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 AboutLUA97-074 • a 0_ m il _______ .----------- A. EXIST..OPEN WATER `A$' zZ W 1 \ EXISTNG TREE CANOPY I lit 0:` \ ��` 5 5 1t� /\ \ ` EXISTNG FENCE / I K \ / \\\I/ 't 100'WETLAND DIR lNY \ I . L. EXISTNG FENCE - ✓�� p� \ GATE �'� _\ `/' �\\^ 1 ILII Ili e.5,_ _ A ' m • IN <_ W I / J / I , IZ N , i ��- T i '^ 's•cHAN LMK L�- I fI / j ‘...___J j- --� FIELD 335b3'N 15'41'53"W ENTRY SIGN 0 9�RWED INFIELD At 35'YIAD9ETl CFZEBG� I `" • �'' F II 'IDA9ELME' I PAIdC /1R;=yIll. 360'x]�0' I ID J / I \\ I �� Aft \ C1AT- A� L �/ ELECTRICAL CONDUIT A`D.TECERIRE f g �- / Al I�I. 1 \ 1=1=11 WIRE FOR SERVICE AND FIELD LKdRP G ULVERrT" 1107' I"1r�`<l] Hi i .4 /� �J 1 \ENCLOf�Uf�9 I . iE W4K III PARKING = ASPHALT-PAVING PAVMG �' � �^ - _ _ tin _ �M•i1LE�. /�..'� //\ / / .. �1.T'P��.1:, s,�]�j, 5 AGCE691- jy! _ / .IND � � ....MI� �V�I L�� 'l B.. IN!11/�i/�1��,'�1.."... \w V�T F i li j �1_ i-- A ! zTaiia:ei ddllOIv, ' _ _3T W•K II.41 II. / e \ ��q��V a��'7��ge G•��i NG�'NW"GG�.f•:� �� \ -i.. NM �M � 8---1 � � ■M■- _ _ _ - - -- '� aA �`ITELL QiGL^ - ----,,,----. :.:,. ` `Y.�11 1 .T J. L_ AL _me L -mow v:'�'�:�.�.— _,w•a d wT ft,�.a.w.d�. ;_ .w .— �u�::� •a•w., arw a a a'a'w•�T�p na w.Y. + �4 9 � v a l—yv�� gi�s .v'o'ai _ F.*.� y�_..a-_ a ;L•s' -'a' '�" -.� _ j,.d► a �y�� CL`•+' -m-=�i'� 1 i - 3T'�y�y�.�_ �.�.��i��.a�i��lrt _..n- r ��._� - 'CHA .I1 -,.. D. .1 0-0-Ia.,m1-1 —t=Y%±�m._�..ar31 i .3_+-a� .vim,..,....-1._ - �:....� EXISTING CURD AND GUTTER EXlsi.CONDUITS RENTON MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY 5R-I69 nl+-�Ii,e• EXISTING TREES TO SAVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREES TO DE REMOVED 1�` CITY OF RENTON 0 I�r DEFARavn x Or EARL.AND RR®RA'Fmw 1� AREAS TO BE CLEARED GF ALL GRASS,WEEDS,1 BRUSH / 0 30 60 120 240 CEDAR RIVER I_ JONGEJAN•GERRARD•MONEAL REGIONAL PARK I®T® TREE CPITING/IAND CLEARING rl...1. Imlimp INYy. R MI.,/ MEMO NI.,In NM ......I.......I. 0,- -W WA.... 61] BT I.WM .. Try iKNO Am=I•1 ND Im.AAD SHOWN I..® ran • . _ . . , . . . • . \ TA ER ' % 1 \ (.•.. 111 :„.... ....... ..41.,.. • \ "'--E GOVERNMENT LOT 2 SECTION 22 \ .0E0:ET poNNatEA T L 0 T 0 \ • .............mem,................ N \ =,.... \ if), PRO.ERTY LINE % \__---------11\ \ •• 2 \ • 3 -1—[..\ . \\\ EXISTING OPEN WATER :0 ,, ._.- , ,...= = \ I \ V \ C-- 1.- \ .....------ ---------- EXISTING TRF_E CANOPY e°\ .•5 5t 5.'4 ----- -- _ EXISTING FENCE \ , , ..••, ( Ze . ' i . •-'. 2'. ' . . 1 \ LIF I \ ,-Nlik, __ ... ) \........ • •,, '. 1 EXISTING FENCE 411.1111 , _.....iii4011111111V. kW ILETLAND BLI,ER ...., -,., .,.. GATE ' '----- ' i '1•,: \ „ I 1 1 i • ‘! • ,,, •,.. . .... ... '.. \ .....;.;,, 1 I LOT 2 A ., •. • • 1 I \ . • . --( . I --- ......, * • el) s ,-- • ;. i ,, I i S ill . . • • • i • 1 I. _ . EMEI- ',... # * i ,' __I i ;'on . g,_:.;.....- . ; ,6.CNIAIN GIK t - * ' Ill!' \ • , ' ...CBI,.V4E• . ---__ / rX 3353N 1541 0 I ,,,,___., --',. .• • .•;11 ,, r\ .6 ' - '53'.1.11 ' ENTRY S1.4 , . ,. • •772.31':I , ; 'I-I ''.I \Iii '',I i N.44. fct•. . TOR,ISPESS.EG 'AND tri.. WORT''''' BONED INFIELD i 11ES AT i i' N . . 1 . .' . ' SO,BASELINE ...•—.---------t NG OPUNAGE EASEMENT /h'''.' '!. . • . . • .._,.....' _..:„,,.... ......, giariatli? , , t ........n , .. • • Rig.5=1* 1 1. DLIGmOUT. S jalliall ,..;' I . .• TO KINC CD. A.S.11300S190,14 _,...!".- 1 ' .'' . L., —r------- I '.., 1 _ _ (:) qar A ...!•••24111W 40111.111.11 ELECTRICAL r-,Nr+.11T AND-TELgENONE . 15A6KSTOP IMIE N ,..?; .„ ------- WIRE FOR FUTURE'SERVICE ''L'E' TT' .....4111>i°14:irirarix - . , • AND FIELD Ltawr(NG ::_____:-(:)-•..,. ..,,„,,, ,, , . ....------- ,., ..tA. TE 1 .15111=1 • ._.--; i I - 111 11,&;::_••.1:*• • . . .,, .. , . -, ' 'N.----•'* ., ,.,_2; -• Kf_i;-,:u,E s 2 1i tI.1 , -.,,' ' A...dA. III pARKING STALLS EliMMN=1111=111=69112 , 'HEW al,. , R it&••?...1.-'4• : .•••-• -,., .•• t•Z•JTR'Ts.x. . _ ' ,41111111111111111 1 asilizi, . ,s. ..,.. ; %All lik. ku . 0 CONCVElE WALK ':.. --• 71114111 In I -, ._... — --- I,.•-"Z.E-..'' . , -•- I :: -', EXISTRAI MeSNITORNG . r\: , V.' I •••• --:::,•2.--- -.•,:•___:•••:•.:-7::,'I!. ' MOM •• II El - - - - iii;ig''',- 1 -o 011- I • =3-7=1. — ....,,,, ,........ .. ,....... .. .. .. ,..,.,.......,........................,.................................i....r= '4.41,$':ti:;$44: 41.01 IL ...\ Ilk .... 1.1•111=MINI . ---.,-- /11.. ......-.,-........,,,,,..9nr,EN 4/X•..t2,,,,#* - -- - so ; -------- - --- -- .----rmarm --- --2------------ '------,--- ,-..FC,=C---------7---. + - -=f--.-;.,' - -------- ,SL..,413.6-=; 0, -- -----XISTR S-"t•.A7 - A''F•4•.111711111141 —•"—• -----------• K 36 EdW.78 se - -------- ----------- ...----- -OPENING---- ------„---- -- SIGN ve 7 — ----------— . ----I-2=r:-- ---------- 21 - -- • --...".11122225° EE17" 11 . MP EXISTING S BRASS NS., SSM1113.09B • — ,,,,,,—RENTON MAPLE VALLEY HIGI-IWAY SR-I&S — — ',",_" 2,:M _ — NISTING 0J,-ANP GUTTER — — — EXIST CONDUITS \II nTa 4JJJ S. L 1674640.01 _ LEGEND TOTAL.SQUAW FOOTAGE CF TI•E SITE. 1.560,200(45 ACRES) = PLANTING AREA TOTAL.SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS, 0 TOTAL!CLARE FOOTAGE OF PIFERVIOUS SURFACING, 16,900 W4,. PORTION OF WETLAND DIFFER(2105)2 SF.) PERCENTAGE OF LC7T COVERAGE. 3.92‘ ,A.•'A' 1 71M7. 1 I CITY OF RENTON PARKING ANALYSIS, .f.:.•.., ..,..'' OZPAZTILMIT 07 PAM AND 1.1111211/07.0N TOTAL RAIDER CF PARKING STALLS RECIRREDI IR P71 REPLACEMENT DR(21.0 BP) • • TOTAL MISER CF STANDARD PAILGENG STALLS PROVIDED. Ili . '11 IP 0 30 60 120 240 0 CEO.A.FL RIVER TOTAL MINDER CF=TACT PARKING STALLS PRCMDED. 0 • REGIONAL PARK STANDARD PARKERDTAU,DIMID.ISIRD.- - 9'WIDE x 217.LCNG JONGEJAN•GERRARD•MeNEAL ..., SRI PLAN- 62JARE FOOTAGE CF INTERIOR PARKING AREA LANDSCAPBIG, 52•50 umaseim WORE FOOTAGE OF ALL OTT.ER LANDSCAPING. 4,300 kw,.LI. Mit. a um om LL IIM 11111.1=migoir......_wrmeZ1=1111:= 36+ MN WADING SEIDACCS RECLINED DT CODE 1.14 /11•61•6713 cmcwa. IIII NO!BUILDINGS FRCPOSED alma EN F.L.AS SH°WN 1===. PIROPOSED BUILDING SEIDACKS. • IMIIIIMEM EllE11=11.:=1=11..11.1. 1:=1.221 • • \ = \ m � \ EXISTING OFEN HATER RI $ N \\ • �V ZI\ • EXI9TIY.TREE CAF10P1' m11� X L'ag4-\_\ ------- ----------- N 1,,5��.,1�q1 EXI9TRG FENCE 1 Ili ................ • .g I .'�1 ::::�:1am!�u�SiI+FMPtI'dFtY:.. EXISTING FENCE .... ...... ...... .......... ....... - _ I ............ ;!4:4:GdtE:`::isiii::ii::i::::::jji:i%_` i?era ., j • .......... ....... .............. • - w I � Lr I `rrZ N ...................... ... 1.......................... ...::. u • ....................... I I 1 y� .......... ......................... • .......................... es. .......... ....... :.::::::::.:."�:.. IIII ..... \"J.'::•::":'::::::: :::'::'::::'::::'::':.'::'::':. 'FENCE .�_........ ....... .....y.. .... -................ -.._- ........................................ .......................................... ..... .................. 1 9dWi'SOFTBALL ....................-.................v.... .. .. .. 1 0 • .......................r..•;::::. �: ENTRY 9Kd1 • ..................• •........................._•.................... �� .,�_.: FIELo ....................-_............ ........,............................::::•:::::. '•. I'.. 335b3'N l5-AI'S3 W .......................................... ........... ;e u�uu f MED ...... ........... ELD .......................� :TS`MADEOf CFS[K I I4. ;,i �',:.i`I 1: I. ..........::: ii Ti• �II • I r_ t i ....:...:.. BLE,ACNER9 �A - 7 _ - `� �® EL6CTRICAI'.'GOIJLT/R:�@-KCERIQ�'..::::.:�:. [ 1 3G11. , ,.....,...-._,.:-,.... ..................... .......:....:::�: ...........:::..................� � :.:�': :':.::.WlS'ROR.P]TI1RE•9EIMCE:..':':::':: �� ^•.II c ... . ..... .. ... .......... ............................... i... . GATEnL '. ,::. `I....:.. ....... ... ................. .........::::::::.:::.::: �: ram:>:>;;:::.;'.:.: . I reyto III _------- ....... ........................................... ..a.:............ 09UFE9 - --_-- --- - - ill L r. 94 ........:..�.:::............... ............... : .... III PdgCMG 9TdLL9 - - if ENCI [ ............................J................................ ........ r ............... .:_ ACCESSIBLE 1., i� (`b ': ::'fti'i:'i::: ? i}iiii:iir a.C�.Tg.. .RI ..... ■ ■ ■ ■ ■, _ f.:.&DEIWILK IN�. b .-J1':'::::.:,:.,::::::::.:::::::..:: _ p .��■tq/gr-7■T7.-qr• N7pI�.�,.IrI".R'�.' - _ •�G11.: �~.�":'::':::.:':::':::.': :.:�_i•- - d • :97'1.-----111:1141.1 RD.' -dye ��•",.,-yam.?.. -- rI........................ ..............................L--.-es --�. � LLELL F?1CL0811FE.......... Jyv�............PPP ::i_j; - d� -- -1 I „Ill iv 1.011, - ( - 18TMG.•C.A. MK 19' . _-d .i.l - FENCE.-_._ ��OKii .. _._. ._ _ .. 7 _ -- _.-. -- XI9TMG BUS RILL.r 1 II 11 t EXISTING CORP ARP GUTTER — —EXIST,cONDUITB \I RENTON MAPLE VALLEY NICzNWAY SR-169 — a,a•.r.,e• • G^° I I I I CITY OF RENTON 'L0.''�• ff��ll :wra'imer os swm wtm trrarw'rmw 0 30 60 120 240 CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK --— — --- 7ONGEJAN•GERRARD•MCNEAL 7.� LNDSCAPING PLAN Yr_Yll 0ER. O�.r LL CL n 9.1}AYT we we dup: — � ou �Aa anwR �..® ,'HT DUGOUT FENCE 6 GAUGE 3°OD.GALV.STEEL AT BACK TYP. AINLINK A BUOCST•- PIPE•5.19 LBS/LF ® //11114/ �'` II /_I I I B4TRUTC NOTE:CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE FER ANENT LOC.. 1 1 h' %% _ (1)3/8•OD.GALV.STEEL ASSEMBLY FOR BOTH GATE POSITIONS(OPEN AND t t%/ \\:1` PIPE SCHEDULE E AT 9 OUTFIELD POSTS.3.OD. CLOSED)VERIFY WULAND.ARCH PRIOR TO GATE C,I .,.3 �` i-i 40 AT STEEL PIPE POSTS D ASSEMBLY.ALL COMPONENTS TO BE GALVANIZED. • �•rx,� P. `�\ �• IS e %/ %- my EwooACK TOP,CONTINUOUS IL �`\` 9 W SLOPE AWAY FROM BdCY.9TOP (BOTTQI RAIL v\ Zsi= = POST-TYP. �S ✓ LOSER nl•--.L OI ``V";� v FINISH GRADE-TYP. 6'-m° 6'-0• l'-0° l'•m• 6'-0° -6'-0' �` LOWER 5'SECTI• O. 3 � ' III J ' -1 - I =' '' III- ..I�— I i i i i i i ,� - - �= T I 1- 1. I' 9'= CONCRETE FOOTING el 7 I1- a 1- z. i - OPENIlG9 W/3k3'CNAM < 11 IL: - P. _- TV-P. T SUBGRADE (SAKI-CAN BY OTHERS) 0 9 LRK PA•EL9 ABOVE.TTP. T rl I Y iYP. 6XS WOOD POSTS �a .. -.�._-ATM.AYOUT — I GATE IN NON-USE, 3'WIDE•l'HT CA SI LRK ® �� m U° OPEN POSITION SATE W/3'x3'CHAIN LINO DRAMS 16 6 jl�._.. o e s PANEL ABOVE,TYP. ABOUT C811FT1lE `2 6' 2X8 STRINGER 4'CHAMLRK FENCE 10'-0°FENCE 6'-0•FENCE 4'-0°FENCE 1'-0°FFUCF GATE IN IN-USE. t%6'S III 2%6 BAFFLE 9 OPEN POSTIOJ I I III LOC NAILER •' Loa HASP NOTES: O TYPICAL LINE POST SETTING L ALL OTHERFA ON LOWER 5'M.PANALSA OVE 11 BE 6 GAIY.F 4LL tx4 N41LER n CORNERS, t.AL CHAINLIIK FABRIC IS 9 FABRIC SHALL EXCEPTBE PLACED ON FIELDOOD S SIDEOP POSTS NOT TO SCALE In 3.ALL VERTICAL POSTS ARE 10'ON CENTER EXCEPT AT GATE OPENINGS. 0BACKSTOP/WING FENCE PLAN NOT TO SCALE . I B PHAIN LINK FABRIC BACKSTOP POST • CHAMFER I°R I'1 3/4° AR5E PLYWOOD ATTACH TO TIMBER WITH GALV- -CRAM LINK GATE,TYp.BOTH ROUTED LETTER SIGNS_6'HT.HELYETICA o al \ EXTEND FENCE FABRIC MM. 'a• 4NIZED SCREWS AND ETA SPACES SIDES GATE FRAME t°OD. MED.ROYAL BLUE•10421 2XB CEDAR PLAQUE e \ \\ 6•BELOW TOP OF 240 BE- mI II•I AT I'-0°DC.ALBS OUTSIDE EDGE HOT DIP GALA.PIPE -2.12 ATTACH WASHERS FROM INSIDE ENCLOSURE axe WOOD POST - TWEEN RAIL AND 2x10.PLACE I2'0)h•GALA.CARRIAGE BOLT LBISFT.CORNER FITTINGS (4)PER SIGN,TYP. = HOG RINGS AT 6°OCR TYP. BACKSTOP PROTECTION PAD WFLAT WASHERS EA SIDE.TYP. A HEAVY MALLEABLE CASTT O C — \ A .] 2XS ROUGH SAWN STROGER b..ROUGH SAWN POST,TYP. 5A6R,°CARRIAGE BOLTS J I A� ATTACH TO PLY WUGALY.BOWS I. �' 1 =�• J I PER VERTICAL POST PER ■,. (1)WAA GINV->LONG PRESSURE 'f 3•ELMENC 4T o L•�� 0 11 TREATED TIMBER SELECT 1•„ .V nt •:��.'+.[ BOARD.CENTER BOLT TO �nuFRS,TYP. y BOARD,HEAD TO WIELD. STRUCTURAL S49•.INSTALL(t) LOCK— :^'Nf:ti..i:?:,: 11111111111111..y F::r•}`••O X: C 6%6 WOOD POSTS . CUT BOLT ENDS RUSH.FEEN •A. VERTICAL SUPPORTS AT MIDPOINT HASP21 v•`?y.'L'}M1:: —� MEN yji�'V•yyv 1y��. AND FILE 9MLOTH. I l' BETWEEN POSTS. •:,; J N•� H•\ y';iy¢ti;:•y.•y FINISH GRADE-TYP. UROOD /,,' CONCRETE EDGING CON- . m ;33333333 333. ♦,. yy} BAOCSTOP i •:}:`.}.�'.... IX6"1 •h~•• �tF A IN10US AT Bl.OG4TOP AND 3333 3•?3•5335 'I. \ ° 1. °Lb� WIRY UALLB.CONSTRUCTION •y':yX•'133., Fn9.. ... I).. _ }..4v4._.+T{4;y .. �-L- JOINTS Im'ot.AT POSTS,T1P. .33:+3:53:. ]X' Aar OP i 'd..•..•�i::::'•.2y..::ii "'L POST U° 4° 6EE Ami ¢ r TYPICAL PLAN IIyi1' n)tw®Y•/-)LONG PRESSURE °� 1.'- m POST STIR., PROFILE ,, AT CORdER _ TREATED TIMBER BOWMAN BM 66, NOwe,F .IWTSIII TYP.V)•O GALV. �7r— — BOLTS �'®� �� BASE COURSE 4•CONC.SLAB IUTH PAYING , �� FINISH GRADE INiELD COMPACT EXIST.SUEGRADE 6X6XI0 GA 0015 1�-T—' Q•XU'X36•CONC.FIG.TYP.— ■ ��• (2)•4 FEBAR GQJTINIW9 I.I,Ill CONCRETE FWTRG NOTE, PROFILE BOTTOT RAIL AT WOOD BACK PLAN STOP NOT REQUIRED OSANI—CAN ENCLOSURE DETAIL SIGN DETAIL TYPICAL WOOD BACKSTOP NOT TO SCALE © NOT TO SCALE O NOT TO SCALE JONGEIAN•GERRARD•McNEAL 1.gr1u WimpWr. lmmrIll CITY OF RENTON - I..�" DEPAII'1'lMtCi'[N PAiL AND INICANAimN CEDAR RIVER r REGIONAL PARK ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS ® a own e-v-mar Ra re=Tar. • mama RD RE Nwe AS SHOWN I.em r. RE R•lo IN I..[. ITT. .I.[Dlm ��.. ....., seen X RE x • • PINE POLE PINE POLE \ ��/ P�VAILMG�R�ro� ;; PREVAILING�1 L PLANT SCHEDULE �/� WIND TR1➢KWIND TR1UK RAN PINE POLE _m -� PLAN -PINE POLE • r�� / PLANT TREES I•HIGHER THAN ;° EIOSRNC OOUGUS FIR 'i DOSING BLACK COTTONWOOD DEPTH IT SHALL M NURSERY = t._f TREE PIT&HALL NOT BE LE99 8 .m�t,'s T..•• PLANT TREES I.HIGHER NURSERY TYAN DEPTHTHAN r2)TIMES ROOT BALL 't»' TREE PIT SHALL BE NOT LESS DECIDUOUS TREES OTT DIAMETER `.-0,., ,01.�6k11 THAN 2 TIMES ROOTBALL TREE STAGES PERPENDICULAR R., K�L DIAMETERI .� TO PREVAILING STD. -..c_N�SI�•-.. TREE STAKES PERPENDICULAR :".8 .:-FAIICLjl TO E ST PREVAILING RP ACER RUBRUM'ARMSTRONG. 2•CAL.12'-14' FULL HEAD,BRANCHED I] _ 2°DMA'LODGEPOLE PRE wYll: • ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE HT.,B.B AT 6';WELL-BRANCHED. STAKES-TYP. >r �� O Ga.WIRE,TWIST i0 TIGHTEN 1- III. SYMMETRICAL 12 G4 WIFE,TWIST TO TIGHTEN '^ N•DMA.E,MA RIBBER HOSEE I(I°DI4 BLAOC RIBBER HOSE L '%'i'i ',°-,.�.' }� 2°DIA LODGEPOLE PINEACER RUBRUM-FRANKSRED• 2-CAL.12'-14' FULL HEAD.BRANCHED 20 0 TYP. I ^ I STAKE-TYPRED SUNBET MAPLE HT..B6B AT 6'.WELL-BRANCHED, 6 �Qmlir TOP 6 ell R 1BALE lirriiii3 OFF TW V�3 OAF ROO�TBALL uNcut LEaoER ]'MJLCAI LAYER2°DEPTH MACH LAYER 3°UTAIER BASIN3•WATERING BASIN FINISH GRADE FRA%INUS PENNSYLVANICA 1-1/2-CAL. FULL HEAD,BRANCHED 23 '�`�_ ! III,rTL, sA �d ��-�W4!_ 'PATMORE' AT 61;WELL-BRANCHED, hal - vats, ��\ IIIe BREAK SIDES AND BO TQ 9 11= �A� ~7a\ ,.u.II'11' FINISH GRADE PA MORE GREEN ASH B&B UNCUT LEADER �l! JPLANTING PIT TO ALLOW BREAK 6IDE6 AND BOTTOMSm L FOR ROOT PENETRATION illp',Illiykkliiiiir lI OF PLANTING PIT TO ALLOW 11 `„� 000 II PLANTING MIX AS SPECIFIED Fir- Fax FOOT PENETRATION _ EVERGREEN TREES 11�n I 181 WASHED GRAVEL ��,n ��:,� PLANING MIX AS SPECIFIED E .Ili LL IL JL�� F lgtVe. 7326,..161I FEO.OMPACIED NATIVE SOIL • FA u�-: Ir II JL IL IL.11111 I / IHUJA PLICATA 8'-10'HT.,BOB FULLY BRANCHED TO 12• 3 n JL=11.If.—llrll-41 ' WESTERN RED CEDAR ABOVE GROUND NOT D Z WASHED GRAVEL Bl➢'iP / SHEARED,UNCUT LEADER E SHRUBS °TYPICAL CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING 4 ARBUTUS CT T ODD..24?-N-HT.Al HULL.DENSE FORM, 1X MIN DI4 ROOTBALL NOT TO SCALE 1 O COMPACT STRAWBERRY CONT NE OR HARDENED GROWTH • TREE CONTAINER ()TYPICAL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING 0 EUON NWS NIAU SCHO A CONTAINER HT.h FULL.DENSE FORM. 'MANHATTAN' SPR..BAB OR HARDENED CROWDI 1- NOT TO SCALE REL FINISH GRADE 0 COTONEASTER LACTEUS 30•-36•RT.6 FULL,DENSE FORM, ? 1_r31MaK CONTAINER NARDD ED CROwM Ili' QUARRY SPACES 11: 1.- �� R SMOOTH FACE Y'ERRY'WALL GROUNDCOVERS JI. 9 I • IMN&TURBED NATIVE SOIL " NNCA MINOR 4-POT FULL TRIANGULAR .11� .,,11� 6 DWARF PERIWINKLE •Q+ / OR CONTROLLED BA J61LL SPACING IB-0 C OM RUBUS CALVCNOIDES 4.POT NLL TRIANGULAR ,y�• 2°BARK MJLCH E %*,; �T EVERGREEN BRAMBLE SPACING IN"O.C. ' • FINISH GRADE ® SEED MIX TYPE 1(LAWN) SEED 1005 PERENNIAL RYEGRASS. 2°WATER BASIN d �_ 1�� J _ SEED MI%TYPE 2 SEED 50% LOW-GROW PERENNIAL CO • If \5511��77 I PLANTING MIX 111E•j� 12"MIN EMBEDMENT (LOW-GROW EROSION CONTROL) 50% RED FESCUE DI LI ,'•• J-MINI COMPACT 6UBGRADE F SEED MIX TYPE J SEED 80% TALL/MEADOW FESCUE b°COMPACT ATED ELASTIC (BIOSWALL) 12� SEASIDE/CREEPING DRAINPIPE SLOE£TO DRAM BENTGRASS AROUND WALL. 8S REDTOP NOTES: I.ROCKERIES HIGHER THAN 5'SHALL BE CONSTRICTED OF GRADUATED SIZED 2 NOT TO SCALEGRO COVER PLANTING DETAIL ROCKS,6-MAN TO 2-MAN BOTTOM TO TOP.ROCKERS OF 5'OR LOLLER NOTE: NOT SCALE GRxRLYRi SHALL BE CON&TR1A OF CF 3-MAN TO 2-MAN BOTTOM TO TOP. 0 /� /0 0 ALL GROIAIDCOVER/BHRIB 2.THE LONG DIMENSION OF RISES SHALL EXTEND INTO THE EARTH TO w w SPACING SHALL BE PROVIDE Maximum STABILITY. EQUIDISTANT UNLESS OTHERWISE 3. SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO LOCK INTO TWO ROCKS IN LOSER TIER OTHER WISE SPECIFIED CALL 4.CALL FOR INSPECTION PRIOR TO BASE COURSE BEING PLACED. 1 DISTANCE ON CENTER AS 5.DESIGN VARYING FROM TI I.-QC INDICATED SHALL CARRY A SEAL OF A CIVIL p f, I� F/� 0 SPECIFIED d O ENGINEER EXPERIENCED IN SOIL MECHANICS. Y0 O 6.BACKFILL WITH A MINMIYm CF ONE CUBIC FOOT OF 4°-6.MARRY&PALL B START FIRST ROW OF d d d d d d FOR EACH FOOT OF HEIGHT AND LENGTH. PLANTING AT IQ THE dd • 1 PERPENDICULAR SPACING d 4l II f� Oa BETWEEN RORB =� \ `,d 5 TYPICAL ROCKERY • • Vs� �� REMOVE BURLAP AND ROCKER 1 . 'Al TWINE OFF TOP IA OUP O NOT TO SCALE ,d` 1 d ROOTBALL EDGE OF PLANTING AREA 3'WATER BASIN _ FINISH GRADE IPAij1" 2•NLLCHLAYER °TRIANGULAR PLANT SPACING IIIIMF -II" PLANTING MIX AS SPECIFIED VARIES NOT TO SCALE NRFIMM 11 !I.I BREAK SIDES Al.BOTTOMS GROW MEDIAN TO DRAIN OF RANTING PIT TO ALLOW p�� u. FOR ROOT PENETRATION 2"BARK MULC:HI y II /'r i,mazes& RECOMPACTED NATlvE SOIL 111111 : b"TOPSOIL PLANTING JGNGEIAN•GERRARD•MCNEAL i=iiimilitwGPiu=a=aiLDS?I ' t BED •grlea Wimp MUM. ■rru CITY OF RENTON Y °° 1 A' C-ik.,-'-' , . 4•1M DRFAi'lE Ca}ARM ARM IYO MOTION El IL=.11:,K �LIII=�I:=•.1 1.. S'. .a.1 CO°IPACT SUBGRADE WIDTH CEDAR RIVER _ REGIONAL PARK • PLANT-UST ANDMARS TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL SECTION THROUGH MEDIAN ...... CX a 11p Ta 6-1 ,T r.e Imams rl.l W .68 NOT TO SCALE -- sNRNe-1 © m NOT TO SCALE Mm-sc1 caRD • ms SHOWN me ma nob Rom DM moms In ramp n MIK wn RIM.% ..�� wren:% EF% 1 I• I I tt II ^.. 1.I Lei I 1 m 1 CC I 95 fk ACCESS ROAD '=2�' TOP OF SLOPE I \ (. SIDEWALK I 1 97� ...- \ I //,1 1'-S 12'-0-LANE 12'-0•LANE I 6'-V 1'-3" -.- CURB AND GUTTER I I 1 1 TOP OF SLOPE r\ CURB AND GUTTER I • ' 1 PROFILE GRADE 9=4, I I tot I b r �@ PIVOT POINT . • .A�.ry.. ,\ 1 _ \ _ 1 _ _ ,, I _t_ ACCESS ROAD - _ __ IIISLOPE I SLOPE I I • \ I j LING 10'(71P.) `-� r WHITE STRIPE VOTE STRIPE -- /I I I \11 ,0,9; tEDCE OF PAVEMEMEDGE OF PAVEMENT \ mI1 \��TOP OF SLOPE TYPICAL SECTION TOP OF SLOPE 9j lyZj I'I 9 1_ 1I1 I' 1 .. �.✓ ;. PLAN scALEa'=10' 81.MADSEN CREEK -. L..' 9.250 1, 250 C ' H a y . I MW 6W . o s.A. r l -T 3 ..... I I fill I I i� --- '1 Y 5. 4y' 4T., 1.9150 c 90 .. I • 90 Oti PROCy1� _ 12 DIA. } ' r- CONC. 4� •' PILES wo, el1....nWsl G ....n.s.,.... 80...... ... Kti.,. CITY OF RENTON B nARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION y DEPARTMENT CEDAR RIVER ri= - ELEVATION REGIONAL PARK __ SCALE:f=10'HORIZ. -- ---®. MADSEN CREEK ERIDC-E ,�, SCALE:1-=5'REAT Rmm PP Ran 6-13.1997 ........ .^.R,. ERC g •.bgAm • Nue% .. PP .. ..AS SHOWN ..,s.v. r..•' NO ammo R1 /PPR. Rill Apn*An �s........,. RRxr.SI an4 1 • 12 in.minimum Paved K/NC COUNTY MOTFS O,pAINAGG NOTES 1 1/4"Washed Grovel - NOWC "�--`:�-�e:�::11=i_ ■ 1 SASM/SfO/VENTAIK7M CONT,R 1.NOTFS 1.Peal o/hoary Oman.shag to NIN O./o the C'o/Renton p or to the plc tin • •-- 11=Ii5ii-•11-/rsl ' =11=11=11= =11=11=11==i11DOQP • meeting 11=11=1_I=1_1=11= _ /'-� Pilfer i e is Over 1. i(opmw/o!!Au emcvn/sMdnrntod'm contra/(fSCI pin ems'nol cou'A7ure an approval If WIV Mesh r/1/Y Ceo(ex(i/e pemmmr nod or dmm'ne design(eg the and/nroEvn of roads pope;=ctn,chanxIS 2 Al p2 and cam/tenons.shad Le laid on a perry prepared foundation accordance nod 7/SOOT y' Openings Cu/verr As retention fcvbtie4 allies era), 7-02.1(lJ. INS.Mad include/asap and compc1 g the trench bottom,,,the fop of the foundation Repairedmaterial and any required pp bedding,to a uniform grade sea that lee entire pipe a supported by o •� Driveway Ro P or 2 to implementation tdlron of bkse ETC pb11 and the construction,morn!m,rep/aeemen(and adorn*dense unyielding Lase. ��- e r , , , . w },e.. upgrading o!Nose ESC/srdn7ies the wogsibh'ry of the Cava...,unbl d construction • 'it.. , :.y'r•,l-: a red sa i aeI S d pp rend be golvantied and hoe asphalt admen,/i or ears inside and anew(KCBs 2D31 ' 1 me boundaries of the dead.l in shown on Oa plan shod 0 dry Nagged:,OM lied plot to I Al drainage structures such as torch basin and manholes,not,gored Who o traveled mod/or 100!r.minimum r lass Ux rdur ten Oaring paid,no chew!. b rya the Nagged de do Emirs shalt raero/k snarl here sad locking La Al drainage structures ossabld pith o permanent 11 be petalled me flagging shad be maintained by the appli md/camrfu for Ur duration of nrmfsn/de/mDa•,lathy shad have solid kdfing Ws(KCBs last v am:Netan. Exi(y 25 1f - Paved S Al rolch born plea shod cent to lid9k d W numbers 2-OIJ,OI,S O/B ehich nca0 the Gre d 1 r _ R.O.W. 4 Me ETC Naas sham on his plan must o constructed m animation r1+Al oMrig and r/mnp�'GY//FACL R7 S/RfAV LN/YP NO hXLUTAN75'wa PRa°ER7Y Clr INE COY CY RENIAY.' . gracing otheties and n SXO a moms OS to ensure Thal seamen laden rater doer not enter the CATCH BASIN PROTECT/ON ® ..11..115/iL'.-.'±±; -, drainage system a roan ap..ble rater standards(KCC 901.020 Aa KCBS lab) _ to ponle N.T.S / Geolerti/e Beneath S The f.TC fo Ltis show are he bone sun requirements/a mdrjaled t*Who=. During(Ae 6 Al 555,,5-!cra slope located he edge W Se doe gton f/o bo!!o/Ae 8/It Car be of selicient ds d have 1 Ouorry spol/s mmepbn 051 II tern Esc'hones thud be pettedupgraded(., 4.IC sumps 4 rrkenlaW d a red ea sections I.mated the side slap(Kees'7.a1(C)f. •,., 4 in. to Bin.Quarry Spo//s caches end m7/lace;eta)m needed/a mxyre(ed slam gents(ACC 9.M.OA7 B1J 6 Me CSC/aodb"er shod be...led day Ore Coneacror and maintained ar n Z Rack/d 54,f NOprots honand of roadway etches.here required icl moor 8/soma prosy pod 25 ft.Radius by necessary to°d10 o/1 NO and must meal the/o9asvg �laaa:4'-6/la7c-70X passing 1'-r/ IX/SRNC to ensure/deed cmhaud anchor.,(KCC 901..090 to JOX-IOipau>rg,and-2710X-27X*smoghealth.shod be in nth KCRS . . .• GROUND Pron Oran. 2-02 7 4.Ay area sNvped of vegelobn,Md.r ay embankments,where no odd'5 0 work a J T 3 Notes: berpld for a peed of 15 days sad be eamdatdy slab.d eeaoppmrN ETC meths(egg B aomvye*lets(stub-outs)shad be*Wed for each idinduo/lot amp forNose lade opposed -, �1 VARIES 1'✓ I. Pod shot/be removed and rep/aced when soil a seeding,mulching,netting,easier blankets etc)(KCks 7061 for Nam!by the ay o/Renton Sfub-ours shag/con/to the faller g.• evidentairy clearing surface the podor as directed B Ay ems needing ESC,prof rryumrg immediate attention,shut de addressed n1/nh IS a Each ou(kt shod be suilaby located of the forest elevation the Iota as to semce a//1,/re .. by y c g on gradingin Pec' roof downspouts and lmeng drains dmrmys yard drams and any other surface or subsurface 2"COMPOST RUED dins necessary to rem the lots suitable for Nor intended use. Each outlet shod have!- 4'0 INTO 6'NATIVE SOIL9. The Esc foe..on loath.silos shad be inspected and maintained o minimum of 111 a monthdrainageapproved ease system or to an moved aided2. Pod thickness shall be increased i!soil conditionsRaring, trio M on o red stoma!".conveyance dictate or per the direction of the city clearing a ntnrn 48 hours/dLbeing o stem eRmt lamb.. and grading novenas la Al no lame shad mar than 1 kW a sediment be clawed to ottumW5(e eitha a catch bath Al b.Orals on each/at shad be located with a 5 foot high,2'r 4'slake marked-Storm'or kvin: toMA baths and conrepae Ines shod be cleaned pros to paring. The cleaning opera/ion shod not 5,stub-out shall extend dove sew fore/,be oaths as be secured/o the stake BIOFILTRATION SWALE DETAIL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ash men`laden water into he d°nsGewn stem. a Pipe medal sad conform to mae�am pec/lind ens re KCBs la and ifhen-metoth,the pp 2 3 II.SMbbed ronslmcr,enhances and.ash pads shad be instead at the beginning of construction start contain are or other acceptable Oefxtxn tares. N.T.S C1.0 N.T.S C7.0 and manramed for the d/ion of the papal Addle./menages may be required to snare that d alieage manna are required for drainage*stems designed to convey errs thrash undue! al paved areas are kept dean/the Mohan of the project(RCN 4661955).. gals .. J/4"O!4 4' RONFORCED EDGE a The appront/Gott a res a's./�mlirn the Locations o/all slob-our conveyance • >HJ7.Yr.,. SNLG7M .. A 12 Any pemm�enr refeala/delenli1 Nary used as°temporary sefllug burn shod be modifier/WA /nt'e'er,'in Ow hill s(e9..pre, telephone, Ux ry erasion control memo.ad shed paw.akpmte rr ye caparly If Ne gas ,.S/ rdeusm/. -.'• 11111111 ^.. spot a It l permanent fa7by a to/fro,art ray as on Witrabm or eSpersar,system ere fanny,Mad /.AU aidm'dm/sloe=agn:sI B be piwley awed and maintained by Ne lot oboe. I` (1YP.) a I IIU t I UIII11 not be used as a temporary setae;born No underground ate*.lairs or vaults rood be used a t selling over GENERAL NOTES • . • I , `1I•I•I I I�I•I•I, m gamin ag grosses pops I. Al Ducar shad ben accordance nN to Y y County Cede(KCC),,1991 Road S/anal. PIPE ✓/�� 1J Ohre seeding/a(� control a KCPS,as Na G o/Renton CamcJ'r cad'lims a/ \\� � y g annual or applied°7° t' t Im shad o e .we ( I yp-e6mmap'suMrvisan approval d shoo \? of appropriate (e(e /)r Ppanma ey per be he soh raponthery of the appear and the professional civil engineer to camel y raw • ✓'V/ 14.Where straw mulch/a f lad a required,it shad be aged ar a minimum .. 21' I A \`\\\\'. temporary ems°m° rot onvissioo,or no od7o,d cost or lolly to Ore G Innn the above ry of Renton found o!nett phnc All...cans shd/be°t ttitAxss of two inches. •,.:. 16' PIPE NOW 2 l/e design elements whin Nett plans have been revered oc sin to the Rea!Ernineenng Re ie.shekel Some elements may have been overlooked or missed by the Renton plan .. SECT/ON A—A ELEVATION I.LCPE smooth interior pae and mugs shad be manufactured from high d'y poyerhyiene resin review,. Sy variance 1 adapted Nadal.is not Wooed unless pm icily approved by me • ./7h.shad meet or end the repuuemena o/1pe 111,Category 4 or 5 Node PIT or PJ4,Class Gy o/Renton pear to ronsNxb'm. ' _ 12 1/4'Dot C per ASO/0 1246 In oaten,Ne pope she yy WA 0mated/and sbIness requirements 1 yvel°/this mad, d d dear �� SNOOP/EARS o/ASMO It 294 s gro mg,a age pan does not cons.*an approval o/any other • --2 PIN pp must be SOR d5 ad meet the requirements of AM/0 30J4 and is 1d.day-/use - .. c°,sl;/(e.g.domestic rats cad sever conveyance,gm;NttN'ce%etc) mww avoww.w - PIPE • GAD/STEEL OR - in pma/ey marooned drainage systems 4 Bch of can a Jere/ y meeting borer M hell between _ _ ALUM.SKIRT y development oclin7,a preronstnrcrion eeti Abmble rarta - the Oy o/Renton Inspection LOW the Molar,,°d the gnp6mnt's Construction Representative. -�Q W IN,. Data pip'pints shall b'flanged restr75d mech.... 6 Are a Nett see r mars M on Ne r n t ha • (O Q LOT sm.N interior pee MN b pined by sp5h pig approved p/ Jed tie w enever.ca.err:'n a in progress • .- tenel • ,• .I�ii1111�i'a !. b' c0vys f R Renton be b(�`d p"a most res lzee,taadirunw an pewit a caner whichever a mart re Nib e • •14111111 11V • nvrredh5Anch h 7, It shad be he Contractor's y to obtain all waft*.easements necessary BxkN//ofDitch Fier Anchor before Meting off-the end'"Win ink rend rqh!-o%.q. Q (NiveofFi/terfeda - (Mo/iro Material) e•_b' B Mancha.mauled unless or oapr red set of that are that sham re irese is of 1d yousad/not eDe e,1.Ned t unless n approved set of plan. mot ad requirements M 1 Kegs Chapter B are Ica' I ...Ned to the Renton Development hgerb'°n Nu!1 days pia!°caas0ucb'on • PLAN 1 9 Dar shad be NUS m✓,Nettie approved by he Cy o/Renton. 2 max 10(ice t.system mu'buebn shod be WNn a right-of-ow or appropnote Waage easement _ bnt not undone*the bag. Al r *stems a FLARED END SECTION (WITH TRASH RACK) 4 as wnce WA Section Ill 102 of the APW4 Standen,aSpear/Narafloeconstructed n 2 II.Al Abby trenches shad b'back/dd and compacted M 95X Ochry 10 N.r.S CL•O Erir/ing Grounds Y'I /2 Al made.,suegrade shot/be backer and compacted to 95i density per 26097 2-06I I I - ' -I i I I- 2"By 4"Wood Posts -'..." I ' I 1 I I ' , -, , I �-; �1L---� Standard or Better, Ile Open cutting o/eris7ng n9 ys a not Oared unless specific*,dpprovrd by the Gig al Renton°d yi0c4, I I _ 1 1 ,_' I , I f I Alr.s�/Fence Posh s Nor. noted m(hen .sd pots My opts ad shad o rested m accordance Nth KCRS dOJ(BJ. �v �n _ T'�i ', , I 1c The contractor shod be responsible for rid !e safeguards P;e . .•;9:7 T— i I I _ I —�90� ercona p'o rg adequate qcv s m/ely devices,protective �! f^. LI s equ 4 Ragges and y Whet needed act..to protect the We,heat.end safety o/Me __�-._, ' ' J o p�,,and to protect property a connechon.;N he performance a/work covered by the .:` _1Qn' I ' ' I _ ,i confront. Any work Whin the Booth.right-of-ray that night interrupt name/traffic So"she/4 1 r___ ___ mg*at least ax Bagger for each lane o/traffic affected All secbAv o/the 05071 Standard -T.bi.,V-....- . BS 00! Bs -= /r sw�7 Specifications 1-0713,Traffic C lad/, opope : E I I I : I ' ' f ' IIII I1 11 -- 1I '1I 1 11 '/- by Wood Posts CITY OF RENTON I 1 I ' I I I I I ' I I ' I I I . I I/ standard Wr c. l I I I 1 ' ' I I 0 u A//.'S/aI/EIndI Pafh DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CEDAR IVER -s-+BOI I I I I I I I r I I I ' 1 1 I I 1 ' I I I I I t BO 1 .. Finn fabric REGIONAL PARK 63 -- Bu Bosom !Fi0e ' NOTES AND DETAILS STORM?VA-IN PROF/LE N7aai in ePio as Fax_ D.th DL m 0-13.1410 .- SILT FENCE DL A V/--5• 5 PP sour.AS SHOWN NT.S CI.0 a mwo n area .... ..rdem -.....s....� Warr.MO OWA Cf9 PROJECT NW CUM PNFA CR PROJECT I.9)RR 19.14 fltE WE:922RCI2 WE Of 2102/00%I021C:CE 12,9] %PEI3:9)RRBl9L 9722B90 _ I :a -,,!r .";;�: Ft: x !ii-•s-9utr3j, s_ i.s.� !x, e ititit y3iE=41A1 :riiIca:> 's .% _}ititir41 F'ai`ii �-' SST' ; I' ''f I �E _ 't#lik.[ # 9 1 _.�. i_ i :. � i �iirtiti �.. .h j', te e,fe'•-la �- i �" �.s 77 1 j3 i . iSi •Jtc.T..41 - f a"$. 'I t � ; 1i. Ap r c - 9 s v-; o ,3 o?t-. i3s -1�ri� a i E Liv - � j T. ! I. 'v<t� r� i� ��e. I }. - .� =�z\ �i S v b 4�..x11;i 3ga�$dr°ziiYf��i'1�:;}; �><'�'�`rs!l=:d�.�$��j°•�.:'�'�r. ]4 I 1 / 1 ( II / 11• I / 1 . I % \ // II II /N. I / \ \ 1 _ . l / I I .. ) „, .1 , . ,_ \ _ ) ,_t_., , „, \ \ __, 1, 5 \ ,/ ._, pi / _ _. III I — P I d — MADEEM CREEK / �� —— 9 __ _ 1 92 — _ III ( H �,_ -- _i I 7�'11 I i v i T Ili i I I I0 1 / 6 II�11 ' eta I • ;$10 ' I PO II I0 fl 1 I I I I I ' 1 + + I I \ v; I I I \ # +\ / R nN + 1 ,r-) y 7 4 , ,,,, . -,;,--- ' ,e, / / ,141.-1--- \•,,* a* ,-',\./. \ \ ;I� • / 1 i M_—__ Till, 1111_ -,gZa:IWA:.. H __, . , , , 14TH AVE SE / , , . , ,,„, iy . . d 90� IWO FC) oQd4 � G 1 m a� v 'r �roHd � e1I 1 *J > z , of 9,m . .. . . ,. . _ ... -,,ott"...t,---,• • • .._.......," q \ N.F \ ) ..) . . --- )(-- ---- '10 ,-s....,,,,,. Ag% N x . /4"\ <\., - , vio 4-, -,-..•.•..• . •••••ix403*•••••.,. . „ I \ \-••„, ''-„, ..9-„,„. i'. _x—x—x x-,-.--.—x—x. :-,'",1°.?t'''',,.:::"" \ \•\ •-•-• '-i- -..._ x — I \ • ......... I . , .... ',.. ..i. /X . I \ \ .. . , 17V-1717470N POND .. ..,• ,,.)YETLAND BUFFER Ni-„,\__./ x \ SEE /NG PL4/V '--- -------- -f.' I \ ''•-•. 6 L.F, tr C01 -..-- 1 _—I---------- \ 01/1247 P 1EGDON •10:01 I ' .4`44L‘rfoox..10...4,. I ,... .\\:‘.. / ( - \ 7 - I - / ,... \ ".'- \ IMF.\\• 7 __,I.,.-------------- —---—__ \,/ - .----7 154 L.F,.5=0.01 I "---------- 1 , E1/077L1R4170N SWALE 1 I -- 1/17r(E7T PRO—TEC-170N— .. I 9() A,. , II I 7 / ZA-----.....„,_ -- / I 411 / I ( ' .... • / Z1 / ("' \N. I -g 1 / 1.4.4 • • / \ 7'\ N •-.6f..-- " I .----------- 4? .11 / \ ,\, \ --- 0, . a N \ \ / \ C ) I '`.. .1 . .._........_ ,:..-.=---.-" . .,.. ) '..------------'._ ...,„,e,.....................____ R I \ E , • . - I I I I H I I ,Th N. \ 1,1 \ I INSTAL.17/ROUGH-CURB/NLET r'9 /1-1\ 'e -\ iir \ N. PE.AN 0 CO.GTD.DWG. A -S67-5::',." :' I. NG&1-016 AND 2-017 \ u 1 I / IOW SANDARD CRATE n n/ PE.DAG.NO.2-01J 1 C1.0 ) • ',....._... PIN 1.90.00 IE 18600 \I\ ) 1 2 La I i /i I . -.J- / \ I ------- ---r ) . I i , -' 1 1\,....:._-.4 g - ..7.44;...::.•.. L 1 , o / ._____ SEE GRAD/VIG PL4N FOR - - - Y--...N.....,_ ,---, • PARKING LOT GRADES —--CP i I — n j .„,pliOc44. O .,4,44 --- --- 9() '-----A.rr: 5H, \ 07. r,, •s; 91 —77 , •,..7... le,,,•-, 1 . . • *00- n - • _ l"r As ri". ..12.-1 . g - x I .1-- N \ ) ',- /0 t,97 ,•..,.7' ..— - — — • -9 2 CITY OF RENTON _____ ______ --_________ —— —----—_—---- — — DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION .... Itr.;,:l....!.. ' ______.— ---____-------- ---_______ . 1, 92— - _ _-------------- CEDAR R.I NT E R, — -6- —_g4--=- _______ — — — re —---- REGIONAL PARK ::::..:C . • ___ _ - ........'DL DTZAllsrAGE-FCAN--- ....• 5.131087 raz xate.. - On.. DL . ''''''' pp "....l'•DO, ....... - .1 NO. MUM NY Mn, UTE APPROVCO. ....,..........,..... amen C1.1 or.4 • I I i w 1 ' ...,.„. \I I > I I I .([ I ,• , co , ; \ , . . , •:[ ,; I . I) 1 . 1 • •-.... .; ......._ ___ .......... .- - ' i • _ -- , • , \ _-- 0 ; , , • 1 , : 11 • , , ...0.-. MADSEN CREEK ' I I \ - I 1 . II BUFFER , , 2511.. I , --'--A----- .1 . . ., _ -__ _... . 1 " ..._. . I : , , t ' 1 4"WIDE PAINTED WHITE% I - ' I CENTER LINE STRIPING ___........... 401. PAR<ENTRY DRIVEWAY APRON ....." •' v't 1 Milli. 12°WIDE ST 2"DI AM PVC CO"-'1,7QT FOR TELEPHCNE --- DIRECT BURY TELEPHONE SERVICE CABLE I , I ATTACH TO CUTSIDE'FACE CF CULVERT '- '-'- ''''.-- ' .1.111111 IN COMMCN TRENCH W/ELECCCNIDUIT EXISTING GUY POLE 4"DIA-ELECTRICAL CONDUITIU/NTLON PULL STRING - ,..., , RAM EXISTING TELEPHONE FED. .- aorrom , • ,,. ...- . , FOR FUTURE SERVICE AND FIELD„LIGHTING II 1 I VERT c.0 I a CURES GUTTER El.SIDEWALK 4'PAVED AS-HAL DRIVE I I IES'X 5'CONCRETE RAMP TO (/' w"-,00" 3'CRUS4-IED ROCK SHOULDE- TTP EXISTING POWER POLE i>" , HOUL. R. "^ --,•• ( • .., , 0 (--)-1 _ - __ = = = - - - - - - - - - - - -•' _ =1 .,' = = = = - =.,=---,--,,, = = = = = = == =-,, , , immi--• .---• .0, • \ S' 'n _2 _ 5"DIA PVC SLEEVE Z , I ' ' • UNDER ROADWAY in I ... II II . ..,.., _ ,___ - . r%IASDT1=yASpPAI-1,AINGLT i' . ... i Fri/ '...-) r ______ ............ _--- C..,, cuRD,GUTTER,•S.SIDEWALK ----------------------------"'---------------' -. .----- 3 , 1 — IIIMI 1 - , Er s., WELL RE ' NEW RO,KFRY - ' \ '------------------ - Q A '.-----' ,..,., -•_, EXISTING HEADWALL ,.--... \9, '---- ---=------Ar4------DSEbt-7--71-"E K 77:-:-7----- ----' r.,,-,_,'-1'',--- -..?4-, II 1 W/GUARDRAIL ----- - - -,1,._, I ... - - I I - \ '---- , EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT '-.' -.- ... ---'---.:-- 1(- -1,..,;1.--- :1:":1::::.‘;:. ' LW. 13.CONCRETE WALK ' AT MADSEN CREEK 0. --------------- EN • , . .._9 ........................—......,- ---------.-7-1--..-_,___ ''.."."--... -. 89 _,--___ EIIMMEILIM., - , • EXISTING 36 METRO SEWER _ , ,.-------__---__--- -- --- , I r 'lilt\ '---:--- -------- -- —- _ -- _ , Xt- E STING SEUER-M.H .... _ •-- -- - ---- - - ------ -_, I V--1\ '---- --7-- ---- -.1 • - --, _ _---- __ _ . ._ --- - - - -- - -___ - -- 11111 I 1/4. ._ - ,?, --- PARK SIGN i I I- - t-,---- - -- -- r •- - _ - - - - - - / .‘VI sereom: -- ---- _ _-_ _ -_. --- _ --_._ . ____.....011:1:2211:Wv\ EXIST.CURB GUTTER I- _ -- 98-.... - - 1 SIDEWALK I t... EXISTING PVC CONDUITS UNDER SR-INS .T_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ \ FOR FUTURE SERVICE(21412)6" I •- :A rl= I RENTON-MAPLE VALLEY SR 169 CITY OF RENTON INIPANNIWENT 07 PANED AND N.C.BASION 111 II 0 15 30 60 120 CEDAR. RIVER . REGIONAL PARK .. .., JONGESAN•GERRARD•MeNEAL MIMS GENRALIZED UTILITIES PLAN-A maw ma. laarreddid LEIN,W... 131011m IS DD... a 3.4,w 6-13-1991 ME OWL.......a., 0,1.1.1. Nem 11 11.1 - RD 11m1N .1..5113 [WNW n ,,,,, 3r.NA AS SHOWN ran ea. nap • • \ \\ \ I 11, , ..\ ." . \ : , I / S I\r l I w --1.".: 111141111111.1111- II / » - I� 1 a o I ::....2) ?‘ --..---:' I. .. ', - ''' U I • - ,1 111:::---0.:,...,,, .---' ..., ,,.....0: -1./ -..,:- '!. y.. I- 9,.. i..�� - o r •IIHIILI. . I , r LE e l. ID _ ___..___.___ ____ _.____- -_ - .- IV RENTON MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY SR-169 — — — — — _ — — \ © CITY OF RENTONm i••�' aawarier u OF■AM AND 61.AswN 0 30 60 120 240 CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK • JONGEJAN•GERRARD•MeNEAL ® GRADING PIAN ,v,._11 WA,trretn a ad r LL _ ar ra Dims II a we o-ueai mum....a. • moan MA ems AS Warm CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MAP .'___-1 — SE 1391h PI L ,\.SE 139th PI Yi SE 139th SE vo S1 v—, SE 1401h PI. SE 142nd St _ o_ 5' I SE 142nd St. o f ^� I r m 06 P\. !,SE 1143rd PI SE 143rd --1 / SE(144th St SE 1451h PI. ✓R-1* sE 143tn I N MAPLEWOOD — _ GOLF COURSE 4i'c \E 5 n RC 4sy Renla\fOPl r -5*Z egR ,h°�Q �°lleYHw _ R-6* o RA-5* _ °0/�Ko V R* Ren(q Y SF •�� N/°P lh PI r 1 P/ i SF/ p es, 6jS/p/ ®! p¢SE SE 162nd PI Jf', 16Jrdi S! , , KING COUNTY ZONING CITY LIMITS O PARKSP/B/PW Tedw DEPA cRTM6 ENT 0 1000 2000 G. d eMcec Kovi I 1= May 1997 yyy riz — ,.,s, i 1/- ---c: '' . RA-54 4 SE✓o ;RC IEs°` * J'''' RC `RENTpN __ _ G¢ z-_54 R-6 MaP E vgCCEY N(pHWAy SR 169r ``� URA LS' 16. 1 .'° LONG RANGE PLANNING CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK 0+ D=M cOck,... NEIGHBORHOOD MAP i R."J'rI e,D.Vime`ki �F O= 14 July 1995 0 400 800 -* - KING COUNTY ZONING 1:4800 — CITY LIMITS • •• I 1 ' - ER GOAL'- ....-. -- i �(' \ / _ 300'SOFTBALL'. FIELD • SKINNED INFIELD • • 90,'.BASELINE• • - I,' FIELD � �5-ROW BLEACHER _ 360'x 210' 4 ON CONCRETE P4D_...... 1 :1 • �� r 6'.HT.OUTFIELD FENCE 60 m `? r I Se, PAT TELEPHONE I 1\ _LOCATION I— I[ `PLATER BENCH ON T. . • -�"f� CONCRETE PAD ,i 12' 168' 4'FENCE 12'10' 80'WING FENCE 30' Q \ 4'HT.GATE 1 10'HT. 30'HT. �CJy\O, 3 SGONDUOIUTTIN • \ A 4"DIA- C CONDUIT'. 4'HT.FENCE BACKSTOP tiT^,• -} �" '' b -._.. J-BOX — — — 4UC�JJT3 �I ��_ '-{ J-BOX j 30' 8.1 BL£ACFERZ'_= ry`a • RESTROOM �� 8'CONCRETE WALK 1N A"'t� - - --- FACILITIES —=.•———�` C III PARCMG STALLS '— ASPHALT (Jy'�/` RAMP WI REMOVABLE BOLLARDS 5 ACCESSIBLE • • COURETBAL I' z �,.:` COURT SDE 2. PVC U 4 PVC I DAB 2" O.00NDW�N I °DIG. G�OIU T �I 91EEv: ,' 1,1 4 / \ e J BOX' • Ib --,ER GOAL 0 - --- 10 CONCRETE WALK , __....__...-.o 6._6 6. 6 --(2)VEU SEC IONS OF CI..PENCE rI nF 4 \ ram -- EXISTMS OPENING ' 00 - __ VERIFY LOCATION EXISTING 6'GHAM•4M<FENCE _-____.______.__....___.-. 15'METRO"BEWEREABER'ikT}'-___ ._...___. �µ-_ I .._-.. ---------. --- _EXISTING CEDAR RIVER 1F-2L IRENTON MAPLE VALLEY HIGHUJAY SIR-1&S -1 CITY OF RENTON ! �7 I CITY er rwm AND MOMI CIN •� �• 0 15 30 60 120© CEDAR RIVER _ _ _ REGIONAL PARK - - - - - JONGEJAN GERRARD•MeNEAL "� -MORALIZED UTILITIES PIJtI-E - - — -- — -- — -- — �m a ,.64WpT F...�........ - - - ara`.0 MM.. u BM=.N 80 • 11.01.69 e. a® eM Mu AS BOWN ..m. wm I 0 z Z '. Z Laio w co , g CC e� z I c-I zo 0 o1'75 r W a I ti`cY. O ' c�\\ �j . G1enntKost: V " Resource Coordinator CO. -- " PARK &RECREATION • - (206)277-5522/(206)235-2568 " �1 'NTH Municipal Building .. 200 Mil!Avenue South Renton;.Washington'08055 I''' FAX#(206)277-5523 i I 1 I I 4 071 CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES MEMORANDUM TO: Peter Rosen FROM: Glenn Kostc SUBJECT: Cedar River Regional Park Sportslighting LUA97-074, ECF, SA DATE: July 23, 1998 Construction is underway on the above referenced athletic field construction project. Funds are available to light one baseball field, one soccer field, a basketball court, the parking lot and entry drive. The current plans provide for the installation of 10 - 70' tall poles for the athletic fields (6 for the baseball field, 4 for the soccer field), 2 - 40' tall poles for the basketball court, 3 - 30' tall poles for the parking lot and 10 - 25' tall poles along the entry drive. We hope to start installation within 30 days. Extreme care has been exercised in the design to minimize light and glare to the neighbors and passers-by along SR169 while still providing enough light to ensure the safety of the park users. Several specific measures have been or will be taken. First, the light system uses state-of-the-art technology to reduce spill light from areas adjacent to, and above, the athletic fields. Part of this technique is the use of taller poles that allow the light fixtures to direct light downward onto the playing surface rather than outward. "Short cut-off' light fixtures are being used that further reduce the amount of light that spills beyond the actual playing surface. Second, significant distance and natural vegetative buffers exist between the proposed lights and nearby residents. The nearest homes to the northeast are buffered by the vegetation along Madsen Creek and the Class I wetlands adjacent to the Cedar River. The homes to the north across the Cedar River sit atop a bluff 400-500 feet above the level of the fields. And third, trees will be planted in the parking lot and along the Cedar River Trail to the south of the fields as additional buffer for passers-by along SR169 and for any future residents across SR169. No lights will be directed toward the Class I wetlands. A copy of the plans has been sent to Craig Burnell for his review. A copy of the general development plan is attached, with the location of the light poles indicated with an "X". If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to give me a call. GK:nd Attachment 98-034ND C AREA TOTALS: CEDAR RIVER PROJECT SITE - 45 ACRES REGIONAL PARK UETLAND - 2L5 ACRES • . TOTAL BUFFER -51 ACRES(2d1jd00 SP" RENTON PARKS & RECREATION BUFFER AV£ROAINS - 24,200 SP. REVISED DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLAN MARCH 14, 1997 JONGEGAN•GERRARD•McNEAL I 'I� 11 ��'��1�� .■raN ra Wn.Wars. a Int I.IL © lT { VL Ma kip Mgt r RR SCALE T•50• EXISTING WETLAND AOREA I © - BCtND • . _ \ \ C::: 6 0—is m -no 1f0 1\ c y \ \ EXISTM OPEN WATER \ C __ ,�`� 0 0,4 �\ EXISTING TREE CANOPY !^ `-Nk LTA i ,.•' ; `01�, --------._...- ----- ../ ` ,•`-f]� r; �•;'-... �; V EXI6TRG FENCE \'Yt r-- 'It.� 1 I`a, .i Imo:.. '� I li: ! ' - - .`,1 i' ^ ( ' --\_J% V- ,tS `III ICI'� I LI EXISTING FENCE ..:: - • - ! `'. - • • j. ✓ /I' v''� • I ♦♦♦ ♦ �• LIMrt cF unrac I j 14 111'1 'N. / /�Y: 'S1) - - -W �.'`'••.•,. ••.''�-'---____._...__. v':.:.:.♦♦..1 c3nTE • a `' ___...� FENCE ,.`� I � -.,�ems,^---_"`` ♦ • •`'110 -...`,.. .. ♦,• r .- ,.._-_- FIELD• :ti;;. ' lil �� „e w I. p'JTlif�R SO1=TF9AI,L\I u.--...._.-.. ',:a.:-......".•- SKIT ED' ^-. _ "- r d MADSEN CREEK �I I :..." , , I I _ • I r `Sd•.L;ASE1PEi' .. IIy pI✓FFER j a i I �,rsi, �- .7 1l LIMB CF WORK/ '04AY , '.^ .-._ _--....,_.../ 1 1 i d•O 1 . _.F .f. 'immin_'s.5'•_os Ti_em t___ (( DUd.cUi9 X_: I- '\ • _irc ell. ' _-III-I - O�,�iii�i,'// - asm' ^6p / x aIm' }_ _ - i,,') '! ` I 4 R1IT OF UA7RC - ARK�a r i. ---. 1 r.-- ti e . l , r I. �\ `I� 1 I MierGAA7E ,._-... DAriKSTOP I I ' -ELECTRICAL CCNDWT ABO-TELEPFIO E �. i,,.._... � ,�, j MEER�:�.... _� �`:......� •-TT�� [�,-}4_ tom. 1 ,E�:�� I .�.�.S". E---- ._ , rr. -1:-_..-.•-.10...:1.0- ..��,��. �:'t AA S EXISTRYs 3 .-�.•,>.. r - r. �l�ice, v'T • •- P -carDulT ill f;_.i /i �- •• "' FACILITIES 7I 1 A -.,.'• r I _-•_ II P.Ar,T OrTALLS ASPHALT PA__- f ' / >' I SLEEVE } , � .� IArQ I-4iN17_�=f An n- 1 - -II ^- �_..� i- �� w�1i�N11 •...... ��1LP11T CF UlCfdC {;�j;v _ . ' -) , O I.g"" 1')'0� T 1 .P�i' % - , z I ��) .I +S> ;5�1 I ', ti•a .7 pp,,��}}{{AA�y ��,'ti1t,,L�ietir '■. ..u.r.. ■.•O:�', O(�a 1� �-, _�'v 'ii} 11.117 - j • ; r �'.:' ,4LL COURTPTO ,••aiiii'�Lm,i7n `A'a+Z�ti"1A�, -•. •-- .: 44 a.. Y9•- y I /• f'- .a.-:,, - - A { L•1 :.a� ._ _ w EXISTPG i'16NfT{7^RMO ''�. �•�...___— y �' - 'i _,M �.'._.-• .,-yLL QL.OSl1 'nr'•.� - _.W711'd'-- s"_� `` ,}:1 tit • ,.� l$ - y��, . {'t , .� i 9b► 1tL� III - "_w..�•:."� 1'I --- sue, �;q..^ -��. . fit-_--�s'q+ ^3;V.a4-_-- ,•' .ft �.r� 4 F • • '. �1:1 V -•• "` -••1r---•x� t- -` `= . `.,,,- " } '.- --Thr,`lr. . N 1a Pam-_ � :.._ iw'. .r � + '1 _ _'_� !.. ..i �_.• ..i•�... �_.• }; #` jr.:..,t._.x ..:- per S/ p.. ;-r.. \-�, ---h^ -- - �1' r.. ._� C .:-._�- ^- �"..._%-t_,?. _•�-?'`'C — _ �g...:..:.c�' .: ... i.__..._e..a._.5_-s_•.a...:._ -- e.J"C' -� - _i-' .;^i -...-- -•,- ,8_' .., '-'Cc.``..._ -.°• ^-..,` - --- ..•,.., ,�.�_ -�,. . __EXISTRY •CIJAM LW F�� .. 'FtLT'�"�WERJ"A�t'7eNT Exl'JfRY!'CL'0ARt�/Eq.--FI�MIL. '�/.- M1 •yf7 �• -��T,/ _ - , �- .. .. - TRAIL EXTENSION Vt T -� ...Q. • (err KNG GOUI1,) 'N �- SR-16E MAPLE VALLEY HICd#U17 CITY Cr1 RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor September 8, 1997 Mr. Glenn Kost Renton Community Services Department SUBJECT: CEDAR RIVER SPORTS PARK DEVELOPMENT-LUA97-074,ECF;St1' REQUEST FOR A REDUCED WETLAND BUFFER WIDTH -- SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Renton Community Services!Department, applicant for the Cedar River Sports Park Development (LUA97-074, ECF SA), requests approval of a::reduction of the wetland buffer width requirements.: The Department Administrator has the;authority to approve reductions of -wetland buffer width requirements:on a case-by-case basis, subject to„the standards of Section 4- 32-3.H. of the Wetlands Management Ordinance. BACKGROUND The Renton. Community Services `Department::is completing plans for the first phase of development of the Cedar River.Sports;Park:. The proposal was issued,a Determination of Non Significance, Mitigated(DNS-M),by ERC-and received'administrative Site Plan Approval:on July 15, 1997: _5 .' The north portion of the site is dominated by a:21..5,acre Category:I wetland; requiring a 100 foot. buffer measured from the wetland boundary. The;park::proposal avoids all impacts.to the ' delineated wetland. The construction.of athletics fields wmild intrude into the wetland buff er and the applicant has proposed wetland buffer averaging=to compensate for.the impact. The Wetlands Management Ordinance addresses wetland buffer averaging in Section 4-32-3.I. One of the criteria for allowing wetland buffer averaging is that the total area of required buffer is not reduced t "`" and that the required buffer width may not be reduced by more.than 50% of the standard buffer ,.' wid 64§, e:less thhn25 feet wide. The park proposal maintains the total required wetland buffer area, by adding 27,850 square feet adjacent to the buffer edge in order to compensate for 27,850 square feet of buffer impacted by construction of athletic fields. However; the proposal does not:maintain the minimum 50 foot buffer width through the site, which is 50% of the 100 foot standard buffer width required for Class I wetlands. A couple of small areas along the north edge of the,baseball field'intrade into the wetland buffer, reducin the buffer wi roximatel . 27 feet at the most narrow .. Therefore, the proposal does not meet the standard for buffer width averaging and Must receive approval of a reduced buffer width:or revise the,site plan accordingly. Dncument2 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Page 2 September 8, 1997 EVALUATION: 1. The adjacent land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes and that no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined.by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts. The City may require long-term monitoring of the project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands are discovered; or The adjacent buffer area is heavily vegetated and the slope is less than 5%. There are only two small areas along the north edge of the baseball field where the required 50 foot buffer width is not maintained. The "developed" area extending into the buffer would be a ballfield outfield and maintained as turf. One of the major biological functions of wetland buffers is for biofiltration of stormwater and surface runoff before it reaches a wetland. The turf of a baseball outfield provides a biofiltration function, not.as effective as a densely planted wetland buffer but preferable to impervious surfaces. Due to the minimal areaof intrusion into the required buffer area and the fact that development within the buffer would remain a permeable,vegetated surface, it is likely that no 'direct or indirect, short-term or long:term:adverse impacts:to the wetland area.would result With a reduced buffer width. The applicant"should be required to provide a buffer enhancement plan which verifies that enhancement plantings within the„reduced buffer width area would effectively mitigate impacts and not result in an impact to the wetland: 2. The project includes a buffer enhancement plan..usingnative vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced buffer will,be'equal to or improve the functional attributes of the-buffer. An enhanced buffer shall not be less,than twenty fve feet(259,wlde. , The applicant has not provided a buffer enhancement'.plan and'the landscape plan submitted with the application does:not indicate plantings within the reduced buffer area: The applicant should T.provide a buffer enhancement plan that:concentrates native'plantings where the buffer width-is reduced helow the required 50 foot width:,.The buffer'enhancem entplan should substantiate that .the..additional plantings.Would',Sufficiently,Conipeasate for functions and values of a reduced buffer width and thereby effectively mitigate for impacts.,.•%The proposal respects a minimum 25 foot natural buffer width fihroughout the project site: 3. Such determination and evidence. shall be included in the application file and public notification shall be given as specified in the City Code. The applicant's request, staff recommendation and Department Administrator decision will be included in the application file: The City,Code does not require additional public notification of the Departirient Administrator's_decision: . Page 3 September 8, 1997 FINDINGS: 1. The proposal successfully avoids all direct impacts to the large wetland area that comprises almost half the area of the site. The 100 foot wetland buffer width required for the Class I wetland provides more than sufficient protection for the wetland resource and the buffer width requirement severely constrains the area available for development of active recreation uses on the site. 2. The applicant has proposed wetland buffer averaging, allowed by Section 4-32-3.I. of the, Wetlands Management Ordinance. The proposal complies with code provisions by providing a buffer replacement area that is equal to the area of impacted wetland buffer. A minimum wetland buffer width of 25 feet is maintained throughout the project site. 3. The request to reduce the wetland buffer width applies only to a minimal area considering the scale of the project. The "developed" area intruding into the wetland buffer is.the baseball outfield which would be maintained as a permeable, vegetated surface, providing some biofiltration value, 4. A condition of approval requiring a.wetland buffer_enhancement plan will ensure that no ' direct or indirect, short-term:or long-term adverse impacts to the wetland area would result with a reduced buffer width., DECISION:. The request to reduce the wetland.buffer:.width;requirements_'for'the Cedar River Sports Park Development(LUA97-074)is approved as submitted;.with the following,�conditions: . 1. The.applicant shall.:,provide;a wetland buffer enhancement:plan .that•complies. with the following measures, s"ubject,to tfie,approval of the Development Services Division: • 1) The.enhancement•;plan shall'provide 'a:densely,,planted area of native.vegetation _ within all.areas where tlie,wetland Buffer width is less.than.the required..50 foot width. . 2) The buffer enhancement plan shall verify that the additional plantings would .. sufficiently compensate for the functions and values of a reduced buffer width and thereby effectively mitigate for potential wetland impacts. • Sincerely, . ell 1G ' Gregg:Zimmerman;Administrator Planning/Building/Public;Works:Department co:. Peter Rosen : . �;;: CITY G RENTON • "' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • • • September 11, 1997 Ms.Nadine Zackrisson . Pacific Properties Incorporated 14410.Bel-Red Road Bellevue,WA. 98007 RE: ' .Cedar River Park Development-LUA97-074, SA,ECF Dear Ms.Zackrisson, . . Thank you for your letter concerning the:drainage ditches that flow through the west edge of the Cedar River Park and through the Maplewood Golf Course to the'Cedar River. We concur with your concerns - of maintaining an unobstructed flow, of stormwater though the existing ditch system. Staff has previously investigated the.situation and a copy of a letter sent to;Mr. and Mrs. Veenhuizen is enclosed • to provide you with background on the drainage system.`::';.-,:., • ; - • ;..The proposed Cedar River Park,Development would;not add stormwater flows°nor impact the ' functioning of the existing ditch system:=`:Runoff from=paved surfaces would be collected in catch basins and •conveyed to a bioswale (located north`,Of.the athletic fields)'for water quality:treatment prior to - being discharged toward the'Cedar,River. The proposed,park includes no development plans along the • west side of the. park property andithere would be no:alteration to'the site area where the ditch runs;:, across park property. The park,project also would not impact the drainage ditch along the north side of .: • the Renton-Maple Valley Highway.. If you have any questions or are in need further assistance,please call me at235-2518. . O cerely, I / ana 1) Land se Review Supervisor • cc: Glenn Kost,Renton Parks Department • Peter Rosen,Renton Development Services Division Mr. and Mrs.William Veenhuizen attachment:.<5- Letter dated December 19;1996 sent to Mr:and Mrs.Veenhuizen-.- . '_ .200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055.- .: ". :'. ::: ' This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer •• CITY OF RENTON • xY t"•ti*. Mayor Jesse Tanner • December 19, 1996 William and Ruth Veenhuizen • 14615 SE Maple Valley Hwy '. Renton,WA 98059 = SUBJECT: SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Dear Mr. and Mrs.Veenhuizen: Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1996, concerning surface water drainage on your property. Mike Dotson, Surface Water Utility Engineering Specialist, and staff from the Community Services Department have investigated the problem areas you described. Our investigation included a site visit. Mike Dotson also discussed the situation with representatives from the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, the King County Surface Water Utility Drainage Investigation Unit, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. He also spoke to you by telephone on December 5, 1996. We have identified a culvert pipe on the Maplewood Golf Course that may impede surface water flows for the drainage system you describe. This culvert has been in this location for more than ten years and there were no problems during that time. However, our staff and the other agency representatives we have spoken to, concur that it is difficult to adequately evaluate the downstream drainage system until the drainage system on your property is functioning properly. Once the system on your property is cleaned, we will re-evaluate the downstream system through City of Renton property. If it is determined that further action is needed to facilitate proper drainage,the Community Services Department will improve the identified culvert on Golf Course property. As you are aware, your property is within the jurisdictional authority of King County. Therefore, the County4authorities are responsible for issuing any necessary pernut(s) to clean your drainage system. It is our understanding that King County has provided you with permitting information. S Again, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Dotson, Surface Water Utility Engineering Specialist,at(206)277-6192. Sincerely, • Jesse Tanner Mayor H:DOCS:96-837:MDD:ps CC: Gregg Zimmerman Ron Straka Jack Crumley . Leslie Betlatch JII F-165 T—, P-002/003 JAN 07 '89 03:55. • • G August 4,, 1997 _ P!TipSrly i)C'rt•' ,:!7.? Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor . co►tstrac o City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 ' RE: Cedar River Park Development • LU-97-074,SA,ECF • Dear Ms.Huerter: We are the owners of the Cedarwood residential currently project being developed south of the Maple Valley Highway east of 14062 Way SE. This project includes the multi- family development now being constructed adjacent to the Maple Valley Highway as well as single-family residences on the east side of 140th Way SE. We also own the property commonly known as the Elliot Farm - • We support the City's proposal to construct a sports fields as part of the phased development of the Cedar River Regional Park. These facilities will be of real benefit to the community. We do,however, want to inform the City about our interest and concern that the existing drainage ditches presently flowing northward along the western side of the proposed park to empty into the Cedar River be maintained. The ditch along the western side of the park site is part of a system developed many years ago to provides drainage for the water flowing from the hillsides on the south side of the Maple Valley Highway. These ditches were constructed over forty rty years ago. At this time, an unnamed stream flows down the hill from the south and along the eastern boundary of our Elliot Farm property. Two parallel culverts under the Maple Valley Highway transport the water into the ditch on the north side of the highway which then in turn connects to the ditch flowing northward to the Cedar River. Flooding problems have occurred on our property and that of our neighbors to the east, Mr. and Mrs. Veenhuizen, in the past when these ditches were inadequately maintained. Unless the existing and historical flow of water in these ditches continues unobstructed, our property as well as that of the Veenhuizens will suffer damage from flooding. If the 11410 B e I-R e itj are blocked or constrained, water from our property will be prevented from Bellevue, WA 0 P P" `J Phone (2 0 6) t4J o i1[3g its accustomed drainage course to the Cedar River and is likely to pond or FAX (206) 643-3475 . .'. . . - � • ., . .,)=Fi I- `Nl U,R!R A.•1 F lt;.4:,N k,Lrl' F�1,�y1 ti. �f.5 J'•:G'. ri . 's'':4 _ F-165 T -- P-003/003 JAN 07 1'89 03:56 . flood on the south side of the Maple Valley Highway. Consequently, we ask that plans for development of the park take special notice of the existing drainage ditches including those on the west side of the park property and the north side of the highway and take whatever measures are needed to ensure that flows of water continue to be unobstructed. • We would also like to submit this as an expression of concern from Mr. and Mrs. William Veenhuizen, 14615 SE Maple Valley Highway. Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, thdaf-/Z16601 Nadine Zackrisson Project Manager cc: Peter Rosen,City of Renton Mr. and Mrs. William Veenhuizen 2 a F-011 T-01'A D-002 AUG 27 '97 16:13 ------------- .....,.. ...__.,. .._�.._....,._,...,..,._r. ._ .. . ... ..: .... . . . .._ _...mod.... _...._...-..,.... .. N ti i ,v 1 /4 E 717 Nr9 p FNKzi 1 % bp + `r `: a 23 4,�r; .t o ce. 1 1 27.29-5 `„s': 'II _ E �. SITE �� N - - .