HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-094_Misc)
·()·· ·,
-~. . ..
STOR
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion
Renton, Washington
25,2004
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
1,J
(_)
STORMWATER TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion
Renton, Washington
February 12, 2004
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
Structural + Civil Engineers
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, Woshington 96101-2699
T: 206 292 1200 F: 206 2921201
'
)
.-)
STORMWATER TECHNICAi INFORMATION
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
Section I. Project Overview ...................................................................... .
Section II. Preliminary Conditions Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . 2
Section Ill. Oil-site Analysis....................................................................... 4
Section IV. Retention/Detention Analysis ond Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Section V. Conveyance System Analysis ond Design............................................... 8
Section VI. Special Reports and Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Section VII. Basin and Community Pion Areas...................................................... 8
Section VIII. Other Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Section IX. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Analysis and Design................... 9
Section X. Bond Quantities Worksheet, Retention/Detention Facility Summary Sheet
And Declaration of Covenant........................................................ 1 0
Section XI. Maintenance and Operotions Manual.................................................. 1 0
APPENDIX A· EIG!JRES
APPENDIX B· DRAINAGE CONTROi Pl ANS
APPENDIX C · HYDRO I O GI C CAo. .... l (c...c,I 1..cl oA..LT,.,I 0-'-'--'N'"S'-------------------
A PP EN DIX D· CONVEYANCE CAI CIII All .. '-="-----------------~
APPENDIX E· DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS
APPENDIX E· MAINTENANCE I ISTS
Stormwater Technical Information Table of Contents
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
•
)
STORMWATER TECHNICAL INFORMATION
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
)
)
SECTION I· PROIECT OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
This report documents the stormwater and drainage design approach and proposal for the Valley
Medical Surgery Center Expansion project. The repart has been prepared concurrently with the Permit
Submittal using the guidelines for the Stormwater Technical Information Report (TIR) from the 1990 King
County Surface Water Design Manual. Figure l consists of the standard TIR worksheet, completed for
the project.
The project is located at the northeast quadrant of the interchange of State Route 167 and South 43rd
Street in Renton, Washington (see Figure 2). The east side of the site abuts Talbot Raad South. The City
has indicated that the site is in the Panther Creek drainage basin. All of the improvements occur in
previously developed areas. The proposed project consists al modifications to the existing hospital
building, constructing approximately 0.5 acres of new vehicular parking at the existing helipad, and
reconfiguring the vehicular access and pedestrian plaza at the main building entrance.
EXISTING DRAINAGE
The existing site land use is predominately buildings, parking lots, or streets. The existing site runoff can
be characterized by two separate systems. On the south side of the site, affsite runoff enters the campus
from South 43rd Street near the southwest corner of the site. This runoff is conveyed to the north in a
27-inch diameter trunk line running through the campus parking lots that ultimately discharges to an
existing wetland just northwest of the campus (northwest of the Medical Arts Building) and east of the
north entrance ramp to SR-167. Much of the an-site conveyance system for the west and south sides of
the campus, which is made up of catch basins, area drains and roof drain connections, is connected to
this trunk line. A small portion af the east campus (the south end of the east parking lot) also appears
ta join this trunk line just west of the Psychiatry Wing. There is one oil/water separator on the campus
that appears ta serve the parking lots on the south and east of the Medical Art Building.
On the east side of the site, offsite runoff enters the campus from Talbot Road South just east of the
Main Hospital Building. This runoff is conveyed to the north and northwest through the campus parking
lots in a 27-inch diameter trunk line that also ultimately discharges to the existing wetland described
above. Much of the on-site conveyance system for the east and north sides of the campus, which is
made up of catch basins, area drains, and roof drain connections, is connected to this trunk line.
The wetland described above is hydraulically connected to Panther Creek to the north and the entire
campus falls within the Panther Creek Drainage Basin.
PROPOSED DRAINAGE
The proposed drainage system will collect stormwater runoff in new catch basins and convey stormwater
to a new stormwater management vault where runoff will be detained and treated. The detention
system will be located west of the new parking lot beneath the existing docto~s parking lot. To
compensate for areas of improvements that cannot be drained to the stormwater management vault by
gravity, the existing docto~s parking lot will be re-plumbed to drain into the vault. The stormwater vault
will discharge ta an existing storm drain manhole with a 12-inch discharge pipe to the existing
conveyance system approximately 50 feet away.
Stormwater Technical Information
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
I •
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
', J The proposed stormwater facility will not be able to capture all of the proposed new paved oreas due to
grading constraints. The detention calculotions have compensated for these oreos by detaining more
volume of runoff from the parking lot than otherwise required. In a similar approach, the water quality
treotment volume is sized to accommodate runoff from the existing doctors parking lot in the capture
area to compensate for those proposed areas that could not be routed to the facility.
SECTION II· PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY
SITE CONDITIONS
Figure 3 shows the drainoge basins analyzed for the project. The proposed improvements only affect
the southern portion of the Valley Medico I Hospital site. The basins'boundaries used as the limit of the
drainage analysis and design were selected to include the project areas, and adjacent surfaces that
would run into the project areas. The total area studied was 3.8 acres.
Figure 4 shows the soils map for the area that was prepared by the Sail Conservation Service in the
1970s. The site soils are expected to have a relatively high runoff potential, since the pervious areas of
the site are predominately lawn and landscaping previously modified from its natural state, underlain by
stiff silts and clays. Some of the lawn areas by the main building entrance are constructed on the top of
structure, limiting the ability of the lawn to infiltrate water into deeper soil horizons. Therefore, for the
purposes of the drainage analysis, all of the soils were treated as belonging to Hydrologic Soil Group C,
equivalent to glacial till soils.
• _) CORE REQUIREMENTS
A pre-application meeting was attended by the owners, design team, and City staff on December 4,
2003, to identify the conditions for the project. The drainage conditions established for the project
consist of applying the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual criteria for drainage design
and stormwater management.
Core Requirement #l: Discharge at the Natural Location
The drainage from the improved areas will continue to drain to the existing storm drainage conveyance
system. The outfall location for this system will not be changed.
Core Requirement #2: Off-Site Analysis
A Level l Off-Site Analysis is included in this report.
Core Requirement #3: Runoff Control
Runoff control facilities have been designed for the project, and are documented in this report.
Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System
New conveyances have been designed to accommodate the 25-year design storm, and are
documented in this report.
Stormwater Technical Information
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
•
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
L_) Core Requirement #5: Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TES()
. )
A TESC plan has been prepared for the project, and is documented in this report.
Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operation
This report addresses the maintenance and operation requirements for the proposed focilities.
Special Requirement #1: Critical Drainage Areas
Does not apply.
Special Requirement #2: Compliance with an Existing Master Drainage Plan
Does not apply.
Special Requirement #3: Conditions requiring a Master Drainage Plan
Project is below the thresholds.
Special Requirement #4: Adapted Basin ar Community Plans
Does not apply .
Special Requirement #5: Special Water Quality Controls
Project is below the thresholds.
Special Requirement #6: Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separators
Project is below the thresholds.
Special Requirement #7: Closed Depressions
Does not apply.
Special Requirement #8: Use af Lakes, Wetlands, or Closed Depressions for Peak Rate Runoff Control
The project does not propose to use existing features for peak rate runoff control.
Special Requirement #9: Delineation of l 00 Year Floodplain
Does not apply.
Special Requirement #10: Flood Protection Facilities for Type l and 2 Streams
Does not apply.
Stormwoter Technical Information
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
I •
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
\~ Special Requirement #11: Geotechnical Analysis and Report
Not required for slormwaler vaults.
()
Special Requirement #12: Soils Analysis and Report
A Geolechnical report was prepared for the project. Based on the report, the existing site soils would
have characteristics compatible with Hydrologic Soil Group C.
SECTION Ill· OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
A Level 1 off-site analysis has been conducted for the project. The review is based on the record
drawings for the site, observations made at the site, and resource maps from the City of Renton website.
STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS
A copy of the record drawing for the site is included. The record drawing shows the conveyances and
flow path downstream of the work area.
There are not any off-site areas upstream of the proposed improvements. The improvements are taking
place at the upstream limit of one of the on-site conveyance systems. While off-site flows enter the
Valley Medical site from City right-of-way, the off-site water does not flow through the project
improvements.
RESOURCE REVIEW
No resource issues that would affect the proposed drainage improvements have been related to the
designers by the owner or the City.
FIELD INSPECTION
The outfall of the existing storm drain conveyance system and downstream open channel reach serving
the project area was observed at the site. The observed conditions are summarized below and in
Appendix E.
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM SCREENING
Stormwater discharge from the area of the improvements, including the proposed stormwater vault, will
enter the existing 12-inch storm drain trunkline that flows west under the east-west drive that is between
the hospital building and the existing heliport. From the discharge location of the project, flow heads
west for about 220 feet before turning towards the north. After about 75 feel the pipe size increases to
27 inches. At this point, the discharge merges with flow from the southwest part of the Valley Medical
Center site, which includes some off-site flow that is conveyed in 27-inch pipe from the South 43rd
Street right-of-way. From here, flow continues to flow through a total of about 700 feet of the 27-inch
pipe, then 110 feet of 42-inch pipe, until it discharges northwesterly into an open channel.
The outfall is buried about 6 to 8 inches in sandy sediment. Additional sandy sediment has
accumulated in an area about 8 feel by 4 feet near the outfall. The first reach of open channel is
flanked by a blackberry covered slope lo the west and a flat meadow vegetated with reed canary grass
Stormwaler Technical Information
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
I •
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
on the east. The channel varies from 24 to 36 inches wide, 10 to 15 inches deep, with near vertical
banks. Grass is growing on the sides and bottom of the chonnel in many areas. There were no signs of
active bank erosion or bottom scour. This reach extends about 120 feet from the outfall.
The channel then turns from northwesterly to north. At this point, a 15-inch knick point was observed in
the channel bottom. Below this point, the channel bottom changes to more clayey material. The width
was observed to vary from 15 to 24 inches, with depths of 8 to 15 inches and vertical banks. While the
knick point indicates the channel bottom has eroded in the past, there were no signs of active erosion
and the overbank areas were covered with low, herbaceous vegetation. This reach extends about 30 to
40 feet to the edge of the forest.
Once the channel reaches the forest, another knick was observed where a buried log creates a 15-inch
drop. Beyond this point, the channel flows through mature forest canopy and blackberry undergrowth.
The channel width varies from 24 lo 40 inches with vertical to 1 H: 1 V sloped banks. Woody debris was
observed in the stream. The bottom substrate appeared lo be mostly sand. The banks appeared stable,
and there were not signs of active erosion aside from the aforementioned knick point. Due to the dense
vegetation, tnis was the downstream limit of the off-site analysis.
figures 5 and 6 summarize the downstream conveyances. Appendix E has photos of the outfall and
open channel.
SECTION IY· RETENTION/DETENTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
C) EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY
()
The existing site land covers consist of building rooftops, paved parking and walks, and lawn landscape
areas. Building rooftops drain to the sanitary sewer system via the building mechanical systems. The
other areas drain by surface sheet flow and gutter flow lo catch basins and area drains. A 12-inch
storm drain pipe serves as the trunkline for runoff collected in the project area.
The existing basin is shown in Figure 3. The basin consists of 2. 17 impervious acres and 1.63 acres of
lawn and landscaping. The total area is 3.80 acres. The impervious runoff curve number is assumed to
be 98, and the landscape runoff curve number is assumed to be 86. Subbasins were established within
the larger study basin to focilitale the drainage analysis. Appendix C has a detailed accounting of the
pervious and impervious surfaces within each of the project subbasins.
The site runoff was modeled using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph method. The "Waterworks"
software program by Engenious Systems was used to perform the modeling calculations. Data from the
program are in Appendix C. The design storms were 24-hour events.
Stormwater Technical Information
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
i •
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
i ~) The following table summarizes the rainfall totals used in the hydrologic analyses for the project.
Design Storm
Water quality, 24-hour
2-year, 24-hour
Precipitation
(inches)
0.67
2.00
---·------------------------
10-year, 24-hour 2.90
25-year, 24-hour 3.38
-----·-··-···-·-··-·-·----·------------
100-year, 24-hour 3.90
The flow rates computed for the existing site are as follows:
Design Storm
2-year, 24-hour
Existing
Discharge
(cfs)
1.12
10-year, 24-hour 1.80
-----·--------------------
100-year, 24-hour 2.58
All of the runoff from the proposed improvements drains to an existing 12-inch storm drain that does not
receive flow from off-site. Therefore the off-site flows were not computed for this project.
PROPOSED SITE HYDROLOGY
The proposed site land covers consist of building rooftops, paved parking and walks, and landscape
areas. Building rooftops drain to the sanitary sewer system via the building mechanical systems. The
other areas drain by surface sheet flow and gutter flow to catch basins and area drains. A 12-inch
storm drain pipe serves as the trunkline for runoff collected in the project area.
Detention for the site was designed to meet the standard of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design
Manual. The standard establishes thot the post-developed flow rates for the site runoff from the 2-, 10-,
and 100-year design storms are not al lawed to exceed the existing runoff rates from the 2-, 10-, and
100-year storms, respectively.
The proposed basin is shown in Figure 3. The total area is 3.85 acres, which is slightly more than the
existing basin because conveyance improvements are proposed at the docto~s parking lot to collect
runoff from outside the existing basin for treatment. This "diverted" catchment will eventually drain to the
same storm drain trunk as in the existing condition, but will be treated first. The impervious runoff curve
Stormwater Technical Information
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
I •
1)
()
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
number is assumed to be 98, and the pervious landscape runoff curve number is assumed to be 86.
The project creoles approximately l 7,360 square feet of new impervious areos.
All of the runoff from the proposed improvements drains to on existing 12-inch storm drain that does not
receive flow from off-site. Therefore, the off-site flows were not computed for this project.
The proposed improvements include installation of pipe and modifications to the existing drainage
system that ore needed to redirect runoff from the existing doctds parking lot into the proposed
stormwoter vault. This "replumbing" is needed to meet the water quality treatment criteria for the project,
but will affect the routing of runoff from the existing parking lot. Runoff from the new parking lot will be
collected in catch basins and routed through pipes to the stormwater vault.
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
The proposed site is analyzed as two basins based on whether the area is collected for treatment and
detention in the proposed stormwoter vault. The basins ore thus "detained" or "bypassed" by the
proposed facilities. Basins A and D, as shown in Figure 3, ore "detained," and Basin Bis "bypassed."
Detailed computations ore provided in Appendix C.
The flow rotes computed for the proposed "bypass" basin ore:
Proposed
Discharge
Design Storm (cfs)
2-year, 24-hour 0.87
l 0-yeor, 24-hour 1.37
100-year, 24-hour 1.95
Assuming that the peaks from the "detained" and "bypass" basins occur at the some lime, the allowable
release rate for the slormwaler detention vault was computed as the difference of the existing site
discharge and the "bypass" site discharge:
Vault Inflow Allowable
Rate (cfs) Vault
Release Rate
Design Storm (cfs)
2-year, 24-hour 0.40 0.25
--·---------
l 0-yeor, 24-hour 0.61 0.43
l 00-year, 24-hour 0.86 0.63
Stormwater Technical Information
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
•
)
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
Based an the hydrologic routing calculations far the proposed stormwater vault about l, 140 d of
detention storage would be required to meet the release standard. A 30 percent valume correction
factor was applied to compute that the design detention volume is 1,480 d.
WATER QUALITY TREATMENT
The King County Surface Water Design Manual requires biafiltrotion of runoff when over 5,000 sf of
new impervious area subject to vehicular use results from a project. City of Renton stall indicated
verbally that when biofiltration is not feasible, a water quality vault may be substituted.
In accordance with King County Special Requirement #5, Special Water Quality Controls are required
far projects that result in more than l acre of new impervious area. As shown in the water quality
computations in Appendix C, this project creates about 30,900 sf of new impervious surfaces subject to
vehicular use. There/are, Special Water Quality Controls are not required.
Based an these criteria, the stormwater vault includes a permanent pool far water quality treatment. The
design treatment volume was computed for a design starm where the precipitation was 0.67 inches,
which is one-third of the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall. This volume is 1,550 d.
RETENTION/DETENTION SYSTEM
A stormwater vault is proposed for the project. The vault will include "live" detention storage and
"permanent pool" volume for water quality treatment. The vault was designed in accordance with the
City of Renton Standard Plan to the extent possible. Backup calculations and the detail drawing for the
proposed detention vault are in Appendix C.
SECTION Y· CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Conveyance improvements were designed for the new parking lot and plaza area. The Rational Method
was used to compute the peak intensity 25-yeor runoff rates, which were used to size the proposed
storm drain pipes. Appendix D has the conveyance sizing calculations.
SECTION YI· SPECIAi REPORTS AND STUDIES
None.
SECTION VII· BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS
None.
SECTION VIII· OTHER PERMITS
None.
Starmwater Technical Information
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
I •
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
AS50C1ATES
SECTION IX: TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
A TESC Pion hos been prepared for the project, and is included in Appendix B. The pion meets the
minimum TESC requirements as discussed below.
TESC REQUIREMENTS
TES( Requirement #1: Clearing Limits
Clearing limits ore shown on the plans.
TES( Requirement #2: Cover Measures
Addressed in the TESC Pion Notes.
TES( Requirement #3: Perimeter Protection
A sediment retention barrier is shown on the plans.
TES( Requirement #4: Traffic Area Stabilization
The stabilized construction entrance is shown on the plans. The TESC Pion Notes indicate state water
quality standards ore applicable to construction site runoff.
TES( Requirement #5: Sediment Retention
A sediment retention system is shown on the plans.
TES( Requirement #6: Surface Water Control
Interceptor swoles ore shown on the plans.
TES( Requirement #7: Dusi Control
Air quality is addressed in the TESC Pion Notes.
TES( Requirement #8: Wet Season Construction
Addressed in the TESC Pion Notes.
TES( Requirement #9: Construction within Sensitive Areas and Buffers
Does not apply.
TES( Requirement #10: Maintenance
1 ) Addressed in the TESC Pion Notes.
Stormwoter T echnicol Information
Volley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
•
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
· _) TES( Requirement #11: Final Stabilization
Final stabilization will be in accordance with the landscape plans for the project.
