Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MISC - 1 of 3
Figure 6. Sc r een-captu r e of TMDL list for WRIA in wh ich unit is found -03.3 I W RIA 9: D uwa mish -Gr een T he following table lists overvi e w 1nformat1on for w ater qual ity improv ement proiects (including tota l maximum daily loads , or TMDLs ) for this water resource inv entory a r ea (WR[A ). Please u se li nks (where available ) for more information on a proiect. . .. ... n u Counties • &a.g W aterbod y Nam e Po llutants Status .. THDL Lead Qu w ami~h and Lower Ammonia-N Approv ed b y EPA JQan NQlan I Gre en Riv er 425-649-4425 Faunt lerot Creek Fecal Co liform Approv ed by EPA lQan Nolan Has an implementation plan 425-649-4425 Fen w ick Lake Tota l Phospho rus Approv ed b y EPA (1993 , Tri~ia ShQQIQm Clean Lakes Program ) 425-649-7288 Category 5, 2008 Water Quality Assessment ~r een Riv s:r ang Temperature Green R111 er TMDL Joan NQlan Ne w aukum Creek Dlssolv ed Oxy gen Approv ed b y EPA 425-649-4425 Newaukum Creek TMDL Approv ed b y EPA Has an implementation plan La k e Sawyer Total Phosphor us Approv ed b y EPA Trici a Shoblom Has an implementation plan 425-649-7288 S2os Creek Fecal Coliform Under de v elopment Qa ve Ga r land 425-649 -7031 Aquati c Habitat Joan NQlan Dissolve d Oxy gen 425-649-4425 Temperature • • Status wr/1 be lrsted as one o f the following: Approved by EPA., Under Deve lopme nt or Implementation 7 ~ E ~ ,: ( Figure 5. Screen -capture of 303(d) li sted waters in basin -D3.1, D3.2 9 - ~I / luk, 1 t·-4, ~.,.11 .. ,• - ~ t.:1nder B lvd \:,i: 'o ~ "' ~ ~ /' C. ~ , . 0. " > " .£ 0 " ~ C " Mmk ler ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SW27hst ~ "' ~ " " . w.i1stS1 '---~..,...Htftfih s .. ! . "' ~ l \. --.. S192ndSt \ \~ ,.,., '2 ($> <; . 9, Thom -l6 -:,, 0, tea~fa~ "' P•1lo. ($> <; . ~ 9, o,, , S! ~. \JI .,!' ---~~ ~ . .,. o' ~ i• ~Ian, q '•" --- :::: . ~ ~ ~ SE 164th St "' w "' (I) . . ~ c ~ ~ wfe ;: SE '68th St~ - \ J :: ~ \ ~ \ SE 172 ' SE PetrCNltl Y Rd •, SE '861h St SE 192nd St Approximately 1 mile LEGEND ' WetlandA 6 Figure 4. Accessible and undisturbed habitat 1 km from w e tland edge -H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 ' Wetland A G Relatively undisturbed G Moderately disturbed Note: Boundaries depicted may not be to scale. Th ey are s ketches based o n available data and best profess ional judgment. 5 Figure 3. Contributing upland basin to wetland area -D4 .3, DS.3 Note: Boundaries depi c te d may not be to scale. They are sketches based on available data and best professional judgment. LEGEND * Wetland unit Q Approx. basin boundary 4 Figure 2. Hydrology: hydroperiods, outlets, and 150ft buffer -01.1, 01.4, 04.1, Hl.2, 02.2, 05.2 t Seasonally flooded ' Saturated only I\J Permanently flowing stream Q Approx. 150-foot buffer Note: Boundaries depicted may not be to scale. They arc sketches based on avail able data and best professional judgment 3 Fi g ure 1. C owardin pl an t cl asses -D l.3, H1 .1, Hl .4 Q Wetland boundary :\ f Permanent stream ~ ' Palustrine emergent Q Palustrine scrub-shrub G Palustrine forested N ote: Bounda ri es d e pi cted m ay not b e to scale. They a r e s k et ches base d on ava il a b le da ta a nd best p rofess iona l judg m ent. 2 ECY 2014 Wetland Rating Form: Depressional figures Figure 1. Coward in plant classes -01.3, Hl .1, Hl.4 Figure 2. Hydrology: hydroperiods, outlets, and 150ft buffer -01.1, 01.4, 04.1, Hl.2, 02.2, 05.2 Figure 3. Contributing upland basin to wetland area -04.3, 05.3 Figure 4. Accessible and undisturbed habitat 1km from wetland edge -H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin -03.1, 03.2 Figure 6. Screen-capture of TMDL list for WRIA -03.3 Resources and Links: King County i-Map Google Earth ECY 303(d) list TMDL list 1 Wetland name or number Wetland A This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 12 Wetland name or number: Wetland A SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? I/you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 0 Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. 0 Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). OYes = Category I 0 No= Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? 0 The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks 0 The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) OYes -Go to SC 5.1 0 No= Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? 0 The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). 0 At least% of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. 0 The wetland is larger than 1/,o ac (4350 ft') DYes = Category I ONo = Category II SC 6.0. lnterdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: 0 Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 D Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 0 Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 OYes-Go to SC 6.1 0No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? OYes = Category I O No -Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? DYes = Category II O No -Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 DYes = Category Ill ONo = Category IV 11 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Cat I Cat. II Cat. Ill Cat. IV NA Wetland name or number: Wetland A Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? D The dominant water regime is tidal, D Vegetated, and D With a salinit realer than 0.5 t DYes-Go to SC 1.1 c8l No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? DYes = Category I D No -Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? D The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) D At least% of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. D The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. DYes = Category I DNo= Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? DYes -Go to SC 2.2 c8l No -Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? DYes = Category I ONo = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http: //wwwl .d n r. wa .gov/ n h p/refdesk/ data search /wn h pwetl ands. pdf DYes-Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 c8l No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on theirwebsite? DYes=Categoryl DNo=NotaWHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. I/you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks 1 that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil.profile? DYes -Go to SC 3.3 c8l No-Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? DYes -Go to SC 3.3 c8l No= Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? DYes =Isa Category I bog D No -Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested(> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1. 2015 DYes= Isa Cate o Ibo DNo = Is not a bo 10 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number: Wetland A WDFW Priority Habitats Priorjty habitats listed by WDFW [see complete descriptions ofWDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http: 1/wdfw.wa.gov /publications/00165 /wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation /phs /list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m} of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat D Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha}. D Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). D Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. D Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest -Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha}> 32 in (81 cm} dbh or> 200 years of age. Mature forests -Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflarge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. D Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 -see web link above). 0 Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. D Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 -see web link above). 0 Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. D Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report-see web link on previous page). • D caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. D Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. D Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 -6.5 ft (0.15 -2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. 0 Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are> 6.5 ft (2 m] in height. Priority logs are> 12 in (30 cm] in diameter at the largest end, and> 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 9 Wetland name or number: Wetland A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 0 Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). 0 Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland 0 Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) D Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree 4 slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed} 0 At least >I ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) D Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.lfor list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 15 RatingofSitePotential lfscoreis: t2l1S-18=H 07-14=M 00-6=L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat: 2.6% + ((0.4% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]: 2.8% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%} of 1 km Polygon points= 3 0 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points= 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points= 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points -O H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat: 10.4% + [(6.7% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]: = 13.8% Undisturbed habitat> 50% of Polygon points= 3 1 Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and in 1-3 patches points= 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and> 3 patches points= 1 Undisturbed habitat< 10% of 1 km Pol,,aon ooints -O H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points= (-2) -2 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points= 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 04-6 = H D 1-3 = M t2l < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points= 2 [2] It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) D It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) D It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2 D It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources D It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points= 1 Site does not meet anv of the criteria above ooints = 0 RatingofValue lfscoreis: t2l2=H Dl=M DO=L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 Record the ratmg on the first page 8 Wetland name or number: Wetland A These questions apply to wetlands of all H., dasses, HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that site functions to provide impo~ habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Coward in plant classes in the wetland. Up ta 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Ji ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. 0 Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points= 4 0 Emergent 0 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have> 30% cover) 0 Forested (areas where trees have> 30% cover) If the unit has a Forested class, check if: 3 structures: points= 2 2 structures: points= 1 1 structure: points= O 0 The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or X ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). D Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points= 3 0 Seasonally flooded or inundated D Occasionally flooded or inundated 0 Saturated only 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland D Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland D Lake Fringe wetland D Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 • 3 types present: points= 2 2 types present: points= 1 1 type present: points = O 2 points 2 points Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not hove to name the species. Do not include Eurasian mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species 5 -19 species < 5 species H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats points= 2 points= 1 points= O Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes {described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. C) None= 0 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH= 3points 0 Low= 1 point Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 .,, Moderate= 2 points 7 4 2 2 3 Wetland name or number: Wetland A DEPR~:iSIQNAL Ati!D F!,AT:i WfiLAti!!2S Hydrologic Functions -Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 0 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points= 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points= O D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points= 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to< 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= S 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to< 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 3 The wetland is a "headwater'' wetland points= 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points= 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points= 5 0 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points= 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points= 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points= 5 Total for D4 Add the points in the boxes above 5 RatingofSitePotential lfscoreis: D12-16=H D6-ll=M 1210-S=L Record the roting on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=O 1 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes= 1 No =O 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at 1 >l residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes= 1 No= 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1213 = H D 1 or 2 = M DO= L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points= 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points= 1 2 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points= 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points= O There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points= 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes= 2 No =0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: 1212-4 = H D 1 = M DO= L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 6 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Q~PBE~IQHAL Afl!Q El.A~ WETLAfllQS Water Quality Functions -Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points= 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 1 noints -2 I Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 I Wetland is a flat denression !QUESTION 7 on keu• whose outlet is a oermanentlv flowine ditch. ooints 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface {or duff layerl is true clay or true organic {use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No= 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants> 95% of area points= 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants> 1/2 of area points= 3 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants> 1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants< 1/10 of area points= 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for ot least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is> Y, total area of wetland points= 4 4 Area seasonally ponded is> Ji total area of wetland points= 2 Area seasonally ponded is< X total area of wetland points= O Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 012-16 = H [2]6-11 = M D0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No =O 1 D 2.2. Is> 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes= 1 No =0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes= 1 No=O 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source Yes= 1 No =0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 03 or 4 = H c2ll or 2 = M DO= L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 1 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=O D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=O 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDLfor the basin in which the unit isfaund)? Yes= 2 No=O Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: [2] 2-4 = H D 1 = M DO = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 5 Wetland name or number: Wetland A rzlNO-go to 6 DYES -The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. rzlNO -go to 7 DYES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. r8JNO -go to 8 DYES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope+ Riverine Riverine Slope+ Depressional Depressional Slope+ Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine+ Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depression al for the rating. Wetland is Slope+ Depressional + Riverine Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 4 Wetland name or number: Wetland A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? !ZINO-go to 2 DYES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe -go to 1.1 1.1 ls the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO-Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES-Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. !ZINO-go to 3 DYES-The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? DThe vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; DAt least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). IZINO -go to 4 DYES-The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? DThe wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), DThe water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, DThe water leaves the wetland without being impounded. IZl NO -go to 5 DYES-The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks ( depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? DThe unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, DThe overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1. 2015 3 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Riverine Wetlands Map of: Coward in plant classes Hydroperiods Ponded depressions Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Width of unit vs. width of stream (con be added to another fioure) Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Coward in plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303{d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of: Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees 1 shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 To answer questions: Figure# D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 1 D 1.4, H 1.2 2 D 1.1, D 4.1 2 D 2.2, D5.2 2 D 4.3, D 5.3 3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 4 D 3.1, D 3.2 5 D 3.3 6 To answer questions: Figure# H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 R 1.1 R 2.4 R 1.2, R 4.2 R4.1 R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 R 3.1 R 3.2, R 3.3 To answer nuestions: Fi11ure # L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 L 1.2 L2.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 3.1, L 3.2 L3.3 To answer questions: Figure# H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 S 1.3 54.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A RATING SUMMARY -Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID#): Wetland A Date of site visit: 2/1/2016 Rated by: J. Palmer, R. Kah lo Trained by Ecology? ISJY D N Date of training: 09/2014 HGM Class used for rating: Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ISJY ON NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined}. Source of base aerial photo/map: King Count iMap. GoogleEarth OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions ISi or special characteristics D) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS D Category I -Total score= 23 -27 ~ Category II-Total score = 20 -22 D Category Ill-Total score = 16 -19 D Category IV-Total score= 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Water Quality Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M (L) H) M L Landscape Potential H rvj L H M L H M (L) Value ..!9 M L ..!:! M L H) M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 7 7 21 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon lnterdunal None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 CATEGORY I II I I I I I II I II III IV l2J Score for each function based on three ratings ( order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,l 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,l 3 = L,l,L 1 SOIL s amolina Point -DP-4 Profile Description: {Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features /inches) Color lmoistl % Color lmoistl % T e' L Texture Remarks 0-3.5 10YR 211 100 Loamy sand 3.S-12 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam dry 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SollsJ D Hisloso! (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2cm Muck. (A10) D Hislic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D other (explain in remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D D Depleted Below Dark Surface {A 11) D Depleted Matrix {F3) D Thick Dark Surface {A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless dislurbed or problematic D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver (if present): Type: Hydrlc soil present? Yes D No ~ Depth (inches): Remarks: No redox. Some large gravel at bottom of pit. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Surtace water (A 1) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surtace (B8) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) D High Water Table (A2) D Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (B9} D Drainage Patterns (B 10) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11} D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (613) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor {C1) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D FAG-Neutral Test {OS} D Iron Deposits (BS) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils {CS) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) {LRR A) D Surtace Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) D Frost-Heave Hummocks D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery D Other (explain in remarks) (B7) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes D No [8J Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes D No [8J Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No ~ Saturation Present? Yes [8J No D Depth (in): 0-4 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Top 4 inches saturated from precipitation. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version Till WATERSHED COMl'i\NY WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM 750 Sixth Street South Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the ======:i Kirkland, Washington 98033 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual II II (425) 822-5242 DP-4 watershedco.com Project Site: Renton Vallev Medical Center Sampling Date: 2/412016 ApplicanVOwner: Renton Vallev Medical Center Sampling Point: DP-4 Investigator: R. Whitson J. Palmer City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 30 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hlllslope I Slope(%): <5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A I Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatiCJhydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 0 Yes D No (Jf no, explain in remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? 0 Yes D No Are VegetationO, Soil D, or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? Are VeoetationO. Soil 0, or Hydrol()(ly O naturallv nroblematic (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site mao showina samollna oolnt locations, transects, im~rtant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Click here to enter text. Yes [81 Yes D Yes D VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute% Cover 1. 2 3. 4 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 35 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) 1. Phalaris arundlnacea 90 2 Poasn. 30 3. Ranuncu/us re-ns 60 4 5 6 7. a ' 10. 11. 80 Woodv Vine Stratum IPlot size: \ 1. Rubus armeniacus 5 2. 5 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers No D No li'J No li'J Is the Sampling Point within a WeUand? Yes D No ~ Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Snecies? Status Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (Bl = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/8) Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multi(!I~ b~ OBL species x1- FACW species x2 = FAC species x3- -Total Cover FACU species x4 = UPL species x5 = Column totals (A) (8\ y FACW y FAC Prevalence Index= B /A= y FAC Hvrtroohvtic ve,-tation Indicators 0 Dominance test is > 50% D Prevalence test is !ii 3.0 • Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting D data in remarks or on a separate sheet) D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants • D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation* (explain) = Total Cover " Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be nresent, unless disturbed or problematic y FACU Hydrophytlc Vegetation 0 D = Total Cover Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version SOIL Samclina Point DP-3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inchesl Color rmoist) % Color (moist) % Tvne1 Loe' Te:,cture Remarks 0-6 10YR 311 90 10YR 316 10 C M Sandy Clay loam 6-14 10Y 2.511 100 Loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentralion, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators ror Problematic Hydric SoilsJ D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (SS) D 2cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (explain in remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions {F8) Restrictive Laver (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check afl that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Surface water (A 1) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4BJ 0 High Water Table (A2) D Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B} (B9) D Drainage Patterns (810) 0 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Sediment Deposits {82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D FAC-Neutral Test (05) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils {C6) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants {01) (LRR A) D Frost-Heave Hummocks D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery D Other (explain in remarks) (87) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes D No 0 Depth {in): Water Table Present? Yes 0 No D Depth (in): 6 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~ No D Saturation Present? Yes 0 No D Depth (in): surface (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge. monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version Till WATERSHED CU,\\ 1'1\" Y WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM 7f/J Sixth Street South Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the r.======a Kirl<land, Washington 98033 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual II II (425) 822-5242 DP-3 wate<shedco.com Project Site: Renton Vallev Medical Center Sampling Date: 2/1/2016 ApplicanVOWner: Renton Vallev Medical Center Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator: R.Kahlo J. Palmer City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 30 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landfonn {hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression I Slope(%): <5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A [ Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 0 Yes D No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are "Nonnal Circumstances" present on the site? 0 Yes D No Are Vegetation 0, Soil D, or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? Are VeaetationO, Soil 0, or Hydrol""'" D naturally problematic {If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Altach site mao showlna samolina oolnt locations, transects, lm=rtant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Click here to enter text. Yes 0 Yes 0 Yes 0 VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants. Tree Stratum {Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute% Cover 1. Poou/us balsam/fera 10 2 Acer macroohvllum 20 3. Salix lasiandra 5 4. 35 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1 Oemlerla cerasffonnis 15 2 Rubus sr»N":ab/1/s 10 3 4 5 35 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m diam.) 1. Phalarls arundlnacea 60 2. Eaulsetum telmatela 20 3. 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11 80 Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: l 1. Rubus armenlacus 5 2. 5 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarl<s: US Army Corps of Engineers No D No D No D Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ~ No D Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet S"""'cies? Status y FAC Number of Dominant Species 5 y FACU that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) N FACW Total Number of Dominant 7 Species Across All Strata: (8) ~ Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are DBL, FACW, or FAG: 57% (A/8) y FACU Prevalence Index Worksheet y FAC Total% Cover of Multi~I~ b~ OBL species X 1 = FACW species x2 = FAC species x3= = Total Cover FACU species ,4- UPL species x5= Column totals (A) /Bl y FACW y FACW Prevalence Index= B /A= Hunroohvtlc Veru11tatlon Indicators c;iJ Dominance lest is > 50% D Prevalence test is s 3.0 * Morphological Adaptations• (provide supporting D data in remarks or on a separate sheet) D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants • D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'" (explain) = Total Cover '" Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation [;gJ D = Total Cover Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version SOIL Samnlina Point DP-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features finches\ Color (moistl % Color (moist' % Tvoe 1 Loe' Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam 6-9 10YR3/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M Loamy sand 9-14 10YR3/2 85 7.5YR 314 15 C M Sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2cm Muck (A 10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral {F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (explain in remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver (if present): Type: Hydrlc soil present? Yes 1:8:1 No D Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Surface water (A 1) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) D High Water Table (A2) D Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) D Drainage Patt.ems (B10) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D WaterMarks(B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Shallow Aquitard (D3} D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Iron Deposits (BS) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Frost-Heave Hummocks D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery D other (explain in remarks) (87) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes D No 0 Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes D No 0 Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 1:8:1 Saturation Present? Yes D No 0 Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Damp, not saturated. Saturated at 14 inches. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version 1111 WATERSHED CU,\\ !'1\ ~ 'i WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM 750 Sixth Street South Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the r.=====,1 Kirkland, Washington 98033 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual II II (425) 822-5242 DP-2 watershedco.com Project Site: Renton Valley Medical Center Sampling Date: 2/1/2016 Appl icanUOwner: Renton Valley Medical Center Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator: R.Kahlo, J. Palmer City/County: Renton Sect., Townshio, Range: S 30 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Terrace I Slope(%): 3 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A J Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 0 Yes D No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? 0 Yes D No Are VegetationD, Soil 0, or Hydrology O significantly disturbed? Are VeQetationO, Soil 0, or Hvdroln.,v O naturally problematic (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showina sampllna point locations. transects, lmnnrtant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Click here to enter text. Yes [8J Yes [8J Yes D VEGETATION U -se seen tlfl I I c names o · D ants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: Sm diam.) Absolute% Cover 1 Ponu/us balsam/fera 55 2. Sa/Ix /as/andra BO 3 4 135 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Cornus serlcea 70 2 3 4. 5 70 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1mdiam.) 1 2. 3 4. 5 6 7. a. 9 10 11 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Rubus armenlacus 5 2 5 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: us Army Corps of Engineers No D No D No 0 Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes D No [;gj Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Soecies? Status y FAC Number of Dominant Species y FACW that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) = Tota! Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are DBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) y FACW Prevalence Index Worksheet Total% Cover of MultiQI~ b~ OBL species X 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x3= = Total Cover FACU species x4 = UPL species x5= Column totals (A) /Bl Prevalence Index= B /A; Hvarophvt1c Vegetation Indicators 0 Dominance test is > 50% D Prevalence test is s 3.0 * Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting D data in remarks or on a separate sheet) D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants• D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation* {explain) = Total Cover • Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation cgJ D = Total Cover Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version SOIL Samplinq Point -DP-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches\ Color {moist\ % Color /moist\ % Tvne1 L= Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/2 100 Clay loam 6-12 10YR 2/2 85 5YR 314 15 C M,PL Clay loam 12-15 2.5Y 312 70 5YR 314 30 C M,PL Loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: {Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils3 D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral {F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (explain in remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D D Depleted Below Dark Surface {A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 18] Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) Restrictive Laver (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes IZ1 No D Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply)· Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Surface water (A 1) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) D High Water Table (A2) D Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (89) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Water Marks (B1} D Aquatic Invertebrates (613) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Sediment Deposits (62) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4} D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6} D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Surface Soil Cracks {B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Frost-Heave Hummocks D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery D Other (explain in remarks) (B7) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes D No 18] Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes 18] No D Depth (in): 16 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No IZI Saturation Present? Yes 18] No D Depth (in): 16 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data {stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soll moist but not saturated US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast -Interim Version Tl-I l WATERSHED CU.\\l'ANY WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM 750 Sixth Street South Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to U,e =====ai Kirkland, Washington 98033 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual II II (425) 822-5242 DP-1 watershedco.com Project Site: Renton Valley Medical Center Sampling Date: 211/2016 ApplicanUOwner: Renton Vallev Medical Center Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator: R.Kahlo, J. Palmer City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 30 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Slope I Slope(%): <5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Subregion (LRR): A I Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, B to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 0 Yes D No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? 0 Yes D No Are VegetationO, Soil 0, or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? Are VegetationD, Soil 0, or Hvdro1~-·· D naturally problematic (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site maD showing sampling point locations, transects, im=rtant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Click here to enter text. Yes 12J Yes l2l Yes D VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute% Cover 1 Po"'''lus balsamWera 40 2 3 4. 40 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1 2 3 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) 1. Phalaris arundlnacea 20 2. Eciuisetum telmatela 15 3 4 5. 6. 7. 6. 9. 10 11 35 Woortu Vine Stratum (Plot size: l 1 Hedera helix 5 2 5 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: US Anny Corps of Engineers No D No D No 12J Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes D No IZJ Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Species? Status y FAC Number of Dominant Species 3 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: (B) = Tota! Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 {AIB) Prevalence Index Worksheet Total% Cover of Multi(:!I~ b~ OBL species X 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x3= = Total Cover FACU species x4= UPL species x5= Column totals (A) (8) y FACW y FACW Prevalence Index= B /A= HvnroDhvtlc Ve=tatlon Indicators 0 Dominance test is > 50% D Prevalence test is s 3.0 * Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting D data in remarks or on a separate sheet) D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants* D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• (explain) = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be nresent, unless disturbed or problematic y FACU Hydrophytlc Vegetation [Z] D Yes No = Total Cover Present? Western Mounrains, Valleys, and Coast -tnrerim Version Wetland and Stream Delineation Report -Renton Valley Medical Center Hardi, B. March 1, 2016 Page 9 then it must be shown how the proposal minimizes the modification to the greatest extent feasible. State and Federal Regulations Wetlands and streams are regulated by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any filling of Waters of the U.S., including wetlands (except isolated wetlands), would likely require notification and permits from the Corps. Wetland A would not be considered isolated due to its connection to Panther Creek. Federally permitted actions that could affect endangered species (i.e. salmon or bull trout) may also require a biological assessment study and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Application for Corps permits may also require an individual 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency determination from the Washington Department of Ecology and a cultural resource study in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In general, neither the Corps nor Ecology regulates wetland buffers, unless direct impacts are proposed. When direct impacts are proposed, mitigated wetlands may be required to employ buffers based on Corps and Ecology joint regulatory guidance. The information contained in this letter or report is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria outlined in the methods section. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available to us at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, property access, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate County, State and Federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Jasmine Palmer Ecologist Enclosures Ryan Kahlo, PWS Ecologist Wetland and Stream Delineation Report-Renton Valley Medical Center Hardi, B. March 1, 2016 Pages These modification options can be considered in more detail during design and impact assessment phases as the project progresses. Streams Streams are classified based on Washington State's Permanent Water Typing System (WAC 222-16-030, RMC 4-3-050-G.7.a). Status as Shoreline of the State, permanence of flow, and presence of fish or fish habitat are considered to make the stream class determination. Stream buffers are measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Type F streams are regulated under RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. A summary of stream types and buffer widths is provided in Table 2, below. Table 2. Summary of stream classifications and associated standard buffer widths. Stream Name Stream Type Standard Buffer Width (ft) Panther Creek Type F 115 Stream B Stream C TypeF TypeF 115 115 If the stream buffer extends into a protected slope or a high landslide hazard, the stream buffer will be extended to the boundary of the protected slope or landslide hazard (RMC 4-3-050-G.2). The slopes of the ravine by the west side of Panther Creek in the study area are mapped as erosion hazard areas ( not a protected slope or landslide hazard area) by King County iMap, although the standard wetland and stream buffers are more encumbering than the erosion hazard area. Further assessment by a geotechnical expert may be required in these areas. If a stream is adjacent to other high functioning critical areas, such as other streams or wetlands, the buffer may also be extended to the buffer of the other protected critical area to maintain contiguous vegetated corridors between streams and other critical areas (RMC 4-3-050-G.7.d.ii). There are options for buffer reduction or averaging listed in RMC 4-3-050-1.2. With buffer reduction, the minimum width possible for an F-type stream is 90 feet. Buffer averaging would also require enhancement and would need to preserve the original total area. The minimum buffer width at any point is 75 feet for F-type streams. Both buffer reduction and buffer averaging would need to be approved by the City of Renton. These modification options can be considered during design and impact assessment phases as the project progresses. All buffer reduction proposals must also first satisfy the mitigation sequencing criteria. This includes a showing of the steps that were taken to avoid the need for buffer reduction, including alternative proposals that were considered. Engineering feasibility, safety, and cost can all be considered as part of the justification for buffer reduction. If it can be demonstrated that a proposal cannot be redesigned to avoid buffer reduction, Wetland and Stream Delineation Report -Renton Valley Medical Center Hardi, B. March 1, 2016 Page 7 Local Regulations Critical areas in the City of Renton are regulated in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), Title IV Development Regulations, Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay District, 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. In addition to critical area buffer setbacks, buildings and other structures must be set back 15 feet from the edges of wetland, stream, and habitat conservation area buffers. However, the City may impose or allow modifications to standard buffer widths of wetland and stream critical areas under certain circumstances. Wetlands According to RMC 4-3-050-G.9, wetlands are classified based on the 2014 Rating System (Hruby). Wetland buffers are measured from the wetland edge and are based upon the wetland rating, associated habitat score, and impact of land use. The adjacent land use would not be considered low intensity, therefore the buffer width for "all other land uses" applies. Wetland A is a category II wetland that rates as "moderate" for habitat functions, meaning it has a buffer width of 150 feet. Table I. Wetland rating and associated buffer width. Wetland Name Wetland A Water Quality 7 2014 Ecology Wetland Rating Hydrology 7 Habitat 7 Total 21 Category II Standard Buffer Width (ft) 150 Wetland delineations are valid in the City of Renton for up to five years from the study date of completion. This period may be extended if it can be confirmed that on-site conditions have not changed. Alternate buffer widths may be approved by the City of Renton if a detailed wetland study is submitted with clear rationale for why the standard buffer widths are unnecessary and how the alternate buffer widths satisfy criteria identified based on best available science (RMC 4-3-050-G.9.d.ii). There are opportunities for buffer averaging and/or buffer reduction detailed in RMC 4- 3-050-1.3. A wetland buffer may be reduced if the reduced buffer will function better than the standard buffer, if it is never less than 75% of the standard buffer width, and if there are no slopes greater than 15%. Buffer averaging may be permitted such that the buffer is not reduced more than 25% of the standard buffer if it can be demonstrated that the proposed buffer is based on best available science. Reductions of greater than 75% require a variance. Buffer enhancement may also be necessary on a case-by-case basis. W e tland and Stream De lin eation Re port -Re nton Va ll ey Medical Cente r H ar di, B. Figure 3 -Panther Creek looking west from culvert. Photo taken 2/1/2016 . Figure 4 -Stream B looking northw est. Photo taken 2/1/2016. March 1,2016 Page 6 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report -Renton Valley Medical Center Hardi, B. March 1, 2016 Page 5 Panther Creek enters the far cast side of the study area through a culvert and flows west to the far west boundary of the study area. The creek is lined with Himalayan bla ckberry for the majority of the study area (Figure 4). A few mature coniferous and deciduous native trees provide sparse forested areas along Panther Creek in the eastern side of the study area (Parcels 3023059111 and 3023059034). According to WDFS SalmonScape, Panther Creek is used by coco and chum salmon species. Stream s Band C Streams Band Center the study area through culverts at the north end of the west parking lot. Stream C is a small tributary to Stream B and joins Stream B approximately 40 feet downstream of the culvert opening. Stream B flows north until joining with Wetland A, where a defined stream channel is no longer present. Stream B enters Wetland A approximately 100 feet south of where Panther Creek flows through the wetland. Streams Band Care h ydrologi cal ly connected to Panther creek through Wetland A via s heetflow and inundated wetland areas, and there are no natural barriers to fish passage. These streams, therefore, have the potential to provide occasional fish habitat and are classified as Type F streams. Photos Figure 3 -Panther Creek enters study area through a culvert on the east side of the study area. Photo taken 2/1/2016. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report -Renton Valley Medical Center Hardi, B. March 1, 2016 P age4 Two areas dominate d by reed ca n arygr ass, one along the south side of Panther C r ee k a nd a long Strea m B, were assessed for wetland characteristics (DP-1 , DP-4). Although a hydrophy tic plant community is present at these locations, h y dric soil and wetland h y drology criteria arc not satisfied . Wetlands Our investigation determined tha t the large wetl a nd m a pped by the City or Re nton w hich includes WSDOT mitigation pl a ntings extends into the study area at the n orth west comer. Wetland A Wetland A is a large riverine, slope, a nd depressional wetland loca ted on Parcels 3023059 111 and 8857670060 . Panther Creek flows westward through the wetl and and then turns north, paralleling SR-167. Surface seeps as w e ll a s Streams B and C provide additional sources of hydrology along th e south side of Wetland A. The wetland is a pproximate ly two kilometers long and ex te nds approximate ly 1.8 kil ometers north of the s tudy area along the east side of Highway 167 (COR Maps). The easte rn edge of Wetland A was d e lineated on-site. The south sec tion of the wetl and is entir e ly forested, a lthoug h large e m ergent and scrub-shrub sec tions are present in the wetland north of the s tudy a re a. The dominant trees present in thi s area are black cottonwood, red alder and w illow species. The re is a diverse understory with a shrub la yer dominated by Him a laya n bla ckbe rry , r ed -osie r dogwood , sa lmonbe rry, a nd willow, with an e me rgent unders tory dominated by creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, giant horsetai l, and slough sedge. Rooting zone soil at a depth of 0-6 inches i s a very dark g rayis h brown (1 OYR 3/2) sand y clay loam with d ark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6 ) concentra tion s (redox imorphic features) loca ted in th e soi l matrix (see Wetland Delineation Map; DP-3 ). So il at a depth of 6-14 in ch es is entirely a black (2.SY 2.5 /1). Saturation was present to the soil s urface, and th e water tabl e was present at a depth of six in ch es at the time of our s tudy in February 2016. Wetland A is a Category 11 wetla nd. Under the 2014 Rating System, it sco re s seven points for water quality, seven points fo r h y drology, a nd seven points for h abitat fun ctions, for an o ve ra ll score of 21 points. Streams Panther Creek Wetland and Stream Delineation Report-Renton Valley Medical Center Hardi, B. March 1, 2016 Page3 Site History The City of Renton (COR Maps) depicts a large wetland area along the east side of Highway 167 that overlaps with the southwest comer of the study area. Washington State Department of Transportation also has a mitigation site in this area. This report assesses on-site and adjacent wetlands and streams and provides a summa ry of relevant regulatory implications. The following documents are included: • Wetland Determination Data Forms • Wetland Rating Forms and Figures • Wetland Delineation Figure Methods Public-domain information on the subject property was reviewed for this delineation study. These sources include USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web and SalmonScape), COR Maps, and King County's GTS mapping website (iMAP). The study area was evaluated for physical wetland characteristics using methodology from the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Manual) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corp s of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: We stern Mountains , Valleys, and Coast Region Ver sion 2.0 (Regional Supplement) (Corps May 2010). Wetland boundary determinations are based on an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Soil, vegetation, and hydrologic parameters were sampled at several locations to determine wetland presence or absence. Data points on-site arc marked with yellow-and black-striped flags. Wetlands were rated using the Western Washington Wetland Rating System 2014 Update (Ecology, Jan 2015). Findings The five parcels that form the study area lie within the Lower Green River sub-basin of the Duwamish-Green water resources inventory area (WRIA 9). The study area is located northeast of and adjacent to the corner of S 43 ,d St and Talbot Rd S. The portion of the study area containing the three northeast parcels (Parcels 885767- 0060, and -0050, and 302305-9034) are mostly comprised of existing buildings and parking lots. Parcel 3023059111 borders these areas to the north and contains a section of Panther Creek and forested area. Parcel 8857670010 includes a forested area containing Wetland A and a section of Panther Creek, which connects to a ditched stream in the northwest corner of the parcel. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report-Renton Valley Medical Center Hardi, B. Figure 1 -Vicinity map showing the location of the subject property . .. March 1, 2016 Page 2 Figure 2 -A 2013 aerial photograph of the study area with subject parcels called out. THr WATERSHED COtv\l)ANY March 1, 2016 Becky Hardi UW Medicine I Valley Medical Center Facilities Project Manager 400 S. 43 ,d Street Renton, WA 98055 Via email: Becky _Hardi@Valleymed.org Re: Wetland and Stream Delineation Report The Watershed Company Reference Number: 16011 3 Dear Becky: SC I E N CE & DES I G N We are pleased t o present to you the findings of our wetland and stream delineation study for the north end of the Valley Medical Center campus. On February 1 and 4, ecologi sts screened the study area for juri sdictional wetlands and streams. The study area included the approximately 3-acre n orth west comer and north edge of the property, incl uding the northwest portion of Parcel 885767-0100 all of Parcels 885767- 0060, -0050, and 302305-9034, and the south edge of the adjacent Parcel 3023059111. The encumbering botmdaries of verified wetlands and streams were delineated and flagged o n s ite. 750 Six t h Stre et South Kirk land . WA 98033 p 425.822 .5242 ( 425.827 .8 13 6 watershedco .com APPENDIX A The Watershed Company October 2016 Renton Valley Medical Center, Wetland & Stream Delineation Study Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study: Valley Medical Center 5.7 Site Protection Permanent split-rail fencing and critical area protection area (CAP A) signs will be installed between the restoration areas and all developed areas. 