HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIR-3967
STORM DRAINAGE REPORT
for
US Bank Expansion
2500 East Valley Road
Renton, WA 98057
Owner and Applicant:
Strada da Valle LLC
5050 1st Ave S, Ste 102
Seattle, WA 98134
(425) 204-1045
Architect:
Cornerstone Architectural Group
Attn: Rick Utt
Kenmore, WA 98028
(206) 682-5000
Engineer:
Ted Dimof, PE
License No. 36042
Bush, Roed and Hitchings
2009 Minor Avenue E
Seattle, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
Date: Date: May 18, 2017
Revision (Version 1): July 3, 2017
Revision (Version 2): August 18, 2017
Revision (Version 3): September 1, 2017
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
jtjohnson 09/01/2017
SURFACE WATER UTILITY
rstraka 09/05/2017
PLR-3967
Page | 2
Table of Contents
1.0 - Project Overview ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 – Conditions and Requirements Summary ............................................................................................ 12
3.0 – Offsite Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 14
4.0 – Flow Control, LID, and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design .................................................... 15
5.0 – Conveyance System Analysis and Design.......................................................................................... 19
6.0 – Special Reports and Studies............................................................................................................... 19
7.0 – Other Permits...................................................................................................................................... 19
8.0 – CSWPP Analysis and Design ............................................................................................................. 20
9.0 – Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant ................................................... 22
10.0 – Operations and Maintenance Manual ............................................................................................... 22
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 TIR Worksheet 4
Figure 1.2 Site Location 10
Figure 1.3 USDA Soil Survey Map 11
Figure 1.4 Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements 12
Appendices
Appendix A: Stormwater Basin Maps
Figure 1 – Site Overview
Figure 2 – Project Impervious Surface Totals
Figure 3 – Project PGIS Totals
Appendix B: TESC Plan Sheet
Appendix C: Geotechnical Reports
Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc. dated April 17, 2017
Infiltration Evaluation Letter by Earth Solutions NW, LLC dated June 28, 2017
Appendix D: Operations and Maintenance Manual
Appendix E: Bond Quantity Worksheet
Page | 3
1.0 - Project Overview
The US Bank Expansion project site at 2500 East Valley Road is located in Renton, WA in a northerly part
of a parcel of land known as Lot 3 of the Strada da Valle Short Plat (City of Renton File No. LUA-02-042-
SHPL, King County Recording No. 20110112900004). The Assessor’s Parcel Number of Lot 3 is
3023059133. The project consists of a proposed replacement of an existing concrete-paved parking lot
area, some existing concrete walkway, and some landscape area with 2,673 sf of expanded building
footprint and with some associated new concrete driveway pavement, some new concrete walkway,
and some new landscape planter strips.
The parcel size is 3.08 acres while the limits of disturbed surfaces are restricted to an area of
approximately 5,578 sf, which includes the concrete surface replaced specifically for a City water main
relocation associated with the project.
Existing Conditions:
The western portion of the existing project site drains to an existing catch basin in the private parking lot
to the southwest of the project area across relatively flat slopes. The eastern portion of the existing
project site drains to an existing catch basin in the private parking lot to the southeast of the project
area across relatively flat slopes. These catch basins tie into an existing on-site detention and water
quality system that includes Lots 1 and 2 of the Strada da Valle Short Plat directly to the north of Lot 3.
This on-site storm drainage system connects and drains into a public storm main in East Valley Road
from Lot 2. See Figure 1 – Project Site Overview.
Post-Developed Conditions:
The proposed building addition will have a negligible effect on the existing drainage patterns. Drainage
from the new roof is proposed to tie directly into the detention system via a perforated pipe connection.
The remaining replaced driveway surfaces will drain to their respective, existing on-site catch basins. No
changes will be made to the existing stormwater conveyance and detention systems.
Page | 4
Figure 1.1 – Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, page 1
Page | 5
Figure 1.1 – Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, page 2
Page | 6
Figure 1.1– Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, page 3
Page | 7
Figure 1.1 – Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, page 4
Page | 8
Figure 1.1 – Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, page 5
Page | 9
Figure 1.1 – Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, page 6
Page | 10
Site Location:
The site is located in Renton, WA. The site address is 2500 East Valley Road. See Figure 1.2 below.
Figure 1.2 – Site Location
Page | 11
Soils:
Per the USDA Soil map (shown below), the entire site lies within the Tu soil category, Tukwila muck.
However, section 3.2 on Page No. 2 of a site specific Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc., dated
April 17, 2017, identifies the site’s soil as 9.5’ of fill over native alluvial soils. The soils on the project site
would be considered till for any modeling purposes. See the Geotechnical Report included in Appendix
C. Infiltration testing has been performed for On-Site BMP (Core Requirement #9) feasibility. The results
of that test show an on-site infiltration rate of 0.2 in/hr. See the Infiltration Evaluation Letter by Earth
Solutions dated June 28, 2017 in Appendix C for more details.
Figure 1.3 – USDA Soil Survey Map
Page | 12
2.0 – Conditions and Requirements Summary
See the Flow Chart, below, for determining the type of drainage review required. See Figure 2-Project
Impervious Surface Totals and Figure 3-Project PGIS Totals in Appendix A, which illustrates that the
proposed new plus replaced impervious surfaces total 4,938 sf and the proposed new plus replaced
pollution generating impervious surfaces total 2,008 sf, respectively.
Figure 1.4 – Flow Chart for Minimum Requirements
Page | 13
Per Table 1.1.2.A of the Drainage Manual, all minimum requirements must be analyzed for a Full
Drainage Review.
Core Requirements:
1. Discharge at Natural Location:
The project will not affect the existing discharge location. The existing site area surface runoff is
collected in two existing on-site catch basins that drain into the existing private drainage system
on Lot 3. That system routes the runoff through storm drain pipes in the west part of Lot 2 to
the north and ultimately through an existing stormwater discharge pipe from Lot 2 into the
public drainage system in East Valley Road. The project will not change the existing discharge
location. See Figure 1 – Site Overview.
2. Offsite Analysis:
Per Exemption #2 on page 1-25 of the SWDM, the project is exempt from CR#2 because less
than 2,000 sf new impervious surface is added and because no drainage pipes 12 inches or
larger are being altered. The total proposed new impervious surfaces total 1,268 sf. See Figure 2
– Project Impervious Surface Totals.
3. Flow Control:
Per the Basic Exemption on page 1-35 of the SWDM, the project is exempt from CR#3 because
the project proposes less than 5,000 sf of new plus replaced impervious surface and less than ¾
of an acre of new pervious surface. The proposed new plus replaced impervious surfaces total
4,938 sf and the new pervious surfaces total 609 sf (0.01 ac). See Figure 2 – Project Impervious
Surface Totals.
4. Conveyance System:
Section 1.2.4.2 on page 1-51 of the SWDM states: “Existing onsite conveyance systems that will
not experience a change in flow characteristics (e.g., peak flows or volume of flows) as a result
of the proposed project need not be analyzed for conveyance capacity.” Thus, because the
proposed project will have virtually no effect on peak flows or volume of flows to the existing
onsite system, no analysis is being conducted on the existing conveyance system. See Part B of
Section 4 of this report for more detail on the conveyance system.
5. Erosion and Sediment Control:
A TESC plan has been developed to contain sediment and prevent erosion. That plan is part of
the set of the project’s civil construction drawings. A CSWPPP for the proposed project is set
forth in Section 8 of this report.
6. Maintenance and Operations:
Per Section 1.2.6 of the SWDM, O&M Requirements must be included for privately maintained
BMPs. For the proposed project, the privately maintained BMPs include (a) the proposed
perforated pipe connection BMP, (b) the soil amendment BMP, and (c) the retained trees BMP.
An O&M Manual is included in Appendix D of this report for those three proposed BMPs.
Page | 14
7. Financial Liability:
The City of Renton Bond Quantity Worksheet has been filled out and is submitted with this
report. A copy of that worksheet is set form in Appendix E.
8. Water Quality:
The project is exempt from CR#8 because the project includes less than 5,000 sf of new and
replaced pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS). The proposed new plus replaced PGIS
total 2,008 sf. See Figure 3 – Project PGIS Totals
9. On-Site BMPs:
Because the proposed project includes more than 2,000 sf of new and replaced impervious
surface, On-Site BMPs are required to be evaluated to the maximum extent feasible. The list for
Large Lot BMPs has been evaluated and is addressed in detail in Part C of Section 4 of this
report. The perforated pipe connection BMP has been used for the proposed new roof surfaces,
and soils in new landscaped areas will be amended per Section C.2.13 of the Renton SWDM. See
Appendix B for the stormwater plan sheet.
Special Requirements:
1. Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements:
None.
2. Flood Hazard Area Delineation:
Per FEMA floodplain map number 53033C0979 F, revised May 16, 1995, the project site lies
near, but completely outside of a 100-yr Special Flood Hazard Area, a Zone AH floodplain area
with an elevation listed at 16’ NAVD 1988. The floor elevation of the existing single-story
building and the proposed addition to that building (21.67 feet NAVD 1988) is 5.67 feet above
the floodplain elevation.
3. Flood Protection Facilities:
No levees or flood facilities exist on site.
4. Source Control:
Source control BMPs will be implemented for the new structure.
5. Oil Control:
Because the project site is not a high-use site, no additional oil control is required.
6. Aquifer Protection Areas:
The project site is not located within a groundwater protection area.
3.0 – Offsite Analysis
Because the project is exempt from CR#2 (see comments concerning Core Requirement 2 on page 13,
above), no offsite analysis is required.
