactable range is considered suitable for reuse as structural fill. it should be noted that where soils are above their optimum moisture content for compaction, their reuse as structural fill during all but the driest times of the year will be difficult. Existing alluvial soil was observed to contain silt and is considered moisture-sensitive. With appropriate remedial treatment, the soil, where moisture content is within the compactable range, may be considered suitable for support of slab-on-grade floors, hardscape, and paving. 4.2 Geologic Mapping Review of the regional geologic map titled Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965), indicates that the area of the subject site is underlain by modified land with fill (afm) and recent alluvium associated with the nearby Cedar River (Qac). Our interpretation of the sediments encountered at the subject site is in general agreement with the regional geologic map. 4.3 Hydrology Ground water was encountered between depths of approximately 9 to 14 feet across the site. This depth corresponds roughly to the water level in the nearby Cedar River. However, ground water depths reported during drilling may not represent stabilized ground water elevations that would be recorded in a properly constructed monitoring well. Ground water encountered in our explorations represents the regional unconfined ground water aquifer within the Renton basin. Ground water may be encountered in excavations that penetrate into the underlying alluvial soils. To our knowledge, no deep cuts are planned that will intersect the regional ground water aquifer. If such cuts will be made, significant ground water dewatering operations will be necessary. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time of year,variations in rainfall, and adjacent river levels. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projectsk201507191KEW Page 5 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to seismic, landslide, and erosion hazards, including sediment transport. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low. 6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Sound Lowland with great regularity. Most of these events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the most recent 6.8-magnitude event on February 28,•2001 near Olympia Washington; the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. Evaluation of return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within a given 20-year period. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture The nearest known fault trace to the project site is the Seattle Fault,-located approximately 5 miles to the north. Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; e.g., Johnson et al., 1994, Origin and Evolution of the Seattle Fault and Seattle Basin, Washington, Geology, v. 22, pp. 71-74; and Johnson et al., 1999, Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and Central Puget Sound Washington — Implications for Earthquake Hazards, Geological Society of America Bulletin, July 1999, v. 111, n. 7, pp. 1042-1053) have provided evidence of surficial ground rupture along a northern splay of the Seattle Fault. The recognition of this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the studies still ongoing. According to the USGS studies, the latest movement of this fault was about 1,100 years ago when about 20 feet of surficial displacement took place. This displacement can presently be seen in the August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KEIWP Page 6 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations form of raised, wave-cut beach terraces along Alki Point in West Seattle and Restoration Point at the south end of Bainbridge Island. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of several thousand years. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and depth of loose/soft alluvium present within the site boundaries, the potential for surficial ground rupture is considered to be low during the expected life of the proposed structure. 6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat to gently sloping, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low. 6.3 Liquefaction We performed a liquefaction hazard analysis for this site in accordance with guidelines published in Seed & Idriss, 1982; Seed, et al., 1985; and Kramer, 1996. Our liquefaction analysis was completed with the aid of LiquefyPro computer software Version 5 by CivilTech Corporation. Liquefaction occurs when vibration or ground shaking associated with moderate to large earthquakes (generally in excess of Richter magnitude 6) results in loss of internal strength in certain types of soil deposits. These deposits generally consist of loose to medium dense sand or silty sand that is saturated (e.g., below the water table). Loss of soil strength can result in consolidation and/or lateral spreading of the affected deposit with accompanying surface subsidence and/or heaving. The liquefaction potential is dependent on several site-specific factors, such as soil grain size, density (modified to standardize field-obtained values), site geometry, static stresses, level of ground acceleration considered, and duration of the event. The earthquake parameters a magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring directly beneath the site with a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.6g) used in our liquefaction analysis are in accordance with the required parameters set forth in the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our exploration borings EB-1 through EB-8, the estimated amount of liquefaction-induced settlement, through the depths explored, ranges from about 5 to 8 inches during a design-level event. It should be understood that several soil, properties used in the liquefaction analysis are estimated based on published data and engineering judgment. The settlement predicted is based on a very large, rare seismic event. Settlement during a smaller, historically typical event will likely be less. It should also be understood that the alluvium encountered in our explorations extends below the depths explored. It is current practice to neglect the effects of liquefaction below a depth of about 80 feet. Therefore, these settlement estimates should be considered approximate and "worst- case scenarios" for the code-required seismic event. In addition to liquefaction settlement, the August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects 201507191KE WP Page 7 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations site soils are also subject to consolidation settlement under the new static building loads independent of seismic shaking). Therefore,we recommend that all building elements, including floor slabs and other structures, be supported on pile foundations. However, if the owner can assume the risk of potential liquefaction-induced settlements of this magnitude, the floor slab in a lightly loaded, uninhabited structure could be supported as a floating slab-on-grade. Pile foundations that extend to the minimum depths described in the "Design Recommendations" section of this report should reduce both consolidation settlement and seismically induced structure settlement to tolerable levels for new construction. 6.4 Ground Motion Structural design of the buildings should follow 2012 IBC standards using Site Class "E" as defined in Table 20.3-1 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7—Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Although site soils are liquefiable, ASCE 7 allows use of Site Class E for buildings with less than five stories. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS As of October 1, 2008, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Construction Storm Water General Permit (also known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System"[NPDES] permit) requires weekly Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) inspections and turbidity monitoring of site runoff for all sites 1 or more acres in size that discharge storm water to surface waters of the state. The following sections provide recommendations to address these inspection and reporting requirements, as well as recommendations related to general erosion control and mitigation. The TESC inspections and turbidity monitoring of runoff must be completed by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) for the duration of the construction. The weekly TESC reports do not need to be sent to Ecology, but should be logged into the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Ecology requires a monthly summary report of the turbidity monitoring results signed by the NPDES permit holder. If the monitored turbidity equals or exceeds 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (Ecology benchmark standard), the project best management practices (BMPs) should be modified to decrease the turbidity of storm water leaving the site. Changes and upgrades to the BMPs should be documented in the weekly TESC reports and continued until the weekly turbidity reading is 25 NTU or lower. If the monitored turbidity exceeds 250 NTU, the results must be reported to Ecology via phone within 24 hours and corrective actions should be implemented as soon as possible. Daily turbidity monitoring is continued until the corrective actions lower the turbidity to below 25 NTU, or until the discharge stops. This description of the sampling benchmarks and August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1101507191KElWP Page 8 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations reporting requirements is a brief summary of the Construction Storm Water General Permit conditions. The general permit is available on the Internet. In order to meet the current Ecology requirements, a properly developed, constructed, and maintained erosion control plan consistent with City of Renton standards and best management erosion control practices will be required for this project. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing site-specific erosion control plans. Based on past experience, it will be necessary to make adjustments and provide additional measures to the TESC plan in order to optimize its effectiveness. Ultimately, the success of the TESC plan depends on a proactive approach to project planning and contractor implementation and maintenance. The most effective erosion control measure is the maintenance of adequate ground cover. Maintaining cover measures atop disturbed ground provides the greatest reduction to the potential generation of turbid runoff and sediment transport. During the local wet season October 15t through March 31st), exposed soil should not remain uncovered for more than 2 days unless it is actively being worked. Ground-cover measures can include erosion control matting, plastic sheeting, straw mulch, crushed rock or recycled concrete, or mature hydroseed. Surface drainage control measures are also essential for collecting and controlling the site runoff. Flow paths across slopes should be kept to less than 50 feet in order to reduce the erosion and sediment transport potential of concentrated flow. Ditch/swale spacing will need to be shortened with increasing slope gradient. Ditches and swales that exceed a gradient of about 7 to 10 percent, depending on their flow length, should have properly constructed check dams installed to reduce the flow velocity of the runoff and reduce the erosion potential within the ditch. Flow paths that are required to be constructed on gradients between 10 to 15 percent should be placed in a riprap-lined swale with the riprap properly sized for the anticipated flow conditions. Flow paths constructed on slope gradients steeper than 15 percent should be placed in a pipe slope drain. AESI is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing a suitable erosion control plan with proper flow control. With respect to water quality, having ground cover prior to rain events is one of the most important and effective means to maintain water quality. Once very fine sediment is suspended in water, the settling times of the smallest particles are on the order of weeks and months. Therefore, the typical retention times of sediment traps or ponds will not reduce the turbidity of highly turbid site runoff to the benchmark turbidity of 25 NTU. Reduction of turbidity from a construction site is almost entirely a function of cover measures and drainage control that have been, implemented prior to rain events. Temporary sediment traps and ponds are necessary to control the release rate of the runoff and to provide a catchment for August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KEAWP Page 9 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations sand-sized and larger soil particles, but are very ineffective at reducing the turbidity of the runoff. Silt fencing should be utilized as buffer protection and not as a flow-control measure. Silt fencing is meant to be placed parallel with topographic contours to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving a work area or entering a sensitive area. Silt fences should not be placed to cross contour lines without having separate flow control in front of the silt fence. A swale/berm combination should be constructed to provide flow control rather than let the runoff build up behind the silt fence and utilize the silt fence as the flow-control measure. Runoff flowing in front of a silt fence will cause additional erosion and usually will cause a failure of the silt fence. Improperly installed silt fencing has the potential to cause a. much larger erosion hazard than if the silt fence was not installed at all. The use of silt fencing should be limited to protect sensitive areas, and swales should be used to provide flow control. 7.1 Erosion Hazard Mitigation To mitigate the erosion hazards and potential for off-site sediment transport, we would recommend the following: 1. Construction activity should be scheduled or phased as much as possible to reduce the amount of earthwork activity that is performed during the winter months. 2. The winter performance of a site is dependent on a well-conceived plan for control of site erosion and storm water runoff. It is easier to keep the soil on the ground than to remove it from storm water. The owner and the design team should include adequate ground-cover measures, access roads, and staging areas in the project bid to give the selected contractor a workable site. The selected contractor needs to be prepared to implement and maintain the required measures to reduce the amount of exposed ground. A site maintenance plan should be in place in the event storm water turbidity measurements are greater than the Ecology standards. 3. TESC measures for a given area to be graded or otherwise worked should be installed soon after ground clearing. The recommended sequence of construction within a given area after clearing would be to install sediment traps and/or ponds and establish perimeter flow control prior to starting mass grading. 4. During the wetter months of the year, or when large storm events are predicted during the summer months, each work area should be stabilized so that if showers occur, the work area can receive the rainfall without excessive erosion or sediment transport. The required measures for an area to be "buttoned-up" will depend on the time of year and the duration the area will be left un-worked. During the winter months, areas that are August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—ProJects120150719tKEIWP Page 10 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations to be left un-worked for more than 2 days should be mulched or covered with plastic. During the summer months, stabilization will usually consist of seal-rolling the subgrade. Such measures will aid in the contractor's ability to get back into a work area after a storm event. The stabilization process also includes establishing temporary storm water conveyance channels through work areas to route runoff to the approved treatment facilities. 5. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. If it is outside of the growing season, the disturbed areas should be covered with mulch, as recommended in the erosion control plan. Straw mulch provides a cost-effective cover measure and can be made wind-resistant with the application of a tackifier after it is placed. 6. Surface runoff and discharge should be controlled during and following development. Uncontrolled discharge may promote erosion and sediment transport. Under no circumstances should concentrated discharges be allowed to flow over the top of steep slopes. 7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During the period between October 1st and March 31st, these measures are required. 8. On-site erosion control inspections and turbidity monitoring (if required) should be performed in accordance with Ecology requirements. Weekly and monthly reporting to Ecology should be performed on a regularly scheduled basis. A discussion of temporary erosion control and site runoff monitoring should be part of the weekly construction team meetings. Temporary and permanent erosion control and drainage measures should be adjusted and maintained, as necessary, for the duration of project construction. It is our opinion that with the proper implementation of the TESC plans and by field-adjusting appropriate mitigation elements (BMPs) throughout construction, as recommended by the erosion control inspector, the potential adverse impacts from erosion hazards on the project may be mitigated. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719`KE1WP Page 11 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations III. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8.0 INTRODUCTION The site contains some potential soil and foundation-oriented complications with respect to compressible soils, loose granular soils susceptible to liquefaction, and near surface moisture- and disturbance-sensitive soils. The conclusions and recommendations in this report a)e based upon the assumption that the foundations, floor slab, and grading construction are observed by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm. The proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint using pile foundations for the building superstructure, and pile-supported lower floor slabs. If any of the floor slabs will be "floated," they should be constructed on a minimum of 2 feet of approved structural fill compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Pavement or hardscaping support on existing soils is possible with some near-surface remedial improvements. Due to the possible presence of loose surficial soils, liquefaction hazards, and/or consolidation settlement, some settlement of non-pile-supported structures and paved areas, however, is anticipated. 9.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation of planned building and road/parking areas that will not be supported by pile foundations should include removal of all existing buildings, foundation elements, utilities, asphalt, landscaping, debris, and any other surficial deleterious material that are not part of the planned project. Additionally, any upper organic topsoil encountered should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial soils exist due to demolition or stripping/grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Fill was not encountered in our explorations but should be expected around existing buildings and buried utilities. The density, thickness, and content of the fill across the site maybe highlygY variable. We anticipate that any upper loose surficial fill soils, once recompacted or replaced with structural fill, will be adequate for support of pavement and other external surfacing;such as sidewalks or segmented paving units. However, there will be a risk of long-term damage to these surfaces including, but not limited to, rutting, yielding, cracking, etc., if any uncontrolled loose fill or surficial loose soil is not completely removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The risk can be reduced by selective removal and replacement of the most settlement-sensitive, near-surface soils. Utilities founded above loose, uncontrolled fill are also at risk of settlement and associated damage. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KEIWP Page 12 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations The extent of stripping necessary in areas of the site to receive external surfacing, such as sidewalks and pavement, can best be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. We recommend proof-rolling road and parking areas with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck to identify any soft spots. If construction is to proceed during wet weather, we recommend systematic probing in place of proof-rolling to identify soft areas of the exposed subgrade. These soft areas should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. Some of the on-site fill and surface soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material, which makes them moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. If the existing pavement will not be used for access and staging areas, consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate section of crushed rock or asphalt treated base (ATB). The existing pavement is in such poor condition that it may be necessary to augment the pavement with ATB if it will be. used for construction access and staging. If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near-surface soils and differences in wheel loads,this thickness may have to be adjusted by the contractor in the field. 10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type and placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. After stripping, planned excavation, and any required overexcavation have been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground in areas to receive fill should be recompacted to 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If the subgrade contains silty soils and too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. I ` August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC DMG/pc—KE150719A3—ProJects1201507191KEIWP Page 13 1 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations Where the exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free-draining layer by silt migration from below. After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved,.or a free-draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with current local codes and standards. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the roadway edges before sloping down at an angle of 2H:1V Horizontal:Vertical). The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 72 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture-sensitive. Use of moisture-sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. Some on-site soils contained significant amounts of silt and are considered moisture-sensitive. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free-draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free-draining fill consists of non-organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction with at least 25 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve. A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing program. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KEIWP Page 14 Subsurface Exploration,Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations 11.0 FOUNDATIONS To mitigate post-construction consolidation settlement and the effects of seismically induced liquefaction, a pile foundation system is recommended. For this project, we recommend the use of 18- or 24-inch-diameter augercast piles. We can provided alternative recommendations for other pile types if requested. The following sections provide pile recommendations based on assumed loading conditions and soils encountered beneath the site. 11.1 Augercast Piles We recommend that the construction of piles be accomplished by a contractor experienced in their installation. Fill soils can have concrete, brick,wood, and other demolition waste in them, and soils of alluvial origin may have gravel lenses or large cobbles present in them. It may be necessary to have a backhoe present during pile installation to dig out obstacles and backfill the excavation prior to drilling piling. If obstacles are encountered at depths where removal with a backhoe is not feasible, it might be necessary to modify the pile layout to replace piles that cannot be completed according to the original design. Observation of pile installation by AESI is important to verify that the subsurface conditions observed at pile locations are consistent with the observations in our subsurface explorations, and consistent with assumptions made during preparation of the recommendations in this report. The City of Renton will likely require such inspections of foundation piles. The augercast piles will gain support from end bearing and skin friction. Augercast piles are formed by drilling to the required depth with a continuous flight, hollow-stem auger. Fluid grout is then pumped down the hollow stem under pressure as the auger is withdrawn. Appropriately designed reinforcing steel cages are then lowered into the unset grout. A single reinforcing bar is installed for the full length of the pile for transfer of uplift loads. Since the grout is placed under pressure, actual grout volumes used are typically 15 to 50 percent greater than the theoretical volume of the pile. Actual grout volumes for piles constructed through some types of fill and peat can be much more. The pile contractor should be required to provide a pressure gauge and a calibrated pump stroke counter so that the actual grout volume for each pile can be determined. Typically, a nine-sack, minimum 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) grout mix is used for augercast piles. Once complete, the piles would then connect to a pile cap and grade beam support system for the building foundation. Typical allowable capacities for the augercast piles are given in Table 1. Development of the design capacities presented in Table 1 requires a minimum overall pile length which extends 5 feet into the bearing layer encountered across the site at about 45 feet depth. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects\201507191KE1WP Page 15 Subsurface Exploration,Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations The allowable design axial compressive loads include a safety factor of 2 and may be increased by, one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlement of the pile-supported foundations will generally be on the order of% inch. Table 1 Augercast Pile Recommendations Vertical Estimated Compressive Lateral Depth of Pile Diameter •Length Capacity Capacity fixity Uplift Capacity inches) feet)(1) kips) kips)i2i feet)(3) kips)i4) 18 50 65 45 14 60 24 50 115 80 17 90 1) Pile length based on bearing layer occurring at 45 feet depth. 2) Allowable lateral capacities are for fixed-headed conditions(incorporation into pile caps and grade beam system),and inch of deflection at the ground surface. Greater lateral capacities are possible for greater allowable deflections. 3) The depth of fixity does not include the code-required 20 percent increase for reinforcing cage design. 4) Uplift capacity is based on minimum pile length of 50 feet. A downdrag load (negative friction) may develop from potential liquefaction of the loose soils under the site, between depths of about 9 and 30 feet. The vertical compressive capacities presented in Table 2 represent the downward capacity of the pile after subtracting out the negative friction that would develop during an earthquake event. Piles with lateral spacing less than 6 pile diameters from another pile along the direction of force should be considered to be in the zone of influence and the lateral capacity and the reduction factors presented below in Table 2 should be used. If the lateral contribution of the piles is more critical to the practical design of the structure, we can provide a comprehensive lateral pile analysis. Such an analysis would present lateral pile capacities taking into account the interaction between piles. i Based on the loose conditions of the soils through which the augercast piles are to be excavated, care should be taken.in construction planning to allow grout time to set prior to drilling adjacent piles. Typically, 24 hours of set time is recommended for piles closer than 3 pile diameters or 10 feet, whichever is greater. The 24 hours can, be reduced for adjacent , piles drilled on different workdays. 11.2 Group Effects Where piles are installed in groups and subject to lateral loading, reductions in lateral capacity to account for group effects should be included in design. The effects of group performance should be considered where piles are spaced closer than 6 pile diameters center-to-center and August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projectst201507191KElWP Page 16 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations are aligned in the direction of loading. Piles should not be spaced closer than 3 pile diameters center-to-center to achieve full vertical and uplift capacity. If piles are staggered in the x and y directions a minimum of 3 pile diameters,there is no reduction in lateral loading. For the determination of individual capacities for load application parallel to the line of spacing, the following spacing and reduction factors presented in Table 2 should apply. The last pile in a row can be assumed to develop the full lateral capacity. Table 2 Lateral Reduction Factors Pile Spacing Reduction Factor 6 diameters 1.0 5 diameters 0.8 4 diameters 0.6 3 diameters 0.4 11.3 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the pile caps and grade beams and the existing fill soils or structural fill, or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of these elements. The foundations must be backfilled with structural fill and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following allowable design parameters: Passive equivalent fluid = 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) Coefficient of friction =0.30 12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT As discussed earlier in this report, existing site soils are considered to be settlement-prone, and we therefore recommend that floor slabs be designed as structural slabs and supported on pile foundations. Where potentially liquefaction-induced settlement can be tolerated, site soils can be used to support slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, or other similar structures contingent upon adequate remedial preparation and understanding of uncertainties in settlement performance. Slabs, pavement, or segmented paving stones to be supported on grade should be supported on a 2-foot-thick structural fill mat. All fill beneath slabs, paving stones, or pavement must be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. The floor slabs should be cast atop a August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC DM6/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KE‘WP Page 17 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations minimum of 4 inches of clean washed crushed rock or pea gravel to act as a capillary break. Areas of subgrade that are disturbed (loosened) during construction should be compacted to a non-yielding condition prior to placement of capillary break material. It should also be protected from dampness by an impervious moisture barrier at least 10 mils thick. The impervious barrier should be placed between the capillary break material and the concrete slab. 13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS All exterior grade beams should be provided with a drain at least 12 inches below the base of the adjacent interior slab elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be slope d downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. 