The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscTECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Proposed Harper Engineering Building Expansion 700 S.W. 7th Street Renton, WA 98055 Prepared for: Harper Engineering Co. 700 S.W. 7th Street Renton, WA 98055 March 28, 2014 Our Job No. 16585 .;, 11:-·.J.'·,,·~::. u:·._;1310·-\J CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA • SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 -Vicinity Map Figure 3 -Grading and Storm Drainage Plan 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS (SEE TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT DATED MARCH 8, 2011) 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES N/A 7.0 OTHER PERMITS N/A 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, AND EASEMENTS N/A 10.0 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS N/A APPENDIX "A" STORM CALCULATIONS APPENDIX "8" TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT DATED MARCH 8, 2011 16585.001.doc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project site is approximately 2.21 acres in size located on the northwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Seneca Avenue S.W. within the city of Renton. More particularly, the site is located within a portion of the southwest quarter of Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, city of Renton, Washington. The site is fairly triangular in shape with a large curving side located along the northern property line of the site, which is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. S.W. 7th Street forms the project site's southern boundary and there is an existing development located east of the project site. This is a redevelopment project currently consisting of an existing building and associated parking lot and landscaping areas. The proposal for this development is to modify the existing parking lot and landscape area to expand the existing building. An area of existing asphalt pavement will be removed for the building expansion with areas of landscaping also being removed to modify the existing parking lot. The total area of impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic will be slightly reduced with this project. There is already an existing conveyance system located on the site that routes all stormwater runoff into a detention vault sized in accordance with the 1990 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCWSWDM) in March 2001. Please refer to the grading and drainage plan located in this report for an explanation of how the site will be configured under the new developed conditions. This project site is not increasing the amount of impervious surface by more than 5,000 square feet and as it will also decrease the amount of impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic, there are no modifications proposed to the detention vault located in the center portion of the project site, which discharges into S.W. 7th Street. Pursuant to the 2009 KCWSWDM, a project is exempt from new flow control facilities if the project will result in less than 0.1 els increased flow from the existing site conditions. Calculations are included in this report showing that this will be the case; however, flow control BMPs will still be required and will include the use of pervious pavement and perforated downspout drains. As mentioned previously, minor modifications will be made to the conveyance system and, as such, pipe conveyance calculations have been provided showing that both the proposed and existing pipes are sufficient to convey runoff from the project site to the existing detention vault. The Technical Information Report for the original parking lot development and subsequent redevelopment are attached herewith in Appendix A. Please refer to that document for how the on-site facilities were sized for this project. The total increase in impervious surface with this project is 411 square feet= 0.010 acre, with a net decrease of impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic of 5,175 square feet= 0.066 acre. 16585.001.doc FIGURE 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Harper Engineering Co. Phone------------ Address 700 S.W. 7th Street Renton WA 98055 Project Engineer Costa Philippides Company Barqhausen Consulting Engineers Inc. Phone (425) 251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivision / Short Subd. / UPD [8J Building Services M/F I !Commercial I SFR D Clearing and Grading D Right-of-Way Use D Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review Full / [argeted! (circle): Large Site Date (include revision March 28, 2014 dates): Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Haroer Enaineerinn Buildinr Expansion DDES Permit# --------- Location Township 23 North Range ~5~E=a=s~t ___ _ Section -'1""8'------ Site Address 700 S.W. 7th Street Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFWHPA 0 COE404 D Shoreline Management D DOE Dam Safety D FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Structural RockeryNault/ __ D ESA Section 7 D Other __ _ Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): Full / !Modified! I Small Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard / Complex I Preapplication / Experimental I Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Annroval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1 1/1/09 16585.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes I~ Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan : Green River Valley Special District Overlays:---------------------- Drainage Basin: ~G=r~e,.e,_,_n .,_R"'iv.,,e""r ________ _ Stormwater Requirements: Part 9 ON SITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS D River/Stream --------- 0 Lake D Wetlands _________ _ D Closed Depression ------- 0 Floodplain _________ _ D Other ___________ _ Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Woodinville Silt Loam D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Other D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 2 D Steep Slope _______ _ D Erosion Hazard ______ _ D Landslide Hazard ______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard------'--- 0 Seismic Hazard ______ _ D Habitat Protection ______ _ o __________ _ D Sole Source Aquifer D Seeps/Springs Erosion Potential 1/1109 16565.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT D Core 2 -Offsite Anal)lsis D Sensitive/Critical Areas D SEPA D Other D D Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or descriotion\ Green River Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Dischan::ie at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: 1 Offsite Analysis Level: 11Ji2/3 dated: March 19, 2001 Flow Control Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number 1 (incl. facility summarv sheet) Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Vault Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: TBD Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: IPrivatel / Public If Private Maintenance Loa Reauired: Yes I No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / No Liabilitv Water Quality Type: ~ I Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscaoe Manaaement Plan: Yes I No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Requirements Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control (comm./industrial landuse) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Type: CDA / SDO / MOP/ BP/ LMP / Shared Fae. / ~ Name: Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Blaod Elevation (or range): Datum: Describe: Describe landuse: Describe any structural controls: 3 1/1/09 16585.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes I~ Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Oraina~e Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION D Clearing Limits [8] Stabilize Exposed Surfaces D Cover Measures D Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities [8] Perimeter Protection [8] Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure D Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities [8] Sediment Retention D Flag Limits of SAO and open space D Surface Water Control preservation areas D Other D Dewatering Control D Dust Control D Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS /Note: Include Facilitv Summarv and Sketch) Flow Control Tvne/Descriotion D Detention D Infiltration D Regional Facility D Shared Facility [8] Flow Control Ex. Vault BMPs D other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Water Qualitv D Biofiltration [8] Wetpool D Media Filtration D Oil Control D Spill Control D Flow Control BMPs D Other 4 Tvoe/Descriotion Ex. Vault 1/1/09 16585.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS D Drainage Easement D Cast in Place Vault D Covenant D Retaining Wall D Native Growth Protection Covenant D Rockery> 4' High D Tract D Structural on Steep Slope D Other D Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Sianed/Dato 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 5 1/1109 16585.002.doc FIGURE 2 VICINITY MAP t i!I ~ HARPER ENGINEERING BUILDING ADDITION VICINITY MAP -~ __,---=----- ......... F-_j~- ti -=·-~, NTS BCE JOB NO. 15011 FIGURE 3 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN I • I- I- I- I- I (/) (/) I ll.. ll.. ll.. ' j ' l s ' I 0 " I 1."'J I I I I I g 20 L ' r I 22.3 \ / I I \ ' ) \,I ' ' [X, ASPHALT PAVEWENT NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT / ,/EX 22 LF f 12· SD ~ EX3 LFI ~ EX RIM= . 9 1£=14.98 (15• N) EX a• ---R1i.i~21si· 1t=1S tr (15" 5) -/£=f52,!J·(IS"·N)'· =!5.t 2· 0 C ...,;.\ 21.; sd,.~ I 23.61 ' = , CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOAKS GRADING/PAVING PLAN HARPER ENGINEERING ADDITION --"---MT!! 03(19(201~ 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: This project is a minor redevelopment of a currently developed site and will not change the current discharge location of the existing storm system. Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: An off-site analysis was performed for this project site during the original development and is included in Appendix B of this report. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: This project is seeking an exception for flow control pursuant to Section 1.2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the KCWSWDM pursuant to the attached calculations the improvements proposed for this project will not increase the 1 DO-year storm discharge by more than 0.1 cfs. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance system for this site will meet all requirements for conveying the 1 DO-year storm event. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: Erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with the 2009 KCWSWDM will be instituted on this project site so that catch basin inserts will be used to ensure that no sediment laden water will enter the existing storm system. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project will concur with all maintenance and operations requirements of the City of Renton for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: This project will concur with all financial guarantees and liabilities requirements of the City of Renton for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: As the proposed project will actually decrease the amount of pollution generating surface by 5,175 square feet, the existing water quality feature will provide the needed protection. 16585.001.doc 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Response: There are no known other adopted area-specific requirements associated with this development. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: This project is not in a known Flood Hazard Area Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project does not meet the threshold of this requirement. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: This project will provide source control measures where required. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This project is not a high-use site nor is it a redevelopment project proposing improvements to an existing high-use site; therefore, the threshold of this requirement is not met. 16585.001.doc 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS (SEE TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT DATED MARCH 8, 2011) 3.0 OFFSITE ANALYSIS 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS See Technical Information Report dated March 28, 2014. 16585.001.doc 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 5.2.1.3 of the 2009 KCWSWDM, Flow Control BMPs must be applied to the targeted impervious surface (411 square feet of new impervious surface). Also, 20% of the target impervious surface area must have a Flow Control BMP applied. This project is proposing perforated downspout pipes on the new roof drains. 16585.001.doc 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The entire site was previously analyzed for conveyance capability utilizing the modified rational method as required in the 2009 KCWSWDM for sites less than 10 acres in size with a 100-year precipitation of 3.9 inches, an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes, and a Manning's 'n' value of 0.014 (all pipes conveyed the flows contributing to them). Since the proposed development will not increase the impervious pavement area by any significant amount, the previous pipe sizing was used for the new pipe runs. 16585.001.doc 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Not applicable. 16585.001.doc 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 7~ OTHER PERMITS Not applicable. 16585.001.doc 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Since this is a redevelopment project and there is less than 1 acre of area that will be disturbed on this project site, required erosion control measures will be at a minimum. Since mostly impervious surface will be removed and replaced almost immediately, the only proposed erosion control measure to be followed on this project site is to utilize catch basin inserts for the new and existing catch basins proposed for this development. The TESC/demolition plan clearly indicates the area to be demolished and disturbed for this project. Please refer to that sheet for the proposed erosion control measures to be utilized with this development. 16585.001.doc 9.0 COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, AND EASEMENTS 9.0 COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, AND EASEMENTS Not applicable. 16585.001.doc 10.0 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS 10.0 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Not applicable. 16585.001.doc APPENDIX A STORM CALCULATIONS Existing Conditions (Pre) Asphalt = Landscaping = Totals = Proposed Conditions (Dev) New Asphalt New Building New Landscaping Totals FLOW CONTROL SIZING CRITERIA FOR THE AREA OF REDEVELOPMENT 8,929 SF 1 240 SF 10,169 SF = = = = = = = 3,754 SF 5,586 SF 829 SF 10,169 SF 0.205 Acre 0.028 Acre 0.233 Acre = = = 0.214 Acre 0.019 Acre 0.233 Acre 16585.001.doc KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac 16585existing.tsf 1. 00 Computing Series Regional Scale Factor : Data Type : Reduced Creating 15-minute Time Series File Till Grass Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTGlSR.rnf 0.03 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI15R.rnf 0.20 acres Total Area O • 2 3 acres Peak Discharge: 0.256 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:16585existing.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:16585existing.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16585existing.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Project Location : Computing Series Regional Scale Factor : Data Type : Creating 15-minute Time Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:16585existing.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Sea-Tac 16585dev.tsf 1. 00 Reduced Series File Till Grass Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTGlSR.rnf 0.02 acres Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI15R.rnf 0.21 acres Total Area 0.23 acres Peak Discharge: 0.262 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:16585dev.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:16585dev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16585dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:16585dev.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command exit KCRTS Program Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16585existing.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.098 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.068 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.191 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.078 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.105 5 10/28/04 16:00 0 .111 4 10/27/05 10:45 0 .133 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.256 1 1/09/08 6:30 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.256 1 100.00 0.990 0.191 2 25.00 0. 960 0.133 3 10.00 0.900 0.111 4 5.00 0.800 0.105 5 3.00 0.667 0.098 6 2.00 0.500 0.078 7 1. 30 0.231 0.068 8 1.10 0.091 0.234 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16585dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.102 6 8/27/01 18:00 0. 071 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.197 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.082 7 8/23/04 14: 30 0.109 5 10/28/04 16:00 0 .115 4 10/27/05 10:45 0 .139 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.262 1 1/09/08 6:30 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.262 1 100.00 0.990 0.197 2 25.00 0.960 0.139 3 10.00 0.900 0 .115 4 5.00 0.800 0.109 5 3.00 0.667 0.102 6 2.00 0.500 0.082 7 1. 30 0.231 0. 071 8 1.10 0.091 0.240 50.00 0.980 APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT DATED MARCH 8, 2011 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Proposed Harper Engineering Building Expansion 700 S.W. 7th Street Renton, Washington Prepared for: Harper Engineering Co. 700 S.W. 7th Street Renton, WA 98055 January 4, 2011 Revised March 8, 2011 Our Job No. 15011 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72NDAVENUESOUTH KENT,WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782FAX BRANCH OFFICES + OLYMPIA, WA + SACRAMENTO, CA + TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 -Vicinity Map Figure 3 -Grading and Storm Drainage Plan 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 3.0 OFFSITE ANALYSIS (SEE TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT DATED JULY 6, 2007) 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES N/A 7.0 OTHER PERMITS N/A 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, AND EASEMENTS N/A 10.0 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS N/A APPENDIX "A" STORM CALCULATIONS APPENDIX "B" TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT DATED JULY 6, 2007 15011.001.doc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW I 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project site is approximately 2.21 acres in size located on the northwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Seneca Avenue S.W. within the City of Renton. More particularly, the site is located within a portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willarnette Meridian, City of Renton, Washington. The site is fairly triangular in shape with a large curving side located along the northern property line of the site, which is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. S.W. 7th Street forms the project site's southern boundary and there is an existing development located east of the project site. This is a redevelopment project currently consisting of an existing building and associated parking lot and landscaping areas. The proposal for this development is to modify the existing parking lot and landscape area to expand the existing building. An area of existing asphalt pavement will be removed for the building expansion with areas of landscaping also being removed to modify the existing parking lot. The total area of impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic will be slightly reduced with this project. There is already an existing conveyance system located on the site that routes all stormwater runoff into a detention vault sized in accordance with the 1990 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) in March of 2001. Please refer to the grading and drainage plan located in this report for an explanation of how the site will be configured under the new developed conditions. This project site is not increasing the amount of impervious surface by more than 5,000 square feet, and as it will also decrease the amount of impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic, there are no modifications proposed to the detention vault located in the center portion of the project site, which discharges into S.W. 7th Street. Per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, a project is exempt from new flow control facilities if the project will result in less than 0.1 cfs increased flow from the existing site conditions. Calculations are included in this report showing that this will be the case. However, Flow Control BMP's will still be required and will include the use of pervious pavement and perforated downspout drains. As mentioned previously, minor modifications will be made to the conveyance system, and as such, pipe conveyance calculations have been provided showing that both the proposed and existing pipes are sufficient to convey runoff from the project site to the existing detention vault. The Technical Information Report for the original parking lot development and subsequent redevelopment are attached herewith in Appendix A. Please refer to that document for how the on-site facilities were sized for this project. The total increase in impervious surface with this project is 1,097 square feet = 0.025 acre, with a net decrease of impervious surface subject vehicular traffic of 2,643 square feet=0.06 acre. 15011.001.doc I FIGURE 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN 1v[ANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Harper Engineering Co. Phone-----------~ Address 700 S. W. 7th Street Renton WA 98055 Project Engineer Costa Philippides Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone (425) 251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivision / Short Subd. I UPD [:I Building Services MIF / !Commercial! / SFR D Clearing and Grading D Right-of-Way Use D Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review Full I [argeted! (circle): Large Site Date (include revision Janua!Y 4, 2011 dates): Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Harner Eni,ineeri1rn Buildin, Expansion ODES Permit# _________ _ Location Township 23 North Range ~5'-'E=a=s~t ___ _ Section ~1=8 _____ _ Site Address 700 S.W. 7th Street Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFWHPA 0 COE404 D Shoreline Management D DOE Dam Safety D FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Structural RockeryNault/ __ D ESA Section 7 D Other __ _ Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): Full / !Modified! I Small Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard / Complex I Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual l/l/09 15011.