The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-08-013_Misc· ." , , TRANSPORTA CONSUL TING NORTHWEST a division of reN, /tIC 1607 E. Main Street Auburn, WA 98002 Phone: 253-931-0506 Fax: 253-333-2340 E-Mail: trniller@tcninc.com Y'!..yvw,tcninc.com Traffic Impact Analysis Key Plaza Prepared by: Timothy Miller, PE Washington #27048 Member, ITE #11026 August 9, 2007 Renton, Washington Prepared For: City of Renton At the Request of: Amber Properties , .1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction............................. ................. ........ ......... .................. .......... 2 r. Project Identification, Street Inventory........ ...................................... 3 II. Trip Generation...................... ............ ....... ........ ................ .................... 3 III. Traffic Assignment .................... .......................... ................ .................. 4 IV. Level of Service .................. ................................................... ............... 5 V. Safety Analysis .................................................................... ................. 7 VI. Signal Warrant Analysis........................ ........................... .......... 7 VIr. Mitigation ...... .............. ................................. .......................................... 8 Figures ................................................................................................. 9 Appendix ....................................................................... 16 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table I: Trip Generation ...... .............. ............................................................. 4 Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria .................... ..... 5 Table 3: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................... 6 Table 4: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ............................ 6 Table 5: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary .. ...................... 7 Figure 1: Site Vicinity ............ ......... ...... ......................................................... 10 Figure 2: Site Plan ....................................................................... II Figure 3: 2006 PM Peak Hour Volumes .............................................. 12 Figure 3a: 2008 PM Peak Hour Volumes WiD Project...... .............................. 13 Figure 4: PM Peak Hour Site Generated Trips ...................................... 14 Figure 5: 2008 PM Peak Hour wi Project .............................................. 15 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page I , . . r Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 Introduction This report analyzes the traffic access (TlA) for the proposed Key Plaza development on the SW comer ofNE 4th St & Bremerton Ave NE in Renton, WA. According to the preliminary site plan, the development consists of a 3,900 SF bank with 2 drive- throngh lanes, 6,200 SF specialty retail and 4,000 SF of general office space. There will be one driveway access onto NE 4th Street and one onto Bremerton Avenue NE. From the proposed office/retail building there will be two pedestrian connections to adjacent properties: one to the west and one to the south. Study Area Level of Service (LOS) analysis for the PM Peak Hour is required by the City of Renton for the following intersection: • NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE The Synchro 6 computer software program was used to perform the LOS analyses. Existing Conditions Without Project An inventory of the street and intersection characteristics in the project vicinity was conducted and is summarized in the report. 2006 PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersection were gathered. Future Conditions Without Project To be conservative, for current traffic volumes a 3.0% background traffic growth factor was used to project traffic volumes that will exist in 2008 for the without project condition. PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analyses at the study area intersections were completed for the 2008 without project condition. Future Conditions With Project The following items were evaluated: • AM & PM Peak hour trip generation • PM Peak hour trip distribution and assignment • LOS analyses at the study area intersection • Site access requirements and improvement needs • Safety analysis for the intersection ofNE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE • Traffic signal warrant analyses for the following warrants: Warrant 3, Peak Hour Warrant 7, Crash Experience TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 2 . , . , Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 • Measures to mitigate the development's impact on the transportation facilities in the study area • Mitigation fee calculated based on an impact fee of$75 per daily trip I I. Project Identification, Street Inventory Project Identification The development consists of a 3,900 SF bank with 2 drive-through lanes, 6,200 SF specialty retail and 4,000 SF of general office space. There will be one driveway access onto NE 4th Street and one onto Bremerton Avenue NE. The development is located in Renton, Washington as shown in Figure I, Site Vicinity. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. Street Inventory NE 4th Street is classified as an E-W principal arterial fronting the north edge of the site. It is 5 lanes wide (two lanes in each direction plus a two-way left tum lane) along the site frontage. For the most part in the project vicinity it has curb, gutter, and sidewalks. It connects the site to 1-405 and downtown Renton. Bremerton Ave NE is a N-S 2 lane Collector Street intersecting NE 4th Street and the NE comer of the site. It serves adjacent residential uses. I II. Trip Generation Trip generation for the site is estimated using data from the seventh edition of Trip Generation. In this document the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) compiles measured trip generation data from different land use types from locations across the US. A copy of the relevant pages from Trip Generation is attached. Land Use Code (LUC) 912, Drive-In Bank, was chosen as the correct land use for the bank in this development. Land Use Code (LUC) 710, General Office Building, was chosen as the correct land use for the proposed office space. Land Use Code (LUC) 814, Specialty Retail Center, was chosen as the correct land use for the proposed retail space. The pass-by rate for the Drive-In Bank was found in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. LUC 912, Drive-In Bank, was used and the PM peak hour pass-by rate was found to be 47%. A copy of the relevant page from Trip Generation Handbook is attached. Note that there is no ITE published pass-by trip rate for Specialty Retail at this time so we used a conservative (low) rate of20%. This 20% pass-by rate has been allowed by the Cities of Renton and Covington. A higher rate of 25% has been allowed by Snohomish County. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 3 .. Key Plaza TlA August 9, 2007 As shown in Table I, the project will generate 125 PM peak hour trips, of which 74 are net PM peak hour trips, with 34 entering and 40 exiting. There are 87 AM peak hour trips, of which 61 are net AM peak hour trips, with 34 entering and 27 exiting. AM peak hour figures represent a worst-case scenario as the peak hour varied with each land use as indicated in the footnotes of Table I. There are also 1,14 I daily trips, of which 700 are net daily trips . Tabl¢l . ' , . '. " KeyP]aza·· Trip G~n¢~ati()n ..... . Net Trips --.... -. " . PM Peak Hour Gross Pass-by .... Net Entering Exiting Size Units Rate Trips Rate Trips % Trips % Trips Drive-In Bank (LUC 912) 2 LANES 51.08 102 47% 54 50% 27 50% 27 General Office Building (LUC 710) 4.000 KSF 1.49 6 6 17% I 83% 5 Specialty Retail Center (LUe 814) 6.200 KSF 2.71 17 20% 14 44% 6 56% 8 PM Peak Hour Trip Totals 125 74 46% 34 54% 40 . Net Trios ... ··1·-=:· .... · '" _~." ·M_~~' , ___ w'_, .. AM Peak Hour Gross .Pa.ss~!>r Net Enterinf:! Exitin~ ,.,,' .. ._ ... _--, Size Units Rate Trips Rate" Trips % Trips % Trips Drive-In Bank (LUe 912)' 2 LANES 19.38 39 47% 21 58% 12 42% 9 General Office Building (LUe 710)' 4.000 KSF 1.55 6 6 88% 5 12% I Specialty Retail Center (LUe 814)3 6.200 KSF 6.84 42 20% 34 48% 16 52% 18 AM Peal, Hour Trip Totals 87 61 55% 34 45% 27 .. Gross Pas~-!>r. Net Fee Mitigation Daily Trips ~.---~".--"'.---~-----. _., Size Units Rate Trips Rate 4 Trips Rate Fee Drive-In Bank (LUe 912) 2 LANES 411.17 822 47% 436 $75 $32,700 General Office Building (LUe 710) 4.000 KSF 11.01 44 44 $75 $3,300 Specialty Retail Center (LUC 814) 6.200 KSF 44.32 275 20% 220 $75 $16,500 Daily Trip Totals 1141 700 $75 $52,500 , Peak ~our of Adjacent S.[!~e_et TraffiC, One Hour Between 7 rmd 9 a.m. 2A.M. Peak Hour ~A.M. Peak Hour of Generator ·Pass-by rate data not available for this time period P<lss-by rates for PM Peak Hour were used. A spreadsheet computing the PM peak hour new site generated entering, exiting and total trips for percentages of trip generation from 1 % to 100% was prepared and is included in the Appendix. I III. Traffic Assignment Traffic Volume Data To be conservative, turning movement data was adjusted by a 3.0% annual traffic growth factor to account for general background growth. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 4 · . Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 The horizon year for this analysis will be 2008. Figure 3 shows the 2006 PM Peak Hour turning movements wlo project at the study intersections. Figure 3a shows the adjusted 2008 PM Peak Hour turning movements wlo project. New trips generated by the site were distributed in accordance with existing traffic patterns and the street system configuration as well as probable customer places of residence. The site generated trip % assignments are shown in Figure 4 along with PM peak hour site generated trip assignments. Note that to be conservative, we elected to assign all site generated trips to the Bremerton Ave NE driveway. Some trips will likely use the NE 4'h Street driveway. Finally the site generated trips of Figure 4 were added to the 2008 wlo project volumes to establish the 2008 PM Peak Hour wi project data shown in Figure 5. I IV. Level of Service Capacity computations of the signalized study intersection were performed using the Synchro 6.0 software package. This computer program was developed by TrafficWare as an accurate representation of the Special Report 209 "Highway Capacity Manual" methodology. Outputs from the program are included in the Appendix. Level of Service (LOS) was calculated for the study area intersections noted above. Un signalized Intersections For the case of un signalized intersections, the LOS of the driveway exiting movements and entering left turn movements are calculated. The delay value established for each LOS criteria from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is listed in Table 2. ., ,. ,., Table 2 Unsignalized Inter~ection Level of Service Criteria . Level of Delay per Vehicle Service (sec.) A slO B >10 and s15 C >15 and s25 D >25 and s35 E >35 and s50 F >50 The results of the unsignalized intersection analyses are summarized in Table 3 below. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 5 · , .' Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 NE 4th & Bremerton The NB Approach currently operates at LOS D and will increase to LOS E in 2008 with or without the project. The SB Approach remains at LOS C with or without the project. Signalized Intersections The study intersection has been proposed by the City for future signalization. Therefore we also provided a signalized LOS analysis. For the case of signalized intersections the LOS of each movement, and the intersection as a whole, is computed in seconds of delay per vehicle. The delay value established for each LOS criteria from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is listed in Table 4. Table 4 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Control Delay per Vehicle A " 10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F > 80.0 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 6 Key Plaza TJA August 9, 2007 A summary of the capacity calculations performed for this study is contained in Table 5. Synchro computer output sheets for each signalized intersection LOS calculation are included in the Appendix. Note that the proposed signal at the intersection would operate at LOS B without or with the project. Delay will increase to 16.3 seconds with the project from 15.6 seconds of delay without it. I V. Safety Analysis Crash history data from 7/1/03 through 6/30/06 for the identified location was provided by the City. A detailed crash history analysis is below. NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE intersection had a total of 6 collisions in the period from 7/1/03 to 6/30/06, or an average of 1.5 collisions per year. Using the 2006 volumes this equals a crash rate of6 x 10 6/(2,651 x 4 x 365 x 10) = 0.16 crashes/million entering vehicles. There were no fatal accidents, 5 injury crashes (causing II injuries) and 1 property damage only crash. The highest frequency type was right angle collisions at 2 or 33%. Of the 2 right angle collisions, 2 involved EB vehicles (100%),1 involved a NB vehicle (50%), and 1 involved a SB vehicle (50%). There was also a ·sideswipe collision, a rear end collision, an approach tum collisions, and a fixed object/parked vehicle coIlisions. I VI. Signal Warrant Analysis An analysis of signal warrants was conducted for the intersection ofNE 4th Street and Bremerton Avenue NE using the following warrants: • Warrant 3, Peak Hour (2008 PM Peak Hour with Project built out) • Warrant 7, Crash Experience TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 7 Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 Warrant 3 -Peak Hour (2008 PM with Project) This Peak Hour analysis was conducted using the 2003 MUTCD Figure 4C-3, Warrant 3 -Peak Hour. The peak hour signal warrant for this intersection is shown in the Appendix. The major street (NE 4th Street) will have 2,763 vehicles in 2008. The high volume approach of the minor street (north leg of Bremerton Ave NE) will have 66 vehicles in 2008. As seen on the Figure, the warrant is not met as the minimum VPH for a minor street with two or more lanes is 150, well above the 66 that will be there in 2008. Warrant 7 -Crash Experience This Peak Hour analysis was conducted using the 2003 MUTCD Section 4C.08, Warrant 7 - Crash Experience. A copy of the qualifications from these pages is attached in the Appendix. According to the warrant a signal shall be considered if all three of the criteria are met. One of these criteria state that there must be, "Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a J 2-month period ....... " As seen above in Section V. Safety Analysis there have been only 6 crashes in a 4-year period for an average of only 1.5 per year, well below the required five in one year let alone correctable crashes from a traffic signal. Therefore this warrant is not met. Both the Peak Hour and Crash Experience signal warrants are not met. This warrant analysis shows no justification for a signal at the intersection ofNE 4th Street and Bremerton Ave NE. I VII. Mitigation The construction of the Key Plaza development results in one minor letter grade change for the SB R movement at the intersection ofNE 4th Street and Bremerton Ave NE. However, the NB TIL lane will operate at LOS F in 2008 with or without the project and currently operates at LOS E. A signal at the intersection ofNE 4th Street and Bremerton Ave NE is not warranted due to PM peak hour volumes or crash history. However if the signal was constructed, it would operate at LOS grade of "B" with only 16.3 seconds of delay, whether or not the project is constructed. To compute the transportation impact fee the following equation from the City of Renton was used: Fee = $75.00 x (#Daily Trips). As shown in Table I the amount of daily trips is 1,141. However this does not take into account pass-by trips. With a pass-by rate of 47% for the bank and 20% for the retail space, there are actually only 700 new daily trips created by the site. This calculates to a transportation impact fee of$52,500. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 8 FIGURES TRANSPOR TA TION CONSULTING NOR THWEST Page 9 • TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING r 1 N O~,,:,",:"~,,"E S T Figure 1 Site Vicinity Key Plaza TIA A- N KEY PLAZA -RENTON HIQt.ANDS 'ICIU:; ,-. ..... 0 20' 40' r""Io..-.... ~ TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING I , N 0 ~~:",,:".:, .. E S T 6G~ ! - Figure 2 Site Plan Key Plaza TIA A- N ... m ~ N "O~ 74<" 0(1" "23 1381 <0 ¢:I 1037 43" 017 "frO' ~om .. .' . ·.~jL.:_~~~,. Key Plaza TIA Figure 3 2006 PM Peak Hour Volumes CONSUL TlNG N ~O_ 79" 0'>" " 2' 14659 ¢:I 1100 46" 018 "1)" ~OID .. Figure 3a 2008 PM Peak Hour Volumes without Project ... N Key Plaza TIA A OMO N 0" 01}" "0 0<> <000 14" <717 "nO ""0 ~ N ~ ~ Key Plaza TIA Figure 4 PM Peak Hour Site Generated Trips CONSULTING N ~M~ 79" 0O", '" 24 1465q ~ 1100 6O" <735 "'fr" ~v .. N N '. ". Figure 5 2008 PM Peak Hour Volumes with Project "- N {' ..... {: .. ~_!2~_ Key Plaza TIA APPENDIX TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 16 General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday Number of Studies: 78 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 199 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ---- Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate I--__ ---'----=--c~._:..:.:."-'-__ .. __ . Range of Rates Standard Deviation 11.01 3.58 . 28.80 6.13 Data Plot and Equation 15,000 14,000 ... k. 13,000 12.000 11,000 U) '0 10,000 -c W Q. ~ 9,000 -.... ' .... X.' <D :Q 8,000 .c <D > <D 7,000 - '" f" <D 6,000 -:> « II 5,000 - f- x x: 4,000 3,000 - 2,000 1,000 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points ---Fitted Curve ------AverageRate Fined Curve Equation: In(T) = 0.77 In(X) + 3.65 R2 = 0.80 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1158 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour 217 223 88% entering, 12% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.55 0.60 5.98 1.39 Data Plot and Equation 4.000 ,--------------... 3,000 "' u c W a. j': x " ~ .c " 2,000 > x " '" i" " > <l; " f- x x x o 1000 2000 x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points ---Fitted Curve ------AverageAate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.80 Ln(X) + 1.55 R2 = 0.83 3000 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1159 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 235 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 216 Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area I Average Rate ~~~--R-a-n-g-e-o-f -R-a-te-s-------~St-a-n-d-a-rd-D-e-v-ia-t-io-n--~ . 1 .49 0.49_~-=6"'~3"'9'_______~~~~~~~___'_1 ~",,3,-7~~~~--, Data Plot and Equation 4,000 -,----------- x . " 3,000 -.... '/. /~-: '" "0 C W OL ~ '" ~ -<= Q) 2,000 > Q) CO> '" " > « x " f-x 1,000 ·x .. y{. x " x x x x x o o 1000 2000 3000 x ~ 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points --.-Fitted Curve - - - ---Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T= 1.12(X) + 78,81 R2 = 0.82 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1160 Institute of Transportation Engineers Specialty Retail Center (814) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 4 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 25 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting --------------------- Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Rate -----~-----"------------------ 44.32 Range of Rates 21.30 -64.21 Standard Deviation 15.52 Data Plot and Equation Caution -Use Carefully -Small Sample Size 2,100 2.000 .. .' ..... 0 .. 1,900 1,800 1,700 . -,/ '" 1,600 "0 c w 1,500 "-~ 1,400 <D U 1,300 E ... ',,-'-.- <D > 1,200 <D '" [" 1,100 -<D > « 1.000 -" x f--900 -. 800 700 / .. / - - -~ ~ ," , . ~ ~ ~ .. --:-. 600 500 - 400 10 20 30 40 50 x = 1000 Sq~ Feet Gross Leasable Area X Actual Data Points --Fitted Curve - - - - - -Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 42.78(X) + 37.66 R2 = 0.69 Trip Generation,7th Edition 1338 Institute of Transportation Engineers Specialty Retail Center (814) ----------------------- Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 5 Average 1000 Sq, Feet GLA: 69 Directional Distribution: 44% entering, 56% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area I Average Rate Ra~;e-o-f -R-a-te-s-------S-t-a-nd-a-r-d-O-e-v-ia-t-io-n----, , 2,7 t 2,03'----__ --'5"',-"16"---______________ --'1-'-',8"'3 ________ ---' Data Plot and Equation 600,------------ 500 '" -g 400 W c. j': " 13 :c ~ 300 " Ol ~ " ~ 11 f-200 100 - x Caution -Use Carefully -Small Sample Size x 0+-------~~------_,------------------~----------------_1 o 100 200 300 x = 1000 Sq, Feet Gross Leasable Area X Actual Data Points ._--Fitted Curve - -----Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 2.40(X) + 21.48 R2 = 0.98 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1339 Institute of Transportation Engineers • Specialty Retail Center (814) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 4 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 60 Directional Distribution: 48% entering, 52% exiting ------------------------ Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 6.84 5.33 -14.08 3.55 Data Plot and Equation Caution -Use Carefully -Small Sample Size 1.100 .,----------------------------------------------------, "' "0 c: W c. ~ '" U E '" > '" 0> ~ ~ « " f- 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 .. 300 X 200 , , , 100 X 0 10 20 X Actual Data PoInts .. ".,." ......... . ·X . ~"'/ ·X " , , / 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area ---Fitted Curve -----~ AverageRate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 4.91(X) + 115.59 R2 = 0.90 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1340 Institute of Transportation Engineers Drive-in Bank (912) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Drive-In Lanes Weekday 6 Avg. Number of Drive-In Lanes: 3 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ------------------------------- Trip Generation per Drive-In Lane I Average Rate 411.17 Data Plot and Equation Range of Rates 207.00 -802.75 4.000 -,----------- "' "0 C W 0. j': " ~ L 3.000 ~ 2,000 " D> i" " ~ " I- 1,000 Standard Deviation 228.21 o+----------------------------,r------------------------~ 2 3 4 x ;::::: Number of Drive-In Lanes x Actual Data Points ---Fitted Curve ~~----AverageRate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.33 Ln(X) + 5.52 R2 = 0.52 Trip Generatjon, 7th Edition 1694 Institute of Transportation Engineers Drive-in Bank (912) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Avg. Number of Drive-In Lanes: Directional Distribution: Drive-In Lanes Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 14 3 58% entering, 42% exiting Trip Generation per Drive-In Lane Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 19.38 4.50 . 53.00 Data Plot and Equation 140 130 120 110 x 100 '" " c W 90 0. ~ 80 (]) i< '0 :c '" > 70 '" '" 60 l" ......... ~-. '" > ..: 50 ...................... ~. " f- 40 30 20 10 0 X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given x x , 2 x = Number of Drive-In Lanes 3 14.85 ..... ... - - - - --Average Rate 4 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1695 Institute of Transportation Engineers Drive-in Bank (912) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Drive-In Lanes Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: Avg. Number of Drive-In Lanes: 34 3 Directional Distribution: 50% entering. 