Page | 15
4.0 – Flow Control, LID, and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design
Existing Site Hydrology (Part A)
The project area proposed to be disturbed, which totals 5,578 sf (0.13 acres), is a small portion (4.2%) of
the 3.08-acre Lot 3. This lot, in combination with the two lots to the north, has an existing on-site
stormwater detention and water quality system that is tributary to the public storm drain system in East
Valley Road. As shown on Figure 1 of Appendix A, the existing portion of the site to be disturbed drains
to two existing catch basins that are connected to the on-site drainage system. Runoff from
approximately half the project area proposed to be disturbed currently drains to the existing catch basin
to the southeast and the runoff from the other approximate half drains toward the catch basin to the
southwest.
Developed Site Hydrology (Part B)
The proposed redevelopment of the site will involve no changes to the existing stormwater system on
the subject parcel and will make only slight changes to the site’s drainage. The proposed building
addition’s 2,673 sf of roof area will be directed away from the existing catch basins to an existing
manhole via a Perforated Pipe Connection as detailed in Section C.2.11 of the SWDM. This manhole is
part of the existing stormwater detention system that serves Lot 3 as well as Lots 1 and 2 to the north of
Lot 3. Because the net increase in impervious surface area is proposed to be only 659 square feet (see
Figure 2 – Project Surface Totals of Appendix A), the effect on stormwater volume and peak flows will
be negligible. The flow volume to the existing catch basins to the southwest and southeast of the
disturbed site area will decrease since some of that original drainage area (in the vicinity of the
proposed roof) is being re-routed directly to the detention system.
Performance Standards (Part C)
The project is exempt from both flow control and water quality standards (MR #3 and MH #8) because
the total proposed new and replaced impervious surface is less than 5,000 sf.
Because the proposed new and replaced impervious surface total is greater than 2,000 square feet, the
project triggers Minimum Requirement #9 for on-site BMP requirements. Large Lot BMP requirements
list for individual lots apply to this project, because the project parcel is greater than 22,000 sf. The
Large Lot BMP list on SWDM pages C-20 and C-21 was evaluated for implementation to the maximum
extent feasible for all target surfaces and is discussed below.
1. Full Dispersion
· Full dispersion is infeasible for all target surfaces under Section C.2.1.1.a because the
site is fully developed and has no native vegetated surfaces.
2. Full Infiltration of Roof Runoff
· Full Infiltration of roof runoff is infeasible for the following reasons:
Page | 16
· The minimum design requirement for full infiltration is set forth in Section
C.2.2.2.1.a of Minimum Design Requirements for Full Infiltration on page C-45 of
the SWDM. That section states: ”Existing soils must be coarse sands or cobbles
or medium sands and cannot be comprised of fill materials where the
infiltration device will be located.” (Emphasis added.) As described in the
Geotechnical Report and in the Infiltration Evaluation Letter, the site’s soils are
comprised of fill over peat.
· Section 3.2 on Page No. 2 of the project’s April 2017 Geotechnical Report
prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. describes the existing soils as 9.5 feet of fill
composed of layers of sandy silt, silty sand and clayey silt fill over a thin layer
of peat and underlying silty sandy alluvium. (See the Geotechnical Report in
Appendix C for more detail.) The fill soils make full infiltration infeasible.
· Infiltration rate testing shows an infiltration rate of 0.20 in/hr, making full
infiltration infeasible. (See the Infiltration Evaluation Letter in Appendix C for
more detail.)
3. Infiltration BMPs
a. Full Infiltration
· Full Infiltration is infeasible for all target impervious surfaces on site due to the
inadequate soils and inadequate infiltration rate described above for Full
Infiltration of Roof Runoff.
b. Limited Infiltration
· Limited Infiltration has been evaluated for all target impervious surfaces on site
and has been deemed infeasible for the following reasons:
· The first paragraph of Section C.2.3.2 of Minimum Design Requirements
for Limited Infiltration on Page C-53 of the SWDM states: “The minimum
design requirements for limited infiltration are the same as those for full
infiltration, except infiltration depressions are excluded and existing
soils in the location of the infiltration device may be fine sands, sandy
loams, or loams as opposed to only medium sands or better.”
(Emphasis added.)
· Section 3.2 on Page No. 2 of the project’s April 2017 Geotechnical
Report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. describes the existing soils as
9.5 feet of fill composed of layers of sandy silt, silty sand and clayey
silt fill over a thin layer of peat and underlying silty sandy alluvium. See
the Geotechnical Report in Appendix C for more detail. Because fill
Page | 17
soils are not acceptable for full infiltration, such soils are not acceptable
for limited infiltration either.
· Infiltration testing has resulted in a rate of 0.20 in/hr, making limited
infiltration infeasible. See the Infiltration Evaluation Letter in Appendix
C for more details.
c. Bioretention
Bioretention feasibility was evaluated for all target impervious surfaces and
determined to be infeasible for the following infeasibility criteria listed on pages
C-65 to C-67 of the SWDM:
· Criterion #9 – The only landscaping areas on the overall site large
enough to accommodate a bioretention facility are too far away to
serve the project’s proposed new and replaced surfaces via gravity
conveyance.
· Criterion #21 –Per the Infiltration Testing Memorandum included in
Appendix C, the existing soils have saturated hydraulic conductivity of
only 0.20 inches per hour, which is less than the rate of 0.30 inches per
hour that is the criterion for infeasibility.
· Criterion #22 – There is no feasible location to locate bioretention
meeting the minimum 18” bottom width. All landscape areas within
gravity service of target services are infeasible due to the 5’ minimum
offset from buildings and property lines, the 3’ offset from fire hydrants,
or other existing utility vaults. See Figure 1 – Site Overview in Appendix
A for more detail.
d. Permeable Pavement
Permeable pavement feasibility was evaluated for all proposed non-roof
surfaces per pages C-77 to C-79 of the SWDM and found to be infeasible for the
following reasons:
· Criterion #24 - Per the Infiltration Evaluation Letter included in
Appendix C, the existing soils have a saturated hydraulic conductivity
0.2 inches per hour, which is less than the required 0.30 inches per hour
threshold for infeasibility.
· Criterion #26 –This criterion exempts all the proposed project’s replaced
pollution generating impervious surfaces. In addition, this criterion
exempts all the proposed project’s non-pollution generating impervious
surfaces because the underlying soils are not “outwash soils” with
saturated hydraulic conductivity of four inches per hour or greater.
Page | 18
4. Basic Dispersion
· Basic dispersion was evaluated in the project area and no feasible location was found to
treat any new and replaced impervious surfaces. The site is fully developed with limited
landscaped areas on site to locate any basic dispersion facility. The use of the gravel
filled trench was evaluated first, since it has the smallest footprint of the basic
dispersion techniques listed in the SWDM. The required dispersion distance for this
facility is 25’. However, once the 10’ minimum offset from buildings and the 5’ minimum
offset from property lines are considered, no landscaped area within reach of gravity
service on site is large enough to allow for a gravel filled trench basic dispersion facility.
It then follows that all larger basic dispersion techniques are also infeasible. Figure 1 –
Site Overview in Appendix A shows the offset lines and existing landscaped areas.
5. On-Site Application Rates:
· Per Table C.1.3.A on page C-21 of the SWDM, lots with 80% impervious surface coverage
or greater are not required to mitigate any portion of the proposed target impervious
surfaces. Because the proposed project is located on a fully developed lot with well over
80% impervious surface coverage, BMPs are not required for any of the target surfaces.
6. Soil Moisture Holding Capacity:
· New pervious surfaces will be maintained per the soil amendment BMPs as detailed in
Appendix C, Section C.2.13 of the SWDM.
7. Perforated Pipe Connection:
· Per C.2.11 on page C-95 of the SWDM, the runoff from the new roof surface will be
mitigated with the proposed perforated pipe connection that is depicted on the
Drainage Plan.
Flow Control System (Part D)
Not required due to the proposed new and replaced impervious surfaces totaling less than 5,000 sf.
Water Quality System (Part E)
Not required due to the proposed new and replaced pollution generating impervious surfaces totaling
less than 5,000 sf.
Page | 19
5.0 – Conveyance System Analysis and Design
There is no change to the existing on-site stormwater system.
6.0 – Special Reports and Studies
1. Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc., project #T-7638, dated April 17, 2017
2. Infiltration Evaluation Letter by Earth Solutions NW, LLC dated June 28, 2017
7.0 – Other Permits
None
Page | 20
8.0 – CSWPP Analysis and Design
ESC Measures:
The following ESC measures listed in the 2017 Renton SWDM have been evaluated for use on the
proposed site. Each measure is listed and designated as being used or not being used, and, if not being
used, a discussion on why is provided.
1. Clearing Limits
The limits of clearing and surface replacement are designated on the plans and will be clearly
marked prior to the start of construction.
2. Cover Measures
No soils will be left exposed outside the project area. Straw mulch will be used to cover
landscaped areas if necessary.
3. Perimeter Protection
Chain link fencing will be used outside of the site to isolate construction activities from the
public.
4. Traffic Area Stabilization
The area of ground disturbance is limited in size such that construction equipment will primarily
be situated on nearby existing parking lot/driveway pavement. In the event equipment does
enter an area of exposed soil, Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization will be implemented
per Section D.2.1.4.2 of the SWDM. Adjacent parking areas will also be swept as necessary to
prevent tracking of construction pollution off-site.
5. Sediment Retention
Any construction stormwater drainage will be collected and routed through the onsite
mitigation system, as described in the following two paragraphs.
During the foundation construction phase a sediment trap will be constructed per Section
D.2.1.5.1 of the Renton SWDM. The sediment trap shall initially be located per the TESC Plan
(see Appendix B), and will be relocated as the CSWPP lead determines to work with Contractor
staging the excavation and grading.