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / lf0 Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: Green River Valley Special District Overlays:------------------------ Drainage Basin: ~G=r=ee=n~R=1~·v=er~--------- Stormwater Requirements: Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS D River/Stream --------- D Lake D Wetlands----------- D Closed Depression _______ _ D Floodplain----------- D other ___________ _ Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Woodinville Silt Loam D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Other D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 2 D Steep Slope --------- D Erosion Hazard _______ _ D Landslide Hazard ______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ D Seismic Hazard -------- D Habitat Protection ______ _ o __________ _ D Sole Source Aquifer D Seeps/Springs Erosion Potential 1/1/09 15011.002.doc i(!NG COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT D Core 2 -Of/site Anal)'sis D Sensitive/Critical Areas D SEPA D Other D D Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Green River Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: l Offsite Analysis Level: 11Jl2/3 dated: March 19, 2001 Flow Control Level: 1 / 2 I 3 or Exemption Number 1 (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs .. Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Vault Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: TBD Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: rPrivatel I Public If Private, Maintenance Loq Reauired: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes I No Liabilitv Water Quality Type: ~ I Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscaoe Manaaement Plan: Yes / No Special Reaulrements (as applicable} CDA / SDO / MDP I BP/ LMP I Shared Fae. / ~ Area Specific Drainage Requirements Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control {comm.lindustrial landuse) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Type: Name: Type: Major I Minor / Exemption I None 100-year Base Blood Elevation (or range): Datum: Describe: Describe landuse: Describe any structural controls: 3 1/1/09 1501 l.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHfNGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / 1t!Q1 Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION D Clearing Limits l?3J Stabilize Exposed Surfaces D Cover Measures D Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities [?3J Perimeter Protection [?3J Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure D Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities [?3J Sediment Retention D Flag Limits of SAO and open space D Surface Water Control preservation areas D Other D Dewatering Control D Dust Control D Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS /Note: Include Facility Summarv and Sketch) Flow Control Tvne/Descriotion D Detention D Infiltration D Regional Facility D Shared Facility l?3J Flow Control Ex. Vault BMPs D Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Water Quality D Biofiltration [?3J Wetpool D Media Filtration D Oil Control D Spill Control D Flow Control BMPs D Other 4 T"ne/Descriotion Ex. Vault 1/1/09 15011.002.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS D Drainage Easement D Cast in Place Vault D Covenant D Retaining Wall D Native Growth Protection Covenant D Rockery> 4' High D Tract D Structural on Steep Slope D Other D Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Signed/Date 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 5 1/1/09 15011.002.doc FIGURE 2 VICINITY MAP I + ~ HARPER ENGINEERING BUILDING ADDITION BCE JOB NO. 15011 VICINITY MAP NTS FIGURE 3 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN ~1.~.111.1 (/) I 0... 0...1 z 0... 0 ' ij ' ' a ! ! ~ 1 ! 1 I E z ~~~ C, e:: !:i! ffi 0) :E w~I 1~5 a: R l¥i II:! a: ~ I i. • 0 >"< z ~ Oo j E-< " :><z ~ ~~ a: u~} :i;i m, l 7,1 £ • ~ l,l I ii ~ 1!~ 11 . ~ ~ :1· ! ,, •! !lil1/ili I I I I i • ~I l 1:1 :, ·~ 0 ~I Iii II 0 § • ~ • @ • ~ ! nTr.+1 g • 0 ,0 r'"''l.~J·· 1111 ~-~ 111 ... ii 20 40 ''1@ff¥6~~~,,..,:1 _ , \. !e \·· \ \\. / \\ 20.7 'oN .... \, ; '• , , ·: \\,: , ;D----, ·\-... I I "' I 120~ i \_, ! I I I ·, / ~.\ I I I I : •i I i !, _____ _.._ ) / 24.l / 22.J \ EX. ASPHALT PAVEMENT NEW ASPHALT P!I.VEMENT / ,- 24 . .3 / 22.a / / / 21.7 ~'0S~?i~!ktl£ld) NEW PEiMOOS A-SPHALT PAVEMENT 22.61 2j.07 GRADING/PAVING PLAN HARPER ENGINEERING ADDITION SW 1/4 SECTION 18, lWP. 23 N .. ROE. 5 E, W.M. 2J.29 ,-11 : ':'.:.11 1 ~ " ---" I 2).41 2J.67 23 _9 , t·i 2.3.96 .-,, g ! ~:: C "-< -1' 1,,,~. ~ <t: C. 1 "') I Ii ,. I II ' FENCE ENCROACHMENT 11 ------~-. 2-·-------~--iM. I ~ j __ il------11 =--=-=------;;,;=.:;.:;;; ---:_165c,,--4__ __ V_ ~.od 1 p, ____ ,_., ___ _ IATCH EX.-.. I t-X dl ~; I ~-~;;:; 7 {1~" wJ{To Bf lm!MO) f : :: . _ .-·--1: ... ,e.'!.6 /12" y.. H EX. 60 Lf \2" ~o · ;" . -----,-,-------.:· ~--ir ·--·==,!f"'J"'"~"'~"!!l=="', i::•=========-========cN,1 ,~-. . j , ,, I JEX 5C U' 11 SO T -'/lr' ,..,,_ ,; 1 4ll Ii I . X 11 Lr ' / II . . . ""==-'-~ , -;·· • II I _u_,1~· ~c, ......,--t -/ II /'EX. l2 L, ,,-.c.··==aca-.. =~, ,~,.~rev .~n, . .l-... (/) I 1- II " " " " . ;:-~ i NEW " I {TO Bf, REMOVED AFTER Ntw :: STORJ! HAS am1 INSTAU£D) ButLDINO, I _-- 22.1 • jl --ADDITIONri(X .. 97 U' JI 12·. so Ff=-22.2± 1 (TO' BE REMOVEO AFTER NEW MATCH FINISH FLOOR I ST0RL4 HAS B££N INSTAil.ED) CRACE AT ONGRADE II DOOR LOCATION fl I " . " " ·I " " I " " " -I fl,f-6" -- EX. BUILDl~G FF-22.2± "" c:u "- w w 11 1~~~ :1 11~ 1 1 r'.I 11 , 1 a: 1! -~~"Tu_,,, ii !1 i II Ii . 1-lc"iiD"l I ' I 1 1 II 11 11 1 II . 'Ll 1-11 I II I ----· ,. ,, ' I I ~Ii I (f) ' i' I I OI v; I • ' ii ii : I <.ill :'° t· • •• -j F i1 • • fl • < bli 0, f-., ____ :1 __ "_ 60.Lf~ :f"'~'-":_==.c::: ·]" I 1l 112f)k, ·1 :E._ JI 12"" SD ,) . i' 11 ~ ] ~ Ii t--1, __,.ill' ------:: 1: : ~ 111 :: 1:"--~· :: :: : I 11 l :: , -r·lt ... -1' :1 / II I~ I · II · , 1J 11 1 t'J II l1 ·-·---·--·-i I I r--. II I -I · I I t . ..i. £" ' I. if I CTI Ii O (f) drt_:L.~;i -__ ::_t:."_soc~ ,i :q I I I :: ,t ~::~~.fX] 7 ,I I I ii , ,~ ~ ---.I ' '· : ,w II 9 ,..., ~. ,,, ,I l"I I 1· ,,."' :Bil I 111~,; 11:S ;! --~ _) /; ~ : 11 s:: "L6n90!:DL'd 11' LLroE01gg ·oti J3d .,,.J\~, ll-· : -_1 -__ ~I_''_ . I ---AlNO 8 T:IJlJYd SSOil::lV ONV lJJ/10 ________. :: : , , :1 j , ·1r63 :JNl>IHVd ~ SS3H:H/SS3HD~ll c-6 11 1 I ,: -, I\ . I • ,._. ii ,,{I I I I I I I "i~I I " ;~ ;; i 'll!f!T 1 . ---_-.. 1.L~_:: .1.: , -' I~/ ~Wt--l-J_i·,,~, _' o· \ --·-/ // JI / '~ I [ .:.:, ----· II ;' '.:°': ~ / / -7;77"/ / /~ ' , . " / ,,, ·-.. _-/ II/ /n0,Qf , e 'f I II CY • \,) 1 _ -------~j:,-"" / / e-'. -8 -""· ,, Ii :i: p;-:: ' ' ---. _ _.,,: C ,/{,{ / C / C /CA /c /c / C '() \ :-,tti :: ~~· : ;: \ t f 1 · j ~ ,, ' ' t1 ·)·: < u; I \ \-l \ : -::,,~J -'-~ ~'-~---~-\ \ '",<.,, "-...._ ~, -""" "'\ J-r:\ i ·· • II ---n,",C'-~ ''-,, ~'~--\,\ ___ ® '%,__ -" ___ ---~-'-, "-_, ~-'·, __ "_ I ii'_'',/ _1/-:: _,,.. VJ '--. 2" --......~~ \ "is "'-. · ~ , -............~ ·r 'o LJ 11..i ~u 1.u i ......_ 24,2 ~-· . • =-'"~-~-•-\,,, " ·, • '-/ 1 • => <-<'-11e ''<i'. z n_W ~<0• -.._ . J<-.""",\ .....,. '._ S ...__0 f ll:'.61i' 0 ;:,_3 22.9 1 S01'2110W 115.02 I II 1 ci::2~! \ , ~-.o .~~ '_ ~ _ _ , -(,mco'"moR) J1 " " :,,ug, ~-~ -· ~.3. ·· ' l 11 Nvi--....f-. -__::;~:.----=--·----~--.-_----llc~~--~-,~:----=--=----==;.-=--=---:-=---=..:=-=,=:--J. '_::_u'1i,_&i_:i ~ / ...:..:..:__~~:~-·,------·------------·---·--.!!!!!!lt.~n1t:0:ft=fl~-.,..___----· . ::i._., ! , "· . GAS PIPELINE MARKER, • ...--..§: I ~-'!< ,-.-:Jr- SE<X>MIENDED FOR......,,,AL "------ "------ "------ Cl-ECKEi) FOR COl,FlJANCE TO CITY STANDAR)S I Delo I I l)Qta I °''' """""" HARPER DlGJNEERING 700 SW 7TH S1REEf RENTON, WA 98057 -"""""' ll4RGH,J.JJS£N CONSULTN<l ENG!N&RS 18215 72ND ,I.VENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 fA)( CONT.Al:T: DAN BMJJEU.I lt/~~G,HA(J<?\ • C i ! "to ~-'1~ 'i,~.q,. 1Nq ENGl,i. CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS """"'ce DIAWN Q: GRADING/PAVING PLAN HARPER ENGIN_EERING ADDITION OAT!; 12/21/10 _ ~~- CHeC!<S) .DJS.L_ -Fa.DllOOJ, ---L'><<ClO'I Cl lc"!<JC ""'"'' ---· SHEET_g~Cf'- 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: This project is a minor redevelopment of a currently developed site and will not change the current discharge location of the existing storm system. Cora Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: An off-site analysis was performed for this project site during the original development and is included in Appendix B of this report. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: This project is seeking an exception for flow control per Section 1.2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Manual as per the attached calculations the improvements proposed for this project will not increase the 100-year storm discharge by more than 0.1 cfs. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance system for this site will meet all requirements for conveying the 100-year storm event. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: Erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual will be instituted on this project site so that catch basin inserts will be used to insure that no sediment laden water will enter the existing storm system. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project will concur with all maintenance and operations requirements of the City of Renton for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: This project will concur with all financial guarantees and liabilities requirements of the City of Renton for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: As the proposed project will actually decrease the amount of pollution generating surface by 2,643 sf the existing water quality feature will provide the needed protection. 15011.001.doc 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Response: There are no known other adopted area-specific requirements associated with this development. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: This project is not in a known Flood Hazard Area Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project does not meet the threshold of this requirement. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: This project will provide Source Control measures where required. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This project is not a high-use site nor is it a redevelopment project proposing improvements to an existing high-use site. Therefore the threshold of this requirement is not met. 15011.001.doc 3.0 OFFSITE ANALYSIS 3.0 OFF SITE ANALYSIS See Technical information Report dated July 6, 2007 15011.001.doc 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS Per Section 5.2.1.3 of the 2009 KCSWDM, flow control BMPs must be applied to the targeted impervious surface (1,108 SF of new impervious surface). Also, 20 percent of the target impervious surface area must have a flow control BMP applied. This project is proposing 1,600 SF of porous asphalt, which is more than required. In addition to the porous asphalt, this project is proposing perforated downspout pipes on the new roof drains. 15011.001.doc 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The entire site was analyzed for conveyance capability utilizing the modified rational method as required in the 2009 KCSWDM for sites less than 10 acres in size. A 100-year precipitation of 3.9 inches, with an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes and a Manning's "n" value of 0.014, all pipes conveyed the flows contributing to them. 15011.001.doc PIPE CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS JOB NAME· HARPER ENGINEERING JOB#. 15011 FILE NO. 15011-100.XLS A= Contributing Area (Ac) C: Runoff Coefficient Tc= Time of ConcentraUon (min) I= Intensity at Tc (In/hr) d= Diameter of Pipe (in} L= Length of Pipa (ft) D"' Water Daplh at Qd (in) FROM TO A EXCB7 EXCB6 0.18 EXCB6 CBI 0.06 CB1 CB2 0.15 ca, CB3 0.14 CB3 EXCB9 0.10 EXCB9 EXCB10 0.63 EXCB11 EXCB10 0.27 EXC810 EXCB1 0.16 EXCB5 ESCB4 0.14 EXCB4 EXCB3 0.04 EXCB3 EXCB2 0.09 EXCB2 EXC81 0.17 EXCB1 EXMH1 0.05 0.96 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.62 1.67 4.19 0.97 1.05 1.04 5.92 0.36 15011-100.xls BARGHAUSEN CONSUL TING ENGJNEERS-PIPE FLOW CALCULATOR using lhe Rational Melhocl & Manning Formula KING COUNTY DESIGN FOR 100 YEAR STORM NOTE: E1'.'TER DEFAULTS AND STORM DATA BEFORE SEGlNN!NG DEF AUL TS I C: 0.91 n-0.014 d= 12 Tc=-6.3 Qd= O&sign Flow (cfs) Of= Full Capacity Flow (cfs) Vd: Velocity at Dugn Flow (fps) Vf: Velocity at FuD Row (fps) a= Slope of pipe(%} 11= Manning Roughoess Coefficient Tt= Tra11el Time at Vd (min) l d Te n 50 12 •. , 0.014 40 12 M 0.014 49 12 6.9 0.014 "' 12 7,2 0.014 "' 12 7,5 0.014 200 12 7.8 0.014 65 12 6.3 0.014 31 15 67 0.014 60 12 6.3 0.014 22 12 6.7 0.014 " 12 6.8 0.014 25 12 7.1 0.014 36 15 6.8 0.014 C 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.45 0.45 0.75 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 COEFFICl_l:NTS FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD "lr"-EQUATION STORM Ac s, 2YR 1 58 0 56 10YR '" 064 PREC!P,. 3.9 25YR J.66 0.'05 ·~ 2.61 SOYR 2 75 0.65 Br= 0.631 100YR 2.51 063 SUMA I A'C I SUMA¥C 0d Qf Qd/Qf =======; ===:;,; 0.18 0.16 0."16 :.'I.HJ "' 324 0.160 0.24 0.05 0.22 3.11 0.€7 196 0,343 0.39 0.08 029 3.02 c.aa 196 0.450 0.53 0.07 0.36 2.93 ,06 U)6 0,541 0.63 0.05 0.41 2.85 1.Hi 1.96 0.592 1.26 028 O&l 2.73 ~ :33 2.GC 0,740 0.27 0.20 02(! 3.19 [!65 4 27 0,151 016 0.14 1 04 26" 2 70 12 27 0.220 0.14 0.13 0 13 3.19 fi40 3.2fi. 0,123 0.18 0.04 0 10 ~OB 0 50 3 39 ll.147 C.27 0.08 D 24 ?..C-5 ~ 74 3.37 0,220 0.44 0.15 0.40 2 9B 1 i7 "' 0,146 0.05 0.05 '" 2 SH :Hl3 :i.60 1.064 Page 1 Did D VI Vd Tt 0.268 3.21 4.13 3.01 0.28 0 405 4.65 2.49 '" 029 0.471 5.65 2.49 2.45 0.33 0.524 628 2.49 2.54 0.32 0.553 B.63 2.49 2.59 026 G.640 7.'38 3.32 3.63 0.92 0.261 3.13 5.45 390 0.36 0.316 4.74 10.C1 SDO 0.06 0.239 2.B7 4.15 2 79 0.36 0.2!xl 3.09 4 ~2 3.07 0.12 G 316 3.79 .ol.30 3 43 0.33 0.25G 3.08 10 25 7.26 0.06 0.8£12 13.39 2.93 3 :i2 0.18 PIPE CONVEYANCE BASIN MAP f- f- f- f- I (/) (/) I (L (L (L ¥ ' T I ' -ll 1 ~ ~ Q z Q~~ ~ £!~£! ~ WR!~ a~~ j !g!z wr--w 0.. a: a: <( J: 1f C i:..z ~ Oo ~ ~~ ~ i-,,:~ ~ u~ g- l IC 1 ~ ·l~~ !~ ~ ~~ ;~ :1 ti: i ' I ', I,, "· 1° I' 1"' ;:. I ,_rnl 1lli f ! 11 ~ ' 'C I i-1 - -11-! 6 I : i 11 I , I ' , I I i z I i I ~ I ~ , I ~ I 1 ' ' ITT' ····-1-: i U) ~· ' '.__lJj z ' 0 I /~'fl J' r ·l,·1/ f: ':: ':C/ •,:.:··-,·· . ',;!:;~:;; J I l'i ,(;1 ("'' l' I i'l'i. :11 ~,I· ,, I , !..,~ ,, " " i ' ,, ~ Lt<>' ~ ' , -./,. :.,--, '1 • J "' ,_. ,°i: /··~-..:'.' \2~;:~ -;).·;_--\ ~ ~ I . ~: <:-- )"'( I j _:..,_! .-.,.-·. 22.~ I ···j •,_.::_,./·- I I 1' :/ I/ I I · f I ~ I ;I I I ,· ti ',' "· '~.;:, ·'' · .. _'~'·>., '\··· ~r~-:-__.-1-~ .. ""-'~-=-t_~L_~--~ -~--;t~ n_--_:~---- "_ l_ ltUc·1-/ EX. ASPHALT PAVD.«EHT NEW ASPH/\LT PAVEi.i~! '1 \ .i}:,'.) -.,;;;., \ I GRADING/PAVING PLAN t-: :-::-'( ,'.( 11'.'[r} 1 HARPER ENGINEERING ADDITION SW 1/4 SECTION 18, TWP. 23 N, AGE, 5 E, WM. I • ;, -· --lL~~ -=~ J;~-~ ~ .. -~~-~~-f, 4 ~~..:...~ '..1---.c;~-- "::fr'::J:.r'['•1·}·_-,,_~i-- ·1~11 ;>,;--· ----. ~ r.;, 7 um.~ ,f1J:~w1~:'":0 ~:77•:. :1~f •' cl'.. ,., < ~" ~-=--'=.i~--~~--.:.: \::cc, -'--='=·,g~,_c 1;>" :] {) 1,r,,:,:. -- ]3 ,S _,......, __ _ ·:;1. :-~} :>- 0 /. I ', f-· ' P1Pe. (.otJveY/3,JU:. t;nt!)1,J MrtP I: I' !·:;; \_~. I: j.· ,1 ' ' " 11 ij 1.A I ,, 1•1: IJ. 11 './• j•J ,\ " .... . --. ----;;:._---:._ --'i~-~~ -:.u,.....,.·rr,:J--.c.--'---,Rij""" I . ""'''. D If ... .-..,...:: __ _ ~-cc().Jf ,4cc.---=·-"-~ \. ;, ,. '' &Mt-· · /,,,'I/.< I' I' ;:i ,,.;_(t·.',; 1-w w a: ·:,L I ~ (TO BE' R[WJ'.'(D mtR HCW STORI,( 1-',\,S BUN IN'ST.W.ED~ ,.:.-I• S.JORW W.S &EN JNST>J.t.!D) : , I / -. .---,. 0.1,-At.. o.1"Jl'IC-- -Ef ,_~,, ') _-:."(•" J ~, IT !!' nir-<·--:.~r::'] C· ,.~· r"''"''''"'' o.o, ,., 1> ..'!.·: 0.01~,-"4,. . • I : ;) -·r;· I '" Ii-::__ ' .; ! [· ' ' ;_1·~--11·;.~v · ,, . ."f '·i ~--\ I °:~ ~:K ,=-,.~ 1'~ .-~ " .!:-;-----' .· . t'i ;:·-. " -~~-., ' ., f, ' 1: I, I ,I I j, I ' ' ' . !: I •r.-: I- C/) ..c -,.._ $'. CJ) 1· ·----.---... ----, ,,-r-.v 0";'"'~:C"CCQj(,,l~~/0 --c, _I _JC-C --! c_J,.:r_ J: ! -. f :~t · r·;':'-r--r·' '. -,--1 . ·1---,---,:0.'-c\'-,"~~,,-Tl..:"'···'1(£_1 -0[~ ~'- ' '\ -_ --:::;._,-----1 .... -- i ] !,I , ---1.:J IT ,, -·,-- {i.... ~ ' ' ti';,--~~. ' . ; ' I I ·?-:~t :.:·' /Y(E"'.0 TO BE ~D) -~'(:· ~1~·,E_;-1/a,,~ N) , \ ~ .,,_. -\~;.// /""'\;) ·, \_;', :.: I I ' L','.'0., ·I IC\ ,. f,, .. · . ..:..a....":-:.....1 '·. i: I lrl 9/~li!f'/i' I. \(;(1. 'l.:, 1~, .'.:'l ,/?"-:· /J,fb"«-: I I h j ,. J!J";",j ~-c,._::•j ''11'' ,1 ·:,.:/).,/ . ,, -' Jl J,, .'i'._: 'i .:.SJ' l~ <;~ :_ii', ./ b,. 4"_.G,(. . .-'\ !i~ ~-1, i '. ·-[;-:J .,:, .,, ' ;~,Si c·l .'' ij ~;,-;. )~,. ,y().(};, Ac;. ().t)'f- . .... G •. ·J·' !; ' '· •--Z';r· ' ,. ./ I,.-. \~/ c'.>:~-:-! t7,~.,,.c '{),b'1),'K I f--, : ·-"-,,:.:::.p' ', t '.1 I I ., 1:-~ :\; ; i. I I \ -· ·, I, \ } \ ', _,./ \,/') I \ -,'~', •. \ IECOMIAENlB) FOA ,,,.,.,,,,.._ "'----- "'------ "'----- \ ' ' .' ' I I U. :, 2~ -~·. ' ' i ·' ' ' ' I I : ·1.. ' I· '.---~-"~~...,.... ~ . C / ( ifg .. cc:-·'~---·fl:'I - :::.1,. ,-{' -· .. 2-:;_" ~" --c----.- l•'j' i\"i ,R' f \ I rn;,.I' ,-... v-:"®I ~~~ )t>·\ I ' ' I i~J 1:~ i : n I " I . _J l~' l '' 'iii' / ~--' ,, / ,, C ,:._ / . // .'.•.•.-3, L/ t t1~{.,. ....... _ -....., " '·. ' ' (J.'f>,:~. ..... ', ', -......;:: ..... ·. ,-"-.... __ --~==-·--,·--.= .... -·==----. . ---[ ;;·~~-;: ~.~1\!;~~ ~:;;~ u, ·~---·~ ~?J:~~;..-~,:.::-~"$~"J~'~ ::rw.:: 1 ;··~'-! 11 ':, '~) ct£CKED Fell COMPUANCE TO CRY 8TAN:)Afl08 D<>t .. I ____ D~te I Delo """'°"" 1-WiPER ~EERlllC 700 S"N 71H STJi'EET RENTON, WA ':180~7 ""'""' BIA~ COHSIJLHIIC ENClNffRS 1&215 72tl0 ,t.,\'EMJ( SOUTH ~hlT. WA 9BD.52 (~25)251-6222 (~25)251 -8782 FAX CONTACT: D,t.N IWJ,lll.U V-q.tGH~.S-~ II). .~-'j. .. • ,~:.,. (I ' I • • Q --0 ~"' -~' ! G,< ' ~'9 ,-,~G ~t1,C1'~"-~ -r;~,-- 11 :, ' ;1; ' <;.; I ;_' .. • n ~, !, ··1 ,· I,, r ·,. ,, ;cl ·" : ' ' 1:' I i,, ' i I Ii: -,; I I • ' l._....: '' I '!: :-~ -!-? i-:~ r ·:: CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GRADING/PAVING PLAN HARPER ENGtNEERltJ_G ADorpoo I =C3 ~ 4 t= ~ 10·~ ,i;,o;rn. -ru~ -4 = OK!l___ f¢.>~~----_ rE..Oe<::O. •• r~_ - ~ C .,_ ~ t ~ a ,:::c ~ i5 f f ;, z :<:i ..g ' F " _§, 'ii. I 2: ~ C :, 0 ~ u ( 0 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES I 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Not applicable. 15011.001.doc 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Not applicable. 15011.001.doc 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Since this is a redevelopment project and there is less than one acre of area that will be disturbed on this project site, required erosion control measures will be at a minimum. Since mostly impervious surface will be removed and replaced almost immediately, the only proposed erosion control measure to be followed on this project site is to utilize catch basin inserts for the four new catch basins proposed for this development. The TESC/Demolition Plan clearly indicates the area to be demolished and disturbed for this project. Please refer to that sheet for the proposed erosion control measures to be utilized with this development. 15011.001.doc 9.0 COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, AND EASEMENTS 9.0 COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, AND EASEMENTS Not applicable. 