Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTIR-4253 Civil Engineering & Development Services 1700 NW Gilman Blvd., Suite 200; Issaquah, WA 98027 (425) 821-5038 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT CITY OF RENTON For Varma SFR 13014 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 February 8, 2022 Revised March 9, 2023 Prepared by: Jared Foulk & Nicole Mecum, PE Prepared For: Kushal Varma 1518 Jericho Place NE Renton, WA 98059 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING SAMorman 04/20/2023 Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page i Stormwater Technical Information Report For Full Drainage Review Project Sites Project Name: Varma Short Plat Project Address: 13012 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Parcel Number(s): 366450-0185 Name of Developer/Owner: Kushal Varma Name of Engineer: Nicole Mecum, PE Company: G2 Civil Address: 1700 NW Gilman Blvd., Ste. 200, Issaquah, WA 98027 Phone Number: 425-821-5038 Report Date: March 7, 2023 Engineer’s Stamp: This box to be completed by COK staff PERMIT # Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page ii Table of Contents I. PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 1 II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ...................................................................... 6 III. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 10 IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ........................... 13 V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ..................................................................... 14 VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES ............................................................................................ 15 VII. OTHER PERMITS ..................................................................................................................... 15 VIII. CSWPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .............................................................................................. 15 IX. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES & DECLARATION of COVENANT ........................ 16 List of Figures Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Soils Map and Legend Figure 3 – Existing Conditions Map Figure 4 – Developed Conditions Map Figure 5 – Drainage Review Flow Chart Figure 6 – Downstream Map 1 Figure 7 – Downstream Map 2 Appendix A Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance for 13016- 156th Avenue SE, Renton WA by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC dated January 29, 2020 Appendix B Infiltration Assessment by The Riley Group, Inc. dated September 2, 2020 Geotechnical Engineering Report by The Riley Group, Inc. dated November 10, 2022 Appendix C WWHM Output Appendix D Operations and Maintenance Manual Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 1 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW Project: Varma SFR Site Address: 13014 156th Ave SE Tax Parcel #: 3664500185 Zoning District: R-4, Residential Site Area: Total Lot Area = 46,759 SF (1.07 Acres) Developed Area = 15,366 SF (0.35 Acres) Site Location: The site is in the City of Renton within the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M, King County, Washington. Figure 1: Vicinity Map SITE Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 2 Pre-developed Site Conditions The project site is in the City of Renton. The site is accessed from 156th Ave SE, approximately 250 feet north of the intersection of SE 132nd St and 156th Ave SE. The site is bordered to the north and east by single-family residences, to the south by a vacant lot, and to the west 156th Ave SE. The project site currently consists of open grass and a few stockpiles of sand and gravel. The site is gently sloped to the from the northwest to the southeast at a slope of 2%. The property is located within the Lower Cedar River drainage basin. Runoff from the site sheet flows southwest into a roadside ditch on the east side of 156th Ave SE and flows south through a series of ditches and culverts. See full downstream analysis in Section III. Critical Areas According to COR Maps, and the Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance dated January 29, 2020 (Appendix A), no critical areas are located on the project site. Soils Per the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) information, the entire project site is underlain with Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (See Figure 3 on the following page). Soils encountered in on- site investigations include medium dense silty sand with gravel over very dense glacial till per the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. (Appendix B). Developed Site Conditions This project proposes a Single-Family Residence (SFR) (46,759 SF) being developed within the eastern 1/3 of the lot (15,366 SF). Right-of-way improvements will be constructed under a separate Civil Construction Permit. The site will be accessed via a new driveway approach from 156th Avenue SE leading to an asphalt driveway. Site runoff will be mitigated via dispersion to mimic the existing drainage patterns within the two defined on-site drainage basins. The stormwater off-site within the 156th Avenue SE Right-of-Way will be collected and directed to the existing conveyance system along the eastern side of the road. Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 3 Figure 2: Soil Map and Legend SITE Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 4 EAST BASIN Figure 3: Existing Conditions Map N Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 5 Figure 4: Developed Conditions Map N Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 6 II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM) was utilized to determine and address all core and special requirements. Based on the criteria specified in Figure 1.1.2.A of the RSWDM, the project falls under Directed Drainage Review. Per Section 1.1.2.3 of the RSWDM, the project must meet all nine (9) core and all six (6) special requirements. However, unlike Full Drainage Review, not all items must be documented by a Licensed Civil Engineer. See Figure 5 below for more information on how the type of drainage review was determined. Figure 5: Drainage Review Flow Chart Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 7 Core Requirements Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location The proposed development will follow existing drainage patterns in to both basins. Refer to the Level 1 Downstream Analysis in Section III of this TIR for a complete description of the existing drainage paths. Core Requirement #2: Downstream Analysis A Level 1 Downstream analysis has been completed for the site and no existing or potential problems have been identified. This analysis is included in Section III of this TIR. Core Requirement #3: Flow Control The increased runoff from the proposed project does not exceed the increase threshold for a basic exemption. Flow control is not required. See Section IV. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System The proposed on-site conveyance system, dispersion and grading will route runoff to the natural discharge point. Please refer to Section V for the conveyance system analysis. Core Requirement #5: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan providing details on best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction is included in the engineering plan set and in the separate CSWPPP that addresses the required 13 sections. 1. Clearing Limits 2. Cover Measures 3. Perimeter Protection 4. Traffic Area Stabilization 5. Sediment Retention 6. Surface Water Collection 7. Dewatering Control 8. Dust Control 9. Flow Control 10. Control Pollutants 11. Protect Existing and Proposed Stormwater Facilities and On-site BMPs 12. Maintain Protective BMPs 13. Manage the Project Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations An Operation and Maintenance Manual will be provided in Appendix D upon review and acceptance of the drainage design. Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability The owner will arrange for any financial guarantees and liabilities required by the permit. Core Requirement #8: Water Quality Facilities The proposed pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) is less than the 5,000 SF threshold for both basins, West and East is 3,097 SF & 2,898 SF respectively; therefore water quality is not required. Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 8 Core Requirement #9: Flow Control BMPs This project is classified as a Single-Family Residence and is subject to the Large Lot BMP Requirements detailed in Section 1.2.9.2.2 in the RSWDM. Full dispersion is not available due to the NGRA requirement and the required 100-foot native vegetated flow-path segment is not available. The impervious coverage is less than 45% and BMPs are proposed for al of the target impervious surfaces which satisfies the Large Lot BMP requirements. Impervious Surface BMPs Full Dispersion: Infeasible. The space required for a 100-foot native vegetated flow-path segment is not available downstream of the target surfaces and the parcel could not support the NGRA requirement. Full Infiltration: Infeasible. The Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. dated November 10, 2022 (Appendix B) states that infiltration is infeasible at the site due to underlain glacial till and confirmed by an in-situ infiltration test. Limited Infiltration: Infeasible. BMP’s relying on infiltration are not feasible as described above. Rain Gardens/Bioretention: Infeasible. BMP’s relying on infiltration are not feasible as described above. Permeable Pavement: Infeasible. BMP’s relying on infiltration are not feasible as described above. Basic Dispersion: Feasible. Two 40-foot Basic Dispersion trenches with notched boards and 25-foot native vegetated flow path is proposed. The roof area, a portion of the driveway, sidewalks and patio will be conveyed to the trenches. Sheet flow dispersion from the driveway is proposed for the remaining driveway area. Reduced Impervious Surface Credit: Infeasible. The proposed impervious surface exceeds the 4,000 SF which is required for eligibility for a reduced impervious surface credit. Native Growth Retention Credit: Infeasible. The necessary area to allow for 3.5 SF of native vegetated surface for every SF of impervious surface is not available. Tree Retention Credit: Infeasible. There are no trees to be retained when considering the pending short plat. Trees located outside of the development area will be kept in place until the short plat development commences. Soil Amendment: Feasible. All disturbed, pervious areas of the project will meet soil amendment requirements as detailed in Section C.2.13 of the RSWDM. Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 9 Special Requirements Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements Master Drainage Plans– N/A Basin Plan – N/A Salmon Conservation Plans- N/A Lake Management Plans – N/A Hazard Mitigation Plan- N/A Shared Facility Drainage Plans – N/A Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation The limits of this project do not lie within a delineated FEMA 100-year floodplain. Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities This project does not rely on or propose to modify/construct a new flood protection facility. Special Requirement #4: Source controls The project is not a commercial building or development; therefore, this requirement is not applicable. Special Requirement #5: Oil Control This project is not considered high use in need of oil control. Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protection Area The site is not located within an Aquifer Protection Area. Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 10 III. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS A Level 1 Offsite Analysis has been performed for the project site per Section 1.2.2.1 of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual by an engineer under my supervision on Wednesday June 10, 2020. The analysis was performed at approximately 3:30 PM with a temperature of about 75°. Soil conditions were observed to be saturated. The property is currently undeveloped and has been partially cleared by previous development to the north. The site is contained within a single drainage basin, the Lower Cedar River, but discharges from two separate locations. The two flow paths do not converge within ¼ mile downstream of the site, and therefore two Level 1 downstream analyses are required for this project. A map showing the study area is included see Figures 6 & 7 on the following pages. We have reviewed the site and the applicable resources for both listed and potential problems. The receiving waterbody, Lower Cedar River, is impaired at a Category 5 – 303d level for pH, Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen per the Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Atlas. No other critical areas or critical area buffers were located on the site per King County iMap, the City of Renton GIS maps, FEMA maps, or the CED Wetlands Inventory. The site is divided into two drainage basins with a total area of 1.07 acres which does not include the frontage improvements. An approximate “basin line” has been added to the downstream map to reflect this information. The western basin directs stormwater runoff west towards the 156th Avenue SE system as detailed below. The eastern basin directs stormwater runoff south and east towards the 158th Avenue SE system as detailed below. The eastern basin will remain undeveloped. Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 11 Figure 6: Downstream Map 1 Figure 7: Downstream Map 2 WEST EAST MATCHLINE APPROXIMATE BASIN LINE Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 12 East Basin The Eastern Drainage basin, detailed in this Analysis, is approximately 0.76 acres in size. Slopes range from 1-4% across the site. The study area for this analysis extends downstream for approximately one quarter mile and includes no upstream offsite drainage area tributary to the project site. The neighboring property to the north, while located at a higher elevation, has been previously developed and does not direct significant stormwater runoff to the subject property. Stormwater runoff from the eastern basin sheet flows to the south and east across the property line where it enters a stormwater ditch along the west side of 158th Ave SE. This ditch conveys flows south along 158th Ave SE through a series of culverts for driveway access. Runoff is then directed into sections of 12” Polyethylene culverts which convey stormwater under NE 1st St. The 158th Ave SE system collects runoff via catch basins within the public right-of-way as well as tie- ins from other residential development. The 12” Polyethylene pipe discharges to a series of stormwater ditches which are interrupted by 12” Polyethylene culverts and a 12” Concrete culvert for conveyance under driveway accesses. Stormwater is then directed into the SE 2nd Pl system which ultimately discharges runoff into the Lower Cedar River and the Lake Washington watershed. This Analysis was ended at a point over ¼ mile downstream of the site discharge location. West Basin The Western Drainage basin, detailed in this Analysis, is approximately 0.31 acres in size. Slopes range from 1-4% across the site. The study area for this analysis extends downstream for approximately one quarter mile and includes no upstream offsite drainage area tributary to the project site. The neighboring property to the north, while located at a higher elevation, has been previously developed and does not direct significant stormwater runoff to the subject property. Stormwater runoff from the western basin sheet flows to the south and west across the property line where it enters a stormwater ditch along the east side of 156th Ave SE. This ditch conveys flows south along 156th Ave SE through a series of culverts for driveway access. Runoff is then directed into a 12” Concrete culvert which marks the beginning of the 156th Ave SE closed conveyance system. This continues to direct flows south into a section of 12” Ductile Iron pipe which transitions to 12” Polyethylene pipe. This system collects runoff via catch basins within the public right-of-way as well as tie-ins from other residential development. The 12” Polyethylene pipe continues to convey stormwater south, and ultimately discharges runoff into the Lower Cedar River and the Lake Washington watershed. This Analysis was ended at a point over ¼ mile downstream of the site discharge location. Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 13 IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The site was analyzed using the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) provided by the Department of Ecology (DOE). We are only modeling the portion of the site that’s being developed. The project site is in a Level 2 Flow Control Area, therefore forested conditions have been used for the pre-developed modeling analysis. The hydrologic analysis of the site was completed to determine the increase in 100-year peak. Per Section 1.2.3.1.A, a formal flow control facility is waived for any threshold discharge area in which the target surfaces will generate no more than a 0.10 CFS increase (utilizing hourly timesteps) in the existing site conditions 100-year peak flow. All pervious areas are modeled as “pasture” due to reflect the soil amendment that will be installed. The WWHM analysis concluded that the increase in the 100- year peak is less than 0.10 CFS for both basins, therefore a formal flow control facility is not required. Given the topography of the existing project site, the West & East Basins were analyzed for the project. The site basin criterion is summarized below. Refer to Appendix A for the complete WWHM analysis. WWHM Hydrologic Parameters Soil Type = Till Rain Region = SeaTac Precipitation Scale = 1.0 Existing Conditions: West Basin East Basin Project Site Areas (Includes off-site) Forest = 0.390 acres 0.570 acres Total West & East = 1.150 acres Developed Conditions: West Basin East Basin Project Site Areas (Includes off-site) Impervious* = 0.079 acre 0.146 acres Pervious (pasture) = 0.311 acre 0.424 acres Total = 0.390 acre 0.570 acres Total West & East = 1.150 acres *(Frontage – New road & sidewalk; On-Site - Roof, Permeable Surfaces & Wheel Strips) WEST EAST West Basin: Q dev–Q predev = 0.0904 CFS – 0.0430 CFS = 0.0474 CFS East Basin: Q dev–Q predev = 0.1427 CFS – 0.0628 CFS = 0.0799 CFS Therefore both meets basic exemption, as noted in the analysis. Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 14 3.5 ACRES V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The runoff from the proposed on-site storm drainage does not warrant a conveyance system analysis because the minimum pipe slope for single family residences has been provided. The runoff from the off-site storm drainage system was analyzed to confirm that the proposed 12” storm system could convey the 100-year tributary flow from the 3.5 acres depicted in the map below: The WWHM program was utilized to calculate the 100-year storm (15-minute time steps) assuming 50% impervious and 50% till grass (pervious). A 12” pipe @ 0.5% can convey 2.73 CFS (using the Manning’s equation spreadsheet below) which is greater than the 100-year developed flow of 2.24 CFS from WWHM. WWHM Output: SITE Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 15 VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES · Infiltration Assessment by The Riley Group, Inc. dated September 2, 2020 · Geotechnical Engineering Report by The Riley Group, Inc. dated November 10, 2022 · Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance for 13016- 156th Ave. SE Renton WA by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC, dated January 29, 2020. VII. OTHER PERMITS · Civil Construction Permit · Final Short Plat · Building Permits · Right-of-Way Use Permit · WD 90 Water Service Application VIII. CSWPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Erosion/Sedimentation Control Design: Several standard Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per CORSWDM Appendix D.3 will be utilized by the contractor to minimize the amount of erosion and sedimentation that may be perpetuated by the construction of the site. The thirteen erosion and sedimentation control measures are outlined below: Clearing Limits- Prior to any site clearing, the areas to remain undisturbed during the project construction shall be physically marked on the project site. The clearing limits are delineated on the TESC Plan as the area to be disturbed. Cover Measures- Temporary and permanent cover measures shall be provided when necessary to protect disturbed areas. Materials will be stockpiled on-site and will be covered with plastic sheeting per City of Renton SWDM D.2.1.2.4 when necessary. Perimeter Protection- Filter fencing per City of Renton SWDM D.2.1.3.1 shall be used downstream of all disturbed areas to filter sediment from sheet flow. Traffic Area Stabilization- A stabilized construction entrance per City of Renton SWDM D.2.1.4.1 shall be implemented. Sediment Retention- Given the small scope of work and minimal grading, the installation of a filter fence will provide adequate means of trapping sediment on-site. If sediment is tracked off-site, public roads shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day or more frequently during wet weather, per CORSWDM Section D.3.2.B.2. Varma SFR Technical Information Report March 9, 2023 Page 16 Surface Water Collection- Given the small scope of work and minimal grading, runoff can be treated solely with the filter fence used for perimeter protection. There are no significant sources of upstream surface water that drain onto the disturbed areas. Dewatering Control- Dewatering is not anticipated. Dust Control- Dust control is not anticipated to be required but shall be implemented per City of Renton SWDM Table D.2.1.8.A when necessary. Flow Control- Given the scope of the project additional flow control measures are not warranted during construction. Control Pollutants- No pollutants will be stored onsite, but a spill kit shall be retained onsite in case of any fuel spills from construction equipment. Protect Existing and Proposed Flow Control BMPs- The location of the proposed perforated stub out connection shall be protected from compaction/ sedimentation during project construction. Maintain BMPs- TESC BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed throughout construction. All disturbed areas of the project site shall be vegetated or otherwise permanently stabilized once completed. Manage the Project- The TESC plan shall be retained onsite anytime construction work is taking place. Prior to commencing construction, a TESC contact will be established. IX. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES & DECLARATION of COVENANT The Bond Quantities (BQWS) and Declaration of Covenant are included in this section. A Facility Summary is not required for this project. 1055 South Grady Way – 6 th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200 • • Section I: Project Information • • • Section II: Bond Quantities Worksheets • •Section II.a EROSION CONTROL (Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control (ESC)) •Section II.b TRANSPORTATION (Street and Site Improvements) •Section II.c DRAINAGE (Drainage and Stormwater Facilities): •Section II.d WATER - ONLY APPLICABLE IF WATER SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY CITY OF RENTON •Section II.e SANITARY SEWER - ONLY APPLICABLE IF SEWER SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY CITY OF RENTON • • • • • • Section III. Bond Worksheet • This section calculates the required Permit Bond for construction permit issuance as well as the required Maintenance Bond for project close-out submittals to release the permit bond on a project. All unit prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead, profit, and taxes. Complete the 'Quantity' columns for each of the appropriate section(s). Include existing Right-of-Way (ROW), Future Public Improvements and Private Improvements. The 'Quantity Remaining' column is only to be used when a project is under construction. The City allows one (1) bond reduction during the life of the project with the exception of the maintenance period reduction. Excel will auto-calculate and auto-populate the relevant fields and subtotals throughout the document. Only the 'Quantity' columns should need completing. Additional items not included in the lists can be added under the "write-in" sections. Provide a complete description, cost estimate and unit of measure for each write-in item. Note: Private improvements, with the exception of stormwater facilities, are not included in the bond amount calculation, but must be entered on the form. Stormwater facilities (public and private) are required to be included in the bond amount. BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET INSTRUCTIONS This worksheet is intended to be a "working" copy of the bond quantity worksheet, which will be used throughout all phases of the project, from initial submittal to project close-out approval. Submit this workbook, in its entirety, as follows: The following forms are to be completed by the engineer/developer/applicant as applicable to the project: The Bond Worksheet form will auto-calculate and auto-populate from the information provided in Section I and Section II. This section includes all pertinent information for the project Section II contains a separate spreadsheet TAB for each of the following specialties: (1) electronic copy (.xlsx format) and (1) hard copy of the entire workbook for civil construction permit submittal. Hard copies are to be included as part of the Technical Information Report (TIR). (1) electronic copy (.xlsx format) and (1) hard copy of the entire workbook for final close-out submittal. This section must be completed in its entirety Information from this section auto-populates to all other relevant areas of the workbook Page 1 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet INSTRUCTIONS Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 1055 South Grady Way – 6 th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200 Date Prepared: Name: PE Registration No: Firm Name: Firm Address: Phone No. Email Address: Project Name: Project Owner: CED Plan # (LUA):Phone: CED Permit # (C):Address: Site Address: Street Intersection:Addt'l Project Owner: Parcel #(s):Phone: Address: Clearing and grading greater than or equal to 5,000 board feet of timber? Yes/No:NO Water Service Provided by: If Yes, Provide Forest Practice Permit #:Sewer Service Provided by: SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET PROJECT INFORMATION KC WATER DISTRICT 90 CITY OF RENTON Engineer Stamp Required (all cost estimates must have original wet stamp and signature) Clearing and Grading Utility Providers N/A Project Location and Description Project Owner Information Varma SFR Renton, WA 98059 366450-0185 Kushal Varma ##-######(206) 353-3168 3/7/2023 Prepared by: FOR APPROVALProject Phase 1 nicolem@g2civil.com Nicole Mecum 39374 G2 Civil 1700 NW Gilman Blvd., Suite 200 (245) 821-5038 13012 SE 131st St, Renton, WA 98059 1518 Jericho Pl NE SE 131st St & 156th Ave SE ######## Abbreviated Legal Description: NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 14, T. 23N., R. 05E., W.M. Page 2 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION I PROJECT INFORMATION Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 10.1%2 All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead, profit, and taxes. City of Renton Sales Tax is: 1 Select the current project status/phase from the following options: For Approval - Preliminary Data Enclosed, pending approval from the City; For Construction - Estimated Data Enclosed, Plans have been approved for contruction by the City; Project Closeout - Final Costs and Quantities Enclosed for Project Close-out Submittal 12,205.69$ Total Estimated Construction Costs E A + B + C + D 62,286.10$ Estimated Civil Construction Permit - Construction Costs2 Stormwater (Erosion Control + Drainage)C 26,582.05$ As outlined in City Ordinance No. 4345, 50% of the plan review and inspection fees are to be paid at Permit Submittal. The balance is due at Permit Issuance. Significant changes or additional review cycles (beyond 3 cycles) during the review process may result in adjustments to the final review fees. Roadway (Transportation)D 23,498.37$ Water A -$ Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer)B Page 3 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION I PROJECT INFORMATION Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Unit Reference #Price Unit Quantity Cost Backfill & compaction-embankment ESC-1 7.50$ CY Check dams, 4" minus rock ESC-2 SWDM 5.4.6.3 90.00$ Each Catch Basin Protection ESC-3 145.00$ Each Crushed surfacing 1 1/4" minus ESC-4 WSDOT 9-03.9(3)110.00$ CY Ditching ESC-5 10.50$ CY Excavation-bulk ESC-6 2.30$ CY Fence, silt ESC-7 SWDM 5.4.3.1 5.00$ LF 735 3,675.00 Fence, Temporary (NGPE)ESC-8 1.75$ LF Geotextile Fabric ESC-9 3.00$ SY Hay Bale Silt Trap ESC-10 0.60$ Each Hydroseeding ESC-11 SWDM 5.4.2.4 0.90$ SY 1778 1,600.20 Interceptor Swale / Dike ESC-12 1.15$ LF Jute Mesh ESC-13 SWDM 5.4.2.2 4.00$ SY Level Spreader ESC-14 2.00$ LF Mulch, by hand, straw, 3" deep ESC-15 SWDM 5.4.2.1 2.90$ SY Mulch, by machine, straw, 2" deep ESC-16 SWDM 5.4.2.1 2.30$ SY Piping, temporary, CPP, 6"ESC-17 13.75$ LF Piping, temporary, CPP, 8"ESC-18 16.00$ LF Piping, temporary, CPP, 12"ESC-19 20.50$ LF Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandbagged ESC-20 SWDM 5.4.2.3 4.60$ SY 156 717.60 Rip Rap, machine placed; slopes ESC-21 WSDOT 9-13.1(2)51.00$ CY Rock Construction Entrance, 50'x15'x1'ESC-22 SWDM 5.4.4.1 2,050.00$ Each 1 2,050.00 Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1'ESC-23 SWDM 5.4.4.1 3,675.00$ Each Sediment pond riser assembly ESC-24 SWDM 5.4.5.2 2,525.00$ Each Sediment trap, 5' high berm ESC-25 SWDM 5.4.5.1 22.00$ LF Sed. trap, 5' high, riprapped spillway berm section ESC-26 SWDM 5.4.5.1 80.00$ LF Seeding, by hand ESC-27 SWDM 5.4.2.4 1.15$ SY Sodding, 1" deep, level ground ESC-28 SWDM 5.4.2.5 9.20$ SY Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground ESC-29 SWDM 5.4.2.5 11.50$ SY TESC Supervisor ESC-30 125.00$ HR Water truck, dust control ESC-31 SWDM 5.4.7 160.00$ HR Unit Reference #Price Unit Quantity Cost EROSION/SEDIMENT SUBTOTAL:8,042.80 SALES TAX @ 10.1%812.32 EROSION/SEDIMENT TOTAL:8,855.12 (A) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL Description No. (A) WRITE-IN-ITEMS Page 4 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.a EROSION_CONTROL Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost GENERAL ITEMS Backfill & Compaction- embankment GI-1 7.00$ CY Backfill & Compaction- trench GI-2 10.25$ CY Clear/Remove Brush, by hand (SY)GI-3 1.15$ SY Bollards - fixed GI-4 275.00$ Each Bollards - removable GI-5 520.00$ Each Clearing/Grubbing/Tree Removal GI-6 11,475.00$ Acre Excavation - bulk GI-7 2.30$ CY Excavation - Trench GI-8 5.75$ CY Fencing, cedar, 6' high GI-9 23.00$ LF Fencing, chain link, 4'GI-10 44.00$ LF Fencing, chain link, vinyl coated, 6' high GI-11 23.00$ LF Fencing, chain link, gate, vinyl coated, 20' GI-12 1,600.00$ Each Fill & compact - common barrow GI-13 28.75$ CY Fill & compact - gravel base GI-14 31.00$ CY Fill & compact - screened topsoil GI-15 44.75$ CY Gabion, 12" deep, stone filled mesh GI-16 74.50$ SY Gabion, 18" deep, stone filled mesh GI-17 103.25$ SY Gabion, 36" deep, stone filled mesh GI-18 172.00$ SY Grading, fine, by hand GI-19 2.90$ SY Grading, fine, with grader GI-20 2.30$ SY Monuments, 3' Long GI-21 1,025.00$ Each Sensitive Areas Sign GI-22 8.00$ Each Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground GI-23 9.25$ SY Surveying, line & grade GI-24 975.00$ Day Surveying, lot location/lines