Sizing for the sediment trap was determined by the methods outlined in Section D.2.1.5.1 of
Appendix D of the Renton SWDM. The design flow was determined using WWHM 2012 with
0.114 acres of flat parking with a 15-min time step. The resulting 2-year peak runoff is 0.044 CFS
for the site. Using the equation “SA = 2,080 SF x cfs of inflow,” the resulting minimum surface
area is 92 SF.
6. Surface Water Collection
Any construction stormwater drainage will be collected and conveyed to the proposed sediment
trap with ditches and a pump as shown on the TESC Plan.
Page | 21
7. Dewatering Control
Because of the building’s single-story design and minimal grading, it is not anticipated that any
dewatering will be required.
8. Dust Control
Preventative measures to minimize wind transport of soil shall be implemented if a traffic
hazard may be created or if sediment transported by wind is likely to be deposited in water
resources.
9. Flow Control
Flow control will be performed by pumping out the sediment trap and using baker tanks as
necessary.
10. Control Pollutants (also see SWPPS Measures below)
Catch basin inlet protection is specified in the TESC plan to capture any sediment laden runoff
during the construction phase. Equipment used on site will be required to be in good, working
order. In addition, concrete handling, sawcutting and surfacing pollution prevention, and
material delivery and storage containment BMPs will be implemented.
11. Protect Existing and Proposed Stormwater Facilities and On-site BMPs
The contractor will be required to maintain all existing and proposed BMPS on the site until all
soils are stabilized on the site at the end of construction.
12. Maintain Protective BMPs
The contractor will be required to maintain protection measures to ensure continued
performance of their intended function, to prevent adverse impacts to existing BMPs/facilities
and areas of proposed BMPs/facilities, and protect other disturbed areas of the project, if any.
13. Manage the Project
The contractor will be required to manage coordination and timing of site development
activities relative to ESC concerns. Timely inspection, maintenance and update of protective
measures will be provided by the contractor to effectively manage the project and ensure the
success of protective ESC and SWPPS design and implementation.
Page | 22
9.0 – Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant
A Bond Quantity Worksheet has been included in Appendix E of this report.
10.0 – Operations and Maintenance Manual
An O&M Manual is set forth in Appendix D of this report.
Appendix A
Stormwater Basin Maps
134,074 SQ. FT.
3.0779 ACRES56,508 SQ. FT.
1.2973 ACRES
98102-3513
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVE. EAST
SEATTLE, Washington
LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
FAX# (206) 323-7135
(206) 323-4144
1-800-935-0508
FIGURE 1 - SITE OVERVIEW
US BANK EXPANSION
US BANK
RENTON KING WASHINGTON
98102-3513
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVE. EAST
SEATTLE, Washington
LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
FAX# (206) 323-7135
(206) 323-4144
1-800-935-0508
FIGURE 2 - PROJECT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TOTALS
US BANK EXPANSION
US BANK
RENTON KING WASHINGTON
98102-3513
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVE. EAST
SEATTLE, Washington
LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
FAX# (206) 323-7135
(206) 323-4144
1-800-935-0508
FIGURE 3 - PROJECT PGIS TOTALS
US BANK EXPANSION
US BANK
RENTON KING WASHINGTON
Appendix B
TESC Plans
8/18/17
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS6'&ÄÄ75$#0-':2#05+10
'#568#..';41#&
98102-3513
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVE. EAST
SEATTLE, Washington
LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
FAX# (206) 323-7135
(206) 323-4144
1-800-935-0508
&'/1.+6+10#0&6'5%2.#0
8/18/17
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS6'&ÄÄ75$#0-':2#05+10
'#568#..';41#&
98102-3513
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
2009 MINOR AVE. EAST
SEATTLE, Washington
LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS
FAX# (206) 323-7135
(206) 323-4144
1-800-935-0508
6'5%&'6#+.5
Appendix C
Geotechnical Reports
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
U.S. Bank Expansion
2500 East Valley Road
Renton, Washington
Proj,ct,-No . T-763~
Terra Associates, Inc.
Pre pared for~
' r • . .... ·
Strada Da Valle, LLC
Seattle , Washington
A p ril ·17; ·2017
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Mr. Brad Merlino
Strada Da Valle, LLC
5050 -1st A venue South, Suite 102
Seattle, Washington 98134
Subject: Geotechnical Report
U.S. Bank Expansion
2500 East Valley Road
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Merlino:
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
April 17, 2017
Project No. T-7638
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report
presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction.
The soils observed in the test boring consist of approximately 9.5 feet of fill overlying native lacustrine and
alluvial deposits. Groundwater was encountered about J 2 feet below existing site grade.
Based on our study, there are no geotechnical conditions that would preclude the planned development. In our
opinion, the addition can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on a subgrade of existing fill
material that has been mechanically compacted in place or on structural fill that is placed on a compacted
subgrade. Floor slabs can be similarly supported.
We t~st the information provided in the attached report is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please call.
12220 113th Avenue NE, Ste. 130, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................... I
2.0 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................. I
3.0 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Surface ................................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................... 2
3 .3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 2
3.4 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................... 2
3.4.1 Erosion Hazard Areas ............................................................................... 3
3.4.2 Steep Slope Hazard Areas ........................................................................ 3
3.4.3 Landslide Hazard Areas ........................................................................... 4
3.4.4 Seismic Hazard Areas .............................................................................. 4
3.4.5 Coal Mine Hazard Areas .......................................................................... 5
3.5 Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................................ 5
4.0 Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 6
4.1 General ............................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Site Preparation .................................................................................................. 6
4.3 Structural Fill and Backfill ................................................................................. 7
4.4 Foundations ........................................................................................................ 7
4.5 Slab-on-Grade Floors ......................................................................................... 8
4.6 Utilities ............................................................................................................... 8
5.0 Additional Services ......................................................................................................... 9
6.0 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 9
Fie,ures
Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... Figure 1
Exploration Location Plan .................................................................................................. Figure 2
Appendices
Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing
Liquefaction Analysis Results
Appendix A
AppendixB
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Geotechnical Report
U.S. Bank Expansion
2500 East Valley Road
Renton, Washington
The project consists of constructing a single-story addition to the northern side of an existing office building. A
site plan prepared by Cornerstone Architectural Group, dated March 2, 2017 indicates the addition will have a
footprint of approximately 2,460 feet. We understand that the addition will be constructed with concrete walls
and a concrete slab-on-grade floor matching the existing office structure. We expect structural loading will be
relatively light with columns carrying I 00 to 150 kips and continuous bearing walls carrying 4 to 6 kips per foot.
The recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are based on the above design features.
We should review any changes in the geotechnical aspects of the design plans as they are developed to verify that
our recommendations are valid for the proposed construction and to amend or modify our report, as necessary.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work was completed in accordance with our authorized proposal dated March 23, 2017. On April 1,
2017, we observed subsurface conditions in the area of the planned addition in a test boring drilled to a depth of
51.5 feet below existing ground surface. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, we
perfonned analyses to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for project design and construction.
Specifically, this report addresses the following:
• Soil and groundwater conditions
• Geologic Hazards per the City of Renton Municipal Code
• Seismic design parameters per the cun-ent International Building Code (IBC)
• Site preparation
• Structural fill and backfill
• Foundations
• Slab-on-grade floors
• Utilities
It should be noted that the recommendations outlined in this report regarding drainage are associated with soil
strength, erosion, and stability. Design and perfonnance issues with respect to moisture as it relates to the
structure environment are beyond Terra Associates' purview. A building envelope specialist or contractor should
be consulted to address these issues, as needed.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Surface
April 17, 2017
Project No. T-7638
The project site is within an existing office park located between East Valley Road and State Route 167 (SR 167),
approximately 450 feet north of the intersection of East Valley Road and SW 27th Street in Renton, Washington.
The location of the site is shown on Figure 1. A sidewalk and planter, and concrete-paved parking and driveway
areas currently occupy the location of the addition. Existing surface grades are relatively flat.
3.2 Soils
The soils observed in the test boring consist of approximately 9.5 feet of fill overlying native lacustrine and
alluvial deposits. The fill soils generally consist of loose to medium dense, moist, silty fine sand to fine sandy silt
with varying amounts of gravel and scattered brick fragments, and stiff, moist, clayey silt with scattered angular
siltstone fragments.
The native alluvial deposits consist predominantly of fine to medium sand, sand with silt, and silty sand that are in
a very loose to medium dense condition between depths of about 12 and 3 8 feet, and a medium dense condition
below 39 feet. All of the soil samples collected below a depth of 12 feet were wet. Soft, moist, peat was
encountered between the fi II and the alluvial sediments between depths of about 9 .5 and 12 feet.
A map titled Geologic lvlap of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington by D.R. Mullineaux, dated 1965
shows the site soils mapped as tacustrine peat deposits (Qlp). This mapped soil unit is consistent with the native
soils observed in the test boring.
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions observed in the test boring presented on the Boring Log
attached in Appendix A. The approximate location of the test boring is shown on Figure 2.
3.3 Groundwater
We observed groundwater in the test boring below a depth of approximately 12 feet. Considering our field work
occuned on April I st, we expect that the observed groundwater level is generally representative of the seasonal
high.
3.4 Geologic Hazards
We evaluated potential geologic-related hazards at the subject site as defined in Section 4-3-050G5 (Geologically
Hazardous Areas Defined) of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Geologic hazards are defined by the RMC as
"Areas which may be prone to one or more of the following conditions: erosion, flooding, landslides, coal mine
hazards, or seismic activity."