14.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS We anticipate that the new school development will include construction of paved parking areas and bus lanes. Due to loose/soft soils near the surface, some remedial measures may be necessary for support of new pavement or for areas of hardscaping (e.g., paving stones). To reduce the depth of overexcavation required and to achieve a suitable subgrade for support of pavement, we recommend that an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrid reinforcement be placed over the stripped subgrade prior to filling. The addition of an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrids permit heavier traffic over soft subgrade and increases the service life of the system. The fabric acts as a separation barrier between relatively fine-grained surficial materials on the site and the load-distributing aggregate (sand or crushed rock). As a separator, it reduces the loss of costly aggregate material into the subgrade and prevents the upward pumping of silt into the aggregate. The high tensile strength and low modulus of elongation of the fabric also act to reduce localized stress by redistributing traffic loads over a wider area of subgrade. In addition, the recommended method of installation proof-rolling) identifies weak areas, which can be improved prior to paving. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projectst20150719IKEIWP Page 18 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations After the area to be paved is stripped and recompacted to the extent possible, engineering stabilization fabric, such as Mirafi 500X (or equivalent), should be placed over the subgrade with the edges overlapped in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Following subgrade preparation, clean, free-draining structural fill should be placed over the fabric and compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Where fabric is exposed, spreading should be performed such that the dozer remains on the fill material and is not allowed to operate on uncovered fabric. When 12 inches of fill has been placed, the fabric should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck to pretension the fabric and identify soft spots in the fill. Upon completing the proof-rolling operation, additional structural fill should be placed and compacted to attain desired grades. Upon completion of the structural fill, a pavement section consisting of 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) underlain by 2 inches of 5/8-inch crushed surfacing top course and 6 inches of 11A-inch crushed surfacing base course is the recommended minimum. The crushed rock courses must be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Given the potentially variable in-place density of existing fill subgrade, some settlement of paved areas should be anticipated unless existing fill is entirely removed and replaced with structural fill. 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the pile foundation system depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know, and we will prepare a cost proposal. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201S0719lKEIWP Page 19 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington ME ' i O sue ' ,, i1/c`," SIc"' Ca„ ONAL ‘ Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3: Geologic Cross Section A-A' Appendix: Exploration Logs August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc-KE150719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\WP Page 20 v, \ -} . I:\. : ...:. . e i 1'4. , s Ii f.,/ tip i ry e _.r 44 r . ute tp.--,,.. •. N—c= + . ' El 1 I , I 4 ''''.:. .. r imine, \„,z1s.,-,;„,-;.,,,....-- Nt ,...,,b, e ,.., \I„.1/10cIP\I 1 0044-4114; TO fer . itSri UN elms r..„i 4, btA 711111:1, t_,,, t1lh1i1is21 plFir. . i.t.....„,,.„.„...... 111gt, 4 gg IN ,1\;,\t,' ,\.iiiii,riiim., .41$filli l BLS v1 405 rt i ipr r llniinni, n mar Il1l\0 114 r 1. r or p, '\ 1 A 74 PAIPW41171 II\9 it 1 =1 \\, ,' N-, %,,,c•ii,1i.:.:. T,. REp1 y1 Ein t.. 1.4.„\4f,. \ ,IK1k. L---,- O„,-;, Air--- 1 •1 1 RET4 -PAL 1' . I...tI1.1 IM,..R.. i_l 4..41. l,_,, 1..'_i on)i1Ii1i1giiz1 i13_..ari. ti t)/ 4i, 11 tnNi. L i : . t i r_ j ' r I A1911 g igivr.ii f t - "iti./.71prra ,,.• I-PA. 1 ! -- e‘ - r eri ; 44Silliilli 9411 4: # k 3,,is ,fe i,eed4 , • -- . •fil.N#4,01.1:ilool , i 4 ,,,cf..4_ f-A,. 1 Lia'Nt .,12. / * 3111111 1 . Nip - „, Oy- I i' 4 1, ' ''\',' t -0.1Iniii,,, .. „.i, **4----7;' 1'\''' , ' . - dm 1 erlilowit..ditt PttMyAiNils. „ 4 i'', ^ . 0. .4 thair _.4er LJram' fiI `%..--- -.` rh 1r i.r.. "- Irk .nrt,, '''Im" % ' 4 '\ 5 A 411 I 10,1 6" 4rek,, _ i It r l'ii4iiiPP Ni' , - -----. " ''— a, wq. , L. 4._:t............ _ ,_ 8: III frilitilL' ' — --s'-------;-''' ' '''---- v ` m Z b 1 :r.•l''' ' ' tire‘i ::,\ ' `-x r - a a PS rkl;' t1I z` T. ` a a 1aa a1 N 3rd St itta! p\ 0,' L W s u f il 140,0,MI 4 c- 1 L 1 ^ 1 i AD,oP.Yn 2tp20,1,3 N lima` ogrlp_iclSopet y,`II-cu•edi S"°" ""° C0°"IY associated A earth sciences 5 a tang I County t c otri VICINITY MAP O FEET x DATAsouRCEs1REFERENCIs: SANTORI EDUCATION CENTER a USGS:24(SERIES TOPOGRPAHIC MAPS NOTE:BLACK AND WHITE RENTON, WASHINGTON E KING CO.STREETS,PARCELS CRIGNALMAYOREDu EI ITS a EFFECiNENESSANDLEADTO PROJ NO. DATE. c LOCATIONSAND DISTANCESSHOWNARE APPROXIMATE NCORRECTINTERPRETATION KE150719AI1 2/16 FIGURE: 1 s en r.Islllilio` 1d111Ita i1 N4thSt. Q•1 oto r' UN r AA Es-7VIAlli - i 3 E B-8• aid or elitillikOn . MRAZIAIFM; • Z Z a a C Iti ci lige at'3 . ca ail LMG. 1411 w A UP DEB-2 Iiv, Sn...n I • 7.-- II 3. -a iiiii pro N Srd St a. 1ltI 11 i„,,,,. A w r.n I I 711 n associated c LEGEND: earth Sc ences 9 0 AESI EXPLORATION BORING AN S CROSS SECTION o so Iua` co SITE FEET SITE AND EXPLORATIONS s DATA SOURCES/REFERENCES SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER a RING 2014 NOTE:BLACK AND WHITE REPRODUCTION OF THIS COLOR RENTON, WASHINGTON KING CO:STREETS,PARCELS 2015 ORIGINAL MAY REDUCE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TO PROJ NO. DATE: o LOCATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE INCORRECT INTERPRETATION KE150719AI 2/16 FIGURE 2 LEGEND: Qac QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM A A CEDAR RIVER 1 BORING SOUTHWEST NORTHEAST 70 - 70 w EXISTING w Y WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING z SARTORI -- z 7:3 TD TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING I-- BUILDING 1- 60 - w Ce z w w - 60 14C DATE I-a b a. 1-- co O yr 0 cn CONTACT BETWEEN ALLUVIAL 50 - o a O d I- - 50 DEPOSITIONAL PACKAGES Cr) x a' I VERTICAL EXAGGERATION=5X x 0c) In CD OD X 40 - z co w co co z — 40 NOTE: LOCATION AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE 30. -Qac 30 NOTES: . Y g 1.THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN THIS GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION ARE BASED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONS Y Y ENCOUNTERED IN WIDELY SPACED EXPLORATIONS COMPLETED AT THE 20 - 20 SUBJECT SITE AND RELEVANT SITE INFORMATION DEVELOPED AND SAND AND GRAVEL PROVIDED BY OTHERS.THE SUBSURFACE INTERPRETATIONS PRESENTED IN THIS GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION SHOULD NOT BE SILT AND CLAY CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY OF ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT 10 - 10 WATER COND THE SITE. ITIONSIONS CAN VARY SIGNIFICANTLY O EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT OE GROUND SMANDALL DISTANCES. SAND 2. TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM CITY OF RENTON LIDAR p -0 H w w z -10 - 10 O 20GRAVEL 20 w SILT AND CLAY a®7750± 40BP 7100± 40BP 30 - TD 61.5' 30 SAND 40 - 40 TD 76.5' 50 - 50 GRAVEL r- CLAY TD 91.5' TD 91.5' 60 - 60 a 70 -70 NOTE:BLACK AND WHITE REPRODUCTION OF THIS COLOR ORIGINAL MAY REDUCE m ITS EFFECTNENESS AND LEAD TO INCORRECT INTERPRETATION u, U-u. 0 60 - 60 0003. associated earth sciences 3 Incorporated 1-3 90 - 90 m d I I I0 I0 I0 I0 I GEOLOGIC 0 0 0 CROSS-SECTION A - A' to SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FEET)2 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJ NO. DATE: FIGURE: KE150719A I 2/161 3 APPENDIX 0 ;0;0' Well-graded gravel and Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency E d o 0 o GW gravel with sand, little to Density SPT( 2) blows/foot y c]o el no fines Very Loose 0 to 4 o is. S0 0 0 Coarse- Loose 4 to 10 o v _ '-00000 GP Poorly-graded gravel Grained Soils Medium Dense 10 to 30 Test Symbols w o 0 0 0 o and gravel with sand, Dense 30 to 50 y ow o v 0000g o d o 0 o 0 0 little to no fines Very Dense 50 G=Grain Size N o z 00200 t2 M=Moisture Content d cor, o .0. 0'Consistency SPT blows/foot A=AtterbergLimitszSiltygravelandsiltyaoai ° GM Very Soft 0 to 2 C=Chemical D w .,c:. 0 gravel with sand Fine- Soft 2 to 4 DD= Dry Density c S m c q .. Grained Soils Medium Stiff 4 to 8 K=Permeability m M - o 1 i' Stiff 8 to 15 a e,vf.; Clayey gravel and Very Stiff 15 to 30 a COs. Nl`- -- GC clayey gravel with sand Hard 30 LO 0 :,''/ Component Definitions c o Well-graded sand and Descriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number U-• SW sand with gravel,little Boulders Larger than 12" LL to no fines Cobbles 3"to 12" Gravel 3"to No.4(4.75 mm) en E a) Poorly-graded sando 9 vu::•;:::::•.8 Coarse Gravel 3 to 3/4" g SP and sand with gravel, Fine Gravel 3/4"to No.4(4.75 mm) d o little to no fines c o Sand No.4(4.75 mm)to No.200(0.075 mm) O o z • Coarse Sand No.4(4.75 mm)to No.10(2.00 mm) d , m_ .. Silty sand and Medium Sand No.10(2.00 mm)to No.40(0.425 mm) . e o y win silty sand with Fine Sand No.40(0.425 mm)to No.200(0.075 mm) gravel Silt and Clay Smaller than No.200(0.075 mm) In f ScClayey sand and 3)Estimated Percentage Moisture Content Cl)• Ni clayey sand with gravel Component Percentage by Weight Dry-Absence of moisture, dusty,dry to the touch Trace 5 Silt, sandy silt,gravelly silt, Slightly Moist Perceptible o ML Some 5 to<12 moisture ao>c silt with sand or gravel Moist-Damp but no visible in ,2 Modifier 12 to<30 water o `° Clay of low to medium silty,sandy,gravelly) Very Moist-Water visible but z2° CL plasticity;silty,sandy,or not free draining y gravelly clay, lean clay Very modifier 30 to<50 Wet-Visible free water,usually m JE / silty,sandy,gravelly) from below water table a a Organic clay or silt of low Symbols OL plasticity Blows/6"or o Sampler portion of 6"a Type surfacetsealt Elastic silt,clayey silt,silt Sampler Type with micaceous or 2.0"OD 15 Description Bentonite 0 e. MH Split-Spoon /,m 4) seal o diatomaceous fine sand or Sampler 3.0"OD Split-Spoon Sam lei w g P Filter pack withom$ V Silt SPT) 3.25"OD Split-Spoon Ring Sampler (4) . blank casing 0) Oc Clay of high plasticity,section 10 13 sandyor gravellyclay,fat Bulk sample CH y 3.0"OD Thin-Wall Tube Sampler Screened casing E claywith sand orgravel 0 or Hydrotip cca ca J including Shelby tube) with filter pack 0 —65:5-3 Grab Sample c C g- %/// Organic clay or silt of Q Portion not recovered End cap a LL.J //// OH medium to high 0) 4) o Percentage by dry weightDepth of ground water a i;ii plasticity 2) (SPT)Standard Penetration Test P 1 ATD=At time of drilling v >, muck and other 3) ( ASTM D 1586) Q Static water level(date) c 0, Peat, In General Accordance with IS o,•o PT highly organic soils Standard Practice for Description 5) Combined USCS symbols used for 0_ and Identification of Soils(ASTM D-2488)fines between 5%and 12% o Classifications of soils in this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations,which include density/consistency,moisture condition,grain size,and g plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein.Visual-manual and/or laboratory classification 3 methods of ASTM D-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Soil Classification System. vi,mY g associated earth sciences EXPLORATION LOG KEY FIGURE Al 8• . 40:101,) Incorporated s 0y associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Ecoloration Number Sheet 1111. incorporated KE150719A EB-1 1of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 9/3/16,2/3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) R inches to 2 O o fro ca c c, m E m o `63 3 Blows/Foot 1 o T g (9 c o - in c DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 Sod/Topsoil Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River Loose,moist,brown,silty,fine SAND,trace organics(SM). 2 S-1 : Loose,moist,orange to light gray,fine SAND,some silt(SP). 2 A5 3 Driller noted gravels. 0 J 0 Dense,moist,brownish orange,sandy GRAVEL;oddized(GP). 13S-2 °° o° 13 A32 o 0 19 D 0 O 0 D 0 O 0 0 D°0° Driller notes less gravel. S-3 • Loose,wet,orange brown,fine to medium SAND,some gravel(SP). 2 - U. L0 Loose,wet,orange brown,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL(GW). 5 8 3 q OAC 0 O o q 20 c Driller adds mud. T Stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine-sandy SILT(ML). 2 1 5 A9 4 25 Loose,wet,gray,silty,fine SAND(SM). 25 - _ 2 A9 Wood debris. 7 30 — •• • Loose,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND(SP). 5S-6 Medium stiff,wet,brownish gray,SILT,trace fine sand(ML). 3 A5 2 35 Hard,wet,brownish gray,SILT,trace fine sand(ML). 5roS-7 23NDense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND(SW). 13 30 o-Driller notes gravels. 0 2a" LL- na Sampler Type(ST): ia I__ 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) 0 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: TWL m LL 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Z Water Level() Approved by: c K Grab Sample Z Shelby Tube Sample L Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log 40earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-1 2of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 9/3/1 R,2/3/1 R Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches 2 p O >t a a- ` 3 Blows/Foot H I S E >, 3 m e 43oTCl) ") DESCRIPTION CO 20 30 40 I S-8 I I I I I Hard,wet,brownish gray,sandy SILT(ML). 1626 k1eVerydense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND(SW). 3g 62 45 = S-9 ; o Very dense,wet,brownish gray,sandy GRAVEL;blow counts overstated;driller 6" 50 notes bouncing on rock(GP). O 0 D 0 0 0 D°0° Driller notes less gravels. I 0 0 o ° Medium dense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND(SW). 14S-10; 12 A26 14 55 — 3 0 Medium dense,wet,gray,sandy,fine to medium GRAVEL(GP). 12S-11 D000 17 30 I0019 D 0 O 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 60 — 0 0 No recovery. 4S1230004 13 9 Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts below 35 feet are likely overstated due to gravels. 65 II 70 I 75 mLL- a CD• Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) Q 2 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: TWL o 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: mil(Iom co Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-2 1of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —37 Location Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/9/1 R,/?/1 R Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) A innhPs A t o J toBlows/FootaPcaEE >. o a T DESCRIPTION 19 m U 10 20 30 40 O Concrete Driveway-4 inches Crushed Gravel Base Course r Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River Cuttings: Moist,reddish brown,fine SAND,trace gravel(SP). 5 Very loose,moist,brown,fine to coarse SAND,some fine gravel,trace silt;I S-1 • stratified(SP). 1 A3 2 IP Driller notes gravels. o• Medium dense,wet,brown,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt;stratified 10S-2 ' • (GM-GP). 11 21 D° 10 o D o• 15 Medium dense,wet,brown,interbedded SAND and GRAVEL,trace silt S-3 , (SP/GP). a A19 11 20 — Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Loose/medium stiff,wet,gray,interbedded,silty,fine SAND and sandy SILT, 3S-4 • trace mica;thinly bedded to laminated(SM/ML). 4 A 7 3 25 S 5 • As above,silt beds are slightly brown-tinged,occasional organics.4 - 3 8 5 30 — %j/,/ Soft,very moist,gray,fine sandy SILT/CLAY;occasional brown silt interbeds 2S-6 j with organic material;laminated(MUCL). 1 A3 z Driller notes gravels. 35 Upper 8 inches of sample: As above MUCL. S-7 PPe P 5 N Lower 10 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,very gravelly SAND, 13 A23 o-some silt;stratified(SM-SW). a LL 6 Sampler Type(ST): in 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) 0 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG m 1J 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) II Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJK Water Level at time of drilling(ATD)Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 r associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Eploration Number Sheet C ° ` p ° rafed KE150719A EB-2 2of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —37 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A I_ Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/2/16,2/2/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) R inches F co a S a) a a 3 Blows/Foot o T g 0u) Uom oIDESCRIPTION10203040 1S 8 ' 1Verydense,wet,gray,very gravelly SAND,some to trace silt,interbeds of gray 15 I- CLAY;scattered organic matter;blow counts may be overstated due to gravels 23 51 SP/CL). 28 45 Dense,wet,brown,fine to medium SAND,some gravel,some silt;2-inch bed 14 S-9 - '. • of gravel(fractured)in sampler tip;stratified(SM-SP). 9 131 22 50 o Medium dense,wet,gray,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt;stratified(GP). 10IS-10D°0° 13 A25 O 0 12 D 0O 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 00 ID0 55 — ° ° Very dense,wet,gray grading to brown,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt; 17S-11 ,° 0° fractured gravel in sampler tip;thinly bedded;blow counts may be overstated 23 A55 0 o due to gravels(GP). 22 D 0 O 0 D 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 D 0 0 060 I ?• Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,bedded SAND and 11 S-12 .• • GRAVEL,trace silt(SP/GP). 6 Al2 Lower 6 inches of sample: Stiff,very moist,gray to dark brown,sandy SILT; 6 I abundant organic matter;laminated;abrupt contact(ML). Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND,some gravel,trace silt;thinly 7 I. 5-13 •• . •. bedded(SP). 9 A-7 8 70 Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,tan with orange oxidation, 8IS14;-I_ I silty,fine SAND;thinly bedded(SM). 9 A18 Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,orangish brown,fine to 9 medium SAND,trace silt;bedded(SP). 75 Dense,wet,reddish brown grading to brown,sandy GRAVEL,some silt; 8IoS15,° ', stratified;some gravels are fractured(GM GP). 10 A3333 N 23 hc 2 Bottom of evloration boring at 76.5 feet I - Note: Blow counts from 35 to 55 feet and at 75 feet likely overstated due to a gravels. a; Sampler Type(ST):T): mT 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) — No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG reo _1 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M)Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by: CJK II a v Grab Sample Li Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-3 1of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —37 Location Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/1/16,2/1/1R Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches o U O CO > .co a S E c E d 5. CO Blows/Foot o T (9 o 03m r DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 Asphalt Pavement-3 inches r A Crushed Gravel Base Course Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River Very smooth,fast drilling. 5 Upper 6 inches of sample: Loose,moist,brown,gravelly,medium SAND,someSA --: silt;bedded(SM-SP). 2 A7 Lower 6 inches of sample: Loose,moist,light brown with faint orange 4 adation,fine SAND,some gravel,some silt(SM-SP). i 10 Medium dense,wet,brown and orangish brown,fine to medium SAND,trace 3S2gravel,trace silt;bedded(SP). 6 Al2 1 6 Driller notes gravel layer. 15 As above,4 inch interbed of silty gravel. 6 inch heave. 8S311 A20 9 20 Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Upper 5 inches of sample: As above. 5S-4 r'r Middle 4 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,very silty,fine SAND; 12 A25 1 . thinly bedded(SM). 14 Lower 5 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,sandy GRAVEL; gip:.: stratified(GM). 1 . 25 1 !--.Medium dense,wet,gray,very gravelly,fine to medium SAND,some silt,trace 8S-5 • • organic matter;stratified(SM-SP). 13 A23 13 Driller notes less gravelly,faster drilling. 30 — Medium stiff,wet,gray,fine sandy SILT/CLAY,with occasional thin interbeds of 2 S 6 silty,fin}sand;abundant organic matter;trace gravel isolated in interbeds 3 A6 M CL. 3 A Back into gravels. 35 — 6 w Dense,wet,gray,silty,sandy GRAVEL,trace organic debris(grasses);gravels 11T.S-7 ••. up to 2 inches in diameter;stratified(GM).18 A39 a- 1 .21 I w 1. o. Dw o;Sampler Type(SD: T 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) 0 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) II Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJK a i Grab Sample 1 Shelby Tube Sample L Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated d Exploration Log Jearth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporates KE150719A • EB-3 2of2 I- Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —37 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 9/1/16 2/1/1 A Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches f)I s T cD 3 Blows/Foot o a)IT ° DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 D 0 Dense,wet,brown,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt;stratified(GP). 19S-8 0 1 g A46 O 0 28 D 0 O 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 O 045 Dense,wet,brown,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,trace silt;occasional siltier 15S-9 • interbeds;stratified(SP). 30 A64 34 50 I As above,sand is coarser. 10 s-10_. ... 20 A4626 55 — , • Dense,wet,brown becoming reddish brown with depth(abundant obdation), 18S-11 ° • fine sandy GRAVEL,some silt to silty;stratified(GM-GP). 25 A47 0 22 0 Di, 1 60 I S-12 0 t Very dense,wet,mottled gray and brown with occasional orange oxidation,silty, 15- fine sandy GRAVEL(GM). 25 50 I25 Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 35 to 60 feet likely overstated due to gravels. 65 70 I 75 I 2 cy; Sampler Type(ST): T 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o 7ODSplitSpoonSampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJKI3 W t Water Level at time of drilling(ATD)5 Grab Sample Z Shelby Tube Sample associated Exploration Log ear t h sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet ncorpora1od KE150719A EB-4 1of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) _ --36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 7/1/16,2/1 MR Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches v N O O O > - N a (E a` 3 Blows/Foot d S (EO T l9 m 00T DESCRIPTION 0 10 20 30 40 Asphalt Pavement-1 inch Crushed Gravel Base Course Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River 5 Medium dense,moist,orangish brown and tan with orange ooddation,silty,fine S-1 . SAND,some gravel;thinly bedded with interbeds(1 inch thick)of sandy gravel 5 A15 and very sandy silt(SM). 10 Gravelly drilling. 10 Medium dense,wet,orangish brown,sandy GRAVEL,some silt;occasional thin 6S-2 ,° ,— T.inch thick)interbeds of sandy silt(GM-GP). g A18 D ; 9 0 D • D°6 1 o • 15 0 . Medium dense,wet,brown,fine to medium SAND,some gravel,some silt; 5-S-3 '. . occasional coarser interbeds(SM-SP). 6 A13 10 20 — y' ' Driller adding mud at 20 feet. 2/ Medium stiff,wet,gray,interbedded very silty SAND and SILT/CLAY; 5 occasional organics and mica;bedded;laminated within silt/clay beds 36 SM-MUCL). 4 J/ Loose,wet,gray,silty,fine SAND,trace gravel;abundant organics(bark 3 S-5 • fragments);stratified(SM). 4 A10 6 30 Medium stiff,wet,gray and dark brown,fine sandy SILT;scattered organics 5IS-6 rootlets);laminated(ML). 3 A? 4 Driller notes gravels. D 0 D ,1 35 Medium dense,wet,gray,sandy GRAVEL,some silt;stratified(GM-GP). 6 N I S-7 ° • 13 A25 o 6, , 12 z o m a 0 0- D 6 Sampler Type(ST): 3L2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) Q No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) I] ZRingSample Water Level 0 Approved by: c KI m a f Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log I_ earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-4 2of2 I Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) -36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A I Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 9/1/16,2/1/1 A Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches 1 y Up O l N IaED r m m ` Blows/Foot Ha3 ooT6300@92mr1 DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 1 As above. 10S-6 0° •1 11 A23 o • 12 Do; D°b 1 o° • 45 I °lb 1 As above,dense.19S-9 )° • 15 A40 o • 25 o • D • o • D°b 1 50 —D • .As above,brownish gray. 10S-10 D° • 15 A32— o°10 1 17 o• 0 1 1 D • 55 I °•Upper 5 inches of sample: As above. 11S-11 , .. . Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,brown,gravelly,fine to medium 12 A24 I-SAND,some silt(SM-SP). 12 Upper 4 inches of sample: As above. 60 Middle 5 inches of sa• mple: Medium dense,wet,gray,very sandy GRAVEL, 12S-12' some silt;stratified(GP-GM). 9 A14 Lower 5 inches of sample: Stiff,very moist,dark brown,SILT;scattered 5 organic matter,thin interbed of gray sand;laminated(ML). Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts form 35 to 55 feet likely overstated due to gravels. 65 I 70 I 75 ra N a 2 a Li'- a o Sampler Type(ST): V _ 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) 0 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG m I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) U Ring Sample Water Level 0 Approved by: CJK a ' Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) 1 associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A • EB-5 1of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) -36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/1/16,2/1/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches r a o y a` 3 Blows/Foot H at S E U E :i o as o T rn DESCRIPTION m 10 20 30 40o R '"1 Asphalt Pavement-2 inches Crushed Gravel Base Course Fill Silty sand and gravel. Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River 5 ILoose,moist,orangish brown and tan,fine SAND,some silt to silty;thinly 2S-1 '. bedded(SM-SP). 3 A6 3 10 Medium dense,very moist,orangish brown,fine sandy GRAVEL,some silt; 8IS-2 ° • stratified(GM-GP). 12 A231 14 D • D°b 1 o •• t at153 00"- Dense,wet,brown,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt;stratified,with 3 inch silt 13IS-3 0 o bed in sample;blow counts my be overstated due to gravels(GW). 16 A32 Op"C 16 o , C , O"C 20 0 " Driller adding mud at 20 feet. I Upper 6 inches of sample: As above. 3 Lower 18 inches of sample: Medium stiff,wet,gray,very silty,fine SAND to 5 A8 very fine sandy SILT,trace organic Material;1 inch interbed of brown,gravelly 3 sand within silt;stratified(SM/ML). 25 — Medium dense,wet,mottled gray and dark brown,very silty,fine SAND; 3S-5 laminated to thinly bedded(SM).5 A11 6 30 — • As above,6 inch bed of laminated gray SILT(ML)near sampler tip. 2S-6 7 A15 8 Driller notes gravels. 35 — Dense,wet,orangish brown,gravelly SAND,some silt;gravel is fractured;5 N- S-7 % \stratified(SP-SM). r 23 A41 B 18 2` m a Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) Q No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG m m 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) In Ring Sample Water Level 0 .Approved by: CJK ii w Grab Sample Z Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) a associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-5 2of2 I Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/1/16,2/1/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches I Vto U O CO— > . I t a a g - y Blows/Foot 1- a S E C27 a d o O T y o a, m LI_ DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 Very dense,wet,light grayish brown,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,some silt; 12IS-8 .•. • stratified;blow counts may be overstated due to gravels(SM-SP).38 A62 24 45 T u.(.. Medium dense,wet,brownish gray,very sandy GRAVEL,some silt;thinly 11 I-I S-9 ° ) > bedded(GM-GW). 15 A28 11 ) 13 CO o'C 50 — ° ) > c Very dense,wet,grayish brown,sandy GRAVEL,some silt;stratified 18S-10 c„, c (GM-GW). 36 A76 O)C 40 O'C 55 I o, c As above,1/2 inch gray,silt bed at tip of sampler. 10 Is-11 O C 30 A80/11" 50/5" o>C o ) > Drilling smoothed out. 60 I Very stiff/medium dense,very moist,gray,fine SAND,trace gravel,with 125-12- interbeds of gray to dark brown,SILT;scattered organics in silt beds;laminated 12 A24 Iwithinsiltbeds(SM/ML). 12 65 I T Very stiff/medium dense,moist,gray interbedded sandy SILT and silty,fine 8IS-13 SAND,some gravel near sampler tip(MUSM). 11 A20 9 I 7/ Driller notes gravels at 67 feet. Hard,sticky,gravelly drilling. 70 S-14 k_ Upperr6inches f sample: Very dense,wet,gray,silty/clayey GRAVEL; 18 stratified717A61 I Lower 12 inches of sample: Very dense,wet,brown,silty,sandy GRAVEL; 31 Iorangeoxidationwithinsiltierinterbeds;stratified(GM). I!. I 1 75 Very dense,wet,brown grading to gray,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,some 28cb5-15> • to trace silt;stratified(SW). 47 72N25 Bottom of exploration boring at 76.5 feet I t;°-Note: Blow counts from 35 to 75 feet likely overstated due to gravels. a. oi m (Sampler Type Sp T) to _ 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) 0 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) I] Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by: CJK I- w 47. Grab Sample E Shelby Tube Sample T. Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) I associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-6 1of3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/7/16,0/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches 4 iv Lo W ..._ v,cu c S E >, a'.92 m 3 Blows/Foot o m o T 63 ° DESCRIPTION m 10 20 30 40 Asphalt Pavement-3 inches Crushed Gravel Base Course r Old Asphalt Pavement/Crushed Gravel Layer? I Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River Loose,moist,orangish brown,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,trace to some 4S-1 silt;stratified with occasional silty sand interbeds(SM-SP). 4 A; 4 Driller notes gravels. 10 — •:- Medium dense,wet,orangish brown,fine to medium SAND,grading into 4S-2 GRAVEL,trace silt;bedded(SP/GP). 7 Al 8 1 15 — Driller adding mud at 15 feet. S-3 - -• Upper 41 inches of sample: As above,sillier(SP-SM). 3 Lower 14 inches of sample: Loose/medium stiff,wet,gray,fine to medium 2 SAND and gray,SILT,some sand;bedded,trace organics in silt layer;silt is 6 laminated(SM/ML). 20 Medium stiff,wet,gray,fine sandy SILT;occasional interbeds of silty sand; 6S-4 occasional brown silt interbeds;thinly bedded to laminated(ML). 4 A8 4 25 Medium stiff,very moist,gray,SILT/CLAY;interbeds of dark brown silt/clay with 3IS-5 organic matter;laminated(ML/CL). 2 A5 3j j/ Driller notes drilling firmed up. 30 Medium dense,wet,gray,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt;some gravels are 5S.-6 ,° 0° fractured(GP).s 20 0 0 11 D 0 O 0 J 0 O 0 D O 0 0 D o 35 0 0 As above. 8 N- S-7 ,°00 12 • A24 0 0 D O 2, 0 0 d Driller notes gravels. O O D O 0 O O o; Sampler Type(ST): II 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) _ No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG m I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M)Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJK co 5. Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) a r,) associated Exploration Log I earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-6 2of3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) -36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/2/162/9/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches v to C) O > fD to l a n co Blows/Foot I- aai S E RE E o a3 ' T DESCRIPTION o mC9u)cu r U 3 10 20 30 40 0 D ° As above,stratified. 8 A J S8 ° ° 0 0 9 A18 O 0 9 D 0O 0 D 0 D o O ° D 0 45 — D°0° Medium dense,wet,gray,fine sandy GRAVEL,trace silt;gravel is fractured; 12S-9 , o° ° stratified(GP).12 A27 0 0 15 0 O 0 D 0 O 0 J 00 0 O 0 50 1 0 0 As above,dense. 13S-10,° 0° 20 431 I- D°0° 11 Driller notes gravels. O 0 D ° 0 0 D o 0 0 D 0 55 I o• •°• Dense,wet,gray,gravelly SAND,trace to some silt;stratified(SP). 16s1119 A36 17 I' I 60 ry , t, ,I&12/silty, fine SAND and brown,organic-rich silt;organic odor;laminated to thinly bedded 8 A•7 ML/CL). 9 j i- 65 - As above. S-13 j 3 A8 j 5 70 S-14 .: Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND,some gravel,trace dark 8 brown/gray silt beds(-1 inch thick);bedded(SP). 9 A19 10 I 75 T Dense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,some silt;stratified(SM-SP). 11 20 A4° o 25 z 2_E L- 0_ COof Sampler Type(ST): c _ 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJK a 471. Li Grab Sample E Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) lio>,( associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet ncorporat ed KE15071 9A EB-6 3 of 3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) -36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GD I/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 9/9/16 2/2/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches aCU :E 12 ._J w Blows/FootE a S T c`n° cf) o c DESCRIPTION o 10 20 30 40 0 Dense,wet,gray,interbedded,SAND,some silt and sandy SILT;thinly bedded 13S-16 to laminated(SM-SP/ML). 16 A37 21 85 — Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND,some gravel,some silt; 11 bedded(SM-SP). 15 A27 11 Very stiff,very moist,light gray,CLAY;medium to high plasticity;laminated 8linat S-18 1111 A2412 12 Bottom of exploration boring at 91.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 45 to 55 feet and 75 to 85 feet may be overstated due to gravels. 95 100 105 110 115 G- CV LE- Sampler Type(S1): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG re Ul 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) [] Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJK CD Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample Water Level at time of drilling(ATD)L6 r associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet Inc or ° Gra ' ed KE150719A EB-7 1of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/3/182/3/18 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches • r a E D J y Blows/Foot S e T o QI_T 0to o " DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 Sod/Topsoil Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River 5 T Very loose,moist,orangish brown,SAND,trace to some gravel;thin bed of tan 2IS-1 silt near top of sample;thinly bedded with beds of finer and coarser sand(SP). 1 A2 1 D • Driller notes gravels. 10 Medium dense,very moist,brown,sandy GRAVEL,some silt;occasional 10S-2 D organics(rootlets);stratified(GM-GP). 15 A 7 I- 7 • 0 12 D°, 1 0 • D • O . D O 1 15 D° Medium dense,wet,brown,sandy GRAVEL;occasional sandy silt interbeds; 3IS-3 ° . scattered rootlets;stratified(GM-GP). 5 A11 D° 1 6 o • o • o D°b1 20 Driller adding mud at 20 feet. I s 4 :: : Medium dense,wet,gray,fine SAND,some gravel,grading into sandy SILT; 2 scattered rootlets;thinly bedded to laminated(SP)(ML). 4 A10 6 I 25 Loose/medium stiff,wet,gray,interbedded fine SAND and sandy SILT; 2S5scatteredorganics;thinly bedded to laminated(SP/ML). 1 A5 4 30 Medium stiff,very moist,gray with some dark brown mottling,fine sandy SILT; 2S-6 occasional organics;laminated(ML). 3 A6 3 Driller notes gravels. 35 Upper 18 inches of sample: As above. 6S-7 A N D ° Lower 4 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,GRAVEL,trace silt; 8 16 gravel is fractured(GP). 0 0 0°0 lL_D O 0 0 d D O oi oi Sampler Type(Si): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by: C l<I Li Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet ncorpor aled KE150719A EB-7 2of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) -36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 9/3/16,2/3/1 R Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches 7-6 V O O > co S E a a 13 Blows/Foot I--•• o T ° DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 0 8 •' Dense,wet,gray,very gravelly SAND,some silt;stratified(SM-SP). 15 21 A42 21 45 — Dense,wet,gray,bedded SAND and sandy GRAVEL;gravel is fractured 30S-9 - (SP/GP). 23 A46 Driller notes less gravels. 23 50 Upper 16 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND, 5S-10.-- some silt;bedded(SM-SP). 8 A21 Lower 4 inches of sample: Very stiff,very moist,gray and dark brown,SILT; 13 abundant organics;laminated(ML). 55 — UpperSMr 10 inches of sample: Loose,wet,gray,silty,fine to medium SAND 7 4 A9S-11 • • Lower 8 inches: Stiff,wet,gray and dark brown,SILT;laminated(ML). 5 60 — Stiff,wet,gray and dark brown,fine sandy SILT;occasional fine sand interbeds; 3S-12 thinly bedded(ML). 3 Ag 6 Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 40 to 45 feet likely overstated due to gravels. 65 70 75 Ce a. N 0 CD 2C,mIL_ e Sampler Type(ST): TT 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) 1E1 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o _L• 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by: CJK a Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet i " corpor a led KE150719A EB-8 1of3 I Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A IDriller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/3/16a/3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches I- iC CO 0a o > yiayBlows/Foot F a T c`9cn o 00333m DESCRIPTION 3 10 20 30 40 Sod/Topsoil I- Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River S 1 Very loose,moist,brownish orange,medium SAND;oddized(SP). 1 - 1 2 1 Driller notes gravels. 10 — Dense,moist,brownish orange,gravelly,medium to coarse SAND;blow counts 6S2overstated;o>ddized(SP). 13 A33 20 I 15 T S 3 ]I I I Very stiff,wet,brownish gray,sandy SILT(ML). 2 A21 Medium dense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,trace silt(SW). 11 20 a°°'°°° Driller adding mud at 20 feet. I S-4 .: Loose,wet,gray medium SAND(SP). 4 Medium stiff,wet,dark brown,SILT,trace wood debris(ML). 4 25 I S-5 - Loose,wet,gray,silty SAND(SM). 2 . 5 Medium stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT(ML). 3 30 I S-6 Stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT;thinly bedded(ML). 3 - 4 8 4 o— 35 S-7 Very stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT;laminated(ML). 5 A.7 N Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND;stratified(SP). 12 i Driller notes gravels. z it- Cli Sampler Type(ST): t2 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) Q No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: TWL ceo m 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by: CJK 03 w E Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) a associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet n D ' oD ' ated KE150719A EB-8 2of3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/3/16 2/3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches V O 0 (O y c n m 13 5 3 Blows/Foot 1.— i E a, y' o dOTgC7rqo° m m c DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine SAND;stratified(SP). 41S-8 - • Medium dense,wet,orange,fine SAND;stratified(SP). 12 A23 Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,fine SAND(SM).11 r 45 — D .o Medium dense,wet,gray,sandy GRAVEL(GP).5 S-9 ° 0°15 A29D— 0 0 14 D o O 0 p 0 O 0 D o°o Driller notes gravels. D o 50 — ° ° Medium dense,wet,brownish gray,sandy GRAVEL(GP). 6 S-10D°0°11 A22 0 0 11 D o O 0 D o o 0 D 0 O 0 D o 55 — o 0 S-11 D°°° Loose,wet,brownish gray,sandy GRAVEL(GP). 4 - Ash interbed. 2 5 2 Very stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT;laminated(ML). 60 — Medium stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT;with organic rich and sandy 4S-12 interbeds;thinly bedded to laminated(ML). 3 A7 4 65 Stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT(ML). 2IS-13 Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,fine to medium SAND,trace gravel(SP). 4 A13 9 70 T I _I 1. Hard,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT(ML). 3IS-14 -• •.-: Dense,wet,gray,silty,fine SAND(SM).10 A33 Dense,wet,gray,gravelly,medium SAND(SP).26 Driller notes gravels at 71.5 feet. 75 Medium dense,wet,brownish gray,silty,fine SAND,with wood-rich interbeds 7 N I S-15 .'.• (1/2 to 3 inches thick);thinly bedded(SP). 10 A28 d 14 m2 a LL n. 6 Sampler Type(ST): . 6 _ 2°OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) Q No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: TWL o I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) II Ring Sample Z. Water Level 0 Approved by: CJK W 5. Grab Sample Z Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) a associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-8 3'of 3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) --36 Location Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 7/3/16,2/3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches a s E ` E J anBlows/Foot 121 a 3 o T rn c9 cn o m m DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40• Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,gravelly,fine to medium SAND(SM/SP). 6S-16 ." 8 A22 14 No recovery. 10S-17:. g A23 Driller notes sand and silt interbeds. 14 90 — S-18 A Very stiff,very moist,gray,CLAY;high plasticity;laminated(CH).5 2 18 16 Bottom of exploration boring at 91.5 feet Note:Blow count from 40 to 50 feet and from 70 to 75 feet likely overstated due 95 to gravels. 100 L 105 110 115 O_ 2" LL- a of Sampler Type(ST): T 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) _ No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: TWL m L 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by: CJK 5 Grab Sample E Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) metniii iatil T _ = 4;i 4tl _ ' r4 a lt 1 - I I,. :i.i11. 1 fll. INI I I I IinoS 14[1.... ..14.11i rt® I, L_ s J Ii(II:+ 1 4- IbinVII . IDY-- \ a I .1-7 I Ill' iI1--if Iiiiiii___ I t II' DODO • r A 41110Q) I 1Y: I `Silli fir.`I1 NNE r; 11En 1` 111 II REM 1 famill'i A En'.14 '''; r ..,,, II, --------„, _ii,„... n ..,. I.IIIIIIII,. Betate. IM Ifi t,ImilI MINIM iiiiiLIMO laiitita in i11i e\ill(.tot I) 21) )I? \ I 0!-IIE.- I PT I 11°--I 1:11'.111 • 1 1 I Iga..,.1.1ma I. s J.4-1, IP 1 , 0 QS- ilin mil.10 5ga ,c:5--- Q' riliil! i hiiiiii I ice. ' l, -z .. -- - _rv'J_rI` I}44.' 11 eutr o ar Isr.rr Ll a lAr f iilik*.A' F I..er• PJ' R Q. 17_.55 ,Pa a." ITT ,-1.4"a.W iimY/n u a r i;I' r'N GRAPHIC SCALE 0 . 50 100 200 1" = 100 FEET 1200 60t Avenue, Suite 1620, Seattle, SARTORI ELEMENTARY 206.267.2425 TEL a-3AHBL206.267.2429 FAX EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP a...J ML:... rinc a........ .... .......I:....a:....aL..a:....tea I: J a. ...:..a a.. .....AAL'...:.a.... /Las...,,........_..__.Ja ......\ N 40 44=1lk n-.:: . -: o 0 a o 6. c c c n q 1 no n n • M n n N n nIp III; o!iu' ' fQk1 Ik c ® fi! I I II e e•. 1 IT -I Ili • \ e.lI P. 2191! E .I . Oo- ' o- a4 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 200 1" = 100FEET 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 1620, Seattle;WA96101 SARTORI ELEMENTARY 206.267.2425 TEL a-4RHBI_ 206.267.2429 FAX - SITE PLAN a..J£L:... IImC a.."... .... .........I:....•• aL.a: a I: J a :..a a. ....1'1 1C..:...t.../Las....//................JL......\ Pe 111 ILIBASIN3 BASIN 1 1111 111 1111 JIMMIE BASIN 7 1.1 GRAPHIC SCALE EXISTING BASIN 2 0 50 100 200 TOTAL AREA: 44,751 SF 1.03 AC s IMPERVIOUS: 27,326 SF 0.63 AC GRAVEL: 1,251 SF 0.03 AC 1" = 100 FEET EXISTING BASIN 1 LAWN: 16,174 SF 0.37 AC TOTAL AREA: 187,529 SF 4.30 AC TOTAL PERVIOUS 0.40 AC IMPERVIOUS: 109,491 SF 2.51 AC GRAVEL: 3,188 SF 0.07 AC EXISTING BASIN 3 LAWN: 74,850 SF 1.72 AC TOTAL AREA: 15,179 SF 0.34 AC TOTAL PERVIOUS: 1.79 AC GRAVEL: 1,486 SF 0.03 AC LAWN: 13,693 SF 0.31 AC TOTAL PERVIOUS: 0.34 AC MI 120 6th Avenue, SuiteinoARP1620, Seattle,WA 98101 SARTORI ELEMENTARY AHBL 206.267.2425 TEL A-5 206.267.2429 FAX EXISTING BASIN MAP BASIN 3 J BASIN 1 J I a noon a 7 BASIN 2 n n a of GRAPHIC SCALE DEVELOPED BASIN 2 TOTAL AREA: 44,749 SF 1.03 AC 0 50 100 200 IMPERVIOUS: 36,416 SF 0.84 AC LAWN: 8,333 SF 0.19 AC TOTAL PERVIOUS: 0.19 AC 1" = 100 FEET DEVELOPED BASIN 1 TOTAL AREA: 187,135 SF 4.30 AC DEVELOPED BASIN 3 IMPERVIOUS: 133810 SF 3.07 AC TOTAL AREA: 15,179 SF 0.34 AC LAWN: 53,325 SF 1.23 AC IMPERVIOUS: 7,590 SF 0.17 AC SOCCER: 21,609 SF 0.50 AC) LAWN:7,590 SF 0.17 AC TOTAL PERVIOUS: 1.73 AC SOCCER: 15,179 SF 0.34 AC) i LIP1200 6tr,Avenue,TOTAL PERVIOUS: 0.17 AC Suite 1620, air Seattle,WA98101 SARTORI ELEMENTARY 206.267.2425 TEL a-„ AHBL 206.267.2429 FAX DEVELOPED BASIN MAP J I I 9 K City ol Renton 1,if k 1 i,. , .. Ilk . ' a,j 4 Sensitive Areask a r l A_ 1. d. j i k a sy;. T ~• k1i > mod if b i nZa i an i\- N. i E, uah, o. l iyF 114.,=.....,,,,:. i T 1 m 1 7 mf1> f; - i Wz co iW m kco Will J S 124thS"' .—• 1\ a _ W k1..—. , c.,-- 1 S 1 9th Et — 2 m 4th St a E 4th St d I - ..Ii2 I r— SE 128th Sr 1 m k 2 s ..- L 1-2- a 1 Q Air N3rdSt E3d t. r9132nai,St P Way E' c; N YI Il, PS 133rd Sr 11 0 z t- t c* WaY( f .I••1 W L S S nCst ¢ usi^ , e ,` r L I W' *,•.• t'.._ 1" e W Ingo • • •— •—••.r II. dry a ` k rr..r v `; S 3rd St ¢•' i 4u i_•t rM_.._..—..—..1 -.. L...1 •) y 1 kr v St m a, 2, cQf2r Ft.._ a 1 sw rhs rthst4! T E t 5. m aYI m m r V c G/IJ s SW18thSr V.-1--'a j5 1 illi' I G t\ \ J 1 1.1.s! 01 w sE Jones t4t3' P •etC V••' hE Y. - I St St y ,1 1 SF•T•••am. m r I S—N- s 21 1. h ".... y f I co c' 1 . l1t- mil I Q N 1" - k sue- 9, SE 16887-8t` v y 3 SN34thSt tn q¢ W I WT-4' t` ' N 1 1 I I Carr Rd I l_ A /..,.., , , - I SW41stSt c„/ y j_ j\ I 1 1 T 18 t 1. SW 43rd St C 43rd S .r v 4y SCarrFd e , i I••' k T SE 183rdsf ' I' Ste`d y 3 J J r w 1Jr .(WK ..ram ,,1 m_••_••_•••.—••_••_ u_u•1•r 192nd St k co 1 wLu R i _ a k Q coto lor 40 / • npieY 0 0.25 O. k Miles Information Technology - GIS mapsupport@rentonwa.gov A q u ife r P rote cti o n Printed on: 11/12/2014 J, Renton City Limits Data Sources: City of Renton, King County k Education Zone 1 This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed Fire Station Zone 1 Modified to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information K Valley Medical Center available as of the date shown. This map is intended for Zone 2 City display purposes only. A-7 Cooro, dinate System:NAD 1983 HARN StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic Cityof,, v CO 1 NORTH 5TH I STREET Q tii iNI11/1,D 0 Z- CITY OF REIN a 530088u.1 z z o APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET w w SITE 500 0 500 A. zt Q Q Q L ti O ZONE X Z / NORTH 4TH STREET w O c-! W G 9 y NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM w Q w 2 F 0qDaccO 00 J 0CCZxNORTH OQ a a O STREET FIRMOZ J NoRrti, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 3RD STREET 26 KING COUNTY, w WASHINGTON AND m CO Z D INCORPORATED AREAS 4„w N BROOKS1%. A/ a 1 •,° ry1 OgTy N 2ND a STREET PANEL 971 OF 1725 srRF ISEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) RM278 FT l0- NORTH 2ND STREET I N, S, NORTH 2ND STREET I 1, cc CONTAINS O O COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX 0 I- 2 ,. ©w Lal KING COUNTY. NORTH UNINCORPORATED AREAS 630071 0977 F P RENTON.CITY OF 630099 0977 F 4114 `' © STgFFj S T081N ST a O 0 " Y ` ZONE AE o c. o eQ N Q MAP NUMBER W O _£' O o / 53033C0977 F Z P Ir. R M279 o cc a M^.Y, MAP REVISED: n v. MAY 16,1995 O\J 3O o 0 5O41014 O P STREET - 0 Py © 3 G'7 Federal Emergency Management Agency x 4 d/I- x I Fx- r I— 0 aXa., ;«' . ZC This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It co 0= 0N cn t p' ; a 4*' kid was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes co ZONE X © /,/ N ` t F or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance s ' Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov KCRTS input file timeseries.EXC KCRTS Program. . .File Directory: c:\kc_swdm\kc_DATA\ C] CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Pasture 1.79 0.00 0.000000 Till Grass 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Wetland 2. 51 0.00 0.000000 Impervious Existingl.tsf T 1.00000 T T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Existingl.tsf Existingl.pks D]Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Existingl.tsf Existingl.dur F F 36 0.999990E+15 0.999990E+15 R] RETURN to Previous Menu C] CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Pasture 1.23 0.00 0.000000 Till Grass 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Wetland 3.07 0.00 0.000000 Impervious Proposedl.tsf T 1.00000 T T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Proposedl.tsf Proposedl.pks D]Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Proposedl.tsf Proposedl.dur F F 36 0.999990E+15 0.999990E+15 R] RETURN to Previous Menu C] CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Grass 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Pasture Page 1 A-9 nnr _.___ c__.:__ ._:_ ___.r nr• r * a__ ice..-.ii..___..-_.._._ __ timeseri.es.EXC 0.00 ' • 0.00 0:000000 outwash Grass 0.00 0.00 . 0.000000 : wet an 0.00 0.00 - 0.000000 Impervious: Bypassl.tsf T 1.00000. T. T]: • Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module compute q.[P] pute PEAKS: an ; F ow Frequencies Bypassl.tsf By assl.pks. .. . . .. D : :: Compute. Flow DURATION and Exceedence Bypassl.tsf Bypassi.dur . F F... 36 . . 0.999990E+15 0.999990E+15 R] RETURN :to. Previous Menu . C CREATE a new Time :Series ST MO : ' 0.00 . . 0.000000 Till : Forest 0.00 0.00 ' . ..0.000000 Till Pasture 0.40 • . .0.00 . -. • .0.000000 .. Till Grass 0.00 0.00 : 0.000000 : outwash Forest' 0.00 0.00 0.000000 outwash Pasture 0.00 0.00 0:000000 outwash Grass 0.00 ' 0.00 0:000000 wetland 0.63 0.00- 0.000000 Impervious. Existing2.tsf T 1.00000 .: T T]. : Enter the Analysis' TOOLS Module I . P]. ' Compute' PEAKS and Flow 'Frequencies . . Existing2:.tsf Existing2:.pks D]. . . . • Compute Flow DURATION..and .Exceedence . .. Exi:sting2.tsf Exi:sti.ng2.dur F F 36 . . 0.999990E+15 0.999990E+15. ,, R] RETURN .to.:Previous Menu C] CREATE anew Time Series. ST::: 0.00 0.00 - 0.000000 Till Forest 0.00 : 0.00 .. : 0.000000 Ti:ll : Pasture c 0.19 0.00 0.000000 Ti1l: Gr.ass 0.00. • . . .0.00.. . 0.000000 .. outwash Forest. 0.00 0.00 0.000000 outwash Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.000000 ' outwash Grass 0.00 0.00 0.000000 wetland 0'.84 '•0.00 0.000000 Impervious Proposed2:tsf T 1.•00000 . • T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module ' P] ComputePEAKS and FlowFrequencies Page 2. A-9 a..J aL: IlI1C/.. ._ ..1:-a:--aL..a:.......a 1: J a. -a a. -......Ill•1C....:..a..../L.aa...//...............-JL........\ timeseries.EXC Proposed2'.tsf Proposed2.pks D]: Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Proposed2.tsf Proposed2.dur F F.. 36 0.999990E+15 0.999990E+15 R] RETURN to Previous Menu C] CREATE a new Time :Series ST . 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.00 '0.00 ' 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Grass 0.00 0.00 0.000000 outwash Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Pasture . 0.00 0.00 0.000000 outwash Grass 0.00. 0.00 0.000000 wetland 0.00 0..00 0.000000 Impervious Bypass2.tsf T 1.00000 T. T]; Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies . . . Bypass2.tsf Bypass2.pks DJ . Compute Flow DURATION:.and Exceedence : Bypass2.tsf Bypass2.dur. F F 36 0.999990E+15 0.999990E+15 R] RETURN to Previous Menu C]. CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0.00 0.000000. Till Forest . . 0.00 : 0.00 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.31 0.00 0.000000 Till Grass 0.00 '0.00 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.00 0.00 .. 0.000000 .outwash Grass 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Wetland 0.03. 0.00 0.000000 Impervious Existing3.tsf T : T 1.00000 T]. Enter the Analysis TOOLS. Module P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Existing3.tsf Existing3.pks D]Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Existing3.tsf Existing3.dur F F 36 0.999990E+15 Page. 3 A-9 timeseries.EXC 0.999990E+15 R] RETURN to Previous Menu C] CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 : 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.00. 0.00 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.17 0.00 . 0.000000 Till Grass: 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.00 0.00 ' 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.00 0.00.. 0.000000 . wetland 0.17 0.00 ; 0.000000 Impervious Proposed3.tsf T 1.00000 T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module P] Compute PEAKS_ and Flow Frequencies Proposed3.tsf; Proposed3.pks... D]Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Proposed3.tsf Proposed3.dur. F. 36 0.999990E+15 0.999990E+15: R] RETURN to Previous Menu CREATE a new Ti.me :Series ST : . .. 0.00 0.00 . . . 0.000000 Till Forest 0.00 .: 0.00 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.00. 0.00 0.000000 Till Grass 0.00 0.00 : 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.00 0.00 0.000000 wetland 0.00 0.00.. 0.000000 Impervious Bypass3.tsf T : 1.00000 T.] . Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module P] Compute:.PEAKS and Flow Frequencies : Bypass3.tsf . By ass3.pks D]Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Bypass3.tsf Bypass3.dur F F 36 . 0.999990E+15 0.999990E+15 R] RETURN::to. Previous Menu :. X] eXit KCRTS Program Page 4 A-9 s..J..:. ...L..... ... .......a:..a.'...a:.. ..a.. J a...:.a a. ..........:..a../4u................Ji-..\ KCRTS Pipe 1 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Tank Tank Diameter: 3.00 ft. Tank Length: 500.00 ft Effective. Storage Depth: . 3.0.0 . ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: . 3534. cu.. .ft. Riser Head: 3.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 3 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge. Diameter ft) in) CFS) in) 1 0 .00 0.10 0.000 2 0 .50 5.56 1.327 8.0 3 1.40 2.80 0.269 6.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage: Discharge . Percolation ft) ft)cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0. 000 0.00 0.01 0.01 1. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.11 0.11:42. 0.001 0.000 : 0.00 0.21 0.21 109. 0.002 0.000 0.00 0.31 0.31 193. 0.004 0.000 0:00 0.41 0.41 290.. 0.007 0..000 0.00 0.50 0.50 : 387. 0.009 0. 000 : 0.00 0.56 0.56 456. 0.010 0.009 . 0.00 .. 0.62 0. 62 527. 0.012: 0. 037 0.00 0.67 0. 67 589. 0.014 0. 080 0.00 . 0.73 0.73: :: 665. 0.015 0.140' 0.00 0.79 0.79 743.. 0.01,7. 0.213 0.00 0.85 0.85 824. 0.01.9 0.495 0..00 0. 91 0.91.. 906. . .. 0.021 0.535. .. 0.00 0.9.6 : 0.96 975. : - :0.022 0.572 : :: 0.00 1.02 1.02 1060.. 0.02.4. 0. 606 0.00 1.12 1.12 1203._ 0.028 0. 662 0.00 1.22 1.22 . 1350. 0:031 0:713: 0.00 : 1.32 1.32 : 1498. : 0.034 0.761 0.00 1.40 1.40 1617. 0.03.7 0.797 0:00 1.43 1.43 1662 0.038 0. 811 0.00 1.46 1.46.: 1707. 0.039 0. 830 0.00 1.49 1.49 1752. 0.040 0. 852 ' 0.00 1.52 1.52 1797: 0.041. 0. 878 0..00 1.55 1.55 1842. 0.042: 0. 907 0.00 1.58 1.58 1887. 0.043 0. 940 0.00 1.60 1. 60: 1917. 0.044 0. 976 0.00 1.63 1.63 1962. 0.045: 0. 997 0.00 1.73 : 1.73 2111. 0.048 1.060 0.00 A-9 rinr L...... .... ......I:....a:....a6.a: ..a 1: J a.. ....:..a a, ........1'71'1C....:...a../Laa..../h...............JL....\ 1.83 1.83 2258. 0.052 1.110 0.00 1.93. 1.93 2403. 0.055 1.160 0.00 2.03 2.03 2545- 0.058: 1.210 0.00 2.13 2.13 2684•. 0.062 1.260 0.00 . 2.23 2.23 2817. 0.065 1.300 0.00 2.33 2.33 2945. 0.068. 1.340 0.00 2.43 2.43 3067. 0.070, 1.380 0.00: 2.53 . 2.53 3180. 0.073 1.420.. . .. 0.00 2.63 2.63 4. 0.075 1.460 . . :. . 0.00 2.73 2.73 3377. 0.0.7.8 1.500 0.00 2.83 2.83 3455. 0.079 1.540 0.00 2.93 2.93 3513. 0.081 1.570 0.00 3.00' 3.00 3534. 0.081 1. 600 ' 0.00 3.10. 3.10 3534: 0.081 1. 940 0:00 3.20 3.20 3534. 0.081. 2.540 0.00 _ 3.30. 3.3.0. 3534 . :. 0.081 3.300: . 0.00 3.40 3.40 3534. 0.081 4. 120 0.00 3.50 3.50 3534. 0.081:. 4.440 0.00 3.60 3. 60 353•4.• 0.081: 4.720 0.00 3.70 3.70:: 3534. 0.081 4. 990:: 0.00 3.80 3.80 : 3534. 0.081 5.240 0.00 3.90 3.90 3534. 0.081: 5.470 0.00 4.00 4.00 3534. 0.081 5.700 0.00 4.10 4.10 3534 . 0.081 5. 910:: 0.00 4.20 4.20 3534. 0.081 6.110 0.00 4.30 4.30 353.4. 0.081 6.310 0.00. 4.40 4.40 3534.. 0.08.1 . 6.500 0.00..- 4.50 4.5.0 3534. 0.081 6. 690 0.00 4.60. 4. 60 3534. 0.081 6.860 0.00 4.70 4.70 3534 . 0.081: 7.040 0.00 4.804.80 4.80 353.4. 0.08.1 7..210 0..00... 4.90 4.90 3534. . 0.081 7.370 : .: 0.00 5.00. 5.00 ... 3534. 0.081 7.530 0.00 .. . Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage'. ; Elev (Cu-Ft)Ac-Ft) 1 1.71 . .. 1.56 1.56. 2.91 2.91 3502.0.080 2 1.15 :*******0. 93 1:57 1.57 1877. 0.04.3 3 . . 1.02 0. 93. . . 0. 91 1.55 . . 1.55 1848. 0 .042 . . 4 0.94: *******: . : . 0.83 1.46 : : : .1.46 1711 . :: . 0.039: :" 5.. 0. 91 .*.****** 0.82. 1.45 1 .45 - 1694. 0 .03.9 6 0.85 .0.77 0.77 1.35 1 .35 1544. 0 .035 7 :,_.0.79 ******* : :; 0. 67 1.13 • :. 1 .13 1214. 0.028 :-. 8 : 0.71 *******: : : 0. 61 1.03 1.03 1080. 0.025 A-9 IIPIC i..-- ..- .......I:....a:....4I....a: a I: J a...:..a a. -.....II11C-.:..a:... /4aa.//................,.Ji-..-,.\ KCRTS Pipe 2 • Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Tank Tank Diameter: 4.00 ft Tank Length: 90.00 ft; . Effective.Storage Depth: 4.0.0 ft Stage 0 Elevation: . 0.00 ft Storage Volume: . .. 1131.cu. ft Riser Head: 4.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 3 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter ft) in) CFS) in) 1 0 .00 0.10 0.001 2 0 .50 2.50 0..317 6.0 3 1 .80 1.30 0.068 4.0 Top Notch Weir None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage.Elevation.. Storage Discharge Percolation ft) ft) : (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) cfs) ' 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000: 0.000 0.00 0.01 0.01 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.11 0.11 9. 0.000 0. 000 0.00 0.21 0.21 . 23. 0.001 0. 000 0.00 0.31 0.31 40. 0.001 0. 000 0':'00 0.41 0.41 61. 0.00.1 0. 000 0.00 0.50 0.50 : 82. 0.002 0. 000 0.00 0.53. 0.53 89. 0.002 0. 002 0.00 0.55 0.55 94. 0.0021 .0.006 0.00 0.58 0.58 101. 0.002 0. 015 0.00_ 0.60 0.60 106. 0.002 0.026 0.00 0.63 .. . 0. 63 114.. 0.003.0.039 0.00 0.66 0.66 122. 0.0.0.3 0.056 0.00 0.68 0. 68.. 128. 0.003 • 0.073. . . 0.00 0.71 0.71 136. 0.003 0. 078 0.00 0.81 0.81 164.. 0.004.. 0. 094 0.00 0.91 0.91 194._ 0.004. 0.109 0.00 1.01 1.01 224 . .. 0.005 0.121 0.00 1.11 1.11 256. 0.006 0.133 0.00 1.21 1.21 289. 0.007 0.143 ' •0..00 1.31 1.31 322. 0.007 0.153 0.00 1.41 1.41:: 356. 0.008 0.162: . 0.00 1.51 1.515 391. 0.009 0.1711 0.00 1.61 1. 61 426. 0.010 0.179 0.00 1.71 1.71 462. 0.011- 0.187 0.00 1.80 1.80 494. 0.011 0.194 0.00 1.81 1.81 ; 497. 0.011 0.195 0.00 1.83 1.83 504. 0.012 0. 197 0.00 1.84 1.84 508. 0.012 0.200 0.00 A-9 a..J£L:-. IIPIC L......,. 1.85 1.85 512. 0.012 0.203 0.00 1.87 1.8.7 519. 0.012 0.207 0.00 1.88 1.88 522. 0.012 0.212 0.00 1.89 1.89 526. 0.012 0.215 0.00 1.91 1.91 533. 0.012 0.217 ; 0.00 2.01 2.01 569.. ' 0.013. 0.230 0.00 .. 2.11 2.11 605. 0.014 . 0.241 0.00. 2.21 2.21 . 641. 0.015 0.251.. . 0.00 2.31 2.31 677 . : . 0.016 0.261 0.00 2.41 . . .. . 2.41 -712. 0.01.6. 0.270 0.00 2.51 2.51 747. 0.017 0.279 0.00 2.61 2. 61 782. 0.018 0.288 0.00 2.71 2.71 816. 0.019 0.296 ' 0.00 1 2.81 : : : 2.81 849. ' 0.019. 0.304 0.00 2.91 2.91 881. 0.020 0.312 0.00 3.01 3.01: . 913. :. 0.021 0.319: 0.00 3.11 3.11 944. : 0.022 0.327 0.00 3.21 3.21 973. 0.022= 0.334 0.00 3.31 3.31 1001. 0.023' '0.341 0.00 ' 3.41 3.41:: 1027. 0.024 0.348: 0.00 3.51 ' 3.51 1052. 0.024 0.354 0.00 3.61 3.61 1074. 0.025,• 0.361 0.00. 3.71 3.71 1094. 0.025: 0.368 0.00 3.81 3.81 1111. 0.026 0.374: 0.00 3.91 3.91 1125. 0.026 0.380 0.00 4.00 4.00 113.1. 0.026. 0.386 0..00. 4.10 4.10 1131. 0.026 0.700 0.00 4.20 4.20: 1131. 0.026 1.270:: 0.00 4.30. 4.30 1131. 0..026 2.000 0.00 4.40 4.40 1131. 0.026: .2. 800 0.00 4.50 4.50 1131. 0.02.6 3.. 090 0..00. 4.60 4.60 1131. 0.026 3.350. 0.00 4.70 4.70 . 1131. 0.026 3.590 0.00 .. . . . 4.80 4.80 1131. 0.026 3. 810 0.00 4.90 4. 90 1131. 0.026 4.020 0.00 5.00 5.00': :1131. 0.026 4.220 0.00 5.10 5.10 1131. 0.026. 4.410 0.00 5.20 5.20 1131.. 0.026 . 4. 600 0.00: 5.30 . 5.3.0. 1131. 0.026 4.770.. .. 0.00 5.40 5.40 . 1. 1131. 0.026 4. 940 0.00 5.50 5.50 1131.. 0.026. 5..100 0.00 5.60 5. 60 1131. 0.02.6 _ 5.260 0.00_ 5.70 . 5.70 1131. 0.026 5.410 0.00 5.80 5.80 1131. 0.026 5.560 0.00 5.90 :.:: : 5. 90 1131. ' 0.026. 5.700 ' 0..00 6.00 ' 6.00 1131. 0.026 5. 840 0.00 ' Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft)Ac-Ft) 1 0.44 0.38 0.38 '3. 98 3. 98 1130. 0 .026 2 0.31 ******* : 0.23 2.04 2.04 578. 0 .013 :.... 3 0.26 0.23 0.23 1. 99 1.99 563. 0.013 4 0.25 ******* 0.22 1.94 1 .94 • :. 542. 0 .012 5 0.23 '******* 0.22 1. 91 1 .91 533. 0 .012 A-9 a..J aL:- Il11C i...... .... ...I:....a: ....aL a: . ...a I: J a.-..:..a a. ......Ill'lC...:..a:... /Laa...//..................J[....,.\ 0.19- 0.19 1.79 . 1.79 490..: 0 .011. . : 7 0.2.1 ******* 0.17 1.49 1.49 384. .0 .009 .. . 8 0.19 ******* 0.15 1..33 1 .33 330. 0 .008 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:proposed2.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout2 Inflow/Outflow- Analysis Peak Inflow: Discharge: 0.437 CFS at 6:00 on Jan . 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.385 CFS at 8:00onJan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 3.98 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 3. 98 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage:1130. Cu-Ft: 0 .02.6 :Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout2 .tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Annual Peak Flow Rates-- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak Peaks - - Rank Return Prob CFS) CFS)ft) Period 0.193 6 2/09/01 4:00 0.385 3. 98 : 1 100.00 0 .990 0.155 8 1/05/02 17:00 0 .233 : 2 .04 2 : :25.00 0.960 0.228 3 2/27/03 800 0 .228 1 . 99 3 10.00 0.900 0.169 7 8/26/04 3:00 0..220 1. 94': 4 5.00 :: 0 .800 0.220 4 10/28./04 18:00 0 .217 1. 91 5 3.00 0 .667 0.217 5 .. 1/18/06 17:00 0 .1931 : 1.79 6 2.00 0 .500 0.233 2 10/26/06 1:00 0.169. . 1.49 7 . 1.30 0 .231 0.385.: 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.155 1.33 8 1.10. . : 0 .091 Computed Peaks 0 .334 3.21 50.00 .0.980 A-9 a..J.L:.. 1"f11C L.... .... ....I:..a:.•L...: —.a 1: J•.. ....:..a a— ......1"111L...:..a..../L.sa—.//.................Jt.\ KCRTS Pipe 3 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Tank Tank Diameter: 3.00 ft Tank Length: 220.00 ft Effective Storage Depth: 3.0.0 . ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00. : ft Storage Volume: 1555. cu.. ft. Riser Head: 3.00 ft Riser Diameter:. 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 3 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter ft) in) CFS) in) 1 :. 0 .00 0.10 0.000 : : 2 0 .50 1.00 0.043 4.0 3 1 .26 0.60 0.013 4.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage.Elevation:. Storage Discharge Percolation ft) ft)cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.: 0.000: 0. 000 0.00. 0.01 0.01 1. 0.000 0. 000 0.00 0.11 0..11 18. 0.000 0. 000 0.00 0.21. 0.21 48. 0..001 0.000 0.00 0.31 0.31 85. 0.0.02 0.000 0.00 0.41 0.41 128.. 0.00.3 . 0..000 0..00 .. 0.50 0.50 . .: 170. . : 0.004 0. 000 0.00 0.51 0.51 '. 175. 0.004 0. 000 0.00 0.52 0.52 180. 0.0.04 0. 001 0.00 0.53. 0.53 185. 0.004 0. 002. 0.00 0.54 0.54 . 190. 0.004 0.003 0.00 0.55 0.55 195. 0.004 0.005 0.00 0.56 0.56 201.. 0.0.05 . 0.007 0.0.0 0.57 . 0.57. 206. . . . .0.005 0. 008.. . .. 0.00 0.58 0.58 . :: 211. ' . 0.005 0.008 0.00 0.68 0.68 265. 