- CA f. la _ — ----- 27 ,p %.;..° *r 2�l r� a�bc. K �67I .(14.21 a' ' aC4 VICIN(TV MAP 1 • GENERAL NOTES: OWNER/DEVELOPER: CEDARWOO GROUP.14410 BELL-RED ROAD.SUITE 1140 BELLEVUE,WA 98007 (206)649,8668 ENGINEERS: HUGH G.GOLDSMITHAND ASSOCIATES.INC. t) 1215114TH AVENUE S.E. BELLEVUE,WA 98004 (206)462-1080 • PLANNER: LANOPLAN COMPANY 7620 79TM AVENUE S.E. SNOHOMISH,WA 98290 (206)568-8205 SITE AREA: 735 ACRES TOTAL UNITS: 242 UNITS PROPOSED DENSITY: 3.3 DU/AC. • EXISTING ZONE: R-6 PROPOSED USE: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND MULTI-FAMILY f WATER: (CONDO INK.MS) CEDAR RIVE F WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT l,� SEWER: CEDAR RIVE F WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT 71/4-'''''.."---2SCHOOL DISTRICT: DISTRICT N4 FIRE DISTRICT: KING COOUN FIRE DISTRICT NO.40 TELEPHONE: U.S.WEST C MUNICATIONS POWER: PUGET SOON POWER AND I IDAT rn , • • r - .r SEC. 22, TW 23N, RG 5g• GYM . . • ..„... .,.: . .::. ,. .(-0 CITY OF RENTON ; m QOY, LOT 9 m i P-1 -` (Public Use) .� • l �% \ ,_ _-.._._.. .___./--— Gem "i V�t� P�ie E 1 41 . a c. �.1 *ABMs RENTON CITY L 1T3 • •m '•+• •— K COcNNTY f �' Mapc.E VA . . - -ass :,.'a��il r ---._. — _ ._._. � � j r • .-. F� ti.: E•CC�TIaI�. r as ___,f---7 I ‘(.* • . 100 YR.. FLOODPLAIN (Hatched) -- PER FEMA 1989 AI \ • TREES �, 1• 1 ��Stj / x 65.3 �� x 88.0 4I f • DENSE TREES .` x 61.6 'r x 97.1. cV • ... .s\N . ‘ 10W.O \ 1 PA-0Alir x a7.1 • N_I\� x 91.2 SE M• A> .� x e6:o � 690x84.4 '7 LAKE ) ( 67.1 VDOT x Iinment Po.. x 67'7 O Exist. WD�T W.S. r x 9z4 x 9°4 e5.s �� Irainaq'�C.tgn el , •• • x 67.1 x 90 3 i Q / x 67.1 ' 7 :��, a9.7 x 9" - x 93.7 S 65.6 f, ........ -Aia/Y 5 ,1, • ? I„ �A�`` x 91.6 � vt �!-Jr—.Dr �:7�`,�� F 9 d Dual 24° Pipes x 91.6 �, r x ��►�. --, r I L`2il r� r � r `� -� �� I / , l rL r 63.4 �.,��-�� . 93.6 p x 91.6 =___ 8,5..1/ —Z C:rbc) EXCEPTXkt lb co,..• iIk—�04. ` ________ �,�a z.7 •u+POCKI ow emmwous owrEn�w� T. (7. � II� . -:` f? -- cV44 t1 p p P4ON0 BLA FLE I L93lOtt7 �C t-i:laii .V":*.a.;..4z. . NI ."-E-F.f•::- :k;-:-..F-th. .,=%-W. '1 c:?. 00 x 9i.3 '..--s2-...4111111 ____ - __ ' , },ticr.li-!UISEN'• . ' 0.- ' DC) �'- -__-_ _ __ N‘gliAR , ¢ \ 99.5 SUB-BASIN A �p Ia -_=-=- ;=__ p __� == _ ,: , \ . fP ,,..N.Ni --_,...e..-.,----; _cirm.niv.-;,N\- - I s,---;:-•-7 . -- __ 'RI . ._lor•"-.00 \ 1* -....-=.:.-.,=-=;-&-:;-z- :::1 . tvs\ti la / 'its _` slik N44.N47' �' I. jI f T' LOT 21��1 `._4N. �� 29,e I .515 L1NITI C '/ �p.. DENSE 'EES p .mow �•.9 �\L__- =___=a�;.___- .��c� � illiff ill NI n.H.---- */*No‘ .--::-.-:-:-i-2-___----- ----------- ••44 ...• /0V\" _ �-''44.-4 __ __ =_.�1 / c- .•'\fix 3oe.Ti'} : DOA TNEC7E_ INITIAL/DATE 4. CITY OF RENTON '�`' !l 7 PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS s1 c. z q/ %q7 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 29, 1997 TO: Gregg Zimmerman,P/B/PW Administrator FROM: Peter Rosen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Cedar River Sports Park Development-LUA97-074,ECF,SA Request for a Reduced Wetland Buffer Width SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Renton Community Services Department,applicant for the Cedar River Sports Park Development (LUA97-074,ECF, SA),requests approval of a reduction of the wetland buffer width requirements. The Department Administrator has the authority to approve reductions of wetland buffer width requirements on a case-by-case basis, subject to the standards of Section 4-32-3.H. of the Wetlands Management Ordinance. BACKGROUND The Renton Community Services Department is completing plans for the first phase of development of the Cedar River Sports Park. The proposal was issued a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated(DNS-M)by ERC and received administrative Site Plan Approval on July 15, 1997. The north portion of the site is dominated by a 21.5 acre Category I wetland,requiring a 100 foot buffer measured from the wetland boundary. The park proposal avoids all impacts to the delineated wetland. The construction of athletic fields would intrude into the wetland buffer and the applicant has proposed wetland buffer averaging to compensate for the impact. The Wetlands Management Ordinance addresses wetland buffer averaging in Section 4-32-3.I. One of the criteria for allowing wetland buffer averaging is that the total area of required buffer is not reduced and that the required buffer width may not be reduced by more than 50%of the standard buffer width or be less than 25 feet wide. The park proposal maintains the total required wetland buffer area,by adding 27,850 square feet adjacent to the buffer edge in order to compensate for 27,850 square feet of buffer impacted by construction of athletic fields. However,the proposal does not maintain the minimum 50 foot buffer width through the site,which is 50%of the 100 foot standard buffer width required for Class I wetlands. A couple of small areas along the north edge of the baseball field intrude into the wetland buffer,reducing the buffer width to approximately 27 feet at the most narrow point. Therefore,the proposal does not meet the standard for buffer width averaging and must receive approval of a reduced buffer width or revise the site plan accordingly. August 29, 1997 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Development Planning staff recommends approval of the request to reduce the wetland buffer width requirements,based upon compliance with the following criteria of Section 4-32-3.H. of the Wetlands Management Ordinance. 1. The adjacent land is extensively vegetated and has less than fifteen percent(15%)slopes and that no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts. The City may require long-term monitoring of the project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands are discovered; or The adjacent buffer area is heavily vegetated and the slope is less than 5%. There are only two small areas along the north edge of the baseball field where the required 50 foot buffer width is not maintained. The"developed"area extending into the buffer would be a ballfield outfield and maintained as turf. One of the major biological functions of wetland buffers is for biofiltration of stormwater and surface runoff before it reaches a wetland. The turf of a baseball outfield provides a biofiltration function,not as effective as a densely planted wetland buffer but preferable to impervious surfaces. Due to the minimal area of intrusion into the required buffer area and the fact that development within the buffer would remain a permeable,vegetated surface,it is likely that no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term adverse impacts to the wetland area would result with a reduced buffer width. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide a buffer enhancement plan which verifies that enhancement plantings within the reduced buffer width area would effectively mitigate impacts and not result in an impact to the wetland. 2. The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced buffer will be equal to or improve the functional attributes of the buffer. An enhanced buffer shall not be less than twenty five feet(25)wide. The applicant has not provided a buffer enhancement plan and the landscape plan submitted with the application does not indicate plantings within the reduced buffer area. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a buffer enhancement plan that concentrates native plantings where the buffer width is reduced below the required 50 foot width. The buffer enhancement plan should substantiate that the additional plantings would sufficiently compensate for the functions and values of a reduced buffer width and thereby effectively mitigate for impacts. The proposal respects a minimum 25 foot natural buffer width throughout the project site. Such determination and evidence shall be included in the application file and public notification shall be given as specified in the City Code. The applicant's request, staff recommendation and Department Administrator decision will be included in the application file. The City Code does not require additional public notification of the Department Administrator's decision. August 29, 1997 Page 3 FINDINGS: 1. The proposal successfully avoids all direct impacts to the large wetland area that comprises almost half the area of the site. The 100 foot wetland buffer width required for the Class I wetland provides more than sufficient protection for the wetland resource and the buffer width requirement severely constrains the area available for development of active recreation uses on the site. 2. The applicant has proposed wetland buffer averaging,allowed by Section 4-32-3.I. of the Wetlands Management Ordinance. The proposal complies with code provisions by providing a buffer replacement area that is equal to the area of impacted wetland buffer. A minimum wetland buffer width of 25 feet is maintained throughout the project site. 3. The request to reduce the wetland buffer width applies only to a minimal area considering the scale of the project. The"developed"area intruding into the wetland buffer is the baseball outfield which would be maintained as a permeable,vegetated surface,providing some biofiltration value. 4. A condition of approval requiring a wetland buffer enhancement plan will ensure that no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term adverse impacts to the wetland area would result with a reduced buffer width. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall provide a wetland buffer enhancement plan that complies with the following measures, subject to the approval of the Development Services Division: 1)The enhancement plan shall provide a densely planted area of native vegetation within all areas where the wetland buffer width is less than the required 50 foot width. 2)The buffer enhancement plan shall verify that the additional plantings would sufficiently compensate for the functions and values of a reduced buffer width and thereby effectively mitigate for potential wetland impacts. r� • • 3ter Rosen From: Peter Rosen To: Glenn Kost Cc: Jana M Huerter Subject: Cedar River Regional Park Date: Thursday, February 13, 1997 4:15PM spoke to Gary Kohler of King County today and he confirmed that if the development of the Cedar River (park project stays outside of the shoreline jurisdiction area, it would be exempt from requirements for a 'Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. In other words, if the park doesn't propose improvements/development within 200 feet of the river's ordinary high water mark, the 100-year floodplain, or associated wetlands, then it is exempt. We do have a form for a Shoreline Exemption which is transmitted to State DOE. • Also, as we previously discussed, Larry Warren has written a memo that if the Parks and Trails Plan was approved by the City Council with a public hearing and proper notification, then it could be considered an approved governmental site plan under the Master Site Plan Ordinance. If this case, the Cedar River Park proposal would then only require administrative site plan approval. If I may provide you with further information or assist you in the preparation of your application, please do not hesitate to call me at 235-2719. • Page 1 .Je M1 �'ax Peg c _ 41, ' - CITY :�F RE TON Community Services Jesse Tanner,Mayor Sam Chastain,Administrator January 6, 1997 Mr. Mark Mitchell 2-9e r 74 • King County DDES 3600 136th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Re: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Exemption Cedar River Regional Park Development • Dear Mr. Mitchell: The City of Renton is planning to develop ballfields at Cedar River Regional Park, located at the NW corner of the Maple Valley Highway and 149th Avenue SE. The park is adjacent to and south of the Cedar River. Although the property is in the City, it is subject to King County's shoreline regulations. As I understand, the County's shoreline jurisdiction extends to either the 200' setback from,the river's ordinary high water line, the 100 year floodplain, or any associated wetland, whichever is greater. I have included the City's most recent park development plan which :shows that the proposed development is confined to approximately the southern one-third of the 45 acre site. Superimposed on the plan are the three lines described above. The 100 year floodplain line has been interpolated from the, most recent (5/16/95) FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. A copy of panels 0982 and 0984 that were used to establish the line are enclosed. The wetland boundary has been established through the use of a Wetland Study completed by the Watershed Company. The wetland was field staked and subsequently surveyed and mapped by Inca Engineers. A copy of the Wetland Study is also included. • Because improvements will occur outside these lines, it would appear that the City's development proposal falls outside King County's Shoreline jurisdiction and, therefore, does not require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Please review this information and let me know if any action is required by King County to comply with the Shoreline Management Act. If you need additional information or would like to meet to discuss our plans, please feel free to contact me at 277-5522. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, 52L,3 Glenn Kost Resource Coordinator Enclosure • 96-089CF.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 f71�7 Thie Hann.�nnln i.+c Sn4 rnrvrinrV maln riol or '.. ,.nnci imnr City of Renton Community Services Parks Administration MEMORANDUM • DATE: February 3, 1997 TO: Peter Rosen, Associate Planner, PB/PW, Development/Planning FROM: Glenn Kost, Resource Coordinator J. SUBJECT: Shoreline Requirements for the Cedar River Regional Park Development-Pre-App File #96-77 We were initially advised that because the City had not amended its Shoreline Master Program to include the Cedar River Regional Park property, shoreline jurisdiction remained with King County. After submitting the attached information to the County, we were advised that jurisdiction is retained by the City, but that the County's shoreline regulations must be met. This was confirmed by Mark Mitchell (King County Shorelines Administrator), Bob Fritzen(WSDOE), and the attached recital from WAC 173-26-16. Our position is expressed in my 1/6/97 letter and enclosed materials sent to Mark Mitchell - that our development proposal is outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of the County's shoreline regulations, and therefore not subject to a Shoreline Substantial Development permit. Please review the enclosed materials and let me know how to proceed on this,matter. Enclosures 97-024mb 01i30i97 ".,2E ECOLOGY, NWRO - . 002 WAC 173-26-160 Local government ann xation. Except as provided in WAC 173-26-150, in the even of annexation of a shoreline of the state, the local governmen assuming jurisdiction • shall notify the department of such anne ation and develop or amend a master program to include the anne ed area. Such master program development or amendment shall b consistent with the policy of RCW 90 .58 . 020 and the applicable idelines and shall be submitted to the department for approval n later. than one year from the effective date of annexation. Until a new or amended master progr m is adopted by the department, any decision on an application 'or 'a shoreline permit in the annexed shoreline area shall be base upon compliance with the master program in effect for the area prior to annexation. ' [Statutory Authority; RCW 90.58 .140 (3) and [90 .58] . 200 . 96-20- 075 (Order 95-17) , § 173-26-160, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96j ) • • • • • • • • • • WAC (1/30/97 13 : 21) [ 1 ] - /71-4-itg61A.J • _..~ CITY OF RENTON ;I. ..tl 4 Office of the City Att ey 4 a Jesse Tanner,Mayor rence amen MEMORANDUM , REND. .; A • To: Leslie Betlach s . moo. From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney L4 V��oSIOtv Date: December 5, 1996 Subject: Master Parks and Trails Plan and Master Site Plan Approval You called me and asked for my opinion concerning whether or not the Parks and Trails Plan was an approved governmental site plan pursuant to our Master Site Plan Ordinance. My research shows that there are two ways for the Parks and Trails Plan to become a master plan. The first is pursuant to Code section 4-35-8.-If the Parks and Trails Plan was part of a capital facilities plan approved by the City Council following a public hearing,:then the Parks and Trails Plan qualifies as a governmental site plan. If the prior section of the Code is s not met then there is Code section 4-35-9 dealing with recognition of existing master plans.. If the Parks and Trails Plan is .of a nature essentially equivalent to a master plan and it has"undergone a public hearing with proper notification, then the City can certify that plan as an existing master plan. . • Both of the concepts are tied to City approval following a public hearing. Whether or not that occurred for the Parks and Trails Plan is a fact issue. If I can provide you with any further information please let me know. Lawrence J. LJW:as. cc: Jay Covington - am Chastain Jim Hanson A8:128.36. Post Office Box 626 - 100 S. 2nd Street- Renton, Washington 98057 - (206)255-8678 WETLAND STUDY CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared for: Jongejan•Gerrard•McNeal 23 103rd Avenue Northeast Bellevue, Washington 98004 Prepared by: The Watershed Company 10827 Northeast 68th Street, Suite B Kirkland, Washington 98033 January 12, 1993 01i12/93 14:07 Introduction The site of the proposed Cedar River Regional PaRNer located be�eenalong Maplewood Golf Course andHighw ay (SR 169) east of downtown Renton, on the Cedarwas completed for the Jones Road, Township 23N of a large wetland adjacentiand study to the Cedar River. property, including delineation Methods Wetland delineation was preformed according to the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. Vegetation, sindlc hydrology hydrophydcexamined. vegetation, hydric to make a determination of the presence of wetland, soil, and wetland hydrology must be observed. s ecies tic vegetation wetland indicatorl status community in which more than 50% of the dominantP (Reed, 1988) of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate (OBL). Soil color 9 In hand dug test pits was used as an indicator of hydricWetland hydrology Yhro a fone,s ntf two o in soil is mottled soil, is considered indicative of hydric so il.saturated to the surface for at least one week during the growing season. Results A single wetland was identified on the site. The wetland boundary roughly parallels the Cedar River, dividing the site Into upland on the south portion of the property, and wetland on the north portion. The wetland is forested, and includes a small beaver pond formed on Madsen Creek; this stream runs along the eastern property boundary. Vegetation of the south part of the site has been disturbed in plants. Species an now e enti include ts mainly of clumps of blackberries along with grasses and other weedy Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, Scot's broom, bull suchaas orchard grasskquac gplantain, clover, Watson's willow-herb, common tansy, and g as and bentgrass. These species do not constitute h Edro hYt c veg etatOB, or ,as less ssth than so 50%of the dominant species have a wetland indicator status o C, some red hern property boundary, near the railroad keg co of way nsisting stin adjacent snowberMaand Valley c Pacific Highway,ebark borders a alder trees form a line; a shrub this 9 the wetland ditch next to the right of way. To the north, in the vicinity ev$rgresnfblackberry, sp##urushy reed the dominant species Include Himalayan blackberry, canarygrass, field horsetail, bulrushes, creeping buttercup, and ground ivy. n _. In the forested portion of the wetland, a variety of plant species f maple,rande rwesternl red cedar the story, the dominant trees are red alder, black cottonwood, bigleaf several trees are dying due to flooding caused wb®eaysalmo be,rcyWnootka and rose,English nebark,are re d also present. Understory species mclude sno ry, re tn 50% of canarygrass, piggyback, curly dock, buttercup, and OBL this. lent co Because mo�ty is considered these species have an indicator status of FAO, FACW, orP hydrophytic. 1 Sails The on-site soils have been mapped In the King County Soil Survey as Newberg slit loam, Puyallup fine sandy loam, and Riverwash. Of these soils, only Riverwash is considered hydric; the northern part of the site, along the Cedar River, was mapped as Riverwash. Soil colors vary relatively little across the site. On the upland part of the site, the colors typically found were olive brown (2,5 Y 4/3) and brown (10 YR 4/3), primarily without mottles. Soil color within the wetland was generally dark grayish brown (2.5 Y 4/2) or very dark grayish brown (2.5 Y 3/2) with mottles. These colors meet the criterion for hydric soil. Hydrology Because field work was conducted in December, soils throughout the site were damp to saturated. The transition between damp and saturated soils, moreover, was a fairly reliable indicator of the wetland boundary. That Is, at the time of observation, soil within the wetland was nearly all saturated, meeting the criterion for wetland hydrology. Ponded water was observed in many areas, including a small beaver pond. Madsen Creek constitutes another hydrologic feature of the site. The stream was relocated onto the site by King County Surface Water Management. In its current channel, it enters the property at the southeast corner, follows the eastern property boundary, then flows through the wetland to the Cedar River. The stream was not field.flagged, as there is no wetland fringe on the edges of the stream. In addition, a small drainage with wetland characteristics is present on the western property boundary. This drainage was delineated and field-flagged as wetland. The hydrology of the area is likely to be changing due to the activity of beavers. A dam has been constructed on Madsen Creek, creating a small pond, and recent activity is evident. Because of the presence of beavers, the location of the wetland boundary may change In the future. Summary of Existing Conditions The site of the proposed Cedar River Regional Park was screened for the presence of wetlands. A single wetland was identified and field-flagged; this wetland encompasses most of the northern part of the site, adjacent to the Cedar River. No other wetlands are present on the property. The values of the delineated wetland include wildlife habitat, water quality, and flood control. Due to the proximity of the Cedar River, the wetland is expected to play a significant role in attenuation of floods in the area. It also serves as a filter to improve water quality. Moreover, the site has tremendous value for wildlife, particularly the northern portion of the site which includes the forested wetland. With the combination of the presence of the river, mixed forest, shrub, open water (pond), and grassland habitat, the site provides not only diverse habitat types but a large amount of edge habitat. Edges are important for wildlife as they support a particularly diverse plant community within a short distance. The site can be expected to support a variety of bird species, including songbirds, ground birds, 2 woodpeckers, and raptors, as well as small mammals, deer, furbearers, reptiles, and amphibians. Bird species observed include the black-capped chickadee, American goldfinch, rufous-sided towhee, song sparrow, Lincoln's sparrow, purple finch, varied thrush, golden- crowned kinglet, ruby-crowned kinglet, American robin, winter wren, Northern flicker, downy woodpecker, California quail, red-tailed hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, American kestrel, mallard, goldeneye, common merganser, and great blue heron. Other wildlife detected include the beaver, raccoon, and black-tailed deer. Under the Renton Wetlands Management Ordinance, the wetland is considered a Category I wetland, due to its size (approximately 21.5 acres) and the presence of three vegetation classes, one of which Is open water. Because the wetland will be preserved as the site is developed, wildlife will continue to use the wetland. Moreover, use of the property as a park will enhance public access to the area, thereby contributing to enjoyment of the resource. 3 Table I: Plant Species Observed Common Name Scientific Name indicator Status, Overstory/Trees;. red alder Alnus rubra FAC big leaf maple Ace macrophyllum FACU English holly Ilex aquifolium Ni_ black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa FAC Pacific willow Salix lasiandra FACW+ sitka willow Salix sitchensis FACW western red cedar Thuja plicata FAC Shrubs/Vines; _ butterfly bush Buddleia davidii NL red osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera FACW nlnebark Physocarpus capitatus FAC+ nootka rose Rosa nutkana NI Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor FACU- evergreen blackberry Rubus lacinatus FACU+ blackcap raspberry Rubus leucodermis NL thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus FACU+ saimonberry Rubus spectabilis 1=ic trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus NL snowberry Symphorocarpus albus FACU 3roundcover quackgrass Agropyron repens FACU bentgrass Agrostis spp. FACW-FACU, NI lady fern Athyrium 1111x-femina FAC bull thistle Cirsium vulgare FACU Canada thistle Cirsium arvense FAGU+ morning glory Convolvulus sepium NL Scotch broom Cytisus sooparius NL orchard grass Dactyl's glomerata FACU foxglove Digitalis purpureum NL Watson's willow herb Epiloblum watsonli OBI. field horsetail Equisetum arvense FACW scouring rush Equisteum laevigatum FACW fescue Festuca spp. FAC,FACU large-leaf evens Geum macrophyllum FAC+ wild geranium Geranium spp. FAU+ ground ivy Glecoma hederacea FACU+ English ivy Hedera helix NL St. John's wort Hypericum perforatum NL soft rush Juncus effusus FACW toad rush Juncus bufonlus FACW+ duckweed Lemna minor CBL reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea FACW Table I: Plant Species Observed (cont.) ' common plantain Plantago major FAG+ licorice fern Polypody spp. NL Japanese bamboo Polygonum cuspidatum N I sword fern Polystichym munitum NL bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum FACU creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens FACW curly dock Rumex crispus FACW small fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus COL bittersweet nightshade Solarium dulcamara FAC common tansy Tanacetum vulgate NL piggyback plant Tolmiea menziesii FAO white clover Trifolium repens FACU cattail Typha latifolla CBL stinging nettle Urtica dioica FAO+ American brooklime Veronica americana COL vetch Viola spp. NI Table II: Soil Test Pits Soil Pit # Matrix Colot Mottle Color Hydrology Wetland Determination 1 10 YR 3/2 Yes Damp No (fill) 2 10 YR 4/3 N3 Damp Na 3 '10 YR 4/3 No Damp No 4 10 YR 4/3 No Damp No 5 10 YR 3/2 Yes Damp Yes 6 2.5 Y 3/3 No Damp fib 7 10 YR 4/2 No Damp No 8 2.5 Y 4/3 No Damp No 9 2.5 Y 4/2 Yes Saturated Yes 10 10 YR 3/2 No Damp No 11 10 YR 4/2 No Damp No 12 10 YR 4/3 Yes Damp No 1 3 10 YR 3/2 No Damp No 14 10 YR 4/3 No Damp No 1 6 2.5 Y 4/2 5 YR 4/6 Nearly Saturated Yes 16 2.5 Y 3/2 Yes Nearly Saturated Yes 1 7 2.5 Y 4/3 Yes Nearly Saturated Transition 1 8 10 YR 4/3 No Damp No 19 2.5 Y 4/3 No 'Damp No 2 0 10 YR 3/3 Pb Damp No 21 • 2.5 Y 3/2 Yes Very Damp Yes 2 2 2.5 Y 4/3 No Very Damp Transition 2 3 2.5 Y 4/2 Yes Saturated Yes 2 4 5 Y 5/2 Yes Saturated Yes 2 5 2.5 Y 4/3 No Damp No 2 8 2.5 Y 4/3 Yes Damp Transition 2 7 2.5 Y 4/3 No Damp Na 2 8 2.5 Y 4/3 No Damp No 2 8 ' 2.5 Y 3/2 No Damp Transition 30 10 YR 3/2 Yes Ponded Yes 31 2.5 Y 3/2 Yes Saturated Yes 3 2 10 YR 3/2 Pb Damp Transition 3 3 2.5 Y 4/2 Yes Damp Yes 3 4 2.5 Y 4/3 No Damp Nb 35 2.5 Y 4/3 No Damp No 3 6 2.5 Y 4/3 No Damp No $7 2.5 Y 3/3 Yes Damp No 3 8 10 YR 3/2 No Damp No 3 0 . 2.5 Y 4/2 7.5 Y 4/6 Damp No 4 0 2.5 Y 4/3 No Damp No • REFERENCES Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS 79/31. 103 pages. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices. Munsell Color, 1990. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kolimorgen Instruments Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Odour in Wetlands: 1988, Washington. U.S. Department of the interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. NERC-88/18.47. Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 100 pages. • TCORPORATED AREAS 530088 STREET W r LL, STREET 530071 T �` _ `� SE 141ST z 1b15 2 > O PLACE Q .� � p Q SE 140TH v Q N PLACE a cn = m �O 142ND r? O La S �5� NLa -- SOUTHEAST 142ND STREET CE p5t ,p1 CS) q ? a SEA u, •z ptACE w w�j Q U S • hT r H s� g A. In SE 143RD = W ; CORPORATE LIMITS A�c� CC PLACE a S '� --_ i KING COUNTY SOUi 4sr '4sTtici S �2 CITY OF RENTON �� 144TH STREET • rii SOUTHEAST 143RD _ 0 0 uJ STRE cn CITY OF RENTON ,roG N Cos p SOUTHEAST 1bbTH 530088 F N O Q R c rry or o 44 N x as ZONE X 0 o ry2J `� d" /SOUTHEAST 0 w La d. 4, J� �O �`� 146TH STREET J, ay ZONE A �° �ry�� SE 1asTH g a 46 r 22 STREET • eItr061 1oN L PARK ,,i-u, es.,,,_ . ''��'r�.a�a s 3 ,-au4,s; ` d :�. r .�a 1, F' ,�, 4 s �. £ f g�i yl D� ,r r : z .J 23 souTHEAsi STREE ��, 148T i.. ; Ft , ; .� ''�, 5 '� � �.� g t jii0 �E.;a� �° 'a' y `i''�.y"" ^- � H jits bk3 �ONl� ' ' 4 g a€ r r4 ,y olle a SO�ry NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED X ' a t ,i t FAST © WITHIN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH AND RANGE 5 ,: . . - EAST. 4. 3r. ZONE�v ��. R • ' F � NS ZONE AE �_,: . ..� d,9r, :, �.'* - rc ,`ask. ,'.t kj.`s^t,"4: ,-V1,4a�'"."�` A ��a £1€,. Li n V .-'<y ,�, �F CITY FLOODING EFFECTS v CITY OF Itl✓N I ON �' OF FROM CEDAR RIVER 530088 „... . ::::: , O. cl ., KING\FNTON k T`} � „,, •„ 3 a ZONE X " t t s. x' ' `s 'ate • a :.� CORPORAmwtewcop p-F • less TE CII�I • • • i' (:„:;,..,::'''......___,...___, , � • w` £�• Ifitrop I, ;;;;477".• 4,4 .,_,. .., ,. . . , . , . . . ,, .‘,., ,. .. ...... „.. . . ,..:. . ,.,.,:::„.„,...,,,,,...;,.,.. .,, ....,,.. , . ,, ,.„.„,,,,„. .•:.,4,: ...„„..„...„ .„ _ : , ..„.,,,„...,,,. .. .. ........,.. . . . .... .„,,..:,..,.,,,..::.. . ..:...,....: . ,,,,4 . ;,:4,•,,,,,•1 ..2ft•,•-, 74. • . j NTpNNotor ?ae____.......... "g it BURUNGTON NORTHERN AA'D CHICAGO e : '" g='MILWAUKEEST.PAULANCPACIFIC1 •,k- ix) a Q ...,"i"...7:,,,,,,...:7:ii..1..,:v ,•• • iiii :-1 C.FEJiA Pa oi, IN SuRANCe RATE t� �' 23 copy op RALMON1S (3C Q2 ip • ti . _ • . •'WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ' . Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands KALE EN COTTING HAM Supervisor DATE: July 25, . 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLAW•4;. ' CITY OF RENTON TO: Peter Rosen JUL �n'r City' of Renton, Project Manager 200 Mill Ave South RECOVED Renton, WA 98055 FROM: David John Weiss Resource Protection Specialist South Puget Sound Region SUBJECT REVIEW OF: Cedar River Park Development ACTION SPONSOR: City of Renton Community Ser. Dept . PROJECT: Timber Harvest/Land Conversion [] We do not have an interest in the above project and have no comments on the proposal. [X] We do have an interest in the above project and wish to make the following comments: A *forest practices permit will be required for the harvest of timber associated with this project. Cam' Wf/ /4t & . e‘gVL," - DNR SEPA#: 012 215 .,/(1 -40 LD 1'1 it-e-AZ %Cf r% n2(J-a t. ,(/J 4-2- grZ(P (4.0 /1/0/7,2_,0 • -z" zr_o-z'Qi., PUGET SOUND REGION j�4{ I / �� 2-0958 E FAX:(360)825-1671 9 TTY.•(360)825-6381 ® TEL:(360)82.5-i ? �� "'"" G `� ""/ iity/Affirmative Action Employer RFC-. • SD ICleht ;i ITY C _ RENTON ..IL Community Services Jesse Tanner,Mayor Sam.Chastain,Administrator August 7, 19'97 Mr:Gregg Zimmerman P/B/PW Administrator City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Cedar River Sports Park Development Request for a Reduced Wetland Buffer Width Dear Mr. Zimmerman: The Community Services Department is completing plans for the first phase of development of the Cedar River Sports Park(File#.LUA-097-974, SA, ECF). The northern portion of the site is dominated by a 21.5 acre Category 1 wetland,requiring a 100 foot buffer. In accordance with Section 4-32-3I of the code,buffer averaging has been used to accommodate the proposed ' athletic fields.. The fields have been located as•far south as possible to minimize intrusion into the wetland. However, a small portion of one ballfield intrudes into the wetland buffer by 60', leaving a buffer width of approximately 40'. This is 10' less than the 50' minimum allowed by code (50% of the required 100' width). Construction of the ballfield to the 300' dimensions shown in this area is essential to allow the greatest flexibility of use by all.ages, from youth through adult. The developed area extending into the buffer would strictly be used as the outfield of the ballfield, and remain.turf. Also,the remaining buffer is heavily vegetated and has slopes less than 5%. The Code (Section 4-32-3H) allows the Department Administrator to approve a reduction to the wetland buffer width on a case by case basis. We respectfully request that such a reduction be - granted in this case to allow for the maximum use of this facility by all ages: All other.wetland code requirements have been met. Thank you for your consideration of our request. If you have any questions,please give me a call at x-5522:, Sincerely, Ell Iry fro- Glenn Kost Lt\ CIP Manager A U G 8 1997 cc: Peter Rosen,Planner,P/B/PW-Dev:/Planning CITY OF R!=<<i.OP1. Sam Chastain, Community Services Administrator P!1S!t0 CORKS AOAA,I�y, 97-207MB.DOC - 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 41111 Washington State Northwest Region 4) Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Sid Morrison Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation • (206)440-4000 DATE: August 1, 1997 TO: Peter Rosen 14. r'0. q,9 City of Renton, Project Manager o�ryoF-�i,s • 200 Mill Avenue South R 1'o�,v/wG Renton WA 98055 Subject: SR 169 MP 24.20 vic. CS 1734 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Cedar River Park Clearing& Grading of 12.5 acres for the construction of one soccer field& one ball field and 120 parking spaces File No. LUA97-074,SA,ECF FROM: Robert A. Josep son, PE, Manager of Planning &Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation • Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this project which, is located at 1501 Orcas Avenue SE,NW corner of Maple Valley Hwy and Orcas Avenue SE. Our response is checked below: We have reviewed the subject document and have no further comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. X The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to analyze the state intersections that are impacted by ten or more of the project's generated peak hour • trips and also determine what mitigation measures,if any would be required. 705sibL0 L.gf7 Tug N Poc&e�7, S o 7 -I-Ie/e Poss.v1 , I-C/' au T 4-,d7a Sf2!(99 If you have any questions, please contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section VEE:vee File Name • • Washington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PSeat.O.tle,Box WA 9 330310 to Sid Morrison 8133 9710 Secretary of Transportation (206)440-4000 ^� t"y DATE: August 1, 1997 v 4997 TO: Peter Rosen • c/ oP �t,i��NG City of Renton, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South • Renton WA 98055 Subject: SR 169 MP 24.20 vic. CS 1734 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Cedar River Park Clearing& Grading of 12.5 acres for the construction of one soccer field& one ball field and 120 parking spaces File No. LUA97-074,SA,ECF FROM: Robert A. Josephson, PE, Manager of Planning& Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North,MS 122 • P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 • Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this project which, is located at 1501 Orcas Avenue SE,NW corner of Maple Valley Hwy and Orcas Avenue SE. Our response is checked below: • X We have reviewed the subject document and have no further comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to analyze the state intersections that. are impacted by ten or more of the project's generated peak hour trips and also determine what mitigation measures, if any would be required. If you have any questions,please contact Don Hurter at.440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section • VEE:vee • • File Name CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: August 05, 1997 To: Glenn Kost/Community Services Department From: Peter Rosen/Development Plannin� Subject: Cedar River Park Development Project No. LUA-97-074,ECF,SA The comment and appeal period for the subject project has now ended for the Environmental Review Committee's Determination of Nonsignificance and the Administrative Site Plan Approval. No appeals were filed. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with all Mitigation Measures and Site Approval Conditions in accordance with the City of Renton Report and Decision dated July 15, 1997. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 235-2719. ACCPTMM.DOC t I � On the 1-1 '` day of • 314.y , 1997, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing 1 02c cielextv‘modunAz documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Dick Anderson Department of Transportation KC Water Pollution Control • Metro • • Department of Wildlife • Larry Fisher Department of Fisheries • David Dietzman Department of Natural Resources . I Sue Rumery City•of Seattle Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom, Fisheries Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Rita Perstac Puget Power (Signature of Sender) 91►.1okk STATE OF WASHINGTON ) •) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that c_ A77ci}zC_ 91)--; (S signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: l�i //57 Notary Publi and or t e State of shington ,t y !, ;+v `:_cS Notary(Print) MARILYNKAMCHEFF •. plrg + t`-• ' =4 : My appointment ex 9 r. 9. - • ,lreject Ccdax- T?�uer. Psr1� 'I�.eu e.lcPv►ne h-r • Project Number: 9l _ .�0 4, Satz ,EC-r • NOTARY.DOC CITE,-= OF RENTON INA .;I Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 16, 1997 SUBJECT: Cedar River Park Development LUA-97-074,SA,ECF Dear Parties of Record: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on July 15, 1997, issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with conditions. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Environmental Determination Comment Process. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 4, 1997. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Environmental Determination and Land Use Decision Appeal Process. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 4,-1997. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. If youjhave any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 235-2719. For the Environmental Review Committee, Peter Rosen Project Manager Enclosure DNSMLTR floc • 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 60 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: July 16, 1997 To: Glenn Kost/Community Services Department • From: Peter Rosen gj_, Subject: Cedar River Park Development LUA-97-074,SA,ECF On behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), I would like to inform you that they have completed their review of your project. The Committee, on July 15, 1997, decided that the project will be issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The 15 day comment period with concurrent 14 day appeal period for this project will end on August 4, 1997. Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at 235-2719. dnsmm _ I CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS APPLICATION NO(S): ! LUA-97-074,SA,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton Community Services Dept. PROJECT NAME: Cedar River Park Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: ; Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development,of the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposal includes the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the project, to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at$4,800 (64 trips x$75 = $4,800). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, Saturdays as arranged but no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to include a traffic control plan. The revised Construction Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. ra CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-97-074,SA,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton Community Services Dept. PROJECT NAME: Cedar River Park Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development of the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposal includes the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. BUILDING Applicant shall obtain Grade and Fill Permit. FIRE 1.Fire department apparatus access is a minimum 20-foot wide paved roadway with 25-foot inside turning radius and 45-foot outside turning radius. PLAN REVIEW Existing Conditions: WATER-There are no mapped available water lines to serve this site. SEWER-Metro sewer is available adjacent to the site. STORM -There is an existing stream, river and wetlands adjacent and through this site. All improvements shall conform to King County Surface Water Design Manual Standards. A drainage report was submitted with the application. 01.1 - �• STREETS -Th pie Valley Highway is adjacent to the si kny improvemu..ca .or curb, gutter, sidewalk or streetlightina may be required. Code Requirements: SURFACE WATER 1. Water quality and detention are required. The Technical Information Report submitted with application seems complete. PLAN REVIEW-GENERAL 1: All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required.When plans are complete three copies of the drawings,two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use. However, it is recommended to call 235-2631 to verify the fees as generated by the permit system prior to issuing a check. POLICE Theft and burglary of tools and materials from construction sites is one of the most common reported crimes in Renton. The site will need security lighting, and it should also be completely fenced in with portable chain-link fence. The fence will provide both a physical and a psychological barrier to any prospective thief, and will clearly demonstrate that this area is private property. If a portable construction trailer is used for an office during the construction phase, this trailer will need to have heavy-duty dead-bolt locks, a metal door, metal bars over any windows, and an,alarm system is recommended. All office machinery and tools will need to have the serial and model numbers, and descriptions of the property recorded in the event of a theft. It is recommended that the applicant post the correct NO TRESPASSING signs at various locations around the perimeter of the property. This will aid police in making arrests on the property after hours if suspects are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. Maple Valley Highway is a heavily commuted highway and any blocking of the road during construction should be avoided. The most common crimes that seem to occur in parks are theft from motor vehicles and auto theft. To assist in deterring this sort of crime, security lighting needs to be provided throughout the entire parking area. Assaults are known to happen as well in park areas that are hidden from view and not well lit. Proper lighting should exist through the entire park during the hours that it is open to the public. (This includes all play fields.) It!is common for drug-related activity to take place at park areas, especially those that provide areas hidden from view. Landscaping in the park should be manicured and kept at a height and density that does not provide security for criminals. It's recommended that some of the landscaping be thinned out and replaced with chain-link fencing instead or in addition to the landscaping. Because of the lack of visibility around and behind the park, criminals could be tempted to congregate in these areas for drug-related crimes. The use of a private security guard patrol of off-duty officers is recommended as auxiliary security if the park experiences problems. T L aNN N:::::DIV S O M M ` ' `` Mig On the llo0a day of , , 1997, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Pa1� 3v•ck e ck sla't, documents. This information was sent to: Name • Representing Glen f�s1 (i h-4Aout.se w��•!l, C o' r?-ev Mo. excTe • - Cru.vwaun . U ce hlive ISean • • • • • • (Signature of Sender) 't► .ueL.V.• Te.as,elr • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING . ) v /� certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that i1)/Si l� • lg e-KE! - signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes Mentioned in the instrument. Dated: �)iJi GL � ;�; Notary Public in d for the t to of Was rpg n/�;:1 x k • • Notary (Print) ARG ET J.'PIj%,I if „,`. • My appointment ex MIRSION EXPIRES'6 98 7-x • Project Name: CeAex- R.uer rark •acuelti wne4 Project Number: WA 41 - 014.,SR, c Gr NOTARY.DOC I REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION 1REPORT DATE: July 15, 1997 Project Name: Cedar River Park Development Applicant: City of Renton Community Services Department, Glenn Kost ,Owner. City of Renton Community Services Department File Number. LUA-097-074, SA, ECF Project Manager: Peter Rosen 'Project Description: Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development of the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposal includes the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). Project Location: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE, NW corner of Maple Valley Hwy. & Orcas Ave. SE Exist. Bldg. Area SF: NA Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: NA Site Area: 45 acres Total-Building Area SF: • NA I --/____—J �. __ -__ _- SE 130I^PI" ` _ _ _ �SC IS'Jlh PI q SE 1391h SC 141st St a y---0 SE 140th PI — 1 4 a SE— I42nd St. ? Y ' 42nd _- — SC IIISrd PI SC 113N SE(144th SI N SE 145th PI s R•'* sE 4$th o IAAPLEWOOD — t I GOLF COURSE Z_ es� '4•s � RC •A-5*' Q \\�C C\^�s Ro `on M P v Plp Y —`uUeY Hw R-6* RA15 -- II `o,o UR* sER ;/,,, a^for h Pl h Pt 4, R` SC 1601h PI I � SE/b' s _ `', /S/ SE IOJ/d % ¢SE SE I62nd PI SI P SE F0,,, Project Location Map ` Bird se,Z4,63rd SI * KING COUNTY ZONING SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviro gal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMEN LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 2 of 16 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The City of Renton, Community Services Department is proposing the Phase I development of the Cedar River Regional Park. The overall park site is 45 acres with the Cedar River defining the north and northwest property boundary. The northern portion of the site is dominated by a 21.5 acre Class I forested wetland. The Phase I development covers the south 12.5 acres of the site focused along the Renton Maple Valley Highway. The proposed Phase I development would include the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one full size soccer field and one ball field, and a paved parking area for 120 vehicles. The project also includes pedestrian walkways, a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The proposal would provide sanicans because water utilities are presently unavailable to the site. No building structures are proposed for this phase of park construction. Proposed baseball backstop fencing would be 30 feet in height. Access to the park site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton- Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). The entry drive into the site would require a bridge crossing over Madsen Creek. The proposal is for the Phase I development of a Master Plan for Cedar River Regional Park, which was approved as part of the Cedar River Greenway Plan by the Renton City Council in 1993. Site lighting for the parking area and entry drive, and construction of one or two athletic fields is anticipated to occur within one year. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The site is generally flat, with less than 10 feet of elevation difference across the entire 45 acre site. Most of the site slopes are less than 3%. A few small depressions or drainages slope at approximately 5% to 7%. Grading would occur on approximately 12.35 acres of the site to enable construction of athletic fields and parking areas. The intent is to use available on-site material. The applicant estimates approximately 4,600 cubic yards of on-site topsoil would be stripped, stockpiled and respread, 9,200 cubic yards of on-site material cut and respread, and 1,160 cubic yards of structural fill material imported to the site. Erosion could occur during the construction phase of the project. Potential erosion impacts would be mitigated by City Codes which require approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) and Construction Mitigation Plan prior to the issuance of Construction Permits. Because of the presence of a significant SITERC.DOC Ci(y of Renton P/B✓PW Department` Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviro tal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMI= LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 3 of 16 wetland area and creek on the site, staff recommends a mitigating measure to assure that the Temporary Erosion Control measures are installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Mitigation Measures: Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the project, to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, City of Renton Stormwater Regulations. 2) Air Impacts Impacts to air quality can be anticipated during construction due to increased levels of airborne particulates (especially dust) from disturbance of exposed soils. Construction impacts would be short term in nature and would be mitigated through best management practices of the required TESCP and with the Construction Mitigation Plan. Emissions from construction equipment exhaust would have a minor impact on local air quality. Exhaust from construction vehicles is regulated by State and City Codes. After construction the impacts would be associated primarily with vehicle exhaust from park users. Vehicle emissions are regulated by the State of Washington. Soccer and baseball infield dirt surfaces may also increase dust during extended dry weather periods. The potential impacts are considered relatively insignificant and do not warrant additional mitigating measures. Mitigation Measures No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus NA 3) Water Impacts The Cedar River forms the northern edge of the park site. The park proposal is focused on the south portion of the site and therefore would not impact the Cedar River. Development activities would be outside of the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program. A 21.5 acre, Class I forested wetland is located on the north portion of the park site. The project would avoid development and impacts within the delineated wetland area. A 100 foot buffer is required around Class I wetlands. The park proposal would encroach into portions of the wetland buffer and the applicant proposes to use wetland buffer averaging. Approximately 27,850 square feet of required wetland buffer would be impacted with clearing, grading and construction of the proposed athletic fields. The proposal adds 27,850 square feet adjacent to the wetland buffer to compensate for the impacted wetland buffer area. Madsen Creek, a 2.9 mile tributary to the Cedar River, enters the site in the southeast corner and flows westerly and then northerly across the site before its confluence with the Cedar River. The entry drive into the proposed park would cross Madsen Creek with a bridge structure, necessary to access the parking area. The bridge structure is designed to handle full flow conditions and includes an open bottom culvert to meet fish migration requirements. The bridge crossing will require separate approval of a State Wildlife/Fisheries Hydraulic Project Approval SI;TERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviro ntal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMI- _, LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 4 of 16 (H.P.A.). The project maintains a 25 foot setback from the high water mark of the creek except in the location of the road crossing. The proposal would result in impervious surface coverage of approximately 4% of the site area. A storm drainage system with catch basins and underground piping would discharge runoff into a grass-lined swale terminating into a sedimentation pond for additional treatment and groundwater recharge. The stormwater system will be required to meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual as adopted by the City. Mitigation Measures No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus NA 4) Transportation Impacts Access to the park site is proposed off Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). The entry drive into the site would require a bridge crossing over Madsen Creek. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips and therefore would be subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated to be $75 per each average daily trip attributable to the project. City staff has estimated that the project would generate 64 new average daily trips. Therefore, the Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at$4,800 (64 trips x$75 = $4,800. The environmental checklist estimates approximately 400 vehicular trips per day would be generated during peak use times. It is anticipated that peak volumes would occur on weekends between 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM, March through September. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan which describes the hauling and transportation routes to the site and states that construction would be performed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Construction-related truck traffic could impact traffic flows if occurring during AM or PM peak traffic flows. This truck traffic should be limited to off-peak hours. Mitigation Measures The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at$4,800 (64 trips x$75 = $4,800). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 am. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, Saturdays as arranged but no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to include a traffic control plan. The revised Construction Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. Policy Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Transportation Mitigation Fee Ordinance SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviro ital Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMErvi LUA-97-074, SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 5 of 16 5) Noise and Light/Glare Impacts The principal noise source in the area of the site is vehicular traffic along the Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR 169). The proposed project would not add significant traffic volumes. Active recreation activities are located proximate to the highway, therefore the use of the athletic fields is not anticipated to adversely impact neighbors or surrounding land uses. There would be a short-term noise increase during construction of the project from construction equipment. The construction activities would be limited to business hours. No lighting is proposed for this phase of site improvements. Field and parking area lighting will be included in future phases of work. 6) Land and Shoreline Use Impacts The subject site is zoned Resource Conservation (RC) and the proposed park is a permitted use in the RC zoning designation. The proposal is consistent with the adopted zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and the City's Master Parks and Trails Plan. There are no land use impacts anticipated to result with the proposal. The proposal is not subject to shoreline jurisdiction/regulations because the proposed park development is beyond 200 feet from the high water mark of the river, outside the 100-year floodplain, and outside of associated wetlands. Mitigation Measures No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus NA SITERC.DOC , City of Renton P/B✓PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviro ntal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMivr LUA-97-074, SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 6 of 16 B. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment and Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment and Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Appeal Period. Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. Mitigation Measures 1. Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the project, to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at 1 $4,800 (64 trips x$75 = $4,800). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, Saturdays as arranged but no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to include a traffic control plan. The revised Construction Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. SITERC.DOC , C(ty of Renton P/B/PW Department', Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviro 7tal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPM1 _ _ _ _ LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 7 of 16 Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. BUILDING Applicant shall obtain Grade and Fill Permit. FIRE 1. Fire department apparatus access is a minimum 20-foot wide paved roadway with 25-foot inside turning radius and 45-foot outside turning radius. PLAN REVIEW Existing Conditions: WATER-There are no mapped available water lines to serve this site. SEWER-Metro sewer is available adjacent to the site. STORM -There is an existing stream, river and wetlands adjacent and through this site. All improvements shall conform to King County Surface Water Design Manual Standards. A drainage report was submitted with the application. STREETS -The Maple Valley Highway is adjacent to the site. Any improvements for curb, gutter, sidewalk or streetlighting may be required. Code Requirements: SURFACE WATER 1. Water quality and detention are required. The Technical Information Report submitted with application seems complete. PLAN REVIEW-GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings,two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use. However, it is recommended to call 235-2631 to verify the fees as generated by the permit system prior to issuing a check. POLICE Theft and burglary of tools and materials from construction sites is one of the most common reported crimes in Renton. The site will need security lighting, and it should also be completely fenced in with portable chain-link fence. The fence will provide both a physical and a psychological barrier to any prospective thief, and will clearly demonstrate that this area is private property. If a portable construction trailer is used for an office during the construction phase, this trailer will need to have heavy-duty dead-bolt locks, a metal door, metal bars over any windows, and an alarm system is recommended. All office machinery and tools will need to have the serial and model numbers, and descriptions of the property recorded !n the event of a theft. It is recommended that the applicant post the correct NO TRESPASSING signs at various locations around the perimeter of the property. This will aid police in making arrests on the property after hours if suspects are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. Maple Valley Highway is a heavily commuted highway and any blocking of the road during construction should be avoided. SITERC.DOC , City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviro ,tal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPM - , LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 8 of 16 The most common crimes that seem to occur in parks are theft from motor vehicles and auto theft. To assist in deterring this sort of crime, security lighting needs to be provided throughout the entire parking area. Assaults are known to happen as well in park areas that are hidden from view and not well lit. Proper lighting should exist through the entire park during the hours that it is open to the public. (This includes all play fields.) It is common for drug-related activity to take place at park areas, especially those that provide areas hidden from view. Landscaping in the park should be manicured and kept at a height and density that does not provide security for criminals. It's recommended that some of the landscaping be thinned out and replaced with chain-link fencing instead or in addition to the landscaping. Because of the lack of visibility around and behind the park, criminals could be tempted to congregate in these areas for drug-related crimes. The use of.a.private security guard patrol of off-duty officers is recommended as.auxiliary security if the park experiences problems. SITERC.DOC it , City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviroi ital Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPML... LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 9 of 16 PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT & DECISION This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental determination. Al. Type of Land Use Action x Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Determination B. Exhibits I The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of postingandpublication, PP� environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. 1, Site Plan (Received June 20, 1997). Exhibit No. 3: Drawing No. 2, Landscaping Plan (Received June 20, 1997). Exhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 3, Plant list and Details (Received June 20, 1997). Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No. 4, Architectural Elevations (Received June 20, 1997). Exhibit No. 6: Drawing No. 5, Tree Cutting/Land Clearing (Received June 20, 1997). Exhibit No. 7: Drawing No. 6, Grading Plan (Received June 20, 1997). Exhibit No. 8: Drawing No. 7, Notes and Details (Received June 20, 1997). Exhibit No. 9: Drawing No. 8, Drainage Plan (Received June 20, 1997). Exhibit No. 10: Drawing No. 9, Madsen Creek Bridge (Received June 20, 1997). C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4- 31-33(D) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: A. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS AND POLICIES; The site is designated Residential Rural (RR) in the Comprehensive Plan. The designation is intended to "preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential development in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, or agricultural lands within the City". (Obj. LU-I) The park/open space use is consistent with the intent of the RR designation. SITERC.DOC , City of Renton P/B/PW Department, Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envirc ntal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMcivi LUA-97-074, SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 10 of 16 While the policies address several general aspects of the proposal, there do not appear to be any policy issues. The following Land Use Element policies provide direction for new park development: Policy LU-348. Existing undeveloped park lands should be evaluated to determine the feasibility of accommodating needed facilities within them. Policy LU-349. New park facilities should be developed when parks are not located close enough to population centers and when existing holdings cannot feasibly be developed or redeveloped with needed facilities. Policy LU-350. Recreation facilities should be provided based on surveys of user demand and adopted standards. Policy LU-351. Existing parks should be more intensely developed to provide needed recreation facilities where feasible. Policy LU-352. All parks development should be undertaken in a way which considers the impact of traffic, noise, litter, glare, light, and hours of operation on adjacent uses. These policies are intended to be implemented through the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan. The Phase I development of the Cedar River Regional Park is consistent with the Park and Recreation Master Plan. The proposal is consistent with Land Use Element policies that call for inclusion of critical areas in the City's public open space network and public access to these areas. Policy LU-362. Where feasible, encourage public access into public open space areas. Where appropriate, archeologically or environmentally sensitive areas should be protected from intrusion. Policy LU-363. Public open space should also include critical areas. Policy LU-364. Structures should be minimized within public open space areas. B. CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS; The proposed park site is located within the Resource Conservation (RC) zoning designation. New parks (including neighborhood, community and regional parks) are permitted as a secondary use in the RC zone provided that the park is consistent with the City Master Parks and Trails Plan and subject to site plan review approval. The proposal is for the Phase I development of a Master Plan for Cedar River Regional Park, which was initially approved as part of the Cedar River Greenway Plan by the Renton City Council in 1994. The Cedar River Regional Park was incorporated into the Master Parks and Trails Plan which was adopted by the City Council in 1994. The Master Parks and Trails Plan meets the requirements of a governmental site plan under code section 4-35, Master Site Plan Approvals. Therefore, the subject proposal is considered an individual phase of a master site plan, which is subject to administrative site plan approval. Development standards of the RC zone mostly pertain to the development of buildings and structures and are therefore inapplicable to the proposed park development. The Parking and Loading Ordinance does not specify a required parking standard for parks. The code directs staff to determine the required parking based on the most similar type of use listed in the code or based upon information provided by the applicant (Section 4-14-81). City Park Department staff states that a commonly used programmatic standard for determining SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviroi Ital Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMen t LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 11 of 16 parking need is 40 parking spaces per athletic field. The proposal includes a total of 120 parking spaces: 40 spaces provided for each of the two athletic fields and 40 spaces associated with usage of the trailhead for the Cedar River Trail and various other users of the park. The park site includes a 21.5 acre, Class I, forested wetland. The wetlands ordinance requires a 100 foot buffer width from Class I wetlands. The park proposal would intrude into the wetland buffer for the construction of athletic fields. The code allows for buffer averaging in Section 4-32-31. The total required buffer area may not be reduced and the buffer width may not be reduced by more than 50% of the standard, required buffer width. The park proposal would construct on 27,850 square feet of wetland buffer area and .proposes to add the equivalent amount of area adjacent to the wetland buffer boundary on other portions of the site. However, the northeast edge of the baseball field intruding into'the wetland buffer would leave a buffer width of 35 to 40 feet, which is less than the 50 feet allowed by the code (50% of the 100 foot wide standard). The code (Section 4-32-3H) allows the Department Administrator to approve a reduction to the wetland buffer width on a case-by-case basis. The applicant should obtain approval for a reduction in the wetland buffer width standard or revise the site plan to provide a minimum 50 foot buffer width in those areas proposed for buffer width averaging. • C. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES; The park site is relatively isolated from surrounding residential land uses. Maplewood Golf Course borders the project site on the west. The Cedar River forms the northern site boundary and large lot single family residential uses are located to the north, northeast and east of the site. A mobile home park is located southwest, across the highway from the site. Park use and recreation activities are not anticipated to adversely impact surrounding properties and uses. The park proposal would generate additional vehicular traffic along Orcas Avenue SE (149th Ave. SE) which serves adjacent large-lot residential development. However, the drive entering the park would be close to the intersection of Orcas Avenue SE and the Renton Maple Valley Highway and therefore traffic would not extend far up Orcas Avenue SE, minimizing impacts to residents along Orcas Avenue SE. Some noise would result from recreational activities occurring in the park. The active park use activities are focused along the highway and are not anticipated to impact surrounding properties and uses. The subject proposal does not include site lighting of the athletic fields or parking area. This is anticipated to be included with the next phase of park development, and potential impacts on surrounding properties would be evaluated at that time. D. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE; The proposed park site plan would not adversely impact the site. The large forested wetland on the site would be preserved and no trails or activities are proposed to extend into the wetland area. A portion of the 100 foot wide wetland buffer would be utilized for development of athletic fields, but the applicant is proposing wetland buffer averaging to compensate for the buffer loss. Setbacks would be maintained along Madsen Creek to preserve riparian vegetation and the bridge crossing would be designed to support fish habitat and migration. As mentioned previously, active park and recreation uses are focused close to the highway, which is the most efficient use of the site and would result in minimal impacts to the site. SITERC.DOC • • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envirc ntal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT LUA-97-074, SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 12 of 16 Stormwater facilities are proposed to treat and control stormwater runoff from the proposed parking area. E. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; Development of the regional park would add a public amenity to the local area and it would likely enhance area-wide property values. F. SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION; Access to the park site is proposed off Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). The entry drive into the site would require a bridge crossing over Madsen Creek. The vehicular circulation and parking is designed in a safe and efficient manner. There are two pedestrian connections proposed, entering the park area off the Cedar River Trail. These connections are located convenient to entering the park for access to the athletic fields. Although a sidewalk would be extended on the property frontage along Orcas Avenue SE, a sidewalk connection is not proposed along the entry drive due to constraints with the bridge crossing Madsen Creek. There is an existing bus pullout at the intersection of Orcas Avenue SE and the Renton Maple Valley Highway. Signage should be provided near the bus stop to direct pedestrians to the sidewalk connections entering the park further west, in order to avoid leading pedestrians up the sidewalk along Orcas Avenue SE and then having to enter the park walking on the vehicle access road. The existing Cedar River Trail runs parallel to the site and the highway. It is anticipated that the park will serve as a trailhead and parking area for accessing the trail. The park proposal would add street trees between the trail and the highway, and the landscape buffer/separation would enhance the experience of trail users. G. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; Not applicable to the proposal. H. MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS; The park proposal is not expected to create adverse noise, odors or other harmful or unhealthy conditions that would require mitigating measures. There would be some noise resulting from users of the athletic fields, but the proximity to the highway would limit the potential impact on surrounding properties and land uses. 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE;AND Potable water is not available to the site and would be very costly to provide as a supply for drinking fountains or restrooms. Therefore, the subject proposal includes only sanican facilities at this time. Other public facilities and services are available and adequate to serve the proposed park use. See the Advisory Notes section of this report for detailed information concerning utilities and public services. SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviro 'gal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT LUA-97-074, SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 13 of 16 J. PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT. The proposed park project would serve to improve the neighborhood and add a public amenity, thus preventing neighborhood deterioration and blight. XX Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. SITERC.DOC • • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviroi gal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 14 of 16 D. Findings, Conclusions & Decision Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1) Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for Phase I of the Master Plan for the Cedar River Park Development. 2) Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1. 3) Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 thru 10. 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Rural 5) Zoning: The Site Plan as presented, complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Resource Conservation Zoning designation. 6) Existing Land Use: . Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Cedar River, large-lot single family residential; East: Large-lot single family residential; South: Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) and West: Maplewood Golf Course. E. Conclusions 1) The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton, except as noted in the report. 2) The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Rural; and the Zoning designation of Resource Conservation. 3) The proposal for the Phase I development is consistent with the Master Plan for the Cedar River Regional Park, as approved with the Cedar River Greenway Plan, and it is consistent with the City's Master Parks and Trails Plan. SITERC.DOC • . City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envira ntal Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMtrv► LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 15 of 16 F. Decision The Site Plan for Cedar River Park Development, File No. LUA-97-074, SA, ECF is approved subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1 The applicant shall either revise the site plan to maintain a minimum 50 foot wetland buffer width as required for buffer width averaging (50% of the 100 foot buffer width standard) under Section 4-32-3.1., or obtain approval from the Department Administrator for a reduction in the standard wetland buffer width according to the criteria of Section 4-32-3.H. The revised site plan or approval of the buffer width reduction shall be submitted to the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of a Grade and Fill Permit. 2 The applicant shall provide signage at the intersection of Orcas Avenue SE and the Renton-Maple Valley Highway to direct pedestrians to the sidewalk connections entering the park further to the west. A note indicating the signage shall be provided on a revised site plan, subject to the approval of the Development services Division, prior to the issuance of a Grade and Fill Permit. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: James C. Hanson, Zoning Administrator date Michael D. Ka ermann, oning Administrator date TRANSMITTED this 15th day of July, 1997 to the applicant and owner: Glenn Kost City of Renton Community Services Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 . TRANSMITTED this 15th day of July, 1997 to the parties of record: Margarete Truman 14626 SE Jones PI. Renton,WA. 98058 Mrs. Veenheisen 14615 SE Maple Valley Highway Renton,WA. 98058 SITERC.DOC • • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enviroi tal Review Committee Staff Report ' CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMErvr LUA-97-074,SA,ECF REPORT OF JULY 15, 1997 Page 16 of 16 TRANSMITTED 15th day of July, 1997 to the following: Larry Meckling,Building Official Bob Arthur,Land Use Inspector Art Larson,Fire Marshal Neil Watts,Public Works Division Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney South County Journal ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL (COMBINED COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIOD) of Environmental Determination Comment Process comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 4, 1997(15 days from the date of publication). Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 o'. Environmental Determination and Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680]and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 4, 1997(15 days from the date of publication). If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. SITERC.DOC CIT r OF RENTON =7%4> Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 17, 1997 Washington State • Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO;Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 • Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on July 15, 1997: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT LUA97-074,SA,ECF ' Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development of the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposal includes the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved • parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE(149th Street SE)via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). Location: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE, NW corner of Maple Valley Hwy. &Orcas Avenue SE. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 4, 1997. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Ave South, Renton, WA'98055. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680]and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 4, 1997. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. If you have questions, please call me at(425) 235-2719. • For the Environmental Review Committee, ie•Q5—.2,\_ ter o en Project Manager • cc: King County Water Pollution Control Division, Metro Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office • Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(Ordinance) Rita Perstac, Puget Power • AGNCYT.TR DOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton, Washington 98055 Q • {�)This paper contains 50%recycled material.20%post consumer • ,.% - ram J � • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT LUA•97.074,SA,ECF Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development of the Cedar River Regional Park The proposal includes the clearing and grading of epproalmately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field end one ball field,an entry drive and paved parking tot for 120 vehicles,sanlcans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail,landscaping and fencing.The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek Access to the site Is proposed from Omas Avenue SE(1491h Street SE)via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). Location: 1501 Oroes Avenue SE,NW comer of Maple Valley Hwy.8 Orcas Avenue SE.• THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. n YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON AUGUST 4.1997 OR APPEAL • THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM,AUGUST 4.1997.THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS • WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. • • CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MAP sew • R. 1 • ��RC \ / . \•5* • • • R•6* •r RA Sl* UR* /Ir \fir • I � tebta ��., , .,.• •�,r.ro,,,,,e • r,�' �.., a lelem 111/O • • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification.'' CERTIFICATION • I, /'11 j I11,,JA/1%1 . hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on • LJL 2 2_ 14'i ) Signed: � ,,, • • STATE OF WASHINGTON • ) • ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) " certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that )94,41z419 r� -d ' o signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and volurita.ry�ietabr tt'ie uses •and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ��'►El/�y'•`..1n 7)7 Dated: /9.? vi ,;,, Notary Public' and for h= State'gf• Patt461lo�i`�;>; 4 Notary (Print) MARGAREi .J•;:RC??J.I'LAR My appointment expiroomagON FXPIRFS AI9/99 • • NOVARY,DOC r - , • (It' I ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT LUA-97-074,SA,ECF Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development of the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposal includes the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles,sanicans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail,landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). Location: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE,NW corner of Maple Valley Hwy.&Orcas Avenue SE. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. XXX YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON AUGUST 4, 1997 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM,AUGUST 4, 1997. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MAP t1119M11 11 SC I141M1 Y u]n1 SI t' : 3I IIl rio� 11Ln %.. _ ' N Y IISIn%. Si !NM ,I R-1* /K.,,,, u: Goon O _ Z y5 V�RE RC A_5* ,� r ,fi. R-6* RA-5 _ _ UR*/ :,tl 4 Fenlon Yon bar/ P/6y `,pit Y 162.1% " LP,_g144a Si * K ING COUNTY ZONING CITY LIMITS G PARKS DEPARTMENT 0L..� 1000 2000 GKerr 1 Mev WGI FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION >]ig: ease:include:the: rei ectNUM ER:when'callin._:for; "roper:fi e;:Identification::::::>:::>:.>::::::::::: NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT LUA97-074,SA,ECF Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development of the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposal includes the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). Location: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE, NW corner of Maple Valley Hwy. &Orcas Avenue SE. The 15 day comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 PM on August 4, 1997. Written comments shall be forwarded to ' the Development Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipal Building. Publication Date: July 21, 1997 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA97-074,SA,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton Community Services Dept. PROJECT NAME: Cedar River Park Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development of the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposal includes the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved,parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE, NW corner of Maple Valley Hwy. & Orcas Avenue SE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required_ under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. 1 PUBLICATION DATE: July 21, 1997 DATE OF DECISION: July 15, 1997 SIGNATURES: a�� 4 Rae- 7.V�77 g Zimmerman, Administrator rpa ATE rtment of Planning/Building/Public Works .�A —,-7 Sam Chastain,Administrator DATE Community Service Department LVe, 11 eler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC Environmental Determination Comment Process. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 4, 1997. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Environmental Determination and Land Use Decision Appeal Process. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 4, 1997. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETRMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFIN#ANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-97-074,SA,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton Community Services Dept. PROJECT NAME: Cedar River Park Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development of the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposal includes the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the project, to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at$4,800 (64 trips x$75 = $4,800). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, Saturdays as arranged but no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to include a traffic control plan. The revised Construction Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIF1.,.ANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-97-074,SA,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton Community Services Dept. PROJECT NAME: Cedar River Park Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for Phase I of the Master Plan development of the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposal includes the clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site is proposed from Orcas Avenue SE (149th Street SE) via the Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. BUILDING Applicant shall obtain Grade and Fill Permit. FIRE 1. Fire department apparatus access is a minimum 20-foot wide paved roadway with 25-foot inside turning radius and 45-foot outside turning radius. PLAN REVIEW Existing Conditions: WATER-There are no mapped available water lines to serve this site. SEWER-Metro sewer is available adjacent to the site. STORM-There is an existing stream, river and wetlands adjacent and through this site. All improvements shall conform to King County Surface Water Design Manual Standards. A drainage report was submitted with the application. STREETS -Th. kple Valley Highway is adjacent to the Si Any improveml for curb, gutter, sidewalk or streetlightin,_ iy be required. Code Requirements: SURFACE WATER 1. Water quality and detention are required. The Technical Information Report submitted with application seems complete. PLAN REVIEW-GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required.When plans are complete three copies of the drawings,two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use. However, it is recommended to call 235-2631 to verify the fees as generated by the permit system prior to issuing a check. POLICE Theft and burglary of tools and materials from construction sites is one of the most common reported crimes in Renton. The site will need security lighting, and it should also be completely fenced in with portable chain-link fence. The fence will provide both a physical and a psychological barrier to any prospective thief, and will clearly demonstrate that this area is private property. If a portable construction trailer is used for an office during the construction phase, this trailer will need to have heavy-duty dead-bolt locks, a metal door, metal bars over any windows, and an alarm system is recommended. All office machinery and tools will need to have the serial and model numbers, and descriptions of the property recorded in the event of a theft. It is recommended that the applicant post the correct NO TRESPASSING signs at various locations around the perimeter of the property. This will aid police in making arrests on the property after hours if suspects are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. Maple Valley Highway is a heavily commuted highway and any blocking of the road during construction should be avoided. The most common crimes that seem to occur in parks are theft from motor vehicles and auto theft. To assist in deterring this sort of crime, security lighting needs to be provided throughout the entire parking area. Assaults are known to happen as well in park areas that are hidden from view and not well lit. Proper lighting should exist through the entire park during the hours that it is open to the public. (This includes all play fields.) It is common for drug-related activity to take place at park areas, especially those that provide areas hidden from view. Landscaping in the park should be manicured and kept at a height and density that does not provide security for criminals. It's recommended that some of the landscaping be thinned out and replaced with chain-link fencing instead or in addition to the landscaping. Because of the lack of visibility around and behind the park, criminals could be tempted to congregate in these areas for drug-related crimes. The use of a private security guard patrol of off-duty officers is recommended as auxiliary security if the park experiences problems. • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DE LOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: WDkV 4.0) COMMENTS DUE: JULY 07, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-074,etJEC c DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 1997 CITY OF RENTON APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN --- .r:,.rG� PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT WORK ORDER NO: 78231 JUN .2 4 1997 LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE) SITEI AREA: 45 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILLrtrvu ui VISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phase I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Llght/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Nahiral Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 4 lMelL&O brvcm. -7 p p7 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wheie additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. . 4 �c. -7 Ps y7 Sigaat r of Director or Authorized Representative Date / DEVAPP.'. Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:111(4lSp1Y-f tyhJ'✓1 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 07, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-074,CU DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 1997 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSENITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT WORK ORDER NO: 78231 LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE) JUN 2 3 1997 SITE AREA: 45 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A dub,t.r„v,c.A 10 wr I010N SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phase I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). A. ; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the / Probable. Probable More Environment Minor Major infonnatlon Environment Minor Major information impacts Impacts Necessary. impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air 1 Aesthetics Water Light/Glare - Plants Recreation _ Land/Shoreline Use Utiliti• es Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services - Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation - Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS —RAMC. Yvoil6pi-t-to) 4 E We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 47,13,7 OatS co horized Representative DEVAP Rev.10/93 City t_.::enton Department of Planning/Building/P -__Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:3WK C2 W&k4' COMMENTS DUE: JULY 07, 1997 I?'Oa; APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-074,CU DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 1997 Ja APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN 2 3 1997 PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT WORK ORDER NO: 78231 • LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE) ., �•r'°-•�,. SITE AREA: 45 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phase I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air i Aesthetics Water - Ught/Glare _, _.. Plants Recreation • Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals _ Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Histodc/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation • Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. !POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS it C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS : —7/e/VV We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional Information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. 011 r� e1 7/ 7 ture of Director oruthorizedp A Representative Date $i D PP.DOC Rev.10/93 CITY OF . RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: July 9, 1997 To: Peter Rosen )4)17 From: Kayren K. Kittrick, Plan Review Subject: Cedar River Regional Park LUA-97-074, ECF, SA EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER-There are no mapped available water lines to serve this site. SEWER- Metro sewer is available adjacent to the site. STORM - There is an existing stream, river and wetlands adjacent and through this site. All improvements shall conform to King County Surface Water Design Manual Standards. A drainage report was submitted with the application. STREETS - The Maple Valley Highway is adjacent to the site. Any improvements for curb, gutter, sidewalk or streetlighting may be required. CODE REQUIREMENTS SURFACE WATER 1. Water quality and detention are required. The Technical Information Report submitted with application seems complete. TRANSPORTATION 1. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75.00 per Average Daily Trip shall be assessed. This fee has been calculated to be 64 average daily trips for a fee of$4800. PLAN REVIEW-GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use. However, it is recommended to call 235-2631 to verify the fees as generated by the permit system prior to issuing a check. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. CEDRIVPKDOC 2. A construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 3. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, Saturdays as arranged but no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. CC: Neil Watts CEDRIVPKDCC CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE:. JULY 1, 1997 TO: PETER ROSEN FROM: NEIL WATTS SUBJECT: CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK, LUA-97-074 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION The proposed Cedar River Regional Park, Phase 1, is subject to the payment of traffic mitigation fees. Determination of the average daily trip generation for this facility is difficult, based on limited survey information by ITE, and the wide range of trip generation values for various park types. Based upon a review of the information available in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, and the Environmental Checklist submitted with the project, and my best engineering judgment, I estimate that the number of average daily trips generated by this new facility will be 64 daily trips. The environmental checklist states under the Transportation Section: "It is anticipated that approximately 400 vehicular trips per day will be generated by this completed project during peak use times. It is anticipated that peak volumes would occur on weekends between 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM, March through September. This estimated value is not appropriate to use in calculating the traffic mitigation fees for the proposal, as traffic mitigation fees are based on average weekday trips, not peak days or weekends. The ITE Trip Generation Manual lists three different land use types which could be used in evaluating this site: City Park (411), County Park (412) and Regional Park (417). The definitions of these three land uses are nearly the same, with the exception of ownership. The City Park land use description is as follows: "City parks are owned and operated by a,city. The city parks surveyed varied widely as to location and type and amount of facilities, including boating or swimming facilities, ball fields, camp sites, and picnic facilities. Because of the variety of facilities as well as local conditions such as weather, seasonal use of the individual sites is quite different. For example, some of the sites are used primarily for boating or swimming, while others are used for softball games." The County Park land use is described exactly the same, with the exception being owned and operated by a county. The description for the Regional Park land use is nearly the same: "Regional parks are owned and operated by a regional park authority. The regional parks surveyed varied widely as to location type and amount of facilities, including hiking trails, lakes, pools, ball fields,.camp sites, and.picnic facilities. Because of the variety of facilities as well as local conditions such as weather, seasonal use of the individual sites is quite different. For example, some of the sites are used primarily for boating or swimming, while JUNE 30, 1997 PAGE 2 others are used for hiking or camping, etc." The average trip daily trips generated per acre for each of these land use types, and the range of rates for each use is listed in the following table. Land Use Designation Average Rate per.Acre Range of Rates per Acre City Park (411) 2.23 1.04 -8.00 County Park (412) 2.99 0.17 - 53.41 Regional Park(417) 19.15 5.12 - 39.07 The proposal is for a park development of 12.5 acres. Using the average figure for the City Park results in an estimated average daily trip generation value of about 28 trips, which seems unrealistically low. The use and general location of this facility will be expected to draw from user from a wider area than just the local neighborhood as a traditional city park. The result of this wider user base is more vehicle trips to the site, and less users walking to the park. Using the average rate for the regional park results in a value of about 240 average daily trips, which seems too high an estimate for this facility on an average weekday basis over the course of the full year. The site will not operate like a true regional park, drawing people from other communities as a sort of destination, tourist attraction. The appropriate value would seem to be within the range of rates established for the City Park designation, and at the lower end of the range for the Regional Park designation. I recommend using the value of 5.12 trips per acre for this particular proposal. The estimated average daily trips based on this rate is 64 average daily trips. At$75 per trip, the traffic mitigation fee for this proposal will be $4800. cc: Lee Haro Leslie Betlach H:///devserv/planrev/cdrprkl II RENTON FIRE_ DEPT ,REAU City::.-. anton Department of Planning/Building/Puuun Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REANE2148 VS4YEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: FiYG'pYCVGMIi'idbl COMMENTS DUE: JULY 07, 1 9 L4 V Efl APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-074,6+e4P: ,4' DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 1997 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT WORK ORDER NO: 78231 LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE) SITE AREA 45 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phase I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry' drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and'fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). A. i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element or the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air I • t Aesthetics Water Light/Glare • Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities • Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Eneigy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 100 Rita,-j �Mpte1s ivoIJ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS N C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Sae- a . L`" ,Ifirriert S J :41;; lcl• bail,/ CO4 Slitt.C.1CI. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ad 'onal informati; needed to property assess this proposal. Si at of Director or Authoriz • Representative Date /7"1/3 7 D P .DOC Rev.10/93 CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU (.4R MEMORANDUM „NT— I DATE: November 13, 1996 TO: Peter Rosen, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments for Cedar River Regional Park 1 . More information is needed on proposed buildings before.preliminary fire flow requirements are determinable. Provide further details like type of construction, exact square footage's and usage details. Fir h drant requirements will be based upon fire flow determinations. kw 0/4 S. will Pefaile rc:Ile fof«1on 'Wen Aal f: 2. The fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of building. This fee is payable at the time of building permit issuance. 3. Fire department apparatus access is a minimum 20-feet wide paved roadway with 25-foot inside turning radius and 45-foot outside turning radius. CT:ss Precom • • • • • City ;c :-!enton Department of Planning/Building/Puniic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: o1 (R/ COMMENTS DUE: JULY 07, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA=97-074,CU DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 1997 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/COMMUNITY SERVICES . PROJECT MANAGER:_ PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT WORK ORDER NO: 78231 LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE) SITE AREA: 45 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phase I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and'Ifencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Bement of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air! Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use _ Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services j/ Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet !Ldecl- 0-64ac /moo/ -� f' ere ctt e Out, B. ! POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. j CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wheree additional information is needed to props assess this proposal. Signate of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 • PROJECT LUA-97-074, CU Cedar River Park Development City of Renton Department of Planning /Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) POLICE RELATED COMMENTS CONSTRUCTION PHASE Theft from construction sites is one of the most common reported crimes in the city. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site will need security lighting and should also be completely fenced in with portable chain-link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective thief and will demonstrate that this area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should also have a heavy-duty deadbolt installed with no less then a 1-1/2" throw when bolted. Glass windows in the trailer should be shatter-resistant. I also recommend the business post the appropriate"No Trespassing" signs on the property while it's under construction (flier attached.) This will aid police in making arrests on the property after hours if suspects are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. Maple Valley Highway is a heavily commuted highway and any blocking of the road during construction should be avoided. COMPLETED BUILDING The most common crimes that seems to occur in parks are theft from motor vehicles and auto theft. To assist in deterring this sort of crime, security lighting needs to be provided throughout the entire parking area. Assaults are known to happen as well in park areas that are hidden from view and not well lit. Proper lighting should exist through the entire park during the hours that it is open to the public. (This includes all play fields.) I'm assuming restrooms will be provided, though they are not listed on the blueprints. These need to be constructed in a portion of the park that is well visible and have appropriate lighting as well. If pay phones are to be provided, they need to be installed away from the restroom area so as not to encourage loiterers around the facility. This will help deter assaults and/or inappropriate activity around this area. It's common for drug-related activity to take place at park areas, especially those that provide areas hidden from view. Landscaping in the park should be manicured and kept at Page 1 of 2 PROJECT LUA-97-074, CU Cedar River Park Development City of Renton Department of Planning /Building /Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) a height and density that does not provide security for criminals. It's recommended that some of the landscaping be thinned out and replaced with chain-link fencing instead or in addition to the landscaping. Because of the lack of visibility around and behind the park, criminals could be tempted to congregate in these areas for drug-related crimes. The use of a private security guard patrol of off-duty officers is recommended as auxiliary security if the park experiences problems. Page 2 of 2 Trespass 1: USINES Enforcement WATCH Quite often, business owners and managers are faced with crimes that occur on the property after the businesses are closed and the employees have gone home. Some of the crimes that occur are burglary, vandalism, graffiti, trespassing, drug dealing and robbery in the parking lots. There is a way for police and business owners to discourage these types of crimes from taking place on private property, and that is by enforcing the City of Renton's Municipal Trespass Code 6-18-10. In order for police to be able to make an arrest for Trespass, business owners or managers need to purchase signs and display them in conspicuous areas on the property. These signs need to include the following language: 1. Indicate that the subject property is privately owned and; 2. Uninvited presence on the specified property is not permitted during the hours the business is closed, and; 3. Violators will be subject to criminal sanctions pursuant to Renton City Code 6-18-10. MOST IMPORTANTLY-THE SIGNS SHOULD BE CONSPICUOUS FROM ALL POSSIBLE POINTS OF ENTRY TO THE PROPERTY,AND ALSO BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGS. This way when a suspect is arrested, he/she will not be able to claim as a defense that he/she did not know he or she was trespassing. EXAMPLES FOR TRESPASS SIGNS: NO TRESPASSING NO TRESPASSING This is private property. Persons without specific No Trespassing after business hours business are not authorized to be on the premises between (insert specific times). Anyone on the the hours of(insert the hours your business is closed). premises after business hours is subject to Violators are subject to arrest and/or citation for criminal arrest and/or citation for Criminal Trespass pursuant to Renton City Code#6-18-10.. Trespass and/or impoundment of vehicle. Per Renton City Code#6-18-10. By enforcing the Trespass Ordinance, business owners and police will be sending a message to criminals that they are not allowed to conduct criminal activity on the property. In making arrests for Trespass, police may be preventing the more serious crimes from taking place. COURTESY OF RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT 1• 5 -I CRIME PREVENTION UNIT 235- 2571 City or-Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVrI Rpi Li ET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:ONILI.CI'(Y\ COMMENTS DUE: JULY 07, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-074,CU DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 1997 JUN Z 3 1997 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROAE, _„„, ",vi dl.9N I PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT WORK ORDER NO: 78231 LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE) SITE AREA 45 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phase I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry' drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air., Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals _ Transportation Environmental Health Public Services • Energy/ Historlc/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS c Q 0nia Chi 106 fj/—�- ,2 vvt i'T We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where ad onal information Is needed to dy assess this proposal. 0671-7 Signature of Dir or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City_. .,tenton Department of Planning/Building/kutinc Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:1; 0VS COMMENTS DUE: JULY 07, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-074,CU DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 1997 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT WORK ORDER NO: 78231 LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Avenue SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE) SITE AREA: 45 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phase I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans,walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LIghvGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation • Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation • Alrpo►t Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS •772C�o � C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information is needed to property else this proposal. 4(-6 (11&)/7 t23/ 7 Signature irector or Authorized Representative AZ Date` DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 1 '<:OF:' ENTON<<_:<::€ ':=s:<: : ': <`<< ><; ::: > >: :.<>?<>:: >:s::: < €:;::i's . ........ .:..........:..... . :<:>IV,;:•S>f>:>::;::;>:: '`:.!g.; ::: :::..: >< ''> » <`> ;::::.:�:.;:.;:.::.>::.>;:.:�;::. .:.;:.;::.;;:.;:.::.::;::»::»:<:>:«:::»::<:>::I�. ....E O..MEIVI..SI~R...I.C. S.A.V.[ .C}N.... ............................... :..:::::::: ::.:::::::...:.......... :: ::��:::R �. . t G O T OW : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::;::::::::: U OU P R:::>::L..S : O:.F...S.. .. .. . .. .... ...N .... .N... ..... .... .. . .....E .. ... .... ........ .. ... ...I�[E 5.......... �ii:{{{:i:ti.iiii:":i?::iii:i:ii::i�:::::::i::::::iiiii:�%:ii":i:::::iiijiii':is.i:.`iii:!:;v:::: :::j::y'�::::y:tii}v' III }:i:}i4:,.':::::}::yi:::i::i:":'i�l:i::�::::::::i'�:'::: f. . h� O( feet.. th.. sub ect:::site>:<:<;:<:€<;<>:<:::>:::::::;>:::::: :<::«:::»::>::::::::»::;:> >::»:: >>::::>_::»> 1 i PROJECT NAME: CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK SPORTSFIELD DEVELOPMENT • APPLICATION NO: ukA. 1-014 ) ELF,SA The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Reece, George 14410 Bel Red Rd 2223059004 Bellevue,WA 98007 ' Veenhuizen,William 14615 Maple Valley Hwy . 2223059018 Renton,WA 98058 2223059020 Truman,Marguerite Haller 14626 SE Jones Pl. 2223059032 Renton,WA 98058 Charboneau,Philip 14636 SE Jones P1 2223059069 Renton, WA 98055 Chapman,Irving G 15031 149th Avenue SE .2223059104 ,,,>>:':•.�; Renton, WA 98058 ; ''''' 232305909:%�L`}`�- I r, ` Dalsanto Evelyn G 15017 149th Avenue SE 222305/9105 , .e ,. ; Renton,WA 98058 2323C 90 S �':a `'1'. O l\: e. U Bergsma,Mark . • 14810 SE Jones Rd ' 222305,9139 ,i �- -`• Renton, WA 98058 t Becker,Gary B :1 14631 SE 145th P1 222305915 . ` - Renton, WA 98059 Hynes,Ronnie&Cheryl 15109 149th Avenue SE . 2223059155 1 Renton,WA 98058 Wagar,Jon D 15202 149th Avenu SE . 2323059010 Renton,WA 98059 • Worster,Herman R& Sherron PO Box 267 2323059020 Big Arm,MT 59910 Brenden,Marshall M 18225 SE 128th 2323059032 . Looney,William,A Renton,WA 98059 Tasca, James G 221 Williams Ave N 2323059037 Renton,WA 98055 Hynes,Raymond G 152 i4;149't1i-Ave SE 2323059070 Rznton;WA`_98058- Kolcsey, Stephen J 14937 Maple Valley Hwy 2323059118 Renton;WA_T 98058 (Attach additional sheetsPAJ611By)14 TEIRADFliVoi JU 2 1'' 1997 97-178MB.DOC emia ea 71= .. o. DEVELOUMciV i 1-1...A i IN.. CITY OF RENTON (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER I Hatton,David ; 15120 149th Ave SE 2323059132 Renton,WA 98058 Emerson, Willie&Betty 15016 149th Ave;SE ' 2323059133 Renton, WA 98058 Brown,Dale T ' 14704 158th Avei SE ' 2323059134 Renton, WA 98059 Vandorssen,Robert J&Paula Y 14804 SE Jones Pl . 2323059169 Renton, WA 98058 Wubbens,Marvin G&Jennie A 4009 S 297th PI , 2323059180 Auburn, WA 98001 ,. . Applicant Certification I, CLEWAI 4).T , hereby.certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) I owners and their addresses were obtained from: ,i., City of Renton Technical Services Records O Title Company Records O King County Assessors Records Signed _- J ,I Date (//97_ Lcant) 1 _. 'tly NOTARY 1 ATTESTED: ,SuFscribv and sworn before me, a No ry Public, i and for the State of Washim.ton, residing-<a,t:--- G on the 9 1,,day of , 199 Sign (Not Public) .:::::.:For.:.Citv..of.:Ren.ton::.Use::::::::.:::::.::;:.;>:.::;:::.:::::.:;;:..:;:.::.:::. :.;::;•.:..::.: ::. .:::::::::::::.. ' 'CER.TIFI ATION ORMAILINe isi <`>> `` lii> >< :«<i`iiii i:iiii< i<i> `> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 . ::'>.:: •:......: '<;:h reby ertl•.::: ha.:::notices::'f: he<: r o d. ltca ion.::wer: ;maile :>t�:>:><ii.I.E r� It em .[ ..ee ea>•h:'lis.:.;.;:,,: prr;::;:: ` o ner`Il . <. >:':' ..::;: (1 ; ' ' `` ' >'' > } '' r ` >5 ':''` ::: ::» Ind.:::: .;:..:<:.:.::>:.;:.:>�..:::. ... .. ...... ....... ,: '_ fi$:f:i:'��::� isiSii::iS:i::� :�:� :�:�:� is�:�S:�r::::}.:: '::�:::�iS :?�::i>:>:k;:::::� :�:�:�: y •i.i;::-}}::�$$}I:}si::ai::<>i'i: :Li;v}t:•:}:4ii:??:•: ;$i:;'{;i:;{ i4i`:•:v>!::L?•ii !'.':: :::.:.:: :.�::: : :::::: :::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::.�:::.�:•:.gin::�:::. ::::::.:�:::. ::+.. n�{. ...............................:••::: : .�:.�::::::•:::::::::::.:�:::::Lv;i.i i :. .:.{.y;: :•. v;::::..:;::::}}:w:n•..}::::w::•:::•:.;'v: :•::::rpv::ry•.^:•}} vy '::::.::,F.v::{• :v.:.rT.. .:, .�.:: ;:i:'w::;: . :•:r: .y ..:i :.C:::::: ATTES:::>::::s scribe and>:s.worn::: efore:>:me :::a:N: . e; <F§ bia < ii^ n :: or:; h. ::: at to hi n::>::::::::liii:; :::::::::::.::.:T::.::: .. :.::::::::::::d.::.:::::::::.�::::::::::::::b..::::.�:.�:::::::::.....:::::.:.:p...:�'�.::aa..::::G,::.::::..i..d:�::::::x.::�:$t:::.�.Q:::::::::�.5:: .�9.tQn,.:::.......:. '::i'v::•.Y+.✓:iv'::;{i:•:+.;i::•i'::::}..::} ••!i':•:'4::::'{{•};•i:?iGi:<L:L:+;�:?!:•::iv'<:n;::{.}..'<•:'•:ii:vii:iv}i:'. ::L:i:iii:J..:.�•i};.;•n'.iii:::4: i'.::4i:4:ti..i:i:::iiti:?:?O:?L<:4:3::v:•:ii: i:::• ••. ..:^i;4:i4::4: •:::4:;r ::O estdln »at::>�.:>':.:: ....................... ...orl..th .. .. ... ....... . :' .:•�:.::.;;;;:.:;::.:;:�:.:<.;:.::.: :::::;�n9.:::::::::..;;:.;:.:::.;;:.;::.::: mftmomumiiiimingoAmamowfts listprop.doc GAR J. PULLAR REV 07/95 97-178MB.DOC COMMISSION EXPIRES 6119198 2 Y 1 • .�y • City of Renton , Planning/Building/Public Works 1 v*P, Nrp Development Services Division • • An Environmental Checklist Review(ECF)and Administrative Site Plan Approval(SA)Application have been filed and • accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application . and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT/LUA-97-074,ECF,SA APPLICANT: City of Renton/Community Services Department PROPOSAL: The City of Renton,Community Services Department,is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phase I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clearing • • and grading of approximately 12.5 acres,the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). • LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Ave.SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave.SE ' STUDIES REQUIRED/OR • AVAILABLE: N/A ' PUBLIC APPROVALS/ I PERMITS REQUIRED: Environmental Checklist Review Administrative Site Plan Approval • Building Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)meeting date,Public Hearings, during Public Hearings,or prior to an administrative decision. For further information on the application,or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications by mail of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s)for this project,please contact the Development Services Division at ' 235-2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. I DATE OF APPLICATION: June 20,1997 . • DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 23,1997 ' NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: June 27,1997 #141111M, MI* • R•1* • �. 1 R.6* �A,5 -- -- - -- Yam. - - - CERTIFICATION • i, Sam O,c' S011 , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document wee posted'b me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on . JLL4'Le Z ,(991 • • Signed: S4.1'101V_lU(}t9 ih�'1 (j STATE OF WASHINGTON . ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) . - I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ,ram/ i✓ signed'this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free a luntar�.act•toT t• he uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ,;:'' .° %.''.r Dated: &/ `D'/6/7 x �.,.�.� • Notary Publi n and f e Staip)att,� ion` Notary (Print) -T J--1 --ULLAR My appointment expires:COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/9/98 . • NOTARY,DOC Cityof Renton Planning/Building/Public Works 0p Development Services Division An environmental Checklist Review (ECF) and Administrative Site Plan Approval (SA) Application have been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and;the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT/LUA-97-074,ECF,SA APPLICANT: City of Renton/Community Services Department I PROPOSAL: The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phase I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Ave. SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: N/A PUBLIC APPROVALS/ PERMITS REQUIRED: Environmental Checklist Review Administrative Site Plan Approval Building Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) meeting date, Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative decision. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications by mail of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. DATE OF APPLICATION: June 20, 1997 DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 23, 1997 NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: June 27, 1997 • L---___I — •E 139th PI L SE U9;h PI SE 139(h • tli SE 141,151 v—) SE 140th PI, — SE I42nd 51 S 3 _ , SE I42nd St 41,d P1. — 5� SE 143rd , — _ — SE I43rd PI SE 1441h SI. SE I451h PI. z v R'1* SE,45th n N , i MAPLEWOOD — a GOLF COURSE t N �,�h RC - Z_ . cL — P ,-* a I rf +`on A/P\yd � eyNy P , _ / R-6* RA-5 %,a UR*/ Kdy se Renton,At p , ri GENMALOT.DOC Ilh PI, f <_ ea set' City of Renton • _ • Planning/Building/Public Works .. NTp Development.Services Division 1 An Environmental Checklist Review (ECF) and Administrative Site Plan Approval (SA) Application have been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT/LUA-97-074,ECF,SA APFLICANT: City of Renton/Community Services Department PR II POSAL: The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing development of sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park. The proposed development is Phi , I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I development proposes clear..., and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Ave. SE(NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: N/A " PUBLIC APPROVALS/ PERMITS REQUIRED: Environmental Checklist Review - i Administrative Site Plan=Approval,:_ ,1 Building Permit_ The! application can be reviewed-in the.Development Services Division-located,on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to the-Environrri'ental Review Committee(ERC):meeting date, Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative decision. For further information.on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications by mail of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235T2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. DATI E OF APPLICATION: June 20, 1997 DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 23, 1997 NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: June 27, 1997 • mar---- ��_—_J €5 139th PI L �5E 175•'P1 q :x L. _ 5E 139tr. SE 161st St �) SE fa)tn Pt — —- SE 142na 51 Ey — tel = -I — s ` SE 142n5 91 a a. st 41^'Pt 5E(1441h St SE 145th PI - R-1* '` ' MAPLEW000 a ' 1. =�\t" m clap �- \'t'ey Hw , — :, .,. ' . : R.6* ., RA-5 ., R*/ =- U �.. 4 H,,ys Rene.,'4 ili Se GENMALOT.DOC I , 11h PI r 4' - Y l SE 16R,. I ,..; , . '. s.: . . ' ',-.. ',..' ,' ',:.., 5 *.': •:-• II • .., : — :'• ,, , , • .. . ': ; : It . ,, :,., , `._-,)'„ ,i,:, ., ,:',,,H,...,:1,;,'.1 „,',V.i.;j1):: ''.:;;:..;:!c,-;'0•!.,.':,-, re ,', K'.'1';',t,•.--.'•'-'" : 1 • Min i ii 1 11 11 i 1 ii ill I li UP 1 i iHni i ii I I': 1 I f. i i i 1 • •• • 'I • .• . I ,_,...1..,:':::,.....•:I, . , cr ::: ., , ..... r' ‘" ••• — riinr . : I ]OVISDd S fl o•l• 9_ -,...- ... .....,(0 4..„.,.—t.\, l•2. .. ° - , — COI CITY OF PriTITON c-- 6 2 7 JI IN 1 310 V113 A 1130 ION Development Scac:::3 Division swNs,a:,y13 • , ,..--- , II 200 Mill Avenu3 South . 'i Renton,Washington 98055 - - , 4 i, ,-.0-4_-1.-' •'' ' „ , di •1I • 11-11'91 4tr -•u-teA • :-:. • ....,... ' cccc,.. • .. Pat4ETen'' ;-::-;' - '''': '"ii"-2- 1: * /152441 ' - - — L.JIJUD9U..i/ TASCA JAMES G 221 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON WA 98055 .1..,,,,tut.lllll iiiii,•.11“..i...ilt.ii.11..,H...,11-1-11. -aasecysteir .74.• " 4 " 11 i i ii 11 i i ii Li ii II i r --- t.; ) �Y p 7 AR City of Renton A Planning/Building/Public Works •�Nr.vp Development Services Division I An Environmental Checklist Review (ECF) and Administrative Site Plan Approval (SA) Application have been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: CEDAR RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT/LUA-97-074;ECF;SA,., APPLICANT: City of Renton/Community Services Department. PROPOSAL - .. The City of Renton, Community Services Department, is proposing developmen' F sports fields at the Cedar River Regional Park:`Theproposed,development is Ph. I of the Master Plan approved for the site. Phase I'development proposes clearing and grading of approximately 12.5 acres, the construction Of one soccer field and one ball field, an entry drive and paved parking lot for 120 vehicles, sanicans, - walkways and a trail connection to the Cedar River Trail, landscaping and fencing. The entry drive would cross Madsen Creek. Access to the site would be from Orcas_ Avenue SE via the Renton Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). • LOCATION: 1501 Orcas Ave. SE (NW corner of Maple Valley Highway and Orcas Ave. SE STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: N/A PUBLIC APPROVALS/ - - PERMITS REQUIRED: Environmental Checklist Review - Administrative Site.Plan Approval"' - • ,` Building Permit • ... .,....., - • The application can be reviewed in,the Development-Services-Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime.priorto the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) meeting date, Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative decision. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications by mail of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. DATE OF APPLICATION: June 20, 1997 ` DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 23, 1997 NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: June 27, 1997 • I 1 —. L =—_� 11391h PI SE 1391-PI SE 1391h �g 1Usl St i a ___7 SE 13 Om Pt SE I< ' - _ vl 1 2nJ$I z ^ _ - _ a' SE I/2nJ'31 I P,., i1ni O SE 143N SE \ I441h St sSE 1451h PI R•1* I ,, W 5 - s LEWOOD -.'. ' .. . .., -... ... .MAPGOLF COUfl SE•. - ..�. .. �. �. .. Eh�/a \'`'R - �:,rey Nw o, _ R•6* RA 5 _ UR* y 9 l Se Reny, — r S- i y00 t n GENMALOT.DOC - J Ilh PIPI • 0 t ( i if Ill { f i ffoff it if OtlnlN�iOt;'Ip t 0 „, • H3ON3S 01 Pdli , 1 AM3_ �* CITY OF RENTON �uN PEn r ' Develo " < 15VH3A113 200 Mill Ave So � ` � 'E iT + `n ��'�`= Ct vy ` Renton,Washington 98055 • w °� 4'g ��p • k PpMETER V.S.POSTAGE A 7152441 2323059037 TASCA JAMES G 221 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON WA 98055 Au r Q 06EEi1�i31{lllii{ }8131E�b1{18111){}/fli@{}f s})166�i16Lb{5�IB1 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: June 23, 1997 To: Glenn Kost/Community Services Department From: Peter Rosen/Development Planning; ,, Subject: Cedar River Park Development Project No. LUA-97-074,ECF,SA The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has received the above-referenced application for Environmental Checklist Review(ECF) and Administrative Site Plan Approval (SA). You will be advised if additional information is required to continue processing your application. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 235-2719. ACCPTMM.DOC NT ................ E:> :>:s« >< ><€'` >< <«>::><:>:<:>:>:«::«:«:»<><<:::><>:<<<<><<>>`Dl=• 'E '0::. E. ::><SE.:VICES DI ..I.S.I. .N............ .............:............................................................. :: ::: ::: ::::. .: ::.: :::: :: ... .. .................. ...... ry�(..9....: ..�(..................:.. ...▪.............. ............. ................................... CITY OF RENTON J CT..I.NFORMATI.ON.... N o.te:::;1f'.:.the;re:is more.than:::one::leaal owner;please attach an additional: riot3�iied;:Masfer ApPlicatibn:foriff ach;owner: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Cedar River Regional Park Sportsfield NAME: CITY OF RENTON Development COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT. PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH Cedar River Regional Park 1501 Orcas Avenue S.E. N.W. Corner of Maple Valley Hwy & Orcas CITY: ZIP: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Ave.:. S.E. RENTON, WA98055 222305-9007 222305-9131 232305-9009 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 235-2568 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant/Public Open Space • :>< AP.P::::.LI;C�►:NT {ifo th e.:;::�,.;..:::.:::o:.::::'..:.:'.:.:'..:.:::;::::;•.;•::.;::;;:.; PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: Public Park and Open Space • 'COMPANY(if applicable): • EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Residential Rural ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N/A' CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: Resource Conservation (RC) TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): • • N/A SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME:, ;Gler7sr Cost 45 Acres • CGIvfFANY.(i±apnj(caUle;: City of Renton PROJECT VALUE: $800 000.00 :;• '•- � =i�' • Community Services Dept. ADDRESS.:'' 200 Mill Avenue South IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? Yes - Zone 2 CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98055 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? Yes. Site includes a Class I Wetland and TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 277-5522 includes the floodplain of the Cedar River. :.::!..!.::. :.: ...LEG/�L.DES:CR. DN..OF..PROegAT:..<€<. A;ttac.:::.;$e. :a .;5he:et:!.:::>..:::.:..::..:.:...::.rY.:;:.::::::..i:,:a .::::.:.:::....:. See Attached Sheet ( _City::' a .f.. I det . mine<f i:: hat`a a es:::>::::>::::>::»>::::>::::>:::::»>:<:»>:>>::>::::.. heck»al I:>:a I I cat(o n::t•. •e s ....t ................ ....................... .. . . N _ANNEXATION $ - SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ • _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ — SPECIAL PERMIT $ — SHORT PLAT $ —TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - $ ' _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ X_ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ [O 4 .0-6 I _ FINAL PLAT $ , — GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY —WAIVER $_ ! FINAL • ' _WETLAND PERMIT $ — ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE. REVIEWS: — SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ — CONDITIONAL USE $ 1 _ VARIANCE $ — EXEMPTION $No Charge X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ •50©n 04 REVISION $ 1 • .NERSH Ii P< < <'ima] > mi:i `< > > _< < ...• I, (Print Name) Glenn ,Kost , declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application, X ttl,he authorized representative to act for the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answer herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Glenn Kost ATTEST: Subscri ed and worn to before me, a Notary Public,in and for the State pf siding at _- (Name of ner/Represent tive) 1Yeitt,47 , on the Wh.day.uf, ._ J„n 1 9. - i , (Signature of Owner/Representative) , _ I ( 1 nature Notar Public) t t :::. :i-iii::. b ..::: .. ... ...' .... . ::: ::..:::::::.:�C W..::.F..P.. ..... _; E;>:>: P. ;:.B.S...............�...A............................................. >:.>:.;:.:.:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:.:;::;;:: :.; .>: >• PRO !DED. S .......... ::.:.::...:..<..:.;:.;: .;:.;:.; .;::::TOTAE.ES..::s.�� .:.:...::.:::.:•.�. . X.;..;:.: ::::::::. .::.::..:: : :::::::..:::::.::... :::. � ..:.;:.::..:.:::.::::: .. .:. :..:.::. MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 9/96 1 9ECEWWEr CEDAR RIB'- _r.t REGIONAL PARK LEGAL D...-_JCRIPTION JUN 2 0 1997 DEVELOPMLNI PLANNINt_. That portion of Government Lot 2,and the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 22andR�luTON ' of Government Lot 9 and the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 23,all in Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M., in King County,Washington,described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of said Section 22 with the northerly right-of way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad(Pacific Coast Railroad); Thence northwesterly along said northerly right-of-way line, said right-of-way varying in width from 85 feet to 100 feet,to an intersection with the west line of Government Lot 2 in said Section 22; Thence northerly along said west line of said Government Lot 2 to the thread of the Cedar River; Thence northeasterly,easterly and southeasterly along said thread of the Cedar River, said course also being the existing limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No.4156,to an intersection with the east line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 22; Thence southerly along said east line to a point that lies North 0°20' 10"East,a distance of 496.59 feet from the East quarter corner of said Section 22; Thence North 79° 55' 50"West,a distance of 145.4 feet; Thence South 14° 18' 07"West,a distance of 340.78 feet; Thence South 75°41' 53"East,to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of 149th Ave. SE (NE Jones Road), said right-of-way being 60 feet in width; Thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of Burlington Northern Railroad(Pacific Coast Railroad), in the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 23, said railroad right-of-way being 85 feet in width; Thence northwesterly along said northerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the east line of said Section 22 and the point of beginning. LESS A parcel of land situate in the east 1/2 of the Northeast quarter of Section 22, Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M.,King County,Washington,described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Northeast quarter that lies North 0°20' 10"East,a distance of 496.59 feet from the East quarter corner of said Section 22; Thence North 79° 55' 50"West, a distance of 145.4 feet; Thence North 15° 00' 53"East,a distance of 166 feet, said course also being the existing City limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No.4156; Thence North 79° 55' 50"West,along said City limits,a distance of 110.0 feet; Thence North 12°29' 25"East,along said City limits,to the thread of the Cedar River; Thence easterly along said thread of the Cedar River to an intersection with the east line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 22; Thence south along said east line to the point of beginning. (97-168MB.DOC) it RECENED PROJECT NARRATIVE JUN 2 0 1997 Cedar River Regional Park Sportsfield Development DEVELOPMENT PLANNINc, CITY OF RENTON The City of Renton, Community Services Dept. is proposing the Phase 1 development of sportsfields at its Cedar River Regional Park. The 45 acre site is located at the northwest corner of the Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) and Orcas Avenue S.E. (149th Avenue S.E.) in the City of Renton, immediately east of the Maplewood Golf Course. The north and northwest boundaries of the property are defined by the Cedar River. The paved Cedar River Trail runs parallel to the southern boundary along the former Burlington Northern Railroad Right-of-Way. The site is mainly flat, with less than 10 feet of elevation change across the entire 45 acres. It is vacant with the exception of a small (8' x 8') concrete vault over an existing monitoring well maintained by the City's Water Utility Division. The northern portion of the site is dominated by a 21.5 acre Class I forested wetland, with overstory species such as Bigleaf Maple, Red Alder, Western Red Cedar and Black Cottonwood. Madsen Creek, a 2.9 mile long tributary of the Cedar River, enters at the southwest corner of the site and flows west, then north along the eastern boundary of the site to the Cedar River. The southern half of the site is open meadow dominated by grasses, blackberries and Scotch Broom, with scattered cottonwood along the southern boundary. The banks of Madsen Creek contain a mixture of willow, birch and alder. The property, acquired by King County in 1976, was conveyed along with portions of what is now the Maplewood Golf Course, to the City of Renton in 1987. In accepting this land from the County at no cost, the City agreed to "develop, maintain, and operate . . . . sportsfields and passive park uses including trails and picnicking," and to permanently preserve public access to the Cedar River for fishing, hiking and other water related activities. The Master Plan, approved by the Renton City Council in 1993, includes the development of two full size lighted soccer fields, two lighted ballfields, an entry drive and parking lot for 250 vehicles, a restroom/concession building,basketball court, playground, two picnic shelters, volleyball courts, trails, fencing, landscaping, irrigation and connections to the Cedar River Trail. With the exception of soft surface trails, all development is contained in the southern one-third (15 acres) of the site. Phase 1 development, which is the subject of this application, proposes clearing and grading on approximately 12.5 acres (27% of the site), the construction of one full size soccer field, one ballfield, entry drive and paved parking for 120 vehicles, fencing, sanicans, walkways, landscaping, irrigation and trail connections to the Cedar River Trail. Less than 4% of the site will be covered with impervious surface. No activity will occur within the floodplain or wetlands. Buffer averaging will be used to accommodate portions of the athletic fields in accordance with City Ordinance. Except where the entry drive crosses Madsen Creek, a minimum 25' setback will be maintained from both banks. Access to the site will be gained from Orcas Avenue S.E. (149th Avenue S.E.). Electric and telephone connections will be brought to the site as part of Phase 1. 97-1 80MB.DOC __Jar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 A . Background 1 . Name of proposed project, if applicable: Cedar River Regional Park Sportsfield Development 2 . Name of Applicant: Renton Parks and Recreation 3 . Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: City of Renton Community Services 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Glenn Kost, Resource Coordinator (206) 277-5522 Agent: JGM (Jongejan/Gerrard/McNeal) 23-103rd Avenue NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Craig Lewis (206) 454-5723 4 . Date checklist prepared: June 1997 5 . Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Planning/Building/ Public Works 6 . Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction of the project will begin in summer of 1997 and will have . a duration of about four months. 7 . Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. Park Master Plan was completed in 1994 and is available for review. Site lighting for the parking area, entry drive, and one or two athletic fields is anticipated to occur within one year. Time table for construction of the remaining items is unknown at this time. 8 . List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this project. 1. Wetland Delineation Report-completed January 1993. 2. Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report -completed April 1997 9 . Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. RECENED None known at this time. JUN20197 Page 1 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON _:liar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 I 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Renton Site Plan Review State Wildlife/Fisheries Hydraulic Project Approval (H.P.A.) Grading/Drainage Permit 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, Including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers here. This proposal covers the site clearing, earthwork, drainage, paving, and sports field improvements for the first phase of an athletic field complex on City of Renton owned park property located within City limits. One softball/baseball field, one soccer field, a parking area, and entry drive are included in this construction phase., The size of the project is approximately 12.35 acres. The size of the site is approximately 45 acres. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located along Renton- Maple Valley Highway(SR 169) and Orcas Avenue S.E. (149th Avenue S.E.). The Maplewood Golf Course borders the site on the west and the Cedar River borders the site on the north. Sections 22&23, Township 23N, Range 5E. See attached Vicinity Map, Legal Description, and Master Plan. B. Environmental Elements 1 . Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): a rolling, hilly, steep slopes, or mountainous. Other... Site is very flat with less than ten feet of elevation difference across the entire 45 acres. b. What is the steepest slope on site (approximate' percent slope)? Most of the site is very flat with slopes less than 3%. A few small depressions or drainages have slopes at approximately 5%to 7%. Page 2 • __Jar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soils found on the site include organic topsoil, sandy silt, silty sand, and sandy • gravel. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No history of unstable soils is known. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed, and indicate the source of fill. Grading will occur on approximately 12.35 acres of the site to enable construction of athletic fields and parking areas. The intent is to use readily available on-site fill material. Some off-site structural fill material will be required for construction of the access drive. Estimated quantities required: 4,600 cubic yards of on-site topsoil material stripped, stockpiled and respread. 9,200 cubic yards of on-site material cut and respread. 1,160 cubic yards of imported structural fill material. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. During construction, exposed soils could temporarily increase erosion. g . About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 3.9%of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after completion of this phase of work. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: • While in construction, erosion control measures such as silt fences, hay bales, grass-lined swales, and a sedimentation pond will be used to reduce or control erosion. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan approved by City of Renton Public Works will be included in the construction documents. I • Page 3 • _:Jar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 2 . Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short-term localized air quality reductions may occur during construction due to emissions from construction equipment, primarily engine emissions . After completion of the project, additional automobiles traveling to and from the site is anticipated and local air quality could be reduced. Soccer and baseball infield dirt surfaces may also increase dust during extended dry weather periods. b. Are there any off-site source of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so generally describe. Not known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Dust from construction activities shall be quelled by Contractor as required by the construction documents and the air quality control authorities. Application of water to dry soil for dust control is anticipated. Irrigation system is included for dust control on athletic field surfaces. 3 . Water a. Surface: 1 ) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams,. saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. A Class 1 forested wetland is located on this park site. The wetland is not described in the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. The wetland boundary was delineated by Wetland Biologists and surveyed. The wetland is approximately 21.5 acres in size.and is connected with Madsen Creek, a 2.9-mile long tributary to the Cedar River also located on the site. The Cedar River forms the northern edge of the wetland and the site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Work is anticipated within 200 feet of the wetland edge to complete construction of the athletic fields. The entry road will cross Madsen Creek to access parking areas adjacent to the athletic fields. No work will occur within 200 feet of the Cedar River. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed In or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None Page 4 ,;,.Jar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. . No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. Ferna wetland mapping indicates that proposed construction is outside of 100- year floodplain for Cedar River. The portion of Madsen Creek on site is a low-flow channel and is not subject to high flow conditions. 6) Does the proposal Involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1 ) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Possible. Irrigation system for athletic fields will be connected to existing Maple Valley Golf Course system which is supplied by well water. It is anticipated that irrigation water will infiltrate and recharge ground water supply. Quantity of water to be used by irrigation system is unknown at this time. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any. Not applicable. c. Runoff (including storm water): 1 ) Describe source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The construction of paved surfaces for parking, access drives, and paths will result in an increase in runoff. A traditional storm water collection system with catch basins and underground piping will discharge runoff into a grass-lined swale. This swale will discharge into an on-site wet swale basin for additional treatment and groundwater recharge. • 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface water ? If so, generally describe. No. Page 5 `'....dar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: During construction, erosion control measures such as silt fences, hay bales, grass- lined swales, and a sedimentation basin will be used to reduce or control water impacts. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan reviewed and approved by Renton Public.Works will be included in the construction documents. The grass-lined biofiltration swale and wet swale basin will remain after project completion as permanent structures. 4 . Plants a. Types of vegetation found on the site: The wetland area is densely covered with an overstory of large Bigleaf Maple, Red Alder, Western Red Cedar, and Black Cottonwood. The understory is a mix of native plant materials associated with wetland sites. The southern portion of the site appears to have been previously cleared with a few younger Black Cottonwood trees still remaining. Cleared areas are covered with native grasses, black berries, and Scotch Broom. Vegetation close to the banks of Madsen Creek is a mix of small Willow and Birch which appear to have been planted as part of a previous enhancement project. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Areas of grasses, black berries, and Scotch Broom will be removed to accommodate athletic field construction and parking. Some of the younger Black Cottonwood trees conflict with proposed construction and will be removed. No vegetation will be removed from wetland areas. c. List the threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Proposed landscaping includes parking area islands and street tree plantings. Plant types native to the Pacific Northwest will be used where appropriate. 5. Animals a. Birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Several birds and animals that have been observed on-site. They appear to be visitors to the site and inhabit the adjacent wetland area. The Wetland Report lists several species of birds and animals observed near the wetland edge. These include: Song Sparrow,Great Blue Heron, Black-capped Chickadee, American Goldfinch, Lincoln's Sparrow,Winter Wren, Purple Finch, Northern Flicker, Downy Woodpecker, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Varied Thrush, California Quail, Sharp-shinned Hawk,American Kestrel, Mallard,Common • • Page 6 __Jar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 Merganser, Red-tailed Hawk,American Robin, Black-tailed Deer, beaver, squirrel, and raccoon. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not determined. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. 6 . Energy and Natural Resources - a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc... Limited electrical service will be extended from the neighboring MapleWood Golf Course to supply power to the irrigation controller. An empty electrical conduit will be installed to allow for future field lighting and a future restroom facility. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Not applicable. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1 ) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. • Not applicable. • Page 7 .,..Jar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 b. Noise 1 ) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project? The principal noise sources in the area are:vehicular traffic on Renton- Maple Valley Highway (SR 169), and Orcas Avenue S.E. (149th Avenue S.E.). These noise sources should not adversely affect the completed project. 2) What types and levels of noise exist would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long term basis? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term noise increases will occur during construction of the project from construction equipment.This typically will occur during business hours: approximately 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. After the project completion, noise levels can be expected to rise during times the athletic fields are in use. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any. During construction, activities will be limited to normal weekday business hours: approximately 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. Weekend construction activities would only be permitted for unusual circumstances, and with prior approval from the City of • Renton. 8 . Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant open space. The paved Cedar River Trail runs along the entire south side of the site. A Metro sanitary sewer line parallels the trail within a 15 foot wide easement. Maplewood Golf Course borders the project site on the west. The Cedar River forms the northern site boundary with large lot single family residential located to the north, northeast, and east. Renton- Maple Valley Highway borders the project site on the south. A mobile home park is located south of the Highway near the intersection of Orcas Avenue S.E. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The only structure is a City of Renton monitoring well and related concrete • protection cover. d. Will any structures be demolished? No. e. What Is the current zoning classification of the site? Current zoning of the site is RC (Resource Conservation). Page 8 tar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential Rural g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? Not applicable. All development falls outside the 200 foot setback requirement. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an 'environmentally sensitive' area? If so, specify. Yes. A Class 1 forested wetland is located on this site. The wetland is approximately 21.5 acres in size and is connected with Madsen Creek, a 2.9-mile long tributary to the Cedar River also located on the site. The Cedar River forms the northern edge of the wetland and the site. The site is located within a designated Greenbelt area. The site is located within Aquifer Protection Zone 2. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Nobody will live on this site. City of Renton maintenance workers will periodically work on-site to maintain the facilities. • j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. " k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposed project comprises the first development phase of improvements scheduled for these recreational facilities according to the previously prepared and approved Master Plan. There are additional improvements planned for this facility in the future. 9 . Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, ,or low-income housing. Not applicable. Page 9 ....Jar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What Is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? There are no proposed building structures for this phase of construction. Proposed baseball backstop fencing will be 30 feet in height. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. All areas disturbed by construction will be restored. 67 trees will be planted as part of this construction phase. Additional trees will be planted in future phases. 11 . Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No lighting is proposed for this phase of site improvements. Field and parking area lighting will be included in future phases of work. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with the views? Not applicable. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Existing roadway lighting is present along the Renton- Maple Valley Highway. No adverse affects to the proposed athletic field facilities are anticipated from this existing lighting. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts. Not applicable. Page 10 _..Jar River Regional Park .Environmental Checklist June 1997 12. Recreation a. What are designated and informal recreation opportunities in the immediate vicinity? 1. Maplewood Golf Course 2. Cedar River Trail • 3. Cedar River ' 4. Informal trails on-site near the Cedar River. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? No. The proposed project will not displace any existing recreational activities currently found on-site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, Including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Not applicable. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. An old barn structure was partially located on the site. It was listed by King,County as historic but its condition was very poor, and deemed unworthy of restoration. Approval was granted by King County to demolish the structure. Demolition operations are now complete. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural Importance known to be on or next to the site. Architectural and photo documentation was completed on the barn structure prior to it's demolition and removal from the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. Not applicable. Barn structure is no longer on the site. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the_existing street system. Show on the site plans if any. Renton-Maple Valley Highway(SR 169) lies along the southern boundary.of the project site. Vehicular access to the site and proposed parking areas will connect to Orcas Avenue S.E. (149th Avenue S.E.) located along the east boundary of the site. Page 11 --Jar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. Public transit service is currently available to site. Metro Bus stop is located at• the intersection of Renton - Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) and Orcas Avenue S.E. (149th Avenue S.E.) c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 111 standard parking stalls and 5 disabled parking stalls will be created by this project. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe. Yes. Standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements to Orcas Avenue S.E. (149th Avenue S.E.) will be required by this project. e . Will the project use (or occur In the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. It is anticipated that approximately 400 vehicular trips per day will be generated by this completed project during peak use times. It is anticipated that peak volumes would occur on weekends between 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM, March through September. g . Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Scheduling of practice times and game times will be staggered to minimize peak parking demands. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result In an Increased need for public services? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. , None. Page 12 • ._Jar River Regional Park Environmental Checklist June 1997 16. Utilities a. Utilities currently available at the site: The following utilities are available directly adjacent to the site boundaries. Sanitary Sewer(Metro), electrical service (Puget Power), and telephone (US West). b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Future phases of park construction will require: Sanitary Sewer(Metro), electrical service (Puget Sound Energy),telephone (US West), potable water(City of Renton). C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: City of Renton (Community Services) Date Submitted: 2/4,,,t_ /3,, /99 y ATTACHMENTS 1. VICINITY MAP- 1 PAGE 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION- 1 PAGE 3. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLAN- 1 PAGE Page 13 CED.-..1 RIVER REGIONAL IARK VICINITY MAP I SE 139th PI L • SE 139th PI. SE 139th st St Q> 0---, SE 140th PI. SE- \" Q Q — w N l ifi I SE 142nd St °- SE 142nd St. t a o SE SE 143rd L_..--�,w�N F 1 i — �SE 1143rd PI. --- Y I N. SE 144th St. �, SE 145th PI. • II I SEL. .........1...N..4 th A N v 1 a MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE \ s � Q\G' nth n f S£ J N �r 0 (1' % nos Rd Q Sf Rento P ems. w L EL- co /104 ly 1 SE Renton oy s . Zit M . op F o e, 1 lth PI co t pi SF or �hr /s/st 0 �� S� SE 162nd PI SE 163rd St PA SE Foirwood Blvd S . SF/ SF163rd St F: 6, --------- - CITY LIMITS GtiC O� PARKS DEPARTMENT 0 1000 2000 P/B/PW Technical Services .............. G. Kst �:: :::i::: :;: �4'N,TO� 1 May1997 CEDAR RI' ii(REGIONAL PARK LEGAL RIPTION That portion of Government Lot 2, and the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 22, and of Government Lot 9 and the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 23,all in Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M., in King County,Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of said Section 22 with the northerly right-of way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad(Pacific Coast Railroad); Thence northwesterly along said northerly right-of-way line, said right-of-way varying in width from 85 feet to 100 feet,to an intersection with the west line of Government Lot 2 in said Section 22; Thence northerly along said west line of said Government Lot 2 to the thread of the Cedar River; ' Thence northeasterly,easterly and southeasterly along said thread of the Cedar River, said course also being the existing limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No.4156,to an intersection with the east line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 22; Thence southerly along said east line to a point that lies North 0°20' 10"East, a distance of 496.59 feet from the East quarter corner of said Section 22; Thence North 79° 55' 50"West,a distance of 145.4 feet; Thence South 14° 18' 07"West, a distance of 340.78 feet; Thence South 75°41' 53"East,to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of 149th Ave. SE (NE Jones Road), said right-of-way being 60 feet in width; Thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of Burlington Northern Railroad(Pacific Coast Railroad), in the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 23, said railroad right-of-way being 85 feet in width; Thence northwesterly along said northerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the east line of said Section 22 and the point of beginning. LESS A parcel of land situate in the east 1/2 of the Northeast quarter of Section 22,Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M.,King County,Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Northeast quarter that lies North 0°20' 10"East,a distance of 496.59 feet from the East quarter corner of said Section 22; Thence North 79° 55' 50"West,a distance of 145.4 feet; Thence North 15° 00' 53"East,a distance of 166 feet, said course also being the existing City limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 4156; Thence North 79° 55' 50"West,along said City limits, a distance of 110.0 feet; Thence North 12° 29' 25"East,along said City limits,to the thread of the Cedar River; Thence easterly along said thread of the Cedar River to an intersection with the east line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 22; _ Thence south along said east line to the point of beginning. (97-168MB.DOC) CEDAR RIVER AREA TOTALS: PROJECT SITE - 45 ACRES REGIONAL PARK WETLAND - 2L5 ACRES TOTAL EAR - 51 ACRES(241,000 5FJ RENTON PARKS & RECREATION IOTA ERIFFER AVERAGING - 24,200 SF. REVISED DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLAN MARCH 14, 1997 / SONGEGAN•GERRARD•MeNEAL b".4..w r:- emr„e Aekto m a toga e.v. Rem amr„ balm,II aiM rims, SI•w•ans SCALE r.so" EXISTING WETLAND AREA -- ( BOUND RY O RIVER) \ c:).. s,..)› 0 35 SO 100 1W -11 „.... „..., ...., . , ,. ., \ \ „..,/,,,„../ . .„ ... ,,,,,,,,,,,„/p EXISTItY OPEN WATER \ ,l / , :\ (..„:„...".‘".y....Ay/A`,11:,',..44:---------------------3\ • EXISTING TREE CANOPY t E%i ' ,�� (III �C"' 1 ,\� ,` 1 Ex18TI11'a t—eNCE --___ is',. 1 ( `) yl' i I i";b. ' - TOO'UF_TLAND SIPPER . '.._._•. -•-� rl .p,=::t�'. 's I I It,I' {Il \1\ EXISTING FENCE ' I J' i: / t " / �- u I i 5 _ I ;:t.: 1le .. �/// ^• 1 � � LIMIT O=L'�O(dC D, • - +ik. ` / _.._. 7. \ /40; . • rrliTLl!w bf.' -w. • '\ I I1b'CHdIN/IFBC' ,'+I '"�� ...e�--- f :1 , r♦♦�♦�r♦♦, I PA.... .-_.I I €:I FENCE I' II.: EI �.:A�., y- - --�. - - '..._.._ --- -.._` ♦♦♦.♦�. 300'SOFTBALL i i- ••`•,'\ ' 1i 1 TWA ..... ' �� - - �♦ �' FIELD _ IJT1tw.;_R4.-YB,•LLL`..._._._...._..._...''.`,• �\, / SKINNED IEl.D' •'...-M, •_ ! •� MADBEN CEK••1 1,' I 1"-""�.' 3 • { _O'.SASELME t P.I `I 1 I`I%. /I.-',. �.''' LIMIT CP WOR< { r 'F .aY{ .,�,-; LL &:..�q.9Qt `( 'L�:' 1. kd S _ u:e Y i ---. �� D CUTS I (` �u SEA ,`t I'i YC LIMIT CF COI�C ' Rti ::210 : x - L. ,rJ,�tZf Ili' EN R EGTT {I ...f s 360' 21O' i 8'�'AD$R9 — - 1 !,I -� q t ' 6 _ BAOKSTOP • 1 ,ELEPim! . CONDUIT AND T6'LEPNOR= l 'i n0• / I/► . O - WIRE FOR FUTUI�ISERNCE I ! �j%y • }' - _ - - - --V CaA _ , T'( AND FIELD LIGHTLY III I I - / v®lip III I• Y~V j.� � I P = � .— —• ri" `J � f c - J ;t• pp (°": SLEEVE T jl I(•,.•„.I ;1�'•.�,,; -- LCILI 1 A. . 8'CONCRETE:WALK •__- III PARKING STALLS _ ASPHALT PAVING _ -,..,_I-II - _ -i �® , r. -.'_A•REMO ._ - A-•. —i. CE8SI8L I •I ,I ..� O ''+• �;I' :I •+', 4' I ''' �T h��P°;p° oq1 ,,n �� - LIMIT OF r { I I _ : - `4.' 3„b` - •ASPHALT _ �,°I;° 1t�lili a''.. ~dr,W .O O 0 O®s . ®1� >4 . WOIac .4 0l i � } tjwl `�� BASKETBALL COURT � ,R'' , �, Y = ._ •.4 t -' "sly �1: = _ _ i— _ a_ ,,.�1. - kV CONCRETE WALK • _ -" •-..-- - I I lye I�i - �' .. :;��_-..._.._.__..writ. - -�_ --r y gbh I I I I I I I I I I I I , b_ K 1 5 '� r_— d — -- -- -- ---n-ti 7�=cx—•„' _.dew•' �,c=_._ __. ._ _...I'` _ a,' =raerp,,;,_ 'sue �T w�—.�.., � TT —ac. --�._ ...._4 ice, - .•✓— y• t ..r •�.,. Y i ,�s. .- , -roc ----�'--. - �` _=r-.._ _ ._..- • ,. ..• �` k,.._ .__.,; s-••-�...,,,-„_-,ti--_-^'- +�—�-;�•-' --a-:_�—:'—_4-.� -a..: ,�::�a;�-. ..•��::- 3y�'�:.::;'�,r-�::_ N^--v--,..._jM .3. � _-�°_-._��a�..�• _._;__,._.r_._�at��ic,"N� � .._. EXISTING CHAN LINK FENCE 15'MET�2(7'SETtlER'E'60EL7ETIT I ExISTNS•CEDAR•R1MER-7W.GIL. ."- ..--. - „`�E-TMG EXE FULL°. TRAIL EXTENSION I` ii — SR-IAF MAPLE VALLEY HIGWUAY City of Renton Submittal for Site Plan Approval Construction Mitigation Description Cedar River Regional Park Proposed Construction Dates: Construction of the project will begin in summer of 1997 and will have a duration of about four months. Site lighting for the parking area, entry drive, and one or two athletic fields is anticipated to occur within one year. Time table for construction of the remaining items is unknown at this time. Hours of Operation: • During construction, activities will be limited to normal weekday business hours:approximately 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. Weekend construction activities would only be permitted for unusual circumstances, and with prior approval from the City of Renton. Proposed Hauling Routes: Equipment and materials for construction will access the site from Orcas Avenue S.E. . It is anticipated that the Renton-Maple Valley Highway(SR-169)will be used for hauling of materials. Construction Mitigation Measures: During construction, erosion control measures such as sift fences, hay bales,grass-lined swales, and a sedimentation pond will be used to reduce or control erosion. The construction entrance to the project will be designed to control mud,dirt, rocks, and debris from entering the paved roadways. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan approved by City of Renton Public Works will be included in the construction documents. Dust from construction activities shall be quelled by the Contractor as required by the construction documents and the air quality control authorities. Application of water to dry soil for dust control is anticipated. Irrigation system is included for dust control on athletic field surfaces. Traffic and noise impacts will be minimized by limiting construction activities to normal weekday business hours: approximately 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. Weekend construction activities would only be permitted for unusual circumstances, and with prior approval from the City of Renton. RECEIVED JUN 2 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON CED: 1 RIVER REGIONA "BARK NEIGHBORHOOD MAP 2 ..-----'" �f SE 139th PI L SE 139th PI. °' �— -- N iLain a> SE 139th SE ‘4. st St ¢ ¢--, SE 140th PI. in I.--, SE 142nd St W W v — ° SE 142nd St. t > Q _ VA- et �2 o 2 P_ SE • SE 143rd �- - - LSE 1143rd PI. SE 144th St. ,j, SE 145th PI. • "' R-1* SE 145 th Q MAPLEWOOD, GOLF COURSE 4 RC .5* ��rQ. 4 sf S£ ✓O N • n, F d SE Renton ` Maple N., , R °ple Valley Hw N r EC R-6* RA-5 _ — /.014 U R* 111 SE Reston M 'i --?N• 7 vyse °p ' a Lil -, 1 1�h PI SE l = PI 44 ' r<,6, �`'- F/06,,0 �� ,� SE i 62nd PI St 163rd St 't- SE F01rwood Elvd SF�` 163rd St ., = KING COUNTY ZONING sFF . 5r% CFNEP CITY LIMITS O~�Y O PARKS DEPARTMENT 0 1000 2000 + •! + P/B/PW Ted-inica tial Services a° � 1997 ; `` G. Kost g �' N,v• 1 May 1997 . DEVELONIviEN1 NLANNINt, CITY OF RENTON **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9703943 Amount : 1, 506 .40 06/20/97 16 : 12 Payment Method: IOT Notation: INTER-OFFICE Init : LMN Project # : LUA97-074 Type : LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No : 222305-9007 Site Address : 1501 ORCAS AV SE Total Fees : 1, 506 .40 This Payment 1, 506 .40 Total ALL Pmts : 1, 506 . 40 Balance : . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 1, 000 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 . 42 . 1 Postage 6 .40 RECEIVED JUN 2 0 1997 OEVELOF MENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON • RECIPIVFD jUil 2 0 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON s , • PI A GEO4ECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY (SR-169) AND 149TH AVENUE S.E. RENTON, WASHINGTON Submitted to: Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. P.S. 23 103rd Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Submitted by: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 N.E. 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 4 April 1997 7-91M-11475-0 AG R A 211 t Vm#17 Earth & Environmental AG R A AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. Earth & Environmental 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland,Washington U.S.A. 98034-6918 Tel (206) 820-4669 4 April 1997 Fax(206) 821-3914 • 7-91M-11475-0 Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. P.S. 23 103rd Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Dave McNeal Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Cedar River Regional Park Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) and 149th Avenue S.E. Renton, Washington Dear Dave: At your request, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AEE) is pleased to submit this report describing our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of our evaluation was to derive design conclusions and recommendations concerning Madsen Creek bridge crossing foundations, develop asphalt pavement sections, and assist in characterizing soil and infiltration rates for the ballfield drainage design. As outlined in our -- • proposal letter dated 22 October 1996, our scope of work comprised a field exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical research, geotechnical analyses, and report preparation. We received your written authorization for our evaluation on 28 January 1997. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of City of Renton Parks & Recreation, Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. P.S., and their consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Respectfully submitted, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inq avi . W' ' ms As ciate Distribution: City of Renton Parks & Recreation (3) Attn: Mr. Glenn Kost Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. P.S. (1) Attn: Mr. Dave McNeal *) Engineering& Environmental Services 11476.RPT TABLE OF CONTENTS 7-91 M-11475-0 1.0 SUMMARY 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS 2 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4 4.1 Development Conditions 4 4.2 Utility Conditions 4 4.3 Surface Conditions 4 4.4 Soil Conditions 5 4.5 Groundwater Conditions 6 4.6 Infiltration Conditions 7 4.7 Seismic Conditions 7 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 5.1 Site Preparation 8 5.2 Underground Utilities 9 5.3 Infiltration Systems 10 5.4 Foundations 11 5.5 Pavements 12 5.6 Structural Fill 15 6.0 CLOSURE 17 Figure 1 — Location Map Figures 2A and 2B — Site & Exploration Plan Appendix A— Field Exploration Procedures and Logs Appendix B — Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results 11475.RPT • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 7-91M-11475-0 CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY (SR-169) AND 149TH AVENUE S.E. RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 SUMMARY The, following summary of project geotechnical considerations is presented for introductory purposes and, as such, should be used only in conjunction with the full text of this report. • Project Description: Improvement plans calls for the construction of access driveways, including a bottomless-culvert creek crossing, vehicle parking, and preparation of natural grass or artificial surface ballfields with underdrains at the project site. Additionally, we understand that future plans include picnic shelters, a small concessions building, and paved ball courts. • Suhsurface ConditinnR: Soils underlying the site generally consist of Y2 to 1 foot of topsoil mantling 1 to 3 feet soft sandy silt. These soils are underlain by 2 to 6 feet of loose silty sand mantling a loose to medium-dense, sandy gravel. Seasonal groundwater was observed in all test pits at depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet. • Weather Cnnsideratinns: Because the on-site soils are moisture-sensitive and would be readily disturbed when wet, the contractor should install appropriate temporary drainage systems at the construction site and should minimize traffic over exposed subgrades. Ideally, earthwork would be scheduled for the summer and fall months, when drier weather will maximize the potential for reusing on-site soils and when groundwater levels will likely be at their seasonal low. • Utility Considerations: Moderate to severe caving and groundwater was noted in all of our explorations. Consequently, we anticipate that underground utility installations which extend into caving soil conditions will require shoring. Similarly, those utilities extending below the water table will require dewatering. • Infiltration Considerations: Field testing of the site soils indicates that the upper sandy silt has a poor infiltration rate, while the underlying silty fine sand soils has more-favorable infiltration rates. Consequently, infiltration into the upper sandy silts appears very limited. Therefore, infiltration trenches should penetrate this layer to expose the underlying silty sand layer. • Foundation Support: In order to provide adequate bearing capacity and settlement performance for conventional spread footings, overexcavation of the soft, saturated soils below the proposed buildings and creek crossing structures are recommended. • Pavement Section: Flexible asphalt pavement appears feasible with respect to the surface and subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations; however, we 11476.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 2 anticipate that the removal, reinforcement, or stabilization of the weak subgrades will be required for pavement construction. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a vacant City of Renton Park property located near the intersection of Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) and 149th Avenue S.E. in the Maple Valley area of Renton, Washington, as shown on the enclosed Location Map (Figure 1). This property consists of an irregularly-shaped parcel that measures about 130 by 1800 feet overall and encompasses approximately 45 acres. Site boundaries are generally delineated by the Cedar River on the north, by SR-169 on the south, by 149th Avenue S.E. on the east, and by a public golf course on the west. The enclosed Site and Exploration Plans (Figures 2A and 2B) illustrate these site boundaries and adjacent existing features. The park master plan calls for the construction of new access driveways, including a creek crossing, vehicle parking, and preparation of natural grass or artificial surface ballfields with underdrains on the project site. According to drawings prepared by Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. (JGM), Phase I improvement plans will comprise a park entrance driveway at 149th Avenue N.E. extending approximately 1100 feet to the west, with parking areas over roughly the last 650 feet of the proposed access driveway. A bottomless culvert, a concrete box culvert, or bridge structure is planned for the access driveway where it crosses Madsen Creek. Also proposed are two surface ballfields with underdrains and. associated paved paths. It should be realized that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed utilization of the project site, as derived from layout drawings, written information, and verbal information supplied to us. Consequently, if any changes are made in the currently proposed project, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained herein to reflect those changes. 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site during February 1997. Our exploration and testing program comprised the following elements: • A visual surface reconnaissance of the site; • Eight test pits (designated TP-1 through TP-8) advanced at strategic locations across the site; • Two infiltration tests (designated IT-1 and IT-2) performed at strategic depths in the area of test pit TP-2; • Two grain size analyses and one 200-wash analysis performed on selected soil samples obtained from strategic locations beneath the site; 11476.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 3 • One California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test and one Modified Proctor test performed on a selected soil sample obtained from a proposed cut zone along the new access road alignment; •� A review of published geologic maps and seismologic literature. Table 1, below, summarizes the approximate functional locations, surface elevations, and termination depths of our subsurface explorations, and Figures 2A and 2B depict their approximate relative locations. Appendix A of this report describes our field exploration procedures, and Appendix B describes our laboratory testing procedures. TABLE 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DEPTHS OF EXPLORATIONS Exploration Functional Location Surface Elevations Termination Depth (feet) (feet) TP-1 Playfield Areas 88 8 TP-2 Playfield Areas 90'/2 6 TP-3 Pavement Areas 90 6 TP-4 Playfield Areas 90'/z 8 TP-5 Playfield Areas 94'h 6 TP-6 Creek Crossing Structure 94 6 TP-7 Creek Crossing Structure 94 7% TP-8 Pavement Areas 96 9 IT-1 Underdrains for Playfields 90% 1 Y2 IT-2 Underdrains for Playfields 90% 3% Elevation datum: 20 June 1994 Site Plan provided by JGM The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected in relation to the existing and proposed site features, under the constraints of surface access, underground utility conflicts, and-budget considerations. We estimated the relative location of each exploration by measuring from existing features and scaling these measurements onto a layout plan supplied to us, then we estimated their elevations by interpolating between contour lines shown on this same plan. Consequently, the data listed in Table 1 and the locations depicted on Figures 2A and 2B should be considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources and implied by our measuring methods. It should be realized that the explorations performed for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other --, 11476.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 4 areas could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections of text present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding development, utility, surface, pavement, soil, groundwater, infiltration, and seismic conditions at the project site. Descriptive logs of our subsurface explorations and graphic results of our laboratory tests are included in Appendix A and Appendix B; respectively, of this report. 4.1 npvelnpment Cnnditinns The project site is currently undeveloped at this time. An existing barn and outbuilding located in the northeast corner of the project site were being demolished during our site visit. Chain-link fencing surrounds the property boundaries on the east, west, and south. 4.2 Utility Cnnditinns An existing sanitary sewer line runs the entire length of the southern property boundary, approximately 5 feet north of the existing chain-link fence. Also, an existing monitoring well protected by a utility vault is located roughly 650 feet west of the 149th Avenue S.E. centerline and roughly 50 feet north of the southern property boundary chain-link fence. We did not observe any other utilities on site during our visit. 4.3 Surface Cnnditinns Topographic relief slopes relatively gently across the site, with elevations ranging from 96 feet at the eastern property boundary to 86 feet at the western property boundary. A slight slope extends upward to elevation 98 feet in the extreme southeast corner of the property, toward the intersection of SR-169 and 149th Avenue S.E. Also, a few scattered depressions of several feet exist across the site. Site vegetation features a variety of ground cover, including grasses, blackberry bushes, scotch broom, and isolated trees mostly along the sides of Madsen Creek. A gravel road traverses the southern property boundary, with a turnaround loop at the western property boundary. Several small soil and debris stockpiles are scattered along the sides of the gravel road, with multiple stockpiles located at the western portion of the site (see Figure 2A). Surface water observed during our site visit consisted of the Cedar River, which meanders along the northern property boundary, and Madsen Creek, which enters the site along the eastern property boundary and continues into the site in a east-west direction for approximately 400 feet before turning north and continuing up through the property to the Cedar River. We 11476.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 5 ' also observed standing water in some of the depressions in the gravel road along the southern property boundary. 