15011.001.doc 10.0 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS 10.0 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Not applicable. 15011.001.doc I APPENDIX A STORM CALCULATIONS Existing Conditions (Pre) Asphalt = Landscaping = Totals = Proposed Conditions (Dev) New Asphalt I New Building New Landscaping Totals FLOW CONTROL SIZING CRITERIA FOR THE AREA OF REDEVELOPMENT 4,811 SF = 0.110 Acre 1,572 SF = 0.036 Acre 6,383 SF = 0.146 Acre = 2,179SF = 0.136 Acre = 3,740 SF = 464 SF = 0.010 Acre = 6,383 SF = 0.146 Acre 15011.001.doc KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Project Location : Production of Runoff Time Series Sea-Tac Computing Series Regional Scale Factor : 150llpre. tsf 1. 00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Grass Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\S'l'TG60R.rnf 0.04 acres Impervious Loading •rime Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\S'rEI60R.rnf 0.11 acres Total Area 0.15 acres Peak Discharge: 0.060 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:150llpre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:150llpre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15011pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:lSOllpre.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series 15011dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTG60R.rnf Till Grass 0.01 acres Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI60R.rnf 0.14 acres Total Area 0.15 acres Peak Discharge: 0.066 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:15011dev.tsf Time Series Computed KCR'rs Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:1501ldev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:1501ldev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:150lldev.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command Project Location : CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Sea-Tac Computing Series Regional Scale Factor : 15011-lSminpre.tsf 1.00 Data Type , Reduced Creating 15-minute Time Series File Till Grass Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTG15R.rnf 0.04 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI15R.rnf 0.11 acres Total Area 0.15 acres Peak Discharge: 0.148 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:15011-lSminpre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:15011-15minpre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis -------------------------------------------------------- Time Series File:15011-lSminpre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:15011-15minpre.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command Project Location : CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff 'rime Series Sea-Tac Computing Series Regional Scale Factor : 15011-lSmindev.tsf 1. 00 Data Type : Reduced Creating 15-minute Time Series File Till Grass Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTG15R.rnf 0.01 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI15R.rnf 0.14 acres Total Area 0.15 acres Peak Discharge: 0.165 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:15011-lSmindev.tsf 'l'ime Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:15011-lSmindev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis -------------------------------------------------------- Time Series File:15011-15mindev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:15011-lSmindev.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command exit KCRTS Program Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15011pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.030 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.025 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.036 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.028 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.034 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.032 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.041 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.060 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.060 1 100.00 0.041 2 25.00 0.036 3 10.00 0.034 4 5.00 0.032 5 3.00 0.030 6 2.00 0.028 7 1.30 0.025 8 1.10 0.053 50.00 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:1501ldev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.034 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.067 1 100.00 0.990 0.029 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.050 2 25.00 0.960 0.041 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.041 3 10.00 0.900 0.034 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.040 4 5.00 0.800 0.040 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.036 5 3.00 0.667 0.036 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.034 6 2.00 0.500 0.050 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.034 7 1. 30 0.231 0.067 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.029 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.061 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15011-15minpre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.052 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.148 1 100.00 0.990 0.037 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.107 2 25.00 0 .960 0.107 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.072 3 10.00 0.900 0.042 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.061 4 5.00 0.800 0.058 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.058 5 3.00 0.667 0.061 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.052 6 2.00 0.500 0.072 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.042 7 1. 30 0.231 0.148 1 1/09/08 6:30 0.037 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.135 50.00 0.980 I Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15011-15mindev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis-----·-- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.065 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.166 1 100.00 0.990 0.045 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.124 2 25.00 0.960 0.124 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.088 3 10.00 0.900 0.052 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.073 4 5.00 0.800 0.069 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.069 5 3.00 0.667 0.073 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.065 6 2.00 0.500 0.088 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.052 7 1. 30 0. 231 0.166 1 1/09/08 6:30 0.045 8 1.10 0. 091 Computed Peaks 0.152 50.00 0.980 APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT DATED JULY 6, 2007 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Proposed Harper Engineering Building and Parking Lot NWC -S.W. 7th Street and Seneca Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington Prepared for: Harper Engineering Co. 206 South Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 July 6, 2007 Our Job No. 12948 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 ·6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES + OLYMPIA, WA + TACOMA, WA + SACRAMENTO, CA + TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION Jl.O INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION The proposed project site is approximately 2.21 acres in size located on the northwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Seneca Avenue S.W. within the City of Renton. More particularly, the site is located within a portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, Washington. The site is fairly triangular in shape with a large curving side located along the nmthem property line of the site, which is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. S.W. 7th Street forms the project site's southern boundary and there is an existing development located east of the project site. This is a redevelopment project cunently consisting of parking lot and landscaping areas. The proposal for this development is to modify the parking lot to construct a new building for the proposed Harper Engineering manufacturing and office space located in the central portion of the project site. Portions of the parking Jot will remain intact and portions of the parking lot will be replaced with new parking lot surfacing. The total area of impervious smface subject to vehicular traffic will be substantially reduced with this project. There is already an existing conveyance system located on the site that routes all stormwater runoff into a detention vault sized in accordance with the 1990 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) in March of 2001. Please refer to the grading and drainage plan located on the next page of this report for an explanation of how the site will be configured under the new developed conditions. Since this project site is not increasing the amount of impervious surface by more than 5,000 square feet, and since it is also decreasing the amount of impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic, there are no modifications proposed to the detention vault located in the center portion of the project site, which discharges into S.W. 7th Street. As mentioned previously, minor modifications will be made to the conveyance system and, since catch basins are being added, the conveyance system will likely be more than sufficient to convey runoff from the project site to the existing conveyance system since all pipes are proposed to be 12-inch. The Technical Information Report for the original parking Jot development is attached herewith in Appendix A. Please refer to that document for how the on-site facilities were sized for this project. The total increase in impervious surface with this project is 3,563 square feet= 0.08 acre. 12948.001.doc GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN ... f- f- f- f- · r-20· li I~ L~ , I~ i ~~' " y GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN J,r , .. ,. I /J) I (l_ (l_ (l_ ~ ' 1 ! 1 i i i 0 u f;; o,. z """ _ ... .,, 0::: u.;g til:Z"' W~-ct Z OJ< _ ..... 0::,::Z Z f-oo _,_. w-:z c., "'o: o:"" tiJ 0 0.."' 0: <C :,:: ~ a µ., z j, Oo o E-, • :,.. z i E--i C=.J if -i:i::: ~ u .!c i • ·~ £ !K ~~ 11w J1:·1 fi1 !J I! I . I I I I I " • • < - ~ 1-1-}i-W ' m ! i ' ci z I""" . ... .A.11<1cnOJ11 Jax TO BC A0JJs TEO TO CRIil>( ,r._o R£PIAC[ LID Wf!H ';r..-uFIC lDADING \;7:fw~{;1~~-~.~9r~-;~ u;;_~~- v).•'' ~<1.i= ·.·. ,,, \'/·~· ;8,~ .\" ~ f•>l.•\., '"' )'':\~\::~ ~ ~ ~ \~\·>~o-. J~\~~ ~r~\ Gov ~ ~\,>() . \ }:>;~(;t;. ' !, jJ ,o,. ) u -• tt:L .. ,,,._ ,I_ ~ I ~~4'\\ '~,:.r. )/ ~;;;R:i;'-~·~'-_,\vn'·-1,,_ .• \ -a, :X.'>('~.. "' z , ,.,..._,,, V u '\_ t:i U ~ l_ ' .... .:-:.,:::::.::_,~, ,p 0 ~ '\ -f I ..-.,_· : ,._~':S:.<:-..., 27.3 .'o \,;1,i</ ·>;:,:..-,_•.' .-'i) u o; \. ~) '--S ! \ ·--.'S,,:-. • ~ 7 ·. . '''~· \ \ · .. ',' ·, ·,. '. • + , '+ 26 2 \ , • , 26 ~ 'y\··,\ • 254\:. / . .\ ' . .:.\ . ..._ \':: ~\ n, 1 "••,, ~ \ \/.,,, 0 \ ;~~. ·'/ ·· .. \' .. \: ·,,., 0 . -· ··, \.\\~,. 25\ " ... /.,. . ' \ ~. ,:-, ' .,.., ' . ' ; \ . . ·\' .. ' \ . ,. ' \ ', ',' ~ \ ,, , ' ', . '\'\ .-,, 1' ,' ''("',,,,,. i : ;: ! '· \_. ) // _./ I / ' '0;.;'r\ ·,\:;,\~>- f-D ' \\~+ 2'.>'. \\\ l --I- I I --1 _L •-. ··---. ···~ / .. 0,,.,. =.'. ~r..: -~-~~~ \\\_~- ---...~~~ .£ ~\ p ;\\ -· "'-~-... a:, ~ ' +\2 . .-, 0\\ \ \ "'"' ........ O> ' \ '·.___.-; ;::2 '-.\\ ..,. z "' -' \ ' ..... '.., El::::i \\' ,.,, 'Q,: -• \ ..... ,. !::::'..'Q_ ·, "--, ~' ...... •'f!2f.2~ oa, ,,, SITE DATk TOl.lt. SITE AREA 96-,749 s.r. (221 AC). TOTAL AREA Of 1WPUMOUS Aa8\,688 S.r. l01At AAtA or PERVIOus .. 15.061 s.r. r~~:P.'\ l(.000s\ 1i942\""'!'""e'•'",\ 12948-Cl,H .dw9 ()ole/I,me:7/!J/2007 10·)::, "'I.! Scale CA67M5 l,,IGOULO x,er: . 1!2948·-IJ.dwg, 21:;g~e-S.d,.g. Z179t8-r.c .. g, 212948-C.cwi;. gi; dwg \ I i / i ' SW 1/4 SECTION 18, lWP. 23 N, AGE. 5 E, WJ.A. RIM•22..00- EXISllliG LUMINAIR£ ANO Jl!NCTIOJ<; SOX TO R(t.W/i .'k1~----{ .. "~-- a· oowNSPW, COlL[CTIO'I plPI_•. 0 1.0% M!N. (Tl"P.) ;: 1212 ------. -----· --....... PROPOSED BUILDING FF. 22.7. ·---------- ~" Is '-rr <n < <" ~~ / 61 lf 12.CPEPD 1.0'Jll; ~1.Ma. _____ 2 B12 ----- 2.70 • NOlE: AU CATCH 6AS11iS ARE COR 1YPf 1. STD. PIAN 8-\ UNLESS OHlERWISE ~(D SEE SH[(T CS PROVO( OPC"IING 11'1 CURB fOR ORAINAG( 211!) CBl3 R1u~22.oo 11:~111.11 /· \i.-:SJ1NC !JAjlWJRE ANO .... _,»<Tl(ll. BO)[(S ··-,.-JP:_R.~- ! 2::-6! --,,,,._'>LQfC>•NC ~ I ,II '\iii; 1/'iCuAl:ri"~ ... :, .J ·o ~ '"""" ...!:QQ! / ll.,.§!!/ " .... z ~w ~' oHA<,~ q, . "' ~£'»\ Ill ~ . :::a.,. . ' ::I' j 'ii ~ lo.~ ... .. ~.i,O .. r, ,,,. "t-... <It' (,-1/1/r; lNGi,,.t. j. ' ,, II f 11 ) :: / ". 11f n' ¥. rn /11 / II .' II .: 11 1-w w er. 1- U) ..c ·1- r,.... \ I ~-,~ :r: ,. VJ ~:;; -:-.r~: ~ '].11A 1 , Oi- Ii C 7.1,1;, I ~p."1 " " ~;:: )i§'.J, ~~ ~~ ,:a ~~ ~P'~ _, t:1:' ii'~ r/J, 1;,f!, all/ II I .. - {~ """" " " " " " " " / ,,.' \; ~~ ' w ~. " '_•o if> V,;.~ ,'"';:8;;;- g;;,!::::'.. ,.,_o:,= =---~--:. -~::3~----1 i1~ , ·'I . , ' ;r.-; 11.·';!. ,, ., J. :i cm OF RENTON '" Dl:=PARTMENT OF PUBLIC WC>AK.S GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN o,,1re ?(15/o7 =~ ... AS f""""'-E AS S><OwN = ·~ """'- ~ -·"""""'" '-" -l9EET_~93 ?F. 5 i ~ ~I 0 z ~ -, a) ~ APPENDIX A I TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Puget Sound Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Program Renton, Washington March 19, 2001 Our Job No. 7976 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH, KENT, WA 98032 • (425) 251-6222 • (425) 251-8782 FAX www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Technical Infonnation Report Worksheet II. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A. Upstream Drainage Analysis B. Downstream Drainage Analysis IV. DETENTION VAULT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Detention Vault Calculations B. Pre-Developed and Post-Developed Basin Area Maps C. Wet Vault Calculations V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Piped Conveyance Calculations B. Conveyance Area Map C. Miscellaneous Conveyance Calculations for Overflow Spillways, Stand Pipes, etc. VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES VII. BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS VIII. OTHER PERMITS IX. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN X. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS A. Retention/Detention Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch XI. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUAL 7976.003 [DED/mmllcn] I. PROJECT OVERVIEW I I. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project is located in thesoulhwest quarter of Section] 8, Township 23 North, Range5 East, Willamette Meridian, within the city of Renton, Washington. More specifically, the site is located along S. W. 7th Street near the intersection with Thomas Avenue. The site is approximately 2.21 acres in size, and is triangular in shape with approximately 260 feet of frontage along S.W. 7th Street. The site is generally flat, sloping gently toward the norlh comer. The site is bounded along the norlh and west sides by existing Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The existing vegetation on site consists of brush and low growing ground cover. The site is currently not being used, and contains no existing structures. The proposal for this parcel of land is to construct a new parking lot containing 200 parking stalls. This parking lot will be used by an adjacent building lhat is being expanded and is requiring additional parking. The stonnwater runoff created from this parking lot addition will be handled using a piped conveyance system. Once stormwater enters this conveyance system, it will then be conveyed to a detention vault that is located on site. This underground vault will provide water quality and detention, releasing the stonnwater at pre-developed rates. Please see Section IV of this report for further details regarding the storm system and calculations. 7976.003 [DED/mm/Jaij A. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT WORKSHEET King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIA) WORKSHEET • Rai,M PROJECT OWNER AND :~l~~-~91"~!'.'?lM~ff. ,· ,-.·.-.. ,· .• /,. ;-• .• c:,L·., •. •. _,_ :,.,,.-.c.:- Project Owner Puget Sound Electrical Ar;,r;,renticeshig and Training Trust Address 5700-6th Avenue South, Suite 200 Seattle. WA 98108 Phone {206} 763-7755 Project Engineer Hal P. Grubb. P.E. Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Address/Phone 18215-72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 ( 425) 251-6222 Project Name Puget Sound Electrical Ar;,r;,renticeship and Training Trust Location Township, __ _.2_.3c:..:N..._ ____ _ Range ___ ~5=E~----- Section. ___ ....,18"------ Project Size __ _.2=.1~ac"'-r=es"------- Upstream Drainage Basin Size O acres Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS APPLICATION ,. 0 Subdivision HPA 0 DFWHPA 0 Shoreline Management 0 Short Subdivision 0 COE404 0 Rockery • Grading 0 DOE Dam Safety • Structural Vaults 0 Commercial 0 FEMA Floodplain 0 Other 0 Other 0 COE Wetlands ' Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BAS]N, . , .... ;..:, .. ,:,. Community Green River Valley Drainage Basin Green River 7976-003 [DED/mm/kn] ~·-:~; •.:.('.:,.~.' -. . .. . ..: '_, -~--_·, .'.' c'. '.· ; :.;""::::.;;:'.:. ·,-.• ' . :::.. .• ;-:.-,:.,,,:,,._ h" D River ___________ _ D Stream D Critical Stream Reach • Depressions D lake D Steep Slopes Part7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes 0 Additional Sheets Attached Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE o. _____________ _ o. _____________ _ O. _____________ _ o. ___________ _ 0 Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION 0 Sedimentation Facilities • Stabilized construction Entrance • Perimeter Runoff control D Clearing and Grading Restrictions • Cover Practices • Construction Sequence 0 Other 0 Floodplain 0 Wetlands 0 Seeps/Springs 0 High Groundwater Table 0 Groundwater Recharge 0 Other ' ' Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT ' MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION • Stabilize Exposed Surface "' .. • Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities • Clean and Remove all Silt and Debris • Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities D Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas D Other 7976.003 [DED/mm/kn] 0 Grass Lined Channel 0 • Pipe System • 0 Open Channel 0 0 Dry Pond 0 • WetVault 0 Tank 0 Vault 0 Energy Dissipater 0 Wetland 0 Stream 0 Infiltration Depression Flow Dispersal Waiver Regional Detention Method of Analysis SBUH Compensation/Mitigation of Eliminated Site Storage Brief Description of System Operation Stormwater controlled by catch basins and conveyed via pipes to underground vault for detention and water quality. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 0 Cast in Place Vault 0 Retaining Wall 0 Rockery >4' High 0 Structural on Steep Slope 0 Other Limitation Part 12 EASEMENTS/fRACTS 0 Drainage Easement 0 Access Easement 0 Native Growth Protection Easement 0 Tract 0 Other . Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under by supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information prov;;;;eu~(?~ J•~'~/ Signed/Date 7976.003 [DED/mmlkn] II. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY II. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY There are no conditions for this project. 7976.003 [DED/mm/kn] ID. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A. UPSTREAMDRAINAGEANALYSIS The existing topography around the site is such that the siterecei ves very little upstream drainage. As previously mentioned, the site is boUllded on the north and west sides by an existing raihoad, which sits higher in elevation than the subject property. However, there is only a small amount of area between the site and the existing railroad tracks that actually drains onto the subject property. The adjacent parcel to the east is currently developed and co11tains all stormwater runoff, with the exception of a small portion at the north side along the existing raih-oad tracks. Along the south side of the subject property is S.W. 7th Street, which is developed and has storm drainage system that contains all stormwater runoff B. DOWNSTREAMDRAINAGEANALYSIS The existing topography of the site is such that there is no downstream drainage system. Currently, the stormwater appears to infiltrate on site. If the stormwater was to pond on site, it would eventually overflow at tl1e southwest comer of the site (which is the lowest elevation along the boundary) into the existing storm system in S.W. 7th Avenue. Stormwater that is collected on site will be detained and treated prior to being released into au existing 60-inch concrete storm line within S.W. 7th Street. We are c111Tently in the process of obtaining specific infom1ation about this downstream system. Once this information is available, it will be included within this report. 