SECTION X: BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET, RETENTION/DETENTION
FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT
None.
SECTION XI· MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
OPERATIONS
The project provides a stormwoter vault to treat and detain the runoff from the new parking lot and the
existing doctors parking lot. The stormwater is treated primarily by settling suspended pollutants in the
quiescent flow within the permanent pool of the stormwater vault.
The outlet device within the stormwater vault consists of a vertical standpipe fitted with orifices. The
orifices have been designed to slaw dawn the runoff, temporarily storing runoff in the vault until it can
be released at the controlled rate.
The operation of the vault is passive and controlled by gravity. There are no actions required on the
, ) part of the owner asides from maintaining the facility.
'.)
MAINTENANCE
The starmwater vault requires periodic inspection ond cleaning to function properly. At a minimum, the
facility should be inspected each year. When the depth of sediment in accumulated in the bottom
exceeds 6 inches, the vault should be cleaned by removing the accumulated sediment. The vault should
also be cleaned to remove floating debris, oil and grease, or accumulations of leaves.
Access holes are provided at each end of the vault to allow inspections, cleaning, and repair. A drain is
provided that can be opened to draw down the permanent pool of the vault -it is vital that this drain be
closed once cleaning or inspections are completed.
The vault is considered to be a confined space by state and local codes. Confined spaces present
unique safety issues. Only personnel trained in confined space entry should work inside the vault.
Catch basins and manholes also require periodic cleaning. This typically consists of using a vector truck
to remove accumulated sediments. Drainage structures should be cleaned when sediment
accumulation reaches within 12 inches of the outlet pipe invert, or when pollutants are observed.
Appendix F provides maintenance lists to be used for the proposed drainage facilities.
Stormwater Technical Information
Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
I •
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
. ~ REFERENCES
1)
Volley Medical Center Surgery Site Improvements. GeoEngineers. January 16, 2004.
Surface Water Design Manual. King County Surface Water Management. 1990.
Telephone Conversation with Ron Straka. City of Renton Stormwoter Manager. December 2, 2003.
Pre-Application Meeting with City of Renton Staff. December 4, 2003.
Stormwater Technical Information
Volley Medical Center Surgery Expansion, Renton, Washington
I •
l)
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
)
Page 1 of 2
King County Building and Land Development Division
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
PART 1 PROJECT OWNER AND
PROJECT ENGINEER
PART 2 PROJECT LOCATION
AND DESCRIPTION
ProjectOwner Ve.II~ Mt11ifal ~trl'e,,___r' __
Address 4 ()O s. 413 S,l, ) Reri4o,,-, ri,,s
Phone T .. e...,_ J.lo,,d 4ZS: • Zll'8 ·S+10t5Ct&I
ProjectEngineer 'Pr-tw 6a,,vi1s _ '
Project Name VALLE-{ J.1&"1:L-4n.e
Location SvAl,,~,t'{ e'vA01S11
Township --=Z~3'-N--'----
Range __.5c,t5..__ __ _
Company M .. 3"""Hr'l Klemtn•'c AsH~'-~· __
Address Phone .'ZOl:i • 2,z •1200 . Seo)/le •
PART 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION
D Subdivision
D Short Subdivision
~ Grading
D Commercial
D Other
Section ~;'-'-'----
ProjectSize 0.4 AC~
Upstream Drainage Basin Size f,1/A AC
PART 4 OTHER PERMITS
D DOF/GHPA D Shoreline Management
D COE404 D Rockery
D DOE Dam Safety D Structural Vaults
D FEMA Floodplain D Other
D COE Wetlands D HPA
PART 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community
Drainage Basin
PART 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
D River ___________ _
D Stream ___________ _
D Critical Stream Reach
D Depressions/Swales
D Lake ___________ _
D Steep Slopes
D Lakeside/Erosion Hazard
PART7 SOILS
D Floodplain --------------
0 Wetlands --------------'-
D Seeps/Springs
D HighGroundwaterTable
D Groundwater Recharge
00 Other DlfVS°IP:PEi't> f.los~1"1"Al-C4MPIIS
SoilTYP.9
Urhov'l Ll: / I •
Slopes
~Sl, 3/•P I V lhO,.)( •
Erosion Potential
fr'I o dt:r4 'te. Erosive ','elocities z. .Pp$,
D Additional Sheets Attatched
1/90
_)
Paga 2 of 2
King County Building and Land Development Division
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
PART 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT
D Ch. 4 -Downstream Analysis
D
D
D
D
D
D Additional Sheets Attatched
PART 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
) DURING CONSTRUCTION
~ Sedimentation Facilities
Lll'J _ Stabilized Construction Entrance
~ Perimeter Runoff Control Gil Clearing and Grading Restrictions
Cover Practices
Construction Sequence
D Other
PART 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM
D Grass Lined Channel D Tank
azj' Pipe System @ Vault
D Open Channel D Energy Dissapator
D Dry Pond D We"and
D Wet Pond D Stream
Brief Description of System Operation C.Qb:lb~tl 8d
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION
Gt
[1(
Stabilize Exposed Surface
Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities
Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris i
D
D
Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities
Flag Limits of NGPES
Other
D Infiltration Method of Analysis
D Depression ~BvU
D Flow Dispersal Co~nsation/Mi~ation
D Waiver of Efimlnated Site orage
D Regional Detention
'>Al°'+""' '4m.f1bt-'!!I t)e:k,, .f1'rl.tJ. \lo,. tL_ /J, •
Facifity Related Site Limitations
Reference Fac,lity
D Additional Sheets Attatched
PART 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
(May require special structural review)
Limitation
D Cast in Place Vault ~ Other Pre-co.s-1-
Vo.v 1-1-.f oi-
s.\or .... w41ter
[&] Retaining Wall .fo,-p"'"lr"'.9 1-f
0 Rockery>4'High
D Structural on Steep Slope
PART 14 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
I or a civil engineer under my supeivislon have visited the site. Actual
site conditions as obs01Ved were incorporated into this worksheet and the
attatchments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided
here is accurate.
PART 12 EASEMENTSfTRACTS
D Drainage Easement
D Access Easement
D Native Growth Protection Easement
D Tract
D Other
11')0
;
\ '···
)
"""l,ll,ls.5=u
02004-MapQU8$loorn. lno.: 02004 Navbatbn TechnobQie
PROJECT Valle Medical Center Sur ansion
TITLE Figure 2: Project Vicinity
DATE 2-24-04
DRAWN BY
SKETCH#
I
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
Strvctural + CM1 Engineers
1301 fifth Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle Washington 98101-2699 T: 206 292 1200 F: 206 292 1201 W: www.mkc.com
12
I '
I
4 • •
II. • • II Akf-"\, '\. j II • -
\
• I
"-1, ·•,:::,... .• ---'''-'-l....1.fc...'o,_, __._,!,~
SOIL LEGEND
rt.. firo• CGpOol ...... ii th. Mlt!GI ..... of .... •oil na, •• ,. uc.....d CGpiu;,I "'""'".
A, e. c. D, E, oe F, 1nd1;;,.1u .... clou al slope. S~I, -••ho"'<> ,!op,o 1 .. ,,..,
-· tt.a... cf ..-ly 1 .... 1 ... u •.
SYMBOL NAME
Ald¥wood 9"0velly sandy IG11m, Ola 6 p<1rcan1 ,h,po1
A~ g,ow•llr llOndy Joc,m, 6 10 IS pwc..., ••-•
Ald.,...ood o,c,V11lly aono:ly t ... ..., 15 •o 30 pe,cen• •'-•
Ald.rwood and Kitsap soi\1, -Y ••••P
ll.f-s, Al......,.ood ....,,eriol, 0 to 6 pe<c.,.. dopu •
Ar_.s, Ald.rwood ....,,.,;al, 6 10 15 pe<cenr d-• •
At-,,, Ettr.,, ....,..,;,,1 •
S.C S..."si .. --Uy 1ondy loo .... 6 to 1S r,e«:anl ,t_,
e.o e..,",1" ...,....,uy ,andy loo .... l!i 10 JO -cent slope,
S.F s..,.,.,1,. .,.. ... 11., ,o"'6,, ,_ ... , 4010 1S po,,c..,, ~r...,..
Bh e.m"'il1,a,. ,a,,..,,,,,
B, El<iKc,I ,111 loam
8v Buckley tllr '""'"
Eor"'->f 1111 ,..,.,
Ecfw-,1<:k fiM 1andy loam
EvaN1tt ,;ira ... lly ,andy loam, 0 lo 5 pan::anl slopas
e .. _ .. ,,,,,,_11.,-.ondr i<>om, s 10 1S percM>t 1l<>p411
E..._,. g,ow,Uy IGndy l,cora, 15 to 30 ....-,:eM 11-1
Eo
" ••• E-C , ..
E..C e ...... tt-A~ vn,v,,,llr aandr looms, 6 to 1S pe.-c.nt sl-•
In A IMlenola loomy flM sand, 0 lO 4 pe«:_,,I 11-t
1nC lndlonaloi 1.,,,.....,. f1n11 ....,cf, 4 tlO IS,pa<e<11nl sl-•
In() lndianolo loo""f fl.,. ....,cf, IS to 30 .....,_ ••-•
Kp8 Ktr.ap slh ._..., 2 10 B .,....._ sl-•
KpC Kltwp •lh loo,n, B lo lS pen:-•'-'-
Kfl'I) ICltwp slh 1mm. 15 to JO percem •'-•
IC:oC Klout. ...-11y looa,y !Mind, 6 to 15 pen:-t ••-•
NoC ..
"' No
"' 0,
o.c
0.0
O,F
" "" ,...
"'
Roe
RoO
R<C
"" ..
"' .. ..
"' .. .. ..
~ ..
,. ..
••
Nrillor.-, (ll'OWlly IN..., -.cl. 2 '" IS .,_..c..,, sl-1
................ 1 ......
H<>o1<.ctc:k.111i-
....._ ..:i,ncly , ......
o-,,...
(lr.d!a •lk toe,..,
0...11 ,..,.,.l(y 1......,, 0 ,., 1S pen:ant .1opn
(),,,all..,-lly lao.,, 15102$,..-c ... 1,l~H
O..,ll 9"'Wlly lao.,, 40 to 7S ptf'-c.nl •l-s
P1lchui::k 1oo..., fin. sond
P1lclwclt flM sand), 1.,..,.
P\,g.r silty clay'"""'
Puyallup flM sandy 1ooM
Rai,,-ftna -"'r ,......., 6 to IS pen:..,. • 1op,H,
~ , .... I0"4y 1oo .... 15 '" 25 pWC-"'-· Rogna,-lndklnola .,.,oc1athn. sloping•
Rc,g._..lnd1a-1a •u~latl0>, tolOIHl"Of•ly ·~ •
R.WClft 11h '°""' ·-· S..lol slh lm111
S---1 .... 11, 1aam
s-ti.-1c
Shook« ........
s, 111t '°""'
~ ....... _
S,,,C,-"h;h •Ill loo.., thk;k ....foe• var Kint
5'11-•llt'-
.........
• Ti.. c-ttl.., of, ..... ,...u, I• ...,... .....-lclble lhon ""'' of it.. "'"-'"•
1,. 11,i, -...... ff .... Mtln c_,.lkd -11 ~ •o in•••P""•' 1.,.. •h• ................ "" .......... .
j
i -J ..
J
S01l.S MAP
. =r ...... ,J ! 1"-• • II
ll
'r
'
v \_,, L
._,.,,/
OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE
Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2
Basin: VA-L-z.. F;;":J.. MGP, '4L.
-sr-rP,~ .> 1z 1' CMP IE'..e•S1"1NL,
PIP£~ 2, 1' CJ'IP I f;-;< , ~ r,JJb
ST"::I f', Pl=, 4 z I/ vl'IP' t y 1!, T'/Nv
&rQS&'/ G~I w/
~ ..,,J., ~: It, b., ,.J,,,,_,
.. pe,., i:.n:,vy,e, I c.1 .. '{e" 1,.,1-l,,.,
/. Z. -'Z • () I w,'Je.
Subbasin Name: t;vrz&~i(.'1 biC,'"1~10,-J P~7"Subbasin Number:
i~~~::! ~~[~~,~~~;:; illlllsill!l\11 r~lf ,Wi1'~~i 1
·• •
1~ij~sbes~:1jrrt,e~r~~l~t~:~i~~~r
\iUMWJ:iAWJ\11111•11111,;if f if~~~i~J~f{;~~i••···•··
O'-zzo'
'Z lO :.:_ ,q C,5'~
<tC,5"~710 $ I
1,105 '-
1.Z. Z,,; I
,, z.zs !..
l,ZS!>'
s~,,., c.e,:;...,,
11r-. .vi-r~u
I'"'"""-()0/,,+1,
L Hable.doe 11/2/92
Design Sheet
P!OJ((T
LOCATION rnrnr JJB
-~
\
I
~
,)
om z/,.z/ o,,f'
]
II
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC I
ASSOCIATES •
Slructurol + Gva Engineen
IKEH t/1
BY /3ZT'
\J
1)
'_)
APPENDIX B
DRAINAGE CONTROL PLANS
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
)
··.) l
APPENDIX C
HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
() Valley Medical Center Surgery Expansion
Site Hydrologic Characterization
Assumptions:
1. Soils are ill, OI equivalan~ SCS Hyorologic Soil Group (HSG) C
2. Established lawn areas localed on top of buried structures are hydrologically equivalent to till solls (HSG C).
3. King County 1990 Sw1ace Walar Design Manual criteria app~ lo this projecl.
Existing Site Areas
Basin A (vicinity of helipad)
Total area: 34,860 sf
21,039 sf
13,821 sf
TIii iawn:
Impervious
Basin B (vicinity of courtyard & fountain)
Total area: 112,203 sf
TIii iawn: 45,81 o sf
Impervious 66,393 sf
Basin D (existing docto(s parking lot)
Total area: 18,356 sf
Till lawn: 4,104 sf
Impervious 14,252 sf
Total site area analyzed for project:
TIii iawn: 70,953 sf
Impervious 94,466 sf
Proposed Site Areas:
Areas draining to detention faclllty:
Basin A (vicinity of helipad, north)
Total area: 29,084 sf
Till lawn: 6922 sf
Impervious 22, 162 sf
Basin D (existing docto(s parking lot)
Total area: 20.456 sf
TIii iawn: 5,054 sf
Impervious 15,402 sf
Subtotal for det./water quality vault:
Till lawn: 11,976 sf
Impervious 37,564 sf
0.800 acres
0.483 acres
0.317 acres
2.576 acres
1.052 acres
1.524 acres
0.421 acres
0.094 acres
0.327 acres
165,419 sf
1.629 acres
2.169 acres
0.668 acres
0.159 acres
0.509 acres
0.470 acres
0.116 acres
0.354 acres
49,540 sf
0.275 acres
0.862 acres
Areas discharging downstream of detention (bypass areas):
Basin B (vicinity of courtyard & fountain)
Total area: 117,979 sf
TIU lawn: 41590 sf
Impervious 76,389 sf
Subtotal for bypass area:
2.708 acres
0.955 acres
1.754 acres
117,979 sf
TIU lawn: 41,590 sf 0.955 acres
Impervious 76,389 sf 1.754 acres
3.797 acres
1.137 acres
2.708 acres
Total site area affected by pro)ect: 167,519 sf 3.846 acres
Net change In overall total area:
l:IVMCSurgeryC/v\Stormwalet1[areas.xts]SD a,eas Feb04 TIR
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
PreparedbyBLT
Printed; 2/10/2004
2,100 sf, added at docto(s parking lot.
Cl
Design Sheet
PROJECI
LOCATION
ArJ)eJ
()
CllENT AIB (;'J
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
Slructural + Civil Engineen
SHEET J/J
DATE 1 / Z-.f .,-4 BY .f t-r
t:,, l" 4 "' :fAp,'f -'I4 e.dT' :. . ' ,, -
= Zz11,z s.C-/3(?'-Z..J s.F = i~4/s.P.
&,. rA"' 76"38°1-66~'1~ -= qqc,6s~
(lo c.dde) J..A
-' -··-····
I •
0
---)\ _]J
Design Sheet
PROJECT
LOCATION
' . i""
-+----~--.
-·:--··i··-·-
--:-·-----
i -r··
-t-'
g,.s.,
1'01;..G z.
"1'" ol--t.' l'.:I
,-.4_fKX:1
g,.s,,,
if-'Z
w-10
617,IDD
13atvi
De+-6in
Pe~-'Z.
t)df-10
.-,,_ , I
CLIENT DATE
G.i..,... :::
a~.,.... --
.010,y =
/. IZ
l,,~o
i;S"!J
SHEET
BY
c,{;
o4
.. {~
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
Structural + Civil Engineers
Q.7. :-(} . Sl C (5,-
0. , . J,-;-r ,,{:.5 .
i-1~> o.~ .. ~ J.'1$ d-:,
Je ~,,{,, M
bl tGlt1t}e ~ Q e~-'f -C21yrs5
Q~l,z -::: CJ,Z5cJ:5
0,,1 1 ,0 -= o,.t/iafs
--1·""': -. -·--r---Q,cl I 141 ,:. -()' (, > of,,; pef--loi:>
-+--
i : '
:=EL:
! --+-->-1
-+-----:
I . ' --.---------
-,
1
'
j--------
-1 -·
_j -.
I .
i _,
.! .
··-·--·----· -f -.. -
·_ I
I --.