50% exiting Trip Generation per Drive-In Lane Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 51.08 3.00 -126.00 33.71 Data Plot and Equation 500~-------------------------------------------,X:~------------' "' "0 c: W 0- ~ Q) u :c Q) > Q) 0> i" Q) ~ " f- 400 300 200 100 - 2 X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given Trip Generation, 7th Edition x x .... ~. " x x Q x 3 4 5 x = Number of Drive-In Lanes - - - - - -Average Rate 1696 Institute of Transportation Engineers ------------. . -----------------------... -.. =;l 'oj" Gl ~ CD ~ g" I ~ "-g F '" ::> "-g; 5' ::> ~ ~ en • iii '" '" SIZE (1,000 SQ. WEEKDAY FT. GFA) LOCATION SURVEY DATE 16.0 Overland Park, KS Dec. 1988 3.3 Louisville area, KY Jul. 1993 3,4 Louisville area, K'Y' Jul. 1993 3.4 Louisville area, KY Jul. 1993 3.5 Louisville area, KY Jun. 1993 6,4 Louisville area, KY Jun. 1993 Average Pass-By Trip Percentage: 47 SIZE (1,000 SQ, SEATS FT. GFAl LOCATION 240 12 Louisville area, KY n/a 8 Orlando, FL nla 8.8 Orlando, FL nla 6.5 Orlando, FL Average Pass-By Trip Percentage: 44 Table 5.20 Pass-By Trips and Diverted Linked Trips Weekday. p.m. Peak Period Land Use 912-Drive-in Bank OIVERTED NO. OF TIME PRIMARY NON-PASS-LINKED INTERVIEWS PERIOD Tl1IP(%) 8VTl1IP(%) TRIP(%) 20 nla n/a 75 53 66 4:30-5:30 p.m. 55 30 4:0G-6:00 p.m, 22 30 4:00-6:00 p.m. 22 14 4:00-6:00 p.m. 11 32 4:00-6:00 p.m. 32 21 4:00-6:00 p. m. 20 27 Table 5.21 Pass-By Trips and Diverted Linked Trips Weekday. p.m. Peak Period Land Use 931-Quality Restaurant PASS-BY TRIP(%) 15 48 64 57 47 53 DIVERTED WEEKDAY NO. OF SURVEY DATE INTERVIEWS Jul. 1993 38 1992 168 1992 84 1995 173 TIME PERIOD 4:00-6:00 p.m. 4:00-8:00 p.m. 2:00-6:00 p.m, 2:0G-6:00 p.m. PRIMARY NON-PASS-LINKED TRIP (%) BY TRIP (%) TRIP (%) 36 38 55 40 16 38 • ADJ. STREET PEAKHQUR VOLUME SOURCE n/a nla 2,570 Barton-Aschman Assoc. 2,266 Barton-Aschman Assoc. 1,955 Barton-Aschman Assoc. 2,785 Barton-Aschman Assoc. 2,610 Barton-Aschman Assoc. ADJ. STREET PASS~BY PEAK HOUR TRIP (%) VOLUME SOURCE 26 4,145 Barton-Aschman Assoc. 45 n/a TPD Inc. 44 n/a TPD Inc. 62 n/a TPD Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON BREMERTON AVE NE NE 4TH STREET LOC# 01 TCN06293M BREMERTON AVE NE From North Start Time Right lhru left App. Total Peak Hour from 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM -Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:45 PM Volume 48 0 Percent 81.4 0.0 04:45 Volume 13 0 Peak Factor Highlnt 05:15PM Volume I. 0 Peak Factor 11 " 18.6 2 15 5 19 0.776 !~I:i i , ~ i~i' I~I~ • , 1(,),- ~~ m oc .... TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98507 (360) 491-8116 NE 4TH ST From East BREMERTON AVE NE From South Righi: lhru l,ft ADP. Total Right TOru loft , App. Total 23 1037 2.1 96.3 3 270 04:45 PM 3 270 17 1077 8 1.6 47.1 8 281 1 I 05:15PM 8 281 3 0.958 8REMERTUN AVe !''C Out In Total 97 59 156 48 0: 11j Right Thru L,ft , . North 10/25120064:45:00 PM ,10/2512006530:00 PM PRIMARY , . Left Thru Right 9 0 8 60 17 77 Out In Total BREMERTON AVE NE 0 9 17 0.0 52.9 0 , 0 3 6 i 0.708 ' Right 43 2.' , 04:45PM 9 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No NE 4TH ST From West : TCN29801P : 00000010 : 10/25/2006 :2 lhru l,ft App. Total lot Total 1381 74 1498 2651 92.2 4.' 349 25 383 681 0.973 349 25 383 0.978 ! , , l-ICM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE 8/2/2007 - Lane Configurations ltj ti+ Sign Control Free Grade 0% Volum", (veh/h) 74 1381 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 76 1424 44 Pedestrians kane Width (tt) Walking Speed (fils) percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, COnflicting volume 1093 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1093 tC, single (s) 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) !F(s) 2.2 pO queue free % 88 eM capacity (veh/h) 634 Volume Left 76 Volume Right 0 cSH 634 Volume to Capacity 0.12 . .. Queue Length (ft) 10 Qontrol Delay (s) 11.4 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0 .. 6 Approach LOS 0 0 0 44 1700 1700 0.56 0.31 0 ° 0.0 0.0 Average Delay 0.9 InJ",rsectionCapacity Utilization 60:2% Analysis Period (min) 15 -t ltj ti+ 4'''' 4'''' 17 0.97 18 1468 1468 4.1 2.2 96 456 456 0.04 3 13.2 B 0.2 Frel! Stop SIQP 0% 0% 0% 103723 9 .0 8 '11·0 48 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1069 24 \)0 811 . 0 49 TWLTL TWLTL 5 5 2218 27:26 734 1989. 2737 546 1598 1598 1116 1116 619 1128 873 1621 2218 2726 734 1989 2737 546 '7.5 6:5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 3:5 4:0 3.3 3.5 4,0 . 3 .. 3 91 100 98 94 100 90 99 139 367 195 i·12:t 481 0 0 9 0 11 0 ·0 24 0 8 0 49 1700 1700 99 367 195 481 0.42 . 0.22 0,09 0;02 0.06 0.10 ° 0 8 2 5 9 0.0 0.0 44.9 . 15.0 24.6 13.3 E C C B 30.9 15.4 D C ICU Level of Service B Key Plaza TIA 4:45 pm 10/25/20062006 PM Peak wlo Project (Stop Control) TCN, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 1 • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE 81612007 Lane Configurations "i +r. ;:iign Control Free Grade 0% Vqlume(veh/h) 79 1465 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 t"lourlyflpwrate (vph)81 1510· 62 Pedestrians pme VVJdth(tt) Walking Speed (fils) F'ercent.BIOckage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, con~ictii1g ,volume 1159 vCl, stage 1 conI vol vC:2; stage 2 conI vol. vCu, unblocked vol 1159 IC:,singlE! (s) . 4,1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (sj ..... ·2,2 pO queue free % 86 cMcapacity.(vehlh) 5.99 .. 1 Volume Hight ··,0 cSH 599 Volume toCapacity . 0;14 Queue Length (tt) 12 Control Delay (s) 12.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 Approach LOS Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0 0 62 1700 1700 0.59 0.33 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.8 64,1% 15 WBL 35 0.97 36 1572 1572 4.1 2.2 91 415 7 14.5 B 0.4 -t +r. 4' r 4' r Free ~top·· Stop 0% 0% 0% 1 199 24 26 4 28.12 ..35.1 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1134 25 27.4 ·2912.3.~'53 TWLTL TWLTL 5 5 2397· 2935 • 786 .2168 .·2954 579 1704 1704 1219 1219 mi3 1231 949 1735 2397 2935 786 2168 2954 579 7,5 6;5 6.9 :r.5 .6".5 6.9 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 3.5 '\:O 3.3 3.5 .4 .. 0 3.;3 68 96 91 92 96 89 84 116 ··~39 150 .• • .. :.8q 4$8 0 0 27 0 12 0 25 0 '29 ·0 ?~. 1700 1700 87 339 130 458 0.44 0.24 0.36 0.09 0.12 :0.11 a a 35 7 10 10 0.0 0;0 67.7 16.6 36:4 13.9 F C E B 43.1 19.0 E C ICU Level of Service C Key Plaza TIA 4:45 pm 10125120062008 PM Peak with Project (Stop Control) TCN, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 1 , " 'HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE 8/2/2007 ~ -"'). f --\.. '\ t !' \. + ./ M9Sce.rr.tflnC~.'\';:<,i!.;\:N;t'.,,~;tEB[jpE.a.ttl. E.B R WBL vyliit"i'WI3R " " NEll..b;~'i~r\fI31£;,lN 13 R\ \~,SI3 C!€'t.Jlsi31;!i~',SB R . : "::'-' -" .-'''''''',.,,'' ", ~-. ,.,. " .. --. . . "'.,. -, --.-". Lane Configurations 'I tT> 'I tT> 'I T> 'I t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) lQOO 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.()0 ' ,1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1:00 0.95 1,.,00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3523 1770 3528 1805 1615 1770 1583 FlfPermitteo 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0;95 1.,00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3523 1770 3528 1805 1615 1770 1583 iiolume (vph) ,79 1465 46 18 1 joo 24 10 0 ,8 j~', ' 0 51 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 81 1510 47 19 1134 25 10 0 8 12 0 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 48 Lane Group Flow (vph) 81 1555 0 19 1158 0 10 1 0 12 0 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% furn Type Prot Prot Split Split Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (5) 4.8 38.8 0.7 34.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 ~ffective Green, g (5) 4.8 38.8 0.7 34.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.57 0.01 0.51 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 CIElaranceTime (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4:0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (5) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 UmeGip Cap (Vph) 1,.2,6 2025 18 1814 190 144 " ,157 141 vis Ratio Prot cO.05 cO.44 0.01 0.33 cO.Ol 0.00 0.01 vis Ratio Perm 0.D3 vic Ratio 0.64 0.77 1.06 0.64 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.03 Uniform Delay, dl 30.5 10.9 33.4 11.9 28.2 2.8.0 28.2 28.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Increment",1 Delay, d2 10.7 .1,8 230.8 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 41.2 12.7 264.2 12.6 28.3 28.0 28.4 28.2 Level of Service D B F B C C C C Approach Delay (5) 14.1 16.7 28.2 28.2 ApproachLOS B B C C Jti'tersectjoriSt.immil&i;;il.,~4;li:".;i;;fi;r"'1~~. .:Ji(hk;, ". .',. ·· .. <"~'ill;f;f1iiii~l#';;;;.(-1,~if;,i:,;;;.~~~~..j;o;" ,,; rrCM Average Control Delay' 15.6 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (5) 67,5 Sum of lost time (5) Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service Ah'slysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Key Plaza TIA 4:45 pm 10125/20062008 PM Peak wlo Project (with Signal) TCN, Inc. B 12.0 B Synchro 6 Report Page 1 • • ~ ",;'" . 1-iCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE 81212007 ~ -,. of -'-'\ t ~ \. + .; M6vemiHlt'c '. , ... "' .. ~" " . , \,,',~ ,) .\,(ii;E.BLt. • EBT i.EBR WBL WJt1:;'WBR' , N B~J .. ,NE):r: :i;~NflRil§.",$~Ei:!I\,{t;;$flJ;;'\!'$B B Lane Configurations "! tf+ "! tf+ "! 1+ "! t f Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4,0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 fit protected 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1:.00 P,95 1,00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3518 1770 3528 1805 1650 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted . 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00· 0 .. Q5· 1;00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3518 1770 3528 1805 1650 1770 1863 1583 Volurne (vph) 79 1465 60 35 1100 24 26 4 28 12 .. 3 51 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 81 1510 62 36 1134 25 27 4 29 12 3 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 26 0 0 0 48 Lane Group Flow (vph) 81 1569 0 36 1158 0 27 7 a 12 3 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.7 38.3 2.3 35.9 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.4 6.4 ~ffectiveGreen, g (s) 4.7 38.3 2.3 35,9 . 6.6 6.6 . M .. 6.4 604 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.55 0.03 0.52 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 c:learance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4:0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 LaneGrp Cap (vph) 120 1936 58 1820 171 156 163·· 171 146 vis Ratio Prot cO 05 cOA5 0.02 0.33 0.01 cO.02 0.01 0.00 vis Ratio Perm 0.03 vic Ratio 0.68 0.81 0.62 0.64 0.16 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.03 Uniform Delay, dl 31.7. 12.7 33.2 12.1 28.9 28;6 28.9 28 .. 7 28.8 Progression Factor 1.ob 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14:0 2.7 18.8 b.7 004 0,1 0.2 0·9 .0.1 Delay (s) 45.7 15.4 52.1 12.9 29.4 28.7 29.1 28.8 28.9 Level of Service D B D B C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 16.9 14.1 29.0 28.9 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection st:Jrnma[j.,.i,;§iii/'i .-.". ~;~,:;;;!),~~,:.~;~~·;::~-,},:,~,,~·-~:~;t~,-~~it,~~;:.~~J~~ji:_~~;,_~:~, HCM Average Control Delay 16.3 HCM Level of.Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69,6 Sum of.losttime (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Key Plaza TIA 4:45 pm 10/25/20062008 PM Peak with Project (with Signal) TCN, Inc. .B 12.0 B Synchro 6 Report Page 1 /'""""""\ CORE ~·DESIGN Core Design, Inc. 1471 1 N.E.29thP/oce,Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE REPORT Project Manager: Project Engineer: Prepared by: Date: Core No.: FOR KEY PLAZA RENTON, WASHINGTON (I'RE-023) David E. Cayton, r.E. James A. Morin, r.E. Ryan R. Itani, E.I.T. August 2007 07069 ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING KEY PLAZA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Overview 2. Core Requirements 3. Off-Site Analysis 4. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW: The proposed commercial development is named "Key Plaza of Renton Highlands" and will consist of two buildings located on the southwest comer of 4th St NE and Bremerton Ave NE. The 1.41 acre site is cUlTently undeveloped and is located in the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23. Range 5 in Renton Washington. The site is cUlTently zoned for commercial use and is bordered by 4th St NE to the north, Bremerton Ave NE to the east, a new residential development (Ridgeview Court) to the south, and a single- family residence to the west. The anchor tenant in this development will be Key Bank with a 3,500 square foot building. The other structure will be a 9,000 square foot two- story office/retail building (ground floor = 6,000 square feet). The existing ground coverage over the site is thick with vegetation and forested with evergreen trees. The existing onsite topography of the site fOlTlls a high point. No wetlands are located on or within the vicinity of the site. Pre-application comments from the City of Renton are attached in the Appendix of this report. Per the pre-application comments received from the City of Renton, the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM) was adhered to in the design of the onsite stOlTllwater facilities. The Key Plaza of Renton Highlands project will provide detention to the Level II standard and water quality from the Basic Water Quality menu. 2. CORE REQUIREMENTS: The following list outlines the 8 Core Requirements per the 2005 KCSWM and provides the details of how they were fulfilled by this design: Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location In the developed condition, surface water from the site will be released from the site at natural discharge locations. Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis A Levell downstream analysis was conducted (see "Offsite Analysis" section of this report) to satisfy this requirement. Core Requirements #3: Flow Control Level 2 Flow Control (Conservation FC Areas) is required for this development. The onsite detention vault was designed to match existing durations for 50% of 2-year through 50-yr peaks as well as the existing 2-and 10-year peaks. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance Systems The conveyance system has been designed to contain and convey up to the 25-year storm per Core Requirement #4. Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sedimentation caused by clearing, grading, and other disturbing activities will be controlled by standard erosion control measures. Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations All onsite drainage facilities will be privately maintained in accordance with Appendix A and Chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM. Core Requirment #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability The applicant will post a drainage facilities restoration and site stabilization financial guarantee in order to cover the cost of any required corrective work. Core Requirement #8: Water Quality Basic Water Quality treatment is required and will be provided with 3' of dead storage within the proposed vault. In addition to the 8 Core Requirements listed above, the 2005 KCSWDM requires that the following Special Requirements are met: • Special Requirement # I : Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements • Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation • Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities • Special Requirement #4: Source Controls • Special Requirement #5: Oil Control Of these Special Requirements, only Special Requirement #4 is applicable to this project. In order to fulfill this requirement, the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and King County Code 9.12 will be adhered to. 3. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS: Upstream Tributary Area The existing topography of the site is higher than the surrounding areas. Therefore, no upstream areas contribute runoff to this property. See below for a detailed narrative of the downstream system. Downstream Analysis See "Downstream Drainage Map" attached in appendix as an aid in the following discussion. On July 25,2007 a site visit was conducted. The purpose of this site visit was to determine the surface water flow characteristics of this site and assess the locations of surface water running off ofthis property. The weather was warm with clear skies and the temperature was around 80 degrees. Heavy rain occurred over the past weekend (July 21- 22). Besides the weekend rainfall, no substantial precipitation had occurred within the past few weeks. The site is bordered by 4th Ave NE to the north, Bremerton Ave NE to the east, the Ridgeview Court development to the south, and a single-family residence to the west. The existing topography of the site forms a u-shaped ridge which traverses the site running roughly parallel to the west, south and east property lines (Point 1). During rainfall events, the majority of the resulting on-site surface water sheet flows off of the northern boundary ofthe site. Smaller amounts of surface water sheet flows off the site along the west, south, and east property lines. The downstream investigation began along the eastern boundary of the site near Bremerton Ave NE. Two catch basins arc located in Bremerton Ave NE near the southeast property comer (Point 2). A high point in Bremerton Ave NE is located approximately 80 feet south ofthe northern property line. The portion of Bremerton Ave NE located south of the high point is tributary to these catch basins. Currently, a small area of the eastern portion of the site is also tributary to the catch basin located in the western side of Bremerton Ave NE. Stormwater flows out of this catch basin in a 12" pipe, to the east. A detention pipe located on the southern property line of the neighboring property to the east receives flow from the Bremerton Ave catch basins as well as from the developed property in which it is located. A control structure located in the southeastern comer of this propcrty receives flows from the detention pipe and releases attenuated flows to a vegetated area to the southeast. This vegetated area is a low area without any outlet (Point 3). Historically this area flowed to the west but has been blocked by the fill used to construct Bremerton Ave NE. Stormwater which currently flows off the site to the east is tributary to the flows released into this low area. The developed conditions of the site will remove some ofthe flow from the eastern portion of the site to the north, thus improving the existing situation by reducing the amount of runoff that is released into the low area. Surface water which sheet flows to the north currently enters an existing 12" storm pipe system located along the southern side of 4th Ave NE. Two catch basins (one located at the southwest comer of the intersection of 4th St NE and Bremerton Ave NE and another located just west of the northwest property comer) intercept stormwater which currently flows off the site as well as from portions of Bremerton Ave NE and 4th St NE. The existing 12" storm system conveys the collected stormwater in a westerly direction along the south side of 4th St NE. Near the northwest comer of the USPS site (located two parcels to the west ofthe subject property) a Type II catch basin located in a gravel walk area receives flows from the existing 12" pipe system (Point 4). Storm water from the USPS site drains into this catch basin from the south via a 12" storm pipe. A catch basin located in the curb line of 4th St NE (approximately 3 feet north of the Type II catch basin) contributes flow to the Type 11 catch basin from the north via an 8" storm pipe. From this point, the storm system increases from 12" pipe to 18" pipe and continues to the west. The 18" pipe flows into a Type II catch basin with a solid lid located in the gravel walk area on the south side of 4th St NE approximately 183 feet west of the northwest comer of the USPS site (Point 5). Tributary to this catch basin is a 36" pipe from the north and an 8" pipe from the northeast (connected to a catch basin located 2-3 feet northeast of the Type II catch basin). At the time of the investigation, the ground surrounding the Type II catch basin was dark colored from recent water flow. From this point, the storm system increases from 18" to 36" and continues to convey storm water to the west. Approximately 115 feet farther west, the 36" storm pipe enters a Type II catch basin which is located approximately 20 feet south of 4th St NE (Point 6). This catch basin has a solid lid. Stormwater entering this Type II catch basin is directed to the south and is discharged into a pond which is approximately 20 feet wide by 30 feet long with 3 feet of freeboard above standing water. No erosion was observed within the pond. At the time of the investigation, a standing pool of water (approximately I foot deep) was contained within the pond. At the southern end of the pond a riprap weir provides an outfall into a stream channel which extends towards the south (Point 7). The stream traverses a heavily vegetated area for approximately 500 feet between Points 7 and 8. Overall this area is flat with no clearly defined stream channel except for an 18" wide, 6" deep channel appearing near Point 8. At this point, the downstream investigation had been carried out past Y4 of a mile downstream from the site. It was noted that the overall channel was approximately 30 feet in width between Points 7 and 8. Any water flowing through this length of the stream occurs intermittently. At Point 8, the stream turns towards the east and connects with a manmade ditch at Point 9. The manmade ditch also receives storm water runoff from a vault in the Ridgeview Court Development to the east. The ditch continues towards the south from Point 9 to Point 10 where it crosses Bremerton PI. NE. A Type II catch basin with a "bird cage" top is located on the northwest side of Bremerton PI NE. It receives water from the stream via a 12" pipe and discharges water via a 36" pipe that crosses Bremerton PI NE and outfalls on the southeast side of Bremerton PI NE where the stream channel continues towards the south. It appears this catch basin has been designed to detain upstream flows by allowing water to pool upstream of the catch basin before being released through the 36" pipe. There was no water flowing in the channel at this point. From Point 10, the stream continues towards the south and meanders though a residential area before entering a deep ravine. Flowing water was observed in the stream from the top of the ravine at Point 11. At this location, the downstream path had been observed for approximately I mile. It should be noted that this stream is called Maplewood Creek and that no flowing water was observed between Points 7 and 10. ~ ).~JC'!;::i - -.J .... ---~, ---, .---'", :---i' :r ._, ;~~j2: --Hr.:~~ ~.'~rJ ';.~'~ ;'~ w ,-..... ~ -_.:.,: Ie: ,~ 690LO ·ON l.:::mrmld :rna;) SONV'TII~IH NOl.N:rn ;10 VZV'Id AU dVW 3:DVNIVHO WV:rnl.SNMOO i : : ~ 001 0 ,DDZ -.. L :31\f~S t 1 • II 3: w " .. ', .... ~ l I ,-'- 4. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN: A. Hydraulic Analysis The drainage analysis was modeled using the King County Runoff Time Series (version 5.0) software. The site soils are Alderwood (AgC), KCRTS group Till. See attached soils map. The site is located in the Seatac rainfall region with a location scale factor of 1.0. EXISTING CONDITIONS The 1.41 acre site is undeveloped and is forested with evergreen trees. The following information was used for generating time series and flow frequencies. EXISTING CONDITIONS Total Area = 1.41 acres GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Grass 0.00 Till-Pasture 0.00 Till-Forest 1.41 Impervious 0.00 BYPASS AREA 0.06 AC of the site will not drain to the detention facility and is expected to sheet flow off the west, south and east property line. This area is consistent with the two basins as outlined in the predeveloped site description. This area was treated as bypass in the preliminary detention calculations. Bypass Area Total Area = 0.06 acres GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Grass 0.00 Till-Pasture 0.00 Till-Forest 0.06 Impervious 0.00 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS The developed site will consist of two commercial buildings with associated parking areas and utilities. Frontage improvements will be constructed along 4th St NE. The input used for the KCRTS analysis is summarized in the table below: DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Total Area = 1. 