The URL can be used to link to this page

15-103404PERMIT #: 15-103622-00-CO AAA ADDRESS: 32057 Pacific Hwy S afghan associates, inc PROJECT: Retaining Wall/Site Work - ENGINEERING CHICK-FIL-A DATE: 7/23/15 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 20, 2015 TO: City of Federal Way BY: Craig Harris, PE SUBJECT: Stormwater Management Memo 660 PROJECT: Celebration Center - Chick-fil-A, Federal Way, WA PROJECT NO.: Al5097.11 This memorandum is to outline the stormwater management process utilized for the Celebration Center - Chick-fil-A project located at 32075 Pacific Hwy in Federal Way, Washington. The project will include removing existing curb and asphalt, grade to the future building slab and hardscape subgrade, construct retaining walls and install utilities. The site is a portion of the Celebration Center property and will contain a future Chick-fil-A restaurant. The site area is 34,736sf with the building pad to be—4,189SF and 29,781SF of pavement 11 and sidewalk. The Celebration Center property has already been brought up to code for stormwater quality and quantity regulations. The project intends to relocate an existing mechanical water quality vault and install an oil water separator due to the high use of the future drive thru. The current storm piping network for the site collects the runoff in catch basins and discharges it to the south. The proposed drainage system will collect runoff in catch basins and re-route it to the existing conveyance system to the south. The oil/water separator and conveyance piping was designed to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM requirements. cc: File 4 - JUL 2 2 2015 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS 4875 SW Griffith Drive I Suite 300 I Beaverton, OR 197005 503.620.30301tel 503.620.55391fax w w w a a i e n g. c 0 m _ .Sir 2e I 7y -C I CB -A SD T � M.aara7' Y,.SC9' $ C1 « 4 ! II I✓ _ I I 0 O.28X d 1' F ro0.cy' - t4!UL• _ ra.c � It- 0 -is-'� h--7.: RiIE%SA21tlJi+x'. ) aEc a:cDassaooDl3s GRAPHIC SCALE + - NORTH 0 UTILITY PLAN - q SCALE r ' PO' ( IN FM ) UTILITY INFO L 4 TYP 4 C 10IE IN=409.56 tl4 3E IN+i13.90 9 9 RIM=416.80 IE OUT=409.56 IE OUT=413.90 I E IN=411.00 E OUT-411-00 4 _ CRS 4B� IY1'fr S _ MN1 IT Y A U E W-411.59 N IE W-411.39 N 6 IE OUT=414.36 IE IN=408.31 IE OVT=471.3 1 IE OUT=406.21 4 ' IE OUTY414-95 A 41 5 VENWD. TRAPPED IE OUT=411.66 AND PRIMED L Lneh - 20 It. PIPE INFO (PRIVATE) STORM NOTES LEGEND PROPOSED EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE STORM SEWER UNE DOMESTIC WATER LINE - - - - - ----- - _, E ELECTRIC LINE_ - NATURAL GAS LINE !� - CATCH BASIN RIM ELEVATION 1 INVERT ELEVATION IE=100-00 EXISTING (E) DOWN SPOUT •DS CLEAN OUT •CD CATCH BASIN (TYPE 1 W/SLOTS) CATCH BASIN (TYPE 1 W/SDLID UD) ° CATCH BASILE (B" TYPE 2) O GENERAL NOTES AND QUIof 1_ ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRE71T EDITION THE UNIFORM PLVMSING CODE. INTERNATIONAL SUILDNG CODE. AND THE INTERNATIONAL CIT1'S GENERA NOTES FIRE CODE WORK SHALL ALSO CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS Or THE JURISIDIC717N STROLL IN ACCUXIOWCE 1N71t 7!=E 1•EPFifAL WAY REVISED CODE (FWAC). AND TO THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. I.All CW+51'JICTION APPDGAB[R OAOPIAh(i5. ANO THE a1Y CODNGL OOJpnD"15 OF PRO,iCI APPROVw 1HE3E ppITIMENIS ARE FDA ROAD. AHD MUMCB'AL CONSTRUCTION 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A FULL SET OF THE CURRENT APPROVED CONTRACTOR INCLUDING A ET OF ON THE PROJECT SITE AT ALL SIFPLEMEHiED BY 7HE STAHOAR� SPEW1CA71DN3 ['ASOOT/A"a WALE %RtG COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS DICR6), AND THE IWO COUNTY SURFACE WATER DESIGN R SHALL BE TALC �{ RZ;po$Kg JTY W THE APPLICANT APO THE PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS TIMES MANUAL [x� )• ENWHFIII' m CORRECT ANY ERROR, OwSyTON, ON VARIATIOM FROM THE Aa01L Il>O)IA>EIE1+T" FOUND IN OR UAaLLTIY TO THE CT7 OF FEDEFAA T1HESE VtA S Ali CORRECTO& SMALL BE AY NO ADDITIO4AL .03T 3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSFILE FOR COORDINATION OF PRIVATE UTILITIES SUCH WAY. AS GAS, TELEPHONE. POWER• CABLE TELEVISION. ETC. CONFIRM VAULT LOCATIONS 2 TE1E 1XI ,NS lfA� BEiN REVIETICO ►CCOPDNC TO THE FEDERAL wav NAVE BEEN GVaIL DR BY THE CITY WITH ENGINEER. LOWED ENGNEEAPLC RFWEM' CNEP41ST, SOME ELD:CMT•+ MAY iS H EN(7NEERIHG FLAN NT=KENER,VARIANCE FROM ADOPTED 51'ANOAltDS 1S NOT ALLOWED MESS 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE ENGINEER AND ,A1PoSDICTION INFORMED OF SPECIFICALLY AYPIIaVED BY TT� LFIY 9F FEDERAL WAY. MOR TO COMSTRUCtIW. CON57RVVICN PROGRESS TO FACILITATE SITE DBSERVATIONS AT REQUIRED INTERVALS. IS REOUIRED. 3. ApCONSTR OF THIS ROAD, GRADING, AND DRA41ALE PLAM DRIES NOT AN E, GAS. EL APPROVAL ANY cONYE'YANCC SEWER CONVEYANCE GAS, E1ECT11CnY ETC) 24-HOUR NOTICE OTHER CONSTRUCTION O.E. DOMESTIC WATER 5. THIS PLAN IS GENERALLY DIAGRAMMATIC. IT DOES NOT SHOW EVERY JOINT. BEND, s BEFORE ANY CONSiRUCnOH OR DEVELDPMENT ACWrr. A PRFCORSTRUCTXIN IHCONG MART BE HELD THE APPLICANT, AND THE AAPLICANYS COHSIRUCOOEF REPRESENTATIVE FITTING, CR ACCESSORY REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION. S. CLEAN OUTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH UPC CHAPTER SEVEN, LTI(1IEEN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY S- A SIGNEO COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN SECTION 707 AND SECTION 719. NOT ALL REQUIRED CLEAN OUTS ARE SHOWN. PROGRESS. S- CON`TRVCIIGM HOSE �0 AC77MTY (� PRIVATE PROPERTY) SHALL BE LBAIW AS PER 0 A- (SECTION THROUGH FRIDAY, AND 9:00 AM. TO 8:00 7. DUSTING CONDITIONS BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY AND UTUTY SURVEY 1A10NOUN THIS IS 7:D0 AM. TO 8:00 ►.M.. MONDAY PREPARED BY BARCHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEEFM INC. DATCO JULY 7 2011 PAS ON SATIIiDAK US SA; B. THE CONTRACTGR SHALL VERIFY AND CONFIRM EXISTING CONDITIONS. NOTIFY 7- CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WITHIN CITY RIGHTS -OF -WAY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF &30 AM TO ENGINEER OF VARIATIONS IN CON0171ONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS- POINTS OF 3:. PM. CONNECTION TO EA5TRIG UTILITIES AND LOCATIONS WHERE NEW UTTU Es WILL S. IT SMALL Hi TIME A>'PLRCAHiS/CONTRACTOR•S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN A L CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS CROSS E7fi57IMFi UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED BY pOTNDWND PThOR TO NECESSARY BEFORE INITIAIVO OFF-9TE 1N711K W7FfH THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONSTRVCllON OR ORDERING MATERIALS IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO =W WLE. POTHOLLING SUCH THAT IF CONFLICTS ARE ENCOUNTERED. SUFFICIENT li- FIiAMC1Ie5EQ UTy,ITiE` a DINER 1NSTALLATIRIS THAT ARE NOT SHOWNON 71RSE APPROV7D PLAO: AI:D APPROVED SET OF PLANS )HAT MEEY ALL CRY REQUWE167MTS TITRE EXIS'i5 TO PREPARE MCOIFTED DE5H715 AND HAVE THE MODWFICATIDNS SMAL Hm BE pONSTRVCTEO UHIiSS AN 6 ARE SIIBIIITTEO 70 THE Cftt OF FEDERAL MAY AT lF_AST 714R[I APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTION WITHOUT IIAPACTWO THE PROJECT SCJ•IEDULF- BTHEAYr pRI COIOHSTRliC1LONi�AP1EA 9. STORM DRAIN FITTINGS ARE TO BE ECCENTRIC, 10. VERTICAL DATUM SHALL BE KCAS OR NGVD-29. 10. SITE RUNOFF HAS BEE WANTIFIEO USING RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS. PIPE PROVED BY TIiE PUBLIC 1� 5 F7>t1EC1CR ANO NDIEDNON 1115E APPRO'1FD PLA'RS. INN+' OPPEEN�CUTI SMAL.LYBEPRESSp¢D IN wooACCO S1pNG IS BASED ON MANNIHG'S FORILVLA MIN Na0.0T3. IF THE CONTRACTOR DESIRES TO SUBSTITUTE MATERIAL WITH A DIFFERENT N-VALUE, REVISEON OF OmCE %ITN KCFS &OMB) IT CALCULATION$ ►ALL BE NECESSARY. THE CONTRACTOR MAY WRILACT THE ENGINEER 5z THEFOR$AFEWARDS. SAlETTFOR THE REVISIONS-ENTTHEP17D11. PR0170E pRAWAGi FROM DOCV, WATER METER, AND CHECK VALVE VAULTS AS REQUIREDABTVIE.RIRALRA ION V.WATER PI1MP WTIi DLSCHAR.ETO HEALTH DEPARTMENT - TRAFITC CLYl1RO!_ SHALL APPLY. iLOW `EATAPPROVEDLOCATK)N.MONDECONDOR, -PROM WIREAHFi CCPITROLS N BWLOING EOUIPLIENTSTAE{AFI[ADD161-07.23 PROVIDE AND IKSTALL ALL REGULATORY AND WAREANG 9CNS PEN THE LATEST ROOM- 1P. DOMESTIC WATER LINES AND ACCESSORIES SEIVEEN THE WATER METER AND THE 13. CDN7 Ap0R MALL EDITION OF MANUAL ON UWCNM TRAFFK; CONTROL DEWCES [WTOP BWLDWND SHALL BE INSTALLED BY A LICENSED PLUMBER EMPLOYED BY A LICENSED 14. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO FINAL GRADE AFTER PAMNG ASPHALT WEARING COURSE PLUMBING CONTRACTOR. 1A ROCKERIES ARE CONSIDERED III BE A N=' G BONA 'SF WAIIOI A1WT EROSION 'Y' ROCKERIES WALLS- ALL ROCKFIIRFS SRHAIl. BE COHSiRULTEO N 13. UDUTIE5 WTHIN FIVE FEET OF A BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS AS DESCRIBED IN THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE UPC BULL NDT 8E aONSTAUC7EL TO SERVE AS RETAINRHC ACOOROAN �2 � I S` NOT E%CEiL SDC FEiT w HE�HT APPROVED FOR INTERIOR USE YDRaHTAR r[DCf HRI TrFQR OESIGNm BY A QEOTEURFICAL OA 'TAUOTURAL ENLbIEDi LICENSED IN THE STATE OF WASlWPGTDN, 14. CHANGES IN DIRECTION OF 13RATNMX PIPING SHALL BE MATTE BY THE APPROPRIATE USE DF APPROVED FITnNG5 AND SHALL BE OF THE ANGLES PRESEi17ED BY ONE-SP7UNTH BEND. ONE -EIGHTH BEND. ONE-91xTH BEND OR 01HER APPROVED an:y DRA:NADE NaTES FITTINGS OF EQUIVALENT SWEEP. 15. PROVIDE MINE," 1' VERTICAL SERAHATog BETWEEN STORM DRAIN. WATER SERVICE, 1. PROOF OF UABIUTY INSURANCE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO, DR AT. THE AND SEWER SW%QE LIT¢$ AND ALL UNDERGROUND POWER SERVICE LINES. PREDDNSTRUCTION MEETING. CONTRACTOR SHALL POTHOLE FAL UT9ITGES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 10 ENSURE 2 ALL LAP[ AND APPURTENAti{E5 SHALL BE LW16 Ukl A pppPERLT PREPARED F PACTIN PROPER SEPARATION CAN BE MET. 4" PERFORATED RETAINING WALL DRAIN WITH SILT PROTECTION SOCK. PROVIDE 4 C THE Ad''O--GE ",I TiaDDF SPFLRCAiR>eTS. 1LM�+ SFIALL NICLUOE LENIRTG AND NC. V A Ntr TRWCN BOTT'll THE TOP OF FDUNOATIOH WTERµi, MMD REDCRED ACE 1D A UNIiW(M PROVIDE 16. PROVIDE BACKFDEVICES AT CONNECTION TO STORM SYSTEM CRAPE SD THAT THE EILTIRE TINE IS SUPPORTED BY A UNIFORMLY OEI.SE UNYIELDING BASE OT LOG TED iRAv=AZk RAAMMA nR SZDETWaIL S+ALLAAYEH`OCK:C = A+wuE A WATER NOTES Y ASSOCIATED WIN A PUMAHENT MIUL'DON/DIIFNTLON FACILITY SMALL HAVE SOLIO LC'CION10 UOS- 6- TAP TO EXISTING E' WATERMAIN. 1 1A2' WATER METER, BACKFLOWV AND MAIN I, ROLL FOR ERDSON PROOF I M OF DITCHES. CHANNELS AND SWAJL-. MIERE $MIIR0. OF WAD QUARRY ROCK. PLACED TO A DEPTH OF ORE FOOT AND NDST MEET THE INSTALL 6' GATE VALVE CORRECTION FOR DOMESTIC SERVHCE VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL ENGINEER. "T BE FC.LOWMr SPECIFTGAllp+3 4"-B' RDIj[A4D7C-TOTE aA55IR'1D. 2 -e ROOD/30X-A01L PASSING` AND ACCORDANCE OTH KM CA AS ANa SUMP PUMP PER JURRSl7 nDHAL O6 2" DOMESTIC BUILDING PANT OF CONNECTION. -�� . � P P�e� � =p �N�iL�gl CONCRETE RUBBLE SHALL NOT BE REOULRELAENTS- CODABHNATE PON£R AND COORDINATE WITH PLUMBRCC PLANS. USED TAMPER SWITCH "I" MEC4MCAL PLANS 4WASERVICE ToTRASHCLOSURE 3/COORDINATE 3 FIRE WATER POINT OF CONNECTION. WTH PLUMBING LANS COORDINATE WITH PLUMBING PLANS 3/4" METER, !TACK"W AND MAIN 4 INSTALL 4" FDC PER JURISDICTIONAL CONMEQiION FOR IRRIGATION SERVICE. VERIFY WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, REOUIREMENTS. ALL FIRE WATER P1PNG TC FIRE LRIE AND SACKFLOW PREVENON CRASS ST DUCTILE OtOFT PIPE WITH DEVOE SIT£ TI SMALL IX VERIFIED AND FIELQ R(SIRALNEO .!DINTS. APPROVED 91 FIRE OR MECHANICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTTON. SANITARY NOTES MISC UTILITY NOTES STORM OA 92LF6"PVC00.507, DO 13LFB"PVC03.0R OG BLF12"PVC010.2R Oj CONNECT TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN O DAYLIGHT 4" O CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE TO 417.98 IE QUT-416.70(PROPOSED 12") FOUNDATION DRAIN ADJUST RIM 6O 128LF6'PVC01.965 0 12LF8"PVC012.05 QH 13LF12-PVC019.OZ O BLACK SEWER POINT OF CONNECTION - © 54LF6"PVC00.50X FO 67LF12"PVC05.1x RELOCATE EXISTING CATCH BASINS ADJUST RIM TO GRADE. CODRDINATE VATH MEP. O CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE TDa5TING O PROVIDE STUB FOR FUTURE GREY WATER. ALL ON -SITE STORM STRUCTURES, MECHANICAL WATER OUAUTY VAULT. DETENTION. AND PIPE ARE PRIVATE. ADJUST RIM TO GRADE. ALL SANITARY PIPING TO BE PVC 3034 O INSTALL SHUTOFF VALVE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL STORM CONVEYANCE PIPING TO BE PVC ASTM3034 EXCEPT AS NOTED O 4" FOUNDATION DRAIN AND CHECKVALVE CONNECT TO STORM ALAIN Q AFPRO't- LOCAa7N OF PlB7POGED Q3 PROPOSED 10 .7 CONCRETE GAS ML7ER. OODROINA" Raft£ OF GAS SERVCE TO MEIER NTH LOON. U11111Y RAADLOCAIE EXLSnNG POWER PRONaQE CDlMdHUE DETER LOCATION METER AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. COORDINATE WITH MECHANICAL ENGINEER. WITH LOCAL POWER 12) APPROXWNAT COMPANY. CLDCAAOS= POWERA0 M CONNECTION TD Sulu G CooRpIMATE Q ExISTING J-BOX TD BE RkLOCATED OR INSTALLED IN ROUE BF POWER St9mcc TO METER UNDERGROUND VAULT. WITH LOCAL LmLILY PROUDER. .'.DIEATE BW31I1G LWIM OF CONNECTION WRIT MEG(MNCN- F1104+> UTILITY PLAN DATE 05/11/15 DaAwLW: IRT CNH PTLTE Al5097.11.C20 AEVMIMI& PERMIT NO. 15-xxxxxx-00-CO SHEET C2.0 _ - JOB TWMBM A15097.11 APPROVED DATE 07/20/2015 - PERMIT SET GROUT FlkriH CBAN SEE PLANS. STMAWD MJI. LOrATED ON VQ:, M SIDE OF MANHOLE. WTTHN 7.4- OF COVER AND FLOOR NOTES 1. POURED CONCRETE BASE-5 SACK MIX, 30DO P,S L AT 28 DAYS. 2. FGRM GROOVED WERT AND MAKE SURFACE SMOOTH TO DIRECT FLAW. STANDARD FRAME AND COVER 4- CONCRETE EXTENSION RING INSTALL AS REQUIRED TO BRING MANHOLE COVER A: FRAME TO DESIGN GRADE - MAX. 3 To DR 12- MAX. ECCENTRIC MANHOLE TOP STANDARD 48- MANHOLE RISERS RAM-NEK JOINT MATERIAL DR EQUAL • B- TO 24- 5- OF $I4 -a AT 95X OF MAXIMUM PROCTOR MIWE ASTM 1557-C rIr� STANDARD 48' MANHOLE Cal. NOT TO SCALE 02750-01 xou ! uia rnd aw tt n.crrm • .wa.c4 w ww c�� 0! roRe fr bi VN.. tames /[�x.e. rR nm reK rtem .�r�� iova� c�sr�,-�..x owoeiL sw� a= NrGV rep � a ie,0[mUr Ot,.W! B�SYroM 4S 6 FLIYL W RiF d:..T i wa ovmn Nn R a r<r.. 9eo:.m. e.x wN v TY. o40wvs ry tr o� +xp oe v s..rc v ra�..�x � -ryw,r nc rxsm rnvx m n�c .w .es'"PEAa, s°M.scn1eox o +. rlal9f a W Ilse P� ra M •vt• r w us .rro`��.nr � .�rwun !nm rwr.F mx �� cExr� rzeL a � a LLvu%� uar<,wn r rPn, DWG NO. -a- CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 4-1 660-CPS OIL WATER SEPARATOR Projected Plate Area = 444 Sq/ft Maximum Process Flow = 475 GPM r- e e-s TOP SECTION No. "a{PS-T ftic M + elmlflr! Facets Cc VAULT No.6 f-CP: sFE ra;vr�» iw.,��s�mvocrs� 'mun �wcc in n JISO+�.