))
.' ·, :. -.)·· •• ·
Design Sheet MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC I
ASSOCIATES •
Stru(tural + Civil Engineen
PROJECT V "' mn
LOCATION (2 e,· BY ';lt,"f'
~ew /A 5J,ja.+ +a ve~iw/111.--J5e :
f7lc,v,. o.4 ~
cJJeJ :CA ~ vel,.des-:: 100 f. go -~z. "tt(t>z)
_ tocJCJ -r;'i 4!i I 7-
-5'oZ7 r,{
/-lelt(bJ + p#V~ J,,f :: Z-z /I, 2-sl-
(,,.., prof, ~4)
U.i..e-C....-1 ~'!> ~ revd -=-> 7 4-5'.$~
b-, f"'f. l¥-s,n B)
Joki ti 0.tB:\ rA ~vh)P(A fe, ,.,.h~t. ~ ~ Jc,q34-5,C
De~,ri ~M&rl "'~ t:r-4)
16"'5-<'l A :: -z" 16 'Z sC
-g C. 5-V'I 1) t J" ,ks p ~.,) :; I 1> 4-D "." ~ (.
ih;s.111 wc~r 'i""'· i~4f'lflif .,re,,. ;-"!.}~6 ;f ~f · .
i
Pv 10,'JO /lC..SwDkf )
f . ·-·
ti( '·jV,,O. {'f
..,,:f.?i 'j, ~i,'f :: ',,, ;'I' p ¥
C4
)
)
K I N G C O U N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R F A C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
F1GURE 3.5.lC 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS
""-----•'
I
I
7."'
7.~ _______... I
l(j_-+"'i-i1F.°dk',..1 ti
111
tr/
\
2.()
i
\
\-
i
i
i
j e .::. ___, ccrna '-\&~LN I • .,. ~·
• /
/
2-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATIONJ
.,-3.4-ISOPLUVIALS OF 2-YEAR 24-HOU_R_
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mlle1
1: 300,000 3.5.1-8
\
i
.-J'
1/90
cc::
K I N G C O U N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N. S U R I' A C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
10-VEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION
, 3.4-ISOPLUVIALS OF 10-YEAR 24-HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MIios
l: 300,000
K I N G C O U N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R F A C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
FIGURE 3.5.lH 100-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUYIALS --~-------·------------)
. '0-VEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION
,..).4 -ISOPLUVIALS OF 1CIO·YEAR 24-HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
O l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 MIies
l: J00,000
3.5.1-13
I II 11 •
l/90
2/11/04 10:50:11 am Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Valley Medical Cntr. Surgery Expansion
Stormwater Design per 1990 KCSWDM stds
February 2004 Technical Information Rpt.
page 1
-======-------------------=----------------------------------========
BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID: bp_lO
SBUH METHODOLOGY
NAME: proposed bypass basin 10-yr
TOTAL AREA ....... : 2.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE .... : TYPElA PERV
PRECIPITATION .... : 2.90 inches AREA .. : 0.96 Acres
TIME INTERVAL .... : 10.00 min CN ••.. : 86.00
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach -Sheet L: 110.00
TcReach -Channel L: 100.00
TcReach -Channel L: 260.00
PEAK RATE: 1.37 cfs VOL:
TC .... : 8.26 min
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
kc:27.00 s:0.0200
kc:42.00 s:0.0100
0.52 Ac-ft TIME:
s:0.1090
480 min
BASIN ID: bp_lOO
SBUH METHODOLOGY
NAME: proposed bypass basin 100-yr
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
2.71 Acres
TYPElA
3.90 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA .. :
CN .... :
0.00 cfs
PERV
0.96 Acres
86.00
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach Sheet L: 110.00
TcReach -Channel L: 100.00
TcReach -Channel L: 260.00
PEAK RATE: 1.95 cfs VOL:
TC .... : 8 .26 min
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
kc:27.00 s:0.0200
kc:42.00 s:0.0100
0.73 Ac-ft TIME:
s:0.1090
480 min
BASIN ID: bp 2
SBUH METHODOLOGY
NAME: proposed bypass basin 2-yr
TOTAL AREA ....... : 2.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE .... : TYPElA PERV
PRECIPITATION .... : 2.00 inches AREA •• : 0.96 Acres
TIME INTERVAL .... : 10.00
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach -Sheet L: 110.00
TcReach -Channel L: 100.00
TcReach -Channel L: 260.00
PEAK RATE: 0.87 cfs VOL:
min CN .... : 86.00
TC .... : 8.26 min
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
kc:27.00 s:0.0200
kc:42.00 s:0.0100
s:0.1090
0.33 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
IMP
1. 75 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
1.75 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
1.75 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
C$J
/-)\ i )
2/11/04 10:50:11 am Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Valley Medical Cntr. Surgery Expansion
Stormwater Design per 1990 KCSWDM stds
February 2004 Technical Information Rpt.
page 2
====----------------------------====-===---------------------====----
BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID: det 10
SBUH METHODOLOGY
NAME: proposed detained basin 10-yr
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
1.14 Acres
TYPElA
2.90 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA •• :
CN .... :
TC .... :
0.00 cfs
PERV
0.28 Acres
86.00
5.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach -Sheet L: 110.00
TcReach -Channel L: 100.00
TcReach -Channel L: 260.00
PEAK RATE: 0.61 cfs VOL:
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
kc:27.00 s:0.0200
kc:42.00 s:0.0100
s:0.1090
0.23 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
IMP
0.86 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
BASIN ID: det 100
SBUH METHODOLOGY
NAME: proposed detained basin 100-yr
TOTAL AREA ....... : 1.14 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE .... : TYPElA PERV
PRECIPITATION .... : 3.90 inches AREA •• : 0.28 Acres
TIME INTERVAL .... : 10.00
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach -Sheet L: 110.00
TcReach -Channel L: 100.00
TcReach -Channel L: 260.00
PEAK RATE: 0.86 cfs VOL:
min CN .... : 86.00
TC .... : 5.00 min
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
kc:27.00 s:0.0200
kc:42.00 s:0.0100
s:0.1090
0.32 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
BASIN ID: det 2
SBUH METHODOLOGY
NAME: proposed detained basin 2-yr
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
1.14 Acres
TYPElA
2.00 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA .. :
CN .... :
TC .... :
0.00 cfs
PERV
0.28 Acres
86.00
5.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach -Sheet L: 110.00
TcReach -Channel L: 100.00
TcReach -Channel L: 260.00
PEAK RATE: 0.40 cfs VOL:
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
kc:27.00 s:0.0200
kc:42.00 s:0.0100
s:0.1090
0.15 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
IMP
0.86 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
0.86 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
2/11/04 10:50:11 am Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Valley Medical Cntr. Surgery Expansion
Stormwater Design per 1990 KCSWDM stds
February 2004 Technical Information Rpt.
page 3
--==-----------------------------------------------------------------
BASIN ID: det_wq
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME: prop detained basin water qual
1.14 Acres
TYPElA
0.67 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA .. :
CN .... :
TC .... :
0.00 cfs
PERV
0.28 Acres
86.00
5.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
TcReach -Sheet L: 110.00
TcReach -Channel L: 100.00
TcReach -Channel L: 260.00
PEAK RATE: 0.10 cfs VOL:
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.1090
kc:27.00 s:0.0200
kc:42.00 s:0.0100
0.04 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
BASIN ID: tot elO
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
TcReach -Sheet L:
TcReach -Sheet L:
TcReach -Shallow L:
TcReach -Shallow L:
TcReach -Channel L:
PEAK RATE: 1.80 cfs
BASIN ID: tot elOO
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
TcReach -Sheet L:
TcReach -Sheet L:
TcReach -Shallow L:
TcReach -Shallow L:
TcReach -Channel L:
PEAK RATE: 2.58 cfs
( 15 41 af:. (,....., ~)
NAME: total existing 10-yr
3.80 Acres
TYPElA
2.90 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA .. :
CN .... :
o.oo cfs
PERV
1.63 Acres
86.00
0.20
225.00
75.00
75.00
70.00
75.00
VOL:
TC .... : 14.42 min
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00
ks:27.00 s:0.0150
ks:27.00 s:0.0100
kc:42.00 s:0.0200
0.70 Ac-ft TIME:
s:0.1090
s:0.0150
480 min
NAME: total existing 100-yr
3.80 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
TYPElA PERV
3.90 inches AREA .. : 1.63 Acres
10.00
0.20
225.00
75.00
75.00
70.00
75.00
VOL:
min CN .... : 86.00
TC .... : 14.42 min
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00
ks:27.00 s:0.0150
ks:27.00 s:0.0100
kc:42.00 s:0.0200
1.00 Ac-ft TIME:
s:0.1090
s:0.0150
480 min
IMP
0.86 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
2.17 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
IMP
2.17 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
CIO
)
2/11/04 10:50:11 am Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Valley Medical Cntr. Surgery Expansion
Stormwater Design per 1990 KCSWDM stds
February 2004 Technical Information Rpt.
page 4
-==------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIN ID: tot e2
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
TcReach -Sheet L:
TcReach -Sheet L:
TcReach -Shallow L:
TcReach -Shallow L:
TcReach -Channel L:
PEAK RATE: 1.12 cfs
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME: total existing 2-yr
3.80 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
TYPElA PERV
2.00 inches AREA .. : 1.63 Acres
10.00
0.20
225.00
75.00
75.00
70.00
75.00
VOL:
min CN .... : 86.00
TC .... : 14.42 min
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00
ks:27.00 s:0.0150
ks:27.00 s:0.0100
kc:42.00 s:0.0200
0.44 Ac-ft TIME:
s:0.1090
s:0.0150
480 min
IMP
2.17 Acres
98.00
5.00 min
cit
' ))
2/11/04 10:50:11 am Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Valley Medical Cntr. Surgery Expansion
Stormwater Design per 1990 KCSWDM stds
February 2004 Technical Information Rpt.
page
---=----=-------===-------------------=-====-===--=======---=---====-
STORAGE STRUCTURE LIST
RECTANGULAR VAULT ID No. detvault
Description: Detention vault
Length: 25.40 ft. Width: 10.00 ft. voids: 1. 000
v"IU?,e c:.o,...rec4-i,,,, +:;.c.,J-.,,,.-:
LrJJ -::. /"30-10.,., Z'>-4Pf = 33.0'
5
C/l.
--~)-, . I , __
JI-\
-
)!
2/11/04 10:50:11 am Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Valley Medical Cntr. Surgery Expansion
Stormwater Design per 1990 KCSWDM stds
February 2004 Technical Information Rpt.
page
==============--=----------=====================================-----
DISCHARGE STRUCTURE LIST
MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. detvault
Description: detention vault
Outlet Elev: 82.00
Elev: 82.00 ft
Elev: 84 .10 ft
qlev: 85.35 ft
Orifice
Orifice 2
Orifice 3
Diameter:
Diameter:
Diameter:
2.6250 in.
1. 8750 in.
1. 7500 in.
Adjv5f ,,t4)e} elN
(2eferf'.-¢-'· F'.'";.,
.fo,.. Pfo.,.., defl'/-, .
4,4. 74 y._;,,/ Co. 5vJ°"1
O.A-lo+-e/. o.J ·w!>J:; '1,c.oo -0-14-
J ..1 -: <J I. iG f.1-
Project Description
Project File
Worksheet
Flow Element
Method
Solve For
Input Data
untitled.lm2
VMC Del Vault Outlet Pipe
Circular Channel
Manning's Formula
Channel Depth
Mannings Coefficient
Channel Slope
Diameter
0.012
0.020000 IVft
12.00 in
Discharge 0.23 els
Results ~ Depth ft
Flow Area fl2 J . 7
Wetted Perimeter 0.77 ft
Top Width 0.69 ft
Critical Depth 0.20 ft
Percent Full 14.00
Critical Slope 0.004933 IVft
Velocity 3.44 IVs
Velocity Head 0.18 ft
Specific Energy 0.32 ft
Froude Number 1.96
Maximum Discharge 5.87 els
Full Flow Capacity 5.46 els
6
Full Flow Slope 0.000036 !Vil .,G13 Flow is supercritical.
)
2/11/04 10:50:13 am Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Valley Medical Cntr. Surgery Expansion
Stormwater Design per 1990 KCSWDM stds
February 2004 Technical Information Rpt.
page
=====================--====---==========--====--====-================
LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY
MATCH INFLOW -STO--DIS-<-PEAK-> STORAGE
<--------DESCRIPTION---------> (cfs) (cfs) --id---id-<-STAGE> id VOL (cf)
2yr ................... , , .... .
lOyr ....................•..••
lOOyr .....................••.
0.25 0.40 detvault detvault
0.43 0.61 detvault detvault
0.63 0.86 detvault detvault
83.85 1 470.19 cf
85.14 ' 798.41 cf
06.49 3 1140.39 cf
Cl4
7
)
)
rtt·. tt. :tr r
Communication KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
Strvchmd + CMI Englnffn-
1301 AfthAvenue, Suite 3200 Seattle Woshlngton 98101·2699 T: 206 292 1200 F: 206 292 1201 W: -.mka.com
PAGE l / l
ROUTING JMS
RMG
PLACED CALL: [81 MKA D Other Company Phone# 425-430-7304
DATE 12/2/03 TIME 3:30 PM
BE1WEEN Brian Taylor OF MAGNUSSON KLEMENOC ASSOCIATES, INC.
AND Ron Straka OF City of Renton, Surface Water Manager
PROJECT YMC.-VJftS Surg Expansion
· SUBJECT Stormwater Treatment
Contaded Ron to discuss woter quality treatment design in advance of pre-opp meeting scheduled for 12/4/03.
Ron indicated that in general Stormfilter™ devices ore not permitted in the City unless there is an extreme design
condition. Example was high.groundwater making construdfon of a water quality vault impossible. City's reason is
that there is insufficient history to determine efficacy of Stormfilter™ devices.
The City will consider a request if it is submitted as delined'ln the Code Modification and Alteration request.
Procedures are in the Municipal Code. Documentation musf be submitted to show that the device provides the
same benefit as a design per code would provide.
Ron discussed how we could meet the 1990 Surface Wa!e(Design Manual criteria. For projeds that cannot
provide biofiltration, the Qty will accept a water quality vault in lieu of the swale, sized per the 1990 manual
criteria,.,For.projeds that add more than 1.0 acre of .new impervious surface subjed to vehicular traffic, Special
Require;;,ent #S kicks in. If a swale is not provided, the' vaJlt used to meet SR#5 must be sized at 150% of the size
requi~ in'the manual: 'The waler quality treatment volume (without the 150% facto~ is the runoff volume from a
storm 1 /~th~ size of the-2-year event. (P .. = P i3).
i ,r,i·,·~, · ·. . . ~
I explained that a Stormfilter™ provides greater flexibility to the owner, because is has a reduced footprint that is
less likely to impede future parking garage construction, and cartridges can be added to a Stormfilter™ to increase
the treqtment capacity if needed in the future. I also explained how the hydraulic head limitations would make it
difficult to site a combined detention/water quality facility at the existing parking lot location.
Ron clarified tho! the helipad should be considered new impervious area subject to vehicular traffic. He also
indicated tho! since a wetland is downstream, SR#5 may apply even if the new imperviousness is beneath the 1.0
acre threshold.
At the end of the conversotion Ron indicated that he would likely be open too Stormlilter™ for this project.
indicated I would double-check the 1990 sizing criteria to discuss further at the pre-opp meeting.
c,s
,. '\ ,J
,)
APPENDIX D
CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
J
·)_·,
' '
Design Sheet 0 n MAGNUSSON I KLEMENCIC ----ASSOCIATES •
Structural + Civil Engineers
SHEET
LOCATION CllENT N OATE z/~4'
12 a.+io,,,,,. I Me+h~J
cp::=c1A
Izf @'ji.') t"£~) A.,. 3. 38 ' .i. ::' q~~ (~) Pl I/\,
b ZS-.::: 0, {,;~
per /l.GSwbH tQqc
-c,.t,5'
I1-~ == (:. 3B){z..r,~) (;. 3 _ 2. 7/ ,,,Jhr
.j ---
'
-! __ j_ __ ! ...
'
J
' +------' ! ,_
./. •---
•
Z5-yr
AREA# ACRES C I Q
1 0.069 0.15 2.71 0.028
2 0.069 0.15 2.71 0.028
3 0.068 0.9 2.71 0.166
4 0.016 0.9 2.71 0.039
5 0.257 0.9 2.71 0.627
6 0.229 0.9 2.71 0.559
7 0.092 0.9 2.71 0.224
8 0.015 0.9 2.71 0.037
9 0.002 0.9 2.71 0.005
10 0.04 0.9 2.71 0.098
11 0.016 0.15 2.71 0.007
12 0.333 0.15 2.71 0.135
'· ~)~
)
APPENDIX E
DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS
I
i
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
· Design Sheet n .~
MAGNUSSON I KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES •
Structural + Civil Engineers
) PROJECT SH££1 1/1
LOCATION CLIENT J,JB om z/rr/o,y BY /Jl-1"
"'
"' t~ tr ~ .,. • .1 "' \. ~ ~ -i t,:. ~ I;) ~ -t J V ~ 8 "' I -'-t -fl .....,.
\: ·" • "l-i ..... ~ .,_
Vi ( N -! f \!) ..... ..;[ V, ~ ...,.._ .i .S-'i, V,
~ " t -s & -'::I 't-<:: -\1 ;:t. :i ~ ... Q... '<t ..0 -::,. ~ ~ Q \fl I) II , ,;: ' A "' ~
' Vl I
() ~
I t -.. • "" 'I:) \l ,t,
\ -.;:.. :,..
':l. 1 i ~ ~
fi '?. 1 " ~ vi ' ---'l tJ "' ~ "' 'ii,
'::: ~ 't--~ lsJ --.. -I!: .~ I) .,J J~ ~ _B,
j' M J? "-b. ~ \)
C: ~ J 11) ~ I {; ,J_ ~ -"1'-~ \J x «-"1:.
:-'b' ~ ~ ~ ! ""3; <..)
~r~ \(j ... it. () V.
~~-! ~ ~ ~ '+ Olo z
"" ~ I t-i
\
~
i:'~ ~ -z
i,l; ...... --
l :::t.
J i ~
l ' .. " -~ ' . ~ I
--,.. ... _j __ J~ ~ ~ t { ;t-}R ~ 'f' "'
Cl
~ ti! ~ •;:-1 ~ \ .:i;-"'
~ <=;;. '9-. ~ a t
\) "" I N V\ \i: r·--
-::. "" I
/) ~~-~ ~ _. -·I···"'
~ k -· ------·--·, ------·
~ :_ i, -(") f>,~ 'l1 .......
• j ~ ~
d'\ Cb. -..