0.006. 0..012 0.00 0.78 0.78 321.: 0.007: .'0. 015 0.00: 0.88 0.88 : 380. : : :0.009 0.017:. : 0.00 0.98 0. 98 . 441. 0.010 0. 019 0.00 1.08 : : 1.08 504 . 0.012: 0.021 0.:00 1.18 1.18 568 . 0.013: 0.023 0.00 1.26 1.26:: 620. : :: 0.014 0.024:. 0.00 1.27 1.27 : 626. 0.014 0.024 0.00 1.28 1.28 633. 0.01-5 0.025 0.00 1.29 1.29 639. 0.015 0. 026 0.00 1.30 1.30 646. 0.015 0. 027: 0.00 1.31 1.31 653. 0.015 0. 027 0.00 1.41 1.41 718. 0.016: 0.030 0.00 1.51 ' 1.51 784. 0.018: ' 0.032 0.00 A-9 a r•L:.. r r ...... .... .......:...a:...ab...a: I: r s......:..a t .._....nnc....:...a..../I......//................-GIs ...... 1.61 1. 61 . .. 850. 0.020 0. 035 0.00 1.71 1.71 916. 0.021 0.037 . , . 0.00 1.81 1.81 981. 0.023 0.039 0.00 1. 91 1.91 1045. 0.024 0. 040 0.00 2..01 2.0.1 1108. 0.025 0. 042 : 0.00 2.11 2.11 1169. 0.027 0. 044 0.00 2.21 2.21 1228.. 0.028: 0.045 0.00. 2.31 2.31 1285. 0.029 0. 047. . . 0.00 . 2.41 2.41 1339. 0.031 0. 048 . .. 0.00 2.51 2.51 1390. 0.03.2 0. 050 0.00 2.61 2.61 1436. 0.033 '0.051 0.00 2.71 2.71 1478. 0.034 0.053 - 0.00 2.81 2.81 • 1514. 0.035 0. 054 : 0.00 2.91' 2.91 1542. 0.035.: 0.055 ' ' 0..00 3.00 3.00 1555. 0.036. 0. 056 0.00 3.10 3.10. , 1555. : :0.036 0.365 0.00 3.20 3.20 1555. ' 0.036 0. 930 : 0.00 3.30 :._. 3.30 1555. 0.036' 1. 660 0..00 3.40 3.40 1555. 0.036 ' 2.450 0.00 3.50 : 3.50 : 1555. 0.036 2.740 : ' 0.00 3.60 3. 60 1555. 0.036 2. 990 : 0.00 ' 3.70 3.70 1555. 0.036: 3.230 0.00. 3.80 3.80 1555. 0.036 3.450 0.00 3.90 3.90 . .1555. 0.036 3. 650: 0.00 4.00 4.00 1555. 0.036 3. 850 0.00 4.10 4.10 1555.. 0.036. 4. 040 0:00, 4.20 4.20 1555. 0.036 4.210 0.00 4.30 4.30 1555. 0.036 4.380" 0.00 4.40. 4.40 1555. 0.036 4.550 0.00 4.50 4.50 1555. 0.036: •4.700 0.00 4.60 4. 60 1555. 0.036 4. 860 0.00. 4.70 4.70 . 1555. 0.036 5. 010 0.00 4.80. 4.80 ' 1555. . ' 0.036 5.150 0.00 4.90 4. 90 1555. 0.036 .5.290 0._00 5.00 5.00. 1555. 0.036 5.430 0.00 Hyd Inflow . . Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc. :Stage Elev: (Cu-Ft) Ac-.Ft) 1 0.12 0.08 0.06' 2.92 2.92 . 1544. . . 0.035 . 2 0.06 ******* 0. 04 1.72 ' .1.72 922. :: ' 0.021 3. 0.07 . . .. 0. 04 0.04. .1.72 1:72 . . 919. 0 .021 4 0.06 ******* 0.04 1.63 1 . 63 _ :861. 0.020 5 0.07 ******* :• 0.03 1.55 1.55 813. 0.019• 6 0.06 0.02 0.02 1.24 1.24 607. 0.014 7 0. 04 ******* 0.02:. .0.99 0.9'9 ... . .. 448. ' :.. 0 .010 8 0. 05 ****'*** 0.02 :0.90 0.90 393. 0 .009 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:proposed3.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout3 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: '0.116 CFS at 6: 00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 A-9 1/.... ........a..J aL.:.. 1-11"1C 1........ .... ..-1:-..a:....aL...a:.. ...a 1: J a. -.:..a a. ......IIIIC...:-a:.. /L.aa....//................J1 --,.\ Peak Outflow Discharge: 0. 055: CFS at 10: 00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage.: 2 .92 . Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 2.92 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage:1544 .. _ ,. Cu-Ft • 0 .035 Ac=Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout3.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Annual Peak Flow Rates-_ Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak Peaks Rank Return Prob CFS) CFS)ft) : . :. : Period 0.035 4 : 2/09/01 19:00 0.055..: 2 .92 1 :100.00 0 .990:.: 0.019 7 1/05/02 17:00 0.037 • 1.72 2 25.00 0.960: 0.033 . 5 2/2.7/03 10:00 ..:: 0.037 . 1.72: 3 10.00 0.900 0.017 8 8/23/04 20:00 0.035 1.63 4 5.00 0.800 0.024 6 10/28/04 19:00 0.033: 1.55 5 3.00 0. 667:.: 0.037 2 1/18/06 21:00 0 .024 1 .24 6 2.00 0 .500 0.037 : 3 11/24/06 6:00 0.019 0 .99 : 7 1.30 :: 0 .231 0.055 1 1/09/08 10:00 0 .017 0 .90 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0 .049 2.47 50.00 0.980 A-9 Ai ' 4 a. ..—....Ill'1C...:—a.... /L.aa..//..._..—.........JL....\ Filters 1 Filters 2 4.0 Filtera 3 Filtera:4 FI LTERA 1 I TOTAL AREA: 12,213 SF 0.28 AC IMPERVIOUS: 9,818 SF 0.23 AC • LAWN: 2,395 SF : 0.05 AC FILTERA 2.. I _ TOTAL AREA::. 9,812 SF: : 0.23 AC IMPERVIOUS: 6,729 SF 0.16 AC LAWN: 3,083 SF 0.07 AC FILTERA 3 TOTAL AREA:: 10,935 SF . . 0.25 AC IMPERVIOUS: 9,890 SF 0.23 AC I LAWN::1:;045 SF 0.02 AC. FILTERA 4 I TOTAL AREA: 14,604 SF 0.34 AC I IMPERVIOUS: 12,438 SF 0.29 AC LAWN: 2,166 SF 0.05 AC Filtera 6 FILTERA 5:: I Filtera.5 TOTAL AREA: 6,161 SF 0.14 AC IMPERVIOUS: 5;078 SF 0.12 AC T .. LAWN: 1,083 SF 0.02 AC GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 200 FILTERA 6.. TOTAL AREA:: 21,769 SF 0.50 AC p IMPERVIOUS: 18,854 SF 0.43 AC 1"_ 100 FEET LAWN:2,915 SF 0.07 AC FILTERA 7 TOTAL AREA: 25,840 SF . .0.59 AC IMPERVIOUS: 21,573 SF 0.49 AC 12006thAvenue, LAWN:4;267 SF 0.10 AC ga Alp Suite 1620, Mr Seattle,WA 98101 SARTORI'ELEMENTARY H I 206.267.2425 TEL A-10 206.267.2429 FAX STORMWATER TREATMENT BASINS WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTAIINT OF ECOLOGY • june 2016 GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS), ENHANCED, PHOSPHORUS & OIL TREATMENT Americast Filterra® Decision: 77 1 Based ou:Arnericast's submissions, including the Final Technical Evaluation Reports,:dated • March.21, 2014 and December 2009, and additional information provided to Ecology'dated October 9, 2009,Ecology hereby issues the:follOwitig use level designations: I. •A General Use Level Designation for Basic,-Enhanced,Phosphorus,and'Oil Treatment at the following water quality design hydraulic loading rates: Treatment Iydrauhc ConductiVity#InfiltrationRate (in/hr) for m/hr) for use•iin Western : use in,easterii Washington( Washington Sizing Sizing Oa* 109g 1190 hosphoru 119,2 1100 oil 0=546 150 ao.need 24.82 t*calculated based.on listed infiltration rate and a hydraulic gradient of 1:;41 inch/inch(2.55.ft head with 1.80 ft Media). 12. The Filterra®unit is not approPriate for oil spill-control purposes Ecology approves the Filterra®units for treatment ai the hydraulic loading rates listed abciVe,. to achieve the Maximum water quality design flow rate. Calculate:the witerquality design. • flow rates using the following:procedure§ 1 i• Western:Washington: for treatment installed upstream of detention or retention,the wateil quality.design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated Using the sand filter module in the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other, Ecology-approved continuottS:runo0 model. The model must indicate the unit is capable . 0:processing 91 percent of the influent runoff file: Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention,the water 1 quality cleifgfillow rate is the Peak 15-minute flow.rate:as calculated using one of the three flow rate based:methods described:in Chapter 2:2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern'Washington(SWMMEW) or local niatinal. A-il Entire State: For treatment-installed downstream of detention; the water quality design i flow rate is the full 2=year release rate of the-detention facili 4. This General Use Level Designation has no.expiration date but Ecology may revolve or,. • amend-the designation,:and'is Subject to the conditions specified below 1Ecology's Conditions of Use: Filterra®units shall comply with these conditions shall comply with the following conditions: . 1. Design,assemble, install; operate, and"maintain the Filtena®units in:accordance:with applicable Americast Filterra®manuals, document, and the Ecology Decision. ' 2: Each site plan must undergo Americast Filterra®review before Ecology can approve the unit for site installation:. This will ensure that site grading and'slope are appropriate for use of a , Filterra®unit. Filterra®media shall conform to the specifications submitted to and approved by Ecology. 4. Maintenance includes:removing trash, degraded mulch, and accumulated debris from the filter surface and replacing the mulch layer. Use.inspections to determine the site-specific.:. maintenance schedules and requirements. Follow maintenance procedures-given in the most recent version of the Filierra®Operation and Maintenance Manual. 5.; Maintenance::The required maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often::: dependent upon the.degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, • Ecology does not endorse or recommend:a"one size fits all".maintenance cycle for a: particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device. Filterra designs their systems fora target maintenance interval of 6 months. Maintenance includes removing accumulated:sediment arid trash:from the surface:area of' the media::,removing the mulch above the media,replacing the mulch,providing plant: : health evaluation, and pruning the plant if deemed necessary. Conduct maintenance following manufacturer's guidelines: • - _ Filterra®units come in standard sies: 17. The minimum size filter:surface-area for use in.western Washington is determined:by using the sand filter module in the.latest version:of WWHM or other Ecology approved continuous runoff model:for.western Washington. Model inputs include a Filter media depth: :1.8 feet b); •Effective Ponding.Depth: 0.75.feet(This is equivalent to the 6-inch clear zone • between the top of the mulch and the bottom:of the slab plus 3-inches of mulch.) c) Side slopes: Vertical .. . d) ,Riser height: 0.70 feet: e)' Filter Hydraulic'Conductivity: Use the Hydraulic Conductivity:as listed in the table: ' above 6isei the lowest applicable hydraulic conductivity depending'On the level of 1 ::: treatment required)under Ecology's Decision, above.:: A-1 2 8. The:minimum size filter surface-area for use in;eastern Washington is determined'by using the design water quality flow rate:(as.determined in item 3, above) and:the Infiltration Rate: from the table above(use the lowest applicable Infiltration Rate depending on The level of: treatment required). Calculate the required area by dividing the water quality design flow rate en-ft./gee)by the Infiltration Rate (converted to.ft/sec)to obtain required surface.area(sq ft) of the Filterra unit: 9. Discharges:from the Filterra®units shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in receiving waters. Approved Alternate Configurations Filterra®Internal Bypass -Pipe (FTIB-P) 1. The Filterra® Internal Bypass Pipe allows for piped-in flow from area drains,grated inlets, trench drains,_and/or roof drains. Design capture flows andpeak flows enter the structure: through.an internal slotted pipe. Filterra®,inverted the:slotted pipe to allow design-flows-to drop through to a series of splash plates that then disperse the:design:flows over the top surface of the Filterra®planter area. Higher flows continue:to bypass the slotted pipe and : : ' convey out the structure. 2. To select a FTIB-P unit, the designer must determine the size of the standard unit using the sizing guidance described above: : Filterra®Internal Bypass_Curb (FTIB-C) 1. ..The.Filterra .Internal Bypass—Curb model(FTIB-C) incorporates a curb inlet,biofiltration treatment chamber, and internal high flow:bypass:in one single structure. Filterra® designed the FTIB-C model for use in a` Sag"_or."Suinp"-condition and will accept flows from both::: directions along a gutter line. An internal flume tray weir component directs treatment flows entering the unit through the curb inlet to the biofiltration treatment chamber. Flows in excess of the water quality treatment flow rise above the flume tray weir and discharge. through a standpipe orifice; providing bypass of untreated peak flows.'Ainericast manufactures the FTIB-C model in a variety of sizes and'configurations and you:may use the unit on a continuous grade when a single structure providing both treatment and high flow bypass is preferred. The FTIB-C model can also incorporate a separate junction box chamber to allow larger diameter discharge pipe connections to the structure. 2. To select a FTIB-C unit, the designer must determine the size of the standard unit using the sizing guidance described above: Filterra®Shallow 1. The Filterra® Shallow providesadditional flexibility for:design engineers and designers in situations where there is:limited depth and various elevation constraints to applying a standard Filterra® configuration. Engineers can design this system up to six inches shallower': than any the previous Filterra_unit:configurations:noted above._ A-11 3 Ecology requires that the Filterra® Shallow provide a contact time:equivalent to that of the standard unit.;This means that with a:smaller depth of media, the surface area.must increase. , 3. :.To select a Filterra® Shallow System unit,the designer must first identify the size of the .. standar :unit using the modeling guidance described above.: : : . : 4.: Once you establish the size of the standard Filterra®unit:using the sizing technique described. above,use information,from the following table to select the appropriate size Filterra® Shallow System unit. •= hallow Unit Basic,Enhanced, and Oil Treatment Sizing Standard Depth Equivalent Shallow.Depth 4x4 4x6,or 6x4 4x6:or:6x4 1 : 06, 4x8 or 8x4 6x8 or 8x6 6x6 6x10 or 10x5 6x8:or 8x6 6x12 or.:12x6 6x10 or i0x6 j 113x7 Notes; l Shallow Depth Boxes are less than the,standard depth of;3;5 feet but_no less than 3,0 feet deep(TC to INV)! Applicant: Filterra®Bioretention Systems, division of Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC. Applicant's Address: 11815 NE Glenn Widing Drive Portland, OR 97220 Application Documents: State of Washington Department of Ecology Application for Conditional Use . Designation,Americast(September 2006) Quality Assurance Project Plan Pilterra®Bioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring,Americast(Aprilrilp 2008) Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum Filterra®Bioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring, Ainericast(June 2008) Draft Technical Evaluation Report Filterra®Bioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring, Americast(August 2009) Final Technical Evaluation Report Filterra®Bioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring, Americast(December 2009) Technical Evaluation Report Appendices Filterra®Bioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring, Americast,August 2009 Memorandum to Department of Ecology Dated October 9, 2009 from Americast, Inc. and Herrera Environmental Consultants A-1 4 Quality Assurance Project Plan Filterra®Bioretention System:Phosphorus treatment and Supplemental:Basic and Enhanced Treatment Performance Monitoring,:Americast :.:. November:2011) Filterra®letter August 24, 2012 regarding sizing for the Filterra® Shallow System. University of Virginia Engineering Department Memo by.Joanna Crowe Curran,Ph: D dated March 16, 2013 concerning capacity analysis.of Filterra®internal:weir inlet tray. Terraphase Engineering letter to Jodi Mills, P.E. dated April 2, 2013 regarding Terraflume Hydraulic Test,Filterra®Bioretention System and attachments. • Technical Evaluation Report, Filterra® System Phosphorus Treatment and Supplemental : Basic Treatment Performance Monitoring. March 27.., 2014. Applicant's Use. eve eques General Level Use Designation for Basic, Enhanced, Phosphorus;;and Oil Treatment. Applicant's Performance Claims; Field-testing and laboratory testing show that the Filterra®unit is promising as a storniwater treatment best management practice and.can meet Ecology's performance goals for basic, enhanced,phosphorus,and oil treatment:: Findings of Fact:. Field Testing 2013 1: Filterra®completed field-testing of a 6.5 ft x 4 ft.unit at one site in:Bellingham, Washington. Continuous flow and rainfall data collected from January 1, 2013 through July 2013 indicated that 59 storm events occurred. The monitoring obtained water quality data from 22 storm events. Not all the sampled storms produced information that met TAPE criteria for storm and/or water quality data. 2. . The system treated 98.9 percent of the:total 8-month runoff:volume during the testing period. Consequently;the system.achieved the goal-of treating 91 percent of the volume from the site. StOrmwater runoff bypassed during four of the 59 storm events. 3. : Of the 22 sampled events, 18 qualified_for.TSS analysis (influent TSS concentrations ranged from 25 to 138 m The data were segregated into sample pairs with influent.. concentration greater than and less than 100 mg/L.The UCL95 mean effluent concentration for the data with influent less than 100 ing/L:was 5:.2 ing/L,below the 20- mg/Lthreshold. Although the TAPE guidelines do not require:an evaluation of TSS removal efficiency for influent concentrations below 100 mg/L, the mean TSS removal for these samples was 9:0.1.percent: Average removal of influent TSS concentrations greater than 100 mg/L(three events)was 85 percent. In addition,:the system consistently exhibited TSS removal greaterE than 80 percent at flow rates at a 100 inches per hour in/hr] infiltration rate and was:observed at 150 in/hr, A=11 5 4. Ten of the 22 sampled events qualified'for TP analysis. Americast augmented the:dataset using two sample pairs from previous monitoring at the site. InfluentTP concentrations. ranged from 0.11 to 0.52 mg/L. The mean TP removal for these twelve events was 72.6 percent. The LCL95 mean:percent removal.was 66.0,well:above:the TAPE requirement of 50.percent. Treatment above 50 percent was evident at:100 in/hr infiltration rate and as high as 150 in/hr; Consequently, the Filterra®test system met the TAPE Phosphorus Treatment goal at 100 in/hr. Influent ortho-P concentrations ranged from 0.005 to 0.012 mg/L; effluent ortho-P'concentrations ranged from 0.005 to 0.013 mg/L. The reporting limit/resolution for the ortho-P test method is 0.01 mg/L, therefore the influent and effluent ortho-P concentrations were both at and near.non-detect concentrations. Field Testing 2008-2009 1. : Filterra®completed:f eld-testing at two sites at the Port of Tacoma. Continuous flow and rainfall data collected during.the 2008-2009 monitoring period indicated that 89 storm events occurred. The monitoring obtained water quality data from2T storm events.Not all the sampled storms produced information that met TAPE criteria for storm:and/or water quality data: :. 2. During the testing at the Port of Tacoma, 98.96 to 99.89 percent of the annual influent' runoff volume passed through the POT1:and POT2 test systems respectively::Storrriwater runoff bypassed the POT1 test system during nine storm events and bypassed.the POT2 test system'during one storm:event. Bypass volumes:ranged from 0:13%to 15.3% of the influent storm volume. Both test systems achieved the 91 percent water quality treatment- goal over the 1-year monitoring period. 3. Consultants observed infiltration:rates as high as 133 iri/hr during the various storms. Filterra®did not provide any paired data that identified percent removal of TSS, metals, oil, or phosphorus at an instantaneous observed flow rate. 4: The maximum storm average hydraulic loading rate associated with water quality data is 40in/hr,with the majority of flow rates<25 iri/hr. The average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate ranged from 8.6 to 53 inches per hour. 5. The field data:showed a removal rate greater than 80%for TSS with an influent concentration greater than 20 mg/1 at an average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up to'53.in/hr(average influent concentration of 28.8 mg/1, average effluent concentration of 3 m 6. The;field data showed a removal rate generally greater than 54%_for dissolved zinc at an average instantaneous hydraulic loadingrate up to 60 in/hr and an average influent concentrationof 0.266 mg/1:(average effluent concentration of 0.115 mg/1). 7. The field data showed a removal rate generally greater than40% for dissolved_copper at an average:instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up to 35 in/hr and an:average influent concentration of 0.0070 mg/1(average effluent concentration of 0.0036 mg/1). 8. : The field data showed an average removal:rate of 93%for total petroleum hydrocarbon TPH) at an average instantaneous hydraulic-loading rate up to 53 in/hr and an average influent concentration of 52 mg/1 (average effluent concentration of 2.3 mg/1). The data A-11 6 also:shows achievement of less than 15 mg/l TPH for grab samples. Filterra®provided limited visible sheen data due to access limitations at the outlet monitoring location. 9. The field data showed low percentage removals of total phosphorus at all storm flows at an average influent:concentration of 0::189 ing/1(average effluent concentration of 0.171 mg/1). We.may relate the relatively poor treatment performance of the Filterra®system at : this location to influent characteristics for total phosphorus that are unique to the Port of Tacoma site. It appears:that the Filterra®system will not:meet:the 50 percent removal performance goal when you expect the.majorityof phosphorus in thp runoff to:be. the dissolved form. . Laboratory Testing 1: Filterra®performed laboratory:testing on a scaled:down version of the Filterra®unit. The :. : lab ata ShowedShoWed an average removal from 83-91% for TSS with influents ranging from. to 320 mg/L, 82-8; % for total copper With influents ranging from 0.94 to:23.mg/L, arid 50-61%for orthophosphate with influents ranging.from 2.46 to1.4.37.mg/L. 2. Filterra®conducted permeability tests on the soil.media. 3. Lab scale testing using Sil-Co-Sil 106 showed percent removals ranging from 70:1%to 95.5%with a median percent removal of 90.7%, for influent concentrations ranging from 8.3 to 260 mg/L. Filterra®ran these laboratory tests at an infiltration rate of 50:in/hr. 4. Supplemental lab testing conducted in:September 2009 using Sit-Co-Sil 106 showed an average percent removal of 90.6%. These laboratory tests were run at infiltration rates • ranging from 25 to.150 in/hr for influent concentrations ranging from 41:6 to.252.5.mg/l. . Regression analysis results indicate that the Filterra®system's TSS removal:performance is independent of influent concentration in the concentration rage evaluated at hydraulic loading rates of up to 150 in/hr. . Contact Information: Applicant Sean Darcy.. Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC . 11815:Glenn.Widing Dr. :.: Portland, OR 97220 503)258-3105. :: . darcysa,conteCheS.com Applicant's:Website: http://www.conteches.com : Ecology web link:: http://www.ecy:wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/index.html Ecology: Douglas C. Howie, P.E. Department of Ecology :.: Water Quality Program 360)407-6444 douglas.howie@eCY.wa.gov A-711 7 Date Revision December 2009 GULD for Basic, Enhanced, and Oil granted, CULD for Phosphorus September 2011 Extended CULD for Phosphorus Treatment: • September 2012 Revised design.storm discussion, added Shallow System. January 2013 Revised format to match Ecology standards, changed Filterra contact • information February 2013 Added FTIB-P system. March 2013 1 Added FTIB-C s yYstem April.2013 Modified requirements for identifying appropriate size of unit June 2013 Modified description of FTIB-C alternate:configuration March 2014 GULD awarded for Phosphorus Treatment. GULD updated for a higher flow-rate.for Basic Treatment. June 2014:. Revised sizing calculation methods March 2015 Revised Contact Information ...: June 2015 CULD for Basic and Enhanced at 100 in/hr infiltration rate Novernbef 2015 Removed information on CULD (created separate CULD document for 100 in/hr infiltration rate). . .. June 2016 Revised text regarding Hydraulic conductivity value_ A=11 8 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT J A-12 General Model Information Project Name: Sartori Filtera Site Name: . Sartori Site Address:315 Garden Ave N City: Renton Report Date: 8/24/2016 Gage: Seatac Data Start: 1948/10/01 Data End: 2009/09/30 Timeste 15 Minute.:: Precip Scale:1.00 Version Date:2016/02/25 Version:4.2.12 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC.1 : .50 Percent of the 2 Year . High Flow Threshold for POC1.: 50 Year Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 2 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Sartori Filtera 6/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 3 Mitigated Land Use FILTERRA 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A:B, Lawn, Flat 0.05 Pervious Total 0.05 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.23 Impervious Total . . 0.23 Basin Total 0.28 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Sand Filter 1 Sand Filter 1 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 4 FILTERRA 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0.07. Pervious Total 0.07 Impervious Land se acre PARKING FLAT 0.16 Impervious Total 0.16 Basin Total 0.23 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater. Sand Filter 2 Sand Filter 2 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 5 FILTERRA 3 Bypass: No Groundwater: :: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0.02 Pervious Total 0.02 Impervious:Land Use acre PARKING.FLAT 0.23 Impervious Total 0.23 Basin Total 0.25 Element Flows:To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Sand Filter 3 Sand Filter 3 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 6 FILTERRA 4 Bypass: No roun ate.r: :. o. .. Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn,:Flat 0.05 Pervious Total 0.05 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING:FLAT 0.29 Impervious Total 0.29 Basin Total 0.34. Element Flows:To: Surface Interflow Groundwater. Sand Filter 4 Sand Filter 4 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 7 FILTERRA 5 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use : acre A B, Lawn Flat 0.02 Pervious Total 0.02 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.12 Impervious Total 0.12 Basin Total 0.14 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater. Sand Filter 5 Sand Filter 5: Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 8 FILTERRA 6 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0..07. Pervious Total 0.07 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.43.. Impervious Total 0.43 Basin.Total 0.5 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater. Sand Filter 6 Sand Filter 6 Sartori Filters 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 9 FILTERRA 7 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING'FLAT 0.:12 Impervious Total 0.12 Basin Total 0.12 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow. :. Groundwater Sand Filter 7 Sand Filter 7 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 10 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 11 Mitigated Routing Sand Filter 1 Bottom Length: 6.00 ft: Bottom Width: 6.00 ft. Depth: .. 0.75 ft. Side slope 1: O.To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: O To 1 Side.slope 4: 0 To 1 Filtration On Hydraulic conductivity:24.82 Depth of:filter medium:1.8 . Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft..):33.668 •• Total Volume Through Riser:(ac-ft.): 1.426 Total Volume Through Facility(ac-ft.)::: : ,. 35.093. :: ercent Infiltrated: 95.94 : Total Precip Applied to Facility: . 0 Total Evap:From Facility: H •0 Discharge Structure . Riser Height: 0.7 ft. Riser Diameter.: 100 in. Element Flows To: Outlet:l Outlet 2 ••• :_.. Sand Filter:Hydraulic Table H Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft: Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0083 0.000 .: 0.00:0 0.000 : . 0.020 0.0167 0.000.0.000 0.000. 0.020 0.0250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0333 0.000 0:000 0.000 0.021 0.0417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0583 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:021 0.0667 0.000 . 0.00.0 . 0.000 . 0.021 0.0750 0.000. • 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:021 0.1000 0.000 0.000: : .0.000 .. : . 0.021 0.1083 0.000 ' 0.000: 0.000 : 0.021 0.1167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0022 0.1333 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 : 0.022 .: . 0.1417 0.000 • 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1667 0.000 0.000: 0.000 0.022 0.1750 0.000 0.000. 0.000 0.022 0.1833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:022 0.1917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.2000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2083 0.000 0.000: . 0.000 0.023 0.2167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 12 0.2333 0.000 0.000: 0.000 0.023 : : 0:2417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2500 :.: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:023 0.2667 0.000 0.00.0. : 0.000. . 0.023 0:2750 0.000 0.000: 0.000 : 0.023 0.2833 . . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:023 0.2917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:024 0.3000 0.000 0.000 0.000:: 0.024. 0:3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:024 0.3250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:024 0.3333 0.000 _. 0.000 0.000:: 0.024. .: 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3500 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:024 0.3583 0.000 0..000 0.000 0:024 0.3667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 : 0.3750... 0.000.0.000 0.000. 0.025 :. 0.3833 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:025 0.3917 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.025 . . 0.4000 0.000 0.000 0.000' 0.025 0.4083 0.000 • . . .0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4167 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:025 0.4250 0.000 . 0.00.0. .0.000 . 0.025 . .. 0.4333 0.000. : 0.000- 0.000 0.025 0.4417 . . . 0.000 •• 0.000 0.000 • - : 0.025 0.4500 : : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:025 0.4583 .. 0.000 : 0.000 . ..0.000.:: 0.025 :.:: 0:4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 : 0.026 0.4750 • •.: : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:026 0.4833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0:4917 .. 0.000 : 0.000 0.000 :: 0.026 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 : 0.026 0.5083 0.000 0.000 0.0.00 0:026 0.5167 : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:026 0.5250 0.000 :. : 0.000: 0.000:: : 0.026 :: 0.5333 0.000 0.000: 0.000 0.026 .. 0.5417 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:026 0.5500 0.000 0..000 0.000 0:0.27 0.5583 0.000 0.000 0.000: : .: 0.027 : 0.5667.. 0.000 0.00:0 . 0.000. 0.027 :. . 0.5750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:027 0.5833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5917 0.000 _ 0.000 0.000 ; 0.027. 0.6000 . . . 0.000 • . . 0.000 0.000 0.027 .. . 0.6083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.61.67 0.000 . 0.000. 0:000 0.027 . . 0.6250 0.000. 0.000. 0.000 0.027 : . 0.6333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6500 • • 0.000 : 0.000 : 0.000.: •0.028 . . 0:6583 : - 0.000 0.000 0.000 : 0.028 0.6667 0.000 • .. 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:028 0.6833 . 0.000 0.000. 0:000 :. 0.028 : . 0:6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.7000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:028 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 0:028 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 13 0.71.67 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.028 0.7250 0.000 0.000_ 0.349 0.029 0.7333 0.000 0..000 0.538 0.029 0.7417 0.000 0.000 0.752 0.029 0.7500 . 0.000 : 0.000 0.989 . . . 0.029 . . . 0.7583 0.000 0.000 1.246 0.029 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page_14 Sand. Filter 2 Bottom Length: 6.00 ft. Bottom Width: : 4:00 ft. Depth:0.75 ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side gape 3 :. 0•To 1 : Side slope 4: 0 TO 1 Filtration:On Hydraulic conductivity:24.82 Depth of filter medium:1.8 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.) 