4.4 Snil Cnnditinn3 According to published geologic maps, soil conditions in the site vicinity are characterized by recent alluvial sediments deposited by the Cedar River. These alluvial deposits of the Cedar River Valley are characterized by primarily sand and gravel with interbeds of silt and clay. Our on-site explorations revealed fairly uniform near-surface soil conditions and confirmed the presence of alluvial soil deposits. The test pits generally disclosed % to 1 foot of sod and topsoil mantling 1 to 3 feet of very soft to soft, wet, sandy silt. These soils are underlain by 2 to 6 feet of loose, wet to saturated, silty fine sand. This soil section overlies a loose to medium-dense, wet to saturated, sandy gravel to the full depth of our explorations. Table 2, below, summarizes the approximate thicknesses, depths, and elevations of soil deposits encountered in our subsurface explorations. TABLE 2 APPROXIMATE THICKNESSES, DEPTHS, AND ELEVATIONS OF SOIL LAYERS ENCOUNTERED IN EXPLORATIONS Exploration Thickness of Thickness of Thickness of Depth of Elevation of Topsoil Sandy Silt Silty Sand Sandy Sandy (feet) (feet) (feet) Gravel Gravel (feet) (feet) TP-1 1/2 4 21/z 7 81 TP-2 1/2 21/z 2 5 85% TP-3 1/z 2% 1 % 4% 85% TP-4 6 7 83% TP-5 % 1 2% 4 90% TP-6 1/z 1 % 2 4 90 TP-7 %Z 2% 3% 6% 87% TP-8 % 1 % 6 8 88 IT-1 %2 2% 1h + N/E N/E IT-2 1/2 1 + N/E N/E N/E Elevation datum: 20 June 1994 Site Plan provided by JGM. N/E = Not encountered within depth of exploration. Our laboratory tests revealed that the site soils have fines (silt and clay) contents ranging from about 30 to 58 percent. We interpret these soils to be currently above their optimum moisture 11476.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 6 contents, and to be highly sensitive to moisture content variations. Table 3, below, summarizes our engineering test results for selected soils encountered beneath the project site. Our testing also yielded a maximum California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 28 percent for the silty sands at optimum moisture content, but the CBR deceased to about 14 percent at a wet- side compaction of 90 percent. The testing procedures used to determine the CBR values are discussed in Appendix B of this report. TABLE 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FOR GRANULAR SOILS Soil Type Moisture Gravel Sand Silt/Clay Maximum Content Content Content Content CBR (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) Sandy silt 33 0 42 58 — Silty fine sand 24 0 56 to 70 30 to 44 • 28 4_ j Groundwater Conditions At the time of exploration (14 February 1997), groundwater seepage was encountered in every test pit at depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet below the ground surface. Table 4, below, summarizes the approximate groundwater depths and elevations observed in our explorations. Because our explorations were performed during an extended period of generally wet weather, these groundwater measurements may closely represent the yearly high levels; somewhat lower levels probably occur during the summer and fall months. However, due to the proximity of the project site to the Cedar River, we anticipate that the groundwater level will be greatly impacted by fluctuations of the water elevation in the river. Also, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to precipitation patterns, off-site construction activities, and site utilization at all times of the year. 1 1476.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 7 TABLE 4 APPROXIMATE DEPTHS AND ELEVATIONS OF SEASONAL GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED IN EXPLORATIONS Exploration Depth of Elevation of Date of Measurement Groundwater Groundwater (feet) (feet) TP-1 7 81 14 Feb 1997 TP-2 6 84% 14 Feb 1997 TP-3 4% 85% 14 Feb 1997 TP-4 7 83% 14 Feb 1997 TP-5 5% 89 14 Feb 1997 TP-6 4 90 14 Feb 1997 TP-7 6% 87% 14 Feb 1997 TP-8 8 88 14 Feb 1997 N/E = Not encountered within depth of exploration 4_R Infiltration Cnnditinns Our field infiltration tests disclosed somewhat variable infiltration conditions across the site. The upper 1 to 3 feet of soil is a relatively impermeable sandy silt, while the underlying silty fine sand is roughly 4 to 5 times more permeable. The infiltration rate for the sandy gravel soil deposit at depth was not measured; however, this deposit probably has a fairly high infiltration rate, depending on the water level of the Cedar River. Table 5, below, summarizes the results of our infiltration testing. TABLE 5 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS FOR IN-SITU SOILS Infiltration Test Exploration Test Depth Soil Type Average (feet) Infiltration Rate (inches/min) IT-1 TP-2 1 % Sandy SILT 0.04 IT-2 TP-2 3% Silty SAND 0.25 4.7 Seismic Cnnditinns According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in the 1994 Uniform Building Code, the project site •lies within seismic risk zone 3. Based on soil conditions encountered at the site, we interpret the subsurface site conditions to correspond to a seismic soil profile type S-3, as defined by Table 16-J of the 1994 Uniform Building Code. Soil Profile 11475.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 8 type S-3 applies to a profile consisting of predominantly soft to loose soil which is limited to 40 feet of such soil. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • Based on our field explorations, research, and analyses, the proposed project appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, contingent on recommendations presented in this report. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation, underground utilities, culvert foundations, infiltration systems, asphalt pavements, structural fill, and construction monitoring. WSDOT Standard Specifications cited herein refer to WSDOT publication M41-10, 1996 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. 5.1 Site Preparation Site preparation will include clearing and grubbing, grading, and preparing subgrades. The following comments and recommendations regarding site preparation are provided for design and construction purposes. Clearing and Grubbing: Site preparation should include clearing, grubbing and removal of all surficial vegetation, topsoil, and root masses from foundation, pavement, and fill areas. Materials stripped should be wasted off-site or stockpiled and screened for reuse as topsoil. We anticipate that stripping depths within vegetated areas may range up to 12 inches; however, areas of deeper, organic-rich surficial soils should be expected, particularly around tree root-balls, if present. Fill materials should be placed and compacted according to the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Site Drainage and Erosion Control: Fill surfaces should be graded and sloped to provide positive drainage so as to preclude surface water ponding. During construction, all surface water runoff should be routed to temporary siltation ponds before discharging from the site. Erosion and silt control may be accomplished by means of berms, swales, hay bales, silt fences, and vegetative mats. Subgrade Protection: To reduce site disturbance, the contractor should minimize traffic above prepared subgrade areas. During wet conditions, the use of a working surface of quarry spalls, clean sand and gravel, or the use of soil-cement stabilization, may be required to protect subgrades from vehicular traffic. Frn7en Suhgraries: If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend that all exposed subgrades be allowed to thaw and be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of.structural fill, or constructing foundation components. Foundation Preparation: Foundation subgrades should consist of firm and nonyielding soils. Structural fill placed below foundations should extend beyond the footing edges a distance 11476.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 9 equal to the depth of structural fill below the footing. A geotechnical representative should be retained to observe all subgrades before any foundation concrete is poured and to verify that they have been adequately prepared. 5,2 Underground Utilities Installation of underground utilities will involve cut slopes, safety considerations, shoring,.. dewatering, pipe bedding and backfilling. The following comments and recommendations are provided for design and construction purposes. Safety Considerations: The stability of cut slopes is a function of many factors, including soil type, soil density, slope inclination, slope height, the presence of groundwater, and the duration of exposure. Generally, the likelihood of bank failure increases as the cut is deepened and as the duration of exposure increases. For this reason, temporary slope safety should remain the responsibility of the contractor, who is continually present at the site and is able to monitor the performance of the excavation and modify construction activities to reflect varying conditions. In all cases, cut-slope inclinations should conform to applicable governmental safety guidelines. Slnpe Inclinations.: In our opinion, temporary cut slopes can be used around dewatered excavations if sufficient lateral space is available. For planning purposes, we tentatively recommend that all temporary cut slopes be no steeper than 1 '/2 H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical), but flatter slopes will be necessary if excessive seepage occurs. All temporary slopes should be protected from erosion by means of berms, swales, and an impervious cover, as necessary. Even when these erosion-control measures are implemented, we recommend that the contractor exercise great discretion in the use of cut slopes. Shnring: If lateral space constraints preclude the use of temporary cut slopes, a temporary shoring system should be installed to support the excavation sidewalls. The site contractor should be responsible for designing and installing such a shoring system. Prefabricated trench boxes will likely provide an effective and low-cost system for this purpose. Dewatering: Based on our explorations, we expect that groundwater seepage will be encountered in excavations greater than 3 feet deep and that groundwater will be encountered in excavations greater than 5 to 6 feet deep. As such, an external dewatering system consisting of (1) well points supplemented by internal sumpholes and pumps or (2) deeper wells with submersible pumps will likely be required for underground utility installations below the groundwater table. To maintain a stable trench bottom, we recommend that dewatering be specified to draw groundwater down at least 2 feet below the pipeline inverts. In all cases, the specific design of a dewatering system will depend on actual conditions observed during construction. Pipe Bedding: Pipe bedding material should consist of fine crushed stone meeting the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(3) "Crushed Surfacing Top Course," or ' I 11476.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. , 7-91M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 10 granular material meeting the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(3) "Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding." The pipe bedding material should fully envelope the pipe to depths of 6 inches under and 6 inches over the pipe. Where soft or unsuitable soils are present at the base of the excavation, it may be necessary to place a layer of foundation ballast to stabilize the pipe foundation. In this case, the pipe foundation material should consist of coarse crushed stone meeting the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(2) "Shoulder Ballast". Backfilling: Excavations should be backfilled in accordance with our recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report: Specifically, all structural fill soil should be compacted to a uniform density of at least 90 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D-1557), and,any fill placed within 2 feet of pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 95 percent. A variety of materials could be used for backfill depending on weather and groundwater conditions, as described in the Structural Fill section. 5_3 Infiltration Systems We understand that stormwater runoff from playfields will be collected into a near-surface underdrain system consisting of a sand drainage layer overlying a series of infiltration trenches. From a geotechnical standpoint, infiltration into the underlying silty sand soils appears feasible, whereas infiltration into the upper sandy silts appears very limited as is evidenced by the wetlands area over the northern portion of the site. Our conclusions and recommendations concerning infiltration systems are presented below. Trench Depths: The proposed playfields are mantled by 1 to 4% feet of topsoil and low permeability soil deposits. In our opinion, all infiltration trenches should extend through this surficial soil layer to expose the underlying silty sand. Backfill materials placed within the infiltration trenches primarily for water infiltration should be consistent with the gradation of the native sand underlying the site. Specifically, we recommend using "Backfill for Sand Drains" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.13 for infiltration trench backfill. Infiltration Rates: Based on the soil conditions observed in our explorations and on the results of our infiltration tests, we recommend using an ultimate infiltration rate of 0.25 inches per minute for unsaturated soil conditions. An appropriate safety factor should be applied to this infiltration rate to account for lateral and vertical variabilities within the infiltrated soil unit. Infiltration Capacities: Critical geologic features governing the infiltration capacities of soil units include the depth to groundwater, the available storage capacity of the soil unit, and the unsaturated thickness of the soil unit. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations, we recommend assuming a yearly high groundwater table of 5 feet below the ground surface for design purposes. Additionally, we recommend a maximum available storage capacity of 0.10 inches per inch of infiltrated soil unit. Given this information and the thickness ' • 11476.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 11 - of soil units presented in Table 2, we recommend using an unsaturated soil thickness of 3 feet for design purposes. RA Foundations. In our opinion, spread footings appear feasible for foundation support for the proposed outbuildings and stream crossing structures if the subgrades are properly prepared. We offer the following comments and recommendations for the purposes of footing design and construction. Footing Overexravatinns: In order to provide adequate bearing conditions for spread footings, we recommend that all footing subgrades be overexcavated to reveal medium-dense sandy gravel soils or to a minimum depth of 3 feet below planned footing subgrade elevations, whichever is greater. We expect that the native sandy gravel soil horizon will be encountered at depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet below the ground surface. Because foundation stresses are transferred outward as well as downward into the bearing soils, all footing overexcavations also should extend horizontally outward from the edge of each footing a distance equal to half of the overexcavation depth. Therefore, an overexcavation that extends 3 feet below the footing base should extend 1 %2 feet outward from the footing edges. Soil Replacement: All footing subgrade overexcavations should be backfilled to design subgrade, to create a bearing pad. In our opinion, compacted soil would not be suitable or practical for this purpose due to the relatively shallow groundwater table. Consequently, we recommend that the overexcavated soils be replaced with controlled-density fill (CDF) to create stable bearing pads. CDF backfill materials should meet the strength recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Footing Widths and Depth.s: To minimize settlements, all continuous (wall) footings should be at least 18 inches wide, and all isolated (column) footings should be at least 24 inches wide. All footings for the creek crossing structures should be at least 36 inches wide. For frost protection, exterior footings should penetrate at least 18 inches below adjacent outside grade, whereas interior footings need extend only 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. Bearing Capacity: We recommend utilizing a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for all shallow foundations bearing on CDF fill prisms. This allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third to resist short-term transient loads such as wind and seismic forces. I ateral Resistance: Lateral loads on the foundation caused by seismic or transient loading conditions may be resisted by a combination of passive soil pressure against the side of the foundation and shear friction resistance along the base. An allowable base friction value of 0.40 and an allowable passive earth pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), expressed as 11475.RPT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 12 an equivalent fluid unit weight, may be used for that portion of the foundation embedded more than 1 foot below finished exterior subgrade elevation. - Footing Settlements: We estimate that total post-construction settlements of properly designed footings bearing on properly prepared CDF fill prisms will not exceed 1 inch. Differential settlements could approach one-half of the actual total settlement between adjacent foundation elements. S1,hgrade Verification: All footing subgrades should- consist of firm, unyielding, CDF fill materials. Footings should never be cast atop loose, soft, or frozen soil, slough, debris, or surfaces covered by standing water. We recommend that the condition of all subgrades be verified by a geotechnical representative before any concrete is placed. 5.5 Pavements We understand that asphalt pavements will be used for the new car-parking areas and access driveways. The following comments and recommendations are given for pavement design and construction purposes. Design Criteria: Critical features that govern the durability of a pavement section include the stability of the subgrade; the presence or absence of moisture, free water, and organics; the fines content of the subgrade soils; the traffic volume; and the frequency of use by heavy vehicles. Soil conditions can be defined by a California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and traffic conditions can be defined by a Traffic Index (TI). Design Values: Based on our laboratory testing, we estimate that the native soils will provide a CBR value of about 3 percent. We also estimate that a TI of 4.0 is appropriate for car-parking areas and that a TI of 5.0 is appropriate for access driveways subjected to short-term construction traffic and long-term occasional passes by service vehicles. Pavement Sections: A conventional pavement section typically comprises an asphalt concrete pavement over a crushed rock base course over a granular subbase course. In our opinion, construction of pavements bearing directly on the native sandy silts does not appear feasible without removal or stabilization of these soils. Consequently, we are providing pavement options for conventional sections, geotextile-reinforced sections, and soil-cement stabilized sections, as summarized in Table 6, below. In our opinion, the soil-cement stabilized pavement section should be considered the most viable option. 11476.RPT ' I Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 13 • TABLE 6 RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT OPTIONS Minimum Thickness (inches) Light Duty Heavy Duty Pavement Pavement (Parking/ (Driveways) Section Course Pathways) Conventional Asphalt Concrete Pavement 2 4 Crushed Rock Base 6 6 Granular Subbase 29 27 • Geotextile Reinforced Asphalt Concrete Pavement 2 3 Crushed Rock Base 6 6 Granular Subbase 22 21 Soil-Cement Asphalt Concrete Pavement 2 3 Stabilized Crushed Rock Base 6 6 Soil-Cement Subbase 16 16 Base and Subbase Materials: For pavement base course materials, we recommend "Crushed Surfacing Base Course" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(3), although the upper 2 inches of this may be substituted with "Crushed Surfacing Top Course" per WSDOT Standard Specification 4-04.3(6). For the conventional pavement section, subbase materials should consist of "Gravel Borrow" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.14(1). For the geotextile-reinforced pavement section, subbase materials should consist of "Shoulder Ballast" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(2). Alternative Base Course: As an alternative to the 6-inch-thick crushed rock base for all pavement sections presented in Table 6, a 4-inch-thick asphalt-treated base (ATB) course could be substituted, resulting in a thinner finished section. This substitution allows the ATB course to be placed in advance for use as a construction surface. Placement and Compaction: Pavement base course, subbase, asphalt-treated base, and asphalt concrete pavement materials should be placed and compacted according to the requirements stated in WSDOT Standard Specifications 4-04, 4-06, and 5-04. Specifically, the base course and subbase and the upper 24 inches of material placed below pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. 11476.RPT iJ • Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. , 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 14 Suhgrade Preparatinn: Preparation of subgrades for pavement subbases refers to preparation of soils over which the pavement subbase layer will be placed. The actual method used for subgrade preparation will depend on the type of pavement section selected from the options presented above. In any case, we anticipate that excavation and/or filling to prepare subgrades for pavement subbases will require tracked equipment due to the relatively weak bearing properties of the native soils. Additionally, routing construction equipment traffic directly over soft subgrades is neither advisable nor recommended due to potential soil disturbance and subgrade damage. The following comments and recommendations are provided for subgrade preparation of conventional, geotextile-reinforced, and soil-cement stabilized pavement section subgrades, respectively. • Cnnventinnal Siingradec• Subgrades for pavement subbases should be prepared according to the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 2-03. Any localized zones of yielding subgrade disclosed during the subgrade excavation operation should be overexcavated as needed and replaced with a suitable structural fill material. All structural fill should be compacted according to our recommendations given in the Structural Fill section. Specifically, the upper 2 feet of soils underlying pavement section should be compacted to at least 95 , percent (ASTM:D-1557), and all soils below 2 feet should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the same standard. • (,entextiln-Rninfnrr Rd Siingrades• Woven geotextile fabrics placed over areas of soft subgrades for pavement subbases provide soil reinforcement and separation over which subbase materials can be placed and compacted. Based on the design values presented above, we recommend using a woven polypropylene geotextile such as "Construction Geotextile" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33.2(Table 3), for separation and subgrade reinforcement. To maintain continuity between adjacent rolls of geotextile fabric during fill placement, we • recommend that seams overlap a minimum of 2 feet and be fastened with sewn seams. To avoid damaging the geotextile, construction equipment should be operated only on the advancing fill pad and no equipment should be driven directly atop the geotextile. The initial lift thickness over the geotextile should be a minimum of 18 inches and the initial compactive effort should be performed using a non-vibratory methods to avoid subgrade disturbance. • Snil-Cement Stahili7ed Siingraries• Soil-cement stabilization is recommend for all pavement areas. This option basically involves the addition of a blended admixture of hydrated lime (to aid in drying of the soil) and stabilizing cement (to create an improved soil subgrade) without the need for time-consuming and. costly overexcavation or geotextile reinforcement. Based on initial laboratory testing, we tentatively recommend a soil admixture blend consisting of 2 to 4 percent hydrated lime and 7 to 10 percent cement; however,.the actual 11476.RPT • 1 Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91M-11475-0 4 April 1997 ,Page 15 content of hydrated lime and cement should be optimized, through a series of laboratory tests, prior to construction. 'The stabilizing admixtures should be spread over the soil surface and uniformly mixed into the soil using an in-place, horizontal-shaft mixer. The depth of mixing should be monitored to ensure that a uniform depth of stabilization is obtained. Based on the results of our explorations, we tentatively recommend a mixing depth of 16 inches for all pavement areas. The stabilized material should be shaped and compacted to final grade within several hours following the mixing operation. • Pavement Life and Maintenance: It should be realized that no asphaltic pavement is maintenance-free. The above described pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations for an average level of performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely be required. Furthermore, a 20-year pavement life typically assumes that an overlay will be placed after about 10 years. Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase courses would offer better long-term performance, but would cost more initially; thinner courses would be more susceptible to "alligator" cracking and other failure modes. As such, pavement design can be considered a compromise between a high initial cost and low maintenance costs versus a low initial cost and higher maintenance costs. 5.R Struct»ral Fill "Structural fill" refers to any materials used to construct detention pond berms or placed and compacted under foundations, retaining walls, slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, pavements, and other structures. Our comments, conclusions, and recommendations concerning structural fill are presented in the following g paragraphs. Materials: Typical structural fill materials include clean sand, crushed rock, quarry spalls, controlled-density fill (CDF), lean-mix concrete, well-graded mixtures of sand and gravel (commonly called "gravel borrow" or "pit-run"), and miscellaneous mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled asphalt, concrete, and glass, which are derived from pulverizing the parent materials, are also potentially useful as structural fill in certain applications. Soils used for structural fill should not contain any organic matter or debris, nor any individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter. On-Site Soils: Because only minor cuts are planned for the project, we do not expect that large quantities of on-site soils will be generated during earthwork activities. Nonetheless, we offer the following evaluation of these on-site soils in relation to potential use as structural fill. • Organic Soils: The sod, topsoil, and organic-rich soils mantling most of the site • are not suitable for use as structural fill under any circumstances, due to their high organic content. Consequently, these materials can be used only for non- - structural purposes, such as in landscaping areas. 11476.RPT - • Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 16 • - Non-Granular Soils: The sandy silt and clayey soils underlying the topsoil horizon over most of,the site are not suitable for use as structural fill, under any circumstances, due to their relatively plastic properties. Consequently, these materials can be used only for non-structural purposes, such as in playfield areas. • Granular Snilk: The fine to medium-grained sand underlying the non-granular soil horizon appears suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, these soils will be difficult or impossible to reuse during wet weather, due to their moderately high silt contents. Fill Placement: Generally, quarry spells, CDF,.and lean-mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, clean sand, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. Cnmpar•.tinn Criteria: Using the Modified Proctor test (ASTM:D-1557) as a standard, we recommend that structural fill used for various on-site applications be compacted to the minimum densities presented in Table 7. TABLE 7 RECOMMENDED COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS Fill Application Minimum Compaction (ASTM:D-1557) Footing subgrade 90 percent Slab-on-grade floor subgrade 90 percent Foundation backfill 90 percent Concrete sidewalk subgrade 90 percent Pavement base and subbase 95 percent Pavement subgrade (upper 2 feet) 95 percent Pavement subgrade (below 2 feet) 90 percent Soil-cement stabilization layer 90 percent Suhgrarde Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding or stabilized subgrades prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The condition of all subgrades should be verified by a geotechnical engineer before filling or construction begins. Also, fill soil compaction should be verified by means of in-place density tests performed during fill placement so that adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses. • 11476.RPT I I Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 17 • Soil Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on their grain-size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the "fines" content (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points above or below optimum. For fill placement during wet-weather site work, we recommend using "clean" or "select" fill, which refers to soils that have a fines content of 5 percent or less (by weight) based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 Sieve. CDF Strength Cnnsicieratinns: CDF is normally specified in terms of its compressive strength, which typically ranges from 50 to 200 psi. CDF having a strength of 50 psi (7200 psf) provides adequate support for most structural applications and can be readily excavated with hand shovels. A strength of 100 psi (14,400 psf) provides additional support for special applications but greatly increases the difficulty of hand-excavation. CDF having a strength greater than about 100 psi requires power equipment to excavate and, as such, should not be used where future hand-excavation might be needed. 6.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study; therefore, if variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. Also, because the future performance and integrity of the project elements depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. AEE is available to provide geotechnical monitoring, soils and concrete testing, steel and masonry inspection, and other services throughout construction. 11476.RPT • Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 4 April 1997 Page 18 I r We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. Ti othy J. Bo ce, E.I.T. roject Engineer vv d/P.A.wwwivt-- Henry . Brenniman, P.G. Senior Project Engineer • ./ c o. Ja► es M. Brisbine, P_.E 4--1421, •ssociate '2776 :yA' 27768 SS��NAL��„ J HWB/TJB/lad . ,. .,/i/M • I � 11476.RPT I . , "--, • , . iS), LI 15600 , v 1 • 4TH . E I. i ST 1 RIEe SE 128TH ST — 'SE ! •4, ...1 1 128TH , - , .;.,gi`t-i-•-•':-*--•--:: . . .. 8 • u.,i , - 1 ; ..,;"ii; • . -.1 4,11" iii L"," w I -. 4 129STTH I €4 ' lal 'cy,""SE I s 44.• FS - RV g Iiiir.Zijk - - - 1 •1 rOOSOEI '11, 14800 1 •. .. -- ,. , Zrigiliiii, i SE < 131ST L ST _IN ; SE; 131ST ST I I P-, -- -- 1--i -1 • I 7 CL; .4 w NE & 1 ) •' ST 1 SE 132ND ST 0.• cn 2ND - :: '''' jg... ___sE 16158Thmi...1.432ND, sie6.4,7.4<;18„.ST k __..s.r- ,:t'c51.1......: :. 8 `ci SE 132N0J SE 132ND ST .11 I • i — ..: P ?, Lut= ;cur. prr isTi,..._ 4..,, a. 1 . , i.- „ .33RD sT i‘.2. o v)1 b.-- ' v 4E ,-, a 11,. • '-. - .i.'l : . i 1,,,,s, 1 =I , SE 134TH •-• LEISURE IIII i•.. '1' C° .0:c., 0- . -ist....:1-L-i'm 2 = i 24" " ' , 8 'cZ: '1 sEST I 11 -- . ESTATES el 1 <g ,,: $E 1Sr • - I 135TH; ,...-: : st'35,:;-; ,...1: __,•.• -.I •-.! 1 14 "1 —1 13TH =•ST' ST PI ' St SE ; , I 136TH ) SE P6TH i I ST 1-1 SEA , r..1 Pi* —..--- i cm ---- 57tor, — r 10 . , SE 3 1-- 14100 p,b.? ?s V, . ,%1 wi R - a , g q . ,.,,ItLiiiikz? v spL % :.,..z. f...., . . .....! \, -- mip th:141141 SE . „Top , t...' '11',-,.‘•x,..., !!! ' EL,',.. . v' to- I pt SE 138TH 1 ›..! I -I-- - 1 SE!138TH PL PL Tnii I L I BER: cn.°-- , ., al `... ' u, PL x 1 = ! HS . ' . SE 4 r ' e '''' Sr ' Z 4 Pi" c. 4. ‘ SE 139TH ! 1- , 8 / 1 af. cc` J>1•29/A, , LO SE 139TH PL -,0 1 SE 140TH S 17 111;'•46°' = ....• SE ''' PL 1 St 140114 e: 4-4 o . 8 ; - 1 ..HAP.._LEW im.sT ,,, ;,-, -1443TH PLI .... ,,, Egi Pi : , 4, -• ---.- .'7'...-f -.. • ! I ".„ SE 1s4zic...r1ST vt20:6,z,0i: HimEiGifi .. SE ',7, • , E,: SE JUST I---.- :.-,I ...SE 142ND ST! • Pl ; o4,C) ; SE_ _1.42ND 2. "i iii 142ND ST - , i f----: b,r, i i .,,-- T- i..,r• '4. ,z, i,/4. ,, 1 SE,..1111,1) LI 1 ,Jg.1,1 ...,. SE 142ND ST! c...\.-- .,•,, .7.. ,.....,s_a„.../.•s .,• ,L st :C3 SA' SE;143RD 10 ST ompuzio04- .... 1 _•,.• gtt. 1144 `A.' ST:Pi g -÷ (t4 ,9L 4 • L F,-,; P, 14 IS...! . , -7 , ,. Z.1 \et - ...•........ ..... ',-,,,* .....)..4 IS.:.:i. ST,..,4 1. '-. sE 14p. 7-4 ... ' `"_, SE 1144TH i :,,,‘Pt, ,j SE 1600, „,`"J 16.‘' 144TH sr -;-'::-;•',..i.! ) e4 st r 1A61'' 't Li .----'" EI 1 i i Nt. 4.5.' t..1 IL I 1•J ' A vVIV.:E .,I. . .-- ! 'S" sr" pi. ,, ---, 0 L. 1. =:.4,4 - •-.1146TH ,.? ,. -.. •,•.-.--: 00 "4 E-",-;;;;;:"... ..261::::.;'•'c's•'-'''''''' : c.) ' . .-• '0, PL 1,r, ,.. '''1 '.', , -,•:.: ''''.- ..S„•, ''.••••:2":. ,',1 .-••::..;.:.%., _ , . " ••,,„.:'' •;1--:,t".,'''42•-•''-t, s El,•, ,IP ', . -,r- •-•E ,/,38TH -.4-4_44,_.: , SE 147TH ST, I •:' ..---,7;:',-...!. .:1-:'!-ACe:','4 '• ,...,0„.„... w,sies ST 1 '• r.11, sE (0,. 1 - 49,), " ., ,,•:;,!.....,.•4,,,...:,,,-1.!--,..:-;;A:..-f. .•, ---______,"-.4, ,.,„„•.-4-:., -..,..'`:-.., Pt.., •k• i SE 146TH PL I A. .'"-..- -...A. ..0:---6.-.17P--',,,e., •••) 1 \•0•Csi.,'-14.s7,, ,S7 ''. .s----C4.-..54.1,.,' „-' -. 4_,- V 1:.0,-,.. •;:::' ,1 1 ',. e ,z .14,., -,`" . -•-ii,---___"-'7-4 i...-'z4.: - :: ' V:.4-.f.'%-- '41. \ .,:i •••, . E21 I 1.5' ::-,i 4.e. ,....., 's ‘‘ '''.0 g :( 0 :;`1YrOici--- --- .. •• . " :le:** - ,''''1' k.?. L.J ' ------z... OA, I., -es23R: • ... \.. \<7; ::-_,L..-4, • pycip 1 ,--___ = ,....e._, •?LI,.- „ ---,-. - LC ----___."*".".....i.4........Ki,,yi. .PC 5 ST , v VA ----------. i,,-•. :SE 152ND . . -• 7 , ee ,.., . ' --- ON . CO ii. I -'f., . . SITE : 4R D ------- . -- ' 'I I, ,rt,,'a. ,"............... Ct 11 CI I 4'''''I 1 Er, ------ ..„.....zzy/EDAR RIVER ,Av,./. '' ,-.;,- Z 4,0 ...•.-T—- - —I <0----NSF j„ ' ..-7! -NL. ...L..- {,?7, e i ------- PARK :.. -_, a ------------ i ( '-(15-E, e 4- '-',''. _•,' e , L.; I sr -- 1._ 'c,LifE6:441e.,T:11-,1:::,'":'_,;LI 4.,tE,65.‘-.(I Wt.-..'•,-;•S f'-' $ --• ,• f- A T RWOOD i ...? ST tIAGst,S9111 Pi•,-, 1 ' .- 44 •.+ `It sr n,,,t- , 617.._ .:.,..j.T.•:—.:., SE 160P1_171.;',..-;t'..:I SE 15,„%4.. .''''SEri-L.--15‘: 15911 ---..;- i sc.,. • 4 I .....__,,6380 ST1.1. A , 512 9 mis:: Se 1 , ,.. ,,z PS . ' =4•11 1".': .1. '. '...0 '''''' l'..f'7.1:V 4....r...l.ff.' 6145.1.T .... 4r- "' .1 16ND PL.. ii 5.-,r,,,, •EE..c.0 - -08„. * 4,4 ...,, "' SE so eSE a..74 se e, S-. 4' -.-43 7 4 ‘4".4'IESRo••s•7.,.-'. , I '-' si SE 164TH si- 'A ST ,RD.g.12 F...,-. . . 11347,S T LI •. SE c-. •,;,'.4 . z 'AIRWOOD .,•• - .. _. ' 167-14 v S;g•t:,-, 3 ,.E.A., ..- :'..:,....8...6 \ 13-s, • 7. ,I-- • :, -." si,-.2 • .., r.:•:: . 0.. 0137. i 5E. Se I) ,r,c-,:)••.,,,,4! tis, • .' § :144VERG4 Rs/‘4.,'''i- , pi ,--,,k. ....61•H ft ,•,-, . -.. • 57Z . ,E-66Th . -4-.1-:.)7, ,,,,I• 4 7:-1,t,it' 4., cl\•'-'az 4...%;.,.:•_ c, -f.,..s. , PL LEJ '• 27 _.: ,c.. ...,- ,,, ....\1 .1v,, ,_rj-,SE 167TH •"',' x SE 167TH 2,__.. -1 ' SE Issm J. 4. 7-i- -1.). .ltay-,I., . 9T1,1 ST - ‘i.,.. Al-', =,,, ST4., 1 S, ii.A."t M ,,,, ." 9'. - •' 11. AV St - PLCT '''1."1 V, ..l ! .,...... .1i4.,. ,, , " S: ,kt ei... -47 r ,,Tii pi. Se, .. • "" -,',1,-.:er. , g';'•,.'''d ', - 7-. 1 DINSW, •' :-----4 9, . , p.. _43-, , 170T14 PI.s •• ‘A. ›;. . ,1/ ) \‘',.•; A, LIB 7 t1, sYNItro& 77.4-, ..'.....1?.•.-...n: .n4,..i 4i,..41. . . , , .....,- T _1 i.„N., - ,.- . .„ ./...'se I7opi .r, I '1,14..re.„7:,A:1-• . ..-cr'•• ;,..ii: SE 170TH!,.13;ic!-:( 'tit' ''1,44.41„r, -. =r, ...0 SEE A Al• 171ST ',i.,•': ,' ''' 'i170TH PL .1. ›. •SE:171ST :.1 fAIS .., :..1,-I'l '.;,...:;: "...2,•!2•161 ,,,,, ST .4,„ ", ins;e.,4:.:''' 5.;4 3 ' 'ZSE7'Z 7 < ST; s•PL-4,-;we'' L'•4 .e SE P.SiT•:-.FA/' !1' ''''';'. ''eiti,.-17'7...'1 ''..---j.),..1'1 J(.(‘ -e 3LVD H..; insi 1 SE 17011I ST ,E. KSE 172ND4P1. 8 . 12E400 I 1 '-',--z; SE 1715T'ar_PL _,SE ,sE2 r '•,:t1.];.,!..;fgey••F...t•,IsrsIE T l ,„ 1 j ,_!:. CIS•04, _..,.&„-..'• CD Eil. 3 SE 171ST ST. • 8>.1 ., .,',.:•tril >( wn.......17154H17,p3 a4NE '9,)-- =-T-•:••:.4., So-..;.", ' 'IMII 173RD ST e, 5 4 158TH HOSE•"!• ',: SE ' z 5E I 're .172':' ' . ... -,, .....s, ?'•, ,•xl„...,,,, IR‘0%„,e,,,,s 4',,74...: . SI:rirr v. ;_.; 5.' '.'''' il:t.W24.,..,..... . c7 Sr '' se" A\-si „3R0 p, <I>7 "...,, gp.ICSLIe'C5',..•;f•Fr,•,. 1 4,, .,f • • , S f 174TH 1140 - ..-.CUS:•'•:....c -:!.:',Oaata.:-. ,1 ism Pi,:SE . +.4,*5 ik., sre ...s, ,...... _zS.),"r ST •' ?E,-ci ' 418811 ' '1'4" -e 1E56' Se) .7, SE 175TH_,PL :::FAIR11000 I .'''. '-' -•'`;'':,..„,.. '.r1491.1ie,'-,..7.-. ..-,:t1 .•ers5E-';':.---'.,, 'Is ,-7. 1/6,6111 SQUARE C>1.511., o‘S PL '5''.5''' PL SE 176TH ST , crsE:,-13., 4 sEi.,,,,, sl ,= Li (SE FAINoco riLvD) 14900 s ,: "SE 176TH PL VD ...,-, Vt3 SE ; .--i '•76Te Pt-al,-PETROV!ISKT • /IC •I W.O. 7-91M-11475-0 CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK . , . SR 169 & 149 AVENUE S.E. 2 ; DESIGN HWB KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AG RA , Earth & Environmental DRAWN DMW 11335 NE 122nd Way, Suite 100 DATE _EEB 1997 LOCATION MAP w Kirkland,Washington, U.S.A. 98034-6918 a SCALE N.T.S. FIGURE 1 rr , ED a , . 1 . n LEGEND A EXISTING \ TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE \ LOCATION METRO SEWER \ IT-2 INFILTRATION TEST NUMBER AND \ TP-8APPROXIMATE LOCATION \ A fix. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FILL/DEBRIS \ \ \%•\••• PILE STOCKPILED ON SITE \ SOURCE: BASED ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY . \ JONGEGAN-GERRARD-McNEAL, INC. DATED \ .F\ JUNE 30, 1994. \ r,� \ • • .c \O FUTURE SOCCER FIELD er '92:NNNN I4�� TP-1 I �N‘ v , 1\ Q I kk4W\W�l� PAVED PATH (TYP.) )I \ . a I \WW��ti�W `, �\ . \\ \ ... 0 L N,%Nz-k‘ Z..\\, ;N", k\,`",\N _____________ __J —-----_ ----..,. \ \ a FUTURE SOCCER FIELD I ( \ cc) IT-2' \� cc IT-1 —0 fl \k \ u TP-2 EXISTING WETLANDS AREA \\ RESTROOM I- ____ BUILDING "\— — PICNIC BASKETBALL —� SHELTER \\ COURT / \ / 1-- ---. / ...� gTFR�TYp r i _ s. \ J \ H CONCRETE ` • ll WALK(TYP) \...� MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 2B U . TO W.O. 7-91M-11475-0 CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK AGRA E. DESIGN HWB KG COUNTY,WASHING ON 0 1 20 240 Earth & Environmental DRAWN DMW 00 w ._, 11335 NE 122nd Way, Suite 100 DATE FEB 1997 SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN SCALE IN FEET Kirkland,Washington, U.S.A.98034-6918 SCALE 1"=120' FIGURE 2A MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 2A \\ EXISTING OPEN WATER \ 1 I I I - TP-4 �/ TP-3 19 1' EXISTING WETLANDS AREA SOFTBALL FIELD I �FUTURE I PARKING - / ¢ I \ � H w \ i I I // � - ---------------_ ( 1 E - i PICNIC I I cc I I I SHELTER I W I I �� _ o I I I/ MONITORING EXISTING ' I / . >, WELL // (/ TP-5 / ( IMil / PEDESTRIAN ) _ ' FUTURE SOFTBALL FIELD // BRIDGE // 1) 7((/ ' I / / : � 1 I // } FUTURE PAVED P I TP`__ -6 ✓ I BRIDGE_— / F----- tir// TP-7 - MADSEN CREEK I ��// Q a - PEDESTRIAN O J� ‘, - BRIDGE __ _ PARK BOUNDARY _ �O/ 1 - _/ I I Iwo- �/r CC I 01 i 1 J CC I- 2 / :. WI Q� • I I . I I -, I1I /I I I I / i /: TP-8 // EXISTING / METRO SEWER -1 / / - 0 120 240 149th AVENUE S.E. ENTRY � SCALE IN FEET r U C E w.o. 7-91M-11475-0 CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK 2 SR 169 & 149 AVENUE S.E. 0 AG R A DESIGN HWB KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON L Earth & Environmental DRAWN _LAM_ , SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN W 11335 NE 122nd Way, Suite 100 DATE FEB 1997 Kirkland,Washington, U.S.A.98034-6918 SCALE 1"=120' FIGURE 2B APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS _ 6-91 M-11475-0 Our field exploration program for this evaluation included eight test pits advanced at the project site. In addition, we conducted two infiltration tests. The approximate locations of the explorations are indicated on the Site & Exploration P/an, Figures 2A and 2B. The locations were obtained in the field by taping and pacing from existing site features, and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. Test Pit Procedures Our exploratory test pits were excavated with a rubber-tired backhoe operated by an independent firm working under subcontract to AEE on 14 February 1997. A geologist from our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations, logged the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in watertight containers and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After we logged each test pit, the backhoe operator backfilled it with excavated soils and tamped the surface. The enclosed Test Pit Logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each testpit, based primarilyon our field classifications and supported byour subsequent PP q t laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our logs indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of the in-situ soils by means of the excavation characteristics and the stability of the test pit sidewalls. Our logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage, observed in the test pits, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations. Infiltration Test Procedures Our infiltration tests were performed in general accordance with the procedures prescribed in the King County Department of Public Works "Surface Water Design Manual," Section 4.5.2 Maximum Infiltration Rate Tests." Specifically, a test pit was excavated to the desired infiltration test depth, a 6-inch-diameter PVC pipe was tamped approximately 6 inches into the soil at the bottom, and the test pit was partially backfilled with soil. The pipe was then filled with water, and the water level was maintained for at least 4 hours to saturate the test soils. Following this saturation period, the pipe was filled with 4 feet of water, and the time required for every 1-inch drop in water level was recorded through a total drop of 6 inches. We repeated this procedure three times at each test location and subsequently calculated the average rate of the three trials. After completion of all tests, the PVC pipes were extracted and the test pits were backfilled. 11476.APP TEST PIT LOGS 7-91M-11475-0 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No. Test Pit TP-1 Location: 1,590 feet west of road centerline and 195 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 88 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Fill debris and sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets (Topsoil) 0.5 -4.5 Soft, wet, some orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some S-1 organics and small roots and scattered burnt organics 4.5 - 7.0 Loose, wet, becoming saturated, mottled orange-tan, silty fine S-2 SAND 7.0 - 8.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan, sandy, cobbly GRAVEL with some silt Test pit terminated at approximately 8 feet Severe caving observed 5 to 7 feet and unable to keep the excavation open below 7 feet Slight seepage observed at 6 to 7 feet with groundwater at 7 feet Test Pit TP-2 Location: 1,310 feet west of road centerline and 215 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90.5 feet 0.0 -0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics, abundant rootlets and some small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 3.0 Soft, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some organics and roots and scattered burnt organics 3.0 -4.0 Loose, wet, mottled orange-tan, silty, fine SAND grading to silty, fine SAND with trace small roots 4.0 - 5.0 Soft/loose, wet strongly mottled orange-tan, sandy SILT/silty, fine SAND 5.0 - 6.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 6 feet Severe caving 5 to 6 feet and unable to keep the test pit open Slight seepage from 5 to 6 feet with groundwater at 6 feet 1 7-91 M-11475-0 Test Pit Logs, Page 2 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No. Test Pit TP-3 Location: 925 feet west of road centerline and 60 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets and scattered small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 3.0 Soft, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some S-1 organics and trace small roots 3.0 -4.5 Loose, wet to saturated, mottled orange-tan-gray, silty, fine SAND S-2 with trace small roots 4.5 - 6.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan-gray, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 6 feet Moderate to severe caving 3 to 4.5 feet and unable to keep the test pit open below 4.5 feet Slight seepage at 4 feet with groundwater at 4.5 feet Test Pit TP-4 Location: 915 feet west of road centerline and 310 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90.5 feet 0.0 -0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets and some small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 1.0 Soft, wet, tan, sandy SILT with organics and some small roots 1.0 - 5.0 Loose, moist to wet, tan, silty, fine SAND with some small roots S-1 and scattered organics 5.0 - 7.0 Loose/soft, wet, heavy mottling orange-tan-gray interbedded silty SAND/sandy SILT 7.0 - 8.0 Loose to medium-dense, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately'8 feet Severe caving 5 to 7 feet, and unable to keep the test pit open below 7 feet Slight to moderate seepage at 6 feet with groundwater at 7 feet 11476TP.228 7-91 M-11475-0 Test Pit Logs, Page 3 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No. Test Pit TP-5 Location: 595 feet west of centerline and 350 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 94.5 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets and trace small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 1.5 Soft, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some organics and trace small roots 1.5 - 2.5 Loose, moist, orangish tan, silty, fine SAND with trace organics and small roots 2.5 - 4.0 Soft/loose, trace to some orange mottling in tan, interbedded sandy SILT/silty fine SAND 4.0 - 6.0 Loose to medium-dense, wet to saturated tannish gray, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and trace to some silt. Test pit terminated at approximately 6.0 feet Severe caving 4 to 6 feet and unable to keep the test pit open below 5.5 feet Slight seepage at 5 feet. Groundwater at 5.5. feet Test Pit TP-6 Location: 425 feet west of road centerline and 95 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 94 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and some small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 2.0 Soft, wet, tan, sandy SILT with some organics and small roots 2.0 - 4.0 Loose, wet, slight to some mottling orange-tan-gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with trace small roots 4.0 - 6.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan-gray, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 6 feet Slight to moderate caving 3 to 4 feet and severe caving 4 to 5 feet and unable to keep the test pit open below 5 feet Slight seepage at 3.5 feet with groundwater at 4 feet 11476TP.228 7-91M-11475-0 Test Pit Logs, Page 4 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No. Test Pit TP-7 Location: 410 feet west of road centerline and 95 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 94 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organic and abundant rootlets and some small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 3.0 Soft, wet, tan, sandy SILT with some organics and small roots 3.0 - 5.0 Loose, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, silty, fine SAND with S-1 trace to some small roots 5.0 - 6.5 Loose, wet to saturated, some orange-tan-gray mottling, silty, fine to medium SAND with trace small roots 6.5 - 7.5 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan-gray, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 7.5 feet Moderate caving 3 to 6 feet and unable to keep the test pit open below 6.5 feet Slight seepage 4.5 to 6.5 feet with groundwater at 6.5 feet 11476TP.228 1. 7-91M-11475-0 Test Pit Logs, Page 5 Depth (feet), Material Description Sample No. Test Pit TP-8 Location: 105 feet west of road centerline and 115 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 96 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Loose to medium-dense, moist to wet, blackish gray, gravelly silty SAND with some organics (Fill) 0.5 - 2.0 Soft/loose, wet, tan, sandy SILT/silty fine SAND with trace to • some organics • 2.0- 6.0 Loose, wet, tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with trace organics S-1 and small roots 6.0 - 8.0 Loose, wet to saturated, mottled orange-tan some gray, silty, fine S-2 SAND 8.0 - 9.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan-gray, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 9 feet Moderate caving 4 to 6 feet becoming severe 6 to 8 feet Unable to keep test pit open below 8 feet Slight to moderate seepage 6 to 8 feet with groundwater at 8 feet • 11476TP.228 7-91 M-11475-0 Test Pit Logs, Page 6 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No. Infiltration Test IT-1 Location: 1,320 feet west from road centerline and 215 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90.5 feet 0.0- 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets and trace small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 3.0 Soft, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some organics and trace small roots and scattered burnt organics 3.0- 3.5 Loose, moist to wet, slight orange mottling in tan, silty, fine SAND S-1 with trace small roots and organics • Infiltration test pit terminated at approximately 3.5 feet , No caving observed No seepage observed Infiltration Test IT-2 Location: 1,310 feet west of road centerline and 210 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90.5 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlet and trace small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 1.5 Soft, wet, light orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some S-1 organics and trace small roots Infiltration test pit terminated at approximately 1.5 feet No caving observed No seepage observed Date excavated: 14 February 1997 Logged by: HWB 11476TP.228 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 6-91 M-11475-0 Our laboratory testing program for this evaluation included numerous visual classifications, 6 moisture content determinations, 200-wash analyses, 2 grain size analyses, 1 modified Proctor, and 1 California Bearing Ratio test. Graphical results of certain laboratory tests are enclosed in this appendix. Visual Classification Procedures Visual soil classifications were conducted on all samples in the field and on selected samples in our laboratory. All soils were classified in general accordance with the United States Classification System, which includes color, relative moisture content, primary soil type (based on grain size), and any accessory soil types. The resulting soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Moisture Content Determination Procedures Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. All determinations were made in general accordance with ASTM:D-2216. The results of these tests are presented on the enclosed grain size distribution graphs and were used in soil classifications shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A. 200-Wash Analysis A 200-wash is a procedure in which the fine-grained soil fraction is separated from the sand and gravel by washing the soil on a U.S. No. 200 sieve. A 200-wash was performed on. selected soil samples obtained from our test pits in general accordance with ASTM:D-1140. The results of these analyses were used in soil classifications shown on the test pit logs in Appendix A and are presented in this appendix. Grain Size Analysis Procedures A grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM:D-422. The results of these tests are presented on the enclosed grain-size distribution graphs and were used in soil classifications shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Laboratory Maximum Density Test The laboratory maximum density represents the highest degree of density which can be obtained from a particular soil type by impacting a predetermined compaction effort. The test determines the "optimum" moisture content of the soil at the laboratory maximum density. The laboratory maximum density test was performed on a bulk shape of material in general accordance with ASTM:D-1557. The test result is shown in this report and presented as a curve where the dry soil density is compared to the moisture content of the soil. 11476.APP California Bearing Ratio Test Procedures A California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test provides a quantitative prediction of the relative quality and support characteristics of a saturated soil when subjected to wheel loads. CBR tests were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM:D-1883. Representative portions from each sample are compacted in a mold to obtain a moisture-density relationship curve,'a 15-pound surcharge is applied to each sample, and the samples are then immersed in water for at least 96 hours, during which time they are monitored for swell. Next, a vertical load is applied to the surcharged soil with a penetration piston moving at a constant rate of strain, while the associated penetrations are measured and compared with the theoretical strain of crushed rock. The ratio of the measured and theoretical loads (in percent) is defined as the CBR value for the soil at that particular density. The enclosed California Bearing Ratio graphs present our test results as a plot of density and resistance versus moisture content. • • • I _ 11476.APP e • GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D422 . SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36" 12" 6" 3" 11/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 I - I� X x Tx I I - 90 1 1 so , 1 W 50 , , ` z ; F- '1 Z40 • _ • _ W _ U LL.1 30 .. . c . LL 20 , , . - 10 ,,1, i 0• . 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Exploration Sample Depth Moisture Fines Soil Description •-i*-•-♦♦ IT-1 S-1 3.5' 25% 44% Silty SAND ♦-♦-•-•-• IT-2 S-1 1.5' 32% 58% Sandy SILT XI- --*--*--* TP-8 . S-1 3.0-4.0' 24% 30% Silty SAND A-AAAA 1 1Project: Cedar River Regional Park Work Order: 7-91 M-11475-0 OAdRA Earth & Environmental Date: 2-19-97 11335 NE 122nd Way ' i Suite 100 • Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 MAXIMUM DENSITY & MOISTURE CURVE ASTM: D1557 125 _ G 27 G 2.8 120 c 2.5 G 2.4 G .3 - 1,0 115 = .2 110 ca — 4 0) 105 u) — Z W — 0 0 100 0 95 90 85 I I I I [ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 MOISTURE(%OF DRY WT.) Project: Cedar River Regional Park , OAG RA Work Order: 7-91M-11475-0 Depth: 3.0-4.0' Earth & Environmental Date: 2-24-97 Sample: S-1 11335 N.E. 122nd Way SExploration: TP-8 Optimum Moisture: 14% Kirkland, Kirkl Washington 98034-6918 Max Dry Density:S-1 Rock Corrected: (none) CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (ASTM 1883) 125 120 115 '- a 110 C 105 -• N _ 100 -• . 95 90 85 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture (% of Dry Weight) • 100 90 80 70 so 0 Ct 50 CO 40 30. _ 20 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture (% of Dry Weight) Project Cedar River Regional Park ,AGRA Work Order 7-91M-11475-0 Depth 3.0-4.0' Earth & Environmental Date: 2-24-97 Sample: S-1 11335 NE 122nd Way Max Density 116pcf Optimum Moisture: 14% Suite 100, Exploration TP-8 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 • 1., \ - , ' / ,( • •,/ f / • - /' • ' I ' 1) ;. • .T fI / n: Ced'ar'Biver-Regional Park �,. g , .i . r - i,, . Technical Information Report . , , , - ; • . \ ' •,-/ - - - �'/ , , ( - ' ( / r ') _ 1 . / \ /' _ • . . / % / / fir- ; June'1997 / ' 1 l ')C. -` /• % 1. • -' -. I ..` i. 1/ '. /'- I I 1 ,,. ) ` ' 1- ; ' '.\ ENGINEERS INC. /\' , . \ / I •I ' r ) j. . 1412 112th'Ave.NE ❑Bellevue, WA' 98004,❑ (425)'455,-7622 or (425)462'-1374jFax , '-i'- - /- , ' H r / „ •� ( \, — - ( ' ' TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Project Overview Page 1 II. Preliminary Conditions Summary Page 1 III. Off-Site Analysis Page 1 IV. Retention/Detention Analysis and Design Page 2 V. Conveyance System Analysis and Design Page 2 VI. Special Reports and Studies Page 2 VII. Basin and Community Plan Areas Page 2 VIII. Other Permits Page 2 IX. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Analysis and Design Page 2 X. Bond Quantities Worksheet, Retention/Detention Facility Summary Sheet and Declaration of Covenant Page 2 XI. Maintenance and Operations Manual Page 2 APPENDICES A. Vicinity Map B. Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet C. Calculations 1. Runoff 2. Peak Flow ,. .. 3. Back Water 4. Biofiltration Swale r"' ',�� 5. Conveyance • ;,'1 .0 9 6. Bridge/Culvert ! ,' / •A D. Soils Report 96497' ,4 w. C L`9SA?Yt�p. �t{{�qq ;pT k`S1oN q\ 3� r, E. Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet I7 �i+ • . 6 ..: ... ' JU 2 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Technical Information Report Project Overview The project consists of constructing two grass athletic fields, a basketball court, associated paved pathways, a driveway with bridge structure and paved parking, which will add almost two acres of impervious ground to the site at full expansion. The project site is currently open land owned by the City of Renton and encompasses approximately 45 acres. This site is generally bordered by Cedar River on the north, 149th Avenue Southeast on the east, State Route 169 on the south and by private properties on the west. Madsen Creek enters the site and flows westerly near the intersection of SR-169 and 149th Ave. S.E. It then flows northerly before turning left and fairly parallel to Cedar River until its confluence with the river. Presently, the site slopes gentlyfrom the southeast to the northwest. Most of the precipitation falling on the site is infiltrated before it reaches Cedar River and no off-site water drains onto the site. These conditions will be maintained through the use of a detention/infiltration system. Runoff from the athletic fields will be negligible due to the underdrain system to be installed that will allow infiltration into more permeable soils. Runoff from the paved parking lot will be collected into a catch basin and conveyed via 15" diameter concrete pipe, to a biofiltration swale terminating in the sedimentation pond. A bridge structure will be constructed to allow vehicle and pedestrian access over Madsen Creek. This structure is designed handle full flow in Madsen Creek, as well as meet fish migration requirements. See TIR Worksheet and site vicinity map attached. II. Preliminary Conditions Summary Not applicable. 