I
y:
~
\.....,·
OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE
Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2
\ __
--'-''
Basin: VA-L-J.r;;'f MGJ:>1'-4-1... Subbasin Name: ~vf2.l;,6:i(.'1 b~f'...,t,.l&.1(ltJ P~G-'T"Subbasin Number:
1lf tri~z:i!ilf i: :1~l~T~i ii/:·:~!iit~i:: •••••·• :'.~,~~~~~i::f •::i!;i!!~~~~i : •~,\;a~~tj~~;~~t~·~f ?~~~t~~i ·-·--··· · ······ ·· ················ 11,111,111r~1~.,i
P1PE, 2i 11 cl'IP I f;y., ~"T"JIJ(.;
f'1 p,;, 4 Z "C.-!PI ,:; "II ,s_rt N(J,
Optr, c.h"'Vle I I ~ro.u.y c.~I .,, ~z , -'5 , ..,:Je ~ ..,.Jj ,: It, b.. H'*I
oper, ~h>mel I cJ.,'fe'{ k,,-1.,..,
J.z --z,o 1 wik_
<t~5'~:",o S:'
J,1oi;'l..
1.2z.5'
1,2.,z,s:...
/,ZS!>'
s.,,,J c.e.i...,,
,.,.. •vtAII
)L~.r,1,:. po/1+~
L1Table.doc 11/2/92
. . .
VALLEY MEDICAL SURGERY EXPANSION: STORM DRAIN TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
_)
OUTFALL OF 42-IN STORM PIPE
)
CHANNEL APPROX. 120 FT FROM OUTFALL
' I •
VALLEY MEDICAL SURGERY EXPANSION: STORM DRAIN TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
)
TYP. CHANNEL UPTO 120 FT FROM OUTFALL CHANNEL W/ CLAYEY BOTTOM 140 FT FROM OUTFALL
)
,;.,st
TRANSITION TO CHANNEL THROUGH FOREST
. )
()
APPENDIX F
MAINTENANCE LISTS
_(
•
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCIATES
K I N G C O U NT Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R F A C E WA T E R D ES I G N M A N U A L
NO. 3 -CLOSED DETENTION SYSTEMS (PIPES/TANKS)
j
Maintenance Conditions When Maintenance Reaulta Expected
Component Defect la Needed When Maintenance Is Performed
Storage Alea Plugged A;r Vents One-half of the cross section of a vent is Vents free of debris and sediment.
blocked at any point with debris and
sediment.
Debris and Accumulated sediment depth exceeds All sediment and debris removed from
Sediment 10% of the diameter of the storage area storage area.
for 1 /2 length of storage vault or any
point depth exceeds 15% of diameter.
Example: 72..;nch storage tank would
require cleaning when sediment reaches
depth of 7 inches for more than 1 /2
length of tank.
Joints Between kly crack allowing material to be All joints between tank/pipe sections are
Tank/Pipe Section transported In.to facility. sealed.
Tank/Pipe Bent kly part of tonk/pipe Is bent out of shape Tank/pipe repaired or replaced to design.
Out of Shape more than 10% of its design shape.
Manhole Cover not in Place Cover Is missing or only partially In place. Manhole is closed.
Any open manhole requires maintenance.
Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools.
Mechanism Not maintenance person with proper tools.
Working Bolts into frame have less than 1 /2 inch
of thread (may not apply to self~ocking
lids).
Cover Difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover can be removed and reinstalled by
) Remove lid after applying 80 pounds of lift. Intent one maintenance person.
is to keep cover from sealing off access
to maintenance.
ladder Rungs King County Safety Office and/or Ladder meets design standards and
Unsafe maintenance person judges that ladder is allows maintenance persons safe acceas.
unsafe due to missing rungs,
misalignment, rust, or cracks.
Catch Basins See "Catch Baains· Standard No. 5 See "Catch Basins" Stendard No. 5
)
A-3 1/90
,•
K I N G C O U N T Y, WA S H I N G T O N, S U R FA C E WA T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
NO. 4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR
I
Maintenance Condtuon1 When Maintenance Result& Expected
Component Defect 11 Needed When Maintenance la Performed
General Trash and Debris Distance between debris build-up and AJI trash and debris removed.
(Includes bottom of orifice plate is tess than 1-1/2
Sediment) feet.
Structural Damage Structure is not securely attached to Structure securely attached to wall and
manhole wall and outlet pipe structure outlet pipe.
should support at least 1,CXX> pounds of
up or down pressure.
Structure is not in upright position (allow Structure Jn correct position.
up to 10% from plumb).
Connections to outlet pipe are not Connections to outtet pipe are watertight;
watertight and show signs of rust. structure repaired or replaced and works
as designed.
Any holes -other than designed holes -Structure has no h~es other than
In the structure. designed holes.
aeanout Gate Damaged or
Missing
Cleanout gate is not watertight or Is
missing.
Gate Is watertight and works as designed.
Gate cannot be moved up and down by Gate moves up and down easily and is
one maintenance person. watertight
Chain leading to gate Is missing or
damaged.
Oiafn Is in place and works as designed.
Gate is rusted over 50% of Its surface Gate Is repaired or replaced to meet
) area. design standards.
Orifice ptate Damaged or Control device is not working properly Plate Is In place and works as designed.
Missing due to missing, out of place, or bent
orifice plate.
Obatructlons Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation Plate la frn of all obstructions and works
bloclcing the plate. as designed.
(),,erflow Pipe Obstructions My trash or debris blocking (or having Pipe la frn of all obstructions and works
the potential of blocking) the overflow as designed.
pipe.
Manhole See ·aosed Detention Systems" Standard See "Oosed Detention Systems· Standard
No. 3. No.3.
Catch Basin See ·eatch BasinsM Standard No. 5. See "Catch Basins• Standard No. 5.
A-4 l/90
. ' .
)
K I N G C O U NT Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R FA C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
NO. 5 -CATCH BASINS
Maintenance
Component
Gene,al
Defect
Trash & Debris
(Includes
Sediment)
Structural Damage
to Frame and/or
Top Slab
Cracks in Basin
Walls/Bottom
Settlement/
Misalignment
Fire Hazard
Vegetation
Pollution
Condition, When Maintenance
la Needed
Trash or debris of more than 1/2 cubic
foot which is located immediately in ftont
of the catch basin opening or is blocking·
capacity of basin by more than 10%.
Trash or debris On the basin) that
exceeds 1 /3 the depth from the bottom
of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into
or out of the basin.
Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe
blocking more than 1/3 of its height.
Dead animals or vegetation that could
generate odors that would cause
complaints or dangerous gases (e.g.,
methane).
Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic
foot in volume.
Corner of frame extends more than 3/4
inch past curb face into the street ~f
applicable).
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square_
inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch
Qntent is to make sure all material is
running into the basin).
Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e.,
separation of more than 3/4 inch of the
frame from the top slab.
Cracks wider Ulan 1 /2 inch and longer
than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles
entering catch basin through cracks, or
maintenance person judges that structure
is unsound.
Cracks wider than 1 /2 inch and longer
than 1 foot at the Joint of any Inlet/outlet
pipe or any evidence of soil particles
entering catch basin through cracks.
Basin has settled more than 1 inch or has
rotated more than 2 inches out of
alignment.
Presence of chemicalS such as natural
gas, oil, and gasoline.
Vegetation growing across and blocking
more than 10% of the basin opening.
Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe
joints that is more than six inches tall and
less than six inches apart.
Nonflammable chemicals of more than
1 /2 cubic foot per three feet of basin
length.
A-5
Reaulta Expected
When Maintenance la Performed
No trash or debris located immediately in
front of catch basin opening.
No trash or debris in the catch basin.
Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or
debris.
No dead animals or vegetation present
within the catch basin.
No condition present which would attract
or support the breeding of Insects or
rodents.
Frame is even with curb.
Top slab is free of holes and cracks.
Frame is sitting flush on top slab.
Basin replaced or repaired to design
standards.
No cracks more than 1 /4 inch wide at the
joint of inlet/outlet pipe.
Basin replaced or repaired to design
standards.
No flammable chemicals present.
No vegetation blocking opening to basin.
No vegetation or root growth present.
No pollution present other than surface
film.
1/90
)
' . .
K I N G C O U NT Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R FA C E WA T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
NO. 5 • CATCH BASINS (Continued)
Maintenance
Component
Catch Basin Cover
ladder
Metal Grates
~! applicable)
Cover Not in Plaoe
Locking
Mechanism Nol
Working
Cover Difficult to
Remove
ladder Rungs
Unsafe
Trash and Debris
Damaged or
Missing
Condition• When Malntonance
11 Needed
Cover Is missing or only partially in place.
Any open catch basin requires
maintenance.
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
maintenance person with proper tools.
Botta Into frame have less than 1/2 inch
of thread.
Ona maintenance person cannot remove
lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift; intent is
keep cover from sealing off access to
maintenance.
Ladder Is unsafe due to missing rungs,
misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp
edges.
Grate with opening wider than 7 /8 inch.
Trash and debris that Is blocking more
than 20% of grate surface.
Grate missing or broken member(s) of
the grate.
A-6
Reautta Expected
When Maintenance la Performed
Catch basin cover is closed.
Mechanism opens with proper tools.
Cover can be removed by one
maintenance person.
Ladder meets design standards and
allows maintenance person safe access.
Grate openings meet design standards.
Grate free of trash and debris.
Grate is In place and meets design
standards.
l/90
)
\ ,
K I N G C O U N T Y, WA S H l N G T O N, S U R FA C E WAT E R D ES l G N M A N U A L
NO. 10 -CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (Pipes & Ditches)
Maintenance
Component
Pipes
Open Ditches
Catch Basins
Debris Barriers
(e.g., Trash Rack)
Defect
Sediment & Debris
Vegetation
Damaged
Trash & Debris
Sediment
Vegetation
Erosion Damage to
Slopes
Rock Uning Out of
Place or Missing (H
Applicable)
Conditions When Maintenance
11 Needed
Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20%
of the diameter of the pipe.
Vegetation that reduces free movement of
water through pipes.
Protective ooating is damaged; rust is
causing more than 50% deterioration to
any part of pipe.
My dent that decreases the cross section
area of pipe by more than 20%.
Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot
per 1 ,0C>J square feet of ditch and slopes.
Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20%
of the design depth.
Vegetation that reduces free movement of
water through ditches.
See 'Ponds' Standard No. t
Maintenance person can see native soil
beneath the rock lining.
See ~Catch Basins• Standard No. 5
See 'Debris Barriers· Standard No. 6
A-11
Roaulta Expected
When Maintenance 11 Performed
Pipe cleaned of all s.ediment and debris.
All vegetation removed· so water flows
freely through pipes.
Pipe repaired or replaced.
Pipe repaired or replaced.
Trash and debris cleared from ditches.
Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment and
debris so that it matches design.
Water flows freely through ditches.
See "Ponds" Standard No. 1
Aeplaoe rocks to design standard.
See 'Catch Basins• Standard No. 5
See ·Debris Barriers· Standard No. 6
1,90
GEO ENGINEERS , I NC. Fax:2067282732
Geo-Engineers
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ma~ 20 2005 ~:52 f'. u:/
DEVELOP•4E' .
Grrv ~r:~1r%~!-.. ·y.1.~·;/NG
· •, /, • ' -Plaza 600 Building
JUL 2 , 60,\) Stewart Street, Suite 1420
J 2uD6 Soattlc, w A 981 o I
R (206) 728-2674 f:C:f:/l,/f:IJ Fax: (206)728-2732
Gary Schaefer I NBBJ
Eric Anderson, P E./W1usson Klemencic Associates (MCA)
Bo McFadden, P.E. 9.
May 20, 2003 //
FROM:
DATE:
FILE:
SUBJECT:
2202-018..00
Column Foundation Support Evaluation
Surgery Center Improvements
Valley Medical Center, Renton, Washington
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum summarizes our initial evaluation of foundation support conditions in the area of
the planned improvements to the surgery center at Valley Medical Center located in Renton, Washington.
Our evaluation has been completed in general accordance with the Phase 1 services described in our
proposal dated April 29, 2003. Our services included review of available site plans and geotechnical
studies, a brief site visit to observe site conditions and meet with representatives of Valley Medical
Center, discussions with project team members, and development of a general subsurface soil profile from
existing information. We did not complete additional subsurface explorations as part of our Phase l
services.
Based on our discussions with Eric Anderson of MCA, we understand that the planned improvements
will result in a modest increase in the design load (dead and live load) for a column located at the
intersection of gridlines B and 13 in the southwest portion of the hospital building. The column e~tends
through the first floor that is at about Elevation 66 feet and is supported below the lower boiler room floor
slab that is at about Elevation 54 feet. We understand that the column at gridlines Band 13 is supported
on a footing that is 20 inches thick ~nd has plan dimensions of6 feet by 6 feet. The bottom of this footing
is at approximately Elevation 51.3 feet. We further understand that this footing was designed with an
allowable bearing capacity of 6,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The planned improvements will
increase the load on the column footing from about 223 kips to 243 kips (dead plus live load). The
approximately 9 percent increase in load will increase the bearing on the soil to approximately 6,7.50 ps£.
SITE CONDITIONS
We reviewed exploration logs for the original Valley Medical Center project completed by Dames
and Moore in March 1967. In addition, we reviewed the followmg two geotechnical reports for projects
completed near the project location:
• "Report, Geotechnical Enginemng Services, l'Toposed Cogeneration Building, Valley Medical
Center, Renton, Washington" completed by GeoEngineers. Inc dated February 9, 1996.
MA'r'-20-200] 09:28 2067222732 %% P.132
Gt.Ut.Nl:,!Nttt<:,, lNL. r dX. LUU r L.OL. r ,..)L.
Memorandum to Gary Schacfcr/NBBJ and Eric Anderson, P.E.iMCA
May 20, 2003
Page2
• "Renton Soils and Foundation Investigation, Proposed Valley General Hospital Expansion, Renton,
Washington" by Roger Lowe Associates Inc dated April 25, 1980.
We also made a site visit on May 14, 2003 to observe the column location and ground surface
conditions at the site to verify infonnation presented on a site plan we were provided previously for
Valley Medical Center projects. 1he site plan was prepared by Touma Engineers and is based on aerial
photographic work completed by Walker Associates.
We used the Touma Engineers site plan, topographic mapping included in the plan for the 1967
Dames and Moore study, and exploration logs completed for the Expansion and Cogeneration Building
projects to evaluated the impacts of past site grading.
The ground surface west of the project area is paved and at about Elevation 63 feet and the boiler
room has a finish floor at about Elevations 54 feet. Based on existing site plans and subsurface
infonnation, we estimate that the original ground surface m the area of grid lines B and 13 was at about
Elevation 74 feet. The exploration logs indicate that dense to very dense glacially consolidated soil was
likely encountered at about Elevation 67 feet, considerably above the boiler room finish floor elevation.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the subsurface profile developed from existing infonnation and generally described above,
we conclude that dense glacially consolidated soil was present prior tc, original construction at
approximately Elevation 67 feet near the intersection of gridlines B an 13. The bottom of the column
footings is at about Elevation S 1.3 feet. We therefore expect that the dense glacialiy consolidated soils
below the footing at the intersection of gridlincs B and 13 can provide the adequate bearing capacity to
support loads on the order of 8,000 to 10,000 psf without appreciable compression of the underlying soil.
We therefore conclude that the planned design column load of 243 kips (6,750 psfbearing pressure on the
existing foundation) can be supported as planned. Furthermore, we estimate that settlement that may be
caused by the increase in load will be less than V. inch.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If there arc any questions
concerning this memorandum or if we can provide additional services, please call.
Disc:h,imcr: Any electronic form. facsimile or hard copy of the: origins.I document (email, text, table, 3nd/or figure:), if provided,
s.nd ;111y attachments arc only a copy of the original document The origina.1 document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will
serve: as the official document of record.
MRY-20-2003 09:28 20572B2732 P.03
Report
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Surgery Center and Site Improvements
Valley Medical Center
Renton, Washington
January 22, 2004
For
January 22, 2004
January 22, 2004
Valley Medical Center
c/o NBBJ Architects
ll l South Jackson Street
Seattle, Washington 98104
Attention: Tim Carter and Grant Gustafson, A.I.A.
GEOENGINEERS CJ
We are pleased to present two copies of our "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Surgery Center
and Site Improvements, Renton, Washington."
Our services were completed in general accordance with the scope of services presented in our proposal
dated December 15, 2003 and authorized by Trevor Hart of Valley Medical Center on December 30,
2003.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please call us if you have any
questions regarding the contents of this report or when we may be of further service.
Yours very truly,
KGO:JJM:ab
SEA T:IOO\Finals\220201900R.doc
Attachments
cc: Trevor Hart (one copy)
Valley Medical Center
400 South 43rd Street
Renton, Washington 98055
Jaime Saez, PE ( two copies)
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
130 I Fifth A venue, Suite 3200
Seattle, Washington 98101
CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL 3
SURFACE CONDITIONS 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
Site Explorations 3
Laboratory Testing 4
Soil Conditions 4
Groundwater Conditions 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 5
GENERAL 5
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 5
Site Preparation 5
Excavation Considerations 6
Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing 6
Erosion and Sedimentation Control 6
Subgrade Evaluation 7
Use of On-Site Soil 7
Structural Fill 7
Temporary Excavation Slopes 8
Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes 9
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION 9
Subgrade Preparation 9
Asphalt Concrete Pavement 9
Portland Cement Pavements 1 O
CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING WALLS 10
General 10
Lateral Soil Pressure 1 O
Footing Design 11
Settlement 11
lateral Resistance 11
SOLDIER PILE AND TIMBER LAGGING WALLS 11
General 11
lateral Earth Pressures 12
Lagging 12
Monitoring During Construction 13
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH 13
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOUNDATION DESIGN 14
ENTRY PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS 14
General 14
Interceptor/ Collector Drain System 14
Hardscape 14
SEISMICITY 14
General 14
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Site Coefficient 15
International Building Code (IBC) Site Coefficient 15
GeoEngineers File No. 2202-019-00\012204
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Construction Drainage
Wall Drainage
Surface Drainage
Page No.
15
15
15
16
LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 16
FIGURES
VICINITY MAP
SITE PLAN
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
INTERCEPTOR/COLLECTOR DRAIN
APPENDICES
Figure No.
1
2
3
4
Page No.