GI-25 2,050.00$ Acre Topsoil Type A (imported)GI-26 32.75$ CY Traffic control crew ( 2 flaggers )GI-27 137.75$ HR Trail, 4" chipped wood GI-28 9.15$ SY Trail, 4" crushed cinder GI-29 10.25$ SY Trail, 4" top course GI-30 13.75$ SY Conduit, 2"GI-31 5.75$ LF Wall, retaining, concrete GI-32 63.00$ SF Wall, rockery GI-33 17.25$ SF SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE: (B)(C)(D)(E) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) Page 5 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.b TRANSPORTATION Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) ROAD IMPROVEMENT/PAVEMENT/SURFACING AC Grinding, 4' wide machine < 1000sy RI-1 34.50$ SY AC Grinding, 4' wide machine 1000-2000sy RI-2 18.25$ SY AC Grinding, 4' wide machine > 2000sy RI-3 11.50$ SY AC Removal/Disposal RI-4 40.00$ SY 21.8 872.00 Barricade, Type III ( Permanent )RI-5 64.25$ LF Guard Rail RI-6 34.50$ LF Curb & Gutter, rolled RI-7 19.50$ LF Curb & Gutter, vertical RI-8 14.25$ LF 196 2,793.00 Curb and Gutter, demolition and disposal RI-9 20.50$ LF Curb, extruded asphalt RI-10 6.25$ LF Curb, extruded concrete RI-11 8.00$ LF Sawcut, asphalt, 3" depth RI-12 3.00$ LF 196 588.00 Sawcut, concrete, per 1" depth RI-13 5.00$ LF Sealant, asphalt RI-14 2.25$ LF 196 441.00 Shoulder, gravel, 4" thick RI-15 17.25$ SY 109 1,880.25 Sidewalk, 4" thick RI-16 43.50$ SY 79 3,436.50 Sidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and disposal RI-17 37.00$ SY Sidewalk, 5" thick RI-18 47.00$ SY 6 282.00 Sidewalk, 5" thick, demolition and disposal RI-19 46.00$ SY Sign, Handicap RI-20 97.00$ Each Striping, per stall RI-21 8.00$ Each Striping, thermoplastic, ( for crosswalk )RI-22 3.50$ SF Striping, 4" reflectorized line RI-23 0.55$ LF Additional 2.5" Crushed Surfacing RI-24 4.15$ SY HMA 1/2" Overlay 1.5" RI-25 16.00$ SY HMA 1/2" Overlay 2"RI-26 20.75$ SY HMA Road, 2", 4" rock, First 2500 SY RI-27 32.25$ SY HMA Road, 2", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500SY RI-28 24.00$ SY HMA Road, 4", 6" rock, First 2500 SY RI-29 51.75$ SY HMA Road, 4", 6" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY RI-30 42.50$ SY 260 11,050.00 HMA Road, 4", 4.5" ATB RI-31 43.50$ SY Gravel Road, 4" rock, First 2500 SY RI-32 17.25$ SY Gravel Road, 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY RI-33 11.50$ SY Thickened Edge RI-34 10.00$ LF SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:15,744.00 5,598.75 (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 6 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.b TRANSPORTATION Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) PARKING LOT SURFACING No. 2" AC, 2" top course rock & 4" borrow PL-1 24.00$ SY 2" AC, 1.5" top course & 2.5" base course PL-2 32.00$ SY 4" select borrow PL-3 5.75$ SY 1.5" top course rock & 2.5" base course PL-4 16.00$ SY SUBTOTAL PARKING LOT SURFACING: (B)(C)(D)(E) LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION No. Street Trees LA-1 3 Median Landscaping LA-2 Right-of-Way Landscaping LA-3 130 130 Wetland Landscaping LA-4 SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION: (B)(C)(D)(E) TRAFFIC & LIGHTING No. Signs TR-1 6 Street Light System ( # of Poles)TR-2 10,000.00$ Traffic Signal TR-3 Traffic Signal Modification TR-4 SUBTOTAL TRAFFIC & LIGHTING: (B)(C)(D)(E) WRITE-IN-ITEMS SUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS: STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL:15,744.00 5,598.75 SALES TAX @ 10.1%1,590.14 565.47 STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL:17,334.14 6,164.22 (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 7 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.b TRANSPORTATION Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost DRAINAGE (CPE = Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, Average of 4' cover was assumed. Assume perforated PVC is same price as solid pipe.) Access Road, R/D D-1 30.00$ SY * (CBs include frame and lid) Beehive D-2 103.00$ Each Through-curb Inlet Framework D-3 460.00$ Each CB Type I D-4 1,725.00$ Each 3 5,175.00 CB Type IL D-5 2,000.00$ Each CB Type II, 48" diameter D-6 3,500.00$ Each for additional depth over 4' D-7 550.00$ FT CB Type II, 54" diameter D-8 4,075.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-9 570.00$ FT CB Type II, 60" diameter D-10 4,225.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-11 690.00$ FT CB Type II, 72" diameter D-12 6,900.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-13 975.00$ FT CB Type II, 96" diameter D-14 16,000.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-15 1,050.00$ FT Trash Rack, 12"D-16 400.00$ Each 1 400.00 Trash Rack, 15"D-17 470.00$ Each Trash Rack, 18"D-18 550.00$ Each Trash Rack, 21"D-19 630.00$ Each Cleanout, PVC, 4"D-20 170.00$ Each 1 170.00 Cleanout, PVC, 6"D-21 195.00$ Each Cleanout, PVC, 8"D-22 230.00$ Each Culvert, PVC, 4" D-23 11.50$ LF 165 1,897.50 Culvert, PVC, 6" D-24 15.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 8" D-25 17.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 12" D-26 26.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 15" D-27 40.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 18" D-28 47.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 24"D-29 65.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 30" D-30 90.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 36" D-31 150.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 8"D-32 22.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 12"D-33 33.00$ LF SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:5,575.00 2,067.50 (B)(C)(D)(E) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) Page 8 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) DRAINAGE (Continued) Culvert, CMP, 15"D-34 40.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 18"D-35 47.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 24"D-36 64.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 30"D-37 90.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 36"D-38 150.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 48"D-39 218.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 60"D-40 310.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 72"D-41 400.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 8"D-42 48.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 12"D-43 55.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 15"D-44 89.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 18"D-45 100.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 24"D-46 120.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 30"D-47 145.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 36"D-48 175.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 42"D-49 200.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 48"D-50 235.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 6" D-51 16.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 8" D-52 18.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 12" D-53 27.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 15" D-54 40.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 18" D-55 47.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 24" D-56 64.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 30" D-57 90.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 36" D-58 149.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 6"D-59 69.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 8"D-60 83.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 12"D-61 96.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 15"D-62 110.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 18"D-63 124.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 24"D-64 138.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 30"D-65 151.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 36"D-66 165.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 48"D-67 179.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 54"D-68 193.00$ LF SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE: (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 9 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) DRAINAGE (Continued) Culvert, LCPE, 60"D-69 206.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 72"D-70 220.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 6"D-71 48.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 8"D-72 60.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 12"D-73 85.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 15"D-74 122.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 18"D-75 158.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 24"D-76 254.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 30"D-77 317.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 36"D-78 380.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 48"D-79 443.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 54"D-80 506.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 60"D-81 570.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 72"D-82 632.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 6"D-83 96.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 8"D-84 100.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 12"D-85 100.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 15"D-86 103.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 18"D-87 106.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 24"D-88 119.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 30"D-89 136.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 36"D-90 185.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 48"D-91 260.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 54"D-92 381.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 60"D-93 504.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 72"D-94 625.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 6"D-95 70.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 8"D-96 101.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 12"D-97 121.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 15"D-98 148.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 18"D-99 175.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 24"D-100 200.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 30"D-101 227.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 36"D-102 252.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 48"D-103 279.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 54"D-104 305.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 60"D-105 331.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 72"D-106 357.00$ LF SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE: (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 10 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) Specialty Drainage Items Ditching SD-1 10.90$ CY Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+)SD-3 32.00$ LF 50 3,036.00 French Drain (3' depth)SD-4 30.00$ LF Geotextile, laid in trench, polypropylene SD-5 3.40$ SY Mid-tank Access Riser, 48" dia, 6' deep SD-6 2,300.00$ Each Pond Overflow Spillway SD-7 18.25$ SY Restrictor/Oil Separator, 12"SD-8 1,320.00$ Each Restrictor/Oil Separator, 15"SD-9 1,550.00$ Each Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18"SD-10 1,950.00$ Each Riprap, placed SD-11 48.20$ CY Tank End Reducer (36" diameter)SD-12 1,375.00$ Each Infiltration pond testing SD-13 143.00$ HR Permeable Pavement SD-14 Permeable Concrete Sidewalk SD-15 Culvert, Box __ ft x __ ft SD-16 SUBTOTAL SPECIALTY DRAINAGE ITEMS:3,036.00 (B)(C)(D)(E) STORMWATER FACILITIES (Include Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch) Detention Pond SF-1 Each Detention Tank SF-2 Each Detention Vault SF-3 Each Infiltration Pond SF-4 Each Infiltration Tank SF-5 Each Infiltration Vault SF-6 Each Infiltration Trenches SF-7 Each Basic Biofiltration Swale SF-8 Each Wet Biofiltration Swale SF-9 Each Wetpond SF-10 Each Wetvault SF-11 Each Sand Filter SF-12 Each Sand Filter Vault SF-13 Each Linear Sand Filter SF-14 Each Proprietary Facility SF-15 Each Bioretention Facility SF-16 Each SUBTOTAL STORMWATER FACILITIES: (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 11 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) WRITE-IN-ITEMS (INCLUDE ON-SITE BMPs) Pipe, RCP 12"WI-1 26.45$ LF 205 5,422.25 WI-2 WI-3 WI-4 WI-5 WI-6 WI-7 WI-8 WI-9 WI-10 WI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-15 SUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS:5,422.25 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES SUBTOTAL:5,422.25 5,575.00 5,103.50 SALES TAX @ 10.1%547.65 563.08 515.45 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES TOTAL:5,969.90 6,138.08 5,618.95 (B) (C) (D) (E) Page 12 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Connection to Existing Watermain W-1 3,400.00$ Each Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 4 Inch Diameter W-2 58.00$ LF Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 6 Inch Diameter W-3 65.00$ LF Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 8 Inch Diameter W-4 75.00$ LF Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 10 Inch Diameter W-5 80.00$ LF Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 12 Inch Diameter W-6 145.00$ LF Gate Valve, 4 inch Diameter W-7 1,225.00$ Each Gate Valve, 6 inch Diameter W-8 1,350.00$ Each Gate Valve, 8 Inch Diameter W-9 1,550.00$ Each Gate Valve, 10 Inch Diameter W-10 2,100.00$ Each Gate Valve, 12 Inch Diameter W-11 2,500.00$ Each Fire Hydrant Assembly W-12 5,000.00$ Each Permanent Blow-Off Assembly W-13 1,950.00$ Each Air-Vac Assembly, 2-Inch Diameter W-14 3,050.00$ Each Air-Vac Assembly, 1-Inch Diameter W-15 1,725.00$ Each Compound Meter Assembly 3-inch Diameter W-16 9,200.00$ Each Compound Meter Assembly 4-inch Diameter W-17 10,500.00$ Each Compound Meter Assembly 6-inch Diameter W-18 11,500.00$ Each Pressure Reducing Valve Station 8-inch to 10-inch W-19 23,000.00$ Each WATER SUBTOTAL: SALES TAX @ 10.1% WATER TOTAL: (B) (C) (D) (E) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR WATER Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) Page 13 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.d WATER Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 CED Permit #:######## Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Clean Outs SS-1 1,150.00$ Each 1 1,150.00 Grease Interceptor, 500 gallon SS-2 9,200.00$ Each Grease Interceptor, 1000 gallon SS-3 11,500.00$ Each Grease Interceptor, 1500 gallon SS-4 17,200.00$ Each Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 4 Inch Diameter SS-5 92.00$ LF 45 4,140.00 63 5,796.00 Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 6 Inch Diameter SS-6 110.00$ LF Sewer Pipe, PVC, 8 inch Diameter SS-7 120.00$ LF Sewer Pipe, PVC, 12 Inch Diameter SS-8 144.00$ LF Sewer Pipe, DI, 8 inch Diameter SS-9 130.00$ LF Sewer Pipe, DI, 12 Inch Diameter SS-10 150.00$ LF Manhole, 48 Inch Diameter SS-11 6,900.00$ Each Manhole, 54 Inch Diameter SS-13 6,800.00$ Each Manhole, 60 Inch Diameter SS-15 7,600.00$ Each Manhole, 72 Inch Diameter SS-17 10,600.00$ Each Manhole, 96 Inch Diameter SS-19 16,000.00$ Each Pipe, C-900, 12 Inch Diameter SS-21 205.00$ LF Outside Drop SS-24 1,700.00$ LS Inside Drop SS-25 1,150.00$ LS Sewer Pipe, PVC, ____ Inch Diameter SS-26 Lift Station (Entire System)SS-27 LS SANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL:5,290.00 5,796.00 SALES TAX @ 10.1%534.29 585.40 SANITARY SEWER TOTAL:5,824.29 6,381.40 (B) (C) (D) (E) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR SANITARY SEWER Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) Page 14 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.e SANITARY SEWER Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 1055 South Grady Way – 6 th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200 Date: Name:Project Name: PE Registration No:CED Plan # (LUA): Firm Name:CED Permit # (C): Firm Address:Site Address: Phone No.Parcel #(s): Email Address:Project Phase: Site Restoration/Erosion Sediment Control Subtotal (a) Existing Right-of-Way Improvements Subtotal (b)(b)23,158.43$ Future Public Improvements Subtotal (c)6,164.22$ Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Public & Private) Subtotal (d)(d)17,726.93$ (e) (f) Site Restoration Civil Construction Permit Maintenance Bond 9,409.92$ Bond Reduction 2 Construction Permit Bond Amount 3 Minimum Bond Amount is $10,000.00 1 Estimate Only - May involve multiple and variable components, which will be established on an individual basis by Development Engineering. 