6 SUMMARY 18 The proposed parking garage expansion will require modifications to the standard stream buffer associated with Panther Creek. Buffer modifications include reducing the standard 115-foot stream buffer to a minimum of 90 feet using buffer reduction through enhancement at a 2:1 ratio. Where it is necessary to reduce the buffer to less than 90 feet, buffer averaging is proposed to reduce the buffer to a minimum 75 feet. Buffer addition is proposed at a 1 :1 ratio, and enhancement will be provided to the buffer addition areas. Other temporary buffer impacts resulting from grading activities will be restored and enhanced in kind. The buffer areas proposed for reduction are very poor quality, consisting of gravel parking areas. By replacing these areas with dense native buffer and enhancing existing buffer beyond the minimum required, the project will ensure an overall net gain in buffer function upon project completion. The Watershed Company October 2016 11) Recommendations for maintenance or repair of any portion of the mitigation area. 5.5.2 Site Maintenance Requirements The site will be maintained in accordance with the following instructions for five years following completion of the construction. 1) Follow the recommendations noted in the previous monitoring site visit and the spring maintenance memo. 2) General weeding for all planted areas: a. At least twice yearly, remove all competing weeds and weed roots from beneath each installed plant and any desirable volunteer vegetation to a distance of 18 inches from the main plant stem. Weeding should occur at least twice during the spring and summer. Frequent weeding will result in lower mortality, lower plant replacement costs, and increased likelihood that the plan meets performance standards by Year 5. b. More frequent weeding may be necessary depending on weed conditions that develop after plan installation. c. Do not weed the area near the plant bases with string trimmer (weed whacker/weed eater). Native plants are easily damaged or killed, and weeds easily recover after trimming. d. Ensure that established Himalayan blackberry canes outside of the planting areas are cut back at least 10 feet from the planting areas. 3) Apply slow release granular fertilizer to each installed plant annually in the spring (by June 1) of Years 2 through 5. 4) Replace mulch as necessary to maintain a 4-inch-thick layer, retain soil moisture, and limit weeds. 5) Replace dead plants found in the summer monitoring visits during the upcoming fall/winter dormant season (October 15 to March 1) or at the direction of the restoration professional. 6) Provide irrigation for the entire planted area with a minimum of one inch of water provided per week from June 1" through September 30th for at least the first two years following installation through the operation of a temporary irrigation system. 5.6 Contingency Plan If there is a significant problem with the mitigation areas meeting performance standards, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to: soil amendment; additional plant installation; and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and location. 17 Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study: Valley Medical Center 16 addition with enhancement area, and the temporary buffer disturbance/restoration area. Monitoring will take place twice annually for five years, including a spring maintenance inspection and a formal monitoring inspection to occur in the late summer or early fall. Year 1 monitoring will commence in the first fall subsequent to installation. Spring Monitoring The spring maintenance inspection shall include the following, reported in a brief memo submitted to the property owner and/or maintenance crews: 1) Conduct a weed and maintenance inspection in the spring to identify any maintenance needs necessary to prepare the site for the upcoming growing season. 2) Summarize findings in a spring maintenance memo for the responsible party. Late Summer/Fall Monitoring The formal monitoring visit shall record and report the following in an annual report submitted to the City of Renton: 1) Summary of the spring maintenance visit recommendations. 2) Visual assessment of the overall site. 3) Year 1 counts of live and dead plants by species. 4) Counts of dead plants where mortality is significant in any monitoring year. 5) Estimate of native cover using the line-intercept method along established transects. All planted areas not directly covered by transects will be visually assessed and noted as to how they are meeting the performance standards. 6) Visual estimate of native groundcover. 7) Estimate of non-native, invasive weed cover within planting areas using the line-intercept method and/or visual estimates are practical; estimate invasive cover in wetland restoration and buffer mitigation areas separately. 8) Tabulation of established native species, including both planted and volunteer species. 9) Photographic documentation from fixed reference points and/or transect ends. 10) Any intrusions into or clearing of the planting areas, vandalism, or other actions that impair the intended functions of the mitigation area. Toe Watershed Company October 2016 Specifications 1. Compost: Cedar Grove Compost or equivalent product. 100% vegetable compost with no appreciable quantities of sand, gravel, sawdust, or other non-organic materials. 2. Fertilizer: Slow release. granular PHOSPHOROUS-FREE fertilizer. Follow manufacturer's instructions for application. Keep fertilizer in a weather-tight container while on site. Note that fertilizer is to be applied only in Years 2 through 5 and not in the first year. 3. Irrigation system: Automated system capable of delivering at least two inches of water per week from June 1 through September 30 for the first two years following installation. 4. Restoration Professional: The Watershed Company [(425) 822-5242] personnel, or other persons qualified to evaluate environmental restoration projects. 5. Wood chip mulch: Arborist chips (chipped woody material) approximately 1 to 3 inches in maximum dimension (not sawdust or coarse hog fuel). This material is commonly available in large quantities from arborists or tree-pruning companies. This material is sold as "Animal Friendly Hog Fuel" at Pacific Topsoils [(800) 884-7645]. Mulch must not contain appreciable quantities of garbage, plastic, metal, soil, and dimensional lumber or construction/demolition debris. 5.5 Monitoring Program 5.5.1 Monitoring Methods This monitoring program is designed to track the success of the mitigation site over time and to measure the degree to which it is meeting the performance standards outlined in the preceding section. An as-built plan will be prepared by the restoration professional (The Watershed Company [ (425) 822-5242], or other persons qualified to evaluate environmental restoration projects) prior to the beginning of the monitoring period. The as-built plan will be a mark-up of the planting plans included in this plan set. The as-built plan will document any departures in plant placement or other components from the proposed plan. During the as-built inspection, the monitoring restoration specialist shall install monitoring transects in the wetland buffer restoration areas and establish photo points. Approximate transect and photo point locations shall be marked on the as-built plan. At least six, SO-foot transects shall be established in the planting areas, including at least two in each area -buffer enhancement area, buffer 15 Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study: Valley Medical Center a. Achieve 50% cover of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers by Year 3. Native volunteer species (but not grasses) may count towards this cover standard. b. Achieve 80% cover of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers by Year 5. Native volunteer species (but not grasses) may count towards this cover standard. Trees and shrubs must account for a minimum of 65% cover. c. Species diversity: Establish at least three native tree species, four native shrub species and one native groundcover species by Year 3 and maintain this diversity through Year 5. Native volunteer species (but not naturalized grasses) may count towards this standard. d. Invasive cover: Aerial cover for all non-native, invasive and noxious weeds within the buffer planting areas will not exceed 10% at any year during the monitoring period. Invasive plants are defined as those listed by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board as Class A, B, or C. 5.4 Techniques and Plans 14 5.4.1 Construction Notes and Specifications General Work Sequence 1. Install silt fencing around all clearing limits. 2. Prepare the planting areas: a. Remove gravel, fill material, garbage, and debris; b. Clear all Himalayan blackberry and English ivy from the planting areas, making sure to remove the roots. c. Rototill to de-compact soils and incorporated three inches of compost into the upper nine inches of the soil. Do not rototill beneath the existing tree canopy. 3. All plant installation is to take place during the dormant season (October 15"' -March 1 "). a. Prepare a planting pit for each plant and install per the planting details. b. Apply a blanket application of woodchip mulch, four inches thick, across all planting areas. 4. Install a temporary, above-ground irrigation system capable of covering the entire planting area. 5. Install a split rail fence between developed areas and the planting areas per details. The Watershed Company October 2016 No other endangered, threatened, sensitive, or priority species are documented by PHS Data for the property. No such species were observed during site inspections, and no additional critical wildlife habitat is present. 5 MITIGATION PLAN DETAILS 5.1 Mitigation Plan Overview The proposed mitigation plan fulfills the requirements of RMC 4-3-050.H. In order to allow for the proposed parking garage expansion and associated grading activities, stream buffer modification and unavoidable temporary stream buffer impacts will occur. Buffer modification will take the form of reduction with enhancement and buffer averaging with enhancement. Temporary stream buffer impacts, will also be restored and enhanced in-place. As described above, buffer averaging will occur at a 1:1 ratio, and buffer enhancement will occur at a 2:1 ratio (enhancement area: reduction area). 5.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 1. Within the proposed restoration areas, establish dense native vegetation that is appropriate to the eco-region and site. 2. Where indicated on the plan, areas within the restoration area will remain substantially vegetated with a preponderance of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers and will contain little invasive or noxious weed cover. 5.3 Performance Standards The standards listed below will be used to judge the success of the installation over time. If performance standards are met at the end of Year 5, the site will then be deemed successful and the performance security bond will be eligible for release by the City of Renton. 1. Survival: Achieve 100% survival of installed tree and shrub plantings by the end of Year 1. This standard can be met through plant establishment or through replanting as necessary to achieve the required numbers. Individual ground cover plantings cannot be feasibly counted. Therefore, groundcovers shall be monitored for areas of obvious mortality and appropriate replacement quantities recommended by the restoration professional to ensure satisfaction of the native cover standard (below). 2. Native Cover: 13 Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study: Valley Medical Center The buffer averaging plan has been prepared according to the best available science as applied on numerous similar projects by The Watershed Company in both design and review capacities. v. Where the buffer width is reduced by averaging pursuant to this subsection, buffer enhancement shall be required. The entirety of the buffer addition area will be enhanced through removal of invasive species and conversion of gravel parking lot to a dense native tree, shrub, and groundcover community. The temporarily impacted buffer area, which is within the reduced buffer area, will also be enhanced following completion of grading activities. The area currently supports only dense Himalayan blackberry and black cottonwood saplings. Native diversity will be substantially increased upon completion of the restoration/enhancement. 4 ENDANGERED SPECIES ASSESSMENT 12 Three salmonid-fish species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act in the Puget Sound area. These species include Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) of the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS), steelhead (Onchorhyncus mykiss) of the Puget Sound DPS, and bull trout (Salvelinujs confluentus). According to WDFW Priority Species and Habitat Data (PHS Data), WDFW SalmonScape, and WRIA 8 Fish Distribution Maps, none of these species are present in Panther Creek. Furthermore, no in- water work is proposed as part of this project, and no indirect stream impacts are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, or bull trout. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Information for Planning and Conservation, other threatened or endangered species that should be addressed in the project area include marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), streaked homed lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). None of these species have been documented in the project area per PHS Data. Furthermore, there is no suitable habitat for any of these species in the project vicinity. Nesting marbled murrelets require old- growth/mature coniferous forests in dense coastal stands; yellow-billed cuckoos require large, continuous riparian corridors populated by dense willow and cottonwood forests; and streaked homed larks require open grasslands, prairies, herbaceous balds, or sandy islands. None of these habitats is present in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on marbled murrelets, yellow-billed cuckoos, or streaked homed larks. The Watershed Company October 2016 averaging within the same buffer segment (email communication, September 9, 2016). Mr. Close clarified that buffer reduction with enhancement is allowed in conjunction with buffer averaging, provided the two options are applied to different buffer segments. This proposal does not apply buffer reduction and buffer averaging to the same buffer segments and therefore, meets the intent of this code provision. vii. It will provide, as part of the buffer reduction request, buffer enhancement plan prepared by a qualified professional and fund a review of the plan by the City's consultant. The plan shall assess habitat, water quality, stormwater detention, groundwater recharge, shoreline projection, and erosion protection functions of the buffer, assess the proposed modification on those functions; and address the six criteria above. A buffer enhancement plan is included as an appendix to this report (Appendix B). This report addresses the remaining criteria listed in this provision. The following discussion identifies how the proposed project complies with the stream buffer modification requirements in under RMC 4-3-050.1.2.b -Criteria for Approval of Averaged Stream Buffer: Buffer width averaging may be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: i. There are existing physical improvements in or near the water body and associated riparian area; The existing parking garage, gravel parking lot, and administrative buildings are all located within the standard Panther Creek buffer. ii. Buffer width averaging will result in no net loss of stream/lake/riparian function; The area proposed for buffer reduction is located within the existing gravel parking lot. The area proposed for buffer addition is partially located within the existing forested area and partially within another gravel parking lot. The entire buffer addition area will be enhanced under this proposal to ensure a net improvement of buffer function. iii. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer width prior to averaging; The buffer addition area will offset the buffer reduction area at a 1:1 ratio, maintaining equivalent buffer area contiguous with the standard buffer. iv. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; 11 Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study: Valley Medical Center 10 the reduction area, is currently composed of a Himalayan blackberry monoculture. Blackberry typically has shallow roots and is not proficient at trapping and filtering sediments and pollutants. Replacing the blackberry with a dense native tree, shrub, and groundcover community will increase root depth, general complexity, and vertical structure, all of which improves water quality functions provided by the buffer. ii. It will provide an overall enhancement to fish, wildlife, or their habitat; The existing gravel parking lot provides no habitat function related to Panther Creek and neither will the proposed parking garage. However, replacing the Himalayan blackberry monoculture with a mix of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers will increase shade, future large woody debris recruitment, and allochthonous input of detritus, insects, and organic materials. This represents a net improvement in buffer habitat function. iii. It will provide a net improvement in drainage and/or stormwater detention ca pap iii ties; The buffer reduction area, in its current condition, is effectively impervious and is not subjected to significant storm water controls. Once converted to a parking garage, runoff will be captured and detained, with a release rate that mimics the natural forested condition. The buffer enhancement area will experience improved drainage by increasing the degree of vertical structure that can slow runoff on the hillside above Panther Creek. This represents a net improvement in drainage and stormwater detention from the current condition. iv. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property or the City as a whole; The project is designed to meet all applicable code and zoning requirements of the City of Renton. No detrimental effects to other properties or the City are anticipated. v. lt will provide all exposed areas with stabilized native vegetation as appropriated; All temporary buffer impacts will be restored with a native tree, shrub, and groundcover community. vi. The request is not made in conjunction with buffer reduction; This requirement is somewhat ambiguous, as implementation of this provision is, by definition, for the purpose of achieving buffer reduction. This ambiguity was discussed with City of Renton Senior Planner, Clark Close, and his interpretation was that this requirement was intended to prevent "double dipping" by using buffer reduction with enhancement in addition to buffer The Watershed Company October 2016 To ensure a net improvement in ecological function buffer reduction through enhancement will occur at a ratio of 2:1, exceeding the minimum required 1:1 ratio. Buffer addition with enhancement (buffer averaging) will maintain the required 1:1 ratio. To mitigate for temporary buffer impacts, in-place buffer restoration is proposed at a 1:1 ratio. The temporary grading impacts are located partially within the existing gravel parking areas and within an area dominated by black cottonwood saplings and dense Himalayan blackberry. Most of the vegetated area is situated atop a former concrete patio, and it lacks structural and species diversity. Replacing this area with a dense, native plant community will represent a substantial improvement in buffer function from the existing condition. The proposed restoration will provide a compensatory level of protection for the critical area and will offset the disturbance associated with modification of the standard stream buffer. 3 BUFFER MODIFICATION CRITERIA The following discussion identifies how the proposed project complies with the stream buffer modification requirements in under RMC 4-3-050.1.2.a -Criteria for Reduction of Degraded Stream Buffer Width with Enhancement: A reduced buffer will be approved in a degraded stream buffer only if i. It will provide an overall improvement in water quality; The buffer area which will be reduced is located in an area composed of a gravel parking lot. As an effectively impervious surface with regular vehicular traffic, the gravel parking lot is considered a pollution-generating surface. Urban stormwater can have significant detrimental impacts on salmonids. Sediments, heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and nutrients can enter waterbodies through bank erosion, road run-off, landslides, or overland flow. Heavy metals and PAHs, which arc both associated with cars and runoff from roads and parking lots, are disruptive to salmonid physiology and behavior. Therefore, stormwater generated through impervious surfaces with vehicular use is among the highest water quality concerns for salmonids. With the adjacent buffer area sloping steeply downhill towards Panther Creek, the stormwater has the potential to reach the stream. Replacing the existing gravel parking lot that has no stormwater controls with the parking garage that will retain and treat storm water represents an overall improvement in water quality. Similarly, the buffer enhancement area, which is 50 percent larger than 9 Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study: Valley Medical Center • • • • • Using a stormwater detention vault in place of an above ground detention pond, limiting the amount of buffer modification required. Relocating the pedestrian ramp to allow for the buffer addition area to be more continuous with the standard buffer. Best management practices will be followed during construction to maintain identified clearing limits and avoid incidental disturbance. Silt fencing will be placed at the edge of the clearing limits between work areas and Panther Creek to minimize the potential of sediment entering the creek. The buffer modification is the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed structure. Buffer reduction through enhancement is the preferred option and is proposed wherever feasible given the minimum-allowed buffer width of 90 feet for this option. Buffer averaging, with enhancement of the addition area, is only proposed for areas where reducing the standard buffer to less than 90 feet is necessary to accommodate the proposed structure. At no point, is the standard buffer reduced to less than 75 feet. 2.1.3 Mitigation 8 All temporary stream buffer impacts require mitigation; mitigation areas and actions are summarized in Table 1 above. All proposed mitigation actions will occur on-site. The temporarily impacted buffer will be restored and enhanced at the impact site in accordance with RMC 4-3-050.H.2.d. The buffer enhancement area is located just west of the project area and composed of a Himalayan blackberry monoculture. The invasive species will be cleared, and the area will be planted with a dense, native tree, shrub, and groundcover community appropriate for the landscape. Similarly, the buffer addition area located just east of the project area includes both existing forest and existing gravel parking lot. The forested portion contains large trees, but the understory is relatively sparse and contains substantial English ivy. Even in its current condition, the forested buffer addition area provides greater buffer function than the buffer reduction area, which is a gravel parking lot. In order to farther improve buffer function, the English ivy will be removed, and the understory will be enhanced with additional native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. The buffer addition area that is, itself, a gravel parking lot represents a net equivalent to the reduction area in its present state. However, this portion of the buffer addition area will be cleared of gravel, decompacted, and planted with a dense native, tree, shrub, and groundcover community. This will represent a substantial lift in buffer function compared to the existing condition. The affected buffer areas will be permanently protected with a split rail fence and NCPA signs. The Watershed Company October 2016 Stormwater management for this project is based on the City of Renton' s requirements for the watershed. Detention will be provided to meet Level 2 flow control. The detention facility is sized such that discharge will meet the pre- development rate of runoff for the forested land condition. The Western Washington Hydrology Model has been used to size the detention facility. Water quality will be preserved by using the Modular Wetland System, an enhanced water quality BMP as approved by Washington Department of Ecology. The discharge point will not change from the existing discharge location, into the municipal stormwater system along the primary access road. The project will completely avoid direct and indirect stream impacts. No in- water work or storrnwater discharges are proposed in Panther Creek. The project will incur unavoidable stream buffer impacts. Direct buffer impacts will be temporary in nature and are required to accommodate grading activities at the top of the steep slope to the north. Permanent buffer impacts will be avoided through buffer modification (reduction with enhancement and averaging). The buffer modification is necessitated, since the standard buffer protrudes into the existing gravel parking lot, where the expansion is proposed. All buffer modification will be offset through enhancement of the existing standard buffer at a 2:1 ratio and buffer addition with enhancement at a 1:1 ratio. 2.1 Mitigation Sequencing Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.H.2, this project must demonstrate appropriate mitigation sequencing. Applicants are required to first avoid stream and buffer impacts, then minimize unavoidable impacts, and lastly provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. 2.1.1 Avoidance The majority of site development is located outside of the 115-foot stream buffer. The project will completely avoid all direct and indirect stream impacts. No construction activities or storrnwater discharges are proposed in Panther Creek. Following modification of the standard stream buffer, all direct stream buffer impacts will be temporary, as a result of the proposed grading activities. 2.1.2 Minimization Minimization techniques were utilized during the design process in order to limit the extent of wetland and buffer modification necessary to fulfill the project purpose. Minimization measures included: • Reducing the total size of the expansion to avoid buffer impacts beyond those allowed using buffer reduction with enhancement and buffer averaging. 7 Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study: Valley Medical Center Figure 7: Temporary buffer impact area due to grading . Within the project area, however, the proposed buffer reduction areas are almost entirely composed of the existing gravel parking lot. The proposed grading activities (temporary buffer impa cts) will extend into an area north of the proposed garage expansion that was a co n crete p a tio prior to 2009. The patio and the house it was once associated with were removed in 2008-2009. Following re mova l of the patio, black cottonwood saplings and a dense Himalayan blackb erry thi c ket co lonized the area. Much of the proposed buffer addition area is similar in chara cter to the majority of the Panther Creek buffer in the project vicinity. This area is generally forested with established bigleaf maple and western red cedar trees in th e canopy, with an understor y of osoberry and English iv y. A portion of the buffer addition area also includes an existing gravel parking lot that will be abandoned, and restored with a native plant community. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6 The proposed project includes a seven s tory, 360,000 square -foot expansion of the existing parking garage. Associated improveme nts include s taff access ramps, a revised fire lan e, upgraded landscaping, and storrnwater improvements through the use of a 35,000 cubic-foot retention vault. The Watershed Company October 2016 Figure 5: Buffer addition area, includes forest in background and a portion of the gravel parking lot in the foreground (to be restored). Figure 6 : Buffer enhancement area. 5 Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study: Valley Medical Center Figure 3: Existing gravel parking lot to be converted to expanded parking garage. Figure 4 : Buffer reduction area , does not include forest in background. 4 Figure 2: Approximate Project Location 1.2.1 Panther Creek The Watershed Company October 2016 Panther C reek is loca ted a t th e bottom of the ravin e, approxima te ly 100-115 feet north of the projec t area. The cr ee k enters the VMC p rope rty via a culvert beneath Talbot Road S. and flows in a generall y west ern direction. Panther Creek is documented to contain coho and chum salmon and cu tthroat trout. As a docume nted fish-bearing s tream that is n ot cons idered a shorelin e of the state, Panthe r Creek is classified as Type F, p e r RMC 4-3-050.G.2. 1.2.2 Panther Creek Buffer The general b u ffer areas on the VMC property are s itua te d on a mod estly s teep slope tha t s lopes downhill from the project north towards Pan ther C reek. The buffer is mostly fore sted wi th well-es tabli s he d bi gleaf maple, black cottonwood , a nd west ern red cedar trees w ith a n understory d omin ated by Himalayan blackberry, sa lmonberry, a nd Engli s h ivy. Diversity is very limited in the buffer, a lthough the trees are large and provide s ign ifi cant shade to Panthe r Creek, help ing ma intain lower water te mpe r atu res and providing detritus and organic m a terials into th e creek. The la rge trees als o provide erosion control on the s teep s lopes. 3 Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study Va lley Medical Ce nter Proposed buffer impacts w ill require buffer m od ifi ca tion a nd wetl and/buffer restoration . This w ill re quire City approval of this critical areas report. This report fu lfills the crite ria of the Renton M u nic ipal Code (RMC) specific to stream buffer modifications and presents a detai led discussion of the habita t and vegeta ti on on-site and how the propos al can be implemented with no net loss o f on-site or off-site cr iti cal area functions and values. 1.2 Description of Project Area Th e project a r ea is located on the Va ll ey Medi ca l Center (VMC) campus near the intersection of Talbot Road Sand S 1771h Street, between Talbot Road Sand Highway 167. Th e speci fi c project location is adjacent to an existing parking garage and is situated atop existi n g g ravel and pa ved parking lots. The site i s located in Section s 30 & 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East; Black River Drainage Basin; Duwamish-Green Watershed Resource In ve ntory Area (WRIA 9). Figure 1. Vicinity Map for Valley Medical Center. 2 1k"1~~n Re .Jc: Jlatc ;a l ~.':' RP'"-n1r,·~1..m 1 " '' -,- ~ .-. Li ;'*h .,. s~ ' _, ' . < ~ Kent U l:.11 e n I( . ... ~, -: ~ .• : 9 ll1 :.: '...l l l ,;,tt, 2) -13.6t1,943864~ 6,02~,105.39034 Meters • j/ . > < ~ ;: ,"",?nti•::' ,._ .1~ •• , ",e J:IB'h St The Watershed Company October 2016 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER -RENTON, WA 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose The purpose of this report is to document potential critic a l area impacts on Panther Creek and its associated buffer adjacent to the proposed parking garage expansion at Valley Medical Center. The property is located at 3915, 3917, and 3921 Talbot Road S. in the City of Renton (Parcels #302305 -9111 , 885767-0050, - 0040, -0010, & -0100). The project area is currently co mposed of the existing gravel and paved parking areas along with some la ndscape trees and shrubs. The northernmost portion of the project area is located within the standard buffer for Panther Creek, although this portion of the buffer is primaril y within e xisting impervious areas. As summarized in the Wetland and Stream Delineation Repor t (Appendix A) prepared for this property (The Watershed Company, March 2016), Panth e r Creek requires a 115-foot s t andard buffer width. The appli cant proposed reducing th e standard buffe r width through a combinati on of buffer averaging and buffer reduction with en hancement to accommodate the proposed expansion. Buffer reduction with enhancement will be utilized in a ll areas where a reduc tion of the standard buffer to the minimum-allowed 90 feet. For those areas where it is necessary to reduce the standard buffer to less than 90 feet (up to the minimum- allowed 75 fe e t), buffer averaging is proposed. Additional stream buffer areas within the reduced buffers will be temporarily impacted by necessary grad in g activities . Proposed buffer modifications and temporary impacts are summarized in Table 1 below and on the mitigation plan (see Appendix B). Table 1. Wetland buffer modification and impact summary Type of Modification Area of Impact Mitigation Proposed Buffer Reduction 1,948 square feet 2: 1 ratio of enhancement in deqraded buffer Buffer Averaging 3,422 square feet 1: 1 ratio of buffer addition with enhancement Temporary Buffer Impacts 6 ,271 square feet Restoration and enhancement of disturbed area 1 Figure 2: Approximate Project Location .......................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Existing gravel parking lot to be converted to expanded parking garage ........ .4 Figure 4: Buffer reduction area, does not include forest in background ......................... .4 Figure 5: Buffer addition area, includes forest in background and a portion of the gravel parking lot in the foreground ..................................................................... 5 Figure 6: Buffer enhancement area ................................................................................ 5 Figure 7: Temporary buffer impact area due to grading .................................................. 6 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ......................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Description of Project Area ........................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Panther Creek .................................................................................................. 3 1.2.2 Panther Creek Buffer ...................................................................................... 3 2 Project Description ............................................. 6 2.1 Mitigation Sequencing ................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Minimization ..................................................................................................... 7 2.1.3 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 8 3 Buffer Modification Criteria ................................ 9 4 Endangered Species Assessment ................... 12 5 Mitigation Plan Details ...................................... 13 5.1 Mitigation Plan Overview ............................................................................. 13 5.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................. 13 5.3 Performance Standards ............................................................................... 13 5.4 Techniques and Plans ................................................................................. 14 5.4.1 Construction Notes and Specifications ...................................................... 14 5.5 Monitoring Program ..................................................................................... 15 5.5.1 Monitoring Methods ...................................................................................... 15 5.5.2 Site Maintenance Requirements .................................................................. 17 5.6 Contingency Plan ......................................................................................... 17 5.7 Site Protection ............................................................................................. 18 6 Summary ............................................................ 18 LIST OF EXHIBITS Figure 1. Vicinity Map for Valley Medical Center. .......................................................... 2 , BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/CRITICAL AREAS STUDY Valley Medical Center-Renton, WA Prepared for: Daniel Pedersen, CHFM Construction Project Manager Valley Medical Center 400 South 43,d Street Renton, WA 98055 Prepared by: THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland . WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 ( 425.827.8136 watershedco.com October 2016 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 160113 The Watershed Company Contact Person: Ryan Kahlo, PWS Ecologist Cite this document as: The Watershed Company. October 2016. Critical Areas Report: Valley Medical Center, Renton, WA. Prepared for Valley Medical Center. APPENDIX A Field Explorations APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling four borings (GEl-8 through GEl-11). The borings were completed to depths of approximately 21 to 261/, feet below existing site grades. The borings were completed by Geologic Drill, Inc. on April 5, 2016. The locations of the explorations were surveyed by Bush Roed & Hitchings, Inc. as part of the general project survey. The exploration locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Borings The borings were completed using track-mounted, continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment, owned and operated by Geologic Drill, Inc. of Spokane, Washington. The borings were continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer or geologist from our firm who examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. The soils encountered in the borings were generally sampled at 2'1,-and 5-foot vertical intervals with a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The disturbed samples were obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration was recorded. The blow count ("N-value') of the soil was calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense soil conditions precluded driving the full 18 inches, the penetration resistance for the partial penetration was entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. Soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the boring log symbols is also presented in Figure A-1. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-2 through A-5. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils and groundwater conditions encountered. The logs also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. The densities noted on the boring logs are based on the blow count data obtained in the borings and judgment based on the conditions encountered. Observations of groundwater conditions were made during drilling. The groundwater conditions encountered during drilling are presented on the boring logs. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling represent a short-term condition and may or may not be representative of the long-term groundwater conditions at the site. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling should be considered approximate. GEOENGINEERs_O Srptemher 16. 2016 P.1ge 1l..l SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS lYPICAL ---- GRAPH LEITER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN GW Wf::LL-GRAOEO GRAVELS. GRAVEL GRAVELS GRAVEL -SAND Mlxn.JRES ANO . ---· --------- GRAVELLY i\rTTl[O~N0"'1fS' GP POORl Y-GRAOED GRAV(LS, SOILS GRAVEL· SAND t.AIXTURES -------------- COARSE GRAVELS WITH ' GM I SIL TY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SANO GRAINED !,\ORE THAi',150% -SILT l,UXTURES Of COARSE FINES SOILS FRACTION '•-·-'---·. ---- RETAl",l'E:l ON"° i'-PF"'IEC"-8.i; ~Mrl<J...,. ;, • SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS. GRAVEL - Of<l~FS: SAND -CLAY MIXTURES SW WHL-GRAOED SANOS CLEAN SANDS GRAVELLY SANOS UORE m.>.N 50',,, SANO ---------·-RET.fJNHl ON "IO .OOSIE'JE ANO 1L1ncEOR>;O<F'lf:SJ SANOV SP POORLY-GRADED 5Af.DS, GRAVELLY SAND SOILS ----· --------' --------------------- ~E T11AN 50% SANDS WITH SM SIL l'I' SANDS, SAND SILT OF COARSE FINES MIXTURES FR"CTION ------·----------------- PA.SSINGNO 4 SIEVf ,~?Rrc.>.B. r ~r.lOlNT SC CLAYEY SANDS. SAND· CLAY orl'•SIE$: MIXTURES INORGANfC $IL TS. ROCK ML FLOUR. CLAYEV SIL TS WITH SLIGHT Pl.ASTICITY ' ---------------. --- INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS CL MEDIUII PLASTIC!TY. GRAVELLY LIOUJD "11,,111" FINE ANO CI.AYS, SANDY ClAYS. SILTY cESS TI-.A). !'.C GRAINED CLAYS . -----------C\.AYS. LEAN CLAYS --- SOILS OL ORGANIC SIL TS AND ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS OF LOW PLAST!CITY MORE n<AN 50"-MH IN-ORGAMC SIL TS, M!CACEOUS PASSING >IQ <OO OR OlATOMACEOUS SIL TY ""' SOILS ------· ------------- SILTS UO\JICl L.t,.',T INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH ANO GREATER THAN 5,0 CH PLASTICITY ClAYS ,_ ------- i OH ORGANIC ClAYS AND SILTS OF t.1E01UM TO HIGH ~TICITY ; . . - HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classific;ations Sampler Symbol Descriptions [] VI-Inch LD_ split barrel [I Standard Penetration Test (SPT) • Shelby tube ~ Piston ~ Direct-Push D Bulk or grab [] Continuous Coring Blowcount ls recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 Inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" Indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig_ A 'WOH" Indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the hammer. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS y ,.. / %F %G AL CA CP cs DS HA MC MD oc PM Pl pp PPM SA TX UC vs NS 55 MS HS NT lYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS Asphalt Concrete cc Cement Concrete CR Crushed Rock/ Quarry Spalls TS Topsoil/ Forest Duff/Sod Groundwater Contact Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or plezometer Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic Log Contact Distinct contact between sell strata Approximate contact between soil strata Material Description Contact Contact between geologic units Contact between soil of the same geologic unit Laboratory/ Field Tests Percent fines Percent gravel Atterberg limits Chemical analysis Laboratory compaction test Consolidation test Direct shear Hydrometer analysls Moisture content Moisture content and dry density Organic content Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Plasticity index Pocket penetrometer Parts per million Sieve analysis Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Vane shear Sheen Classification No Visible Sheen Slight Sheen Moderate Sheen Heavy Sheen Not Tested NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the repon text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made: they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GeoENGINEERS Q FIGURE A-1 Rev. 02/16 ~ End I Total 21.5 I logged By SJB I Driller Geologic Drill, lnc. I Drilling Hollcm-Stem Auger Drilled 4/512016 41512016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Melhod Surface Bevatlon (ft) 82.72 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Dieooch D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) 130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298995.48 S~tem WA State Plane.North Grs:moowa1cr Northing (Y) 165009.65 \ Datum NAD83 (feet) Depth Lo C!a!a M11111i11:mi \'li10I.Jlll ElewtK:lo (ft) Notes: Not encountered FIELD DATA ~ :[ ! I, C ~ l ! ~ • 8' .Q MATERIAL REMARKS C i .. > ~ ii DESCRIPTION ~ l j • • I .3 i ~ " " t > .. o.-• ~ ~ ,~ s •S > 1 • s .. ~ ~ e• C ~8 • 8 w Cl .E 0: <D " "' e,O a AC 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement -e GP 3 iflches base course ' . ----GiiiY silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very I SM dense, moist) (glacial till) ,§> , ,. 56 ! a 31 light oxidation staining . s,. 5-I" 50/6" ' %F 5 21 . _,. 10-I'' 73 3 Becomes with occasional graYel , 0 • ~ ! ! •, i r-'\<:) 0 • ~ :; 0 ~ ffi 15-•• 50/'5" 4 • 0 i t I lul' . ~ 0 § . I 20-) " 65 5 • i '---------_L_ --- Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. a • • • ! Log of Boring GEl-8 ; ! GeoENGINEERs Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project ! Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 i • Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 1 lila!l lano I Total 25.B I logged By SJB I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. I Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger Drilled 4/5/2016 4/5/2016 Deplh (ft} Checked By DTh1 Melhod Surface Elevation {ft) 91.83 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVDBB Dala 140 (lbs) 130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299121.94 System WA S1ate P1ane.North ~q;i1,1ndwalii!r Northing (Y) 165017.35 Datum NAD83 (feel) Depth to Pale Measured l.'iOl<UID ~ft.l Notes: See remarks FIELD DATA I ! • I .. 11 C E MATERIAL ! ¥ • • 8' g REMARKS C ~ ~ > ~ • DESCRIPTION ~ i': 1 • u .2 • • ~ " ~ • ~ > ,; ! ~ g-·~ " C > li e 0 • i " $ i~ • .!l i 0 ~ e .. C • .. 0 w " .s O'. iii u ,: (.!) t!lU " ~" 0 AC 1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement ' GP 5.5 inches base course SM Brown to gray silty fine to coarse sand with l..Jght o:ddatioo starn1ng gravel and occasional coal fragments _<f' (dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) . I 12 35 ' . 5-1115 5015_5. ' ML Gray sanely silt With OCCasional gravel (hard, 9 56 %F moist) {glacial till) J> c SM Gray silty line to medium sand with gravel (11ery dense, moist) c rn-I " 90/11" 3 L,!> Large boulder obstruction DnHmg on rock at 12 feet bgs c 15-I 10 65 4 Mowd Cl'W 5 foot to complete bOnng ,s .-I ' t i -' ' . 20-I" 65 ' Becomes wet 12 Perched water MC ' " 1~,· ::; Note: See Figure A-1 !or e>Cplanation of s~bols ' 0 • ' • i Log of Boring GEl-9 " ; Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project ~ GEoENGINEER~ l Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 j Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 2 FIELD DATA ! [ ! Ii C E MATERIAL ! ~ • " _§' ~ REMARKS C ~ " > DESCRIPTION ll ! I • u u Jl • ! ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ '&. 'l"·~ c cl • ~ 0 ! !~ ~ 0. • ~ • e • .. e_ w Cl ]; ai u ;: "' "'" C - 25-I I' 50/3" 6 I . --I - ) 0 • • ~ • ~ 0 ~ ~ § 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ t i 0 , 0 8 I • I ~ Note: See Figure A· 1 ror explanation of symbols . • • • i Log of Boring GEl-9 (continued) • . i I GeoENGINEERS a Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project 0 i Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 • Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet2 of2 S!i\ct Em I Total 20.9 I Logged By SJB I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. I OrilUng Hollow-Stem Auger Drilled 4/512016 4/512016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method ' Surface Elevation (ft) 86.23 j Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVDBB 1 Data 140 (lbs) I 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting {X) 1298928.15 I Sy..lem WA State Plane,North QfQ!.!~i!:l~r Northing (Y) 164820.19 Datum NAD83 (feel) Depth to Date Mffi!Sl/red ~ ElevaJioo In\ Notes: See remarks FIELD DATA l ' • ~ ! !~ ~ E 0 MATERIAL ! ¥ • • 8' .Q REMARKS 0 ] ~ > ~ • DESCRIPTION t i: ~ • 0 • ~ .a u • i ~ ~ ~ > I Ii .. ~ §-·.;; I " • e 0 > g. ~ •• • .. ~ • <3 eJ 0 ~c w ~ 0 ~8 0 .s O'. " UJH-L'lU u 0 AC 1.5 inches asphalt concrete pawment GP 4 inches base course •" SM Brown/orange silty fine to coarse sand with ~ gravel (loose to medium dense. moist) (fill) -I 18 10 l O»ctation staming -SM Gray silty fine sand with occasional grave! (medium dense, moist) 5- 118 11 2 17 41 SA _,,, I ,. 29 ' Becomes wet Perci'ed water - SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional 10-I 18 48 4 gravel (dense, moist) (glacial till) - '" - ~ 0 ffi l5-I 18 82 5 Becomes very dense ~ 0 • -~ -\~ "f-' C l ! i • I ~ ' 0 § I 20-J 11 5DJ5" ' SM Gray silty fine to medii1m sand (very d8n5e, I ' ---. moist) (Renton Formation Sandstone} ,-, I Note: See Figure A-1 for explanalion of symbols . • 0 " ' , 1 Log of Boring GEl-10 ~ Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project l GeoENGINEERS Q 0 , Project Location: Renton, Washington j Figure A-4 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 1 ll!or! laml T Total 26.5 I Legged By SJB I Driller Geologie Drill, Inc. I Drilling Hollow-Stem Auge, Drilled 41512016 4/512016 Depth (ft) . Checked By DThl Method Surface Elevation (ft) 91.62 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich 050 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)/ 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299044.81 System WA State Plane,North Gr011ndw8ter Depth 1o Northing (Y) 164830.36 Datum NAD83 (feet) Datt MH::i!.lrml 'tiillOr..illl f.le)lli!;;m(ttJ Notes: Not encountered FIELD DATA ~ I ! Ii C ~ "' ¥ ~ l 3 i MATERIAL REMARKS C ! ~ " DESCRIPTION ;., l 0 • 1 ~ -" " !~ ~ .. > ] .!i a CL !E ' m 5 ~ 8 • il ~ a. •• > C. ~ e ~~ !" • • .. • ill ~ m w 0 -" 0: u ~ '-' ci 1J ~u ~8 D AC 1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement Ncbaseoourae SM Brown silty fine lo medium 8and with grawl i (medium dense, moist) (fill) _<P I SM Brown to gray-S1fty-fir'le_to_1Tledium sand with I ,. 52 , occasional gravel and coal fragments (very Orklation staining dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) - 5-I 15 SD ' 12 38 %F I L.l, ' ' . ------SM Gray silty fine to ITledium sand with graYel (very dense. moist) (glacial tilt) 1D I , son~ 3 ·Sampler bculcing on rock, blOWOOUl1t =-) o' ~ L..,@ ~ r 0 6 ~ • ~ 0 0 . • • ,s-I '° 5014" < Increasing gravel ~ ~L • ~ iL~~ i . C ., . 0 ij I 2D-I . 50/6" 5 - • 1~,~ ~ 0 Note: See Figure A·1 for e:xplanation of symbols. ~ • ' • i Log of Boring GEl-11 • ~ I GEoENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project 0 i Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 • Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 2 FIELD DATA ~ c { 11 ,!!, '-e C MATERIAL ! ¥ • • 8' Q C ] m > ~ • t l REMARKS ~ ~ • u DESCRIPTION • • • ~ i ~ t ~ ~ "' " .. g-"iii c c > • • ~ •• • • ~ ~ 0 ~ • ~ ei •o iij Cl 0: iii u ;: " "() 0 ~8 u, Wilh 1nterbeds of coarse sand and trace gravel 25-I ,a " 6 Nole: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-11 (continued) GEOENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 2 of2 APPENDIX 8 Laboratory Testing APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to GeoEngineers' laboratory and evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing to determine the moisture content, percent fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) and sieve analyses. The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of ASTM International (ASTM) or other applicable procedures. Moisture Content Moisture content tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Percent Passing U.S. No. 200 Sieve (%F) Selected samples were "washed" through the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve to estimate the relative percentages of coarse-and fine-grained particles in the soil. The percent passing value represents the percentage by weight of the sample finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. These tests were conducted to verify field descriptions and to estimate the fines content for analysis purposes. The tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1140, and the results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the respective sample depths. Sieve Analyses Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The wet sieve analysis method was used to determine the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the sieve analyses were plotted, and were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and are presented in Figure B-1. It should be noted that the sieve analyses were performed on soils obtained from samplers that have an opening size of 1 V2 inches, so larger sized particles can't be obtained by the samplers. Therefore, the sieve results do not account for soil particles that are larger than 1 V2 inches. Soils with larger sized materials are described in this report qualitatively based on visual observations and experience on projects where excavations were made into similar formations. GrnENGINEER~ S1:pti::rnbE116 2016 Page B-1 2202-024-00 D•to .... :c Cl ii:i ~ > m Cl z ~ D. .... z UI 0 0:: UI D. C) ~ m 0 ~ m s: z (I) C. " ff 1/) -!l) ;;-z n ~ m ;u (I) m (I) ;:l. )> :z, :::, (I) :::, 8" ... !l) ~ :::, s: ~ • CD :E 9: iii" )> (') ::c !l) m 0 C ::!; it 6i I (') CD C OJ ... C CD C. OJ ' :::, .... 00. 100 I 90 t 80 '' ' . +- 70 • ··1 I 60 50 40 l j- 1 j +- 30 20 10 Svmbol • II U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE a· 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" •• '10 #20 040 #60 #100 #200 .L .L I I I I ,'I"!' -•------l-------l-r+-~ ~-ftjf ' --1---I j I -+j f i i -- --+-- ·- , I r -•-' ~ r -~ ~ ·r --_, r '___ If 11· 1 • ! I ,,i . ·1 ;~ ----t -Ii I 'T • H O r -·---- 1 ·1_:_l ~- ,--- I t ---+ . -· I , -. I ~~L-----1 -I ,-. . . -r--c -I ' - •· • , . 