APPENDIX A-FIELD EXPLORATIONS .................................................................................................. A-1
APPENDIX A FIGURES
SOIL CLACIFICATION SYSTEM
KEY TO LOG SYMBOLS
LOG OF BORING
LOG OF HAND BORING
Figure No.
A-1
A-2
A-3 ... A-6
A-7 ... A-8
APPENDIX B-LABORATORYTESTING ................................................................................................ B-1
GENERAL B-1
MOISTURE CONTENT TESTING B-1
SIEVE ANALYSES B-1
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTING B-1
APPENDIX B FIGURES
SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
Figure No.
B-1
B-2
APPENDIX C-REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE ........................................ C-1 ... C-4
GeoEngineers ii File No. 2202·019-00\012204
REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
SURGERY CENTER AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS
VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
FOR
VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for design and construction
of the proposed Surgery Center and site improvements at the Valley Medical Center Campus located
northwest of the intersection of South 43rd Street and Talbot Road South in Renton, Washington. The
project site is located immediately south of the existing Surgery Center at the south end of the campus and
is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan,
Figure 2.
We understand that the proposed Surgery Center and site improvements include constructing a new
parking lot in the helicopter landing pad area and a new pedestrian bridge connecting the Surgery Center
and Rapid Care facility located below the north portion of the helicopter landing pad. The proposed
parking lot will occupy the present helicopter landing pad and an area that will cut into the present slope
just east of the helicopter landing pad. The west portion of the proposed parking area will be at the same
grade as the existing landing pad. The parking lot will slope up to the east at about 1 percent and require
cuts ranging from about 2 to 15 feet for the east portion of the parking lot and the parking lot access road.
Cast-in-place concrete cantilever retaining walls have been planned for the cut along the east and south
sides of the proposed parking lot, however, a cantilever soldier pile with lagging retaining wall is being
considered along the southeast corner of the proposed parking lot where utilities are located very close to
the back of the planned wall.
The proposed pedestrian bridge between the Surgery Center and Rapid Care facility will be supported
by the existing north structural wall footing for the Rapid Care facility and the Surgery Center to the
north. We understand that the design allowable bearing pressure for the existing structural wall footing at
the Rapid Care facility is 6,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The required bearing pressure for the
structural wall footing with the loads of the proposed pedestrian bridge is 8,000 psf.
SCOPE
The purpose of our geotechnical engineering services will be to complete explorations as a basis for
developing design recommendations for the proposed retaining walls and allowable soil bearing pressures
for the existing north wall footing at the Rapid Care facility. We understand that the allowable soil
bearing pressure for the existing Rapid Care facility footing needs to be evaluated to determine if the
design allowable bearing capacity can be increased to support the loads of the proposed pedestrian bridge.
Our scope of services is in general accordance with the "Required Geotechnical Data" sheet provided by
MKA. Our specific scope of services includes the following tasks:
1. Review our in-house files for readily available information relative to the site, and copies of other
geotechnical studies that we have been provided.
GeoEngineers 1 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
2. Explore soil and groundwater condition at the site by completing four exploratory borings (B-1
through B-4) ranging in depth from about lOYi to 26Yi feet. In addition we completed two hand hole
explorations (HH-1 and HH-2) to depths of about 2 to 4¥2 feet to expose the foundation supporting
the north wall of the Rapid Care facility.
3. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the foundation soils based on laboratory
tests performed on samples obtained from the borings. The laboratory tests include moisture content
determinations, sieve analyses, and Atterberg limits determinations.
4. Describe site geology, soils and groundwater conditions.
5. Provide recommendations for earthwork including the following:
• Requirements for stripping, removal of soft, organic or other unsuitable material.
• Suitability of on-site soil for use as structural fill.
• Imported structural fill specifications.
• Placement and compaction of structural fill for support of structures and adjacent roadway and
walkway areas.
• Utility trench backfill placement and compaction.
• Evaluate the effects of weather and construction equipment on the site soils.
• Temporary and permanent dewatering requirements if necessary.
9. Provide recommendations for allowable temporary cut slope inclinations, and permanent cut and fill
slope inclinations.
10. Provide general recommendations for alternative retaining wall design for support of the cuts being
planned along the southeast and east sides of the parking lot.
11. Develop recommendations for concrete cast-in-place cantilevered retaining walls for support of
slopes along the access driveway and the parking area. This will include allowable soil bearing
pressures, settlement estimates, lateral soil pressures and base friction values.
12. Provide recommendations for permanent cantilevered solider pile and lagging shoring for support of
cuts along the southeast portion of the parking area where existing utilities are located close to the
back of the planned walls. We also provided lateral modulus of subgrade reaction for evaluation .of
wall deflections.
13. Provide recommendations for allowable bearing pressures and settlement estimates for the existing
shallow spread footings supporting the north wall of the Rapid Care facility.
14. Provide recommendations for seismic design in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC) and 2003 International Building Code (!BC).
15. Provide recommendations for temporary and permanent drainage improvements, as necessary. This
includes recommendations for back-drainage for the retaining walls.
16. Provide recommendations for subgrade preparation in walkway and pavement areas. This includes
recommendations for base course and a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value for pavement design.
17. Provide recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage systems. This includes
recommendations for footing and retaining wall drainage systems based on the groundwater
conditions encountered or expected.
18. Provide a written report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations, along with
supporting field and laboratory data.
GeoEngineers 2 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
SITE DESCRIPTION
GENERAL
The site is located on the east side of the Kent valley and is part of a greater west-facing slope above
the valley floor. We reviewed portions of the report for the main hospital building and studies in our files
for nearby projects. We researched the surficial geology at the project site by reviewing the United States
Geologic Survey's "Geologic Map for the Renton Quadrangle, Washington" dated 1965. Ground
moraine deposits (Qgt) that are mostly ablation and lodgement till consisting of sand, silt, clay and gravel
are mapped at the project site. Ground moraine deposits are typically poorly drained. Renton Formation
(Tr) deposits of sandstone, mudstone and shale and Undifferentiated deposits (Qu) of till, sand, silt, clay
and gravel are also mapped near the project site. In addition, we reviewed the United States Department
of Agriculture "Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington" dated November 1973. The soil survey
identified deposits of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC) at the project site. The Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam is a sandy soil with varying amounts of silt and gravel that is very well to moderately well
drained and is generally found in upland areas.
SURFACE CONDITIONS
The proposed Surgery Center and site improvements project is located at the south end of the campus
immediately south of the existing Surgery Center. The site is currently the location of the helicopter
landing pad and the Rapid Care facility, which is located below the north portion of the helicopter landing
pad. The helicopter landing pad and Rapid Care facility are boarded by the Surgery Center to the north, a
parking lot to the west, and South 43"' Street to the south. The ground surface in the existing helicopter
landing pad ranges from about Elevation 95\/, feet along the west edge to about Elevation 98 feet along
the east edge. The area east of the helicopter landing pad consists of a landscaped area which slopes up
toward the east at about a IO percent slope. The ground surface in this portion of the project area ranges
from about Elevation 95 \/2 feet at the helicopter landing pad to about Elevation 108 feet along the east
side of the proposed access road.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Site Explorations
Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were explored by completing four borings (B-1 through
B-4) and two hand holes (HH-1 and HH-2) on December 31, 2003 and January 9, 2004. Borings B-1 and
B-2 were completed at the east end of the proposed parking lot to evaluate conditions in the area of
proposed retaining walls. Boring B-3 was completed near the west edge of the helicopter landing pad.
Boring B-4 was completed in an existing parking area located northwest of the Rapid Care facility. The
borings extended to depths ranging from 1011:, to 2611:, feet below ground surface and were completed
using track-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. The two hand holes (HH-1 and llli-2) were
completed to depths ranging from about 2 to 4\/, feet below ground surface along the north edge of the
Rapid Care facility. The hand holes were completed by a geologist from our firm using hand equipment.
Locations of the explorations were detennined in the field by measuring distances with a tape from
GeoEngineers 3 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
existing site features. The locations of explorations are shown in Figure 2. The details of our field
exploration program and exploration logs are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory Testing
Soil samples were collected during the drilling and were taken to our laboratory for further
examination. Selected samples were tested for moisture content, sieve analysis, and Atterberg limits
determination. A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B.
Soil Conditions
Sod and rootmass (about 6 inches thick), and topsoil were encountered at the ground surface in
borings B-1 and B-2 to depths ranging from about 2V. to 3 feet The topsoil was underlain by medium
stiff silt in boring B-1 to a depth of about 6 feet. Stiff to hard clay with variable silt, sand, and gravel
content was observed below the silt to the bottom of the boring at a depth of about 26¥2 feet below the
surface. The topsoil was underlain by stiff to hard clay in Boring B-2. A 3 to 4 foot thick layer of silty
gravel was observed within the clay unit in boring B-2 about 9 feet below the surface. The clay in boring
B-2 was underlain by very dense sand with silt that contained a 2 to 3 foot thick layer of hard silt about
20 feet below the surface. Boring B-2 was terminated in the very dense sand with silt at a depth of about
2611, feet.
Approximately 2 inches of asphalt concrete pavement was encountered at the surface in borings B-3
and B-4. The asphalt was underlain by 8 to 12 inches of base consisting of gravel with silt and sand. The
gravel base was underlain by stiff to very stiff sandy silt and sandy clay in boring B-3 that extended to a
depth of about 9V. feet. The boring was terminated in a layer of very dense silty sand with gravel at about
11 1h feet below the surface. A layer of medium dense silty sand with gravel, approximately 2 to 3 feet
thick, was observed below the gravel in boring B-4. The sand was underlain by hard silt with sand and
gravel. The boring was terminated in the silt layer at about IOV. feet below the surface.
Two hand holes, HH-1 and HH-2, were completed along the north edge of the Rapid Care facility to
evaluate the soil below the footings. A layer of topsoil about 2 to 6 inches thick was present at the ground
surface in each of the hand holes. The topsoil was underlain by about I V2 feet of fill consisting of gravel
with sand and variable silt. The gravel fill in hand hole HH-1 was underlain by very stiff silt about
3V2 feet below the surface. The building foundation was observed to be supported on the very stiff silt at
a depth of 311, feet below the ground surface. Hand hole HH-2 was terminated in the gravel fill about
2 feet below the surface at the top of the concrete footing. We were unable to find the edge of the
foundation because it extends a few feet north of the building wall into the landscaping.
Groundwater Conditions
We did not encountered groundwater in borings B-1 through B-4 during the drilling. Groundwater
was not observed in hand auger hole HH-1. A small amount of perched groundwater was encountered
above the footing in hand auger hole HH-2. Groundwater conditions should be expected to fluctuate as a
function of season, precipitation and other factors.
GeoEngineers 4 File No. 2202-0J9.()()IOJ2204
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
Based on the results of our explorations, it is our opinion that the proposed Surgery Center site and
improvements can be constructed as proposed provided the considerations and recommendations in this
report are incorporated in the project design. The primary geotechnical considerations for the project are
as follows:
• Pedestrian Bridge Foundation
Based on our understanding of the anticipated design loads and our analyses, we conclude that the
allowable bearing capacity for the existing wall footing of the Rapid Care facility can be increased to
support the additional load resulting from the pedestrian bridge with post-construction settlement of
less than 11. inch.
• Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining Walls
It is our opinion that the proposed cast-in-place concrete retaining walls can be utilized to retain the
existing soil east of the proposed parking lot. Adequate drainage must be provided to prevent the
build up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.
• Alternate Retaining Walls
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls may also be considered for portions of the access road
construction.
• Soldier Pile with Lagging Wall
We conclude that a cantilevered soldier pile with lagging wall can be constructed at the southeast
corner of the proposed parking lot. Adequate drainage must be provided to prevent the build up of
hydrostatic pressure behind the soldier pile wall.
• Wet Weather Construction
We recommend that site preparation and earthwork be completed during the drier summer months if
possible to reduce grading costs. The on-site fill and silty native soils contain a high percentage of
fines (silt and clay), are moisture-sensitive, and will likely not be suitable for use as structural fill. It
will be difficult, if not impossible, to properly compact these soils if they are too wet or during
periods of wet weather. We therefore recommend that the on-site soils not be considered for use as
structural fill and that imported structural fill should be used as wall foundation support, wall backfill,
utility trench backfill, and to support pavement loads.
Further details on specific geotechnical issues are presented in the following sections.
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK
Site Preparation
We expect that site preparation and earthwork will include removal of the existing helicopter landing
pad, landscaping within the work area, and excavation to achieve design subgrade elevation in the parking
lot and access road areas. Excavation depths at the east end of the parking lot will likely range up to
about 15 feet. Some fills will likely be required in localized areas to replace unsuitable fill or native soils
below proposed wall footings and pavement areas. Suitable cut slopes, as described in a subsequent
section of this report, should be used to protect adjacent improvements and reduce the risk to workers
within the excavations.
GeoEngineers s File No. 2202-019-00\012204
Excavation Considerations
Glacially consoldiated deposits were observed in the explorations. We anticipate that these soils can
be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as trackhoes or dozers. Although not
encountered in the explorations, cobbles or boulders are periodically found in glacially deposited soils.
Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing
We recommend that the organic-rich soils (sod, rootmass and topsoil) and vegetation, be stripped and
stockpiled for later use as topsoil for landscaping purposes. Based on our observations, we anticipate that
stripping depths in landscaped areas will generally range from about 6 inches to 3 feet. The deeper
deposits of topsoil were observed in borings B-1 and B-2 near the east edge of the proposed parking lot
Stripping depths will be locally greater if large vegetation or trees are cleared and grubbed.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods, slope
length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing and
weather. Implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan will reduce the project impact on
erosion-prone areas. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable city, county and/or state
standards. The plan should incorporate basic planning principles including:
• Scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure.
• Retaining existing asphalt whenever feasible.
• Revegetating or mulching denuded areas.
• Directing runoff away from denuded areas.
• Reducing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils.
• Decreasing runoff velocities.
• Preparing drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff.
• Confining sediment to the project site.
• Inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently.
In addition, we recommend that sloped surfaces in exposed or disturbed soil be restored so that
surface runoff does not become channeled. Some sloughing and raveling of slopes with exposed or
disturbed soil should be expected.
Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils
to help reduce erosion and reduce transport of sediment to adjacent areas. Permanent erosion protection
should be provided by landscape planting.
Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring should
be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and to
repair and/or modify them as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system
based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
GeoEngineers 6 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
Subgrade Evaluation
We recommend that site preparation and earthwork be completed during the drier summer months, if
possible, to reduce grading costs. The existing soils at the site generally consist of silty sand, silt, or clay
and have a relatively high fines content (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve) and are
moisture sensitive. Operation of equipment on these soils will be difficult, if not impossible, during
periods of wet weather and this material will be readily softened when construction traffic operates on it.
Deterioration of the shallow subgrade soils exposed after cuts are made should be expected, especially if
site preparation work is done during periods of wet weather. The exposed subgrade should be evaluated
before placing structural fill or base course material. Proofrolling with heavy rubber-tired construction
equipment should be used for this purpose. The site should be proofrolled only during dry weather.
Probing should be used to evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather. Any soft areas noted
during proofrolling or probing should be excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill.
Use of On-Site Soil
The native soils encountered in our explorations contain a significant amount of fines (particles
smaller than the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve) and are therefore moisture sensitive and will be difficult to
compact. It will be especially difficult to compact these soils during wet weather. We therefore
recommend that imported sand and gravel be planned for structural fill to support structures and where
compaction to 95 percent of maximum dry density is required. However, we recommend that the on-site
soil be considered for use as wall backfill where the retaining walls will be supporting landscaped area
and compaction is not critical. The recommendations for wall drainage and backfill presented in the
Drainage Considerations section include an alternate system of wall drainage that allows the use of native
soil in the backfill.
Structural Fill
New fills placed in the pavement areas and as wall backfill should be placed and compacted as
structural fill. In our opinion, the near surface soils contain a relatively high moisture content and fines
content (material passing the US No. 200 sieve). The on-site soils will be difficult if not impossible to
compact to more than about 90 percent of the maximum dry density (MOD) unless they can be properly
moisture conditioned. The on-site soils will not be suitable for use as fill during periods of wet weather.
We therefore recommend, that the project be planned to include importing granular structural fill for
backfill of walls and footings, and in utility trenches. However, the on site soils may be used for retaining
wall backfill in landscaped areas as described above.
We recommend that wall drainage backfill consist of free draining imported structural fill composed
of sand and gravel containing less than 3 percent fines (material passing U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve) by
weight relative to the fraction of the material passing the %-inch sieve. This material should be free of
debris, organic contaminants and rock fragments larger than 6 inches.
As a minimum, structural fill placed behind retaining walls supporting pavement or sidewalks, to
construct pavement or sidewalk areas, to backfill utility trenches and retaining wall footings, and to
support wall foundations should meet the criteria for common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3)
GeoEngineers 7 nle No. 2202-019-00\012204
of the current Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications.
Common borrow will be suitable for use as structural fill during dry weather conditions only. If structural
fill is placed during wet weather, the structural fill should consist of gravel borrow as described in Section
9-03.14(1) of the 2004 WSDOT Standard Specifications.
Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm. non-yielding condition. Structural fill
placed below wall foundations should be compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (per ASTM D 1557).
Pavement area fill, including utility trench backfill and fill to support walkways should be compacted to
at least 90 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1557), except for the upper 2 feet below finish subgrade surface,
which should be compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1557). Retaining wall backfill
should be placed and compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1557) using hand
equipment to avoid overstressing the walls.
Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 to 10 inches in thickness. Each lift
should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before
placing subsequent lifts. We recommend that a representative from our firm be present to perform
in-place moisture-density tests in the fill to evaluate whether the compaction specifications are being met,
and advise on any modifications to procedure which might be appropriate for the conditions encountered.
Temporary Excavation Slopes
All temporary excavation slopes must comply with the provisions of Title 296 Washington
Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The contractor performing
the work has the primary responsibility for protection of workmen and adjacent improvements.
We anticipate that unshared temporary cuts will be used along the east side of the proposed parking
lot. The stability of cut slopes is a function of soil type, groundwater conditions, slope inclination, slope
height and nearby surface loads. Oversteepened temporary cut slopes could impact the· stability of
adjacent work areas, existing utilities, and endanger personnel. All cut slopes and temporary excavation
support, if necessary, must be constructed or installed, and maintained in accordance with the
requirements of the appropriate local, state and federal safety regulations.