23.063 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.):. _ 1.089 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 24.153 Percent Infiltrated: 95.49 Total Precip Applied to Facility:0 Total vap From Facility: 0 Discharge. Structure Riser Height 0.:7 ft. Riser Diameter:100 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) . Area(ac.). . Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01.3 0.0167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0:0250 0.000 0.000 :. 0.000::: 0.014. :. 0.0333 0.000 0.000: 0.000 : 0.014 0.0417 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:014 0.0500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:014 0:0583 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.014 : : 0:0667.. 0.000 0.000 . 0.000. 0.014 :.. 0.0750 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:014 0.0833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.0917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 : 0.1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.1083 : ... 0.000 0.000 0.0:00 0:01:4 0.11.67 0.000 0.000. 0:000 .. . 0.014 . 0.1250 0.000 0.00.0: 0.000 0.014 : 0.1333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 I0.1417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:014 0.1500 .. 0.000 0.000: : 0.000. : .. 0.014 :... 0.1583 0.000 0.000: 0.000 : 0.015 0.1667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:01.5 0.1750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:015 0:1:833 . 0.000 ._ 0.000. 0:000 = : 0.015 : 0:1917 0.000 0.000: 0.000 0.015 0.2000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:01:5 0.2083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:015 0.2167 . 0.000 : 0.000 0.000 :: . . 0.015 0.2250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.2333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:015 0.2417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:015 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 15 0.2500 0.000 0.000 0.000 .. 0.015 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.2667 .:- 0.000 0.000 0.000' 0.015 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.2833 . 0.000 : .. 0.000. 0.000. . 0.016 ...: 0.2917 0.000 0.000. 0.000 0.016 0.3000 0..000 0.000 0.000 0.01.6 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.31.67 0.000 0.000 0.000:1 . 0.016 0.3250 0.000 0.000' 0.000 0.016 0.3333 .:: . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3500 0.000 :. 0.000: 0.000::: 0.016 0.3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3833 0.000 0.000 0.000 : 0.016 0.3917 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.4000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.4083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.4167 0.000 0.000 0.000 : . 0.017 0.4250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01.7 0.4417 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.017 0.4500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0171 : 0.4583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4667 :0.000 0.000 0.000:0:017 0.4750 0.000 . 0.000 . 0.000.:. . 0.017 .. 0.4833 0.000 0.0001 0.000 0.017 0.4917 : : : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5083 0.000 0.000 0.000.. 0.017 0.5167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5417 0.000 0.000: 0.000:.: 0.017 0.5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.5583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.5750 ' 0.000 : 0.000 . 0.00.0 0.018 : 0.5833 0.000 .. 0.000 ' ' 0.000 0.018 0.5917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6333 0.000 0.000 0.000 . . 0.018 . 0.6417 0.000 0.000; 0.000 ' . . 0.018 0.6500 0.000 0.000 0:000 0.018 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6667 0.000 0.000. 0.000 : 0.018 .:: 0.6750. 0.000 0.0001 0.000 0.019 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 - :: 0.01.9 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.7000 . 0.000 0.000. 0.000 .. . 0.019 . . . 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.019 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 001.9 0.7250 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.019 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 16 0.7333 0.000 0.000 0.538 . 0.019 . . 0.7417 0.000 0.000 0.752 0.019 0.7500 0.000 0.000 0.989 0.01.9 0.7583 0.000 0.000 1.246 0.019 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 17 Sand. Filter 3 Bottom Length: 6.00 ft. Bottom Width: : 6.00 ft. Depth: 0.75 ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0:To 1 . Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Filtration On Hydraulic conductivity:24.82 Depth of filter medium:1.8 : Total Volume. Infiltrated (ac-ft.):33..658 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 1.42 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): .. 35.078 ._. Percent Infiltrated: 95:95 Total Precip Applied to Facility:0 Total"Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: . :: :" 0..7 ft. Riser Diameter: 100 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 . Sand Filter Hydraulic:Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.): Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs):_ 0.0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0083 :: :. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.0167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.0250 0.000 : 0.000 • 0.000:: 0.021. 0.0333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0583 0.000 0.000 0.000:. : 0.021 0.0667.. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 . 0.0750 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:021 0.0833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0917 0.000 : 0.000- 0.000::: _: 0.021. 0.1000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.1083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.1167 0.000 0.00.0. 0.000 0.022 . . . 0:1250 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:022 0.1500 0.000 ' 0.000 0.000 : 0.022 0:1583 0.000 0.000: . 0.000 0.022 0.1667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1833 0.000 0.000: 0.000 0.022 -. 0.1917 0.000 0.000- 0.000 0.022 0.2000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:023 0.2167 0.000 0.000: 0.000: : 0.023 0.2250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:023 0.2417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:023 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 18 0.2500 0.000 0.000 0:000 . 0.023 . 02583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2667 . • 0.000 0.000 0.000 ' 0.023 0.2750 - • 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:023 0:2833 .. 0.000 . . .. . 0.000. : ., • 0:000.:: . •• .0.023 .: 0:2917 0.000 • 0.000: • • ' 0.000 : • •• 0.024 • 0.3000 .:. . 0.000 0.000 0.000. 0:024 0.3083 • • 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:024 0:3167 0.000 0.000: 0:000::: z, 0.024. 0.3250 0.000 • 0.000' ' 0.000 0.024 • 0.3333• 0.000 •• 0:000 0.0.00 0:024 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:024 0:3500 : 0.000 :. 0.000 . 0.000:: •: 0.024. •:: 0.3583 . 0.000 0.00:0 ': . 0.000 0.024 ': . 0.3667 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:024 0.3750 1 .. 0:000 0..000 0.000 0:025 0.3833 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.025 : 0.3917 0.000.0.000 . 0.000. 0.025 : 0.4000 0.000 0:000 0.000 0025 0.4083 0.000 . 0.000 . . ' 0.00.0 0.025 . . 0:4167 0.000. 0.000 0.00.0 0.025:::'. 0.4250 . . . 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 -• ••• . . . 0.025 0.4333 0:000 0.000 0.000 0:025 0.4417 0.000 . 0.000 . 0:000 . 0.025 . 0.4500 . 0.000. :. : 0.000 0.000 0.025. 0.4583 • . - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 • 0.4667 : • 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:026 0:4750 .. 0.000 : .. 0.000. : ..0.000.: 0.026 :. : 0:4833 : 0.000 0.000: • 0.000- 0.026 0.4917 . : 0.000 0.000 0.000' 0:026 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:026 0:5083 0.000 0.000 0.000. . 0.026 0:5167 ' 0.000 0.000 • - 0.000 : 0.026 0.5250 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:026 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:026 0.5417 0.000 :. 0.000 : ••0.000:: 0.026 0:5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5583 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:027 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 1. .0:0.27 0.5750 0.000 0.000 0.000: : 0.027• 0.5833. 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.027 0.5917 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:027 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0,6083 0.000 0.000 0.000:-.: 0.027 : 0.6167 . . 0.000 0.000 • 0.000 0.027 0.6250 0:.000 0.000 0.0.00 0:027 0.6333 0.000 0.00.0. 0:000 . 0.028 0..6417 . 0.000. 0.00.0 . • 0.000 0.028'. 0.6500 • 0.000 0.000'. 0.000 ' 0.028 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:028 0.6667 . . .0.000 - 0.000 :0.000 : 0.028 : : 0:6750 1 0.000 • 0.000 0.000 : 0.028 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6917 • 0:000 0.000 0.000 0:028 0.7000 0.000 0.000: . . ' 0:000 0.028 . 01083 0.000 0.000: • •0.067 0.028 0.7167 0.000 ' ' :: 0.000 0.190 0.028 0.7250 0.000 1 0.000 0.349 0.029 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 19 0.7333 0.000 0.000. 0.538 . 0.029 0.7417 0.000 0.000 0.752 0.029 0.7500 0.000 0.000 0.989 0.029 0.7583 0.000 0.000 1.246 0029 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 20 Sand Filter 4 Bottom Length: 6.00 ft. Bottom Width: : . 6:00 ft. Depth: 0.75 ft: Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side sloe 3 O:To.1 Side slope 4 0 To 1 Filtration:On Hydraulic conductivity:24.82 • Depth of filter medium:1.8. Total Volume. Infiltrated (ac-ft.) 41.375 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.):3.126 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.).: 44.501 Percent Infiltrated: 92.98 Total Precip Applied to Facility:0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge. Structure Riser Height: . : 0.:7 ft. Riser Diameter:100 in. . . .. Element Flows To:: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic:Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.): Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0:0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 : 0.000 0.0083 0..000 0:000 0.000 0:020 0.0167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0:0250 0.000 0.000: 0.000 . 0.021. 0.0333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0417 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:021 0.0500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.0583 0.000 . 0.000: 0.000 . • 0.021 0.0667.. 0.000 0.00.0 0.000 0.021 0.0750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:021 0.0833 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.021. . 0,0917 0.0. 0.000 0.000:' 0.021 0.1000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.1083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:021 0.11.67 0.000 0.00.0. 0:000 . . 0.022 0.1250 0.000. :: 0.000: . :. 0.000 0.022 0.1333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:022 0.1500 .. 0.000 : 0.000: : . 0.000 - 0.022 :.. 0:1583 0.000 0.000. 0.000 : 0.022 : ]: : 0.1667 :.: : 0.000 0.000 0.0.00 0:022 0.1750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.1:833 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.022 : 0:1917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.2000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:023 0.2083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2167 0.000 :. 0.000 . 0.000 . . 0.023 : . 0.2250 0.000 0.000 0.000 • 0.023 0.2333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:023 0.2417 • . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 21 0.2500 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 .. 0.023 . 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2833 0.000 : .. 0.000: 0:000.: 0.023 : 0:2917 0.000 • 0.000: • 0.000 0.024 0.3000 0.000 0.000 0.000 •• :.. 0.024 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:024 0:3167 0.000 :. 0.000. . 0. 0.024 0:3250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:024 0.3417 • 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:024 0.3500 0.000 0.000: 0.000..: 0.024 .:: . 0,3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3667 0.000 0:000 0.000 0.024 0.3750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:025 0.3833 0.000 0.000 0.000 .: 0.025 : 0.3917 0.000 0.00.0 - 0.000. 0.025 0.4000 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:025 0.4083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4167 0.000 : 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4250 0.000 • . . . .0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4333 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:025 0.4417 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 . . 0.025 0.4500 0.000. _: 0.000= 0.000 : . 0.025 0.4583 0.000 • :- 0.000 0.000 •••0.025 0.4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:026 0.4750 . • 0.000 0.00.0 0.000-: . . 0.026 ..: 0:4833 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 • 0.026 0.4917 . :: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0:5083 0.000 0.000 • 0:000 : 0.026 0:5167 0.000 0.000 • 0.000 0.026 0.5250 0.000 0.000 •0.000 0:026 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0:5417 0.000 .. 0.000 0.000:: 0.026. . 0.5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0;027 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:.027 0.5750 0.000 0.000 0.000 :. 0.027 0.5833. 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.027 0.5917 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:027 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6083 0.000 0.000 0.000 _ 0.027 0.6167 0.000 • 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6250 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:027 0.6333 0.000 . 0.000. 0:000 . 0.028 . 0.6417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:028 0.6667 .. 0.000 . 0.000 0:000 : 0.028 0.6750 0.000 0.000: • 0.000 0.028 : 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:028 0.7000 0.000 : . • 0.000: 0.000.. • 0.028 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.028 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.028 0.7250 0.000 0.000 0.349 0:029 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 22 0.7333 0.000 0.000 0.538 0.029 . . 0.7417 . 0.000 0.000 0.752 0.029 0.7500 0.000 0.000 0.989 0.029 0.7583 0.000 0.000 1.246 0029 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 23 Sand Filter 5 Bottom Length: 4.00 ft. Bottom Width: 4.00 ft. Depth: 0.75 ft: Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0 To 1 Side slope 4: 0 To. 1 Filtration:On Hydraulic conductivity:' ... 24.82 Depth of filter medium:1..8 Total Volume. Infiltrated (ac-ft.):16.679 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 1.005 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 17.683.. Percent Infiltrated: 94:32 Total Precip Applied to Facility:0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height 0.:7 ft. Riser Diameter:100 in. Element Flows To: . Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic:Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.): Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.000 0.000: 0.000 0.000 0.0083 .:: . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:009 0.0167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.0250 0.000 0.000 0.000: 0.009 0.0333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.0417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.0500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.0583 0.000 0.000. 0.000 0.009 0.0667 0.000 . 0.000 . 0.000 0.009 . 0.0750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.0833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.0917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0:1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.1083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0009 0.11.67 0.000 0.000 0:000 0.009 . 0.1250 0.000 : 0.000 • 0.000 0.009 : 0.1333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.1417 • 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.1500 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 .: 0.010 : :: 0.1583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.1667 0..000 0.000 0.000 0.01.0 0.1750 0.000 0.000 0.000. 0.010 0.1833 . 0.000 . 0.000. . 0.000. : . 0.010 0:1917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2000 . . : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:010 0.2083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0:2167 0.000 : 0.000: 0.000 0.010 0:2250 0.000 0.000: 0.000 0.010 0.2333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 Sartori Filters 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 24 0.2500 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 . 0.010 . 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2667 : : : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:010 0:2833 .. 0.000 0.00.0. . 0:000.: 0.010 _.. . 0:2917 0.000 • 0.000 0.000 : • 0.010 0.3000 0.000 0.000 0.000' 0.010 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:010 0.3167 0.000 : 0.000 0:000: . 0.010 ::: :. 0:3250 0.000 - 0.000: 0.000 0.010 0.3333 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:010 0.3417 • 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3500 0.000 0.000: • 0.000:: 0.011. .: 0.3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:0.11 0.3833 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3917. 0.000 0.00.0 . 0.000. 0.011 0.4000 0.000 0:000 0.000 1011 0.4083 0.000 0.000. 0.000 .. 0.011. . . 0.4167 - 0.000 :: 0.000. 0.000 0.011 : 0.4250 . . . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:011 0.4417 0.000 0.000. . 0:000 . . 0.011 0.4500 : 0.000. 0.000: 1 0.000 0.011 0.4583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:01:1 0.4750 . 0.000 0.00.0 : 0.000.: . .. 0.011 .. 0.4833 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.011 0.4917 :.:: . 0.000 0.000 0.000. . 0:01.1 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:011 0.5083 0.000 : 0.000 0:000.: 0.011 0:5167 0.000 0.000 ' 0.000 0.011 0.5250 0..000 0.000 0.000 0:011 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:011 0.5417 0.000 :. 0.000: 0.000 :: : 0.012 :: : 0.5500 0.000 0.000: 0.000 0.012 0.5583 0.000 E 0.000 0.000 0:012 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:012 0.5750 ' 0.000 0.00.0 0.000. 0.012 0.5833 . 0.000.0.000 0.000. 0.012 0.5917 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:012 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6083 0.000 .: 0.000 0.000H 0.012 : 0.6167 0.000 - . .. 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:01.2 0.6333 0.000 0.00.0 . 0:000 . 0.012 0.6417 0.000. • 0.000 0.000 0.012 : 0.6500 . . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:012 0.6667 0.000 . 0.000. . 0:000 :: : 0.012 0:6750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012' 0.6833 . . 0.000 0.000 0.000 ' 0.01.2 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.7000 0.000 0.000 0.000.. 0.012 0.7083 0.000 0.000 ' 0.067 0.012 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 ' 0:012 0.7250 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.012 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 25 0.7333 0.000 0.000. 0.538 0.012 . 0.7417 0.000 0.000 0.752 0.013 0.7500 0.000 0.000 0.989 0.01.3 0.7583 0.000 0.000 1.246 0013 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 26 Sand. Filter 6 Bottom Length: • 6.00 ft. Bottom Width: : 8.00 ft. Depth:0.75 ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2:0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0:To 1 . Side slope :4 0 To 1 Filtration On Hydraulic conductivity:24.82 Depth of filter medium:1:8. Total Volume. Infiltrated (ac-ft.):60.:643 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.):.5.807 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 66.45 Percent Infiltrated:9126 Total Precip Applied to Facility:0 Total Evap From Facility: : 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height 0:7 ft. Riser Diameter . . . . 100 in. Element Flows To::':" Outlet 1 - . Outlet 2 . Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) . Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs);. .: 0:0000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0083 •:: 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.0167 0.001 0.000 0.000 . 0:027 0:0250 : 0.001 0.000 •. 0.000::: 0.028. 0:0333 0.001 0.000 0.000 : 0.028 0.0417 0.001 0:000 0.000 0:028 0.0500 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.0583 0.001 0.000 .: 0.000.. 0.028.1:. 0.0667.. 0.001 0.000 . 0.000. 0.028 :. 0.0750 0.001 0:000 0.000 0,028 0.0833 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.0917 0.001 0.00:0 0.000 0.02 9 0.1000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.1083 0..001 0.000 0.000 0 029 0.11.67 0.00.1 0.000. . 0.000 .. . 0.029 0.1250 0.001 0.000 0.000 : 0:029 0.1333 0.001 0..000 0.000 0.029 0.1417 0.001 0.000 0.000 0:029 0.1500 . 0.001 . 0.000 : .0:000 . 0.029 0.1583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.030 . 0.1667 0..001 0.000 0.000 0 030 0.1750 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 030 0.1.833 0.001 0.000 _ 0.000. . 0.030 : : : 0:1917 0.001 0.000' 0.000 0.030 0.2000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0:030 0.2083 0.001 0.000 0.000 0:030 0.21:67 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.030 .. 0.2250 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.2333 0.001 0.000 0.000 0:031 0.2417 0.001 0.000 0.000 0:031 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 27 0.2500 0.001 0.000 0.000 . 0.031 0.2583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.2667 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.2750 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.2833 0.001 . 0.000. . 0.000. : 0.031 . .. 0.2917 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3083 0.001 0.000 0.000 0032 0.3167 0.001 0.000 0.000:: 0.032 ..: 0.3250 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3333 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3417 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3500 0.001 0.000: 0.000.. 0.032 0.3583. 0.001.0.000 0.000 0.033 0.3667 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.3750 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.3833 0.001 0.000: 0.000 0.033 : 0.3917 0.001.0.000 0.000. 0.033 0.4000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.4083 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.4167 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4250 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4333 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4417 0.00.1 . 0.000 0.000 . 0.034 . . 0.4500 0.001 0.000: . 0.000 0.034 0.4583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4667 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4750 0.001 . . 0.000: : .0.000 . 0.034 .: 0.4833 0.001 0.000. 0.000 0.035 0.4917 0.001 0.000 ' . .: 0.000 ' 0.035 0.5000 0.001 . 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5083 0.001 : 0.000 0.000 : 0.035 0.5167 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5250 .: 0.001 0.000 0.000 - ' . : 0.035 0.5333 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5417 0.001 0.000 0.000. : 0.035. :: 0.5500 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.5583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.5667 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.5750 0.001 0.000 0.000 : 0.036 . 0.5833. 0.001.0.00.0 . 0.000 0.036 0.5917 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.6000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.6083 0.001 0.000 0.000 = 0.036 0.6167 . . 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6250 0.001 0:000 0.000 0:037 0.6333 0.001 . 0.00.0 0.000 .. 0.037 0.6417 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6500 0.001 0.000 0.000 ' 0.037 0.6583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6667 0.001 0.000 : 0.000 0.037 0.6750 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6833 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.6917 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.7000 0.001 0.000: 0.000 0.038 0.7083 0.001 0.000 0.067 0.038 0.7167 0.001 0.000 0.190 0.038 0.7250 0.001 0.000 0.349 0.038 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 28 0.7333 0.00.1 0.000 0.538 . 0.038 0.7417 0.001 . 0.000 :. 0.752 : . . 0.038 0.7500 0.001 0.000 0.989 0.039 0.7583 0.001 0.000 1.246 0.039 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 29 Sand. Filter 7 Bottom Length: 4.00 ft. Bottom Width: . 4.00 ft. Depth: 0.75 ft. Side slope 1 : 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: - 0 :To. 1 Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Filtration On Hydraulic con uctMVity: 24.82 Depth of filter medium:1.8.: Total Volume. Infiltrated (ac-ft.):16.:673 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 1 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): . 17.673 . Percent Infiltrated: 94.34 Total Precip Applied to Facility: • 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 0.7 ft. Riser Diameter: 100 in. Element Flows To:: : Outlet 1' : -_ .Outlet_2 Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0:0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 : 0.0083 :1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.0167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:009 0.0250 0.000 .. : 0.000: 0.000 :: • 0.009. : 0.0333 ' 0.000 0.000. 0.000 0.009 0.0417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 009 0.0500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0.09 0:0583 0.000 0.000 0.00.0 0.009 0:0667 0.000 0.00.0 0.000 0.009 0.0750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:009 0.0833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.0917 0.000 :: 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.1000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.1083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:009 0.11.67 0.000 0.00.0 . 0.000 . 0.009 0.1250 : 0.000. : • 0.000 0.000 : 0.009 0.1333 0.000 • 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.1417 :'0.000 0.000 0.000 0:009 0.1500 0.000 : . • ' 0.000 . 0.000 .. 0.010 :. 0.1583 0.000 0.000: 0.000 ' ' ' 0.010 0.1667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01.0 0.1750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:010 0.1833 . ' 0.000 0.000 : 0.000 : . 0.010 : . 0.1917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2000 • .: . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:010 0.2167 0.000 0.000: 0.000 : 0.010 0.2250 0.000 0.000 ' 0.000 . 0.010 0.2333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 Sartori Filters 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 30 0.2500 0.000 0.000: : 0.000.. 0.010 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:01.0 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2833 .. 0.000 .0.00.0 0.000.: : . 0.010 :.. 0:2917 0.000 0.000. 0.000 • 0.010 0.3000 ' :.: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:01.0 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 r 0.010 0.31.67 0.000 0.000 0.000:: 0.010 0:3250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3333 0.000 0:000 0.0.00 0:010 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:010 0;3500 0.000 0.000 0.000::0.011. . : 0:3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3667 I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0011 0.3750 0:000 0.000 0.000 0:011 0.3833 0.000 0.000: 0.00.0H 0.011 : 0.3917.. 0.000.0.000 0.000. 0.011 0.4000 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:011 0.4083 0.000 0.000 0.00.0 0.011. 0.4167 0.000 0.000: 0.000 : : 0.011. 0.4250 . . .. . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4333 0.000 0:000 0.000 001:1 0.4417 0.000 0.00.0. 0:000 0.011 . 0.4500 0.000 0.000: •: 0.000 0.011 0.4583 ' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:01.1 0.4750 . 0.000 . . 0.000: : 0.000.: : 0.011 :.: 0.4833 0.000 ' 0.000: 0.000 0.011 0.4917 :.: : 0.000 0.000 0.000" 0:01.1 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:011 0.5083 - 0.000 0.000 0:000 0.011 : .. 0.5167 0.000 0.000: ' '0.000 : • 0.011 0.5250 0..000, 0:000 0.000 H 0:011 0.5333 ' ' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:011 0.5417 0.000 :. : 0.000. 0,000.: 0.012. : 0.5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5583 0.000 0.000 r 0.000 0:012 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:012 0.5750 0.000 0.000, 0.000:: 0.012 0:5833.: 0.000 0.00.0 0.000. 0.012 0.5917 0.000 0:000 0.000 0:012 0.6000 0.000 0.000. 0.000 . 0.012 0,6083 0.000 • 0.000: 0.000' : 0.012 0.6167 . . 0.000 0.000' 0.000 ... .. 0.012 0.6250 0:000 0.000 0.0:00 0:012 0.6333 0.000 0.00.0. 0.000 .. . 0 012 . . 0:6417 0.000 :: 0.000 0.000 : . 0.012 0.6500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:012 0.6667 0.000 : 0.000 0:000 : . 0.012 0:6750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:012 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:012 0.7000 0.000 0.000 0.000.:: : ' 0.012 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 : 0.012 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 0:01.2 0.7250 ' ' 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.012 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 31 0.7333 0.000 0.000. . 0.538 .. 0.012 0.7417 . 0.000 0.000 0.752 : 0.013 0.7500 0.000 0.000 0.989 0.01.3 0.7583 0.000 0.000 1.246 0013 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 32 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 34 Mitigated Schematic am! FILT : and SI 1 Filter 1 i . :ac Sand f• '•• LiallialFilter 2 ac FILTE Sandi 11= 3SI 1 Filter'; 3 ac FILT : Sand 4SI LriFilter- 4 9 _34 - c lowts FILT : Sand 5S1 Filter 5 4 - c um. FILT : * Sand' 6S1 CT1Filter 6 50- c rep 74. and MiL ' 1 Filter 7 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:42 AM Page 36 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright© by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2016; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51:43 AM Page 56 rici iai7104,1 ,. TDA 3 r" 12j1 1111 Rai 4 EIWllltl M Io, I1 E, w f,,.,/-.,, t. . ,_:::._:_. .. I=lii iM11a. 1. if,1.M1.1R1.'1u rN. a k .` 1• 111 / ti 0- Eno e ram ; I_ y MN . E MINI Ea MI 11= D... E.`JE min I r. t I 1 or--i-- -, AM 'iI. u- PROJECT SITE ix ws iTDA1 1 > sM -- ' •N f" . NE EN 'z M si ,' •Skiin lm' =PI !!El y s. t ill 11 ducati.'1 yen er PIO ' affl/—, ' ME NM D 1. —f Ell Ell MI 2*• Mill • z iiirli ,, w mic v him rev i, milalp ... s : TDA2 = ' i DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS NOT TO SCALE N 4)' ' 120 6th Avenue, Suite 1620, Mr NMISeattle,WA98101 SARTORI ELEMENTARY 206.267.2425 TEL A-13 AHBL 206.267.2429 FAX DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS City of Renton74 Sensitive AreasLIM Uah FORM rh VJ I 7SE 12ffh St UJ now SW 7th St 5 5 loom gr CD co Rd 61 SW 43rd St qarr 6-4 1101 LU Miles Information Technology' G|G Erosion Hazard4NN .mapauppo .,nen nvva gov m n,m mm ~UF 0 Printed on: 11/12/2014 Renton City Limits Data Sources: City of Renton, King County n@ Education U 4 This document ioa graphic representation, not guaranteed Fire Station Highhosurveyaoounac and ia based on the best informeUon Valley n nUK no available as of the dote shown. This map is intended for 1 / Citydiup|eypurpooeuon| Coordinate System:xmo /w*u*aewmauyPmno Washington North Fo"o4em/Feet City ofProjection:LambertLomxortConformal Conic Datum:North American /ouo*nnw 011111111Wiikat e. gtAfF r . ji f I. j Ewca 1/C', . , ro, r i ) 'f: ' ' :.' V r; - 7 1-----T-'' Cityof Renton 1 Q: _ . , .. *- Sensitive AreasPI t." : , I, 4 ;-- A i;: tir• 4. a 0, v i 7 C 7:-.'%- i, ham* •. at A. •0 pealaa L., e... , vtillSg. 1,.‘.. Lii______'T— 11*- n. 4. 11411/ ir% /aft .• .• - iMa k. K U1 CL4, m z.g. 4 yam _ .. IA/ F I a — F glst 53 j S 114th 1 fiX o a 1 11' 1. cir• 14.N. rIR ,`"A..)' N4thSt oiol. [ ,` J NE4thSt`- 40 i „.1c -...*---.1;,..... I.t , 4144 r CI Vie f•• 7 f s 3m sr ¢l i,s 3 A 4.1 zit IA 1ASW7thSt ,.' e. 1 W\ s m.,. a 014, S h St tr S a 2,,, , y ` d Al ` f 1 T...11l S11V 16th t,, i 1, / Q RA d l'; 0 1 I Nor,SE Jones`Rd V i Ir F e a VI f'.