1 r I -, ~ _,, ! r '~ ; -: ' ' lf i I I t---- i1 _ ;-' I I I --__ t tt,t+-4---l'-_J__ I i . I •-·-I 100 10 1 0.1 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAND COBBLES GRAVEL COARSE SILT OR CLAY FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Depth Moisture Borlncr Number /feet' (%) Soll Description GEl-8 2.5 8 SIity fine to medium sand with gravel (SM) GEl·lO 5 17 Silty fine sand with occasional gravel (SM) Note: This report may not be reproduced, except 1n full, without written approval of Geo£ngmeers. Inc. Test results are applicable only to the spectrlc sample on which they were performed, and should not be Interpreted as representatrvc of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operat10ns or processes. The grain size analysis results ware obtained in general accordance wfth ASTM D 6913. APPENDIX C Boring Logs from Previous Studies APPENDIXC BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES Included in this section are logs from previous studies completed in the immediate vicinity of the project site: • The log of seven borings (GEl-1 through GEl-7) completed by GeoEngineers and presented in the Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Parking Garage Geotechnical Report dated May 6, 2016 as task one of this study. • The log of one boring (B-1) and eight test pits (21 through 28) completed by Converse Consultants NW in 1987 for the Valley Medical Center Garage project; • The log of one boring (B-2) completed by Converse Consultants NW in 1989 for the Valley Medical Center Garage Phase II project; • The logs of seven borings (B-1 through 8-7) completed by Terra Associates in 1987 for the Valley Medical Center Office Building project; and • The logs of four borings (B-1 through B-4) and two hand augers (HA-1 and HA-2) completed by Geo Engineers in 2001 for the Warehouse Office Building project. GEOENGINEER~ September 16. 2016 Page C 1 lilorl end I Total 26.5 I Logged By SJB I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Drilled 4/4/2016 414/2016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method Hollow-Stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) 76.39 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) 130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298928.83 System WA State Plane.North Q,tQ!,!ndwate:r Northing (Y) 165386.17 Datum NAD83 (feet) Deplh to Pate Masured '/loJJlr..l!ll Eleval!Pn (ftl Notes: Not encountered FIELD DATA ! • ! I I it C MATERIAL ! ] • • ~ Q REMARKS C ] " > ~ 1i DESCRIPTION 'ji t 0 ! • " ~ .S a.= ~i ~ £ ~ > ] u .!i ~ • > g. 8 s ~ , ~ ri .s •• • 2 • .. m ~ e~ i8 ~. w 0 " 0: "' u U,)-~ " "() Ci:U 0 -AC 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement " GP 3 inches base o;iurse '" SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel ~ (medium dense, motst) {fill) ML Brown to gray sandy sill (stiff, moist) " I 18 14 ,, 35 53 %F ,a SM Brown silty fine to medium sand (medium -dense. moist) " 5- I" '3 2 With occasional gra...el Qlodabon st.lining, bH-fill I ~'" -SM Gray silty fine to medium sand wiih-gf'3V81 " (medium dense, moist) {weathered glacial I" 22 ' 13 46 %F till) r SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very ,o- I'· 66 4 dense, moist) (glacial tilt) _,,s '5-I ,, 65111" 5 _p ' i 20-I'· " ' _<J, . Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-1 GEoENGINEERS CJ Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of2 FIELD DATA I g t Ii C MATERIAL j 8' 0 I ~ REMARKS C ¥ i "' ~ • DESCRIPTION l l l ~ u 0 .. • .S ~ ~ t > .. ~ o.-c c • ~ 0 0. ~· ~ ~~ > .. i ~ o• 0 • • • • t5 c3 0 -· iii 0 .s 0: ffi " ;: " u ~u SM White to light gray fine to medium sand (very ling al «.:. ,eet dense, moist) (Renton Formation Sandstone) . 25- I" B3n1" 7 -"' ----' --... , ! 0 , " • • 0 " • " 0 0 • ~ • '1 ~ ~ t I ~ , 0 I • 0 I ~ ~ a I 0 0 " ~ ~ 0 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. , ~ ~ ~ Log of Boring GEl-1 (continued) ; I GEoENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project 0 i Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 • Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet2 of 2 = ~ ! Total 31 i Logged By SJB I Driller Geoogic Drill, Inc. I Drilling Drilled 4/4/2016 41412016 j Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method Hollcm-Stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) 90.28 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich 050 Track Rig Venical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) I 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting {X} 1299094.03 I System WA Stale Plane,North Groundwater NorthingM 165403.44 Datum NAD83 (feel) Deptti to --Pats Meas.ured ll'.ateL(IIJ EleYilllOD /ft) Noles: i See remarks FIELD DATA J I I ! ~ C • MATERIAL I ¥ • J!J • 8' i REMARKS C ] " > ~ t ~ ~ • DESCRIPTION 0 • Ji ~ .a 0 ~ • j ~ • .c ~ > 1 .c o.-c c > 15. 0 .. 0. ,• • I~ • • ~ ~ .. • i3 0~ C w iii ~ (15 C " er u u J> a GP 1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot SM surface) Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel 8nd organics (medium dense, moist) (fill) . I ' 19 1 O:odat1on stainir,g/orarge mottling, till-llU - _.~ 5-I 10 27 2 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel Cbiidalion stairiing (medium dense, moist) - I ' 50/3"' ' 'B1owC01.mt cr.erstated. sampler bouncing on rock during sampling Becomes gray . _p 10-I 14 12 • 14 34 %F I 18 14 5 Water in sampler -ML Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (\'ery dense, 'Net) (glacial UU) -'" 15-I 18 75 6 I I ,, 20-I " 54 ' Becomes moist i - - - Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-2 i GEOENGINEERS Q Project Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 ~ I I 8 i ' '1 t . µ? -* FIELD DATA I "' 25- 118 61 ' - 30--,,, . 50/5 s· ' Note: See Figure A-1 for e:w:planatlon of symbols SM Ml ' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION White to light gray silty fine to medium sand with interbedded black coal {very dense, moist) (Renton Formation Sandstone) -Gray 10 brova-i-sfft With trace interbeds of b!ack coal (hard, dry) REMARKS I I ~::==================================" ! Log of Boring GEl-2 (continued) jl--------------,.::..------------------------1 i G E Q E NG I N E E RS CJ :;:~:~: Location: ~:~~~n~~~:li~~:~er -Parking Garage Projec~igure A-3 • Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet2ol2 ~ laru1 i Total I Logged By SJB I Driller Geolcgic Drill, Inc. I Drilling Drilled 4/4/2016 4/4/2016 I Depth (fl) 31.5 Hollow-Stem Auger Checked By DTM I ""'""" Surface Elevation (ft) 87.92 I Hammer Autohammer ] Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Verttcai Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)/ 30 (in) Drop 1 Equipment -I Easting (XI 1299048.22 System WA Stale Plane.North QrQundWater Northing (Y) 165275.15 Datum NAD83 (feet) I Depih 10 -·--I Pate Mi!!iilSUred -EievalfOn fftl Notes: See remarks ' FIELD DATA r 'al '2 t i, .g ~ • C MATERIAL 'al " • • 8' .Q REMARKS C e :@ ~ > ~ " DESCRIPTION 1 t .g ~ • 0 0 " • • ~ " ~ ~i 1'i 5 ~ > " u I ~ §-"ii, " > 8 • • 0. 2. •• • 0. i 0 .. ~ eJ ~ e: ~ C: • • ul 0 :,: ffi u " "' "'" ~8 i u::8 0 GP 1.5 inches crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot ' SM surface) I Brown Silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) _:,)> I 10 3 I 20 Orange mottling MC I ! . 5-I ,, 25 2 With occsaiona! gravel and occasional coal Wet sampler fragments -- Ji' I " ,, 3 Grades to gray SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional 10-I, 50/3" ' gravel (dense to \lery dense. moist) (glacial till) I ,. " 5 ,• ~ 15-I IQ 84 6 ' ,~ -· 20-I" 78 7 I Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-3 GEoENGINEER~ Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project 1 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of2 FIELD DATA I • 'al c a. Ii C E MATERIAL ~ I = • 1 il' 0 REMARKS ~ l .. ~ l l C ..., ~ DESCRIPTION 0 • ~ 1 ..., u ~ " " ~ s ~ g-·i: ~ % ~ 0 j ~ _i~ • • ~ ~ 0 .. • e 2.!!! 8 w 0 io u ;:: "' C)U ~u _,t, - - 25-1 · ., 8 Transitioned to sandier lif;iMf e - L@ e 30-, ,, 76 ' ' ! ; --_L_ ---- ,, i • < a • ~ 5 ~ • ~ 5 0 ~ ~ • !1 ~ ~ I ~ ' 0 I I • G ' i I 0 0 ffi ! e Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. • ! ~ ~ Log of Boring GEl-3 (continued) ~ Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project ! GeoENGINEERS a Project: i Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 • Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet2 of2 fil,!l Drilled 4/4/2016 Surface ElevaUon (ft) Vertical Datum .<M I Total I Logged By SJB I Dnlin 4/4/2016 Depth (ft) 15.5 Checked By DTM j Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. , ~t~ Hollow-Stem Auger ------~~-------'-----------~---''----------------! 96.7 Autohammer NAVD88 140 (lbs) 130 (in) Drop I Hammer l Data Drilling Equipment Diednch D50 Track Rig i System I Easting (X) 1299202 WA State Plane.North Groundwater ' Datum Northing (Y) 165242.05 NAD83 (feet) t--~~-------------~----------~'--~---~ Date Measured Oep1h to -FIM!ionlf!l , C • ~ , < • • ~ i.i 0 • :, :, 0 • ffi i ~ :, l I i ~ C " 0 • I • i ~ ~ ' C I 0 u " , , -~ ~ ~ • " ; j i I • Notes: 'i ,! C 0 ~ • > • w --~ -"' _,s, I 1 " ~ -. • " > ~ 0 0. ~ u ~ • "' 0 I" 5-I" I ,. 10-I " I , 15-• 3 FIELD DATA ~ 1 0 iii 6 9 6 20 " 50/J" i • " ~ • u ~ .. u Ii 1 %F JA " 4A •• 5 6 Note: See Figure A· 1 for explanation of symbols GP SM ML SM SM GEOENGINEERS Q MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot surface) Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel (loose. moist) (fill) Gray to browri· sih with sand (medium stiff, moist to wet) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gra~I (dense to very dense. moist) (glacial till) Obstruction encountered Log of Boring GEl-4 Not encountered REMARKS 20 49 Pe«:hed water Oiac!abon staining Pem-ed water ' ' Borirg could not be Bld\9"cod further. practical "'""" met -- Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Project Number: Renton, Washington 2202-024-00 Task 100 Figure A-5 Sheet 1 of 1 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ " r ~ § 0 • ; § ~ • S!ar1 Drilled 4/4/2016 Surface Elevation (ft} Vertical Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Notes: I I C 0 1 ~ a m uj 0 0 e ,-<P . s- _., . 10- - ~ ¥ m • > j ~ a: 1 · I" I" 113 i _,j> -0 ' • 0 • -I. i i 15-I 10 ~ - ' 0 !~ - ' I a 20-I 10 • l - 0 0 ~ - • Erul I Total 41412016 Depth (ft) 98.02 NAV088 1299210.26 165309.34 FIELD DATA • 7i I, ~ -~ i ~ i 0 0 iii " 10 1 6 ' 19 ' "' ,, " •• 2/11.S 5 %F 56 6 • > m ~ I it 35.8 s u t ~ "' 0 Note: See Figure A·1 for explanation or symbols. r ~ • ~ ! ; ! Logged By SJB I I Checked By DTM Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Hammer Data Autohammer 140 (lbs)/ 30 (in) Drop System Datum WA State Plane,North NAD83 {feel) C i MATERIAL DESCRIPTION u ~ g-·;;; ej "'" GP 1 inch crushed grav"el surfacing (parking lot SM surface) Brown slliyfine to medium sand wilh gravel and trace organic debris (roots.lwood) (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) SM Brown silty fine to medium sand wfth - occasional gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial bll) Becomes brownish orange -----------SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional graver (medium dense, moist) (glacial till) Becomes very dense Log of Boring GEl-5 I :~:: Hollcm-Stem Auger I Drilling Equipment Groundwater Date Measured ' ' l " • ~ 14 7 I l " ~~ c:8 ' I JS I I 24 I I Diedrich D50 Track Rig Depth lo -Not encountered REMARKS Oxidation staining Silt lenses I GEOENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project 0 i Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 j Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 - - • 0 e " < 0 ~ " ~ a ' • ~ 0 0 ~ ; " -0 " ~ ~ i i 0 i I ~ , 0 i ' 0 I c -0 " ~ ~ 0 0 a ffi ~ -~ 0 ~ i ~ . ~ l I " FIELD DATA ,._ I", ,a,55· J0-, 10 SDW 35 -110 5014" ! • ., ~ • ~ u Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. SM GEoENGINEERs_y' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION While to light gray silty line lo medium sand (very dense, moist) (Renton Formation Sandstone} Log of Boring GEl-5 (continued) REMARKS Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Project Number: Renton. Washington 2202-024-00 Task 100 Figure A-6 Sheet2 of 2 ~ Eru1 I Total 21.5 I logged By SJB I Driller Geologlc Drill, Inc. I Orilllng Hollcm-S1em Auge, Drilled 41412016 4/4/2016 Depth (ft) cnecked By DTM Method Surface Elevation (H) 75.B Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical OatLJm NAVDBB Data 140 (lbs) I 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298925.69 System WA State Plane.North Groundwater Depth to Northing (Y) 165180.99 Datum NADa3 (feet) Oala: MNili!.lcml 11'.at>rJ!!l E~liQ!!(nl Notes: Not encountered FIELD DATA ~ g t 11 C E MATERIAL g I I • • 8' g REMARKS C ] " ~ ~ ~ DESCRIPTION 'i .. 0 • l i e::: ::: ~ " > l 0 ;; c.·-:::i c: I c: • ~ ,~ > 15. § ! ;~ ~f • • .. !a ~ ~ e.,, ~8 u::8 w 0 E 0: "' " " "" a AC ~!n~ asphalt concrete pavement ,....., _,~ . . GP ~ 2 inches base course SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill) . I ,, 29 1 SM · erown silty fine to medium sand 'Mth ' Oxidation staining occasional gJavel (medium dense, moist) I (weathered glacial Hll) 5- ] 12 ' ---------10 39 36 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional %F gravel (dense, moist) (glacial till) ,~ - I' 37 J ) ! 0 , ' 5 10- I'" 52 4 Becomes very dense 5L@ ~ • ~ 0 ~ ffi t ~ ~ . L 15-1~ I " 75 5 ~ • 0 I ' I ~ ~ 20-I ,. 65 ' Increasing gravel content h--<i> ! 0 -.. u . ffi ! 0 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. • ~ ~ ! Log of Boring GEl-6 . ! Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project ! GeoENGINEERS Q Project: j Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-7 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 1 :;ion Eno ' Total 30.8 ! Logged By SJ8 I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger Drilled 41412016 4/412016 Depth (fl) I Checked By DTM Method Surface Elevation (ft) 87.53 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Dlednch D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) I 30 (in) Drop Equipment Eastlng (X) 1299051.08 System WA State Plane, North Groundwater Northing (Y} 165090.91 Datum NAD83 (feet) Depth lo I Pare Meas11re<l -Elevat•on fftl Noles: i Not encountered FIELD DATA ! I ! 11 C E MATERIAL ! ¥ • l 8' i REMARKS C 8 " ..., DESCRIPTION "' t J u 0 .. • ,ii ..., -~ ~ f E '; t ~ > j ~ g-ui • > 8 • .. " -· -~ • ~ 0 0 • e el ~~ •c • • 18 w 0 0: ai u s: " "0 ~o D AC 2 inches asphalt concrete pavement ~ GP 1.5 inch base course SM Brown silty fine to coarse sand and gravel (very dense, moist) (fill) jp I ' 5016'" 1 ·Sampler bculcing on rod:, bh:,wcount ow,s1ated - . SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel 5-I " 60 ' {very dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) 10 2B Qxid;!,tion staining %F ' -"' I D 50/3' ' No rero.e,y - SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (~ry dense. moist) (glacial till) 10-1 · 50/5" ' - - Skrw dnll1r,g -'" c 15-I ,, SM;" 5 Rougher drilling _,~ 20-I 14 56 6 Becomes with occasional grawl I I Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols ' Log of Boring GEl-7 j GEoENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-8 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 FIELD DATA l [ I ~ C ! ¥ if • 8' .Q MATERIAL REMARKS C ~ ~ ~ ;; DESCRIPTION 'j: ! i 0 0 .. • ~ 0 = . ::-" ~ " > l .. '[ g.·~ ,c • 2 8 -· ~~ > °' i i! • • .s, • " ~ 5 Om ill 0 E 0: iii u 50 u::8 l,,', - ' 25-1 · 50/5" 7 - Ji> - 30- I'° 50/4~ • . ------------.. ·--~ ---- ~. 0 ~ 0 • 0 • " ~ 0 ; • ~ 0 ! ~ • i ~ ; I ~ , 0 I • I • u 3 • ~ j u " " " " ' ' Note: See Figure A·1 for explanation of symbols. l 0 I Log of Boring GEl-7 (continued) • j I GEOENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project 0 l Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-8 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of2 ] ] 1 ] j J OATE OAOLLEO, 12/ 23/86 SUMMARY: BORING NO. B-1 !.LEVATION: J ~ 1 -lA -CI 5 - - - - 25 - - -6A - . -- . . . . • 2 l 2 18 41 50/ ! " 37 50/' ' • A. 2• 1,pi11-11POOft 1•111Dl•r T•II ........ •••\.•U• o-..r .. , , .. \.OC ....... Of, •••••••••••• &T T•I "·· ••..... ~··c 11111\l&••CI CO ... flOal ••• 01•r1a .OT OT'°lt ~OC&'rlO•I &al••• C•••GI U '"''f \0C•l10• •"• '"'' ••••••• o• ,,.,. t•• ea,, ••••••Tit•• • 11••,ir1c•Y•o• o, .c, .... , 1.11•1n•o•1 1•covatt1111. DlSCJUPT10N SYWIIO\. M01STUA£ CONSJSTEMCY lsDD ..At:!ll IQPSOI ul __ ------_c.;Su:.Mc._1 v .moist J 1 case ::"' FILL SILTY SAND; mottled brown & alive, fine ta medium, trace coarse, some silt, trace gravel, occasional lumps of silt, organics, iron stain color becomes olive LACUSTRINE -SILT; mottled brown an, blue-gray, trace fine sand, oc:. organics (hard drilling@ 15') scattered gravels; pockets of black organics ___ _ BEDROCK -SILTY SAND; white ta lignt gray, fine to medium, some silt, acc. lumps of brown silt, poorly lithified Bottom of boring at depth 28.3' Piezameter installed ta depth 28.3' SM SM very moist ML moist moist loose medium dense 1 oose very medium stiff moist dense 12/26/8! "fl -j very mdense ll. 3• O.D. tl'\ln-w•iJ ,amDIOI c. ,_, 14• o.c . .11 2-111'" u ... , ••.I, -,tt........._ C • c°'"oUchlll,IOII,, DS • dlr•cl .,. •• ,. r ....... ... llftoanoloua •••I pl•.1om•1•1 Up D. :1-112· o.c. •PIU ba,,.l ••111al•r X. ••1t1DI• ffOI r•coye,.d Q -tr•lln ..i.z-. T -trw:1 ... l., p -P4""'••lUU1Y PROPOSED VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER GARAGE Renton, W~~bington for'Mahlum ·and Nordfors @ Converse Consultants Geotechnlcal EnQlnffr1ng and Applied SeJenc•• Pto1ect NO. 86-35287 A-1 L -- -- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- ... I- I-... ... I- I- I- I- I- SUMMARY: BORING NO. B-2 EJ.EVAT10N: Approx. 72 . 5 - - - - -3A . 15 -. . • 4A . 20 --. • SA - 25 -- . 30 -. . - -- - - - - 3 2 2 26 34 35 28 50/5" 31 50/5" • A. 2"' split-spoon sampler T'MIS SUlrlN,l,IJtV ~IS 0Nt. Y AT TM€ L0CA T10H OF n-HS IORIMCi AND AT 'THI TlME o, OAIWNQ. SU83UPl'ACI C0NOITl0HS MA1' OIFFSI AT 0'n4lfl: t.OCATIOHS AMO MA'r CHANGE ATTMIS LOCATION WITM 1'111! PASSAQI 0, TIMI. T'H!. DATA -"llS,iN.TU) IS A .SIMP\Jir!C.lTIOk 0, ACTIJAI. CONOl'nONS INCOUNTEAEl. STUOL IIOtsTUftl: CONSISTDICY SILTY SAND (Fill); brown, fine to medium, trace coarse sand, little silt, trace fine roots, occasional organics SM SILTY SAND (Glacial Till); gray, SM fine to medium, trace coarse sand, little to some silt, trace gravel · grades with gravel SANDSTONE (Bedrock); light gray, fine to med. sand grains, with silt matrix, highly weathered -grades moderately weathered Bottom of boring at depth 28 feet. No groundwater encountered. very moist moist 1 oose dense very dense moist very soft slightly moist soft B. 3"' 0.0. tnin-w•II sampler C. 3-1/•" 0.0. x 2-1/T !Iner .. A -Attert>erg, C -consolielalion, OS-direc:1 shear. r ::~-: .... (l piezometer lip O. 3-1/Z-0.0 . .sQlit barrel sampler X. sample not recovered G -grain size, T • ttioial. P • permeabilily --- - - L.. L.. .. - -- - -- - - -- PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE -PHASE II Renton, Washington 86-35287-03 for Valley Medical Center Figure No. ~ C C It t NW Geotechnlcal Engineering ~ OnVerSe OnSU an S 1ndApplledScl1ncos 2 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-21 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. aa Surface Conditions: Sod, marshy ground ~ ., ... -"' s.. ' -OJ -..., ~ "--C: ... OJ "' ~ OJ ~ ~ 0 -§ DESCRIPTION RE:!ARKS OJ C: c:: ·-·o I:: ::E 0 u 1J " >, </1 </1 ----;-~::-:-,----=--::-,~--::-:-:--,:-:,----:-:~---:-------:-:----+-----I SMf TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, I 2J 3J I . some silt, few gravel, abundant organics, scattered fine roots; very moist, loose ------------ 1 I SM[ GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled gray to redaisn-brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, little silt, little gravel, occ. carbonize< organics; moist, dense i ! 2 grades to gray-blue and very dense seepage at 2' 41 '-------'----'-------------------------------------s I l -J j I - - - - - J - Bottom of test pit at depth 5.0' Moderate seepage at depth 1-1/2' to 2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 I I I I t ---------------~'!'!""...,"!'!"-"'!!'!~~~~---------~.,~o,'::«~! N::':o:""'" ___ ~ rKuru~cu VALLCI Mtu1~AL ~CNICK bAKAbc Renton, Washington for Mahl um and Nordfors 86-35287 -----~ ----------------------------------DrawH'i;;l No ~ C c It t N w G,otit<:hM1cal En91n•1,ing -~=;,__o_n_v_e_r_s_e __ a_n_s_u __ a_n_s ____ ·"-" ._._ .... _._E·-""-s·"-'"_c·-· _________ A __ 2 ___ [ J ] ] J J ) I J ] .I ] ] LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-22 Location· See Drawing l Elevation· Approx 48 . Surface ... <IJ ... .J: <IJ I-I <IJ .., QJ ::, ... ~ C. .... ... C: C. V, <IJ E QJ C: .., -~ C: "' O,~ 0 0 "' ::E: u 1- z-l 3- 4- 5- :j a I ? 9 - - - - - - - - - Conditions: Sod ~ 0 .0 ~ V) DES CR! PTION Tnocnr1 FILL -SILTY SAND; brown, fine to medium, little siTt, trace to little gravel, occasional organics; very moist loose l' diameter boulder at depth 4' TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, some silt, trace gravel, abundant organics, occasional fine roots; very moist, loose GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled olive to reddish brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, little silt, little gravel; moist, dense nrade< blun-nrav anrl VPrV r4nn•n Bottom of test pit at depth 9.D' Moderate seepage at depth 5' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 PRoPosED VALLEY MEDICAL cENr~R GAKA~~ Renton, Washington for Mahl um and Nordfors ~ Converse Consultants NW c, ... ,,,n,<>IEnginHnn, ~ and Applied E.aru, Sc11nc-s REMARKS occasional cobbles ' i I seepage at 5' occasional cobbles, i 86-35287 01aw,l'lg No A-3 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-23 Location· See Drawing 1 c1evatio C n: Surface Conditions: Sod .., 10J ... OJ -= '1.11 ~ ~ ~ .....i Cl.I -C ~ C DESCRI PT!Otl 0... ........ ~ ~ ~ -§ ~ = ·-~ "' >, ·-C O V1 V1 Zu I lj I i TOP SO IL I I I FILL -SILTY SAND; brown, fine to medium, some ZJ silt, little gravel, occasional organics; very I 1 I moist, loose 3 I ,j TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to meaium, l--isome silt, trace gravel, abundant oroanics-roots· ' verv moist. loose 2 GLACIAL DEPOSiiS -SILTY SAND; mottled brown to 5 I reddish-brown, fine to medium, little silt, few to 3 1 ittl e qravel; moist, dense 6 I grades blue-gray, and very dense J Bottom of test pit at depth 6.0' Moderate seepage at depth 4' I Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 l l J - - - 1 l Approx ·9 . ~ REMA?.KS boulder at l' occasional cobbles seepage at 4' occasional cobbles i I ' ' I ' I i I I I : I I I ' ' I I I I I I I ---------------~--1 t'KUt'U~c.U Vi\LLt.1 Mtu H.i\L ~t.111 c.K bi\Ki\l;,c. P,o""" No Renton, Washington for Mahlum and Nordfors ( -------------------------- 86-35287 0,awu•g No @ Converse Consultants NW :::':~:~~~·~;;.~·;~::::-c•.. A-4 ..;;.. _________________ ! J J :I _] _] j :] I ~] 1 -1 .... ,: QJ .... QJ c. .... QJ <::: Cl·- 1- 2- 3- 4· s· 5- 7J 8· 9 - - - - - - J . LOG OF TES.T PIT NO. TP-24 Location: See Drawing l Elevation: Surface QJ ... I.. I QJ _ .... ~ -<::: .... QJ C. "' .... = ·-<::: "' 0 0 V, Zu 1 2 3 Conditions: Sod and bare ground ~ 0 -" = >, </) DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL FILL -SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, little silt, little gravel, occasional organics; wet, loose to medium dense TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, some silt, few gravels, abundant organics GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND; mottled brown to reddish-brown, fine to medium, little to some silt, few to little gravel; very moist, medium dense grades to dense grades blue-gray Bottom of test pit at depth 9.0' Heavy seepage at depth 3-1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 Pl<UPJ::,[J VALLtl M~U!~AL ~c.N1c.K uArtAuc Renton, Washington for Mahlum and Nordfors ~ Converse C nsultants NW G•0"'""'"1'••••Hri~. ~ . 0 a"cl Ai:ipli•d E.irll'I Sc1•ncu Approx. 70 REMARKS seepage at 3.5' caving from 5-6' I ' ' I i ' ' I I Pro1ec1 No 86-35287 Draw,n9 NO A-5 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- '1 J J - - - - - . . . LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-25 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. 59 Surface Conditions: Sod, marshy ground I SM I SM DESCRI PT!ON REMARKS TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, seepage to 2.5' little to some silt, few to little gravel, abundant organics, occasional fine roots; very moist to wet, loose GLACIAL DEPOSITS· SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled gray and reddish-brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, some silt, little gravel; very moist, densE grades blue-gray 2' dia. boulaer Bottom of test pit at depth 5.5' Heavy seepage from surface to depth 2-1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 PKU~UScu VALLtl Mt01LML LtN1tK bMK~bc Renton, Washington for Mahl um and Nordfors 86-35287 ~ c c It t N w Citol•Ct'll''l1Cal Eng1ne•rin~ ~ 0 n Verse On s u an s and. Ai;,pl1itd Eatlh Sc11nc:u A-6 ' ' I J J J J j ] J J ll ] j --c;;j j ill 11 1 ~1 L] LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-26 Location: See Drawing l Elevation: Approx. 68 Surface Conditions: Sod ... <lJ .... .,;: <lJ ,_ ' (1J ~ ..... OJ :::, ... ~ ~ DESCRIPTION REMARKS __, C a.'- "' <lJ ~ E1 a, C ..... " >, ·-C I c:, ·~ 0 0 V, V, ::E: u lj SM I TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dk. brown, f/m, little to some si 1 t, few gravels, abund. erg; wet, 1 case ML GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILT W/SAND; streaked gray and 2-1 brown, few to little f. sand, thinly bedded; stiff_ SM 3- - - - - - - - - - - - - - i SILTY SAND; mottlea brown & red-brown, f/m, trace coarse, little silt, few to little gravel; moist, dense· arades blue-arav. and verv dense Bottom of test pit at depth 3.5' No groundwater encountered Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 ~Ku~u::,t.5 ~>ILlt.1 Mtu11..>1L 1..t,~1tr< 1>AK>11>c. Renton, Washington for Mahlum and Nordfors ~ ~ Converse Consultants NW Goo .. <M•catEngln•"1"• ~ .and Applied E.utt, Sc;uncu Pro1e-c1 No 86-35287 Ora .... ,ng No A-7 ' ' I ' I I I I ..., __________________ _ LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-27 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. 60 Surface Conditions: Sod I <lJ - -0 ,] Ii DESCRIPTION REMARKS I GRAVEL ANO SAND FILL l.J SM TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, f/m, little to seepage at .5' !,I I '-----'-=-so=-cm.;.:e:;..silt, few oravels, abund. oro.: wet. lo~o-=-se~____, z _ SM GLAC !AL DEPOSITS -SIL TY SAND; mottled brown ana I I 1 orange, f/m, trace coarse, little to some silt, I 3 _ trace to few gravels; moist, medium dense 6J I ~ l ] - - - - - grades grades blue-green, and very dense Bottom of test pit at depth 6.0' Light seepage at depth 1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 ~~U~U3cu iALLtl Atu1~AL ~trlitK bAKAbt Renton, Washington for Mahlum and Nordfors ~ C c It t N w G•oll!'Chn11::.al Engu'l•cung ~ onverse onsu an S •nOApphodE2.,h$c,oncu occasional I cobbles II I I I I ( I ( [ P•o1e1:r No 86-35287 [ Or,1w,ng NO A-8 [ j ] ] I --:-.'1 :J , • J LOG OF TEST PIT NO,TP-28 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. A6 Surface Conditions: Sod ..... QJ ... -QJ ,._ I -QJ ::::, ..... 6. ... ..... <= "' QJ QJ <= .... ·o C Cl_~ ::;:: 0 u , j 2- 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - QJ --0 ~ ..0 = "' ~1 V, SM I SM DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dk. brown, f/m, little to some silt, few gravel, abundant organics; very m,.,i~t' loose GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SlLTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled brown & red-brown, f/m, tr. coarse, little silt, little aravel; moist, very dense; grades gray Bottom of test pit at depth 3.0' No groundwater encountered Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 PKu~u~~u vALLtl Atu1~AL ~~N1tK bAKA~~ Renton, Washington for Mahlum and Nordfors ~ Convers Cons lta ts NW "'0 "<"0 ·<"'"•'"""0 • ~ e U n 1nd At:iphed Eatlh Sciericr, REMARKS 86-35287 Q,.a..,.,,ig No A-9 BORING NO. 8-1 Logged By CRL Date 4 /07/89 ELEV. 48 + us Graph CS .. ~; . :} : ...• SM :: • •..• ML :~. : : ; . ..... .. :, .. .. ~: .... . . . . . •• •. ·.1: . . . . • • ·, J.' ... ... )t-·: ... .. . .... ::• .. -: 1-' : : . "i.: • . . • l: : ••• ,i·, ... -.. : . · .. :• . . . . • • . . .. : .. .... : : .... .. . ~ : .. .. Soil Description Grey, brown, silty fine SAND to sandy SILT with varying amounts of gravel, moist to wet, very dense (TILL). ~ .. • • ._ • • • • Depth (ft.) 5 ,-10 • • • .... 15 • .. . -20 • (N) Sample Blows Ft. I 50/6" I 50/4" I 50/6" I 50/4" "'T'" 50/6" w (%) 9 12 -- 13 5 Boring terminated at 23 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Center Renton Washington sieve ~TERRA ~ ASSOCIATES Geotechn ical Consultants Proj. No. T-996 Date 5/89 I Figure 4 Gr aph .. . •, ~.-,: : : "i ,, . . ...... . : . . . : ... . . . . .. .. . . ... . . : . ... : ~: . : ... ' ... ; ....... ... ~: . :; '.f · .. ~ .: BORING NO. 8-2 Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 ELEV. 45+ us Depth {N) w cs Soil Description {ft.) Sample Blows {%) Ft. SM Grey with orange stains, silty SAND, .et, rredil.lll ' den.se. SM Grey silty SAND with varying arx:>tmts of gravel, r.xri.st to .et , very dense . (TIIL) Boring ternrinated at 18 ' below existing grade. ' I 25 13 " I-5 • I • 55 9 Sieve • ,.... 10 ' ' " I :fJ/6" 10 • -15 " " T :fJ/6" 6 No grotmd1,13.ter encountered during drilling. BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Center Renton Washington .. . ·.·.· TERRA ~~ ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.T-996 j Date 5/89 I Figure 5 Graph ... .. . . . . : . •, .. .. . '. . . . : .. . . .. : •. j: : i": • ': . : .. .. ·• . . . . . : . ;":,r."1; . .. .. . . .. . . . . : •.. : 1~ : •t; •• :-:L: • : ; : : . : .. : _: -: . . Ir'.: : · .. : : •: • •L' : . : : .. : ... .. . . . , .. . :1·'. . : .. BORING NO. B-3 Logged By cm. Date 4-5-89 ELEV. 44± us Soil Description Depth (N) w cs (ft.) Sample Blows (%) Ft. (3" A.C.) . SM Tan-grey with orange stains silty fine to irediun • SAND, \..et, loose to irediun dense . .. I 11 21 Sieve • 4/4/89 ~5 SM Grey silty SA!ID with varying arrD\lllts of gravel, !!Dist to ,..et, very dense. (TIIL) • I • 56 14 .. '-10 .. .. I gJ/7" 10 .. ~ 15 • • -r 5J/3" 9 Sieve Earing terminated at 17 .8 feet below existing grade. Ground1ater seei:ege enco\llltered at 7 feet dur:inn dr:illing. 3/4 inch PVC standpiJ:'= :in.stalled to bottan of borin3. ~ TERRA ·.t -~--~ F ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Proj. No.T-996 Date 5/89 Figure 6 BORING NO. 8-4 Logged By CRL Date 4-7-00 ELEV. 42± Gr aph : l· : : ..... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. :•:. 1.~ : :. ·~ : us Depth (N) w cs Soil Description (ft.) Sample Blows (%) Ft. L • ML Bro.n to brol.n grey clayey STI.T with organics, . ...,t, stiff. • I 8 • -5 . I Grey silty SAND with varying annunts of gravel, c... 10 nDist to ,_.,t, very dense. (TII.L) Possible lx,ulder and/or cobbles eocountered at 12' and 16'. • L • "" i5 I :IJ/5" T 87 /6" &:iring ternrinated at 18' below ex:ist::ing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 8 1 during dri1J..ing. ~ TERRA ~ ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG Medical Office Building U Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Proj. No.T-9961 Date 5/89 I Figure 7 BORING NO. B-5 Logged By CRL Date 4-S-89 us Graph CS Soil Description /::: '. SM Bro.n silty SAND ,ath mmrrous cobbles, "-'=t, nEm.1.rn dense . . . . ... . : : ., . . l·. : : : .... .• . . . . . : .. ; . r: .. . .. .. .... ... ·. \\ . . . ..... . . ~ .. . . . . :'":. : :-: . : : . . . : .. ' . 1:, • . . l~•t-:, :. : :! : ... . . ·.: . . . . . .. : •, . : . : • • I.~ SM Grey silty SAND ,ath varying arrounts of clay and gravel, !lDi.st to 1.et, very dense. (Til.L) ELEV. 42+ Depth (NJ w (ft.) Sample Blows (%) Ft. • " .. I " 16 20 ... C .) . I 63 13 . -10 • :::c ;i)/6" 9 .. -15 . . -- • 00 Boring terminated at 19' belc,,; existing grade. !lo grounch,,eter encountered during drilling. ~TERRA ~ ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Cent~r Renton Washington Proj. No. T-996 Date 5/89 I Figure 8 Gr aph .. • •t', . . .. ·-r.; •• .. .. . . : : :: : ·• . .. . : . · . . . . . . . ... .. ' . . . .. . . , . . : . : . ;; . L' • .. .: : . ..... ·. ~ : ... BORING NO. B-6. Logged By CRL Date us cs SM ML ML SM 4-7-89 ELEV. 38± Depth (N} w Soil Description (ft.} Sample Blows (%} Ft. llrol,n mixed silty SAND and clayey STI..T, ,.et, .. loose. .. I i,, 16 .. 5 .. Grey-tan clayey Sll.T, .et, stiff. .. I .. .. 8 t-10 . . . I Grey silty SAND with varying arounts of gravel 92 and clay, .et, very dense. (TilL) . -1s .. .. ' T 50/6" Boring teillli.nated at 18.5 feet below existing grade. Ground,ater encountered at 10' during drilling. BORING LOG Medical Office Building 11 Valley Medical Center Renton Washington qu= 2.0 tsf ~TERRA ~ ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.T-996 Date 5/89 I Figure 9 Gr aph : ; .. · ... . . .. . : .. :. : ~ . : . .. : : .. .. .. . • i: . . . r•. • .. : i.:. • .. : 1: . : ·. . ~ . .. .. . . . . .. I, • L' • ~ . ., ,L'r; .. . : : : ... : .· ... .... · ... .. .. : : BORING NO. 8-7 Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 ELEV. 38;!; us cs SM SM ML SM Depth (N) w Soil Description (ft.) Sample Blows (%) Ft. FILL: Grey brown silty SAND with varyjng anounts of gravel, !!Xlist to ,,.et, IIEditJn dense. L 4/4/89 .y I 40 5 L 5 i'!i.xed/bedded tan . L CT.ayey SILT and grey silty SAND with clay, \.Jet, loose to stiff . I 13 24 . L.. 10 L . ~ • I :IJ/3" 12 Grey silty l!Ediun SAND with gravel, 1,et, very L dense. (TIIL) .... 15 Boulder at 16' ? L • I,. i. T <;IJ/9" 18 Boring terminated at 18.7 feet t:elow existing grade. No ground.ater encountered during drilling. 3/4" standpipe installed to bottcr.i of boring. ····' TERRA ,.. . ~ . BORING LOG Medical Office Building II ' ' ,:, . . . · ASSOCIATES Valley Medical Center Renton Washington qu~ 2.0 tsf . . ... Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.T-996j Date 5/89 I Figure 10 Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA vote 08/01/01 Loggeo KHC Contractor Holt Drilling Drilled Bv unll HolloW St.m Auger Equipment Truck-mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig unll Me1hod Bit ~ample D&M Sampler Hammer 300 lb. hammer w/ 30 inch drop X-coordinate: Not Detennineo Me1hod Data ntc· ""' Total Deplh (fl) 29 Elevation (fl) 49 Datum: Not Determined Svstem: '"' . . ... Q. C: :!: ... w i:' ! i .21 w ~ d c :, w ! z il I ~l .. Other Tests ... * !. i u-:s:-=-.; u Material Description ~f. ~! And i!: I ~ ~ t 0: (/l u (/l :, ::, Notes Q. ~ (/l 1 ~ "' ::, i:' ~ 0 0 vel noose mo1stl [ h11 0 •,'." ur I ;rnv COG . •' . SM Brown silty sand and anvel (loose, moist) (fill) . . . : -.. ' --· 00 I ' .. -···· c ... ·: ... . 5-',. >--,-5 -· ;.;.~ 00 l ... ML Gray silt with organic. matter (medium stitl moist) (till) F.F. . .... . ' (chorwal frngmenls} ' - -100 l 9 - 10->-Onu!es to iroy. decreased organic eontcnt -,-,o -" c Id IA. OL Dark brown sandy organic silt (stifl moist) (wood . fragmenls) -u "" 100 4 10 ~· 32 88 c . I-' c,IA. ' c 15-I-' ,..<IA. .... '5l ->-15 I-' --i.. _.i--. ML • Brown sandy silt (stilt wet) c -100 5 16 • " . . . 20---c-20 -- 18 6 25 •k . c : SP-SM Gray tmc sand with silt (medium dense., wet) -' ... 25----25 '• I'-ML e Light gray silt (hard. moist) (mudstone} r . ' -100 7 S0/6" • . 9 126 ~~~ -Bonng completed nt 29 feet on 8/01/01 r 30--Ground wnter wtlS encountered o.t 15 feet during drilling ->-30 . . . . -. 35----35 Nole: See Figure A-2 for cxplano.tion of symbols Geo.Engineers LOG OF BORING B-1 FIGURE A-3 Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017 ·00 Kent, WA Ua!e 08/01/01 Logged KHC Contractor Drilled Bv Holt Driling Drill Hollow Stam Auger Equipment Truck-mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig unll Method Bit :sample D&M Sampler Hammer 300 lb. hammer w/ 30 inch drop X-c:oordinatc: Not Determined Method Data Y-c--rdi,.,ot ... : ""' - Tot.al Depth (ft) 33 Elevation (ft) 44 Datum: Not Detennined Svstcm: , .. - .... ls 1! 1! w r 0 1! g, ,!! S' ll! z il 1 ... 8-Other Tests !y: ,1; t u i Material Description And ::c ! "'~ ~~ .. a: lil"' .a :§-Notes .. '# "' "' i ~ l!i ::, C 0 ovu "me!. zone / SM L Dark. brown silty fine salld w,th gravel (medium dc:ns.c, . FF moist) - . 100 l 12 .~-> L -14 114 ML Dark brown 58.Ddy silt (stilt moist) (fill) . s-'-- . 17 2 1 8 Beeomes very soft with orgnnic matter . 1.,.'' ML L Gray !llndy silt (soft to medium stJit moist) . 100 3 s • L - 10-'-- . - 0 0 L L.U A OL Dork gray sandy organic slit (medium stit! moist) . 100 4 7 _, L . 23 99 . L.U A L - L.l, ~ ~ -15- L :,L . L . L../"" ... SM Gray silty sand with organic matter (loose, moist) (root ... fragments) . 56 s 8 1111 ::. · .. L - .. 20-~J.:.·l-, -ML Gray silt (medium stit! moist) .... L . 100 ' 8 .. SM L Brown silty fine sand and gravel (loose, moist) . 25- .. .... Harder drilling at 25 feet -"' ':1-. SP-SM L Gray fine so.nd with silt (very dense, moist) ·. :8 . . 00 7 50/6" -::.·.· 30-L-- L .. 100 8 50/4n1-~·.·, 10 Boring completed at 33 feet on 8/01/0 l Ground water encountered at 26 feet during drilling 35-... - Note: Sec Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols Geo.Engineers LOG OF BORING B-2 FIGUREA-4 .. w w u. ;a: ::c .. .. l!i 0 L ... 5 L 1-10 .-15 L-20 " ...25 L c-30 L c-35 I \ ! I I I I: Ii 11 ,, Project Valley Medical Center l.}ate Drilled Dnll Method Sample Me1hod Total Depth (ft) 08/01/01 Hollow Stem Auger D&M Sampler 23.5 Logged Bv JobNwnber 2202-017-00 KHC Location Contractor Equipment Truck-mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig 8~11 Hammer Data Elevation (fl) 300 lb. hammer w/ 30 inch drop 36 Material Description X..coordinate: V-coordinate: Datum: Svstem: Kent, WA Holt Drilling Not Detennined Not Other Tests And Notes O-t-lllr'fi1~y-~~~[!@~=:::::::::==~==J::--f-ll----ro I ~vv -....,:1 mch 111ycr r • ML f.. Dark gray sih with organic wi1h occasional line to coarse · -S6 1 2 - 5- • IDO 2 8 - SM 100 3 3 10- - 56 4 3 15- -ML - 78 s 19 - 20- - " ,_ gravel and orgnnic mo.tter (very soft. moist) {fill) Grodes to dark brown and becomes medium stiff Dark Drown silty tine Sllnd with occasionlll fine to coarse gravel (loose, moist) (fill) Bia.ck silty fine to medium snnd with organic matter and gravel (loose. moist) (fill) ·-~--~--~-~~~------~~ Gray sandy silt with oc~s1onol tine to coorse gravel (stiff. wet) Gravelly drilling at 16 feet - Becomes hard and moist Boring compleled at 23 .5 feet on 8/0 I /0 I Ground water was encountered .:it 12 feet during drilling - - - - - . 14 120 ---5 . . 17 94 -1-10 - - - - 41' ->-15 -12 124 - - --25 - - - --:30 -- ~ 35-~ ---35 Note: See Figure A-2 for e:ii.planation of symbols § i ~i---------------....------------------1 • LOG OF BORING B-3 " Geo Engi·neers FIGUREA-5 I 0 ~ .__ _______________ ___..__ ___________________ __, I I ! 1, I' ' j: I I Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA •• Date 08101101 L<iggcd Drilled Bv KHC Contractor Holt Drilling Drill Hollow Stem Auger Equipment Truck-mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig uni! Method Bit • Mmple D&M Sampler Hammer 300 lb. hammor wl 30 inch drop X--coordinole: Not Oetennined Method Data Y -eoordina.te: Nn+ - Tomi Depth (ft) 14 Elevation (fl) 41 Datum: Not Detsrminea Svstem: Nnt nete-'""" •• .... C: le .... w Q. w "' 0 C: 3 :, .!! Jl} w ... * z 8 ! & ii 5 * other Tests w > ,:c ... ~ @ ! .~ u-<.l E a CJ) [ Material Description *;jl. .~ ll. And ~ :,: "' E ] ~ --5-:c J-CJ) I! ~CJ) :, Notes J- 0. ~ i ~ ;jl. CJ) a, (!l ::, "' 0. w 0 0 a >M Brown silty lme sanO w,lh organic matter (loose, moist) 0 ·-:~ ASPHALT = (filll(to[!g!il) r . ~ \3 inch asphalt concrete pavement . SM ' .. Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) . . 100 t 10 . :: (fill) - . 5- ~·:,.. ML -Groy sandy silt (medium stiff. moist) -'-5 •• 100 2 6 •1 28 91 . - •• • 100 ' 26 • -- Becomes very stiff 10----10 --... - 100 4 53 ;-L Becomes hard -~ .. Boring completed at 14 feet on 8/0 l/01 . 15-~ No ground water encountered during drilling --15 . - --20-~ --20 .. - - I -· - ' - I ... - 25-~ -'-25 - - I --30----30 I ---. - -I ... 35----35 Note: Sec Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols I -- I .. .... Geo.Engineers LOG OF BORING 8-4 FIGURE A-6 .... Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA LOG OF HAND AUGER HA-1 Date Excavated: 8/1/01 Logged by: KHC Equipment: Hand EguiQment Surface Elevation (ft): 46 ... ] ! a. • I • ... 0 !i • h .l Ul z I-! ~l Other Tests "' Ul g_ Ul u.. ~ i ~x And u.. ;:; 'lS. E Material Description !I ;;; E ! .. i! o.t ~ .. "' " "' I 3! Notes I "' C!) "' • -• ... .. Ill ::, 2 u.. .. ~o ol!J .. OM Brown silty sand wnn gravel (loose to medium dense., ·.·.·.' moist) (fill) .. ~ .: : .. L . I . :: ' . . . L " ·. · . . .. - . -. x i : . 2 ... ,'. " .. ·. Obstruction encountered (possibly rocb/cobbles) t.::.GL. Hand auger completed at 4 . .5 feet on S/02/0 l 5--No ground waler-sci::pagc observed -L-5 No caving observed -- -- -L Notes: The depths of the hand auger logs are based on an average of measurements across the hand auger and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. LOG OF HAND AUGER HA-2 Date Excavated: 8/1/01 Logged by: KHC Equipment: Hand EguiQment Surface Elevation (fl): 38 ... 0 ] 8' !] ! h ! ... Ul Other Tests "' ~ z g_ 1! ...J §_ ~ ~ l ;;: [ n: And ;;; 'lS. E Material Description .~ ;:; E j .. i! if~ >- I "' ~ (.) "' Notes I .ii "' ! i ... C!) ::, ~ ti: .. Ill ~ u.. Ul 0~ co ~~t:t ,uu Sodlayer ML Dark brown 5811dy silt with gravel and/or silty sand with -gravel (soft. moist) (fill) . C I Rt --..,Asphah debris encountered ,,.. Hand auger compleled al 2 feet on 8/02/0 l : No ground wnter seep.age obseived . No caving observed : : -L • ' 5-~ -L-5 ' ' L ' . • Notes: The depths of the hand auger logs are ba$4!d on an average of measurements across the hand auger and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. Geo.Engineers LOG OF HAND AUGER FIGURE A-7 APPENDIX D Report Limitations and Guidelines For Use APPENDIX D REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE 1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Geotechnlcal Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center (VMC) and other project team members for the VMC FY 2017 Medical Office Building Project. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget. our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Is Based on a Unique Set of Project-specific Factors This report has been prepared for the VMC FY 2017 Medical Office Building Project in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure; • elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; 1 Developed based on material provided by GBA, GeoProfessional Business Association; www.geoprofessional.org. GrnENGINEER~ September 16. 2016 Page 0-1 • composition of the design team; or • project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final Oo not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. GrnENGINEERs__Q September 16. 2015 P;:ige D·2 Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations· provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use· apply to your project or site. Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be Interchanged The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. GEOENGINEERs_O Septr,mber i.6. 2016 Pr1ge D-3 Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria. and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. GeoENGINEER~ Septerr.brr 16. 2016 Page D-4 Have we delivered World Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting www.geoenglneers.com/feedback. GEoENGINEERS & 7 .0 OTHER PERMITS 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Other permits for this site include: • Water Line Extension Permit • Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit • Clear and Grade Permit • Site Development Permit • NPDES General Permit from the Department of Ecology for sites with disturbance over 1 acre 18092.004.doc 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be provided with the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project site 18092.004.doc 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATIONS OF COVENANT (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantities Worksheet as well as a Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and sketch and a Declaration of Covenant if these are required will be provided for this project site with the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project. 18092.004.doc 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL An Operations and Maintenance Manual will be prepared with the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project site. 18092.004.doc ~ .2 ti l?l ~ ~ uS ~ 0 ~ & ~ ~ 0 ~ a:i ~ I C: ~ " [13 N fi: ' ~ 0 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N i ,.--........... ' ' _.,_. . . _, t ' I L~ --......... .--._ ,I._ --.. ~ ..__ .... : .... -.- ,_ !. ' -' ·- .,...._; ..... :<· -.: ·- I ,/··:~ lj ,, HA-2 ... HA-1 'T ·-·B-1 ~---- 1-¢- /!? ', '. • B-2~ B-3+ ~ --B-4 .'....Ii... .. y ____ ... --.-- ... 22 21+ '".--,_.., -'----·, --... -· L -·-----, 23 ... B-2~ - 2s+ --::-,-28---i._ ~~ .__ ,. :\- A / ---~--8-6 ~ . • <--' · · i 27 I ----..._ A 1roc .., T B-4 y . . ,, .1 -_-f I . ~-- B-2 T -,_ , ..... -·,·· . •....;i.._ ' '--....._. 26 T .. .. L . ::;~--->-, ----B-7. + . - -·--~./~~-_.--- ,. .. • ---::; _ ·-............... __ _ --. ;1":· ,- ·- ·e-s+ .. '-------........... --+s-i.~. ., :'j --. ----...._ __ ,:,; . ·>' -~s-3 ·+----. --. .. ·-~- / ........ .. ~--·-- ··::-:- ..... t:. ...... ,: -.... / . ..__ . •--. ---..... . -' •, 1'' .• .• ~..::.:. ... ( >. --' ·:_·: -' . . :""'---... r-..... ,. . .. --. ............ i i , r .-:: .. :-: :_:_.:;. ' I ·-, i . ~/' .. ~;-.... .,._, -:.·-~? ' ' ..___ ......_____ ·---( ·-·-- .-..__ ', ~~ . -- --~ "-" --...._ I ~-, ' -- ):! -~-.. -.... ..... ·-----------------. •-.,}"_ . / )"' ( r-' -..._/ . !-----............ ---- . . ; !£ -.... ·~· ,, . ...._ . -~ .....,_-.../ .., ·-, ...._ ',-,---.... [:• , ·' J -/'/1 ~ ,..;·· .;· J.. 1~· ;"----~~ \ ...... _ v:..::1 I I ~ k :-i~-! .': l" .; ' ~} r..:, / . ' I , I...........___ -// I ,/ .... :-;-·t · , . _,-..... -:- / I I ' ., ' ·' ~ '·-:- & -· ~- ··. 60 65 -,a 75 . 80 ·90 L Proposed Parking Garage ' \ ~~-..::._ -,·. --... r -· ,. ---·~:.:..:::.!...::.: .. :·.:~ ,.., ; • . , ;, r C ~'. ,_ ., -·-i-·-, q , r--'--.:=-· -· '-:~·-:-,: ~=-·-~;._ ·.:--ii ~-: r: ~ ·-,-~-:-:.-__ --~~~. --~-----·---~---· --~-~-~~--:_~ ~-:·M ---·--;--w .;,--.. ' \ ., ' ' ,.· . , . .,· •'.' /.:! /-' <{ -,..~ -: ..... l·-... , ., (,;· . ....... ,.-..... ' ' ' / L..__ -i~. -..:,' . ;. ~ , /--~--' : .·/ >'/ .~;.~ .1·,. ~::' ' . . ~ ... ; I.. --- ._ o~ ·- ... oo ·' --· ', \, ,• -I I • I " I ; ' ./ .c .... ::, 0 Cl) 't:I l .... .8 -,!2 r: ·:-'; GEl-1. B-1 + B-2 ~ 1 -¢- 21 ... B-1 ~ HA-1 ... ---, , __ J 100 Legend Boring by GeoEngineers , 2016 Boring by Terra Associates, 1989 Boring by Converse Consultants NW , 1989 Boring by Converse Consultants NW, 1987 Test Pit by Converse Consultants NW, 1987 Boring by GeoEngineers, 2001 Hand Auger by GeoEngineers. 2001 Proposed Building w N s 0 -- E 100 --Feet Notes: l. The locations of all features shown are approximate . 2 . This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document GeoEngineers. Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is st ored by Geo Engineers. Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication . Data Source : Base aeria l photo for Microsoft b ing map server. Projection : NAD83 Wash i ngton State Planes. North Zone, US Foot. Site Plan Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington GeoENGINEERS Q Figure 2 ' ® lii m § .c .!I "' -D N a, ;, @) ij ill ·~ OIIUIA a: IUIISON Nill "' ::;; @) 8 ~l';::;;;;;;;;:::::::==::::::=F========~-------'-"""-----------------~--~-------------4 ~ --.-=--5uttlt sl "' -a ---~ --D N ~ - a: .c -'&_ Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown ara approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. II is Intended lo assist in showing features discussed in an attached document GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master tile is stored by GeoEngineers. Inc. and will serve as the offk::ial record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: Open Street Map, 2016. Transverse Mercator. Zone 10 N North. North American Omum 1983 Nor1h arrow orieriled to grid north 2,000 a ----Feet Vicinity Map Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington GEoENGINEERS Q 2,000 Figure 1 U.S. Geological Survey -National Seismic hazard Mapping project Software, "Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.0.9a," 2002 data, 2009. Washington State Department of Ecology, "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," 2012. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." GeoENGINEER~ Septe'.Tlber 16 2016 Page 16 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services Geo Engineers should be retained to review the project plans and specifications when complete to confirm that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. Any changes in design, especially the incorporation of elements that deepen the required depth of excavation, will likely go below the water table and could require additional temporary construction dewatering measures. During construction, GeoEngineers should evaluate the suitability of the foundation subgrades, observe installation of subsurface drainage measures, evaluate structural backfill, observe the condition of temporary cut slopes, and provide a summary letter of our construction observation services. The purposes of Geo Engineers construction phase services are to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix D, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center and their authorized agents for the VMC FY 2017 Medical Office Building Project in Renton, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by Geo Engineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix D titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. REFERENCES City of Renton Public Works Department, 2010 "Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual." City of Seattle, 2014, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." International Code Council, 2012, "International Building Code." King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, 2009 "Surface Water Design Manual." Mullineaux D.R., 1965 "Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington," USGS. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. 1999, "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4, Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems," FHWA Report No. FHWA-IF-99-015. GrnENGINEERs,0 September 16, 2016 Page 15 New Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement In light-duty pavement areas (e.g., automobile parking), we recommend a pavement section consisting of at least a 2-inch thickness of 1/,-inch HMA (PG 58-22) per WSDOT Sections 5-04 and 9-03, over a 4-inch thickness of densely compacted crushed rock base course per WSDOT Section 9-03.9(3). In heavy-duty pavement areas (e.g., truck traffic areas, materials delivery, forklifts) around the building, we recommend a pavement section consisting of at least a 4-inch thickness of 1/2-inch HMA (PG 58-22) over a 6-inch thickness of densely compacted crushed rock base course. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). We recommend that a proof-roll of the compacted base course be observed by a representative from our firm prior to paving. Soft or yielding areas observed during proof-rolling may require over-excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill. The pavement sections recommended above are based on our experience. Thicker asphalt sections may be needed based on the actual subgrade conditions, traffic data and intended use. Infiltration In the northern portion of the proposed MOB building footprint, native glacially consolidated soils and sandstone bedrock were encountered and consisted of dense to very dense silty sand and gravel with varying silt content. In the southern portion, mainly near GEl-10, fill overlies the glacially consolidated soils. The fill consists of loose to medium dense silty sand. The fill contains a significant portion of fines. The glacially consolidated soils are compact and contain a significant percentage of fines, which limits the infiltration capacity. Additionally, the cemented nature of the glacial till and sandstone bedrock typically does not allow for infiltration. Grain size analyses were completed on two soil samples, GEl-8 at a depth of 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) and GEl-10 at 5 feet bgs. GeoEngineers determined preliminary long-term design infiltration rates in general accordance with the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual of Western Washington (SMMWW) using the simplified Soil Grain Size Analysis Method. The method consists of correlations based on sieve analysis results, as discussed in Section 3.3.6 of the SMMWW manual. Based on this analysis, we estimate a preliminary long-term design infiltration rate of 0.5 inches per hour in the southern portion of the site for depths of 2 to 5 feet bgs where fill is present. Infiltration is not considered feasible in the glacial soils encountered in the northern portion of the site and below a depth of about 2 to 5 feet in the southern portion of the site, due to the presence of glacial soils below this depth. It should be noted that the City of Renton has adopted and amended sections of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and it specifies that the measured infiltration rate be measured in accordance with the EPA Falling Head Method or the Double Ring lnfiltrometer Method. However, the City of Renton amendments states "For some soils, an infiltration rate of less than 9 inches per hour may be assumed based on soil texture determination rather than a rate measurement." Based on this exception, the value of 0.5 inches per hour can be used for design, unless a measured value using one of the methods referenced above is completed in the field. It is our opinion that the on-s,te soils provide low infiltration capacity and extensive stormwater infiltration facilities are not recommended for the site. GEOENGINEER~ September 16 2016 P:'lge 14 Weather Considerations The on-site soils contain a sufficient percentage of fines (silt and clay) to be moisture-sensitive. When the moisture content of these soils is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content, these soils become muddy and unstable, and operation of equipment on these soils is difficult. Additionally, disturbance of near-surface soils should be expected if earthwork is completed during periods of wet weather. During wet weather, we recommend that: • The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is directed away from the work area. The ground surface should be graded such that areas of ponded water do not develop. The contractor should take measures to prevent surface water from collecting in excavations and trenches. Measures should be implemented to remove surface water from the work area. • Slopes with exposed soils should be covered with plastic sheeting or similar means. • The site soils should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficial soils by rolling with a smooth-drum roller prior to periods of precipitation will reduce the extent to which these soils become wet or unstable. • Construction traffic should be restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced with materials not susceptible to wet weather disturbance. • Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soils are left exposed to moisture is reduced to the extent practicable. Permanent Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2H:1V. To achieve uniform compaction, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt slightly (1 to 2 feet) and subsequently cut back to expose properly compacted fill. We recommend that the finished slope faces be compacted by track walking with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours so that the track grouser marks help provide an erosion-resistant slope texture. To reduce erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading. Until the vegetation is established, some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected. This may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as clear heavy plastic sheeting, jute fabric, loose straw, or excelsior or straw/coconut matting, should be used to protect the slopes during periods of rainfall. Pavement Design Subgrade Preparation We recommend that the subgrade soils in new pavement areas be prepared and evaluated as described in the "Earthwork" section of this report. We recommend that the subgrade be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD per ASTM D 1557 prior to placing pavement section materials. If the subgrade soils are loose or soft, it may be necessary to excavate the soils and replace them with structural fill. A layer of suitable woven geotextile fabric may be placed over soft subgrade areas to limit the thickness of structural fill required to bridge soft, yielding areas. The depth of overexcavation or fabric placement should be evaluated by GeoEngineers during construction. GeoENGINEER~ SP.ptember 16, 2016 Page 13 • Structural fill placed around perimeter footing drains, underslab drains and cast-in-place wall drains should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 5 (1-inch washed gravel) or Type 22 (%-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT gravel backfill for drains Section 9-03.12(4). • Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements and sidewalks should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (1 %-inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. On-site So/ls The on-site soils are moisture-sensitive and generally have natural moisture contents higher than the anticipated optimum moisture content for compaction. As a result, the on-site soils will likely require moisture conditioning in order to meet the required compaction criteria during dry weather conditions and will not be suitable for reuse during wet weather. Furthermore, most of the fill soils required for the project have specific gradation requirements, and the on-site soils do not meet these gradation requirements. If the contractor wants to use on-site soils for structural fill, GeoEngineers can evaluate the on-site soils for suitability as structural fill, as required. FIii Placement and Compaction Criteria Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 1 foot in thickness. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria: • Structural fill placed in building areas (supporting or adjacent to foundations or slab-on-grade floors) should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MOD) estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. • Structural fill placed within 10 feet of the back of subgrade and retaining walls should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of the MOD. Care should be taken when compacting fill against subsurface walls to avoid over-compaction and hence overstressing the walls. Structural fill beyond this 10-foot zone should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MOD. • Structural fill in new pavement and roadway areas, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to 90 percent of the MOD, except that the upper 2 feet of fill below final subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD. • Structural fill placed as crushed rock base course below pavements should be compacted to 95 percent of the MOD. We recommend that Geo Engineers be present during probing of the exposed subgrade soils in building and pavement areas, and during placement of structural fill. We will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in-place moisture-density tests in the fill to verify compliance with the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to the procedures that may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. GEOENGINEERsg September 16 2016 Page 12 _...,,.,r,,.:.1--::, • revegetating or mulching denuded areas; • directing runoff away from denuded areas; • minimizing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils; • decreasing runoff velocities; • confining sediment to the project site; • inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently; • covering soil stockpiles; and • implementing proper erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to help reduce the potential for erosion and reduce transport of sediment to adjacent areas. Temporary erosion protection should include the construction of a silt fence around the perimeter of the work area prior to the commencement of grading activities. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by reestablishing vegetation using hydroseeding and/or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring should be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and repair and/or modify them as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade in structure and hardscape areas should be evaluated after site excavation is complete. Disturbed areas below slabs and foundations should be recompacted if the subgrade soil consists of granular material. If the subgrade soils consist of disturbed soils, it will likely be necessary to remove and replace the disturbed soil with structural fill unless the soil can be adequately moisture- conditioned and compacted. Structural FIii Fill placed to support structures, placed behind retaining structures, and placed below pavements and sidewalks will need to be specified as structural fill as described below: • Structural fill placed within utility trenches and below pavement and sidewalk areas and below foundations should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3). Common borrow is only suitable for use during dry weather. If fill is placed during wet weather, WSDOT gravel borrow should be used, as described in Section 9-03.14(1). • Structural fill placed as capillary break material should meet the requirements of Type 22 (%-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (1'1,-inch minus crushed gravel). • Structural fill placed behind retaining walls should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT gravel backfill for walls Section 9-03.12(2). GEOENGINEERs.a September 16, 2016 Page 11 Lateral resistance for conventional cast-in-place walls can be provided by frictional resistance along the base of the wall and passive resistance in front of the wall. For walls founded on native soils or structural fill, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid densities of 390 pcf (triangular distribution). The allowable passive resistance for structural fill assumes that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element for a distance of at least equal to 2 1/2 times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent of the MOD in accordance with ASTM 0-1557. The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. The above soil pressures assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls, as discussed below. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided behind cast-in-place retaining walls by placing a minimum 2-foot-wide zone of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, with the exception that the percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve is to be less than 3 percent. Alternatively, the 2-foot-wide zone of material may consist of gravel backfill for walls in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(2). A perforated drainpipe should be placed near the base of the retaining wall to provide drainage. The drainpipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (%-inch crushed gravel) or Type 5 (1-inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or gravel backfill for drains in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage, WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33. The wall drainpipe should be connected to a header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger-diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems. Earthwork Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing We recommend that all new pavement and structure areas be stripped of existing pavements, concrete and vegetation in landscape areas. The asphalt pavement thickness in the project area is generally between 1 V2 and 3 inches of asphalt concrete as encountered in the borings. The stripped organic soil from the landscape areas may be stockpiled for later use as topsoil for landscaping purposes. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods, slope length and gradient. amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing, and weather. The project's impact on erosion-prone areas can be reduced by implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable City and/or county standards. The plan should incorporate basic planning principles including: • scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure; • retaining existing vegetation whenever feasible; GeoENG1NEER5Y September 16 2016 Puge 10 Specification 9-03.16, or gravel backfill for drains in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-33. The underslab drainage system pipes should be connected to a header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems. The flow rate for the planned excavation in the below-slab drainage and below-grade wall drainage systems is anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 10 gpm. If no special waterproofing measures are taken. leaks and/or seepage may occur in localized areas of the below-grade portion of the building, even if the recommended wall drainage and below-slab drainage provisions are constructed. If leaks or seepage is undesirable, below-grade waterproofing should be specified. A vapor barrier should be used below slab-on-grade floors located in occupied portions of the building. Specification of the vapor barrier requires consideration of the performance expectations of the occupied space, the type offlooring planned and other factors, and is typically completed by other members of the project team. If partial below-grade waterproofing is specified (for instance, for elevator pits), the waterproofing should extend to at least the elevation of the lowest finished floor so that the waterproofing will be located above the elevation where foundation drainage is provided. Below-Grade Walls Other Cast-In-Place Walls Conventional cast-in-place walls may be necessary for small retaining structures located on-site or where temporary open cuts are used for excavation support. The lateral soil pressures acting on conventional cast-in-place subsurface walls will depend on the nature, density and configuration of the soil behind the wall and the amount of lateral wall movement that can occur as backfill is placed. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall, soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. Assuming that the walls are backfilled and drainage is provided as outlined in the following paragraphs, we recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf (triangular distribution), while non-yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fiuid density of 55 pct (triangular distribution). For seismic loading conditions, a rectangular earth pressure equal to 14H pounds per square foot (psf) (where H is the height of the wall in feet) should be added to the active/at-rest pressures. A traffic surcharge pressure of 70 psf should also be included in the design, as appropriate. Other surcharge loading should be applied as appropriate using the recommendations provided in Figure 5. We recommend that below-grade wall or other retaining wall foundations be designed using the foundation recommendations provided above under "Shallow Foundations." For retaining walls independent of building structures (grade-transition walls), the retaining wall footings may be supported on 2 feet of structural fill placed over the existing fill soils. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to a firm condition prior to placement of the 2-foot-thick layer of structural fill. An allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf may be used for this foundation support condition. GEOENGINEER~ September 16, 2016 Page 9 without significant groundwater. Disturbed areas should be recompacted if possible or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The site should be rough graded to approximately 1 foot above slab subgrade elevation prior to foundation construction in order to protect the slab subgrade soils from deterioration from wet weather or construction traffic. After the foundations have been constructed, the remaining soils can be removed to final subgrade elevation followed by immediate placement of the capillary break material. In areas were existing fill is present below buildings, the existing soil may be left in place below the slab provided the slab is founded on at least 1 foot of structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the MOD in accordance with ASTM D1557. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to a firm condition prior to placement of the 1-foot-thick layer of structural fill. Design Parameters Conventional slabs may be supported on-grade, provided the subgrade soils are prepared as recommended in the "Subgrade Preparation" section above. For slabs designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for slabs supported on glacial till. For slabs supported on a 1-foot layer of structural fill overlying existing fill soils, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci. We recommend that the slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a 6-inch-thick capillary break consisting of 1'h-inch minus clean crushed gravel with negligible sand or silt meeting the requirements Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57 or Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (%-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. Provided that loose soil is removed and the subgrade is prepared as recommended, we estimate that slabs-on-grade will not settle appreciably. Below-Slab Drainage We expect the static groundwater level to be located well below the slab-on-grade level for the proposed building; however perched groundwater may be present above the slab subgrade elevation. We recommend installing an underslab drainage system to remove water from below the slabs-on-grade. The underslab drainage system should include an interior perimeter drain and one or more longitudinal drains with transverse pipes placed at a nominal spacing of 20 feet. The location of the longitudinal drain(s) will depend on the foundation and below-grade structure design and may need to be modified to two or more transverse drains or drains located behind interior cast-in-place walls. The civil engineer should develop a conceptual foundation drainage plan for GeoEngineers to review. The drains should consist of perforated Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes with a minimum diameter of 4 inches placed in a trench at least 12 inches deep. The top of the underslab drainage system trenches should coincide with the base of the capillary break layer. The underslab drainage system pipes should have adequate slope to allow positive drainage to the sump/gravity drain. The drainage pipe should be perforated. Perforated pipe should have two rows of 1/,-inch holes spaced 120 degrees apart and at 4 inches on center. The underslab drainage system trenches should be backfilled with Mineral Aggregate Type 22 or Type 5 (1-inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard G,oENGINEER~ Sep!embe1 l6. 2016 Page 8 .. ',,i /.'(.; (<'~ u:, Settlement Provided that all loose soil is removed and that the subgrade is prepared as recommended under "Construction Considerations" below, we estimate that the total settlement of shallow foundations will be about 1 inch or less. The settlements will occur rapidly, essentially as loads are applied. Differential settlements between footings could be half of the total settlement. Note that smaller settlements will result from lower applied loads. Lateral Resistance Lateral foundation loads may be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of footings and by friction on the base of the shallow foundations. For shallow foundations supported on native soils or structural fill. the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 390 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (triangular distribution). This value is appropriate for foundation elements that are poured directly against undisturbed glacial till or surrounded by structural fill. The allowable passive resistance for structural fill assumes that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element for a distance of at least equal to 2V, times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. Construction Considerations We recommend that the condition of all subgrade areas be observed by GeoEngineers to evaluate whether the work is completed in accordance with our recommendations and whether the subsurface conditions are as anticipated. If foundation construction is completed during periods of wet weather, foundation subgrades are recommended to be protected with a rat slab consisting of 2 to 4 inches of lean or structural concrete. If soft areas are present at the footing subgrade elevation, the soft areas should be removed and replaced with lean concrete or structural fill at the direction of Geo Engineers. We recommend that the contractor consider leaving the subgrade for the foundations as much as 6 to 12 inches high, depending on soil and weather conditions, until excavation to final subgrade is required for foundation reinforcement. Leaving subgrade high will help reduce damage to the subgrade resulting from construction traffic for other activities. Slab-on-Grade Floors Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade should be evaluated after site grading is complete. Proof-rolling with heavy, rubber-tired construction equipment should be used for this purpose during dry weather and if access for this equipment is practical. Probing should be used to evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather or if access is not feasible for construction equipment. The exposed soil should be firm and unyielding, and GEOENGINEER5Y September 16. 2016 Page 7 Once the lowest finish floor elevations have been established for the project, the type/location of foundation elements should be reviewed by GeoEngineers with the project team. Additional explorations can be completed to reduce uncertainty with regards to extent of overexcavation. More detail regarding recommended subgrade preparation and allowable bearing pressures for shallow foundations are presented below. Allowable Bearing Pressure We recommend using an allowable bearing pressure of 10 ksf for mat foundations and isolated spread footing foundations bearing on the dense to very dense/hard glacially consolidated soils. For foundations bearing on properly compacted structural fill extended down to dense to very dense/hard glacially consolidated soils, an allowable bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used. The estimated depth to the dense to very dense/hard glacially consolidated soils are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 2. ESTIMATED DEPTH TO DENSE TO VERY DENSE/HARD GLACIALLY CONSOLIDATED SOILS FOR FOUNDATION SUPPORT Notes: Exploration Number GEl-8 GEl-9 GEl-10 GEl-11 ioepth below existing ground surface Approximate Deptll to Competent Glacially Consolidated So11s1 (feet) 1 3 10 2 Where foundations are planned to bear on existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils (elevations higher than shown in Table 2), we recommend a minimum of 2 feet be overexcavated below the foundation elevation and replaced with compacted structural fill. Existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils will still remain for this condition; therefore, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf be used. The zone of structural fill below the foundation should extend beyond the faces of the footing a distance at least equal to the thickness of the structural fill. The zone of structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MOD in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. If loose existing fill is encountered, further overexcavation may be necessary. The allowable soil bearing pressures provided above apply to the total of dead and long-term live loads and may be increased by up to one-third for wind or seismic loads. The allowable soil bearing pressures are net values. We recommend that conventional shallow foundations be a minimum of 36 inches wide and continuous wall footings be a minimum of 16 inches wide. Exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Interior footings should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below top of slab. GeoENGINEERs9 September 16. 2016 Page 6 Excavations We understand that the ground floor of the planned building will be at or partially below grade and that the excavations may extend up to 4 feet below site grades for foundation installation. Temporary cut slopes may be used for shallow excavations or where there is sufficient space to complete cut slopes. The following sections provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for temporary cut slopes. Excavation Considerations The site soils may be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as trackhoes or dozers. It may be necessary to rip the glacially consolidated soils locally to facilitate excavation. The contractor should be prepared for occasional cobbles and boulders in the site soils. Likewise, the surficial fill may contain foundation elements and/or utilities from previous site development, debris, rubble and/or cobbles and boulders. We recommend that procedures be identified in the project specifications for measurement and payment of work associated with obstructions. Temporary Cut Slopes Temporary slopes may be used around the site where space allows. We recommend that temporary slopes constructed in the fill be inclined at 11/,H:1V (horizontal to vertical) and that temporary slopes in the glacially consolidated soils be inclined at 1H:1V. Flatter slopes may be necessary if seepage is present on the face of the cut slopes or if localized sloughing occurs. For open cuts at the site, we recommend that: • no traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allowed at the top of the cut slopes within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut; • exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion by using waterproof tarps or plastic sheeting; • construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is reduced to the extent practicable; • erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to the extent practicable; • surface water be diverted away from the slope; and • the general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by the geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate stability. Because the contractor has control of the construction operations. the contractor should be made responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. Temporary slopes must conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. Shallow Foundations Subgrade soils at foundation elevation level for the project will be dependent on the depth of excavation and the finish floor elevation. The soils at the anticipated foundation elevation vary across the site and may consist of existing fill or glacially consolidated soils, as such, the bearing capacity and subgrade preparation will vary. Where foundations bear on competent glacially consolidated soils a high allowable bearing capacity value can be used. Where fill is present at foundation subgrade elevation, a lower allowable bearing capacity should be used. GEOENGINEERs9 September 16. 2016 Page 5 • The majority of the on-site soils generally contain a high percentage of fines and are highly moisture- sensitive. The on-site soils may be used as structural fill during dry weather conditions only (typically June through September) provided the soils are properly moisture conditioned for compaction. Imported granular soils with a low percentage of fines should be used as structural fill during wet weather conditions and during the wet season (typically October through May). Our specific geotechnical recommendations are presented in the following sections of this report. Earthquake Engineering Liquefaction Liquefaction refers to the condition by which vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in the development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils with subsequent loss of strength. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include very loose to medium dense, clean to silty sands that are below the water table. Our analysis indicates that the soils that underlie the proposed building area have a low risk of liquefying because of the density and gradation of these soils. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as the underlying soil layer liquefies. Because the buildings will bear on non-liquefiable soils, the potential for lateral spreading is considered to be low for the project site. Surface Rupture The Renton Formation has many small faults with generally low displacement (Mullineaux, 1965). However, the nearest mapped fault, the Sunbeam fault is approximately V, mile north of the site. Based on the distance to this known fault zone, and lack of other known fault zones near the site, it is our opinion that there is a low to moderate risk of surface rupture at the site. Other Seismic Hazards Due to the location of the site and the site's topography, the risk of adverse impacts resulting from seismically induced slope instability and differential settlement is considered to be low. 2012 I BC Seismic Design Information The following 2012 IBC parameters for site class, short period spectral response acceleration (Ss), 1-second period spectral response acceleration (S,) and seismic coefficients (FA and Fv) are appropriate for the project site. TABLE 1. 2012 IBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 2012 IBC Parameter Site Class Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss (percent g) 1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S, (percent g) Seismic Coefficient. F" Seismic Coefficient, Fv GrnENGINEER'9 Recommended Value C 140.7 52.4 1.0 1.3 SeptembP.r 16, 201n Page 4 Glacially Consolidated Soils The glacially consolidated soils encountered below the fill consist of weathered and unweathered glacial till. The glacial till encountered consists of silty sand or sandy silt with variable gravel content. A dense to very dense weathered zone near the surface transitions to the dense to very dense/hard unweathered glacial till below. The transition between weathered and unweathered glacial till was observed at depths ranging from approximately 5 to 9 feet below site grades. Glacial till extended approximately 20 1/, feet below site grades in boring GEl-10 and to the depths explored in borings GEl-8, GEl-9 and GEl-11. Sandstone Bedrock Sandstone bedrock (Renton Formation) was encountered below the glacially consolidated soils in boring GEl-10 and consists of very dense cemented silty sand with occasional coal deposits. Where encountered, the Renton formation extended to the depths explored. Groundwater Conditions Perched water was encountered at various depths in borings GEl-9 and GEl-10. The groundwater observed in GEl-10 was confined to wet, medium dense soils overlying dense to very dense soils with relatively high fines content. The perched groundwater encountered is likely associated with seasonal rainfall. Perched groundwater is expected to fluctuate as a result of season, precipitation, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. • The site is designated as Site Class C per ASCE/SEI 7-10 and the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). • The groundwater table is likely well below the base of the excavation. Minor seepage inflows may be expected where excavations intercept perched groundwater zones. We estimate flow rates from incidental seepage may be on the order of 5 to 10 gallons per minute (gpm). • Temporary excavations may be completed with temporary open cuts. • Shallow foundations may be used and shall bear on either dense to very dense/hard glacial till, on structural fill extending down to dense to very dense/hard glacial till, or on a 2-foot-thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing fill and highly weathered glacial soils: • For shallow foundations bearing directly on dense to very dense/hard glacial till, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 10 kips per square foot (ksf) may be used. • For shallow foundations bearing on structural fill extending down to dense to very dense/hard glacial till, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used. • For shallow foundations bearing on a 2-foot-thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing fill and highly weathered glacial soils, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3 ksf may be used. GEDENGINEER~ September 16. 2016 Page 3 SITE CONDITIONS Regional Geology Published geologic information for the project vicinity includes a geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle (Mullineaux 1965). The geologic map of the project area identifies subsurface soils to consist primarily of glacial till deposits of the Vashon Drift. Also mapped in the area are Renton Formation sandstone with interbeds of siltstone, claystone and coal. Glacial till typically consists of a heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel, cobbles and occasional boulders in a silt and clay matrix that was deposited beneath a glacier. Because glacial till has been overridden by thousands of feet of ice, it is typically dense to very dense. Renton Formation sandstone consists of irregularly cemented arkosic sandstone, mudstone and shale and locally contains coal deposits. Geologic map notes maximum thicknesses of approximately 2,500 feet. Subsurface soils encountered in our explorations are consistent with the geologic mapping. Specific details of subsurface conditions encountered in the field explorations are presented in the "Subsurface Conditions" section below. Surface Conditions The site is currently occupied by asphalt surface parking, landscaped parking islands and several mature coniferous and deciduous trees. The site steps down from east to west, with a total change in elevation of approximately 9 feet. Generally, the site appears to be clear of public utilities. The utilities on site consist of private stormwater and power for the parking lot lights. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by completing four geotechnical borings (GEl-8 through GEl-11) for the current study, and reviewing logs of explorations completed by GeoEngineers immediately adjacent to the project site as part of the proposed parking garage as well as other explorations by others in the project vicinity. The approximate locations of the explorations in the site vicinity are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The soil units encountered in the explorations consist of fill, glacially consolidated soils and sandstone bedrock, as described below. Asphalt concrete pavement was encountered at the ground surface at each boring location and ranged in thickness from 11/, to 3 inches. The asphalt concrete pavement was underlain with up to 51/, inches of base course consisting of crushed gravel, where encountered. Fill Fill was encountered below the asphalt pavement in the explorations completed for this study and previous studies. The fill typically consists of loose to medium dense silty sand with variable gravel content and extends to depths ranging from 1/, to 91/, feet below existing site grades. The deepest fill, approximately 91/, feet, was encountered in boring GEl-10. The other borings in the building footprint (GEl-8, GEl-9, and GEl-11) encountered shallow fill up to 2 feet thick. GEOENGINEERs_O September 16. 2016 Page 2 ,,. \(I '_.,. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of Geo Engineers' geotechnical engineering services for the Valley Medical Center (VMC) Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Medical Office Building project in Renton, Washington. The site is trapezoidal in shape and is located in the northern portion of the VMC campus at 400 South 43'' Street. The site is bordered to the west by an existing medical office building, to the north by a VMC campus access road off Talbot Road South, to the east by a parking lot and to the south by the VMC. The site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan, Figure 2. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the planned medical office building development. GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering services have been completed in general accordance with our signed agreement executed on March 21, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GeoEngineers understands that Medical Office Building project will consist of up to eight levels above-grade and the ground floor will be at or partially below-grade. Based on our understanding of the project, temporary slope cuts along the perimeter of the proposed building will be sufficient to complete the excavation. Variable soil conditions are present at the anticipated foundation elevation; therefore, shallow foundations bearing on native or structural fill are anticipated for foundation support. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling four borings, GEl-8 through GEl-11, to depths of approximately 21 to 26'h feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Descriptions of the field exploration program and the boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory Testing Soil samples were obtained during drilling and were taken to GeoEngineers' laboratory for further evaluation. Selected samples were tested for soil moisture content, the determination of fines content and grain-size distribution (sieve analysis). A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B. PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATIONS In addition to the explorations completed as part of this evaluation, the logs of selected explorations from previous site evaluations in the project vicinity were reviewed. The logs of explorations from previous projects referenced for this study are presented in Appendix C. GEOENGINEER~ September 16, 2016 Page 1 '·I•~( ,Jf}'.;-iJ_l~.(l' Table of Contents (continued) Permanent Slopes ......................................................................................................................... 13 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................................. 13 Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................................... 13 New Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement ................................................................................................... 14 Infiltration ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services ............................................................................ 15 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 15 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1 -Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2 through A-5 Boring Logs Appendix 8. Laboratory Testing Figure 8-1 -Sieve Analysis Results Appendix C. Boring Logs from Previous Studies Appendix D. Report Limitations and Guidelines G,oENGINEERs_O Septern'.:ler 16. 2016 Pc1ge ii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................. 1 Field Explorations ................................................................................................................................... 1 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................................. 1 PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATIONS .................................................................................................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Regional Geology ................................................................................................................................... 2 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 2 Subsurface Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 2 Fill ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Glacially Consolidated Soils ............................................................................................................ 3 Sandstone Bedrock ......................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 3 Earthquake Engineering ........................................................................................................................ 4 Liquefaction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Lateral Spreading ............................................................................................................................ 4 Surface Rupture .............................................................................................................................. 4 Other Seismic Hazards ................................................................................................................... 4 2012 IBC Seismic Design Information .......................................................................................... 4 Excavations ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Excavation Considerations ............................................................................................................. 5 Temporary Cut Slopes ..................................................................................................................... 5 Shallow Foundations ............................................................................................................................. 5 Allowable Bearing Pressure ............................................................................................................ 6 Settlement ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Lateral Resistance .......................................................................................................................... 7 Construction Considerations .......................................................................................................... 7 Slab-on-Grade Floors ............................................................................................................................. 7 Subgrade Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 7 Design Parameters ......................................................................................................................... 8 Below.Slab Drainage ....................................................................................................................... 8 Below-Grade Walls ................................................................................................................................. 9 Other Cast-in-Place Walls ............................................................................................................... 9 Drainage ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Earthwork ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Stripping. Clearing and Grubbing ................................................................................................. 10 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ............................................................................................. 10 Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................................... 11 Structural Fill ................................................................................................................................. 11 GeoENGINEER~ September 16. 2016 Page i Geotechnical Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Proposed Medical Office Building Renton, Washington Prepared for: Valley Medical Center 400 South 43,d Street Renton, Washington 98005 Attention: Becky Hardi Pre pa red by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154'" Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Daniel P. Ciani, PE S ior Geotechnical Engineer p Principal DTM:DPC:SDS:nld FIie No. 2202-024-00 September 16, 2016 Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facslmlle or hard copy of the original document (email, tert. table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is sto1ed by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official doc11ment of record. GEoENGINEERS Q Geotechnlcal Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Proposed Medical Office Building Renton, Washington for Valley Medical Center September 16, 2016 GeoENGINEER~ 8410 1541h Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Geotechnlcal Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Proposed Medical Office Building Renton, Washington for Valley Medical Center September 16, 2016 SOILS REPORT 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance system for lhis projecl site will be sized in accordance with standards current with lhe City of Renton with the Final Technical Information Report submitted for this project site. 18092.004.doc 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NAME 4249 -VMC MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT LOCA TION RENTON, WA STRUCTURE ID TREA TM[NT REQUIRED 2-YEAR RELEASE RATE (CFS} FLOW BASED (CFS) 0.027 TREATMENT HGL AVAILABLE (FT} N/A PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED {CFS) -IF APPLICABLE 0.108 PIPE DATA I.E. MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPES 69.73 CPEP 12" OUTLET PIPE 69.23 CPEP 12· PRETREATMENT BIOFIL TRA TION DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION 80.50 80.50 80.50 SURFACE LOAD PARKWAY PARKWAY PARKWAY FRAME & COVER ¢JO" ¢JO" WETLANDMEDIA VOLUME {CY} 7.60 WETLANDMEDIA DELIVERY METHOD PER CONTRACT ORIFICE SIZE (DIA. INCHES) ¢0.79" NOTES: PRELIMINARY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. INSTALLATION NOTES I. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE All LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORA WING AND THE MANUFACTURERS SPECIFlCATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURERS CONTRACT. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BAS[ MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY PROJECT ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. J. ALL PIPES MUST BE nusH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE. (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST 8£ FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER nooR. ALL GAPS AROUND PIPES SHALL 8£ SEALED WATER TIGHT WITH A NON-SHRINK GROUT PER MANUFACTURERS STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL AND SHALL MEET OR EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECTION STANDARDS. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. 5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL RISERS, MANHOLES, AND HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO GROUT ALL MANHOLES AND HATCHES TO MATCH FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE 6. DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGATION REQUIRED ON ALL UNITS WITH VEGETATION GENERAL NOTES 1. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DETAILING EXACT DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE CONTACT MANUFACTURER. DRAIN DOWN UN£ VERTICAL UNDERDRAIN MANIFOUJ I ' q: \,~-~INLET PIPE SEE NOTES "" l 1 f" (SI I Jf • " PRE-FILTER ~::__:.;,._~~A CARTRIDGE WETZANDMEDIA BED ":c:. es 'i ,I y;c.5 "' c;;; !,j 'l: PLAN VIEW 0/JTl.ET PIPE SEE NOTES 1·-2·1- . "' ,_ ~fu C, \,J ;J:: .. 1 ~ C/L . "'"' ~ w;;;z 1-a.. I r, r.,r. I' r, - :., I 1:><J 'I' ~ I -t • . -..., -, I , I 0, " 80.50 C/L ~--~ 77.90 1., • C> 'I .., 71.96 C/L rfi"''.FCrr~ -----r ·-_ ·: t > ,·::. :... . . ~ ,. .-::.-> .. :·:< .. ~ l·•-__ ··_ ,_ l > :_·.-,_-. ·: _; ! . : . .:·] f .-: . . ··. _._ :· __ ·· . ::.= • .., s·-l 5•.:.4·---i t-T i IT 5• ] I '.6 ' ~'.1o~E :l , . s· I • l'-2· ELEVATION VIEW INTERNAL BYPASS DISCLOSURE: THE DESIGN AND CAPACITY OF THE PEAK CONVEYANCE METHOD TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. HGL(S) AT PEAK FLOW SHALL 8£ ASSESSED TO ENSURE NO UPSTREAM FLOODING. PEAK HGL AND BYPASS CAPACITY SHOWN ON DRAWING ARE USED FOR GUIDANCE ONLY. THE PRODUCT DE.5CRl8ED .MA.r Bf PROITT:rf/J BY ONE OR MOR[ Of TH£ FOLLOWING /JS PArENTS: 7,425,262; 7,470.J62; 7,674,JlB; B.JO.J,816; REJ..ATfl} F0R£JGN PATfNTS OR OrHER PA'ffNTS Pf}IOING PROPRIETARY ANO CONF/OENTIAL: THE INFORIJAT10N COHTAJNBJ IN THIS DRAWING IS Tli£ SOlE PROP[R7Y Of MOOO/..M WET1.AN05 SrSIDIS. #II' f{fPR(J{}UCTTCW IN PART OR AS A ltfa£ wmKXff THf WFffTTtN PEJNfSSK)N or IIOOIJlAR Wf7U,N[)S SYSTEJIS ,s PROHl8fTfD. RIGHT END VIEW PIIET/7EA TMENr/0/JCHAR<iE MODULAR ,...,,.,. •U:du :,,wn, :,~m.c::,-;6351 5Mc:;J.wi:I 4'-10· LEFT END VIEW 8/0F/LmAnON 2-YEAR RELEASE RATE (CFS) 0.027 OPERA TING HEAD (FT) 2.6 PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE {GPM/SF) 0.9 WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} 0.5 MWS-L-4-6.33-V-UG STORMWATER 8/0FIL TRA TION SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: 18092mobpre.tsf New File: 18092mobrdout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Cutoff Base New %Change Probability Base 0.027 0.97E-02 0.68E-02 -30.l I 0.97E-02 0.027 0.034 0.64E-02 0.59E-02 -7.9 I 0.64E-02 0.034 0.042 0.SOE-02 0.53E-02 7.2 I 0.50E-02 0.042 0.049 0.37E-02 0.40E-02 6.1 I 0.37E-02 0.049 0.057 0.29E-02 0.28E-02 -3.9 I 0.29E-02 0.057 0.064 0.22E-02 0.20E-02 -8.8 I 0.22E-02 0.064 0.071 0.15E-02 0.17E-02 12.1 I 0.15E-02 0. 071 0.079 O.lOE-02 O.llE-02 4.8 I 0.lOE-02 0.079 0.086 0.62E-03 0.57E-03 -7.9 I 0.62E-03 0.086 0. 094 0.34E-03 0.24E-03 -28.6 I 0.34E-03 0.094 0.101 0.21E-03 0.65E-04 -69.2 I 0.21E-03 0.101 0.109 0.16E-03 0.00E+OO -100.0 I 0.16E-03 0.109 0 .116 0.98E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 I 0.98E-04 0 .116 0.124 0.16E-04 0.00E+OO -100.0 I 0.16E-04 0.124 Maximum positive excursion = 0.002 cfs 5.8%) occurring at 0. 040 cfs on the Base Data:18092mobpre.tsf and at 0.042 cfs on the New Data,18092mobrdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.006 cfs (-19.9%) occurring at 0.033 cfs on the Base Data:18092mobpre.tsf and at 0.026 cfs on the New Data,18092mobrdout.tsf Tolerance------- New %Change 0.026 -3.5 0.028 -18.9 0.044 4.5 0.051 3.2 0.056 -1. 3 0.061 -4. 2 0.074 3 . 6 0.080 1.4 0.086 -0.9 0.091 -3.5 0. 096 -5.l 0.098 -10.2 0.100 -13. 6 0.102 -17.2 Flow Duration from Time Series File:18092mobrdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence ~Probability CFS % % % 0.002 24934 40.662 40.662 59.338 0.593E+OO 0.004 7328 11.950 52. 613 47.387 0.474E+OO 0.007 6529 10.647 63.260 36.740 0.367E+OO 0.010 4687 7.644 70.903 29.097 0.291E+OO 0. 013 5316 8.669 79.573 20.427 0.204E+OO 0.016 4442 7.244 86.817 13 .183 0 .132E+OO 0.019 3322 5.417 92.234 7.766 0.777E-01 0.022 1639 2.673 94.907 5.093 0.509E-01 0.024 1754 2.860 97.767 2.233 0.223E-01 0.027 962 1.569 99.336 0.664 0.664E-02 0.030 32 0.052 99.388 0.612 0.612E-02 0.033 6 0.010 99.398 0.602 0.602E-02 0.036 12 0.020 99.418 0.582 0.582E-02 0.039 6 0.010 99.428 0.572 0.572E-02 0. 041 24 0.039 99.467 0.533 0.533E-02 0.044 32 0. 052 99.519 0.481 0.481E-02 0.047 31 0.051 99.569 0.431 0.431E-02 0.050 31 0.051 99.620 0.380 0.380E-02 0.053 21 0.034 99.654 0.346 0.346E-02 0.056 33 0.054 99.708 0. 2 92 0.292E-02 0.059 26 0.042 99.750 0. 250 0.250E-02 0.061 19 0.031 99.781 0.219 0.219E-02 0.064 11 0.018 99.799 0.201 0.201E-02 0.067 9 0.015 99. 814 0.186 0.186E-02 0.070 8 0. 013 99.827 0.173 0.173E-02 0.073 8 0. 013 99. 84 0 0.160 0.160E-02 0.076 14 0.023 99.863 0 .137 0 .137E-02 0.079 14 0.023 99.886 0 .114 O .114E-02 0.081 13 0.021 99.907 0.093 0.930E-03 0.084 10 0.016 99. 923 0.077 0.766E-03 0.087 14 0.023 99.946 0.054 0.538E-03 0.090 10 0.016 99.962 0.038 0.375E-03 0.093 6 0.010 99. 972 0.028 0.277E-03 0. 096 3 0.005 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03 0.098 5 0.008 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 0.101 5 0.008 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File,18092mobpre.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.027 60735 99.046 99.046 0.954 0.954E-02 0.030 119 0.194 99.240 0.760 0.760E-02 0.034 68 0 .111 99.351 0. 649 0.649E-02 0.037 44 0.072 99.423 0.577 0.577E-02 0.041 37 0.060 99.483 0.517 0.517E-02 0.044 38 0.062 99.545 0.455 0.455E-02 0.047 35 0.057 99.602 0.398 0.398E-02 0.051 29 0.047 99.649 0.351 0.351E-02 0.054 23 0.038 99.687 0. 313 0. 313E-02 0.058 21 0.034 99.721 0.279 0.279E-02 0.061 17 0.028 99.749 0.251 0.251E-02 0.064 19 0.031 99.780 0. 220 0.220E-02 0.068 22 0.036 99. 816 0.184 0.184E-02 0. 071 20 0.033 99.848 0.152 0.152E-02 0.075 13 0.021 99.870 0 .130 0.130E-02 0.078 13 0.021 99.891 0.109 0.109E-02 0.081 15 0.024 99. 915 0.085 0.848E-03 0.085 10 0.016 99.932 0.068 0.685E-03 0.088 9 0.015 99. 946 0.054 0.538E-03 0.092 8 0.013 99.959 0.041 0.408E-03 0.095 7 0. 011 99.971 0.029 0.294E-03 0.098 2 0.003 99.974 0.026 0.261E-03 0.102 3 0.005 99.979 0.021 0 .212E-03 0.105 2 0.003 99.982 0.018 0.179E-03 0.109 1 0.002 99.984 0.016 0.163E-03 0. 112 1 0.002 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 0 .115 2 0.003 99.989 0. 011 0.114E-03 0 .119 3 0.005 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 0.122 3 0.005 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.126 l 0.002 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0.129 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0 .132 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.000E+OO 0 .136 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0 .139 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0.143 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0.146 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0.101 0.21E-03 0.65E-04 -69. 2 0.21E-03 0.101 0.109 0.16E-03 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.16E-03 0.109 0 .116 0.98E-04 0.00E+OO -100.0 0.98E-04 0 .116 0.124 0.16E-D4 0.00E+OO -100.0 0.16E-04 0.124 Maximum positive excursion= 0.002 cfs 5.8%) occurring at 0.040 cfs on the Base Data:18092mobpre.tsf and at 0.042 cfs on the New Data:18092mobrdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.006 cfs (-19.9%) occurring at 0.033 cfs on the Base Data:18092mobpre.tsf and at 0.026 cfs on the New Data:18092mobrdout.tsf 0. 096 -5.1 0.098 -10.2 0.100 -13. 6 0.102 -17.2 CFS % % % 0.002 24934 40.662 40.662 59.338 0.593E+OO 0.004 7328 11.950 52.613 47.387 0.474E+OO 0.007 6529 10.647 63.260 36.740 0.367E+OO 0.010 4687 7.644 70.903 29.097 0.291E+OO 0. 013 5316 8.669 79.573 20.427 0.204E+OO 0.016 4442 7.244 86.817 13 .183 O .132E+OO 0.019 3322 5. 417 92.234 7.766 0.777E-01 0.022 1639 2.673 94.907 5.093 0.509E-01 0.024 1754 2.860 97.767 2.233 0.223E-01 0.027 962 1. 569 99.336 0.664 0.664E-02 0.030 32 0.052 99.388 0.612 0.612E-02 0.033 6 0.010 99.398 0.602 0.602E-02 0.036 12 0.020 99.418 0.582 0.582E-02 0.039 6 0.010 99.428 0.572 0.572E-02 0.041 24 0.039 99.467 0.533 0.533E-02 0.044 32 0.052 99.519 0.481 0.481E-02 0.047 31 0.051 99.569 0.431 0.431E-02 0.050 31 0.051 99.620 0.380 0.380E-02 0.053 21 0.034 99.654 0.346 0.346E-02 0.056 33 0.054 99.708 0.292 0.292E-02 0.059 26 0.042 99.750 0.250 0.250E-02 0.061 19 0.031 99.781 0.219 0.219E-02 0.064 11 0.018 99.799 0.201 0.201E-02 0.067 9 0.015 99.814 0.186 0.186E-02 0.070 8 0.013 99.827 0.173 0.173E-02 0.073 8 0. 013 99.840 0.160 0.160E-02 0.076 14 0.023 99.863 0.137 0 .137E-02 0.079 14 0.023 99.886 0 .114 0. 