Page No. 2
3.4.J Ero~·ion Hazard Areas
Section 4-3-050G5c of the RMC defines erosion hazards as follows:
April 17, 2017
Project No. T-7638
1. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having sHght or moderate erosion potential, and a slope less
than l 5 percent.
ii . High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(fonnerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and a slope
more than 15 percent.
The soils underlying the site are mapped as Tukwila muck (Tu), which are described by the NRCS as having a
slight erosion potential. Based on the above criteria, the site is categorized as having a low erosion hazard.
In our opinion, no significant erosion hazard exists in the project area. In our opinion, the erosion potential of site
soils in the planned development area would be adequately mitigated with proper implementation and
maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion prevention and sedimentation control. All BMPs
for erosion prevention and sedimentation control will need to be in place prior to and during site grading activity,
and should conform to City of Renton requirements.
3.4.2 Steep Slope Hazard Arem·
Section 4-3-050G5a of the RMC defines steep slopes as follows:
1. Sensitive Slopes: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by: (a) an average slope of 25 percent to less
than 40 percent as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City;
or (b) an average slope of 40 percent or greater with a vertical rise of less than 15 feet as identified in the
City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City; ( c) abutting an average slope of 25
percent to 40 percent as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the
City. This definition excludes engineered retaining walls.
11 . Protected Slopes: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by an average slope of 40 percent or greater
grade and having a minimum vertical rise of 15 feet as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas
or in a method approved by the City.
In our opinion, steep slope hazards do not exist at the site. As discussed, site topography is relatively flat. In our
opinion, slope areas that meet the above criteria and that pose a potential steep slope hazard do not exist at the
site.
Page No. 3
3.4.3 Litnddide Hazard Areas
Section 4-3-050G5b of the RMC defines landslide hazards as follows:
1. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than 15 percent.
April l 7, 2017
Project No. T-7638
ii . Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by
soils that consist largely of sand, gravel, or glacial till.
iii . High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent, and areas with slopes between
15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay.
iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mapped or identified landslide deposits.
In our opinion, no landslide hazard exists at the site. With the relatively flat topography, based on the above
criteria, the site would be classified as having a low landslide hazard.
3.4.4 Seismic Hazard Areal·
Section 4-3-050G5d of the RMC defines seismic hazards as follows:
1. Low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have site
classifications of A through D, as defined in the International Building Code, 2012.
11. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally have
site classifications E or F, as defined in the International Building Code, 2012.
Based on soil conditions observed in the test boring and our knowledge of the area geology, per Chapter 16 of the
cmTent International Building Code (IBC), it is our opinion that site soil classification "D" would apply to the
subject site. However, because the loose, saturated soils observed in the upper approximately 35 feet of the test
boring are susceptible to liquefaction during a severe seismic event, it is our opinion that the seismic hazard at the
site would be classified as high.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in
water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained
sands underlying the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from intergranular friction. The
generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular
friction; thus, eliminating the soil's strength.
We completed a liquefaction analysis using the computer program LiquifyPro following procedures outlined by
Seed and Idriss. The analysis was completed using a ground acceleration of 0.38 g which was determined in
accordance with the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) recommendations outlined in
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publication P-750. This value is equivalent to S 0 s/2.5. The
results of the liquefaction analysis are attached in Appendix B.
Page No. 4
April 17, 2017
Project No. T-7638
The results of our analysis indicate soil liquefaction could occur during the design earthquake event. Analysis
indicates that liquefaction could result in total settlements of three inches, one-half of which would likely be
differential in nature. In our opinion, this amount of settlement would not structurally impair the building but
would likely result in cosmetic damage to the structure. If the owner is not willing to accept the risk of cosmetic
building damage requiring repair should liquefaction induced settlements occur foundations would need to be
supported on ground improved with stone columns. Based on our experience with similar sites and structures,
structural design elements are also available to mitigate potential damage caused by the seismic-related soil
settlements.
3.4.5 Coal Mine Hazard Areas
Section 4-3-050G5e of the RMC defines coal mine hazards as follows:
i. Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. While
no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred.
11. Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than 200 feet for steeply
dipping seams, or deeper than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams.
These areas may be affected by subsidence.
iii. High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas
underlain by mine workings shallower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than
15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by
collapse or other subsidence.
We found no record of historical coal mining activities on or extending below the subject site. In our opinion, no
coal mine hazard exists at the site.
3 .5 Seismic Design Parameters
Based on soil conditions observed in the test boring and our knowledge of the area geology, per Chapter 16 of the
current IBC, site class "0" should be used in structural design. Based on this site class, in accordance with the
IBC, the following parameters should be used in computing seismic forces:
Seismic Design Parameters (2012/2015 JBC)
Spectral response acceleration (Short Period), SMs l.424 g
Spectral response acceleration (l -Second Period), SM 1 0.796 g
Five percent damped .2 second period, Sns 0.949 g
Five percent damped 1.0 second period, S01 0.530 g
The above values are for Latitude 47.45632°N and Longitude -122.21809°W, and were obtained from the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Motion Parameter Calculator accessed on April 12, 2017 at the web
site http ://earth guake .usgs.go v/des ig nm aps/us/ap plication.php.
Page No. 5
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
April 17, 2017
Project No. T-7638
In our opinion, there are no geotechnical conditions that would preclude the project as currently planned. Some
of the soils underlying the site are susceptible to liquefaction during a severe seismic event that could result in
settlement at the ground surface of about three inches, one-half of which would likely be differential in nature. As
discussed, settlements of this magnitude would not structurally impair the building but would likely result in
cosmetic damage to the structure.
We observed peat in the test boring between depths of about 9.5 and 12 feet. Peat soils are typically susceptible
to long-term consolidation under loads; however, with the relatively light structural loading, and because the peat
has been overlain by approximately 9.5 feet of fill since at least 1991, we do not expect any significant post
construction settlement that would require mitigation due to additional consolidation of the peat.
In our opinion, the addition can be supported using conventional spread footings bearing on a subgrade of existing
fill material that has been mechanically compacted in place to a create a dense unifonn condition. The existing
fill soils observed in the test boring contain a sufficient amount of fines that will make them difficult to compact
as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use the existing fill soils as structural fill will depend on the soil
moisture content and prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If site excavation occurs during
wet weather, the owner should be prepared to import clean granular material for use as structural fill and backfill
or to use additives such as cement or lime to stabilize the soil for compaction.
Detailed recommendations regarding the preceding issues and other geotechnical design considerations are
provided in the following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings
and construction specifications.
4.2 Site Preparation
Site preparation should include complete removal of pavements, sidewalk and curb, existing vegetation, and other
deleterious material from the area of new construction. Existing buried utilities that will be abandoned should be
excavated and removed or sealed to prevent water accumulation. Utilities beneath new foundations should be
removed.
Once site preparation operations are complete, the exposed subgrade should be mechanically compacted to an
unyielding state using a hydraulic hoe-pack or vibratory drum roller. The existing fill soils that will be exposed in
the area of the new addition consist predominantly of silt and fine sand that will be easily disturbed by normal
construction activity when wet. If disturbed, the soil will not be suitable for support and the affected material
would need to be removed and grade restored with structural fill. To reduce the potential for subgrade
disturbance, particularly during wet weather, consideration should be given to placing a six-inch layer of one-to
two-inch sized crushed rock or a four-inch layer of lean concrete on completed subgrades to serve as a working
surface.
Page No. 6
4.3 Structural Fill and Backfill
April 17,2017
Project No. T-7638
Once site preparation operations are complete, grading to establish desired building elevations can be initiated. In
order to achieve proper compaction of building fill, the existing subgrade must be in a relatively stable condition.
If an excessively soft and yielding subgrade is observed and it cannot be stabilized in place by aeration and
compaction, stabilizing by the use of an additive, such as cement or lime will need to be considered.
Alternatively, the unstable soils can be excavated and replaced with clean granular structural fill. Typically,
stabilization of soft yielding soils that cannot be stabilized in place (due to excess moisture) requires amending or
otherwise removing and replacing affected soils to a depth of 12 to 18 inches with clean granular structural fill.
Using the existing fill materials for structural fill will require careful control of the soil moisture content to
facilitate adequate compaction. As such, the ability to use the site soils as structural fill will depend on the natural
soil moisture content, the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction, and the ability of the
contractor to properly moisture condition the soil. During the normally dry summer months, the contractor should
be prepared to dry soils that are wet of optimum by aeration. Alternatively, stabilizing the moisture in the soil
with cement or lime can be considered. Moisture conditioning of soils that are dry of optimum would require the
addition of water to the soils and thoroughly blending the material prior to compaction.
If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months and the on-site soils become too wet to achieve
adequate compaction, the contractor should be prepared to treat soils with cement or lime, or import wet weather
structural fill. If an additive is used, additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) for its use will need to be
incorporated into the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan (TESC) for the project. For wet
weather structural fill, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements:
U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passine
6 inches 100
No.4 75 maximum
No. 200 5 maximum*
*Based on the 3/4-inch fraction.
Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural
fill.
Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of
95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as dete11nined by American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction
should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In nonstructural areas, or for
backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent.
4.4 Foundations
Foundation support for the addition may consist of conventional spread footing foundations bearing on a subgrade
consisting of existing fill material that is mechanically compacted in place to an unyielding, dense condition or on
structural fill placed on a mechanically compacted subgrade. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather
should bear at a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior foundations
can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab.
Page No. 7
April 17, 2017
Project No. T-7638
We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
For shorMerm loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used in
design. With structural loading as anticipated and this bearing stress applied, estimated foundation settlements of
about 1 ½ inches and differential settlement of¾-inch should be expected.