7976.003 [DED/mm/kn] IV. DETENTION VAULT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN IV. DETENTION VAULT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Storm drainage that will be produced by the new parking lot will be controlled and conveyed via underground pipes to an 1111dergro1111d detention vault located on site adjacent to S. W. 7th Street. This underground vault will provide the required water quality treatment and detention. More specifically, this system has been sized using the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The enclosed calculations show that the system has been designed to detain the 2-year post-developed storm while releasing the 2-year pre-developed storm, and to detain the 10-year post-developed storm while releasing the 10-year pre-developed storm, along with a volume increase of 30 percent. Calculations have also been provided to verify that the 100-year post-developed storm event will be adequately conveyed through the proposed system. The water quality portion of this vault has also been sized using the same manual. The proposed project will create greater than I acre of new impervious area subject to vehicular traffic. Typically, a bioswale along with a wet pond is required; however, with the proposed layout, a bioswale is not feasible. We are proposing an increase in the wet pool volume to compensate for not providing a bioswale. This increase is 1.5 times the required volume. We had a similar situation on a recent City of Renton project that was approved. Please see the enclosed calculations for further details. Based on U.S. Deprutment of Agriculture maps, the soils classification for this site is Wo (Woodinville silt loam). For the drainage calculations, this converts to a hydrologic group "D." 7976.003 [DED/mm/kn] ~l~ 4/26/01 12:48:43 am DETENTION VAULT CALCS FILE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP page 1 -----=-------------===-====================-=====================-=== BASIN ID: Al SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL .... : ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach -Sheet L: TcReach -Shallow L: PEAK RATE: 0.19 cfs BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 2YR PRE-DEV 2.21 Acres KC24HR 2.00 inches 10.00 min BASEFLOWS: AREA .. : CN .... : TC .... : o.oo cfs PERV 2.21 Acres 86.00 64.39 min 0.20 300.00 80.00 VOL: ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.00 ks:11.00 s:0.0079 0.16 Ac-ft TIME: S:0.0079 500 min BASIN ID: A2 NAME: lOYR PRE-DEV -:S:::B:c=UH'=":M-:::E:::T:::H'::O:::D:c:O:c;Lc-:O""'G"'Y,;---..:.:::=:::..:.._::;.:=:::.....:=~:::.=:..:...~. TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL .... : 2.21 Acres KC24HR 2.90 inches 10.00 min BASEFLOWS: AREA .. : CN .... : TC .... : o.oo cfs PERV 2.21 Acres 86.00 64.39 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0.42 cfs VOL: 0.29 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: A3 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL .... : NAME: lOOYR PRE-DE~ 2.21 Acres KC24HR 3.90 inches 10.00 min BASEFLOWS: AREA .. : CN .... : TC .... : o.oo cfs PERV 2.21 Acres 86.00 64.39 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 FEAK RATE: 0.70 cfs VOL: 0.45 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: Bl SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL .... : ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach -Sheet L: TcReach -Shallow L: TcReach -Channel L: rcReach -Channel L: PEAK RATE: 0.94 cfs NAME: 2YR POST-DEV 2.21 Acres KC24HR 2.00 inches 10.00 min BASEFLOWS: AREA .• : CN .... : TC .... : 0.00 cfs PERV 0.42 Acres 90.00 8 .81 min 0.20 50.00 125.00 297.00 90.00 VOL: ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00 ks:27.00 s:0.0100 kc:21.00 S:0.0062 kc:21.00 s:0.0239 S:0.0600 0.30 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min IMP o.oo Acres 0.00 0.00 min IMP o.oo Acres 0.00 o.oo min IMP 0.00 Acres 0.00 0.00 min IMP 1.79 Acres 98.00 8 .81 min 4/26/01 12:48:43 am DETENTION VAULT CALCS FILE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP page 2 =---==-------=---=---========-======--====-==--====-===-====---=--==- BASIN ID: B2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL .... : BASIN SUMMARY NAME: lOYR POST-DEV 2.21 Acres KC24HR 2.90 inches 10.00 min BASEFLOWS: AREA .. : CN .... : TC .... : o.oo cfs PERV 0.42 Acres 90.00 8.81 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 1.43 cfs VOL: 0.46 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: B3 NAME: lOOYR POST-DEV SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL .... : 2.21 Acres KC24HR 3.90 inches 10.00 min BASEFLOWS: AREA .. : CN .... : TC .... : o.oo cfs PERV 0.42 Acres 90.00 8.81 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 1.97 cfs VOL: 0.65 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: Cl SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL .... : NAME: 64%- 2.21 Acres KC24HR 0.67 inches 10.00 min 2YR POST-DEV (WETVAULT) BASEFLOWS: AREA .. : CN .... : TC .... : 0.00 cfs PERV 0.42 Acres 90.00 8.81 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0.23 cfs VOL: 0.08 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min IMP 1.79 Acres 98.00 8.81 min IMP 1. 79 Acres 98.00 8.81 min IMP 1.79 Acres 98.00 8 .81 min 4/26/01 12:48:43 am DETENTION VAULT CALCS FILE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP page -------------------------------------------===---=-=========-======== HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf\AcFt Acres ---------------------------------------------1 0.193 500 6811 cf 2.21 ·2:1"¢. ~ 2 0.417 490 12652 cf 2.21 toY!!. ~ 3 0.696 490 19702 cf 2.21 11,0Yt2. P0..... 4 0.938 480 13205 cf 2.21 z:ri2. fW-1 5 1.429 480 20234 cf 2.21 ID'1'~ P<>S.1" 6 1. 974 480 28132 cf 2.21 /00 \'t f'OS ( 7 0.228 480 3287 cf 2.21 i,,Mnl fb[,1 8 0.193 670 13205 cf 2.21 1,'(12~ 9 0.417 540 20234 cf 2.21 IO '(f_ (Zo\)-rtf) 10 0.177 770 13205 cf 2.21 i,ya. fi~ 11 0.343 550 20234 cf 2.21 (O'C(l fil'fi"n.. 12 1. 974 490 21066 cf 2.21 1im'(it,~ 3 4/26/01 12:48:44 am DETENTION VAULT CALCS FILE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP page --------------------------------------------------------------------- STAGE STORAGE TABLE RECTANGULAR VAULT ID No. 1 Description: VAULT (W/0 30i) Length: 75.00 ft. Width: 18.00 ft. voids: 1. 000 STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE: <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> (ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft- =========================~=~=======~==~=~====~~===============================~==~s===================== 16.oo 0.0000 0.0000 17. 70 22.95 0.0527 H'.40 4590 0.1054 21.10 6885 0.1581 H.10 135.00 0.0031 17.80 2430 0.0558 19. 50 4725 0.1085 21. 20 7020 0.1612 16". 20 270.00 0. 0062 17.90 2565 0.0569 19.60 486"0 0 .1116 21.30 7155 0.1643 16.30 405.00 0. 0093 18.00 2700 0.0620 19. 70 4995 0 .1147 21.40 7290 0.1674 16.40 540.00 0. 0124 18.10 2835 a. 0651 u.ao 5130 -0.1178 21.50 7425 0.1705 16.50 675.00 0.0155 18.20 2970 0.0682 19. 90 5265 0.1209 21.60 7560 0.1736 16.60 810.00 0.0186 18.30 3105 0. 0713 20.00 5400 0 .1240 21..70 7695 0.1767 16. 70 945. 00 0.0217 18.4.0 3240 0.0744 20.10 55'35 O .1271 21. 80 7830 0.1798 16.80 1080 0.0248 18.50 3375 0.0775 20.20 5670 o .13 02 2.1.90 7965 0 .182 9 16.90 1215 0.0279 18.60 3510 0.0806 20.30 5605 0.1333 22.00 8100 0.1060 17.00 1350 0.0310 18.70 3645 0,08'37 20.40 5940 0.1364 22.10 6235 o.1690 17.10 1485 0.0341 18,80 3780 0.0868 20.50 6075 0.1395 22.20 8370 0,1921 17.20 1620 0.0372 Hl.90 3915 q.08!:19 20.60 6210 0.1426 22.30 8505 0.1952 17.30 1755 0. 0403 19.00 4050 0.0930 20. 70 6345 0.1457 22.40 8640 o .1983 17.40 1890 0.0434. 19.10 4185 o. 0961 20.80 6480 0.1488 22.50 8775 0.2014 17.50 2025 0.0465 19.20 4320 0.0992 20. 90 6615 0 .1519 17.60 2160 0.0496 19.30 4455 0.1023 21. DO 6750 D.1550 4 4/26/01 12:48:44 am DETENTION VAULT CALCS FILE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP page -=====--------=-----------========-----===-==-------================= STAGE STORAGE TABLE RECTANGULAR VAULT ID No. 2 Description: VAULT ~<~w~/__::;3~0~%~) Length: 98.00 ft. Width: 18.00 ft. voids: 1.000 STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> (ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft- ==========-~=====~~-:=====~==================================~========================================== 16.00 0.0000 0.0000 17.20 2117 0.0486 18. 40 4234 o. 0972 19.60 6350 0.1458 16.10 176 .40 0.0040 17.30 2293 0.0526 18.50 4410 0.1012 19.70 6527 0.1498 16. 20 3 52. 60 0.0081 17.40 2470 0.0567 18.60 4586 0 .1053 19.80 6703 0.1539 16.30 529,20 0.0121 17.50 2646 0.0607 18. 70 4763 D .1093 19.90 6880 0.1579 16.40 705.60 0.0162 17.60 2822 0.0648 18.80 4939 0 .1134 20.00 7056 0.1620 16.50 882.00 0.0202 17.70 2999 0.0688 18. 90 5116 0. ll 74 20. lO 7232 0.1660 16.60 1058 0. 0243 17.80 3175 0 ,0729 19.00 5292 0.1215 20.20 7409 0.1701 16. 70 1235 0.0283 17.90 3352 o.0769 19.10 5468 0 .1255 20 .JO 7585 0.1741 16.80 1411 0.0324 18.00 3528 0.0810 19.20 5645 0.12% 20.40 7762 0.1782 16.90 1588 0.0364 18.10 3704 0,0850 19.30 5821 0 .1336 20.50 7938 0.1822 17.00 1764 0.0405 18,20 3881 0.0891 19.40 5998 0 .1377 17.10 1940 0.0445 18, 30 4057 0. 0931 19.50 6174 0.1417 5 4/26/01 12:48:44 am DETENTION VAULT CALCS FILE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP page ==========-===-=====------==========---========-----================= STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. Description: VAULT STANDPIPE Outlet Elev: 16.00 Elev: 14.00 ft Elev: 18.80 ft Orifice Orifice 2 1 Diameter: Diameter: 2.0771 2.4785 in. in. 1..'lq," t.'/1..'' STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> (ft) ---cfs---------(ft} ---cfs---------(ft) ---cfs---------(ft) ---cfs--------- =----===========~~~================================~z~s================================================= 16.00 0.0000 17,20 0.1.2.83 18.40 0.1814 19.60 a .3713 16.10 o. 0370 17.30 0.1335 18.50 0.1851 19.70 0.3834 16.20 0.0524 17 .40 a .13 as 18.60 0.1888 19.80 0.3949 16.30 0.0641 17.50 0 .1434 18. 70 0.1924 19. 90 0,4061 16.40 Q.0741 17.60 0.1481 18,80 0.1959 20.00 0.4168 16.50 0.0828 17. 70 0,1527 18.90 0.2521 20.1.0 0.4271 16.60 0.0907 17.60 0.1571 19.00 0.27T3 20 .20 0.4372 1.6. 70 D. 0980 17. 90 0 .1614 l.9.10 0.2975 20.30 0.4470 16.80 0.10-47 lB,00 0.1656 19.20 0.3149 20.40 0.4565 16.90 0.1111 18.10 0.1697 19.30 0,3306 20.50 0.4657 17.00 0.1171 18 20 0.1737 19.40 0. 3450 17 .10 0.1228 18.30 0.1776 19.50 0.3585 6 4/26/01 12:48:44 am DETENTION VAULT CALCS FILE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP page =======--===========--==========-============---====--====--====-==== STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE RISER DISCHARGE ID NO. 2 Description: lOOYR RISER OVERFLOW CHECK Riser Diameter (in): 15.00 Weir Coefficient ... : 9.739 Orif Coefficient ... : 3.782 elev: height: increm: 20.00 ft 20.50 ft 0.10 ft STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> (ft) ---cfa--------- 20.00 0.0000 20.00 0.0000 (ft} ---cfs--------- 20.10 0.3850 20. 20 l. 0889 (ft) ---efs---------(ft) ---cfs--------- 20.30 2.0004 20.50 4.3041 20.40 3.0797 7 4/26/01 12:48:46 am DETENTION VAULT CALCS FILE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STO--DIS-<-PEAK-> <--------DESCRIPTION---------> (cfs) {cfs} --id---id-<•STAGE> id 2YR ROUTED .... '' ........ ·-··· 0.19 0.94 1 1 18. 73 8 10YR ROUTED .................. 0.42 1.43 1 1 20.oa • 2YR FINAL .................... 0.19 0.94 2 1 18.29 10 lDYR FINAL ................... 0.42 1. 43 2 1 19.39 11 lOOYR O.F. CHECK . . . . . . . . ' . . . . o.oo 1.97 2 2 20. 30 12 OUTFLOW STORAGE (cfs) VOL (cf) 0.19 3681.15 0,42 5405.69 0.18 4043.17 0.34 5975.18 1.97 7580. 84 page 9 cf cf cf cf cf I <--?.'.:..·--\ ' ' '· \ ~ ........ ---' --2:3 ...... ,. '-y-·- \ "' 1..-! j \... ...... ..__ .~ \ \ \ I E>t. 8.'51tJ A(/4/lc MlcP , ____ ___ ,s _ _);,!1, .. -...-"'-:------· amw. ,1 --:..:.::~su•Ajui:::_"-=-~ --; H 7th STREE-T:.+-------".:_-_.,,,.~-IEt'lk.f ---23 ,,.,, .... w:---J D ! I I i : 20· I "" ___ __::::;-::, MO' \ r"PMt>!Ec .J B· &·, ,/4N !\ .. ·~ P<1PfA9 l MlrP ---.~,. • ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE R.4 E. R.5£ . • ·-t: Wo ':2~ r'IQit w 0 So Tu , l ' SOil C0!°'1Sl:..RVA1l0N SfRVJC£ I \ ,. SOIL LEGEND Th., f;,,., .:o~i1al 1.,n.,, ;,-,...., ;..,;,o.al 0<>.<: of rh.: sail na""', A ,-.,cond .:o=:o1cl !,en.,.,. A. 8. C. 0. E. <>< F, ind,.:c".s ,...., cio"S-s of "S-lopo-. Sy,,..f,ol~ ..,.;,hc-v, o ,;I.:,~., 1.-,,.,, o•e ,ho,-e a! n.,orly r.,.,..,J soils sYMBOL A9B A9C AgD Akf Am8 AmC A• s.c B<D !.'<F Bh B< •• 0, Eo Ed E•B EvC EvD EwC lnA lnC lnD KpB KpC "'° K,C ... N<C Ng Nk ~AME Akfc,wood 91ovc:Uy sandy loo..,, 0 lo 6 ~rcff>I slop.es Aldu-ood g,ro ... o:l1y ,:o!'dy loa..,, 6 to l5 pc,,-ccnt :.li:ipes Ald-e<'wood gtc ... ,:lly so!'dy loo"', 1510 30 pc,IC'<'nl ,elopes A.ide..-wood or,,:I KiUOp Soils ..... Ny Sfe<!:p Aren.ts, Aldc ...... ood ffiQTeriol,O 10 6 percent slope-s"" Ar,:nls, A&dc'"""ood fflOtc:c-fol, 6 10 15 p,:r(,:nl slop..-s .. A.fer.ts, fyNc:n ,nor,:,i,;,I • ·Beousit,: g,-o-Uy "'°'"'4y loom,, 61,;, \5 ~r<:..,nl slQP<!'S Sc,ci...slte: -gr,o-Uy sandy loam, 15 lo JO p,:t"C:<!c"' ,.lopo · a~ ... ~hc 9'o.-c-l!;· =:.......!-.· Ii;:.;:::'., ,:~ :.= :'~ .-.;.~:;.:::.l ;J..-,,..:,.,. S..hinghoff!I db loam 8,riSCOf s;lt 1001111 Buc~l,:y s;I, lo,;i'" Ecw'-:.nt silt' loo .. Edgewic:k 1....-sorody loo.,. EVC'<"elf 'ilro-,,elly sondy k,o..._ 0 lo 5 P,:,<el'>f s.lopes EVC'<"ctt g.-o~ify sond,-loom., S 10 15 pci'Ceftl -slope$ fven:11 Vo'"'C"lly sondr foom.. \510JQ perc<!cnl ,;lope,; E..._ett-Akk ..... ood !D'OVClly ,;onc;ly l~ms, 6 ta 1S p,:fceru sler;,,es fndi011oOla ~ fine s_aiw!. 0 ro-4 per-Cent •~s fndionolo 1._...,. One sond • .C to IS ,....-«nt -sl~s lndoOnOlo loo...,. fine sand. IS to 30 p,en:ent slope,. l(Usop .silt,-. 2 10 8 pec"C"<enf slopes Kit$<1p sill I~ 8 So 15 pe«:e:M slope:. 1(;1sop .slh lc;io•• 15 to 30 perc:enl slopes. Klaus gro-vclly l<»my sond, 6 la 15 perc<!cnt slope:s Neilton ....ery g<o'""'lly loamy sond. 2 fo 1 S p,er<c:nl slop.es N-t.erg sUt looffl Noolcsocli; ...... loo... No Nor-. sondy too ... "' 0, O,,C 0,,0 0,,f Orcos ~ot 0-idio -sift loa,n O,,,oll 9,0....,Uy Joa.,_ 0 la 15 pet"Ccnl slopes 0.011 ~-lly loo...., 15 ta 2S petCeftl slopes 0-11 gravelly loo...., .CO to 75. pen: ... nl slope,; ~ Ptkhuck loomy rme sond Pk Pilc .. vct.. lil'Oe sondr-.loam Pu P1.,gc-• s1'ty <lay loom Py Pv),-o ltup fil'IC SOftdy kaom Ro( Rogn.o, r.-sond,-loaM, 6 10 I~ pc,r<:ent slope~ RoD Rog"'°' ftne -..ondy loom, IS 10 2S perc:cn1 slopu RdC Rog,-.lftd.-lo ossoc ioti"an, 1.lop;ng • RdE R~·lndionolo ossoc:ioti-, w,o;le•olely s1~e;,, • Re-R.-nl--sllr •- Rh R;vtf-sh So Solol si11 toe: ... .Sh S,o,mmom;sh • .i, loo.., SI. S«i•tt. -.cl.. 5'" Si"O kot -..c: lo. .s,. SJ .. ih lo,;i',n 'So Snokofflb~ sit. loom Sf Snd>afflish sih loo..,, th.ck s.vrlo<,:-vodonl S., :Svhon sl II tc,c ... • 11 ... (Qffipo•'''""" oJ •'"fsot' ~...,,,., ·~ ...... e ,....,, ;gt,1<! '"°" oho• ,.i 11..-.. ,~~· 0 .. 1~ oo .. o. ~ ... ;, hc1 ~~"'" ,.,.,,ucU.,.c! -~-II ,•,.n..-Jh •~-;,.,.,...fl',., 1,.-••• .. ~,~·f• .. d ,•~C' c-f •ht-,.:,!1-. K:NG COUNT\ AREA ,. ,. l'h. ;• •. ..... ' .. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 12) CN values can be area weighted when they apply ro pervious areas of similar CN's (within 20 CN points). However. high CN areas should not be combined with low CN areas (unless the low CN areas are less than 15% of the subbasin). In this case, separate hydrographs should be generated and summed to form one hydrograph. FIGURE 3.5.2A HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP OF THE SOILS IN KING COUNTY SOIL GROUP Alderwood Arents, Alderwood Material Arents, Everett Material Beausite Bellingham Briscot Buckley Coastal 8eacl1es Earlmont Silt Loam Edgewick Everett Indianola Kitsap Klaus Mixed Alluvial Land Neilton Newberg Nooksack Normal Sandy Loam HYDROLOGIC GROUP• C C B C D D D Variable D C A/B A C C Variable A B C D SOIL GROUP Orcas Peat Oridia Ovall Pilchuck Puget Puyallup Ragnar Renton Riverwash Salal "Sammamish Seanle Shacar Si Silt Snohomish Sultan Tukwila Urban -~ Woodinville HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS HYDROLOGIC GROUP• - D D C C D B B D Variable C D D D C D C D Variable D- A (Low runoff potential). Soils having high infillration rates. even when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of deep, well-to-excessively drained sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. B. C. D. • (Moderately low runoff potential). Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These sons have a moderate rate of water transmission. (Moderately high runoff potentiai). Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine to fine textures. These sons have a slow rate of water transmission. · (High runoff potential). Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chieny of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, sons with a hardpan or day layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nea~y impe!Vious material. These soils .have a very slow rate of water transmission. From SCS, TR-55, Second Edition, June 1986, Exhibit A· 1. Revisions made _from SCS, Soil Interpretation Record, Form #5, September 1988. 3.5.2-2 11192 KIN G COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DES I G N MAN UAL TABLE 3.5.2B SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS @ SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (Published by SCS in 1982) Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban and urban land use for Type 1A rainfall distribution, 24-hour storm duration. CURVE NUMBERS BY HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP LAND USE DESCRIPTION" A B C D Cultivated fand(1): winter condition 86 91 94 95 Mountain open areas: low growing brush and grasslands 74 82 89 92 Meadow or pasture: 65 78 85 89 Wood or forest land: undisturbed or older second growth : 42 64 76 81 Wood or forest land: young second growth or brush 55 72 ,q I][) Orchard: with cover crop 81 88 l/2 94 Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, landscaping. good condition: grass cover on 75% @] or more of the area 68 BO 86 fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 77 85 90 92 Gravel roads and parking lots 76 85 89 91 Dirt roads and parking lots 72 82 87 89 --Impervious surfaces, pavement, roofs, etc. 98 98 9~ lW Open waler bodies: lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc. 100 100 100 100 Single Family Residential (2) Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre % Impervious (3) 1.0 DU/GA 15 Separate curve number 1.5 DU/GA 20 shall be selected 2.0 DU/GA 25 for pervious and 2.5 DU/GA 30 impervious portion .. 3.0 DU/GA 34 of the site or basin 3.5 DU/GA 38 4.0 DU/GA 42 4.5 DU/GA 46 5.0 DU/GA 48 5.5·DU/GA 50 6.0 DU/GA · 52 6.5 DU/GA 54 7.0 DU/GA 56 Planned unit developments, % impervious condominiums, apartmenis, must be computed commercial business and industrial areas. (1) For a more detailed description of agricultural land use curve numbers refer to National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology. Chapter 9. August 1972. (2) Assumes roof and driveway runott is directed into street/storm system. (3) The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be in good condition for these curve numbers. 3.5.2-3 11/92 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 l G N M A N U A L FIGURE3.5.1C 2-YEAR 24.HOUR ISOPLUVIALS ~-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION ,,. 3.4 -ISOPLUVIALS OF 2-YEAR 24-HOUR TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mlle-s 1: 300,000 3.5.1-8 I/ -~ 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 2.1 22 2.3 2.6 2.7 <8 <9 3.0 .\ 'I 10-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION . 3.4-ISOPLUVIALS OF 10-YEAF.l 24-HOUR TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 ? 8 MIies 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 I j '. i \ i i . . \ . ' ; ! ; .,,, !~-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION ISOPLUVIALS OF 25-YEAR 24-HOUR TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 I MIies 1: 300,000 3.5.1-11 ' ' 1/90 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 l G N M A N U A L F1GURE 3.5.lH 100-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS / I i _; 100-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION -ISOPLUVIALS OF 100-YEAR 24-HOUR TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES O l 2 3 4 S 6· 7 8 MUe-s 1: 300,000 3.5.1-13 1/90 ~1~'2-D WE,TVlrtJLT 4/26/01 1:0:20 pm DETENTION VAULT CALCS F~LE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP page 1 =-===-=--==------=------=---=--===----===-=---==-==--======-========= BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: Cl SBUH METHODOLOGY NAME: 64% 2YR POST-DEV (WETVAULT) TOTAL AREA ....... : RAINFALL TYPE .... : PRECIPITATION .... : TIME INTERVAL .... : 2.21 Acres KC24HR 0.67 inches 10.00 min BASEFLOWS: AREA .. : CN .... : TC .... : o.oo cfs PERV 0.42 Acres 90.00 8.81 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0.23 cfs VOL: 0.08 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min IMP 1.79 Acres 98.00 8.81 min 4/26/01 1:0:20 pm DETENTION VAULT CALCS FILE No. 7976-VLT Shareware Release PSEA&TP page 2 -------------------------====--=====-================================ HYDROGRAPa SUMMARY HYD NUM PEAK RUNOFF RATE cfs TIME OF PEAK min. VOLUME OF HYDRO cf\AcFt Contrib Area Acres ---.--------------------------------------=-- 2 3 9 10 11 0.228 480 3287 cf 0.177 • fit-SD ~10 \Jm.,\JM.t.. ~ ~lwl.:f": 2.21 2.21 2.21 -Ff.o~c lllJ.f'\/. A#f.A (i~ ffiN l AC-· -ND flomJ\ ~ 610~ -IN C.~£._ v:if:{"fbol.... \J?)'UJVl~f-BY l , if, 1D ~ ~ /'JD BL~v.s1rt-£.. -~1 2-81 Y:. \.5.: 4-14~.':D CF ~·D -\ID-"LUMS ~~ ,. '?1-Z.."'