2 The City of Renton allows one request only for bond reduction prior to the maintenance period. Reduction of not more than 70% of the original bond amount, provided that the remaining 30% will cover all remaining items to be constructed. 3 Required Bond Amounts are subject to review and modification by Development Engineering. * Note: The word BOND as used in this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to the City of Renton. ** Note: All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead, profit, and taxes. (245) 821-5038 nicolem@g2civil.com Varma SFR ##-###### 13012 SE 131st St, Renton, WA 98059 366450-0185 FOR APPROVAL ######## 1700 NW Gilman Blvd., Suite 200 61,319.70$ P (a) x 100% SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET BOND CALCULATIONS 3/7/2023 Nicole Mecum 39374 G2 Civil R ((b x 150%) + (d x 100%)) S (e) x 150% + (f) x 100% Bond Reduction: Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (Quantity Remaining)2 Bond Reduction: Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Quantity Remaining)2 T (P +R - S) Prepared by:Project Information CONSTRUCTION BOND AMOUNT */** (prior to permit issuance) EST1 ((b) + (c) + (d)) x 20% -$ MAINTENANCE BOND */** (after final acceptance of construction) 8,855.12$ 23,158.43$ 52,464.58$ 8,855.12$ -$ 17,726.93$ -$ Page 15 of 15 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION III. BOND WORKSHEET Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022 Version: 01/07/2022 Printed 3/10/2023 EXHIBIT C - LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHE NORTH HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF TRACT 2, BLOCK 2,JENNET'S RENTON BOULEVARD TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THEPLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS AT PAGE 60,RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.EXCEPT THE NORTH 130 FEET OF THE WEST 115 FEET THEREOF. Varma SFR Technical Information Report Appendix A Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance for 13016- 156th Ave. SE Renton WA by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC, dated January 29, 2020 January 29, 2020 AOA-6125 Dan Finkbeiner danfinkbeiner@comcast.net SUBJECT: Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance for 13016 – 156th Ave. SE Renton, WA (Parcels 366450-0185 an -0205) Dear Dan: On January 21, 2020 I conducted a wetland and stream reconnaissance on the subject property utilizing the methodology outlined in the May 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). No wetlands or streams were identified on or adjacent to the property during the field investigation. The western portion of the site on Parcel 366450-0205 is currently developed with a single-family residence and associated yard. The remainder of this parcel is undeveloped and consisted of a mixed upland forest and brush patches that included Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), English holly (Ilex aquilinum), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and English ivy (Hedera helix). Parcel 366450-0185 consisted primarily of upland pasture and fill areas. Common plant species were generally typical of disturbed more mesic environments and included a variety of grasses, cats ear (Hypochaeris radicata), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum). No hydrophytic plant communities were observed on or adjacent to the property. Borings taken throughout the site revealed high chroma non-hydric soils and there was no evidence of ponding or prolonged soil saturation anywhere in the vicinity of the property. Dan Finkbeiner January 29, 2020 Page 2 Conclusion No wetlands or streams were identified on or immediately adjacent the site. This determination is based on a field investigation during which no hydrophytic plant communities, hydric soils, or evidence of wetland hydrology or channels were observed. If you have any questions regarding the reconnaissance, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC John Altmann Ecologist P icto m etr y, Ki ng C oun ty, Ki ng Coun ty King C ou nty iMap Date: 1 /29 /20 20 Notes: Th e infor matio n in clu de d on t his map has been comp ile d b y Kin g Count y staf f from a variety of source s an d is su bject to cha ng ewithout n otice. Kin g Co unt y makes no re present ations o r wa rra nties, exp re ss o r im plied , a s to accu ra cy, complet en ess, t ime lin ess,or rig hts to the use of such informa tion . This d ocu me nt is not intended for u se as a survey pr od uct. King Cou nty shall n ot be lia blefor a ny g en er al, sp ecial, indirect, incide ntal, o r conse qu en tial damag es including , but not limited to , lost revenu es or lo st profitsresulting from th e use or m isu se of t he info rmat ion cont aine d on this map . An y sale of this map or in formation o n t his map isprohibited except by written p er mission of King County.± Varma SFR Technical Information Report Appendix B Infiltration Assessment by The Riley Group, Inc. dated September 2, 2020 Geotechnical Engineering Report by The Riley Group, Inc. dated November 10, 2022 Corporate Office 17522 Bothell Way Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Phone 425.415.0551 ♦ Fax 425.415.0311 www.riley-group.com September 2, 2020 Kushal Varma 4159 Northeast Woodgate Avenue Portland, Oregon 97229 Subject: Infiltration Assessment Varma Short Plat 13016 156th Avenue Southeast Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 As requested, The Riley Group, Inc. (RGI) is pleased to provide the results of our recent infiltration assessment at the above-referenced Site (Figure 1). Our subsurface investigation was completed to assess soil and groundwater conditions and evaluate the potential to infiltrate stormwater at the Site. The site is located at 13016 156th Avenue Southeast in Renton, Washington (King County Tax Parcel numbers 3664500205 and 3664500185). Subsurface Conditions Review of the Geologic map of the Renton quadrangle, King County, Washington by Mullineaux, 1965 indicates that the soil in the project vicinity is mapped as Vashon-age lodgment till (Qvt). Lodgment till consists of a nonsorted mixture of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders which looks like concrete mix. Till is very dense from compaction of glacial ice and is considered a restrictive layer in stormwater planning. Drainage does occur in the upper several feet of the till deposits, but water ponds and moves laterally along the underlying unweathered till surface. RGI oversaw the excavation of four test pits and two hand auger borings at the Site, as shown on Figure 2. Test pits TP-1 through TP-4 were completed on the western portion of the Site where an excavator could access the Site. Hand augers HA-1 and HA-2 were completed in the heavily wooded eastern portion of the Site. In general, subsurface conditions included a surficial 12 to 18 inches of organic rich silty sand with gravel overlying very dense silty sand with gravel interpreted to be Vashon-age lodgment till. Groundwater was not encountered. Evidence of high groundwater (mottling) was observed in the silty sand overlying the lodgment till in some of the explorations. Infiltration Feasibility Based on the soil conditions encountered at the Site, with lodgment till present at 12 to 18 inches below existing grade stormwater infiltration via traditional stormwater infiltration facilities (infiltration pond, infiltration gallery, infiltration trench) are infeasible. The lodgment till is considered a restrictive layer and due to the shallow depths that the lodgment till in present at the Site prescribed “separation distances” between the base of a traditional stormwater infiltration facility and a restrictive layer (3 to 5 feet) cannot be achieved. RGI evaluated the potential to utilize Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater infiltration applications. Again due to the shallow depth to the lodgment till surface bioretention is infeasible due to lack of prescribed separation distance (3 feet) between the bottom of the bioretention cell and a restrictive layer. Permeable pavement applications required a minimum of one foot of USGS, 2020, Renton, Washington USGS, 2020, Maple Valley, Washington 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Approximate Scale: 1"=1000' 0 500 1000 2000 N Site Vicinity Map Figure 1 09/2020 Corporate Office 17522 Bothell Way Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Phone: 425.415.0551 Fax: 425.415.0311 Varma Short Plat RGI Project Number: 2020-317-1 Date Drawn: Address: 13016 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 SITE TP-1TP-2TP-3TP-4HA-1HA-209/2020Corporate Office17522 Bothell Way NortheastBothell, Washington 98011Phone: 425.415.0551Fax: 425.415.0311Varma Short PlatRGI Project Number:2020-317-1Date Drawn:Address: 13016 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059Figure 2Approximate Scale: 1"=80'04080160N= Test pit by RGI, 08/24/20= Hand auger by RGI, 08/24/20= Site boundaryGeotechnical Exploration Plan Project Name:Varma Short Plat Project Number:2020-317-1 Client:Kushal Varma Test Pit No.: TP-1 Date(s) Excavated:08/24/20 Excavation Method: Excavator Type: Groundwater Level:Not encountered Test Pit Backfill:Native Soil Logged By LC Bucket Size:n/a Excavating Contractor:Client Provided Sampling Method(s)Grab Location 13016 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Surface Conditions:Mulch Total Depth of Excavation:4 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation n/a Compaction Method n/a USCS SymbolSM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown, silty SAND with debris (fill), medium dense, moist Brown, silty SAND with gravel (till), very dense, moist Test pit excavated to 4 feet bgs No groundwater encounteredDepth (feet)0 5 10 Sample NumberSample TypeElevation (feet)Sheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name:Varma Short Plat Project Number:2020-317-1 Client:Kushal Varma Test Pit No.: TP-2 Date(s) Excavated:08/24/20 Excavation Method: Excavator Type: Groundwater Level:Not encountered Test Pit Backfill:Native Soil Logged By LC Bucket Size:n/a Excavating Contractor:Client Provided Sampling Method(s)Grab Location 13016 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Surface Conditions:Mulch Total Depth of Excavation:4 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation n/a Compaction Method n/a USCS SymbolSM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown, silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist Gray, silty SAND with gravel (till), very dense, moist Test pit excavated to 4 feet bgs No groundwater encounteredDepth (feet)0 5 10 Sample NumberSample TypeElevation (feet)Sheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name:Varma Short Plat Project Number:2020-317-1 Client:Kushal Varma Test Pit No.: TP-3 Date(s) Excavated:08/24/20 Excavation Method: Excavator Type: Groundwater Level:Not encountered Test Pit Backfill:Native Soil Logged By LC Bucket Size:n/a Excavating Contractor:Client Provided Sampling Method(s)Grab Location 13016 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Surface Conditions:Mulch Total Depth of Excavation:4.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation n/a Compaction Method n/a USCS SymbolSM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown, silty SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist Gray, silty SAND with gravel (till), very dense, moist Test pit excavated to 4.5 feet bgs No groundwater encounteredDepth (feet)0 5 10 Sample NumberSample TypeElevation (feet)Sheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name:Varma Short Plat Project Number:2020-317-1 Client:Kushal Varma Test Pit No.: TP-4 Date(s) Excavated:08/24/20 Excavation Method: Excavator Type: Groundwater Level:Not encountered Test Pit Backfill:Native Soil Logged By LC Bucket Size:n/a Excavating Contractor:Client Provided Sampling Method(s)Grab Location 13016 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Surface Conditions:Mulch Total Depth of Excavation:4.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation n/a Compaction Method n/a USCS SymbolSM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown, silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist Gray, silty SAND with gravel (till), very dense, moist Test pit excavated to 4.5 feet bgs No groundwater encounteredDepth (feet)0 5 10 Sample NumberSample TypeElevation (feet)Sheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name:Varma Short Plat Project Number:2020-317-1 Client:Kushal Varma Key to Logs USCS SymbolREMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTIONDepth (feet)Sample NumberSample TypeElevation (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation (feet): Elevation (MSL, feet). 2 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. 3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown. 4 Sample Number: Sample identification number. 5 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material. 6 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered. 7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text. 8 REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS: Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity COMP: Compaction test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test LL: Liquid Limit, percent PI: Plasticity Index, percent SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Silty SAND (SM) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Auger sampler Bulk Sample 3-inch-OD California w/ brass rings CME Sampler Grab Sample 2.5-inch-OD Modified California w/ brass liners Pitcher Sample 2-inch-OD unlined split spoon (SPT) Shelby Tube (Thin-walled, fixed head) OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Water level (at time of drilling, ATD) Water level (after waiting) Minor change in material properties within a stratum Inferred/gradational contact between strata ?Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. Sheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name:Varma Short Plat Project Number:2020-317-1 Client:Kushal Varma Hand Auger:HA-1 Date(s) Drilled:08/24/20 Drilling Method(s): Drill Rig Type: Groundwater Level:Not encountered Borehole Backfill:Native Soil Logged By:LC Drill Bit Size/Type:n/a Drilling Contractor:Client Provided Sampling Method(s):Grab Location:13016 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Surface Conditions:Mulch Total Depth of Borehole:2.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation:n/a Hammer Data :n/a USCS SymbolSM SM Graphic LogWater Content, %MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown, silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist Gray, silty SAND with gravel (till), very dense, moist Hand auger bored to 2.5 feet bgs No groundwater encounteredGW DepthDepth (feet)0 5 10Sample IDSample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ftSheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name:Varma Short Plat Project Number:2020-317-1 Client:Kushal Varma Hand Auger:HA-2 Date(s) Drilled:08/24/20 Drilling Method(s): Drill Rig Type: Groundwater Level:Not encountered Borehole Backfill:Native Soil Logged By:LC Drill Bit Size/Type:n/a Drilling Contractor:Client Provided Sampling Method(s):Grab Location:13016 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Surface Conditions:Mulch Total Depth of Borehole:3 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation:n/a Hammer Data :n/a USCS SymbolSM SM Graphic LogWater Content, %MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown, silty SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist Gray, silty SAND with gravel (till), very dense, moist Hand auger bored to 3 feet bgs No groundwater encounteredGW DepthDepth (feet)0 5 10Sample IDSample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ftSheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name:Varma Short Plat Project Number:2020-317-1 Client:Kushal Varma Boring Log Key USCS SymbolGraphic LogWater Content, %MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONGW DepthDepth (feet)Sample IDSample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ft1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Water Content, %: Water content of the soil sample, expressed as percentage of dry weight of sample. 