For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. Passive earth
pressures acting on the sides of the footings can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral
resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend not including the
upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading
activity. This value assumes the foundations will be backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 4.3 of
this report. The values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5.
4.5 Slab-on-Grade Floors
Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on a subgrade prepared as recommended in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this
report. Immediately below the floor slabs, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean,
free-draining, coarse sand or fine gravel that has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material
will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent
wetting of the floor slabs.
The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor transmission.
Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common practice is to place a
durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a layer of clean sand or
fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing of the concrete slab. It
should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to pouring the slab, it
will be ineffective in assisting in uniform curing of the slab, and can actually serve as a water supply for moisture
transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Therefore, in our opinion, covering the membrane
with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided if floor slab construction occurs during the wet winter months
and the layer cannot be effectively drained. We recommend floor designers and contractors refer to the 2003
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 2, 302.1 R-96, for further information
regarding vapor barrier installation below slab-on-grade floors.
4.6 Utilities
Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA),
or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill,
as described in Section 4.3 of this report. As noted, the existing fill soils are moisture sensitive and will require
careful control of moisture to facilitate proper compaction. If utility construction takes place during the winter or
if it is not feasible to properly moisture condition the excavated soil at the time of construction, it may be
necessary to import suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling. Utility excavations extending to depths
greater that about 9.5 feet will likely encounter soft peat and wet, fine-grained alluvial deposits that wou]d not be
suitable for reuse as trench backfill.
Page No. 8
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
April 17, 2017
Project No. T-7638
Terra Associates, Inc. should review project designs and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and
foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. We should also
provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with our design concepts, specifications,
and recommendations. This will allow for expedient design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to the start of construction.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is
intended for specific application to the U.S. Bank Expansion project in Renton, Washington. This report is for the
exclusive use of Strada DaValle, LLC and their authorized representatives.
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the on-site test
boring. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until
construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to reevaluate the
recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction.
Page No. 9
vi 1 Naches Av
.,. 2 Nach~ Av SW
24
>
25
!,M
~
<(
C
"" """ t :..:: er
Jf
~
SW
~
> <( ....
IUi
E
0 ..c:
}-
i;
~
~
0
E
~
Qi;-I
SW
SW I
7t.h
ST
....
SW s
""' ~
0 er
:30
34
REFERENCE: THOMAS GUIDE (2008)
Terra Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
VICINITY MAP
U.S. BANK EXPANSION
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T-7638 Date APR 2017 Figure 1
REFERENCE:
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
,, /
,I'
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SITE PLAN BY CORNERSTONE ARCHITECTURAL GROUP
NOTE:
THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR
REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
-------~;::-y
I.NIJSCAP[ ~=
}:1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-.-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-·· ·-· · ·· ·--· ·· ·-· · ·· ·-· · ·· ·-· · ··
',J
!
\
\
i
\
\
\
i
~ ~ EXPANSIGIN
~B-1 l
LEGEND:
~
\
\
i
\
\
\
\
i
!
\
s APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
0 15 30
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
CZ
DIISTNG
IIII.IING
..,.
Terra Associates, Inc. EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
U.S. BANK EXPANSION
RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Proj. No.T-7638 Date APR 2017 Figure 2
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABO RA TORY TESTING
U.S. Bank Expansion
Renton~ Washington
On April 1, 2017, we explored subsurface conditions at the site by drilling one test boring to a depth of 51.5 feet
with a trailer mounted drill rig using hollow-stem auger drilling methods. The boring was located in the field by
measuring and sighting relative to existing structure and surface features. The boring location is shown on Figure
2. The Boring Log is presented as Figure A-2.
An engineering geologist from our office conducted the field exploration, maintained a log of the test boring,
classified the soils and recorded groundwater levels, collected representative soil samples, and observed pertinent
site features. Soil samples were obtained from the test borings in general accordance with ASTM D-1586 test
procedures. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS) described on Figure A-1.
Representative soil samples obtained from the test boring were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our
laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of all soil samples was measured and is
reported on the Boring Log. Grain size distribution was also determined on five samples with results shown on
Figures A-3 and A-4.
Project No. T-7638
MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.
GRAVELS
Gravels (less
.... than 5% u, Q) More than 50% fines) GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.
..J C)
.... Q) of coarse fraction 5 ~ N
u, -·u; is larger than No. GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
-~ Q) C Q) > 4 sieve Gravels with w -Q) fines z co·-GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ~ E !/)
0 ~o
C) 0N Clean Sands SW Well-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. LO . w 0
C: z SANDS (less than u, co C: 0:: £ co More than 50% 5% fines) SP Poorly-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. <(
0 ~£ of coarse fraction 0 0
~ is smaller than Sands with SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
No. 4 sieve fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
....
~ ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight plasticity. ro Q) u, E N SIL TS AND CLA VS ..J ~ "in CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. {Lean clay) 5 -~ g? Liquid Limit is less than 50%
u, Q) Q)
C -·-OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. co !/) w Ea z ~~ ~ 0 . MH Inorganic silts, elastic.
LO 0
C) C: z SILTS AND CLAYS w co C: CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. (Fat clay) ..c: co Liquid Limit is greater than 50% z -..c: U::: Q) -r.;.
0 OH Organic clays of high plasticity. ~
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
u, Standard Penetration I 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPILT SPOON SAMPLER u, w Densi!Y Resistance in Blows/Foot
..J ][ 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR z
0 Very Loose 0-4 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER en Loose 4-10 w Medium Dense 10-30 :::c y WATER LEVEL (Date)
0 Dense 30-50
0 Very Dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf
Standard Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf
Consistancy Resistance in Blows/Foot w DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot ~ u, Very Soft 0-2 w Soft 2-4 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent :::c
0 Medium Stiff 4-8
0 Stiff 8-16 Pl PLASTIC INDEX
Very Stiff 16-32
Hard >32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
~ Terra UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .
~ U.S. BANK EXPANSION •. 'r·1t· ~ Associates, Inc. ~ RENTON, WASHINGTON . Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geologrand Proj. No.T-7638 I Date APR 2017 I Figure A-1 Environmenta Earth Sciences
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 Figure No. A-2
Project: U.S.Bank Expansion Project No: T-7638 Date Drilled: April 1. 2017
Client: Strada Da Valle, LLC Driller: Boretec Logged By'"""': J"'""C'---S __ _
Location: Renton. Washington Depth to Groundwater:Approx. 12 ft Approx. Elev:_N ___ A~-------
= --.c.
Q.
Q)
Cl
~
2
C
Q)
0..
E
ffl
(/)
Soil Description
Consistency/
Relative Density
10
SPT (N)
Blows/foot
30 50
Moisture
Content(%)
o~-~-----------------------.--------,---.--.-.-.---,----,------1
-I
5-:: I
--I
10 -I
~ -
: I
15 -:: I
-
--
20 -:: I
-
-
-
30 -I --.
35 -I --
-
40 -I
---
45 -:: I
---
5 inch Concrete Slab.
FILL: Gray sandy SILT with gravel to silty SAND with gravel, fine
sand, fine gravel, trace of clay, moist, trace off brick fragmernts.
{ML/SM)
Medium Dense
Loose ----------------------------------------------~--------t
FILL: Gray clayey SILT to sandy, clayey SILT, moist, scattered
, angular siltstone fragments. (ML)
1 Dark brown PEAT, moist. (PT) I L--------------------------------------------J
Gray-brown silty SAND to SAND with silt, tine sand, wet,
numerous sandy silt partings and seams. (SM/SP-SM)
Stiff
Soft
Loose
------------------------------------------------------~
Dark gray-brown SAND. fine to medium grained, moist to wet.
(SP)
Gray silty SAND to SAND with silt, fine to medium sand, wet.
(SM/SP-SM)
-Trace of fine shell fragments below 33 feet.
Gray SAND to SAND wth silt, tine to medium grained, trace of
coarse sand, wet, scattered shell fragments, trace of dark brown
organic seams and wood fragments. (SP/SP-SM)
Medium Dense
Very Loose to
Loose
Medium Dense
50 -:: I --------------------,r--------; -Boring terminated at 51.5 feet.
Groundwater encountered below approximately 12 feet. -
55 -----
• 12 18.7
• 5 24.5
t 9 44.5
• 3 203.8
• 7 28.7
• 8 31.5
• 15 23.7
• 2 22.8
• 6 22.6
• 5 23.8
20 25.8
• 22 20.3
• 24 21.4
60 -'--l------------------------"L..-------...L....-L.........L..--L___j-'-----'----
NOTE: This borehole log has been prepared for gaotechnical purposes. This information
pertains only to this boring location and should not be interpeted as being indicative of
other areas of the site
~Terra
~ C~s~t~t~n~!!!!!~ng~~~;
Geology and
Enviro nmental Earth Sciences
Particle Size Distribution Report
... E C .E . c 0 0 0 .E .E .5 :!: c; ·-0 0 ~ ~-0 0 .., 0
~ ~ ·-"" al t N i .i ~ N
"' "' N ~ :,i: 'It ~
100 I I K 1 iT' K I I . II
I I I I I I 1" ~ I I I
I I I I I I ~ .. I I I I I I
90 I I I '""). ! -1 -1
I I I I I I r-... ~~ I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I N I I I
I I I I I I I 1\ I I I I I
70 I I I I I I I \I I l l I
I I I I I I I '[ \ I l l I
I I I I I I I \ : ~ l I I
0::: 60 I I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I i I ~ I I I z u:: I I I I I I I I f\~ I I
I-50 I I I I I I \I I I I z I I I I I I I ~ I
~I w
(.) I I I I I I I I I ~.,
0::: I I I I I I I I w 40 0.. I I I I I I I I I :, I I ' I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I II II I II I Ii Ii II l I I ~
30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I ,l I I I
20 I II II I II I II II II I I I II
I I I I I I I I I I -~ I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10 I 11 II I II r II I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ~~I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 I It II I II I II 11 II I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0 .01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm .
%+3" % Gravel %Sand %Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0 0.0 0.0 11.5 4.1 14.2 25.8 44.4
D 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.9 67.0 30.6
6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 55.0 41.4 2.8
IX LL PL D~u: D~n D.cn o~I\ D-u: D-tn C,.. Cu
0 2.3054 0.2512 0.1490
D 0.2180 0.1709 0.1538
6 0.7979 0.5375 0.4647 0.3293 0.2259 0.1880 1.07 2.86
Material Description uses AASHTO
o silty SAND SM
o silty SAND SM
6 SAND SP
Project No. T-7638 Client: Strada De Valle, LLC Remarks:
Project: U.S. Bank Expansion oTested April 5, 2017
oTested April 5, 20 I 7
o Location: B-1 Depth: 2.5' 6 Tested April 5, 2017
o Location: B-1 Depth: I 2.5'
6 Location: B-1 Depth: 20'
Terra Associates, Inc.
Kirkland. WA Figure A-3
Tested By: .... F-=Q=---------
~ w z u::
1-z w
~ w a..
0
D
C>(
0
D
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
.5 c c .s c .E "' .E o ~ ~ ~ o 8 ~ g
(0 ~~~:;~~! I i --~ fl. ~i~ I I I I II I '-===-Fi • ...-_---r-----+-----r-tTr-r-i=...,..;:;.I ---...-T""T l-'i'-ill,.,..,.:;,.........,---r---.---.--..,..,..,...,....--r-r---r----r---,
I I I I I l I I "I l_ I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I '-I I I I I I
9o1-1---1--1-~,-+-Hrl---+---l--tr--l-..-hl-,lc-M+.HI-IT-.J-t--!___,k-+\.+.H--l-l-~-t-r-+--1 -r1-1t++rt--+-+-+-+---+--++++-Ht-t--t--l-----t
I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I so 1-1--1--1-~l-+-1-+r1-~-1-l.-l-~I -+.--~1,-M-1-l-i~l--l--+--r.M~-1-1--l-.l-l -1-~I -1--.l~l~-1--1--1--1----1----1-1-1-+-1-11-1--1---1---1
I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 t-t--+--+-~I --1-1--HIH-l--+--I +--1 +--~1--+HI H-1-+--l-+--1------11--1-1~1 ¼l-lf--:-lt-+-..,....1 -+-le---,-lt++,+I -++--+-----+t-H-1-1-1-+---1----1
I I I I I I I I \ 1
1
I I I I
so•--1---1---1-.:....I --1-1--l'l-l-l-l--l'-l --i-:-l-l'---'-I -i:.11-1--1-_1 +-1----1---1-1'-1-I -!44-lt-:-1---f-'.l--1-.,_I _1 1-l-'l-1-t-1--1---+--1---1-1-1-r-1-1-1-+---+-----i
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I \ \I I I I I
50 1--1---1---1-_,_I ---HH'l-1-t-1-r-l -t-'-l--l'-__,_I +11-1--1-_1 +-+--t---+t+I -t-t-1-Hc'.>-t ...... l--1-.._I _1 H-'l-1-t-1-1---1----1--+H-H-i-t-+---+-----i
I I I I I I I I 1 l I I l I
I I I I I I I I 1\ I I I I
40 1-1---1--1-.J..I-.J.-1-11..1--1-+...JJll1.-1-.L.--1J.l__.l_jl.l.-1-1-1-11-1--+--1----1-lJ.l-+.~1,4411-11..-1--1l-11i-1-1.1-1-+-1--1-+----1--++-1-~~-+--1------1
I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I
I I I I I l I I I I \1 I I I
30 1-t--+--t--'-l --++-111'+-t-1+-i''-f-'--l'-l__.1_+-H-t'---t--t---t---+t'H--l--l-'i-1\l-t-~'--'1-'11-t-t"l1-+-t---l-+---+--+++H-1--t--+---l-----t
I I I I I I I I I I ' 1' I I I
I I I I I I I I I I \I \ I I I
ZO l-l--+--+--'-l -----t+l'el.f-+l -l-t'll'-t-'--lll.1_.l-l'tll++-t-!li;-l-+--+---+Ptll -++-+-~IH__)L.H-\'-.........,~1-tftl-t-+-+-+--+--rt+rH-t--+--+----t
I I I I I I I I I I l\ I "' ~~
I I I I I I I I I I I i\ I I I
10 1-t--t--+--1-1-----t-H+1-1-1-l-lll1'-+-~1 l1--11---1Jtl1++-t-11~1 -+--+--+t1+11-++-+-~11-<11-1-I h-L.k--->j1+1-1+11 -t-t--+-+--+--rt+rH-t--+--+----t
l I I I I I I I I I I 1 '-1 •L.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O ._.___,__--'-_._1 _~1 ......... _.l.__.__1.,___..111_,1~11 .......... ......_II ....._._, ___ ___._..._.I I ........_...._...._ 1 ...._,._._1 _.1---,,.1 ........... 1 I __._.,_._......_......____,,.-~~~_._=-=-=-='
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
%+3" % Gravel %Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
%Fines
Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 1.4 3.4 45.0 32.8 17.4
0.0 0.0 1.0 2.7 59.l 30.0 7.2
LL PL D,:.n Oc.n D'ln c~
1.0248 0.5329 0.4229 0.2329
Ll 188 0.6489 0.5444 0.3550 0.1988 0.1435 1.35 4.52
Material Description uses AASHTO
o silty SANO SM
SP-SM o SAND with silt
Project No. T-7638 Client: Strada De Valle, LLC
Project: U.S. Bank Expansion
o Location: B-1
o Location: B-1
Depth: 30'
Depth: 45'
Terra Associates, Inc.
Kirkland. WA
Tested By: _,_F-=Q"----------
Remarks:
oTested April 5, 2017
oTested April 5, 2017
Figure A-4
APPENDIXB
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS RESULTS
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
U.S . Bank Expansion
Hole No.=B-1 Water Depth=2.5 ft
Ground Improvement of Fi/1=9.5 ft
Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement
(ff) 0 10-;r-.-::;:=i:=:r::::::::i:===l==i:==:::i=::::::i:===i1 o 1 s o (in.) 10 I I I I I I I I
-10
(
-20
-30
-40
50 fs1 ::o1
CRR -CSR fs ~
Shaded Zona has Liquefaction Potential
I
,-'
....
S = 2.95 in.
Saturated
Unsaturat. -
£ 70
i g
CivilTech Corporation B-1
Magnitude=7
Acceleration=0.38g
Soil Description
Peat
silty SAND to SAND with sill
SAND
silty SAND lo SAND with silt
SAND to SAND with silt
Drwn.
Checked Date
Date Proj.No.
Plate
Earth Solutions NWLLC
Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Monitoring
EarthSolutionsNWLLC
EarthSolutions
NW LLC and Environmental Sciences
Vicinity Map
U.S.Bank Expansion
Renton,Washington
MRS
BJP
06/27/2017
June 2017
5402
1
NORTH
NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate.
Reference:
King County,Washington
Map 656
By The Thomas Guide
Rand McNally
32nd Edition
SITE
Plate
Proj.No.
Date
Checked By
Drwn.ByEarthSolutionsNWLLCGeotechnicalEngineering,ConstructionMonitoringandEnvironmentalSciencesEarthSolutionsNWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLCNORTHNOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate.
NOTE:The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design
purposes or precise scale measurements,but only to illustrate the
approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of
existing and /or proposed site features.The information illustrated
is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our
study.ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes
or interpretation of the data by others.
0 2 5 5 0 1 0 0
Sc ale in Feet1"=5 0 '
LEGEND
Approximate Location of
ESNW Test Pit,Proj.No.