}2. l.F ~ V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Enclosed are typical calculations necessary for sizing of the pipe facilities proposed on this project. The rational method and Mannings formula were used for sizing purposes. Conveyance pipes have been sized to accommodate the 100-year storm event at the flowing full condition. The intent of the pipe system within the parking lot is to convey stormwater runoff into the detention vault. The proposed vault has not been sized to accommodate any off-site development. 7976.003 [DED/mmlkn] JOB NAME: JOB#: 7976 REVISED: 3115/01 A= Contributing Area (Ac) C-Runoff Coefficient Tc= Time of Concentration (min) I• Intensity at Te ~n/hr) d• Diameter of Pipe (in) L• Length of Pipe (ft) D• Water Depth at Qd (in) FROM TO A s 7976-' BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS -PIPE FLOW CALCULATOR using the Rational Method & Manning Formula KING COUNTY DESIGN FOR 100 YEAR STORM NOTE:ENTER DlliULTSAND STORM DATA BEFORE BEGINNING Qd• Design Flow (efs) Qf= Full Capacity Flow (cfs) Vd= Velocity at Design Flow (fps) VI= Velocity at Full Flow (fps) s-Slope of pipe (%) n= Manning Roughness Coefticlent T~ Travel Time at Vd {min) L d Te n DEFAULTS I c-0851 n= 0.012 I ~ 12 T~ 10 COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD "\('-EQUATION STORM Ar Br 2YR 1.58 0.58 10YR 2.44 0,64 PREClP= 3.9 25YR 2.66 0.65 Ar-2.61 50YR 2.75 0.65 Br-0.63 100YR 2.61 0.63 C SUM A I A'C I SUM A'C Qd QI Qd/Qf Did D VI Vd Tt -----• =---== -=-=•= -~-----••==F-==---=-=•= ------=-----1---==-1------F==----=-----=~ ------•===--=---== ----------== ------======1------ CB6 C85 CS4 CB3 CB2 CB1 VAULT CBS CB2 C82 CB2 CB1 VAULT EX60" 0.47 0.56 0.37 0.34 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.62 97 0.62 200 1.00 97 1.00 85 2.39 66 2.39 26 0.50 40 12 10.0 0.012 0.65 0.47 0.40 12 10.5 0.012 0.85 1.03 0.48 12 10.0 0.012 0.85 0.37 0.31 12 10.0 0.012 0.85 0.34 0.29 12 11.3 0.012 0.85 0.48 0.41 12 11.4 0.012 0.85 0.48 0.00 15 11.5 0.012 0.85 0 0.00 0.40 2.39 0.95 3.04 0,314 0.3a3 4.60 3.87 3.42 I 0.47 0.88 2.32 2.03 3.04 0.668 0.597 7.17 3.87 4.14 0.81 0.31 2.39 0.75 3.56 0.195 0.296 3.55 4.92 3.78 I 0.43 0.29 2.39 0.69 3.86 0.179 0.283 3,40 4.92 3.71 I 0.38 1.89 2.21 4.17 5.96 0.700 0.617 7.40 7.60 8.23 I 0.13 1.89 2.20 4.14 5.96 0.695 0.613 7.36 7.60 8.21 0.05 1.89 2.19 4.13 4.95 0.!135 0.697 10.46 4.03 4.51 I 0.15 :ge 1 \"'r- "' "' ( i -- --e-sBP ·-~ ; / CDNVf.'tJtttJ -.: A9-SA ,-AltP ~ ---- 0 VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Miscellaneous reports and letters have been included for review. 7976.003 [DED/mmlkn] VII. BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS VII. BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS The project is located within the Green River Drainage Basin. The community plan area is called "Green ·River Valley." 7976.003 [DED/mm/kn) / -\ \~ / '1 I 1, j 1 • '· ] ' ,' ; ;,,, ~, . /II \1 I ; ,,,) • J, / ' I I I r .. ~,--< ,. / . [! I ~ 6 • I 1 ~ ,' . ,.,.t £ • u. f ' ' f I I •' ... .. ., " ' ., ! 'ii ,, ~i ,) ,, II ,, ,. _! \._ ·,, .!! 'I ,/ Ji ~I ' .v!· .. ~·'·· .. .I ) 1, ) I \ '. l '! ,,.~. l~-::;:.,;i··· .... , ··:11 -.,,, j I ... ,. ,/ I .• · •: , ' H l 1 j'I t,I, I .·";-. '. i~ < II, !, ' ,, .;~ ·:. .,11 \,'. . ,1,-... ;·. , .. }/ L! ! {, ,. ,;:· z -........ i --' /' " ~-., ' ' ' 'J ·~. iv j,,., ,.,,,., / JI /' -':• I ' '' 1! I '.IJ, .,, >1; lt . lJ . i ) )1 r.iJ z -"' < N m w i CJ cc ·-~ z -! C ?: C , 8"' .. ill c-i2 /j.,-··, :·.11 \\ . \ ', c:, (1l c:, "C C ~ :::, C 0 :::, CD s ·c I C ! ... 0 1:J 'iij' ~ :::, Cl) I , ··· .. l,J ' ) .-' ! / .! • • :i e <( - ~ C ·! e ,.. ·2-a 0 0. "' "', >°' ~ 0 -. C'tl ' 0 0 C 0 0. ~ 0 (,,)-!l'l 0 "' "' ~ ~o" .. :g N 8u. ~ Ir ~ !:E 0 ....... ' J':, /, ,. ' .I I VIII. OTHER PERMITS VIII. OTHER PERl\.fITS At this time, the pennits anticipated for this project are as follows: Roadway and Drainage Construction Grading Permit 7976.003 [DED/mmlkn] IX. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN IX. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN The limits of clearing have been shown on the construction plans to encompass the entire site area. Silt fences have been shown on the plans to protect the adjacent properties from any possible sediment runoff. Since the site is only approximately 2 acres in size, and currently infiltrates all on-site storrnwater, we do not feel that it is necessary to provide any form of sediment traps or ponds. As construction progresses, silt fences will be maintained, and catch basin protection will be installed to ensure that all storrnwater leaving the site is clean and free of sediment. Once the underground detention vault is installed, it will act as a sediment trap, which will ensure that not sediment laden water will leave the site. 7976.003 [DED/mmllml X. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS X. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS A. RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY SUMMARY SHEETS AND SKETCHES 7976.003 [DED/mrn/kn] K l N G C O U N T 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 I RETENTION/DETENTION SUMMARY SHEET ENGINEER Name H*L t,@,u6'B DEVELOPER 12-, Name Bt U-r.,o .,._, S£a- Firm BAfi,1-!AvS/iN Address t '62..\'5 72 ,st:, MS S \:'.:'£.NT" ~ 48P'32.- Firm flll,,if S!>tJ/J() liherfZ:jCAt.-~/t£S!fP Address C;J?Vo 1aut Nf,.,S. $1.li"Tf. Zoo SfA:1:'[1.k. IPA '18" / 0 l5 Phone 4-Zc:i -'2.51 -bZ.2:z ...... • Developed Site Z. 2-acres Number ol Lots - • Number of Detention Facilities On Site I -~--- • Detention provided in regional laciltty D Regional Facilttylocalion --------------~~---- • No detention required D Acceptable receiving waters • Downstream Drainage Basins Immediate Basin A ---------- Basin B ---------- Basin C ---------- BasinD _________ _ TOTAL .. Drainage Basin(s) I Onslte Area 'l :2 .. 1 -Olfsite Area Type of Storage Facility VP(I.IL,,r Live Storage Volume ~ r4~-0 . . Predeveloped Runoff Rate 2year 10 year Postdeveloped Runoff Rate 10o·year 2year 10year OevelopedQ 100year Type ol Restriction Size of Orifice/Restriction Orifice/Restriction No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 Major Basin ,~ \21"u2- INDIVIDUAL BASIN A B C 2.-z., --' VP<vt..:f loi'l~ . o.io1.:, o.Sl}t e,. '11 'i! 0.1'11 (.SI"! 2.114- CIZ<fil-f... -z '/i " ·.·• ··-····· ~ '1,,:• D XI. MAINTENANCE AND OPERA TIO NS MANUAL I I K I N (; CO UN TY, W ,\ S H I N GT ON, S LI I{ F ;\ C E WAT E F fl ES I (; N M ;\ N U A L. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 1 -PONDS Malnlenanco Component General Side Slopes or Pond Storage Area Emergency Overllow/Spillway ~fact Trash & Debris Poisonous Vegelstion Pollution Unmowed Grass/ Ground Cover Rodent Holes Insects Tree Growth Erosion Sediment Rock Missing Conditions V/hen Malntenllncc I• Nee-d&<I Any uash and debfis which exceed 1 cubic foot per 1o::x:i square feat (this is about equal to the amounl .or trash it would lake to rill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. My poisonous vegetation which may constitulo a hazard to County personnel or tho public. Examples of poisonous vegetation include: lansy ragwort, pois.on oak. stinging nettles, devils club_ Oil, gasoline, or otho, contaminants of one gallon or more Q.! any amounl found that could: 1) cause damage to plant, animal, o, marine life: 2) constitute a fire hai8.rd; or 3) be flushed downstream during rain slorms. ff facility is located in private residential area, mowing is needed when grass exceeds 18 inches in height. In Other a.teas, the general policy is to milke the pond site match adjacent ground cover and terrain as long as there ·fs no interference with the function of the facility. Any evidence of todent holes if facility ls -acting as a dam o, berm, or any evidence of water piping through dam or berm via rodenl holes. 'vVhen insects such as wasps and hornets interfere with maintenance activities. Tree growth does not aUow maintenance aooess or interferes with maintenance activity O-e .. slope mowing, silt removal, vactoring or equipment movements). If trees are not interfering with access, leave trees alone. Eroded damage over 2 inches deep where cause of damage is still present or where there is potential fat continued erosion. Accumulated sediment that exceeds 10% of the designed pond depth. r_'":y pJ.:-4. :'. ·..!:'.·.·~ .·::.::; ~,~: :: ... :::,;;.:!..; inches lower than the design elevation. Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in area five square feel or large1, or any exposure of nalive soil. Results Expected When Maintenance Is: PorformQd Trash and debris cleared trom site. No danger of poisonous vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. (Coordinalion with Seattle/King C-Ounty Health Department) No contaminants present other than a surle.ce film. (Coordination with Seattle/King C-Ounty Health Department) When mowing Is needed, grass/ground cover should be mowed to 2 inches In height. Rodents destroyed and dam or berm repaired. (Coordination with Seattle/ King County Health Department) Insects destroyed or remo~ed from site. Trees do not hinder maintenance activities. Selectively CUitivate trees such as alders for firewood. Slopes should be stablli2ed by using appropriate erosion control measure(s}: e.g., rock reinforcement, planting of grass, compactfon. Sediment cleaned out to designed pond shape and deplhi pond reseeded if necessary to control erosion. ;:.;~c.> :ioi1VviJ U,:; buill i.Jack lo 1hu des1yn elevation. Replace rocks to design standards. ~/.1U K l N u L. I..) u N l i " ;\ :i J·j I N \..J I u l'I, ,.) l_J J<,. ,-t'\ ...... L VY f'I.. ' L I'.. l/ '. NO. 2 -INFILTRATION Main tenanc-o Cornponent General Storage Nea Filter Bags Rock Fille,s Trash &. Debris Poisonous Vegeta1ioo Pollution Unmowed Grass/ Ground Cover Rodent Holes Insects Sediment ~l,eet Cover (H Applicable) Sump Filled With . Sediment and Debris .(ff Applicable) Filled with Sediment and DebfiS Sediment and Debris Condltlona When Maintenance I a N c-e-d ct-0 See ·ponds· Standa1d No l See ·Ponds"" Standatd No. 1 Sae ·Ponds· Standard No. 1 See ·Ponds· Standard No. 1 See ·ponds· Standafd No. 1 See ·Ponds· Standard No. 1 A percolation test pit or test of facility indicates facility is only working at 90% of its designed capabilities. Sheet cover Is visible and has more than thcee 1/4..jnch holes in it. My sediment and debris filling vault to 10% of depth ·1rom sump bottom to bottom of ouUet pipe or obstructing flow into the connect 0, pipe. Sediment and debris fiU bag more than 1/2 lull. By visual Inspection little or no water llows through fillec doring heavy rain storms. A-?. A1' 1 ulh E..xp6-Cte-d ¥/hen Malntensnce h Pat!orrn-ed See ·Ponds Standatd No. 1 See ·Ponds Standard No. See ·ponds Standard No. See "Ponds Slandard No. See "Ponds Stand.ftd No. t See ·Ponds Standard No. 1 Sediment is removed and/or facility is cleaned so that infiltration system works acoording to design. Sheet cover repaired or replaced. Oean out sump 10 design deplh. Replace filter bag or redesign system. Replace gravel in rock filter. 1/9() I ;· K N G CO V N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S V k f A C E: W A T E: R D E S I G N M A N l' A L NO. 3 -CLOSED DETENTION SYSTEMS (PIPES/TANKS) Malnlen,11,nce Componanl Storage Alea Manho1e Catch Basins Defect Plugged PJr Vents Debris e.nd &:idiment Joinls Between T ank/Pipa Soction Tan1</Pipe Boni Out of Shape Cover not in Place Locking Mechanism Not Working Cove, Difficult to Removo Ladder Rungs Unsafe Condition& \Vhen M.olntenanco la Neoded One-half of the cross saclion of a vent is blocked al any point with debris and sediment. · Accumulated sediment depth exoeods 10% of the diameter or the storage area to, 1/2 length of storage vault or any poinl dep1h ex~eds 15% of diameter Example: 72-inch stocage tank would requife cleaning when sediment reaches depth· of 7 inches for more than 1/2 length of tank. My crack allowing material to be ltansported into facility. My part or tank/pipe is bent out of shape more than 10% of its design shape. Cover is missing or only partially io place. My open manhole requires malntenance. Mechanism cannot be opeC'led by ooe mainten_ance person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less than 1 /2 inch of thread (may not apply to self-locking lids). One maintenallce person cannot remove lid after applying 00 pounds of lift. Intent is to keep cover from sealing off a~ss to maintenance. · King County Sl!fety Office and/or maintenance person judges that ladder is unsafe due to mi~ng rungs, misalignment. rust. or cracks. See ··catch Basins· Standard No. s Re suit.a Exp-&etod V{hen M~lntontinco Is Parform1d Vents free of debris and sediment. All sediment ancl debris rnmoved from storage area. All joints between tank/pipe sections are sealed. Tank/pipe repaired or replaced to design. Manhole Js closed. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover can be removed and reinstalled by one maintena~ce person. Ladder meets design slandards and arrows malnlenan~ persons sate access. See "'Catch Basins~ Standard No. 5 1;")(J K I N G C Cl U N T Y, W /\ S H l N G T O N, ~ U fZ l· A c t: w A T t: " u tc , 1 v " M A " u /\ 1. NO. 4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR M.alnt1!1n.ance Componont General Cleanoul Gate 'orifice Plate O.,erflow Pipe Manhole Catch Basin D-e rect Trash and Debris (Includes Sediment) Structural Damage Damaged or Missing Damaged or Missing Obe.truet.ions Obstructions Cond!Uons When M.ri.lntenanc-o la Needed Dislance between debris build-up and bottom of orifice plate is less 1han 1-1/2 feet. - Structure is nol securely attached to manhole wall and outlet pipe structure should suppor1 al leest 1,CXX> pounds of up or down pressure. Structure is nol in upright position (aUow up to 10% from plumb). Conneclions to oullet pipe are not watertight and show signs of rust. Any holes -other than designed holes - in the structu,<i. Cleanout gate is not watertight or Is missing. Gate cannot ba moved up and down by one maintenance person. Chain leading to gate is missing or damaged. Gato Is rusted over 50'% of its surlace area. Control dovioe is not working properly duo to missing, oµt of place, or bent orifice plate. My lf'ash, debri,. 13ediment0 or wgotation blocking the plate. Any trash oc debris blocking (or having the potential of blocking) the overflOw pipe. See ·aosed Detention Systems:• ·Standard No.3. See "'Catch Basins" Standa,d No. 5. _l\-d Results &peeled Wturn Maintenance hi Perlorrned NI trash and debris removed St<ucture securely attached lo wall and outlet pipe. Strue1ure in correq_t position. Connections lo outlet pipe are watar1ight; structu,e repaired or replaced and works as designed. Structure hu no holes other than designed holes. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate moves up and down easily and is watertight. Chain is in place and works .as designed. Gato is repairod or roplaced to meel d6sign standards. Plate is In plaoo and works as designed. P1ate is free of all obstructions and works as designed. Pipe is free of all obstructions and works as designed. See "Oosed Detention Systems." Standa,d No.3. See "Catch Basins· Standard No. 5. 1 /QO 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 \\' ,\ T E R D ES ! G N M A N U A L NO. 5 -CATCH BASINS Malnten"-nc.ei Component General o~foct T1ash & Debris (Includes S-Od1n,ent) Structural Damage to Frame and/or Top Slab Cracks io Basin. Walls/Bottom Senlement/ Misalignment fire Hazard Vegetation Pollution Conditions When Malntonnnca la Needt:1d Trash or debris of morn than 1/2 cubic ·root which is located immediately in fron1 of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of basin by more than 10%. Trash or debris (in the.basin) that exCfJeds 1/3 the depth ftom the bottom of basin to invert ol the lowest pii:;:-e ;~·:s or out of the basin. Trash o, debris in any inlet or oullet pipe blocking more than 1/3 ot its height. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that would cause complalnls o, dangerous gases (e.g., methane}. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume. Comer of frame extends more than 3/4 inch pasrcurb faca·into 1he street ~f applicable). Top slab tias holes farger than 2 square inches or ci"acks wider than 1/4 inch pntent is 10 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 than 1/2 inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidenoe of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks, or rnaintenanoe person judges that structure is unsound. CraCks wider than 1/2 inch .ind longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through ctacks. Basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of aligni;nent. Presence of chemicals such as nalutal gas. oil, and gasoline. Vegetation ·growing across and blocking mOfe than 10% of the basin opening. Vegetation growing in inlotfoutlel pipe joints ·that is more than six inches tall and less Lr1i:in su, 1ni..:nes apart. Nonflammable chemicals of more than l /2 cubic foot per three feet of basin length. A-5 Res.ult.6 Exp.o-ct,e.d \Vh!)n Malntonanco la Porformod No 1rash or deb,is located immediately in front ol catch basin opening. No trash Of debris in the catch basin_ Inlet and outlel pipes free ol trash o, debris. No dead animals or vegetation ptesent within 1he catch basin. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects o, rodents. Frame is even wlth curb. Top srab Is free of h~les and cracks.. Frame is sitting flush on top slab_ Basin replaced or repaired 1:0 design standards. · No crack$ more lhan 1/4 inch wide at the joint of !nlet/oullet pipe. Basin replaced o, rape.ired to design standards. No flammable chemicals present. No vegetation blocking opening to basin. No vegetation or root growth p,esent. No pollution present other than surface film. 1/9( "' I N G C O U N T Y, \\' A S H I N G T O N, S U R FA C E W ;\ T L R D ES I G N M A N U A L NO. 5 -CATCH BASINS (Continued) M.alnt.onanc¢ Component Calch Basin Co,.,er Ladder Metal Grates (,f applicable) D-oloct Cover Not i11 Place Locking Mechanism Not Working Cover 01t1icuJt ·') Remove Ladder Rungs Unsafe Trash and Debris Oamagad or Missing Condition• \Vhon Mllintonanco I• N~ed Cover is missing or only panially in place My open yatch basin requires maintenance. 1-Mchanism cannot b-a opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts. into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. · One maintenance person cannot remove lid after applying 80 lbs.-of lift; intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance. Udder Is unsafe due to missing rungs, misalignment, rust. cracks, o, sharp edges. Grale with opening wider lhan 7 /8 inch. Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate missing or btoken member(s) of the g,ate. Atuuih &pb-Cto-d When M.nlntenoncc h Porrormod Catch basin cover is closed. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cove, cao be removed by one maintenance persOn. Ladder meets design standards and allows maintenance person sa_le access. Grate openings meet design standards. Grale ffM of trash and debris. Grate is in place and meets design standards. 1/90 K I N G C O ll N T Y, IV A S H I N G T O N, S U R FA C E W A T E R D ES i G N M A N U A L --~-------··--------~----- NO. 6 -DEBRIS BARRIERS (e.g. Trash Racks) Malntonance Component General Metal ~rocl Trash and Deb1is Damaged/ Missing Bars CondHfona ¥/hon M.n.lntonance h No-e-ded .Trash o, debris that is plugging more than 20% of the openings in the barrier. Bars are bent oul of shape more than 3 inches. Bars are missing or entire barrier is missing. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% deterioration to any part of barrier. A-7 Rosult1 Ex~cted 'Nhen Mll:lnlonance Is Performed Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. Bars In place with no bends more than 3/4 inch. Bars in plaoe according to design. .Repa1t-Or replace barrier !o design standaJds. lJ~ K I N G CO l' NT Y, W 1\ S H 1 NG TO N, S U R f AC E W 1\ I I: R D [ S I G N ,1 A N U A L NO. l -ENERGY DISSIPATORS Matntammca Component Rock Pad Dispersion Trench Manhof• /Chambo r Missing ot Moved Rock Pipe Plugged with Sedim6nl Not Discharging Wate1 Properly Perforations Pluggad Water PJWS O..,t Top oi ·Distributor· Catch Basin Receiving Alea Over-Saturatl!ld Worn or Oamageci Posts, Battles, Sides of Chamber Other Oefocts CondltJona Vlhl!!n Malntent1nce 11 Hee-do-<l Only ona 18.yer of rock exisls above native soil in area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of native soil. Accurnule.led sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. \/isual evidence of water discharging at conoentrated points along trench (normal condition is: a "she&t flow• of water along trench). lnlent is to prevent erosion damage. O.,er 1/2 of perforations in pipe am plugged with debrls aitd sediment Ms.intenance person obse~s water flowing out during any storm less than the design storm or ii Is causing or appears likely to cause damage. Water in receiving area is causing or has potential of causing landstide p,obfems. Structure dissipating tlo.v detedora.tes to 1/2 or original size or any concentrated worn spot exceeding one square foot which would make struciure unsound. See "Catch Basins" Standard No. 5 Re,uttt Expected \Vhen MA1nt6n.ance !, Performod Rep\ac.a rncks to design s.tandard. Pipe cleaned/flushed so Iha! it matches design. Trench must be redesigned or rebuilt to standard. • Clean or replace perloraled pipe. Facility must be rebuilt or redes1gned 10 standaids. No danger of landslides. Replae<i structure to design standards. See ·eatch Basins· Standard No. 5 1/90 K I N G C O U N T Y, WA S 1-1 I N G T O N, S U R f' 1\ C E W ,\ T E R D ES l G N M A N U A L NO. 8 -FENCING Melnton.ancc:i Comp0nont Goner al Wire Fences Missing o, Broken Parts Erosion Damaged Pans Deteriorated Palnt or Protective Coating Openings in Fabric Condltlon, When M.alntonanc-o Is Need~ Any defoct in the fence thal permits easy ·entry 10 a facility. PArlS broken or missing. Erosion moro than 4 inches high and 12- 18 inches wide permitting an opening under a fen~. Posts out ol plumb mou, lhan 6 inches. Top rails bent more than 6 inches. My pArt or fence ~ncluding posts, top rails, and 1abric) more than 1 foot out of design alignment Missing or loos.o tension wire. Missing or loose barbed wire t11a-t is sagging more than 2·1/2 inches between posts. Ex1ension arm missing, broken, or bent out of shape more than 1· 1/2 inchos. Part or parts tha.l have a rusting or scaling condition that has affected structural adequacy. Openings in fabric are such that an S.. inch-diameter ball could fit through. Result• Exp-e-cted %en Ms!ntonanco I, Performed Parts in place to prnvida adequate security. Broken or missing parts roplaeed. No opening under th-e fence that exceeds 4 inches in height. Posts pkJmb to wilhin 1~1/2 inches. Top rail tree of bends greater than 1 inch Fonco is aligned and meets design standards. l ension wire in place and holding fabric. Barbed wire in place with less than 3/4· inch s.ag betwe~n posts. Extension arm in place with no bends lai'get lhan 3/4 inch. Structurally adequate posts or parts with a uniform protective coating. No openings in fabric. I I KI N G CO U N T Y. WAS H l NG TO N, S U R f ACE WAT E R D ES l c; N ~I AN ll A L NO .. 