We recommend temporary cut slope inclinations of lV:ili:lV (horizontal to vertical) in the upper soft
topsoil (to a depth of 2 to 3 feet) and %H: IV in the underlying stiff to hard soil deposits encountered at
the site. Some areas of caving/sloughing of the cut slopes may occur at this inclination. The inclination
may need to be flattened by the contractor if significant caving/sloughing occurs.
Alternatively, shotcrete flashcoating may be used to control face stability. The need for flashcoating
should be determined when the cut slopes are exposed during construction. These cut slope
recommendations apply to fully dewatered conditions.
For open cuts at the site we recommend that:
• No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allowed at the top of the cut
slopes within a distance of at least 10 feet from the top of the cut.
• Exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion using waterproof tarps or visqueen or
flashcoating with shotcrete.
• Construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is
reduced to the extent practical.
GeoEngineers 8 File No. 2202-019.()()\012204
• Erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to
the extent practical.
• Surface water is diverted away from the excavation.
• The general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by GeoEngineers to confirm adequate
stability.
Since the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made
I
responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. The contractor should
take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of the workers near slopes.
Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes
We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed at 3H:1V, or flatter. Flatter slopes
might be considered for ease of maintenance.
Unprotected cut and fill slopes will be subject to erosion until a protective vegetative cover is well
established. Therefore, we recommend that slope surfaces be mulched and planted as soon as practical to
minimize the potential for erosion.
Appropriate drainage measures, as described below under the "Drainage Considerations" section of
this report, should be implemented to collect and control surface runoff and groundwater seepage.
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION
Subgrade Preparation
Parking areas, walkways, and access drive pavement subgrades should be prepared as described
previously in the Earthwork section of this report. 1n addition to these requirements, we recommend that
the prepared subgrade be proofrolled with heavy rubber-tired construction. equipment thoroughly prior to
paving to locate any soft or pumping soils. Proof rolling should be completed during dry weather only.
Probing should be used to evaluate the pavement or walkway subgrade during periods of wet weather. lf
soft or pumping soils are encountered, such unsuitable subgrade soils should be overexcavated and
replaced with adequately compacted structural fill. The depth of overexcavation should be determined by
GeoEngineers. Assuming that the pavement subgrade has been prepared and satisfactorily evaluated as
described above, a CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of 20 could be used for pavement design purposes.
Asphalt Concrete Pavement
1n light-<luty pavement areas such as automobile parking, we recommend a minimum pavement
section consisting of 2 inches of Class B asphalt concrete (AC) over a 4-inch thickness of densely
compacted crushed rock base course. In heavy-duty pavement areas (e.g., driveway entrance and
materials delivery), we recommend a minimum pavement section consisting of at least 3 inches of
Class B asphalt concrete (AC) over a 6-inch thickness of densely compacted crushed rock base course.
Thicker asphalt sections may be needed if the anticipated traffic loads and intended use are greater than
described above.
The asphalt concrete and crushed base materials, and placement and compaction requirements should
generally conform to the current WSDOT Specifications for Roads, Bridges and Municipal Construction.
GeoEngineers 9 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
Asphalt treated base (ATB) may be used in place of the crushed rock base course. Typically, the
design thickness of ATB is about one-half of the thickness of crushed rock base course. However, the
design thickness will vary depending on site-specific subgrade soils, traffic loads, and A TB mix design.
We can provide specific ATB thickness recommendations for the site if requested.
Portland Cement Pavements
We recommend that PCC supported on properly prepared subgrade be designed based on a subgrade
modulus of 300 pounds per cubic inch. Additional recommendations for PCC pavements are presented
below in the Entry Plaza hnprovements section.
CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING WALLS
General
The lateral soil pressures acting on cast-in-place retaining walls will depend on the nature, density
and configuration of the soil behind the wall. We understand that retaining walls will be required along
the east access road and a portion of the south side of the proposed parking lot. At this time, a cast-in-
place wall is being considered for this application. The base of the retaining wall will likely be located
within the dense sand or very stiff to hard silt/clay soils encountered in our explorations. It is especially
important that the wall subgrade soils are properly prepared. It is important that the exposed subgrade
soils be compacted to an unyielding condition. It may be desirable to place compacted crushed rock fill
to protect the subgrade and support the wall footing of a cast-in-place wall. Subgrade preparation may
also require a 1-to 2-foot deep overexcavation below the design bottom of wall, depending on exposed
subgrade conditions, particularly in areas where a wall transitions into an existing wall and the design
bottom of wall elevation may be located in fill associated with the existing wall. A GeoEngineers
representative should evaluate the exposed subgrade soils to determine the appropriate overexcavation
depth.
Lateral Soil Pressure
Cast-in-place walls will likely be used for the retaining walls along the east access road and a portion
of the south sides of the proposed parking lot. Cast-in-place retaining walls that are allowed to rotate
outward at the top (at least 0.001 times the wall height) should be designed for active earth pressures
computed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pct). This assumes that the
ground surface supported behind the wall is maintained at a slope of about 10 percent consistent with the
existing conditions. If the ground surface supported by the wall rises at an inclination of 3H: l V to 2H: lV
or the wall is restrained from rotating outward, then the wall should be designed using an equivalent fluid
density of 55 pcf. These values are based on the requirements that adequate drainage is provided behind
the walls, as discussed below in the "Drainage Consideration" section.
The recommended lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of surcharges such as construction
traffic or seismic loads. We recommend a construction vehicle surcharge equivalent to a uniform lateral
pressure of 75 pounds per square foot (psf) be applied to the full height of the walls for this construction
traffic surcharge condition. We also recommend that a uniform lateral pressure based on SH in psf, where
GeoEogineers 10 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
H is the wall height, be applied to the full height of the wall when taking seismic loading into
consideration. We further recommend that any other surface loads be considered as appropriate.
We recommend fill within 5 feet of the back of cast-in-place retaining walls be compacted to between
90 and 92 percent of MDD. Over-compaction near the wall should be avoided to prevent build-up of
excessive lateral pressures on the wall.
Footing Design
We also recommend that shallow foundations be founded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent
existing grade. The bottom of shallow foundations will likely be supported in the dense sands or stiff to
hard silt/clay soils encountered in our explorations.
Footings supported on adequately compacted native dense sand or stiff to hard silt/clay as
recommended above may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 psf for the total of all
dead and live loads. Footings supported on structural fill may be design for an allowable bearing pressure
of 4,000 psf. This value is exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. The
allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering wind or seismic loads.
Settlement
We estimate that post-construction settlements of retaining wall footings, if founded on undisturbed,
firm, and unyielding native soil or properly compacted structural fill extending to the undisturbed, firm
native soil, as recommended above, will be less than V, inch. We expect that differential settlements
along continuous wall footings will not exceed about 'A inch measured along 25 feet of continuous
footing.
Lateral Resistance
The available resistance to lateral foundation loading is a function of the frictional resistance that can
be developed on the base, and the passive resistance that can develop on the face of below-grade
elements. The allowable frictional resistance for shallow foundation elements may be computed using a
coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance on the
face of wall footings may be computed using and equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf (triangular
distribution) for structural fill. The above passive resistance applies if the soil extending out from the face
of the foundation element for a distance at least equal to two and one-half times the height of the element
consist of structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD or dense undisturbed native soil. The
above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density value includes a factor of safety of
about 1.5.
SOLDIER PILE AND TIMBER LAGGING WALLS
General
We understand that the retaining wall located at the southeast corner of the proposed parking lot will
likely consist of a soldier pile and timber lagging shoring system We also understand that a cast-in-place
retaining wall is not being considered due to the close proximity of existing utilities to the back of the
wall. We further understand that a concrete facing will be constructed in front of the lagging as a
GeoEngineers 11 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
permanent wall facing. A soldier pile and timber lagging wall system combines wide flange steel sections
embedded in concrete filled below-grade shafts, and timber lagging spanning between adjacent soldier
piles within the depth of the excavation. The concrete and steel section solider piles are typically
positioned at a center-to-center spacing of 8 feet or Jess.
As an alternate, the soldier pile spacing can be reduced to 6 feet on center and temporary lagging can
be eliminated within the dense/stiff soils encountered below a depth of about 4 feet in our explorations. It
will likely be necessary to place lagging in the upper portion of the wall excavation to support the upper
soils. This alternate system for temporary support is described below.
The wall system is typically designed to resist lateral soil loads by cantilever action through the
lateral restraint provided by the embedded portions of soldier piles. Additional lateral restraint can be
provided by tie-backs, if necessary.
The advantage of this wall system is that no mass excavation is necessary to install the wall. The
solider piles are first drilled into the existing ground, and the remainder of the wall is subsequently
constructed below ground with the solider piles providing soil restraint during construction.
Lateral Earth Pressures
We recommend that soldier pile walls be designed using the appropriate earth pressures based on the
final configuration of the retaining wall. The Earth Pressure Diagram presented in Figure 3 summarizes
the design parameters for a cantilevered, permanent soldier pile wall. Design of permanent shoring must
include potential surcharge loads from construction traffic as well as seismic loads. Figure 3 includes a
recommended uniform surcharge pressure for construction traffic of 75 psf. In addition, we recommend a
uniform lateral pressure based on 8H in psf, where H is the wall height, be applied to the full height of the
wall when taking seismic loading into consideration.
We recommend that the embedded portion of the soldier piles extend a sufficient distance below the
base of the excavation to provide equilibrium. We reconunend that the passive pressure be calculated by
assuming a rectangular distribution of 1000 psf and a triangular distribution of 400 psf which act over
2 times the soldier pile diameter or the soldier pile spacing whichever is less.
Cobbles and/or boulders may be present in the glacial soils. The contractor should be prepared to
address the presence of cobbles and/or boulders during construction.
Lagging
We recommend that the lagging be designed for uniform pressures equal to one-half the active lateral
earth pressures presented in Figure 3. This pressure reduction is based on a maximum center-to-center
pile spacing of 8 feet. If a wider spacing is desired, we should be consulted for revised lagging pressures.
Lagging should be installed between the soldier piles to retain the soils. Permanent lagging may
consist of timber or concrete. If timber is used, it must be adequately treated for protection against water
and biodegradation. We recommend that treated timber lagging be used to prevent rotting that can lead to
potential long-term settlement and loss of support behind the wall where utilities are present. Lagging
should be installed with a 1A-inch gap between lagging sections to allow for groundwater to flow through
GeoEngineers 12 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
the shoring system and to be collected by the drainage system installed in front of the lagging, as
discussed in Drainage Considerations section of this report.
We conclude that temporary lagging may be eliminated within the dense/stiff soils if the soldier pile
space is reduced to 6 feet on center or less. We recommend that the soils above the dense/stiff soil be
supported by lagging or laid back to a stable slope (about l-l/2H:1V). We also expect that the soldier
piles will be placed in drilled holes at least 2 feet in diameter that are grouted up to the level of the
lagging or cut slope.
Monitoring During Construction
We recommend that GeoEngineers observe the installation of the soldier piles and lagging during
construction to verify that the assumed design conditions are encountered during construction. In
addition, observations with respect to groundwater, excavation stability can be monitored to verify that
the conditions are as planned.
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH
We understand that MSE or segmental block retaining walls may be considered for the east access
road because they are less expensive than a cast-in-place wall and can easily be removed for future
campus expansions. GeoEngineers can provide the wall design plans and specification; however, this
type of walls can be designed by the wall manufacturer or contractor. If the wall manufacturer or
contractor provide the design, we strongly recommend that GeoEngineers review their plans and
specifications, to verify the design assumptions and construction details. The following paragraphs
include our general recommendations for MSE wall design.
The base of the retaining walls will generally be located within the stiff to hard silt and dense sand
and gravel encountered in our exploration. It is especially important that the subgrade is properly
prepared. Subgrade preparation will require a 6-inch deep overexcavation below the design bottom of
wall, compaction of the exposed subgrade soils to an unyielding condition, and placement of properly
compacted crushed rock fill to support the lowest course of block. The crushed rock fill placed at the
base of the wall should conform to WSDOT specification 9--03.9(1) for ballast or 9--03.9(3) for crushed
surfacing base course (CSBC). Based on our experience on other similar MSE retaining wall projects, the
drainage material behind the wall may consist of the same crushed rock fill as used at the base of the wall
or may consist of free-draining gravel that conforms to WSDOT specification 9-03.12(2) for gravel
backfill for walls. The reinforced fill behind the wall must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
MDD. The reinforced fill should consist of imported sand and gravel that conforms to WSDOT
specification 9-03.14(1) for gravel borrow.
The following soil parameters may be used in the design of segmental block walls for this project:
Soil Unit Weight, y Angle of internal
Soil Type/Location (pounds per cubic foot, pd) Friction,+ (degrees)
Wall Foundation Soil 120 30
Infill Soil 140 34
Retained Soil 120 30
Final design of the retaining walls should include an evaluation of the global stability of each wall.
GeoEngineers 13 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOUNDATION DESIGN
Based on the subsurface explorations completed near the existing footings along the north side of the
Rapid Care facility (HH-1 and B-4), we conclude that the footings are founded on very firm glacially
consolidated soil. The bottom of the wall footing is at about Elevation 77 feet. We expect that the
glacially consolidated soils below the footing can provide the adequate bearing capacity to support loads
on the order of 8,000 psf without appreciable compression of the underlying soil. It is our opinion that
wall footing subgrade can provide the desired bearing capacity for the increased loads from the proposed .
pedestrian bridge. Furthermore, we estimate that settlement that may be caused by the increase in load
will be less than \4 inch.
ENTRY PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS
General
We understand that improvements to the southeast entry to the Surgery Center will include hardscape
and landscaping improvements at the Entry Plaza. We have been asked to provide recommendations for
intercepting surface water the will flow across the landscaping toward the east building wall (basement
wall). The ground surface in landscaping area will slope gently toward the building. The details
regarding building backfill and foundation drains are not known, therefore an additional
interceptor/collector drain will be added to reduce the risk of water infiltrating along the basement wall.
ln addition, new Portland cement concrete (PCC) surfacing will be added at the entry plaza and our
recommendations for support of the hardscape were requested. Our recommendations are included below.
Interceptor/ Collector Drain system
We recommend that the interceptor/collector drain include a 4-inch diameter rigid, smooth-walled,
perforated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by a zone of washed drain rock that is wrapped in a
non-woven geotextile. A PVC membrane should be placed along the face of the basement wall and
extend below the zone of drain rock for a distance of about 4 feet to prevent water from infiltrating the
existing backfill located along the basement wall. The details of the recommended drain system are
shown in Figure 4.
Hardscape
We understand that the additional pavement at the Entry Plaza will consist of a 6-inch thickness of
PCC overlying 6 inches of compacted crushed rock. In our opinion, this section should be sufficient for
the anticipated lightly-loaded vehicles entering the facility, provided the subgrade soils are firm and
unyielding prior to placement of the pavement section. We recommend that the subgrade be prepared as
recommended above in the Site Preparation and earthwork section, and that a representative of
GeoEngineers observe the subgrade before the crushed rock is placed.
SEISMICITY
General
The Puget Sound area is a seismically active region and has experienced thousands of earthquakes in
historical time. Seismicity in this region is attributed primarily to the interaction between the Pacific,
GeoEngineers 14 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
Juan de Fuca and North American plates. The Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the North
American Plate. Each year 1,000 to 2,000 earthquakes occur in Oregon and Washington. However, only
a few of these are typically felt because the majority of recorded earthquakes are smaller than Richter
magnitude 3.
ht recent years, three large earthquakes occurred which resulted in some liquefaction in loose alluvial
deposits and significant damage to some structures. The first earthquake, which was centered in the
Olympia area, occurred in 1949 with a Richter magnitude of 7.1. The second earthquake, which occurred
in 1965, was centered between Seattle and Tacoma and had a Richter magnitude of 6.5. The most recent
earthquake, which occurred in February 2001, was centered in the Nisqually area and had a Richter
magnitude of about 6.8.
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Site Coefficient
The Puget Sound region is designated as a Seismic Zone 3 in the 1997 edition of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC). For Zone 3 locations, a Seismic Zone Factor (Z) of 0.30 is applicable. ht our
opinion, the soil profile at the site is best characterized as Type Sc (1997 UBC).
International Building Code (IBC) Site Coefficient
ht our opinion, the soil profile at the site is best characterized in the 2003 edition of the httemational
Building Code as Site Class C (2003 IBC).
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Construction Drainage
Depending on the time of year, we expect that shallow perched groundwater may be encountered
during excavation. We anticipate that this water can be temporarily handled during construction by
ditching and pumping from sumps, as necessary. All collected water should be safely routed to suitable
discharge points and should comply with all local and regional regulations for water quality before
discharging.
Wall Drainage
Cast-in-place Walls We expect that some of the retaining walls will support parking areas and some
will support landscaped areas. Backfill placed behind walls supporting pavement must be compacted to a
higher standard than walls supporting landscaping. We therefore reconunend that walls supporting
pavements be backfilled using imported sand and gravel. The on-site native soil may be used as wall
backfill where landscaping is planned and the areas are not settlement sensitive. The following
paragraphs present reconunendations for wall drainage for both situations.
Wall drainage when backfilling with native soil should include at least a minimum 12-inch thick zone
of free draining sand and gravel with less than 3 percent fines placed against the back of the retaining
walls. The zone of free draining backfill should extend from the base of the wall to within I foot of the
finish ground surface. The upper I-foot should consist of relatively impermeable on-site soil or be
capped with pavement to reduce surface water infiltration. A non-woven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi
140N, Polyfelt TS600, Trevira 1112, or other as approved by the geotechnical engineer, should be placed
GeoEngineers 15 nle No. 2202-019-00\012204
between the wall backfill and the retained native soils to prevent movement of the fine-grained soils into
the wall drainage system. A smooth-walled, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drain pipe at least
4 inches in diameter should be placed within the bottom of the 12-inch wide zone of free-draining gravel
at the base of the wall.