2 Sample ID: Sample identification number. 3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown. 4 Sampling Resistance, blows/ft: Number of blows to advance driven sampler one foot (or distance shown) beyond seating interval using the hammer identified on the boring log. 5 GW Depth: Groundwater depth in feet below the ground surface. 6 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. 7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text. 8 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material. 9 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity COMP: Compaction test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test LL: Liquid Limit, percent PI: Plasticity Index, percent SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Silty SAND (SM) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Auger sampler Bulk Sample 3-inch-OD California w/ brass rings CME Sampler Grab Sample 2.5-inch-OD Modified California w/ brass liners Pitcher Sample 2-inch-OD unlined split spoon (SPT) Shelby Tube (Thin-walled, fixed head) OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Water level (at time of drilling, ATD) Water level (after waiting) Minor change in material properties within a stratum Inferred/gradational contact between strata ?Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. Sheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Corporate Office 17522 Bothell Way Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Phone 425.415.0551 ♦ Fax 425.415.0311 www.riley-group.com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BY: THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 BOTHELL WAY NORTHEAST BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 PREPARED FOR: KUSHAL VARMA 4159 NORTHWEST WOODGATE AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97229 RGI PROJECT NO. 2020-317-1 RENTON PERMIT # B21000376 VARMA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 13014 156TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 NOVEMBER 10, 2022 Geotechnical Engineering Report i November 10, 2022 Varma SFR, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 1 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................... 1 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................................ 2 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 2 4.1 SURFACE .................................................................................................................................................. 2 4.2 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................. 2 4.3 SOILS ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.4 GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................................ 2 4.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 3 4.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS .......................................................................................................................... 4 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 4 5.1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4 5.2 EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................................................. 4 5.2.1 Erosion and Sediment Control ..................................................................................................... 4 5.2.2 Stripping and Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................ 5 5.2.3 Excavations................................................................................................................................... 5 5.2.4 Structural Fill ................................................................................................................................ 6 5.2.5 Wet Weather Construction Considerations ................................................................................. 7 5.3 FOUNDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 8 5.4 RETAINING WALLS ..................................................................................................................................... 9 5.5 SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................. 9 5.6 DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................................................. 10 5.6.1 Surface ....................................................................................................................................... 10 5.6.2 Subsurface .................................................................................................................................. 10 5.6.3 Infiltration .................................................................................................................................. 10 5.7 UTILITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 10 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .............................................................................................................. 11 7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 11 LIST OF FIGURES AND APPENDICES Figure 1 ..................................................................................................................... Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 ............................................................................................... Geotechnical Exploration Plan Figure 3 ............................................................................................... Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Figure 4 ....................................................................................................Typical Footing Drain Detail Appendix A .......................................................................... Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Geotechnical Engineering Report ii November 10, 2022 Varma SFR, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 Executive Summary This Executive Summary should be used in conjunction with the entire Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) for design and/or construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the GER must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. Section 7.0 should be read for an understanding of limitations. RGI’s geotechnical scope of work included the advancement of 2 test pits to approximate depths of 4.5 feet below existing site grades. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site is suitable for development of the proposed project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified: Soil Conditions: The soils encountered during field exploration include medium dense silty sand with gravel over very dense glacial till. Groundwater: No groundwater seepage was encountered during our subsurface exploration. Foundations: Foundations for the proposed residences may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense native soil or structural fill. Slab-on-grade: Slab-on-grade floors and slabs for the proposed residences can be supported on medium dense to dense native soil or structural fill. Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 1.0 Introduction This Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) presents the results of the geotechnical engineering services provided for the Varma SFR in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations for the construction of a single family residence. Our scope of services included field explorations, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this GER. The recommendations in the following sections of this GER are based upon our current understanding of the proposed site development as outlined below. If actual features vary or changes are made, RGI should review them in order to modify our recommendations as required. In addition, RGI requests to review the site grading plan, final design drawings and specifications when available to verify that our project understanding is correct and that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into the project design and construction. 2.0 Project description The project site is located at 13014 156th Avenue Southeast in Renton, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure 1. The site is currently undeveloped. RGI understands that a single-family residence will be constructed on the site. At the time of preparing this GER, building plans were not available for our review. Based on our experience with similar construction, RGI anticipates that the proposed building will be supported on perimeter walls with bearing loads of two to six kips per linear foot, and a series of columns with a maximum load up to 30 kips. Slab-on-grade floor loading of 250 pounds per square foot (psf) are expected. 3.0 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION On August 24, 2020, RGI observed the excavation of 2 test pits. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. Field logs of each exploration were prepared by the geologist that continuously observed the excavations. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during excavation as well as our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The test pits and hand augers logs included in Appendix A represent an interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation and analysis of the samples. Geotechnical Engineering Report 2 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING During the field exploration, a representative portion of each recovered sample was sealed in containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual and laboratory examination. Selected samples retrieved from the test pits were tested for moisture content and grain size analysis to aid in soil classification and provide input for the recommendations provided in this GER. The results and descriptions of the laboratory tests are enclosed in Appendix A. 4.0 Site Conditions 4.1 SURFACE The subject site consists of King County Tax Parcel number 3664500185, and is 1.07 acres in size. The site is bounded to the north, south, and east by residential properties, and to the west by 156th Avenue Southeast. The existing site is undeveloped land covered by scattered trees and other vegetation. The site is relatively flat with an overall elevation difference of approximately 5 feet. 4.2 GEOLOGY Review of the Geologic map of the Renton quadrangle, King County, Washington by Mullineaux, 1965 indicates that the soil in the project vicinity is mapped as Vashon-age lodgment till (Qvt). Lodgment till consists of a non-sorted mixture of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders which looks like concrete mix. Till is very dense from compaction of glacial ice and is considered a restrictive layer in stormwater planning. Drainage does occur in the upper several feet of the till deposits, but water ponds and moves laterally along the underlying unweathered till surface. These descriptions are generally similar to our observations in the field. 4.3 SOILS The soils encountered during field exploration include medium dense silty sand with gravel over very dense glacial till. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented in the test pits and hand augers included in Appendix A. Sieve analysis was performed on two selected soil samples. Grain size distribution curves are included in Appendix A. 4.4 GROUNDWATER No groundwater seepage was encountered during our subsurface exploration. Evidence of high groundwater (mottling) was observed in the silty sand overlying the lodgment till in some of the explorations. Geotechnical Engineering Report 3 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table will occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the explorations were performed. In addition, perched water can develop within seams and layers contained in fill soils or higher permeability soils overlying less permeable soils following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the logs. 4.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Based on the International Building Code (IBC), RGI recommends the follow seismic parameters for design. Table 1 IBC Parameter 2018 Value Site Soil Class1 C2 Site Latitude 47.4854123 Site Longitude -122.1320619 Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, SS (g) 1.372 1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S1 (g) 0.470 Adjusted Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, SMS (g) 1.647 Adjusted 1-Sec Period Spectral Response Acceleration, SM1 (g) 0.704 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second; SDS(g) 1.098 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second; SM1(g) 0.470 1. Note: In general accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10. The Site Class is based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. 2. Note: The 2015 IBC and ASCE 7-10 require a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope of our services does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. Test pits and hand augers extended to a maximum depth of 4.5 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that similar soil continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations from a seismic event. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from intergranular friction. The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular friction, thus reducing or eliminating the soil’s strength. RGI reviewed the results of the field and laboratory testing and assessed the potential for liquefaction of the site’s soil during an earthquake. Since the site is underlain by glacial till, RGI considers that the possibility of liquefaction during an earthquake is minimal. Geotechnical Engineering Report 4 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 4.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS Regulated geologically hazardous areas include erosion, landslide, earthquake, or other geological hazards. Based on the definition in the Renton Municipal Code, the site does not contain geologically hazardous areas. 5.0 Discussion and Recommendations 5.1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Based on our study, the site is suitable for the proposed construction from a geotechnical standpoint. Foundations for the proposed building can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soil or structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors can be similarly supported. Detailed recommendations regarding the above issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. 5.2 EARTHWORK The earthwork is expected to include excavating and backfilling the building foundations and preparing slab subgrades. 5.2.