9 -GATES Mt1.lntenanco Component General Dafa-ct Damaged o, Missing Members Openings In Fabric CondlUona \'.'h~n Malnt(ln.11.nco h No-e-d.e-d Mis.sing gate or locking devi~s. Broken or missing hinges such that gate cannol be easily opem1d and closed by a maintenan~ pars.on. Gate is out of plumb mo,e than 6 inches and more than 1 foot out of design alignment Missing st,etcher bar, slfetcher bands, and ties. See "fencing· Standard No. 8 Ro1ultJ. Exp-e-clod \Vnf!ln Malntonanco I, Pedorme-d Gates and !ocl<ing devices in pface. Hinges intact and lubed. Gate is wo,i.:ing freely. Gate is aligned .and vertical. Stretcher bar, band$, and ties 1n place. See "Fencing~ Standard No. 8 . ·~·~ ( K I N G CO U NT Y, \VAS l-l I NG TON, S U R FACE \VA l' ER D ES I C N MAN U A L NO. 10 -CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (Pipes & Ditches) Maintenance Component Pipes Open Ditches Catch Basins Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Rack) Deloct Sediment & Debris Vagetalion Damaged Tcash & Debcis Sediment Vegetation Etoslon Damage lo ·slopes Rock Lining Out of Place or Missing (If Applicable) Condition, 'When Malnteoanc:o /11, Nooded Accumulated sediment that exce,ads 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation that reduces free movement of wa.1er through pipes. Protective coating is damaged; rus! is causing more than 50% deterioration to any par1 of pipe. Any dent that decreases the cross sec1ion area of pipe by mor~ than 20%. Trash and debris exceeds f cubic foot per .1,CXX) square feel ot ditch and slopes. Accumulated sediment that exceeds ·20% o_f the design depth. Vegetation 'that reduces frM movement of water through ditches. See ·ponds• Standard No. 1 Maintenance person can see native soil beneath tha rock lining. See ·eatch Basins· Standard No. 5 See ·Debris Bacriers" Standard No. 6 A-11 Re(ult,. Expected Wlvm Maintenance (3 Performed Pi~ cleaned of all sediment and debris. AH vegetation removed so water Hows frnely through pipes. Pipe repaired Of rapla,:;ed. Pipe repaired Offep!e.Cf;ld, Trash and debtis cleared from ditches. Di1ch cleaned/flushed of all sodiment and debris so that it matches design. Water flows freely through ditches. See ·Ponds· Standard No. 1 Replace rocks to design standard. See ·eatch Basins" Standard No. 5 See ·0ebris Barriers" Standard No. 6 K I N G C O U N T Y, IV 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. 11 -GROUNDS (Landscaping) \talnten.anco Component General Trees and Shrubs Weeds (Nonpoisonous} Safety Hazard Trash or Utter Damage Condition, \'/hen Ma.Intone.nee It. N o-il-0-&d Weeds growing ln morn than 20% of the landscaped area (trees and shrubs only}. My presenoo ol pOi9.0n ivy or other poisonous vegetation. Paper, can, bottles, totalling more than t cubic foot within a landscAp<!d area (lfeos and shrubs only) of 1,000 square feet. Umb, or parts of trees or shrubs that e.ce split or broken whieh affect more than 25% of tho total foliage of the lree or shrub. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or knocked over. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported or are leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. Rasuth E.xpo-ctG-d Whon M.a!ntonance 11 Porformod Weeds presimt in less than 5% of the landscaped area. No poisonous vegetation present in 8 landscaped area. Nee dear of litter. Trees and shrubs with less than 5% ol the total foliage with split or broken limbs. Tfeo or shrub In place free of injury. Tree or shrub fn place and adequately supported; remove any dead or diseased 1cees. i,·:.,.., l. K I N G C O U NT Y. W A S H I N G TO N, S U R FA C E WA T E R D ES T G N M A N U A L NO. 12 -ACCESS ROADS/EASEMENTS Malnten~nco Component General Road Surface Shoulders and Dilches Trash and Debris Blocked Roadway Settlement. PotholeG, Mush Spots, Ruts Vegetation in Road Surface Erosion Damage Weeds and Brush Condlllona When Maintenance 11 Needod Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,0:::0 s.quate !eel. i.e .. trash and debtis would fill up one slandard size garbage can. Debris which could damage vehicle tires (glass or metal). My obstructions which reduca clearance above road surlBce lo less than 1-4 feet. My obstructions 1estricting the access to a 10-ta t 2•foot width for a distance of more t.han 12 feet or any point restricting access to less lhan a 10-foot width. When any suriace defect exceeds 6 1nches in depth and 6 square feet in area. In general, any sur1ac-e defect which hinders or prevents maintenance access. Weeds growing in the ro_ad surfaett that are more lhan 6 inches tall and less than 6 Inches apart within a 4-00-square-foot area. Erosion within 1-foot o( the roadWay more 1han 8 inches wide and 6 inches deep. Weeds and brush exceed 18 inches in height or hinder mainlenance acoos·s. A-13 Rotult~ Ex~le--d When M.alntenanc6 fs Parlormod Trash and debris cleared lrom si1e. Roadway free of debris which could damage tires. Roadw"!:Y overhead !="-lea, to 14 feet higl Obstruction removed lo allow al least e 12-fool access. Road surfac:e uniformly smooth with evidence of settlement. potholes, mush spots. or ruts. Road sur1aoe free of weeds taller than inches. ShoUlder free of erosion and matching the s'Cmounding road. Weeds and brush cut to 2 inches In height or cleared in such a way as to allow maintenance access. Geotechnical Engineering Design Study Harper Engineering Building Renton, Washington Prepared for Harper Engineering July 18, 2007 7508-02 -.. f1PD lr: '1 ' , I , 4 HLIRTCRoWSER 1 .J , J ] J L Geotechnical Engineering Design Study Harper Engineering Building Renton, Washington Prepared for Harper Engineering July 18, 2007 7508-02 I EXPIRES 03-12· Of , ! J. Jeffrey Wagner, PE Principal, Geotechnical Engineer CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2 The Site 2 The Proposed Building 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 Site Soils 3 Groundwater 4 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 General Considerations 4 Site Preparation s Structural Fill 6 Settlement Monitoring Program 7 Building Foundations 8 Floor Slab Design 11 Seismic Considerations 11 Drainage Considerations 12 Temporary Excavations 13 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 14 USE OF THIS REPORT 1 5 FIGURES Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan 3 Settlement Plate Installation Detail Hart Crowser Page i 7508-02 July 18, 2007 CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS Explorations and Their Location The Use of Auger Borings Standard Penetration Test (SPTJ Procedures FIGURES A-1 Key to Exploration Logs A-2 Boring Log HC-1 A-3 Boring Log HC-2 A-4 Boring Log HC-3 A-5 Test Pit Logs TP-1, TP-2 A-6 Test Pit Logs TP-3, TP-4 A-7 Test Pit Log TP-5 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Soil Classification Water Content Determinations Atterberg Limits (AL) Grain Size Analysis FIGURES B-1 Unified Soil Classification (USC) System B-2 Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report B-3 Particle Size Distribution Test Report Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 A-1 A-1 A-1 A-2 B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 B-2 Page ii GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDY HARPER ENGINEERING BUILDING RENTON, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering design study for the proposed Harper Engineering Building to be located at 770 SW 7th Street in Renton, Washington. We have organized this report into several distinct sections as follows: • Project Understanding; • Purpose and Scope of Work; • Project Understanding; • Subsurface Conditions; • Geotechnical Engineering Conclusions and Recommendations; • Recommendations for Additional Geotechnical Services; and • Use of This Report. Figures follow the main text. Figure 1 is a Vicinity Map. Figure 2 is a Site and Exploration Plan that shows the proposed structure and the location of our explorations. Figure 3 presents construction details for proposed settlement plates. These are followed by appendices addressing field explorations (Appendix A) and laboratory tests (Appendix B). PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our work is to provide Harper Engineering and their design consultants with geotechnical engineering recommendations related to the design and construction of the proposed facility. Our scope of work for this project included the following: • Reviewing subsurface information from previous explorations by Hart Crowser; • Advancing three borings to a maximum depth of 71 feet; • Performing laboratory tests including visual classifications, Atterberg limits, and grain size analyses; • Performing geotechnical engineering analyses; and • Preparing this report. Hart Crowser Page 1 7508-02 July 18, 2007 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The Site Figure 1 is a Vicinity Map that shows the location of the site, located at 770 SW 7th Street in Renton, Washington. It is approximately triangular in shape, with leg dimensions of about 450 and 2 50 feet, and covers an area just over 2 acres. It currently is an asphalt-paved parking lot. The site is relatively flat. The Proposed Building Figure 2 is a Site and Exploration Plan that illustrates the layout of the proposed structure. We understand that current plans call for a 20,000-square-foot light manufacturing building with a portion of the structure used as an office. The building footprint will be about 210 feet in a north-south direction and about 85 feet in an east-west direction. The structure will be situated in the eastern portion of the triangular site. The remainder of the site will remain as an asphalt- paved parking lot. We understand that the new building will be a one-to two-story slab-on-grade structure with the finished floor elevation very near the existing parking and street level. No significant grade changes or excavations are planned. We understand that foundation loads will be relatively light and typical for a building of this size. Perimeter wall loads will be on the order of 1,500 pounds per linear foot. Maximum interior column loads will be about 95 kips. Floor loads will be relatively light, less than 100 pounds per square foot. For seismic considerations, based on our conversations with the structural engineer, the building has a fundamental period of 0.2 seconds and the building will be designed per /BC 2006 design criteria. The site surrounding the proposed building will remain as an asphalt paved parking lot. No grading or modifications to the asphalt surface are planned. We understand that there are no settlement sensitive structures or utilities within 20 feet horizontally of the proposed building footprints. We understand that any existing storm lines will be removed as part of construction. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the site is based on materials encountered in explorations conducted by Hart Crowser for the current study Page 2 Site Soils Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 and on our review of existing exploration logs (test pits) prepared by Hart Crowser for previous site work in 2000 (Project No. 7508 dated December 18, 2000). Our explorations for the current study consisted of three borings. The locations of these subsurface explorations are presented on Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan. Subsurface soil conditions interpreted from the explorations formed the basis for developing the conclusions and recommendations contained within this report. The nature and extent of variations between explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. Details of conditions observed in the explorations are presented in Appendix A and should be referred to for more specific information. In general, the upper portion of the site, beneath the parking lot pavement and subgrade section, is underlain by very soft Silt and Clay that contain variable amounts of fine sand. These soft compressible soils generally extend to a depth of about 7 to 17 feet. Beneath this highly compressible zone, we encountered loose to medium dense Sand with varying amounts of gravel. Generally, this Sand becomes medium dense at a depth of 13 to 24 feet and then dense at a depth of about 25 to 3 5 feet. At a depth of about 64 feet, we encountered hard, sandy Silt. A more detailed description of subsurface soil types is as follows: • Compressible, Very Soft Silt and Clay. This is the prevalent soil type in the upper portion of the site. Laboratory tests indicated these soils to be of low plasticity. These soils will generally govern the design of the preload/ surcharge and the shallow footing foundations. • Sand. The upper portions of the Sand were generally in a loose condition and contained only trace amounts of organic material. With depth, the Sand becomes increasingly more dense and gravelly. The Sand is relatively much less compressible than the overlying Silt and Clay. • Hard Silt. Our deep boring, at a depth of about 64 feet, encountered and terminated in hard, sandy Silt with ash pumice. This layer is not expected to be a factor in the design of shallow foundations, but would provide very good support of deep foundations if they become necessary. Page 3 Groundwater It is important to note that as we reviewed the field samples in our laboratory, we noted that several of the gravelly sand samples from borings HC-1 and HC-3 (at depths of about 1 7.5 to 25 feet) exhibited a petroleum-like odor. Screening tests performed in the "head space" of the plastic sample jars in our laboratory indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds. We did not sample or preserve these samples with the intent of performing environmental laboratory tests, so these test results should not be relied upon for environmental purposes. We recommend that this condition be investigated further. Additionally, we noted a sheen on the groundwater within the split-spoon sampler at depths of about 15 to 30 feet in borings HC-1 and HC-3. We encountered groundwater in each of our three borings at a depth of about 10.5 to 11.5 feet below the ground surface. These groundwater observations are representative of the conditions at the time of the field explorations. Fluctuations in groundwater may occur as a result of variations in rainfall, temperature, season, and other factors. Previous test pits encountered groundwater as shallow as 8 feet below grade. Also, the amount of groundwater that seeps into a boring or excavation depends on the length of time that the boring or excavation remains open as well as the material in the boring or excavation sidewalls. The color of many of the soils samples in the upper portions of the borings has been described as "mottled," which is an indicator of a fluctuating groundwater level. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report presents our conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of design and construction. We have developed our recommendations based on our current understanding of the project. If the nature or location of the building is different than we have assumed, Hart Crowser should be notified so we can change or confirm our recommendations. General Considerations Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 One predominant characteristic of the site with respect to geotechnical issues is the upper unit of very soft, compressible Silt and Clay that underlies the area. This will affect earthwork techniques, site preparation, and selection of the foundation type for the proposed structures. During construction, the site soils will provide poor support for earthwork equipment if they are exposed in a wet Page 4 or disturbed condition. After construction, loads from fills and structures applied at the ground surface will cause consolidation of these soils, resulting in surface settlements. As such, these soils will generally drive construction procedures as well as the geotechnical design. Another predominant characteristic of the site is the potential liquefaction of site soils at depth due to a design seismic event. It is likely that these soils will liquefy and cause settlement of the ground surface and building footings. Provided that the owner is prepared to accept significant building and floor settlements resulting from soil liquefaction, building loads may be supported by shallow footings. However, this approach will also require: • Site preloading; and • Overexcavation of compressible soils and placement of structural fill beneath footings. Site Preparation Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 In preparation for construction, we recommend the following for site preparation in the building area: • Break up the existing pavement in the proposed building area in preparation for subsequent surcharge preload/placement. The lateral extent of the pavement demolition should extend 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the new building footprint; • Place preload/surcharge fill as described herein; • Remove preload/surcharge fill and asphalt pavement; • Beneath footings, overexcavate a minimum 4 feet beneath building footings and replace with 4 feet of compacted structural fill (refer to the Structural Fill section); and • If large areas of the original ground surface or the exposed subgrades beneath footings are unusually soft or disturbed, use of a geotextile stabilization fabric beneath the fill layer or a greater thickness of fill may be necessary to achieve a stable working surface. Groundwater was encountered in our explorations at depths of about 8 to 11.5 feet. Groundwater elevations may fluctuate. Therefore, the contractor should be prepared to deal with groundwater during site preparation, excavations, and Page 5 • Structural Fill Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 foundation installation. We recommend that ditching and sumping first be used to control groundwater. Other methods of groundwater control may be required during construction. Selection, Placement, and Compaction Criteria For imported soil to be used as Structural Fill, ideally, we recommend using a clean, well graded sand or sand and gravel with less than 5 percent by weight passing the No. 200 mesh sieve (based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction). Compaction of material containing more than about 5 percent fine material may be difficult if the material is wet or becomes wet during rainy weather. We recommend the following regarding placement and compaction of the fill: • Prior to placement of the preload/surcharge fill, prepare the site as previously recommended herein; • Proof roll the ground surface with a heavy static roller prior to placing fill; • Place fill in maximum 12-inch loose lifts; • Compact the preload/surcharge fill to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor test method (ASTM D 1557); and • After removal of the preload/surcharge fill, compact structural fill beneath footings and slabs on grade to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor test method (ASTM D 1557). Use of On-Site Soils as Structural Fill The suitability of excavated site soils for compacted structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that portion passing the No. 200 sieve) increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot be consistently compacted to a dense non-yielding condition when the water content is greater than about 2 percent above or below optimum. Reusable soil must also be free of organic and other deleterious material. Page 6 In general, our explorations indicated that the on-site soils consist of fine-grained silt and clay with