3 4 acre GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Grass (Landscaping) 0.l6 Impervious 1.18 B. Detention Routing Calculations The City of Renton requires Level 2 Flow Control to be applied to the subject site. The Level II standard requires matching the predeveloped release rate for the 2 and 10-year events while matching the predeveloped frequency and duration between Yz of the 2-year to the 50-year storm with no more than a + 1 0% excursion. The live storage portion within a wetvault will be used for flow control. See attached KCRTS printouts for vault design. Required Live Storage in Vault: 24,000 cf Provided Live Storage in Vault: 27,200 cf ~~---- ;;: P';:lU"ed -rio ..... fn:'qUf'ncy -KCRTS .,.,,:<,·Jr ~~ ~ -. Ibb,' ~t~~-·~~~.f"_ ~". . -.;..aJ. ~ _'~ (J) ~ u. '0 ~ CD El \\'I .r:. u fIJ o <> rdout.pks in Sea-Tae • dsout.pks • predev. pks '" 2 Return Peri od 5 10 20 50 100 10-1 -' • • '" • • t ~ 00 t R _____ _ • ~ • • • • • 10-2~1--------------------------------------------------- '" • 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 Cumulative Probability 70 80 90 95 98 99 RELEASE RATE CHECK KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 ~ • I c:i "", I co 0 c:i R L <D 0 c:i fa u- () ~ (I) E' III .c ... . !!! 0 C!i 0 ~+-oo ~, • o~ 1111I c 111I 1'""1 1 0 ci 0 I I I I I II 1_3 10 -2 10 -10 -5 10-4 10 10 FREQUENCY-DURATION CHECK Probability Exceedence KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 C. Water Quality Calculations The water quality volume fo rKey Plaza was calculated using the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). 1998 Edition, pages 6-68 to 6-71. Vb = f*(0.9Ai + 0.25A 'g + O.]()A if + 0. ]()Ao)*(Rl12) Where. Vb = wet pool volume (cf) f = volume factor Ai = area of impervious surface (sf) A'g = area of till soil covered with grass (sf) Aif = area of till soil covered withfiJl'est (5f) Ao = area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest R = rairifall from mean annual storm (inches) (refer to the attached precipitation graph) Vr = 0. 90*Ai + o..25*Ag X Rl12 Vr = [0.90*(1.18*43560) + O. 25 *(0..22 *43560)} x Rl12 Vr = (51,40.1 +9.584) x 0.47/12 Vr =2.389 Vb = 3 x Vr Vb = 3 * 2.389 Vb = 7.167 cf Dead Storage Required Dead Storage in Vault: 7,167 ef Provided Dead Storage in Vault: 16,320 cf 6.4.1 WETPONDS -BASIC AND LARGE -METHODS OF ANALYSIS FIGURE 6.4.l.A PRECIPIT A nON FOR MEAN ANNUAL STORM IN INCHES (FEEn ST 1.0 sT 1.1 0.54" (0.045') !Z:zJ Incorporated Area -c;8 River!l.ake --Major Road 0.47" (0.039') 0.47" (0.039') NOTE: Areas east of the easternmost isopluvial should use 0.65 inches unless rainfall data is available for the location of Interest 24 The mean annual storm Is a conceplual storm found by dividing the annual precipitation by the total number of storm events per year LA 1.0 LA 1.2 result, generates large amounts of runoff. For this application, till soil types include Buckley and bedrock soils, and alluvial and outwash soils that have a seasonally high water table or are underlain at a shallow depth (less than 5 feet) by glacial till. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) hydrologic soil groups that are classified as till soils include a few B, most C, and all D soils. See Chapter 3 for classification of specific SCS soil types. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 6-71 PRECIPITATION GRAPH KEY PLAZA OF RENTON IDGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL STORMWATER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET Number PRE-023 DDES Permit (provide one Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet per Natural Discharge Location) Overview: Proiect Name Key plaza of Renton Highlands Date 08/15/07 ------------------------------------' Downstream Drainage Basins Major Basin Name Cedar River / Lake Washington Immediate Basin Name Lower Cedar River Flow Control: Flow Control Facility NameINumber Detention VallI t Facility Northwest corner of site Location~ _______ __ If none, Flow control provided in regional/shared facility (give location) ___ -,--____ -,--_____________ _ No flow control required Exemption number General Facility Information: TypeiNumber of detention facilities: TypeiNumber of infiltration facilities: -----0.------ponds ponds 1 vaults tanks ____ tanks trenches Control Structure Location Northwest corner of site Type of Control Structure __ s_t_a_n_d-,p,--l_' p_e _______ Number of OrificeslRestrictions 2 Size of Orifice/Restriction: No. I 0.63 in. ---------No.2 1.13 in. No.3 _________ __ No.4 ______ -'--__ Flow Control Performance Standard Level II -------------------- 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 111105 1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Live Storage Volume 27, 200 CF 1. 13 Number of Acres Served 1 • 27 Depth 5 Ft. ---------------- Number of Lots N / A ----------~~---- Dam Safety Regulations (Washington State DepartmentofEcology) Reservoir Volume above natural grade _~N~/-:-A ____ _ Depth of Reservoir above natural grade _N=/"'A'-----__ __ Facility Summary Sheet Sketch Volume Factor of Safety All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch, (II "xI7" reduced size plan sheets may be used) 1/lI05 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 2 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Water Quality: Type/Number of water quality facilities/BMPs: ___ biofiltration swale (regular/wet! or continuous inflow) large) ___ combined detentionlwetpond large) ____ sand filter (basic or large) _____ sand filter, linear (basic or ____ sand filter vault (basic or (wetpond portion basic or large) __ 1_ combined detentionlwetvault ___ filter strip sand bed depth, ____ (inches) above ___ flow dispersion ___ farm management plan ___ landscape management plan ___ oil/water separator (baffle or coalescing plate) Line~ ____________ _ _____ catch basin inserts: Manufacturer ___ stormwater wetland ___ storm filter ____ wetpond (basic or large) ____ wetvault ____ Is facility Lined? If so, what marker is used -------------------------------- ____ pre-settling pond ___ pre-settling stl1lcture: Manufacturer ------------------------------- ___ high flow bypass structure (e,g., flow-splitter catch basin) source controls -- Design Information Wt Q I · d' fl N/A per 2005KCSWDM Sec. 6.4.1.1 a er ua Ity eSlgn ow _____________ _ Water Quality treated volume (sandfilter) _______ __ 16,320 CF Water Quality storage volume (wetpool) _______ __ Facility Summary Sheet Sketch 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 111/05 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. (11 "x17" reduced size plan sheets may be used) 1/1/05 Detailed sketch of the DetentionfWatcr Quality facility will he included after final design 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 4 APPENDIX • Vicinity Map (1 page) • Preliminary Site Plan (1 page) • Conceptual Grading & Utility Plan (1 page) • USGS MAP (1 page) • Landcover Map (l page) • Soils Map (1 page) • Soils Type (1 page) • KCRTS Calculations (\1 pages) • Pre-application Comments (5 pages) • Technical Information Rcport (fIR) Worksheet (5 pages) I 4 GREENUk)OD CEMETERY I", 2 10 " 6T) 15 14 VICINITlY MAP KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 SEC. 16. ~ 23 N.. HOE. 5 E.. w./K -----:--~--:---r----~/J_=./.2J •. ~\)I ' '/ r'" ;; ... ~(,' ~'--"----- ~- - - SCALE: 1" = 20' 10 2D 4Q I I I ~, ~:7:f=l -~"'" ~HOGHr"'2' H'/R1OfA r N'fWQ¥ l£}rr;1H .. tf5' ---------------------, ~ : ~ , ---; --::_-,_.:!....._------ r: .... :-_> _ ;_.~ __ ~___ ':.~.' /~ '. __ ~:' ," I ;:;::;.:: t<>c M ,a=aa-4" • L=38.74 -, 1 - : I! A!iPIW.' i I ~ {)kAIIACC £A!.l1I£NT A I l/i'---R-I. , I -r L_;,LI -/{,-£-Y'BANK"~< "_~_;~_I ,_,_'.1 ~~ <Ii ~ ~ " q: I -'-c : ,t=:"rdll 0 II 0 III D --- ,. 1 : " ~.ir""+""~ 'I • :j I' I ~ "'~:;w;,ox;;;;"~ '~.' ;.~:\''''-, 8J'~ I I~V ',I ; i A "XiiiEJif AI'I'\Ii'I'lt'l£N(;TH-N r= ;::::-.. -, ~~ 29' 120' NJ./AaNr PRrPERTY ~~!") 3 STORY .' I ~" APf'fIOX lDIGlH .. 70' -/J 'Z ~ I i'i SI)[fTAll( CfNECTKIi ...../ Pfia>OS[f) r fiOCK IIAI.1. ~ HlKiHr"2' ~lIM:lH • .JD· ,OFFlC£/R£TA" ~ '!!!~'!:L""!!'" "BUILDING I ~ r-'-'T'-'J~--'" i:l ~ L&:j, •• .-,-~ •• :. ", ..•• ,',.,.,' . ':~.' <:\I z: ',' ~"'~, :! ., Ili' ~ ! ., ---------- / N88V6/~~'W 2,!:6J CALC. ., PLAT .. _. _. .'_ • • . .•. d ~. ,; COIODl l1WiI ctNTANN i ~ f DlSTIIC A'I4U. ' • .,' r R£lOOUE' aJ A.fflI'at' I£JQIT -~' I 7r) aM8 UC ~ lIMllH .. 165' ~ .• , '. !-"'-I . ' "")' i ~:~ ~'Q:"i;w REFERENCES UJr~_ClUI1'f_l'fArolrl.lO.lWlIII.__ __ MII~_~. UGAL DESCRIPTION LN.2 mt:r:rumSHUffltArMllIO.lWllll ___ MIl ~ _aum:" LEGEND f1PI'OGI/APHI? ~~ nR"'0I7fJI_ ---...... ---~1SI'1II!1f" .a_ _w< ~- ""'~----_1'IJt£~/KiNT ";:; U/II1YP(J.f ~,- , ----m --~~ -, ~--... _- ~a:ae&tlll9tM/IOU _ .srr_ f»'D AS 1/()1f1) RUf)(JIJItIlIR_ASIIfNB) 11J(f£()f'_' = ~ -- (J\ VICINI TY MAP W I" -JOOO':i " hi ~ 'I~ ~ ~ 'I " -f ~ ~ i --~ ~ ~~ ~ ~)! ~ :SU ~~:::l ~~!I) I.\!~~ ~ e [5~~ Il: ~ ~~~ ~ Q; g:~~ ~~~ a:~~ Q,;'q: ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ...: ...;: I",j ~ uu~ " ~ • • < & o • SHEE T I OF" 2. I 1 F'FlOJECT NUMIO .... 07069 ~ 'iii "I lei ~ :;! ~ ~ ~ 'I' ,!:' I' , • • )... • ~ :gr::. :;~ 5'i'''"'W ~ ~~k< /J zm- • ~ ~~ . -:0 u x • g;()(J6 rAt 'NOiNlV d3D.,.N'I'I'I l:)3('(}!jd f/rK' X08 Od MJilr.J '3 (liWO ~ ~ 077 S31.L1I3c101lcl1l3SWtl' 1--~M1l.i=""'''''''''''''''m-'--""~=,=.,,oo1, ~ I ~~-~-i I I I I I :~ : ~ -~ : !'i ~ : ~ i ~ ~ , .1 I- I I I I b N • II • ~ . ~ 2 <C U 0 VI Te rraServer Image Co urt esy of the USG S Page I of I Send To Printer Back To Terra Server Old: ,g~ !.J l1x17 Pnnt Size Show Grid l mes Cha"ge to la ndSCilpe R_e.ln~o n, Wash I!nited States 01 Jul 1994 O'-~~-~-",,2~i Image courtesy of the U.5. Geo logical Survey © 2004 Microsoft Corporati on Terms of Use Privacy Statement USGS Q UADRANGLE MAP KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLAND S hllp ://te r rase r ve r.l11i c r osofi.com/P rin ti mage .~spx'.' r ~&S =12, C ORE PRO JECT NO . 07069 ~ ~ IX LL uJ 0 "'1 m ~ ~ UJ N :> 2 ~~ -" ~ ; 08 • w i.: ~ ~ :> I-~ ~ ~ B • ~ ~ f-U e::. . r ~ ~ W w ~~S 0 w -, ~ ., ~ J I 0 ~ j ~ 2 til IX , -" 0.. -.: ~ 2 0 Q ·0 2 0 < § • II ~)i 0 -===i~~~ .. 2 ~ 9:: w -' W Il:; « ~ 0 u 0 w U1 Z Z Y w co 3: J f-iji « « w IX 0 0 0 -0\ .. N SHEET NO.ll KING COUNT Y AREA, W ASHlNGTON (RENTON QUADRANGLE ) 10' '" 122"0 7'30" 1 680000 FEET gtcj;-~T~IT~~E~9F~1l47 "30' .~-++'F"" • I I I I I I I I I ~~.,.,.,,,...='==~il--~'" ==: I I I I I I I I I EvB AkF :: .•.• :;;~~~~;;;~::~~. Age ----. SOILS MAP KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 '\ ..... CREATING A TIME SERIES FILE (ExAMPLE) TABLE 111-1 EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN SOIL TYPES CLASSIFIED BY U.S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE AND KING COUNTY RUNOFF TIME SERIES SCS KCRTSSoU SCSSOU Type Hydrologic Group Notes Soil ~- .<\ (AgB, AgC, AgD) S Till Arents, Al . I(AIrIIl,AmC) C Till A,rpn'" . I(An) B I '(BeC . BeD, BeF) C Till 2 ,(Bh) D Till 3 l(Br) D Till 3 '(Bn) D Till 4 ", :(Ea) D Till 3 ,(Edt .. C Till 3 (EvB, EvC EvD, EwC) AlB I ,(InC . InA, IuD) 1\ I Kitsap (KnB, KpC, KpD) ( Till Klaus (KsC) ( " 1 Nellwn(NeC A I ~(Ng .~ Till 3 :(N1 ,) C Till 3 Nonna(No) D Till 3 . Orcas (Or) D . Oridia (Os) D Till 3 Ovall (Ove, OvD, OvF) C illt 2 : (Pc) C 3 rugeIlru} D Till 3 ,(Py) B Till 3 Ragnar (RaC, RaD, RaC, RaE) B I Rentoo(Re) D Till 3 Salal (Sa) C Till 3 I(~h\ D Till 3 SeattleJ1)k) D ~ . (Sm) D 3 Si (Sn) C Till 3 ,(So, Sr) D Till 3 Sultan (Sn) C Till 3 ,(Tn) D Till 3 ~ ,tWo) D ill 3 Key to Notes: L Where outwash soils are saturated or underlain at shallow depth «5 feet) by glacial till, they should be treated as till soils. 2. These are bedrock soils, but calibration of HSPF (Hydrological Simulation Program-Fortran) by King County Surfuce Water Management shows bedrock soils to have similar hydrologic response to till soils. 3. These are alluvial soils, some of which are underlain by glacial till or have a seasonally high water table. In the absence of detailed study, these soils should be treated as till soils. 