1 III. Off-Site Analysis All runoff from State Route 169 is collected in ditches and along the highway. The runoff from the sites east and west of the project generally flows northerly towards Cedar River, thus avoiding the project. Page 1 IV. Retention/Detention Analysis and Design See Appendix for calculations. V. Conveyance System Analysis and Design The conveyance system will use 15" diameter concrete pipes at 1% slope. This system has proved to be more than adequate in the past and has a minimum capacity of six (6) feet per second. See Appendix for calculations. VI. Special Reports and Studies See Soils Report in Appendix. VII. Basin and Community Plan Areas The project is located in the Cedar River Basin and is part of the Soos Creek Community Plan. No additional or special requirements or restrictions have been noted. VIII. Other Permits Not applicable. IX. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Analysis and Design See sheets C1.0 through C1.2 of the Site Improvement Plans. X. Bond Quantities Worksheet, Retention/Detention Facility Summary Sheet and Declaration of Covenant See Appendix. XI. Maintenance and Operations Manual Not applicable. Page 2 ii } y APPENDIX Page 1 of 2 King County Building and Land Development Division TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PART 2 PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT ENGINEER AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner CAN c Project Name & ' k''40— P pna I Par4 Address 200 M;U Aft—.4, Ren'1n r 1-1q R8ocs Location Phone Township :2.3 kJ Qavl Wce-16 k..c. Range L Project Engineer O2 Company Ca . +�� T . Project SeSection y� AC Address Phone NO. "2-*-1-' Ave. A).E,,S+c, r°.2 Upstream Drainage Basin Size O AC lzv&e. tJA ° cc 1 y2;1)qcc-"t622 PART 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION PART 4 OTHER PERMITS I Subdivision I 1 DOF/G HPA 0 Shoreline Management I I Short Subdivision 1 1 COE 404 I I Rockery I-1 Grading I I DOE Dam Safety I I Structural Vaults l I Commercial I I FEMA Floodplain 11 Other I I Other ( I COE Wetlands I I HPA PART 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community S C,te...4 Drainage Basin Cedar Q!v r PART6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS [ICI River Cad e,"L'`,coo ho^ '4-f+ Ot I I Floodplain IK Stream MaokeJ‘ C_ [I Wetlands ?Oa ; I I Critical Stream Reach I I Seeps/Springs 0 Depressions/Swales I High Groundwater Table I 1 Lake I I Groundwater Recharge 0 Steep Slopes I I Other 0 Lakeside/Erosion Hazard PARTZ' SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities I I Additional Sheets Attatched 1/90 Page2of2 King County Building and Land Development Division TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET •ART 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT Ch.4-Downstream Analysis Ceder P.veJ—, <DO no3-'fweA o s: 0 a i I I 1 1 o , I-I Additional Sheets Attatched PART 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION I '/I Sedimentation Facilities IklI Stabilize Exposed Surface xl Stabilized Construction Entrance I 1 Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities I cl Perimeter Runoff Control F71 Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris I Clearing and Grading Restrictions 0 Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities I I Cover Practices I I Flag Limits of NGPES I I Construction Sequence I I Other I Other •ART 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM I-XI Grass Lined Channel I I Tank X1 Infiltration Method of Analysis Ixl Pipe System CI Vault I I Depression I I Open Channel 0 Energy Dissapator n Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigation _ I- I Dry Pond I I Wetland 0 Waiver of Eliminated Site Storage 0 Wet Pond I Stream I I Regional Detention Brief Description of System Operation Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation I-1 Additional Sheets Attatched FI PART 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PART 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS (May require special structural review) n Drainage Easement L Cast in Place Vault I I Other n Access Easement I Retaining Wall ► I Native Growth Protection Easement I I Rockery>4'High n Tract 0 Structural on Steep Slope I I Other I .•.ART 14 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attatchments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Signed/Date 1/90 35 ' See Ma E { LAj///, A ':-a-:.-`�:;:x. r...P,tii' . '�:T,r1F•}..Lrl6., 'x[. T � 11.1150 sF T ISF 'a as 'a i r/ >. LL3 .-ga > 1 a IURD , . . •. �dI'".L'.r,tkJae ei'4:"yi:t s�3..,1� �I��jj` .. /' i:t�[.'^fLf.SC:i?' �'V•;,.„'! / M1y SEIIJRD PL SF IURD PL �f> �ST _ ¢ .l` ...l l-7TH� ,,, `„4. 0 r�� t �'.'s? 1;:lo-,,,, +,s.,. -r• 1_e Is," Si , �, .... Q SE1 TH ST WD _ �_ tram x .... -.3Y¢ •,1,.;".•Y,t,4;.aii'i't :St 1'in',':'';x,..'I ., �:C:3Yr��,'Ti.:tO 'E's Sr•tl: SE1 In _ - - , •1 _ 42 .. � f v�]ot.,� .G, ,7,.: r,:;IcMAralE\YUODJ;:;:'?`i':aC:; _ 'R SE 111 TH PL_ wl F.gPSp AS/D 7�E v, : ,p0 n,. ,�t¢:'ita 4ringt y�!r,j; -1.i:Mf,•a. 1 - -- - -- --- -- - - - - ---- - �%,+. E7r3f.,,;a. ,•t::a:�) ,e .+; *.lf , ..g. 'T'w"c$Lls,':;;y% ,h�.l,�L''e:a'<I-: RD 1 p - 1. �-I 6, -�--s i' -0-` _ x /f,• <t' i1K'Agvo*�..FF��••yy .. II :.N:..G:� it fin`4' :;:,-e-.y 'YT: it l., 1 s -wi _ �rr v G. ..1?9k;t: ''9";,sf+�'�- i'f1J♦s h-.,.�',K�� .lr,..A t.. `SS A,!'.Ow\•q. F��116iH Si I� se a IurH. � � [ ,,''. h�,ti . °A" F. Sti:,,.K - �� ®'..,;.1'P4 ':COUR;ai. :1< '.....'' o4' S ,-. l5E _ L erH sr 1 ?r', 5�" a?. .:s• �, yy55 'r h 3, t�il' _ y := I x w Elr { x ..L k, 1;�- �j^.yl+' S" tC;b'n ' t 6tti,..r .i•, �3 _ � 'ii- ="L �.© :`t '+1T'' r i44-A ,•ll`�{,-� ', I::.,;t, tl'1' o�� - - . 2 � •i'`�'..h�._�' ��Q'� ',S�.Fl�h1M1ri 'T 'j ^i%�:r.'��6E Jy�•�T I, .Lb:,t�! I SE raga PL _�"' ,• i -, 14...t'i 'N! r.L CY 1`� 7, f, „�I'.+1 ,` 1:y1^j4�,�i vj�H ¢a • r ,rti',.,• 1• .04.. � .t 5a1°?t; ;\>xL rTP.;; e:;?r 8'''' \ t d:y. .�:n: Q• �L'^tiS`�2r J J ° r SE TO sr. ,^ 1 x 'ii T :.?,' 1, .gf R•g1, 5.:�,Y a' •n1T: 'P r='J ;l' ,�94 !r '?li.:;'' Opf �x6- - t r a+, � ...& .e ?%, ,.` ,1 .c.K':;' 0`i�v`„ •. Fp C_ b X, ,',` c .9:;3s2 ,m,n,,uF'•`�+,p', ,' :1:1„` ..;�,�-�.:x k '1. }J�'„ 6 .rr •.u''. - Pc : a �,n [i''x { ;� ,`ES�,i..`cR'•S .,w• ''sW 1+„ {1� Tikt 3'„ ,.LG �_:i 'i I ,., I v )It'll''..'" i •ice- iO3kg ,» , 'e;;@ s,_- \ 11; •S r ,i ,:V{4� F 4 h R'' E`;�I ��g.` ;� •..In•,u��tt• .,•cl', �. l.''L(,>..:•t,�' :1a..� �'}` y�.R4�b.i>:.Y .._,,g�; 6r. 1�sr El�j�;'+ \� J b f _ :lam 4•^,S'e ;•Y',,•i+f"•':i•a' :�:{;'T. 11, 5.. _ tt �. I OiVL'H��, ':CDAfl/INEfl PARK.• �,'1 ,/ •-;� .1 "c' >_:7'c,' i'tN, �.',A ,C �'•?f, :}9•it�! 2' E A•o :�w O x ;}l' !,� L• c .f"'1 c�•,;r 3i dap '--'s�,,,,��. .i.Y;'•' f 7i. L' 0�' t :( i _ MAP 'YF R to a 0,11. ,N',•.('. i. 1 ra. '4#; .-;"p�°..,C`'i �7,� \;-:. G' fi•'.1•-•n ,-.:0\¢\ r,- LE''?i= i .:k S m - s j`:y •'a- ''"�.. .J •, hl..• G >;1f.4:2,.yi'L , 6y� :,S,Ht-.a;} , I `•,1,''•:gJ'o, .��' I I 22 <IvirrwiF.. R/ER yt 23 I a ..�i-.'_•I '.• ^0�4. -C.'.:IY. '-'1.`' - :,,•11S4iy�b',20 1.: 'y_Y�.Nr �t;M�:z' :\I,.'[. .t. Fq, [�/?!^/.r .1`.!•�: •,.: �&, I '_, - - E 162N ST-__- - G'f EA i �J,` ,p-'AT_ ,,,$i(f4i:2.`Lr>'G;,1-f iF, F..�. 1, I tE.r. _.. �t x�____ __ _--._ -_.._ _ __-.- V _"q- -� 03 �,�'�'.- •'; Syr at 1-lci'Rgq�?G�{THE Cf_�". '• -`3'�„)°. 4� 'ti�\r'j:nd [' '. ``t1=',y-• - 'I al ALLEY. ,�.,.:_ -< op t'y } r • ,(�y,. ., I1C qv l• 4' g m 2 , : •:sr.p4 _ Cn !. �. ,,F'`) .1"`^Ci t w II ITTH L t4•',,o0'T l� .•91'`s •Ir i ;/*:e Ti P - f eE : 1 I �I yr uC:,_ .CEDAR y ,Y • •',RNfR T'• EIYI tt4,•..11 ,4 i CY f r1 $S ASl 1 ,f♦. 57 OE 8¢t I i n 'PARAiy F ^ l P /8 I, T 'Y rTO'" h':r® PACIFIC RR I •..tl,J cf., ✓', a 13^,��'�rt y ♦r ' sE , yl J?� I 4S 1P 4 E,p �, 1,Cl _ . sE� s , i l..• l`••, f.,- ,t.f.t V 4 N :.J. O E 005,..00,ST N.;,,s'• F:042Sy� ;r71 ,-, I S sF I r SF I -• H Y •t`/9.'S 'l,� .{,S . i f• %-h'- Ff�• A'YPAR ':.. :.yam I Pl Na I �a aH��, ri fr: _ -..Yr ..r..Y..;;Xi fy� ?. � yJ +- '.i/,:/ a' 4id 3:, �: .firer -.1 a �y, THS E. 51> , gg N a r� 4 dl., L>o1„D "'.1.,,.-:, .y'I" s 6 tN a I' 2 L7 2 '-••i.l y.> r ill 4a':=,T•A- ,t, .;c, Z,1I R" ai't.. ."P- 2P 9.-' SF N` R ,c. '_'7� IB m } 2'�4Ps tl[,Lf t'F G a: .7�,t t< s x,Ie�'r f'AN ws��': I3' .l s p I h, 6','- [ I Sj• 1 r" ^1 S y4 ; yl'''''. . .'„,Pd , 6d24T 1,; f Fd 0 a`'r1 L�I I�J _i s`16E FAIRW00D = I�TH5r 's , -- :‘‘'N.'ti.G Yy. �, • 1•.hy'%S, Yl4lT1 rat - t0,t'r'� ii SE- my. r 5 ST 1•ens�vi _ �C sE 4.. _- t� fit /_., 4 L 2 - s€160TN 5T GSr •`go a e, I , •T•'T ;�; ',":. k• FG SE 831ST Sr `V d DS ST •yH 1`.R E y - i•-- - r'i 444 �I > .``.,r� SE 1161SI sFl®_a,w„SE 139 .. , ---♦ - I-- } '1�•^��y3 f> V. 51 < ,w SE 1615T PL c•�{ ,. 162ND,�T 16sT a SE 160TH PL F I^h w ,NE 0 I I + :,,( ,n}2 t SE 162ND < ST x,Q a Si y n SE Ills PI.SF 4 N a .90 I 1 • liN'•t4_ '21JR.183�i:a t <•E •HD T x ,:.ND HE+16]4D-Ti.; F <>,>J'L _b SFa w JF 17=P �F•'I6T,D€PL _ .- -._ ____-.---H - r 'S1-' '•::-:.,, '.,,a't9 -- _- _ `,S.E�i 2-` R a,,p��rr o 6 < E I. a T ..-.-+-~.'• 2 e''1`: i_r PA.-SE-164TH--_^_-5T=-SE.161TH .••ST` H P> R R `� <I aE > . 16 I.11]RD EL SE4 5[ i,�• 1.•> 1 -" x o< w�h P SE f•••SE 161iH ST > E S 4D -" Pi I 5_E Is"]RD S� I I I D E '}' 16STH sr 5E 1 (� •L'4 ^ �. a tl,.Jr SE b: 11. `Y .:I.: SiH1i% •... .t i f(J �� '^SE 165r"�ST �=�o, eST.IUTH SE IEBTH ST •'�S.E.FAIQKOOD- `` ▪ �• i `>j"t•.;,:'`•L.'S' " sL SE > >ry'�y- % ST,' S •'- I BLti,! ;'•'''F•.. j149 NNsa I I "..`.-,. ) `}'7,1,sT a 4 Sill s•p166rx PL .P-',6TTH ST ;rG9T a ,r>I 9� �• �r�1 P< j:•!'-•�,' i `>'c,�.;BE 1:-H SE,6ITHST a < ■ , df 8 Q 2 .S HA t♦•• p i Ig,II a1a, A lY r. ,.Y,/.r ,. n Syr. € _ a^ e1674.1 .S E LIHDBERG" SF 1B6TH PL O::.:..•./ ':9`I •r K i S`•` :I':,,,,..6* a SE 167TN s d ! ..L•'' i _ _ =4 t';"' se 167TH ST > 1„I6/TH PL F NS - Q•'." � .,P, F < d x 2 5 \..:•, I D7 :;I 5E mini 5T I Ll M E $k•$NI, ,E I _�3�16611 ST 26 7•Te ♦4.• i 2T '�'.' .. W I SF ,,, w �� 5.169TN ST-- - ,�'• .1.rn, V. ;,y1.ra 1 Sk:_::•l"(` 069TH ST ,ee:..,x , m- M I•r -'•_�,i+`';+«�'3 'n 9 SE 169TH ST�I '-�.1°J,], a > > x�_� SE I69TII PL .;�j:,l SI ��!,6,-e 4 - ;ST !ah` ,,,b,,ti Bi-••-,rz.. o<2. .'rb< h�' LE'r,¢S NTH SE d• r�.l,LR t';• . g SE ITITH ST, f` •'S' • > Q 1 .,RFR10N ''.4,M1 < ,TO1H - N>yEt ''`� -_,r S 4 51T :Inv/ • ' BE 1A 1, Ia I♦♦ ,Pt C F p ."'v R SE. 70TM J .. PARR 'F• SF �',. :;`(F .m'E ,'.::: ..,SE�101N'¢ _ A F. ��ils 174 1.;.�, - ST ♦ . 1 I101H�6T i..:�;a.:.::`,y'.::-.. . '. .. J •,,:!�, 1':..... _ P 'Q, {>4�a'� �Fs Ala _�____ �� £ i.SE 1\S SE.SE. 1ST PL iJpr :. ::.:'.,,I ST f 7 f F'''{.r�':.,• ?` iriLr n o n n .a}. , C J ^ Bt w SS.EI• :IN,e PARK :,: IIB:..�.' :.; ..v:: •..14�5E'15S>F O::.i r„1 ,1 . �..:t'.. y` SE 172ND ST a: F 1 ND ST `♦ �' \7 P,. .,. t�1$ PL SE sE E ..,.',:..,�6TH' h.:t..,P CFi .. o SE 177110 Si", s♦ c� , 'Ye.•:',,.i.♦. •.{�• i .$ 1RN0`♦ST SE 172ND f Ql IST,,. T•I - 11,ST .t 0 5 "'•`', ;:.. Jh,:..''N __ __ i.___ - - tl I ,,,.F,��9•• _ SE so 11^� -- --SE I77RD-PL.x y. 1^i-a_< _ L _ _ N L a _ ,•.901'"•::ti:4,,,'-i�_,..,,:R F.E'..t]JSr,'r. �...E 6E1T9Rf}FrT-K-- 5 i- A W� < ..IiL SEI]ND PL ''F..='S >:�*'r7A' rt.Pl y� ist '.T' SE 1 ITN ST Imo♦ jTjT�� -_ - I^/�, _ nITo_ o :1FA1•R%ORD.▪ 'y •1':'60l'/,.t.1•• ,I.. :` �1 1J, sF• r a5E 175TH vJ�¢ .'l'7•e,:^-,' � yIft , SEL'� et, ^k<SE S nP ois Kos ,Y � ° r ....,.,. ,1,,f011NYNY.CI 1113� q,ia' 1 Sp7.14. �+r/ _.`..�.. 9 p 1.T;�:;; '.,<• OS 176TH sT I Ra 1761d Si TR 4 K.e PL I i,*.In aT .. .. SE • I T SE +�Y.- .. `��.`"•}' { 6w I SE e 7BTe 4a N¢h s.wm ' } Igm 178TN '.!' - •b`.vwi W H y J ISE 0 4 G Ir •.SE:mu PL SE 1 sTH~PL PL a. `. > > I En SE,177TH ST P6 5 ' _ < 51 I T - .. S � > - a 7BS�E TT[1H HO ? •6, 6Au'°p'�. I. .'.' . ; :,' i'.':. [, t 4 I"T I SE p I I .H.t �!T KV i Fs +,a,` 1°a c ,,v,i�ST 0:.m,H s,9:`•'.,.:.,PETROV/TSXY.`=`'•� 1:-:..,;:.,i ISE LATH I9 PL Sj ,ATN ST I C I n> y IATN SF 8 �¢ _'(♦b`C �`C Np $ %::'FAHKT�u.':.r,_T:<. ! SE(BOTH F. I, SE 180TH ST w - ! ST h E' 79IH ST IvIH . i. ,:..< SE 18110TH PL x ,w SW IFL. ISEz 180TH ST SEW' .¢4' N 7 ,:! > SE :IS layJN ii�.5. . ,,,,..`1'.g I L, ........... . • SE IBjSi ST= - I �SI -1 N PLa ¢ Y ,, g : sl R`- ^ T m a SE6eIlIs w �"r Sr , � ,.... .YA in^ I _ >SE 18TNDi' IEE a',R`15TIP2ND SI 4'cEz a T ' '' ` s ' RD ___-- Iw $6LffISE 187ND _ _ -.I_ -._.___-_-" 4 -_.. >I� - • _fx L 5� •51: _ E�`7a' K _ a. •y' } i ` r ri,'•ti:I'' FF2L : rH 1::.o , '�'LEI 6ST a a s�lea sr _.h''la ,rH.rHP1 i 34P�Q 5 rH ST_ _ T l •... ';Y w ^ E 1811 _ r-r-'.;-.. __ PETROVRBRY '.lF• :r,7::�..:., 6E, :•: :Rom:' :: / r 1ti.-. SE 186T"aST _ PL I > I P00LE PARR,', 1 l•`IlfH rn C ) ro.' , 1' .• ' -LIST SE 188TH ST SE,88rH ST r ill e1H S 1B6i >6[I TH l• 1 F9 SE I LANf rryu rN F.. $ aI • 187TH TSE IMITH PL J• T o SE y" > SE :: .FL PAR,t ii F..:45 _ m > Iqp .' L I Q r SE 167TH ST I LoiheI .. 5 :---sr. '.::'-:•:. 0t5♦'SF 'P(s Fl.- a PL a 4'.':'. SE 9l' rN Si Lr n SE 1®TN ST • I I l._._>< , • br.,,_. < & B/r S 666TH ST ?I/caters 1,EAriy) �} �I �J/ ,KIT•. FGF I �� •SEIQHS A♦'s[P HnI xF M 1L SFJBBTHP4 lrQa(Lershe«/{• , SE 190THH w w ---- E"• ;q S.,SE ^r aI S -SE 190TH ST I I 1 /y^ SE 1907H IL iIr i11 I $[)BOTH F:PR..5. a R qg.~' ai �j� 7 rip <IJ I .1-� +.�_. ' 4 I €I FI • uwi I ,1 SE- I91ST tli F1 .-R. _-. .19LN0 Il--_'8 UV 1Y •_.J --_ __..--_ -_.-._.-._.-._...I-� _ p K L_-__ .-_ _ _--_AI"'.-.. -Ft t ^I_ • SE -ST :YTa SE-190HD ST---- -1- p "': Youngs �)7�) ` I \ ` • ' - i R 6y:91°2{o I � 5 .: q I I 11 €. a::s alll . TI F *. _ ..:: XOR71i 5005 < z E�191 H51� 4{,� z'LT PARKS I \` • F• € C. '4::i-:; PAR[ ` .Lake• _ ' '-. _ \' .� s�F I9C7` X'a� tt� �`g4yNr Y „.;: 'i I IMFr SE 196T. ST . N -'I;: S bE 9 sea :a °ei^> < 6 • > ` ` . .:'.: 1 fi N Q SE TN ILr x�i ,I61x Ya ', 6 e 6 vw ST/n =E 191TH PL ' ...�. 11 tF h.rI, ISi'6gIT'6L eal FL Hai a W HN Kl� �E 196TH STY SEI T STSe" _F Q' �'�, I •Yo�cngs _ 'III 1® 5 PAN HER SE 1981 L 5 f.,98 5T I • v' 's ♦,,.SE W HST • ISE 200T. ST 5EST„g ~? • jH:!D BT I S1STr,3 E!� 1 F - See Map 49 -- I PROJECT NO. 9122+1 0 C t S ENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT NAME C .r k es- Rer51'O+QI jJ- Pacific Park 2 1412•112th Ave.NE,Suite 102 PAGE NO. b OF Bellevue,WA 98004-3760 Tel: (2063 455.7622 MADE BY �✓L DATE ��r�7 CHECKED BY DATE `.=7 ()se- ITT©n <o:1 C .o4 ,1 - 64-4R.A.W. _ iz�11 Irk skv rtc+��1a'✓;tb. Wes; claly clay coi`k )o-{Sts- . P�= 2.0" Pis.3+Lf" Pic' 2 3" PicC= i" S = 0000/CA)) —(o (,oco/git) 10 — 4. 20 i 1 Poi= (PR -0.;.2 ) kPk 40.64) 6?,c) -(9,2(0.2040)21(2,0-to,g(0-20‘11)) 622= =3. 11' _ [sr 3eog t-=-) c) t �ual r� '= act( - parckr So-' ©,cot f or le- (F44 3.S.,2c) \oh 1 r` 3,01 m!n I 8+09 M+!, . � Cedar River Regional Park 2-Year24'Hour Storm Calculated by: OL 4/0/97 CTS Engineers (Job#Q722. O) _ Chaokod by:- L000Uon: | | _Cedar River Regional Park Renton, Washington Soil Classification Type: Renton (G[pup D) Londuoa Recreational Impervious Surface Gudaoe Acnye� 1�8 �N U = -A S8 � ------- ----'--- ^-- -- - - � U -1�-- --- '--- —'----'� S = 0.20 S=10O0��N4O � O.2S = O�O4 _--_. 0.8S = - -- --- -- K-- - Pervious Surface: Lawn Acres: O - - - U- CN = 74 S = 3�51 S=1OOU/CN-1U ------` - ---' - -- ---- ----------- - 02S = 07O �� 0i88 = 2.81 SubboninA . TotalAcreo 18 | -- - -------- ---- -�-- Design Storm: P (inches) 2 -- T- '-- ------- Time |nbama|: 10 | -- / U- --' -- --' -�Time of ofConoentnaUon: 8�UQ � | ' ' ------ ---�-- ---'- ------- vv= dt/(2°Tc+dU = _ 0.382_ - -'-- -'---- ------ pA97oc'1O\noxRumoFru.XLG\2*eo,24-Hov,Storm Page 1m7 Phnted4e9/97 ata:ouPm Cedar River Regional Park 2-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers-(Job-#9722.1-0) Checked by: . Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] L [11] [12] [13] - • Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 0 0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 10 0.40 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 20 0.40 0.008 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 30 0.40 0.008 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 40 0.40 0.008 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 50 0.40 0.008 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 60 0.40 0.008 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.54 7 70 0.40 0.008 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.00 2.46 8 80 0.40 0.008 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.01 5.29 9 90 0.40 0.008 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.02 0.01 8.08 10 100 0.40 0.008 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.02 0.02 10.66 11 110 0.50 0.010 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.03 0.02 14.54 12 120 0.50 0.010 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.004 0.004 0.04 0.03 18.95 13 130 0.50 0.010 0.110 0.000 0.000 . 0.018 0.004 0.004 0.04 0.04 22.14 14 140 0.50 0.010 0.120 • 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.005 0.005 0.04 0.04 24.82 15 150 0.50 0.010 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.005 0.005 0.05 0.05 27.17 16 160 0.50 0.010 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.005 0.005 0.05 0.05 29.27 17 170 0.60 0.012 0.152 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.007 0.007 0.07 0.06 33.73 18 180 0.60 0.012 0.164 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.007 0.007 0.07 0.06 38.86 19 190 0.60 . 0.012 0.176 _ 0.000 0.000 0.054 0.007 0.007 0.07 0.07 41.68 20 200 0.60 0.012 0.188 0.000 0.000 0.062 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.07 43.79 21 210 0.60 0.012 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.59 22 220 0.60 0.012 0.212 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 47.18 23 230 0.70 0.014 0.226 0.000 0.000 0.088 0.010_ 0.010 0.10 0.09 51.83 _ 24 240 0.70 0.014 0.240 0.000 0.000 0.098 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.26 25 250 0.70 0.014 0.254 0.000 0.000 0.109 0.011 0.011 0.10 0.10 59.71 26 260 0.70 _ 0.014 0.268 0.000 0.000 0.120 0.011 0.011 0.10 0.10 61.34 27 270 0.70 0.014 0.282 0.000 0.000 0.131 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.10 62.67 28 280 0.70 0.014 0.296 0.000 0.000 0.142 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 63.85 29 290 0.82 0.016 0.312 0.000 0.000 . 0.155 _ 0.013 0.013 0.13 0.12 69.25 30 300 0.82 0.016, 0.329 0.000 0.000 0.169 0.013 0.013 0.13 0.13 75.70 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\2-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 2 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:33 PM Cedar River Regional Park 2-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722._10) - - Checked by: _ _ ._ Time Rainfall 1 Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] - [9] - [10] [11] ---[12] [13] - Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated . mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. _ Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches ; inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 31 310 0.82 0.016 0.345 0.000 0.000 0.182 0.014 _0.014 0.13 0.13 78.11 32 • 320 0.82 0.016 0.362 0.000 0.000 0.196 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 79.47 33 330 0.82 0.016 0.378 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.014 0.014_ 0.14 0.13 80.51 34 340 0.82 0.016 0.394 0.000 0.000 0.224 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 81.42 35 350 0.95 0.019 0.413 0.000 0.000 0.241 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.15 87.27 36 360 0.95 0.019 0.432 0.000 0.000 0.257 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 94.33 37 370 0.95 0.019 0.451 0.000 0.000 0.274 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 96.67 38 380 0.95 0.019 0.470 0.000 0.000 0.291 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 97.82 39 390 0.95 0.019 0.489 _ 0.000 0.000 0.308 0.017 _ 0.017 0.17 0.16 98.64 40 400 0.95 0.019 0.508 0.000 0.000 0.326 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.34 41 410 1.33 0.027 0.535 0.000 0.000 0.350 0.024 0.024 0.23 0.19 115.37 42 420 1.33 0.027 0.562 0.000 0.000 0.374 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.23 135.16 43 430 1.33 0.027 0.588 0.000 0.000 0.399 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.23 140.56 44 440 1.80 0.036 0.624 0.000 0.000 0.432 0.033 0.033 0.32 0.27 161.92 45 450 1.80 0.036 0.660 0.000 0.000 0.466 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.31 187.20 46 460 3.40 0.068 0.728 0.000 0.000 0.530 0.064 0.064 0.62 0.44 261.22 47 470 5.40 0.108 0.836 0.005 0.005 0.633 0.103 0.103 1.00 0.72 432.36 48 480 2.70 0.054 0.890 0.009 0.005 0.685 0.052 0.052 0.50 0.74 445.52 49 490 1.80 0.036 0.926 0.013 0.004 0.720 0.035 0.035_ 0.34 0.50 297.19 • 50 500 1.34 0.027 0.953 0.017 0.003 0.745 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.34 204.54 51 510 1.34 0.027 0.980 0.020 0.004 0.771 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.27 163.22 52 520 1.34 0.027 1.007 0.024 0.004 0.797 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.26 153.65 53 530 0.88 0.018 1.024 0.027 0.003 0.814 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.22 131.75 54 540 0.88 0.018 1.042 0.030 0.003 0.831 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.18 106.88 55 550 0.88 0.018 1.059 0.033 0.003 0.849 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 101.08 56 560 0.88 0.018 1.077 0.036 0.003 0.866 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.78 57 570 0.88 0.018 1.095 0.039 0.003 0.883 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.53 58 580 0.88 0.018 1.112 0.043 0.003 0.900 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.53 59 590 0.88 0.018 1.130 0.046 0.004 0.917 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.59 ----------- ---- ---- ----------- - - - ------------ --------- - --- 60 600 0.88 0.018 1.147 0.050 0.004 0.934 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.65 61 610 0.88 0.018 1.165 0.054 0.004 0.951 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.72 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS12-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 3 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:33 PM Cedar River Regional Park 2-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 __ _____C-T_S_Engineers (Job_#9722.10)) _ _____Checked by: Time I Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] _ [1 3] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph _ Volume # min. % of Pt inches , inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 62 _ 620 0.88 0.018 1.183 0.058 0.004 0.969 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.79 63 630 0.88 0.018 1.200 0.062 0.004 0.986 0.017 _0.017 0.17 0.17 99.85 64 640 0.88 0.018 1.218 0.066 0.004 1.003 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.91 65 650 0.72 0.014 1.232 0.069 0.003 1.017 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.16 93.02 66 660 0.72 0.014 1.247 0.073 0.004 1.031 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 84.48 67 670 0.72 0.014 1.261 0.077 0.004 1.045 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 82.50 68 680 0.72 0.014 1.275 0.080 0.004 1.059 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 82.05 69 690 0.72 0.014 1.290 0.084 0.004 1.074 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 81.98 70 700 0.72 0.014 1.304 0.088 0.004 1.088 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 81.98 71 _ 710 0.72 -_ 0.014 1.319 0.092 0.004 1.102 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 82.01 72 720 0.72 0.014 1.333 0.096 0.004 1.116 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 82.04 73 730 0.72 0.014 1.347 0.100 0.004 1.130 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 82.07 74 740 0.72 0.014 1.362 0.104 0.004 1.144 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 82.10 75 750 0.72 0.014 1.376 0.108 0.004 1.158 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 82.13 76 760 0.72 0.014 1.391 0.113 0.004 1.173 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 82.16 77 770 0.57 0.011 1.402 0.116 0.003 1.184 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.13 75.64 78 780 0.57 0.011 1.413 0.120 0.003 1.195 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 67.58 79 790 0.57 0.011 1.425 _ 0.123 0.004 1.206 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.69 80 800 0.57 0.011 1.436 0.127 0.004 1.217 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.25 81 810 0.57 0.011 1.448 0.130 0.004 1.229 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.16 82 820 0.57 0.011 1.459 0.134 0.004 1.240 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.15 83 830 0.57 0.011 1.470 0.138 0.004 1.251 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.16 84 840 0.57 0.011 1.482 0.141 0.004 1.262 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.17 85 850 0.57 0.011 1.493 0.145 0.004 1.273 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.19 86 860 0.57 0.011 1.505 0.149 0.004 1.285 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.20 87 870 0.57 0.011 1.516 0.153 0.004 1.296 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.22 88 880 0.57 0.011 1.527 0.157 0.004 1.307 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 65.23 89 890 0.50 _ 0.010 1.537 0.160 0.003 1.317 0.010 0.010 _ 0.10 0.10 62.18 90 900 0.50 0.010 1.547 0.164 0.003 1.327 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 58.41 91 910 0.50 0.010 1.557 0.167 0.004 1.337 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.53 92 920 0.50 0.010 1.567 0.171 0.004 1.347 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.33 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\2-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 4 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:33 PM Cedar River Regional Park •2-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Time Rainfall 1 Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] • Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches 1 inches inches inches inches inches inches 1 cfs cfs cu. ft. 93 930 0.50 0.010 1.577 0.174 0.004 1.356 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.28 94 940 0.50 0.010 1.587 0.178 0.004 1.366 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.28 _ 95 950 0.50 0.010 1.597 0.182 0.004 1.376 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.29 96 960 0.50 0.010 1.607 0.185 0.004 1.386 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.30 _ 97 970 0.50 0.010 1.617 0.189 0.004 1.396 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.31 98 980 0.50 0.010 1.627 0.193 0.004 1.406 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.31 99 990 0.50 0.010 1.637 0.196 0.004 1.416 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.32 100 1000 0.50 0.010 1.647 0.200 0.004 1.426 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.10 57.33 101 1010 0.40 0.008 1.655 0.203 0.003 1.433 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.09 52.96 102 1020 0.40 0.008 1.663 0.206 0.003 1.441 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 47.55 103 1030 0.40 0.008 1.671 0.209 0.003 1.449 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.28 104 1040 0.40 0.008 1.679 0.212 0.003 1.457 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.98 - ------ --- ---- - ----- ---- -------- 105 1050 0.40 0.008 1.687 0.216 0.003 1.465 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.91 106 1060 0.40 0.008 1.695 0.219 0.003 1.473 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.90 107 1070 0.40 0.008 1.703 0.222 0.003 1.481 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.90 108 1080 0.40 0.008 1.711 0.225 0.003 1..489 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.91 109 1090 0.40 _ 0.008 1.719 0.228 0.003 1.497 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.91 110 1100 0.40 0.008 1.727 0.231 0.003 1.505 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.92 111 1110 0.40 0.008 1.735 0.235 0.003 1.512 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.92 112 1120 0.40 0.008 1.743 0.238 0.003 1.520 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.93 113 1130 0.40 __ 0.008 1.751 0.241 0.003 1.528 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.93 114 1140 0.40 0.008 1.759 0.244 0.003 1.536 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.93 115 1150 0.40 0.008 1.767 0.248 0.003 1.544 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.94 116 1160 0.40 0.008 1.775 0.251 0.003 1.552 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.94 117 1170 0.40 0.008 1.783 0.254 0.003 1.560 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.95 118 1180 0.40 0.008 1.791 0.258 0.003 1.568 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.95 119 1190 0.40 0.008 1.799 0.261 0.003 1.576 0.008 0.008 0.08_ 0.08 45.96 120 1200 0.40 0.008 1.807 0.264 0.003 1.584 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 ' 45.96 121 1210 0.40 0.008 1.815 0.268 0.003 1.592 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.96 122 1220 0.40 0.008 1.823 _ _ 0.271 0.003 1.599 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.97 123 1230 0.40 0.008 1.831 0.274 0.003 1.607 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.97 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\2-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 5 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:33 PM Cedar River Regional Park 2-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Time Rainfall I Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] • Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches _ inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 124 1240 0.40 0.008 1.839 0.278 0.003 1.615 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.98 _ 125 1250 0.40 0.008 1.847 0.281 0.003 1.623 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.98 126 _ 1260 0.40 0.008 1.855 0.285 0.003 1.631 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.98 127 1270 0.40 0.0081 1.863 0.288 0.003 1.639 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.99 128 1280 0.40 0.0081 1.871 0.292 0.003 1.647 0.008 0.008 • 0.08 0.08 45.99 129 1290 0.40 0.008 1.879 0.295 0.004 1.655 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.00 130 1300 0.40 0.008 1.887 0.299 0.004 1.663 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.00 131 1310 0.40 0.008 1.895 0.302 0.004 1.671 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.00 _ 132 1320 0.40 0.008 1.903 0.306 0.004 1.679 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 _ 46.01 133 1330 0.40 0.008 1.911 0.309 0.004 1.687 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.01 134 1340 0.40 0.008 1.919 0.313 0.004 1.695 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.01 135 1350 0.40 0.008 1.927 0.317 0.004 1.702 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.02 136 1360 0.40 0.008 1.935 0.320 0.004 1.710 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.02 137 1370 0.40 0.008 1.943 0.324 0.004 1.718 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.02 138 1380 0.40 0.008 1.951 0.327 0.004 1.726 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.03 139 1390 0.40 0.008 1.959 0.331 0.004 1.734 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.03 140 1400 0.40 0.008 1.967 0.335 0.004 1.742 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.03 141 1410 0.40 0.008 1.975 0.338 0.004 1.750 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.04 142 1420 0.40 0.008 1.983 0.342 0.004 1.758 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.04 143 1430 0.40 0.008 1.991 0.346 0.004 1.766 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.04 144 1440 0.40 0.008 1.999 0.350 0.004 1.774 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 46.05 145 1450 0.00 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.05 28.46 146 1460 0.00 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 6.72 147 1470 0.00 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 1.59 148 1480 0.00 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.37 149 1490 0.00 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.09 150 1500 0.00 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.02 151 1510 0.00 . 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 152 1520 0.00 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 153 1530 0.00 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 154 1540 0.00 0.000 1.999 0.350 0.000 1.774 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\2-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 6 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:33 PM 1 Cedar River Regional Park 2-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: - Time Rainfall Pervious Area _ Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs _ Volume Ill [2] [3] [4] — [5] [6] [7] [8] [91 [10] [1 1] [12] [13] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph _ Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. I I I ( I 1 I 1 1 1 10302.00 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\2-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 7 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:33 PM - Calculated b : DL 4/9/97 Cedar River Regional Park 10 Year 24-Hour Storm y CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) _ Checked by: Location: Cedar River Regional Park, Renton, Washington _ _ Soil Classification Type: Renton (Group D) _ Land use: Recreational Impervious Surface Acres: 1.6 1 _ CN = 98 S = 0.20 S=1000/CN-10 0.2S = 0.04 0.8S = 0.16 Pervious Surface: Lawn Acres: i I0 CN = 74 S = 3.51 S=1000/CN-10 0.2S = i 0.70 0.8S = 1 _ 2.81 Subbasin A Total Acres: 1.6 Design Storm: P (inches) _ 2.9 1 ! Time Interval: ; - 10 Time of Concentration: 8.09 w= dt/(2*Tc+dt) _ i — — — 0.382 — -- - i P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\10-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 1 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 10-Year24-Hourby: DL 4/9/97 ,g Storm Calculated CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [1 0] [11] [1 2] [1 3] _ • Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 0 0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 10 0.40 0.012 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 20 0.40 0.012 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 30 0.40 0.012 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 40 0.40 0.012 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.33 5 50 0.40 0.012 0.058 0.000__ 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.01 3.04 6 60 0.40 0.012 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.02 0.01 8.28 7 70 0.40 0.012 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.003 0.003 0.03 0.02 13.79 8 80 0.40 0.012 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.004 0.004 0.04 0.03 18.78 9 90 0.40 0.012 0.104 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.04 0.04 23.14 10 100 0.40 0.012 0.116 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.005 0.005 0.05 0.04 26.95 11 110 0.50 0.015 0.131 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.007 0.007 0.07 0.06 33.60 12 120 0.50 0.015 0.145 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.07 41.14 13 130 0.50 0.015 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.08 45.79 14 140 0.50 0.015 0.174 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.009 0.009 0.09 0.08 49.37 15 150 0.50 0.015 0.189 0.000 0.000 0.062 0.009 0.009 0.09 0.09 52.39 16 160 0.50 0.015 0.203 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.010 0.010 0.09 0.09 55.01 17 170 0.60 0.017 0.220 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.012 0.012 0.12 0.10 61.92 18 __ 180 0.60 0.017 0.238 0.000 0.000 0.097 0.013 0.013 0.12 0.12 69.93 19 190 0.60 0.017 0.255 0.000 0.000 0.110 0.013 0.013 0.13 0.12 73.68 20 200 0.60 0.017 0.273 0.000 0.000 0.123 0.013 0.013 0.13 0.13 76.20 21 210 0.60 0.017 0.290 0.000 0.000 0.137 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.24 22 220 0.60 0.017 0.307 0.000 0.000 0.151 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.13 80.00 23 230 0.70 . 0.020 0.328 0.000 0.000 0.168 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.14 86.87 24 240 0.70 0.020 0.348 0.000 0.000 0.185 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 94.99 25 250 0.70 0.020 0.368 0.000 0.000 0.202 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.16 98.12 26 260 0.70 0.020 0.389 0.000 0.000 0.219 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.17 99.94 27 270 0.70 0.020 0.409 0.000 0.000 0.237 0.018 0.018 0.17 0.17 101.33 28 280 0.70 0.020 0.429 0.000 0.000 0.255 0.018 0.018 0.17 0.17 102.52 29 290 0.82 0.024 0.453 0.000 0.000 0.276 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.18 110.44 30i 300 0.82 0.024 0.477 0.000 0.000 0.297 0.021 0.021 0.21 0.20 119.99 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\10-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 2 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 10-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] __ [13] . Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant. No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume_ # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 31 310 0.82 0.024 0.501 0.000 0.000 0.318 0.021 0.021 0.21 0.21 123.09 32 320 0.82 0.024 0.524 0.000 0.000 0.340 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 124.58 33 330 0.82 0.024 0.548 0.000 0.000 0.362 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 125.61 34 340 0.82 _ 0.024 0.572 0.000 0.000 0.384 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 126.47 35 350 0.95 0.028 0.599 0.000 0.000 0.409 0.026 0.026 ' 0.25 0.22 134.99 36 360 0.95 0.028 0.627 0.000 0.000 0.435 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.24 145.34 37 370 0.95 0.028 0.655 0.000 0.000 0.461 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.25 148.38 38 380 0.95 0.028 0.682 0.000 0.000 0.486 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.25 149.64 39 390 0.95 0.028 0.710 0.000 0.000 0.512 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.25 150.43 40 400 0.95 0.028 0.737 0.000 0.000 0.539 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.25 151.06 41 410 1.33 0.039 0.776 0.001 0.001 0.575 0.037 0.037 0.35 0.29 174.89 42 420 1.33 0.039 0.814 0.003 0.002 0.612 0.037 0.037 0.36 0.34 204.32 43 430 1.33 0.039 0.853 0.006 0.003 0.649 0.037 0.037 0.36 0.35 211.90 44 440 1.80 0.052 0.905 0.011 0.005 0.699 0.050 0.050 0.49 0.41 243.36 45 450 1.80 0.052 0.957 0.017 0.006 0.750 0.050 0.050 0.49 0.47 280.59 46 460 3.40 0.099 1.056 0.032 0.015 0.845 0.096 0.096 0.93 0.65 390.08 47 470 5.40 0.157 1.212 0.065 0.032 0.998 0.153 0.153 1.48 1.07 642.94 48 480 2.70 0.078 1.291 0.084 0.020 1.075 0.077 0.077 0.74 1.10 660.65 49 490 . 1.80 0.052 1.343 0.099 0.014 _ 1.126 0.051 0.051 0.50 0.73 439.65 50 500 1.34 _ 0.039 1.382 0.110 0.011 1.164 0.038 0.038 0.37 0.50 302.05 51 510 1.34 0.039 1.421 0.122 0.012 1.202 0.038 0.038 0.37 0.40 240.71 52 520 1.34 0.039 1.460 0.134 0.012 1.240 0.038 0.038 0.37 0.38 226.38 53 530 0.88 0.026 1.485 0.142 0.008 1.265 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.32 193.99 54 540 0.88 0.026 1.511 0.151 0.009 1.291 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.26 157.29 55 550 0.88 0.026 1.536 0.160 0.009 1.316 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.25 148.68 56 560 0.88 0.026 1.562 0.169 0.009 1.341 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 146.69 57 570 0.88 0.026 1.587 0.178 0.009 1.366 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 146.27 58 580 0.88 0.026 1.613 0.187 0.009 1.391 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 146.22 59 590 0.88 0.026 1.638 0.197 0.010 1.416 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 146.25 60 600 0.88 0.026 1.664 0.206 0.010 1.442 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 146.30 61 610 0.88 0.026 1.689 0.216 0.010 1.467 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 146.35 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\10-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 3 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 10-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) _ _ - _ Checked_by._ Time Rainfall I Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [1 1] [12] [1 3] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 62 620 0.88 0.026 1.715 0.226 0.010 1.492 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 146.41 63 630 0.88 0.026 1.740 0.237 0.010 1.517 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 146.45 64 640 0.88 0.026 1.766 0.247 0.010 1.543 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 146.50 65 650 0.72 0.021 1.787 0.256 0.009 1.563 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.23 136.37 66 660 0.72 0.021 1.808 0.264 0.009 1.584 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.21 123.82 67 670 0.72 0.021 1.828 0.273 0.009 1.604 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.88 68 680 0.72 0.021 1.849 0.282 0.009 1.625 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.21 69 690 0.72 0.021 1.870 0.291 0.009 1.646 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.07 70 700 0.72 0.021 1.891 0.300 0.009 1.666 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.05 71 _ 710 0.72 0.021 1.912 0.310 0.009 1.687 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.07 72 720 0.72 0.021 1.933 0.319 0.009 1.708 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.09 73 730 0.72 0.021 1.954 0.328 0.009 1.729 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.11 74 740 0.72 0.021 1.975 0.338 0.010 1.749 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.14 75 750 0.72 0.021 1.995 0.348 0.010 1.770 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.16 76 760 0.72 0.021 2.016 0.358 0.010 1.791 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 120.18 77 770 0.57 0.017 2.033 0.365 0.008 1.807 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.18 110.63 78 780 0.57 0.017 2.049 0.373 0.008 1.823 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 98.83 79 790 0.57 0.017 2.066 0.381 0.008 1.840 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 96.05 80 800 0.57 0.017 2.082 0.389 0.008 1.856 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 95.40 81 810 0.57 0.017 2.099 0.397 0.008 1.873 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 95.26 82 820 0.57 0.017 2.116 0.405 0.008 1.889 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 95.23 83 830 0.57 0.017 2.132 0.413 0.008 1.905 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 95.24 84 _ 840 0.57 0.017 2.149 0.422 0.008 1.922 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 95.24 85 850 0.57 0.017 2.165 0.430 0.008 1.938 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 95.25 86 860 0.57 0.017 2.182 0.438 0.008 1.955 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 95.27 87 870 0.57 0.017 2.198 0.446 0.008 1.971 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 95.28 88 880 0.57 0.017 2.215 0.455 0.008 1.987 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.16 95.29 89 890 0.50 0.015 2.229 0.462 0.007 _ 2.002 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.15 90.83 90 900 0.50 0.015 2.244 0.470 0.007 2.016 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 85.31 91 910 0.50 0.015 2.258 0.477 0.008 2.031 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 84.01 92 920 0.50 0.015 2.273 0.485 0.008 2.045 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 83.71 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\10-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 4 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 10-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [71 [8] [91 [10] [11] -[12] [13] . Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff __graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 93 930 0.50 0.015 2.287 0.492 0.008 2.059 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 83.65 94 940 0.50 0.015 2.302 0.500 0.008 2.074 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 83.64 95 950 0.50 0.015 2.316 0.508 0.008 2.088 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 83.64 96 960 0.50 0.015 2.331 0.516 0.008 2.103 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 83.64 97 970 0.50 0.015 2.345 0.523 0.008 2.117 0.014 0.014 • 0.14 0.14 83.65 98 980 _ 0.50 0.015 2.360 0.531 0.008 2.131 0.014 0.014 _ 0.14 0.14 83.66 99 990 0.50 0.015 2.374 0.539 0.008 2.146 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 83.66 100 1000 0.50 0.015 2.389 0.547 0.008 2.160 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.14 83.67 101 1010 0.40 0.012 2.400 0.553 0.006 2.172 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.13 _ 77.28 102 1020 0.40 0.012 2.412 0.559 0.006 2.183 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.12 69.39 103 1030 0.40 _ 0.012 2.424 0.566 0.006 2.195 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.52 104 1040 0.40 0.012 2.435 0.572 0.006 2.206 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.09 105 1050 0.40 0.012 2.447 0.579 0.006 2.218 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.99 106 1060 0.40 0.012 2.458 0.585 0.006 2.229 _ 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.97 107 1070 0.40 0.012 2.470 0.591 0.006 2.241 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.97 108 1080 0.40 0.012 2.482 0.598 0.006 2.252 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.97 109 1090 0.40 0.012 2.493 0.604 0.006 2.264 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.97 110 1100 0.40 0.012 2.505 0.611 0.007 2.275 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.97 111 1110 0.40 0.012 2.516 0.617 0.007 2.287 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.98 112 1120 0.40 0.012 2.528 0.624 0.007 2.299 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.98 113 . 1130 0.40 0.012 2.540 0.631 0.007 2.310 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.98 114 1140 0.40 0.012 2.551 0.637 0.007 2.322 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.99 115 1150 0.40 0.012 2.563 0.644 0.007 2.333 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.99 116 1160 0.40 0.012 2.574 0.650 0.007 2.345 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 66.99 117 1170 0.40 0.012 2.586 0.657 0.007 2.356 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.00 118 1180 0.40 0.012 2.598 0.664 0.007 2.368 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.00 119 1190 0.40 0.012 2.609 0.671 0.007 2.379 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.00 120 1200 0.40 0.012 2.621 0.677 0.007 2.391 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.01 121 1210 0.40 0.012 2.632 0.684 0.007 2.402 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.01 122 1220 0.40 0.012 2.644 0.691 0.007 2.414 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.01 123 1230 0.40 0.012 2.656 0.698 0.007 2.425 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.02 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\10-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 5 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM 1 Cedar River Regional Park 10-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 _ CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) _ Checked by:_ . _ Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [511 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated fated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 124 1240 0.40 0.012 2.667 0.704 0.007 2.437 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.02 125 1250 0.40 0.012 2.679 0.711 0.007 2.448 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.02 126 1260 0.40 0.012 2.690 0.718 0.007 2.460 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.02 127 1270 0.40 0.012 2.702 0.725 0.007 2.472 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.03 128 1280 0.40 0.012 2.714 0.732 0.007 2.483 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.03 129 1290 0.40 0.012 2.725 0.739 0.007 2.495 0:012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.03 130 1300 0.40 0.012 2.737 0.746 0.007 2.506 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.04 131 1310 0.40 0.012 2.748 0.753 0.007 2.518 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.04 132 1320 0.40 0.012 2.760 0.760 0.007 2.529 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.04 133 1330 0.40 0.012 2.772 0.767 0.007 2.541 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.04 134 1340 0.40 0.012 2.783 0.774 0.007 2.552 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.05 135 1350 0.40 0.012 2.795 0.781 0.007 2.564 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.05 136 1360 0.40 0.012 2.806 0.788 0.007 2.575 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.05 137 1370 0.40 0.012 2.818 0.795 0.007 2.587 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.05 138 1380 0.40 0.012 2.830 0.802 0.007 2.599 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.06 139 1390 0.40 0.012 2.841 0.809 0.007 2.610 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.06 140 1400 0.40 0.012 2.853 0.816 0.007 2.622 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.06 141 1410 0.40 0.012 2.864 0.823 0.007 2.633 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.06 142 1420 0.40 0.012 2.876 0.831 0.007 2.645 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.07 143 1430 0.40 0.012 2.888 0.838 0.007 2.656 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 . 67.07 144 1440 0.40 0.012 2.899 0.845 0.007 2.668 0.012 0.012 0.11 0.11 67.07 145 1450 0.00 0.000 2.899 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.07 _ 41.45 146 1460 0.00 0.000 2.899 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.02 9.79 147 1470 0.00 0.000 2.899 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 2.31 148 1480 0.00 0.000 2.899 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.55 149 1490 0.00 0.000 2.899 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 _ 0.13 150 1500 0.00 0.000 2.899 _ 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.03 151 1510 0.00 0.000 2.899 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 _ 0.00 0.00 0.01 152 1520 0.00 0.000 2.899 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 153 1530 0.00 0.000 2.899 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 154 1540 0.00 0.000 2.899 0.845 0.000 2.668 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\10-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 6 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM I Cedar River Regional Park 10-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) _ Checked-by: . Time Rainfall 1 Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume _ [1] [2] - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] • Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff _Runoff graph_ graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. I I 1 I I 15494.77 • P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\10-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 7 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 25-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Location: L Cedar River Regional Park, Renton, Washington Soil Classification Type: Renton (Group D) Land use: Recreational Impervious Surface Acres: 11.6 CN = 98 S = 0.20 S=1000/CN-10 0.2S = 0.04 0.8S = 0.16 Pervious Surface: Lawn Acres: 0 CN = 74 S = 3.51 S=1000/CN-10 0.2S = 0.70 0.8S = 2.81 Subbasin A Total Acres: 1.6 Design Storm: P (inches) = 1 Time Interval: 10 Time of Concentration: 8.09 w= dt/(2*Tc+dt) = 0.382 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLSQ5-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 1 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 25-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: , -- Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] - - [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [1 1] [12] [13] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall - Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 0 0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 10 0.40 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 20 0.40 0.014 0.027 _ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 30 0.40 0.014 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 40 0.40 0.014 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.00 1.88 5 50 0.40 0.014 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.02 0.01 7.53 6 60 0.40 0.014 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.004 0.004 0.03 0.02 14.97 7 70 0.40 0.014 0.095 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.05 0.04 21.83 8 80 0.40 0.014 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.006 0.006 0.05 0.05 27.77 ---------- --- -------------- ------- ------- 9 90 0.40 0.014 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.006 0.006 0.06 0.05 32.86 10 100 0.40 0.014 0.136 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.007 0.007 0.07 0.06 37.23 11 110 0.50 0.017 0.153 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.010 0.010 0.09 0.08 45.38 12 120 0.50 0.017 0.170 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.09 54.64 13 130 0.50 0.017 0.187 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.10 59.97 14 140 0.50 0.017 0.204 0.000 0.000 0.073 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.11 63.92 15 150 0.50 0.017 0.221 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.012 0.012 0.12 0.11 67.18 16 160 0.50 0.017 0.238 0.000 0.000 0.097 0.012 0.012 0.12 0.12 69.97 17 170 0.60 0.020 0.258 0.000 0.000 0.112 0.015 0.015 0.15 0.13 78.16 18 180 0.60 0.020 0.279 0.000 0.000 0.128 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 87.71 19 190 0.60 1 0.020 0.299 0.000 0.000 0.144 0.016 0.016 0.16 0.15 91.89 20 200 0.60 _ 0.020 0.320 0.000 0.000 0.161 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 94.54 21 210 0.60 0.020 0.340 0.000 0.000 0.178 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 96.63 22 220 0.60 0.020 0.360 0.000 0.000 0.195 0.017 0.017 0.17 0.16 98.42 23 230 0.70 0.024 0.384 0.000 0.000 0.215 0.020 0.020 0.20 0.18 106.47 24 240 0.70 0.024 0.408 0.000 0.000 0.236 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.19 116.03 25 250 0.70 0.024 0.432 0.000 0.000 0.257 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 119.49 26 260 0.70 0.024 0.456 0.000 0.000 0.278 0.021 0.021 0.20 0.20 121.37 27 270 0.70 0.024 0.479 0.000 0.000 0.299 0.021 0.021 0.21 0.20 122.75 28 280 0.70 0.024 0.503 0.000 0.000 0.321 0.021 0.021 0.21 0.21 123.91 29 290 0.82 0.028 0.531 0.000 0.000 _0.346 0.025 0.025 0.25 0.22 133.20 30 300 0.82 0.028 0.559 0.000 0.000 0.372 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.24 144.44 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\25-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 2 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 25-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] - - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Incre- Accum Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff _ graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 31 310 0.82 0.028 0.587 0.000 0.000 _ 0.397 0.026 0.026 0.25 0.25 147.91 32 320 0.82 0.028 0.615 0.000 0.000 0.423 0.026 0.026 S 0.25 149.45 33 330 0.82 0.028 0.643 0.000 0.000 0.449 0.026 0.026 I 0.25 150.46 34 340 0.82 0.028 0.670 0.000 0.000 0.476 0.026 0.026 I 0.25 151.28 35 350 0.95 0.032 0.703 0.000 0.000 0.506 0.030 0.030 s • 0.27 161.25 36 360 0.95 0.032 0.735 0.000 0.000 0.537 0.031 0.031 0.30 0.29 173.41 37 370 0.95 0.032 0.767 0.001 0.001 0.567 0.031 0.031 0.30 0.29 176.84 38 _ 380 0.95 0.032 0.800 0.003 0.001 0.598 0.031 0.031 • • 0.30 178.16 39 390 0.95 0.032 0.832 0.005 0.002 0.629 0.031 0.031 _ 0.30 0.30 178.93 40 400 0.95 0.032 0.864 0.007 0.003 0.660 0.031 0.031 0.30 0.30 179.52 41 410 1.33 0.045 0.910 0.011 0.004 0.703 0.044 0.044 0.42 0.35 207.65 42 420 1.33 0.045 0.955 0.017 0.005 0.747 0.044 0.044 0.42 0.40 242.38 43 430 1.33 0.045 1.000 0.023 0.006 0.791 0.044 0.044 0.42 0.42 251.16 44 440 1.80 0.061 1.061 0.033 0.010 0.850 0.059 0.059 0.58 _ 0.48 288.20 45 450 1.80 0.061 1.122 0.045 0.012 0.910 0.060 0.060 0.58 0.55 332.01 46 _ 460 3.40 0.116 1.238 0.071 0.026 1.023 0.113 0.113 1.09 0.77 461.08 47 470 5.40 0.184 1.422 0.122 0.051 1.203 0.180 0.180 1.74 1.27 759.04 48 480 2.70 0.092 1.513 0.152 0.030 1.293 0.090 0.090 0.87 1.30 779.32 49 490 1.80 0.061 1.575 0.173 0.021 1.354 0.060 0.060 0.58 0.86 518.26 50 500 1.34 0.046 1.620 0.190 0.017 1.399 0.045 0.045 0.44 0.59 355.89 51 510 1.34 0.046 1.666 0.207 0.017 1.444 0.045 0.045 0.44 0.47 • 283.51 52 520 1.34 0.046 1.711 0.225 0.018 1.489 0.045 0.045 0.44 0.44 266.55 53 530 0.88 0.030 1.741 0.237 0.012 1.518 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.38 228.37 54 540 0.88 0.030 1.771 0.249 0.012 1.548 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.31 185.14 55 550 0.88 0.030 1.801 0.262 0.012 1.577 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 174.98 56 560 0.88 0.030 1.831 0.274 0.013 1.607 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 172.63 57 570 0.88 0.030 1.861 0.287 0.013 1.636 0.030 0.030 _ 0.29 0.29 172.11 58 580 0.88 0.030 1.891 0.300 0.013 1.666 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 172.03 59 590 0.88 0.030 1.921 0.314 0.013 1.696 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 172.05 -- - - ---------- ---- - - --- 60 600 0.88 0.030 1.951 0.327 0.014 1.725 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 172.10 61 610 0.88 0.030 1.981 0.341 0.014 1.755 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 172.14 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\25-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 3 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 25-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked_by: _ Time Rainfall I Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 62 620 0.88 0.030 2.010 0.355 0.014 1.785 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 172.19 63 630 0.88 0.030 2.040 0.369 0.014 1.814 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 172.23 64 640 0.88 0.030 2.070 0.383 0.014 1.844 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 172.27 65 650 , 0.72 0.024 2.095 0.395 0.012 1.868 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.27 160.34 66 660 0.72 0.024 2.119 0.407 0.012 1.893 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 145.58 67 670 0.72 0.024 2.144 0.419 0.012 1.917 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 142.11 68 680 0.72 0.024 2.168 0.431 0.012 1.941 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 141.31 69 690 0.72 0.024 2.193 0.444 0.012 1.965 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 141.14 70 700 0.72 0.024 2.217 0.456 0.012 1.990 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 141.12 71 710 0.72 0.024 2.242 0.469 0.013 2.014 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 141.13 72 720 0.72 0.024 2.266 0.481 0.013 2.038 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 141.15 73 730 0.72 0.024 2.291 0.494 0.013 2.063 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 141.17 74 740 0.72 0.024 2.315 0.507 0.013 2.087 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 141.19 75 750 0.72 0.024 2.340 0.520 0.013 2.111 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 141.21 76 760 0.72 0.024 2.364 0.533 0.013 2.136 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.24 141.23 77 770 0.57 0.019 2.383 0.544 0.010 2.155 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.22 130.01 78 780 0.57 0.019 2.403 0.554 0.011 2.174 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 116.13 79 790 0.57 0.019 2.422 0.565 0.011 2.193 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.86 80 800 0.57 0.019 2.442 0.576 0.011 2.213 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.09 81 810 0.57 0.019 2.461 0.586 . 