varying amount of organic material. We recommend against using this material for structural fill. It may be possible to use this material in landscaped areas that will not be required to support pavements and that do not require compaction. It would be very difficult to achieve even minimal compaction or work with this material if it is wet when it is excavated or if it becomes wet during construction. Preload/Surcharge Fill Height In the building areas, place fill to an elevation 6.5 feet above the top of the proposed building floor slab. In these areas, the top of the surcharge fill should extend outside the building perimeter a distance of 1 0 feet and slope downward at an angle of 1.5H:1V or flatter. Duration of Preload/Surcharge The appropriate duration that the preload and surcharge fills should remain in place is difficult to accurately predict. Based on our experience with preloads in the project area, we anticipate that the duration for the preload may be on the order of 3 months. It is very important that the preload/surcharge fill settlement be monitored carefully as recommended herein. Settlement Monitoring Program Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 For the settlement monitoring program, we recommend the following: • Install settlement plates at strategic locations in the building and pavement areas. We recommend that at least eight settlement plates be evenly distributed across the building area. • Install settlement plates as shown in the typical installation detail (Figure 3). • Monitor settlement with conventional survey techniques. The settlement plates should be installed after preparing the subgrade and prior to placing any fill. • A surveyor should obtain initial settlement plate elevations immediately after placement of the plates and prior to placement of any fill. Obtain readings by standard differential leveling to the nearest 0.01 foot. The surveyors must establish a benchmark that will be outside the area of settlement influence; a Page 7 minimum distance of 100 feet is sufficiently far from the project site to obtain reliable survey readings. • During the first two weeks, obtain readings three times per week. After the first two weeks, the frequency may be reduced to twice per week. After four weeks, the frequency may be reduced further; to once per week, but modifying the frequency of the readings may be done only upon the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer reviewing the survey data. • Hart Crowser should review the settlement plate data on a regular basis as they are obtained. This will allow us to make recommendations regarding surcharge duration. Building Foundations Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 General Considerations and Design Approach Existing near-surface site soils generally consist of highly compressible, very soft Silt and Clay. As such, they are not suitable for direct support of building foundations and slabs-on-grade. Under static loading conditions, it is feasible to support the structures on shallow footings and slabs-on-grade provided that a minimum thickness of granular structural fill is placed beneath the footings and slab, above the underlying natural soils. If footings were placed directly on the soft, natural soils, there is a potential for a bearing capacity failure of the shallow footings. In addition to being highly compressible, the natural site soils are also prone to liquefaction and loss of strength during a design seismic event. As such, if the structures are supported on shallow footings, the buildings must be able to tolerate considerable settlement and damage during a seismic event without risk to the occupants, and the owner must be willing to accept significant damage to the structures that may make the facilities unusable until extensive repairs could be made. If such settlements are not acceptable, the alternative is to support the structures on piles that would extend to a considerable depth. Through previous discussions with the architect, we understand that supporting the structure on shallow footings and a slab-on-grade is the desired approach to be addressed by this report. The following paragraphs present our geotechnical design recommendations based on this approach. Page 8 Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 If the owner desires another approach that will perform differently during the design seismic event, we can address deep pile foundations, which is beyond the scope of our current study. The foundation design recommendations contained herein regarding static settlement assume that the surcharge material to be placed over the proposed building footprints will be allowed to remain in place until the underlying soft, compressible material achieves at least 90 percent consolidation. We recommend that Hart Crowser be retained to review settlement survey data. Removal of the surcharge load prior to 90 percent consolidation may cause excessive continued settlement of the subgrade, resulting in potential hazard for the proposed structures. Shallow Foundation Design Foundation support may be provided using shallow pad or continuous footings bearing on the minimum thickness of imported structural fill placed directly above the existing natural soils. We recommend the following: • Found shallow footings on a minimum 4-foot thickness of imported structural fill. • The minimum lateral extent of the fill material should be defined by a plane extending outward and downward from the outside edge of the footing to the top of the native soils at an angle no steeper than 1 H:1 V. • Design footings using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psi). • Allow an increase in the allowable soil bearing pressure of up to one-third for loads of short duration, such as those caused by wind or seismic forces. • Design individual footings to have a minimum width of 3 feet. • Design continuous footings to have a minimum width of 24 inches. • Place the base of the footings at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade for consideration of frost penetration. Page 9 • Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 • Footings should be founded outside of an imaginary 1 H:1V plane projected upward from the bottom edge of adjacent footings or utility trenches. • For resistance to lateral loads, use an equivalent fluid density to represent the passive resistance of the soil. For a typical footing poured against the structural fill, use an ultimate passive equivalent fluid density of 400 pounds per cubic foot (pd). Use a factor of safety of at least 1.5 when calculating soil resistance to lateral loads. • Use an ultimate coefficient of friction to resist sliding equal to 0.40 for footings poured neat against granular structural fill. Use a factor of safety of at least 1.5 when computing resistance to lateral loads. • Retain Hart Crowser to observe and document footing and backfill subgrade conditions during construction, prior to placement of the footings. Foundation Settlement For foundations designed and constructed as described herein, we estimate that the total post-construction settlement of individual and strip footings under static conditions will be less than 1 inch. We estimate that differential settlement between adjacent footings will be about one-half to three-fourths of the total settlement. These foundation settlement estimates assume that careful preparation and protection of the exposed subgrade will occur prior to structural fill and concrete placement. Any loosening of the materials during construction or the presence of loose material beneath footings could result in larger settlements than those estimated herein. It is important that the foundation excavations be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to placing any concrete and that there be no standing water in any foundation excavation. Provided that our preload/surcharge recommendations are followed during construction, long-term settlements due to continued consolidation of the compressible site soils and decomposition of organic material beneath the buildings are expected to be minor and generally fairly consistent across the footprint of the structure. As such, we do not anticipate long-term differential settlement to be an issue. Estimated settlements as a result of a seismic event are discussed subsequently. Page 10 Floor Slab Design The floor slabs may be constructed as slabs-on-grade. We recommend the following: • Design floor slabs to bear on a minimum 18-inch-thick layer of imported structural fill material above the natural soils. • At least the uppermost 6 inches of this structural fill layer should consist of free-draining capillary break material. This free-draining layer should contain less than 3 percent by dry weight passing the No. 200 sieve (based on the minus 3/•·inch fraction of the material). • For design of the floor slab, use a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci), as measured on a 1-foot-square plate. This assumes that the construction is accomplished as described above. • Retain Hart Crowser to observe and document the exposed slab subgrade prior to slab construction to verify suitable bearing surfaces. • We estimate that maximum settlement of the floor slabs, under the expected static loading, will generally be less than 1 inch provided that they are designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations. In the event of an earthquake, floor slabs are likely to experience settlements similar to the building footings, as discussed subsequently. Seismic Considerations Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 When cyclic loading occurs during a seismic event, the shaking can increase the pore pressure in loose to medium dense saturated sands or soft to medium stiff silt and cause liquefaction or temporary loss of soil strength. Such conditions are present at the project site. This can lead to bearing capacity failure (if footings bear directly on these soils) and surface settlement. In our opinion, the site soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. As such, we recommend that footings bear on a minimum thickness of structural fill as discussed above to alleviate the bearing capacity issue as previously addressed. However, widespread settlement across the site is likely and must be considered in the design of the structures. In our opinion, settlement due to liquefaction as a result of a seismic event may be on the order of 10 to 12 inches. Given the relatively consistent site conditions, we anticipate that such settlements would Page 11 be fairly uniform across the length and width of the buildings but could vary because of more localized seismic effects. We understand that the seismic design of the proposed building will be performed in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). The basis of design for this code is two-thirds of the hazard associated with an earthquake with 2 percent probability of exceedance in a SO-year window of time, which corresponds to an average return period of 2,475-years. We obtained the seismic hazard from the United States Geologic Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard Maps for Latitude 47.473 and Longitude -122.227. Below, we provide parameters for seismic design in accordance with this code. • Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, S, = 1.428 g; • Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, S1 = 0.489 g; and • Site Class F. It is our understanding that the building period is 0.2 seconds. Because of this, according to the IBC, a site specific analysis is not required and site class E may be used since this is the site class without regard to liquefaction. Although the site soils pose a risk from seismic-induced settlement, the probability of other seismic hazards at the project site, such as lateral spreading, ground rupture, and landslide, are very low. Drainage Considerations Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18. 2007 Temporary Drainage during Construction We understand that no large, deep excavations are planned for this project. Therefore, general site dewatering is not anticipated to be necessary. Also, we expect that excavations for footing construction will occur above the elevation of the encountered groundwater. As such, we do not expect groundwater control to be a significant issue. However, some control of surface runoff may be necessary during construction. Permanent Slab and Footing Drainage We recommend the following: Page 12 • Install perimeter footing drain around the new structures. The drains should consist of minimum 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe surrounded by at least 6 inches of free-draining material. • Design the foundation drainage system to drain by gravity, sloping downward toward an appropriate discharge, independent of other site drainage systems. • The slabs should be underlain by free-draining material as described above. • At this time, we do not anticipate the need for cross drains beneath the structure given our understanding of the site and our expectation that building grades will be above the groundwater level. However, the need for cross drains should continue to be reviewed and assessed during construction. Temporary Excavations Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 We do not anticipate that construction will require temporary excavations greater than 4 feet deep. We present general guidelines below if such excavations do become necessary. However, if such excavations are needed, Hart Crowser should be notified to address them more specifically. The stability and safety of cut slopes depends on a number of factors, including: • The type and density of the soil; • The presence and amount of any groundwater/seepage; • Depth of cut; • Proximity of the cut to any surcharge loads near the top of the cut, such as stockpiled material, traffic loads, structures, etc. and the magnitude of these surcharges; • Duration of the open excavation; and • Care and methods used by the contractor. We make the following general recommendations for open cuts: • Protect the slope from erosion by using plastic sheeting; • Limit the maximum duration of the open excavation to the shortest time period possible; • Place no surcharge loads (equipment, materials, etc.) at the top of the cut within a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the cut; and Page 13 • • Temporary cut slope should be the responsibility of the contractor. For planning purposes, we recommend a temporary cut slope no steeper than 1.SH to 1V. The recommendations presented above are very general in nature. Because of the variables involved, actual slopes required for stability in temporary cut areas can only be estimated prior to construction. We recommend that stability of the temporary slopes used for construction be the responsibility of the contractor, since the contractor is in control of the construction operation and is continuously at the site to observe the nature and condition of the subsurface. All excavations should be made in accordance with all local, state, and federal safety requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Hart Crowser should be consulted during the remainder of the design phase of the project to refine our recommendations as more information about the project requirements becomes available. Before construction begins, we recommend that Hart Crowser be retained to: • Meet periodically with design team as the design plans become more complete. • Review the final foundation design plans (to calculate settlement) and specifications to confirm that the geotechnical engineering recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented into the design. During the construction phase of the project, we recommend that Hart Crowser be retained to observe the following activities: • Site preparation and placement of structural fill; • Placement of preload/surcharge fill; • Assessment of surcharge settlement monitoring data; • Construction of the shallow footing foundations and slabs-on-grades; • Installation of drainage systems; and Hart Crowser Page 14 7508-02 July 18, 2007 • Other geotechnical consideration that may arise during the course of construction. The purpose of these observations is to determine compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface condition differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. USE OF THIS REPORT Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 Hart Crowser completed this work in general accordance with our proposal dated June 8, 2007. We performed this work for the exclusive use of Harper Engineering and their design consultants for specific application to this project. We accomplished our work in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in the same or similar localities, related to the nature of the work accomplished, at the time the services were performed. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. J:\jobs\750802\Harper Geotech Report.doc Page 15 ,-.. ;:' ;::; 0 ...J < w 7508-02 0 1/2 Approximate Scale in Miles -.. Harper Engineering Bui lding Renton, Washington Vicinity Map HIJRTCROWSER 7107 Fig ure 1 Ol _,; ~a, ::, _ co "' -o E ~ ·x a e C. C. 0 C. a:~ (J :c " 2,.00 ... 0 t) :c " N 9 (J :c " "' i!2 <( Ol~ C: .5 --"' -l: E 8:. ~ o, 0 CC, ~ ·x w 8 ,:/ '' NI :;j I ;:: I "'I ~I ,:; I ~I I I I I I I Ol I LJ ,Ol I I I I I I I I ,(> > "O ::, 1i5 c ~ ::, ~ C 0 ~ C C:,, ·;;; Q) Q • Existing Additional Pipe and Coupling as Required l l-, _J l ~· / Install Plate and 5' Pipe Riser to this Point before Placing Fill Ground Surfac\ I I - ct. ' .~~;;·. 0 i ~.•. •··. ~ 2" Standard Pipe y ' ~ V, ; ~ ~:~ ~~ \ ~ .. ·• .. • ~ Pipe Coupling W,aJ; ~.• y/; ' 0) ~. . i ~ / Weld all around ~ i ~/ ~&d;::?7~E07pY~d~P~ 2' x 2' 1/4" Plate j ~ 4 1/4" Holes 7508-02 -- Harper Engineering Building Renton, Washington Settlement Plate Detail 7/07 Figure 3 • Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS • APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS This appendix documents the processes Hart Crowser used in determining the nature of site soils. The discussion includes information on the following subjects: • Explorations and Their Location; • The Use of Auger Borings; and • Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures. Explorations and Their Location Subsurface explorations for this project included three borings. The exploration logs within this appendix show our interpretation of the drilling, sampling, and testing data. They indicate the depth where the soils change. Note that the change may be gradual. In the field, we classified the samples taken from the explorations according to the methods presented on Figure A-1 -Key to Exploration Logs. This figure also provides a legend explaining the symbols and abbreviations used in the logs. Location of Explorations. Figure 2 shows the location of explorations, located by hand taping or pacing from existing physical features. The ground surface elevations at these locations were interpreted from elevations shown on a site topographic map provided by the project architect. The method used determines the accuracy of the locations and elevations of the explorations. The Use of Auger Borings Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 We drilled three hollow-stem auger borings, designated HC-1 through HC-3, to depths ranging from 31.5 to 70.8 feet below ground surface. The borings were completed between June 18 and 19, 2007. The borings used a 4-inch inside diameter hollow-stem auger and were advanced with a truck-mounted drill rig subcontracted by Hart Crowser. A geologist from Hart Crowser continuously observed the drilling. Our geologist prepared detailed field logs of each boring. Using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), we obtained samples at 2-1/2-to 5- foot-depth intervals. The borings logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A· 4 at the end of this appendix. Page A-1 • Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 This test is an approximate measure of soil density and consistency. To be useful, the results must be used with engineering judgment in conjunction with other tests. The SPT (as described in ASTM D 1586) was used to obtain disturbed samples. This test employs a standard 2-inch outside diameter split- spoon sampler. Using a 140-pound hammer, free-falling 30 inches, the sampler is driven into the soil for 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches only is the Standard Penetration Resistance. This resistance, or blow count, measures the relative density of granular soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The blow counts are plotted on the boring logs at their respective sample depths. Soil samples are recovered from the split-barrel sampler, field classified, and placed into watertight jars. They are then taken to Hart Crowser's laboratory for further testing. J:\jobs\750802\Harper Geotech Report.doc Page A-2 ~ w w I ~ ~ • Key to Exploration Logs Sample Description Classification of soils in this report is based on visual field and laboratory observations which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field nor laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual-manual classification methods of ASTM D 2488 were used as an identification guide. Soil descriptions consist of the following: Density/consistency, moisture, color, minor constituents, MAJOR CONSTITUENT, additional remarks. Density/Consistency Soil density/consistency in borings is related primarily to the Standard Penetration Resistance. Soil density/consistency In test pits Is estimated based on visual observation and is presented parenthetically on !he test pit logs. Standard St.indard SAND or GRAVEL SILT or CLAY A~p,oximata Penetration Penetration S ear Strength Density Resistance (N) Conslstenfy Resistance (N) in TSF In Blows/Foot ' In Blows/Foot Very loose O lo 4 Very soft O to 2 <0.125 Loose 4 to10 Soft 2 to 4 0.125 to 0.25 Medium dense 10 to30 Medium stiff 4 to a 0.25 to 0.5 Dense 30 to50 Stiff a to 15 0.5 to 1.0 Very dense >50 Very stiff 15 1030 1.0 to 2.0 Hard >30 >2.0 Sampling Test Symbols 0 Split Spoon &&I Grab (Jar) [I] Shelby Tube (Pushed) IZl Bag ([[O Cuttings D Core Run SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLE.AN --Will,GRADEO GRAVELS. GRAVEL · ., .