114E-02 0.081 13 0. 021 99.907 0.093 0.930E-03 0.084 10 0.016 99.923 0.077 0.766E-03 0.087 14 0.023 99.946 0.054 0.538E-03 0.090 10 0.016 99.962 0.038 0.375E-03 0.093 6 0.010 99.972 0.028 0.277E-03 0. 096 3 0.005 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03 0.098 5 0.008 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 0.101 5 0.008 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: 18092mobpre.tsf New File: 18092mobrdout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New %Change Probability Base New %Change 0.027 0.97E-02 0.68E-02 -30.1 I 0.97E-02 0.027 0.026 -3.5 0.034 0.64E-02 0.59E-02 -7.9 I 0.64E-02 0.034 0.028 -18.9 0.042 0.50E-02 0.53E-02 7.2 I 0.50E-02 0.042 0.044 4.5 0.049 0.37E-02 0.40E-02 6.1 I 0.37E-02 0.049 0.051 3.2 0.057 0.29E-02 0.28E-02 -3.9 I 0.29E-02 0.057 0.056 -1.3 0.064 0.22E-02 0.20E-02 -8.8 I 0.22E-02 0.064 0.061 -4.2 0.071 O.lSE-02 0.17E-02 12.1 I 0.15E-02 0.071 0.074 3.6 0.079 O.lOE-02 0. llE-02 4.8 I O.lOE-02 0.079 0.080 1.4 0.086 0.62E-03 0.57E-03 -7.9 I 0.62E-03 0.086 0.086 -0.9 0.094 0.34E-03 0.24E-03 -28.6 I 0.34E-03 0.094 0.091 -3.5 8.50 78. 50 39882. 0.916 3.910 0.00 8 . 6 0 78. 60 40351. 0. 926 4.100 0.00 8.70 78.70 40820. 0.937 4.270 0.00 8.80 78.80 41290. 0.948 4.440 0.00 8.90 78.90 41759. 0.959 4.610 0.00 9.00 79.00 42228. O. 969 4.770 0.00 9. 10 79.10 42697. 0.980 4.920 0.00 9.20 79. 20 43166. 0.991 5.070 0.00 9. 30 79.30 43636. 1.002 5.210 0.00 9.40 79. 40 44105. 1. 013 5.350 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Cale Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.85 ******* 0. 11 6.94 76.94 32583. 0.748 2 0.43 0.12 0.10 6.60 76.60 30950. 0. 711 3 0.61 ******* 0.09 5.65 75.65 26531. 0.609 4 0.51 ******* 0.09 5.67 75.67 26596. 0. 611 5 0.46 ******* 0.06 4.55 74.55 21357, 0. 490 6 0.37 ******* 0.03 4.01 74.01 18825. 0.432 7 0. 12 ******* 0.03 3 . 97 73.97 18644. 0.428 8 0.42 ******* 0.02 2.86 72.86 13406. 0.308 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File,18092mobdev.tsf Outflow Time Series File,18092mobrdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge, 0.848 CFS at 6,00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge, 0.108 Peak Reservoir Stage, 6.94 Peak Reservoir Elev, 76.94 Peak Reservoir Storage, 32583. 0.748 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File,18092mobrdout.tsf ProJect Location,Sea-Tac CFS at 15,00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Ft Ft Cu-Ft Ac-Ft ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.102 2 2/09/01 20,00 0.108 6.94 1 100.00 0.990 0.027 6 1/07/02 4,00 0.102 6.61 2 25.00 0. 960 0.086 3 3/06/03 22,00 0.086 5.67 3 10.00 0.900 0.022 8 8/26/04 8,00 0.086 5.65 4 5.00 0.800 0, 026 7 1/08/05 5,00 0.059 4.55 5 3.00 0.667 0.059 5 1/18/06 23,00 0.027 4.01 6 2.00 0.500 0.086 4 11/24/06 8,00 0.026 3.98 7 1. 30 0.231 0.108 1 1/09/08 15,00 0.022 2.86 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.106 6.83 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File,18092mobrdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability 2.86 72. 86 13419. 0.308 0.022 0.00 2.99 72. 99 14029. 0.322 0.023 0.00 3.12 73.12 14639. 0.336 0.023 0.00 3.24 73.24 15202. 0. 349 0.024 0.00 3.37 73.37 15812. 0.363 0.024 0.00 3.50 73.50 16422. 0.377 0.025 0.00 3.62 73.62 16985. 0.390 0.025 0.00 3.75 73.75 17595. 0 .404 0.025 0.00 3.88 73.88 18205. 0.418 0.026 0.00 4.00 74.00 18768. 0.431 0.026 0.00 4.01 74.01 18815. 0.432 0.027 0.00 4.03 74.03 18909. 0.434 0.028 0.00 4.04 74.04 18956. 0.435 0.029 0.00 4.05 74.05 19003. 0.436 0.032 0.00 4.07 74.07 19096. 0.438 0.035 0.00 4.08 74.08 19143. 0.439 0.038 0.00 4.09 74.09 19190. 0.441 0.039 0.00 4.10 74.10 19237. 0.442 0. 040 0.00 4.23 74.23 19847. 0. 456 0. 047 0.00 4.36 74.36 2 04 5 7. 0.470 0.053 0.00 4.49 74.49 21067. 0.484 0.057 0.00 4.61 74.61 21630. 0. 497 0.061 0.00 4.74 74.74 22240. 0. 511 0.065 0.00 4.87 74.87 22850. 0.525 0.068 0.00 4.99 74.99 23413. 0.537 0.072 0.00 5.12 75.12 24023. 0.551 0.075 0.00 5.25 75.25 24633. 0.565 0.077 0.00 5.38 75.38 25243. 0.579 0.080 0.00 5.50 75.50 25806. 0. 592 0.083 0.00 5.63 75.63 26416. 0.606 0.085 0.00 5.76 75.76 27026. 0.620 0.088 0.00 5.88 75.88 27589. 0.633 0.090 0.00 6.01 76.01 28199. 0.647 0.092 0.00 6.14 76.14 28809. 0.661 0.095 0.00 6.27 76.27 29419. 0.675 0.097 0.00 6.39 76.39 29982. 0.688 0.099 0.00 6.52 76.52 30592. 0.702 0.101 0.00 6.65 76.65 31202. 0. 716 0.103 0.00 6.77 76.77 31765. 0. 729 0.105 0.00 6.90 76.90 32375. 0.743 0.107 0.00 7.03 77.03 32 98 5. 0.757 0.109 0.00 7.16 77.16 33595. 0.771 0.110 0.00 7.28 77.28 34158. 0.784 0 .112 0.00 7.41 77.41 34768. 0.798 0 .114 0.00 7.50 77.50 35190. 0.808 0 .115 0.00 7.60 77.60 35659. 0.819 0.425 0.00 7.70 77.70 36128. 0.829 0.989 0.00 7.80 77.80 36598. 0.840 1.720 0.00 7.90 77.90 37067. 0.851 2.510 0.00 8.00 78.00 37536. 0.862 2.800 0.00 8.10 78.10 38005. 0.872 3.050 0.00 8.20 78.20 38474. 0.883 3.290 0.00 8.30 78.30 38944. 0.894 3.510 0.00 8. 40 78.40 39413. 0.905 3. 710 0.00 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage O Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Orifice# 1 2 Height (ft) 0.00 4.00 204.00 23.00 4692. 7.50 70.00 35190. 7.50 12.00 2 Diameter (in) 0.70 1.25 Top Natch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage ft ft sq. ft ft ft cu. ft ft inches Full Head Discharge (CFS) 0.036 0.079 Pipe Diameter (in) 4.0 Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 70.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 70.01 47. 0.001 0.002 0.00 0.02 70.02 94. 0.002 0.002 0.00 0.03 70.03 141. 0.003 0.002 0.00 0.04 70.04 188. 0.004 0.003 0.00 0.05 70.05 235. 0.005 0.003 0.00 0.06 70.06 282. 0.006 0.003 0.00 0.07 70.07 328. 0.008 0.003 0.00 0.19 70.19 892. 0.020 0.006 0.00 0.32 70.32 1501. 0.034 0.007 0.00 0.45 70. 45 2111. 0.048 0.009 0.00 0.57 70.57 2674. 0.061 0.010 0.00 0.70 70.70 3284. 0.075 0. 011 0.00 0.83 70.83 3894. 0.089 0.012 0.00 0. 96 70. 96 4 504. 0.103 0. 013 0.00 1. 08 71. 08 5067. 0 .116 0.014 0.00 1. 21 71. 21 5677. 0 .130 0. 014 0.00 1.34 71.34 6287. 0.144 0.015 0.00 1. 46 71.46 6850. 0.157 0.016 0.00 1.59 71. 59 7460. 0 .171 0.017 0.00 1.72 71.72 8070. 0.185 0.017 0.00 1.84 71.84 8633. 0.198 0.018 0.00 1. 97 71.97 9243. 0.212 0.018 0.00 2.10 72 .10 9853. 0.226 0.019 0.00 2.23 72.23 10463. 0.240 0.020 0.00 2.35 72.35 11026. 0.253 0.020 0.00 2.48 72.48 11636. 0.267 0.021 0.00 2.61 72.61 12246. 0.281 0.021 0.00 2.73 72.73 12809. 0.294 0.022 0.00 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092mobrdout.tsf Project Location,Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.102 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.108 6.94 1 100.00 0.990 0.027 6 1/07/02 4:00 0.102 6.61 2 25.00 0.960 0.086 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.086 5.67 3 10.00 0.900 0.022 8 8/26/04 8:00 0.086 5.65 4 5.00 0.800 0.026 7 1/08/05 5:00 0.059 4.55 5 3.00 0.667 0.059 5 1/18/06 23:00 0.027 4.01 6 2.00 0.500 0.086 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.026 3.98 7 1. 30 0.231 0.108 1 1/09/08 15:00 0.022 2.86 8 1. 10 0. 091 Computed Peaks 0.106 6.83 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092mobdev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.429 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.368 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.517 3 12/08/02 18:00 0. 419 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.500 4 10/28/04 16:00 0. 458 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.610 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.848 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0. 84 8 1 100.00 0.990 0.610 2 25.00 0. 960 0.517 3 10.00 0.900 0.500 4 5.00 0.800 0.458 5 3.00 0.667 0.429 6 2.00 0.500 0.419 7 1. 30 0.231 0.368 8 1.10 0. 091 0.769 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092mobpre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.124 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.033 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.092 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.004 8 3/24/04 20:00 0. 054 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.095 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.080 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.158 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.158 1 100.00 0.990 0.124 2 25.00 0.960 0.095 3 10.00 0.900 0.092 4 5.00 0.800 0.080 5 3.00 0.667 0.054 6 2.00 0.500 0.033 7 1.30 0.231 0.004 8 1.10 0.091 0.147 50.00 0.980 Total Area 1.96 acres Peak Discharge: 0.848 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:18092mobdev.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:18092mobdev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092mobdev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:18092mobdev.pks Analysis Tools Command Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Loading Time Series File:18092mobpre.tsf Computing Flow Durations Durations & Exceedence Probabilities to File:18092mobtarget.dur Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command Size a Retention/Detention FACILITY Edit Facility Loading Time Series File:18092mobdev.tsf Time Series Found in Memory:18092mobdev.tsf Saving Retention/Detention Facility File:18092mobstream.rdf Starting Documentation File:P:\18000s\18092\engineering\kcrts\18092mobstream.do Time Series Found in Memory:18092mobdev.tsf Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Saving Retention/Detention Facility File:18092mobstream.rdf Starting Documentation File:P:\18000s\18092\engineering\kcrts\18092mobstream.do Time Series Found in Memory:18092mobdev.tsf KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series 18092mobpre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File ~ '111C,-/110f? /O-f-JCP L e,vc,/ z, .?. e-. Till Forest Loading Time Series File:C:\KC SWDM\KC_DATA\STTF60R.rnf 1.96 acres Total Area 1.96 acres Peak Discharge: 0.158 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:18092mobpre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:18092mobpre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092mobpre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:18092mobpre.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 18092mobdev.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 O. 30 acres Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI60R.rnf 1.66 acres ';. ] C 0 ~ ' D eo·o 900 (c::-1"1) a61euJs1n I 8 voo w·o -o --- - - - - '- '- '- N '- L ;:! '- L L " " C -" -1l " ~ '-u.J ~ .c L <ll .Q 2 a. ~ L '-;:! L L - - - - - ~ - -;:! - - - - - - - 01 ~ 000 0 • ' 8 0 "' • 0 N 0 • • • N • (Scl:Jl a6Je1.ps10 • a, a, cc a, "' a, 0 .... 0 N ~f'()1Z- J/ r>1C..- 1,nOB-, lD-1--lb l,CV'6[ 2~ fC. G. FLOW CONTROL CALCULATIONS FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA Pre-Developed: Till Forest = 1.96 acres Developed: Porous concrete sidewalk = 0.12 acre model as 50% till grass = 0.06 acre and 50% impervious = 0.06 acre Remaining landscaping = 0.24 acre therefore Total Tillgrass = 0.06 + 0.24 = 0.30 acre Impervious = 1.66 acres Total developed site = 1.96 acres 18092.004.doc FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology Since the City has indicated that Conservation Flow Control is the required flow control menu to be followed for this site, the pre-developed condition regardless of the existing land cover must be modeled as till forest. However, there are portions of the existing pre-developed conditions that consist of impervious surface as well as landscape areas. These will all be ripped out with new impervious surface to replace most of the existing development on the site. B. Developed Site Hydrology The total area of contributing development to the detention vault proposed for lhis project site is 1.96 acres, of which 0.12 acres of porous concrete sidewalk will be modeled as 50% till grass and 50% impervious, for a grand total of 0.30 acres of landscaping proposed for this project. In addition, the remaining area of 1.66 acres will be considered impervious surface. C. Performance Standards The area-specific fiow control facility standard determined from the City of Renton is Conservation Flow Control. The conveyance system capacity standard for this development will be the Modified Rational Method as adopted by the City of Renton. The area-specific water quality treatment menu to be followed for this project site is the Enhanced Water Quality Menu which is met with a modular wetland system. D. Flow Control System Please refer to the illustrated sketch of the fiow control facility on the following pages of this report as well as the fiow control calculations consisting of computer print outs. E. Water Quality System Please refer to the illustrated sketch of the proposed water quality facility located on the following pages of this report. This illustrative sketch shows the calculations and sizing requirements that are being provided for this project by a modular wetland system. 18092 004.doc 4 .0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Property Layers Pan:::als Environmentally Sensitive Areas Erosion hazard (1990 SAO) Seismic hazard (1990 S AO) ~ L..anrn liCE hazard (1990SAO) D REFERENCE : King County iMAP (2016) Scale· Honzonlal N. T.S. Vert,ca/ NIA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 For: Coal mi!le hazard (1990SAO) Stream (1990SAO) -c lass 1 class 2 perann ia l c lass 2 salmoniel c lass 3 unclassified 'Netland (1990 SAO) D Valley Medical Office Building Renton , Washington (4 :lt>J 2ti 1-oa2 Title : (425) 251 -8782 CIVIL EN GIN EERING . LAND PLANNIN G. SURVEYING. EN VIRONMENTAL S ERVICES P . ·, 1 BOOOs \ 1809'2\exhi b;r \graph,csl 1809'2 sens. cdr SENSITIVE AREAS MAP J ob Number 18092 DATE : 10/05 /16 SENSITIVE AREAS MAP , I \ \I \ / II ) 1/ / I 11 I IL-,,-'/ , I I I I I i I I I I I I I II !/ I I AREA OF \ \ \ \ \ NOTE, MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED 1 \ TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. n- 1 i KING COll)'.;TY l'?\l~CORPORATED ARE 530071 ---+----~ I I r----L_____ I ( ' 1 ) I \ I I WORK ~p,,!-.,,--f--._ I 3, ZONE X LEGEND ClT OTHER AREAS REFERENCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Portion of Map 53033C0979 F. May 1995) Scale HMzon/a/ N.T.S. Vetfical NIA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6,U (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING. SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: Valley Medical Office Building Renton, Washington Title: FEMAMAP Job Number 18092 DATE: 10105116 P:\ 18000s\ 18092\exhibit\graphics\ 18092 fema.cdr FEMA MAP MEDIC L CENTER CAMP B.S P EY MEDICAL CENTER TH CAMPUS B.S.P. 30130~ AREA OF ""· ~ WORK J12JOS REFERENCE: King County Department of Assessments (Dec. 2011) SCJJle Honzonla/ N. T.S. Vertical. NIA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (420) 201-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:\ 18000s\ 18092'1exhibit\graphics118092 amap. cdr For: Valley Medical Office Building Renton, Washington Title: ASSESSOR MAP Job Number 18092 DATE: 10105116 ASSESSOR MAP 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS This project is part of an overall development which is being redeveloped with the addition of a new medical office building, thereby removing and replacing some areas of impervious surface in addition to landscaped areas with new impervious surface. The ultimate discharge location for this project site is into Panther Creek located northerly from the project site; however, runoff from this project site will be treated through a modular wetland system and discharged to the northwest down a drive aisle which courses westerly through the Valley Medical Center development, ultimately draining into a biofiltration swale for additional water quality treatment prior to discharge to Panther Creek which courses for over one (1) mile due north through the Panther Creek wetland area of the City of Renton. The ultimate discharge location for this project site is the Green River several miles downstream from the project site. There is no upstream basin contributing runoff to this area of the project site. 18092 004.doc 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 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 applicable to this area of the City of Renton area required to the best of our knowledge. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: This project is not located in a flood hazard area as the site is over 30 feet higher in elevation than Panther Creek lying northerly of the project site. Panther Creek never would overtop that ravine to flood this project. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility nor does it propose to modify or construct a new flood protection facility; therefore, this Special Requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: This project will provide Source Control in accordance with the King County pollution prevention manual and King County Code Section 9.12 such that the owner will be educated about the proper use of pesticides and fertilizers and the parking lot will be swept on a regular basis. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This project does not meet the requirements for a high-use site, therefore oil control is not a requirement for this project site. 18092 004.doc 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 site will continue to discharge to the west down a drive aisle through a pipe conveyance system previously sized for the runoff from this area without detention; however, detention will be provided. Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: Please refer to Section 3.0 of this report for the Off-Site Analysis prepared for this project site. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: Per City of Renton requirements for this area of the City of Renton Conservation Flow Control, also known as Level 2 Flow Control is the requirement for this project utilizing a pre-developed condition of till forest for the entire area being developed. This is the methodology selected for this project. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: With the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project the conveyance system will be sized and designed at that time. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: This project will concur with all erosion and sediment control requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended and adopted by the City of Renton per their requirements. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project will provide a Maintenance and Operations Manual consistent with the City of Renton requirements with the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project. 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: This project is providing a modular wetland system which has Department of Ecology approval for General Use Level Designation for Enhanced, Basic, and Phosphorus Water Quality treatment capabilities. This is more than the requirement of Enhanced Water Quality that the City of Renton has adopted for this area. 18092 004 doc 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY REFERE NC E : USDA. N atura l R esources Con s ervation Service Scale Honzonral N. T.S. Vertical NIA 18 2 1 5 72ND AV ENUE SOUTH KE NT. WA 98032 (4L!J ) L!JH:iLLL (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:' 18000s; 180921e x h1b1l \graph1cs\1 8092 soll cdr L EG E N D : AgC = A lderwood gravell y s andy loam. 8-1 5% slopes For: Valley Medica l Office Building Renton , Washington Title : SOIL SURVEY MAP Job Number 18092 DATE 1010511 6 FIGURE 4 SOILS 1--' •, I . . 1--1· t--,, ,; . I--:ij : ·::: I t' I" ; '! ,, ! ;~ .. ! ~ (/) (/) I Cl.. Cl.. Q_ a:~; ' '~~~ ~"E~ Q~m " filt· ~ :E ~ ; ~~f . , s ~ i ~ ~ ~ Q. " 0 µ:., z f Oo 0 E-< ~ :::,.. z ii E-< ~ er ..... 0::: ';;, u .s ~ !)$ l ii: l @ ·i ~~ ~ §! e's ., '1 ' ~' ~ 1 ~! ~ l ~.' '• ~ •• . . I '" I It 11 t it I ' a: J i I a. ' ~ .. i L, I ' I:! :i: I i : I I ~ • I ' ~ i- i 1 >- I ! CD -l ... .l..-..--- 1 ' I ! z Q V, ~ a: ,--1--, 0 z .U I! 0 15 3 0 60 P:iii@Mi§wswwiJ 1 '': 1,0· CONCEPTUAL GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN ~ l:l..tO IE Of;.9 (12"CV? H <k W) J 1_r:/J 5·~ .:'1J ~f "" i,_i::.~t''' l)I;: )I l~j // /1 .-.,,' ... f ;., \ .• :)"' '--......_./· ' / . ,H-.. ,.-.1' c,' k --.... ., I • '~ ' ; , --...... ~ ·I , 1' '< rfi.,,..____ <.\ / ,' iS,2 I ~7!"7-).· . ""}, n;i' ~ {l:f/ 011. ~-I 1 ~I //·-.... .;::.... G ,-,, ...._ r .... ' . I 'I--/ Ga-;'.J , ?J 0~ h ,· . I ~ ........... -... ·J-/) /~,,. ,'::t,,i. 'y ,' / rj ,i . 1--/ Q,i. /:..; IE • 70.00 ( 12• NE 7 6 .6 7 (8" SE ) 74.0• (1 2" NW)/ I , ,1 p),I ' ; t' ; / (})./ ! (':J r.. I ' f".'!.._1 I t.. ',)T I /j:/ .. ..J.· ·~ II!. '~~l ;' .- / 'l_j)n.' I I • . ' / ~'.i ... (":'. ~r:' I.._ u; .. ~'j-' ,·av •. • V.J. :u.-. AL~ A'>::• r~1VN--,t.,;1'- .!.Q"[.!.. [.1/..;' ,i,;t, P:l.l t"S SJ '~ t:,,e_.~; 4";:i,,,; .,,, \;:;>!: !, ;:)~ A.I', ta,i l)R ~: E o,e C. 4·~i,1,-: ~ i1"' A:~; >~ ,._: 0 A""''./~. "h VN l •p "' \~ I // EXISTNl BUl..DNO / J E• C.f, M~9 -~ I Ri .. 1 e·J .n ._/ !/ Q \'.:'-CMP I\J 1L 76.8 t&·c El /1·', .. ~7 r /1 2'F'l.,W [ ' I L t ' . ' , I :.,;r 1~ctJ~, X E~ ·::& ;'"i7t•~-, ,' / p,M !'!O 6.C .,..._. '[ 79 5 : .: •;, W: , ,' ::: 7€,(: {1:·,.:.1,1.~1 : • I :, ~-_, *~ ; ,' /i '' ~ (i, ·( 0 ..... ,t /',\•.!.C"£_C :;£r,ol.~,t..~1).>/ /,'1 PI.ISu9 -=~L :r '\\/t~~: ~:\5et'.~I) i -~-1 '_' "· .. 6°' ' /,(f) . !:<. '. ,1: .: 1 ( ca ,iJ".:>j.i /' C ;t,J BOtf'. // ·-.t ·r1:1 o., 1c·· W' I .!cc . • • . ',di ,... : .I / ·/ ,' /! ·'u L :<.. CE, fl'~-t\7 ti:IIJ 80 1 :, 1E ,e f 1o1·~· :,w it 79 ·'": :1:-·c 1;E1 1[ 18{", ;4•p SW) QEa(B) FOR COl.l'I..WICe TO QTY 8TAN:>All:l8 I ' --) . -'/J 1¥/ / -~~-,-i i 'I '·I' ~--·~'~.,,,,;.,··' I I 11' I ,f' -::::>:.---',, •. :£ 9.l 6 {•>c· ,.: -Jj I!!' / ••, ~ · t ~~ '.~oi~,"f ):;0"--· · ·· i /1 -,, ,'/ -i :t 1:;:~6.J·/i:".~v'.'.'w';·-·_-/ ·1 ,t t -., / ',\ATER S-~s/';;ci:: EXISTNl 8UllDNG ,,.-:..,,~o~·( u•.·ci" -· / .·',/ / i I 11 . / t / ~~:;;,,~~~or. -~~-~" ~~ -,'. 1 "'_, ·11 1/ // :/ / / C.A~,y·, 0~.:, _QAD1r\·::. 2J+..!C itt ;,; ; 'Y: : 1 • , 1 1, , : I 1~ 1 • v. , ,j",· 1 1 Ii :':, I .. ---·-U ::f. ,~, . .ta: 'i, I J , ; / I / ~I Y='~·:''.!:.' ~I '/ t·., I . t ,, -.:..._ s· c_".;, 11,;~ 1 :" ""a.-. . / , ,·1 / ~ , .. •-.. -rf'-11 I \ ::._ ,_,v:, 1E:, •r ... 97 ~-1 1 ,1 .1. ,7'1' ! ui" 1S) ,r-57 .,. . I 1~, ., I I r ' , \ . . I , , 0 ' ;. ~;}~( 't): :~ ,'i ,,.' : ,.,j ! I ~.:.._ \ --. . f if i 1i i -. -/~ :/: I ~ • .:: ,x ,{ r -·-~-':t;; --, ,/i, ::'· / 1 ~ . .....,.. -. r ,1 11 ,1, 1 , ;' 1 -, -· /.__ 1 , 1/ ', 1 I ',' "" ! I ----.;. -.;:::: ' I ; ''1 • 1 l1 I ~ ' / -/,1., ', rt, ' • I . ' I ' 'f --1':.:,i1.' i ~I I I . ,, ".'\ =-,'.,.......,,,.:.:;L I/• . . I -I D ,, . • I/ "ii -=~ ' "".f . ·-1· I /,-.\~ ,~ -I· •' ' .• ,, 'I( ~94.75 / ,:.·-...... _ -\ .-~ _ '-i Ii'.'· !' 1 i' / ,i'I --tE , . -. • = , ' ' . ,, , "I ,, _,._ 86.31 :<30• ---j. /_ ."-,, cs ,s~-j , : /I , (, ,' , ~ t _1~ = 86.31 /(30",Jlli -/' f -R'.~->00 81 --......_ /.· , / ,/ ' /: / I //, ( --39 lF • ~· -7 o/"· -<. 01 :'cl ,£"'S~c7 ' ! . '/, I )I I l ' ·I I -~ 0 ~~ ,,':=-... /·· · B,u srnc:__r-,7,; I : ~ ' ,./, } , // ; J.t::. ' ' -. -. -: '!"°', I IL . / ,!(~···-/ /-· __ / 1,:1 '", Ii eci1tt2: /I · ~-. 1-_ I ,i 11 ,r 1, I ,1 , II . ~~o/ /-·-../11·.. ·-1·· ,..,J -:.,',(/,: ~!,'j./, 'IE-.= 86 .74 '(30 " :§J " •·. I · ,_J ' ' h I , : ,, • -IE = 86.7f ' (30 /"' t" • • '' ·" '·,, -..... / . ~'-'"·f <i. j · II I .__ 1 n J ..._ ..._ i,;,'-'1-,}'.:' I , /,' -f '-, :::NEWl'OIIOUI' _/ ·.. 1 l • • '•'" ,c, 1:r· .. , ~---// ' 'I l'f / r--,, , CUUEIE,~ --. -'"'/1 (-Q I 1' I irf ,' / r,·,;, N -I ' -. I ·---! . .. ' :// I ' I ff( _,_.,._ -. ,: · I 1 . . · . , , .,..,., I l··._ -i I.··.. .l ... ,:;/ / i r-1 1 ··--1 .,,,,·1 /I J;,'_-: 7 J-._ • Till·~-~ / : /t -. 1 , I · • 1 1 1 .. /. . ... · 1 1 J ('-.... _ /1 . .'/.' I ,' ' 1 ' ·-• (' I -•. -1 ti · 'ti .: ' · : -~-aiMmE' ti __ ·,/. _·· 7ff~-----·1--~· '/ 1 j ';' '&/ . 1IBOI c:RAII , , ..., r . I if <l&_r.l • 96 .... , -/ t -I'" '/ . ·-I -I ·-___ -/ I. sJ· .... ___ --------------/ ~.("<-Cb -~•sl jJ·..._ · -• · _ , • ._ ••M 98 ' i, • ' · / i? 9S J 6* ':I! " ~ ~ - -.... r '/r"" ,-., · -.... --. I .,: _, ... .-~. lF J<t 4,,o,: ~-7· -.. _ / ' -so O 1,im>" -,.. • -. j 't--,., rf:'.:C. J --·-r C --'°"°'J!lil+f?I /1 ( o -~ -l ~ ..... --.. ........_ II •· / I -i --_I .. 1r---f I --/ if t:,0:,~· · --I J ,· <'. , /,? l -I _----I c<-:,Z/,j . _-. / -I , • ·-/ 1· . / .i ;' . , /1- 1 I~ !QJ,: \ •e ,[ '~; 3 :: t' 12 ~ .1 , "-><.;; . CB "" . . .. -J 'Qr -. ·_ Ir . / ';',.'7/o· f' -· 1 t· -~--. ·-·. , ---..J ( ·-.ft·. .. 1 1 ~-j •f' ' -., I II 'I'' -.. ·-. ,' ,-r,-.. / _.,--r,. en ,,., , ·-' 11 '!!1 1, ;' I ,t ··-~ . .o,r ---...._Ri u1 r)o,; --j lj/'.' ,/:. t,' ~,.._ .. "'-, ,, ,.,.,· , •. r~ ·~·1··, I / r~•' l -·---..__ --') . -" ,t. ,"' /~ ~'. ,.'f :J;t ·;' , / :-3 ,7· ~ .i.1,1 1(:J: 4 7' ~ ;().\ € •.f,":-: s ' - ' I ._ --/ U·. !.:t:l l!IS9 f,-IM 100.9'., ...._-..... ll tC,\R P~~Pt...G· .... .~' /; ·; / ,: / [> (8 ,,,, ..-I , I I ':i'~ _:, LI[, "'-I 111 • ( i ·7/ D" ''"' RENTON HOTEL PERMIT , ~G HA(J COMMlNTY AK) ECOOOMIC DE'IB.Of'I.ENT "'" A-+L,s,~ /~..,_ CONCEPTUA[ GRADING , -STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN EtfCINffB · ____________ Ool•------~ C0HSUU1 NG EHG!NEl'.RS 18215 72110 A',tl;U( SOUTH ~ ..,,.. 0 ~"<~q..t I CE90N!D JEP DRAWN .,J(P 10.,..TE 08(2~_/~1 6 FU NO. KOO, WA 98032 (•25)25 1-6222 (425)25 1-8782 FAX CONTACT , DAN 81:LWruJ liG ENG'"~ ,_,C'3 _ao~ ------------Oot•------ Oote CH!O<S) & 8CAU! "8.D IIOOI\ .,.....,,.,, • -~tF.il C' ......... ., -~ !_N:'.E= " ;, ~ ,. 0 (j :, ~ ~ N <O 0 " ' ~ ' 0 t ' • 0 a c-• ~ t E I :, " ' N § / • "' "' 0 :, / a ' 1 .,. C • / " § l / t ,;: C\I ;, (j z m 0 "") ~ Q m FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS SW16THST SW nTH IT ;;: "' ~ > <! 0 z ~ ;;: SW341HST "' w > <! ) w ~ <! 0 SW 39TH 5T "' w "' <! SW 41ST ST 0 J SW 43RD ST SW 43RD ST ~ w > <t I .... 0 "' -,- S 19671; ST REFERENCE: Rand McNally (2016) Scale Honzonlal N.T.S. NIA 18215 72ND KENT, WA 98~';~NUE SOUTH (4Lo) Lo1-62L2 (425 ) 251-8782 :~---· ~"". . ., z i ~ "" ,, .-(.> .(;,-..,. .... ~ SE 164THST w "' > SE 168TH ST <! r >- "' 0 ./AREA OF rJ WORK SE 176TH ST > CARR \>.Q --< > r "' 0 @) w "' --< w " > 0 <f "' I .... "' '.;' Sf 192ND ST SE-196THST S 200TH ST -SE 200TH ST For: e ical Office Build. Valley M d. Renton, Washington ing Title: VICINITY MAP (,-•. '.\<,;; l'Na'"._t..• ~~Vil ENGINEERING P:' 1800Qsl 18092' . RVEYING. ENVIRO~~';.TPLANNING. ,exl11b1/' . AL SERVI ,g,aph,cs•. 1809 CES 2 vmap.cdr w "' '.'; <! I .... ~ Job Number 18092 DATE: 10105116 FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS I D Drainage Easement ~ 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/Date 2009 Surface Watt:r Design 1\tanual 5 I il/09 18092.005.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Treatment BMP: Yes / il'!.9 Maintenance Agreement: Yes I No with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION IE! Clearing Limits IE! Stabilize Exposed Surfaces IE! Cover Measures D Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities IE! Perimeter Protection IE! Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure IE! Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities IE! Sediment Retention IE! Flag Limits of SAO and open space IE! Surface Water Control preservation areas D Other D Dewatering Control IE! Dust Control IE! Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facilitv Summarv and Sketch\ Flow Control IE! Detention D Infiltration D Regional Facility D Shared Facility D Flow Control BMPs D Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Tvce/Descriction Water Qualitv Vault/ Level 2 D Biofiltration D Wetpool D Media Filtration D Oil Control D Spill Control D Flow Control BMPs IE! Other 4 Tvoe/Descriotion MWS 11\ /09 18092.005.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE 0 Core 2 -Offsite Analysis 0 Sensitive/Critical Areas D SEPA 0 Other D I O Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharae at Natural Location Offsite Analysis Flow Control (incl. facility summary sheet) Conveyance System Erosion and Sediment Control Maintenance and Operation Financial Guarantees and Liabilitv Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) LIMITATION I SITE CONSTRAINT (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Number of Natural Discharae Locations: I Level: l1Ji2/3 dated: Level: 11[21/3 or Exemption Number Small Site BMPs Spill containment located at: ESC Site Supervisor Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Responsibility: Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Lon Reauired: Yes I No Provided: Yes I No Type: Basic / Sens. Lake / !Enhanced Basicm / Bog or Exemption No. Landscaoe Mananement Plan: Yes I No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA I SDO I MOP I BP I LMP I Shared Fae. I~ Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / ~ 100-year Base Blood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: None Source Control Describe landuse: (comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: 2009 Surface \Valer Design l'vlanual ] I ii !09 1809~.005.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan : _,R.,,e"'n"'to""n,.._ _________ _ Special District Overlays:------------------------ Drainage Basin: -"P_,,a,.,_nt,.,h"'-erc.:C,crc,e"'ek,,_· ________ _ Stormwater Requirements: Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS D River/Stream ---------- 0 Lake D Wetlands __________ _ D Closed Depression _______ _ D Floodplain __________ _ D Other ___________ _ Part 10 SOILS D Steep Slope ________ _ D Erosion Hazard _______ _ D Landslide Hazard ______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ D Seismic Hazard _______ _ D Habitat Protection ______ _ o _________ _ Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Aiderwood Gravelly - Sandy Loam D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet} D Sole Source Aquifer D Other D Seeps/Springs D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design t\fanual 2 Ill 109 18092.005.doc KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Valley Medical Center Phone-----------~ Address ___________ _ Project Engineer ~A~l~i =S=ad=r _____ _ Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Inc. Phone (425) 251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivision / Short Subd. I UPD ~ Building Services M/F i lCommerciaj I SFR ~ Clearing and Grading D Right-of-Way Use D Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical lnfonnation Report Type of Drainage Review !Full! / Targeted (circle): Large Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Medical Office Building DOES Permit# ---------- Location Township ~2=3~N~--- Range ~5=E~----- Section --"3'-'-1 _____ _ Site Address NWC -Talbot Road South and South 43rd Street Part4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFWHPA D Shoreline D COE404 Management D DOE Dam Safety ~ Structural D FEMA Floodplain Rockery~-- D ESA Section 7 D COE Wetlands D Other Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): IFul~ I Modified I Small Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard I Complex I Preapplication / Experimental I Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: I ~009 Surface Water Design \lanual 111 ·09 18092.005.doc FIGURE 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The total area of redevelopment on this project site, including new landscape area, totals 1. 96 acres, of which 0.12 acres will be porous concrete sidewalk, which will be modeled as 50% till grass, 50% impervious. The remaining landscaping is 0.24 acres, for a total landscaping area of 0.30 acres with total impervious including building and parking of 1.66 acres. The project site is located within the Northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, King County, Washington. More particularly, the site lies slightly to the west of Talbot Road South, north of South 43rd Street, and easterly of SR-167. The project site drains to the west down a drive aisle within an existing pipe conveyance system which is well documented through recent projects having occurred on this drive aisle, and courses through a biofiltration swale at the northwest end of the Valley Medical Center and discharges from that swale into Panther Creek located on the north side of Valley Medical Center. Panther Creek drains northerly from that point through the Panther Creek wetlands area of the City of Renton with an ultimate discharge to Springbrook Creek. For purposes of sizing flow control and water quality, the City of Renton has indicated that Level 2 Flow Control, also known as Conservation Flow Control, is the required means of providing flow control for this project with Enhanced Water Quality being the water quality menu to be followed. The proposal for this development is to provide an underground detention vault sized for the area contributing to it with a pre-developed condition of till forest, a 1.66 acre area of impervious under developed conditions, with 0.30 acre of landscaping, all draining to the detention vault. totaling 1.96 acres. Downstream of the detention vault will be located a modular wetland vault which is a proprietary device with General Use Level Designation for Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus Water Quality treatment capabilities through the Department of Ecology. The City of Renton is well aware of the capability of these modular wetland systems as they have recently been reviewed and approved on the Renton Marriott Inn Residence Inn project also located in Renton. At this time this project is seeking SEPA Review determination. With the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project, the conveyance systems on site will be sized as well as providing a Bond Quantity Worksheet. a Declaration of Covenant, and an Operation and Maintenance Manual. 18092.004.doc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 -Site Location Figure 3 -Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 -Soils 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (TO BE SUBMITIED LATER) 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT (TO BE SUBMITIED LATER) 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL (TO BE SUBMITIED LATER) 18092.004.doc PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Proposed Valley Medical Center Medical Office Building Addition Valley Medical Center Complex Renton, Washington Prepared for: Valley Medical Center October 6, 2016 Our Job No. 18092 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251'6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER. WA • LONG BEACH, CA • ROSEVILLE. CA + SAN D1EGO. CA www barghausen.com 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL An Operations and Maintenance Manual will be prepared with the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project site. 18092.003.doc 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantities Worksheet as well as a Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and sketch and a Declaration of Covenant if these are required will be provided for this project site with the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project. 18092.003.doc 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATIONS OF COVENANT (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 6.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be provided with the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project site. 18092.003.doc 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ANAL VSIS AND DESIGN (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Other permits for this site include: • Water Line Demolition Permit • Sanitary Sewer Demolition Permit • Clear and Grade Permit • Site Development Permit • NPDES General Permit from the Department of Ecology for sites with disturbance over 1 acre 18092.003.doc 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Have we delivered World Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting -.geoenglneers.com/feedback. GEoENGINEERs CJ • Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is notlimited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. GrnENGINEERs_B AL,gt.:st2. 2016 Page E-4 . ,-~: .•;,(.; •J,'.: .;o Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be Interchanged The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantlyfrcm those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project GEOENGINEER~ August2. 2016 Page E·3 • composition of the design team; or • project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurfaceconditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from Geo Engineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction 1D confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You coukJ lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. GeoENGINee•s9 .. ~ugt.st2.2016 PageE-2 APPENDIXE REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE• This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center (VMC) and other project team members for the VMC FY 2017 Parking Garage Project. Th is report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. Th is is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Wrt.hin the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Is Based on a Unique Set of Project-specific Factors This report has been prepared for the VMC FY 2017 Parking Garage Project in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on th is report if it was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect • the function of the proposed structure; • elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; 1 Developed based on material provided by GBA. GeoProfessianal Business .bssociation; www.geoprofessional.org. GrnENGINEERs_g August2.2016 Pt1geE-l APPENDIX E Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Construction Stage During excavation and until wall movements have stabilized During excavation if lateral wall movements exceed 1 inch and until wall movements have stabilized After excavation is complete and wall movements have stabilized, and before the floors of the building reach the top of the excavation Monitoring Frequ,ency Twice weekly Three times per week Twice monthly Monitoring should include vertical and horizontal survey measurements accurate to at least 0.01 feet A baseline reading of the monitoring points should be completed prior to beginning excavation. The survey data should be provided to GeoEngineers for review within 24 hours. For shoring walls, we recommend that optical survey points be established: (1) along the top of the shoring walls and (2) on existing buildings located within a horizontal distance of the shoring walls equal to the height of the wall. The survey points should be located on every other soldier pile along the wall face for soldier pile and tieback shoring and the points along the existing buildings should be located at an approximate spacing of 20 feet If lateral wall movements are observed to be in excess of l/2 inch between successive readings or if total wall movements exceed 1 inch, construction of the shoring walls should be stopped to determine the cause of the movement and to establish the type and extent of remedial measures required. GEOENGINEER~ August2.2016 PageD"4 Test Nall/Tieback Acceptance A test tieback shall be considered acceptable when: 1. For verification tests, a tieback is considered acceptable if the creep rate is less than 0.08 inches per log cycle of time between 6 and 60 minutes and the creep rate is linear or decreasing throughout the creep test load hold period. 2. For proof tests, a tieback is considered acceptable if the creep rate is less than 0.04 inches per log cycle of time between 1 and 10 minutes or the creep rate is less than 0.08 inches per log cycle of time between 6 and 60 minutes, and the creep rate is linear or decreasing throughout the creep test load hold period. 3. The total movement at the maximum test load exceeds 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation of the unbonded length. 4. Pullout failure does not occur. Pullout failure is defined as the load at which continued attempts to increase the test load result in continued pullout of the test nail/tieback. Acceptable proof-test tiebacks may be incorporated as production tiebacks provided that the unbonded test length of the tieback hole has not collapsed and the test tieback length and number of strands are equal to or greater than the scheduled production tieback atthe test location. Test tiebacks meeting these criteria shall be completed by grouting the unbonded length. Maintenance of the temporary unbonded length for subsequent grouting is the contractor's responsibility. The Engineer shall evaluate the verification test results. Tieback installation techniques that do not satisfy the tieback testing requirements shall be considered inadequate. In this case, the contractor shall propose alternative methods and install replacement verification tiebacks. Shoring Monitoring Preconstructlon SurYey A shoring monitoring program should be established to monitor the performance of the temporary and/CY permanent shoring walls and to provide early detection of deflections that could potentially damage nearby improvements. We recommend that a preconstruction survey of adjacent improvements, such as stree1s, retaining walls, utilities and buildings, be performed prior to commencing construction. The preconstrucoon survey should include a video or photographic survey of the condition of existing improvements to establish the preconstruction condition, with special attention to existing cracks in streets, retaining walls or buildings. Optical Survey The shoring monitoring program should include an optical survey monitoring program. The recommended frequency of monitoring shou Id vary as a function of the stage of construction as presented in the following table. GeoENGINEERsg A11g11st2.2016 PagpD-3 -:.:(:(• The allowable tieback load should not exceed 80 percent of the steel ultimate strength. Tieback design test loads should be the design load specified on the shoring drawings. Verification test tiebacks shall be incrementally loaded and unloaded in accordance with the following schedule: Load Hold Time Alignment Load 1 minute 0.25 Design Load (DL) 1 minute 0.5DL 1 minute 0.75DL 1 minute l.ODL 1 minute 1.25DL 1 minute 1.5DL 60 minutes 1.75DL 1 minute 2.0DL 10 minutes The alignment load shall be the minimum load required to align the testing apparatus and should not exceed 5 percent of the design load. The dial gauge should be zeroed after the alignment load is applied. Nail/tieback deflections during the 1.5 Design Load (DL) test load shall be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 20, 30, 50 and 60 minutes. ProofTests Proof tests shall be completed on each production tieback. The allowable tieback load should not exceed 80 percent of the steel ultimate strength. Tieback design test loads should be the design load specified on the shoring drawings. Proof tiebacks shall be incrementally loaded and unloaded in accordance with the following schedule: Load Alignment Load 0.25 Design Load (DL) 0.5DL 0.75DL 1.0DL 1.33DL Holdllme 1 minute 1 minute 1 minute 1 minute 1 minute 10 minutes The alignment load shall be the minimum load required to align the testing apparatus and should not exceed 5 percent of the design load. The dial gauge should be zeroed after the alignment load is applied. Nail/tieback deflections during the 1.33DL and 1.5DL test loads shall be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 minutes. Depending upon the tieback deflection performance, the load hold period at 1.33DL (tiebacks) may be increased to 60 minutes. Tieback movement shall be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 minutes. If the tieback deflection between 1 and 10 minutes is greater than 0.04 inches, the 1.33DL load shall be continued to be held for a total of 60 minutes and deflections recorded at 20, 30, 50 and 60 minutes. GEOENGINEERsg August 2. 2016 Pc1geD-2 APPENDIXD GROUND ANCHOR LOAD TESTS AND SHORING MONITORING PROGRAM Ground Anchor Load Testing The locations of the load tests shall be approved by the Engineer and shall be representative of the field conditions. Load tests shall not be performed until the tieback grout has attained at least 50 percent of the specified 28-day compressive strengths. Where tempcrary casing of the unbonded length of test tiebacks is provided, the casing shall be installed to prevent interaction between the bonded length of the tieback and the casing/testing apparatus. The testing equipment shall include two dial gauges accurate to 0.001 inch, a dial gauge support, a calibrated jack and pressure gauge, a pump and the load test reaction frame. The dial gauge should be aligned within 5 degrees of the longitudinal nail/tieback axis and shall be suppcrted independently from the load frame/jack and the shoring wall. The hydraulic jack, pressure gauge and pump shall be used to apply and measure the test loads. The jack and pressure gauge shall be calibrated by an independent testing laboratory as a unit. The pressure gauge shall be graduated in 100 pounds per square inch (psi) increments or less and shall have a range not exceeding twice the anticipated maximum pressure during testing unless approved by the Engineer. The ram travel of the jack shall be sufficient to enable the test to be performed without repositioning the jack. The jack shall be su ppcrted independently and centered over the tieback so that the tieback does not carry the weight of the jack. The jack, bearing plates and stressing anchorage shall be aligned with the tieback. The initial position of the jack shall be such that repositioning of the jack is not necessary during the load test. The reaction frame should be designed/sized such that excessive deflection of the test apparatus does not occur and that the testing apparatus does not need to be repositioned during the load test. If the reaction frame bears directly on the shoring wall facing, the reaction frame should be designed so as not to damage the facing. Verification Tests Prior to production tieback installation, at least two tiebacks for each soil type shall be tested to validate the design pullout value. All test tiebacks shall be installed by the same methods, personnel, material and equipment as the production anchors. Changes in methods, personnel, material or equipment may require additional verification testing as determined by the Engineer. At least two successful verification tests shal be performed for each installation method and each soil type. The tiebacks used for the verification tests may be used as production tiebacks if approved by the Engineer. GEOENGINEERu:;;:7 t.ur:ust2. 2016 /lageO·i APPENDIX D Ground Anchor Load Tests and Shoring Monitoring Program Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA LOG OF HAND AUGER HA-1 Date Excavated: 8/1/01 Logged by: KHC Equipment: Hand Eguiement Surface Elevation (ft): 46 .. ~ ] 8' Q. • h I w i ~l j_ t:i w !. _, Other Tests .. ! i ! '[ ~ ;: E ! .. Material Description .~ ,;-And ; <J) (.l <J) 1 Notes i!: .. "' I I i!: <J) (!) :, .. ID ~ ~ .. llio olli .. am Brown silty sand wnn aravcl (loose lo mca1um dense. .. moist) (fill) I x :_ : . - ','. -· . ·.·: . . . .. " . ... · . . . ,•,. . " - 2 8 :, •, ' .. . ... :...:.. Obstruction encountered (possibly rocks/cobbles) Hand auger compl~ted at 4.~ feet on 8/0210 I s-I-No ground water seepage observed -,-5 No caving observed . " -" . - Notes: The depths of the hand auger logs are based on an average of measurement, across the hand auger and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. LOG OF HAND AUGER HA-2 Date Excavated: 8/1/01 Logged by: KHC Equipment: Hand Egui11ment Surface Elevation (ft): 38 .. d ] _§' ~:g J _ h I .. w z ~ Other Tests w ~ ! !. -~ ~~ 11 And ~ ;: E ! .. £. Material Description i~ ;: I ~ <J) 0 (.l <J) I I Notes 0§ .. <J) J .. ID :, ~ w co tt=r .)CXl layer avv ML Do.rk brown sandy silt with gravel o.nd/or silty sand with gravel (sol\, moist) (fill) . - I i --.,Asphalt debris encountered --. Hand auger completed at 2 feet on 8102/01 No ground water seepage observed -No caving obSCTVed -" s----s --- -. . -. Notes: The depths of the hand auger logs are based on an average of measurements across the hand auger and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. Geo.Engineers LOG OF HAND AUGER FIGUREA-7 ..., Project Job Number Location ·-Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA Date 08101/01 Logged KHC Contractor Holt Drining Drilled Bv •• Dn11 Hollow Stem Auger Equipment Truck-mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig Unll Method Bit Sample D&M Sampler Hammer 300 lb. hammer w/ 30 inch drop X.coordinatc: Not Determined Method Data Y ..coordinate: ""' Totnl Depth (ft) 14 Elevation (ft) 41 Datum: Not Determined Svstcm: Nnt .... i l: .... w t 8' D. w 0 c ~ 9 w IL z ~ ~ .... e:g ~ Other Tests w ;,:; ~ 0 " 'i: c-IL .91 u E I ~[ Material Description u-And ;,:; :,: D. ;t. .. g_ E ~ M .... "' Cl) I! g Cl) :5-Notes :,: .. '# M I I- ~ Cl) al Cl ::, 2:-.. " ~ ,-. ,. 0 .. o,,, lirown sdty line sand wnh orgruuc matter (loose, moist) 0 ~-·-~ ASPHALT --... {fill) {to~soil} r -.. _ \3 inch asphalt con~rete pavement -· ... · .. SM --·. Brown silty fine sand (loose: to medium dense. moist) -100 l 10 (611) • . . . I -~ -- I •• 5-ML -Gray sandy silt (medium stilT. moist) --5 _ 100 2 • 28 91 I •• -- -100 3 26 - -Becomes very stiff 1: 10----10 - -. I ·--100 4 "~L " . Becomes hard -" Boring completed at 14 feet on 8/01/01 15-... No ground wntcr encountered during drilling --15 -I .. . --. -' - I ---- 20----20 -- I -- - I - I -- 25----25 --- -- I _. - --- -- 30----30 I ---.,.. ---- --.,. 35----35 Note.: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols ... .., , .. .... Geo.Engineers LOG OF BORING 8-4 FIGUREA-6 Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA ' I I I vote 08/01/01 Logged KHC Contracror Holt Drilling Drilled Bv I Drill Hollow Stem Auger Equipment Truck-mounted MobUe 8-59 drill rig unll Method Bit Sample O&M Sampler Hammer 300 lb. hammer w/ 30 inch drop X-roordinate: Not Determined Method Data Y~rdinnte: "·· . i Total Depth (fl) 23.5 Elevation (fl) 36 Datum: Not Determined Svstem: ,_. - ... " l: ... w C. w i:' i " g> J f -¥' w .. m J ~ ~ e:g Other Tests w ~ 0 S:c .. ~ j! () u ~l Material Description 0-;;:; i C. E E !! t. ~ 8. And ~ 0:: E ] .. Q. §-I .. "' I!! ~"' J Notes ... #-"' al (!) ,. Cl. ~ :, 0 i:' ill ::;; CJ 0 0 ovv --......_ l rnch s iayer r -ML -Dark gray silt with organic with occasional fine to coarse gravel and organic matter (very soft. moist) (fill) -. -l6 1 2 . 14 120 -- 5--Grades to dork brown and becomes medium stiff --5 100 2 • -..-:( -- SM Dark brown silty tine so.nd with occasional fine to coarse -100 3 3 .. . gravel (loose, moist) (fill) -17 94 - . - 10- ,. -10 -- . -.. l6 4 3 •1 Black silty fine to medium sand with organic matter and -.. gravel (loose, moist) (fill) .. 15--:,?. -t-15 /j·~ ML -Gray sandy silt with occasional tine to coarse gravel (stiff - wet) . 78 I 19 Gravelly drilling at 16 feet . 12 124 .. - 20----20 " . . . Becomes hard and moist . 83 6 5016" -.. . -.. Boring completed at 23.5 feet on SJOl/01 . ' ~ -Ground water was encountered o.t 12 feet durins drilling ->-25 25- .. - " . . - 30--->-30 ' . - - . 35----35 Note: See Figure A·2 for explo.nation of symbols Geo.Engineers LOG OF BORING B-3 FIGURE A-5 Project uatc Drilled Onll Method .>ample Melhod Valley Medical Center 08/01101 Hollow Stem Auger O&M Sampler Tomi O.pth (ft) 33 Job Number 2202-017-00 Logged Bv Equipment Hammer Data Elevation (ft) KHC Truck-mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig 300 lb. hammer wl 30 inch drop 44 Material Description Location Contractor unll Bit X-c:oordinatc: y_ ... ....,..--'j--'-: ualum: Svstem: Kent, WA Holt Drilling Not Determined ''"" -. Other Tests And Notes O-t-JJt1'f:FJ'~)~~~~:;::::=::;:::::;;=:::;~::::::~J=--I-IJ-;;;---t'0 J . . ~vu ',3 mch zone r f-. • SM Dark brown silty fine sand with gravd (medium dense, FF t- 100 I 12 Ir-:;· 5- 17 2 1 8 · 100 3 5 I 10- . 15- . . 20- . 8 25- ~ I 100 4 56 ' 7 l"'"I ~A ~~A ~~A '1 :"-:-:· s I :: · ... .·. l 00 6 8 ~-·r-H-.J I . DO 7 50/6"' 8 i: ::- 8 30- ~ . ··. ~ 100 8 :50/4~-·::,-.· i 35- moist) ML "--.s---r;c----,----..,..,-,""'-"""7'"""''" _____ _ Dark brown sandy silt (st1it moist) (fill) Becomes very soft with organic matter ML Gray sandy silt (soft to medium stiff. moist) .... OL Dark gray sandy organic silt (medium stifI moist) .... SM --~-~--------~-------Gray silty sand with organic matter (loose. moist) (root fragments) ML Gray silt (medium stift moist) SM Brown silty fine sand and grovel (loose, moist) Harder drilling at 25 feet - SP-SM ~ --G~ra-y"°'fi"""m_e_Sl1ll_d'""m-,,.th,---si"lt""'(v-,-ry-d-,-e_n_sc._m_o_is~t),------- . " .... Boring completed at 33 feet on 8/01/01 Ground water encountered at 26 feet during drilling - § Note: Sec Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols . -14 - - . - . • 23 . - . - . . - . - . - 10 114 99 " " -5 -10 . -15 . -20 . -. -25 ~1---------------..--------------------i g ~ LOG OF BORING B-2 ~ w ffi ~ FIGUREA-4 w ~1.-----------------------'----------------------------""' Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA vate 08/01101 Logged KHC Contractor Drilled Bv Holt Drilling Drill HolloW Stem Auger Equipment Truck-mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig unll Method Bit ,ample D&M Sampler Hammer 300 lb. hammer w/ 30 inch drop X-coordinale: Not Determined Method Da1a Y ,..,..~rdinatc: "-· - Tol3l Depth (ft) 29 Elevation (ft) 49 Datum: Not Determined Svstcm: Nnt r>e• .......... i ..... ...a >-c E >-UJ Q. l! UJ 2:' 0 c 8' ~ "' w ... ~ z g '§ ...J o-,; Other Tests UJ > -.8 0 s: C' "-;; 0 .9! '-' .ll ~ §, Material Description u-;; ~ C. E .c ~ ... "' g_ And I 0: E j .. C. 0 (/) 2-c_ I >-(/) e :::, Notes le Q, .. (/) ~ ... (/) a, C) :::, .