�r•-s CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 (48-, 54-, 60-.72", & 96-) 4 3 !1 OldCastle Precast' Delivering Reliability 660-CPS Projected Plate Area = 444 Sq/ft Maximum Process Flow = 415 GPM irwe! sti . a+s o:w ac SSarIX - -. snc a sa.as••s - vpn opauburn.com PLAN WEIN aFerw•}, say xM .nn V gwa�c ,Y: ar. Cis M �s SCALE 3/B- = 1'-0` -JS = --s CIVIL DETAILS DATE- D5/11/15 DRAWN: JRT CHECKER CNH FILE: A15097.11.C31 REVISIONS M PERMIT NO. 15—xxxxxx-00—CO IgD ea�lAX�(O� Ne N,N6i ¢lG9f TM Nm,a rFNiau1 aF ww ryt.EfAp rIG SHEET C3.1 APPROVED 1 DATE .3 NUMBER: A15097.11 07f08 2015 - PRELIMINARY / \ / / LL = e c E k \ 2 o U- % �• ��»iC) � �� ? 2 / G \ƒ) � 7 01, 7 CD 2 k// \ f o 6 0& 4 E Z ® 5 c o o Co o t � .t c\/ / a E o w R o / \ a o o t / E / CL \ \ / / / / I � 73 \ f f \ 7 0 # n r « 7 % 7 7 ? \ \ \ \ / # n - - - - � � CD k / / / / jD o�a a a o {$ƒ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IC 0 0 0 0 r 0 r 0 m 0 m 0 r 0 r 0 m 0 LO 0 to f r@ r r r m n@ e r m r 6 a w 2 a w¥ w a a a w 6 a a¥ a¥ w w w a //\ . . r E - c@ o 0 0 0 o R o 0 0 0 0 o g o g o 0 0 a 0 a 0 a \% 2 2 m a tom a a m am a a e m m a r a e / � i 0\/[ g o g { I o 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 o g R o 0 o g o 0 0 d E/\ E m r a a a a a a e a a a r r a a a n a a p � � , • \ & / k k \ / / \m k w o d d a o 0 2 § k / / \ CD | w �S o�o 0 0 0 1 7 S 9 7\ R?/ E? S?$ 9 7 E q?/ E E \\ o d a o o a d d e d a a o a o a a a a a a g 2 � k ' / / \ Cl?4 % e CDe CD 0 | | a_� o # V n In & co | {< WWHM20 O JECT General Model Information Project Name: Al5097.11 wwhm Site Name: Celebration Center Site Address: City: Federal Way Report Date: 7/10/2015 Gage: Seatac Data Start: 1948/10/01 Data End: 2009/09/30 Timestep: 15 Minute Precip Scale: 1.00 Version: 2014/12/10 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Year A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:13:38 AM Page 2 r Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use Acres PARKING FLAT 0.8 Impervious Total 0.8 Basin Total 0.8 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:13:38 AM Page 3 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use Acres PARKING FLAT 0.8 Impervious Total 0.8 Basin Total 0.8 Element Flows To - Surface Interflow Groundwater A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:13:38 AM Page 4 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:13:39 AM Page 5 Mitigated Routing A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:13:39 AM Page 6 Analysis Results POC 1 II 0,15 1 -- -- — — - - — SOE3 10E-4 10E-3 10E-2 10E -1 1 10 100 Percerit Time F eedir�8 + Predeveloped Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 ! t 10 20 n 50 i0 c 90 95 % 99 995 1 x Mitigated Total Pervious Area: 0 Total Impervious Area: 0.8 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0 Total Impervious Area: 0.8 Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.305012 5 year 0.385265 10 year 0.439792 25 year 0.510521 50 year 0.564655 100 year 0.620104 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.305012 5 year 0.385265 10 year 0.439792 25 year 0.510521 50 year 0.564655 100 year 0.620104 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.395 0.395 1950 0.427 0.427 1951 0.247 0.247 1952 0.220 0.220 1953 0.237 0.237 1954 0.248 0.248 1955 0.281 0.281 1956 0.277 0.277 1957 0.314 0.314 1958 0.253 0.253 A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:13:39 AM Page 7 1959 0.258 0.258 1960 0.254 0.254 1961 0.268 0.268 1962 0.234 0.234 1963 0.260 0.260 1964 0.255 0.255 1965 0.323 0.323 1966 0.216 0.216 1967 0.373 0.373 1968 0.424 0.424 1969 0.294 0.294 1970 0.284 0.284 1971 0.339 0.339 1972 0.350 0.350 1973 0.212 0.212 1974 0.309 0.309 1975 0.356 0.356 1976 0.239 0.239 1977 0.259 0.259 1978 0.317 0.317 1979 0.434 0.434 1980 0.390 0.390 1981 0.319 0.319 1982 0.449 0.449 1983 0.366 0.366 1984 0.231 0.231 1985 0.318 0.318 1986 0.276 0.276 1987 0.425 0.425 1988 0.258 0.258 1989 0.323 0.323 1990 0.544 0.544 1991 0.434 0.434 1992 0.229 0.229 1993 0.198 0.198 1994 0.215 0.215 1995 0.283 0.283 1996 0.301 0.301 1997 0.292 0.292 1998 0.296 0.296 1999 0.606 0.606 2000 0.301 0.301 2001 0.331 0.331 2002 0.386 0.386 2003 0.300 0.300 2004 0.567 0.567 2005 0.259 0.259 2006 0.229 0.229 2007 0.530 0.530 2008 0.427 0.427 2009 0.394 0.394 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.6057 0.6057 2 0.5667 0.5667 3 0.5435 0.5435 A15097.11 wwhm 7110/2015 9:14:36 AM Page 8 4 0.5297 0.5297 5 0.4495 0.4495 6 0.4343 0.4343 7 0.4342 0.4342 8 0.4269 0.4269 9 0.4266 0.4266 10 0.4253 0.4253 11 0.4237 0.4237 12 0.3950 0.3950 13 0.3942 0.3942 14 0.3896 0.3896 15 0.3864 0.3864 16 0.3726 0.3726 17 0.3658 0.3658 18 0.3562 0.3562 19 0.3499 0.3499 20 0.3389 0.3389 21 0.3313 0.3313 22 0.3234 0.3234 23 0.3227 0.3227 24 0.3187 0.3187 25 0.3180 0.3180 26 0.3173 0.3173 27 0.3139 0.3139 28 0.3092 0.3092 29 0.3015 0.3015 30 0.3008 0.3008 31 0.3002 0.3002 32 0.2960 0.2960 33 0.2945 0.2945 34 0.2921 0.2921 35 0.2841 0.2841 36 0.2826 0.2826 37 0.2812 0.2812 38 0.2767 0.2767 39 0.2756 0.2756 40 0.2682 0.2682 41 0.2596 0.2596 42 0.2594 0.2594 43 0.2590 0.2590 44 0.2584 0.2584 45 0.2580 0.2580 46 0.2546 0.2546 47 0.2535 0.2535 48 0.2533 0.2533 49 0.2480 0.2480 50 0.2468 0.2468 51 0.2395 0.2395 52 0.2370 0.2370 53 0.2337 0.2337 54 0.2308 0.2308 55 0.2288 0.2288 56 0.2285 0.2285 57 0.2195 0.2195 58 0.2162 0.2162 59 0.2153 0.2153 60 0.2119 0.2119 61 0.1979 0.1979 A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:14:36 AM Page 9 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fai 1 0.1525 1826 1826 100 Pass 0.1567 1669 1669 100 Pass 0.1608 1506 1506 100 Pass 0.1650 1374 1374 100 Pass 0.1692 1229 1229 100 Pass 0.1733 1110 1110 100 Pass 0.1775 1010 1010 100 Pass 0.1816 937 937 100 Pass 0.1858 866 866 100 Pass 0.1900 808 808 100 Pass 0.1941 726 726 100 Pass 0.1983 669 669 100 Pass 0.2025 613 613 100 Pass 0.2066 581 581 100 Pass 0.2108 541 541 100 Pass 0.2150 498 498 100 Pass 0.2191 451 451 100 Pass 0.2233 420 420 100 Pass 0.2274 392 392 100 Pass 0.2316 366 366 100 Pass 0.2358 343 343 100 Pass 0.2399 320 320 100 Pass 0.2441 296 296 100 Pass 0.2483 273 273 100 Pass 0.2524 257 257 100 Pass 0.2566 240 240 100 Pass 0.2607 223 223 100 Pass 0.2649 209 209 100 Pass 0.2691 193 193 100 Pass 0.2732 181 181 100 Pass 0.2774 171 171 100 Pass 0.2816 163 163 100 Pass 0.2857 148 148 100 Pass 0.2899 141 141 100 Pass 0.2941 135 135 100 Pass 0.2982 122 122 100 Pass 0.3024 113 113 100 Pass 0.3065 108 108 100 Pass 0.3107 105 105 100 Pass 0.3149 100 100 100 Pass 0.3190 92 92 100 Pass 0.3232 87 87 100 Pass 0.3274 84 84 100 Pass 0.3315 74 74 100 Pass 0.3357 72 72 100 Pass 0.3398 67 67 100 Pass 0.3440 63 63 100 Pass 0.3482 62 62 100 Pass 0.3523 58 58 100 Pass 0.3565 55 55 100 Pass 0.3607 54 54 100 Pass 0.3648 53 53 100 Pass 0.3690 50 50 100 Pass A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:14:36 AM Page 11 0.3732 46 46 100 Pass 0.3773 45 45 100 Pass 0.3815 42 42 100 Pass 0.3856 39 39 100 Pass 0.3898 34 34 100 Pass 0.3940 32 32 100 Pass 0.3981 29 29 100 Pass 0.4023 28 28 100 Pass 0.4065 25 25 100 Pass 0.4106 22 22 100 Pass 0.4148 21 21 100 Pass 0.4189 20 20 100 Pass 0.4231 17 17 100 Pass 0.4273 13 13 100 Pass 0.4314 12 12 100 Pass 0.4356 9 9 100 Pass 0.4398 9 9 100 Pass 0.4439 9 9 100 Pass 0.4481 9 9 100 Pass 0.4523 8 8 100 Pass 0.4564 8 8 100 Pass 0.4606 8 8 100 Pass 0.4647 8 8 100 Pass 0.4689 8 8 100 Pass 0.4731 8 8 100 Pass 0.4772 8 8 100 Pass 0.4814 7 7 100 Pass 0.4856 7 7 100 Pass 0.4897 7 7 100 Pass 0.4939 7 7 100 Pass 0.4980 7 7 100 Pass 0.5022 7 7 100 Pass 0.5064 6 6 100 Pass 0.5105 6 6 100 Pass 0.5147 6 6 100 Pass 0.5189 6 6 100 Pass 0.5230 6 6 100 Pass 0.5272 6 6 100 Pass 0.5314 5 5 100 Pass 0.5355 5 5 100 Pass 0.5397 5 5 100 Pass 0.5438 4 4 100 Pass 0.5480 3 3 100 Pass 0.5522 2 2 100 Pass 0.5563 2 2 100 Pass 0.5605 2 2 100 Pass 0.5647 2 2 100 Pass A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:14:36 AM Page 12 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POG #1 On-line facility volume: 0.0983 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.1299 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.1299 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0734 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0A734 cfs. A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:14:36 AM Page 13 LI ❑ Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Vaiurne Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent comment Treatment 7 Needs Through Volume Volume Volume "later Quality Treatment Faclltty (ac4l) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated fac-m (ac-it) Credit No Treat TolaI Volume Infiltrated o.at] o.oa o.ao 0% Credit Duration Compliance with LID Analysis Standard 8% at 2-yr to 50-yr Result =Passed A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:14:36 AM Page 14 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. A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:05 AM Page 15 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Al5097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:05 AM Page 16 Mitigated Schematic u Basin 1 A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:05 AM Page 17 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <----------- File Name ------------------------------ >*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 A15097.11 wwhm.wdm MESSU 25 PreA15097.11 wwhm.MES 27 PreA15097.11~'wwhm.L61 28 PreA15097.11^wwhm.L62 30 POCA15097.11 wwhml.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 IMPLND 11 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FILL PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* END PRINT -INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** Al5097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 18 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 *** <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS END PWAT-STATEI END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 11 PARKING/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 11 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 11 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 11 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 11 0 0 END IWAT-STATEI END IMPLND AGWRC AGWE TP GWVS Al5097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 19 SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # Basin 1*** IMPLND 11 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# 0.8 COPY 501 15 NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------ >< --- > User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT -INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------ ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- > *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------ ><-------- > <--- ><--- ><--- ><--- >< --- > *** <--- ><---><---><--- >< --- > END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC -ACTIONS END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 20 END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> MASS -LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY END MASS -LINK 15 END MASS -LINK END RUN <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> # #*** INPUT MEAN Al5097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 21 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <----------- File Name ------------------------------>*** *** <-ID-> WDM 26 A15097.11_wwhm.wdm MESSU 25 MitA15097.11 wwhm.MES 27 MitA15097.11 wwhm.L61 28 MitA15097.11 wwhm.L62 30 POCA15097.11 wwhml.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 IMPLND 11 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFOl # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FILL PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFOl END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ****************r Print -flags *t***t*********************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* END PRINT -INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 22 END PWAT-PARMl PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS END PWAT-STATEl END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 11 PARKING/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARMl <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 11 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 11 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 11 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEl <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 11 0 0 END IWAT-STATEI END IMPLND AGWRC AGWETP GWVS A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 23 1 SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # Basin 1*** IMPLND 11 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# 0.8 COPY 501 15 NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** >< --- > User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT -INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------ ><-------- > <--- ><--- ><--- ><--- >< --- > *** <--- ><--- ><--- ><--- >< --- > END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC -ACTIONS END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 24 p END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> MASS -LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY END MASS -LINK 15 END MASS -LINK END RUN <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> # #*** INPUT MEAN A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 25 Predeveloped HSPF Message File Al5097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 26 Mitigated HSPF Message File A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 27 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. 