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend on construction methods, slope length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing and weather. The impacts 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. RGI recommends the following erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs):  Scheduling site preparation and grading for the drier summer and early fall months and undertaking activities that expose soil during periods of little or no rainfall  Retaining existing vegetation whenever feasible  Establishing a quarry spall construction entrance  Installing siltation control fencing or anchored straw or coir wattles on the downhill side of work areas  Covering soil stockpiles with anchored plastic sheeting  Revegetating or mulching exposed soils with a minimum 3-inch thickness of straw if surfaces will be left undisturbed for more than one day during wet weather or one week in dry weather  Directing runoff away from exposed soils and slopes Geotechnical Engineering Report 5 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1  Minimizing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils and cover excavation surfaces with anchored plastic sheeting  Decreasing runoff velocities with check dams, straw bales or coir wattles  Confining sediment to the project site  Inspecting and maintaining erosion and sediment control measures frequently (The contractor should be aware that inspection and maintenance of erosion control BMPs is critical toward their satisfactory performance. Repair and/or replacement of dysfunctional erosion control elements should be anticipated.) Permanent erosion protection should be provided by reestablishing vegetation using hydroseeding and/or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established, site monitoring should be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. 5.2.2 STRIPPING AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION Stripping efforts should include removal of pavements, vegetation, organic materials, and deleterious debris from areas slated for building, pavement, and utility construction. Minimal ground cover/mulch was observed in the test pit and hand auger locations, however, deeper areas of stripping may be required in forested or heavily vegetated areas of the site. Subgrade soils that become disturbed due to elevated moisture conditions should be overexcavated to reveal firm, non-yielding, non-organic soils and backfilled with compacted structural fill. In order to maximize utilization of site soils as structural fill, RGI recommends that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of warm and dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November through May) it will be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork will require additional mitigative measures beyond that which would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. 5.2.3 EXCAVATIONS All temporary cut slopes associated with the site and utility excavations should be adequately inclined to prevent sloughing and collapse. The site soils consist of medium dense silty sand with gravel over very dense glacial till. Accordingly, for excavations more than 4 feet but less than 20 feet in depth, the temporary side slopes should be laid back with a minimum slope inclination of 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). For open cuts at the site, RGI recommends: Geotechnical Engineering Report 6 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1  No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies are allowed at the top of cut slopes within a distance of at least five feet from the top of the cut  Exposed soil along the slope is protected from surface erosion using waterproof tarps and/or plastic sheeting  Construction activities are scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is minimized  Surface water is diverted away from the excavation  The general condition of slopes should be observed periodically by a geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate stability and erosion control measures In all cases, however, appropriate inclinations will depend on the actual soil and groundwater conditions encountered during earthwork. Ultimately, the site contractor must be responsible for maintaining safe excavation slopes that comply with applicable OSHA or WISHA guidelines. 5.2.4 STRUCTURAL FILL RGI recommends fill below the foundation and floor slab, behind retaining walls, and below pavement and hardscape surfaces be placed in accordance with the following recommendations for structural fill. The suitability of excavated site soils and import soils for compacted structural fill use will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot be consistently compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percent above or below optimum. Optimum moisture content is that moisture that results in the greatest compacted dry density with a specified compactive effort. Non-organic site soils are only considered suitable for structural fill provided that their moisture content is within about two percent of the optimum moisture level as determined by American Society of Testing and Materials D1557-09 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (ASTM D1557). Excavated site soils may not be suitable for re-use as structural fill depending on the moisture content and weather conditions at the time of construction. If soils are stockpiled for future reuse and wet weather is anticipated, the stockpile should be protected with plastic sheeting that is securely anchored. Even during dry weather, moisture conditioning (such as, windrowing and drying) of site soils to be reused as structural fill may be required. Geotechnical Engineering Report 7 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 The site soils are moisture sensitive and may require moisture conditioning prior to use as structural fill. If on-site soils are or become unusable, it may become necessary to import clean, granular soils to complete site work that meet the grading requirements listed in Table 2 to be used as structural fill. Table 2 Structural Fill Gradation U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 4 inches 100 No. 4 sieve 22 to 100 No. 200 sieve 0 to 5* *Based on minus 3/4 inch fraction. Prior to use, an RGI representative should observe and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill materials should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted as specified in Table 3. The soil’s maximum density and optimum moisture should be determined by ASTM D1557. Table 3 Structural Fill Compaction ASTM D1557 Location Material Type Minimum Compaction Percentage Moisture Content Range Foundations On-site granular or approved imported fill soils: 95 +2 -2 Retaining Wall Backfill On-site granular or approved imported fill soils: 92 +2 -2 Slab-on-grade On-site granular or approved imported fill soils: 95 +2 -2 General Fill (non- structural areas) On-site soils or approved imported fill soils: 90 +3 -2 Placement and compaction of structural fill should be observed by RGI. A representative number of in-place density tests should be performed as the fill is being placed to confirm that the recommended level of compaction is achieved. 5.2.5 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS RGI recommends that preparation for site grading and construction include procedures intended to drain ponded water, control surface water runoff, and to collect shallow Geotechnical Engineering Report 8 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 subsurface seepage zones in excavations where encountered. It will not be possible to successfully compact the subgrade or utilize on-site soils as structural fill if accumulated water is not drained prior to grading or if drainage is not controlled during construction. Attempting to grade the site without adequate drainage control measures will reduce the amount of on-site soil effectively available for use, increase the amount of select import fill materials required, and ultimately increase the cost of the earthwork phases of the project. Free water should not be allowed to pond on the subgrade soils. RGI anticipates that the use of berms and shallow drainage ditches, with sumps and pumps in utility trenches, will be required for surface water control during wet weather and/or wet site conditions. 5.3 FOUNDATIONS Following site preparation and grading, the proposed building foundation can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soil or structural fill. Loose, organic, or other unsuitable soils may be encountered in the proposed building footprint. If unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. If loose soils are encountered, the soils should be moisture conditioned and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The foundation design value assumes the foundation is supported on at least two feet of medium dense native soil or structural fill. Table 4 Foundation Design Design Parameter Value Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf1 Friction Coefficient 0.30 Passive pressure (equivalent fluid pressure) 250 pcf2 Minimum foundation dimensions Columns: 24 inches Walls: 16 inches 1. psf = pounds per square foot 2. pcf = pounds per cubic foot The allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions. For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 1/3 increase in this allowable capacity may be used. At perimeter locations, RGI recommends not including the upper 12 inches of soil in the computation of passive pressures because they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. The passive pressure value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent soil or backfilled with structural fill as described in Section 5.2.4. The recommended base friction and passive resistance value includes a safety factor of about 1.5. Geotechnical Engineering Report 9 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 Perimeter foundations exposed to weather should be at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within 5 feet of the foundation for perimeter (or exterior) footings and finished floor level for interior footings. With spread footing foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations in this section, maximum total and differential post-construction settlements of 1 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively, should be expected. 5.4 RETAINING WALLS If retaining walls are needed in the building area, RGI recommends cast-in-place concrete walls be used. The magnitude of earth pressure development on retaining walls will partly depend on the quality of the wall backfill. RGI recommends placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Wall drainage will be needed behind the wall face. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is shown in Figure 3. With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended, and drainage properly installed, RGI recommends using the values in the following table for design. Table 5 Retaining Wall Design Design Parameter Value Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf Active Earth Pressure (unrestrained walls) 35 pcf At-rest Earth Pressure (restrained walls) 50 pcf For seismic design, an additional uniform load of 7 times the wall height (H) for unrestrained walls and 14H in psf for restrained walls should be applied to the wall surface. Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in Section 5.3. 5.5 SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION Once site preparation has been completed as described in Section 5.2, suitable support for slab-on-grade construction should be provided. RGI recommends that the concrete slab be placed on top of medium dense native soil or structural fill. Immediately below the floor slab, RGI recommends placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-draining sand or gravel that has less than five percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Where moisture by vapor transmission is Geotechnical Engineering Report 10 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 undesirable, an 8- to 10-millimeter thick plastic membrane should be placed on a 4-inch thick layer of clean gravel. For the anticipated floor slab loading, we estimate post-construction floor settlements of 1/4- to 1/2-inch. 5.6 DRAINAGE 5.6.1 SURFACE Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building area. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building area. For non-pavement locations, RGI recommends providing a minimum drainage gradient of 3 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the building perimeter. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of 1 percent should be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. 5.6.2 SUBSURFACE RGI recommends installing perimeter foundation drains. A typical footing drain detail is shown on Figure 4. The foundation drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to an approved discharge facility. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to a controlled point of approved discharge. 5.6.3 INFILTRATION The site is underlain by very dense glacial till, commonly referred to as “hardpan.” This material does not allow for infiltration. 5.7 UTILITIES Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. For site utilities located within the right-of-ways, bedding and backfill should be completed in accordance with City of Renton specifications. At a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 5.2.4. Where utilities occur below unimproved areas, the degree of compaction can be reduced to a minimum of 90 percent of the soil’s maximum density as determined by the referenced ASTM D1557. As noted, soils excavated on site will not be suitable for use as backfill material. Imported structural fill meeting the gradation provided in Table 2 should be used for trench backfill. Geotechnical Engineering Report 11 November 10, 2022 Varma Short Plat, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 6.0 Additional Services RGI is available to provide further geotechnical consultation throughout the design phase of the project. RGI should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. RGI is also available to provide geotechnical engineering and construction monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the earthwork and construction depends on proper site preparation and procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may arise in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know and we will prepare a cost proposal. 