Wall drainage when backfilling with imported sand and gravel should also include a 4-inch diameter
smooth-walled, perforated, PVC drain pipe. However, the drain pipe should be located within an 18-inch
wide and 18-inch high zone of drain rock located at the bottom of the wall. The drain rock should be
enclosed (entirely wrapped) in a non-woven geotextile to prevent the migration of soil into the drainage
system. Backfill above this drainage material must consist of imported sand and gravel as described
above in the Structural Fill section.
The drain pipe should be connected by a tightline system sloped to drain to an appropriate disposal
point. The drain pipe should include clean-outs to access the pipe if maintenance is required.
The wall drainage pipes should be installed along the entire length of the wall and discharge to an
appropriate tightline collection system.
Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall We understand that a concrete facing will likely be installed over the
wood lagging for the soldier pile wall. A suitable drainage system should be installed to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic groundwater pressures behind the soldier pile and lagging wall. If timber lagging
is used, drainage may be accomplished by spacing the timbers with a vertical gap of approximately
'A inch. Strips of drainage material, such as Miradrain, should also be installed in front of the lagging.
The strip drains should be at least 24 inches wide and extend the entire height of the wall.
The space behind the lagging should be filled with free draining material as soon as practical. The
free draining material will help reduce the risk of voids behind the wall and provide additional drainage of
potential groundwater seepage. The free draining material should be well graded with no particle larger
than 1/4 inch nor smaller than the U.S. Standard No: 40 sieve. We recommend that strip drains be
connected to a drainage system installed along the base of the wall and that collected water be routed to a
suitable discharge point.
Surface Drainage
Permanent drainage systems should intercept surface water runoff at the top and/or bottom of cut
slopes to prevent it from flowing in an uncontrolled manner across the site.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center and their authorized
agents for the proposed Surgery Center and Site Improvements project. The data and report should be
provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions
and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions.
GeoEogineers 16 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance
with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this
report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.
Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document ( email, text, table, and/or
figure), if provided, and any attaclunents are only a copy of the original document. The original
document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
Please refer to Appendix C titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional
information pertaining to use of this report.
----· -¢-,----
We trust this report provides the information you require at this time. We appreciate the opportunity
to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us should you have any questions concerning our
findings or recommendations, or should you require additional information or services.
KGO:JJM:ab
SEATc\OO\Fioa!s\220201900R.doc
Attachments
Two copies submitted
Copyright 0 2004 by GeoEnginecrs, Inc. All rights reserved.
GeoEngineers
Yours very truly,
17 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
:;;
'!-
E
§
0,
0
N
0
N
N
!
/
0
0
/
0,
.. -
46
25
/Tukwila
I
i
' I
•
..
I -I< -~
~
(J
-~~ -sh--,::!!----:-=:"!!:.-....=-~ --.....;;..------... --: ~--=
0
.. Kd
·:.Z-~.-~ ·:l ------... -~-..:;::: -:-_.-~..--.----· .... ... ~~~~ -...-.~...-
-VALLEY
MEDICAL
CENTER
2000
..
4000
SCALE IN FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 25 FEET
0
N Reference: USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle mop "Renton, Wash." revised 1994. ~1-----------......... -----'T"'-----------------------1 N
/ a:
8 GeoENGINEERS a VICINITY MAP
Ear1h &:lance+ Tecb,oklgy FIGURE 1 "' ... ____________________________________ ..
""" ~
N
N
'-
0
co
;i!
5
I
:ii -, -,
l
~
0
0,
~
0
N
0
N
N
"b
c)
6
0 ,;;
~
0
N
0
N
N ,:.
0..
§'
U)
' I
f I
I
',,
',
'
-....._ . I ..... '..... __ ...J
. I
I
I
I
I
I
',
';
I
I
~. f;:..~ ' ,/~··· t:'
\0
/
. I ;, ,, .1 .
J !\ I . ~ .d j
I ~ -
----_____ ._..__::
-
-----~"---------------
---------·-·---
I
I
I
SURQE8Y CENTER
'PP ---------------------------------./
Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown ore approximate.
2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features
discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data
sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may hove been updates to the
dato since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of o master document. The master hard
copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
Reference: Drawing entitled "Valley Medical Center, Expansion Project, Site Paving & Grading Plan·
dated 12/19/03 by N88J.
•
.·•.
I
RADIATION
ONCOLOGY
BUILDING ·/--~
,' , i
,. ; ,::C· . /
: 1-::. I ,: .::, I
('i,0~ ,'
,' 0 / \
/ C:::, I / ,, ~I,
,' 0 /
Q:-I
I ,. ,.__ I /&I / ......,
. '! ,' ::!
(115)1 / ·:, , :
/
1/ I,'/
J 'I ,' ,' , -___;-p20/,
, I
:/ • .' / i
. . ,. ·1 I. , 5 ' ' ' ' . . ! : 1' ,' ' f , I I '.
::'\ . ' ' . ' '0 I , . /• , ..... ' ''
-:::: , I ' I . / : ; ; '
! : . / .. I , l' . ' • I: ,.-//
0
GEoENGINEERS Q
Earth Science + Technology
EXPLANATION:
HH-1 4' HAND HOLE
8-1 1--BORING & DEPTH
(25')
i
N
I
50 100
SCALE IN FEET
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2
D
" 0
" <O
" 0
:'5
I
:,; .., ..,
0
3::
0
a,
0
0 a,
0
N
0
N
N
'b
<( u
6
0
/ a,
0
N
0
N
N ,:.
[L
~ w
(/J
RECOMMENDED EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
FOR CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE WALL
H
2'
400
1 c:2--+-------f
Passive Pressure
NOT TO SCALE
EXPLANATION:
H HEIGHT OF EXCAVATION, FEET
D SOLDIER PILE EMBEDMENT FEET
Active Seismic
Pressure Pressure
Notes: 1. Passive pressures are assumed to act over 2 times the
h:~~
Construction
Traffic
Surcharge
soldier pile diameter or the soldier pile spacing, whichever is less.
2. Active earth pressures assumed to act over pile spacing.
3. Passive pressures include a factor of safety of 1.5.
GEoENGINEERS a
Earlh Science + T eohnology
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
FIGURE 3
(Il
~
"' -, -,
0
0
I
a>
0
-z. •• -3" .
0 F WASl,le:D
1<oc K e. e:L.Ov.'.I
P~PE
-4 FT
t FT
TOP'SOLL-
L!k'.£LY
'FOUNOATIOH DfZA>'i'-1
Noc:t::-S: r
I, WASHE:.D ROCK SHOULD r1£ET WSDOT SEC. 9'-03.rz(s')i
"G.e>-ve: L BAc.icFu .. L Forz. DQ'f we:LL s" &i APP(a;v€0 !
£:2.QUI I.Jki.-eN'(.
2:. Wl2AP WASHED QQCIL u.J1-rb-l NDf:'1-WDv:eN Gw-rt:XTIL'E; :.I.·
M112.At=""r 1-"\0N ~ o(<' APf'l2'.:>VED £.QLJtVA.LB,rr :
~. rnP~RHEA ~LE l3,A-.12'!21e:e :SHOULD 6 e t:.O MJL
'PVC ('PoND L1NEJZ.)) CJ\ APP0JVE'D BS)v1VAl-€.lv1
Lf, 'PEt2-FoaA-raD PtPE Sr+oULO Bti "'1· INCH P>AnETz::::e..
f21tc1D, SnoatH-WAt...LeD PVC,
c!.1---------------------------------1 0
N
N GEOENGINEERS CJ
Earth Science +Technology
INTERCEPTOR/COLLECTOR DRAIN
FIGURE 4 ~ <J)._ _____________ ...1, _________________ _.
GEOENGINEERS Q
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were evaluated by completing four borings (B-1 through
B-4) and two hand holes (HH-1 and IDI-2) on December 31, 2003 and January 9, 2004. The borings
were completed using track-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling equipment owned and operated by
Boretec Inc. The borings were completed to depths ranging from lOV. to 26V. feet below ground surface.
The two hand holes were completed to depths ranging from about 2 to 4\/z feet below ground surface.
The hand holes were completed by a geologist from our firm using hand equipment. Locations of the
explorations were determined in the field by measuring distances with a tape from existing site features.
The locations of explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.
Representative samples were obtained of each soil type encountered in the borings using a 2-inch
outside diameter split-barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The sampler was driven into the
soil a total of 18 inches using a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of about 30 inches. The
hammer was operated using a rope and cathead system. The number of blows required to drive the
sampler the last 12 inches, or other indicated distances, is recorded on the boring logs.
The borings and hand holes were continuously monitored by a geologist from our finn who visually
examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed surface and
groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. Soils encountered were visually
classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the
boring log symbols is presented in Figure A-2. The boring logs are presented in Figures A-3 through
A-6. The hand hole logs are presented in Figures A-7 and A-8. The logs are based on our interpretation
of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. They also indicate the
depths at which the soils or their characteristics change, although the change might actually be gradual.
The densities noted on the boring logs are based on correlation to the blow counts. The densities noted on
the hand hole logs are based on the difficulty of digging and our judgement. The ground surface
elevations presented on the exploration logs are based on topographic information included in Figure 2.
The borings were backfilled in general accordance with local regulatory requirements.
GeoEngineers A-1 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL
GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL
COARSE GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED More Than 50o/1
SOILS of Coarse Fraction GM SIL TY GRAVEL
GRAVEL
Retained WITH FINES
on No. 4 Sieve GC CLAVEY GRAVEL
SW WELL-GRADED SANO, FINE TO COARSE SAND
.
SAND CLEAN SANO
More Than 60% SP POORLY-GRADED SAND 0
Retained on
Mora Than 60% SM SILTY SAND No. 200 Si&V8
of Coarse Fraction SANO
Passes WITH FINES
SC CLAYEY SAND
No. 4Sieve
ML SILT
FINE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC
GRAINED CL CLAY
SOILS Liquid Limit
ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
Less Than 50
MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
More Than 60% SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC
Panes CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
No. 200 Sieve
Liquid Limit
ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
50 or More
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT
NOTES; SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
1. Field classification is baaed on vi&ual examlnatlon of soil in D,y. Absence of moistun, dusty, dry to the touch
general accordance with ASTM D2488-90.
2. Soil classiflcation using laboratory tests la in general Moist-Damp, but no visible water
aeeordance with ASTM D2487-90. Wet• Vlslble free water or saturated, usually soil ls obtained from below
3. Descriptions of soil density or consistericy are based on watertable
interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils,
and/or test data.
GEoENGINEERS {iJ SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
FIGUREA-1
f:\soila-1.doc
o'.
" §
~
el
i
I
~ g ..
00 g
LABORATORY TESTS SOIL GRAPHICS
AL
CA
GP cs
DS
GS
%F
HA
SK
SM
MD
ST
TX
UC
Atterberg limits
Chemical analysis
Compaction
Consolidation
Direct shear
Sieve Analysis
Percent fines
Hydrometer analysis
Permeability
Moisture content
Moisture and density
Swelling test
Triaxial compression
Unconfined compression
BLOW-COUNT
Blows required to drive sampler ~
12 inches using a 140-pound 1s
hammer falling 30-inches
[I
DJ
-----
SM Soil Group Symbol
(See Note 2)
Distinct Contact Between Soil
\1....___;S:..:ctra'-'-'-'ta'------------
Gradual or Approximate
Location of Change Between
\~.,,S-=o"-il ..,,S"'tr-=a=ta,__ ____ _
Approximate Location of
_ _ _ _ Change Within a Geologic
'~ _l.!.nit __________ _
Measured groundwater level
Groundwater encountered
during drilling/exploration
Perched water encountered
during drilling/exploration
Bottom of Boring
SAMPLE GRAPHICS
Location of sample obtained in general
accordance with Standard Penetration Test
(ASTM D-1586) procedures
Location of SPT sampling attempt with no
recovery
NOTES:
1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Log Symbols and the exploration logs for
a proper understanding of subsurface conditions .
2. Soil classification system is summarized in Figure A-1.
::; ~~=======================================~ ~ KEY TO LOG SYMBOLS ~1----------------,.--------:---:----,-,--,------------1 ~ J!""j Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements
!N GEOENGINEER~ ProjectLocation: Renton.Washington Figure:A-2
Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 of 1 N~-------------_...JL,..,;..;.;;.,. _____ ;..;_ _____ ;..;_ ____________ =::::..:..:::.;,....,
~
b
" N
Date(s) 12/31103 Logged RNM Checked JJM
Drilled By By
Drilling Boretec Drilling Hollow Stem Auger Sampling SPT
Contractor Method Methods
Auger 3 114 inch I.D. Hammer 140 (lb) hammer/ 30 (in) drop Drilling EC-55 Track-mounted Rig
Data Data Equipment
Total 26.5 Surface Approx.107 Groundwater
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft) Level (fl bgs)
Datum/
System
SAMPLES
C:
g
1 ~ OTHER TESTS 0 "O ~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION "' a
15 l!'
0 AND NOTES £ ~ ~ ~ " c.15 -t =E .... >-c.-I .0 > " " :c ::, -§,
" a, a, " E 0 >' £ C. :, .c .e 'E [i~ 0 .s! u e g> e[ ?!' 'CV
1: :, ~ 0 ., 0
z Cl'. iii CL.J C) (/) ;J::o ";;:: 0 ML Dark brown sandy silt, trace roots (soft, moist) (topsoil)
-"
-" .
;
-;; ML " Grades to dark brown sandy silt with occasional gravel .
(medium stiff, moist) --
5-
11
.,.. -
-12 9 ~ CL Brown sandy clay with gravel (stiff, moist) 19 AL -~ -.
"
;
/ / CL-ML Gray silty clay (hard, moist)
10-
12
' --
18 33 I, [/1, . ~ vi/ " f/1, .
" I/I/ " .
. I/ I/I/ ~ .
I/ I/I/
I/ 1,1, ~
I/ ' '
15-
13 I ~! I--
1B 25 ~ Grades to very stiff, no gravel content 13 AL
. .
. f/1/ .
I/
20-
14
/ 'I/ --
6 73 / 'I/ Gravel in shoe . / ,1, _ With gravel, grades to hard
I/ I/I/
I/ I/I/ -
I/ I/I/
I/ I/I/
I/ ' '
I/ ~~ 25-
) s r --
. 18 52 With occasional gravel
Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
LOG OF BORING B-1
GEOENGINEERS CJ Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements
Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure: A-3
Project Number. 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 of 1
N
" z
~
~
"
Date(s) 12/31/03 Logged RNM Checked JJM
Drilled By. By
Drilling Boretec Drilling Hollow Stem Auger Sampling SPT
Contractor Method Methods
Auger 3 1/4 inch I.D. Hammer 140 (lb} hammer/ 30 (in) drop Drilling EC-55 Track-mounted Rig
Data Data Equipment
Total 26.5 Surface Approx. 106 Groundwater
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft) Level (fl bgs)
Datum/
System
SAMPLES
C
0
ii >-., a,
I ~
,s _ to} ~ ! 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _ :.,~ 'e:
o.., -., ~ .c > u, .,... :Ea. a. 2 -::d~ ..
OTHER TESTS
AND NOTES
iii~ ~ E8 -"~ ::,E S!c ..... 0 ~ ,! ::, a> _ ~ ~ gi E >. m o ~·16
0 +c=--.!z:J-"°'=+-'.,"'-+-">::..+.:;C>:..:...1;,.+-'(!):;c;;cn"-<.-,.,...-.-,----,-....,,-,-,----:--,--~--a--cs=--=-+:;::::..:u::+o=:;:::+--------~ ML Dark brown sandy silt, trace roots (soft, moist) (topsoil) . --
-
~"' ~ CL Grades to dark brown sandy clay with occasional gravel . (stiff, moist) -
5-)1 .
.
10-]I 2
.
.
.
15-13
.
.
.
20-:a 4
.
.
18 27
3 50/6"
12 91/9"
5 5015"
CL
GM ~,
)
' ~:\= ~ CL
_ Brown sandy clay with gravel (very stiff, moist)
-
Gray silty gravel with sand (very dense, moist) -
.
_ Gray clay with gravel and sand (hard, moist)
.
-
I ~ SPM-SLM Gray fine sand with silt (verv dense, moist)
_ Gray sandy silt (hard, moist)
.
• ~ · · SP·SM . Gray fine sand with silt (very dense, wet)
25-, -
_ 5 14 87
Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
LOG OF BORING 8-2
-
_ 14
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_ 10
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
AL
AL,GS
!1-----------------.-P-ro-je_c_t_: ----S-u-rg_e_ry_C_e_n_t-er_a_n_d_S-it_e_l_m_p-ro_v_e_m_e_n_t_s _____ _
~ GEO ENGINEERS CJ Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure: A-4 I Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet1011 ._ _______________ _._--'-----------------------'='-'-'='---'
Date(s) 12/31/03 Logged RNM Checked JJM
Drilled By By
Drilling Boretec Dnlling Hollow Stem Auger Sampling SPT
Contractor Method Methods
Auger 3 1/4 inch I.D. Hammer 140 (lb) hammer/ 30 (in) drop Drilling EC-55 Track-mounted Rig
Data Data Equipment
Total 11.4 Surface Approx. 96 Groundwater
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft) Level (ft. bgs)
Datum/
System
SAMPLES
'2 ' C: """ ,; OTHER TESTS 0 " 0 > MA TE RIAL DESCRIPTION *-a!1 ~ £ e f! ~ 3 .2 "E "' -AND NOTES
>-a.-m " " a.15 C: -.0 > ffi .c e a, :, -§, "'"' <I) a, i E 8 3' a. :, .0 .Sc m~ 0~
:, " 0 <O ~ O> eE .. 0 1:-.;
C: z er: iii s: <!JS <!J 1n S:o, os= a ,,~ AC ~ 2" asnhaltic concrete . 0 GP-GM 1-Gray fine gravel with sand and silt (medium dense, .
~~ ~ ML ~ moist) /fill) r .
f-Dark brown sandy silt (sti~ moist)
. " . ~ CL Gray sandy clay occasional gravel (very stiff, moist)
5-
)1
... -
10 19 e . 13
. ~ "
. " . ~ " ~~-SM ~ Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel 10-
) 2
.. -.. (very dense, moist) 15 90/11" ...
e .
N Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
LOG OF BORING B-3
GEOENGINEERS Q Project Surgery Center and Site Improvements
Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure: A-5
Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheel 1 of 1
.
.
N
"' z
ls
~
w
C>
Date(s) 12/31/03 Logged RNM Checked JJM
Drilled By By
Drilling Drilling Sampling
Contractor Boretec Method Hollow Stem Auger Methods SPT
Auger 3 1/4 inch I.D. Hammer 140 (lb) hammer/ 30 {in) drop Drilling EC-55 Track-mounted Rig
Data Data Equipment
Total 10.3 Surface Approx. 80 1 /2 Groundwater
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft) Level (rt. bgs)
Datum/
System
SAMPLES
'2 1=
C: --;; 0 1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION "'-"' OTHER TESTS
0 > a
~ "
0 AND NOTES £ l :;; " ~ ..J .11 o.:S
.., "' ->-o.-~ > L .c: Li CE
(I) .. .. (I) E 8 ~ ~ Q. => E " -:, "' -.. Cl ,!! e! "'
-c i!;;; w_
:, " e >, .. 0
C z a: a, ,: (!) .3 (!) (/) ,: (.) o.:
0 0~ AC ,-.... 2" Asnhalt concrete ~
·.·:-GP-OM r\ Gray brown fine gravel with sand and silt {mediwn r
:·: :. · SM ,.. dense. moist) (fiJI) ,
<:: Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium
. .-: . " dense, moist) .
. ML Gray silt with sand and gravel (hard, moist)
5-]1 --18 64
--
--
. --
10-~, '
___ ,, --
Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
LOG OF BORING 8-4
GeoENGINEERS (J} Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements
Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure: A-6
Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 o/1
w
Date Excavated: 12/31/03 Logged by: ____ RN=.:.°"M,_ __ _
Equipment: ___ ___,_H""an=d-'Tc=oo=ls'-----Surface Elevation (ft)_· _...,A__,_p"'p"'r.,,ox"'."'8'-'l'---
C:
0
~ >-Q) Q)
-Q) w-
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
mL ~1;D~ark!!!Lbg1ro~wnrusl!!an'!!d!l'..!vse!i 1!,l _.!Jtre1aecec,r!:,OO!!!bltsl.!-l~so!!!!.".!Jm!!lo!!ist'!"L' "~IO!?J'°'!!l'°'!l!!.il)/----
o -h GP-GM Gray fine to coarse gravel with sand and silt (medium dense,
.
.
5-
.
.
.
-
10-
-
-
-
-
0 moist) (fill)
0 <
0
0 <
0
0 <
0
0 <
0
0 <
0
0 <
-~
-
ML Grav silt with sand and crravel fvetv stiff. moist)
Concrete foundation at 1.5'
Bottom of concrete foundation at 3.5'
Boring completed at 4' on O I/09/04
_ No groundwater encountered
-
15--
Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
LOG OF HAND BORING HH-1
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
OTHER TESTS
AND NOTES
" Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements ~ GEoENGINEERS Q ProjectLocation: Renton.Washington Figure:A-7 j Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 011 ''-------------....L..-'-------------------....;;;;.;;.;.;.;.,.;;.;...,
5
" N
N > w
"
Date Excavated: 12/31/03 Logged by: ·RNM
Equipment: Hand Tools Surface Elevation (ft)· AQQTOX. 81 1/2
:. !i: .0
C E w OTHER TESTS 0 " MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ~ a ~ ,:; z c' AND NOTES " " <.> "" . >-c.-a.o c-
}~ -:.E -" ::, -§, " " " <I> $ a. ".0 " --" o.& e[ 1ijC ~oi w-m I" 8' m m :;: ;;:8 o'l: 0 UJ UJ CL, Cl UJ
,.~ Dark brown sandy silt, occasional gravel and roots (soft, moist)
: ~ ;-
ltonsoiJ)
GM Gray to brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand, trace roots
. -' -(medium dense, moist) -
' Becomes wet at I .5'
"I'" , ) .~
-~'-' Concrete foundation at 1.9'
Boring completed at 1.9' on 12/31/03
Perched groundwater encountered at 1.5'
-
-" -
5---
--
. " -
. " -
. " -
10-I--
--
-
--.
. --
15---Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
LOG OF HAND BORING HH-2
GEOENGINEERS Q Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements
Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure: A-8
Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 of 1
GEOENGINEERS a
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTING
GENERAL
Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and examined to
confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples.
Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing consisting of moisture content determination,
sieve analysis, and atterberg limits determination. The tests were performed in general accordance with
test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other applicable procedures.
The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Figures B-1 and B-2. The results of the moisture
content determinations are presented on the exploration logs at the respective sample depth in
Appendix A.
MOISTURE CONTENT TESTING
Moisture contents tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative
samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in
Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained.
SIEVE ANALYSES
Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The
wet sieve analysis method was used to determine the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200
mesh sieve. The results of the sieve analyses were plotted, classified in general accordance with the
USCS, and presented in Figure B-1.
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTING
Atterberg limits testing was performed on selected fine-grained soil samples. The tests were used to
classify the soil as well as to evaluate index properties. The liquid limit and the plastic limit were
estimated through a procedure performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The results of the
Atterberg limits testing are summarized in Figure B-2.
GeoEngineers B-1 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
2202-019-00 JJM:YA:Jrs 01/09/04 (Sieve.pp!)
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
G)
3" 1.5'' 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 m 100 0 m 90
.. _ z
" ~ 80 '~ -z ' (!) m ' [iJ 70 'lo.
m :s: ' :::0 >-\.,.
~ co 60 '\. ~ 50 Cf) t ' Cf) I i ! it 40 I
~ 30
~ 20
10
en 0
iii 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 < m
!! > GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMErERS z
G') > C: ~ :a m en
m iii GRAVEL SAND ' :a COBBLES SILT OR CLAY ... m COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM FINE en
C: r
-f en SYMBOL EXPLORATION DEPTH SOIL CLASSIFICATION NUMBER /ft\ • B-2 15.5' Gray silty sand (SM)
2202-019-00 JJM :CTS :jvj 1-10-04 (Atterbergs.ppt)
G) I PLASTICITY CHART
m
0 60
m )/
z ...... ······
Ci'l 50
.....
·•····• -z / ..••.. -····I
m m
CH orlOH
:x, X 40 ..•.. ···
w
~ C
-~··················-········· ~
~ 30 (.)
F
Cf)
I :s I !/ i ..... _ ... ···· y I OHi or MH
o. 20
~ I I I I " f ~., I I I 10 I ~ / ·
MLlorOL m :u m m :u
(;)
0-l'---+---+---+----+----+----1----+----+---l----l
"T1
i5
C :u m
m
~
C
:i:
~
-I m
~
:u m
(/J
C
~
SYMBOL
• f •
0 10
EXPLORATION
NUMBER
B-1
B-1
B-2
B-2
20 30
SAMPLE MOISTURE
DEPTH CONTENT(%)
6.0' 19.2
16.0' 13.3
6.0' 13.6
16.0' 9.6
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT
LIQUID PLASTICITY
LIMIT(%) INDEX(%) SOIL DESCRIPTION
31 11 Brown clay (CL)
22 6 Gray silty clay (CL-ML)
26 8 Light brown clay (CL)
22 7 Dark gray clay (CL)
GEOENGINEERS 1/J
APPENDIXC
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE
APPENDIXC
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1
This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this
report.
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES,
PERSONS AND PROJECTS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Valley Medical Center and their authorized
agents. This report may .be made available to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating
purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the
subsurface conditions. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein
is not applicable to other sites.
GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a
geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a
construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project.
Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report
is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive
use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to
such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended
liability claims by third parties with which there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with .
our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this
report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one
originally contemplated.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE
SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS
This report has been prepared for the Surgery Center and Site Improvements Project located at the
Valley Medical Center Campus in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique,
project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and rel'ort. Unless
G~oEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Finns Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org.
GeoEngineers C-1 File No. 2202-019-00IOJ 2204
For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure;
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure;
• composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the
opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or
confirmation, as appropriate.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE
This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was
performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by
manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods,
earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying
a report to determine if it remains applicable.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS
Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced
sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data
and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout
the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those i.ndicated in this
report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the
subsurface conditions.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL
Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These
recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional
judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or
liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation.
Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations. to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the
work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in
accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this
project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
GeoEngioeers C-2 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT COULD BE SUBJECT TO
MISINTERPRETATION
Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You
could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans
and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report.
Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by
providing construction observation.
DO NOT REDRAW THE EXPLORATION LOGS
Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their
interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other
design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that
separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
GIVE CONTRACTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE
Some owners and design profes.sionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated
subsurface c1;nditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems,
give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly
written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers
and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-
bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study.
Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while
requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and
schedule.
CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY ON THEIR OWN
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods,
schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for
managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties.
READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY
Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices
(geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science
disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to
disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions
GeoEngineers C-3 File No. 2202--0!9..(](1'012204
in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these
"Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site.
GEOTECHNICAL, GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE
INTERCHANGED
The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly
from those used . to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a
geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic
concerns regarding a specific project.
BIOLOGICAL POLLUTANTS
GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention, or
assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants in or around any structure. Accordingly, this report
includes no interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions for the purpose of detecting,
preventing, assessing, or abating Biological Pollutants. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is
not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts.
GeoEngineers C-4 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
~ ,;
!
i
~
I
§
~ g
I s
I
i
~ • ~
!i
8
J
" E
~ • ~ •
" ~
~
e
i
!
j
I
~
w
8
~ u:
CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE
TO C11Y STANDARDS
-------Dote __
-------Dote
Dote __
•.. ,,,
··p .
'' ·~.
·.• ' 'I ~ ', '1\ ~ i t '\}
\ ;.,;.::r
\ ·.. :-·t
\;;:w::
::. . ....
d
i\
; .
' I .;.---,.~ \ t
. ,;,,, ;.: .\ S'
\
:_;.:
,,,
MAGNUSSON I
KLEMENCIC_
ASSOCIATES •
-+CW'-"-" QI01ftll,,__ __
--.....9'1G1.2fft
UOUfl!l:l()D>,-ffll:tOI
::w ;11;~·--.. .,
;•f.
..,, ~. , .... ~,.,,·
'"ct'.l:~~-
CONTAINMENT VAULT
FOIHIJEL-'STORAGE TANKS, -. -. ,
SEE STRUCTURAL a MECHANICAL ~1,j-0, •
-"!>'.'•
-..-.>
,L
NO. REW-llON "' DA.TE I APPR
... -...
/_l;~'.·.~,f~l_ ,:::·~~'.:f~~;:~')'f1?~>,,, .;> .f:; /P, ~ ~-~~~ ~ .. 0 --~-q ·1~ ·-:..-:;,~n;,:.~_,.,~ :,--·~j.u;.J
!/ !? tr,,;~rt!'~;Il
...-.,.=,~ ,s SHOWN ~ ..,;_; I --
!
/
I
~
i
I
·•~ " a,:~ / ,.~., .. :-•::o .,.,,~ ,.
CITY OF
RENTON
Planning/Bulkli11:9/Publlc War1111 Dept.
:.w.~ .. ,,,,-,;,
I
NOTES:
1. SEE stEET C1. 01 Fo:t GENERAL tm'ES, lEGEM) AN) ABBREVIATICNS.
2. SEE SHEET Cl. 02 FOR SITE MO PAVING NOTES.
20
$Cde
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
C/Ty OF RENTON
0
'UL 2 5 2006
CEIVED
20 "' lij * ii "''
VAllfY MEDIC.AL CENTER l""•/29/l)O
EXPANSION PROJECT
SITEAND PAVING PlAN ~(, I =•
lJ.
i
~
1
! g
I s
~
i
ta
§
8
" " g
~
1 a
" " 'I
i
&
~
i
~
I
I
~ ..:
CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE
TO Cl"TY STANDARDS
----~--Dot, --
-------Dot,
Dot,
''"'" N 164,554.74
E 1298~1M5
RIM• 10.64
IE 30" =
S1llll4
N ·1641470.5J
E 1,2911,31~11
RIM= lJ.29
IE."~o" •
'~.!
~;-t ,.
""" 3
\ '·.
'• t
\ \ ..
r'' •'\('"
\:\'!.
,,\i)t
'
N 164~17.26
E1298.321.05
RIM"• 15.15
IE>O"•
.. . , __ .. :t . ,
;\ ·,;iw: ,, .~·
:,; ·J_,,"'
.\......--
i
.... ·.,~!'t."R s;s,:.,.,,:;~ --.
I"!' .. :,:,.1 '-')-.. -, ...
.--•. ~!) <.·. ·: ... f T~ ·:,\~ ,
-··-'~·-~ C.' N --164,470.50
/ E 1,298,373.36
-RIM·· 73.25,
IE 6" =
\'~ .;.\·r-. .\ .:, --•• l_ .. -.
•,: I \
i~.\\ ·>\ ,$9\\ \
\O•~
_.,~ \ ---)
"-1~· ..
'.1,.. m....t.i
-.:, ,:·~':r ~ . .\' , .. ;.l,·;1 1,ll
'.'1 ~ \\ \;._\..\. · 4 I ,./1 \ I
':\ '1', j'l \ \ \' '\'· ...... ,:
\\ ,!-l& ' 1\-\'1
' ' I ' "•I\\\ 'I \\ ··i\ \ •.J;--"-<. liA-•1, \. , -c<e1,,~·
:\\\ 1111 ! \ "I<. • '\~·' I, I 1--•=·· '.\\ ! I'\ . Lt··,.--, --.
'r .\ 1•'\ --,,\ N~10.oe~
,• ·~' . ---1' ,.,., E /f;
·1~' ~· .:-'•' ·' .., ·, m ~-
112
,\ ., ., ~---'• . \\\ I [\t "• --~Ifs s
\
~ ,. \ ,, :1 10· ~ J , ,;,.. ... ~ \ ! ' ~ ,! , ' • " ...,.,,,_,
1•\•\ \l,t 1 .' · \ ~ '.l .-, ', ·-·--
\, \ 7~11 I\• ' \•'t~-:,J/~ ! \__ \' . \ l •I } \ ' --I ~,..,,f.._fl,.\ C(ffi TO EXIST SOMH
1
.i\ ! \ 1 \.....-_.,. .... , 1 1 • ·t}-i\::._~ IE , , >\1111, \ \ ,\\ ,•"'"'" IE:n'A , \. ~ \\11 \ I \ \ \ \---/ -....___ ,I;~ ,_ ,,
Ii
i l' , \ 11t , ,,h '<...~,
\
I' \ I ' ' I • I • '
I
1' \' ' ' 0 I \ ' .:'~ '
~
-A, ,, ,--~ . -• ---------:,,. --I , \"1, l ,·f'"[--1t_..-,--~· -,,~ 7_'' -~ ~ \$._/\~~I ,~'
\ ." . ' . ' . '
', \j' ' ~· L ; IA_ ~ t I " P, i\ \t,\f
1
, I~ ",,,. I .l., ?}~1;: ,'oh
·!., t; 'f :1 I ; }'" f "}~/' .. • "\Iii! f' \L l I i-6' ,i' •.-!-"' ---11--~ ..... . :-"" .. _ J, \, t_ )\\ -\~,;, ,-"'r·-·
,•.-1 ' -'ii 11 \ \ ,-.._ I \. I .,· •• l~
MAGNUSSON I
KLEMENCIC_
As.socr ... ns •
"'--'+CM ........ 1301_..,,_ __
---te1D1-2M7
f:2'06ffllfflf,tol'ffll:iol
i fiiiiija,kri i NO. RE.VISION
/_:"
•;u:,,.
, •.• r.r,::,,;
.. __ /
-/
--:...:--'", ./~E:·': --·.,,..i;------,,.·~.-c -;;-:; ~: /. Ii.~-;.~;);'
!-";",
... -... .,.
BY DATE I APPR
" . .---: ·--·-----
,-,,.,:_.~~ ....
.~w. ·i'<~7 -
·1.:!., !"•,'",")". •
~=-~
~
I
!~ /a~
i
~
/
CITY OF
RENTON
• I
Phinnlng/Buildlng/Pubk, WOM Dept.
NOTER
1. SEE SHEET Cl. 01 FOR GENERAL. NOTES. LEGENJ N4J A88REVIATIONS.
2. SEE SJ£ET C1.02 FM STORM DRAINAGE NOTES.
20
""' .... • 20
1.--;,o'
VAllEY MEDICAL CENTER
EXPANSION PROJECT
STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
40 -feet
9/29/05
02.41
11
=
~ !
0 ..
N ~~ UQ
0
sa: ~
5z ~
!~ g
iii 1 ;~ ,..
:~~:{;•
·\
'
.. ;--
i
-+
~t; ;~1 ~Ill ~ ~ 0 "'"
18 r--.,.N "'::h, ~~I.I.I
~~= ~t~ .. ~-;; .,;~~ •i!i V a:>t-• • i!!.t'!,,~ ii t~,o,o ~ .. I!! ............... ---..... :;-x
:z LL.I !:!:!!:!:! zwc• -_, Z I.LIC3: zwc;;s,
,:. :~:,
mo:irn~
·,
ii
~ 1~~: H. HJ~ !' ~ iH
-(·
zu· o-~ ~u~ ~z :>"'• z:::.<
t:J"'
~;;;!
'
300:)311~
!i
I
0 ~
I
t:l" .,;
!! ~
I I
l'i ~ ~
~ !j
ti ti
.. i §
II: :
C
~ , ~ \ Ii -·. ,.,:'.'\ .. r-//··'. .
,,
~-
' ::~·
;,C O•
' a.ii
i ~
<C ~
?:C: ;f f§
fiq ~!# ......
~"-"" 5:0
O{: s ate ..., ::,
f!j N
0
.:
I ~
~ I
& .:s -
..
~!;i -.,
N tjg ~
5; 1t
@o i ::;a;
• ~~ 0
" "'
1l
&
~~ j
,-1-I 1-Z _w
<.> oc
I' .,
2
d~ q ~
! ~u !1
0 z
~ jlh Ji!
HJi r s tH
-~
zuo o-!:c: cnug .,,z~
=i~..-. z <
~~