2005-2015; 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 A15097.11 wwhm 7/10/2015 9:15:06 AM Page 28 01L-/WhTL-IZ 5c-P,+R-t-To7L FRv. Low H A-( Li 05 rAx( 6DUR- A2Pt 145 SOS, 1+ /oo � r 5 7bZAe EUcX,T FLU ?,M- c D. (17- C-q5 = 2 �S - 3 y,P"'l F aj&t OL6 C," izE U Th-i I-y ll-#Vi— CP Co o - c.p s AAafghan associates, inc. �'_�,.1�a�7ei) ��x. — C /�r-✓ - } � � � By: d �1 Date: 7 Ja � JENGINEERING AlSv� Project No.: -_ 4875 SW Griffith Drive I Suite 300 [Beaverton. OR 197005 503,620-3030 1 tel 503.620-5539 1 fax / f Sheet: of: www aaieng.com L 1 PUBLIC WORKS TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT PERMIT #: 15-103404-00-CO .ADDRESS: 32057 Pacific Hwy S PROJECT: New Restaurant CHICK-FIL-A DATE: 7/ 13/15 Chick-fil-A Restaurant No. 03392 A portion of 32057 Pacific Highway South Federal Way, Washington Prepared for: Chick-fil-A, Inc. 15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92618 July 8, 2015 Our Job No. 16555 PRCE ` CITY OF FEDERAL'. CD5 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES ♦ TUMWATER, WA ♦ LONG BEACH, CA ♦ ROSEVILLE, CA ♦ SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 — Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 — Site Location Figure 3 — Soils Figure 4 — FEMA Map 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan Analysis and Design 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 16555.004.doc Tab 1.0 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Chick-fil-A project site is located on a 0.80 acre site located within a portion of Section 17, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Federal Way, King County, Washington. Specifically, the site is located at 32075 Pacific Highway South. The site is part of the Celebration Center development, and will not have its own tax parcel. A lease area has been determined, and serves as the boundary for the project site. Please see Figure 2, Site Location, for a graphical description of the exact site location. The project consists of the construction of a new Chick-fil-A restaurant, including new water and sewer services. The site is currently developed, and consists of an asphalt parking lot. As part of the Celebration Center project, the site area was accounted for when sizing the downstream stormwater facilities. The Chick-fil-A project plans to maintain the existing storm system so that stormwater from the site continues to be conveyed to the existing stormwater water quality facilities. The project will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will consist of clearing and grading activities including: demolition, installation of erosion and sediment control BMPs, installation of storm, sewer, water, and dry utilities to within 5-feet of the building. The first phase will be designed, permitted, and constructed by the site Landlord. The second phase will consist of: fine grading, connection of wet and dry utilities to the building, installation of grey water sewer line with grease interceptor, construction of pedestrian path from Pacific Highway, construction of building, and paving of parking areas and drive-thru. This TIR reflects only the second phase of the project. A separate stormwater report will be provided with the Landlord's plans for the first phase of the project. The existing stormwater runoff from the site generally sheet flows west to east, where it is collected by the existing storm system. Existing conditions are further described in Section 4.0 Part A — Existing Site Hydrology. The proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant will be constructed on the north side of the site, where some fill will be required for the building pad. The proposed parking lot will match existing grades as closely as possible along the west side of the site. The east side of the site will require a moderate amount of fill to reach finished grade elevations. Proposed conditions are further described in Section 4.0 Part B — Developed Site Hydrology. Water quality for the project site will be provided by the existing water quality facility constructed for the Celebration Center project. For more information, see Section 4.0 Part D and Part E. 16555.004.doc Figure 1 Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner . Chick-fil-A. Inc. Phone 404 305-4407 Address 15635 Alton PaLlc Suite 350 Irvine. CA 92618 Project Engineer Chris Jensen P.E. Company Bar hausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone (4251251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION ❑ Landuse Services Subdivision / Short Subd. / UPD ® Building Services M/F / Commercial / SFR ❑ Clearing and Grading ❑ Right -of -Way Use ❑ Other Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 Project Name Chick-fii-A DDES Permit # N/A Location Township 21N Range Section 4E 17 Site Address 32079 Pacific Hi h South Federal Wav_ WA 98003 Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline ❑ COE 404 Management ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural Rockery/Vault/ ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ ESA Section 7 ❑ COE Wetlands ❑ Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review Full / Targeted / Type (circle one): Full / Modified / (circle): Large Site Small Site Date (include revision 7/8/15 Date (include revision 7/8/15 dates): dates): Date of Final: TBD Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of 2009 Surface Water Design Manual l/l/09 16555.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 1A TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Describe: Monitoring Required: es / No Start Date: TBD Completion Date: TBD Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: Special District Overlays: Drainage Basin: H lebos Creek Basin Stormwater Requirements: Conservation Flnw Control Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS ❑ River/Stream ❑ Lake ❑ Wetlands ❑ Closed Depression ❑ Floodplain ❑ Other Part 10 SOILS ❑ Steep Slope ❑ Erosion Hazard ❑ Landslide Hazard ❑ Coal Mine Hazard ❑ Seismic Hazard ❑ Habitat Protection El Soil Type Slopes Everett-Alderwood aravellY sandY loam 6-15 ❑ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) ❑ Other ❑ Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual K ❑ Sole Source Aquifer ❑ Seeps/Springs Erosion Potential 1/1/09 16555.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE ❑ Core 2 — Offsite Analysis ❑ Sensitive/Critical Areas ❑ SEPA ❑ Other El ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) 0.80 Acres -Restaurant with arkia area Core Requirements (all 8 apply) pischar a at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1 Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated: 12/l0/14 Flow Control . facility summary shy Conveyance System Erosion and Sediment Control Maintenance and Operation Financial Guarantees and Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Special Requirements (as applicab Area Specific Drainage Requirements Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control (comm./industrial landuse) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Level: 1 / © / 3 or Exemption Number Small Site BMPs N/A Spill containment located at: TBD ESC Site Supervisor: TBD Contact Phone: TBD After Hours Phone: TBD Responsibility: lPrivate / Public If Private, Maintenance Lo Required: e / No Provided: Yes / No Type- Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog or Exemption No. 3 Plan: {Yell / No Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac. / Name: Type: Major / Minor / Exemption 7Nane 100-year Base Blood Elevation (or range): Datum: Describe: None Describe landuse: Commercial restaurant Describe any structural controls: Tee in catch basin 9 I/l/09 16555.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL a TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High -use Site: 1yesl / No Treatment BMP: Oil ater Setaara Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ® Clearing Limits ❑ Stabilize Exposed Surfaces ® Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ❑ Cover Measures ® Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure ® Perimeter Protection Operation of Permanent Facilities ❑ Traffic Area Stabilization ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space ❑ Sediment Retention preservation areas ❑ Surface Water Control ❑ Other ❑ Dewatering Control ® Dust Control ❑ Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Note: Include Facilif Summa and Sketch Flow Control T e/Descri tion Water Qualit T e/Descri tion ❑ Detention ❑ Biofiltration ❑ Infiltration ❑ Wetpool ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Oil Control ❑ Flow Control ❑ Spill Control BMPs ❑ Flow Control BMPs ❑ Other ❑ Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 4 I/1/09 16555.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Covenant ❑ Native Growth Protection Covenant ❑ Tract ❑ Other Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ® Retaining Wall ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER 1, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and' a attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided a is accur' . July 8, 2015 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 6� 1/1/09 16555.002.doc Figure 2 Site Location Chicly-fil-A Vicinity Map k Easier La $.12T}�r- -- -- - Lake — — -- - — . in � S 313TH STT e! � i e17 �_--I S314TH ST Stelake Park a S 314TH ST 7 S 315TH LN S 315TH ST I 1 1 �!J l S 3T6iik $ r S MOTH LN S 316TH PL S 319TO ST � y N S 317TH ST 4 S 319TH PIL ..—j LIU; d6j�i a r ■ SITE W! ti Fed eLralllVay , it e� r s 324TF4 PL �. I+ a S� 6324 Sf rri 4 S aW14 PL 3 3mm PL s 3lTTN ST g Saw"ST — it Celebration Pa 1 BPA Trait Site +W CO li w 4 L ST _ S ST jl� a' S a321+w' ST S 33•.iR�� ST 5 � ' {CjZbf King County ; � 9104ft Legend 99 Selected Parcels County Boundary Anaruls X Mountain Peaks Local Highways Ej Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Incorporated Area Parcels Streets (cant) Parks The ir,formatfgn indudW on Us mep has been ---piled by King County slaty Irani a earl B �f�,sO jimelines i Or gfhls to ha ugss offs ch information. County makes no representations or warranties, express or impl od, as t0 occur--y, tamp, King County This document is not inlended for use as a survey praduet. Kiri, County shttlV not be liable for any general, special, Vndkeci, ed on this or consequential k damages Including, but not limited to, lost revenues or foal profits resu,ting from the use or misuse of lhB inlormatfon Contained on this map. Any sale of this map or rnforntAtion on this map is prohibited except by wriflen p0imisslon of King County. Date: 7/2I2014 Source: King County WAP - Property Information (http:llwww-matrokc.gov/GMMAP) Figure 3 Soils Map 47° 18' 51" N 47° 18' 49' 3 3 Soil Map —King County Area, Washington W m 551870 551980 47° 18' 51" N 0 n N N V N 470 16' 49" N 551820 551830 551840 55185U 3 � W Map Scale: 1:408 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. m _ —Meters N 0 5 10 20 30 i 0 15 30 � 0 � Map projection: Web Mercator Caner coordinates: WG584 Edge tics: uTM Zone 1ON WG584 Web Soil Survey 11/25/2014 USDA Natural Resources Page 1 of 3 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey D w O m Ld c;01 0) [2 V) O co O L y❑ N a7 [O] 7 C N N O N 12 a)° a) v@ co '0 N N D D O D D V O.0 l0 T ❑ i a3 N J D D (a p c t]1 � U N E f�A 0 N •�1 N N _ U D O °° ° m- D c a o m E a C+ c] o o U)i Jg N a ° a7 N L w ca y 0) E m m m w N n N CD 0 m D Z O N N _' E 71 3 w � 0 E a C o °a -L,):q Q �C 3 t 3 ° O m p1 QZ m E W aW 0 c CL U aa) m m o ¢v E ro ca Um m° c01 a) ¢� Nm�° v(O o >> 3°) a o3 �E0 . oZ° LL °° Eo L�Ey@CD T a mcc Z mmo n'� GmDnE ID �aE yDaU m_Z pa)QAaU a) rc YDa —n>La) DZa7 a— aScl `< OCm CD ad rn � a EE�E>m`w �i0.mma °�cNw scZ Q 2: 0 �' rn Em ca j > 7E 45 ° Dm. �E Eo°o cQ > cc n`— ri0n ON g w 5ia E i o U) a1 T t CL io cc U 3 m m w ca L d Q 0_ nO O_ U) J 6 'U N E m m a O w a d 6 .T C 0 co � in 0 0 Nn c rytl� L:Y �g {L y 0CL *t O . ^ s o w CL ) Q T d O c J C O ILW O_ E Z ur O_ N C _ c c 2 O a .. n N o ca a7 iaO Up O �` O W a) a m o m a 3 U) d >, _o ° O cn D oa L ° 2 2 2d 3 am)a > m a) m > co ca O Q _ U) U) U) OON m ca (DYc ONNO C TOO d' U) Na) U) n N w o. O N RI U) © O O N Q U) v co NO N L D N � �a N Z 7 N O a) U) 7 D C/) y a3 O U) a a) 00 ?�U a7 C O cc Z ol` Soil Map —King County Area, Washington • Map Unit Legend King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Name Acres in AQI Percent of AO Map Unit Symbol p ' Am8 Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 0.5 55.1 °la 6 percent slopes _ -- — — — — — 37A% EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 0•3 to 15 percent slopes — — — _ — 6.9% Everett Alderwood gravelly 0. EwC sandy Ioams, 6 to 15 pent slopes 0.9 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest uspA Natural Resources WIiiiiiiiiii Conservation Service Wed Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1112512014 Page 3 of 3 Figure 4 FEMA Map Tab 2.0 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: The proposed stormwater runoff will continue in the same west to east direction, and discharge at the southeast corner of the site as in the existing conditions. Core Requirement No. 2: Off -Site Analysis. Response: An Off -Site Analysis is provided in Section 3 of this TIR. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: The site is subject to Conservation Flow Control (Level 2). The project will increase the stormwater runoff flow rate by less than 0.1 cfs from the existing condition, and is therefore exempt from providing Level 2 Flow Control. Please see Section 4.0 Part D for more information. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The proposed storm system is to be designed, permitted, and constructed by the site's landlord. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: Erosion and sediment controls will be provided to prevent the transport of sediment downstream. The proposed erosion and sediment control measures are further described in Section 8.0 of this report and designed pursuant to the 2009 Icing County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: Maintenance and Operations of the on -site storm system will be provided in with subsequent submittal. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: Financial guarantees will be provided with subsequent submittal. Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: The project is exempt from Core Requirement No. 8 per exemption No. 3 Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects. Please see Section 4.0 Part E for more information. 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements. Response: Not applicable - the project site is not located in an adopted area. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. 16555.004.doc Response: The site does not lay within any FEMA delineated Flood Hazard areas; therefore, this requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: Not applicable - the site does not rely on flood protection facilities. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: Source control will be provided by a grease interceptor on the grey water line exiting the building, and an area drain located within the trash enclosure to collect contaminated runoff. Both the grease interceptor and trash enclosure area drain will be connected to the proposed sewer line on -site. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: The project site is considered a high -use site; therefore, oil control will be provided. An oillwater separator will be provided just upstream of the connection to the existing stormwater system. All stormwater structures will be designed, permitted, and constructed by the site's landlord. 