+ -- sytstst i Tyr.. a'k. En E16emSt Wsi# l 34th 3t m j I' s ' IiiO4/..1• t i I oc F. O gi 1 E7 L 11 SW 41st t 4 EI T r lr'.: y 1 m I \ q + k yam jm 1...,..\\. 1 Ns., i f° T{`. 77Jt \S L. 4:::...—.. 43rd Sf ' At 0 I i . sir• r $.• - 1 y. •C vA r. SCarrR i 4 f .. F s A4 3 fit m r Y f• ` t tr,' I. 47 rl hsilii:\,, i1 1i y 1 Q I tt ytl _ F' is Z h Le, 0 0.25 0.5 sea(‘' x 1 1 1 PM1 es 1 I 1 1 Information Technology- GIS Steep Slopes mapsupport@rentonwa.gov Percent RanPrintedon: 11/12/2014 eaRentonCityLimitsg Data Sources: City of Renton, King County pi Education 15% & <=25% This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed Fire Station 25% & <=40% to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information Valley Medical Center 40% & <=90% available as of the date shown. This map is intended for A-1 5Citydisplaypurposesonly. S >90% Coordinate System:NAD 1983 HARN StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet City ofProjection:Lambert Conformal Conic r ti CY Datum:North American 1983 HARN J r F r 414 vt, F City of Renton ia '4 1 , 1 A s Sensitive Areas w 7- Nt. , ! 1 : ii, , . 'Nr_ L Tr N, 4 - .1 1 r a imishk 41 C — 4--—1--- ;)-- v. A. i '-' 6 p..—• Al 9 0, , 1, - T lt , iv -I g" Ar a w r 1 Q Pm s1 z 2 iI X.I 1 [l..' O m S 124th Sl m m, riS o a E y •g S Z.h Ai..z Z SE 124h St rn7N 4th St d fo 4. NE 4th Sf'T i 1 1 1r.o,l,wa r1 S 133rd St j 2naSt N i" 1,, I rJ ' 4If t i 3 2,70, 3 11)1,4/Y.- - - ..14.-..-: f l itr." , 1":"ii.i. i____ ir iL, 13- _ H 111A4Ult L..- T.-"4---- i : 1 A Its I i 10 SW ern srimi m m 7 I S)th Sty Ir v 4/ a4 t ii 1;\,-i -'‘r(ki,„ c.._ __,_,_ 5 sw lah• ¢ .' 0. I , • •- i 1 rn SE Jo es Rd 5 • k i 1. OINNik•.— j jog.ii1J1, 7_srIf0 cr w fie rsatn st t1 m i 1 y j m li -NA Cr'l ___ I f i- ,1- 1 34th.t > Q o o 1 N 1 a Vic' t x art.Rd 0. SW 41sr SE 1 tn H I mj t 1- . SW 43rd St c I - LE 183rd4, m Pii to w m Z r 1 e a t,Tv1 0 0. 0.5 zobm I 1 1 I I'• Al______ i ICII____ sE Iles.dill Information Technology- GIS Landslide Hazard mapsupport@rentonwa.gov Printed on: 11/12/2014 f 1a SeverityRentonCityLimits Data Sources: City of Renton, King County Education Very High s1, High This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed Fire Station A-1 6 to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information Moderate Valley Medical Centeravailableasofthedateshown. This map is intended for Unclassified City display purposes only. Coordinate System:NAD 1983 HARN StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet City ofProjection:Lambert Conformal Conic r calmDatum:North American 1983 HARN NEWCASTLE Coal Creek Park Bef/eV,. SE 72ND ST 9y island 4, -f i l. Mercer w 'll 1 E AC, -9QG 1 `.- I j f Lake Boren I 4 1 S ly i I = 1 I 1.Newcastle I y I 1 j Y Cougar Mountain Lake Washington 4 1...-- 1 EL 1 May Creek May Creek Park l i I''I t 1 i Z t I. f I f l• 4 1 ! i F l C1 I-1•1 L-•— I O iqLopNEllI ti. r 9/ w SUNSET 0 •• I . e. i \, 11 NE I2TH ST uI i. 1),, ti oN f Nor sT tf Highlands w wr L- Ir r--:{ N 8T ST Z j Lt4 ToO NE7TH S1 w z Q W -- --I West Hill r-.1' I l F W z 0 w I z 4 S 128TH ST m 4 4`' 1 11.1 2 6c-! Z CC 2 W zr I' 3RD j •` ..... NE4 'ST C I 'Ps. Si.D 4 IN, yV s_, 4",/ R NE 2ND ST p East P1atQa71 LS-2/vD ST ' . , • aa417. CVD7. i VA4(EyH' O Maplewood Commuty ark.-..-• 1 - P, z \\•,.-.., Le,1-1) I....S". Black RideFRiparian Fares W y 2 I Cedar River -. I_° SW 7TH ST k 1 t -—- - 1 j S" i i Li ' t WAY R: , y W CRADy z Arm: E `. .I I, i- 3 405 ,.-- -gr.IV m SE Cedar River Natural Zone fi c 7 - . r DNES R Dv I, 4 z G I S< y I Valley Lu I 1 Q I I - -- 1. -- McGarvey Open Space SE 164TH STi sPrinYbrookcreek a SE 164TH ST i- w Benson w J „. ..,- cr 1 W I J t SE 168TH ST ' I •_, j t 4 Ill j I SW 41 ST ST i 43RD ST 1 ti Cek Park and Trail co C• o I `I 17; r / CC SE 183Rp Ill' 0 l I I-- 2 r i1pr, I Ken t r ` ~ SE 192ND ST j 4 1- I I. L., CO I iIIoungs i__ 4 I_ Y anther Lake Public Works-Surface Water Utility co o Print Date:11/05/2012 r Data Sources:City of Renton,FEMA FIRM revised May 16,1995. Cedar River flood hazard area updated with FEMA Cedar River Legend LOMR(Case No.06-10-B569P)approved December 4,2006. Effective FEMA Flood I Renton City Limits This document is a graphic representation,not guaranteed t-- to survey accuracy,and is based on the best information Zone AE,A,AH,AO-Regulatory available as of the date shown. This map is intended for City display purposes only. Zone X-Non Regulatory Insurance Rate Mapseam enton ®0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I I I I I I I I Tubbs\Curl,,Ihparuncnt A-17 Soil Map—King County Area,Washington 3 N 560090 560120 560150 560180 560210 560240 47.29'19'N 47°29 19"N SITE NM IISIIlitimilw I1 III o,- N 4th St-- Al 11UI I,I! h IIIIIII_, L• ... A- i. y ^ i It 1 is a - I.f. Tr .:' ' ' ape 7 Zia 1r 1 a ` i o 1k .!I.rogur r_i : a abirricilare jrj r 1 / ,, , 0 IN LOA Vj all N tyy s r sue' ' § i s Intl 1l , wn III I fie II-tiII N.3rd'St su 4 47.29'11'N 47°29'11'N 560090 560120 560150 560180 9H1710 560240 3 3 A b Map Scale:1:1,180 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet ti Metes N 0 15 30 60 90 FeetA ° 5°l00 200 3°°A-18Mapprojection:Web Merohx Corner coordinates:WGS84 Fdge tics:UTM Zone lON WG584 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/30/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—King County Area,Washington MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(A01) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Area of Interest(AOI) StonyS pot Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soils al Very Stony Spot Soil Map Unit Polygons Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause 7 Wet Spot misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line Soil Map Unit Lines placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting p Other I soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.Soil Map Unit Points Special Line Features Special Point Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map V Blowout Water Features measurements. Streams and Canals El Borrow Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Transportation Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.govClaySpot Rails Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) Closed Depression N Interstate Highways Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator X Gravel Pit US Routes projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Gravelly Spot Major Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more accurate I, Landfill Local Roads calculations of distance or area are required. Lava Flow Background This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s)listed below. Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area: King County Area,Washington Survey Area Data: Version 11,Sep 14,2015 Miscellaneous Water Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000 O Perennial Water or larger. Rock Outcrop Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 31,2013—Oct 6, 2013 Saline Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Sandy Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Severely Eroded Spot imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting Sinkhole of map unit boundaries may be evident. Slide or Slip oa Sodic Spot USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/30/2016 Cor--rva 1 SPNIce Natir^nl Ce^^sra+^-"So'` irve••Pa 2 o" Soil Map—King County Area,Washington Map Unit Legend: King CountQQArea,Washington(WA633) .. •. Map Unit Symbol: • • Map Unit Name Acres•in AO1 Percent of AOI Ur Urban land. 6.8. 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 6.8 100.0% . A-18 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/30/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 ir 41JIUT ) Citit o en oniSensitive.• ii/ e. I i io,1 Areas4,. r 4r_.1 1 AE1111:116 iim IliI kb am— 1 o m rir..r Qft_r.Oh N linm . ..-, • . pi; IOW f 1111111 A j 1111 17140 e J- P"'iluft., 6\ Iro . e 11iipr n ssa.uah s fli littranalt kb. v 14 Cth., 4:444*-*Ita 4 II E I ® 3 i i fitiarimPlil 0 % Omik AilII— I,, N%%be. mg IIImoeEA .Ili ill MO Fir ac ' IIIIH--101, 11111 a 1 - 2 m RwyLiloVitrivarego S 124th` MI 71m m. J a oUll Il LS Mil 1111 6k. 14 ilir..r`: . I. a ' t I Mirya 1611Wrif 3rd• 12 , t L t 8 E F 1 auvm1i 4.1 . -ii 1 416INIIve,_! 1,i*p.w. v. I,-.simos mr f . - - - •-. - I. 1rh si t 9.... 1. a2vP!. . 1. SW 7th St rr. s. dill,W.016116.- '0111-, 4' iiiiii&INEMIE ,' 'VANN- 7-' ' I.! i i I ' ti ilik ' 11 v• OP. r; N_,A.,..c- cc.' 11N.illgth, • I- F t` A, bylille ••C,'^ SE Jo l es'a'kik!`, iimD' 1 F G x= d 1 .,.jr e,,•, r ,` - 1..r• V. ri.r'4rlookIN tff„;41Ziast. !till,:, J MIL ' 1 E!:t RUM lair J-- - O.lifter IN NIIILTA: wk to id a 1\ tita/ITt i /kit l'' r---••`..; Lip .'4%, __ a. •; .. r. .`: _ .. M! _ fit - .a ., ---its r•( ''-I _ ' V m ...•W41stSt .Iii Get It' y in 18r' .l SW 43rd St. ® rd S, I1i!o Nit p41,14---- .7 v 114 a N.lin mil MINIII cur: e s3id. 0109re/1r NI 4, 4e, u.t ,- a, - I .il, 7: cre:' 1.„ . i M Ei I ... .ii I1 i IN . MIIII 11111..1-.r y r iia • : a - Mil 111.111r Im 0 SE2 a`n ,1 files Information Technology- GIS. ' CO in Hazards mapsupport@rentonwa.gov Coal.Minea Ha Printed on: 11/12/2014 spa SeverityRentonCityLimits Data Sources: City of Renton, King County . A Education INGHIGH This document is a graphic representation, notguaranteed F Fire StationPP re MODERATE • to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information II MedicalIII • VaValley Center available.as'of the date shown: This map is intended for UNCLASSIFIED . .•.. A-19 City display purposes only. Coordinate System:NAD 1983 HARN StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic City of Datum:North American 1983 HARN 4 '.`, • 1' 011i OH B L www.ahbl.com TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES 2215 Nardi 30th Street 1200 6th Avenue 827 West First Avenue 9825 Sandifur Parkway Suite 300 Suite 1620 Suite 301 Suite A Tacoma,WA 98403-3350 Seattle,WA 98101-3117 Spokane,WA 99201-0518 Pasco,WA 99301-6738 253.383.2422 TEt 206.267.2425 TEL 509.252.5019 TEL 509.380.5883 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX 206.267.2429 FAX 509.315.8862 FAX 509.380.5885 FAX associated earth sciences incorporated i/ 1, , iv, t,fi. r' rI;1 ', 1 `•° r Ni', 1 y - .$& v++r e f p r, 2 Y K f l 4Y AAr c ,c+ram v. • , r------- k ‘. ,,i\A t....,:k, 4,4:li%. 4,....., f_ k 41 a .. ems+ t `- .:, , k\ ' ' s \'i‘ .klii ,,N e f l' . eta y_' It$., 1. !' 4.44 I\ ''. ',4 i :.aC i r-. j./!;' 1i.. • yam N i ilk' i i 1 0 1 e 1 .. nrii......f4,1,",,,g„- .AIL • . .. 1 ;:AS N., i 1 v 1 1ii,\ itt.i ''' i I N \ ,' \ 10 1C w 11 jjt ‘,i\ , I 1,\ '') •a yS . Flib11. \ lib '` ,r ` to 111\ ;', t y kmigto Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington Prepared For: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT Project No. KE150719A August 4, 2016 tr '4 ' t Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. zta 4, 911 5th Avenue14,..... _,ivt1ji +t.Kirkland, WA 98033 P (425) 827 7701 f q . ` r F (425) 827 5424 associated earth sciences i n. c o r p o _r a: t e, d August 4, 2016.: Project No. KE150719A: :. Renton.School District . 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178-4830 Attention: Mr. Rick:Stracke Executive Director Facilities and Operations Subject: Subsurface.Exploration,Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical.Engineering Report Sartori Education Center 331 Garden Avenue North i.. .. Renton,Washington Dear Mr.Stracke: We :are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above-referenced report: This report summarizes the results::of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard,',and: geotechnical; engineering studies and offers. recommendations for the design-.and development :of:the proposed project: We should be allowed to review the recommendations presented in this report and modify them,_if needed, once final project plans have been formulated: We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this: report will aid in the successful completion:of your project; : If you should have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland,Washington r Kurt D. Merriman,P:E. . .. . . . Senior Principal Engineer KDM/P:c.: KE150719A3 Projects\20150719\KE\WP Kirkland Office 1911 Fifth Avenue I Kirkland,WA 98033 P 1425:827.7701 FI 425.827.5424: Everett Office l 2911%Hewitt Avenue,Suite 2 I Everett,WA 98201 P 1425.259.0522 F 1425.827.5424 Tacoma Office 11552 Commerce Street,Suite 102 I Tacoma,WA 98402 P 1253;722.2992 F 1253.722.'2993 www.aesgeo:com SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington Prepared for: Renton School District 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178-4830 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 9115th Avenue Kirkland, Washington 98033 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 August 4, 2016 Project No. KE150719A Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering study for the Sartori Education Center located at 331 Garden Avenue North in Renton, Washington. The site location is presented on Figure 1, "Vicinity Map." The existing building locations and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the "Site and Explorations," Figure 2. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the aforementioned project. The study included drilling eight test borings and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and ground water conditions. Geologic hazard evaluations and engineering studies were also conducted to determine suitable geologic hazard mitigation techniques, the type of suitable pile foundation, pile design recommendations, anticipated settlements, floor support recommendations, and site preparation ,and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers geologic hazard mitigation and development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Rick Stracke of the Renton School District No. 403 (District) by means of a signed Renton School District Purchase Order PO#2011500071). Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter dated January 8, 2016. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the District and its agents for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KElWP Page 1 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on discussions with the design team. The project site is that of the existing Sartori Education Center (King County Parcel No. 756460-0170), located at 331 Garden Avenue North, and 13 adjacent parcels in Renton, Washington. These combined properties make up the subject site. The parcels encompass the city block bounded by Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North on the west and east, respectively, and by North 3rd Street and North 4th Street on the south and north, respectively. The existing Sartori Education Center parcel include's a two-story brick building built in 1929 located near the southeast corner of the parcel, a paved parking area to the west, a large open lawn to the north, and smaller lawn areas on the east and south. A paved, locked bus parking area is located in the southwest corner of the parcel. The 13 additional parcels front along Park Avenue North and North 3rd Street. Of these 13 parcels, 11 are occupied by small, single-family homes built between 1915 and 1955. Gravel/asphalt/concrete driveways and small lawns also occupy these parcels. One of the 13 parcels (722400-0600) is owned by the District, is entirely paved by asphalt, and provides access to Sartori Education Center from Park Avenue North. The last of the 13 parcels 722400-0580) is located on the southwest corner of the city block and contains a small coffee shack and a separate commercial structure. With the exception of the structures, the parcel is entirely paved in asphalt. Site topography across the city block is relatively flat. To our understanding, the proposed project will consist of removal of the existing structures on the 14 parcels and construction of the new Elementary School #15 and associated structures such as parking and outbuildings. 'The type, size, and location of the new school on the parcel has not yet been determined. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included drilling eight exploration borings with a track-mounted drill rig to gain subsurface information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix to this report. The depths indicated on the boring logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the eight exploration borings completed for this study. The number, type, locations, and depths of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719lKElWP Page 2 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions are sometimes present due to the random nature of deposition .and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Borings The exploration borings were completed by advancing an 8-inch outside-diameter, hollow-stem auger with a trailer-mounted drill rig to depths ranging from 60 to 90 feet. Below the water table, the borings were successfully completed with little or no heaving conditions with bentonite mud stabilization drilling techniques. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 5-foot-depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an engineer from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard, 2-inch outside-diameter, split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is'known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split-barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of selected applicable geologic literature. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, interpolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719IKEIWP Page 3 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. 4.1 Stratigraphy Sod/Topsoil Sod and organic-rich topsoil were generally encountered in the non-paved areas of the site to depths between 6 and 8 inches below ground surface. Sod and topsoil should be removed from below construction areas prior to site development. Fill/Modified Ground Man-placed fill was not encountered in the explorations completed for this study. However, fill is expected in unexplored areas of the site, such as the area surrounding and under existing paved areas, structures, and in the existing underground utility trenches. Fill is typically loose to medium dense and can contain high percentages of silt or deleterious material. Due to their variable density and content, existing fill soils are not suitable for foundation support. Quaternary Alluvium—Cedar River Sediments encountered beneath asphalt and sod/topsoil generally consisted of bedded sandy gravel, clean sand, silty sand, clayey and lean silt with occasional lenses of peat and other organics scattered throughout the soil column. We interpret these sediments to be representative of recent alluvium deposited in former channels of the Cedar River. The alluvium extends beyond the depth of our deepest exploration (91.5 feet). The sediments appear to have been deposited in four separate "fining-upwards" packages, as shown on Figure 3, "Geologic Cross Section A-A'." Each depositional package contains gravel or sandy gravel at or near the bottom, with sediments becoming more fine-grained as you move up in the package, transitioning from gravels, to predominantly sands, and then silts/clays with peat lenses near the top. Each silt/clay bed is capped by gravels which mark the bottom of the next, younger depositional package. In general, the silt/clay and sand alluvium encountered in our explorations is loose/soft to medium dense. Starting at roughly 40 to 45 feet in explorations across the site, the alluvium consists primarily of gravels and occurs in a dense condition. These gravels extend to a depth of about 60 feet in most borings and are underlain by silt/clay of an older depositional package. In borings EB-7 and EB-8, the dense gravel zone was shallower, extending between 40 and 50 feet. Although we believe the blow counts in this zone may be overstated due to gravels, these sediments will provide end bearing capacity for a deep foundation system. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719IKElWP Page 4 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions The saturated soil in which "N" values do not exceed about 25 has a high potential for liquefaction-induced settlement. This roughly corresponds to sediments between depths of 9 and 30 feet. In addition, the abundant layers of very soft clayey and lean silt are subject to consolidation settlement under the new building loads. Therefore, structures will require deep pile foundations for support. In general, the soil where moisture content is within the compactable range is considered suitable for reuse as structural fill. It should be noted that where soils are above their optimum moisture content for compaction, their reuse as structural fill during all but the driest times of the year will be difficult. Existing alluvial soil was observed to contain silt and is considered moisture-sensitive. With appropriate remedial treatment, the soil, where moisture content is within the compactable range, may be considered suitable for support of slab-on-grade floors, hardscape, and paving. 4.2 Geologic Mapping Review of the regional geologic map titled Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965), indicates that the area of the subject site is underlain by modified land with fill (afm) and recent alluvium associated with the nearby Cedar River (Qac). Our interpretation of the sediments encountered at the subject site is in general agreement with the regional geologic map. 4.3 Hydrology Ground water was encountered between depths of approximately 9 to 14 feet across the site. This depth corresponds roughly to the water level in the nearby Cedar River. However, ground water depths reported during drilling may not represent stabilized ground water elevations that would be recorded in a properly constructed monitoring well. Ground water encountered in our explorations represents the regional unconfined ground water aquifer within the Renton basin. Ground water may be encountered in excavations that penetrate into the underlying alluvial soils. To our knowledge, no deep cuts are planned that will intersect the regional ground water aquifer. If such cuts will be made, significant ground water dewatering operations will be necessary. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time of year,variations in rainfall, and adjacent river levels. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719IKEIWP Page 5 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington• Geologic Hazards and Mitigations II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to seismic, landslide, and erosion hazards, including sediment transport. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low. 6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Sound Lowland with great regularity. Most of these events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the most recent 6.8-magnitude event on February 28, 2001 near Olympia Washington; the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. Evaluation of return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within a given 20-year period. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture The nearest known fault trace to the project site is the Seattle Fault, located approximately 5 miles to the north. Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; e.g., Johnson et al., 1994, Origin and Evolution of the Seattle Fault and Seattle Basin, Washington, Geology, v. 22, pp. 71-74; and Johnson et al., 1999, Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and Central Puget Sound Washington — Implications for Earthquake Hazards, Geological Society of America Bulletin, July 1999, v. 111, n. 7, pp. 1042-1053) have provided evidence of surficial ground rupture along a northern splay of the Seattle Fault. The recognition of this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the studies still ongoing. According to the USGS studies, the latest movement of this fault.was about 1,100 years ago when about 20 feet of surficial displacement took place. This displacement can presently be seen in the August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projectsk201507191KEtWP Page 6 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations form of raised, wave-cut beach terraces along Alki Point in West Seattle and Restoration Point at the south end of Bainbridge Island. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of several thousand years. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and depth of loose/soft alluvium present within the site boundaries, the potential for surficial ground rupture is considered to be low during the expected life of the proposed structure. 6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat to gently sloping, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low._ 6.3 Liquefaction We performed a liquefaction hazard analysis for this site in accordance with guidelines published in Seed & Idriss, 1982; Seed, et al., 1985; and Kramer, 1996. Our liquefaction analysis was completed with the aid of LiquefyPro computer software Version 5 by CivilTech Corporation. Liquefaction occurs when vibration or ground shaking associated with moderate to large earthquakes (generally in excess of Richter magnitude 6) results in loss of internal strength in certain types of soil deposits. These deposits generally consist of loose to medium dense sand or silty sand that is saturated (e.g., below the water table). Loss of soil strength can result in consolidation and/or lateral spreading of the affected deposit with accompanying surface subsidence and/or heaving.. The liquefaction potential is dependent on several site-specific factors, such as soil grain size, density (modified to standardize field-obtained values), site geometry, static stresses, level of ground acceleration considered, and duration of the event. The earthquake parameters a magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring directly beneath the site with a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.6g) used in our liquefaction analysis are in accordance with the required parameters set forth in the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our exploration borings EB-1 through EB-8, the estimated amount of liquefaction-induced settlement, through the depths explored, ranges from about 5 to 8 inches during a design-level event. It should be understood that several soil properties used in the liquefaction analysis are estimated based on published data and engineering judgment. The settlement predicted is based on a very large, rare seismic event. Settlement during a smaller, historically typical event will likely be less. It should also be understood that the alluvium encountered in our explorations extends below the depths explored. It is current practice to neglect the effects of liquefaction below a depth of about 80 feet. Therefore, these settlement estimates should be considered approximate and "worst- case scenarios" for the code-required seismic event. In addition to liquefaction settlement, the August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719IKEIWP Page 7 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations site soils are also subject to consolidation settlement under the new static building loads independent of seismic shaking). Therefore,we recommend that all building elements, including floor slabs and other structures, be supported on pile foundations. However, if the owner can assume the risk of potential liquefaction-induced settlements of this magnitude, the floor slab in a lightly loaded, uninhabited structure could be supported as a floating slab-on-grade. Pile foundations that extend to the minimum depths described in the "Design Recommendations" section of this report should reduce both consolidation settlement and seismically induced structure settlement to tolerable levels for new construction. 6.4 Ground Motion Structural design of the buildings should follow 2012 IBC standards using Site Class "E" as defined in Table 20.3-1 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7—Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Although site soils are liquefiable, ASCE 7 allows use of Site Class E for buildings with less than five stories. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS As of October 1, 2008, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Construction Storm Water General Permit (also known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit) requires weekly Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) inspections and turbidity monitoring of site runoff,for all sites 1 or more acres in size that discharge storm water to surface waters of the state. The following sections provide recommendations to address these inspection and reporting requirements, as well as recommendations related to general erosion control and mitigation. The TESC inspections and turbidity monitoring of runoff must be completed by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) for the duration of the construction. The weekly TESC reports do not need to be sent to Ecology, but should be logged into the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Ecology requires a monthly summary report of the turbidity monitoring results signed by the NPDES permit holder. If the monitored turbidity equals or exceeds 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (Ecology benchmark standard), the project best management practices (BMPs) should be modified to decrease, the turbidity of storm water leaving the site. Changes and upgrades to the BMPs should be documented in the weekly TESC reports and continued until the weekly turbidity reading is 25 NTU or lower. If the monitored turbidity exceeds 250 NTU, the results must be reported to Ecology via phone within 24 hours and corrective actions should be implemented as soon as possible. Daily turbidity monitoring is continued until the corrective actions lower the turbidity to below 25 NTU, or until the discharge stops. This description of the sampling benchmarks and August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projectsl201507191KEtWP Page 8 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations reporting requirements is a brief summary of the Construction Storm Water General Permit conditions. The general permit is available on the internet. In order to meet the current Ecology requirements, a properly developed, constructed, and maintained erosion control plan consistent with City of Renton standards and best management erosion control practices will be required for this project. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing site-specific erosion control plans. Based on past experience, it will be necessary to make adjustments and provide additional measures to the TESC plan in order to optimize its effectiveness. Ultimately, the success of the TESC plan depends on a proactive approach to project planning and contractor implementation and maintenance. The most effective erosion control measure is the maintenance of adequate ground cover. Maintaining cover measures atop disturbed ground provides the greatest reduction to the potential generation of turbid runoff and sediment transport. During the local wet season October 1st through March 31st), exposed soil should not remain uncovered for more than 2 days unless it is actively being worked. Ground-cover measures can include erosion control matting, plastic sheeting, straw mulch, crushed rock or recycled concrete, or mature hydroseed. Surface drainage control measures are also essential for collecting and controlling the site runoff. Flow paths across slopes should be kept to less than 50 feet in order to reduce the erosion and sediment transport potential of concentrated flow. Ditch/swale spacing will need to be shortened with increasing slope gradient. Ditches and swales that exceed a gradient of about 7 to 10 percent, depending on their flow length, should have properly constructed check dams installed to reduce the flow velocity of the runoff and reduce the erosion potential within the ditch. Flow paths that are required to be constructed on gradients between 10 to 15 percent should be placed in a riprap-lined swale with the riprap properly sized for the anticipated flow conditions. Flow paths constructed on slope gradients steeper than 15 percent should be placed in a pipe slope drain. AESI is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing a suitable erosion control plan with proper flow control. With respect to water quality, having ground cover prior to rain events is one of the most important and effective means to maintain water quality. Once very fine sediment is suspended in water, the settling times of the smallest particles are on the order of weeks and months. Therefore, the typical retention times of sediment traps or ponds will not reduce the turbidity of highly turbid site runoff to the benchmark turbidity of 25 NTU. Reduction of turbidity from a construction site is almost entirely a function of cover measures and drainage control that have been implemented prior to rain events. Temporary sediment traps and ponds are necessary to control the release rate of the runoff and to provide a catchment for August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc-KE150719A3—Piojectsk20150719VEIWP Page 9 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations sand-sized and larger soil particles, but are very ineffective at reducing the turbidity of the runoff. Silt fencing should be utilized as buffer protection and not as a flow-control measure. Silt fencing is meant to be placed parallel with topographic contours to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving a work area or entering a sensitive area. Silt fences should not be placed to cross contour lines without having separate flow control in front of the silt fence. A swale/berm combination should be constructed to provide flow control rather than let the runoff build up behind the silt fence and utilize the silt fence as the flow-control measure. Runoff flowing in front of a silt fence will cause additional erosion and usually will cause a failure of the silt fence. Improperly installed silt fencing has the potential to cause a much larger erosion hazard than if the silt fence was not installed at all. The use of silt fencing should be limited to protect sensitive areas, and swales should be used to provide flow control. 7.1 Erosion Hazard Mitigation To mitigate the erosion hazards and potential for off-site sediment transport, we would recommend the following: 1. Construction activity should be scheduled or phased as much as possible to reduce the amount of earthwork activity that is performed during the winter months. 2. The winter performance of a site is dependent on a well-conceived plan for control of site erosion and storm water runoff. It is easier to keep the soil on the ground than to remove it from storm water. The owner and the design team should include adequate ground-cover measures, access roads, and staging areas in the project bid to give the selected contractor a workable site. The selected contractor needs to be prepared to implement and maintain the required measures to reduce the amount of exposed ground. A site maintenance plan should be in place in the event storm water turbidity measurements are greater than the Ecology standards. 3. TESC measures for a given area to be graded or otherwise worked should be installed soon after ground clearing. The recommended sequence of construction within a given area after clearing would be to install sediment traps and/or ponds and establish perimeter flow control prior to starting mass grading. 4. During the wetter months of the year, or when large storm events are predicted during the summer months, each work area should be stabilized so that if showers occur, the work area can receive the rainfall without excessive erosion or sediment transport. The required measures for an area to be "buttoned-up" will depend on the time of year and the duration the area will be left un-worked. During the winter months, areas that are August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KEIWP Page 10 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations to be left un-worked for more than 2 days should be mulched or covered with plastic. During the summer months, stabilization will usually consist of seal-rolling the subgrade. Such measures will aid in the contractor's ability to get back into a work area after a storm event. The stabilization process also includes establishing temporary storm water conveyance channels through work areas to route runoff to the approved ' treatment facilities. j 5. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. If it is outside of the growing season, the disturbed areas should be covered with mulch, as recommended in the erosion control plan. Straw mulch provides a cost-effective cover measure and can be made wind-resistant with the application of a tackifier after it is placed. 6. Surface runoff and discharge should be controlled during and following development. Uncontrolled discharge may promote erosion and sediment transport. Under no circumstances should concentrated discharges be allowed to flow over the top of steep slopes. 7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During the period between October 1st and March 31st,these measures are required. 8. On-site erosion control inspections and turbidity monitoring (if required) should be performed in accordance with Ecology requirements. Weekly and monthly reporting to Ecology should be performed on a regularly scheduled basis. A discussion of temporary erosion control and site runoff monitoring should be part of the weekly construction team meetings. Temporary and permanent erosion control and drainage measures should be adjusted and maintained, as necessary, for the duration of project construction. It is our opinion that with the proper implementation of the TESC plans and by field-adjusting appropriate mitigation elements (BMPs) throughout construction, as recommended by the erosion control inspector, the potential adverse impacts from erosion hazards on the project may be mitigated. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719IKE‘WP Page 11 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations III. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8.0 INTRODUCTION The site contains some potential soil and foundation-oriented complications with respect to compressible soils, loose granular soils susceptible to liquefaction, and near surface moisture- and disturbance-sensitive soils. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon the assumption that the foundations, floor slab, and grading construction are observed by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm. The proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint using pile foundations for the building superstructure, and pile-supported lower floor slabs. If any of the floor slabs will be "floated," they should be constructed on a minimum of 2 feet of approved structural fill compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Pavement or hardscaping support on existing soils is possible with some near-surface remedial improvements. Due to the possible presence of loose surficial soils, liquefaction hazards, and/or consolidation settlement, some settlement of non-pile-supported structures and paved areas, however, is anticipated. 9.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation of planned building and road/parking areas that will not be supported by pile foundations should include removal of all existing buildings, foundation elements, utilities, asphalt, landscaping, debris, and any other surficial deleterious material that are not part of the planned project. Additionally, any upper organic topsoil encountered should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial soils exist due to demolition or stripping/grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Fill was not encountered in our explorations but should be expected around existing buildings and buried utilities. The density, thickness, and content of the fill across the site maybe highly variable. We anticipate that any upper loose surficial fill soils, once recompacted or replaced with structural fill, will be adequate for support of pavement and other external surfacing, such as sidewalks or segmented paving units. However, there will be a risk of long-term damage to these surfaces including, but not limited to, rutting, yielding, cracking, etc., if any uncontrolled loose fill or surficial loose soil is not completely removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The risk can be reduced by selective removal and replacement of the most settlement-sensitive, near-surface soils. Utilities founded above loose, uncontrolled fill are also at risk of settlement and associated damage. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719lKEIWP Page 12 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations The extent of stripping necessary in areas of the site to receive external surfacing, such as sidewalks and pavement, can best be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. We recommend proof-rolling road and parking areas with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck to identify any soft spots. If construction is to proceed during wet weather, we recommend systematic probing in place of proof-rolling to identify soft areas of the exposed subgrade. These soft areas should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. Some of the on-site fill and surface soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material, which makes them moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. If the existing pavement will not be used for access and staging areas, consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate section of crushed rock or asphalt treated base (ATB). The existing pavement is in such poor condition that it may be necessary to augment the pavement with ATB if it will be used for construction access and staging. If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near-surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by the contractor in the field. 10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type and placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. After stripping, planned excavation, and any required overexcavation have been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground in areas to receive fill should be recompacted to 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If the subgrade contains silty soils and too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719lKElWP Page 13 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations Where the exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering 'stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free-draining layer by silt migration from below. After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free-draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with current local codes and standards. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the roadway edges before sloping down at an angle of 2H:1V Horizontal:Vertical). The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 72 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture-sensitive. Use of moisture-sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. Some on-site soils contained significant amounts of silt and are considered moisture-sensitive. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free-draining , gravel and/or sand should be used. Free-draining fill consists of non-organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction with at least 25 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve. A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing program. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KElWP Page 14 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations 11.0 FOUNDATIONS To mitigate post-construction consolidation settlement and the effects of seismically induced liquefaction, a pile foundation system is recommended. For this project, we recommend the use of 18- or 24-inch-diameter augercast piles. We can provided alternative recommendations for other pile types if requested. The following sections provide pile recommendations based on assumed loading conditions and soils encountered beneath the site. 11.1 Augercast Piles We recommend that the construction of piles be accomplished by a contractor experienced in their installation. Fill soils can have concrete, brick, wood, and other demolition waste in them, and soils of alluvial origin may have gravel lenses or large cobbles present in them. It may be necessary to have a backhoe present during pile installation to dig out obstacles and backfill the excavation prior to drilling piling. If obstacles are encountered at depths where removal with a backhoe is not feasible, it might be necessary to modify the pile layout to replace piles that cannot be completed according to the original design. Observation of pile installation by AESI is important to verify that the subsurface conditions observed at pile locations are consistent with the observations in our subsurface explorations, and consistent with assumptions made during preparation of the recommendations in this report. The City of Renton will likely require such inspections of foundation piles. The augercast piles will gain support from end bearing and skin friction. Augercast piles are formed by drilling to the required depth with a continuous flight, hollow-stem auger. Fluid grout is then pumped down the hollow stem under pressure as the auger is withdrawn. Appropriately designed reinforcing steel cages are then lowered into the unset grout. A single reinforcing bar is installed for the full length of the pile for transfer of uplift loads. Since the grout is placed under pressure, actual grout volumes used are typically 15 to 50 percent greater than the theoretical volume of the pile. Actual grout volumes for piles constructed through some types of fill and peat can be much more. The pile contractor should be required to provide a pressure gauge and a calibrated pump stroke counter so that the actual grout volume for each pile can be determined. Typically, a nine-sack, minimum 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) grout mix is used for augercast piles. Once complete, the piles would then connect to a pile cap and grade beam support system for the building foundation. Typical allowable capacities for the augercast piles are given in Table 1. Development of the design capacities presented in Table 1 requires a minimum overall pile length which extends 5 feet into the bearing layer encountered across the site at about 45 feet depth. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719lKE\WP Page 15 Subsurface.Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations The allowable design axial compressive loads include a safety factor of 2 and may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlement of the pile-supported foundations will generally be on the order of 1/ inch. Table 1 Augercast Pile Recommendations Vertical Estimated Compressive Lateral Depth of Pile Diameter Length Capacity Capacity fixity Uplift Capacity inches) feet)(1) kips) kips)(2)feet)(3) kips)I4l 18 50 65 45 14 60 24 50 115 80 17 90 1) Pile length based on bearing layer occurring at 45 feet depth. 2) Allowable lateral capacities are for fixed-headed conditions(incorporation into pile caps and grade beam system),and 2 inch of deflection at the ground surface. Greater lateral capacities are possible for greater allowable deflections. 3) The depth of fixity does not include the code-required 20 percent increase for reinforcing cage design. 4) Uplift capacity is based on minimum pile length of 50 feet. A downdrag load (negative friction) may develop from potential- liquefaction of the loose soils under the site, between depths of about 9 and 30 feet. The vertical compressive capacities presented in Table 2 represent the downward capacity of the pile after subtracting out the negative friction that would develop during an earthquake event. Piles with lateral spacing less than 6 pile diameters from another pile along the direction of force should be considered to be in the zone of influence and the lateral capacity and the reduction factors presented below in Table 2 should be used. If the lateral contribution of the piles is more critical to the practical design of the structure, we can provide a comprehensive lateral pile analysis. Such an analysis would present lateral pile capacities taking into account the interaction between piles. Based on the loose conditions of the soils through which the augercast piles are to be excavated, care should be taken in construction planning to allow grout time to set prior to drilling adjacent piles. Typically, 24 hours of set time is recommended for piles closer than 3 pile diameters or 10 feet, whichever is greater. The 24 hours can be reduced for adjacent piles drilled on different workdays. 11.2 Group Effects Where piles are installed in groups and subject to lateral loading, reductions in lateral capacity to account for group effects should be included in design. The effects of group performance should be considered where piles are spaced closer than 6 pile diameters center-to-center and August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KEIWP Page 16 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations are aligned in the direction of loading. Piles should not be spaced closer than 3 pile diameters center-to-center to achieve full vertical and uplift capacity. If piles are staggered in the x and y directions a minimum of 3 pile diameters, there is no reduction in lateral loading. For the determination of individual capacities for load application parallel to the line of spacing, the following spacing and reduction factors presented in Table 2 should apply. The last pile in a row can be assumed to develop the full lateral capacity. Table 2 Lateral Reduction Factors Pile Spacing Reduction Factor 6 diameters 1.0 5 diameters 0.8 4 diameters 0.6 3 diameters 0.4 11.3 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the pile caps and grade beams and the existing fill soils or structural fill, or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of these elements. The foundations must be backfilled with structural fill and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following allowable design parameters: Passive equivalent fluid = 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) Coefficient of friction =0.30 12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT As discussed earlier in this report, existing site soils are considered to be settlement-prone, and we therefore recommend that floor slabs be designed as structural slabs and supported on pile foundations. Where potentially liquefaction-induced settlement can be tolerated, site soils can be used to support slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, or other similar structures contingent upon adequate remedial preparation and understanding of uncertainties in settlement performance. Slabs, pavement, or segmented paving stones to be supported on grade should be supported on a 2-foot-thick structural fill mat. All fill beneath slabs, paving stones, or pavement must be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. The floor slabs should be cast atop a August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719IKElWP Page 17 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnicdl Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations minimum of 4 inches of clean washed crushed rock or pea gravel to act as a capillary break. Areas of subgrade that are disturbed (loosened) during construction should be compacted to a non-yielding condition prior to placement of capillary break material. It should also be • protected from dampness by an impervious moisture barrier at least 10 mils thick. The impervious barrier should be placed between the capillary break material and the concrete slab. 13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS All exterior grade beams should be provided with a drain at least 12 inches below the base of the adjacent interior slab elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. 14.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS We anticipate that the new school development will include construction of paved parking areas and bus lanes. Due to loose/soft soils near the surface, some remedial measures may be necessary for support of new pavement or for areas of hardscaping (e.g., paving stones). To reduce the depth of overexcavation required and to achieve a suitable subgrade for support of pavement, we recommend that an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrid reinforcement be placed over the stripped subgrade prior to filling. The addition of an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrids permit heavier traffic over soft subgrade and .increases the service life of the system. The fabric acts as a separation barrier between relatively fine-grained surficial materials on the site and the load-distributing aggregate (sand or crushed rock). As a separator, it reduces the loss of costly aggregate material into the subgrade and prevents the upward pumping of silt into the aggregate. The high tensile strength and low modulus of elongation of the fabric also act to reduce localized stress by redistributing traffic loads over a wider area of subgrade. In addition, the recommended method of installation proof-rolling) identifies weak areas, which can be improved prior to paving. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects120150719lKEIWP Page 18 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations After the area to be paved is stripped and recompacted to the extent possible, engineering stabilization fabric, such as Mirafi 500X (or equivalent), should be placed over the subgrade with the edges overlapped in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Following subgrade preparation, clean, free-draining structural fill should be placed over the fabric and compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Where fabric is exposed, spreading should be performed such that the dozer remains on the fill material and is not allowed to operate on uncovered fabric. When 12 inches of fill has been placed, the fabric should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck to pretension the fabric and identify soft spots in the fill. Upon completing the proof-rolling operation, additional structural fill should' be placed and compacted to attain desired grades. Upon completion of the structural fill, a pavement section consisting of 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) underlain by 2 inches of 5/8-inch crushed surfacing top course and 6 inches of 11/4-inch crushed surfacing base course is the recommended minimum. The crushed rock courses must be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Given the potentially variable in-place density of existing fill subgrade, some settlement of paved areas should be anticipated unless existing fill is entirely removed and replaced with structural fill. 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the pile foundation system depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know, and we will prepare a cost proposal. August 4,2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3—Projects1201507191KElWP Page 19 Subsurface'Exploration,Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington s Design Recommendations We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have.any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, . ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland,Washington 0- MER,q` of wa*tiiti 9 z 23580 11 • / s9Fc/STE 9 19 Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map .. Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3: Geologic Cross Section A-A' Appendix: Exploration:Logs. August 4,2016 . . ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC. DMG/pc—KE150719A3=Projects,20150719lKE\WP Page 20 Ili FOr t'. X,;.c.:. 0. 1\ At,' 71.1.7.1. TIERIPEIPalinillirtr., i _." 741N... iviii.,. P 4 .•.:. ..1,IN \044.\ANits...A Cr C.,%;"1".e. ---....k . 1 '...% 11, I*: 4c - fitcii-*;-Powe' 1 '.. -,' .-t, ' leamoinkl.„4.,70,,Q* 46.1;:;,/.- 0,• . ...„0 . ,-- -•..mst 0 40.11/9RRIPIIIII ,, 491110f., _ i ,w,kealliVux,7--- ---,AN•.:;---- • "Imaa4-- y t-‘, E. : —0° • MIN!. t 'A Rail4 k 4.IMP611111111144. I cir1 I. vuor i igramKativ. .41111 tim.,-iirril min7iLiiiiineif:01:wif ' 405 • lik,Qi....• mgligninilltiet1I15101 \‘\, 0141111 2 ' 11' 101a MIk.i.Illallitt i 4,1k710 : Km . , tik vargi *IffsiA Van1.04•41,111E.-- , 1, 11IN al 1/411.m.,, ,,i, 1 ii_ ' ' - ...- ,• cr.. A a Itmr,,,,,irr 119 all iliswAs i ru,„ mint,Aria 1 •10-ir i 14,1m. r Nalk iat Al .,1 .migiiliPiitiN' ‘1 ti 1 1 t''''. All .1itimi - -.:' -`4 P."PA: II Pardit‘Ointtil I I ,•.\701141; I illin Aftftl! ..f-,-. 1"r. __„,7 1 ':..)' tL.""41r7, ItiWAPPPAIKFOI, l-.-\, .._ .1L6nr. .%0411111FilW,,,IT.I.Y. Ptin/A A '. .-'-- "I'411111 :I 11111'14'441Ais t,---) r I... 1\:L. -,.VA,7:? ii441,111111111111 \' gni • {/# fril--ri*‘ 4, LA- •••Nhoit....17oura it 7r 401410 414.413) ----14r._ti., 1 ' / •--- -Wir li 4a,. ....., 1„... 07.-im !pups- 40.1,,i, 77.,..c.. ._. ____::_,;,., ;, . ,,-• .. Hrl 0/4,,,,,-1 i 11! r ,t1,7,- 11 1..--# cx N 4th St InL. * Si S,•-•-•.--.., Nil‘. A\-..,..-‘, F 1 iil 4 ' N,,----zHz 4_, .'-r "Aril q 41:1,011104r411 ,4 14kW.," 11)1111bikNuii,- g,, >, 1 tit g"---.• gr___--,4? ,.4 i .4•111. 111Ftp,„..... ..,,,i :- P -iii N• _ . 41-iii,-,141. cci tic s___. • in. - / vbv kill 1 ›.. 2.^ lie_ 51_5 g___. 1 Power. Ito Mal 12,..,-;iiiiik7.0101111 i & ff. if 2 3 1; ' Tik11,1 7 -116gt., ii,d vow e.0. 1 agailL•• 1.• tr, I- 7 41. jir t,,,,„, it„,....5,,N-3rd-St LEM= al LE 111E1$ limn ing,misin MN WI =I I billill 1 41,‘ M 111111M 11 111\\ Vk)likittik- 4rjr#S.4461k N' k .2 inillimime IME MI EM I liZilib" A‘or•----- wwini pinimannjaM.a,,,'. lb Aft hit I ....... e.pri„•r_ig 1:p..2.041i'3,:N a ypn al Geographic-SocieTi-cubed Snohomish County Ne associa t e dco' 3 a N earth sciencesKasai, county 5 King A incorporated tcounty,_,...„ 124 i.0 1000 2000 I Pierce County, VICINITY MAP 0 , FEET i 11 DATA SOURCES/REFERENCES: SANTORI EDUCATION CENTER NOTE.BLACK AND WHITEL. USGS:24K SERIES TOPOGRPAHIC MAPS RENTON, WASHINGTONREPRODUCTIONOFTHISCOLORiKINGCO:STREETS,PARCELS ORIGINAL MAY REDUCE ITS EFFECT IVEN ESS AND LEAD TO PROJ NO. DATE: FIGURE:LOCATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE INCORRECT INTERPRETATION KE150719A 2/16 10 MM :¢ w Is AM07 t_ t Ic t. t_ N 4th St u il _s ti iiki 1. ii t i 2,..._:.-2_.• fig B ono. Z WI Z m Q Q r C a __ i co a U E?.7'-,7 x w• . a. 3'.1 t a tall i, Li_ E x la! w EB-2 v w 2 P31,7 Snohomish cn o it N 3rd St z co CI ills w Pierce- c ol.A if associated LEGEND: N earth sciences O AESI EXPLORATION BORING A incorporated fiU CROSS SECTION 0 50 100 a Il FEET SITE AND EXPLORATIONS3SITE x DATASOURCES/REFERENCES: SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER a BING 2014 NOTE:BLACK AND WHITE RENTON,WASHINGTON d KING CO:STREETS,PARCELS 2015 REPRODUCTION OF THIS COLOR ORIGINAL MAY REDUCE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TO PROD NO. DATE: o LOCATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE INCORRECT INTERPRETATION KE150719A 2/16 FIGURE: 2 LEGEND' Qac QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM RIVER A A'1 BORING SOUTHWEST NORTHEAST 70 - 70 yWATER LEVEL w EXISTING w : AT TIME OF DRILLING Z SARTORI Z . TD TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING 60 _ w BUILDING W _ 60 w i-D_ w IMP 14C DATE Z reaoO . 07 O O o7 CONTACT BETWEEN ALLUVIAL 50 - ce a' : O .• 0_ 50 DEPOSITIONAL PACKAGES " - i- VERTICAL EXAGGERATION=5X - 40 .- z w w w w z - 40" NOTE LOCATION AND DISTANCES SHOWN-ARE APPROXIMATE 30 - Qac NOTES: .30 T T: 1.THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN:THIS GEOLOGIC I y CROSS-SECTION ARE BASED ON AN INTERPRETATIONCONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED IN WIDELY SPACED EXPLORATIONS COMPLETED AT THE SUBJECT SITE AND RELEVANT SITE TION DEVELOPED AND20 SAND AND GRAVEL 20 PROVIDED BY OTHERS.THE SUBSURFACENINTERPRETATIONS HOULD NOT BENON SILT AND CLAY CONSTRUEDIAS AIWARRANTY OF ACTUAL SUIBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT 10 - 7 10 THE SITE. OUR EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT SOIL AND GROUND NS C SIGNIFICANTLY VWATERCONDITIOANVARYSIGNCANTLYOVER SMALL DISTANCES. OBTAINED CITY OF RENT ON. . SAND 0 2.TOPOGRAPHYBTAIN D FROM ON LIDAR w w z -10 — 10 Q GRAVEL . ..GRA 20 - 20 w SILT AND CLAY"7750± 40BP 7100± 40BP 30 TD.61.5' 30 SAND 40 - 40 TD76.5' 50 GRAVEL 50 CLAY - TD.91.5' TD 91.5'. 60 - •60 70 — " 70 NOTE:BLACK AND WHITE REPRODUCTION OF THIS COLOR ORIGINAL MAY REDUCE d co ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TO INCORRECT INTERPRETATIONI. u_ o 80 _ - 80 a s o c i a t e "d earth- sciencesc' ences Incorporated 90 — 90 co 1 1.1 1 1 1 GEOLOGIC o . o 00 CROSS-SECTION --A - A' SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FEET) y RENTON, WASHINGTON • c PROJNO.. KE150719AI 2/1 FIGURE: 3. DATE: 6 APPENDIX 0V Well-graded gravel and Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency m L6y o°o° GW gravel with sand, little to Density . SPT( 2) blows/foot u_ a2 o no fines Coarse Very Loose 0 to 4 oL. , -. Loose 4 to 10CDCOPoorly-graded gravel Grained Soils Medium Dense 10 to 30 o°o°o° w n 'i o 0 o 0 o GP and gravel with sand,Test Symbols o ° v 00.00 Dense 30 to 50 olittle to no fines Very Dense 50 G=Grain Size M= Moisture Content i o o°o Consistency SPT( 2) blows/foot A=Atterberg Limits c r o c Silty gravel and silty Very Soft 0 to 2 C=ChemicalowsvyC°C°, GM gravel with sand Fine- v 0) ° 0° 0 Soft 2 to 4 DD= Dry Density c P a) ii Grained Soils q Medium Stiff 4 to 8 K=Permeability 4.1 2 cr , i Stiff 8 to 15 Clayey gravel and Very Stiff 15 to 30NIGC clayey gravel with sand Hard 30 10 CD .-Component Definitions 3 o Well-graded sand and Descriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number sw sand with gravel, little Boulders Larger than 12" o m N:•.•.•••:•:to no fines Cobbles 3"to 12"LL Ln o :. Gravel 3 to No.4(4.75 mm) En0 0 > Poorly-graded sand Coarse Gravel 3"to 3/4" co 0 Mi::---.=--- SP and sand with gravel, Fine Gravel 3/4"to No.4(4.75 mm) 8 5 little to no fines c o Sand No.4(4.75 mm)to No.200(0.075 mm) Es o Z Coarse Sand No.4(4.75 mm)to No.10(2.00 mm)0 2 w .: Silty sand and Medium Sand No.10(2.00 mm)to No.40(0.425 mm)Ed) o N T . SM silty sand with Fine Sand No.40(0.425 mm)to No.200(0.075 mm)co N y gravel Silt and Clay Smaller than No.200(0.075 mm) o l ----.