0.011 2.232 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 111.92 82 820 0.57 0.019 2.480 0.597 0.011 2.251 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 111.89 83 830 0.57 0.019 2.500 0.608 0.011 2.270 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 111.89 84 840 0.57 0.019 2.519 0.619 0.011 2.290 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 111.90 85 850 0.57 0.019 2.538 0.630 0.011 2.309 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 111.90 86 860 0.57 0.019 2.558 0.641 0.011 2.328 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 111.91 87 870 0.57 0.019 2.577 0.652 0.011 2.347 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 111.92 88 880 0.57 0.019 2.597 0.663 0.011 2.367 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 111.93 89 890 0.50 0.017 2.614 0.673 0.010 2.384 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.18 106.69 90 900 0.50 0.017 2.631 0.683 0.010 2.401 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.17 100.21 91 910 0.50 0.017 2.648 0.693 0.010 2.417 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.68 92 920 0.50 0.017 2.665 0.703 0.010 2.434 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.33 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\25-year 24-Hour Storm Page 4 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 25-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS_Engineers (Job#9722.10) - - Checked by: - Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [11 [2] [31 [4] [51 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 93 930 0.50 0.017 2.682 0.713 0.010 2.451 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.25 94 940 0.50 0.017 2.699 0.723 0.010 2.468 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.23 95 950 0.50 0.017 2.716 0.733 0.010 2.485 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.23 96 960 0.50 0.017 2.733 0.743 • 0.010 2.502 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.24 97 970 0.50 0.017 2.750 0.753 0.010 2.519 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.24 98 980 0.50 0.017 2.767 0.764 0.010 2.536 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.25 99 990 0.50 0.017 2.784 0.774 0.010 2.553 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.26 100 1000 0.50 0.017 2.801 0.784 0.010 2.570 0.017 0.017 0.16 0.16 98.26 101 1010 0.40 0.014 2.814 0.793 0.008 2.583 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.15 90.76 102 1020 0.40 0.014 2.828 0.801 0.008 2.597 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.14 81.48 103 1030 0.40 0.014 2.841 0.809 0.008 2.610 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 79.30 104 1040 0.40 0.014 2.855 0.818 0.008 2.624 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.78 105 1050 0.40 0.014 2.869 0.826 0.008 2.637 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.66 106 1060 0.40 0.014 2.882 0.834 0.008 2.651 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.64 107 1070 0.40 0.014 2.896 0.843 0.008 2.664 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.64 108 1080 0.40 0.014 2.909 0.851 0.008 2.678 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.64 109 1090 0.40 0.014 2.923 0.860 0.008 2.692 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.64 110 1100 0.40 0.014 2.937 0.868 0.009 2.705 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.64 111 1110 0.40 0.014 2.950 0.877 0.009 2.719 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.65 112 1120 0.40 0.014 2.964 0.885 0.009 2.732 0.014 0:014 0.13 0.13 78.65 113 1130 0.40 0.014 2.977 0.894 0.009 2.746 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.65 114 1140 0.40 0.014 2.991 0.903 0.009 2.759 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.65 115 1150 0.40 0.014 3.005 0.911 0.009 2.773 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.66 116 1160 0.40 0.014 3.018 0.920 0.009 2.786 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.66 117 1170 0.40 0.014 3.032 0.928 0.009 2.800 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.66 118 1180 0.40 0.014 3.045 0.937 0.009 2.813 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.67 119 1190 0.40 0.014 3.059 0.946 0.009 2.827 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.67 120 1200 0.40 0:014 3.073 0.955 0.009 2.841 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.67 121 1210 0.40 0.014 3.086 0.963 0.009 2.854 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.67 122 1220 0.40 0.014 3.100 0.972 0.009 2.868 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.68 123 1230 0.40 0.014 3.113 0.981 0.009 2.881 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.68 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\25-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 5 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 25-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) _ _ _ _ __ -- Checked by: . -- Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]] i111- I [12] [13] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume _ # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 124j 1240 0.40 0.014 3.127 0.990 0.009 2.895 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.68 125 1250 0.40 0.014 3.141 0.999 0.009 2.908 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 _ 78.68 126 1260 0.40 0.014 3.154 1.008 0.009 2.922 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.69 127 1270 0.40 0.014 3.168 1.016 0.009 2.935 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.69 128 1280 0.40 0.014 3.181 1.025 0.009 2.949 _ 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.69 129 1290 0.40 0.014 3.195 1.034 0.009 2.962 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.69 130 1300 0.40 0.014 3.209 1.043 0.009 2.976 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.70 131 1310 0.40 0.014 3.222 1.052 0.009 2.990 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.70 132 _ 1320 0.40 0.014 3.236 1.061 0.009 3.003 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.70 133 1330 0.40 0.014 3.249 1.070 0.009 3.017 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.70 134 1340 0.40 0.014 3.263 1.079 0.009 3.030 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.71 135 1350 0.40 0.014. 3.277 1.088 0.009 3.044 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.71 136 1360 0.40 0.014 3.290 1.097 0.009 3.057 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.71 137 1370 0.40 0.014 3.304 1.106 0.009 3.071 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.71 138 1380 0.40 0.014 3.317 1.116 0.009 3.084 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.71 139 1390 0.40 0.014 3.331 1.125 0.009 3.098 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.72 140 1400 0.40 0.014 3.345 1.134 0.009 3.112 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.72 141 1410 0.40 0.014 3.358 1.143 0.009 3.125 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.72 142 1420 0.40 0.014 3.372 1.152 0.009 3.139 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.72 143 1430 0.40 0.014 3.385 1.161 0.009 3.152 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.72 144 1440 0.40 0.014 3.399 1.171 0.009 3.166 0.014 0.014 0.13 0.13 78.73 145 1450 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.08 48.66 146 1460 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.02 11.49 147 1470 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 2.71 148 1480 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.64 149 1490 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.15 150 1500 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.04 151 1510 _ 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 - 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.01 152 1520 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 153 1530 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 154 1540 0.00 0.000 3.399 1.171 0.000 3.166 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 P:19722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\25-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 6 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 25-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS_Engineers (Job#9722.10) _ _ __ _ _ _ _ Checked.by: ,_ Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental fated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. . Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph _ graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. ( .I 1 1 1 1 1 18386.81 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\25-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 7 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 1O0-Year24-HourStorm Calculated by: OL 4/9/97 - CTS Engineero (]ob'#Q722.1O)- - - ' - ' _ - Checked-by: LouaUml�_| | Cedar River U arRagionaPark' Renton, Washington _�_ Soil Classification Type: _ Ronbon (Group C)__�� Land use: Recreational _-�_- _--_- Impervious/Surface ---- -�-/(�-- -- ' K- - -'-''-�--- -- ---------- - nao� U18 - ` ---_� ' ~ ." � CN = 08 _ O = U�2O S= O/ 40 � ��1OO �N � � 0.2S = O�O4 -------` -- - -' --- ---- ` --- ---- - --`- --`----- ------ -` -- — 0.8S = [i10 �� -L---- -- / Pervious Surface: Lawn i Acres: -- ---- 0 � - - ------ - - - ~� CN = 74 U --- O = 3.51 S=1000/CN48 -_- U.2S = OJ8 U�8S = 2.81 SubboonA -- --- Total �onas: �-- --1 S -- --- -- - � Den|gnSbonn: / P (inch�e) = 3.8 � _- ~~ Time Interval: ` 10 Time of U 8OQ � Concentration: � � -- -- vv= dy(2°To+dU = -�-'--__-----0.382 ---' ----- - ----' - -'--- ' — ----- ------ ------------- PA9722 1msaxRUwopFu.XLo\luo-Yuu,u4'*ou,Gmnn Page of Printed 4/9/m'ata:n4PM Cedar River Regional Park 100-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) _ - Checked by:- . _ Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [1 0] [11] [12] [13] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 0 0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 10 0.40 0.016 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 20 0.40 0.016 0.031 0.000 0.000 _ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 30 0.40 0.016 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.38 4 40 0.40 0.016 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.02 0.01 4.67 5 50 0.40 0.016 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.04 0.02 13.44 _ 6 60 0.40 0.016 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.05 0.04 22.66 7 70 0.40 0.016 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.006 0.006 0.06 0.05 30.71 , 8 80 0.40 0.016 0.125 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.007 0.007 0.07 0.06 37.51 91 90 0.40 0.016 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.008 0.008 0.08 0.07 43.23 10 100 0.40 0.016 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.009 0.009 0.09 0.08 48.08 111 110 0.50 0.020 0.176 0.000 0.000 0.054 0.012 0.012 0.12 0.10 57.69 12 120 0.50 0.020 0.195 0.000 0.000 0.066 0.013 0.013 0.12 0.11 68.63 13 130 0.50 0.020 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.013 0.013 0.13 0.12 74.56 14 140 0.50 0.020 0.234 0.000 0.000 0.094 0.014 0.014 0.14 0.13 78.80 15 150 0.50 0.020 0.254 0.000 0.000 0.109 0.015 0.015 0.14 0.14 82.23 16 160 0.50 0.020 0.273 0.000 0.000 0.124 0.015 0.015 0.15 0.14 85.14 17 170 0.60 0.023 0.296 0.000 0.000 0.142 0.019 0.019 0.18 0.16 94.58 18 180 0.60 0.023 0.320 0.000 0.000 0.161 0:019 0.019 0.18 0.18 105.63 19 190 0.60 0.023 0.343 0.000 0.000 0.181 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.18 110.19 20 200 0.60 0.023 0.367 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.020 0.020 0.19 0.19 112.94 21 210 0.60 0.023 0.390 0.000 0.000 0.220 0.020 0.020 0.19 0.19 115.05 22 i 220 0.60 0.023 0.413 0.000 0.000 0.241 0.020 0.020 0.20 0.19 116.83 231 230 0.70 0.027 0.441 0.000 0.000 0.265 0.024 0.024 0.23 0.21 126.04 24 240 0.70 0.027 0.468 0.000 0.000 0.289 0.024 0.024 0.24 0.23 137.02 25 250 0.70 0.027 _0.495 0.000 0.000 0.314 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.23 140.79 26 260 0.70 0.027 0.523 0.000 0.000 0.338 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 142.71 27 270 0.70 0.027 0.550 0.000 0.000 0.363 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 144.08 28 280 . 0.70 0.027 0.577 0.000 0.000 0.389 0.025 0.025 0.24 0.24 145.21 29 290 0.82 0.032 0.609 0.000 0.000 0.418 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.26 155.85 30 300 0.82 0.032 0.641 0.000 0.000 0.448 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.28 168.76 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\100-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 2 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 100-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 31 310 0.82 0.032 0.673 0.000 0.000 0.478 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 172.58 _ 32 320 _ 0.82 0.032 0.705 0.000 0.000 0.508 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 174.17 33 330 0.82 0.032 0.737 0.000 0.000 0.538 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 175.16 34 340 0.82 0.032 0.769 0.001 0.001 0.569 0.030 0.030 0.29 0.29 175.94 35 350 0.95 0.037 0.806 0.003 0.002 0.604 0.035 0.035 0.34 0.31 187.37 36 360 0.95 0.037 0.843 0.005 0.002 0.640 0.035 0.035 0.34 0.34 201.32 37 370 0.95 0.037 0.880 0.009 0.003 0.675 0.036 0.036 0.34 0.34 205.15 38 380 0.95 0.037 0.917 0.012 0.004 0.711 0.036 _ 0.036 0.35 0.34 206.52 39 390 0.95 0.037 0.954 0.017 0.004 0.747 0.036 0.036 0.35 , 0.35 207.27 40 400 0.95 0.037 0.991 0.022 0.005 0.783 . 0.036 0.036 0.35 0.35 207.83 41 410 1.33 0.052 1.043 0.030 0.008 0.833 0.050 0.050 0.49 0.40 240.23 42 420 1.33 0.052 1.095 0.039 0.009 0.883 0.050 0.050 0.49 0.47 280.26 43 430 1.33 0.052 1.147 0.050 0.010 0.934 0.051 0.051 0.49 0.48 290.24 44 440 1.80 0.070 1.217 0.066 0.016 1.002 0.069 0.069 0.66 0.55 332.83 45 450 1.80 0.070 1.287 0.083 0.018 1.071 0.069 _ 0.069 0.67 0.64 383.22 _ 46 460 3.40 0.133 1.420 0.122 0.038 1.201 0.130 0.130 1:26 0.89 531.80 47 470 5.40 0.211 1.631 0.194 0.072 1.409 0.208 0.208 2.01 1.46 874.73 48 480 2.70 0.105 1.736 0.235 0.041 1.513 0.104 0.104 1.01 1.50 897.60 49 490 1.80 0.070 1.806 0.264 0.029 1.582 0.069 _ 0.069 0.67 0.99 596.64 50 500 1.34 0.052 1.858 0.286 0.022 1.634 0.052 0.052 0.50 0.68 409.57 51 510 1.34 0.052 1.911 0.309 0.023 1.686 0.052 0.052 0.50 0.54 326.19 52 520 1.34 0.052 1.963 0.333 0.024 1.738 0.052 0.052 0.50 0.51 306.63 53 530 0.88 0.034 1.997 0.349 0.016 1.772 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.44 262.67 54 540 0.88 0.034 2.032 0.365 0.016 1.806 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.35 212.92 55 550 0.88 0.034 2.066 0.381 0.016 1.840 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.34 201.22 56_ 560 0.88 0.034 2.100 0.398 0.017 1.874 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.33 198.50 57 570 0.88 0.034 2.134 0.415 0.017 1.908 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.33 197.90 58 580 0.88 0.034 _ 2.169 0.432 0.017 1.942 _ 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.33 197.79 59 590 0.88 0.034 2.203 0.449 0.017 1.976 0.034 0.034 0.33 - 0.33 _ 197.80 60 600 0.88 0.034 2.237 0.467 0.018 2.010 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.33 -_ 197.84 61 610 0.88 0.034 2.272 0.484 0.018 2.044 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.33 197.88 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\100-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 3 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 100-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] L [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] . Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches I inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 62 620 0.88 0.034 2.306 0.502 0.018 2.078 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.33 197.92 63 630 0.88 0.034 2.340 0.521 0.018 2.112 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.33 197.96 64 640 0.88 0.034 2.375 0.539 0.018 2.146 0.034 0.034 0.33 0.33 197.99 65 650 0.72 0.028 2.403 0.554 0.015 2.174 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.31 184.27 66 660 0.72 0.028 2.431 0.570 0.015 2.202 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.28 167.30 67 670 0.72 0.028 2.459 0.585 0.016 2.230 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 163.31 68 680 0.72 0.028 2.487 0.601 0.016 2.258 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 162.39 69 690 0.72 0.028 2.515 _ 0.617 0.016 2.286 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 162.18 70 700 0.72 0.028 2.543 0.633 0.016 2.314 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 162.15 71 710 0.72 0.028 2.571 0.649 0.016 2.342 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 162.16 72 720 0.72 0.028 2.599 0.665 0.016 2.370 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 162.18 73 730 0.72 0.028 2.627 0.681 0.016 2.397 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 162.19 74 740 0.72 0.028 2.656 0.698 0.016 2.425 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 162.21 75 750 0.72 0.028 2.684 0.714 0.017 2.453 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 162.23 76 760 0.72 0.028 2.712 0.731 0.017 2.481 0.028 0.028 0.27 0.27 162.25 77 770 0.57 0.022 2.734 0.744 0.013 2.503 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.25 149.35 78 780 0.57 0.022 2.756 0.757 0.013 2.525 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.22 133.40 79 790 0.57 0.022 2.778 0.771 0.013 2.548 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.22 129.64 80 800 0.57 0.022 2.801 0.784 0.013 2.570 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 128.76 81 810 0.57 0.022 2.823 0.798 0.014 2.592 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 128.56 82 820 0.57 0.022 2.845 0.811 0.014 2.614 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 128.52 83 830 0.57 0.022 2.867 0.825 0.014 2.636 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 128.52 84 840 0.57 0.022 2.890 0.839 0.014 2.658 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 128.52 85 .850 0.57 0.022 2.912 0.853 0.014 2.680 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 128.53 86 860 0.57 0.022 2.934 0.867 0.014 2.703 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 128.54 87 870 0.57 0.022 2.956 0.881 0.014 2.725 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 128.55 88 880 0.57 0.022 2.978 0.895 0.014 2.747 0.022 0.022 0.21 0.21 128.56 89 890 \ 0.50 0.020 2.998 0.907 0.012 2.766 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.20 122.53 90 900 0.50 0.020 3.017 0.919 0.012 2.786 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 115.09 91 910 0.50 0.020 3.037 0.932 0.012 2.805 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 113.33 92 920 0.50 0.020 3.056 0.944 0.012 2.824 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.92 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\100-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 4 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 100-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) - _ Checked by: . Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [31 [4] [51 [6] [71 [8] [9] [10] [1 1] -- [12] [13] • Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 93 930 0.50 0.020 3.076 0.957 0.013 2.844 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.83 94 940 0.50 0.020 3.095 0.969 0.013 2.863 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.81 95 950 0.50 0.020 3.115 0.982 0.013 2.883 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.81 96 960 0.50 0.020 3.134 0.995 0.013 2.902 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.82 97 970 0.50 0.020 3.154 1.007 0.013 2.922 0.019 0.019 ° 0.19 0.19 112.82 98 980 0.50 0.020 3.173 1.020 0.013 2.941 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.83 99 990 0.50 0.020 3.193 1.033 0.013 2.960 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.83 100 1000 0.50 0.020 3.212 1.046 0.013 2.980 0.019 0.019 0.19 0.19 112.84 101 1010 0.40 0.016 3.228 1.056 0.010 2.995 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.17 104.22 102 1020 0.40 0.016 3.244 1.066 0.010 3.011 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.16 93.57 103 1030 0.40 0.016 3.259 1.077 0.010 3.027 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 91.06 104 1040 0.40 0.016 3.275 1.087 0.010 3.042 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.47 105 1050 0.40 0.016 3.290 1.098 0.010 3.058 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.33 106 1060 0.40 0.016 3.306 1.108 0.010 3.073 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.30 107 1070 0.40 0.016 3.322 1.118 0.010 3.089 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.29 108 1080 0.40 0.016 3.337 1.129 0.010 3.104 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.29 109 1090 0.40 0.016 3.353 1.139 0.011 3.120 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.30 110 1100 0.40 0.016 3.368 1.150 0.011 3.135 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.30 111 1110 0.40 0.016 3.384 1.161 0.011 3.151 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.30 112 1120 0.40 0.016 3.400 1.171 0.011 3.166 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.30 113 1130 0.40 0.016 3.415 1.182 0.011 3.182 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.31 114 1140 0.40 0.016 3.431 1.192 0.011 3.198 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.31 115 1150 0.40 0.016 3.446 _ 1.203 0.011 3.213 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.31 116 1160 0.40 _ 0.016 3.462 1.214 0.011 3.229 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.31 117 1170 0.40 0.016 3.478 1.225 0.011 3.244 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.32 118 1180 0.40 0.016 3.493 1.235 0.011 3.260 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.32 119 1190 0.40 0.016 3.509 1.246 0.011 _ 3.275 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.32 120 1200 0.40 0.016 3.524 1.257 0.011 _ 3.291 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.32 121 1210 0.40 0.016 3.540 1.268 0.011 3.306 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.33 122 1220 0.40 0.016 3.556 1.278 0.011 3.322 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.33 123 1230 0.40 0.016 3.571 1.289 0.011 3.337 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.33 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\100-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 5 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM + Cedar River Regional Park 100-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) -_____ ____ _ ______ _ _ ___ _ _ Checked by_: Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]] [8] [9] [1 0] [11] [12] [13] . • Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff graph graph Volume # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. 124 1240 0.40 0.016 3.587 1.300 0.011 3.353 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.33 125 1250 0.40 0.016 3.602 1.311 0.011 3.369 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.34 126 1260 0.40 0.016 3.618 1.322 0.011 3.384 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.34 127 1270 0.40 0.016 3.634 1.333 0.011 3.400 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.34 128 1280 0.40 0.016 3.649 1.344 0.011 3.415 0.016 0.016 ' 0.15 0.15 90.34 129 1290 0.40 0.016 3.665 1.355 0.011 3.431 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.34 130 1300 0.40 0.016 3.680 1.366 0.011 3.446 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.35 131 1310 0.40 0.016 3.696 1.377 0.011 3.462 . 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.35 132 1320 0.40 0.016 3.712 1.388 0.011 3.477 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.35 133 1330 0.40 0.016 3.727 1.399 0.011 3.493 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.35 134 1340 0.40 0.016 3.743 1.410 0.011 3.509 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.35 135 1350 0.40 0.016 3.758 1.421 0.011 3.524 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.36 136 _ 1360 0.40 0.016 3.774 1.433 0.011 3.540 0.016 . 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.36 137 1370 0.40 0.016 3.790 1.444 0.011 3.555 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.36 138 1380 0.40 0.016 3.805 1.455 0.011 3.571 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.36 139 1390 0.40 0.016 3.821 1.466 0.011 3.586 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.36 140 1400 0.40 0.016 3.836 1.477 0.011 3.602 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.37 141 1410 0.40 0.016 3.852 1.489 0.011 3.618 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.37 142 1420 0.40 0.016 3.868 1.500 0.011 3.633 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.37 143 1430 0.40 0.016 3.883 1.511 0.011 3.649 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.37 • 144 1440 0.40 0.016 3.899 _ 1.522 0.011 3.664 0.016 0.016 0.15 0.15 90.37 145 1450 0.00 0.000 3.899 1.522 0.000 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.09 55.85 146 1460 0.00 0.000 3.899 1.522 0.000 - 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.02 13.18 147 1470 0.00 0.000 3.899 1.522 0.000 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 3.11 148 1480 0.00 0.000 3.899 1.522 0.000 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.73 149 1490 0.00 • 0.000 3.899 1.522 0.000 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.17 150 1500 0.00 0.000 3.899 1.522 0.000 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.04 151 1510 0.00 0.000 3:899 1.522 0.000 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.01 152 1520 0.00 0.000 3.899 1.522 0.000 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 153 1530 0.00 0.000 3.899 1.522 0.000 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 154 1540 0.00 0.000 3.899 1.522 0.000 3.664 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\100-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 6 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34 PM Cedar River Regional Park 100-Year 24-Hour Storm Calculated by: DL 4/9/97 CTS Engineers (Job#9722.10) Checked by: Time Rainfall Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Runoff/Hydrographs Volume [1] [2] [3] [4] _ [5] __ [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] • Incre- Accum- Accum- Incre- Accum- Incre- Total Instant Design Time Step Rainfall menatal lated lated mental lated mental Project Hydro- Hydro- Instant No. Time Dist. Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff_ Runoff graph graph Volume_ # min. % of Pt inches inches inches inches inches inches inches cfs cfs cu. ft. I I I I I I 21281.59 • • P:\9722-10\SS\RUNOFF2.XLS\100-Year 24-Hour Storm Page 7 of 7 Printed 4/9/97 at 3:34-PM 4/10/97 page 1 Cedar River Regional Park - Renton, WA Storm Water Analysis CTS Engineers, Inc . (Job #9722 . 10) HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Cont rib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf\AcFt Acres 1 0 . 371 490 6178 cf 1 . 60 6 mo.1 ,24 61.r c. i- 2 0 . 616 490 10303 cf 1 . 60 2 r. ail 1,0,1-- zit 3 0 . 917 490 15496 cf 1 . 60 j0��, 1 `a U ho.if eveh i- 4 1 . 085 490 18389 cf 1 . 60 fir;`(S,1 aN 1w..1- 1- 5 1 . 250 490 21284 cf 1 . 60 iuo,i`, ay Lour Esex-} PROJECT NO. Q-1a2,1° ttS ENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT NAME CAW- WOO— ZATIona( /1)=Q4.- PAGE NO. OF Pacific Park 2 1412-112th Ave.NE,Suite 102 MADE BY Di DATE gfri`i 1 Bellevue,WA 98004.3760 Tel: 12063 455-7622 CHECKED BY DATE 611 irt/A. ( ,--;5 CZA--Poitik( 47C.LiA C.:•=0.90(po.vei-e4--)(7b, 3,-34) 41 ti6Ocit. 2 " 11fi P3 ill 100 ' 604) L=763 ik1;;;+ _ 1,10 cc/ a2 1,96 ohq a .2,GC b =0.6s - -- - - ;lc P)(Tc..)- 0,5:Z(-12 1;26.2 0,112C 110=0,-713 :too 0,187 q ucv 2 -2c :4710---.2,091-11 :Ficus'3.0-70i cgc Qac -3 -/ 3 •c_C‘'-c soa (1:;44, A-=o-79 Az,ti do= 0", 0:360 GI 1.49 13 IA —AR It 0___ -3,3L1 < G.2c 3.-78 c_.5 (Xe., • PROJECT NO. (4122'1° ,CIS ENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT NAME c 2'K,' `w^al Pr Pacific Park 2 1412-112th Ave.NE,Suite 102 PAGE NO. OF Bellevue,WA 98004.3760 Tel: (206)455.7622 MADE BY DATE �I�+ CHECKED BY DATE Ffy�] ,�lydh A 1 J__. riU1iC. AG1,1S1S .CCp.1_ 0- ©o..c'S�-� 7 c 21,U2 cc-5 >�2 -3,- c5 �^ Q 1C0 - v= 3.01 ? C • • I PROJECT NO. Ct S ENGINEERS! INC. PROJECT NAME c r W-T b%4( RA- PAGE NO. OF J Pacific Park 2 1412-112th Ave.NE,Suite 102 MADE BY �L DATE 1 /97 Bellevue,WA 98004.3760 Tel: I206I 455-7622 CHECKED BY DATE liGo c \Ls- c;--ot? (p4,,e-vnt)(1"; _ _ _ i = ©,Sys 'nro '4S(2 nir> " (9'57V ta1,. M.)-S- 619 0•T3q MIS �%75 `.I.�= 13,4 :4,/11; iz =2./f7 I Q2, 1,ci.3A to=.2,`5- c alai 'f•L16 c ' I - ejt:)n„� F G�0,(� (-SlvwPt) ` A7-ARC � C , 4=t 1 .1,01 • s�} 0,8 Crowd.e-c ) C='�•� ��41/Gjvr..icb24,4 PROJECT NO. tit ' C S ENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT NAME r .2""1 PAGE NO. OF Pacific Park 2 1412•112th Ave.NE,Suite 102 MADE BY OL DATE 1-1/6/1 ellevue,WA 98004.3760 Tel: (206)455.7622 CHECKED BY DATE - .4-;1, :2 61,", 1:46t Dn l 7ck c? ,�;�r,-� /f o? _42 1119_ _-z/3--1-- _ 2 �Sz ol 4= F,o1 -fa 41(4) c-C%A g- °,3c 6-eckAk50 n=v,Q�y 414, T A.N G.te. WA ( '1 Fic.i as EJt4 4 - &tlw(a t, -1Y .i 7,4 i-/S Do i Nydravt`c-5 ttlim.i :(3,cf0:9q)(0,c �= ©, (o.66-r0,68-# 7JO) 6.cq Q = /.00 c Cas.- 3.78 c1-s - U -CA, 1 - - ?;2(0 3) 0,.=.2.G$ S6 . rt= 0r;ty . i QT-�s(A c 4.0O ck I - CTS Engineers,Inc. Backwater Analysis Calculated by AMC 2115-112th Ave.N.E. King County Surface Water Manual Checked by Bellevue,WA 98004 - - - - - - - - • a bode f g h i j k / m n o p q r s t u v w x y HGL Entrance Junction Pipe Segment Q L DIA n OE IE A V H„ TWE Sr Hr Entrance HL Exit HL OCE ICE CE AVH Bend HL KJ HL HWE From To cfs ft ft ft ft sf fps ft ft ' ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 3.78 200 1.25 0.01 86 88 1.23 3.08 0.15 87.3 0 0.58 87.83041 0.074 0.14733 88.05 88.05 0.147 87.90 4.42 200 1.25 0.01 86 88 1.23 3.6 0.2 87.3 0 0.79 88.04359 0.101 0.20144 88.35 88.35 0.201 88.14 6 200 1.25 0.01 86 88 1.23 4.89 0.37 87.3 0.01 1.46 88.71236 0.186 0.37119 89.27 89.27 0.371 88.90 c Q Flow in CFS,Design Value d L Length of Pipe Section e DIA Diameter of Pipe Section(not used) f n Manning's Number (See Table 3.5.2C) g OE Outlet Elevation h IE Inlet Elevation i A Cross-Sectional Area of Pipe j V _ Velocity in Pipe=Q/A k H. Barrel Velocity Head=V2/2g I TWE Tailwater Elevation- Set equal to D+dc/2 if the pipe's outlet is not submerged m Sf Friction Slope=(nV)2/2.22 R1 33 - n Hf Friction Loss=L x Sf o HGL Entrance Hydraulic Grade Line at entrance to barrel=TWE+H, p Entrance HL Entrance Head Loss=Ka x H. (Ka from table 4.3.5A KCSWDM) q Exit HL Exit head Loss=H. Velocity head transfered downstream , r OCE Outlet Control Elevation=HGL•Entrance+Entrance HL+Exit HL s ICE Inlet Control Elevation-Ignored t CE Control Elevation-the greater of OCE or ICE _ u AVH Approach Velocity Head =H,,, or 0 if a lot of energy is lost in the structure. ✓ Bend HL Bend Head Loss=Kb x H. (Kb from Figure 4.3.4E) w Ki From Figure 4.3.4F or Kj=(Q3/Q1)/((1.18+0.63)(Q3/Q1)) x Junction HL Junction Head Loss=Kj x Hv I I 1 y HWE Head Water Elevation=CE-AVH+Bend HL+Junction HL PROJECT NO. 917221 I0 CtS ENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT NAME Cedar k:xr Pc-lal ,-L PAGE NO. F / / Pacific Park 2 1412-112th Ave.NE,Suite 102 MADE BY Dc. DATE '/9('} Bellevue,WA 98004-3760 Tel: (2061455.7622 ((( CHECKED BY DATE t-rt'r" also c`'F(L �cv in 1 !n 1��t`L lY t t`l. Qa` ©J c S 0 = I.3o ' Q :-Qb 6y� C2 � c Cleo 1.10 " 156 . to ' , Qz t.�� AR2 's `( _ Cm,ni,�y l ‘71 0%1-7 frtoeved)(f),6-3i) to mak. Y =©,33 Y - - V ( A_ ),.y 2 (-3:( st,r4 6413 _ Q ()sin (b+2') 1 • L= i7B ?l(90 ©K = 8 6 PROJECT Na lO ENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT NAME & d-cr River 42_ -4 KA iC PAGE NO. OF Pacific Park 2 1412-112th Ave.NE,Suite 102 MADE BY Dt_ DATE u/ql/7 ellevue,WA 98004-3760 Tel: (2063 455-7622 CHECKED BY DATE 1 =o,- n 6- w Y l,yckir6150.s - - - - - =o.ol - - _0.1.11c_ rOuRd 6 "JP_fc, cf b=i4 0,33 -(-f o l< R = o,27 L= f' 0�✓�,,v L= t5 9 100 c+ 0 k DOOM g(ev - gij,LI CA- 841,0 • - I PROJECT NO. g122` i© CtS ENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT NAME CeriAr � �� . � Part PAGE NO. F • Pacific Park 2 1412-112th Ave.NE,Suite 102 MADE BY O1- DATE j�17 ,Bellevue,WA 98004.3760 Tel: (206)455.7622 1 CHECKED BY DATE O CivAnndS - Q :118 . Rc o � ]'/5-- 0,0 39 g) c c,s• S = ©.0 I b -y.d •gl_ y1s = d.3? �- &.41 calcc A 1CU VC _ .2 el - (4 1o' i cr--d , ,4-='nJ year e ct— oncl icc z� ems#- l,,;17 nc-r- vo -'(o,.; CCU 1. �*ti) • 4/10/97 page 2 Cedar River Regional Park - Renton, WA Storm Water Analysis CTS Engineers, Inc . (Job #9722 . 10) ' REACH SUMMARY PIPE REACH ID No . Pipe-0 . 5 From: To : Pipe Diameter: 1 . 00 ft n: 0 . 0140 Pipe Length 200 . 00 ft s : 0 . 0100 Up invert 88 . 00 ft down invert : 86 . 00 ft Collection Area: 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow 0 . 39 cfs Dsgn Depth: 0 . 77 ft Pipe Capacity 3 . 57 cfs Design Vel 2 . 82 fps Travel Time : 1 . 18 min' Pipe Full Vel 4 . 66 fps PIPE REACH ID No. Pipe-02 From: To : Pipe Diameter: 1 . 00 ft n: 0 . 0140 Pipe Length 200 . 00 ft s : 0 . 0100 Up invert 88 . 00 ft down invert : 86 . 00 ft Collection Area : 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow 0 . 64 cfs Dsgn Depth: 0 . 70 ft Pipe Capacity 3 . 57 cfs Design Vel 3 . 26 fps Travel Time : 1 . 02 min Pipe Full Vel 4 . 66 fps PIPE REACH ID No . Pipe-10 From: To: Pipe Diameter: 1 . 00 ft n: 0 . 0140 Pipe Length 200 . 00 ft s : 0 . 0100 Up invert 88 . 00 ft down invert : 86 . 00 ft Collection Area : 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow 0 . 94 cfs Dsgn Depth: 0 . 63 ft Pipe Capacity 3 . 57 cfs Design Vel 3 . 64 fps Travel Time : 0 . 92 min Pipe Full Vel 4 . 66 fps PIPE REACH ID No. Pipe-25 From: To: Pipe Diameter: 1 . 00 ft n: 0 . 0140 Pipe Length 200 . 00 ft s : 0 . 0100 Up invert 88 . 00 ft down invert : 86 . 00 ft Collection Area : 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow 1 . 11 cfs Dsgn Depth: 0 . 60 ft Pipe Capacity 3 . 57 cfs Design Vel 3 . 81 fps Travel Time : 0 . 88 min Pipe Full Vel 4 . 66 fps • 4/10/97 page 3 Cedar River Regional Park - Renton, WA Storm Water Analysis CTS Engineers, Inc . (Job #9722 . 10) REACH SUMMARY PIPE REACH ID No. Pipel00 From: To: Pipe Diameter: 1 . 00 ft n: 0 . 0140 Pipe Length 200 . 00 ft s : 0 . 0100 Up invert 88 . 00 ft down invert : 86 . 00 ft Collection Area: 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow 1 . 28 cfs Dsgn Depth: 0 . 57 ft Pipe Capacity 3 . 57 cfs Design Vel 3 . 95 fps Travel Time : 0 . 84 min Pipe Full Vel 4 . 66 fps DITCH REACH ID No. Swale- . 5 Ditch Length: 154 . 00 ft Ditch Width: 4 . 00 ft Side Slopel : 3 . 00 Ditch Slope : 0 . 0100 ft/ft Side Slope2 : 3 . 00 Contrib Bas : Mannings n : 0 . 0300 Dn Invert 84 .46 ft Dn W. S . Elev: 0 . 0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow : 0 . 37 cfs Depth : 0 . 09 ft Vel 0 . 96 fps Upstream W. S . Elev: 0 . 00 ft . DITCH REACH ID No . swale-02 Ditch Length: 154 . 00 ft Ditch Width: 4 . 00 ft Side Slopel : 3 . 00 Ditch Slope : 0 . 0100 ft/ft Side Slope2 : 3 . 00 Contrib Bas : Mannings n : 0 . 0300 Dn Invert 84 .46 ft Dn W. S . Elev: 0 . 0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area : 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow : 0 . 62 cfs Depth : 0 . 12 ft Vel 1 . 15 fps Upstream W. S . Elev: 0 . 00 ft . DITCH REACH ID No. swale-10 Ditch Length: 154 . 00 ft Ditch Width: 4 . 00 ft Side Slopel : 3 . 00 Ditch Slope : 0 . 0100 ft/ft Side Slope2 : 3 . 00 Contrib Bas : Mannings n : 0 . 0300 Dn Invert 84 . 46 ft Dn W.S . Elev: 0 . 0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow : 0 . 92 cfs Depth : 0 . 15 ft Vel 1 . 33 fps Upstream W. S . Elev: 0 . 00 ft . 4/10/97 page 4 Cedar River Regional Park - Renton, WA Storm Water Analysis CTS Engineers, Inc . (Job #9722 . 10) REACH SUMMARY DITCH REACH ID No. swale-25 Ditch Length: 154 . 00 ft Ditch Width: 4 . 00 ft Side Slopel : 3 . 00 Ditch Slope : 0 . 0100 ft/ft Side Slope2 3 . 00 Contrib Bas : Mannings n : 0 . 0300 Dn Invert 84 . 46 ft Dn W. S . Elev: 0 . 0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow : 1 . 08 cfs Depth : 0 . 17 ft Vel 1 . 41 fps Upstream W. S . Elev: 0 . 00 ft . DITCH REACH ID No . swalel00 Ditch Length: 154 . 00 ft Ditch Width: 4 . 00 ft Side Slopel : 3 . 00 Ditch Slope : 0 . 0100 ft/ft Side Slope2 : 3 . 00 Contrib Bas : Mannings n : 0 . 0300 Dn Invert 84 .46 ft Dn W.S . Elev: 0 . 0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 1 . 60 Ac . Design Flow : 1 . 25 cfs Depth : 0 . 19 ft Vel 1 . 48 fps Upstream W. S . Elev: 0 . 00 ft . i• '�" PROJECT NO. 97Z2 l�C S ENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT NAME ✓ V"-e-A — Pacific Park 2 1412-112th Ave.NE,Suite 102 PAGE OF BY Bellevue,WA 96004.3760 Tel: MOM455.7622 MADE BY Z DATE �Q CHECKED BY rile" DATE -b77Q I Eal rt= 0.0‘, (5ve.17,tie. I ,4q �� 3 r b =11, / b=1,2K' t �- i c tita,c ciA.€ - 1e. t4,. /00' —DE V + —6. an - ., ? O. -9-4-- -.( Ilea4,c,.4. ctrnl of i., wlvr,t l /4kel I Al-- 0 k c A+,c-l- Ole_ G I`lo —°IC CLAV2 bi- t, 4k.vla kc' ),elow it nd4Lfi1 grao,e_ at ,1 a{-IRA-o cc I ?— "J" 6�,( t�le.v r4, �J' 1 L r 'lT"1 S�r (c2 yi c:�[�„S� �•Y► 62�ow' G✓I�eY nN[.Tde✓, 'hoAc 10� TP�v4Jt- a ,..,A cpTl- ,7C- ,D. ' jv,,., itci.lve,4 •.,' a} lra4�' N ' , „ 8�� Le 1 tgei g 1�.� Imo• . ice''—,i 14---6'---,I i CTS Engineers,Inc. Backwater Analysis Calculated by AMC 2115-112th Ave.N.E. King County Surface Water Manual Checked by Bellevue,WA 98004 - - • a bode f g h i j k I m n o p q r s t u v w x y HGL Entrance Junction Pipe Segment Q L DIA n OE IE A V H„ TWE Sr Hr Entrance HL Exit HL OCE ICE CE AVH Bend HL KI HL HWE From To cfs ft ft ft ft sf fps ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 60 22 0.06 92.8 92.7 21.7 2.76 0.12 95.7 0.01 0.14 95.82071 0.059 0.11849 96 96 0.118 95.88 60 22 0.06 92.8 92.7 24 2.5 0.1 95.7 0.01 0.12 95.79524 0.049 0.09705 95.94 95.94 0.097 95.84 60 22 0.06 92.8 92.7 23.2 2.59 0.1 95.7 0.01 0.12 95.80354 0.052 0.10404 95.96 95.96 0.104 95.86 , 60 22 0.06 92.8 92.7 24 2.5 0.1 95.7 0.01 0.12 95.79524 0.049 0.09705 95.94 95.94 0.097 95.84 c Q Flow in CFS,Design Value - d L Length of Pipe Section e DIA Diameter of Pipe Section(not used) f n Manning's Number (See Table 3.5.2C) g OE Outlet Elevation h IE Inlet Elevation i A Cross-Sectional Area of Pipe j V Velocity in Pipe=Q/A k H. Barrel Velocity Head=V2/2g • I TWE Tailwater Elevation-I Set equal to D+dc/2 if the pipe's outlet is not submerged m S, Friction Slope=(nV)2/2.22 R'33 n H, Friction Loss=L x S,I I o HGL Entrance Hydraulic Grade Line at entrance to barrel=TWE+H, p Entrance HL Entrance Head Loss=Ka x H0 (Ka from table 4.3.5A KCSWDM) q Exit HL Exit head Loss=H I 'Velocity head transfered downstream r OCE Outlet Control Elevation=HGL Entrance+Entrance HL+Exit HL s ICE Inlet Control Elevation-Ignored I I t CE Control Elevation-the greater of OCE or ICE u AVH Approach Velocity Head =H.., or 0 if a lot of energy is lost in the structure. ✓ Bend HL Bend Head Loss=Kb x H.(Kb from Figure 4.3.4E) _ w KI From Figure 4.3.4F or Kj=(Q3/Q1)/((1.18+0.63)(Q3/Q1)) x Junction HL Junction Head Loss=Kj x Hv I I I y HWE Head Water Elevation=CE-AVH+Bend HL+Junction HL • OA)," _ , • 4cipp GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK { MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY (SR-169) AND 149TH AVENUE S.E. RENTON, WASHINGTON Submitted to: • Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. P.S. 23 103rd Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Submitted by: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 N.E. 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 13 March 1997 7-91M-11475-0 MAR 1 8 1997 JONGEJA WGERRARD McNEAL INC.P.S. • bei) Pp 13 March 1997 7-91 M-1 1475-0 Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. P.S. 23 103rd Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Dave McNeal Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Cedar River Regional Park Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) and 149th Avenue S.E. Renton, Washington Dear Dave: At your request, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AEE) is pleased to submit this report describing our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of our evaluation was to derive design conclusions and recommendations concerning Madsen Creek bridge crossing foundations, develop asphalt pavement sections, and assist in characterizing soil and infiltration rates for the ballfield drainage design. As outlined in our proposal letter dated 22 October 1996, our scope of work comprised a field exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical research, geotechnical analyses, and report preparation. We received your written authorization for our evaluation on 28 January 1997. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of City of Renton Parks & Recreation, Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. P.S., and their consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Respectfully submitted, I AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. David C. Williams Associate Distribution: City of Renton Parks & Recreation (3) Attn: Mr. Glenn Kost Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. P.S. (1) Attn: Mr. Dave McNeal 11476.DFT 4191°, TABLE OF CONTENTS 7-91M-11475-0 1.0 SUMMARY 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS 2 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4 4.1 Development Conditions 4 4.2 Utility Conditions 4 4.3 Surface Conditions 4 4.4 Soil Conditions 5 4.5 Groundwater Conditions 6 4.6 Infiltration Conditions 7 4.7 Seismic Conditions 7 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 5.1 Site Preparation 8 5.2 Underground Utilities 9 5.3 Infiltration Systems 10 5.4 Foundations 11 5.5 Pavements 12 5.6 Structural Fill 15 6.0 CLOSURE 17 Figure 1 — Location Map Figures 2A and 2B — Site & Exploration Plan Appendix A — Field Exploration Procedures and Logs Appendix B — Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results • III � I 11476.DFT • 'T4414st)* GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 7-91 M-114 -75 0 CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY (SR-169) AND 149TH AVENUE S.E. RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 SUMMARY • The following summary of project geotechnical considerations is presented for introductory purposes and, as such, should be used only in conjunction with the full text of this report. • Project Description: Improvement plans calls for the construction of access driveways, including a bottomless-culvert creek crossing, vehicle parking, and preparation of grass surface ballfields with underdrains at the project site. Additionally, we understand that future plans include picnic shelters, a small concessions building, and paved ball courts. • Subsurface Conditions: Soils underlying the site generally consist of %z to 1 foot of topsoil mantling 1 to 3 feet soft sandy silt. These soils are underlain by 2 to 6 feet of loose silty sand mantling a loose to medium-dense, sandy gravel. Seasonal groundwater was observed in all test pits at depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet. • Weather Considerations: Because the on-site soils are moisture-sensitive and would be readily disturbed when wet, the contractor should install appropriate temporary drainage systems at the construction site and should minimize traffic over exposed subgrades. Ideally, earthwork would be scheduled for the summer and fall months, when drier weather will maximize the potential for reusing on-site soils and when groundwater levels will likely be at their seasonal low. • Utility Considerations: Moderate to severe caving and groundwater was noted in all of our explorations. Consequently, we anticipate that underground utility installations which extend into caving soil conditions will require shoring. Similarly, those utilities extending below the water table will require dewatering. • Infiltration Considerations: Field testing of the site soils indicates that the upper sandy silt has a poor infiltration rate, while the underlying silty fine sand soils has more-favorable infiltration rates. Consequently, infiltration into the upper sandy silts appears very limited. Therefore, infiltration trenches should penetrate this layer to expose the underlying silty sand layer. • Foundation Support: In order to provide adequate bearing capacity and settlement performance for conventional spread footings, overexcavation of the soft, saturated soils below the proposed buildings and creek crossing structures are recommended. • Pavement Section: Flexible asphalt pavement appears feasible with respect 'to the surface and subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations; however, we anticipate that the removal, reinforcement, or stabilization of the weak subgrades will be required for pavement construction. .. 11475.DFT , • Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475.0 13 March 1997 Page 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a vacant City of Renton Park property located near the intersection of Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) and 149th Avenue S.E. in the Maple Valley area of Renton, Washington, as shown on the enclosed Location Map (Figure 1). This property consists of an irregularly-shaped parcel that measures about 130 by 1800 feet overall and encompasses approximately 45 acres. Site boundaries are generally delineated by the Cedar River on the north, by SR-169 on the south, by 149th Avenue S.E. on the east, and by private properties on the west. The enclosed Site and Exploration Plans (Figures 2A and 2B) illustrate these site boundaries and adjacent existing features. The park master plan calls for the construction of new access driveways, including a creek crossing, vehicle parking, and preparation of grass surface ballfields with underdrains on the project site. According to drawings prepared by Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc. (JGM), improvement plans will comprise a park entrance driveway at 149th Avenue N.E. extending approximately 1100 feet to the west, with parking areas over roughly the last 650 feet of the proposed access driveway. A bottomless culvert, a concrete box culvert, or bridge structure is planned for the access driveway where it crosses Madsen Creek. Also proposed are two surface ballfields with underdrains and associated paved paths. It should be realized that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed utilization of the project site, as derived from layout drawings, written information, and verbal information supplied to us. Consequently, if any changes are made in the currently proposed project, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained herein to reflect those changes. 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site during February 1997. Our exploration and testing program comprised the following elements: • A visual surface reconnaissance of the site; • Eight test pits (designated TP-1 through TP-8) advanced at strategic locations across the site; • Two infiltration tests (designated IT-1 and IT-2) performed at strategic depths in the area of test pit TP-2; • Two grain size analyses and one 200-wash analysis performed on selected soil samples obtained from strategic locations beneath the site; 11476.DFT • 4044?t 9P, Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 13 March 1997 Page 3 • One California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test and one Modified Proctor test performed on a selected soil sample obtained from a proposed cut zone along the new access road alignment; • A review of published geologic maps and seismologic literature. Table 1, below, summarizes the approximate functional locations, surface elevations, and ' termination depths of our subsurface explorations, and Figures 2A and 2B depict their approximate relative locations. Appendix A of this report describes our field exploration procedures, and Appendix B describes our laboratory testing procedures. TABLE 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DEPTHS OF EXPLORATIONS Exploration Functional Location Surface Elevations Termination Depth (feet) (feet) TP-1 Playfield Areas 88 8 TP-2 Playfield Areas 901/2 6 TP-3 Pavement Areas 90 6 TP-4 Playfield Areas 90 YZ 8 TP-5 Playfield Areas 94 Y/ 6 TP-6 Creek Crossing Structure 94 6 TP-7 Creek Crossing Structure 94 7 Y2 TP-8 Pavement Areas 96 9 IT-1 Underdrains for Playfields 90Y2 1 Y2 IT-2 Underdrains for Playfields 901/2 31/2 Elevation datum: 20 June 1994 Site Plan provided by JGM The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected in relation to the existing and proposed site features, under the constraints of surface access, underground utility conflicts, and budget considerations. We estimated the relative location of each exploration by measuring from existing features and scaling these measurements onto a layout plan supplied to us, then we estimated their elevations by interpolating between contour lines shown on this same plan. Consequently, the data listed in Table 1 and the locations depicted on Figures 2A and 2B should be considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources and implied by our measuring methods. It should be realized that the explorations performed for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other 11476.DFT i • Odi?A 4Npdp 'Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475.0 13 March 1997 Page 4 areas could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained:in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections of text present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding development, utility, surface, pavement, soil, groundwater, infiltration, and seismic conditions at the project site. Descriptive logs of our subsurface explorations and graphic results of our laboratory tests are included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively, of this report. 4,1 Development Conditions The project site is currently undeveloped at this time. An existing barn and outbuilding located in the northeast corner of the project site were being demolished during our site visit. Chain-link fencing surrounds the property boundaries on the east, west, and south. 4.2 Utility Conditions An existing sanitary sewer line runs the entire length of the southern property boundary, approximately 5 feet north of the existing chain-link fence. Also, an existing monitoring well protected by a utility vault is located roughly 650 feet west of the 149th Avenue S.E. centerline and roughly 50 feet north of the southern property boundary chain-link fence. We did not observe any other utilities on site during our visit. 4.3 Surface Conditions Topographic relief slopes relatively gently across the site, with elevations ranging from 96 feet at the eastern property boundary to 86 feet at the western property boundary. A slight slope extends upward to elevation 98 feet in the extreme southeast corner of the property, toward the intersection of SR-169 and 149th Avenue S.E. Also, a few scattered depressions of several feet exist across the site. Site vegetation features a variety of ground cover, including grasses, blackberry bushes, scotch broom, and isolated trees mostly along the sides of Madsen Creek. A gravel road traverses the southern property boundary, with a turnaround loop at the western property boundary. Several small soil and debris stockpiles are scattered along the sides of the gravel road, with multiple stockpiles located at the western portion of the site (see Figure 2A). Surface water observed during our site visit consisted of the Cedar River, which meanders along the northern property boundary, and Madsen Creek, which enters the site along the eastern property boundary and continues into the site in a east-west direction for approximately 400 feet before turning north and continuing up through the property to the Cedar River. We 11476.DFT 0,,p .. . ‘4Pp i Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 13 March 1997 Page 5 also observed standing water in some of the depressions in the gravel road along the southern property boundary. 4_4 Soil Conditions According to published geologic maps, soil conditions in the site vicinity are characterized by recent alluvial sediments deposited by the Cedar River. These alluvial deposits of the Cedar River Valley are characterized by primarily sand and gravel with interbeds of silt and clay. Our on-site explorations revealed fairly uniform near-surface soil conditions and confirmed the presence of alluvial soil deposits. The test pits generally disclosed '/z to 1 foot of sod and topsoil mantling 1 to 3 feet of very soft to soft, wet, sandy silt. These soils are underlain by 2 to 6 feet of loose, wet to saturated, silty fine sand. This soil section overlies a loose to medium-dense, wet to saturated, sandy gravel to the full depth of our explorations. Table 2, below, summarizes the approximate thicknesses, depths, and elevations of soil deposits encountered in our subsurface explorations. TABLE 2 APPROXIMATE THICKNESSES, DEPTHS, AND ELEVATIONS OF SOIL LAYERS ENCOUNTERED IN EXPLORATIONS Exploration Thickness of Thickness of Thickness of Depth of Elevation of Topsoil Sandy Silt Silty Sand Sandy Sandy (feet) (feet) (feet) Gravel Gravel (feet) (feet) TP-1 %z 4 2% 7 81 TP-2 '/2 2'/z 2 5 85% TP-3 '/z 2% 1 % 4%2 85% TP-4 %z %z 6 7 83% TP-5 %z 1 2% 4 90% TP-6 % 1 % 2 4 90 TP-7 %z 2% 3% 6'/z 87% TP-8 %z 1 % 6 8 88 IT-1 % 2% % + N/E N/E IT-2 '/z 1 + N/E N/E N/E Elevation datum: 20 June 1994 Site Plan provided by JGM. N/E = Not encountered within depth of exploration. Our laboratory tests revealed that the site soils have fines (silt and clay) contents ranging from about 30 to 58 percent. We interpret these soils to be currently above their optimum moisture 11476.DFT 044) 441pir Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475•O 13 March 1997 Page 6 contents, and to be highly sensitive to moisture content variations. Table 3, below, summarizes our engineering test results for selected soils encountered beneath the project site. Our testingalsoyielded a maximum CBR valueof 28 percent for the silty sands at optimum moisture content, but the CBR deceased to about 14 percent at a wet-side compaction of 90 percent. TABLE 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FOR GRANULAR SOILS Soil Type Moisture Gravel Sand Silt/Clay Maximum Content Content Content Content CBR (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) Sandy silt 33 0 42 58 — Silty fine sand 24 0 56 to 70 30 to 44 28 4.5 Groundwater Conditions At the time of exploration (14 February 1997), groundwater seepage was encountered in every test pit at depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet below the. ground surface. Table 4, below, summarizes the approximate groundwater depths and elevations observed in our explorations. Because our explorations were performed during an extended period of generally wet weather, these groundwater measurements may closely represent the yearly high levels; somewhat lower levels probably occur during the summer and fall months. However, due to the proximity of the project site to the Cedar River, we anticipate that the groundwater level will be greatly impacted by fluctuations of the water elevation in the river. Also, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to precipitation patterns, off-site construction activities, and site utilization at all times of the year. - II 11476.DFT • P,44 Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 13 March 1997 Page 7 TABLE 4 APPROXIMATE DEPTHS AND ELEVATIONS OF SEASONAL GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED IN EXPLORATIONS Exploration Depth of Elevation of Date of Measurement Groundwater Groundwater (feet) (feet) TP-1 7 81 14 Feb 1997 TP-2 6 84Y 14 Feb 1997 TP-3 4Yz 85 Yz 14 Feb 1997 TP-4 7 83 Yz 14 Feb 1997 TP-5 5 Yz 89 14 Feb 1997 TP-6 4 90 14 Feb 1997 TP-7 6 YZ 871/2 14 Feb 1997 TP-8 8 88 14 Feb 1997 N/E = Not encountered within depth of exploration 4,6 Infiltration Conditions Our field infiltration tests disclosed somewhat variable infiltration conditions across the site. The upper 1 to 3 feet of soil is a relatively impermeable sandy silt, while the underlying silty fine sand is roughly 4 to 5 times more permeable. The infiltration rate for the sandy gravel soil deposit at depth was not measured; however, this deposit probably has a fairly high infiltration rate, depending on the water level of the Cedar River. Table 5, below, summarizes the results of our infiltration testing. TABLE 5 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS FOR IN-SITU SOILS • Infiltration Test Exploration Test Depth Soil Type Average (feet) Infiltration Rate (inches/min) IT-1 TP-2 1 '/z Sandy SILT 0.04 IT-2 TP-2 3% Silty SAND 0.25 4_7 Seismic Conditions According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in the 1994 Uniform Building Code, the project site lies within seismic risk zone 3. Based on soil conditions encountered at the site, we interpret the subsurface site conditions to correspond to a seismic soil profile type S"3, as defined by Table 16-J of the 1994 Uniform Building Code. Soil Profile 11476.DFT • 4044?, 4clittp Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-1147b 0 13 March 1997 Page 8 type S-3 applies to a profile consisting of predominantly soft to loose soil which is limited to 40 feet of such soil. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field explorations, research, and analyses, the proposed project appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, contingent on recommendations presented in this report. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation, underground utilities, culvert foundations, infiltration systems, asphalt pavements, structural fill, and construction monitoring. WSDOT Standard Specifications cited herein refer to WSDOT publication M41-10, 1996 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. 