ES-5402,June 2017
Approximate Location of
Terra Associates,Inc.Boring,
Proj.No.T-7638,April 2017
Subject Site
Existing Building
MRS
BJP
06/27/2017
5402
2SubsurfaceLocationPlan U.S.BankExpansionRenton,WashingtonTP-1
TP-2
TP-1
B-1
S R - 1 6 7
B-1
Grass Lined Detention PondE. VALLEY ROAD
Appendix D
Operations and Maintenance Manual
Appendix E
Bond Quantity Worksheet
Planning Division |1055 South Grady Way – 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200Date Prepared: Name:PE Registration No:Firm Name:Firm Address:Phone No.Email Address:Project Name: Project Owner:CED Plan # (LUA):Phone:CED Permit # (U):Address: Site Address:Street Intersection:Addt'l Project Owner:Parcel #(s):Phone:Address: Clearing and grading greater than or equal to 5,000 board feet of timber? Yes/No:NOWater Service Provided by:If Yes, Provide Forest Practice Permit #:Sewer Service Provided by: SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETPROJECT INFORMATIONCITY OF RENTONCITY OF RENTON1 Select the current project status/phase from the following options: For Approval - Preliminary Data Enclosed, pending approval from the City; For Construction - Estimated Data Enclosed, Plans have been approved for contruction by the City; Project Closeout - Final Costs and Quantities Enclosed for Project Close-out SubmittalEngineer Stamp Required (all cost estimates must have original wet stamp and signature)Clearing and GradingUtility ProvidersN/AProject Location and DescriptionProject Owner InformationUS Bank ExpansionSeattle, WA 981343023059103Strada da Valle, LLCLUA17-000324(206) 658-09507/3/2017Prepared by:FOR APPROVALProject Phase 1zacharye@brhinc.comZachary J Evans53190BRH Engineering2009 Minor Ave E(206) 323-41442500 East Valley Road5050 1st Ave S, Ste 102N/ANorth of SW 27th StTBDAbbreviated Legal Description:LOT 3 OF RENTON SP LUA-09-042- SHPL REC #20110112900004 SD SP DAF - POR NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LY WLY OF W MGN OF ST HWY #5 & LY ELY OF E MGN OF EAST VALLEY HWY LESS 100 FTPage 2 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION I PROJECT INFORMATIONUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDUnitReference #PriceUnitQuantity CostBackfill & compaction-embankmentESC-16.50$ CY1065.00Check dams, 4" minus rockESC-2SWDM 5.4.6.380.00$ Each Catch Basin ProtectionESC-335.50$ Each7248.50Crushed surfacing 1 1/4" minusESC-4WSDOT 9-03.9(3)95.00$ CY DitchingESC-59.00$ CY Excavation-bulkESC-62.00$ CY Fence, siltESC-7SWDM 5.4.3.11.50$ LF Fence, Temporary (NGPE)ESC-81.50$ LF Geotextile FabricESC-92.50$ SY Hay Bale Silt TrapESC-100.50$ Each HydroseedingESC-11SWDM 5.4.2.40.80$ SY Interceptor Swale / DikeESC-121.00$ LF Jute MeshESC-13SWDM 5.4.2.23.50$ SY Level SpreaderESC-141.75$ LF Mulch, by hand, straw, 3" deepESC-15SWDM 5.4.2.12.50$ SY Mulch, by machine, straw, 2" deepESC-16SWDM 5.4.2.12.00$ SY Piping, temporary, CPP, 6"ESC-1712.00$ LF1611,932.00Piping, temporary, CPP, 8"ESC-1814.00$ LF Piping, temporary, CPP, 12"ESC-1918.00$ LF Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandbaggedESC-20SWDM 5.4.2.34.00$ SY Rip Rap, machine placed; slopesESC-21WSDOT 9-13.1(2)45.00$ CY Rock Construction Entrance, 50'x15'x1'ESC-22SWDM 5.4.4.11,800.00$ Each Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1'ESC-23SWDM 5.4.4.13,200.00$ Each Sediment pond riser assemblyESC-24SWDM 5.4.5.22,200.00$ Each Sediment trap, 5' high berm ESC-25SWDM 5.4.5.119.00$ LF10190.00Sed. trap, 5' high, riprapped spillway berm section ESC-26SWDM 5.4.5.170.00$ LF Seeding, by handESC-27SWDM 5.4.2.41.00$ SY Sodding, 1" deep, level groundESC-28SWDM 5.4.2.58.00$ SY Sodding, 1" deep, sloped groundESC-29SWDM 5.4.2.510.00$ SY TESC SupervisorESC-30110.00$ HR8880.00Water truck, dust controlESC-31SWDM 5.4.7140.00$ HR81,120.00UnitReference #PriceUnitQuantity Cost EROSION/SEDIMENT SUBTOTAL:4,435.50SALES TAX @ 10%443.55EROSION/SEDIMENT TOTAL:4,879.05(A)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROLDescription No.(A)WRITE-IN-ITEMS Page 3 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.a EROSION_CONTROLUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostGENERAL ITEMS Backfill & Compaction- embankmentGI-16.00$ CYBackfill & Compaction- trenchGI-29.00$ CY50450.00Clear/Remove Brush, by hand (SY)GI-31.00$ SYBollards - fixedGI-4240.74$ Each4962.96Bollards - removableGI-5452.34$ EachClearing/Grubbing/Tree RemovalGI-610,000.00$ AcreExcavation - bulkGI-72.00$ CYExcavation - TrenchGI-85.00$ CYFencing, cedar, 6' highGI-920.00$ LFFencing, chain link, 4'GI-1038.31$ LFFencing, chain link, vinyl coated, 6' highGI-1120.00$ LFFencing, chain link, gate, vinyl coated, 20' GI-121,400.00$ EachFill & compact - common barrowGI-1325.00$ CYFill & compact - gravel baseGI-1427.00$ CY902,430.00Fill & compact - screened topsoilGI-1539.00$ CYGabion, 12" deep, stone filled mesh GI-1665.00$ SYGabion, 18" deep, stone filled mesh GI-1790.00$ SYGabion, 36" deep, stone filled meshGI-18150.00$ SYGrading, fine, by handGI-192.50$ SYGrading, fine, with graderGI-202.00$ SYMonuments, 3' LongGI-21250.00$ EachSensitive Areas SignGI-227.00$ EachSodding, 1" deep, sloped groundGI-238.00$ SYSurveying, line & gradeGI-24850.00$ DaySurveying, lot location/linesGI-251,800.00$ AcreTopsoil Type A (imported)GI-2628.50$ CYTraffic control crew ( 2 flaggers )GI-27120.00$ HRTrail, 4" chipped woodGI-288.00$ SYTrail, 4" crushed cinderGI-299.00$ SYTrail, 4" top courseGI-3012.00$ SYConduit, 2"GI-315.00$ LFWall, retaining, concreteGI-3255.00$ SFWall, rockeryGI-3315.00$ SFSUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:3,842.96(B)(C)(D)(E)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTSQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Page 4 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.b TRANSPORTATIONUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTSQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)ROAD IMPROVEMENT/PAVEMENT/SURFACINGAC Grinding, 4' wide machine < 1000syRI-130.00$ SYAC Grinding, 4' wide machine 1000-2000syRI-216.00$ SYAC Grinding, 4' wide machine > 2000syRI-310.00$ SYAC Removal/DisposalRI-435.00$ SYBarricade, Type III ( Permanent )RI-556.00$ LFGuard RailRI-630.00$ LFCurb & Gutter, rolledRI-717.00$ LFCurb & Gutter, verticalRI-812.50$ LFCurb and Gutter, demolition and disposalRI-918.00$ LF1963,528.00Curb, extruded asphaltRI-105.50$ LFCurb, extruded concreteRI-117.00$ LF1711,197.00Sawcut, asphalt, 3" depthRI-121.85$ LFSawcut, concrete, per 1" depthRI-133.00$ LF21006,300.00Sealant, asphaltRI-142.00$ LFShoulder, gravel, 4" thickRI-1515.00$ SYSidewalk, 4" thickRI-1638.00$ SY15570.00Sidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and disposalRI-1732.00$ SY451,440.00Sidewalk, 5" thickRI-1841.00$ SYSidewalk, 5" thick, demolition and disposalRI-1940.00$ SYSign, Handicap RI-2085.00$ EachStriping, per stallRI-217.00$ EachStriping, thermoplastic, ( for crosswalk )RI-223.00$ SFStriping, 4" reflectorized lineRI-230.50$ LFAdditional 2.5" Crushed SurfacingRI-243.60$ SYHMA 1/2" Overlay 1.5" RI-2514.00$ SYHMA 1/2" Overlay 2"RI-2618.00$ SYHMA Road, 2", 4" rock, First 2500 SYRI-2728.00$ SYHMA Road, 2", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500SYRI-2821.00$ SYHMA Road, 4", 6" rock, First 2500 SYRI-2945.00$ SYHMA Road, 4", 6" rock, Qty. over 2500 SYRI-3037.00$ SYHMA Road, 4", 4.5" ATBRI-3138.00$ SYGravel Road, 4" rock, First 2500 SYRI-3215.00$ SYGravel Road, 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SYRI-3310.00$ SYThickened EdgeRI-348.60$ LFSUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:13,035.00(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 5 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.b TRANSPORTATIONUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTSQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)PARKING LOT SURFACINGNo.2" AC, 2" top course rock & 4" borrowPL-121.00$ SY2" AC, 1.5" top course & 2.5" base coursePL-228.00$ SY4" select borrowPL-35.00$ SY1.5" top course rock & 2.5" base coursePL-414.00$ SYSUBTOTAL PARKING LOT SURFACING:(B)(C)(D)(E)LANDSCAPING & VEGETATIONNo.Street TreesLA-1Median LandscapingLA-2Right-of-Way LandscapingLA-3Wetland LandscapingLA-4SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION:(B)(C)(D)(E)TRAFFIC & LIGHTINGNo.SignsTR-1Street Light System ( # of Poles)TR-2Traffic SignalTR-3Traffic Signal ModificationTR-4SUBTOTAL TRAFFIC & LIGHTING:(B)(C)(D)(E)WRITE-IN-ITEMSConcrete Pavement Removal50.00$ SY4266213,300.006" PCC/ 6" Rock80.00$ SY2008160,640.00SUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS:373,940.00STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL:390,817.96SALES TAX @ 10%39,081.80STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL:429,899.76(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 6 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.b TRANSPORTATIONUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostDRAINAGE (CPE = Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, Average of 4' cover was assumed. Assume perforated PVC is same price as solid pipe.) Access Road, R/DD-126.00$ SY* (CBs include frame and lid)BeehiveD-290.00$ EachThrough-curb Inlet FrameworkD-3400.00$ EachCB Type ID-41,500.00$ EachCB Type ILD-51,750.00$ EachCB Type II, 48" diameterD-62,300.00$ Each for additional depth over 4' D-7480.00$ FTCB Type II, 54" diameterD-82,500.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-9495.00$ FTCB Type II, 60" diameterD-102,800.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-11600.00$ FTCB Type II, 72" diameterD-126,000.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-13850.00$ FTCB Type II, 96" diameterD-1414,000.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-15925.00$ FTTrash Rack, 12"D-16350.00$ EachTrash Rack, 15"D-17410.00$ EachTrash Rack, 18"D-18480.00$ EachTrash Rack, 21"D-19550.00$ EachCleanout, PVC, 4"D-20150.00$ EachCleanout, PVC, 6"D-21170.00$ EachCleanout, PVC, 8"D-22200.00$ EachCulvert, PVC, 4" D-2310.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 6" D-2413.00$ LF38494.00Culvert, PVC, 8" D-2515.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 12" D-2623.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 15" D-2735.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 18" D-2841.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 24"D-2956.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 30" D-3078.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 36" D-31130.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 8"D-3219.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 12"D-3329.00$ LFSUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:494.00(B)(C)(D)(E)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Page 7 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)DRAINAGE (Continued)Culvert, CMP, 15"D-3435.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 18"D-3541.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 24"D-3656.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 30"D-3778.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 36"D-38130.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 48"D-39190.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 60"D-40270.