16555.004.doc Tab 3.0 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS Task 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The proposed Chick-fil-A project site is located on a 0.80 acre site located within a portion of Section 17, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Federal Way, King County, Washington. Specifically the site is located at 32075 Pacific Highway South. The site is part of the Celebration Center development, and will not have its own tax parcel. A lease area has been determined, and serves as the boundary for the project site. Please see Figure 2, Site Location, for a graphical description of the exact site location. The project consists of the construction of a new Chick-fil-A restaurant, including new water and sewer services. The site is currently developed, and consists of an asphalt parking lot. As part of the Celebration Center project, the site area was accounted for when sizing the downstream stormwater facilities. The Chick-fil-A project plans to maintain the existing storm system s❑ that stormwater from the site continues to be conveyed to the existing stormwater water quality facilities. The existing stormwater runoff from the site generally sheet flows west to east, where it is collected by the existing storm system. Existing conditions are further described in Section 4.0 Part A — Existing Site Hydrology. The proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant will be constructed on the north side of the site, where some fill will be required for the building pad. The proposed parking lot will match existing grades as closely as possible, with little grading required in the parking area. Proposed conditions are further described in Section 4.0 Part B — Developed Site Hydrology. Water quality for the project site will be provided by the existing water quality facility constructed for the Celebration Center project. For more information, see Section 4.0 Part D and Part E. 16555.004.doc UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Upstream of the site, to the west, is existing parking area. This tributary parking area that sheet flows onto the project site is approximately 1.03 acres. The project site is part of the larger Celebration Center, which has existing water quality structures accounting for the future redevelopment of the Chick-fil-A project site. All stormwater flow from upstream of the project site will be collected by existing storm structures on site and be conveyed to the existing stormwater water quality structures downstream. In the proposed redevelopment, the upstream run-on will still flow across the project site, where it will be collected and conveyed off the project site, just as in the existing conditions. Since the upstream run-on was taken into account when the original development was designed, there will be no adverse effect to the existing storm system located on the project site due to upstream run-on. For a graphical depiction of the upstream basin, see the Upstream Basin Map in this section. 16555.004.doc TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW Adopted Basin Plans: The site is located within the Hylebos Creek Basin. Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable. Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: This site is located in the Lower Cedar River Basin. A Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report will be provided during final engineering. Critical Drainage Area Maps: This project will not discharge to any critical areas or wetlands as it will be discharging runoff to an existing storm system in Pacific Highway South. Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the attached FEMA Map (Section 1.0) utilized for this analysis. As indicated on the map, the site is located in Zone X and is outside of the 500-year floodplain. Other Off -Site Analysis Reports: A site investigation was conducted in preparation of this Level off -Site Drainage Analysis. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service Map is also provided. See Figure 3 — Soils Map in Section 1.0. Sensitive Areas Folios: Based on review of the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folios, the site does not contain any On -Site Wetlands, Erosion Areas, Sensitive Areas, or Land Slide Areas. Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable. United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on the Soils Map (Figure 3 — Soils Map, Section 1.0) for this area, the site is underlain with Everett gravelly sandy loam and Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Wetland Inventory Map: Based on review of the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folios, the site does not contain any On -Site Wetlands, nor are there any wetlands adjacent to the project site. Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable. 16555.004.doc TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but not chronic flooding or erosion problems that result from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system that is substandard or has become too small as a result of upstream development. Such problems warrant additional attention because of their chronic nature and because they result from the failure of a conveyance system to provide a minimum acceptable level of protection. There were no conveyance system nuisance problems observed during the site visit. Furthermore, any existing drainage complaints will be reviewer) and addressed during final engineering. 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) Severe erosion problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the concentration of runoff into erosion -sensitive open drainage features. Severe erosion problems warrant additional attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety or to public or private property. Based on our site visit, there was no evidence of, or potential for, erosion/incision sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard downstream within the limits of the study. All runoff sheet flows to the east side of the site, where it is then collected and conveyed off site. Stormwater runoff from the proposed project will be collected and conveyed to existing detention and water quality facilities where it will then be discharged to the existing storm system in Pacific Highway South. As a result, no future erosion problems should occur downstream because of this development. 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) Severe flooding problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems are defined as follows: Flooding of the finished area of a habitable building for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. Examples include flooding of finished floors of homes and commercial or industrial buildings. Flooding in electrical/heating systems and components in the crawispace or garage of a home. Such problems are referred to as "severe building flooding problems." • Flooding over all lanes of a roadway or severely impacting a sole access driveway for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. Such problems are referred to as "severe roadway flooding problems." Based on a review of the FEMA Map (Section 1.0) the proposed site is outside of the 500-year floodplain, and there is no evidence of severe flooding problems encountered during our visit. 16555.004.doc TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: In the pre -developed condition, all runoff is collected by on -site catch basins. Once it is collected by the catch basins, it is conveyed to the southeast corner of the site where it leaves the site. In the developed condition, stormwater runoff will be collected by existing catch basins on site and conveyed, via 12-inch storm drains to an existing water quality facility that is located just south of the project site. The water quality facility was designed to treat the proposed project redevelopment. Once the stormwater has been treated and detained, it is discharged to an existing catch basin located in Pacific Highway South via an 18-inch storm drain. Runoff is then conveyed east into an existing storm manhole, where it is then conveyed to the center of Pacific Highway South via a 42-inch storm drain. Runoff then enters an existing manhole in the center of Pacific Highway South, where it is then conveyed south via an existing 42-inch storm drain. Stormwater runoff continues to flow south in Pacific Highway South via the 42-inch storm drain for approximately 1,320 feet (114 mile), where the downstream analysis was terminated. Please see the Downstream Drainage Map and the Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Table in this section for more information. With the above existing measures for stormwater management, we believe that the proposed redevelopment will not increase the amount of runoff entering the existing storm system in Pacific Highway South. 16555.004.doc Upstream Basin Map II W W Iy W W YI W_ �p r K NZ®EW FN2®aWSCW N W� W� W� _I�li f q y �rE+9g�FS� N d7 46'10' vt� ,y ti Y! dfi4 SOUTH 320TH STREET M� 202.51' r- T7 n n A, 5 N I I g I n M° C/ CO js: co . 61 e/--1 r r m � 1 00 t f� ' I fll e �socb a i 0 U I � v r c o I I v v v 0 a I �n LC N i[ M N c O F d u O O � Z Y C u � a d � fY k I _ 67.66' 23a 4 rm. Fw1OO 4vu, � Downstream Drainage Map Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Table d cd a a O o v, M L 74 N b � G4 •y d '�°� a E. o 0 Ei �' Fi •G ;� 'ti o N O Nrl N N � N N N -� � o - zz z �z Y o zz zz �C�o O - b0•'2 t bq F ..2 g tm y v = � O 6� ❑ 'y ❑ ?! o y O O z O z z z z z z z P p v 04 �jaibu°' 0 � •+�+ b�A � V�1 �O � � O M w N w A 0 O N kn 41 4 � rn a pi yy Cd c `�cd tF4 6 o 0 3 O.0 cd ca 0 rA cd O O co cd U ch Cd +� +U+ cd y CA cd •L O� V > C U �j N'1� ° O 41 cd cd ��•o 0 y p0Lp 4, Vc d i O ( c cd cUd O V1O tr o o o, o ° 0o cd o 0a ob PU,V oy. o o o �d�CF1 b o o 'd o o o .d 0 o b w w° �.fl w° w u,o w-d w Ux wx w d CIS 0 o •o C � � rA cd ca O ti a ti 3 Gn L a b Pa a a as as as a, a N N N x o 0 a � N M to �p 00 as 0 b cd H rA bbo cu A y T cn O Tab 4.0 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology The site is currently developed with asphalt paving, storm and sewer utilities, and landscaping. The site is bound by Pacific Highway South to the east, driveways to the north and south, and parking area to the west. The existing site slopes approximately 5% from west to east, with approximately 10 feet of topographic relief. The existing drainage basin is a total area of 0.80 acres (impervious — 0.52 acres and pervious — 0.28 acres). Under existing site conditions, the site is approximately 65% impervious with cover comprised primarily of asphalt pavement. B. Developed Site Hydrology The proposed project consists of the construction of a new Chick-fil-A restaurant, including new sidewalks and a patio dining area. The project will be redeveloping a small part of the Celebration Center site. The existing site is approximately 65% impervious; therefore, the project is considered a redevelopment project per the definition on page 1-5 of the 2009 KCSWDM. The proposed project will have a basin area of 0.80 acres (impervious — 0.61 acres and pervious — 0.19 acres). The proposed improvements will result in the addition of approximately 5,463 square feet of new impervious surfaces. The total new impervious surfaces added are a combination of both pollution generating and non -pollution generating impervious surfaces. C. Performance Standards The project is subject to Conservation (Level 2) Flow Control. Runoff files for the existing and proposed conditions will be created using KCRTS software in the SeaTac Region with a Scale Factor of 1.0. In order to determine the change in runoff from the existing site to the proposed site conditions, the 100-year storm event will be modeled for the proposed target surface drainage areas. The calculated flows for existing and developed conditions will be included during final engineering. D. Flow Control System Per the 2009 KCSWDM, the project site is subject to Conservation (Level 2) Flow Control. The project is subject to Conservation (Level 2) Flow Control for the target drainage areas on site. After analysis of the difference in pre -developed and developed flows for applicable target drainage surface areas, the project is exempt from Conservation (Level 2) Flow Control per exception item 2 "...there is no more than a 0.1- efs difference in the sum of developed 100-year peak flows for those target surfaces subject to this requirement and the sum of historic site conditions 100-year peak flows for the same surface areas" Per the Target Surfaces definitions in the Conservation Flow Control Areas section of Chapter 1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, the only target surface area is new impervious surface that is not fully dispersed. Per item 3 of the Target Surfaces definitions, the existing impervious surface is not a target area, as it has been added prior to January 8, 2001. 16555.004.doc Per item 5 of the Target Surfaces definitions, the valuations of the proposed improvements do not exceed 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. As earlier stated, the project will be redeveloping a small portion of the Celebration Center site, and is considered part of the Celebration Center total site. The improvements to the Chick-fil-A project site will be less than 50% of the assessed value of the existing Celebration Center site. Based on this, only new impervious surfaces will be considered target surface areas. The project proposes to add 5,463 square feet of new impervious surface. Typically, 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface will result in an increase of 0.1 cfs between the historic (fully forested) 100-year peak, and the developed 100-year peak. With a target surface area of 5,463 square feet there will be a 0.05 cfs increase between the 100-year peak flows for the historic and developed site conditions. With an increase in 100-year peak flow of less than 0.1 cfs, this project is exempt from Conservation (Level 2) Flow Control. Formal calculations have been provided in this section. E. Water Quality System The project is exempt from Core Requirement #8 — Water Quality per exemption item 3 ,,Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects." The site meets all three exemption criteria as stated below. First, the total valuation of the project's proposed improvements is less than 50% of the assessed value of the existing site. As stated above, the project is considered part of the Celebration Center site, which consists of multiple retail stores and restaurants. The cost of the proposed improvements for the Chick-fil-a project will be less than 50% of the assessed value of the Celebration Center. Second, the project proposes to add 2,891 square feet of new pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS), which is less than the 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is the threshold for the exemption criteria. Third, the project proposes to add no new pollution generating pervious surface (PGPS), which is less than the 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is the threshold for the exemption criteria. Since the project meets all three criteria for the "Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects" it is therefore exempt from Core Requirement #8. The site currently drains to an existing stormfilter vault south of the site that treats the project site, and other areas of the Celebration Center. The existing conveyance route will be maintained, and runoff from the proposed redevelopment will be treated by the existing stormfilter vault. 