~ 2:' UJ ~ 0 0 0 -. Grn!f coarse grovel (loosc 1 mo1sl! !hill 0 ., -~ u, -. ',. SM Brown silty snnd and gravel (loose, moist) (lill) -·,. -.. - 00 I 7 -· ~::. '. .. -.. . . .. -. . 5-: · .. ;.. ---5 00 2 h ";,,.,.,. ML Gray silt with organic mancr (medium still moist) (till) F.F. ->--' .. (charcoal fragments) 100 3 9 -. 10--Grndes to gray. dec~cd organic content --10 -.... -~::;:,._ OL Dark brown sandy organic silt (!itiff, moist) (wood -> fragments) -~.,_,._ -100 4 10 -32 88 -~.,_,._ - 15- _.,_,._ -~--15 ~.,..,_ ~ ...... c -.... ML Brown s:mdy silt (stitl: wet) - 10-0 5 16 -.. - 20----20 -.. - 78 6 25 <"· SP-SM Gray tine sand with silt (medium dense. wet) -f- 25-... --25 -;,, ML Light gray silt (hnrd. moist) (11\udstone) .. - 100 ' 50/6 .. ~L -9 126 ---Doring completed 1lt 29 feet on &/01/01 30-t-Ground water wllS encountered nt 1 S feet during drilling --30 - - -.. -. 35----35 Note: See Figure A-2 for explo.nation of symbols Geo.Engineers LOG OF BORING B-1 FIGURE A-3 Gr aph : ; ... ... . . .. . : .. : .. : ~ . : . i i . : .. · ... " : .. .. : ~. :1.: ·,'. . .. · . .L· .. " . .. .. . . .. : L', .. ·(~ L, . : ·.; ~ . .: · .. " . . •• . . .. .. ; . · ... ~ .. : ', ... · .. . . : ·. ... : . ',. .. . . . . . . BORING NO. 8-7 Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 ELEV. 38+ us cs SM SM ML SM Depth (NJ w Soil Description (ft.) Sample Blows (%) Ft. FILL: L Grey brown silty SAND with varying anxmnts of gravel, mist to 1.et, rrediun dense. lo 4/4/89 .y I 40 5 5 Mixed/bedded tan. Oayey SILT and grey silty SAND with clay, 1.et, . loose to stiff. . I • 13 24 lo -10 lo . lo • I ':JJ/3" 12 Grey silty l!Ediun SAND with gravel, 1.et, very L dense. (1TI.L) ._ 15 Boulder at 16'? L • '" T <JJ/9" 18 Baring tenninated at 18. 7 feet below existing grade. No groundl.ater encountered during drilling. 3/4" st.andpipe installed to oottCJ:l of boring. BORING LOG Medical Office Building U Valley Medical Center Renton Washington %= 2.0 tsf ~TERRA ~ ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.T-9961 Date 5/89 I Figure 10 I Gr aph .. . . . . .. . . · .. . . . ' . . ' . ' . . : =· ·. ·"'·· .t: ... . . . • ',t-, .. . "'·: · . ... . . . .. . . : : .. . . .. ·. : : ... BORING NO. 8-6. Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 ELEV. 38:t us Depth (N) w cs Soil Description (ft.) Sample Blows (%) Ft. SM Brown mixed silty SAND and clayey SILT, 1·.et, . ML loose • .. I .. 16 I- 5 . ML Grey-tan clayey SILT, 1,et, stiff. . I ~ .. 8 1--10 .. .. I SM Grey silty SAND w.i.th varying arrounts of gravel 92 and clay, ,.et, very dense. (TIIL) I- r-15 I- .. " T ':IJ/6" &iring terminated at 18. 5 feet below existing grade. Grouru:h.ater eocountered at lQ I during drilling. ~TERRA ~ ASSOCIATES BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Center Renton Washington %= 2.0 t.sf Geotechn ical Consultants Proj. No.T-996 Date 5/89 I Figure 9 BORING NO. 8-5 Logged By CRL Date 4-5-89 us Graph CS . . . . . . '.. . .• . . •. . . . Soil Description Brown silty SAND with nrnerous cobbles, i.et, rrediun dense. .. .. ... • Depth (ft.) -5 Sample I ELEV. 42± (N) Blows Ft. 16 w (%) 20 • •' {.· ·l;I.· ~-!--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '• . ,, . . .. . . • : :1;, : · .. ·. : : .. . . ..... . . . .. . . · .. ~ . : . . . . . . : . : . : . . . . • • . :,: .. = . . . . . . . . . ·. E .: ~ . : :r. .. ... : ~ . : . : : .. SM Grey silty SAND with varying aioounts of clay and gravel, nn:i.st to 1,et, very dense. (TIIL) • • .... 10 .. .. >-15 • • .. I 63 13 :C ':JJ/6" 9 --8) - Boring ternrinated at 19' bel<M existing grade. !lo groun<:h-ater encountered during drilling. ,~ TERRA I'~ ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Cent~r Renton Washington Proj. No. T-9961 Date 5/89 I Figure 8 CRL Logged By--===-- Date 4-7-00 BORING NO. 8-4 ELEV. 42± us Graph CS Soil Description Depth (ft.) (N) Sample Blows Ft. w (%) .. . . . . . .. ... . . . . . :. ':. .. ', .... . . .. .• ... I~ • '..L. : ML BrcM1 to brown grey clayey SILT with organics, .... c ' stiff. • • .. 5 • • I 8 I 66 SM Grey silty SAND with varying am:iimts of gravel, .._ 10 l!Dist to 1;et, very dense. (TilL) Possible boulder and/or cobbles encoimtered at 12' and 16'. '-15 • • I :IJ/5" T 87/6" Eoring tenninated at 18' below existing grade . Ground1.ater see!E£e encoimtered at 8 I during drilling• ~ TERRA ~ ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG Medical Office Building 11 valley Medical Center Renton Washington Proj. No.T-9961 Date 5/89 I Figure 7 BORING NO. B-3 Logged By CR!. Date 4-5-89 ELEV. _44_± __ _ us Graph CS Soil Description Depth (ft.) (N) Sample Blows Ft. w (%) .. ~ ~ • c· ~;. •: : • ; : i; L." • • • i:.· • .. ~ . ·. . . . . (3" A.C.) SM Tan-grey with orallo<>e stains silty fine to r.ediun SAND, ...t:, loose to rediun dense . .. • 11 21 Sieve '' . ·.,: 4/4/89 I ,, : :1· •• 1t:;1· --1------------------f'"',YS ~ .. : : . I~ ~ • • ,: . .: : ,., .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •, . ~ :-. . . .. '•, .. : : : :) : ; . : f 17 .: : : . . . .. . . . SM Grey silty SAUD with rarying am:nmts of gravel, !!Dist to wet, very dense. (TTIL) • ... 10 .. .. ... 15 • .. I 56 14 I 90/7" 10 ,-"JJ/3" 9 Sieve &iring t:erm:inated at 17. 8 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seeiage encountered at 7 feet durine drilling. 3/ 4 inch PVC standpipe installed to oottan of ooring. -TERRA ; c:. /. • ASSOCIATES ..... ! Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Proj. No.T-996 Date 5/89 I Figure 6 Gr aph .. ', . . . : . . : : : . . : ... . '• . . : . ', .. : ·~ .. : .. : : . ,, .. . . ,i: ·-~ . . .. . .. ; . .. : . ! : .. •. : .. : : ·· . . . . . . .. . . . . .,·. : .. . .. : .. ·.: : .. .. BORING NO. Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 us cs Soil Description SM Grey with orange stains, silty SAND, .et, rediun dense . SM Grey silty SAND with varying anounts of gravel, rroist to .et , very dense . (TIIL) Boring terminated at 18' belo., existing grade. B-2 ELEV. 45+ Depth (N) w (ft.) Sample Blows (%) Ft. . I 25 13 • -5 . I • 55 9 Sieve . ..._ 10 • ' .. I TJ/6" 10 • -15 . . T TJ/6" 6 No ground1.atcr encountered during drilling. BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Center Renton Washington ~TERRA ~ ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.T-996 Date 5/89 I Figure 5 BORING NO. B-1 Logged By CRL Date 4/07/89 us Graph CS . . . . . . . . ·. •) . . • SM . . . . :: .... ML ·:,•, ,: I: : . . ·.• : .. : . : .. ,• I 0 .. . . ... . .. . .. . •. -~ : .. i.: ·. ·. ··r: ~~ . · .. : : . -:-.: : . ; ... . . . . : .. .. t:''.. ·.: : : .. ·~ ... . .. . . . . .. : :·.: .1.· •• .. :, .. . . . . . : .. : : . : : i.." ·• : •. :. : .:I-: : : ·. . : : ._: Soil Description Grey, brown, silty fine SAND to sandy SILT with varying .amounts of gravel, moist to wet, very dense (TILL) • .. .. Depth (ft.) -5 • ,_ 10 • ... 15 • . • • ... 20 • • ELEV. 48 + (NJ W Sample Blows (%) Ft . I so/6" 9 sieve I 50/4" 12 I 50/6" -- I 50/4" 13 ..,.. 50/6" 5 Boring terminated at 23 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. :··.· TERRA •· . '·... . • ASSOC IA TES A _.f7 _._,_ Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Proj. No. T -996 Date 5/89 Figure 4 J j j J ] ) j :1 ,J ' i ~, ' • " J 1 LOG OF TEST PIT NO.TP-28 Location: See Drawing 1 E1evation: Approx. '16 Surface Conditions: Sod ..., <lJ ,.. ~ QJ I-I -<lJ ::, ...., ..., '--.._, C c.. vi OJ <lJ C ..., ·o C c.~ ::E 0 u 1: 21 3 I J - - -J _I - - - - - - - - <lJ ~ ~ 0 ~ _.::, 5, "' "' V, I SM I I I SM I DES CR I Pi ION TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dk. brown, f/m, little to some silt, few gravel, abundant organics; very mni<t. loose GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled brown & red-brown, f/m, tr. coarse, little silt, little qravel; moist, very dense; grades oray Bottom of test pit at depth 3.0' No groundwater encountered Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 ~KU~U~tU VALLtl MtUl~AL ~tNltK ~AKA~t Renton, Washington for Mahlum and Nordfors ~ c c It t N w G•ote-ct1n1c2l En91r'l•itnnq ~ onverse onsu an S ,n0App>.,Oh"hS<t0n<u ?ro1ec: No 86-35287 A-9 I LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-27 L t' oca 10n: s ee D raw1ng 1 ~1 c:. evation: Surface Condit i ans: Sod ..... QJ ... -QJ '-I QJ -QJ :, .., -~ .... .._, C Q. "' QJ E QJ -..... "' 0 .;: ·-C 0 0 "" Zu I I 1 ... :j 1 4- 5 - 2 ': - - - - - - - - - - -0 ~ >, "' SM SM DESCRIPTION GRAVEL ANO SANO FILL TOPSOIL -SILTY SANO; dark brown, f/m, little to some silt, few gravels, abund. ora.; wet, loose GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND; mottled brown and orange, f/m, trace coarse, little ta some silt, trace to few gravels; moist, medium dense grades dense grades blue-green, and very dense Bottom of test pit at depth 6 .O' Light seepage at depth 1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/85 ~ u~u:,c:.u V>ILLl:. I I u ll.ML l.t;l I c:.K l>>IK>ll>c:. Renton, Washington for Mah 1 um and Nord fors A pprox. 50 I : I REMARKS '· ; I i seepage at .5' i I 11 occasional cobbles I I Pro1K: No 86-35287 ------ I I I I I I l [ [ Ora ... ,ng NO ~ C C It t N W "'0 "·"····• ........... A 8 .~.;;;;.. __ o_n_v_e_r_s_e __ o_n_s_u_a_n_s ____ ._ .. _._··."·.·.··.".".··.··.··_ .. ______________ [ ] J J ] J J ] ] -ira. ' •, -, l-1 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-25 Location: See Drawing l Elevation: Approx. 68 Surface Conditions: Sod ... OJ~ .c <1J '-' ~~ :, .... .. C "' OJ OJ C .... ·;; C c::i ·~ ::::: 0 u 1- 2- 3~ l J J I j - - - - - - - _I . '1J ~ ~ 0 "' >, ~I~ V, V'l SM ML l SM ! DES CR! PTION TOPSOIL -SILTY SANO; dk. brown, f/m, little to some silt, few orave1s, abund. org; wet, loose GLACIAL OEPOSiTS -SILT lol/SAND; streaked gray and I brown, few to little f. sand, thinly bedded: stiff_ SILTY SAND; mott1ea brown & red-brown, f/m, trace coarse, little silt, few to little gravel; moist, dense· nrades blue-nrav-and verv dense Bottom of test pit at depth 3.5' No groundwater encountered Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 PKBPu~c.5 vALlc.1 Mt.1.il1..AL 1..c.,; 1 tr< 1.,AKAuc. Renton, Washington for Mahlum and Nordfors ~ ~ C C It t N w "'0 '00""'"1 ••• , ... ., •• ~ onverse onsu an s ...... ,. ....... s,,,., .. REMARKS Pro1l!c! NO 86-35287 A-7 I I I LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-25 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. 59 Surface Conditions: Sod, marshy ground .... "' ... .<:: "' S. I <lJ -.... <lJ :, .., -a DESCRIPTION REMARKS 0.. ... .., C: 0.. .:::, "' OJ = = CJ C: ·-..... "' >, o __ a c: V, V, ::.: 0 u ,j SM TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, seepage to 2 .5' little to some silt, few to little gravel, abundant organics, occasional fine roots; very moist to wet, :J loose SM GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled gray and reodish-brown, fine to me<iium, trace 4-coarse, some silt, little gravel; very moist, dense grades blue-gray 2' dia. boulder s-' I 5-; Bottom of test pit at depth 5.5' I -Heavy seepage from surface to depth 2-1/ 2 I I Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 - - - - - - - - - - -l I ---------iiP"'R"u"l5u~~c.·S .. v"'A"'L"'L"'t."!!Y•M~t·u""1°"i.;"';,,'!"'L•i.;"'c.1111N"'1•c.-.J{~G"!'AJ{111A"'l:i·c.---------~.~.o~,oc~.~.,o~---[ Renton, Washington for Mahl um and Nordfors ~ Converse Consultants NW Cool<eM;c,,en,,nm;ng ~ and Apphed eartl'I Si::1enc:in 86-35287 Draw,n9 NO A-6 [ l ] J J :J J J l J J I . l 1 1 -] 1 ..., .,:; "' .., OJ Q, .... "'<:: 0,- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 5- 7- e- ·1 - - - - - ' ... J - LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-24 Location: See Drawing l Elevation: Surface "' ... S... I OJ ::, .., ~ ..., <:: Q, V, OJ 2 .., ·; = "" ::c 0 V, u I I 1 2 3 Conditions: Sod and bare ground ~ 0 .,:; 2 >, V, DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL FILL -SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; brawn, fine to medium, trace coarse, little silt, little gravel, occasional organics; wet, loose to medium dense TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to some silt, few gravels, abundant organics medium, GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND; mottled brown to reddish-brown, fine to medium, little to some silt, few to little gravel; very moist, medium dense grades to dense grades blue-gray Bottom of test pit at depth 9 .0' Heavy seepage at depth 3-1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 PkUP0SE3 VALLtY MtU!~AL ~cNicK bArlAbc Renton, Washington far Mahlum and Nordfors ~ c c Jt t N w Gotott"cM1cal Enginnri~g ~ onverse . onsu an 5 ,odAoohedE,.,hS<>encn Approx. 70 REMARKS I seepage at 3.5' caving from 5-6' I ' I i ' ' ' I I ,;,ro1~1No 86-35287 Oraw,ng No A-5 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-23 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation· Approx. 59 Surface Conditions: Sod ... cu"' cul-.,;: cu '-f -' cu ::, ... -0 DES CR I PT!ON REMARKS a. .... ._, C "-..Q "' cu ,; ~ CU C ... ·-C "' a._ 0 0 V, V> Zu :j I TOPSOIL FILL -SILTY SAND; brown, fine to medium, some boulder at l' sTTt, little gravel, occasional organics; very 1 moist, loose occasional cobbles 3-TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, 4-"lsome silt, trace gravel, abundant organics. roots· seepage at 4' verv moist. 1 oose 5 -2 GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND; mottled brown to 6J_J3 reddish-brown, fine to medium, little silt, few to little qravel: moist, dense J grades blue-gray, and very dense occasional cobbles ~ Bottom of test pit at depth 6.0' Moderate seepage at depth 4' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 J - - - - . - l 1 ' i I I ' ' I ' I I I I I ; ' I i I i I ' I I I I I I I I I I _______________ ,__ __ ( ~KU~U:ic.u VIILLt.l i'1t:.Ul\.l\L \.t.JilC.K \,AKl\bc. P,010<:No Renton, Washington 86-35287 ____________ f_o_r_M_ah_l_um __ a_n_d_No_r_d_f_o_r_s __________________ ( ~ Oraw1ngNo ~ Converse Consultants NW ~;:1;:i:~·~;~~·;:;:.:•.. A-4 ...;;.. _________________ ( ] ] ] .... ..r:;; QJ .... CJ =-.... Location: See Drawing 1 Surface Conditicns: Sod QJ LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-22 Elevation· DESCRIPTiON o._ ]' ' QJ "' 0 .0 E, E "' >, "' "' I 1 1 1 ] 1 1 1 5- 3- ? - - - - - - - - FILL -SILTY SAND; brown, fine to medium, little silt, trace to little gravel, occasional organics; very moist loose l' diameter boulder at depth 4' TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, some silt, trace gravel, abundant organics, occasional fine roots; very moist, loose GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled olive to reddish brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, little silt, little gravel; moist, dense arades blue-arav. and V"~v n"n•~ Bottom of test pit at depth 9.0' Moderate seepage at depth 5' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 PRoPosEJ vALLEY ME01cAL cENrtK GAKAG~ Renton, Washington for Mahlum and Nordfors ~ Converse Consultants NW c.o .. cnn,c,IEng,nHMg ~ ,1nd Apph•d Eartr'I Scit"C:tl Approx. 48 REMARKS occasional cobbles seepage at 5' occasional cobbles, I Prot~I No 86-35287 Oraw,ng No A-3 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-21 Location: See Drawing l Elevation: Approx. aa Surface Conditions: Sod, marshy ground SM SM 1 2 DESCR.I PT ION TOPSOIL -SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, I some silt, few gravel, abundant organics, scattered fine roots; very moist, loose _ GLACIAL DEPOSITS -SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled RE:·1ARKS gray to redd1sn-brown, fine to medium, trace seepage at 2' coarse, little silt, little gravel, acc. carbonize, organics; moist, dense grades to gray-blue and very dense Bottom of test pit at depth 5.0' Moderate seepage at depth 1-1/2' to 2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 I' KW u::,w VAlLc I Mtu 11..AL \.tN I cK GAKAuc. Renton, Washington for Mahlum and Nordfors 86-35287 ----------------------------------0r.aw•l"l9 NO ~ C c It t N w G,o.,chnic" Enginunnq ~ onverse onsu an 5 ,ndAopli••E,nnSc,encu A-2 I I I I I I I I I l [ r t ~ ~ [ DATI! DIILUD: 1/20/89 SUMMARY: BORING NO. B-2 0 . SILTY SAND (Fill); brown, fine to SM . 3 medium, trace coarse sand, little . lA 2 silt, trace fine roots, occasional . 2 organics 5 - . . 26 SILTY SAND (Glacial Till); gray, SM · 2A /} 15 fine to medium, trace coarse sand, 1 19 little to some silt, trace gravel -~ 3A 26 I 34 -grades with gravel . 35 10 15 -- - • 4A I 28 -50/5" 20 - - -SANDSTONE (Bedrock); light gray, I 31 SA fine to med. sand grains, with 50/5~ silt matrix, highly weathered 25 - . -, ~~ 1 ~n Ii~ -grades moderately weathered 30 J 1 Bottom of boring at depth 28 feet. J Na groundwater encountered. I - . . . • A. 2· si,lit-spoon sampler 8. 3-O.O. tnin--waJI s.ampler C. 3-1/4" O.O. x 2-1r.z· I Iner 0 A-Aneroerg, C -consolidation. OS· dir&ct sl'lear. o. 3-,12-0.0. split barrel samp&er X. sample not rec:over9d G -grain size, T -Uiaxial. P -permeability PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE -PHASE II Renton, Washington far Valley Medical Center ~ C J t t N W Goolechnical Engineering ~ Converse onsu an s 1ndApplledSctonces very loose '" moist '" '" .. .. .. moist dense .. .. .. .. .. .. very - dense '" - ------ moist -very soft -- - slightly - moist soft - ----------- P'roiect Na. 86-35287-03 Figure No. 2 1 ] J ] 1 ! J 5 so 15 20 25 . . lA - - . 2A - - - - -3A - ff - - -4A - - . - -SA -- - -6A -- - - - -- - --- 2 l 2 2 10 8 2 2 4 6 10 31 18 41 50/ ! " 37 so;· · • A. 2· IDIH••oaoft •• ,.. ••• , SUMMARY: BORING NO. B-1 ELEVI.TlON: ,••• •u••••• •-••• O--.T "' "•• 1.0C.&llaa of, ... ••••-.,,, aT ,,, ,,,111 •• ,, ..... ,,c. ,.,,,,...,c, co,.,.,,,., •a••••••• •T .,.,,. 1.oc: .. ,,0,1 ••• ••• c: .. , ••• u ,,,, ~oc:.ano• ....... , .......... "" ,,.,. , •• ,.,. _,, ........ I 11••1,,1nC&He• •• IC'JV&1. , •••• ,, ••• CICO••Tl'III, Df:SC1UP1'10N SYW80L IIOISTUJIII! CONSISTtNCY ~OD ...Alill TQPSO TI ~M v .moist l 1 oase -::- FILL SILTY SAND; mottled brawn & olive, SM very loose fine to medium, trace coarse, some moist silt, trace gravel, occasional lumps of silt, organics, iron stain medium col or becomes alive dense l case LACUSTRINE -SILT; mottled brown anc ML very blue-gray, trace fine sand, ace. moist organics (hard drilling@ 15') scattered gravels; pockets of moist medium black organics stiff BEDROCK -SILTY SAND; white to SM moist dense llght gray, fine to medium, some 12/26/8' silt , ace. lumps of brown silt, '! poorly lithified very .dense Bottom of boring at depth 28.3' Piezometer installed to depth 28.3' L 3· o.c. 1nt,...w•U ••'"ol•r c. i-114• o.a . .1 2-112· lln•r • • l -4tt.,...,._ c .. c:on-dtd•tlOfto as -dlf.c:t 1l'lea,, a. l-111"" o.o. 11pUt tlan•• ••MDl•t X. 18MPI• ••• ,eco•ered Q -,rMII M&-. T • trtaala&. It -"""••DIUty Pro1ect No. -----------... -... ... -... ... ... ... -... --... ------------- PROPOSED VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER GARAGE Renton, w~~bington for"Mahlum and Nordfors 86-35287 J @ Converse Consultants Geotechnlcat EnQln .. nng and A~pUed Sc1encn A-1 FIELD DATA ii I t it C E MATERIAL ~ I ¥ • -. 8' .Q REMARKS C i " > ~ ~ DESCRIPTION ;, l 0 • • 1 j .a ~ .-~ • ~ ~ > s ~ §, "iii :5 i: " ~ 15. 0 C. 2! •$ • .. ¥ • ~ el Hi w 0 -= ll'. " 0 ,,,._ ;:: 0 OU j8 u::u I I With interbeds of coarse sand and trace gravel 25- I" 41 6 ' i Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. - Log of Boring GEl-11 (continued) j GeoENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet2 o/2 = .lar!<I I Total 26.5 I Logged By SJB I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. I Drilling Hollow-S1em Auger Drilled 4/5/2016 415/2016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM ""'t'<ld Surface Elevation (ft) 91.62 Hammer Autohammer Drllling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)/ 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299044.81 System WA Stale Plane.North Gt'Dundwatet Northing M 164830.38 Datum NAD83 (feet) D~plh lo Dil!I M!IIUM!!Si w.mJ!!J t;ml1QO(n) Notes: Not encountered FIELD DATA I c i I, C MATERIAL ~ ,; ~ ~ I ~ • REMARKS C i .. > DESCRIPTION i: l J • 0 0 • ~ 0 •" ~ ~ t ~ ~ > g g-·i;; C C ~ i £ 1 -· i !! 1 J!! .. ~ ~ el !! ~8 UJ 0 = "' 0 "' "'" 0 AC -------1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement f',k; base course SM BroWTI Siit)'finB-to mediUrTI sand with gra'lel (medium dense, moist) {fill) _<!' SM Brown to gray silty fine to medium sanci' with I" 52 1 occasional gra'.'el and coal fragments (very Olddatk>n staining . dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) \ 5-I'' 50 ' 12 38 %F - . .$' -----------SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with Qravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) 10- -I ' ,011-' "Sampler boUncirg on rock, bloWCOun1 .......... I a JP I I ' < . C • 15-I 'o 50/4" 4 Increasing gra\181 ' ~ C t .,_"\'? ! i" - I . ' C a C §, I 20-I . 50/6" 5 . • -1~,~ . G Note: See Figure A· 1 for e1.planation of symbols. a • • • ! Log of Boring GEl-11 ; ~ GEoENGINEERs Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project j Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 2202--024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 2 = £IN I Total 20.9 I Logged By SJB I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. I Drilling Drilled 4/512016 4/5/2016 Dep1h (ft) Checked By DTM Method Hollaw-Stem Auger --------- Surface Elevation (ft) 86.23 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)/ 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298926.15 Sy..tem WA Slate Plane.North I Q[Ql,lr]~~r Northing (Y) 164820.19 Datum NAD83 (feet) Depth to Date Measured IYJlllliJll Elevation rm Notes: See remarks FIELD DATA I • I i I, I C MATERIAL ! ~ ! i • • 8' .Q REMARKS ] " > ;; _, t C ~ j ~ 0 DESCRIPTION " 0 0 !!!i ~ .. > l j " ~ c • ~ ~ }j ~fin 2 • > C. 8 " ~i • • J!! • 0 • e el j;§ w 0 E O'. iii u ;: (!) (!) () u:u 0 AC 1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement GP 4 Inches base course ~,t, SM Biowni0ning8 Silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) 118 10 ' C)).idatiOfl staiNng . Gray ·silty fine sandwith occasional gravel SM (medium dense, moist) 5-I 18 11 ' 17 41 SA JP . ! I I" 29 J Becomes wet Permed water . SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with cx:casional 10-I 18 .. • gravel (dense, moist) (glacial till) '-"" - 15-I" 5 .. 62 Becomes very dense ,~ ~· . 20-111 50/5" 6 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand (-..ery dense, -----· moist) (Renton Formati?n Scl_ndstone) r Note: See Figure A+1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-10 j GEOENGINEERS O Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 1 FIELD DATA I I c t '~ C = E • 3 0 MATERIAL I • REMARKS C ~ i • > i DESCRIPTION l ! I • Q.,ll 0 • J ..., i = " 1~ .9i E E • ~ ,• ~ ~~ > C. e~ • ~ J!l 0 /!-• ~ • m .e "' " ;: "' "'iJ " c:8 25-I . 50/3" 6 ----------------- I ' . l I Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-9 (continued) GEOENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet2of 2 :l!al:l ~ Total 25.8 I Logged By SJB I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. I Drilling ' Hollow-Stem Auger Drilled 4/512016 41512016 I Depth (It) Checked By DTM Method Surface Elevation (ft} 91.83 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) I 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting {X) 1299121.94 System WA State Plane. Ncrth Q[Q!.IO!lfilll!il:[ Northing (Y) 165017.35 Datum NAD83 (feet) Depth to Pals Measured lll.alm..l!!l Elevalion lftl Notes: I See remarks FIELD DATA ~ c t I, C ~ ! ~ .. .3 0 MATERIAL C I I .. > 's DESCRIPTION ... l REMARKS ~ • 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ .. > j 2 " Q.~ . ::-C • ~ 0 ~ ,• a C ~ 0. .!l 0 ~ 0~ !! ~ ~~ • • .. ~ w 0 E O'. "' u "' ao ~8 u:8 0 AC 1.5 inches asphal1 concrete pavement GP 5.5 inches base course SM Brown to gray silty fine to coarse sand with light 0Jcidali011 staining gravel and occasional coal fragments ref> {dense, moist) (weathered glacial IHI) . I ,, 35 ' s-I" s SD/5.S-' Ml -- 9 56 Gray sandy silt with occasional gravel (hard, %F moist) (glacial till) a ~~ r• . SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) 10-I 15 90JH" 3 µ,'> ' Large boulder obstruction Dlill1ng 00 rod( at 12 feet bJS i . I I I -,s- I'° 65 4 Mowd owr 5 feel to complete boring _,~ - . ,o-I .. 65 ' MC Becomes wet 12 P8fChed water ,• -· Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-9 GEoENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of2 lilorl Emi 'i Total I Logged By ~ \ Driller GeolQIJic Drill, Inc. I DMlllng Hollcm-Stem Auger Drilled 415/2016 41512016 Depth (ft) 21.5 Checked By I ~thod Surface Elevation (ft} 82.72 Hammer Autohammer DrilHng Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) 130 (in) Drop EQUipment Easting (X) 1298995.48 System WA State Plane,North Qa:;iundwa:te:r Northing (Y) 165009.65 Datum NAD83 (feet) Dep1h to PR Measured l'ialoLlltl FfID'ilion If!\ Notes; Not enrountered FIELD DATA I ! g t I, C ! ~ ~ 1 3 ~ MATERIAL REMARKS ~ " DESCRIPTION l l is • I ~ u u ~ " l t. ~ E " ~ %. ~ > ; ri 8 ~ • •• ~ • ~ • 0 ~ • E 8 18 uj 0 a: iii u ,: "' t5u 0 -AC 3 inches asphalt concrele pavement . GP 3 itiches base· course - SM Gray-Silty-fine lo medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) a - ,-'O' I" 56 ' SA ' 31 light a:,x!atlon staining a 5-I ,, SOil;" 2 5 21 %F ' I _,. ,0-I" 73 3 Becomes with occasional grawl " -, 0 " < ~ • :i:' '\(:) ~ -· ~ •' • Q 0 m 15-I' 50/5" ' ' 'I ~ - ~ f - • _,l> t ! ~ - " 0 i I 20-l" 65 5 • 0 I -~ --- u Note: See Figure A-1 for e)q)lanation of symbols . • 0 " • , ! Log of Boring GEl-8 . j Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical Office Building Project ! GEOENGINEERS a i Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 " Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheel 1 of 1 APPENDIXC BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES Included in this section are logs from previous studies completed in the immediate vicinity of the project site: • The logs of four borings (GEl-8 through GE~11) completed by GeoEngineers and presented in the Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Medical Office Building Geotechnical Report dated May 6, 2016 as task two of this study. • The log of one boring (B-1) and eight test pits (21 through 28) completed by Converse Consultants NW in 1987 for the Valley Medical Center Garage project; • The log of one boring (B-2) completed by Converse Consultants NW in 1989 for the Valley Medical Center Garage Phase II project; • The logs of seven borings (B-1 through B-7) completed by Terra Associates in 1987 for the Valley Medical Center Office Building project; and • The logs of four borings (B-1 through B-4) and two hand augers (HA-1 and HA-2) completed by GeoEngineers in 2001 for the Warehouse Office Building project GEOENGINEERs_g August 2. 2016 PageC-1 APPENDIX C Boring Logs from Previous Studies APPENDIXB LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to GeoEngineers' laboratory and evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing to determine the moisture content, percent fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) and sieve analyses. The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of ASTM International (ASTM) or other applicable procedures. Moisture Content Moisture content tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Percent Passing U.S. No. 200 Sieve (%F) Selected samples were "washed" through the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve to estimate the relative percentages of coarse-and fine-grained particles in the soil. The percent passing value represents the percentage by weight of the sample finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. These tests were conducted to verify field descriptions and to estimate the fines content for analysis purposes. Thetests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1140. and the results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the respective sample depths. GeoENGINEERs._9 A-.igust2. 2016 PageB-1 APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing FIELD DATA ! I c 1 ~ I, C ~ E MATERIAL I • • 8' 0 ] 8 " > ~ REMARKS C ~ • DESCRIPTION i l 0 I • u ~ "' • ~ ~ ~ ~ '::-§_ > .. o.·-' • ~ 8 0. ,~ ; C > -· •• • • • • 0 0 • ~ an -~ e ~' w c:, g oc iii u ;:: " ~8 ~s J,~ ' . 25-I' 50/5" 7 . µ!' a 30-I'° 50J4" a ---· ------------ Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-7 (continued) GEoENGINEERS CJ Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-8 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet2 of2 ,>lo!! Em! I Total 30.8 I Logged By SJB \ Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. I Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger Drilled 41412016 4/4/2016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method Surface Elevation (ft} 87.53 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich 050 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVDBB Data 140 (lbs)/ 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299051.08 System WA State Plane.North Groundwater Depth to Northing M 165090.91 Datum NAD83 (!BBi) Qau:i Mea&1.1~ -f:ll~iQ!l (ft) Notes: Not encountered FIELD DATA ~ I t I, C MATERIAL ~ I 'iii 8' 0 REMARKS '!! ~ ;; t C i " > ~ • DESCRIPTION ~ • z ~ ~ { C l!! "i 'iii > • I §-~ " • t j 0 1 2. •• ~ ~ .. ~ e~ j! !C m 0 C< <D " "' <Jo u:8 0 AC 2 Inches asphalt concrete pavement ~ GP 1.s ;ncM ·tiase course------ SM Brown silty fine to coarse sand and gra'-'J! {very dense, moist) (fill) J> -I ' 5016" 1 'Sampler bomcing cw, rock. bi<M'count - -SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with grawil 5-1 ·· 60 ' (very dense. moist) (weathered glacial till) 10 " Oodafion staining %F - L,!> I 0 50/3" ' No """'""Y ~ C ; --- ~ SM Gray silty fine to medium sarld With gravel {very ' dense, moist) (glacial till) " ~ 10-1 · 50/s· 4 0 ~ •' ~ g Slow drilling ~ ,• ffi - i !1 ~ ~ t 15-I ,, 50/6" 5 I ! ~ Rou(ter drilling " 0 I-'~ • 0 I ~ ~ 20-I" 56 ' Becomes with cx::casional gravel • I u I E g Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of s~bols. 0 • ~ , ~ ! Log of Boring GEl-7 ; I GeoENGINEERS t:J Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project C i Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-8 • Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 filar! J;ruj I Tot~ Dnlled 41412016 41412016 Depth (ft) 21 -5 I Logged By SJB : Checked By DTh1 I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Surface Elevation (ft) 75.8 Vertical Datum NAVD88 Easting (X) Northing (Y) Notes: g • > • WJ I 1 1298925.69 165180.99 FIELD DATA Hammer Data System ! Datum C ! o.--, ~ 0 • t5G Autohammer 140 (lbs) 130 (in) Drop WA state Plane,North NAD83 (feet) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I I I i I :~~ Hollow-Stem Auger I Drilling Equipment G[QU[!dwate:[ C!atlM!l!illl,11~ I I i -, l l, e-; • 2 ~: ;i '!C ~8, co u:::u Diedrich 050 Track Rig Depth lo ~ Not encountered REMARKS EleYillion /It) I 0 +--+--+----+----1,...1------.ca--+---.-:=::::-c==-=====,------t-~-+---------------l -AC 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement . I " . I' 10-1,, . ,s- 20-. I" 29 36 37 52 75 65 ' %F 5 6 Note: See Figure A-1 for e:q:,lanation of symbols. GP SM SM SM 2 inches base course - Brown silty fine to medium sand ,.1ith gravel (medium dense, moist} (fill} Brown silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (medium dense. moist) (weathered glacial till) Gra·y-Smy fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (dense, moist) (glacial till) Becomes very dense Increasing gra-..el content I ' D:odation staining ,0 39 ~ Log of Boring GEl-6 ;1-------------r--~---~--:-:----:-:---""::"""-:---::-----::--:--:----1 ~ Project Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project j GEO ENGINEER 5 Q Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-? -,._ ______________ ....1....;P...;r:.:o,.:ie:.:c:.:.t .:..;N:.:u.:..;m:.:b:.:e;.;r:_:.:2::.20:.;2:..-..:.0::.24.;..·:.:0..:.0...;T:.:a.:.sk;,;..;.1.:..00:..... _______ ......;s:;;.h"'ee"-t-'-1 ot"'-'-1..J ~ 0 • < 0 , • • , u • 0 0 . ~ 5 ffi • i ~ i t i " 0 I • 0 I ~ u • 0 I u ffi t 0 , ~ ~ I a ] i • FIELD DATA ! I ! I g I C I I -. 8' 0 MATERIAL ! i ~ • > ~ 'i ~ REMARKS C • ~ ~ DESCRIPTION 0 -. I If ~ i ~ '::: ~ 5 > l .. o.·-11 c ii ~ § ~ , . i.!!! ii" i 0 • e 0 • iii " ll'. iD u ,: "' c'.5 t3 .:§ ~,· SM White to lighl gray silty fine to medium sand (very dense, moist) (Renton Formation C 25- . I", 50J5.5" 7 Sandstone) ,_,• C 30-J 10 50/4" • I C I ' L.,,• . 35-::110 50/4" • Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-5 (continued) GEoENGINEERS Q Project Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet2 of2 fila!:l Drilled 4/4/2016 Eru! I Total 4/4/2016 Depth (ft) 35.8 I Logged By DSJTMB ] Driller Gooogic Drill, Inc. Checked By Surface Elevation (ft} Vertical Datum 98.02 NAVD88 Hammet Data Easting (X) Northing (Y) 1299210.26 165309.34 Notes: FIELD DATA ~ t.. I C ----Ol .~ I I -i i ~ c.~ ".c. 1 Ii i ~ ! j 1."; e_~ D _E ~ in ~ ~ > Clo S'y'S!em Datum Autohammer 140 (lbs)/ 30 (in) Drop WA State Plane, North NAD83 (feel) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger I Method Drilling ! Equipment Groundwater Pate Measured Diedrich D50 Track Rig Depth to 11'.il<till) Nol encountered REMARKS Elmt1on/fl\ o,-l--+-+----+-+--+~G~P~+-.1-;n-ch~c-ru-s~hed~g-ra-ve=t s"u"~"'ac"i""ng"("'pa,,.rk=inccg71o"t--+-+---l-------------l ' :, 1 · ,a 5-I 10 6 I" ,, 10- I" 28 15 -110 ~2111 5 20-110 56 ' %F 4A 46 ' %F 6 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. SM surface) Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and trace organic debris (roots/wood) (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) SM SM 8rov.T1 silty fine ·to mediUl'TI iai,d with occasional gravel (medium dense, moist} {weathered glacial till) Becomes brownish orange Gray·Sntyfir'le to rT'l8diunl sand with occasional gravel (medium dense, moist) (glacial till) Becomes very dense " lS 0:,edalion staining 7 24 ~ Log of Boring GEl-5 iL------------------T""--=..:...:::....:..:...=. __ .::.. ___ :-_'."": ___ -::--:-:-'.""::---:::--:--:------, ,l Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project g GEO ENGINEERS CJ Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-S JL-----------==---1-Pccrc'.:o:1:je::c::.t:_:N~u:cm::b:::e:.:r:_.:.22:::0~2:.:·.:::02:::4.:.·..:::0..:::0..:T..:::a::::s:.:.k.:.1:::.00:::_ _______ _:s:::;h::::'"';ct.:_1 ot=2-J = Drilled 4/4/20i6 Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum E!ll! I Total 41412016 Depth (ft) 15.5 I Logged By DSJTMB I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Checked By 96. 7 Hammer Autohammer NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) I 30 (in) Drop Easting (Xi 1299202 System WA State Plane.North I ~::: Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling Equipment Groundwater Diedrich D50 Track Rig I-No-'--r1h_l..cng:...{:...Y)-'--------1'-'6=5=2-"42=-.=0-=-5-----'--D-at_u_m _______ NAD8~~3-'(~fee~t)~----I Pah; Measured Depth to l'iolO!.Jll1 fleYilliOD {ft\ § I • I I I ffi g 0 ' ~ i Notes: _.j> . I 18 5- I" - -I 18 10-I " -1 · - FIELD DATA i 8 : -i ] -. " u 6 9 6 20 38 ' %F ' lA ,. 4A •• 5 15 ->-. 3 50/3" --• Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Ml SM SM MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 inch crushed gravel surfacing {parking lot surface) Bffi Silty fine to medium sand with grawl (loose, moist) (fill) Gray to brown silt with sand (medium stiff, moist to wet) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel {medium dense. moist) (weathered glacial till) Gray silty fine to medium sal'Ki with grawl (dense lo very dense, moist) {glacial till) Obstruction encountered 20 49 , I Not encountered REMARKS Perched wa!Bf Qodation staintng Boring axJd not be act.w'ced fuf1her: practical """'6lmet · Log of Boring GEl-4 i~-------------~-_;;;..._ __ _;; _________________ -; j G EOE N G I N EE RS CJ :;~::~:: Location ~:~~~n~~~:11 ~~:~er -Parking Garage Projec~igure A-5 • Project Number: 2202--024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 1 FIELD DATA I ! ~ I ! 11 I ~ e §' C MATERIAL ! al • 1 0 ,.I C ! " ~ DESCRIPTION .. REMARKS i • ~ • u u " ~ ~ ~ != ii 'a ~ > l u ]! £. c.·-,c 8 • , " -· -~ .. • Jll • 0 ~ • ~ e~ i! ~CI w 0 .s a: ai u ;:: Cl Cl (j ~81 ' -"" 25-I . 41 ' TransiUoned lo sandier la~ . µ!' a 30-I ,, 9 76 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-3 (continued) I " GEoENGINEER~ Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of2 lllll!I ~ I Total 31.5 I Logged By SJB I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. I Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger Drilled 414/2016 41412016 Depth (ft) Ctiecked By DTM Method Surface Elevslion (ft) 87.92 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Dala 140 llbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299048.22 S'y'5tem WA State Plane.North ~[Ql,lndwa!,e:[ Northing (Y) 165275.15 Datum NAD83 (feel) Depth lo Pate MMSilred l'l'A1otJlll flAYfltion {n) Notes: See remarks FIELD DATA ! c i I, C ~ E MATERIAL ! ] • .. .3 ~ REMARKS § i .. > DESCRIPTION * l l • • • ~ 0 ~ •= ~ " > I :g_ ~--> C c • ~ ~ -~~ •£ ~ g-• .. ~ e I ~c w " :s 0: iii " ,: " "u ~8 .:8 0 GP 1.5 inches crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot SM surface) Brciwn silty fine to mediUm sand with grawl (very loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) $ I'° 3 1 20 Qange rrottl ing MC - 5-I ,. 25 2 With occsaional gra'-':11 and occasional coal Wet sampler fragments - a ~ I 12 12 3 Grades to gray , 0 ~ ~ • " SM Gray silty fine" io"medium sana withoccasfona1 < 10-I , 50/3" 4 gravel (dense to wry dense, moist) {glacial ~ till) 0 •' • § f-, ,. .. 5 ~ • if.-"-~ 0 • ~ ~ I • I • 15-I 10 B4 6 - t ! ~ ' , _,~ . • I . ' I 20-I" 78 7 I 0 0 • ffi • • Note: See Figure A-1 for e,:planalion of symbols. 0 • ~ ~ ~ Log of Boring GEl-3 ; ! GeoENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project I Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 • Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 FIELD DATA ! I ! • ' c ~ I ~ i C MATERIAL ! ] -. 8' .Q REMARKS C ] ., > -' -. §: l 0 " ~g, • u DESCRIPTION • • j -' 0 ~ > l i ~ " " • t j 0 .li g-·a > u !! el • •• • • • .. • ~ ~ B w Cl "' iii u ;,; "' 0U SM While to light gray silty fine to medium sand a with interbedded black coal (very dense. moist) (Renton Formation Sandstone) ~ 25-I 1B 61 8 ! - I ML Gray to brown silt with trace interbeds of black I ' coal (hard, dry) JP 30-I"' 5015.5' 9 I • i • • -Nole: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. i Log of Boring GEl-2 (continued) GEOENGINEERS a Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of2 ~ Eru1 I Total 31 I Logged By SJB 1 Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. I Dolling Hollow-Stem Auger Drilled 4/412016 414/2016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Metood Surface Bevatlon (ft) 90.28 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Traci< Rig Vertical Datum NAV088 Dela 140 (lbs)/ 30 (in) Drop Equlpmenl Easting (X) 1299094.03 System WA State Plane.North Gtouodwater Northing (Y) 165403.44 Datum NAD83 (feet) Depth to C:11~ MAuucml w.tm.Jru l;.ltiiliQ!l (fl) Notes: See remarks FIELD DATA ! c } I, C MATERIAL ~ -a; 8' 0 ! "O • ~ REMARKS ~ • > ~ • ! ! C ; ~ .::l u DESCRIPTION 0 u ~ ~ • > ~ 3 t a." c c i i j ~ ~ I ~· s •S i ~ e; C !8 iii " a: iii u " <>0 8 ~<f> 0 GP 1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot SM surface) Brown silty fine to medium sand 'Nith 9ra\J8f and a organics (medium dense, moist} (fill) 1 · 19 1 Qxidatic:wi stainingiorange mot!llng, till-fill - -a ~* s- I'° 27 2 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel O:ddation staining (medium dense, moist) - a I 'Blowcount <MlfSlated, sampler botncing on -I , 5013"" 3 roclc duing sampling ~ Becomes gray 0 • < ~ • ~~ 10-I ,. 12 ' 14 34 § "' " •' ~ § ! I" s Water in sampler i 14 " • ~ ~ - f ML Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (very dense, wet) (glacial tiU) i ,-'\'° 15-I ,. 75 ' I ~ § I • I ' a-"~ 20-I " 54 ' Becomes moist I ffi - • • " Note: See Ftgure A-1 for explanation of symbols. a 0 ~ I Log of Boring GEl-2 . ~ Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project ! GEOENGINEERS a Project: J Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 FIELD DATA I ! ;[ ! E C I • • 8' 0 MATERIAL _I C ¥ i " > ~ i l REMARKS 0 I • 0 DESCRIPTION £ .. • Ir ~ .s ~ ~ > '"-Q. s: ' 0i • t 2 ~ li. 0 ,• • .. 0 ! ~ 0~ • • .. ~ C ~· w a .s 0: ai u ;; c3 <3 8 ~8 SM White to light gray fine to medium sand (very :::smootnet dilling at 22 feet dense, moist) (Renton Formation Sandstone) I I 25-I 17 S3111· 7 -"' Note: See Figure A·1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-1 (continued) j GEoENGINEERS CJ Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton. Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of2 ' • ' t • ' ' ' • 0 0 0 i - I l Slil!! En<1 I Total 26.5 I Logged By SJB I Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. \ Dnlllng Hollaw-Stem Auger Drilled 4/412016 41412016 ' Depth (tt) Checked By DTM Melhod Surface Elevation (ft) 76.39 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D5D Traci< Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Dala 140 (lbs)/ 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298928.83 System WA State Plane,North Ga:nindw8!er Northing M 165386.17 Datum NAD83 (feet) Oep11\1o Dato Measured 'llalor.(ru flfMl]ipn {ft\ Notes: Not encountered FIELD DATA I c -! I, C ;, • MATERIAL I • -. ~ 0 REMARKS ¥ = C i " > ffl DESCRIPTION l l i • u 0 ~ u ;, = • • t. ~ " l > ~ g-·~ ffl ~ § -· ~~ i J!! .. 1i e e-" ~! w -" 0: u " '-' '-'U u::8 0 AC 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement -c·--3 inch&S-base couise ----GP ,• SM srown silty firie "to medium S8nd with gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill) ML Brown lo gray sandy silt (stiff, moist) . , ,. 14 1A 35 53 %F 18 SM BrOWrl silty fine to medluln S8nd (inedium dense, moist) ,-, ,. 13 2 With occasional gra'loel Omation staining, till-fill -i _,o s-...-·--Gray siltyflne to medium sand with gra1iel , ,. 22 ' (medium dense. moist) (weathered glacial 13 46 ~, till) . SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gra'lel (\lery 10-, ,. 66 4 dense, moist) (glacial till) ...,,. . - - ,,_ I ,, 85/11 • 5 . __,,, . . . 20-, ,. 71 ' - -~ .. --- Note: See Figure A-1 for e:q:ilanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-1 GEOENGINEERS Q Project: Valley Medical Center -Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN GW WELL·GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL GRAVELS ORAi/EL -SA"ID MIXTURES AND ---------------------- GRAVELLY ,UTY\.E QJ! i,,o F,1,11"S1 GP POORl Y-GRADEO GRAVELS SOILS GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES ' .. " -------------- COARSE GRAVELS WITH ., GM Sil TY GRAVELS GRAVEL SA,D GRAINED '-'ORE TH.6J.150'1. . SILT MIXTURES OF Co.-.RSE FINES SOILS FflACTION --- REH,JNED ON ~ ,,,PPREf:IAllLE AMOIJl,IT 4 SIEVE GC CLAYE"I' GRAVELS, GRAVEL - OF f1NES1 SANO-CLAY MIXTURES SW WELL•GRADEO SANDS, CLEAN SANOS GRAVELLY SA.NOS l.40l'!E Tl-lANSl)'s. SAND --------------- RETAINEDON..O AND urn.E OR t.o rn.es1 200SIEVE SP POORLY-GRADED SANOS, SANDY GRAVELLY SANO SOILS MO>IE THANf>O'lli SANDS WITH SM SIL TY SANDS, SAl'JD Slli OF COARSE FINES MIXTURES FRACTION ---- P"'5Sl"IG "IQ 4 ! SIEVE ,.A.P~ec,•l!H .o.1o1C>\J',IT SC CL.AYE.Y SANDS, SANO· CV.Y Off,"1ES, Ml:w:nJRES IN~GAt..lC Sil TS, ROCK ML FLOUR ClAYEY SIL TS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY ---------- INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW 10 SILTS UQJIO ll"41• CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY ' CLAYS, SANOY CU..YS. SIL TV F!NE AND L.fSS THAN Sl'.I CLAYS LEAN CLAYS------- GRAINED ClAYS SOILS OL ORGAflllC SIL TS AND ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS Of LOW PLASTICITY MORE. THAN 50'. MH INORGANIC SIL TS. MICACEOUS PASSINGNO 20(! ORDIATOMACEOUS SILTY SIEVE SOILS ---·------ SILTS UOU·a Ur.llT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH AND GRE.ATE"' THA",i ~ CH P\..ASTlCrTY CLAYS --------· ----·--- OH ORGANIC CLAYS AND S1LTS0F MEOlUM TO HIGH PU,STICITV HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUt.!US. SWAMP SOILS WITH H!GH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to Indicate borderline or dual soil classifications Sampler Symbol Descriptions [] 2.4.inch I.D. split barrel [I Standard Penetration Test (SPT} • Shelby tube ~ Piston ~ Direct~Push D Bulk or grab D Continuous Coring Blowcount Is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 Inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. A ''WOH" Indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the hammer. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS w %F %G AL CA CP cs OS HA MC MD QC PM Pl pp PPM SA TX UC vs NS 55 MS HS NT TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS Asphalt Concrete TS Cement Concrete Crushed Rock/ Quarry Spalls I !opsoil/ Lorest Duff/Sod Groundwater Contact Measured groundwater level in exploration, welt, or piezometer Measured free product In well or plezometer Graphic Log Contact Distinct contact between soil strata Approximate contact between soil strata Material Description Contact Contact between geologic units Contact between soil of the same geologic unit Laboratory I Field Tests Percent fines Percent gravel Atterberg limits Chemical analysis Laboratory compaction test Consolldatlon test Direct shear Hydrometer analysls Moisture content Moisture content and dry density Organic content Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Plasticity index Pocket penetrometer Parts per million Sieve analysis Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Vane shear Sheen Classification No Visible Sheen Slight Sheen Moderate Sheen Heavy Sheen Not Tasted NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GEoENGINEER~ FIGURE A-1 Rev. 02/16 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling seven borings (GEl-1 through GEl-7). The borings were completed to depths of approximately 151/2 to 35% feet below existing site grades. The borings were completed by Geologic Drill, Inc. on April 4, 2016. The locations of the explorations were surveyed by Bush Roed & Hitchings, Inc. as part of the general project survey. The exploration locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Borings The borings were completed using track-mounted, continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment owned and operated by Geologic Drill, Inc. of Spokane, Washington. The borings were continuous~ monitored by a geotechnical engineer or geologist from our firm who examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. The soils encountered in the borings were generally sampled at 21/2-and 5-foot vertical intervals with a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The disturbed samples were obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration was recorded. The blow count ("N-value"J of the soil was calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense soil conditions precluded driving the full 18 inches, the penetration resistance for the partial penetration was entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. Soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the boring log symbols is also presented in Figure A-1. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-2th rough A-8. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils and groundwater conditions encountered. The logs also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. The densities noted on the boring logs are based on the blow count data obtained in the borings and judgment based on the conditions encountered. Observations of groundwater conditions were made during drilling. The groundwater conditions encountered during drilling are presented on the boring logs. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling represent a short-term condition and may or may not be representative of the long-term groundwater conditions at the site. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling should be considered approximate. GEOENGINEERsg August 2. 2016 Page A-1 APPENDIX A Field Explorations ~ ~ , m ~ ~ I ii i1 ~ ~ r • ~ l LATERAL EARTH POI NT LOAD. 0 £ PRESSURE FROM (SPREAD FOOTING) p I ---1- I---• 1- I j --~-'-1 I- -F ' -· ; ·-· __ 1 "; ,_ ., ',. -,:;, -_____ __::.r:_ Ii' C ---------- ~· I,.-~ ·•· •· ':\, r ---,s' ~ ~L ..::,'·-~. 'CI 1-- ./ ___ - --=-;,-=i-'--., I- _L -,,.,,. ---- SECTION A-A LATERAL EARTH LINE LOAD. 0L. _! I --. - PRESSURE FROM {CONTINUOUS WALL F l=-~ • f----- ·--t -- -_!_ F·~ r: rv ;;; ·a '"":. ~':. ~ _,_ ;.; r ·· 1,-~ ~-' -- ·-' ------- ,:::_ ·~,~- "- FOOTING} UNIFORM SURCHARGES, q (FLOOR LOADS. LARGE FOUNDATION ELEMENTS OR TRAFFIC LOADS} ' ' ' I----- I- t= I----- '!..,, --J ,-. ·=-E:.:. -~:---- :::.·;::. -;::,, ' ; -1.:. .- ~ --,-~. ~!L __ ~ _____ __L_ ________ _L_ ______ I ~ Definitions: " i ..... _ :::: Point load in pounds N f ~ g ~ Q Line load in pounds/foot Excavation height below footing, feet lateral earth pressure from surcharge, psf -Surcharge pressure in psf Radians = Distribution of · .. in plan view -Resultant lateral force acting on wall, pounds Notes: 1. Procedures for estimating surcharge pressures shown above are based on Manual 7.02 Naval Facilities Engineering Command, September 1986 (NAVFAC DM 7.02). 2. Lateral earth pressures from surcharge should be added to earth pressures presented on Figures 3 and 4. Recommended Surcharge Pressure Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington §. ~ s: al 'l _____ ~__:~~==~=~=:~::::~~=:=~==~=~=~--------------------------------------------------------------------=======-----------------------~ ' ~ -Distance from base of excavation to resultant lateral force, feet 3. See report text for where surcharge pressures are appropriate. r GeoENGINEERS Q Figure 5 ~ 0 PERMANENT BASEMENT WALL DESIGN PRESSURES I------ -----·------ ,__ , . -:----::,-.,···; I -j C--- -- -- -I •:'; C: ) _, ~- L NOTTO SCALE Notes 1. This pressure diagram is appropriate for permanent basement walls. If additional surcharge loading (such as from soil stockpiles, excavators. dumptrucks, cranes, or concrete trucks) is anticipated, GeoEngineers should be consulted to provide revised surcharge pressures. 2. The static earth pressure does not include a factor of safety and represents the actual anticipated static earth pressure. --· Height of Basemen! Wall, Feet -Foundation Embedment Depth, Feet Maximum Static Earth Pressure Pounds per Square Foot Earth Pressure Diagram Permanent Below Grade Walls Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington I ~ ~ GEO ENGINEERS a::_;.. __ J _ _____l_F_ig_ur_e _4 __J: • ._ __________________________________________________ _J ~ ~ :;; ~ :!I CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE -i _. r. :1 _lj_ -~---',----+~-----' -.- L ~-------_J ,--- SOLDIER PILE WALL WITH ONE LEVEL OF TIEBACKS -1 _J_ ---l- "-, ! L ,___ ----' -~ . f-!~ ··.,-f _, -v-· -·---: ---' SOLDIER PILE WALL WITH MULTIPLE LEVELS OF TIEBACKS ' ,X : __l_ _ __ l_ I _L~------~ ~ L ' I - --,.~- _:r >· ::.·1·;:.-,·..:. ·-·r, JC C: -::o~,·.e .. --:-~:~ .,-..: ;---; -. : j '.-'. ~ ..J _;:, ·~ -··t;·:-,:-; ':..:. -· ~":, ., t. ij------~~:~~~~~-:--~~~~:----~~:-~-=':~:~~_:_i _____ ~:~~---~~---~~:~~~Nc)ttc~:ciilE~-----------=::__:_: __ : ___ L ___________________________________________ l ~ Not to Scale • I! s ;s l ~. --= .-~ ;-----1·-~"',·:-;• '::C ·;: 'j ~-- ..J -~ : +-: r. r..:.. ~; <: '"'· -·-r1 ~-_::, ·r ~·1·0,-- ''~ C ,-::.· '.'. ~-'.J (·~~,I ,-. l,_e_@ncJ !Load Case :PaSSive Pressure , Coefficient (X) Static Seismic ~ 8 i' "' i i :,: N 0 N Notes: 1. Active, apparent earth pressure and surcharge act over the pile spacing above the base of the excavation. 2. Passive earth pressure acts over 2.5 times the concreted diameter of the soldier pile, or the pile spacing, whichever is less. 3. Passive pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5 390 4. Additional surcharge from footings of adjacent buildings should be included in accordance with recommendations provided on Figure 5. 5. This pressure diagram is appropriate for temporary soldier pile and tieback walls. If additional surcharge loading (such as from soil stockpiles, excavators, dumptrucks, cranes. or concrete trucks) is anticipated. GeoEngineers should be consulted to provide revised surcharge pressures. 520 No Load Zone Height of Excavation, Feet Soldier Pile Embedment Depth, feet -!. c::_ Distance From Ground Surface to Uppermost Tieback, Feet = Horizontal Load in Uppermost Ground Anchor Maximum Apparent Earth Pressure Pounds per Square Foot Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (See Table) Earth Pressure Diagram Soldier Pile & Tieback Wall Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington Figure 3 GEOENGINEERS CJ 6. Seismic earth pressure to be included for design of permanent walls. "' ~~-------------------------------------------==========================--i ~ _l,l !'.l l; a, "" ~ ~ co" 0 ;;,- 0 ~ g .:I J!l c'l N u. ~ r ,::, C: .. a: .. ~I "' e ~ g "' 0 "' Si- .; I ~ I ' l _:1- : i I ., __ - "'·-,-- .•::-' --- HA-2 ... B-2 ~ . HA-1 ... --8-1~ 1-<>- -. -,.-~ -- -+-22 21+ (fl 8-3~ -- ~ B-4~. -----------+ 28 ·'·· ---- ' J .. ----L .: 23+ 8-2 3!l'. 2s+ B-6 •--. . ----- ·e-4 ~ ,T < ,,,o \,. 21 =.---- ,. s-1+. -~ s-s+ ·-. ,'. ; . --... ' ·--- 7-... / ,,. -' . __ ......... : ·-·t . - s-2 ·+· ·--8-3 + ~:· :~ ·.::. r . ' -.....,_~· \ I ,,/ I ) •. A B-1 ·--; •. T , - _/':,-;.. ·--I" •. .. ...._, -, .... ~ ...... _1------------·' - ·-~ --~-- I 26 0 + .-.,-~. ,- . ·, ·. \ . 0 6 < ~ I / "-._ !B r-...... / ~ / ~ ~ ·/ ,-........._ 7 ~ .. ~ I . -------- . . } . J a. . ~.. .... ~ --.......__ I ---------... I l ---I / . / -,: ..... __ ', "' I!: ~ ' ~ & •-."_ 60 65 10 . ?5 80 : 85 90 /-Proposed Parking Garage ///·- .,_ !' J ~ ---·--·----·---·--------. --·------ ,.. -;. ----o-,-.-._~.i--~_ .... _..,...,_:.~-.--~=~..,.:,,.+-··; ' ·-: .. -,!, .4·--. -----· -~ -i .