5.1 Site Preparation Site preparation will include clearing and grubbing, grading, and preparing subgrades. The following comments and recommendations regarding site preparation are provided for design and construction purposes. Clearing and Grubbing: Site preparation should include clearing, grubbing and removal of all surficial vegetation, topsoil, .and root masses from foundation, pavement, and fill areas. Materials stripped should be wasted off-site or stockpiled and screened for reuse as topsoil. We anticipate that stripping depths within vegetated areas may range up to 12 inches; however, areas of deeper, organic-rich surficial soils should be expected, particularly around tree root-balls, if present. Fill materials should be,placed and compacted according to the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. ,-Site Drainage and Erosion Control: Fill surfaces should be graded and sloped to provide positive drainage so as to preclude surface water ponding. During construction, all surface water runoff should be routed to temporary siltationponds before discharging fromthe si te.rY g g s te. Erosion and silt control may be accomplished by means of berms, swales, hay bales, silt fences, and vegetative mats. Subgrade Protection: To reduce site disturbance, the contractor should minimize traffic above prepared subgrade areas. During wet conditions, the use of a working surface of quarry spells, clean sand and gravel, or the use of soil-cement stabilization, may be required to protect subgrades from vehicular traffic. Frozen Subgrades: If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend that all exposed subgrades be allowed to thaw and be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill, or constructing foundation components. Foundation Preparation: Foundation subgrades should consist of firm and nonyielding soils. Structural fill placed below foundations should extend beyond the footing edges a distance 11476.DFT • I 1 04)A Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91M-11415-0 13 March 1997 Page 9 equal to the depth of structural fill below the footing. An AEE representative should be retained to observe all subgrades before any foundation concrete is poured and to verify that they have been adequately prepared. 5.2 Underground Utilities Installation of underground utilities will involve cut slopes, safety considerations, shoring, dewatering, pipe bedding and backfilling. The following comments and recommendations are provided for design and construction purposes. Safety Considerations: The stability of cut slopes is a function of many factors, including soil type, soil density, slope inclination, slope height, the presence of groundwater, and the duration of exposure. Generally, the likelihood of bank failure increases as the cut is deepened and as the duration of exposure increases. For this reason, temporary slope safety should remain the responsibility of the contractor, who is continually present at the site and is able to monitor the performance of the excavation and modify construction activities to reflect varying conditions. In all cases, cut-slope inclinations should conform to applicable governmental safety guidelines. Slope Inclinations: In our opinion, temporary cut slopes can be used around dewatered excavations if sufficient lateral space is available. For planning purposes, we tentatively II recommend that all temporary cut slopes be no steeper than 1 Y2 H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical), but flatter slopes will be necessary if excessive seepage occurs. All temporary slopes should be protected from erosion by means of berms, swales, and an impervious cover, as necessary. Even when these erosion-control measures are implemented, we recommend that the contractor exercise great discretion in the use of cut slopes. Shoring: If lateral space constraints preclude the use of temporary cut slopes, a temporary shoring system should be installed to support the excavation sidewalls. The site contractor should be responsible for designing and installing such a shoring system. Prefabricated trench boxes will likely provide an effective and low-cost system for this purpose. Dewaterinq: Based .on our explorations, we expect that groundwater seepage will be encountered in excavations greater than 3 feet deep and that groundwater will be encountered in excavations greater than 5 to 6 feet deep. As such, an external dewatering system consisting of (1) well points supplemented by internal sumpholes and pumps or (2) deeper wells with submersible pumps will likely be required for underground utility installations below the groundwater table. To maintain a stable trench bottom, we recommend that dewatering be specified to draw groundwater down at least 2 feet below the pipeline inverts. In all cases, the specific design of a dewatering system will depend on actual conditions observed during construction. Pipe Bedding: Pipe bedding material should consist of fine crushed stone meeting the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(3) "Crushed Surfacing Top Course," or 11476.DFT • i • Oit 4A * Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91M-11475-0 ®®® 13 March 1997 Page 10 granular material meeting the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(3) "Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding." The pipe bedding material should fully envelope the pipe to depths of 6 inches under and 6 inches over the pipe. Where soft or unsuitable soils are present at the base of the excavation, it may be necessary to place a layer of foundation ballast to stabilize the pipe foundation. In this case, the pipe foundation material should consist of coarse crushed stone meeting the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(2) "Shoulder Ballast". Backfillinq: Excavations should be backfilled in accordance with our recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Specifically, all structural fill soil should be compacted to a uniform density of at least 90 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D-1557), and any fill placed within 2 feet of pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 95 percent. A variety of materials could be used for backfill depending on weather and groundwater conditions, as described in the Structural Fill section. 5.3 Infiltration Systems We understand that stormwater runoff from playfields will be collected into a near-surface underdrain system consisting of a sand drainage layer overlying a series of infiltration trenches. From a geotechnical standpoint, infiltration into the underlying silty sand soils appears feasible, whereas infiltration into the upper sandy silts appears very limited as is evidenced by the wetlands area over the northern portion of the site. Our conclusions and recommendations concerning infiltration systems are presented below. Trench Depths: The proposed playfields are mantled by 1 to 41/2 feet of topsoil and low permeability soil deposits. In our opinion, all infiltration trenches should extend through this surficial soil layer to expose the underlying silty sand. Backfill materials placed within the infiltration trenches primarily for water infiltration should be consistent with the gradation of the native sand underlying the site. Specifically, we recommend using "Backfill for Sand Drains" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.13 for infiltration trench backfill. Infiltration Rates: Based on the soil conditions observed in our explorations and on the results of our infiltration tests, we recommend using an ultimate infiltration rate of 0.25 inches per minute for unsaturated soil conditions. An appropriate safety factor should be applied to this infiltration rate to account for lateral and vertical variabilities within the infiltrated soil unit. Infiltration Capacities: Critical geologic features governing the infiltration capacities of soil units include the depth to groundwater, the available storage capacity of the soil unit, and the unsaturated thickness of the soil unit. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations, we recommend assuming a yearly high groundwater table of 5 feet below the ground surface for design purposes. Additionally, we recommend a maximum available storage capacity of 0.10 inches per inch of infiltrated soil unit. Given this information and the thickness 11476.DFT 404? 4141p, Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91M-11475-0 13 March 1997 Page 11 of soil units presented in Table 2, we recommend using an unsaturated soil thickness of 3 feet for design purposes. 5,4 Foundations In our opinion, spread footings appear feasible for foundation support for the proposed outbuildings and stream crossing structures if the subgrades are properly prepared. We offer the following comments and recommendations for the purposes of footing design and construction. Footing Overexcavations: In order to provide adequate bearing conditions for spread footings, we recommend that all footing subgrades be overexcavated to reveal medium-dense sandy gravel soils or to a minimum depth of 3 feet below planned footing subgrade elevations, whichever is greater. We expect that the native sandy gravel soil horizon will be encountered at depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet below the ground surface. Because foundation stresses are transferred outward as well as downward into the bearing soils, all footing overexcavations also should extend horizontally outward from the edge of each footing a distance equal to half of the overexcavation depth. Therefore, an overexcavation that extends 3 feet below the footing base should extend 1 Y2 feet outward from the footing edges. Soil Replacement: All footing subgrade overexcavations should be backfilled to design subgrade, to create a bearing pad. In our opinion, compacted soil would not be suitable or practical for this purpose due to the relatively shallow groundwater table. Consequently, we recommend that the overexcavated soils be replaced with controlled-density fill (CDF) to create stable bearing pads. CDF backfill materials should meet the strength recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Footing Widths and Depths: To minimize settlements, all continuous (wall) footings should be at least 18 inches wide, and all isolated (column) footings should be at least 24 inches wide. All footings for the creek crossing structures should be at least 36 inches wide. For frost protection, exterior footings should penetrate at least 18 inches below adjacent outside grade, whereas interior footings need extend only 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. Bearing Capacity: We recommend utilizing a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for all shallow foundations bearing on CDF fill prisms. This allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third to resist short-term transient loads such as wind and seismic forces. Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads on the foundation caused by seismic or transient loading • conditions may be resisted by a combination of passive soil pressure against the side of the foundation and shear friction resistance along the base. An allowable base friction value of 0.40 and an allowable passive earth pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), expressed as 11476.DFT 1 0.4)A 44Eit Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91M-11475-O 13 March 1997 Page 12 ' - an equivalent fluid unit weight, may be used for that portion of the foundation embedded more than 1 foot below finished exterior subgrade elevation. Footing Settlements: We estimate that total post-construction settlements of properly designed footings bearing on properly prepared CDF fill prisms will not exceed 1 inch. Differential settlements could approach one-half of the actual total settlement between adjacent foundation elements. Subgrade Verification: All footing subgrades should consist of firm, unyielding, CDF fill materials. Footings should never be cast atop loose, soft, or frozen soil, slough, debris, or surfaces covered by standing water. We recommend that the condition of all subgrades be verified by an AEE representative before any concrete is placed. 5.5 Pavements We understand that asphalt pavements will be used for the new car-parking areas and access driveways. The following comments and recommendations are given for pavement design and construction purposes. Design Criteria: Critical features that govern the durability of a pavement section include the stability of the subgrade; the presence or absence of moisture, free water, and organics; the fines content of the subgrade soils; the traffic volume; and the frequency of use by heavy • vehicles. Soil conditions can be defined by a California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and traffic conditions can be defined by a Traffic Index (TI). Design Values: Based on our laboratory testing, we estimate that the native soils will provide a CBR value of about 3 percent. We also estimate that a TI of 4.0 is appropriate for car-parking areas and that a TI of 5.0 is appropriate for access driveways subjected to short-term construction traffic and long-term occasional passes by service vehicles. Pavement Sections: A conventional pavement section typically comprises an asphalt concrete pavement over a crushed rock base course over a granular subbase course. In our opinion, construction of pavements bearing directly on the native sandy silts does not appear feasible without removal or stabilization of these soils. Consequently, we are providing pavement options for conventional sections, geotextile-reinforced sections, and soil-cement stabilized sections, as summarized in Table 6, below. In our opinion, the soil-cement stabilized pavement section should be considered the most viable option. 11476.DFT I • • • 01? 441 Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-O if 13 March 1997 Page 13 TABLE 6 RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT OPTIONS Minimum Thickness (inches) Pavement Pavement Light Duty Heavy Duty Section Course (Parking/Pathways) (Driveways) Conventional Asphalt Concrete Pavement 2 4 Crushed Rock Base 6 6 Granular Subbase. 29 27 Geotextile Asphalt Concrete Pavement 2 3 Reinforced Crushed Rock Base 6 6 Granular Subbase 22 21 Soil-Cement Asphalt Concrete Pavement 2 3 Stabilized Crushed Rock Base 6 6 Soil-Cement Subbase 16 16 Base and Subbase Materials: For pavement base course materials, we recommend "Crushed • Surfacing Base Course" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(3), although the upper 2 inches of this may be substituted with "Crushed Surfacing'Top Course" per WSDOT Standard Specification 4-04.3(6). For the conventional pavement section, subbase materials should consist of "Gravel Borrow" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.14(1). For the geotextile-reinforced pavement section, subbase materials should consist of "Shoulder Ballast" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(2). Alternative Base Course: As an alternative to the 6-inch-thick crushed rock base for all pavement sections presented in Table 6, a 4-inch-thick asphalt-treated base (ATB) course could be substituted, resulting in a thinner finished section. This substitution allows the ATB course to be placed in advance for use as a construction surface. Placement and Compaction: Pavement base course, subbase, asphalt-treated base, and asphalt concrete pavement materials should be placed and compacted according to the requirements stated in WSDOT Standard Specifications 4-04, 4-06, and 5-04. Specifically, the base course. and subbase and the upper 24 inches of material placed below pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. 6 Subgrade Preparation: Preparation of subgrades for pavement subbases refers to preparation of soils over which the pavement subbase layer will be placed. The actual method used for 1 1476.DFT • OA) 44p,Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 13 March 1997 Page 14 subgrade preparation will depend on the type of pavement section selected from th e e options presented above. In any case, we anticipate that excavation and/or filling to prepare subgrades for pavement subbases will require tracked equipment due to the relatively weak bearing properties of the native soils. Additionally, routing construction equipment traffic directly over soft subgrades is neither advisable nor recommended due to potential soil disturbance and subgrade damage. The following comments and recommendations are provided for subgrade preparation of conventional, geotextile-reinforced, and soil-cement stabilized pavement section subgrades, respectively. • Conventional Subgrades: Subgrades for pavement subbases should be prepared according to the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 2-03. Any localized zones of yielding subgrade disclosed during the subgrade excavation operation should be overexcavated as needed and replaced with a suitable structural fill material. All structural fill should be compacted according to our recommendations given in the Structural Fill section. Specifically, the upper 2 feet of soils underlying pavement section should be compacted to at least 95 percent (ASTM:D-1557), and all soils below 2 feet should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the same standard. • Geotextile-Reinforced Subgrades: Woven geotextile fabrics place d d over areas of soft subgrades for pavement subbases provide soil reinforcement and separation over which subbase materials can be placed and compacted. Based on the design values presented above, we recommend using a woven polypropylene geotextile such as "Construction Geotextile" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33.2(Table 3), for separation and subgrade reinforcement. To maintain continuity between adjacent rolls of geotextile fabric during fill placement, we recommend that seams overlap a minimum of 2 feet and be fastened with sewn seams. To avoid damaging the geotextile, construction equipment should be operated only on the advancing fill pad and no equipment should be driven directly atop the geotextile. The initial lift thickness over the geotextile should be a minimum of 18 inches and the initial compactive effort should be performed using a non-vibratory methods to avoid subgrade disturbance. • Soil-Cement Stabilized Subgrades: Soil-cement stabilization is recommend for all pavement areas. This option basically involves the addition of a blended admixture of hydrated lime (to aid in drying of the soil) and stabilizing cement (to create an improved soil subgrade) without the need for time-consuming and costly overexcavation or geotextile reinforcement. Based on initial laboratory testing, we tentatively recommend a soil admixture blend consisting of 2 to 4 percent hydrated lime and 7 to 10 percent cement; however, the actual content of hydrated lime and cement should be optimized, through a series of laboratory tests, prior to construction. The stabilizing admixtures should be 11476.DFT • Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 13 March 1997 Page 15 spread over the soil surface and uniformly mixed into the soil using an in-place, horizontal-shaft mixer. The depth of mixing should be monitored to ensure that a uniform depth of stabilization is obtained. Based on the results of our explorations, we tentatively recommend a mixing depth of 16 inches for all pavement areas. The stabilized material should be shaped and compacted to final grade within several hours following the mixing operation. ' Pavement Life and Maintenance: It should be realized that no asphaltic pavement is maintenance-free. The above described pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations for an average level of performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely be required. Furthermore, a 20-year pavement life typically assumes that an overlay will be placed after about 10 years. Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase courses would offer better long-term performance, but would cost more initially; thinner courses would be more susceptible to "alligator" cracking and other failure modes. As such, pavement design can be considered a compromise between a high initial cost and low maintenance costs versus a low initial cost and higher maintenance costs. 5.6 Structural Fill "Structural fill" refers to any materials used to construct detention pond berms or placed and compacted under foundations, retaining walls, slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, pavements, and other structures. Our comments, conclusions, and recommendations concerning structural fill are presented in the following paragraphs. Materials: Typical structural fill materials include clean sand, crushed rock, quarry spells, controlled-density fill (CDF), lean-mix concrete, well-graded mixtures of sand and gravel (commonly called "gravel borrow" or "pit-run"), and miscellaneous mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled asphalt, concrete, and glass, which are derived from pulverizing the parent materials, are also potentially useful as structural fill in certain applications. Soils used for structural fill should not contain any organic matter or debris, nor any individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter. On-Site Soils: Because only minor cuts are planned for the project, we do not expect that large quantities of on-site soils will be generated during earthwork activities. Nonetheless, we offer the following evaluation of these on-site soils in relation to potential use as structural fill. • Organic Soils: The sod, topsoil, and organic-rich soils mantling most of the site are not suitable for use as structural fill under any circumstances, due to their high organic content. Consequently, these materials can be used only for non- structural purposes, such as in landscaping areas. • Non-Granular Soils: The sandy silt and clayey soils underlying the topsoil horizon over most of the site are not suitable for use as structural fill, under any 11476.DFT Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 13 March 1997 Page 16 circumstances, due to their relatively plastic properties. Consequently, these materials can be used only for non-structural purposes, such as in playfield areas. • Granular Soils: The fine to medium-grained sand underlying the non-granular soil horizon appears suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, these soils will be difficult or impossible to reuse during wet weather, due to their moderately high silt contents. Fill Placement: Generally, quarry spalls, CDF, and lean-mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, clean sand, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. Compaction Criteria: Using the Modified Proctor test (ASTM:D-1557) as a standard, we recommend that structural fill used for various on-site applications be compacted to the minimum densities presented in Table 7. TABLE 7 RECOMMENDED COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS Fill Application Minimum Compaction (ASTM:D-1557) Footing subgrade 90 percent Slab-on-grade floor subgrade 90 percent Foundation backfill 90 percent Concrete sidewalk subgrade 90 percent Pavement base and subbase 95 percent • Pavement subgrade (upper 2 feet) 95 percent Pavement subgrade (below 2 feet) 90 percent Soil-cement stabilization layer 90 percent Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless D q of material or location, all structural a fill should be placed over firm, unyielding or stabilized subgrades prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The condition of all subgrades should be verified by a geotechnical engineer before filling or construction begins. Also, fill soil compaction should be verified by means of in-place density tests performed during fill placement so that adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as 'earthwork progresses. 11475.DFT • 40kg • • Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-1 1475.0 13 March 1997 Page 17 Soil Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on their grain-size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the "fines" content (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent • fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points above or below optimum. For fill placement during wet-weather site work, we recommend using "clean" or "select" fill, which refers to soils that have a fines content of 5 percent or less (by weight) based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 Sieve. CDF Strength Considerations: CDF is normally specified in terms of its compressive strength, which typically ranges from 50 to 200 psi. CDF having a strength of 50 psi (7200 psf) provides adequate support for most structural applications and can be readily excavated with hand shovels. A strength of 100 psi (14,400 psf) provides additional support for special applications but greatly increases the difficulty of hand-excavation. CDF having a strength greater than about 100 psi requires power equipment to excavate and, as such, should not be used where future hand-excavation might be needed. 6.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study; therefore, if variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. Also, because the future performance and integrity of the project elements depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. AEE is available to provide geotechnical monitoring, soils and concrete testing, steel and masonry inspection, and other services throughout construction. 11476.DFT 0404• PPJongejan, Gerrard, McNeal, Inc., P.S. 7-91 M-11475-0 10 March 1997 Page 18 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. Timothy J. Boyce, E.I.T. Project Engineer Henry W. Brenniman, P.G. Senior Project Engineer James M. Brisbine, P.E. Associate HWB/TJB/clt 11476.0FT + II I , • • �sE 4TH 1 ST ;:q • 7 III.,' $E 128TH $T RY '` NE 3RD pi _ H W( 14000 1 $ �1 E • ' : ' -! "1 I SEt 129TN j 1 48 6 q ^! -! 1 *.1imi T �� , Sr hl N;` Wi 155p0 128TH y2ND NE 1 y ��5E- -131ST ! 5r �� ( y i 12 I.; 1C7H _- SE ----- �3 -� � a! `�`� =` hi11SE H� zr+o Q, sr i r ��apit z� EEISUR£ ,J� !sr}44 < 1i _ f Jf• :8 1 i SE: 13157 ' Sr��` ESTATES <�c � �....- Ir :^ i SE 132ND Sr �1 8. s:i N SE ^;5E 114rH:p, 11 I Q: ¢.S,-, SE 131 1• a I iJSTN{ $i :N �I� e( �� 2Np S SE Alm 1 Sr 1 ( SE tasTh Q �f I^ ; SF! - 136rH 1 i ( ¢ ER;m' z' SE 1347}i ` • i • , ►'-g ! oL;6jgt� 14100 sIN ;o ; ST , i? i_S~ y o 1 NfPMX�4ppp � � > 1 l 1<' !�' j ! - _'___Si5ao0 136TH • usr�-H i� SE 4111 "1t !ma*, ii i y o S7 _. t 1 - ... r M� / JJJF/ '} a"w 1 > SE 1387N fr - - _ k �,t>�H of SC " ,y • . ••• - J 1 • E 4 SE9/, PL ' T SE 1J8TH vL i ram?.. . ST L_ YSE 14()T 114Sl :- SE pt. ' • ,! • i SF • - SE 141ST sE 4l N P( c: I El: its S711 l :-.77:1 „,s7::1 `1bTHpl st 1bTM ,;• oE 1397N Pi 8 IH °E I 142HD ST 4' '� ,n' 8 i K� i SF SS o SIN 7,7 �: ;SE 142HD s� tt :us r SE , ; �7 .Jr 2 W of SE 1`2rp c i , 1 �. � ^I'� L �,� 1 • _ _ tt .ii•- kJ y( = SE 142No Si: Q'l,, SE 142HC AO I� _: HEIGy i\' I69 ry ...;_ — _ 44 Q ST'L =x1 �I i ;5� Si — P,r 1 60Lf- 7\�,N f Yh w '.-1 L�lb,( SI w J \ ; I" • - SE 14sr �' s` `ap' Q SE,143RD_= sT �,,l t<;s, _� IN vol... II ^�, SEf-,4�•i "1.. t S r Flo-;= _ �/ '•�E ./•�1`S• Ft \\ SE I- f .SE .o00, �,1: _ .• .� 144 , S JF/ :�, , n .• '� l i• c�l_, P,/SE W N•N s.� ., Tr 5 r;S' -''!, _'_ 'r' .' -O :1 = t H'rsE 1`: ,r a_o self \ ♦-` �E�a �a� '• p \�_1 '��S7-ate'% 'i'E'S• Q�, C!� � b!1KTN !st ._ �a�i C/�/T\' 6 p 22 • ,.�' G SIB ,�� ?E �� SE 148 °: ''1 °L $1,.!2: z \ri, Xt �.< O�_ •:`•�P.J; .. =.. p�� , SE 146TH PI S7-�.' - � oa > _ ,, CE ' «_. �a _ iOk xis =az— sE` �— • V� '� �. Fs.2 i a„e 1 R °ti qCLL� uli .F S<19M - - �l SI/ �' o �� - .•. ^�152110 `. �� .. x I 4j ,v ��,; R� ti =sf_ I I • cam° i ,�'S �F • r', 1,\�� '- �• �'"y' :6�;y! , —• _ ts6 TN S� SF iT iYl �J C�'lfL• �g 7 Jt P \ �- /,, r.l ~i .,�.. - se RIVER S�� =E:9TH 1 ;.-i I �-�I14"0 l�' VSE 1 S c'St ,� �.:;�,,i, p,, 61ST '=s _____a_... ..„ ` l ,58TM °t;f - tt.;., .„1 N6TN \__ C �%�SE:6C7y..is -1 w1` �., r,. T .".�-!o - �1 .' SE I59`' s•b ST Er Gktv<' c. _ -_4Stt. ,�E 1615r P•: i.SE 160T4,fir* • SF :59i /. . 'Y Z.�131 h _�\',`--CO se `" sE 5� SSE 164TH A Sf `/r FA( `yu� W SE! I520 1••7 v5 SE :66:H ST Si. 'T'� si -.• �O N.<• 1„3p s °L 5E 16-y�: Sf� FA I st' Ai :gym, _4.sl>-=: h o 'EHAREfs 4 'i • }•' .._ '"' /te^sr ,., - �: CLYCBErYvt its!Via/ a* •Q SE <' ; IZ h - —,'SE1564 Pt. / . x� tasi>, 16,TM p i 9r{5T -- •-• s� :�; •t'f� JF 7i �ai�� oJy SE �: .- Sc. ;5 4 pi .� - .! __. SE 1 J. '�r"t `o i� 5t S• �,t.^,.��S iN / .• 9J IJS r:" a94, . '1 -1- h� `yE 7Q .4y..,�'^ 0057 :70 - ! / �a n' Si s i ST`-1Jq-�REYIGkf �„`:, �' s <�O ,� a'b,R s�l� 5i •.., -lt:IT: aTM PE !-••• . ie i11Sr su• 'i\.( �: 1= ":a'� �`� 15 n` `V S •` +o- J_ \ of by Y. a Pl E 16)TH - d', S7?SE:�71 V;E LIB v PL SE:E. . , ST 70TH T •-' 'd -t �r - � AV SE s P .• !2 oo'i E•7L p rur 1 14300 E r L - .!s-•,`,Z. .. <: ci • SE 171ST,,. 7L `� '`-1 ''+ �1645> � �,'$ (- aiu u st 'ttrr'teg%1/I •.SE 1_7�� . ti' �sO ,. crx,t �C ~' Pl.•,� •• . t••a'��'.'.••:.` �",••• . Z fret \ 2 -,--.1,___)Oix xl J ` ;l - Jf ".� N 5 • Q: i J 'rni� 're' 9i x2NO p1 m 1R 15KV`( se- I<''j,L �'•. =s ��'�::. ti.%? F ,'a, BLVD•st • 4 1 gpst is Si:7051 pi SEE A A7 ST)77/6 P• E /240 SE o77pp Pi IJr ;�I'- • " Jt Pl. -:.:;;;;',-1-. :t9 ��Qp `wEti - SE:I>2ND^PL p I SE I70Th ST 'P\ o r jh .,p,- ..SE l])AD ,.. 2 SC 1, v,SE n i.•�.'.`:•! r_ I� RN"'•' �, y 57 3 S 3 SC ITIST ST Il FA `�. .'CLLB• ..1,y'_-_I !CO'T>ti.'� r... L I d w _� 4 ISM AY SE 5. 6•.. 'LTX)0 r-1.•e.": �'S: 1 1 to m. y SCUARE •1491N`t•-. 1 l56TN PL sr'''. ,s, 7p tb� C . II3Po Pi. • Q 4 i SE '\ J• v.s,. NC F J 17ST 4iH 4'4'5 5E1(SC 417 o Sr )mSf.; fs.`r -\ C,Jr I!I-1 S•• AY, oilirP`F,�i�SE;vs TN o �� hi,. 14900 r .,,, ST r r, Iti , j3 h J/SOH'-1 nL q s �,z s to l p W Earth RA w.o. 7 l.n_ld.-ivilW-B1*-114-Zaaw_ Jr_Q i \� �E . y 6-, ��rth & LEnviro DESIGN _ CEDARPfTaovirsKiw 11335 NE 122nd wa nmenta/ — — SRRIVER REGIONAL PARK Kirkland, washingtonaY'�Site 100 �RAwN ____-- KING 69 & 749AVENUE S E.0A• 98034 6918 SATE COUNTY, WASHINUEG N897___ srelc r.i -• _ LEGEND • TP-8 TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE �- EXISTING LOCATION METRO SEWER \ \ IT-2 INFILTRATION TEST NUMBER AND \\ APPROXIMATE LOCATION \ j1') P LETOCK SPELEDCON S TEF FILL/DEBRIS \ • SOURCE: BASED ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY . \� JONGEGAN-GERRARD-McNEAL, INC. DATED ,I_ �; JUNE 30, 1994. �0 • NTA -----..,-:NN\ F- I FUTURE SOCCER FIELD .` • y_; 472..N.N\N\ cc FR al I ''''....\,,,N > k��. TP-1 ¢ 1%. \\�t�� PAVED PATH (TYP.) \. \ , \Nk\-- \‘‘ ,:‘:\-: k\ \ .. \ \ \ I I _ . •\ a. I FUTURE SOCCER FIELD \ \ 0 I IT1 2 \I \\ 1 I IT-1 —�cc \ cr) H TP-2• EXISTING WETLANDS AREA - \\ RESTROOM PLAY AREA —--- BUILDING — — — — —-•PICNIC \\ BASKETBALL SHELTER _ _ COURT /��' • :�pFN• w —� gTFR fTyp \ I CONCRETE ( N\WALK(TYP) l/ � � 0 MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 2B W.O. 7—_9 M_y 1475 O CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK SR 169 & 149 AVENUE S.E. 6 AG R A DESIGN -MB___ ._ KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 0 120 24-0 Earth & Environmental DRAWN _MAW__ -- a �� 11335 NE 122nd Way,Suite 100 DATE FEB 122L_ SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN < SCALE IN FEET Kirkland,Washington, U.S.A.98034-6918 SCALE 1^=190' , FIGURE 2A — . • MATCH LINE SEE FIGURE 2A . - EXISTING OPEN WATER \ 1 " .. ; !) I TP-4 I TP-3 C9 EXISTING WETLANDS AREA I I SOFTBALL FIELD 1 I FUTURE / ,J 1 PARKING Q 1 lcc 1 � w i \ 1—J I i t ' I 1 PICNIC I } ¢ I I SHELTER i w 1 j O M NIISTING I / = O WE RING I • / 1/ � ( I I TP-5 // i Q 1% ' i PEDESTRIAN ) / > ' I FUTURE SOFTBALL FIELD /1 BRIDGE 151 I J '' 1 Q i / // • / U/ co / .-- 0'6)- / r. co1 I I ' . / TP-6/ FUTURE ---- PAVED PA -- i BRIDGE_. / F---- . i i ;k TP—T S MADSEN CREEK O// I- a + ''"'— - PEDESTRIAN \ O / 'I k_ r BRIDGE _ _ PARK BOUNDARY 1 2 I i > I� & >- 1 '' 11 11— C? '' Ii Iwl Q� / :. _ - i I 1 Q� // ... / 1 1 //I 1 I ` i ii f \\�, /j " / HEXISTIP8 ETRO SEWER // I 0 120 240 ENTR Y --SCALE 1N FEET- - 149th AVENUE S.E. Y // y w.o. 7-91M-1141. CEDAR RIVER REGIONAL PARK OAGRA DESIGN HOB _ KING COUNTY, WASHING ON Earth & Environmental DRAWN "D —- - 11335 NE 122nd Way.Suite 100 DATE FEB 1997 SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN Kirkland,Washington. U.S.A. 98034-6918 SCALE 1 --- - FIGURE 2B APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS i • APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES.AND LOGS 6-917-11475-0 Our field exploration program for this evaluation included eight test pits advanced at the project site. In addition, we conducted two infiltration tests. The approximate locations of the explorations are indicated on the Site & Exploration Plan, Figures 2A and 2B. The locations were obtained in the field by taping and pacing from existing site features, and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. Test Pit Prnredurea Our exploratory test pits were excavated with a rubber-tired backhoe operated by an independent firm working under subcontract to AEE on 14 February 1997. A geologist from our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations, logged the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in watertight containers and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After we logged each test pit, the hoe operator backfilled it with excavated soils and tamped the surface. The enclosed Test Pit Logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our logs indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of the in-situ soils by means of the excavation characteristics and the stability of the test pit sidewalls. Our logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or ' groundwater seepage observed in the test pits, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations. Infiltration Test Procedures Our infiltration tests were performed in general accordance with the procedures prescribed in the King County Department of Public Works"Surface Water Design Manual," Section 4.5.2 Maximum Infiltration Rate Tests." Specifically, a test pit was excavated to the desired I infiltration test depth, a 6-inch-diameter PVC pipe was tamped approximately 6 inches into the soil at the bottom, and the test pit was partially backfilled with soil. The pipe was then filled with water, and the water level was maintained for at least 4 hours to saturate the test soils. Following this saturation period, the pipe was filled with 4 feet of water, and the time required for every 1-inch drop in water level was recorded through a total drop of 6 inches. We I repeated this procedure three times at each test location and subsequently calculated the average rate of the three trials. After completion of all tests, the PVC pipes were extracted and the test pits were backfilled. ' a • 11476.APP TEST PIT LOGS 7-91 M-11475-0 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample p Noy Test Pit TP-1 Location: 1,590 feet west of road centerline and 195 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 88 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Fill debris and sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets (Topsoil) 0.5 - 4.5 Soft, wet, some orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some S-1 organics and small roots and scattered burnt organics 4.5 - 7.0 Loose, wet, becoming saturated, mottled orange-tan, silty fine S-2 SAND 7.0 - 8.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan, sandy, cobbly GRAVEL with some silt Test pit terminated at approximately 8 feet Severe caving observed 5 to 7 feet and unable to keep the excavation open below 7 feet Slight seepage observed at 6 to 7 feet with groundwater at 7 feet Test Pit TP-2 Location: 1,310 feet west of road centerline and 215 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90.5 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics, abundant rootlets and some small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 3.0 Soft, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some organics and roots and scattered burnt organics 3.0 -4.0 Loose, wet, mottled orange-tan, silty, fine SAND grading to silty, fine SAND with trace small roots 4.0 - 5.0 Soft/loose, wet strongly mottled orange-tan, sandy SILT/silty, fine SAND 5.0 - 6.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 6 feet Severe caving 5 to 6 feet and unable to keep the test pit open Slight seepage from 5 to 6 feet with groundwater at 6 feet 7-91 M-11475-0 Test Pit Logs, Page 2 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No, Test Pit TP-3 Location: 925 feet west of road centerline and 60 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets and scattered small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 3.0 Soft, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some S-1 organics and trace small roots 3.0 - 4.5 Loose, wet to saturated, mottled orange-tan-gray, silty, fine SAND S-2 with trace small roots 4.5 - 6.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan-gray, sandy GRAVEL with, some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 6 feet Moderate to severe caving 3 to 4.5 feet and unable to keep the test pit open below 4.5 feet Slight seepage at 4 feet with groundwater at 4.5 feet Test Pit TP-4 Location: 915 feet west of road centerline and 310 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90.5 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets and some small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 1.0 Soft, wet, tan, sandy SILT with organics and some small roots 1.0 - 5.0 Loose, moist to wet, tan, silty fine SAND with some small roots S-1 and scattered organics 5.0 - 7.0 Loose/soft, wet, heavy mottling orange-tan-gray interbedded silty SAND/sandy SILT 7.0 - 8.0 Loose to medium-dense, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt • Test pit terminated at approximately 8 feet Severe caving 5 to 7 feet, and unable to keep the test pit open below 7 feet Slight to moderate seepage at 6 feet with groundwater at 7 feet 11476TP.228 • 7-91M-11475-0 Test Pit Logs, Page 3 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No, Test Pit TP-5 Location: 595 feet west of centerline and 350 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 94.5 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets and trace small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 1.5 Soft, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some organics and trace small roots 1.5 - 2.5 Loose, moist, orangish tan, silty, fine SAND with trace organics and small roots 2.5 - 4.0 Soft/loose, trace to some orange mottling in tan, interbedded sandy SILT/silty fine SAND • 4.0 - 6.0 Loose to medium-dense, wet to saturated tannish gray, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and trace to some silt. Test pit terminated at approximately 6.0 feet Severe caving 4 to 6 feet and unable to keep the test pit open below 5.5 feet ' Slight seepage at 5 feet. Groundwater at 5.5. feet Test Pit TP-6 Location: 425 feet west of road centerline and 95 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 94 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and some small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 2.0 Soft, wet, tan, sandy SILT with some organics and small roots 2.0 - 4.0 Loose, wet, slight to some mottling orange-tan-gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with trace small roots 4.0 - 6.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan-gray, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 6 feet Slight to moderate caving 3 to 4 feet and severe caving 4 to 5 feet and unable to keep the test pit open below 5 feet Slight seepage at 3.5 feet with groundwater at 4 feet 11475TP.228 7-91 M-1 1475 0 Test Pit Logs, Page 4 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No, Test Pit TP-7 Location: 410 feet west of road centerline and 95 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 94 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organic and abundant rootlets and some small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 3.0 Soft, wet, tan, sandy SILT with some organics and small roots 3.0 - 5.0 Loose, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, silty, fine SAND with S-1 trace to some small roots 5.0 - 6.5 Loose, wet to saturated, some orange-tan-gray mottling, silty, fine to medium SAND with trace small roots 6.5 - 7.5 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan-gray, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 7.5 feet Moderate caving 3 to 6 feet and unable to keep the test pit open below 6.5 feet Slight seepage 4.5 to 6.5 feet with groundwater at 6.5 feet 1147STP.228 1 . ' II 7-91 M-11475-0 Test Pit Logs, Page 5 ' Deoth (feet) Material Description Sample No, Test Pit TP-8 Location: 105 feet west of road centerline and 115 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 96 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Loose to medium-dense, moist to wet, blackish gray, gravelly silty SAND with some organics (Fill) • 0.5 - 2.0 Soft/loose, wet, tan, sandy SILT/silty fine SAND with trace to some organics 2.0 - 6.0 Loose, wet, tan, silty, fine to medium SAND with trace organics S-1 and small roots 6.0 - 8.0 Loose, wet to saturated, mottled orange-tan some gray, silty, fine S-2 SAND 8.0 - 9.0 Loose to medium-dense, saturated, tan-gray, sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and silt Test pit terminated at approximately 9 feet Moderate caving 4 to 6 feet becoming severe 6 to 8 feet Unable to keep test pit open below 8 feet - Slight to moderate seepage 6 to 8 feet with groundwater at 8 feet • 11476TP.228 • 7-91 M-11475-0 Test Pit Logs, Page 6 Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No, Infiltration Test IT-1 Location: 1,320 feet west from road centerline and 215 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90.5 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlets and trace small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 3.0 Soft, wet, slight orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some organics and trace small roots and scattered burnt organics 3.0 - 3.5 Loose, moist to wet, slight orange mottling in tan, silty, fine SAND S-1 with trace small roots and organics Infiltration test pit terminated at approximately 3.5 feet No caving observed No seepage observed Infiltration Test IT-2 Location: 1,310 feet west of road centerline and 210 feet north of fence Approximate ground surface elevation: 90.5 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT with organics and abundant rootlet and trace small roots (Topsoil) 0.5 - 1.5 Soft, wet, light orange mottling in tan, sandy SILT with some S-1 organics and trace small roots Infiltration test pit terminated at approximately 1.5 feet No caving observed No seepage observed Date excavated: 14 February 1997 Logged by: HWB 11476TP.228 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS • • APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 6-91 M=11475-0 Our laboratory testing program for this evaluation included numerous visual classifications, 6 moisture content determinations, 200-wash analyses, 2 grain size analyses, 1 modified Proctor, and 1 California Bearing Ratio test. Graphical results of certain laboratory tests are enclosed in this appendix. • Visual Classification Procedures Visual soil classifications were conducted on all samples in the field and on selected samples in our laboratory: All soils were classified in general accordance with the United States Classification System, which includes color, relative moisture content, primary soil type (based on grain size), and any accessory soil types. The resulting soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Moisture Content Determination Procedures Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples to aid in identification and correlation of soil ty pes. All determinations were made in general accordance with ASTM:D-2216. The results of these tests are presented on the enclosed grain size distribution graphs and were used in soil classifications shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A. 200-Wash Analysis A 200-wash is a procedure in which the fine-grained soil fraction is separated from the sand and gravel by washing the soil on a U.S. No. 200 sieve. A 200-wash was performed on selected soil samples obtained from our test pits in general accordance with ASTM:D-1140. The results of these analyses were used in soil classifications shown on the test pit logs in Appendix A and are presented in this appendix. Grain Size Analysis Procedures A grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM:D-422. The results of these tests are presented on the enclosed grain-size distribution graphs and were used in soil classifications shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Laboratory Maximum Density Test The laboratory maximum density represents the highest degree of density which can be obtained from a particular soil type by impacting a predetermined compaction effort. The test determines the "optimum" moisture content of the soil at the laboratory maximum density. The laboratory maximum density test was performed on a bulk shape of material in general accordance with ASTM:D-1557. The test result is shown in this report and presented as a curve where the dry soil density is compared to the moisture content of the soil. 11475.APP California Bearing Ratio Test Procedures A California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test provides a quantitative prediction of the relative quality and support characteristics of a saturated soil when subjected to wheel loads. CBR tests were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM:D-1883. Representative portions from each sample are compacted in a mold to obtain a moisture-density relationship curve, a 15-pound surcharge is applied to each sample, and the samples are then immersed in water for at least 96 hours, during which time they are monitored for swell. Next, a vertical load is applied to the surcharged soil with a penetration piston moving at a constant rate of strain, while the associated penetrations are measured and compared with the theoretical strain of crushed rock. The ratio of the measured and theoretical loads (in percent) is defined as the CBR value for the soil at that particular density. The enclosed California Bearing Ratio graphs present our test results as a plot of density and resistance versus moisture content. • 11476.APP GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTMD422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36" 12' 6' 3" 11/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 x �I x C I 90 60 2 70 5 60 W50 Jr_ - Z 40 11.1 W 30 20 10 0 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Sitt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINEGRPJNED Exploration Sample Depth Moisture Fines Soil Description �--�-�-•--� IT-1 S-1 3.5 25% 44% Silty SAND •1-•-•-• IT-2 S-1 1.5' 32% 58% Sandy SILT - 31E-4IE--3IE--A--31E TP-8 S-1 3.0-4.0' 24% 30% Silty SAND Air A A Project: Cedar River Regional Park Work Order: 7-91 M-11475-0 A G RA Earth & Environmental Date: 2-19-97 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 .MAXIMUM DENSITY ,- --MOISTURE CURVE , 3TM: D1557 125 z.s G 2.7 G 2.6 120 G 2.5 G 2.4 • — G .3 /.' 115 0 2.2 110 H — 4 LL — u) J 105 Z W — 0 0 100 0 95 90 • 85 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 11 I 11 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 MOISTURE(% OF DRY WT.) Project: Cedar River Regional Park OAG FAA Work Order: 7-91M-11475-0 Depth: 3.0-4.0' Earth Environmental Date: 2-24-97 Sample: S 1 11335 N.E. 122nd Way Suite 100 Exploration: TP-8 Optimum Moisture: 14% Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 Max Dry Density:S-1 Rock Corrected: (none) ry • CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (ASTM 1883) 125 120 - 1150.71 -- 0110 105 a) O 100 --_- 95 90 85 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture (% of Dry Weight) 100 so 80 70 60 = CO 0 40 80 20 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture (% of Dry Weight) Project. Cedar River Regional Park AGRA Work Order 7-91M-11475-0 Depth 3.0=4.0' Earth & Environmental Date: 2-24-97 Sample: S-1 11335 NE 122nd Way Max Density 116pcf • Optimum Moisture: 14% Suite 100 Exploration TP-8 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 , 1 1 _• • • • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services SITE IMPROVEMENT 3600 136th Place Southeast •••••"•-••••"."—,....••••••••••,.., QUANTITY•• •v .y. Bellevue,Washington 98006-1400 WORKSHEET • • R; 1) • C/ig/CI Project Name: [kr totc- e4oft,a,I Pc.S- SIERRA Project No.: Date: Location: 12eto."" aN le. ‘.6, le.Q R (5R. /Gq) Ave.‹.E. Sierra Activity No. FOR ENTIRE PROJECT .•.• ..... . ,•.••••• ••,....N N.•••• .......... •.... •. . • UnIt •••••••••''••••' "•••• •• • •• •••••••••••••.••• •••• •••••••••••••• ,• • .• • • • EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL Fence,BR 6 1.30 LY (.3 gG.2 Hydroseeding .40 SY Jute Mesh 1.00 SY Mulch,by hand,etraw,2 deep .35 SY Mulch,by machine,straw,1'deep .40 SY Rock Constr Entrance,50'x 15'x 1,030.00 Each •"" Rock Constr Entrance,100'x 15'x 1' 1,800.00 Each I1 SOD Seeding,by hand .35 SY ESC SUBTOTAL EXISTING FUJIJRE P081.IC PRIVATEri.R/P FACIliTIES AND BOND REDUCTIONSRIGHT-OF WAY ',••••••: ::•,:ROAD . ............................ IMPROVEMENTS CONVEYANCE 7 .................... 2 ••••••i•• Unit Quantity Quantity Quantity.?c :;.PrIcor? •..:""•"::10uantitf'' 5.Priceic .c.cc mot, mpt e.., , GENERAL ITEMS Clear/Remove Brush,by hand .24 SY SUBTOTAL FOR PAGE 66:2 ,on1.11.11.11P. Pagel Sierra Project No. • r; " FUTURE. '.. RID• .FACILITIES`AND;<.t:;'. :.'':":::;<>'`:r:,%.'.' °>?'? BOND`REDUCTIONS.,•;::..:>;'''s.•.:'.::�?."!. .....::..:.:::. .::. ::.. :..:.. .•:;::::., . :..�.,,:::.. .,:: ;EXISTING.::.. ..,. ...:.::::.:::..:. ..:::.:::.. . .:. .. >. .... ........ :. oAD:.:>.:.;.>::: '`::_':': �CONVEYANCE:.::.':':.;':;.::: IOHT Y ... ... .... .... ovEMElrta. ..... ,..:.. .... .... Unit ,...:.... :.. .,.,. .. • . .....�. .... .. ......... ........ ...... . .. .,. Com �'< rlo�.' 'Com Iru'. ..Pdes.:. .�:Complat OuanUOuentlt ': .Prlw. ':•Quantl Prlw> :. :.Ouantlty "P,rlu'': PNt.• P ..........P...:...: . . .....::. ........ h w Y.. • GENERAL ITEMS(Con't.) et 2 _ Clearing/Grubbing/Removal,trees 6,150.00 Acre -35 +41°; Excavation-bulk 1.10 CY zOOQ 'R2.00 p Excavation-trench 3.00 ----CY--'- —_-- —3�___ Backfill&Compaction-embankment 3.60 CY ii� t0 Backfill • &Compaction-trench 5.70 CY T' V _ Fill&Compact-common barrow 11.10 CY Fill&Compact-gravel base 15.60 CY Fill&Compact-screened topsoil 15.40 CY Grading,fine,with grader .70 SY Grading,fine,by hand 1.30 SY Fencing,cedar,6'high 25.00 LF Fencing,chain link,6'high 9.20 LF Fencing,chain link,gate,20' 880.00 Each Fencing,temporary(NGPE) 1.10 LF Sod 4.82 SY Monuments,3'long 84.00 Each Surveying,lot location/lines 630.00 Acre Surveying,line&grade 510.00 Day Trail,4"crushed cinder 6.50 SY Trail,4'.top course 6.00 SY Gablon,3'thick,no earthwork 97.00 SY Well,retaining,rockery w/earthwork 21.00 SF • SUBTOTAL FOR PAGE 11 41 • C/94-4 M130-12/9N4 Page 2 '1 • • • Sierra Project No. • • .;.;i::.i::}!ft::.>:£:>'.`:;?,i.:i::: '>i>:ii z>?,¢:i:p;:7`7:i:"Eii"'>.:. ?�.:RIGHT of WAY. IMP EY .. ........ .... .. ... ....... .... ......... ...... ..... ...... .... ... ... .. .... .. •M OVEMENTS :,.1::';:'^.>�::�>'Ci : :T::`:"`.:?:%::::"::::��2�.E:�:':::'::;�:� , ...:..::.:..:.::.. ..... .. .....Unit......... ... ... . ... ....... .. .. ;;:;.:.:,,.':: .. ntlty,..; ::;;: ;:::::.:.... :...... .. .. ..... ...: :.... .. . o • a Pru.. .;Ouan ':' '.Pda'i". "'i':i0u®Otl'..;`:::€' `r`Prlp'::'. ;;Cornpleu'i ::rprlca'i>: :::Comphti:' ;;:Pilo; :Cortlplru' Prlu Pr::;:;.. la ;::.:,. Unit;;:.;.: u ndtY: Prlcrr. Ou ntky j :. ... . ...:.�..;.. .. ... . .............::�.... .. .. .... ....... ... . ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AC Grinding,4'machine 7.00 SY AC Removal/Disposal/Repair 80.00 SY Barricade,type III 30.00 LF Barricade,type I 20.00 LF Curb,extruded asphalt 1.80 LF Q �( • Curb,extruded concrete 1.80 LF Curb&Gutter,rolled 9.30 LF � 1 Curb&Gutter,vertical 6.80 LF 'fV�L 12r113 Demolition/Disposal,curb&gutter 10.30 LF Demolition/Disposal,sidewalk 22.50 SY Sewcut,asphalt,3"depth 1.30 LF Sawcut,concrete,per 1"depth 1.10 LF Sealant .70 LF Shoulder,AC,see AC Road SY Shoulder,gravel 6.40 SY Sidewalk,4'thick,vertical curb 20.80 SY /.2r0 2( 003 Sidewalk,5"thick,rolled curb 23.80 SY Striping,4"reflectorized line .20 LF 'too iq0 Striping,par parking stall• 2.90 Each I'! 7 G Thickened Edge 4.70 LF • ROAD SURFACING (4"rock 2.5 base&1.5"top course) AC Overlay, 1.5'AC 5.40 SY AC Overlay,2"AC 6.50 SY "1t60 t16,C4° SUBTOTAL FOR PAGE 86r41w3 u94-1:M13e-12rere4 Page 3 Sierra Project No. • .. . . , .,. .. :..;:,::...: :::.:...;„ .. .:..::.. .... .. ...::: c.' '' /DFACILITIESAND.':. ,....:...:.: ... .::::.:.>..: .. ....,,:...:..:..:.::.::::.:::: :: .: .. .. ... EXISTING::.. FUTURE Pl1BLl.. ::.. . PRNATE;.,..: R . . ... :::.... . ...:..:.:. .:,,.:.:...:.<::.:.: : ;:.::::..:,.<...: .. VEYANCE:..:.:: ..'. :....... R .IMPROVEMENTS: ::.: N RIGHT-OF WAY:. . .... . .. .. .. ..:......: ..:::....:.::.:.. :..:..:-...,..... :. ..:....::.,.. :.. :..,�:..::::.,:..::..:.:. .... ., IMPROVEMENT ... ':SYSTEMS Z ...::..:: :........ ....... . .:�.... :.:::.:.::::. , �. .... ,,:r ;' : :;_>i?; iti<^ :%L'2f- " � � QOenilt � Uuanilty .. . :, "' ....:•. : :.. 'Dolt.::.. Pilo. Complete Prloe Complete Price PrlPiles :: "' Unit•" Ournthy Price Quantity Price Quantity Prloe Quentfty Priam Complete yy ROAD SURFACING(Con't.) `, AC Road,2',4'rock,First 2500 SY 13.70 SY �SC1J �y145G AC Road,2',4'rock,Qty.over 2500 SY 9.10 SY Litho ii2lila, AC Road,3',4'rock,First 2500 SY 16.50 SY AC Road,3',4'rock,Qty.over 2500 SY 11.00 SY AC Road,5',First 2500 SY 16.30 SY • AC Road,5',Qty.over 2500 SY 10.80 SY AC Road,6',First 2500 SY 19.10 SY AC Road,6',Qty.ovci 2500 SY 12.70 SY Asphalt Treated Base(ATB)(Assume 2.05 ton/cyd) 30.00 Ton (Oa .201-1 0 Gravel Road,4'rock,First 2500 SY 7.20 SY Gravel Road,4'rock,Qty.over 2500 SY 4.70 SY • PCC Road,5';no base 14.30 SY PCC Road,6',no base 16.60 SY DRAINAGE (CPP-=-Corrugated-Plastic-Pipe,—N-1-2-or-equivalent) — . Access Road,R/D 9.30 SY Bollards-fixed 290.00 Each , Bollards-removable 475.00 Each 8 3}3OJ (CRo include frame and lid) CB Typal 850.00 Each CB Type IL 1,000.00 Each • CB Type II,48'diameter 1,300.00 4'deep for additional depth over 4' +320.00 +1'depth SUBTOTAL FOR PAGE eat 3� C/O4J:MI3e-12/ala4 Page 4 ___I____ I a • ' Sierra Project No. .. .. ..,.: •:.:.::::.::::•.:,.:,:..::;:..":'BON ...:..... . .... ...... .. ., EXI ., .:. .:.. .. .... . . .........:,:::;; :: ;poAD>;.;:.;_:;>.::a»:E:r?.;• OVEMENT$r'::>:::>i»: `:CONVEYA,NCE:;'.>:>:1;:< <<<�€>: ; y;j:;:i:�r o Y... IMPROVEMENTS .... .. ..... .............. ... IMPR ' ,.:,.:...;::::.: .,.:<:.::;;:r.'::>:�:�:si**;;:::?:..;:::.^:�•::><>:::::i:�r::•.::?�:�.t:�'::•:i,:>:8r.::�::>`:��:�::>:.::.;::: ..:�:.::.:::....:::.:..�. :..:.... Qll�fliltlr�:'. .' :. nt111Y!:>>: ... ri .::..::.. . .. .. .. ................ ... .. >....,....... .. ... . Quin <:.''prlc >; 'Coti+plati:<. ;`?P,•a. ?:Corn l� `.':P ;..:..:: .. ..»:.;:..:.,.:: ..::.:...� ::. ;.:.:.:• ..:..::.:. ;•..:...::::::. ....:. .,:.. ,.....:;tlw prla:> ::Gttent Prior.'[z:UtteMlty : ..:.Pria:�:: ... tky::::: DRAINAGE(Con't.) CB Type II,54'diameter 1,450.00 4'deep for additional depth over 4' +370.00 +1'depth . . CB Type II,60"diameter 1,600.00 4'deep - ' for additional depth over 4' +410.00 +1'depth _ ' CB Type II,72"diameter _ 2,200.00 _ 4'depth . for additional depth over 4' +520.00 +1'depth Through-curb Inlet Framework(Add) 225.00 Each t 22 Cleanout,PVC,4" 86.00 Each • Cleanout,PVC,6' 115.00 Each • Cleanout,PVC,8" 142.00 Each . Culvert,PVC,4' 4.50 LF Culvert,CPP,6' 9.30 LF - Culvert,PVC,6" 6.40 LF , Culvert,CM?,8' 9.50 LF Culvert,concrete,8' 12.90 LF ' Culvert,CPP,8" 10.00 LF Culvert,PVC,8" 8.00 IF. • Culvert,CMP, 12" 14.60 LF - ' Culvert,concrete,12' 17.90 LF Culvert,CPP,12" 16.50 LF Culvert,CMP, 15' 18.70 LF Culvert,concrete,15" 22.50 LF a OC 41,>S ' Culvert,CPP,15' 18.50 LF , • Culvert,CMP, 18' 21.90 LF • SUBTOTAL FOR PAGE u`8(70 Pane 5 Project No. ...... „ Sierra EXISTiNG .. ..:FUTURE.PuBLIC PRIVATE RID FACILITIES AND BOND REDUCTiONS RIOHT OF WAY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS SYSTEMS.••••• • ..... j' •..DuantitY...s. •• Quantity QuahtIt . . compt.t .i , :Complete-. prfce•:. 'Complete': Price............ ............... Prim "— ..... ••••:. •-• Unit •OuantBY. Quantity . . . . , . DRAINAGE(Con't.) Culvert,concrete,18" 27.60 LF Culvert.CPP,18" 22.00 LF - - • Culvert,CMP,24" 30.30 LF Culvert,concrete,24" 39.80 LF - Culvert.CPP,24" 29.00 LF Culvert.CMP,30" 38.60 LF Culvert,concrete,30" 64.70 LF Culvert,CMP,36" 62.80 IF Culvert,concrete,36" 83.20 LF Culvert.CPP,36" 39.00 LF • Culvert,concrete,42" 101.80 LF • Culvert,CMP,48" 80.60 LF Culvert,concrete,48" 113.00 LF Culvert,CMP,60" 112.00 LF Culvert,concrete,60" 164.00 LF Ditching,bare,roadside 5,40— CY Flow Dispersal Trench 1,100 base + 16.00 LF French Drain 12.30 LF Mid-tank Access Riser,36" 700,00 Each Pond Overflow Spillway 4.70 SY Restrictor/Oil Separator,12" 785.00 Each Restrictor/Oil Separator,15" 885.00 Each Restrictor/Oil Separator,18" 1,035.00 Each SUBTOTAL FOR PAGE Page 6 C/94-4:1,4136-12/9/94 • • • .11 • ,I r !I I • • • • Sierra Project No. • • • :'>'.. BOND ... ...:..:.....:.::.:..:.......:.. .::.....:::.:....:..::.:.. .. :..... ......:.:...::: .....:::.:..:. ,:::. .:..:..... .....:.:.. .EXISTING.:....::.. .. PRNATE:.:..::.::.....:..,.,., .: IG :O Y<: IMPROVEMEryTS'::::;''::? [>C4NVEYANCEss'::;i3iri::> sYSTE►yi8.:::;::,>::>!:.:;:.:,.:.::;:;:: .' z:'f'"r'< :;Qu nti .:.:.::::....... .. .. .. .. ........ ........ ... ....... .. ....:. <. .:::: :. : b a : m • Prior. ,;. m : Copl•t DRAINAGE(Con't.) Riprap,placed 28.00 CY Tank End Reducer 400.00 Each , Trash Rack,12' 160.00 Each Trash Rack,15" 185.00 Each I �� Trash Rack,18" 210.00 Each Trash Rack,21' 240.00 Each • PARKING LOT SURFACING ' 2'A.C.,2'top course rock&4"select borrow 8.10 SY 4.70 SY 1.5"top course rock&2.5'base course 4'select borrow 1.75 SY • WRITE-IN ITEMS ride Solo00 Lc LS So,00+ • • • SUBTOTAL(SUM ALL PAGES): 71q Lc-7 L S 30%CONTINGENCY&MOBILIZATION: I 7.2 TOTAL: 4 t Sr L�l(, (A) (B) (C) Pane 7 Sierra Project No. • Quantities above were completed by: Signature: Date: PE Registration Number: Telephone Number: • Firm Name: Address: • • • This section to be completed by King County BOND COMPUTATIONS: PERFORMANCE BOND AMOUNTS MAINTENANCE BOND AMOUNT DEFECT BOND AMOUNT Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control (ESC) (DI Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (E) Future Public Road Improvements (F) (E+F) x 0.25 = Private Improvements • RID Facilities and Conveyance Systems x 0.15 = TOTAL (T) PERFORMANCE BOND AMOUNT RIGHT-OF-WAY &SITE RESTORATION BOND (D+EI (First S7,500 of bond shall be cash.) #1 PERFORMANCE BOND TOTAL AFTER BOND REDUCTIONS (T-A,B OR C) #2 #3 —NOTE: The word 'bond' is used to represent Original bond computations Signature of Person Preparing Bond Reduction any financial guarantee acceptable to prepared by: Date: King County. • #1 Date #2 Date #3 Date NOTE: Total bond amounts remaining after reduction shall not be less than 30%of the original amount or the sum of the maintenance and defect amounts shown above,whichever Is greater. • F321W,na,.9N In vxrw Page 8 -