4. Buckley soils are formed on the low permeability Osceola mudflow. Hydrologic response is assumed to be similar to that for till soils. December 15, 1995 SOILS TYPE KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:predev.tsf project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of peak (CFS) 0.088 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.024 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.065 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.003 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.039 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.068 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.057 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.113 1 1/09/08 9:00 computed Peaks predev.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - -peaks - -Rank Return prob (CFS) period 0.113 1 100.00 0.990 0.088 2 25.00 0.960 0.068 3 10.00 0.900 0.065 4 5.00 0.800 0.057 5 3.00 0.667 0.039 6 2.00 0.500 0.024 7 1. 30 0.231 0.003 8 1.10 0.091 0.105 50.00 0.980 page 1 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.300 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.260 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.363 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.297 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.354 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.320 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.433 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.591 1 1/09/08 6:00 computed Peaks Dev.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - -peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) period 0.591 1 100.00 0.990 0.433 2 25.00 0.960 0.363 3 10.00 0.900 0.354 4 5.00 0.800 0.320 5 3.00 0.667 0.300 6 2.00 0.500 0.297 7 1.30 0.231 0.260 8 1.10 0.091 0.538 50.00 0.980 page 1 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:bypass.tsf project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.005 4 2/09/01 2:00 0.003 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.007 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.001 8 3/24/04 19:00 0.003 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.005 3 1/18/06 16:00 0.005 5 11/24/06 3:00 0.012 1 1/09/08 6:00 computed Peaks Bypass -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - -peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) period 0.012 1 100.00 0.990 0.007 2 25.00 0.960 0.005 3 10.00 0.900 0.005 4 5.00 0.800 0.005 5 3.00 0.667 0.003 6 2.00 0.500 0.003 7 1.30 0.231 0.001 8 1.10 0.091 0.011 50.00 0.980 Page 1 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Vault 40.00 ft 120.00 ft 4800. sq. ft 5.00 ft 401.20 ft 24000. cu. ft 5.CO ft 12.00 inches 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height 1ft) 0.00 2.85 Diameter lin) 0.63 1.13 Discharge ICFS) 0.024 0.050 Diameter lin) 1 2 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage 1ft) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1. 05 1.15 1. 25 1. 35 1. 45 1. 55 1. 65 1. 75 1. 85 1. 95 2.05 2.15 2.25 2.35 2.45 2.55 2.65 Elevation 1ft) 401. 20 401.21 401.22 401.23 401.24 401. 25 401. 35 401.45 401. 55 401. 65 401. 75 401. 85 401. 95 402.05 402.15 402.25 402.35 402.45 402.55 402.65 402.75 402.85 402.95 403.05 403.15 403.25 403.35 403.45 403.55 403.65 403.75 403.85 Storage leu. ft) lac-ft) o. 0.000 48. 0.001 96. 0.002 144. 0.003 In. 0.004 240. 0.006 720. 0.017 1200. 0.028 1680. 0.039 2160. 0.050 2640. 0.061 3120. 0.072 3600. 0.083 4080. 0.094 4560. 0.105 5040. 0.116 5520. 0.127 6000. 0.138 6480. 0.149 6960. 0.160 7440. 0.171 7920. 0.182 8400. 0.193 8880. 0.204 9360. 0.215 9840. 0.226 10320. 0.237 10800. 0.248 11280. 0.259 11760. 0.270 12240. 0.281 12720. 0.292 4.0 Discharge Icfs) 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017 Percolation Icfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 403.95 13200. 0.303 0.018 0.00 2.85 404.05 13680. 0.314 0.018 0.00 2.86 404.06 13728. 0.315 0.018 0.00 2.87 404.07 13776. 0.316 0.019 0.00 2.89 404. 09 13872. 0.318 0.020 0.00 2.90 404.10 13920. 0.320 0.022 0.00 2.91 404.11 13968. 0.321 0.025 0.00 2.92 404.12 14016. 0.322 0.027 0.00 2.93 404.13 14064. 0.323 0.028 0.00 2.94 404.14 14112. 0.324 0.029 0.00 3.04 404.24 14592. 0.335 0.034 0.00 3.14 404.34 15072 . 0.346 0.037 0.00 3.24 404.44 15552. 0.357 0.041 0.00 3.34 404.54 16032. 0.368 0.043 0.00 3.44 404.64 16512. 0.379 0.046 0.00 3.54 404.74 16992. 0.390 0.049 0.00 3.64 404.84 17472 . 0.401 0.051 0.00 3.74 404.94 17952. 0.412 0.053 0.00 3.84 405.04 18432. 0.423 0.055 0.00 3.94 405.14 18912. 0.434 0.057 0.00 4.04 405.24 19392. 0.445 0.059 0.00 4.14 405.34 19872 . 0.456 0.061 0.00 4.24 405.44 20352. 0.467 0.062 0.00 4.34 405.54 20832. 0.478 0.064 0.00 4.44 405.64 21312. 0.489 0.066 0.00 4.54 405.74 21792. 0.500 O. 067 0.00 4.64 405.84 22272 . 0.511 0.069 0.00 4.74 405.94 22752. 0.522 0.070 0.00 4.84 406.04 23232. 0.533 0.072 0.00 4.94 406.14 23712. 0.544 0.073 0.00 5.00 406.20 24000. 0.551 0.074 0.00 5.10 406.30 24480. 0.562 0.383 0.00 5.20 406.40 24960. 0.573 0.948 0.00 5.30 406.50 25440. 0.584 1.680 0.00 5.40 406.60 25920. 0.595 2.470 0.00 5.50 406.70 26400. 0.606 2.760 0.00 5.60 406.80 26880. 0.617 3.010 0.00 5.70 406.90 27360. 0.628 3.250 0.00 5.80 407.00 27840. 0.639 3.470 0.00 5.90 407.10 28320. 0.650 3.670 0.00 6.00 407.20 28800. 0.661 3.870 0.00 6.10 407.30 29280. 0.672 4. 050 0.00 6.20 407.40 29760. 0.683 4.230 0.00 6.30 407.50 30240. 0.694 4.400 0.00 6.40 407.60 30720. 0.705 4.570 0.00 6.50 407.70 31200. 0.716 4.720 0.00 6.60 407.80 31680. 0.727 4.880 0.00 6.70 407.90 32160. 0.738 5.030 0.00 6.80 408.00 32640. 0.749 5.170 0.00 6.90 408.10 33120. 0.760 5.310 0.00 7.00 408.20 33600. 0.771 5.450 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Stage Slev (eu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.59 0.07 4.83 406.03 23l62. 0.532 2 0.30 0.07 4.64 405.84 22272 . 0.511 3 0.43 0.06 3.97 405.17 19044. 0.437 4 0.36 0.06 4.00 105.)0 19221. 5 0.32 0.04 3.17 404.37 15238. 6 0.26 0.02 2.85 404.05 13658. 7 0.35 0.02 2.79 403.99 13380. 8 0.30 0.01 2.02 403.22 9690. Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow Outflow Inflow Inflow 1 0.07 0.01 ***1<.**-I;.J, 2 0.07 0.01 ****-~-*"!.-* 3 0.06 0.01 *-k·k***** 4 0.06 0.01 ***-1<**** 5 0.04 0.01 *-I<*-I<~*-k* 6 0.02 0.00 ******** 7 0.02 0.00 ******** 8 0.01 0.00 "'-k"k***** ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout poe Time Series File:dsout Inflow lOut flow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.591 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.072 Peak Reservoir Stage: 4.83 Peak Reservoir Elev: 406.03 CFS CFS Ft Ft Target 0.11 ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* at 6:00 at 15:00 Peak Reservoir Storage: 23162. Cu-Ft 0.532 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Calc 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 on Jan on Jan 0.441 0.350 0.314 0.307 0.222 9 in Year 8 9 in Year 8 Peak Summed Discharge: 0.076 CFS at 14:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.069 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.018 6 1/07/02 4:00 0.058 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.015 8 8/26/04 8:00 0.018 7 1/08/05 5:00 0.038 5 1/18/06 23:00 0.058 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.072 1 1/09/08 15:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.072 4.83 1 100.00 0.069 4.64 2 25.00 0.058 4.00 3 10.00 0.058 3.97 4 5.00 0.038 3.17 5 3.00 0.018 2.85 6 2.00 0.018 2.79 7 1. 30 0.015 2.02 8 1.10 O. 071 4.78 50.00 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 -----Flow Frequency Ana1ysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.073 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.076 1 100.00 0.990 0.019 6 1/06/02 8:00 0.073 2 25.00 0.960 0.061 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.061 3 10.00 0.900 0.016 8 8/26/04 5:00 0.061 4 5.00 0.800 0.019 7 1/05/05 11: 00 0.042 5 3.00 0.667 0.042 5 1/18/06 23:00 0.019 6 2.00 0.500 0.061 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.019 7 1. 30 0.231 0.076 1 1/09/08 14:00 0.016 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.075 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.001 25416 41.448 41.448 58.552 0.586E+00 0.003 6190 10.095 51.543 48.457 0.485E+00 0.005 6298 10.271 61.813 38.187 0.382E+00 0.007 5353 8.730 70.543 29.457 0.295E+00 0.009 4218 6.879 77.422 22.578 0.226E+00 0.011 5326 8.686 86.107 13.893 o • 139E+00 0.013 3241 5.285 91.393 8.607 0.861E-01 0.014 2094 3.415 94.808 5.192 0.519E-01 0.016 1687 2.751 97.559 2.441 0.244E-01 0.018 1107 1. 805 99.364 0.636 0.636E-02 0.020 34 0.055 99.419 0.581 0.581E-02 0.022 7 0.011 99.431 0.569 0.569E-02 0.024 9 0.015 99.446 0.554 O.554E-02 0.026 6 0.010 99.455 0.545 0.545E-02 0.028 10 0.016 99.472 0.528 0.528E-02 0.030 22 0.036 99.507 0.492 0.492E-02 0.032 35 0.057 99.565 0.435 0.435E-02 0.034 27 0.044 99.609 0.391 0.391E-02 0.036 30 0.049 99.658 0.342 0.342E-02 0.037 38 0.062 99.720 0.280 0.280E-02 0.039 21 0.034 99.754 0.246 0.246E-02 0.041 13 0.021 99.775 0.225 0.225E-02 0.043 15 0.024 99.799 0.201 0.201E-02 0.045 7 0.011 99.811 0.189 0.189E-02 0.047 9 0.015 99.826 0.174 0.17 4E-02 0.049 8 0.013 99.839 0.161 0.161E-02 0.051 13 0.021 99.860 0.140 0.140E-02 0.053 14 0.023 99.883 0.117 o .117E-02 0.055 11 0.018 99.901 0.099 0.995E-03 0.057 13 0.021 99.922 0.078 0.783E-03 0.058 13 0.021 99.943 0.057 0.571E-03 0.060 8 0.013 99.956 0.044 0.440E-03 0.062 10 0.016 99.972 0.028 0.277E-03 0.064 3 0.005 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03 0.066 5 0.008 99.985 0.015 0.14 7E-03 0.068 5 0.008 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File:dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.001 25458 41.517 41.517 58.483 0.585E+00 0.003 6465 10.543 52.060 4'1.940 0.479E+00 0.005 6549 10.680 62.740 37.260 0.373E+00 0.007 5218 8.509 71.249 28.751 0.288E+00 0.009 0.011 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.019 0.02l 0.023 0.025 0.027 0.029 0.031 0.033 0.035 0.037 0.039 0.041 0.043 0.046 0.048 0.050 0.052 0.054 0.056 0.058 0.060 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.072 4914 4800 2922 1959 1737 882 56 10 11 4 12 27 31 33 32 26 24 14 14 7 9 9 16 11 12 10 16 10 4 5 3 5 8.0l4 7.828 4.765 3.195 2.833 1. 438 0.091 0.016 0.018 0.007 0.020 0.044 0.051 0.054 0.052 0.042 0.039 0.023 0.023 0.011 0.015 0.015 0.026 0.018 0.020 0.016 0.026 0.016 0.007 0.008 0.005 0.008 79.263 87.091 91. 856 95.051 97.883 99.322 99. 413 99.429 99.447 99.454 99.473 99.517 99.568 99.622 99.674 99.716 99.755 99.778 99.801 99.812 99.827 99.842 99.868 99.886 99.905 99.922 99.948 99.964 99.971 99. 9/9 99.984 99.992 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.073 0.019 0.061 0.016 0.019 0.042 0.061 0.076 Computed Peaks 2 6 3 8 7 5 4 1 2/09/01 1/06/02 3/06/03 8/26/04 1/05/05 1/18/06 11/24/06 1/09/08 20:00 8:00 22:00 5:00 11 :00 23:00 8:00 14:00 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: dsout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS 20.737 12.909 8.144 4.949 2.117 0.678 0.587 0.571 0.553 0.546 0.527 0.483 0.432 0.378 0.326 0.284 0.245 0.222 0.199 0.188 0.l73 8.158 8.132 0.114 0.095 0.078 0.052 0.036 0.029 0.021 0.016 0.008 0.207E+00 0.129E+00 0.814E-01 0.495E-01 0.212E-01 0.678E-02 0.587E-02 0.571E-02 0.553E-02 0.546E-02 0.527E-02 0.483E-02 0.432E-02 0.378E-02 0.326E-02 0.284E-02 0.245E-02 0.222E-02 0.199E-02 0.188E-02 o .l73E-02 0.158E-02 o .132E-02 o .114E-02 0.946E-03 0.783E-03 0.522E-03 0.359E-03 0.294E-03 0.2l2E-03 0.163E-03 0.815E-04 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- -Peaks (CFS) 0.076 0.073 0.061 0.061 0.042 0.019 0.019 0.016 0.075 Rank Return Period 1 100.00 2 25.00 3 10.00 4 5.00 5 3.00 6 2.00 7 1. 30 8 1.10 50.00 Prob 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.09l 0.980 Cutoff 0.020 0.022 -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Base New %Change Probability Base New %Change 0.89E-02 0.63E-02 -28.6 I 0.89E-02 0.020 0.019 -5.8 0.74E-02 0.58E-02 -21.8 I 0.74E-02 0.022 0.019 -13.6 0.024 0.027 0.029 0.031 0.033 0.035 0.038 0.040 0.042 0.044 0.046 0.049 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.057 0.060 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.071 0.073 0.075 0.077 0.079 0.082 0.084 0.086 0.088 0.63E-02 0.58E-02 0.52E-02 0.47E-02 0.42E-02 0.37E-02 0.33E-02 0.30E-02 0.27E-02 0.24E-02 0.21E-02 0.18E-02 0.15E-02 o .13E-02 0.12E-02 0.91E-03 0.77E-03 0.60E-03 0.49E-03 0.38E-03 0.29E-03 0.26E-03 0.21E-03 0.18E-03 0.16E-03 0.15E-03 o .13E-03 0.82E-04 0.33E-04 0.16E-04 0.56E-02 0.55E-02 0.53E-02 0.49E-02 0.44E-02 0.39E-02 0.32E-02 0.28E-02 0.23E-02 0.21E-02 0.19E-02 0.18E-02 0.16E-02 0.14E-02 0.12E-02 0.96E-03 0.78E-03 0.51E-03 0.34E-03 0.26E-03 0.20E-03 o . 