~GEl-9 I I ,_ "! -- \, • ,-· / • '-....._ ....... -- . -:-, ·- ·---...... I : ) I \.oO I / • .c: .... ::, 0 er, 'O (1J £ .. 0 .Q ;§ Legend GEl-1 1,-Boring by GeoEngineers, 2016 8-1 + 8-2 3!l'. 1 -<>- 21 + 8-1 ~ HA-1 T ---, , __ J Boring by Terra Associates, 1989 Bo rin g by Converse Consultants NW , 1989 Bor in g by Converse Consultants NW, 1987 Test Pit by Converse Consultants NW, 1987 Boring by GeoEng ineers , 2001 Hand Auger by GeoEngineers, 2001 Proposed Build i ng N E s 100 0 100 ----Feet Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approx imate . 2 . This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist i n showing fe atures discussed i n an attache d document. GeoEngineers, Inc . cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is st ored by Geo Engineers . Inc. and will serve as the official record or this communication . Data Sou rc e : Base aerial photo for Mic rosoft bing map server. Projection : NAD83 Wash ington State Planes, North Zone, US Foo t. Site Plan Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington . GEOENGINEERS Q Figure 2 © ® ~ : (I) E .c 0 0 <.O ~ 0 N oi ® ~ ~ "C .. 3l ·:;; (I) O•ltllA Ct'. 0. ro ~ l!NSON HILL @ "C )( E ci -ro ~ ·1: "" ·u > ~ LL 0 ~I L..--------,-----------------------------------------------------, N 0 --~ -....... "'.:"" ..... lt.rtlt • - N ~ (J) c3 ~ N 0 N ·---- ~ .. S:l -~ , ....... 0..: ..c -~ Notes. 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2 . This drawing is for in formation purposes . It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers , Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electron ic files. The master fi le is stored by GeoEngineers. Inc . and will serve as the official record of this communication . 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce a ll or any part thereof. whether for personal use or resale. without permission. Data Sources : Open Street Map, 2016. Transverse Mercator. Zone 10 N Nor1h. Nor1h Amencan Datum 1983 North arrow onenled lo gnd north 2,000 0 Feet Vicinity Map Val l ey Medical Center Rento n, Washington 2.000 GEoENGINEER~ Figure 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. 1999, "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4, Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems," FHWA Report No. FHWA-IF-99-015. U.S. Geological Survey -National Seismic hazard Mapping project Software, "Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.0.9a," 2002 data, 2009. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014, "Standard Specifications for Road. Bridge and Municipal Construction." GmENGINEER5Y ,\ugust2.2016 Pngr19 New Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement At a minimum, paved areas exposed to automobile traffic only should consist of 2 inches of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) (Class 'h inch, PG-58) over 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course. In areas of truck traffic, new pavement sections should consist of at least 3 inches ofHMA over 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course. The crushed surfacingbasecourseshould meettherequirementsof Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (1%-inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services GeoEngineers should be retained to review the project plans and specifications when complete to confirm that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. Any changes in design, especial~ the incorporation of elements that deepen the required depth of excavation, will likely go below the water table and could require additional temporary construction dewatering measures. During construction. GeoEngineers should observe the installation of the shoring system, review/collect shoring and groundwater monitoring data, evaluate the suitability of the foundation subgrades, obser-.e installation of subsurface drainage measures, evaluate structural backfill, observe the condition of temporary cut slopes, and provide a summary letter of our construction observation services. The purposes of GeoEngineers construction phase services are to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix E. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center and their authorized agents for the VMC FY 2017 Parking Garage Project in Renton, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix E titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. REFERENCES City of Seattie, 2014, ·standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." International Code Council, 2012, "International Building Code." Mullineaux D.R., 1965 "Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington." USGS GeoENGtNEEasJ? August 2. 2016 Page 18 fi1,_, "" ;>:10] 0:.:.:. OU Weather Considerations The on-site soils contain a sufficient percentage of fines (silt and clay) to be moisture-sensitive. When the moisture content of these soils is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content, these soils become muddy and unstable, and operation of equipment on these soils is difficult. Additionally, disturbance of near-surface soils should be expected if earthwork is completed during periods of wet weather. During wet weather, we recommend that: • The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is directed away from the work area. The ground surface should be graded such that areas of ponded water do not develop. The contractor should take measures to prevent surface water from collecting in excavations and trenches. Measures should be implemented to remove surface water from the work area. • Slopes with exposed soils should be covered with plastic sheeting or similar means. • The site soils should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficial soils by rolling with a smooth-drum roller prior to periods of precipitation will reduce the extent to which these soils become wet or unstable. • Construction traffic should be restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced with materials not susceptible to wet weather disturbance. • Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soils are left exposed to moisture is reduced to the extent practicable. Permanent Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2H:1V. To achieve uniform compaction, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt slightly (1 to 2 feet) and subsequently cut back to expose properly compacted fill. We recommend that the finished slope faces be compacted by track walking with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours so that the track grouser marks help provide an erosion-resistant slope texture. To reduce erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading. Until the vegetation is established, some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected. This may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as clear heavy plastic sheeting. jute fabric, loose straw, or excelsior or straw/coconut matting, should be used to protect the slopes during periods of rainfall. Pavement Recommendations Subgrade Preparation We recommend that the sub grade soils in new pavement areas be prepared and evaluated as described in the "Earthwork" section of this report We recommend that the subgrade be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD per ASTM D 1557 prior to placing pavement section materials. If the subgrade soils are loose or soft, it may be necessary to excavate the soils and replace them with structural fill. A layer of suitable woven geotextile fabric may be placed over softsubgradeareas to limit the thickness of structural fill required to bridge soft, yielding areas. The depth of overexcavation or fabric placement should be evaluated by GeoEngineers during construction. GEOENGINEER'-9 August2.2016 Page17 • Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements and sidewalks should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (11/4-inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. On-51te So/ls The on-site soils are moisture-sensitive and generally have natural moisture contents higher than the anticipated optimum moisture content for compaction. As a result, the on-site soils will likely require moisture conditioning in order to meet the required compaction criteria during dry weather conditions and will not be suitable for reuse during wet weather. Furthermore, most of the fill soils required forthe project have specific gradation requirements, and the on-site soils do not meet these gradation requirements. If the contractor wants to use on-site soils for structural fill, GeoEngineers can evaluate the on-site soils for suitability as structural fill, as required. RI/ Placement and Compaction Criteria Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm. non-yielding condition. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 1 foot in thickness. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria: • Structural fill placed in building areas (supporting or adjacent to foundations or slab-on-grade floors) should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. • Structural fill placed within 10 feet of the back of subgrade and retaining walls should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of the MDD. Care should be taken when compacting fill against subsurface walls to avoid over-compaction and hence overstressingthe walls. Structural fill beyond this 10-foot zone should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. • Structural fill in new pavement and roadway areas, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to 90 percent of the MDD, except that the upper 2 feet of fill below final subgrade shouk:J be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD. • Structural fill placed as crushed rock base course below pavements should be compacted to 95 percent of the MOD. We recommend that GeoEngineers be present duringprobingof the exposed subgradesoils in building and pavement areas, and during placement of structural fill. We will evaluate the adequacy of the subgra:te soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in-place moisture-density tests in the fill to verify compliance with the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to the procedures that may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. GEOENGINEER~ August 2, 2016 Pag'16 • confining sediment to the project site; • inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently; • covering soil stockpiles; and • implementing proper erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to help reduce the potential for erosion and reduce transport of sediment to adjacent areas. Temporary erosion protection should include the construction of a silt fence around the perimeter of the work area prior to the commencement of grading activities. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by reestablishing vegetation using hydroseeding and/or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring should be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and repair and/or modify them as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade in structure and hardscape areas should be evaluated after site excavation s complete. Disturbed areas below slabs and foundations should be recompacted if the subgrade soil consists of granular material. If the subgrade soils consist of disturbed soils, it will likely be necessary to remove and replace the disturbed soil with structural fill unless the soil can be adequately moisture- conditioned and compacted. Structural All Fill placed to support structures, placed behind retaining structures, and placed below pavements and sidewalks will need to be specified as structural fill as described below: • Structural fill placed within utility trenches and below pavement and sidewalk areas and below foundations should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3). Common borrow is only suitable for use during dry weather. lffill is placed during wet weather, WSDOT gravel borrow should be used, as described in Section 9-03.14(1). • Structural fill placed as capillary break material should meet the requirements of Type 22 (%-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (11/2-inch minus crushed gravel). • Structural fill placed behind retainingwalls should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT gravel backfill for walls Section 9-03.12(2). • Structural fill placed around perimeter footing drains, underslab drains and cast-in-place wall drains should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 5 (1-inch washed gravel) or Type 22 (%-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT gravel backfill for drains Section 9-03.12(4). GEOENGINEER~ August 2, 2016 Page 15 with ASTM D-1557. The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. The above soil pressures assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatc pressure behind the walls, as discussed below. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided behind cast-in-place retaining walls by placing a minimum 2-foot-wide zone of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, with the exception that the percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve is to be less than 3 percent Alternatively, the 2-foot-wide zone of material may consist of gravel backfill for walls in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(2). A perforated drainpipe should be placed near the base of the retaining wall to provide drainage. The drainpipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (%-inch crushed gravel) or Type 5 (1-inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. or gravel backfill for drains in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage, WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33. The wall drainpipe should be connected toa header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger-diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems. Earthwork Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing We recommend that all new pavement and structure areas be stripped of organic-rich soils (sod, grass, topsoil), and vegetation. Based on our observations, we anticipate that stripping depths will generally be about 6 to 12 inches. Stripping depths will be locally greater where large trees are cleared and grubbed. The stripped organic soil may be stockpiled for later use as topsoil for landscaping purposes. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods, slope length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing, and weather. The project's impact on erosion-prone areas can be reduced by implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable City and/or county standards. The plan should incorporate basic planning principles including: • scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure; • retaining existing vegetation whenever feasible; • revegetating or mulching denuded areas; • directing runoff away from denuded areas; • minimizing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils; • decreasing runoff velocities; GEOENGINEERs£i Au~ust2, 2016 Page 14 Below-Grade Walls Permanent Below-Orade Walls Permanent below-grade walls constructed in front of temporary shoring walls should be designed using the earth pressures presented in Figure 4. Foundation surcharge loads and traffic surcharge loads should be incorporated into the design of the below-grade walls using the surcharge pressures presented in Figure 5. Other surcharge loads, such as from construction equipment or construction staging areas, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We can provide the lateral pressures from these surcharge loads as the design progresses. The soil pressures recommended above assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls, as described above in the" Excavation Support" section of this report, and tied to permanent drains to remove water to suitable discharge points. Other CasNn-Place Walls Conventional cast-in-place walls may be necessary for small retaining structures located on-site or where temporary open cuts are used for excavation support. The lateral soil pressures acting on conventional cast-in-place subsurface walls will depend on the nature, density and configuration of the soil behind the wall and the amount of lateral wall movement that can occur as backfill is placed. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall, soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. Assuming that the walls are backfilled and drainage is provided as outlined in the following paragraphs, we recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fiuid density of 35 pcf (triangular distribution), while non-yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent flud density of 55 pcf (triangular distribution). For seismic loading conditions, a rectangular earth pressure equal to 14H pounds per square foot (psf) (where H is the height of the wall in feet) should be added to the active/at-rest pressures. A traffic surcharge pressure of 70 psf should also be included in the design, as appropriate. Other surcharge loading should be applied as appropriate using the recommendations provided in Figure 5. We recommend that below-grade wall or other retaining wall foundations be designed using the foundaoon recommendations provided above under "Shallow Foundations.· For retaining walls independent of building structures (grade-transition walls), the retaining wall footings may be supported on 2 feet of structural fill placed over the existing fill soils. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to a firm condition prior to placement of the 2-foot-thick layer of structural fill. An allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf may be used for this foundation support condition. Lateral resistance for conventional cast-in-place walls can be provided by frictional resistance along the base of the wall and passive resistance in front of the wall. For walls founded on native soils or structu@ fill, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent flud densities of 390 pcf (triangular distribution). The allowable passive resistance for structural fill assumes that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element for a distance of at least equal to 21/, times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD in accordance GEO ENGINEER~ August 2, 2016 P,ige 13 ,,,,. ',: 2~,:.: .::,~~ 0(' We recommend that the slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a 6-inch-thick capillary break consisting of 1 V2-inch minus clean crushed gravel with negligible sand or silt meeting the requirements Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57 or Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (%-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. Provided that loose soil is removed and the subgrade is prepared as recommended, we estimate that slabs-on-grade will not settle appreciably. BeloW-Slab Drainage We expect the static groundwater level to be located well below the slab-on-grade level for the proposed building; however perched groundwater may be present above the slab subgradeelevation. We recommend installing an underslab drainage system to remove water from below the slabs-on-grade. The undersab drainage system should include an interior perimeter drain and one or more longitudinal drains with transverse pipes placed at a nominal spacing of 20 feet The location of the longitudinal drain(s)will depend on the foundation and below-gradestructu re design and may need to be modified to two or more transverse drains or drains located behind interior cast-in-place walls. The civil engineer should develop a conceptual foundation drainage plan for GeoEngineers to review. The drains should consist of perforated Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes with a minimum diameter of 4 inches placed in a trench at least 12 inches deep. The top of the underslab drainage system trenches should coincide with the base of the capillary break layer. The underslab drainage system pipes should have adequate slope to allow positive drainage to the sump/gravity drain. The drainage pipe should be perforated. Perforated pipe should have two rows of %·inch holes spaced 120 degrees apart and at 4 inches on center. The underslab drainage system trenches should be backfilled with Mineral Aggregate Type 22 or Type 5 (1-inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or gravel backfill for drains in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage, WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33. The undersab drainage system pipes should be connected to a header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems. The flow rate for the planned excavation in the below-slab drainage and below-grade wall drainage systems is anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 10 gpm. If no special waterproofing measures are taken, leaks and/or seepage may occur in localized areas of the below-grade portion of the building, even if the recommended wall drainage and below-slab drainage provisions are constructed. If leaks or seepage is undesirable, below-grade waterproofing should be specified. A vapor barrier should be used below slab-on-grade floors located in occupied portions of the building. Specification of the vapor barrier requires consideration of the performance expectations of the occupied space, the type of flooring planned and other factors, and is typically completed by other members of the project team. If partial below-grade waterproofing is specified (for instance, for elevator pits), the waterproofing should extend to at least the elevation of the lowest finished floor so that the waterproofing will be located above the elevation where foundation drainage is provided. GEOENGINEER~ August 2. 2016 Page 12 The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. Construction Considerations We recommend that the condition of all subgrade areas be observed by GeoEngineers to evaluate whether the work is completed in accordance with our recommendations and whether the subsurface conditions are as anticipated. If foundation construction is completed during periods of wet weather, foundation subgrades are recommended to be protected with a rat slab consisting of 2 to 4 inches of lean or structural concrete. If soft areas are present at the footing su bgrade elevation, the soft areas should be removed and replaced with lean concrete or structural fill at the direction of GeoEngineers. We recommend that the contractor consider leaving the subgrade for the foundations as much as 6 to 12 inches high, depending on soil and weather conditions, until excavation to final subgrade is required for foundation reinforcement Leaving subgrade high will help reduce damage to the subgrade resulting from construction traffic for other activities. Slab-on-Grade Floors Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade should be evaluated after site grading is complete. Proof-rolling with heavy, rubber-tired construction equipment should be used for this purpose during dry weather and if access for this equipment is practical. Probing shou Id be used to evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather or if access is notfeasible for construction equipment. The exposed soil should be firm and unyielding, aid without significant groundwater. Disturbed areas should be recompacted if possible or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The site should be rough graded to approximately 1 foot above slab subgrade elevation prior to foundation construction in order to protect the slab subgradesoils from deterioration from wet weather or construction traffic. After the foundations have been constructed, the remaining soils can be removed to final subgrade elevation followed by immediate placement of the capillary break material. In areas were existing fill is present below buildings, the existing soil may be left in place below the slab provided the slab is founded on at least 1 foot of structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the MOD in accordance with ASTM 01557. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to a firm condition prior to placement of the 1-foot-thick layer of structural fill. Design Parameters Conventional slabs may be supported on-grade, provided the subgradesoils are prepared as recommended in the "Subgrade Preparation" section above. For slabs designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for slabs supported on glacial till. For slabs supported on a 1-foot layer of structural fill overlying existing fill soils, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci. GrnENGINEERsg August 2. 2016 P;,ge 11 Exploration Number GEl-6 GEl-7 Notes: Approximate Depth to Competent Glaclally Consolidated Soffs1 (feet) 5 5 :oepth below existing ground surface Where foundations are planned to bear on existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils (elevations higher than shown in Table 3), we recommend a minimum of 2 feet be overexcavated below the foundation elevation and replaced with compacted structural fill. Existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils will still remain for this condition; therefore, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf be used. The zone of structural fill below the foundation should extend beyond the faces of the footing a distance at least equal to the thickness of the structural fill. The zone of structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MOD) in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. If loose existing fill is encountered, further overexcavation may be necessary. The allowable soil bearing pressures provided above apply to the total of dead and long-term live loads and may be increased by upto one-third for wind or seismic loads. The allowable soil bearing pressures are nEt values. We recommend that conventional shallow foundations be a minimum of 36 inches wide and continuous wall footings be a minimum of 16 inches wide. Exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Interior footings should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below top of slab. Settlement Provided that all loose soil is removed and that the subgrade is prepared as recommended under "Construction Considerations" below, we estimate that the total settlement of shallow foundations will be about 1 inch or less. The settlements will occur rapidly, essentially as loads are applied. Differential settlements between footings could be half of the total settlement. Note that smaller settlements will result from lower applied loads. Lateral Resistance Lateral foundation loads may be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of footings and by friction on the base of the shallow foundations. For shallow foundations supported on native soils or structural fill, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 390 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (triangular distribution). This value is appropriate for foundation elements that are poured directly against undisturbed glacial till or surrounded by structural fill. The allowable passive resistance for structural fill assumes that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element for a distance of at least equal to 21/2 times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent of the MOD in accordance with ASTM D-1557. GEOENGINEER..o August 2, 2016 Page 10 ConstlUctlon Considerations Temporary casing or drilling fluid may be required to install the soldier piles and tiebacks where: • loose fill is present; and • the native soils do not have adequate cementation or cohesion to prevent caving or raveling; and/or perched groundwater is present. GeoEngineers should be allowed to observe and document the installation and testing of the shoring to verify conformance with the design assumptions and recommendations. Shallow Foundations Subgrade soils at foundation elevation level for the project will be dependent on the depth of excavation and the finish floor elevation. The soils at the anticipated foundation elevation vary across the site and may consist of existing fill or glacially consolidated soils and sandstone bedrock, as such, the bearing capacity and subgrade preparation will vary. Where foundations bear on competent glacially consolidated soils or bedrock a high allowable bearing capacity value can be used. Where fill is present at foundation subgrade elevation, a lower allowable bearing capacity should be used. Where the west side of the proposed garage is adjacent to the existing garage, the planned shallow foundations should extend to a depth such that the loads are not transferred to the existing garage foundations. A line of influence extending at a 1H:1V slope from the bottom of the planned garage foundations shou Id not intercept the existing garage foundations or structure. A controlled density-fill (GDF) bearing pad can be used below the planned garage foundations to lower the effective bottom of foundation. The GDF bearing pad shall extend a minimum of 2 feet beyond the edges of the new footing. More detail regarding recommended subgrade preparation and allowable bearing pressures for shallow foundations are presented below. Allowable Bearing Pressure We recommend using an allowable bearing pressure of 10 ksf for mat foundations and isolated spread footing foundations bearing on the dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils or sandstone bed rock. For foundations bearing on properly compacted structural fill extended down to dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils or bedrock, an allowable bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used. The estimated depth to the dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3. ESTIMATED DEPTH TO DENSE TO VERY DENSE GLACIALLY CONSOLIDATED SOILS FOR FOUNDATION SUPPORT Exploratlon Number GEH GEl-2 GEl-3 GEl-4 GEl-5 GEOENGINEER~ Approximate Depth to Competent Glacially Consolldated Solls1 (feet) 10 14 10 12 11 August2 2016 Poge9 the voids between each lean concrete lift are sufficient for preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Tiebacks Tieback anchors can be used for wall heights where cantilever soldier pile walls are not cost-effective. Tieback anchors should extend far enough behind the wall to develop anchorage beyond the "no-load" zone and within a stable soil mass, as shown on Figure 3. The anchors should be inclined downward at 15 to 25 degrees below the horizontal. The inclination of the anchors should match or exceed the inclination of the adjacent slope. The anchors should have a minimum of 5 feet of vertical soil coverage above the strands throughout the length of the anchor and at least 10 feet of horizontal soil coverage at the tip of the anchor. Additional vertical and horizontal coverage may be required if the tiebacks will be post-grouted. Double corrosion protection is required for the permanent tieback anchors. Corrosion protection is not required for temporary tieback anchors. Centralizers should be used to keep the tieback in the center of the hole du ring grouting. Structural grout or concrete should be used to fill the bond zone of the tiebacks. A bond breaker, such as plastic sheathing, should be placed around the portion of the tieback located within the no-load zone if the shoring contractcr plans to grout both the bond zone and unbonded zone of the tiebacks in a single stage. If the shoring contractor does not plan to use a bond breaker to isolate the no-load zone, GeoEngineers should be contacted to provide recommendations. Loose soil and slough should be removed from the holes drilled for tieback anchors prior to installing the tieback. The contractor should take necessary precautions to minimize loss of ground and prevent disturbance to previously installed anchors and existing improvements in the site vicinity. Holes drilled for tiebacks should be grouted/filled promptly to reduce the potential for loss of ground. Tieback anchors should develop anchorage in the glacially consolidated soils. We recommend that spacing between tiebacks be at least three times the diameter of the anchor hole to minimize group interaction. We recommend a preliminary design load transfer value between the anchor and soil of 4 kips per foot for glacially consolidated soils and 1.5 kips per foot for fill deposits. The tieback anchors should be verification-and proof-tested to confirm that the tiebacks have adequate pullout capacity. The pullout resistance of tiebacks should be designed using a factor of safety of 2. The pullout resistance should be verified by completing at least two successful verification tests in each soil type and a minimum of four total tests for the project Each tieback should be proof-tested to 133 percent of the design load. Verification and proof tests should be completed as described in Appendix D, Ground Anchor Load Tests and Shoring Monitoring Program. The tieback layout and inclination should be checked to confirm that the tiebacks do not interfere with adjacent buried utilities. Drainage Drainage for soldier pile and lagging walls is achieved through seepage through the timber lagging. Seepage flows at the bottom of the excavation should be contained and controlled in order to prevent loss of soil from behind the lagging. Drainage should be provided for permanent below-grade walls as described bek:MI in the "Below-Grade Walls" section of this report GEOENGINEER,9 August 2. 2016 Pri~eS appropriate. We recommend using an allowable end bearing value of 40 ksf for piles supported on the glacially consolidated soils. The allowable end bearing value should be applied to the base area of the drilled hole into which the soldier pile is concreted. This value includes a factor of safety of about 2.5. The allowable end bearing value assumes that the shaft bottom is cleaned out immediately prior to concrete placement. If necessary, an allowable pile skin friction of 1.0 ksf may be used on the embedded portion of the soldier piles to resist the vertical loads. For permanent walls, the exposed portion of the solider pile (e.g. if exposed to weather) should be painted with a coat of inorganic zinc primer to reduce the risk of corrosion. Additionally, structural concrete shouKJ be used for the embedded portion of the soldier pile. Temporary LaUlnll We recommend that the temporary timber lagging be sized using the procedures outlined in the Federal Highway Administration's Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4. The site soils are best described as competent soils. Table 2 presents recommend temporary lagging thicknesses (roughcut) as a function of soldier pile clear span and depth. TABLE 2. RECOMMENDED TIMBER LAGGING THICKNESS Recommended Lagging Thickness (rougllcut) for clear spans of: Depth (feet) 5 feet 6 feet 7 feet 6 feet 9 feet 10 feet Oto 25 2 inches 3 inches 3inches 3 inches 4 inches 4 inches PennanentLaUlnll Permanent lagging may consist of timber, cast-in-place concrete or pre-cast concrete. If timber is used fcr permanent lagging, it must be adequately treated for protection against water and decay. We recommend that the permanent lagging be designed for a pressure equal to two-thirds the pressures depicted in Figure 3. Surcharge loading should also be considered as appropriate. The one-third pressure reductions based on a maximum center-to-center pile spacing of 8 feet. If a wider spacing is desired, GeoEngineers should provide guidance on modifying the lagging pressures. Lalllllng Installation Lagging should be installed promptly after excavation, especially in areas where perched groundwater s present or where clean sand and gravel soils are present and caving soils conditions are likely. The workmanship associated with lagging installation is important for maintaining the integrity of the excavation. The space behind the lagging should be filled with soil as soon as practicable. Placement of this material will help reduce the risk of voids developing behind the wall and damage to existing improvements located behind the wall. Material used as backfill in voids located behind the lagging should not cause buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Lean concrete is a suitable option for the use of backfill behind the walls. Lean concrete will reduce the volume of voids present behind the wall. Alternatively, lean concrete may be used for backfill behind the upper 15 to 20 feet of the excavation to limit caving and sloughing of the upper soils, with on-site soils used to backfill the voids for the remainder of the excavation. Based on our experience, GeoENGINEER~ AugJJSt 2. 2016 Pag£ 7 • construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is reduced to the extent practicable; • erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced 1D the extent practicable; • surface water be diverted away from the slope; and • the general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by the geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate stability. Because the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. Shoring and temporary slopes must conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. Soldier PIie and Tieback Walls Based on the subsurface information obtained from the borings. we recommend temporary or permanent cantilever soldier pile walls or soldier pile with tieback walls be used for excavation support where temporary slopes are not possible. Soil nail walls are not recommended due to the thickness and variability of the existing fill soils. We provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for cantilever soldier pile and soldier pile with tiebacks walls below. Soldier pile walls consist of steel beams that are concreted into drilled vertical holes located along the wall alignment. typically about 8 feet on center. After excavation to specified elevations, tiebacks are installed, if necessary. Once the tiebacks are installed, the pullout capacity of each tieback is tested, and the tieback is locked off to the soldier pile at or near the design tieback load. Tiebacks typically consist of steel strands that are installed into pre-drilled holes and then either tremie or pressure grouted. Timber lagging is typically installed behind the flanges of the steel beams to retain the soil located between the soldier piles. Geotechnical design recommendations for each of these components of the soldier pile and tieback wall system are presented in the following sections. Soldler Pl/es We recommend that temporary and permanent soldier pile walls be designed using the earth pressure diagrams presented in Figure 3. The earth pressures presented in Figure 3 are for full-height cantilever soldier pile walls and soldier pile walls with single or multiple levels of tiebacks, and the pressures represent the estimated loads that will be applied to the wall system for various wall heights. Seismic earth pressures are included in Figure 3 for design of permanent walls. The seismic earth pressure does not need to be included in the design of temporary walls. The earth pressures presented in Figure 3 includethe loading from traffic surcharge. Other surcharge loads, such as buildings, cranes, construction equipment or construction staging areas, should be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the recommendations presented in Figure 5. We recommend that the embedded portion of the soldier piles be at least 2 feet in diameter and extend a minimum distance of 10 feet below the base of the excavation to resist "kick-out." The axial capacity of the soldier piles must resist the downward component of the anchor loads and other vertical loads, as GrnENGINEER~ August 2. 2016 Page6 2012 IBCSelsmlc Design Information The following 2012 IBC parameters for site class, short period spectral response acceleration (Ss). 1-second period spectral response acceleration (S1) and seismic coefficients (F, and Fv) are appropriate for the project site. TABLE 1. 2012 IBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 2012 IBC Parameter Site Class Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss (percent g) 1-5econd Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S1 (percent g) Seismic Coefficient. F, Seismic Coefficient, F, Excavations Recommended Value C 140.1 52.2 1.0 1.3 We understand that the planned building will have up to two below-grade levels and that the excavations may extend upto 25 feet below site grades. Temporary cut slopes may be used for shallow excavations or where there is sufficient space to complete cut slopes. Temporary shoring may also be used for excavations where there is not sufficient space for cut slopes. The following sections provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for temporary cutslopes and temporary shoring, specifically soldier pile and tieback walls. We understand that permanent soldier pile walls with tiebacks may be used along the northern portion of the new garage. We provide geotechnical recommendations for permanent soldier pile walls with tiebacks below. Excavation Considerations The site soils may be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as trackhoes or dozers. It may be necessary to rip the glacially consolidated soils locally to facilitate excavation. The contractor should be prepared for occasional cobbles and boulders in the site soils. Likewise, the surficial fill may contain foundation elements and/or utilities from previous site development, debris, rubble and/or cobbles and boulders. We recommend that procedures be identified in the project specifications for measurement and payment of work associated with obstructions. Temporary Cut Slopes Temporary slopes may be used around the site where space allows, to facilitate early installation of shoring. or in the transition between levels at the base of the excavation. We recommend that temporary slopes constructed in the fill be inclined at 1 V2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) and that temporary slopes in the glacially consolidated soils be inclined at 1H:1V. Flatter slopes may be necessary if seepage is present on the face of the cut slopes or if localized sloughing occurs. For open cuts at the site, we recommend that: • no traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or buildingsupplies be allowed at the top of the cut slopes with in a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut; • exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion by using waterproof tarps or plastic sheeting; GeoENGINEERs_-9 ,\ugu:-.t 2.2016 Page 5 • Shallow foundations may be used and shall bear on either dense to very dense glacial till and/or sandstone bedrock, on structural fill extending down to dense to very dense glacial till and/or sandstone bedrock, or on a 2-foot-thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing fill and highty weathered glacial soils: • For shallow foundations bearing directly on dense to very dense glacial till or sandstone bedrock, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 10 kips per square foot (ksf) may be used. • For shallow foundations bearing on structural fill extending down to dense to very dense glacial till or sandstone bedrock, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used. • For shallow foundations bearing on a 2-foot-thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing fill and highly weathered glacial soils, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3 ksf may be used. • The majority of the on-site soils generally contain a high percentage of fines and are highty moisture-sensitive. The on-site soils may be used as structural fill during dry weather conditions only (typically June through September) provided the soils are properly moisture conditioned for compaction. Imported granular soils with a low percentage of fines should be used as structural fill during wet weather conditions and during the wet season (typically October through May). Our specific geotechn ical recommendations are presented in the following sections of th is report. Earthquake Engineering Liquefaction Liquefaction refers to the condition by which vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in the development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils with subsequent loss of strength. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include very loose to medium dense, clean to silty sands that are below the water table. Our analysis indicates that the soils that underlie the proposed building area have a low risk of liquefying because of the density and gradation of these soils. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as the underlying soil layer liquefies. Because the buildings will bear on non-liquefiable soils, the potential for lateral spreading s considered to be low for the project site. Surface Rupture The Renton Formation has many small faults with generally low displacement (Mullineaux 1965). However, the nearest mapped fault, the Sunbeam fault is approximately l/2 mile north of the site. Based on the distance to this known fault zone, and lack of other known fault zones near the site, it is our opinion that there is a low to moderate risk of surface rupture at the site. other Seismic Hazards Due to the location of the site and the site's topography, the risk of adverse impacts resulting from seismically induced slope instability and differential settlement is considered to be low. GeoENGtNEER5Y August2 2016 Page4 FIJI Fill was encountered below the asphalt pavement or gravel in the explorations completed for this study and previous studies. The fill typically consists of loose to dense silty sand or medium stiff to very stiff sandy sit with variable gravel content and extends to depths ranging from 3 and 14 feet below existing site grades. Glacially Consolidated Solis The glacially consolidated soils encountered below the fill consist of weathered and unweathered glacial till. The glacial till encountered consists of silty sand or sandy silt with variable gravel content A medium dense to very dense weathered zone nearer the surface transitions to the dense to very dense unweathered glacial till below. The transition between weathered and unweathered glacial till was observed at depths ranging from approximately 5 to 12 feet below site grades. Glacial till extended approximately 22 to 24 feet below site grades in borings GEl-1, GEl-2 and GEl-5 and to the depths explored in borings GEl-3, GEl-4, GEl-6 and GEi-7. Sandstone Bedrock Sandstone bedrock (Renton Formation) was encountered below the glacially consolidated soils in borings GEl-1, GEl-2, and GEl-5 and consists of very dense cemented silty sand with occasional coal deposits. Where encountered, the Renton formation extended to the depths explored. Groundwater Conditions Perched water was encountered at various depths in borings GEl-2, GEl-3, and GEl-4. The groundwater observed in these borings was confined to wet, loose soils overlying dense to very dense soils with relatively high fines content. The perched groundwater encountered is likely associated with seasonal rainfall. Perched groundwater is expected to fluctuate as a result of season, precipitation, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. • The site is designated as Site Class C per ASCE/SEI 7-10 and the 2012 International Building Code (lBC). • The groundwater table is likely well below the base of the excavation. Minor seepage inflows may be expected where excavations intercept perched groundwater zones. We estimate flow rates from incidental seepage may be on the order of 5 to 10 gallons per minute (gpm). • Temporary excavations may be completed with open cuts or with temporary and/or permanent soldier pile and tieback walls. Soil nail walls are not recommended due to the thickness and variability of the existing fill soils. GEOENGINEERs_O PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATIONS In addition to the explorations completed as part of this evaluation, the logs of selected explorations from previous site evaluations in the project vicinity were reviewed. The logs of explorations from previous projects referenced for this study are presented in Appendix C. SITE CONDmONS Regional Geology Published geologic information for the project vicinity includes a geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle (Mullineaux 1965). The geologic map of the project area identifies subsurface soils to consist primarily of glacial till deposits of the Vashon Drift. Also mapped in the area are Renton Formation sandstone with interbeds of siltstone, claystone and coal. Glacial till typically consists of a heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel, cobbles and occasional boulders in a silt and clay matrix that was deposited beneath a glacier. Because glacial till has been overridden by thousands of feet of ice, it is typically dense to very dense. Renton Formation sandstone consists of irregularly cemented arkosic sandstone, mudstone and shale and locally contains coal deposits. Geologic map notes maximum thicknesses of approximately 2,500 feet Subsurface soils encountered in our explorations are consistent with the geologic mapping. Specific details of subsurface conditions encountered in the field explorations are presented in the "Subsurface Conditions" section below. Surface Conditions The site is currently occupied by asphalt and gravel surface parking, landscaped parking islands and several mature coniferous and deciduous trees. The site steps down from east to west with a total change in elevation of approximately 20 feet. Generally, the site appears to be clear of public utilities. The utilities on site consist of private stormwater, power for the parking lot lights, and sewer services. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by completing seven geotechnical borings (GEl-1 through GEl-7) completed for the current study, and reviewing logs of explorations completed by others immediately adjacent to the project site. The approximate locations of the explorations in the site vicinity are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The geologic units encountered in the explorations consist offill, glacially consolidated soils and sandstrne bedrock. Each of these units is described below in order of deposition starting with the most recent. GeoENG1Nee•'9 August 2. 2016 Page2 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering services for the Valley Medical Center (VMC) FY 2017 Parking Garage project in Renton, Washington. The site is irregular in shape and is located in the northern portion of the VMC campus at 400 South 43,, Street The site is bordered to the west by an existing parking garage, to the north by a steep-sided ravine, to the east by medical office buildings and to the south by a VMC campus access road off Talbot Road South. The site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan, Figure 2. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the planned parking garage development GeoEngineers· geotechnical engineering services have been completed in general accordance with our signed agreement executed on March 21, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GeoEngineers understands that the Parking Garage project will be an expansion of the existing parking garage at the north end of the campus. The new garage will be directly east of the existing garage and will be upto eight levels above-grade. The lowest levels of the garage will be partially below grade adjacent to the existing garage and may require excavations up to 25 feet below grade along the north end of the garage. Additionally, based on our understanding of the project temporary and/or permanent soldier pile retaining walls will be used to support some of the excavations. We also understand that the permanent wall, where present, will be offset 3 to 5 feet from the new garage structure. Variable soil conditions are present at the anticipated foundation elevation; therefore, shallow foundations bearing on native or structural fill are anticipated for foundation support FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORYTESTING Field Explorations The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling seven borings, GEl-1 through GEl-7, to depths of approximately 15V2 to 353/4 feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Descriptions of the field exploration program and the boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory Testing Soil samples were obtained during drilling and were taken to GeoEngineers' laboratory for further evaluation. Selected samples were tested for the determination of fines content and grain-size distributoo (sieve analysis). A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B. GeoENGINEER5Y August 2. 2016 Page 1 Table of Contents (continued) Earthwork ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing. ................................................................................................. 14 Erosion and Sedimentation Control .............................................................................................. 14 Su bgrade Preparation ................................................................................................................. 15 Structural Fill .............................................................................................................................. 15 Permanent Slopes ...................................................................................................................... 17 Pavement Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 17 Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................................. 17 New Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement .................................................................................................... 