7.0 Limitations This GER is the property of RGI, Kushal Varma, and its designated agents. Within the limits of the scope and budget, this GER was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area at the time this GER was issued. This GER is intended for specific application to the Varma single family residence project in Renton, Washington, and for the exclusive use of Kushal Varma and its authorized representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (for example, mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, we can provide a proposal for these services. The analyses and recommendations presented in this GER are based upon data obtained from the explorations performed on site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, RGI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this GER prior to proceeding with construction. It is the client’s responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designers, contractors, subcontractors, are made aware of this GER in its entirety. The use of information contained in this GER for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor’s option and risk. USGS, 2020, Renton, Washington USGS, 2020, Maple Valley, Washington 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Approximate Scale: 1"=1000' 0 500 1000 2000 N Site Vicinity Map Figure 1 11/2022 Corporate Office 17522 Bothell Way Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Phone: 425.415.0551 Fax: 425.415.0311 Varma Single Family Residence RGI Project Number: 2020-317-1 Date Drawn: Address: 13014 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 SITE TP-3TP-411/2022Corporate Office17522 Bothell Way NortheastBothell, Washington 98011Phone: 425.415.0551Fax: 425.415.0311Varma Single Family ResidenceRGI Project Number:2020-317-1Date Drawn:Address: 13014 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059Figure 2Approximate Scale: 1"=50'02550100N= Test pit by RGI, 08/24/20= Site boundaryGeotechnical Exploration Plan 3/4" Washed Rock or Pea Gravel 4" Perforated Pipe Building Slab Structural Backfill Compacted Filter Fabric 11/2022 Corporate Office 17522 Bothell Way Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Phone: 425.415.0551 Fax: 425.415.0311 Varma Single Family Residence RGI Project Number: 2020-317-1 Date Drawn: Address: 13014 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Typical Footing Drain Detail Figure 3 Not to Scale Incliniations) 12" Over the Pipe 3" Below the Pipe Perforated Pipe 4" Diameter PVC Compacted Structural Backfill (Native or Import) 12" min. Filter Fabric Material 12" Minimum Wide Free-Draining Gravel Slope to Drain (See Report for Appropriate Excavated Slope 11/2022 Corporate Office 17522 Bothell Way Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Phone: 425.415.0551 Fax: 425.415.0311 Varma Single Family Residence RGI Project Number: 2020-317-1 Date Drawn: Address: 13014 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Figure 4 Not to Scale Geotechnical Engineering Report November 10, 2022 Varma SFR, Renton, Washington RGI Project No. 2020-317-1 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING On August 24, 2020, RGI performed field explorations using a trackhoe and hand auger. We explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by observing the excavation of two test pits. The test pits and hand augers locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately determined by measurements from existing property lines and paved roads. A geologist from our office conducted the field exploration and classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test exploration, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Representative soil samples obtained from the explorations were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. As a part of the laboratory testing program, the soil samples were classified in our in house laboratory based on visual observation, texture, plasticity, and the limited laboratory testing described below. Moisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were performed in accordance with ASTM D2216-10 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (ASTM D2216) on representative samples obtained from the exploration in order to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The moisture content of typical sample was measured and is reported on the test pit logs. Grain Size Analysis A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses was determined using D6913-04(2009) Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis (ASTM D6913) on two of the samples. Project Name: Varma Single Family Residence Project Number: 2020-317-1 Client: Kushal Varma Test Pit No.: TP-3 Date(s) Excavated:08/24/20 Excavation Method: Excavator Type: Groundwater Level:Not encountered Test Pit Backfill:Native Soil Logged By LC Bucket Size:n/a Excavating Contractor:Client Provided Sampling Method(s)Grab Location 13014 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Surface Conditions:Mulch Total Depth of Excavation:4.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation n/a Compaction Method n/a USCS SymbolSM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown, silty SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist Gray, silty SAND with gravel (till), very dense, moist Test pit excavated to 4.5 feet bgs No groundwater encounteredDepth (feet)0 5 10 Sample NumberSample TypeElevation (feet)Sheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name: Varma Single Family Residence Project Number: 2020-317-1 Client: Kushal Varma Test Pit No.: TP-4 Date(s) Excavated:08/24/20 Excavation Method: Excavator Type: Groundwater Level:Not encountered Test Pit Backfill:Native Soil Logged By LC Bucket Size:n/a Excavating Contractor:Client Provided Sampling Method(s)Grab Location 13014 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington 98059 Surface Conditions:Mulch Total Depth of Excavation:4.5 feet bgs Approximate Surface Elevation n/a Compaction Method n/a USCS SymbolSM SM REMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown, silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist Gray, silty SAND with gravel (till), very dense, moist Test pit excavated to 4.5 feet bgs No groundwater encounteredDepth (feet)0 5 10 Sample NumberSample TypeElevation (feet)Sheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name: Varma Single Family Residence Project Number: 2020-317-1 Client: Kushal Varma Key to Logs USCS SymbolREMARKS AND OTHER TESTSGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTIONDepth (feet)Sample NumberSample TypeElevation (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation (feet): Elevation (MSL, feet). 2 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. 3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown. 4 Sample Number: Sample identification number. 5 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material. 6 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered. 7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text. 8 REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS: Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity COMP: Compaction test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test LL: Liquid Limit, percent PI: Plasticity Index, percent SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Silty SAND (SM) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Auger sampler Bulk Sample 3-inch-OD California w/ brass rings CME Sampler Grab Sample 2.5-inch-OD Modified California w/ brass liners Pitcher Sample 2-inch-OD unlined split spoon (SPT) Shelby Tube (Thin-walled, fixed head) OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Water level (at time of drilling, ATD) Water level (after waiting) Minor change in material properties within a stratum Inferred/gradational contact between strata ?Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. Sheet 1 of 1 The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Varma SFR Technical Information Report Appendix C WWHM Output WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:Lot 1 3-9-2023 Site Name:Varma SFR Site Address: City: Report Date:3/10/2023 Gage:Seatac Data Start:1948/10/01 00:00 Data End:2009/09/30 00:00 Timestep:Hourly Precip Scale:1.167 Version Date:2019/09/13 Version:4.2.17 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC3:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC3:50 Year Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use West Basin Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 0.39 Pervious Total 0.39 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.39 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 4 East Basin Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 0.57 Pervious Total 0.57 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.57 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 5 Upstream Area Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 3.5 Pervious Total 3.5 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 3.5 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 6 Mitigated Land Use West Basin Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Pasture, Flat 0.311 Pervious Total 0.311 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.079 Impervious Total 0.079 Basin Total 0.39 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 7 East Basin Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Pasture, Flat 0.424 Pervious Total 0.424 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.146 Impervious Total 0.146 Basin Total 0.57 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 8 Upstream Area Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 1.75 Pervious Total 1.75 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 1.75 Impervious Total 1.75 Basin Total 3.5 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 9 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 10 Mitigated Routing Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:27 PM Page 11 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.39 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.311 Total Impervious Area:0.079 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.01388 5 year 0.022148 10 year 0.027523 25 year 0.034029 50 year 0.038627 100 year 0.043001 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.034573 5 year 0.047103 10 year 0.056314 25 year 0.069038 50 year 0.079333 100 year 0.090352 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.015 0.038 1950 0.028 0.067 1951 0.031 0.043 1952 0.010 0.027 1953 0.008 0.024 1954 0.012 0.032 1955 0.019 0.037 1956 0.017 0.037 1957 0.014 0.041 1958 0.014 0.032 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:37 PM Page 12 1959 0.011 0.026 1960 0.022 0.040 1961 0.011 0.029 1962 0.007 0.024 1963 0.011 0.029 1964 0.012 0.033 1965 0.010 0.027 1966 0.009 0.030 1967 0.019 0.041 1968 0.012 0.038 1969 0.012 0.029 1970 0.011 0.030 1971 0.010 0.031 1972 0.024 0.049 1973 0.011 0.027 1974 0.011 0.029 1975 0.018 0.046 1976 0.011 0.030 1977 0.002 0.024 1978 0.010 0.038 1979 0.006 0.031 1980 0.017 0.039 1981 0.009 0.039 1982 0.021 0.062 1983 0.015 0.029 1984 0.010 0.031 1985 0.005 0.022 1986 0.024 0.047 1987 0.022 0.044 1988 0.009 0.022 1989 0.005 0.023 1990 0.034 0.072 1991 0.029 0.065 1992 0.010 0.030 1993 0.011 0.022 1994 0.004 0.018 1995 0.015 0.028 1996 0.029 0.052 1997 0.028 0.042 1998 0.007 0.031 1999 0.018 0.057 2000 0.011 0.037 2001 0.002 0.023 2002 0.014 0.041 2003 0.011 0.036 2004 0.028 0.075 2005 0.015 0.032 2006 0.017 0.034 2007 0.046 0.094 2008 0.039 0.067 2009 0.021 0.042 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0463 0.0936 2 0.0388 0.0749 3 0.0343 0.0724 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:37 PM Page 13 4 0.0307 0.0672 5 0.0293 0.0665 6 0.0287 0.0648 7 0.0284 0.0617 8 0.0280 0.0571 9 0.0276 0.0519 10 0.0244 0.0495 11 0.0238 0.0466 12 0.0225 0.0456 13 0.0224 0.0442 14 0.0211 0.0432 15 0.0208 0.0424 16 0.0192 0.0417 17 0.0192 0.0415 18 0.0181 0.0409 19 0.0180 0.0409 20 0.0174 0.0398 21 0.0168 0.0392 22 0.0166 0.0387 23 0.0152 0.0378 24 0.0148 0.0377 25 0.0146 0.0376 26 0.0145 0.0372 27 0.0143 0.0370 28 0.0141 0.0369 29 0.0140 0.0364 30 0.0121 0.0339 31 0.0117 0.0332 32 0.0116 0.0323 33 0.0115 0.0322 34 0.0115 0.0318 35 0.0114 0.0313 36 0.0114 0.0308 37 0.0114 0.0308 38 0.0114 0.0306 39 0.0113 0.0304 40 0.0110 0.0303 41 0.0107 0.0300 42 0.0107 0.0298 43 0.0105 0.0295 44 0.0105 0.0293 45 0.0103 0.0291 46 0.0103 0.0287 47 0.0102 0.0286 48 0.0100 0.0275 49 0.0096 0.0274 50 0.0092 0.0274 51 0.0091 0.0270 52 0.0088 0.0258 53 0.0083 0.0242 54 0.0074 0.0240 55 0.0070 0.0239 56 0.0061 0.0228 57 0.0054 0.0227 58 0.0053 0.0217 59 0.0037 0.0217 60 0.0025 0.0216 61 0.0021 0.0176 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:37 PM Page 14 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:37 PM Page 15 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0069 4765 13368 280 Fail 0.0073 4282 12293 287 Fail 0.0076 3916 11411 291 Fail 0.0079 3584 10550 294 Fail 0.0082 3269 9764 298 Fail 0.0085 2968 9058 305 Fail 0.0089 2709 8400 310 Fail 0.0092 2505 7823 312 Fail 0.0095 2309 7283 315 Fail 0.0098 2116 6748 318 Fail 0.0101 1937 6251 322 Fail 0.0105 1791 5855 326 Fail 0.0108 1645 5443 330 Fail 0.0111 1533 5064 330 Fail 0.0114 1415 4727 334 Fail 0.0117 1316 4418 335 Fail 0.0121 1238 4162 336 Fail 0.0124 1142 3897 341 Fail 0.0127 1072 3660 341 Fail 0.0130 999 3426 342 Fail 0.0133 931 3213 345 Fail 0.0137 861 3024 351 Fail 0.0140 804 2852 354 Fail 0.0143 750 2695 359 Fail 0.0146 703 2531 360 Fail 0.0149 654 2365 361 Fail 0.0153 608 2230 366 Fail 0.0156 572 2119 370 Fail 0.0159 533 2015 378 Fail 0.0162 504 1906 378 Fail 0.0165 476 1807 379 Fail 0.0169 445 1693 380 Fail 0.0172 417 1593 382 Fail 0.0175 394 1502 381 Fail 0.0178 356 1433 402 Fail 0.0181 330 1349 408 Fail 0.0185 310 1279 412 Fail 0.0188 294 1206 410 Fail 0.0191 280 1158 413 Fail 0.0194 264 1105 418 Fail 0.0197 252 1051 417 Fail 0.0201 239 1003 419 Fail 0.0204 226 954 422 Fail 0.0207 217 904 416 Fail 0.0210 203 869 428 Fail 0.0213 189 824 435 Fail 0.0217 176 786 446 Fail 0.0220 165 749 453 Fail 0.0223 154 715 464 Fail 0.0226 143 681 476 Fail 0.0229 132 659 499 Fail 0.0233 120 631 525 Fail 0.0236 110 600 545 Fail 0.0239 102 578 566 Fail Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:37 PM Page 16 0.0242 97 544 560 Fail 0.0245 88 523 594 Fail 0.0249 83 498 600 Fail 0.0252 76 476 626 Fail 0.0255 70 464 662 Fail 0.0258 60 440 733 Fail 0.0261 57 424 743 Fail 0.0265 48 411 856 Fail 0.0268 45 398 884 Fail 0.0271 41 382 931 Fail 0.0274 39 365 935 Fail 0.0277 36 354 983 Fail 0.0281 31 334 1077 Fail 0.0284 27 321 1188 Fail 0.0287 26 303 1165 Fail 0.0290 23 290 1260 Fail 0.0293 21 284 1352 Fail 0.0297 19 269 1415 Fail 0.0300 16 259 1618 Fail 0.0303 15 245 1633 Fail 0.0306 14 232 1657 Fail 0.0309 11 224 2036 Fail 0.0313 10 218 2180 Fail 0.0316 10 209 2090 Fail 0.0319 8 201 2512 Fail 0.0322 8 196 2450 Fail 0.0325 7 184 2628 Fail 0.0329 7 181 2585 Fail 0.0332 6 177 2950 Fail 0.0335 6 172 2866 Fail 0.0338 4 165 4125 Fail 0.0341 4 158 3950 Fail 0.0345 3 151 5033 Fail 0.0348 2 146 7300 Fail 0.0351 2 140 7000 Fail 0.0354 2 133 6650 Fail 0.0357 2 128 6400 Fail 0.0361 2 122 6100 Fail 0.0364 2 120 6000 Fail 0.0367 2 115 5750 Fail 0.0370 2 111 5550 Fail 0.0373 2 109 5450 Fail 0.0377 2 106 5300 Fail 0.0380 2 99 4950 Fail 0.0383 2 96 4800 Fail 0.0386 2 92 4600 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:37 PM Page 17 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:37 PM Page 18 LID Report Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:25:57 PM Page 19 POC 2 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0.57 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0.424 Total Impervious Area:0.146 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.020285 5 year 0.03237 10 year 0.040226 25 year 0.049735 50 year 0.056454 100 year 0.062847 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.058516 5 year 0.077967 10 year 0.092023 25 year 0.111172 50 year 0.126479 100 year 0.142705 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.022 0.063 1950 0.041 0.108 1951 0.045 0.070 1952 0.015 0.045 1953 0.012 0.042 1954 0.017 0.055 1955 0.028 0.061 1956 0.024 0.060 1957 0.021 0.068 1958 0.021 0.055 1959 0.017 0.044 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:07 PM Page 20 1960 0.033 0.063 1961 0.017 0.049 1962 0.011 0.043 1963 0.016 0.050 1964 0.017 0.056 1965 0.015 0.047 1966 0.013 0.051 1967 0.028 0.067 1968 0.017 0.068 1969 0.018 0.049 1970 0.015 0.051 1971 0.015 0.051 1972 0.035 0.081 1973 0.016 0.046 1974 0.017 0.050 1975 0.027 0.075 1976 0.017 0.050 1977 0.003 0.044 1978 0.015 0.066 1979 0.009 0.058 1980 0.025 0.066 1981 0.013 0.066 1982 0.031 0.101 1983 0.021 0.053 1984 0.014 0.052 1985 0.008 0.039 1986 0.036 0.075 1987 0.033 0.071 1988 0.013 0.036 1989 0.008 0.042 1990 0.050 0.117 1991 0.042 0.106 1992 0.015 0.051 1993 0.017 0.035 1994 0.005 0.032 1995 0.022 0.048 1996 0.043 0.083 1997 0.041 0.070 1998 0.010 0.055 1999 0.026 0.102 2000 0.016 0.063 2001 0.004 0.042 2002 0.021 0.068 2003 0.016 0.061 2004 0.040 0.124 2005 0.021 0.053 2006 0.025 0.055 2007 0.068 0.147 2008 0.057 0.106 2009 0.030 0.068 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0677 0.1465 2 0.0567 0.1236 3 0.0501 0.1170 4 0.0449 0.1082 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:07 PM Page 21 5 0.0428 0.1059 6 0.0420 0.1055 7 0.0415 0.1021 8 0.0410 0.1008 9 0.0403 0.0828 10 0.0357 0.0808 11 0.0348 0.0753 12 0.0328 0.0752 13 0.0327 0.0715 14 0.0309 0.0699 15 0.0304 0.0695 16 0.0281 0.0685 17 0.0280 0.0683 18 0.0265 0.0682 19 0.0264 0.0681 20 0.0255 0.0674 21 0.0246 0.0663 22 0.0242 0.0658 23 0.0222 0.0656 24 0.0217 0.0632 25 0.0213 0.0629 26 0.0212 0.0628 27 0.0209 0.0610 28 0.0207 0.0606 29 0.0205 0.0603 30 0.0177 0.0578 31 0.0171 0.0562 32 0.0169 0.0551 33 0.0168 0.0549 34 0.0168 0.0547 35 0.0167 0.0546 36 0.0167 0.0531 37 0.0166 0.0528 38 0.0166 0.0524 39 0.0165 0.0513 40 0.0160 0.0509 41 0.0156 0.0509 42 0.0156 0.0507 43 0.0154 0.0500 44 0.0153 0.0497 45 0.0151 0.0495 46 0.0151 0.0487 47 0.0149 