- SC Clayey sand and 3)Estimated Percentage Moisture ContentNIclayeysandwithgravelComponentPercentagebyWeightDryAbsenceofmoisture, dusty,dry to the touchTrace5 Slightly Moist-PerceptibleSilt, sandy silt,gravelly silt, moisture o ML silt with sand or gravel Some 5 to<12 Moist Damp but no visiblea)c rn `0c Modifier + 12 to<30 water o `—° N fraClayoflowtomediumsilty,sandy,gravelly) Very Moist-Water visible but z° I j CL plasticity; silty,sandy,or not free draining f9 ' / gravelly clay, lean clay Very modifier 30 to<50 Wet-Visible free water,usually a> w_, j silty,sandy,gravelly) from below water table ti Organic clay or silt of low Symbols 23 OL plasticity Blows/6"or o Sampler portion of 6"Cement grout o Type x surface seal Elastic silt, clayey silt,silt Sampler Type2.0 OD o BentoniteOoMH with micaceous or Split-Spoon I p Description cbt seal t o diatomaceous fine sand or Sampler 3.0"OD Split-Spoon Samplerv Silt I' p Filter pack with o m`o r SPT) 3.25"OD Split-Spoon Ring Sampler (4) ;_ blank casing CO 0 o Clay of high plasticity, section a c w CH sandy or gravelly clay,fat Bulk sample 3.0"OD Thin Wall Tube Sampler screened casing y E clay with sand or gravel 0Shelb or Hydrotip i including y tube) with filter packGrabSampleV r c g- i/i///' Organic clayor silt of Portion not recovered End capC 0 a_J //;/,, OH medium to high a i;1; Percentage by dry weight 4) Depth of ground water a plasticity 2) (SPT)Standard Penetration Test N ASTM D 1586) Y. ATD=At time of drilling s > 2 , Peat, muck and other 3)Q Static water level(date) r In General Accordance with En a•o PT highly organic soils Standard Practice for Description 5) Combined USCS symbols used for I 0 and Identification of Soils(ASTM D 2488)fines between 5%and 12% o Classifications of soils in this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations,which include density/consistency,moisture condition,grain size,and g plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein.Visual-manual and/or laboratory classification 5 methods of ASTM D-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Soil Classification System. my O associated001 .earth sciences EXPLORATION LOG KEY FIGURE Al N incorporated4 i associated Exploration Log. fJearth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet Incorporated KE150719A EB-1. 1.of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 9/3/16.2/3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop :. 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches ur go o > c . y w a at 5 -I T ' Blows/Foot H m E a 3 0 Sco coE o aC T DESCRIPTION 0• 0 co m 10 20 30 40 O Sod/Topsoil Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River 1 5 T Loose,moist,brown,silty,fine SAND,trace organics(SM). 2S-1 : Loose,moist,orange to light gray,fine.SAND,some silt(SP). 2 A5 3 Driller noted gravels. 10 D o Dense,moist brownish orange;sandy GRAVEL;oxidized(GP). 13S-2 D000 13 ,. A32 O 0 19 O 0 O O 0 0 Driller notes less gravel. 15 — 0. 0: S 3 ..••' - Loose,wet,orange brown,:fine to medium SAND,some:gravel(SP). 2 - 0 0 L Loose,wet,orange brown,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL(GW). 5 6 c.oc O Ceve q : 20 c Driller adds mud I S 4 Stiff;wet;brownish gray,fine sandy SILT(ML). 2 5 " 9 4 25 S 5. _ • Loose,wet,gray,silty,fine SAND(SM). 2 A 92Wooddebris. 7 30 Loose,wet,'gray,fine to medium SAND(SP). 5IS-6 Medium:stiff,wet,brownish gray,SILT,"trace fine sand(ML). 3 A5 2 35 — Hard,wet,brownish gray,SILT,trace fine sand(MI-).fO S7 9 Y 5 A35NeDense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND(SW): 13a-Driller notes gravels. 2_ 0 LL_. a cp Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: TWL reo I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) II Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by: CJK W• 5 Grab Sample r Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD)a op>' associat_ ed. _ Exploration Log. . earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet lncotporated KE150719A EB-1 2of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location . Renton.WA Datum . . N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/3/16?/3/1 fi Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) $inclaPs 0 0 > a) S m> m 07 ' Blows/Foot 0 E C9 cnT DESCRIPTION co10 20 30 40 Hard,wet,brownish gray,sandy SILT(ML). 161S-8 26 A62 Very dense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND(SW). 36 45 I S-9 D '0 0:.Very dense,wet,brownish.gray,sandy GRAVEL;blow counts overstated;driller 50/E" A50 notes bouncing on rock(GP). O 0 0 0 O 0 D°°° Driller notes less gravels.. O 0 o o o Medium dense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND(SW).. 14S-10 e 12 A26 14 55 — , o Medium dense,wet,gray,sandy,fine to medium GRAVEL(GP). 12S-11 o 0 0: 17 A33 0 0 19 0 0 O .O 0 0. . D °. O 0 D ° 60 — ' ° o No recovery. 4,S-12 0 4 A13 9 Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts below 35 feet are likely overstated due to gravels. 65 70 , 75 N O OlLL- Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery' . . M--Moisture' ' Logged by: TWL 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJi<I Grab Sample 7 Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated : - Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet inaorporeted KE150719A EB-2 1:of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) "•37 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish , 20/162/2/1 A Hammer Weight/Drop .140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches c m w N L O >N a S T a 3 Blows/Foot m (7 rn E 1.) coT DESCRIPTION 0 m o 10 20 30 40 oc,.4'd; Concrete Driveway-4 inches 1 Crushed Gravel Base Course r Quaternary Alluvium-.Cedar River Cuttings: Moist,reddish brown,fine SAND,trace gravel(SP).— 5 T Very loose,moist,brown,fine.to coarse SAND,some fine gravel,trace silt 1S-1 stratified(SP). 1 A3 2 D Driller notes gravels. o . 10 T o Medium dense,wet,brown,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt;stratified 10 :I S-2 D • (GM-GP). •. .. 11 A21 D o, t 10 o • 15 Medium dense,wet,brown,interbedded SAND and GRAVEL,trace siltIS-3.-..: • (SP/GP). 7 A19 11 ti.1 20 Driller adding mud at 20 feet. IS •Loose/medium stiff,wet,gray,interbedded,silty,fine SAND'and sandy SILT, trace mica;thinly bedded to laminated(SM/ML). 4 3 25 As above,silt beds are slightly brown-tinged,occasional organics.4S-5 3 8 5 30 1 j Soft,verymoist,:gray,fine sandy SILT/CLAY;occasional brown silt interbeds 2 S-s with organic material;laminated(MUCL). 1 3 2 Driller notes gravels. 35 S 7 j Upper 8 inches of sample: As above(MULL): 5 Lower 10 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,very gravelly SAND, 13. 23 E, some silt;stratified(SM-SW). 2 a LT.- a Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG m I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) II Ring Sample Q Water Level() Approved by: CJK w 5 Grab Sample Z Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number. Exploration Number Sheet i=ncorporated KE150719A EB-2 2of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) r37 Location : Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 7/2/16,2/2/16 Hammer Weight/Drop :. 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches r a @o c ,6 - w E Blows/Foot 12 m S E 8 T 63 C7m q ODESCRIPTION10203040 j Very dense,:wet,gray,very gravelly SAND,some to trace silt,interbeds of gray 15 _ __S-8 j . CLAY;scattered organic matter;blow counts may be overstated due to gravels 23 A51 SP/CL). 28 45 I S % Dense,wet,brown,fine to medium SAND,some.gravel,some silt;2-inch bed 149'of gravel(fractured)in sampler tip;stratified(SM-SP). 9 A31 22 0 Medium dense,wet,gray,sandyGRAVEL,some to trace silt;stratified(GP).S.10 0 0 9 Y 13 . 0 13 _ A25 0 0 12 O 0'. D O- O 0 O D 0 55 O o: I D ° Very dense,wet,gray grading:to brown,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt; 17S-11 a°0° fractured gravel in sampler tip;thinly bedded;blow counts may be overstated_ 23 A55 o ° due to gravels(GP). 22 D o O O D o 0 0 D O 0 0 o 60 - •-° Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,bedded SAND and 11S-12 . • GRAVEL,trace silt(SP/GP). 6 £12 Lower 6 inches of sample: Stiff,very moist,gray to dark brown,sandy SILT; 6 abundant organic matter;laminated;abrupt contact(ML). Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND,some gravel,trace silt;thinly. 7IS13 . •: bedded(SP). 9 A.7 8 70 T Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,tan with orange oxidation, 8IS-14 •: silty,fine SAND;thinly bedded(SM). g A18 Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,orangish brown,fine to 9 medium SAND,trace silt;bedded(SP). 75 Dense,wet,reddish brown grading to brown,sandy GRAVEL,some silt; 8 E,- — 5-15 0° ••, stratified;some gravels are fractured(GM-GP). _ 10 A33 o 23 2- Bottom of exploration boring at 76.5 feet u.- Note: Blow counts from 35 to 55 feet and at 75 feet likely overstated due to a gravels. Sampler Type(ST): 8 _ T 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) _ No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG . m 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJi< Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth "sciences Project Number Exploration Number SheetJincorporatedKE150719AEB-3 1of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) -37- Location : Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment ' GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/1/16,7/1/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches m u, o aa) Cn a S 7) E 1:1E a .3 Blows/Foot 12 8C7.cn E - 5 T ' . . . DESCRIPTION 0 al °° o 10 20 30 40 Asphalt Pavement-3 inches ii- Crushed Gravel Base Course Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River Very smooth,fast drilling. 5 Upper 6 inches of sample: Loose,moist,brown,gravelly,.medium SAND,some 2S-1 - : silt;bedded(SM-SP). 3 . Ate. Lower 6 inches of sample: Loose,moist,light brown with faint orange 4, oxidation,fine SAND,some gravel,some silt(SM-SP). 10 Medium dense,wet,brown and orangish brown,fine to medium SAND,trace 3S-2 - gravel,trace silt;bedded(SP). 6 Al2I 6 Driller notes gravel layer. 15 As above,4 inch interbedof;silty gravel. 6 inch heave. . " 8 IS3 -11 A20 9 20 Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Upper 5 inches of sample: As above. 5S-4I - •" v Middle 4 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,very silty;fine SAND; 12 A23 1 . thinly bedded(SM). 14 b Lower 5 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,sandy GRAVEL;• stratified(GM). 1 . 25 — !.--• Medium dense,wet,gray,very gravelly,fine to medium SAND,some silt,.trace 8 S-5 -- .-"organic matter;stratified(SM-SP). 13 A26 13 Driller notes less gravelly,faster drilling. 30 I S-6 j Medium stiff,wet,gray,fine sandy SILT/CLAY,with occasional thin interbeds of 2 jsilty,fine sand;abundant. organic matter;trace gravel isolated in interbeds 3 " A6 MLCL). 3 j" 1 . Back into gravels. 35 b w : Dense,wet,gray,silty,sandy GRAVEL,trace organic debris(grasses);gravels 11co N I up to 2 inches in diameter;stratified(GM). 18 A39 o 1 • 21 2 e: mIL- Q. w 6 Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT). _ No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o cc I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJK a Grab Sample L Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet Incorporated KE150719A EB-3 2:Of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) ' 37 Location . Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment . GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/1/16,/1/1 R Hammer Weight/Drop . :140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches e) L co , O N to c - n, E a '. N Blows/Foot H @ > a ` 3 o T ° o m L DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 Dense,wet,'brown,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt;stratified(GP). 19 1 S-8 ° O° 18 A46 0 0 28 0 0 D O .. 0 0 D 0 0 0 45 — .0 0 Dense,wet,brown,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,trace silt;occasional siltier 15S-9 interbeds;stratified(SP). 30 64 34 50 — " As above,sand is coarser. 10S-10:.=.. 20 A46 26 55 — , • Dense,wet,brown becoming reddish brown with depth(abundant oxidation), 18S-11°° • fine sandy GRAVEL,some silt to silty;stratified(GM-GP). 25 Az 7 o 22 D • 1 1 60 ill Very dense,wet,mottled gray and brown with occasional orange oxidation,silty, 15 S-12 • • fine sandy GRAVEL(GM). 25 50w 25 Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 35 to 60 feet likely overstated due to gravels. 65 70 75 o- N O 02 0Cl m Sampler Type(ST): N _ 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) :E Ring Sample V Water Level() Approved by: CJK Grab Sample 0 Shelby Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log Jearth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-4. 1.of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) -36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/1/1 R?/1/1 t Hammer Weight/Drop :. 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches 0 y o 0 0 > xi w a c Blows/Foot i- a S E O7 >. mo.m 3 T 0.0 o ll m t DESCRIPTION o 10 20 30 40 r\Asphalt Pavement-1 inch 1 Crushed Gravel Base Course Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River 5 Medium dense,moist,orangish brown and tan with orange o>ddation,silty,fine .3IS1 •SAND,some gravel;thinly bedded with interbeds(1 inch thick).of sandy gravel 5 A15 and very sandy silt(SM). 10 Gravelly drilling. 10 — o" 9 Medium dense,wet,orangish brown,sandy-GRAVEL,some silt;occasional thin 6S-2 ° •, .(1 inch thick)interbeds of sandy silt(GM-GP).i g A18 9 o• .. o1 D • 15 0 . Medium dense,wet,brown,fine to medium SAND,some gravel,some silt;5IS-3 " occasional coarser interbeds(SM-SP). 6 A16 10 20 _ y" Driller adding mud at 20 feet. S 4 Medium stiff,wet,gray,interbedded very silty SAND and SILT/CLAY; 5 occasional organics and mica;bedded;laminated within silt/clay beds 36 SM-MULL). 4 25 — Loose,wet,gray,silty,fine SAND,trace gravel;abundant:organics(bark 3 S-5 ". - fragments);stratified(SM): 4 A10 6 Medium stiff,wet,gray and dark brown,fine sandy SILT;scattered organics 5S=6 rootlets);laminated(ML). 3 A, 4 Driller notes gravels. o • 35 — Dob1 o S ,0 • Medium dense• wet,gray;sandy GRAVEL,some silt;'stratified(GM-GP). 61 A25 N D • o Dob , 12 2. o • D • a o LI• I LL Do` a. I` . Leai Sampler Type(ST): I 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG m . I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJK W Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD)a — a s a o c i a t d Exploration Log" e a r t h s c i e n c e s Project Number Exploration Number Sheet J Incorporated KE150719A EB-4. 2:of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) 7-36' Location Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/1/162/1/16HammerWeight/Drop : 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches F co c.—>.- w a a E J N Blows/Foot a S E `` a 3 m 0to E o m T DESCRIPTION 0 co m 10 20 30 ao D° ! As above. . 10S-8 ° II 1 11 A23 12 o• - o • 1 45 — ° S-9 0° 1 As above,dense. 19 IIP 15 . A40. 25 . 1 D • o . t 50 T o° • As above,brownish gray. 10IS-10 • 15 A32 D°6 ,17 o • o 0 D • D • 55 — °• Upper 5 inches of sample: As above. 11S-11 , . . Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,brown,gravelly,fine to_medium 12 A24 SAND,some silt(SM-SP). 12 Upper 4 inches of sample: As above. . Middle 5 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,very sandy GRAVEL, 12S-12 some silt;stratified(GP-GM). 9 A14Lower5inchesofsample: Stiff,very moist,dark brown,SILT;scattered 5 organic matter;thin interbed of gray sand;laminated(ML). Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts form 35 to 55 feet likely overstated due to gravels. 65 70 75 I. o- O a mLL-. 0_ m Sampler Type(ST): o 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) 0 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o I 3"OD •Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) I Ring Sample Q Water Level O Approved by: c K a• ;13 Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet Incorporated KE150719A EB-5 : 1.of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/1/16,2/1/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches N L O o N (p 0 o- S E m> m a m a Blows/Foot IT 0 E o a)rS IAT DESCRIPTION . U co10 20 30 40 Asphalt Pavement-2 inches Crushed Gravel Base Course Fill Silty sand and gravel. Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River 5 Loose,moist,orangish brown and tan,fine SAND,some silt to silty;thinly 2S-1 - - bedded.(SM-SP). 3 A6 3 . 10 W Medium dense,very moist,orangish brown,fine sandy GRAVEL,some silt; 8IS-2 ,o • stratified(GM-GP). 12 A26 ow '14 o• Ob 1 OD .., 15 — (3. 1. Dense,wet,brown,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt;stratified,with 3 inch silt 13S-3 ° ° bed in sample;blow counts my be overstated due to gravels(GW). 16 A32 O 0 16 00 D C2) o. c OTC' 20 — . 0 ,, Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Upper 6 inches of sample: As above. 3S-4 Lower 18 inches of sample: Medium stiff,wet gray,very silty,fine SAND to 5 A8 very fine sandy SILT,trace organic material;1-inch interbed of brown,gravelly 3 sand within silt;stratified(SM/ML). 25 Medium dense,wet,mottled gray and dark brown,very silty,fine SAND; 3S-5 -.- laminated to thinly beddedl(SM). , 5 A11 6 30 I S-6 -- As above,6:inch bed of laminated gray SILT(ML)near sampler tip. 2 7 15 8 Driller notes gravels. Dense,wet,orangish brown,gravelly SAND,some silt;gravel is fractured;5S-7 --- -1stratified(SP-SM). r . 23 A41N 18p LT._ Q. Sampler Type(ST): i.2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) 11 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Q Water Level() Approved by: CJK coco Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) a poi> as•socIated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Eploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-5 2.of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 7/1/16,2/1/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches F COCO 2 ,7) o > co N c a E a` .3 Blows/Foot H 8 T g 00 o m m c DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 Very dense,wet;light grayish brown,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,some silt; 12S6stratified;blow counts may be overstated due to gravels(SM-SP).38 A62 24 45 I S-9 U:)1,: Medium dense,wet,brownish gray,very sandy GRAVEL,some silt;thinly 11 bedded(GM-GW). 15 A28 O• ,, c 13 O J J 0, c O J C. 50 TI s-10) C Very dense,wet;grayish brown,sandy GRAVEL,some silt;stratified : 18 : Oo,C ( GM-GW). 36 -A76 o ) 40 C O,C 55 — )o, c. As above,1/2 inch gray,silt bed at tip of sampler. 10S-11Q)Co . .30 A80/'1" C 50/E" o, c r-- Drilling smoothed out. ' 60 - • , Very stiff/medium dense,very moist,gray,fine SAND,trace gravel,with 12S-12 interbeds of:gray to dark brown,SILT;scattered organics in silt beds;laminated . . 12 A24 within silt beds(SM/ML). 12 65 Very stiff/medium dense,moist,gray interbedded sandy SILT and silty,fine 8S-13 :. SAND,some gravel near sampler tip(MUSM). 11 A20 g r Driller notes gravels at 67 feet. Hard,sticky,gravelly drilling. 70 ILIVJ Upper 6 inches of sample: Very dense,wet,gray,silty/clayey GRAVEL; 18IS-14 7,17 stratified(GM/GC). 30 A61 6 Lower 12 inches of sample: Very dense,wet,brown,silty,sandy GRAVEL; 31 0. • orange oxidation within siltier interbeds;stratified(GM). c, Very dense,wet,brown grading to gray,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,some 28 N- S 15 e to trace silt;stratified(SW). 47 A72 0 25 i Bottom of exploration boring at 76.5 feet 2_ LT-Note: Blow counts from 35 to 75 feet likely overstated due to gravels. ao Sampler Type(ST): u) _ 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery .M-Moisture Logged by: DMG o I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by: CJK a 15 Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) 1 . associat. ed, Exploration Log: IP' earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet Incorporated KE150719A EB-6 1of3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36' Location Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 7/2/16'/0/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches v w L— 0 a - r o S E T a 3 Blows/Foot H a) C7 u) E . o m o T DESCRIPTION 03 m o 10 20 30 40 Asphalt Pavement-3 inches 1 Crushed Gravel Base Course Old Asphalt Pavement/Crushed Gravel Layer 7 1 Quaternary Alluvium-.Cedar River 5 Loose,moist,orangish brown,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,trace to some 4IS1silt;stratified with occasional silty sand interbeds(SM-SP). 4 A8 4 Driller notes gravels. i 10 Medium dense,wet,orangish brown,fine to medium SAND,grading into 4IS2GRAVEL,trace silt;bedded(SP/GP). 7 15 8 a 1 15 I Driller adding mud at 15 feet. Upper 4 inches of sample: As above,siltier(SP-SM). . 3S-3 - Lower 14 inches of sample: Loose/medium stiff,wet,gray,fine to medium 2 , 8 SAND and gray,SILT,some sand;bedded,trace organics in silt layer;silt is 6 laminated(SM/ML). 20 Medium stiff,wet,gray,fine sandy SILT;occasional interbeds of silty sand; 6_ S-4 occasional brown silt interbeds;thinly bedded to laminated(ML). 4 48 4 25 — j Medium stiff,very•moist,gray,SILT/CLAY;interbeds of dark brown silt/clay with: 3S-5 % organic matter;laminated(MUCL). 2 A5 jj 3 jj_Driller notes drilling firmed up. 30 I J 0 Medium dense,wet,gray,sandy GRAVEL,some to trace silt;some gravels are 5S-6 J°o° fractured(GP).,g A20 O 0 11 J OO 0 J 0 - O 0 J O 0 0 J 0 35 — 0 0 a, J°0° As above. 8 E.- S-7 J 0 12 A24 o 0 12o_J O 2. _ 0 0 J om_ J°°°: Driller notes gravels. LL' O 0 J O ai , Sampler Type(ST): L. 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) 0 No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: ' DMG o I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) II Ring Sample V. 'Water Level() Approved by: CJK W ® Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet Incorporated KE150719A EB-6 2.of3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/2/16 2/2/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches I v N L O O. N (0N n. S E `erg° a m -3 Blows/Foot H to-8 T u) 0 rn o copDESCRIPTION1l) 20 30 40 7 0 0 O As above,stratified. 81S8 ° 9 A18 O 0' . 9 7 .O O 0 7 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 O 45 1 0 0; D o Medium dense,wet,gray,fine sandy GRAVEL,trace silt;gravel is fractured;. 12S-9 7°O° 'stratified(GP).12. 27 O 0 15 7 O O 0 7 .O 7 O 0 0. D 0 50 . . D 0 0 o As above,dense. 13S-10 7 .0 20 A31 7°0°: Driller notes gravels. 11 O 0. . 0 0 0 0 7 O 55 — o °- Dense,wet,gray,gravelly SAND,trace to some silt;stratified(SP). 16S-11 19 A38 17 60 j Very stiff,moist,gray,SILT/CLAY,with.interbeds(2 to 4 inches thick)of silty, 7 'S-12 fine SAND and brown,organic-rich silt;organic odor;laminated.to thinly bedded 8 A'7 MULL). 9 65 As above. I S- 13j70 Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND,some gravel,trace dark 8S-14 brown/gray silt beds(-1 inch thick);bedded(SP). 9 Ai9 10 75 Dense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to medium SAND,some silt;stratified(SM-SP). 11WS-15.-•• • 20 A4°N 0 25 a. ci Sampler Type(ST): Lo T_ 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler.(SPT) _ No Recovery M-Moisture' Logged by: DMG o 1 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) F Ring Sample Water Level 0 Approved by: K a 2 •Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-6 3:of3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location . Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 9/9/16,9/9/16 Hammer Weight/Drop :. 140#/30" Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches m o— c o. . m E a. t : . Blows/Foot H S E o T iu in ( o m m t DESCRIPTION o10 20 30 40 O Dense,wet,gray,interbedded,SAND,some silt and sandy SILT;thinly bedded 13S=16 :I to laminated(SM-SP/ML). 16 A37 21 85 Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND,some gravel,some silt; 11 1- I S-17 .. • bedded.(SM-SP)... 15 - A27. 11 90 • — 1-Very stiff,verymoist,light gray,CLAY;medium to high plasticity,laminatedIIIIry 85-18 MH). 9 9 Y 9 P tY 12 A24 12 Bottom of exploration boring at 91.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 45 to 55 feet and 75 to 85 feet may be overstated due to gravels. 95 100 105 110 115 N p_ 2 N CDai Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG ccI 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) U Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by: CJK Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) p>. associated Exploration Log • : e art h sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-7. 1of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 7/3/16 2/3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches r o. ° Blows/Foot I-L a aS at 'N ' o- S E E >, . . g.a w? o aC7r E 4 rT DESCRIPTION m 10 20 30 40 0/,. ^' Sod/Topsoil Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River 5 Very loose,moist,orangish brown,SAND,trace to some gravel;thin bed of tan 2S-1 silt near top of sample;thinly bedded with beds of finer and coarser sand(SP). 1 A2 D • Driller notes gravels. 10 — 0°b t Medium dense,very moist,brown,sandy GRAVEL,some silt;occasional 10S-2 , organics(rootlets);stratified(GM-GP). 15 A27 0 12 D°1 D • 0 b 15 Medium dense,wet,brown,sandy GRAVEL;occasional sandy silt interbeds;I 3S-3 , . scattered: rootlets;stratified(GM-GP). 5 A11 D°b 6 1 20 Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Medium dense;wet,gray,fine SAND,some gravel,grading into sandy SILT; 2S4 - - scattered rootlets;thinly bedded to laminated(SP)(ML). 4 : A10 6 25 Loose/medium stiff,wet,gray,interbedded fine SAND and sandy SILT; . 2S-5 - :scattered organics;thinly bedded to laminated(SP/ML). 1 As 4 3o Medium stiff,very moist,gray with some dark brown mottling,fine sandy SILT; 2IS-6 occasional organics;laminated(ML). 3 A6 3 1 Driller notes gravels. 35 — Upper 18 inches of sample: As above. 6S-7 A N 0 0 Lower 4 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,GRAVEL,trace silt;8 8 16 o-gravel is fractured(GP). Z 0 0 m J ° a 0 0 ti- 0 O O 0 d D ° r ai Sampler Type(ST): N _ 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) _j No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG m I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: K W 6' Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) .a — . a ssocla ed: Exploration Log i r earth s c i e n c e s Project Number Exploration Number Sheet ncop'oratad KE150719A EB-7 2of2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) ' 36 Location Renton,WA Datum QUA Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/3/16,2/:3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 innhPs N L a S E , m a ` . BIOWS/FOOL " n 3 m C7.o) E a T DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 0 Dense,wet,gray,very gravelly SAND,some silt;stratified(SM-SP). . 15S8 21 A42 21 45 — Dense,wet,gray,bedded SAND and sandy GRAVEL;gravel is fractured 303 46 S-9 .._. Driller notes less gravels. 23 50_ Upper 16 inches of sample: Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND, 5S-10. • -. some silt;bedded(SM-SP). 6 A21 Lower 4 inches of sample: Very stiff,very moist,gray and dark brown,SILT; 13 abundant organics;laminated(ML). Upper 10 inches of sample: Loose,wet,gray,silty,fine to medium SAND 7S-11 .•• (SM-SP). 4 Ag Lower 8 inches: Stiff,wet,gray and dark brown,SILT;laminated(ML). 5 60 — Stiff,wet,gray and dark brown,fine sandy SILT;occasional fine sand interbeds; 3S-12 thinly bedded(ML). 3 = . Ag 6 Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 40 to 45 feet likely overstated due to gravels. 65 70 75 N 0 LL a0 Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: DMG m • I 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Water Level() Approved by: CJK 1 Grab. Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) raj> associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-8 1.of3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton.WA Datum N/A. Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 7/3/1 R?/:3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop .140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches 0 - L Blows/Foot S .m T o a) T 0-° o m m r DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 Sod/Topsoil Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River S-1 Very loose,moist,brownish orange,medium SAND;oxidized(SP). 1 - 1 2 Driller notes gravels. Dense,moist,brownish orange,gravelly,medium to coarse SAND;blow counts g S-2 - overstated;oxidized(SP). 13 A33 20 15 S 3 11 Very stiff,wet,brownish gray,sandy SILT(ML). 2 10 21 Medium dense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,trace silt(SW). 11 20 — p °<°> Driller adding mud at 20 feet. S 4 • Loose,wet,gray medium SAND(SP). 4 Medium stiff,wet,dark brown,SILT,trace wood debris(ML). 4 7 25 — S 5 •: Loose,wet,gray,silty SAND(SM). 2 A5 stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT(ML). 32 5 30 — S-g Stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT;thinly bedded(ML). 3 - 4 8 4 35 — S. Very stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT;laminated(ML). 3 N I — Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND;stratified(SP). 12 Driller notes gravels. 2- 6 Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) El No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: TWL 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample Q Water Level() Approved by: CJKI a 5 Grab Sample 7 Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD) assacIat: ed Exploration Log e art h s c i e n c e s Project Number Exploration Number SheetJincorporatedKE150719AEB-8 2:of3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location . Renton,WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/3/162/3/16i Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30" Hole Diameter(in) 8 inches o c i m : S co 09 > a. 3 Blows/Foot o T IA 00 o Coco r DESCRIPTION 10 20" 30 40 Medium dense,wet,gray,gravelly,fine SAND;stratified(SP). 41S-8 Medium dense,wet,orange,fine SAND;stratified(SP). 12 A23 Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,fine SAND(SM).11 45 — Medium dense,wet,gray,:sandy GRAVEL(GP). 5S-9 ° ° D p 15 29. o o 14 D ° O 0 D ° O 0 i D o°° Driller notes gravels. 50 D ° Medium dense,wet,brownish gray,sandy GRAVEL(GP).S-10 6 11 22 o 0.11 D 0 O 0. D O O 0 D O D O 55 S 11 D o°° Loose,wet,brownish.gray,sandy GRAVEL(GP). 4 - 3 5 .Ash'interbed. 2 Very stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT;laminated(ML). . 60 Medium stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT;with organic rich and sandy 4IS-12 interbeds;thinly bedded to laminated(ML). 3 A. 4 65 — Stiff,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT(ML). . 2S-13 . .• Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,fine to medium SAND,trace gravel(SP). 4 A13 9 70 I 1 I I Hard,wet,brownish gray,fine sandy SILT(ML). 3 Dense,wet;gray,silty,fine SAND(SM).10 A33 Dense,wet,gray,gravelly,medium SAND(SP). 26 Driller notes gravels at 71.5 feet. 75 Medium dense,wet,brownish gray,silty,fine SAND,with wood-rich interbeds 7 E,_ S 15 1/2 to 3 inches thick);thinly bedded(SP). 10 A28 c 14 g 2, LL a m Sampler Type(ST): r T_ 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) _ No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: TWL 1 CCo T 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) I Ring Sample ZL Water Level() Approved by: CJK w IN Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD)a associated Exploration Log earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-8 3of3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation(ft) —36 Location Renton.WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment GDI/D50 Rig/HSA Date Start/Finish 2/3/1 R'/3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/30"Hole Diameter(in) 8 incbPs cm o > r o a E, a5 'y :' Blows/FootoSE `` T DESCRIPTION 8to 10 20 30 40 O Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,gravelly,fine to medium SAND.(SM/SP). 6S-16•- 8 A22 14 85 — No recovery..10S-17.. • 9 . A23Drillernotessandandsiltinterbeds. 14 90 S18 Very stiff,very:moist,gray,CLAY;high plasticity;laminated(CH).5' 2 A18j 16 Bottom of exploration boring at 91.5 feet Note:Blow count from 40 to 50 feet and:from 70 to 75 feet likely overstated due to gravels. 95 100 105 110 115 5 O 2E LL_. a ci Sampler Type(ST): 2"OD Split Spoon Sampler(SPT) _ No Recovery M-Moisture Logged by: TWL 3"OD Split Spoon Sampler(D&M) 11 Ring Sample SL. Water Level() Approved by: CJK t Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling(ATD)