18 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services ................................................................................ 18 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Earth Pressure Diagrams -Permanent Soldier Pile & Tieback Wall Figure 4. Earth Pressure Diagram -Permanent Below Grade Walls Figure 5. Recommended Surcharge Pressure APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1 -Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2th rough A·8 -Log of Borings Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Append ix C. Boring Logs from Previous Studies Appendix D. Ground Anchor Load Tests and Shoring Monitoring Program Appendix E. Report Limitations and Guidelines GeoENGINEER~ Aug1Jst2. 2016 Pa.geii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................................... 1 Field Explorations ................................................................................................................................ 1 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................................................. 1 PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 2 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Regional Geology ................................................................................................................................ 2 Surface Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 2 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 2 Fill. ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Glacially Consolidated Soils ........................................................................................................... 3 Sandstone Bedrock. ...................................................................................................................... 3 Grau ndwater Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 3 Earthquake Engineering ...................................................................................................................... 4 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................. 4 Lateral Spreading ........................................................................................................................ .4 Surface Rupture ........................................................................................................................... 4 Other Seismic Hazards .................................................................................................................. 4 2012 IBC Seismic Design Information ............................................................................................ 5 Excavations ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Excavation Considerations ............................................................................................................. 5 Temporary Cut Slopes ................................................................................................................... 5 Soldier Pile and Tieback Walls ....................................................................................................... 6 Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................................................... 9 Allowable Bearing Pressure ........................................................................................................... 9 Settlement ................................................................................................................................. 10 Lateral Resistance ...................................................................................................................... 10 Construction Considerations ........................................................................................................ 11 Slab-on-Grade Floors ......................................................................................................................... 11 Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................................. 11 Design Parameters ..................................................................................................................... 11 Below-Slab Drainage ................................................................................................................... 12 Below-Grade Walls ............................................................................................................................ 13 Permanent Below-Grade Walls ..................................................................................................... 13 Other Cast-in-Place Walls ............................................................................................................. 13 Drainqe .................................................................................................................................... M GrnENGJNEERs,0 August2.201f; PnJ::e1 ' , '.c :: ·1:· ,.::.: (,Q Geotechnlcal Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Proposed Parking Garage Renton, Washington Prepared for: Valley Medical Center 400 South 43•0 Street Renton, Washington 98005 Attention: Becky Hardi Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154'" Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 J·J~ Daniel P. Ciani, PE enior Geotechnical Engineer ----~ Principal DTM:DPC:SDS:nld E AP File No. 2202-024-00 August 2, 2016 Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or ffird ccpy of the original docutrent(email, text, table, i:rld/or figure), if prouded, and any attachments are oo~ a cq:Jf of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. GEOENGINEERS t:J Geotechnical Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Proposed Parking Garage Renton, Washington for Valley Medical Center August 2, 2016 GEoENGINEERS Q 8410 154'" Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Geotechnlcal Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Proposed Parking Garage Renton, Washington for Valley Medical Center August 2, 2016 SOILS REPORT 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance system for this project site will be sized in accordance with standards current with the City of Renton with the Final Technical Information Report submitted for this project site. 18092.003.doc 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (TO BE SUBMITIED LATER) SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER 4143 PROJECT NAME VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT LOCATION RENTON, WA STRUCTURE ID TREATMENT REQUIRED VOLUME BASED (CF) 2-YEAR FLOW (CFS) 0.025 TREATMENT HGL AVAILABLE (FT) PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED (CFS) -IF APPLICABLE OITTINE PIPE DATA IE MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE I 77.92 CPEP 12· INLET PIPE 2 OUTLET PIPE 17.42 CPEP 12· PRETREA TM[NT 8/0F/L TRA T/ON DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION 90.40 90.40 90.40 SURFACE LOAD H20 IN-DIRECT H20 IN-DIRECT H20 IN-DIRECT FRAME & COVER JO" JO" N/A WETLANDMEOIA VOLUME (CY) 7.68 WETLANDMEDIA DELIVERY METHOD TBD ORIFICE SIZE (DIA. INCHES) ¢0.79" MAXIMUM PICK WDGHT (LBS) TBO NOTES: PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. INSTALLATION NOTES I. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MA T[RIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL TH[ SYSTEM ANO APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND TH[ MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURERS CONTRACT. 2 UNIT MUST 8[ INSTALLED ON LEVEL BAS[ MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BAS[ UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY PROJECT ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. J. ALL PIPES MUST 8[ FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE or CONCRETE (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH}. INVERT or OUTFLOW PIP[ MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL GAPS AROUND PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATER TIGHT WITH A NON-SHRINK GROUT PER MANUFACTURERS STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL ANO SHALL MEU OR EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECTION STANDARDS. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY ANO INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. 5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION or ALL RISERS, MANHOLES, ANO HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO GROUT ALL MANHOLES ANO HATCHES TO MATCH FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED OTH[RWIS[ 6. DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGATION R[QUIREO ON ALL UNITS WITH VEGUA TION. GENERAL NOTES 7. MANUFACTURER TO PROV/OE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SP[CIFICATIONS ANO CAPACITIES AR[ SUBJECT TO CHANG[ FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DUA/LING EXACT DIMENSIONS, W[IGHTS AND ACCESSORIES PLEAS[ CONTACT MANUFACTURER. C/L I I I n A : n • • .... <::, • I • I 0, 0:, ~ <S DRAIN DOWN UNE PLAN WEW C/L I ~~ n I' I' I I I I I n I I OU7l£T PIPE SEE NOTES PRE-ALTER CARTRIDGE INLET PIPE SEE NOTES C/L I I • +R-1-' n ~ 1 1 l:><tl 1,,~ • I ..., !l:i fa <>: I E;i/8.IM. l • 0:, • • -.... TREATMENT HGL 1 1 __ 1 __ _ • I • I 0:, 0, Fl.OW CONTT?OL RISER LI.I llt'-'"'~ ,· 1 t ·· i!"'1r ,. 4'-10· • 0:, s·-j ~~=;: f--s· LEFT END WEW ELEVATION WEW BIOFI. 11il41KM THE PRODUCT OESCRIBED MAY BE PROrECrED IJr ON{ OR JJORf OF THE FOLJ.OWtM; /JS PA 7ENTS: l,t/.25,262; 7,470,362; 7,6U,J78; 8,JOJ,816; RD.ATE!J FORDGN PAJ[NT'S OR OTHER PArEHTS PENDING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: THE !NFORfJATTON CONTNNEIJ fN THfS DRAWING IS TH£ SOI.£ PROPfRTt OF IIO()()/.AR WErl.ANOS Sr$ID/S. ANt' HEPffODIJCOON IN PN?T OR AS A WHOl[ WffHOIJr THE WRfT7[N PfRlllSSJON OF 1,/()()()[,AR WETWJOS SYS7EJIS IS PROH!8fT£D. MODULAR "'"'" .,.oo.~we11ccid>.~:w' la55;, 5M0D-w[t ~~ It IN I I ~~=1, • 0:, T " I RIGHT END WEW PR£7R£A 111E11T/f)tSCHAR(E TREATMENT FLOW (CFS} OPERATING HEAD (FT} PRUREATMENT LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) WETLAND MEO/A LOADING RATE {GPM/SF) 0.025 23 0.9 0.5 MWS-L-4-6.33-V-UG STORM WATER 8/0F/L TRA TION SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: 18092pre.tsf New File: 18092rdout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New %Change Probability 0.025 0.97E-02 0.97E-02 0.2 I 0.97E-02 0.032 0.64E-02 0.59E-02 -8.1 I 0.64E-02 0.038 0.50E-02 0.52E-02 4.9 I 0.50E-02 0.045 0.37E-02 0.39E-02 4.4 I 0.37E-02 0.052 0.29E-02 0.27E-02 -6.1 I 0.29E-02 0.059 0.22E-02 0.20E-02 -8 . 8 I 0.22E-02 0.066 0.15E-02 0.16E-02 6.4 I 0.15E-02 0.073 O.lOE-02 O.llE-02 6.3 I O.lOE-02 0.080 0.64E-03 0.64E-03 0.0 I 0.64E-03 0.086 0.34E-03 0.23E-03 -33.3 I O. 34E-03 0. 093 0.21E-03 0.33E-04 -84.6 I 0.21E-03 0.100 0.16E-03 0.00E+OO -100.0 I 0.16E-03 0.107 O.llE-03 O.OOE+OO -100.0 I O.llE-03 0 .114 0.16E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 I 0.16E-04 Maximum positive excursion= 0.002 cfs 4.4%) occurring at 0.037 cfs on the Base Data:18092pre.tsf and at 0.039 cfs on the New Data:18092rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.007 cfs (-21.0%) occurring at 0.032 cfs on the Base Data:18092pre.tsf and at 0.025 cfs on the New Data:18092rdout.tsf Base New %Change 0.025 0.025 0.0 0.032 0.025 -21.0 0.038 0.039 2.5 0.045 0.047 3.5 0.052 0.051 -2.2 0.059 0.057 -4 . 0 0.066 0.067 1. 6 0.073 0.074 2.2 0.080 0.080 0.0 0.086 0.083 -3. 5 0.093 0.088 -5.7 0.100 0.090 -10.5 0.107 0.091 -14.7 0 .114 0.094 -17.5 Flow Duration from Time Series File:18092rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.001 25185 41.071 41.071 58.929 0.589E+OO 0. 004 5766 9. 403 50.475 49.525 0.495E+OO 0.007 5296 8.637 59. 111 40.889 0.409E+OO 0.009 6058 9.879 68.991 31. 009 0.310E+OO 0.012 4684 7.639 76.629 23.371 0.234E+OO 0.015 5489 8.951 85.581 14.419 0.144E+OO 0.017 3317 5.409 90.990 9.010 0.901E-01 0.020 1805 2.944 93.933 6.067 0.607E-01 0.022 1936 3.157 97. 091 2.909 0.291E-Ol 0.025 1210 1.973 99.064 0.936 0.936E-02 0.028 206 0.336 99.400 0.600 0.600E-02 0.030 5 0.008 99.408 0.592 0.592E-02 0.033 6 0.010 99.418 0.582 0.582E-02 0.035 8 0. 013 99.431 0.569 0.569E-02 0.038 26 0.042 99.473 0.527 0.527E-02 0.041 32 0.052 99.525 0.475 0.475E-02 0.043 28 0.046 99.571 0.429 0.429E-02 0.046 30 0. 049 99.620 0.380 0.380E-02 0.048 22 0.036 99.656 0.344 0.344E-02 0.051 33 0.054 99.710 0.290 0.290E-02 0. 054 19 0.031 99.741 0.259 0.259E-02 0.056 21 0.034 99.775 0.225 0.225E-02 0.059 14 0.023 99.798 0.202 0.202E-02 0.062 8 0. 013 99.811 0.189 0.189E-02 0.064 7 0. 011 99.822 0.178 0.178E-02 0.067 14 0.023 99.845 0.155 0.155E-02 0.069 9 0.015 99.860 0.140 0.140E-02 0.072 15 0.024 99.884 0 .116 0 .116E-02 0.075 9 0.015 99.899 0.101 O.lOlE-02 0.077 10 0.016 99. 915 0.085 0.848E-03 0.080 16 0.026 99.941 0.059 0.587E-03 0.082 12 0.020 99.961 0.039 0.391E-03 0.085 7 0. Oll 99.972 0.028 0.277E-03 0.088 4 0.007 99.979 0.021 0.212E-03 0.090 4 0.007 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 0.093 6 0.010 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File:18092pre.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.025 60744 99.061 99.061 0.939 0.939E-02 0.028 105 0. 1 71 99.232 0.768 0.768E-02 0.031 72 0 .117 99.349 0.651 0.651E-02 0.034 45 0.073 99.423 0.577 0.577E-02 0.037 37 0.060 99.483 0.517 0.517E-02 0.041 35 0.057 99.540 0.460 0.460E-02 0.044 36 0.059 99.599 0. 4 01 0.401E-02 0.047 27 0. 044 99.643 0.357 0.357E-02 0.050 27 0.044 99.687 0. 313 O. 313E-02 0.053 19 0.031 99.718 0.282 0.282E-02 0.056 18 0.029 99.747 0.253 0.253E-02 0.059 19 0.031 99.778 0.222 0.222E-02 0.062 19 0.031 99.809 0 .191 0 .191E-02 0.065 21 0.034 99.843 0.157 0.157E-02 0.068 16 0.026 99.870 0 .130 0.130E-02 0.072 10 0.016 99.886 0.114 0.114E-02 0.075 18 0.029 99.915 0.085 0.848E-03 0.078 6 0.010 99.925 0.075 0.750E-03 0.081 12 0.020 99.945 0.055 0.554E-03 0.084 8 0. 013 99.958 0.042 0.424E-03 0.087 5 0. 008 99.966 0.034 0.342E-03 0.090 3 0.005 99. 971 0.029 0.294E-03 0.093 5 0.008 99.979 0.021 0.212E-03 0. 096 2 0.003 99.982 0.018 0.179E-03 0.099 1 0.002 99.984 0.016 0.163E-03 0.103 1 0.002 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 0.106 1 0.002 99.987 0. 013 0 .130E-03 0.109 3 0.005 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 0 .112 3 0.005 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0 .115 2 0.003 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0 .118 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0.121 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0.124 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0.127 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0.130 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 O.OOOE+OO 0.133 0 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.000E+OO New File, 18092rdout.tsf Cutoff Units, Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Cutoff Base New %Change Probability 0.025 0.97E-02 0.97E-02 0.2 0.97E-02 0.032 0.64E-02 0.59E-02 -8.l 0.64E-02 0.038 0.50E-02 0.52E-02 4.9 0.SOE-02 0. 045 0.37E-02 0.39E-02 4.4 0.37E-02 0.052 0.29E-02 0.27E-02 -6.l 0.29E-02 0.059 0.22E-02 0.20E-02 -8.8 0.22E-02 0.066 0.15E-02 0.16E-02 6.4 0.15E-02 0.073 0.lOE-02 0.llE-02 6.3 O.lOE-02 0.080 0.64E-03 0.64E-03 0.0 0.64E-03 0.086 0.34E-03 0.23E-03 -33.3 0.34E-03 0.093 0.21E-03 0.33E-04 -84.6 0.21E-03 0.100 0.16E-03 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.16E-03 0.107 O. llE-03 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.llE-03 0 .114 0.16E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.16E-04 Maximum positive excursion = 0.002 cfs 4. 4%) occurring at 0.037 cfs on the Base Data,18092pre.tsf and at 0.039 cfs on the New Data,18092rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.007 cfs (-21.0%) occurring at 0.032 cfs on the Base Data,18092pre.tsf and at 0.025 cfs on the New Data,18092rdout.tsf Base 0.025 0.032 0.038 0.045 0.052 0.059 0.066 0.073 0.080 0.086 0.093 0.100 0.107 0. ll4 Tolerance------- New %Change 0.025 0.0 0.025 -21. 0 0.039 2.5 0.047 3.5 0.051 -2.2 0.057 -4 . 0 0.067 1. 6 0. 074 2.2 0.080 0.0 0.083 -3.5 0.088 -5.7 0.090 -10.5 0.091 -14. 7 0. 094 -17.5 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0. 094 0.025 0.080 0.021 0.025 0. 056 0.080 0.156 Computed Peaks 2 6 4 8 7 5 3 1 2/09/01 1/07/02 3/06/03 8/26/ 04 1/08/05 1/18/06 11/24/06 1/09/08 20:00 4:00 22,00 7:00 5:00 23,00 8,00 12:00 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.156 8.52 1 100.00 0.990 0.094 8.25 2 25.00 0.960 0.080 0.080 0.056 0.025 0.025 0.021 0.136 7 .13 7.08 5.70 5.00 4.88 3.73 8.51 3 4 5 6 7 8 10.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 l. 30 1.10 50.00 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:18092rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability c~ • % I 0.001 0. 004 0.007 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.017 0.020 0.022 0.025 0.028 0.030 0.033 0.035 0.038 0.041 0.043 0.046 0.048 0.051 0.054 0.056 0.059 0.062 0.064 0.067 0.069 0. 072 0.075 0.077 0.080 0.082 0.085 0.088 0.090 0. 093 25185 5766 5296 6058 4684 5489 3317 1805 1936 1210 206 5 6 8 26 32 28 30 22 33 19 21 14 8 7 14 9 15 9 10 16 12 7 4 4 6 41.071 9.403 8.637 9.879 7.639 8.951 5. 409 2.944 3.157 1.973 0.336 0.008 0.010 0. 013 0.042 0.052 0.046 0.049 0.036 0.054 0.031 0.034 0.023 0. 013 0.011 0.023 0.015 0.024 0.015 0.016 0.026 0.020 0. Oll 0.007 0.007 0.010 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: 18092pre.tsf 41. 071 50.475 59.111 68.991 76.629 85.581 90.990 93.933 97.091 99.064 99.400 99.408 99.418 99.431 99.473 99.525 99.571 99.620 99.656 99. 710 99.741 99.775 99.798 99.811 99.822 99.845 99.860 99.884 99.899 99. 915 99.941 99. 961 99.972 99.979 99.985 99.995 58.929 49.525 40.889 31.009 23 .371 14.419 9.010 6.067 2.909 0.936 0.600 0.592 0.582 0.569 0.527 0. 475 0.429 0.380 0.344 0.290 0.259 0.225 0.202 0.189 0.178 0.155 0.140 0 .116 0.101 0.085 0.059 0.039 0.028 0.021 0.015 0.005 0.589E+OO 0.495E+D0 0.409E+OO 0.310E+OO 0.234E+OO 0.144E+OO 0.901E-01 0.607E-01 0.291E-D1 0.936E-02 0.600E-02 0.592E-02 0.582E-02 0.569E-D2 0.527E-02 0.475E-02 0.429E-02 0.380E-02 0.344E-02 0.290E-02 0.259E-02 0.225E-02 0.202E-02 0.189E-02 0.178E-02 0.155E-02 0.140E-02 0 .116E-02 0. lOlE-02 0.848E-03 0.587E-03 0.391E-03 0.277E-D3 0.212E-03 0.147E-03 0.489E-04 0.001 25185 41. 071 41. 071 58. 92 9 0.589E+OO 0.004 5766 9.403 50.475 49. 525 0.495E+OO 0.007 5296 8.637 59. 111 40.889 0.409E+OO 0.009 6058 9.879 68.991 31.009 0.310E+OO 0. 012 4684 7.639 76.629 23.371 0.234E+OO 0.015 5489 8.951 85.581 14.419 0.144E+OO 0.017 3317 5.409 90.990 9.010 0.901E-01 0.020 1805 2.944 93.933 6.067 0.607E-01 0.022 1936 3.157 97.091 2.909 0.291E-Ol 0.025 1210 1.973 99.064 0.936 0.936E-02 0.028 206 0.336 99.400 0.600 0.600E-02 0.030 5 0.008 99.408 0.592 0.592E-02 0.033 6 0.010 99.418 0.582 0.582E-02 0.035 8 0. 013 99.431 0.569 0.569E-02 0.038 26 0.042 99.473 0.527 0.527E-02 0. 041 32 0.052 99.525 0.475 0.475E-02 0.043 28 0.046 99.571 0.429 0.429E-02 0. 046 30 0. 049 99.620 0.380 0.380E-02 0.048 22 0.036 99.656 0.344 0.344E-02 0.051 33 0.054 99.710 0.290 0.290E-02 0.054 19 0.031 99.741 0.259 0.259E-02 0.056 21 0.034 99.775 0.225 0.225E-02 0.059 14 0.023 99.798 0.202 0.202E-02 0.062 8 0.013 99.811 0.189 0.189E-02 0.064 7 0. 011 99.822 0.178 0.178E-02 0.067 14 0.023 99.845 0.155 0.155E-02 0.069 9 0.015 99.860 0 .140 0.140E-02 0.072 15 0.024 99.884 0 .116 0 .116E-02 0.075 9 0.015 99.899 0.101 0.lOlE-02 0.077 10 0.016 99. 915 0.085 0.848E-03 0.080 16 0.026 99.941 0.059 0.587E-03 0.082 12 0.020 99.961 0.039 0.391E-03 0.085 7 0. 011 99.972 0.028 0.277E-03 0.088 4 0.007 99.979 0.021 0.212E-03 0.090 4 0.007 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 0.093 6 0.010 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:18092dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:18092rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.829 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.156 CFS at 12:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 8.52 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 86.52 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 31895. Cu-Ft 0.732 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac 9.60 87.60 35942. 0.825 4.070 0.00 9.70 87.70 36317. 0.834 4.250 0.00 9.80 87.80 36691. 0.842 4.420 0.00 9.90 87.90 37066. 0.851 4.590 0.00 10.00 88.00 37440. 0.860 4.740 0.00 10.10 88.10 37814. 0.868 4.900 0.00 10.20 88.20 38189. 0.877 5.050 0.00 10.30 88.30 38563. 0.885 5.190 0.00 10.40 88. 40 38938. 0.894 5.330 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Cale Stage Elev 1 0.83 ******* 0.16 8.52 86.52 2 0.42 0. 11 0.09 8.25 86.25 3 0.51 ******* 0.08 7.08 85.08 4 0.52 ******* 0.08 7 .13 85 .13 5 0.45 ******* 0.06 5.70 83.70 6 0.37 ******* 0.03 5.00 83 . 0 0 7 0.51 ******* 0.03 4.88 82.88 8 0.43 **'***** 0.02 3.73 81.73 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:18092dev.tsf Outflow Ti!Tle Series File:18092rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.829 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.156 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 8.52 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 86.52 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 31895. Cu-Ft 0.732 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092rdout.tsf Project Lacation:Sea-Tac Ac-Ft (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 31895. 0.732 30894. 0.709 26514. 0.609 26680. 0. 612 21348. 0. 490 18709. 0.430 18273. 0.419 13 955. 0.320 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 12:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.094 2 2/09/01 20: 00 0.156 8.52 1 100.00 0.990 0.025 6 1/07/02 4: 00 0.094 8.25 2 25.00 0. 960 0.080 4 3/06/03 22:00 0.080 7 .13 3 10.00 0.900 0.021 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.080 7.08 4 5.00 0.800 0.025 7 1/08/05 5:00 0.056 5.70 5 3.00 0.667 0.056 5 1/18/06 23:00 0.025 5.00 6 2.00 0.500 0.080 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.025 4.88 7 1. 30 0.231 0.156 1 1/09/08 12:00 0.021 3.73 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.136 8.51 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:18092rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 3.51 81.51 13141. 0.302 0. 021 0.00 3.66 81. 66 13703. 0.315 0. 021 0.00 3.80 81. 80 14227. 0. 327 0.022 0.00 3.94 81. 94 14 751. 0.339 0.022 0.00 4.09 82.09 15313. 0.352 0.023 0.00 4.23 82.23 15837. 0.364 0.023 0.00 4.38 82.38 16399. 0.376 0.023 0.00 4.52 82.52 16923. 0.388 0.024 0.00 4.66 82.66 17447. 0.401 0.024 0.00 4.81 82.81 18009. 0 .413 0.025 0.00 4.95 82.95 18533. 0.425 0.025 0.00 5.00 83.00 18720. 0.430 0.025 0.00 5.01 83.01 18757. 0. 431 0.025 0.00 5.02 83.02 18795. 0. 431 0.026 0.00 5.04 83.04 18870. 0.433 0.027 0.00 5.05 83.05 18907. 0.434 0.029 0.00 5.06 83.06 18945. 0.435 0.032 0.00 5.07 83.07 18982. 0.436 0.034 0.00 5.08 83.08 19020. 0. 437 0.035 0.00 5.09 83.09 19057. 0. 43 7 0.036 0.00 5.24 83.24 19619. 0.450 0.042 0.00 5.38 83.38 20143. 0.462 0.047 0.00 5.53 83.53 20704. 0.475 0.051 0.00 5.67 83.67 21228. 0.487 0.055 0.00 5.81 83.81 21753. 0.499 0.058 0.00 5. 96 83. 96 22314. 0.512 0.061 0.00 6.10 84.10 22838. 0.524 0.064 0.00 6.25 84 .25 23400. 0.537 0.066 0.00 6.39 84.39 23924. 0.549 0.069 0.00 6.53 84.53 24448. 0.561 0. 071 0.00 6.68 84.68 25010. 0.574 0.073 0.00 6.82 84.82 25534. 0.586 0.076 0.00 6.97 84.97 26096. 0.599 0.078 0.00 7.11 85.11 26620. 0.611 0.080 0.00 7.25 85.25 27144. 0.623 0.082 0.00 7.40 85.40 27706. 0.636 0.084 0.00 7.54 85.54 28230. 0. 648 0.085 0.00 7.69 85.69 28791. 0.661 0.087 0.00 7.83 85.83 29316. 0.673 0.089 0.00 7.98 85.98 29877. 0.686 0.091 0.00 8.12 86.12 30401. 0.698 0.092 0.00 8.26 86.26 30925. 0.710 0.094 0.00 8.41 86.41 31487. 0.723 0.096 0.00 8.50 86.50 31824. 0.731 0.097 0.00 8.60 86.60 32198. 0.739 0.406 0.00 8.70 86.70 32573. 0. 748 0.970 0.00 8.80 86.80 32 94 7. 0.756 1.700 0.00 8.90 86.90 33322. 0.765 2.490 0.00 9.00 87.00 33696. 0.774 2.780 0.00 9.10 87.10 34070. 0.782 3.030 0.00 9.20 87.20 34445. 0.791 3.270 0.00 9.30 87.30 34819. 0.799 3. 490 0.00 9.40 87. 40 35194. 0.808 3.690 0.00 9.50 87.50 35568. 0.817 3.890 0.00 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility, Facility Length, Facility Width, Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth, Stage O Elevation, Storage Volume, Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Vault 156.00 ft 24.00 ft 3744. sq. 8.50 ft 78.00 ft 31824. cu. 8.50 ft ft ft 12.00 inches 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice# Height I ft I 0.00 5.00 Diameter Discharge Diameter 1 2 Top Notch Weir, Outflow Rating Curve, (in) 0.64 1.13 None None (CFS) (in} 0.033 0.064 4.0 Stage Elevation Storage Discharge (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) lac-ft I (cfs) 0.00 78.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.01 78.01 37. 0.001 0.001 0.02 78.02 75. 0.002 0.002 0.03 78.03 112. 0.003 0.002 0.04 78.04 150. 0.003 0.002 0.05 78.05 187. 0.004 0.003 0.20 78. 20 749. 0.017 0.005 0.34 78.34 1273. 0. 029 0.007 0. 49 78. 49 1835. 0.042 0.008 0.63 78.63 2359. 0.054 0.009 0.77 78.77 2883. 0.066 0.010 0. 92 78.92 3445. 0.079 0. 011 1. 06 79.06 3969. 0.091 0.012 1. 21 79.21 4 530. 0.104 0.012 1.35 79.35 5054. o .116 0.013 l. 49 79.49 5579. 0.128 o. 014 1.64 79.64 614 0. 0. 141 0. 014 1.78 79.78 6664. 0.153 0.015 1.93 79.93 7226. 0.166 0. 016 2.07 80.07 7750. 0.178 0.016 2.21 80.21 8274. 0.190 0.017 2.36 80.36 8836. 0.203 0.017 2.50 80.50 9360. o. 215 0.018 2.65 80.65 9922. 0.228 0.018 2.79 80.79 10446. 0.240 0.019 2.93 80.93 10970. 0.252 0.019 3.08 81.08 11532. 0.265 0.020 3.22 81.22 12056. 0.277 0.020 3.37 81.37 12617. 0.290 0.021 Percolation (cfsl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0. 094 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.156 8.52 1 100.00 0.990 0.025 6 1/07/02 4:00 0.094 8.25 2 25.00 0.960 0.080 4 3/06/03 22:00 0.080 7 .13 3 10.00 0.900 0.021 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.080 7.08 4 5.00 0.800 0.025 7 1/08/05 5:00 0.056 5.70 5 3.00 0.667 0.056 5 1/18/06 23:00 0.025 5.00 6 2.00 0.500 0.080 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.025 4.88 7 1. 30 0.231 0.156 1 1/09/08 12:00 0.021 3.73 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0 .136 8.51 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File,18092dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.424 7 2/09/01 2,00 0.370 8 1/05/02 16,00 0.515 3 12/08/02 18,00 0.428 6 8/26/04 2:00 0.509 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.452 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.623 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.829 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0. 829 1 100.00 0.990 0. 62 3 2 25.00 0. 960 0.515 3 10.00 0.900 0.509 4 5.00 0.800 0.452 5 3.00 0.667 0.428 6 2.00 0.500 0.424 7 1. 30 0.231 0.370 8 1.10 0.091 0.761 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092pre.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 .114 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.146 1 100.00 0.990 0.031 7 1/06/02 3:00 0 .114 2 25.00 o. 960 0.085 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.088 3 10.00 0.900 0.003 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.085 4 5.00 0.800 0.050 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.074 5 3.00 0.667 0.088 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.050 6 2.00 0.500 0.074 5 11/24/06 4:00 o. on 7 1. 30 0.231 0.146 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.003 8 1. 10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.135 50.00 0.980 Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTG60R.rnf Ti 11 Grass o. 10 acres Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI60R.rnf 1.71 acres Total Area 1.81 acres Peak Discharge: 0.829 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:18092dev.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:18092dev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:18092dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:18092dev.pks Analysis Tools Command Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Loading Time Series File:18092pre.tsf Computing Flow Durations Durations & Exceedence Probabilities to File:18092target.dur Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command Size a Retention/Detention FACILITY Loading Retention/Detention Facility File:18092stream.rdf Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Loading Time Series File:18092dev.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Inflow/Outflow Analysis KCRTS Command INFORMATION about this program KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series 18092pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1. 00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTF60R.rnf Till Forest 1. 81 acres Total Area 1.81 acres Peak Discharge: 0.146 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:18092pre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:18092pre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:l8D92pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Project Location : Computing Series Regional Scale Factor Data Type Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:18092pre.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Sea-Tac 18092dev.tsf 1. 00 Reduced I I I • / t I I I 0( 0 ' / ., 8 lO 0 (!':-nl a6Jeu~s1n - - " --~ ~ - " -" C: -" ,::, '-" " " X '-w ~ 15 '-" .0 0 ct "! ~ '-~ '- '- '- '- '- ~ 00'0 ~ , Pau..ed -Flow Frequency . !(CRTS lo''(li!;!r,l()'.it 1--,h.:~ 1n .'·,c·d !<1'. • 18092pr~ pks ,o 2 Return Period 5 = @:; l-! 10 20 50 100 • 10-1 R • • • 'ii .L ~ ., ~ "' .c " "' 5 "' 10-2 "' 10 _, 1 2 5 • • 00 • 10 20 30 40 50 Cumulative Probab1hty • 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 -----S:, \' G'---, ·--:::: " I ~ t ~ '>J -..,_' ~-~ 7-\ :"S. ~ \\ " A ~-~ -' -~. -y \\ ~ s l;'-1 --->, \ FLOW CONTROL CALCULATIONS FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA Pre-Developed: Till Forest = 1.81 Acre Developed: Building = 1.27 Acres Road = 0.44 Acre Landscaping = 0.10Acre TOTAL = 1.81 Acres 18092.003.doc FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology Since the City has indicated that Conservation Flow Control is the required flow control menu to be followed for this site, the pre-developed condition regardless of the existing land cover must be modeled as till forest. However, there are portions of the existing pre-developed conditions that consist of impervious surface as well as landscape areas. These will all be ripped out with new impervious surface to replace most of the existing development on the site. In addition, approximately 0.1 acre of new thickly vegetated landscape areas will be also added. B. Developed Site Hydrology The total area of contributing development to the detention vault proposed for this project site is 1.81 acres, which consists of 1.71 acres of impervious surface, more thoroughly described as 1.27 acres of building and 0.44 acre of drive aisle or roadway improvement with a remaining area of 0.1 acre of new landscape contributing to detention. C. Performance Standards The area-specific flow control facility standards determined from the City of Renton is Conservation Flow Control. The conveyance system capacity standard for this development will be the Modified Rational Method as adopted by the City of Renton. The area-specific water quality treatment menu to be followed for this project site is the Enhanced Water Quality Menu which is met with a modular wetland system. D. Flow Control System Please refer to the illustrated sketch of the flow control facility on the following pages of this report as well as the flow control calculations consisting of computer print outs. E. Water Quality System Please refer to the illustrated sketch of the proposed water quality facility located on the following pages of this report. This illustrative sketch shows the calculations and sizing requirements that are being provided for this project for a modular wetland system. 18092.003.doc 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Property Layers PartelS Coal niine hazard(199CISAO) Strean (1990 SAO) Environmentally Sensitive Areas Erosion hazard (1990 SAO} -class 1 class 2 perennial class 2 salmonid class 3 uoclassified Seismic hazard (1990SAO) ISJ L.ancllliCI! hazard (1990SAO) 0 REFERENCE: King County iMAP (2016) Scale· Honzon/al N. T.S. Ver1tcal NIA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-0222 (425) 251-8782 ClVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING. SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P·\ 18000s\ 18092\exhibit\graphics\ 18092 sens.cdr Welland (1990 SAO) D For: Valley Medical Center Parking Garage Renton, Washington Title.· SENSITIVE AREAS MAP Job Number 18092 DATE: 09107116 SENSITIVE AREAS MAP i / /1 / I I I I I I /I I I I I I /AREA OF WORK \ \ \ \ \ NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS ?ANEL IS LOCATED I I TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. /·. !' ~i / I I -~l__.....-1' I ' t---1 I ...,______ I ' KING COl11':TY l1N!:'\CORPORATED i\Rf 530071 ( I t\ j/ /\ /---- / \ / I _ __/ en OF RENTON --+--L.-----i 31 ZONE X ZONE AH / /cm LEGEND CIT D OF KEKT OTHER AR'EA5 ZONE X ,...,e_.. ~,....d !c• ~ ,..M,.,d,-s00-.,,,..., iloodpL,11<1 REFERENCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Portion of Map 53033C0979 F, May 1995) Scale Honzontal N. T.S. Vertrca/ NIA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (420) 251-ti,22 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:! 18000s11 B092iexh1bit\graph1cs\ 18092 fema. cdr For: Job Number Valley Medical Center Parking Garage 18092 Renton, Washington Title: FEMAMAP ~09107116 FEMA MAP H:H,7 VALLEY MEDIC L CENTER NORTH CAMP B.S P. REFERENCE: King County Department of Assessments (Dec. 2011) Scale Honzonta!. N. T.S. Vertical: WA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:1• 18000s\ 18092\exhibltlgraphics\ 18092 amap_cdr For: Job Number Valley Medical Center Parking Garage 18092 Renton, Washington Title: ASSESSOR MAP DATE: 09/07/16 ASSESSOR MAP 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS This project is part of an overall development which is being redeveloped with the addition of a new parking garage. thereby removing and replacing some areas of impervious surface in addition to landscaped areas with new impervious surface. The ultimate discharge location for this project site is into Panther Creek located northerly from the project site; however, runoff from this project site will be treated through a modular wetland system and discharged to the southwest down a drive aisle which courses westerly through the Valley Medical Center development, ultimately draining into a biofiltration swale for additional water quality feature prior to discharge to Panther Creek which courses for over 1 mile due north through the Panther Creek wetland area of the City of Renton. The ultimate discharge location for this project site is the Green River several miles downstream from the project site. There is no upstream basin contributing runoff to this area of the project site. 18092.003.doc 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 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 applicable to this area of the City of Renton area required to the best of our knowledge. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: This project is not located in a flood hazard area as the site is over 30 feet higher in elevation than Panther Creek lying northerly of the project site. Panther Creek never would overtop that ravine to flood this project. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility nor does it propose to modify or construct a new flood protection facility; therefore, this Special Requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: This project will provide Source Control in accordance with the King County pollution prevention manual and King County Code Section 9.12 such that the owner will be educated about the proper use of pesticides and fertilizers and the parking lot will be swept on a regular basis. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This project will have several levels of the parking garage not subject to stormwater run-on or runoff; however, coalescing plate oil/water separators will be provided to treat any wash down water which may land on the different levels of the parking garage prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. 18092.003.doc 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 site will continue to discharge to the west down a drive aisle through a pipe conveyance system previously sized for the runoff from this area without detention; however, detention will be provided. Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: Please refer to Section 3.0 of this report for the Off-Site Analysis prepared for this project site. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: Per City of Renton requirements for this area of the City of Renton Conservation Flow Control, also known as Level 2 Flow Control is the requirement for this project utilizing a pre-developed condition of till forest for the entire area being developed. This is the methodology selected for this project. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: With the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project the conveyance system will be sized and designed at that time. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: This project will concur with all erosion and sediment control requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended and adopted by the City of Renton per their requirements. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project will provide a Maintenance and Operations Manual consistent with the City of Renton requirements with the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project. 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: This project is providing a modular wetland system which has Department of Ecology approval for General Use Level Designation for Enhanced. Basic, and Phosphorus Water Quality treatment capabilities. This is more than the requirement of Enhanced Water Quality that the City of Renton has adopted for this area. 18092 003.doc 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY REFERENCE : U SDA. Natural Re sources Conservation Service Scale Honzontal N. T.S. Vo rt,cal NIA 18215 72 ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (4Lb) LbHiLLL (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENG INEER ING . LAND P LANNI NG . SU RVE YI N G E NVIRONM E N TAL SERVIC E S P ''8000s\18092\exh1b1 t 'gra ph1csi 1809? so,l.cdr LEGEND: AgC = Alderwood gravelly sa ndy loam . 8-15% slopes F o r : Jo b Number Valley Medical Center Park ing Garage 18092 Renton , Washington Ti tl e: SOIL SURVEY MAP DATE . 09/07/16 FIGURE 4 SOILS GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN ---~·_--,-~ --_,,.. ~ ._--,.,_--_--·---'----f-FOR :.~-'---= ---=---,. ,--.--· ~--- -.;;---- -;..;; UW MEDICINE -VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER •1'=30'~ t,t).-Jr~i~r, If.lb ,4-tUfi7 ,I e,;,4-5 t IV. g: a. « ,0 ,0 w "-... ,--') N « N -0 -...-... ., 0 --_}?_".:_ lo ~ ~ I- I- I- I- I (/) (/) 0 1~ 30 60 f") _ ,. ___ ·b l ~~~---i __ .:i _ ,~9JffH _.-~A-~1=~~G-9 _ARAG~;.J~f\ ANSION 1 /_,-.,._/;;.,. ------/ ' . ----11'4P I a.. a.. a.. f · I «., _.,,. I I "=-loO '--- ·.:.._ 'f' .;1; ":.' ' '• <' " '-... -----·---- --,-_-c_-: ----:---:~ ~~~~-:_ t" 'i.° I • < 1ANDSCAP£ AA£), 6Y WAITRSHt0 COMP,',tlY UNE OF STANDARD BU<TER .... I •• J 1 .. '·t J ~a.J,\ ------1ANDSCAP£ ,P,r,, '3i'" ·---:;;,--, ' I,' \ ·-( :t ', ·~·· . -\ ti> ·i, -'-:.: '':>),.. " ~ 'J;-.':'f ·-.:;> ..... i -,.;~ 't ~i·-..... .-,,·-1i·t ··· -\ \~.'!-~/"I',.' ~·\~~·-1 '. \ , .-_-~:,;,:~!(1:)!~-1 . '. ~ -'.• ---,,---~ ....___,_). .. ----... .._,,--, i --, .____ ' . ~ . ' ; ----- 7, :;)~·- r:),,t' '( ' BY WATERSHED COMPANY EXISTING PAR<Nl GARAOE BSBL/ •• SCH . 40 PERr . PVC roonNG oRN, GRAl/(l. 0 LVL 3 r \. ·' ' '\ ' '' ' :_ i I.\ L • I'!. . ' -I~ Ip ~ ! I~.· J~ ~ ~ 1_~1, ~ j I~ •r-i)::! d ~ i'.,H '; I -..... I:,. ,~ ' N 1: , I~ I ; j ,i f . N" .. . ' ~ 6" PVC roon>IG DRAIN DISCHARGE -.- I .,' . ~ ~ ~ ( . // .,;.-· /.,. '/ ------/_ \' ' ,. . /,-,'// --:/·/.·" ---\ J .. / _/ / /;.,;.• / • --------~ • ' • --=---// .--: . / /. __ .· -" " ~---' ,-·· ~- ~ J .. GRAVEL 0 LVL 3 •-..,r :::; ---- ----·-- ---~--iacA ----_-_ ---~~---. -::>-: .. _ . . . --t· -~~ ' : : ~----~- ·ww~COWpAHY~ _ ' · .-< ••.. -·-· --·-------~--t·-_ ----~ -,', -~: .... ··<<.-._-·._' ., , ~-GROINAAYHIGHWA.TERMA.RK -------~-. -----' . . --" ', ----~------......---...' ._ ._. . -' -. ' -'~-:-~~-:-~~:-~::.?;-_ ~ ~ --·:: -~----:.::.s::.~<--~ -::---:;:-~-~ ~ , ~, - . ---'l< ----' -' ' • ---• • " ' ' ~:-:. -~-~ -= ------_,--._ '-·-,>::-. ----.::_ ----.. '-, ---' .A- l.; -'!'" .... ---• ... __ ..... ' --...__ --.-. ' ' ' ·, 1 ' ~<::'-/ ,~. "'!l-~ ·---'"------' ----• -' ' ' ' \ '(I- " \ \ \ ·-;?' -.:"'-·--::-' --. --: -•.' .. -~~;~---' ·-~ ~ i ' ~ ---. _<f) • :~{~-:~~;::~;<U!<E -Qf-:~-~-':. ' -~ ' ': ~-'-~-i;_\-:t<J'/ t~~~~~-::>~:-::-1)" ~~--~'::::::.: ?:::~,.; 4' ....){)7-LAPi ,J&, .(~-~-~~::.._-...:..:.__-~..:;__ '...___ ' '· ,' ' '.., , .-...,;, O('-..t...rw:lll-...--g;1-:: . ' ' :--"UlVio:-._ ,_--,"""<:.:_, ~-...-. ----: ~ -:· _., '1--.. --' ._.... -.........-::: -....._ ., ---------.. ' --. --·, '-----' 1\ -...... ·-.. ---..._ -....... ---..... .... ·., ·._ --' ' -, .... -' \. .. -I :.._" ' • ' :: -> ' • "1 -• ~" • ' / ~-t~'-:\::•:,'.:.-::< .. :•, ,_.I,.,;. ·:._' ,;_.,, __ ' '_r; '-' -.:.--:_ .,.-., ~~ ·', I • f'' ,,','I -, , ,_ I i ' stl~ .,;l;t ~ '~ .• .,·· i..,{J ~· SCH. 40 l, : i',i )' J_ /, /'I 'I °; " ,, I' I ·i' , I 1 --j If--_'._' P~PVC P I ... na:t.'I : """' ..... .:: ... " QARAQE I NEW a· I I I ROOF DRIIINI ---"'t---- ~ -~1--" ,-.,,,,.._ ~::· ' , ::_.--~~~:\J/Cf\,"=-c: ~,--_<:·_;'ll, f; .:· ' , 1· .1!' l.BVEL 4 FF • 78.33 I CEtBl!ICN --LEf,B.. 8 FF • I WI TCP ---1.·t-----;-MAX WA ~I I I sr.t.11e w-:r-=---= --.. 11, \_, - J. v 1 A-l.. t~ o~· • ··f ....;._ 40 ILil: YNA..T -I ·s· SCH . <0 I PERf. P>t ~ I FOO~~ J--;-NEW 8'~ ' ~O()f ORIIIN ~ I :,; --~~~ I M -. o:,.v, , _IE • 77.18 (12" E) , .I , IE • 77.1B (12· S) ""',"~".....!«i~~=~=:'i:, i--~~ NEW TRENCH OAAIN . RIM •79.37 ~'"'K)ll<·-.... -.--,-----· -. ,.. . . : -,_;;-_ ---_ -. 1' 1'1, I I ---I I I I J \ -1 I I I.'' , , I .... -..__ , --l J /i' r r I ~·-~ ·-~"" .,._, I, I _,_ .-: -' -------EXl8TNG BUll...DtNG '-''----/ I " ' 'I ' ·' ' r ~----,----. 'Jfl/1, , J, •• ' ~ , ,;/ ,.f'I' ~ 'l,, ' ' ,'/ r, ' I • ?/ lU = ~ .... IE s 77.80 (12" N) !E = n.30 (12" W) -~ CJ. 44-AC,. f?_--() EXISTNG BUILDINQ , . -----'L J ' J N _., I V/" \ I ;--· . --~' ,' . -/r-/ j '/' ,, ' I ,; ,'.tr f -' : ' <· ! ·, :, '' ' _,, J: ' ' ·,., ./_ .-' rl ' ' ' I ! 1 _;• . ·-, ' --I /I : ' ' ' ' " I 11' ,r, (J I I ' /r J: I I, -c-• 1i\ J~ •fi '/1 Cf.) .;JI 1 1~ '_ _ ,.. ~ 1 _ 'I " Q'J{" ' GAINO ANO CM:RlAY ~. '-1 i'/ // ~ ' r PER CfT'r' OF ' ·-·~--. '" i' -J /, I' ,-.: ' 'I RENTON STANOAAO '¥'\''Te-· N 15' ..;... ')' () ,, 0: J WATER EASEMENT / • ·., '/· o tK ; ·, i -:......._ _,.-~-C !· ,., ,;!&, • / ,, I - , • ' ,( ', t' ' . .:: ·",{',), , ">. ~ •. I ..... -~-:-: :,:_:( :~·.'·' J{ ,·· : .' • "-I 7J(f:,i if{;_.,j._:), i·, :1 -,S/ ~-nf:11,;:l-::..,...·,,, . w~~~·.·-,.·: (·t'',_-~_..,.., :, V ;; ,, ·· 1 r/ ·-;.<Y:,~2i_){ ;r \. -;y\ff'vV• urn .. -1,-/1 '•, , ' 0·~ /' NEW POROUS -~--/ , ,, // ,'' "'"1 I /', (. · , r· CONCI\A~-l~~O<h . , ,-r:-/H !, 1'! f I ./ I -: ' :• ,.' ·'//."''1 ,, ,.1 f • V',' ~,.--,, 1'i 'EX. CB-·cm,k{_)_·. //-J .. r,'-1 !, "I ;. ' ,' ·: I--' . ( -~-/ I' •}/ ' -~ •I. -4. -:--~' ,;:__ ' ... ,·' ,' '// 'J ' !? ,-,, ~ '....1. ..J.Jll--··. ·-1. ,_, ; -, ' ' ' I ·~ -M (_ ~-·7L_ / ' /, /1 1 ,I , ~I,,/ c , .. , 1 ;· , /1 , , -~, <.l / , · -I '~ . -,. I . ' ' I : ' I : · l~ ~-(./ : , : •, I , I 1: < /·., • ;· I I :• j • ' ~ ' /' ./ I 1 '1 , 1, I ·-· --·-', /" //: ' I' . • ·· · I I, :·-' f, I I I -: ' •• , I / I'! ' / . I ' I 1 I" 1 ,r r , :, ) ,_· i I( ., : I ' ,'1' f , ' t I ' _/ f, I , _., I;' ,· r ,'/ ' '' . fl ,, I. 1 J ' J I I' I Ii ' ,_ ,' < < I i"1 . ' '1 .,, I .\ I I , ! ,-,,,-, I 1· 1 _,;' ' ,, .r ,Ii • .. ~ ,~ I I I• .1• ~ w " :, ~g "'0 z ij',~ ,_ z tfl :U "' :, 0 ~:~ iii g"' ~ 'Z "' 0 0: CL U 0 0 0 z a: ~~ ~~ l8 _J~ tui <xwo, @~~2 ::,: ~ "E ~ jjj c§ ~ :c gi§~ 1 ::at:: Cl)Z w~ !<~ ~~~ffi ZS~ a: ~z ~ Q. ~ ~z ~ Oo ~ t""' ~ ::,.. z i5 t"" ~ ,?_ -,v ----u -r :§ ·5 I l a_ ' @ ii ii , ,, •• ~' 'i ~ t~ ~-= : • ;: -~ ·-------.-· /. / _,' ·-::: ... .1 • I~-.' I 1, ;~7/ ~I 011. ~~( ' qm. ,.l.:J)Fj, .~-, .... ~ i ;' , I ' I......_, "'-... i ! '' ' CS.48 Ell C8'TO E~ ~ 11:1'1..N.:B> n i i .: NEWTTPet54' :/ ·. ,Ir/ ; / ctEa<B:> FOR COt.l'LWICE TO CITY 8TNCAR:l8 -! ·,: ·1''' . i ,, · , "I;' ~ -: / I ! ' ! ;: ii ·-1~~-~ l:..:'• "[, ~ .~ ~GHA(J.h V" ...... '\~ Ill~·=!~~ --i. : ·-'"· ~ Cl1Y OF RENTON eot.M.NTY AK) ECONOMIC DEYELOPIENT GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN . ----!.. / ·\J,1'/f. I I I•'.)) rj. • T I r:;, : , :l.;-·1 / I I /7 I / / / I . ' I I ,,. 'I ; / /.. , Rlll~B/.19 1//; / IE • 7G 124 ( 1 f _: tit~' , I[ • /8.76 (t'l:'/Et)' i IE 7. 76.24 f'1ftl fl_) , IE /' 76 .24 , !> /II) , . .· I ' I , , I ' Dote Dote t Oat, ENGIHE£8' BARCIWJS(N CONSlfLTING ENGINEERS 18215 72ND AVENUE SOIJIH KOO, WA 9llOJ2 (425)251-6222 (•25)25 1-8782 r,x COMTACT: DAN !W.J,JEUJ 0 · ,rt ~-\ :.«'ii...~ l V ~ OJ " < ,., ' '<,~ lyG EHG'"t,. """""8) ""'"" CH!O(E) .......,...., V, R JEP c»TE ~~~ FU NO ~.c. Ji:~--- _I\$_ 8CN..E R3.D eoc., ___ '"~-- 1 .... c'"""-'"'-'; ..-.. :,. &err C4_ °" 12_ "' ~ ,C • ~ -~ ' ' s . f > ii' C >-· " .!i' ,.- v ,. :, C. ~' -, ~, ~ 0 _., ;:: --" < f !~ ~ is ~ • ~ ~ ' .. ~ / ~ ' t < ~-' " ., N ~ :,: i '~ i () z CD ~ u.j 0 a::i FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ~ ST SW 16TH ST ~ m "' < 0 .. "' r r ,... m 0 < ., '!;, I PUGn DR w -"' :! w ~ > 9t <( Fl :r t .... Tuk.wlla ,.o ·:" "' "' SE 164TH ST m .... 'Z SW 27TH ST /?. J'o "' 01; 'i',:, 0 ~ --< s "' 7' w 0 w > 0 "' SE t 68TH 51 w <( "' "' w "' 0 >-@) > w z w <( > ~ :; ~ ... I <( <( ;;, ~' .... i "' > r ~ 0 .... SW 34TH ST w ., "' ~ 0 o, "' --< 'o w > ,, 'i's > .:: t, <( ~ "' ) w ~ ~AREAOF ~ <( SW 39Tf1 ST '•:; St 176TH ST 0 ,, WORK "' t "' "' SW4tSTST <( 0 SCARR ,<O a SW 43RD ST SW 43RD ST w "' "' @) > <( w I "' .... w ~ > <( ---< ~ .. w r "' > 0 <( " ---< I ,, .... ;: 0 0 "' "' ;: ., 0 s :~ IE 192ND ST w "' SE 196TH ST >sE 1· <( I .... "' S 200TH ST SE 200TH IT REFERENCE: Rand McNally (2016) Scale Honzo11/al N.TS Ver11cal NIA 18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (4Lb) .1b1-o.1LL (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:', 1eooos·. 18092',exh1M',graµh1cs11ao92 vmap cdr For: Job Number Valley Medical Center Parking Garage 18092 Renton, Washington Title: VICINITY MAP DATE: 09107116 FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTSfTRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS D Drainage Easement ~ 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 knowledg. 71the. informationzovid!"d h e is ac .~rate. I 11 , '* 1 • · c' / , -&-, .. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 5 I '1 •09 18092.002.doc ! KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / 1 ~ Treatment BMP: CPS-0 S 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 0 Clearing Limits 0 Stabilize Exposed Surfaces t8J Cover Measures D Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities 0 Perimeter Protection t8J Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure t8J Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities 0 Sediment Retention t8J Flag Limits of SAO and open space t8J Surface Water Control preservation areas D Other D Dewatering Control t8J Dust Control t8J Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facilitv Summarv and Sketch) Flow Control Tvne/Descriotion 0 Detention Vault D Infiltration D Regional Facility D Shared Facility D Flow Control BMPs D Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Water Qualitv D Biofiltration D Wetpool D Media Filtration D Oil Control D Spill Control D Flow Control BMPs 0 Other 4 T voe/ Descri otion MWS J/l/09 18092.002.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~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) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: I Offsite Analysis Level: Uj/2/3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1/12113 or Exemption Number (incl facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private I Public If Private, Maintenance Loa Reauired: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes I No Liabilitv Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake I IEnhanced Basicml I Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscape Manaaement Plan: Yes I No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Requirements Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control (comm./industrial landuse) :?:009 Surface Water Design Manual Type: CDA I SDO I MOP I BP I LMP I Shared Fae. / l!'J.Q!l§ Name: Type: Major I Minor I Exemption I l!'J.9.!l§ 100-year Base Blood Elevation (or range): Datum: Describe: None Describe landuse: Describe any structural controls: 3 l'l '09 18092.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes I No Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan : ~R=e=n=to=n~---------- Special District Overlays:------------------------ Drainage Basin: ~P_,,a,.,_nt,,.,h=er~C=r~e=ek~--------- Stormwater Requirements: ----------------------- Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS t2J River/Stream t2J Steep Slope D Lake D Erosion Hazard t2J Wetlands D Landslide Hazard D Closed Depression D Coal Mine Hazard D Floodplain D Seismic Hazard D Other D Habitat Protection D Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Sole Source Aquifer D Other D Seeps/Springs D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 2 Erosion Potential I ii 109 18092.002.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Vallcv Medical Center Phone ___________ _ Address ___________ _ Project Engineer __,A:>Jl"-i "'-Sae,,d,.,_r _____ _ Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone ( 425) 251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivision / Short Subd. / UPD 1:2J Building Services M/F / !Commerciaj I SFR l:2J Clearing and Grading D Right-of-Way Use D Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review !Full! / Targeted (circle): Large Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I I i Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Proiect Name VMC -Parking Garage ODES Permit# _________ _ Location Township ~2=3~N'------ Range ~5=E~----- Section ~3c,l _____ _ Site Address NWS -Talbot Road South and South 43rd Street Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFWHPA 0 COE404 D DOE Dam Safety D FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Other __ _ D Shoreline Management [2] Structural Rockery~-- 0 ESA Section 7 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 / Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval 1009 Surfat:c Water Design Manual l.'L09 18092.002.doc FIGURE 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The total area of new development on this project site, including new landscape area, totals 1.81 acres. of which 1.27 acres is a new building for a parking garage. The project site is located within the Northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, King County, Washington. More particularly, the site lies slightly to the west of Talbot Road South. north of South 43rd Street, and easterly of SR-167. The project site drains to the west down a drive aisle which is well documented through recent projects having occurred on this drive aisle, and courses through a biofiltration swale at the end of the Valley Medical Center and discharges into Panther Creek located on the north side of Valley Medical Center. Panther Creek drains northerly from that point through the Panther Creek wetlands area of the City of Renton with an ultimate discharge to Springbrook Creek. For purposes of sizing flow control and water quality, the City of Renton has indicated that Level 2 Flow Control, also known as Conservation Flow Control, is the required means of providing flow control for this project with Enhanced Water Quality being the water quality menu to be followed. The proposal for this development is to provide an underground detention vault sized for the area contributing to it with a pre-developed condition of till forest, 0.44 acre of roadway, 1.27 acres of building and 0.1 O acre of landscaping, all draining to the detention vault, totaling 1.81 acres. Downstream of the detention vault will be located a modular wetland vault which is a proprietary device with General Use Level Designation for Basic. Enhanced, and Phosphorus Water Quality treatment capabilities through the Department of Ecology. The City of Renton is well aware of the capability of these modular wetland systems as they have recently been reviewed and approved on the Renton Marriott Inn Residence Inn project also located in Renton. At this time this project is seeking SEPA Review determination. With the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project the conveyance systems on site will be sized as well as providing a Bond Quantity Worksheet, a Declaration of Covenant, and and Operation and Maintenance Manual. 18092. 003 doc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 -Site Location Figure 3 -Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 -Soils 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL (TO BE SUBMITTED LATER) 18092.003.doc PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Proposed Valley Medical Center Parking Garage Addition Valley Medical Center Complex Renton, Washington Prepared for: Valley Medical Center September 9, 2016 Revised October 6, 2016 Our Job No. 18092 1821512ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (<25) 251·6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER. WA • LONG BEACH. CA • ROSEVILLE. CA • SAN DIEGO CA www barghausen.com