0.0487 48 0.0146 0.0481 49 0.0141 0.0473 50 0.0134 0.0463 51 0.0133 0.0453 52 0.0129 0.0442 53 0.0121 0.0439 54 0.0109 0.0426 55 0.0102 0.0422 56 0.0089 0.0421 57 0.0078 0.0419 58 0.0077 0.0392 59 0.0054 0.0359 60 0.0036 0.0353 61 0.0031 0.0325 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:07 PM Page 22 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:07 PM Page 23 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0101 4769 15694 329 Fail 0.0106 4282 14512 338 Fail 0.0111 3923 13496 344 Fail 0.0115 3586 12593 351 Fail 0.0120 3273 11764 359 Fail 0.0125 2968 10983 370 Fail 0.0129 2716 10261 377 Fail 0.0134 2507 9620 383 Fail 0.0139 2310 8999 389 Fail 0.0144 2118 8459 399 Fail 0.0148 1937 7903 408 Fail 0.0153 1793 7449 415 Fail 0.0158 1647 6951 422 Fail 0.0162 1533 6572 428 Fail 0.0167 1415 6155 434 Fail 0.0172 1319 5780 438 Fail 0.0176 1239 5438 438 Fail 0.0181 1142 5108 447 Fail 0.0186 1072 4802 447 Fail 0.0190 999 4550 455 Fail 0.0195 931 4297 461 Fail 0.0200 862 4068 471 Fail 0.0204 804 3822 475 Fail 0.0209 750 3625 483 Fail 0.0214 703 3432 488 Fail 0.0218 655 3263 498 Fail 0.0223 608 3079 506 Fail 0.0228 572 2905 507 Fail 0.0232 533 2750 515 Fail 0.0237 504 2599 515 Fail 0.0242 476 2460 516 Fail 0.0246 446 2329 522 Fail 0.0251 417 2210 529 Fail 0.0256 397 2107 530 Fail 0.0260 356 2013 565 Fail 0.0265 330 1917 580 Fail 0.0270 310 1825 588 Fail 0.0275 294 1738 591 Fail 0.0279 280 1657 591 Fail 0.0284 264 1554 588 Fail 0.0289 253 1492 589 Fail 0.0293 239 1437 601 Fail 0.0298 227 1364 600 Fail 0.0303 217 1289 594 Fail 0.0307 203 1226 603 Fail 0.0312 189 1170 619 Fail 0.0317 176 1122 637 Fail 0.0321 165 1078 653 Fail 0.0326 154 1022 663 Fail 0.0331 143 984 688 Fail 0.0335 131 938 716 Fail 0.0340 120 895 745 Fail 0.0345 110 855 777 Fail 0.0349 102 831 814 Fail Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:07 PM Page 24 0.0354 97 787 811 Fail 0.0359 88 749 851 Fail 0.0363 83 709 854 Fail 0.0368 76 685 901 Fail 0.0373 70 657 938 Fail 0.0377 60 636 1060 Fail 0.0382 57 612 1073 Fail 0.0387 48 584 1216 Fail 0.0391 45 564 1253 Fail 0.0396 41 540 1317 Fail 0.0401 39 522 1338 Fail 0.0405 36 505 1402 Fail 0.0410 31 490 1580 Fail 0.0415 27 467 1729 Fail 0.0420 26 448 1723 Fail 0.0424 23 434 1886 Fail 0.0429 21 419 1995 Fail 0.0434 19 408 2147 Fail 0.0438 16 397 2481 Fail 0.0443 15 386 2573 Fail 0.0448 14 371 2650 Fail 0.0452 11 357 3245 Fail 0.0457 10 341 3409 Fail 0.0462 10 333 3330 Fail 0.0466 8 321 4012 Fail 0.0471 8 314 3925 Fail 0.0476 7 299 4271 Fail 0.0480 7 289 4128 Fail 0.0485 6 277 4616 Fail 0.0490 6 267 4450 Fail 0.0494 4 261 6525 Fail 0.0499 4 251 6275 Fail 0.0504 3 241 8033 Fail 0.0508 2 229 11450 Fail 0.0513 2 219 10950 Fail 0.0518 2 212 10600 Fail 0.0522 2 202 10100 Fail 0.0527 2 195 9750 Fail 0.0532 2 188 9400 Fail 0.0536 2 180 9000 Fail 0.0541 2 174 8700 Fail 0.0546 2 170 8500 Fail 0.0551 2 162 8100 Fail 0.0555 2 155 7750 Fail 0.0560 2 150 7500 Fail 0.0565 2 144 7200 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:07 PM Page 25 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #2 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:07 PM Page 26 LID Report Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:07 PM Page 27 POC 3 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:3.5 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:1.75 Total Impervious Area:1.75 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.12456 5 year 0.198762 10 year 0.247001 25 year 0.305389 50 year 0.346649 100 year 0.385903 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.664471 5 year 0.880886 10 year 1.03667 25 year 1.248238 50 year 1.416879 100 year 1.595262 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #3 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.133 0.687 1950 0.255 1.155 1951 0.275 0.713 1952 0.091 0.510 1953 0.074 0.494 1954 0.104 0.619 1955 0.172 0.637 1956 0.149 0.612 1957 0.128 0.756 1958 0.126 0.644 1959 0.102 0.480 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:17 PM Page 28 1960 0.202 0.641 1961 0.102 0.555 1962 0.067 0.528 1963 0.096 0.550 1964 0.103 0.635 1965 0.090 0.547 1966 0.082 0.563 1967 0.173 0.851 1968 0.105 0.940 1969 0.109 0.513 1970 0.095 0.562 1971 0.093 0.541 1972 0.214 0.874 1973 0.096 0.500 1974 0.102 0.599 1975 0.163 0.810 1976 0.103 0.520 1977 0.019 0.586 1978 0.092 0.805 1979 0.054 0.773 1980 0.151 0.742 1981 0.082 0.777 1982 0.190 1.121 1983 0.131 0.723 1984 0.086 0.592 1985 0.048 0.514 1986 0.219 0.751 1987 0.201 0.907 1988 0.079 0.379 1989 0.047 0.507 1990 0.308 1.274 1991 0.258 1.156 1992 0.094 0.575 1993 0.102 0.357 1994 0.033 0.420 1995 0.136 0.566 1996 0.263 0.811 1997 0.252 0.731 1998 0.063 0.754 1999 0.162 1.495 2000 0.101 0.730 2001 0.022 0.543 2002 0.127 0.747 2003 0.098 0.690 2004 0.248 1.422 2005 0.130 0.575 2006 0.156 0.524 2007 0.415 1.424 2008 0.348 1.141 2009 0.187 0.712 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #3 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.4154 1.4946 2 0.3479 1.4243 3 0.3078 1.4217 4 0.2754 1.2741 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:17 PM Page 29 5 0.2630 1.1556 6 0.2576 1.1547 7 0.2547 1.1405 8 0.2516 1.1210 9 0.2477 0.9399 10 0.2192 0.9072 11 0.2137 0.8738 12 0.2015 0.8507 13 0.2011 0.8111 14 0.1897 0.8095 15 0.1866 0.8055 16 0.1727 0.7766 17 0.1720 0.7734 18 0.1628 0.7556 19 0.1619 0.7535 20 0.1565 0.7509 21 0.1508 0.7468 22 0.1488 0.7420 23 0.1363 0.7314 24 0.1332 0.7296 25 0.1308 0.7227 26 0.1303 0.7130 27 0.1283 0.7121 28 0.1269 0.6899 29 0.1260 0.6865 30 0.1085 0.6440 31 0.1050 0.6410 32 0.1040 0.6373 33 0.1033 0.6348 34 0.1032 0.6192 35 0.1025 0.6116 36 0.1023 0.5991 37 0.1022 0.5924 38 0.1019 0.5865 39 0.1011 0.5750 40 0.0985 0.5747 41 0.0959 0.5659 42 0.0959 0.5629 43 0.0947 0.5624 44 0.0942 0.5552 45 0.0929 0.5503 46 0.0925 0.5468 47 0.0913 0.5431 48 0.0897 0.5411 49 0.0864 0.5277 50 0.0825 0.5240 51 0.0815 0.5201 52 0.0794 0.5143 53 0.0741 0.5134 54 0.0668 0.5096 55 0.0628 0.5070 56 0.0544 0.4997 57 0.0481 0.4943 58 0.0475 0.4797 59 0.0334 0.4204 60 0.0223 0.3788 61 0.0190 0.3569 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:17 PM Page 30 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:17 PM Page 31 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0623 4766 26105 547 Fail 0.0652 4282 24913 581 Fail 0.0680 3917 23709 605 Fail 0.0709 3584 22677 632 Fail 0.0738 3270 21576 659 Fail 0.0766 2968 20587 693 Fail 0.0795 2711 19683 726 Fail 0.0824 2505 18838 752 Fail 0.0853 2309 18090 783 Fail 0.0881 2116 17309 818 Fail 0.0910 1937 16624 858 Fail 0.0939 1791 15935 889 Fail 0.0967 1645 15304 930 Fail 0.0996 1533 14673 957 Fail 0.1025 1423 14159 995 Fail 0.1054 1319 13641 1034 Fail 0.1082 1239 13101 1057 Fail 0.1111 1142 12598 1103 Fail 0.1140 1072 12095 1128 Fail 0.1169 999 11619 1163 Fail 0.1197 931 11149 1197 Fail 0.1226 861 10748 1248 Fail 0.1255 805 10390 1290 Fail 0.1283 750 9967 1328 Fail 0.1312 703 9588 1363 Fail 0.1341 656 9240 1408 Fail 0.1370 609 8898 1461 Fail 0.1398 572 8604 1504 Fail 0.1427 533 8283 1554 Fail 0.1456 504 7994 1586 Fail 0.1485 476 7705 1618 Fail 0.1513 446 7417 1663 Fail 0.1542 417 7160 1717 Fail 0.1571 398 6876 1727 Fail 0.1599 356 6625 1860 Fail 0.1628 330 6374 1931 Fail 0.1657 311 6160 1980 Fail 0.1686 294 5935 2018 Fail 0.1714 280 5732 2047 Fail 0.1743 264 5534 2096 Fail 0.1772 253 5374 2124 Fail 0.1800 239 5205 2177 Fail 0.1829 226 5019 2220 Fail 0.1858 217 4862 2240 Fail 0.1887 203 4688 2309 Fail 0.1915 189 4518 2390 Fail 0.1944 176 4370 2482 Fail 0.1973 165 4227 2561 Fail 0.2002 154 4078 2648 Fail 0.2030 143 3936 2752 Fail 0.2059 131 3821 2916 Fail 0.2088 120 3713 3094 Fail 0.2116 110 3598 3270 Fail 0.2145 102 3497 3428 Fail Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:17 PM Page 32 0.2174 97 3392 3496 Fail 0.2203 88 3306 3756 Fail 0.2231 83 3203 3859 Fail 0.2260 76 3127 4114 Fail 0.2289 70 3025 4321 Fail 0.2318 60 2923 4871 Fail 0.2346 57 2827 4959 Fail 0.2375 48 2743 5714 Fail 0.2404 45 2662 5915 Fail 0.2432 41 2564 6253 Fail 0.2461 39 2479 6356 Fail 0.2490 36 2418 6716 Fail 0.2519 31 2346 7567 Fail 0.2547 27 2276 8429 Fail 0.2576 25 2204 8816 Fail 0.2605 23 2139 9300 Fail 0.2633 21 2096 9980 Fail 0.2662 19 2040 10736 Fail 0.2691 16 1987 12418 Fail 0.2720 15 1928 12853 Fail 0.2748 14 1869 13350 Fail 0.2777 11 1812 16472 Fail 0.2806 10 1760 17600 Fail 0.2835 10 1704 17040 Fail 0.2863 8 1656 20700 Fail 0.2892 8 1618 20225 Fail 0.2921 7 1565 22357 Fail 0.2949 7 1517 21671 Fail 0.2978 6 1474 24566 Fail 0.3007 6 1438 23966 Fail 0.3036 4 1402 35050 Fail 0.3064 4 1362 34050 Fail 0.3093 3 1330 44333 Fail 0.3122 2 1290 64500 Fail 0.3151 2 1255 62750 Fail 0.3179 2 1226 61300 Fail 0.3208 2 1179 58950 Fail 0.3237 2 1157 57850 Fail 0.3265 2 1127 56350 Fail 0.3294 2 1095 54750 Fail 0.3323 2 1056 52800 Fail 0.3352 2 1024 51200 Fail 0.3380 2 993 49650 Fail 0.3409 2 970 48500 Fail 0.3438 2 941 47050 Fail 0.3466 2 923 46150 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:17 PM Page 33 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #3 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:17 PM Page 34 LID Report Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:17 PM Page 35 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:17 PM Page 36 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:18 PM Page 37 Mitigated Schematic Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 38 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 Lot 1 3-9-2023.wdm MESSU 25 PreLot 1 3-9-2023.MES 27 PreLot 1 3-9-2023.L61 28 PreLot 1 3-9-2023.L62 30 POCLot 1 3-9-20231.dat 31 POCLot 1 3-9-20232.dat 32 POCLot 1 3-9-20233.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 10 COPY 501 COPY 502 COPY 503 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 3 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 West Basin MAX 1 2 30 9 2 East Basin MAX 1 2 31 9 3 Upstream Area MAX 1 2 32 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 502 1 1 503 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 10 C, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 39 # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 10 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 10 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 10 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 40 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** West Basin *** PERLND 10 0.39 COPY 501 12 PERLND 10 0.39 COPY 501 13 East Basin*** PERLND 10 0.57 COPY 502 12 PERLND 10 0.57 COPY 502 13 Upstream Area*** PERLND 10 3.5 COPY 503 12 PERLND 10 3.5 COPY 503 13 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 3 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 41 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1.167 SUM PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1.167 SUM IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 502 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 503 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 END MASS-LINK END RUN Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 42 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 Lot 1 3-9-2023.wdm MESSU 25 MitLot 1 3-9-2023.MES 27 MitLot 1 3-9-2023.L61 28 MitLot 1 3-9-2023.L62 30 POCLot 1 3-9-20231.dat 31 POCLot 1 3-9-20232.dat 32 POCLot 1 3-9-20233.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 13 IMPLND 1 PERLND 16 COPY 501 COPY 502 COPY 503 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 3 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 West Basin MAX 1 2 30 9 2 East Basin MAX 1 2 31 9 3 Upstream Area MAX 1 2 32 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 502 1 1 503 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 13 C, Pasture, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 43 ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 13 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 13 0 4.5 0.06 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 13 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 13 0.15 0.4 0.3 6 0.5 0.4 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 13 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 44 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** West Basin*** PERLND 13 0.311 COPY 501 12 PERLND 13 0.311 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.079 COPY 501 15 East Basin*** PERLND 13 0.424 COPY 502 12 PERLND 13 0.424 COPY 502 13 IMPLND 1 0.146 COPY 502 15 Upstream Area*** PERLND 16 1.75 COPY 503 12 PERLND 16 1.75 COPY 503 13 IMPLND 1 1.75 COPY 503 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 3 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 45 <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1.167 SUM PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1.167 SUM IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 2 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 702 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 802 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 3 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 703 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 803 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 46 END MASS-LINK END RUN Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 47 Predeveloped HSPF Message File Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:19 PM Page 48 Mitigated HSPF Message File Lot 1 3-9-2023 3/10/2023 1:26:20 PM Page 49 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2023; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Varma SFR Technical Information Report Appendix D Operations and Maintenance Manual APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-40 NO. 28 – NATIVE VEGETATED SURFACE/NATIVE VEGETATED LANDSCAPE BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Site Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated on the native vegetated surface/native vegetated landscape site. Native vegetated surface site free of any trash or debris. Vegetation Insufficient vegetation Less than two species each of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover occur in the design area. A minimum of two species each of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover is established and healthy. Poor vegetation coverage Less than 90% if the required vegetated area has healthy growth. A minimum of 90% of the required vegetated area has healthy growth. Undesirable vegetation present Weeds, blackberry, and other undesirable plants are invading more than 10% of vegetated area. Less than 10% undesirable vegetation occurs in the required native vegetated surface area. Vegetated Area Soil compaction Soil in the native vegetation area compacted. Less than 8% of native vegetation area is compacted. Insufficient vegetation Less than 3.5 square feet of native vegetation area for every 1 square foot of impervious surface. A minimum of 3.5 square feet of native vegetation area for every 1 square foot of impervious surface. Excess slope Slope of native vegetation area greater than 15%. Slope of native growth area does not exceed 15%. NO. 29 – PERFORATED PIPE CONNECTIONS BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Preventive Blocking, obstructions Debris or trash limiting flow into perforated pipe system or outfall of BMP is plugged or otherwise nonfunctioning. Outfall of BMP is receiving designed flows from perforated pipe connection. Inflow Inflow impeded Inflow into the perforated pipe is partially or fully blocked or altered to prevent flow from getting into the pipe. Inflow to the perforated pipe is unimpeded. Pipe Trench Area Surface compacted Ground surface over the perforated pipe trench is compacted or covered with impermeable material. Ground surface over the perforated pipe is not compacted and free of any impervious cover. Outflow Outflow impeded Outflow from the perforated pipe into the public drainage system is blocked. Outflow to the public drainage system is unimpeded. Outfall Area Erosion or landslides Existence of the perforated pipe is causing or exasperating erosion or landslides. Perforated pipe system is sealed off and an alternative BMP is implemented.