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 72"D-41350.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 8"D-4242.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 12"D-4348.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 15"D-4478.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 18"D-4548.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 24"D-4678.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 30"D-47125.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 36"D-48150.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 42"D-49175.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 48"D-50205.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 6" D-5114.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 8" D-5216.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 12" D-5324.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 15" D-5435.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 18" D-5541.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 24" D-5656.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 30" D-5778.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 36" D-58130.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 6"D-5960.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 8"D-6072.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 12"D-6184.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 15"D-6296.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 18"D-63108.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 24"D-64120.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 30"D-65132.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 36"D-66144.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 48"D-67156.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 54"D-68168.00$ LFSUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 8 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)DRAINAGE (Continued)Culvert, LCPE, 60"D-69180.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 72"D-70192.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 6"D-7142.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 8"D-7242.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 12"D-7374.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 15"D-74106.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 18"D-75138.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 24"D-76221.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 30"D-77276.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 36"D-78331.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 48"D-79386.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 54"D-80441.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 60"D-81496.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 72"D-82551.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 6"D-8384.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 8"D-8489.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 12"D-8595.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 15"D-86100.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 18"D-87106.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 24"D-88111.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 30"D-89119.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 36"D-90154.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 48"D-91226.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 54"D-92332.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 60"D-93439.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 72"D-94545.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 6"D-9561.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 8"D-9684.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 12"D-97106.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 15"D-98129.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 18"D-99152.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 24"D-100175.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 30"D-101198.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 36"D-102220.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 48"D-103243.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 54"D-104266.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 60"D-105289.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 72"D-106311.00$ LFSUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 9 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Specialty Drainage ItemsDitching SD-19.50$ CYFlow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+)SD-328.00$ LF 101,716.00 French Drain (3' depth)SD-426.00$ LFGeotextile, laid in trench, polypropyleneSD-53.00$ SYMid-tank Access Riser, 48" dia, 6' deepSD-62,000.00$ EachPond Overflow SpillwaySD-716.00$ SYRestrictor/Oil Separator, 12"SD-81,150.00$ EachRestrictor/Oil Separator, 15"SD-91,350.00$ EachRestrictor/Oil Separator, 18"SD-101,700.00$ EachRiprap, placedSD-1142.00$ CYTank End Reducer (36" diameter)SD-121,200.00$ EachInfiltration pond testingSD-13125.00$ HRPermeable PavementSD-14Permeable Concrete SidewalkSD-15Culvert, Box __ ft x __ ftSD-16SUBTOTAL SPECIALTY DRAINAGE ITEMS:1,716.00(B)(C)(D)(E)STORMWATER FACILITIES (Include Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch)Detention PondSF-1Each Detention TankSF-2Each Detention VaultSF-3Each Infiltration PondSF-4Each Infiltration TankSF-5Each Infiltration VaultSF-6Each Infiltration TrenchesSF-7Each Basic Biofiltration SwaleSF-8Each Wet Biofiltration SwaleSF-9Each WetpondSF-10Each WetvaultSF-11Each Sand FilterSF-12Each Sand Filter VaultSF-13Each Linear Sand FilterSF-14Each Proprietary FacilitySF-15Each Bioretention FacilitySF-16Each SUBTOTAL STORMWATER FACILITIES:(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 10 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)WRITE-IN-ITEMS (INCLUDE ON-SITE BMPs)WI-1WI-2WI-3WI-4WI-5WI-6WI-7WI-8WI-9WI-10WI-11WI-12WI-13WI-14WI-15SUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS:DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES SUBTOTAL:2,210.00SALES TAX @ 10%221.00DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES TOTAL:2,431.00(B) (C) (D) (E)Page 11 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostConnection to Existing WatermainW-12,000.00$ Each24,000.00Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 4 Inch DiameterW-250.00$ LFDuctile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 6 Inch DiameterW-356.00$ LFDuctile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 8 Inch DiameterW-460.00$ LFDuctile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 10 Inch DiameterW-570.00$ LF1087,560.00Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 12 Inch DiameterW-680.00$ LFGate Valve, 4 inch DiameterW-7500.00$ EachGate Valve, 6 inch DiameterW-8700.00$ EachGate Valve, 8 Inch DiameterW-9800.00$ EachGate Valve, 10 Inch DiameterW-101,000.00$ EachGate Valve, 12 Inch DiameterW-111,200.00$ EachFire Hydrant AssemblyW-124,000.00$ Each14,000.00Permanent Blow-Off AssemblyW-131,800.00$ EachAir-Vac Assembly, 2-Inch DiameterW-142,000.00$ EachAir-Vac Assembly, 1-Inch DiameterW-151,500.00$ EachCompound Meter Assembly 3-inch DiameterW-168,000.00$ EachCompound Meter Assembly 4-inch DiameterW-179,000.00$ EachCompound Meter Assembly 6-inch DiameterW-1810,000.00$ EachPressure Reducing Valve Station 8-inch to 10-inchW-1920,000.00$ EachWATER SUBTOTAL:15,560.00SALES TAX @ 10%1,556.00WATER TOTAL:17,116.00(B) (C) (D) (E)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR WATERQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Page 12 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.d WATERUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
CED Permit #:TBDExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostClean OutsSS-11,000.00$ EachGrease Interceptor, 500 gallonSS-28,000.00$ EachGrease Interceptor, 1000 gallonSS-310,000.00$ EachGrease Interceptor, 1500 gallonSS-415,000.00$ EachSide Sewer Pipe, PVC. 4 Inch DiameterSS-580.00$ LFSide Sewer Pipe, PVC. 6 Inch DiameterSS-695.00$ LFSewer Pipe, PVC, 8 inch DiameterSS-7105.00$ LFSewer Pipe, PVC, 12 Inch DiameterSS-8120.00$ LFSewer Pipe, DI, 8 inch DiameterSS-9115.00$ LFSewer Pipe, DI, 12 Inch DiameterSS-10130.00$ LFManhole, 48 Inch DiameterSS-116,000.00$ EachManhole, 54 Inch DiameterSS-136,500.00$ EachManhole, 60 Inch DiameterSS-157,500.00$ EachManhole, 72 Inch DiameterSS-178,500.00$ EachManhole, 96 Inch DiameterSS-1914,000.00$ EachPipe, C-900, 12 Inch DiameterSS-21180.00$ LFOutside DropSS-241,500.00$ LSInside DropSS-251,000.00$ LSSewer Pipe, PVC, ____ Inch DiameterSS-26Lift Station (Entire System)SS-27LSSANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL:SALES TAX @ 10%SANITARY SEWER TOTAL:(B) (C) (D) (E)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR SANITARY SEWERQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Page 13 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.e SANITARY SEWERUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017
Planning Division |1055 South Grady Way – 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200Date:Name:Project Name: PE Registration No:CED Plan # (LUA):Firm Name:CED Permit # (U):Firm Address:Site Address:Phone No.Parcel #(s):Email Address:Project Phase: Site Restoration/Erosion Sediment Control Subtotal (a)Existing Right-of-Way Improvements Subtotal (b)(b)-$ Future Public Improvements Subtotal(c)-$ Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Public & Private) Subtotal(d)(d)2,431.00$ (e)(f)Site RestorationCivil Construction PermitMaintenance Bond486.20$ Bond Reduction2Construction Permit Bond Amount 3Minimum Bond Amount is $10,000.001 Estimate Only - May involve multiple and variable components, which will be established on an individual basis by Development Engineering.2 The City of Renton allows one request only for bond reduction prior to the maintenance period. Reduction of not more than 70% of the original bond amount, provided that the remaining 30% willcover all remaining items to be constructed. 3 Required Bond Amounts are subject to review and modification by Development Engineering.* Note: The word BOND as used in this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to the City of Renton.** Note: All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead and profit. (206) 323-4144zacharye@brhinc.comUS Bank ExpansionLUA17-0003242500 East Valley Road3023059103FOR APPROVALTBD2009 Minor Ave E10,000.00$ P (a) x 100%SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET BOND CALCULATIONS7/3/2017Zachary J Evans53190BRH EngineeringR((b x 150%) + (d x 100%))S(e) x 150% + (f) x 100%Bond Reduction: Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (Quantity Remaining)2Bond Reduction: Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Quantity Remaining)2T(P +R - S)Prepared by:Project InformationCONSTRUCTION BOND AMOUNT */**(prior to permit issuance)EST1((b) + (c) + (d)) x 20%-$ MAINTENANCE BOND */**(after final acceptance of construction)4,879.05$ -$ 2,431.00$ 4,879.05$ -$ 2,431.00$ -$ Page 14 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION III. BOND WORKSHEETUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 7/3/2017