•. GW SANO MIXT\JRES. LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL GRAVELS FINES ANO GRAVELLY u POORtY-OFV,DEO GR,O,VELS, SOILS (llffiE OR HO FIN~S) , CY<:' GP GRAIi EL-SANO MIXTURES. LITTlE OflNOFINES COARSE o' \ J GRAINED GRAVELS WITH ' I)' ,.__• GM ~LTYGRAVELS. GRAVEL -SANO· SOILS MORE THI\N 50% FINES SILT MIXTURES Of COARSE ' -,,,m,N RETA~EOONNO CU.VEY ORAi/ELS, GRAVEL· $/\NO· • SIEVE (.u>PRECtASLE ,. GC AMOUNT OF FINES) ClAY Ml)I.TURES " CLEAN SANDS <:t:~_·:t\ SW WEll.ORADEOSANOS, GRAVELLY MOAE TltAN 50% SANO ........... S"l'IOS, lITTLE 0A NO F1NE9 Of MATERIAi.iS ANO LARGER THAN SANDY ...... _.,_.· .. POORL Y-GRAOEO SANOS. N0.200SIEVE SOILS .. ""' (UJTLE OR NOFl"IES) :·_.·::::. :-:.-:·.-SP GRAVEllYSA>,O, LITTLE OR NO ANllS SANOS WITH 1·:.:_-. \·:-•·:··: SM Sil TY SANOS. SANO. Sill MORE THAN 50% FINES •. MIXTURES Of COARSE .:.- FRACTION PASSINGOll!NO. V; ."/// CLAVEY SANOS. SANO-ClAY ~ SIEVE !APPR£CWM.E SC AMOUNT OF FINES) V//;..,,. MIXTURES I INORGNUC StLTSANO 1/E'RY FINE ML SANOS,ROCK FLOUA. Sn.TY OR ClMEY FINE SANOS OR CLAYEY Sil TS WITM SLIOIH f'lAS1'CH'I SILTS INQRGJ!JslC CLAYS OF LON TO FINE ANO WOUIOLIMIT CL MEOIUM Pl,ASTICIJY. GRAVElLY GRAINED CLAYS lESS THANOO CI.AYS, !IANOYCLAYS, SILTY ClAYS, LEM C\AVS SOILS --_-_-OL ORGANIC Sil TS ANO ORON,IIC SIL lY ~ --Cl.AVSOI' LOW Pl.ASTICtTY -- MCRET~S0'4 I INORGmJC SILTS, MICACEOL'S OR OFWt.TERIALIS MH OIATOl,',ACEOV5 FINE SANO OR S'MllER THAN SILTY SOIL.S NO . .OOSIEVE SIZE Sil TS AND llOUIO LIMIT CH INORGANIC CLAY.S OF HIOH CLAYS GREATERTIVW50 PLAST•CITI' -OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITI'". OROAr-OC SILTS H!GHL Y ORGANIC SOILS ..,,_ _.l, PT PEAT, HUMLIS, SWAJ/1,f' .SOILS WITH ~ ..,,_ HIGI-! ORGANIC CONTENTS ~ NOTE: DUAL SVMl!Ol.S ARE USFOTO!NOlCATE DOROERUNE SOJL CLASSIFICATIONS Moisture Dry Little perceptible moisture Damp Some pe(ceptible moisture, likely below optimum Moist Likely near optimum moisture content Wet Much perceptible moisture, likely above optimum Minor Constituents Estimated Percentage Trace <5 Slightly (clayey, silly, etc.) 5 -12 Clayey, silly, sandy, gravelly 12 -30 Very (clayey, silty, etc.) 30 -50 Laboratory Test Symbols GS Grain Size Classification CN Consolidation UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial CU Consolidated Undrained Triaxial CD Consolidated Drained Triaxial QU Unconfined Compression OS K pp TV CBR MD AL Direcl Shear Permeability Pocket Penetrometer Approximate Compressive Strength in TSF Torvane Approximate Shear Strength in TSF Carifornia Bearing Ratio Moisture Density Relationship Atterberg Limits I • I Water Content In Percent I~ Liquid Limit Natural PlasUc Limit PIO Photoionization Detector Reading CA Chemical Analysis OT In Situ Density in PCF Groundwater Indicators Groundwater Level on Date or (ATD) At Time of Drilling Groundwater Seepage (Test Pits) Sample Key Sample Type \ Sample Recovery "- S-1 ~ Sample_} Number .. .. 12 23 50/3" ~Blows per 6-inches HLIRTCROWSER 7508-02 FigureA-1 6/07 b " ~ "' 0 0 0 I " 'l " z " 0 ~ $ w z Boring Log HC-1 Location: See Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 23 Feet Horizontal Datum: Vertical Datum: Drill Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: 140 lb. SPT Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: C. Brown Reviewed By: J. Wagner STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE LAB TESTS & (PIO) uses Graphic Soil Descriptions Depth in Feel Class Log ----Very soft, wet, gray, slightly sandy SILT to ML 0 clayey SILT. - -s ,_CL ~-------------------I-I Very soft, wet, gray CLAY with trace of fine sand and organic material. 10 I-----~-------------------ML Very soft. wet, gray, sandy SILT. I-15 1--------------------------SM Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, medium to fine SAND. Petroleum-like odor noted at 20-foot depth. -· 20 - - SW-SM • Medium dense, wet, gray, slightly silty, ' gravelly to very gravelly SAND Petroleum-like odor noted at 25-foot depth. -· 25 ~ ·, ' - :; ' • 1-3 0 S-1 S-2 S-3 'l S-4 ATD S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8• -_._ r S-1 o• ' Bottom of Boring at 31.5 Feet. r Started 06/18/07. r Completed 06/18/07_ * Sheen observed on groundwater in sampler -3 5 at sample depths of 20, 25, and 30 feet. - - 40 -, 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum Jines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3 USCS designations are based on visual manual classifica!ion {ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboralory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is al time of drilling {ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. sample 12 13 13 7 9 10 .&. Blows per Fool 0 10 20 30 C ·- •· .. • -• -\ -- -\ -·\ - -\ - -· •• - • .. 0 20 40 60 • Water Content in Percent -.. 40 50+ ~~-~ . . --:-- (0.5) GS 1"{20.3) 1-(1.4) -~ 80 100+ HIJRTCROWSER 7508-02 Figure A-2 6/07 ~ ~ ~ b " ~ 0: 0 0 Boring Log HC-2 Location: See Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevat'1on: 23 Feet Horizontal Datum: Vertical Datum: uses Graphic Class Log Soil Descriptions Depth in Feet ML Very soft, wet, orang·e-mOtued g-,.-y-.-s-a-nd~y----o SILT ........._1-foot-thick, moist, brown, medium to fine SAND layer. -10 L 'J_ ATD ,_ s1vr -Loose, wet, gray, slightly silty, medium to fine SAND with trace of organic material. - -15 L !---20 L L SP.SM -:·· L.........Medium dense, wet. gray, slightly silty, · _L._ gravelly SANO with wood debris. L.........25 L - - SP -~---i-'"111--~---------------__j-30 Medium dense to dense, wet, brown to gray, trace to slightly silty, gravelly to very gravelly Orm Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: 140 lb. SPT Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: C. Brown Reviewed By: J. Wagner STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE Sample 0 S-1 1 1 1 S-2 2 2 0 S-3 0 1 0 S-4 0 0 S-5" S·6" s.r S-8" S-9 S-10 _. Blows per Foot 0 10 20 • 1 ·• " : f I-lo • • \ • ' \ \ : \ • - - • ,· 30 40 :• 50 LAB TESTS +_ A G s o' ) SAND. \ r ~ ~ "' ~ 00 21 ro 0 ~ "' 0 ~ " z ii' 0 00 ~ w z . \ < . ::_ < .•. . > ·,:·:.· • ~,o 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designalions are based on visual mant1al classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at lime of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. S-11 .. } I 0 20 40 60 ao 100+ • Water Content in Percent -.. Hl.lRTCROWSER 7508-02 6/07 Figure A-3 112 ~ " ,. 0 " "-"' 0 <J Boring Log HC-2 Location: See Figure 2 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 23 Feet Horizontal Datum: Vertical Datum: uses Graphic Class Log SP Soil Descriptions Medium dense to dense, wet, brown to gray, trace to slightly silty, gravelly to very gravelly SAND. (cont'd) '-Silty ML Hard, wet, gray-brown, sandy SILT with ash pumice. Bottom of Boring at 70.8 Feet. Depth in Feet 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Drill Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: 140 lb. SPT Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: C. Brown Reviewed By: J. Wagner STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE S-12 S-13 S-14 S-15 S-16 S-17 S-18 Sample 17 • • 15 18 21 15 5013 .6 Blows per Foot 0 10 20 f-~ '\ f- f- f-\ f-• \ f- . 30 \ ~ .. -----·--,-....,_:~ • I .. .~ c \ c • c c c c • c . , .. • ._ 40 • \ LAB TESTS 50+ GS ' Started 06/18/07. <J I ~ "-" ~ m s m 0 ~ ~ " 0 ~ " 2 " 0 m $ w 2 Completed 06/19/07. * Samples obtained from supplemental boring drilled-10 feet from HC-2 using mud 75 rotary drill method. ao 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. uses designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing {ASTM D 2487)_ 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling {fl TD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. - - - . - f- 0 20 40 60 80 100+ • Waler Content in Percent .. .. HLlRTCROWSER 7508-02 Figure A-3 6107 2/2 Boring Log HC-3 Location: See Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 21 Feet Horizontal Datum: Vertical Datum: Drill Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: 140 lb. SPT Hole Diameter: inches Logged By C. Brown Reviewed By: J. Wagner STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE LAB TESTS & (PIO) ~ 0 "' " >-0 " ~ oc 0 0 0 I ~ ~ " ~ ro ~ ro 0 ~ ~ " 0 ~ " z ii' 0 ro s w z USCS Graphic Soil Descriptions Depth Class Log in Feet ML Very soft to soft, wet, orange mottled gray 0 SILT. 5 SM Loose, wet, red~brown, trace to slightly silty SAND with interbedded silt lenses. 10 'J. ATD SP Medium dense, wet, gray to brown, gravelly SAND. 15 '-Slight petroleum-like odor at 17.5-foot depth. '-Sandy gravel with wood fragment (4-inch). 20 ~Trace of wood fragments. Becomes dense. 25 30 ' Bottom of Boring at 31.5 Feel. Started 06/18/07. Completed 06/18/07. * Sheen observed on groundwater in sampler 35 at sample depth of 15 feet. 40 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for exptanaUon of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. uses designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary wilhlime. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6* S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 Sample 0 1 1 9 15 19 8 13 19 "' Blows per Foot 0 10 20 - ~ • ~ ~ • f-< -+ ~ ~ • ~ . . . L • •"'-L K -• t. • I L . \ L • L / / L . . • L K L K ~ • L - ~ L L ~ 0 20 40 30 ' 60 • Water Content in Percent -.. 40 50+ -~ Al .~ -(5.3) (5.9) 80 100+ HJ.IRTCROWSER 7508-02 Figure A-4 6/07 t, "' ~ "' 0 Test Pit Log TP-1 Loc::ition: See Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 21 Feet Logged By: Reviewed By uses Graphic Class Log Soil Descriptions ------- ML (Soft), moist, brown, slightly sandy SILT with organic material ML (Medium stiff), moist, brown and gray with orange mottling, slightly sandy Sil T with organic material. ----------- ML (Medium stiff to stiff), moist, gray and brown with orange mottling, clayey SILT with abundant wood pieces. ML (Medium stiff), wet, dary gray, fine sandy SILT. Bottom ofTest Pit at 9.0 Feet. Started 12/01/00. Completed 12/01/00. Test Pit Log TP-2 Location: See Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 23 Feet Logged By: Reviewed By: uses Graphic Class Log Soil Descriptions ML (Soft), moist, light brown, slightly sandy SILT with abundant organic material. SM/ML (Loose to medium dense), damp, very silty SAND with interbedded SILT and organic material. Horizontal Datum: Vertical Datum: Depth in Feet 0 -5 ~ L ')_ ATD ~, 0 - S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 Sample Horizontal Datum: Vertical Datum: Depth in Feet 0 ~ S-1 S-2 Sample " " I ' /_:' 5 SP (Loose), dry, gray and brown, fine SAND. ML {Medium stiff to stiff), moist, gray with orange mottling, slightly sandy, clayey SILT with wood debris. C ~ L___,----Elottom-of Test Pit al 9.0 Feet. Started 12/01/00. C-10 Comp le led 12/01100. 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are inlerprelive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designa1ions are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater condilions, if indicated, are at time of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. S-3 S-4 Water Content in Percent 41 52 50 39 Water Content in Percent 29 30 5 62 -.. PID PID 111.tRTCROWSER 7508 Figure A-5 12/00 LAB TESTS LAB TESTS Test Pit Log TP-3 Loeation: See Figure 2 Horizontal Datum: Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 23 Feet logged By: Reviewed By uses Graphic Class. Log Soil Descriptions Vertical Datum: Depth in Feet Ml -(Soft), moist, light brown, sl,ghllisan_d_y_S_l_l T~w-it_h_a_b-un_d_a_n_t -,-o organic materiar. Ml (Medium stiff), moist, gray and light brown with orange mottling, slightly sandy SILT with organic material. S-1 5 S-2 (Medium stiff to stiff), moist, light gray with orange mottling, l clayey Sil T. r· 10 S-3 Bottom of Test Pit at 10.0 Feet Started 12/01/00. Completed 12/01 /00. Test Pit Log TP-4 Location: See Figure 2. Horizontal Datum: Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 21 Feet Vertical Datum: logged By: Reviewed By: uses Graphic Sample Class Log Soil Descriptions Depth in Feet Sample 5 " go 0 0 ' 0 I ML SP :-._'. ML Ml 1------ Ml (Soft to medium stiff), moist, dark-brown. slightly sandy SILT, with abundant organic materiaL (Loose), moist, brown and gray, fine to medium SAND. (Soft), damp, light brown and light gray with orange mottling, slightly sandy SILT. (Medium stiff), moist to wet, gray with orange mottling, slightly sandy, clayey SILT with some organic material. (Medium stiff), moist to Wei:-dark gray SILT. Bottom of Test Pit at 10.0 Feet. Slarted 12/01/00. Completed 12/01 /00. 1. Refer to Figure A~ 1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. " " ~ 0 5 10 'y_ ATD 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classificalion (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at time of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 Water Content in Percent 30 38 41 water Content in Percent 37 15 24 35 38 .. .. PIO PIO HI.IRTCROWSER 7508 Figure A-6 12100 LAB TESTS LAB TESTS f- 0 " ~ .. 0 Test Pit Log TP-5 Loc'tl.!ion: See Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 20 Feet Logged By: Reviewed By: uses Graphic Class Log Soil Descriptions ML 111 (Soft to medium stiff), moist, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT with abundant organic material. SP (Loose), moist, gray and brown, fine SAND. ML (Soft to medium stiff), dry to damp, light brown with orange mottling, slightll sandy SILT. ML (Medium stiff to stiff), moist to wet, gray with orange mottling, clayey Sll T with organic material. ML {Medium stiff), wet, dark gray, fine sandy SILT. Caving Bottom of Test Pit at 10.0 Feet. Started 12/01/00. Completed 12/01/00. Horizontal Datum Vertical Datum: Depth in Feet 0 f- f- -5 - - 'iJ. io ATD f- ~ S-t S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 Sample ~I 1. Refer lo Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater conditions. if indicated, are at lime of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Water Content in Percenl 40 8 20 38 35 -.. PIO Hl.lRTCROWSER 7508 Figure A-7 12100 LAB TESTS Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM A laboratory testing program was performed for this study to evaluate the basic index and geotechnical engineering properties of the site soils. The tests performed and the procedures followed are outlined below. Soil Classification Field Observation and Laboratory Analysis. Soil samples from the explorations were visually classified in the field and then taken to our laboratory where the classifications were verified in a relatively controlled laboratory environment. Field and laboratory observations include density/consistency, moisture condition, and grain size and plasticity estimates. The classifications of selected samples were checked by laboratory tests such as Atterberg limits determinations and grain size analyses. Classifications were made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System, ASTM D 2487, as presented on Figure B-1. Water Content Determinations Water contents were determined for most samples recovered in the explorations in general accordance with ASTM D 2216, as soon as possible following their arrival in our laboratory. The results of these tests are plotted or indicated at the respective sample depth on the exploration logs. In addition, water contents are routinely determined for samples subjected to other testing. These are also presented on the exploration logs. Atterberg Limits (AL) Hart Crowser 7508-02 Ju~ 18, 2007 We determined Atterberg limits for selected fine-grained soil samples. The liquid limit and plastic limit were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 4318-84. The results of the Atterberg limits analyses and the plasticity characteristics are summarized on the Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report, Figure B-2. This relates the plasticity index (liquid limit minus the plastic limit) to the liquid limit. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are shown graphically on the boring logs as well as where applicable on figures presenting various other test results. Page B-1 Grain Size Analysis (GS) Hart Crowser 7508-02 July 18, 2007 Grain size distribution was analyzed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. Wet sieve analysis was used to determine the size distribution greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the tests are presented as curves on Figures B-3, plotting percent finer by weight versus grain size. J:\jobs\750802\Harper Geotech Report.doc Page B-2 ·' Unified Soil Classification (USC) System Soil Grain Size C Size of Opening In Inches I. Nurnber of Mesh per Inch Grain Size in Millimetres -=i (~S_ ~tandard) 0 0 N ro ~ ~ M N 0 ~ N~ .:!~~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 o ro ;,; M rO 8 0 ro ~ M r M~r ~ ~ N ~ ro ~ No 0 0 C! ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl !D '<I" (") N Grain Size in Millimetres \---c_o_B_BL_E_S~----G-RA_V_E_L_C_oa-,s-a-'·G--'ra-in-.d-So_il_s __ ... SAND . =E. ___ F_i:_IL_.:_:_~_:._:_ls_A:_il_• ___ ~ Coarse-Grained Soils G W ··r . -·- G p I __ G M I G C • <5% fines ( GRAVEL with >12% fines Clean GRAVEL GRAVE L :>50% coarse fraction larger than No. 4 . s w I s p I. s M I s C :\; Clean SAND <5% fines SANO with >12% fines SAND >50% coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 Coarse-Grained Soils >50% larger than No. 200 sieve ' ' ( 'D60 '>4 for G W GWandSW -,0),5 for s w (D,a) \ ( 2 \ &1< ---,<3 -,D 10 X Doo) - G M and S M Atterberg limits below A line with Pl <4 G P and S P Clean GRAVEL or SAND not meeting requirements for G Wand SW G C and S C Atterberg limits above A Line with Pl > 7 * Coarse-grained soils with percentage of fines between 5 and 12 are considered borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols. 0 10, D:3 0, and 0 60 are the particles diameter of which 10, 30, and 60 percent, respectively, of the soil weight are finer. Fine-Grained Soils ~ .. --.. ---- ML CL ... SILT CLAY Soils with Liquid Limit <50% 50 X 40 f CL '5 30 i a: 20 10 -CL-ML OL MH CH OH - Organic SILT CLAY Organic Soils with Liquid Limit >50% Fine-Grained Soils >50% smaller than No. ?.00 sieve ML orO L CH -----· M Hor OH Pt Highly OrQanlc Soils 50 40 30 20 10 0 IL.. __ .1...... __ _,__ __ ._L __ _L __ __L __ --l ___ ,__ __ .1...... __ _,_ __ .J 0 10 20 SRF G1plt, S!ie (8-rJ.«lr l'OS 30 40 50 Liquid Limit 60 70 80 .. .. 90 IILIRTCROWSER 7508-02 Figure B-1 6107 • ' ~ Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report 60 / / V / V Dashed line indicates the approximate I/ / upper limit boundary for natural soils / / / 0~ 50 / f-- / / / / o<. / / c,~ / / / 40 f--/ / / / >< w / / 0 / ;a,: / >-/ / t:: 30 f--u / v· V i'= / <I) / '.'i / a_ / / o"' ,/ / 20 - / / o<. / / c,'v / • / / / / 10 - ~/ • 7 -' CL-ML~ ML orOL MH or OH 4- I : I I 10 30 50 70 90 110 LIQUID LIMIT Location + Description LL PL Pl -200 uses • Source: HC-2 Sample No.: S-3 Depth: 7.5 46 37 9 ML SILT a Source: HC-3 Sample No.: S-2 Depth: 5 SILT 48 33 15 ML Remarks: Project: Harper • • Client: Harper Engineering Location: Renton, Washington == 7508-02 61712007 ~~---------· 11/JRTCROWSER Figure B-2 • • Particle Size Distribution Test Report s ' s 0 s s ~ s ;; " ~ l 0 ~ ~ at ,i ~ 0 N --• • • 100 \ ' ... - ~ \' 'I\ ' 90 --- '\ ------ ' ~ '\ :~ 80 -~-I' " [",: - 70 ~ I"- 0:: J' -~ /\ [',. : w 60 ----L -- z ~ • LL --- \ 1"---I' f-.____ z 50 w I\ u -- 0:: \ I' I w 40 ---a. I\ \ ------- \ 30 : \ \; \ . \ " \ 20 '~ \ \. ~ '• f'---. "' 10 --,, ~ '-; 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.00 GRAIN SIZE -mm ~/, COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT %CLAY -----• 0.0 41.0 53.1 5.9 -~ • 0.0 25.2 64.4 10.4 .. 0.0 41.6 56.3 2.1 > LC--LL Pl D" D,o Dso D,. o,. D,, cc c, • 20.388 5.067 3.311 1.387 0.506 0.257 1.48 19.75 -·---------• 9.107 1.109 0.58 0.263 0.127 0.87 15.48 .. 16.053 5.211 1.161 0.351 0.222 0.176 0.13 29.67 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION uses NAT. MOIST. -• Slightly silty, very gravelly SAND SW-SM 13.1% • Slightly silty, gravelly SAND SP-SM 22.1% .. Very gravelly SAND SP 190% Remarks: • Project: Harper Engineering Building Client: Harper Engmccring • Wood in sample • Source: I IC-I Sample No.: S-9* Depth: 25.0 to 26.5 • Source: HC-2 Sample No.: S-9 Depth: 25.0 to 26.5 .. Source: HC-2 Sample No.: S-13 Depth: 45.0 to 46.5 .. -.. 7508-02 61712007 IIJ.IRTCROWSER Figure 8-3