16555.004.doc Pre -Developed Basin Map Q 0-. W ° < Q w L, > No w ao� F— ❑ >W a Cf) a wwy J J J 9981 W rrr n 0 J W W Developed Basin Map ¢w WWW W Q U UUU U Q ¢ 6Q Q c m O OOG O W o •• LLJ a x ¢ J z on ¢ W 9 W � 0 N N W d0 Z j a z rn < LLJ m ❑ O OOO O I w n O � J �q 7 Hinos "H 0I:AIOVcA 't.... r --� ---- FLL 1 , d �I i KCRTS Input Files KCRTS Command ------------- CREATE a new Time Series -------------------- Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series 16555-pre dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Series Loading Time File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC DATA\STTF60R.rnf Till Forest 0.13 acres --------------- Total Area 0.13 acres Peak Discharge: 0.010 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:16555-pre dev.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command ------------- Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module ------------------------------- Analysis Tools Command ---------------------- Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies ---------------------------------- Loading Stage/Discharge curve:16555-pre dev. tsf Flow -Frequency -Analysis- ------------------------------ Time Series File:16555-pre dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:16555-pre dev.pks Analysis Tools Command -------------- RETURN to Previous Menu ----------------------- KCRTS Command ------------- CREATE a new Time Series ------------------------ Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : 16555-dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC DATA\STEI60R.rnf Impervious 0.13 acres -------------- Total Area 0.13 acres Peak Discharge: 0.061 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:16555- dev.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command ------------- Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module -------------------------------- Analysis Tools Command ---------------------- Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies -r Loading r^ Stage/Discharge curve:16555- dev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16555-dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:16555- dev.pks Analysis Tools Command ---------------------- RETURN to Previous Menu ----------------------- KCRTS Command ------------- eXit KCRTS Program Pre -Developed Peak Flows for Target Surface Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16555-pre dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period (CFS) 0.008 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.010 1 100.00 0.990 0.002 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.008 2 25.00 0.960 0.006 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.006 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 8 12/23/03 11:00 0.006 4 5.00 0.800 0.004 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.005 5 3.00 0.667 0.006 3 1/18/06 22:00 0.004 6 2.00 0.500 0.005 5 11/24/06 5:00 0.002 7 1.30 0.231 0.010 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.000 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.010 50.00 0.980 Developed Peak Flows for Target Surface Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16555-dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.031 7 2/09/01 2:00 0.028 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.039 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.032 6 8/26/04 2:00 0.039 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.034 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.047 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.061 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.061 1 100.00 0.990 0.047 2 25.00 0.960 0.039 3 10.00 0.900 0.039 4 5.00 0.800 0.034 5 3.00 0.667 0.032 6 2.00 0.500 0.031 7 1.30 0.231 0.028 8 1.10 0.091 0.057 50.00 0.980 Tab 5.0 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The proposed storm system is to be designed, permitted, and constructed by the site's landlord. Conveyance calculations for the proposed storm system will be provided by the landlord's engineer. 16555.004.doc Tab 6.0 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Included in this section is the Geotechnical Engineering Report by Terracon Consultants, Inc. dated June 15, 2015. 16555.004.doc Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 32075 - Pacific Highway S Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 Prepared for: Chick-fil-A, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Tacoma, Washington June 15, 2015 Chick-fil-A, Inc. 5200 Bufington Road Atlanta, Georgia 30349 Attn: Mr. Don Ikeler P: [404] 305 4407 E: don.ikeler@chick-fil-a.com Re; Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 32075 Pacific Highway S Federal Way, King County, Washington 98003 Terracon Project No. B2135012 Dear Mr. Ikeler: Irerracon Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. These services were performed in accordance with the Master Services Agreement (MSA) between Chick-fil-A, Inc. and Terracon, dated March 31, 2005. This geotechnical engineering report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and pavements for the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. CNAELNVA C' �J ° 49529 Crr� �F�rs�R�'� ti�w Ryan M. Scheffl r, s'��oNAL VI Project Engineer S4-t I Xle -1; " -, Z- � 11 IL W David A. Baska, PhD, PE Geotechnical Department Manager Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2115 South 56th Street Suite 405. Tacoma, Washington 98409 P [253] 573 9939 F [253] 573 9959 terracon.com Geotechnical Engineering Report 1rerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 ■ Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. B2135012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................... ...................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................................ 1 2.1 Site Location and Description.................................................................................. 1 2.2 Project Description.................................................................................................. 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................................................... 2 3.1 Site Geology............................................................................................................ 2 3.2 Typical Subsurface Profile....................................................................................... 2 3.3 Groundwater................................................................ ..............3 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ....................................... 3 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations................................................................................... 3 4.2 Earthwork................................................................................................................ 4 4.2.1 Site Preparation........................................................................................... 5 4.2.2 Material Types.............................................................................................. 5 4.2.3 Compaction Requirements........................................................................... 6 4.2.4 Grading and Drainage.................................................................................. 6 4.2.5 Construction Considerations........................................................................ 7 4.3 Foundations.............................................................................................................8 4.3.1 Design Recommendations............................................................................ 8 4.3.2 Construction Considerations........................................................................ 9 4.3.3 Below -grade Drainage................................................................................. 9 4.4 Floor Slab.............................................................................................................. 10 4.4.1 Design Recommendations......................................................................... 10 4.4.2 Construction Considerations...................................................................... 10 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures......................................................................................... 11 4.5.1 Design Recommendations......................................................................... 11 4.6 Seismic Considerations......................................................................................... 13 4.7 Pavements..............................................................................................................13 4.7.1 Subgrade Preparation................................................................................ 14 4.7.2 Design Considerations............................................................................... 14 4.7.3 Estimates of Minimum Pavement Thickness .............................................. 15 4.7.4 Pavement Drainage................................................................................... 17 4.7.5 Pavement Maintenance............................................................................. 17 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A — URS FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Site Sketch (URS) Exhibits A-2 to A-6 Borings SB-1 to SB-4, SB-6 (URS) Responsive Resourceful Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report Irerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A#3392 a Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. B2135012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Terracon's scope of work for the Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 located at 32075 Pacific Highway S in Federal Way, Washington included interpretation of five soil boring logs provided by URS Corporation. URS borings were drilled to approximate depths of 15'/2 to 25'/z feet below existing site grades. The site appears suitable for the proposed construction, based upon geotechnical conditions noted on the URS boring logs and our current understanding of the proposed development. The following geotechnical considerations were identified: We interpreted the upper, loose to medium dense materials noted on the URS boring logs to be possible existing fill soils. These fill soils range in depth from as little as 0 feet to as much as 20 feet at the exploration locations. We recommend complete removal and replacement of the existing fill with structural fill within the building pad. The recommended allowable bearing capacity is 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings bearing on dense native soils or structural fill above native soils. Assuming the owner is willing to accept the risk of unpredictable settlement response by leaving some of the existing fill below the pavement section, we recommend removal of at least the upper 24 inches of pavement subgrades and replacement with structural fill. Existing silty sand fill soils typically appear suitable for use as general structural fill from a compositional perspective. Due to the fines content of the soils, however, they may be moderately to extremely moisture sensitive, and reuse as structural fill during wet weather conditions may not be feasible. Additionally, no lab test data was available at the time of this report. In -situ moisture contents of the fill soils may be above their optimum moisture content and could require extended periods of dry weather and moisture conditioning to be usable as structural fill. Groundwater was encountered in Borings SB-3 and SB-6 at depths of 18 feet and 14 feet, respectively. ■ The International Building Code seismic site classification for this site is C, based on the results presented in the URS boring logs. Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to monitor this portion of the work. This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Responsive Resourceful a Reliable GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A #3392 32075 PACIFIC HIGHWAYS FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Terracon Project No. B2135012 June 15, 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION As a part of their environmental site investigation, URS Corporation advanced 5 hollow stem auger borings to depths ranging from approximately 15'/2 to 25'/z feet below existing site grades for the proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 to be located at 32075 Pacific Highway S in Federal Way, Washington. Based on the results of these explorations, this report provides information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: subsurface soil conditions earthwork floor slab design and construction lateral earth pressure groundwater conditions foundation design and construction seismic considerations pavement design and construction The interpretations and recommendations provided in this report are based primarily on the field boring logs and site sketch provided by URS. Terracon makes no guarantee to the accuracy of the information provided by URS. Based on the location of the borings and email communications with URS, we understand the proposed building will be located near the northwest corner of the site, approximately in the area of borings SB-1 to SB-4. It should also be noted that the number of borings completed by URS varies from client standards. Specifically, only one of the typical four proposed parking lot area borings were completed. We understand the client does not wish to perform additional site exploration at this time. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Location and Description ITEM Address Coordinates Existing Improvements Existing topography DESCRIPTION 32075 Pacific Highway S, Federal Way, King County, Washington Latitude: 47.3141 ° N; Longitude: 122.3140° W Asphalt paved parking lot with landscape islands. Relatively level across the site. Landscaped area along eastern edge of site slopes down to Pacific Highway S. 1 Responsive . Resourceful w Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report Irerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 2.2 Project Description ITEM DESCRIPTION Unknown. Refer to the Site Sketch (Exhibit A-1 in Appendix A) Site layout provided by URS Corporation for existing site layout. Unknown. Assumed to be approximately 4,000- to 5,000-square- Structures foot, single -story restaurant. Details not provided, but understood to be concrete masonry units Building construction (CMU) with steel and/or wood framing with concrete foundations Finished floor elevation Finished floor elevation is assumed to be near existing grade Building: Details not provided, but expected to be: Column Load — 120 kips Maximum loads Load -Bearing Wall Loads — 3,500 plf Maximum Uniform Floor Slab Load — 100 psf A grading plan was not available when this report was prepared. Grading in building and We have assumed less than 2 feet of excavation or fill placement parking area for grading, not including removal and replacement of existing fill. Design equivalent single axle loads (ESAL's): Traffic loading, Assumed On -site Pavement Light Duty: 50,000 On -site Pavement Heavy Duty: 100,000 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Geology The Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay Quadrangle, Washington (Waldron, 1961) indicates that near -surface soils at the site are comprised of ground moraine deposits, chiefly glacial till At). These soils are described as light gray, compact, nonsorted and nonstratified glacial debris ranging in grain size from clay to large boulders. A weaker, weathered zone may develop at the surface of the till, but this zone is rarely greater than two to three feet in thickness. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site were consistent with the published geologic conditions. 3.2 Typical Subsurface Profile The interpreted soil and groundwater descriptions provided in the paragraphs below are based solely on field boring logs and a boring location sketch provided by URS Corporation. Soil descriptions are included on the boring logs only at discrete sample locations with no interpretation of soil layer interface depths or geologic interpretation of soil units. Any interpretations of soil units and interface depths in the following paragraphs are based on our experience in the area and Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 . Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 Irerracon knowledge of local soil conditions and previous mass grading operations. Depths and thicknesses should be considered accurate only to the level provided by the boring logs. Terracon makes no guarantee about the accuracy of the information provided by URS. Based on the boring logs provided by URS, the existing pavement section on the site consisted of approximately 4 inches of asphalt. A crushed rock base course layer below the asphalt is not indicated on the logs. However, based on our experience with local construction practices and given the relatively young age of the surrounding development, a layer of crushed gravel likely exists below the asphalt surfacing. Based on the SPT blowcounts and soil descriptions on the URS boring logs, localized contours, and extensive previous mass grading and development in the area, we interpreted the upper material on the site to consist of previously placed fill. Fill materials generally consisted of medium dense, silty fine sand with fine gravel, and were likely original site soils spread and compacted during previous mass grading operations for the existing large development. Below the fill, the borings encountered very dense, light gray, silty fine sand with fine gravel, which we interpret to be native glacial till. Based on blow count data on the URS boring logs and existing site grades, it appears the upper fill thickness ranges from as little as 0 to as much as 10 feet in the building pad, increasing to as much as 20 feet in boring SB-6 in the southeast corner of the site. Note that these existing fill thicknesses are at the exploration locations and the thickness may be greater at other locations. We interpret the fill thickness to generally increase from northwest to southeast. 3.3 Groundwater URS boring logs indicate groundwater levels encountered at the time of drilling varied across the site. Groundwater was not encountered in three of the borings to the full depths of exploration of 15'/2 to 25'/2 feet, while borings SB-3 and SB-6 encountered groundwater at 18 feet and 14 feet below ground surface, respectively. Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. In addition, perched water can develop over low -permeability soil, such as the very dense glacial till encountered below the existing fill. Therefore, on -site groundwater levels at any given time could differ considerably from the values tabulated above. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions indicated on the URS boring logs and our current understanding of the proposed development. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 3 Geotechnical Engineering Report Irerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 : Terracon Project No. B2135012 Geotechnical engineering recommendations for building foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of data provided by URS, our engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. ASTM and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specification codes cited herein respectively refer to the current manual published by the American Society of Testing & Materials and the 2014 edition of the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (Publication M41-10). Based on the blow counts and soil descriptions on boring logs provided by URS in the area of the proposed building, we interpreted the upper medium dense material to consist of existing fill, ranging in thickness from 0 feet to as much as 10 feet. Potential fill thickness increases to as much as 20 feet in the southern parking area exploration. Based on the results of the explorations and site contours, the fill thickness appears to generally increase from northwest to southeast. Although the existing fill may have been mechanically compacted, verification of uniform conditions cannot be confirmed. Also, documentation of fill placement is not currently available. Fill, especially undocumented fill, by nature can be highly variable and could vary greatly between sample locations. Support of footings, floor slabs, and pavements on or above existing fill soils is discussed in this report. However, even with the recommended subgrade improvements and construction monitoring service, there is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill, but can be reduced by performing additional testing and evaluation. If documentation of existing fill placement and compaction becomes available, Terracon should be given the opportunity to review the information so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. If the risk of unforeseen conditions and possible unsuitable or compressible fill is deemed too great by the owner, several options exist for reducing or eliminating the risk. Removal of the fill and replacement with structural fill, ground improvement (such as aggregate piers or deep soil mixing), and deep foundations (such as large or small diameter piles) are typical measures for mitigating adverse effects of unsuitable fill soils. For the purposes of this report, we recommend complete removal of existing fill and replacement with structural fill for building support and partial existing fill removal and replacement for pavement support. 4.2 Earthwork The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of structural fills on the project. The recommendations presented for design and Responsive Resourceful Reliable 4 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1rerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 -: Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 construction of earth supported elements including foundations, slabs and pavements are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of structural fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project. 4.2.1 Site Preparation We anticipate construction will be initiated by removal of the existing asphalt surfacing and landscaping islands. Removed asphalt and concrete debris, as well as any organic material from landscape islands, should be transported off site. Existing asphalt thicknesses measured approximately 4 inches according to the boring logs provided by URS. The silty fine sand fill soils noted on the URS boring logs will be sensitive to disturbance from construction activity and moisture. If precipitation occurs prior to or during construction, the near -surface soils could increase in moisture content and become more susceptible to disturbance. Construction activity should be monitored, and should be curtailed if the construction activity is causing subgrade disturbance. A Terracon representative can help with monitoring and developing recommendations to aid in limiting subgrade disturbance. After building and pavement removal and excavation to subgrade elevation, proofrolling of pavement and building slab areas should be performed with heavy rubber -tire construction equipment such as a fully loaded tandem -axle dump truck. A geotechnical engineer or his representative should observe proofrolling to aid in locating unstable subgrade materials. Proofrolling should be performed after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading an otherwise acceptable subgrade and to reduce the amount of remedial work required. Unstable materials located should be stabilized as directed by the engineer based on conditions observed during construction. Replacement and densification in place are typical remediation methods. 4.2.2 Material Types All fill material placed in building, pavement, and non -landscaped areas should be placed in accordance with the recommendations herein for structural fill. The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on their grain -size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the fines content (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) may exhibit difficulty in compacting to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points above or below optimum. Optimum moisture content is the moisture at which the maximum dry density for the material is achieved in the laboratory following ASTM procedures. Responsive Resourceful . Reliable 5 Geotechnical Engineering Report Irerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 Geotechnical information provided by URS for the proposed project was limited to field descriptions of soils encountered at five foot intervals in the borings. As such, no laboratory data was available at the time of this report to confirm grain size distributions or in -situ moisture contents of the site soils. Based on the descriptions provided, the existing upper silty fine sand fill soils may be extremely moisture sensitive and reuse as structural fill may not be feasible during periods of wet weather. If the in -situ moisture content is above optimum levels for the existing fill soils, reuse as structural fill may not be feasible in any weather unless adequate time, dry weather, and space on site is available at the time of construction to moisture condition the wet soils. The type of imported fill used at the site should depend on the weather conditions at the time of placement and the anticipated weather conditions until the fill subgrades are protected. All- weather fill should consist of Select Borrow meeting the requirements of WSDOT section 9- 03.14(2), with the modification of a maximum of 5 percent by weight passing the US No. 200 mesh sieve. Select Borrow is recommended for use in wet weather conditions, and for filling in wet site or trench conditions to reduce the risk of wet weather delays during the winter and spring months. Dry -weather fill can consist of Common Borrow, which is a lesser quality, more moisture -sensitive soil that can be compacted to a firm and non -yielding condition. Common Borrow should meet the requirements of WSDOT section 9-03.14(3) and only be used during dry conditions. The maximum particle size for both Select Borrow and Common Borrow may need to be reduced in certain areas, such as directly surrounding and above buried utilities. The use of other fill types should be reviewed and approved by Terracon. 4.2.3 Compaction Requirements Structural fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding about 8 inches in loose thickness. We recommend that each lift then be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor to a uniform density of at least 95 percent, based on the modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557). Where light compaction equipment is used, as is typical within a few feet of retaining walls and in utility trenches, the lift thickness may need to be reduced to achieve the desired degree of compaction. Soils removed which will be used as structural fill should be protected by plastic sheeting to aid in preventing an increase in moisture content due to rain and other factors. Moisture contents at the time of compaction should be within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content. 4.2.4 Grading and Drainage Adequate positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the development to prevent an increase in moisture content of the foundation, pavement and backfill materials. Surface water drainage should be controlled to prevent undermining of cut and fill slopes and structures during and after construction. Roof gutters and downspouts should be collected in tightline pipes that convey water directly into the site storm system. Roof runoff should not be allowed to flow onto soil surfaces. Responsive - Resourceful Reliable 6 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A#3392 Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 Irerracon 4.2.5 Construction Considerations It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content prior to construction of floor slabs and pavements. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become frozen, desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to floor slab and pavement construction and observed by Terracon. Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the site and soak into the soil during construction. Construction staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from the building and pavement areas. Any water that collects over or adjacent to construction areas should be promptly removed, along with any softened or disturbed soils. Surface water control in the form of sloping surfaces, drainage ditches and trenches, and possibly sump pits and pumps will be important to avoid ponding and associated delays due to precipitation and seepage. Groundwater was not encountered in three of the URS borings to the full depths of exploration of 15'/z to 25'/z feet, while borings SB-3 and SB-6 encountered groundwater at 18 feet and 14 feet below ground surface, respectively. Based on our understanding of the proposed development, we do not expect groundwater to significantly affect construction, except possibly for deeper buried utilities. If groundwater is encountered during construction, some form of temporary dewatering may be required. Conventional dewatering methods, such as pumping from sumps, should likely be adequate for temporary removal of any groundwater encountered during excavation at the site. It should be noted that groundwater conditions at the site are expected to vary over time depending on season and recent weather conditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean that Terracon is assuming any responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied or inferred. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 7 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 1rerracon Terracon should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork operations and to perform necessary tests and observations during removal and replacement of existing fill, subgrade preparation, placement and compaction of structural fill, backfilling of excavations, and just prior to construction of foundations and floor slabs. 4.3 Foundations Based on the blow counts and soil descriptions on boring logs provided by URS in the area of the proposed building, we interpreted the upper medium dense material to consist of existing fill, ranging in thickness from 0 feet to as much as 10 feet. Fill thickness appears to generally increase from northwest to southeast. Due to the unpredictable nature of fill soils, we recommend complete removal of existing fill below the proposed building pad and replacement with structural fill. Fill removal should extend at least 5 feet horizontally beyond the building perimeter. Building foundations could be supported on either dense, native glacial till soils or on compacted structural fill extending to native soils. A Terracon representative should be on site at the time of fill removal and replacement to interpret the thickness of the existing fill. It is critical that this representative be a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist because Terracon is relying upon explorations completed by others to interpret subsurface conditions. Long-term building performance depends, in part, on correct interpretation of the fill/native soil contact at the time of construction. Design recommendations for building foundations for the proposed structure are presented in the following paragraphs. 4.3.1 Design Recommendations DESCRIPTION Column Wall Net allowable bearing pressure' 3,000 psf 3,000 psf Minimum dimensions I 24 inches 16 inches Minimum embedment below finished grade for 18 inches 18 inches frost protection 2 <1 inch <1 inch Approximate total settlement — <1/Z inch between <1/2 inch over 50 feet — Estimated differential settlement columns Allowable passive pressure 3 275 pcf (triangular distribution) — Ultimate coefficient of sliding friction 0.45 1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Assumes any unsuitable fill or soft/organic soils, if encountered, will be undercut and replaced with structural fill. Based upon a Factor of Safety of 3. 2. Applies to perimeter footings and footings beneath unheated areas. Interior footings should bear a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade. Finished grade is the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter footings and floor level for interior footings. 3. Assumes that foundation backfill is compacted in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. Based upon a Factor of Safety of 1.5. Responsive Resourceful . Reliable 8 Geotechnical Engineering Report Irerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 a Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 . Terracon Project No. B2135012 The allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. Estimated total and differential foundation settlements presented in the table above will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footings, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. Footings, foundations, and masonry walls should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. The use of joints at openings or other discontinuities in masonry walls is recommended. 4.3.2 Construction Considerations After existing fill soils are overexcavated and replaced with structural fill as recommended above, localized zones of unsuitable soils may still be encountered in footing excavations. In this case, the excavations should be extended deeper to suitable soils. The footings could bear directly on these soils at the lower level or bear on compacted structural fill extending down to the suitable soils. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil prior to placing concrete, and should be compacted as recommended in this report. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating and compaction to reduce bearing soil disturbance. We recommend that Terracon be retained to observe and test the soil foundation bearing materials. If the soil conditions encountered differ from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required. 4.3.3 Below -grade Drainage We recommend that the building be encircled with a perimeter footing drain to collect exterior seepage water. Footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch-diameter, Schedule 40, rigid, perforated PVC pipe placed at the base of the footing with the perforations facing down. The pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of drain rock, conforming to WSDOT section 9-03.12(4) Grave! Backfrfl for Drams or, alternatively, consisting of uniform washed gravel. A non -woven filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent, should envelope the drain rock. Footing drains should be directed toward appropriate stormwater discharge facilities. Ideally, the drain invert would be installed at or slightly below the base of the perimeter footings. Roof downspouts, parking lot drains, and drains from any other runoff surfaces should not be tied into the perforated piping system of the foundation drains. Instead, the runoff water collected from such sources should be routed through a separate tightline piping system and sent to a municipal catch basin or other appropriate discharge location. Responsive : Resourceful Reliable 9 Geotechnical Engineering Report Irerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 7 Terracon Project No. B2135012 4.4 Floor Slab We recommend complete removal of existing fill soils below the proposed building floor slab. Removed soils should be replaced with structural fill placed and compacted in accordance with the Earthwork section of his report. A subgrade prepared and tested as recommended in this report should provide adequate support for lightly loaded floor slabs. Design recommendations for floor slabs are presented in the following sections. 4.4.1 Design Recommendations DESCRIPTION VALUE Interior floor system' Slab -on -grade concrete. Dense native glacial till or structural fill placed and compacted in Floor slab subgrade accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. Base course 2 4-inch compacted layer of free draining, granular fill material 1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of any building footings or walls to reduce floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation. Narrower, turned - down slab -on -grade foundations may be utilized at the approval of the structural engineer. The slabs should be appropriately reinforced to support the proposed loads. 2. To provide a capillary break, the base course should consist of clean, free -draining, uniformly graded gravel, containing less than 5 percent fines, based on that soil fraction passing the US No. 4 sieve. Alternatively, material meeting the requirements of WSDOT section 9-03.9(3) Crushed Surfacing Top Course could be considered, with the modification of a maximum of 5 percent by weight passing the US No. 200 mesh sieve. — Where appropriate, saw -cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual. Joints or any cracks in pavement areas that develop should be sealed with a water- proof, non -extruding compressible compound specifically recommended for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet environments. The use of a vapor retarder or barrier should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder/barrier. 4.4.2 Construction Considerations On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable for placement of base course and concrete and corrective action may be required. Responsive - Resourceful Reliable 10 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 : Terracon Project No. B2135012 Irerracon We recommend the area underlying the floor slab be rough graded and then thoroughly proofrolled with a loaded tandem axle dump truck prior to final grading and placement of base course. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted fill. All floor slab subgrade areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to placement of the base course and concrete. 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures 4.5.1 Design Recommendations The lateral earth pressure recommendations herein are applicable to the design of rigid retaining walls subject to slight rotation, such as cantilever- or gravity -type concrete walls. These recommendations are not applicable to the design of modular block - geogrid reinforced backfill walls or rockeries. We understand these types of walls are not currently planned for this project and recommendations covering these types of wall systems are beyond the scope of services for this assignment. However, we would be pleased to develop recommendations for the design of such wall systems upon request. Reinforced concrete walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at rest" condition assumes no wall movement. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls. Backfill placed against walls should consist of granular structural fill. For these pressures to be valid, the structural fill must extend out from the base of the wall at an angle of at least 45 and 60 degrees from the vertical for the active and passive cases, respectively. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a value of 0.45 should be used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the footing and the underlying soil. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 11 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 a Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 m Terracon Project No. B2135012 S = Surcharge SI Horizontal Finished Grade Earth Pressure Conditions Active (Ka) At -Rest (Ko) 1rerracon For active pressure movement (0.002 H to 0.004 H) For at -rest pressure - No Movement Assumed H Horizontal Finished Grade —P2-—p,I - Retaining all RECOMMENDED EARTH PRESSURE CRITERIA Equivalent Surcharge Earth Coefficient For Backfill Fluid Density Pressure, p, Pressure, p2 Type (pcf) (psf) (psf) 0.30 35 (0.30)S (35)H 0.47 55 (0.47)S (55)H Passive (Kp) 350 ` 400 Applicable conditions to the above include. For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure * Wall backfill weight a maximum of 120 pcf Horizontal finished grade, compacted between 90 and 92 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall * No dynamic loading s No safety factor included in soil parameters Ignore passive pressure in frost zone The above equivalent fluid pressures are based on the assumption of a uniform horizontal backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls. Surcharge pressures due to sloping ground, adjacent footings, vehicles, construction equipment, etc. must be added to these values. For the active condition, we recommend using values of 100 psf for traffic surcharge and 7H and Responsive Resourceful Reliable 12 Geotechnical Engineering Report Irerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 .: Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 12H psf for seismic surcharge to be applied to yielding and non -yielding walls, respectively, where H is the height of the wall in feet. To aid in reducing the potential for hydrostatic pressure behind walls, we recommend a footing drain be installed at the foundation wall with a collection pipe leading to a reliable discharge. If adequate drainage is not possible, then combined hydrostatic and lateral earth pressures should be calculated for granular backfill using an equivalent fluid weighing 80 and 90 pcf for active and at -rest conditions, respectively. These pressures do not include the influence of surcharge, equipment or floor loading, which should be added. Heavy equipment should not operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of retaining walls to prevent lateral pressures more than those provided. 4.6 Seismic Considerations The International Building Code (IBC) indicates that the seismic site classification is based on the average soil and bedrock properties in the top 100 feet. The current scope does not include a 100-foot soil profile determination. Based on our knowledge of local geology and our inference that soils encountered at boring termination depths continue for 100 feet or more, we interpret a site class of C. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. As part of our services, we evaluated the risk of liquefaction at this site. Based on our understanding of groundwater and geology at the site, it is our opinion that the risk of liquefaction is low. The potential for seismic related settlement is also considered low. It is our opinion that no additional engineering geology investigations or geologic hazard evaluations are necessary relative to seismic hazards for this project. We reviewed the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program Quaternary Faults and Folds Database available online (httr):I/earthquake.usgs.gov/rec[ional/cifaults/usma. h ). The nearest fault to the project site is the Tacoma fault zone, located approximately 12 miles west of the project site. According to this source, the fault is in the age category of less than 15,000 years, has been mapped with east and west striking features, and is in the slip rate category of between 0.2 and 1.0 mm/year. Based on information described above, we estimate that the risk associated with surface rupture is low. 4.7 Pavements Based on our interpretation of the boring logs provided by URS, as much as 20 feet of existing fill soils may exist below proposed pavement areas. Provided the owner is willing to accept the risk of unpredictable settlement response of the existing fill under pavement sections, we recommend limiting risk mitigation measures to removal of at least the upper 24 inches of the fill in proposed pavement areas and replacement with structural fill. SPT blow counts on the URS exploration Responsive . Resourceful Reliable 13 Geotechnical Engineering Report Irerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 ■ Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. B2135012 logs indicate existing fill soils are generally in a loose to medium dense condition and represent a low to moderate risk of excessive settlements due to traffic loading after removal and replacement of the upper 2 feet; however, areas of unsuitable or compressible fill may be present within the fill that were not observed in our explorations. 4.7.1 Subgrade Preparation On most project sites, the site grading is accomplished relatively early in the construction phase. Fills are placed and compacted in a uniform manner. However, as construction proceeds, excavations are made into these areas, rainfall and surface water saturates some areas, heavy traffic from concrete trucks and other delivery vehicles disturbs the subgrade and many surface irregularities are filled in with loose soils to temporarily improve trafficability. As a result, the pavement subgrades, initially prepared early in the project, should be carefully evaluated as the time for pavement construction approaches. We recommend that the moisture content and density of the top 12 inches of the subgrade be evaluated and that the pavement subgrades be proofrolled within two days prior to commencement of actual paving operations. Areas not in compliance with the required ranges of moisture or density should be moisture conditioned and recompacted. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and replacing the materials with properly compacted structural fills. If a significant precipitation event occurs after the evaluation or if the surface becomes disturbed, the subgrade should be reviewed by qualified personnel immediately prior to paving. The subgrade should be in its finished form at the time of the final review. 4.7.2 Design Considerations Traffic patterns and anticipated loading conditions were not available at the time that this report was prepared. However, we anticipate that traffic loads will be produced primarily by automobile traffic and occasional delivery and trash removal trucks. The thickness of pavements subjected to heavy truck traffic should be determined using expected traffic volumes, vehicle types, and vehicle loads and should be in accordance with local, city or county ordinances. Pavement thickness can be determined using AASHTO, Asphalt Institute and/or other methods if specific wheel loads, axle configurations, frequencies, and desired pavement life are provided. Terracon can provide thickness recommendations for pavements subjected to loads other than personal vehicle and occasional delivery and trash removal truck traffic if this information is provided. Minimum recommended pavement sections provided below are based on assumed values of maximum ESAL loading of 50,000 (ESAL = equivalent single axle load) for light duty, car -only areas over a 20-year design life. For heavy duty truck traffic areas, we have assumed a traffic loading of 100,000 ESALs for use in our analysis. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 14 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 :1 Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 : Terracon Project No. B2135012 Irerracon Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements: Final grade adjacent to parking lots and drives should slope down from pavement edges at a minimum 2%; The subgrade and the pavement surface should have a minimum %4 inch per foot slope to promote proper surface drainage; Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting (e.g., landscaping areas, etc.); Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately; Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils, and; Place compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter 4.7.3 Estimates of Minimum Pavement Thickness The listed pavement component thicknesses should be used as a guide for pavement sections at the site for the traffic classifications stated herein. These recommendations assume a 20- year pavement design life. If pavement frequencies or loads will be different than that specified Terracon should be contacted and allowed to review these pavement sections. As a minimum, we recommend the following typical pavement section be considered for car only areas: Material Subgrade Aggregate Base Asphalt Binder Course Asphalt Surface Course Total Pavement Section Thickness (inches) Minimum 24 inches of compacted existing fill or native soils 6 2'/z Specification 95% of Modified Proctor MDD, ASTM: D-1557, -2 to +2% OMC WSDOT: 9-03.9(3) Base Course WSDOT: 9-03.8(2) 3/-inch HMA WSDOT: 9-03.8(6)'%-inch Aggregate WSDOT: 9-03.8(2)'h-inch HMA 1'/z i WSDOT: 9-03.8(6)'h-inch Aggregate 10 Responsive Resourceful Reliable 15 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 Irerracon As a minimum, we suggest the following typical pavement section be considered for combined car and delivery truck traffic: Material Thickness (inches) I Specification Minimum 12 inches of 95% of Modified Proctor MDD, Subgrade compacted existing fill ASTM: D-1557, or native soils -2 to +2% OMC Aggregate Base Asphalt Binder Course Asphalt Surface Course Total Pavement Section 8 WSDOT: 9-03.9(3) Base Course WSDOT: 9-03.8(2) %-inch HMA 2'/2 WSDOT: 9-03.8(6) %-inch Aggregate WSDOT: 9-03.8(2)'/z-inch HMA 1'/2 WSDOT: 9-03.8(6)'/Z-inch Aggregate 12 _7 The graded aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material's modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557, Method C) maximum dry density. Where base course thickness exceeds 8 inches, the material should be placed and compacted in two or more lifts of equal thickness. We recommend that a Portland cement concrete pavement (CCP) be utilized in entrance and exit sections, dumpster pads, loading dock areas, or other areas where extensive wheel maneuvering or repeated loading are expected. The dumpster pad should be large enough to support the wheels of the truck which will bear the load of the dumpster. We recommend a minimum of 6 inches of CCP underlain by 4 inches of crushed aggregate base. Although not required for structural support, the base course layer is recommended to help reduce potentials for slab curl, shrinkage cracking, and subgrade "pumping" through joints. Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage cracking. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer. Portland cement concrete should be designed with proper air -entrainment and have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi after 28 days of laboratory curing. Adequate reinforcement and number of longitudinal and transverse control joints should be placed in the rigid pavement in accordance with ACI requirements. The joints should be sealed as soon as possible (in accordance with sealant manufacturer's instructions) to minimize infiltration of water into the soil. The minimum pavement sections outlined above were determined based on post -construction traffic loading conditions. These pavement sections do not account for heavy construction traffic during development. A partially constructed structural section may be subjected to heavy Responsive Resourceful . Reliable 16 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 i Federal Way, Washington June 15, 2015 Terracon Project No. B2135012 Irerracon construction traffic that can result in pavement deterioration and premature failure. Our experience indicates that this pavement construction practice can result in pavements that will not perform as intended. Considering this information, several alternatives are available to mitigate the impact of heavy construction traffic on the pavement construction. These include using thicker sections to account for the construction traffic; using some method of soil stabilization to improve the support characteristics of the pavement subgrade; routing heavy construction traffic around paved areas; or delaying paving operations until as near the end of construction as is feasible. 4.7.4 Pavement Drainage Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be graded to provide positive drainage within the granular base section. We recommend drainage be included at the bottom of the crushed aggregate base layer at the storm structures to aid in removing water that may enter this layer. Drainage could consist of small diameter weep holes excavated around the perimeter of the storm structures. The weep holes should be excavated at the elevation of the crushed aggregate base and soil interface. The excavation should be covered with crushed rock which is encompassed in Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent which will aid in reducing fines from entering the storm system. 4.7.5 Pavement Maintenance The pavement sections provided in this report represent minimum recommended thicknesses. Therefore preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on -going pavement management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g., crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g., surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required. 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth -related Responsive Resourceful Reliable 17 Geotechnical Engineering Report Irerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3392 R Federal Way, Washington ,tune 15, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. B2135012 construction phases of the project. This is especially important on this project where professional judgment is needed to properly identify the contact between existing fill and native glacial till. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data provided on the boring logs prepared by URS Corporation performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. 18 Responsive Resourceful : Reliable APPENDIX A Project: Chick-fil-A BORING NO. Sheet of ��_� VK+ Project Locations: 32075 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA Project Number: 33764283 Location Sketch Date(s) Drilled 26-Aug-13 Logged By ADP HAS Total Borehole Depth 'Drill Bit Size/ Type Cascade Drill Rig Type Drilling Contractor Sampling Method(s) SPT Hammer Data AV # A /Tz, Surface Elevation Level/ Date Measured J:\Projects\Project\WM&RD\Field_Resources\Field Forms.xls(Soil Boring Log) 8/23/2013 Project: Chick-fil-A I BORING NO. S9-1 Project Location: 32675 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA Project Number: 33764283 1 Sheet ,� of a J:\Projects\Project\WMBRD\Field_Resources\Field Forms.xls(Soil Boring Log) 8/23/2013 Project: Chick-fil-A BORING NO. 5 B- ,-7 Sheet of Project Location: 32075 Pacifc Hwy S, Federal Way, WA Project Number: 33764283 Location Sketch Drilled) Lo ed 26-Aug-13 By99 Drill Bit Size/ Type e I HAS 'Total Borel Depth Drilling Contractor Cascade Drill Rig Type Sampling Method(s) SPT Hammer Data Level/ Surface Date Measured Elevation J:\Projects\Project\WM&RD\Field_Rescurces\Field Forrns.xls(Scil Boring Log) 8123/201 3 ADP Project: Chick-fil-A BORING NO. _3 Sheet j of Project Location: 32075 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA Project Number: 33764283 Location Sketch Dates) 26-Aug-13 Logged By Drilled Drill Bit Size/ s Total Boret Type ti� Depth Drilling Drill Rig Cascade Contractor Type Sampling Hammer SPT Melhod(s) ta Level/ rfae rElevaclon Date Measured J:\Projects\Project\WMBRD\Field_Rescurces\Field Forms.x(s(Soil Boring Log 8/23/2013 eNC �r ADP Project: Chick-fil-A BORING NO. Sheet of LJJ Project Location: 32075 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA Project Number. 33764283 Locatlon Sketch Dates) 26-Aug-13 Logged SY ADP Drilled Drill Bit Size/ WS A Total Borehole Type Depth Drilling Cascade Drill Rig �{'�F Caniracior Type Sampling SPT hammer t .A—Ik Af.% Data Date Measured J:\Projects\Project\WMBRD\Field_Resources\Field Forms.xls(Soil Boring Log) 8/23/2013 `> i3 Project: Chick-fil-A BORING NO. C / VRUM Sheet + of Project Locatlon: 32075 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA Project Number: 33764283 Location Sketch Date(s) Drilled I 26-Aug-13 Bogged ADP Drill Bit Size/ [% Total Borehole Type y� F� RSA A Depth Drilling Contractor Cascade Drill Rig Type Sampling Method(s) SPT Hammer Data Level/ Surface Date Measured Elevation i:1P cjectslPrajeoikMBRDIFiefd_ResourceslField Forms.xls(Soil Boring Log) 8/23/2013 1 �.r,.ti Gro,r•.�IQ..�Cti.�— •�d ��,� bQ� \i l�.)•�.r_ 1_� V C' �1 A , `._ 1... _ .tea Tab 7.0 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Other permits for this project include: • Site Development Permit Building Permit Construction Stormwater General Permit (NPDES) 16555.004.doc Tab 8.0 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan Analysis and Design A copy of the Erosion and Sediment Control plan has been provided in this section. The site demolition and mass grading will be performed by the site's landlord. For more information regarding the ESC plan analysis and design please see the plans and report prepared by the landlord's engineer. 16555.004.doc O fi� Q yO� O ytN1 O O OC K O � O W � �V.EU]1 yS t PIN Ei ME H ee0 RR GZ cz c2c 7 FZF YyLC `�B CZC ~ y� Z O ZFs �� Z OW O'ppFp �gZ c N O o TEI O ri Q W l3J V V v 0 OOOOO O O O O O O� O z El z o z z � N z 6 o zo a W B v. awe a Pa o W z S {I Cil A. � ;5 � " 'a $0 9 Q o zd o W -wm$ z o I."= �a �w m zo r Inc n 6 Z � r FF coif �� g� W Z Ooo� O U LLy � N 9 Z z R O --am{{a N N o �zz Fi Upp Wa01 102 �¢ FES zl Z L W � z cc� ao z3L' Zz W 2 99 co c a� � Be _0 !I Ow 00 o� VO � Y %u W O m � of si a ui Tab 9,0 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantity Worksheet will be provided with subsequent submittal. 16555.004.doc Tab 10.0 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL An Operations and Maintenance manual will be provided with subsequent submittal. 16555.004.doc