11E-03 -11.3 -5.1 2.2 3.8 4.7 5.8 -3.0 -7.1 -12.2 -12.4 -8.5 -0.9 5.3 7.5 1.4 5.4 2.1 -16.2 -30.0 -30.4 -33.3 -56.3 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.63E-02 0.58E-02 0.52E-02 0.47E-02 0.42E-02 0.37E-02 0.33E-02 0.30E-02 0.27E-02 0.24E-02 0.21E-02 0.18E-02 0.15E-02 0.13E-02 0.12E-02 0.9lE-03 0.77E-03 0.60E-03 0.49E-03 0.38E-03 0.29E-03 0.26E-03 0.21E-03 0.18E-03 0.16E-03 0.15E-03 o . 13E-03 0.82E-04 0.33E-04 0.16E-04 0.024 0.027 0.029 0.031 0.033 0.035 0.038 0.040 0.042 0.044 0.046 0.049 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.057 0.060 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.07l 0.073 0.075 0.077 0.079 0.082 0.084 0.086 0.088 Maximum positive excursion = 0.001 cfs ( 4.6%) V L.. le·c)':.:" occurring at 0.030 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.032 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.005 cfs (-19.6%) occurring at 0.025 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.020 cfs on the New Oata:dsout.tsf Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout poe Time Series File:dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.591 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.072 Peak Reservoir Stage: 4.83 Peak Reservoir Elev: 406.03 Peak Reservoir Storage: 23162. 0.532 Add Time Series:bypass.tsf CFS at 6:00 C:FS at 15:00 Ft Ft Cu-Ft Ac-Ft on Jan 9 on Jan 9 0.020 0.023 0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.037 0.039 0.040 0.042 0.044 0.048 0.052 0.054 0.056 0.058 0.060 0.061 0.063 0.064 0.066 0.066 0.068 0.069 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.072 0.073 0.073 in Year in Year -18.1 -14.0 3.6 2.0 1.8 1.6 -0.7 -2.8 -4.5 -5.1 -5.0 -0.6 1.9 2.2 0.5 1.4 0.5 -1.1 -2.4 -4.0 -4.0 -6.0 -6.2 -8.3 -9.8 -12.0 -13.8 -14 .4 -15.5 -17.6 8 8 Peak Summed Discharge: 0.076 CFS at 14:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.069 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.018 6 1/07/02 4:00 0.058 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.015 8 8/26/04 8:00 0.018 7 1/08/05 5:00 0.038 5 1118/06 23:00 0.058 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.072 1 1/09/08 15:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series Fi1e:dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.073 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.019 6 1/06/02 8:00 0.061 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.016 8 8/26/04 5:00 0.019 7 1/05/05 11 :00 0.042 5 1/18/06 23:00 0.061 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.076 1 1/09/08 14 :00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.072 4.83 1 100.00 0.990 0.069 4.64 2 25.00 0.960 0,058 4.00 3 10.00 0.900 0,058 3.97 4 5.00 0.800 0.038 3.17 5 3.00 0.667 0,018 2.85 6 2.00 0.500 0.018 2.79 7 1. 30 0.231 0.015 2.02 8 1.10 0.091 0,07l 4.78 50.00 0.980 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.076 1 100.00 0.990 0.073 2 25.00 0.960 0.061./"'. 3 10.00 0.900 0.061 4 5.00 0.800 0.042 5 3.00 0.667 0.019/J :': .""; \ 6 2.00 0.500 0.019 7 1. 30 0.231 0.016 8 1.10 0.091 0.075 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series Fi1e:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.001 25416 41. 448 41. 448 58.552 0.586E+OO 0.003 6190 10.095 51. 543 48.457 0.485E+00 0.005 6298 10.271 61. 813 38.187 0.382E+00 0.007 5353 8.730 70.543 29.457 0.295E+00 0.009 4218 6.879 77.422 22.578 0.226E+00 0.011 5326 8.686 86.107 13,893 0.139E+00 0.013 3241 5.285 91.393 8.607 0.861E-01 0.014 2094 3.415 94,808 S .192 0.519E-01 0.016 1687 2.751 97.559 2.441 0.244E-01 0.018 ll07 1. 805 99.364 0.636 0.636E-02 0.020 34 0.055 99.419 0.581 0.581E-02 0.022 7 0.011 99.431 0.569 0.569E-02 0.024 9 0.015 99.446 0.554 0.554E-02 0.026 6 0.010 99.455 0.545 0.545E-02 0.028 10 0.016 99.472 0.528 0.528E-02 0.030 22 0.036 99,507 0.492 0.492E-02 0.032 35 0.057 99.565 0.435 0.435E-02 0.034 27 0.044 99. 609 0.391 0.391E-02 0.036 30 0.049 99.658 0.342 0.342E-02 0.037 38 0.062 99.720 0.280 0.280E-02 0.039 21 0.034 99.754 0.246 0.246E-02 0.041 13 0.021 99.775 0.225 0.225E-02 0.043 15 0.024 99.799 0.201 0.201E-02 0.045 7 0.011 99.811 0.189 0.189E-02 0.047 9 0.015 99.826 0.174 0.174E-02 0.049 8 0.013 99.839 0.161 o .161E-02 0.051 13 0.021 99.860 0.140 o . 140E-02 0.053 14 0.023 99.883 0.117 0.11 7E-02 0.055 11 0.018 99.901 0.099 0.995E-03 0.057 l3 0.021 99.922 0.078 0.783E-03 0.058 13 0.021 99.943 0.057 0.571E-03 0.060 8 0.013 99.956 0.044 0.440E-03 0.062 10 0.016 99.972 0.028 0.277E-03 0.064 3 0.005 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03 0.066 5 0.008 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 0.068 5 0.008 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File:dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency COF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.001 25458 41.517 41.517 58.483 0.585E+00 0.003 6465 10.543 52.060 47.940 0.479E+00 0.005 6549 10.680 62.740 37.260 0.373E+00 0.007 5218 8.509 71.249 28.751 0.288E+00 0.009 4914 8.014 79.263 20.737 0.207E+00 0.011 4800 7.828 87.091 12.909 0.129E+00 O.Ol3 2922 4.765 91.856 8.144 0.814E-01 0.015 1959 3.195 95.051 4.949 0.495E-01 0.017 1737 2.833 97.883 2.117 0.212E-01 0.019 882 1. 438 99.322 0.678 0.678E-02 0.021 56 0.091 99.413 0.587 0.587E-02 0.023 10 0.016 99.429 0.571 0.571E-02 0.025 11 0.018 99.447 0.553 0.553E-02 0.027 4 0.007 99.454 0.546 0.546E-02 0.029 12 0.020 99.473 0.527 0.527E-02 0.031 27 0.044 99.517 0.483 0.483E-02 0.033 31 0.051 99.568 0.432 0.432E-02 0.035 33 0.054 99.622 0.378 0.378E-02 0.037 32 0.052 99.674 0.326 0.326E-02 0.039 26 0.042 99.716 0.284 0.284E-02 0.041 24 0.039 99.755 0.245 0.245E-02 0.043 14 0.023 99.778 0.222 O.222E-02 0.046 14 0.023 99.801 0.199 0.199E-02 0.048 7 0.011 99.812 0.188 0.188E-02 0.050 9 0.015 99.827 0.173 0.173E-02 0.052 9 0.015 99.842 0.158 0.158E-02 0.054 16 0.026 99.868 0.132 o .132E-02 0.056 11 0.018 99.886 0.114 0.114E-02 0.058 12 0.020 99.905 0.095 0.946E-03 0.060 10 0.016 99.922 0.078 0.783E-03 0.062 16 0.026 99.948 0.052 0.522E-03 0.064 10 0.016 99.964 0.036 0.359E-03 0.066 4 0.007 99.971 0.029 0.294E-03 0.068 5 0.008 99.979 0.021 0.212E-03 0.070 3 0.005 99.984 0.016 0.163E-03 0.072 5 0.008 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 APR-12-07 02:14 PM SEAPORTDOZING 425277121510 Preapplication Meeting for Key Plaza of Renton Highlands NE 4th Street and Bremerton Ave NE PRE07-023 City of Renton Development Services Division April 12, 2007 Contact information Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, (425) 430-7382 Public Works Plan Reviewer: Arneta Henninger, (425) 430-7298 Fire Prevention Reviewer: James Gray (425) 430-7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, (425) 430-7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a . reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects and contractors who work on the project. Pre-screening: When you have the project ready for submittal, hav it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time 0 review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations In effect at the time of project submltto!' The Information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by offiCial decision-makers (e.g., Hearin Examiner, 7.onlng Administrator, Public Works Administrator, and City Council). APP-12-07 02:14 PM SEAPORTDOZING 425277051121 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANOUM March 26, 2007 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Ii James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshald A- Key Plaza, NE 4'h St & Bremerton Ave, NE Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 1500 GPM for the bank building and 3000 aPM for the retail building. One hydrant is required within 150 feet of each stnlcture and additional hydrants are required within 300 fee! of each structure based on fire flow. One additiona for the bank and two additional for the retail building. 2, A fire mitigation feo of$6,500.00 is required based on $.52 per square foot of(ho buildings sqllarc footage. Plea~", feel free to contact me ifyotl have any questions. i:\keyp13za.doc P.06 APR-12-07 02:15 PM SEAPORTDOZING 4252770510 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM -;:::-;-;:;;;:--------:--. .,-:--=-::::--------------- DATE: April 5, 2007 TO: Elizabeth Higgins FROM: Amet" Henninger X7298 SUBJECT: KEY PLAZA OF RENTON IDGHLANDS PREAPPLICA nON NE 4TH ST & BREMERTON AVE NE Pllli 07-023 NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN TIllS REPORT; The following commellts all developmenl and permitting Issues are based on the pre· application submittals made to the City ofRenlon by the applicant. The appUcant is tantlollrd that information cOlltained In Ihis summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrellce by affidal decision makers (c.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of AdJllsfmellt, Bo~rd of Public Works and City CODDcil). Review comments may also need I be rcvi.,ed based on site planning and other design changes required by Ihe City or made b the applicanl. I have completed my review on the above preapplication ill Section IS. Township 23N, Range 5 E which proposed a two story building for commercial buildings and have the following comment. WATER: • This project site is located in the 565 Water Pressure Zone. Static pressure is approximfl/c ' 61 psi at street level. Pressure reducing valves shall be installed at the domestic meter if t e pressure exceeds 80 psi. • There is an existing 8" watcmlain located in NE 4th St (sec City of Renton waler drnwin~ W0240 for detailed engineering pions) and an existing 8" w.termain locate.! in Bremertc h. Ave NE (see City of Renton waler drawing W3260 for detailed engineering plans). • Constnletion of n commercial blJiJding willirigger a "epnrnte review. • Per the City of Renlon Fire Marshall, the preliminary fire flow is 1500 Jar the bank buildin and 3,000 GPM for the retail building. • Per the City of Renton code when the required fire flow is oyer 2500 GPM the fire hydran s shall be gcrv.;d by a main which loops around the building or complex of buildings an reconnects back into a distribution supply main. • In order to achieve 3,000 gpm this project willllccd to install a new 10" watemlain connectc~ . to the existing 10" watermain (not the 8"). extend it to the east in NE 4th St, then loop arouJ1~ the huilrting.~ at~"ect hack to the existing 8" watcnnain in Bremerton I\ve NE. P.07 .lI I' ............. , --_ .. -~ ... Key Pl= Prcapplicotion NE 4 th St and Bremerton A \'c N E • Any new construclion must hal'c one fire hydrant cnpable of delivering n minimum of 1. 00 tiPM and shall be located within 150 fect of the structure and additional hydrants (0 so capablc of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM) within 300 fect of the structure. T is distance is measured along the travel route. The number of additional hydranl.~ require dependent on the calculated fire flow of the new commercial building. Hence if the lird] remains at 1,000 GPM throe fire hydrants are required. Existing fire hydrant. shall " retrolitted with a quick disconnect Stortz fitting. • The Water SDC fees are $0.273 per square foot of property hut not less than $1956.00. The 'C fees arc collected at the time a construction penni! is issued. SANITARY SEWER: • There is an existing H" sanitary sewer main located in Flremerton Ave NE to the south. • A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how to provide this private site wilh sanitary sewer to either tile sewer main on the south si or the sewer MH on the north side with a commercial sidcsewer. • Any use in the buildIng subject to oils or grease shall require the installation ofa grease jntereeptor or oiVwaterseparator as detcnnined at the time ofplnn review. • The Sanitary Sewer SDC fees arc $0.142 (but not less alan $1017) per square foot of property, These fceB are collected at the time a construction penn it is issued. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: • Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. • Per City of Renton code, commercinl projects that arc 5,000 -10,000 sq ft in size sha I provide filII pavement width, curb, gutter, sidewalk .. and street lighting along the fu I frontages of the parcel being developed on the project side. • All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private stre t lighting will not be allowed. • Traffic Mitigation fees will apply. These fees are calculated per the ITE Manual, 7th edition 0. traffic study will be required. The applicant needs to submit a TIA which needs to inclu the Jevel of service on NE 4th St nnd to detennine if a signal is \Varronted ot NE 4th SI an Bremerton Ave NE. -:; C/The project will need to design and install a 3rd lane in Bremerton Ave NE. O~ ~-f I "'-"'. ~ • The driveway approach from NE 4th St will be required to be a right in right out only. QThc project design will need to incorporate a pedestrian ~cccss to Bremerton Ave NE. STORM DRAINAGE: • There are storm drainage facilities in NE 4th St and in Bremerton Ave NE. J:\f'rojcclS\KIl VPl.A7.1\ r 1\ .doc\cor AP7-12-07 02:16 PM SEAPORTDOZING 425277El510 Key Pia"" Prcapplicalion NE 41h 51 and Bremenoll Ave NE • A conceptual drainage plan and report is required to be submitted with the formal arpllC~Li n lor a commercial project. A drainage control plan designed per thc 2005 King COtillty Surface Water Manualls required. • The Surface Waler SOC fees are $0.265 (bul not less than $759) per squore foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction pem1it is issued. AQUIFER: • The site is localed in Aquifer Protection Zone 2 and mny be subject to additional requiremenls per City code. Construe led secondary containment may be required if more than 20 gallons of regulated hazardouB materials will be present at the new facility (RMC 4 3-050H2d(i». A fill source stalement (RMC 4-4-060L4) is req\lired if more than J 00 cubic yards offill material will be imported to the project site, Construction Activity Slandnrd~ (RMC 4-4-030C7) sholl be followed if during constnlction, more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials ,,~ll be stored on site or vehicles will be fueled on .ito. Surface Water Management Standards (RMC 4-6-030H2 and 3)-·Biolilters, stonnwat"r conveyance, and water qualily ponds may require a groundwater protection liner. Impervious surfaces shall provided for areas subject to vehicular use or storoge of chemicals, This is nol intended to b • complete list of the APA requirements nor does this infonnntion substitute for the full ordinance, it is only intended 10 gtlide the applicant to the City of Renton code book. GENERAL: • All required utility; drainage and slreet improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer, • All plans .hall be tied 10 a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Nelwork. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improve.ments, The fec for review and inspection of these improverncnts is 5% of the first $100,000 oflhe estill1!lted construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of any thin nver $200,000. H~lf "fthe fee mtl.t be paid upon application for building and construction pennits, and the remainder when Ihe permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses, .See Drafting Standards, cc: Kayrcn I:\P roj CC' u\KnY r LAZAr A .doc:\eor P.El9 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET LLC. Project Owner Amber Properties, Ph 206-391-7104 Project Name Key plaza of Renton Righi nds DOES Permit # .=P..:.R:=Ec..-..:.O.:.:2..:.3 _____ _ one ___________ _ Address P.O. Box 3015 Renton, WA 98056 Project Engineer David Cayton C Core Design, Inc. ompany __________ _ Phone 425-885-7877 ua Landuse Services Subdivison I Short Subd. I UPD o Building Services MlF f Commerical I SFR o Clearing and Grading 1]1 Right-of-Way Use o Other Location Township _2_3 ___ _ Range 5 Section __ 1_5 ___ _ Site Addres$ 4500 Block of NE 4 th Renton WA 98059 Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review @ I Targeted I Type (circle one): rFu"Ji) I Modified I (circle): Large Sito ~II Site Date (include revision 8/1 4/ ° 7 Date (include revision 8/1 4/07 dates): dates): Date of Final: Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard I Complex I Preapplication f Experlmentall Blanket Description: (Include conditions in TIR Section 2) 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 111105 t. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Monitoring Required: Yes /@ Describe: _____________ _ Start Date: Completion Date: Community Plan: -;-___________ _ Special District Overlays: _______________________ _ Drainage Basin: Lower Cedar River Stormwater Requirements: King county 2005 "',' .. i' o River/Stream ________ _ o Steep Slope _______ _ o Lake o Erosion Hazard _______ _ o Wetlands _________ _ o Landslide Hazard ______ _ o Closed Depression _______ _ o Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ o Floodplaln _________ _ o Seismic Hazard _______ _ o Other __________ _ o Habitat Protection ______ _ 0 ________ _ ,'.: -'., . "'.-. Soil Type Alderwood Slopes 6 -15% Erosion Potential Slight o High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) g Other Aquifer '" Zone 2 o Additional Sheets Attached 2005 Surface Water Design Manual o Sole Source Aquifer o Seeps/Springs 111105 2 KING COUNTY, WASH1N(JTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET REFERENCE !ill Core 2 -Offsite Analysis o Sensitive/Critical Areas I!l SEPA o Other LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT· none N/A none D _______________ ~ __ __ o Additional Sheets Attached '~~~1:~~+i~SlJMMARY'SHEEtifi-(~:civl~a.bri~,:hRsJi11lT1ary:~B~~;~~l+[,/~~h6iHQI~~&~id~::}(fi;15'!~,; ," Threshold Discharge Area: . (name or description) 1 • 4 acre s (ons l. te) Core Requirements (ail 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Offslte Analysis Flow Control lincl. facilitv summary sheet) Conveyance System Erosion and Sediment Control Maintenance and Operation Financial Guarantees and Liabilitv Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Number of Natural Dlscha-iCie Locations; 2 Level: C)I 2 , 3 dated: 7 I 251 07 Level: 1 /{2}/ 3 or Exemption Number ____ _ Small Site BMl'S Spill containment located at: .---.!v.!:!a~uc=.l~t=---_____ _ ESC Site Supervisor: TBD Contact Phone:TBD After Hours Phone: ..TBD Responsibility: frivat<;l / Public If Private, Mainten;;;; Log Required: (Y;;;)/ No Provided: __ C!!!:i>1 No --- Type: (Basis)' Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm , Bog or ExemptJlm1iJo. -------=0;::---- Landscape Management Plan: rYeil/ No Special Requirements las aDDlicable) ~ Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA' SDO / MOP /BP I LMP / Shared Fac./ None Requirements Name: AnTlTFRR i7.onp ? FloodplalniFloodway Delineation Flood Protecton Facilities Source Control (comm.lindustriallanduse) 2005 Surface Waler Design Manual Type: Major / Minor' Exemption 'e 1 OO·year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _____ _ Datum: Describe: N/A Describe landuse: Commercial Describe any structural controls:Water quality vault 111105 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET ,-., Oil Control High-use Site: Yes~ Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes /8 with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: N/A ': Riiti c13; J;;R0.SI ONANPSED,IMSNTCQ NTR Ot.: REQD/HEM ENTS,','-~:;:'i?(: ,.) "'~:' ;-.:,:;.: .: '; .;:c. '~:,:.: ,·l MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION j2g Clearing limits e9 Stabilize Exposed Surfaces I]) Cover Measures lEI Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities U!I Perimeter Protection e9 Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure I:!!I Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilnies I:!!I Sediment Retention o Flag Limits of SAO and open space 12!1 Surface Water Control preservation areas o Other I:!!I Dust Control ~ Construction Sequence lp,atl'14:'STGRMWATER'FACI12IPi,DESCRIPTIONS(Nof\i:lriqIUde:F,ariilitY:SLiriiiiJ~r:y:ai)d.:Sketoh)l::;::.:· ,c, Flow Control Type/Description Water Qualitv Type/Description []:I Detention vault o Bionitration o Infiltration 123 Wetpool vault o Regional Facility o Media Filtration o Shared Facility o Oil Control o Small Site BMPs o Spill Control o Other o Small Site BMPs o Other 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 4 111105 KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET . Parf16' STRUCTURAL 'ANALYSIS ,."". . . . .' Q!I Drainage Easement ~ Cast In Place Vault o Access Easement o Retaining Wall o Native Growth Protection Covenant o Rockery > 4' High o Tract o Structural on Steep Slope o Other o Other Part ,IT ., S!GNATl:}RE'Q£,PRQf.ESSIONAL. ENGINE.ER ". . ', ,"', :.' ,,":' :'.>:: •. " ·"i.·'/:'cii . I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, havo visited the site, Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated Into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the Information provided here is accurate. SlanadlOat. 2005 Sulface Water Design Manual Ifll05 5 I ~ CORE ~DESIGN October 26, 2007 Me. Rob Betts Betts Austin PLLC 11120 NE 2nd Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, W A 98004 Subject: Lieu Collection Actions Dear Rob: Core Design, 'nco 14711 N.E. 29th Place, Suite JO] Belleyue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 fax425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com We have been attempting to contact you for several months regarding the status of the Foster action and the Congdon lien, with no results. Since time is critical to these actions, we are going to tum them both over to Ron Allen at the Socius Law Group to proceed from this point. Please assemble all documents, information, copies of records, etc. and make arrangements with Ron on how to get the information to him. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by phone or email upon receipt, and provide a timeframe for when Ron can expect to receive the documents. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. Ron can be reached at (206) 838-9104 or at the Socius Law Group at Two Union Square, 601 Union Street, Suite 4950, Seattle, WA 9810l. Regards, CORE DESIGN IN Kevin 1. Vanderzanden, P.L.S. Managing Principal Senior Project Surveyor Cc: file ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING -, i GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED KEY PLAZA RETAIL DEVELOPMENT NORTHEAST 4 TH STREET AND BREMERTON AVENUE NORTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-1020 2881 -152':10 AvENUE N.E .. RtUMlUi 425.284.3300 FAX . . TOLL FRFE onl[}.JJa '- PREPARED FOR AMBER PROPERTIES, LLC October 2, 2007 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED KEY PLAZA RETAIL DEVELOPMENT NORTHEAST 4TH STREET AND BREMERTON AVENUE NORTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-1020 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 2881 -152nd Avenue Northeast, Redmond, Washington 98052 Ph: 425-284-3300 Fax: 425-284-2855 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 Importantlnformalion About Your G I Engi • ng Suusurface p/OlJlems die a plI,nC'pai cause of constructlOrI delays [()st overruns (/am, anel d!5Dutcs • Tile fo//O,j IIlg mfarmatton IS provided to iJe/p you manage yOUi IISkS Geotechnical Services Are Plll'lormed lor Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs 01 their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor Ihe client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the filii Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary Do not read selected elements only. A Geotachnical EngIneering Report Is Based on A Unique Set 01 PrOject-SpecifiC Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific lac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes---llven minor ones---llnd request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they ware not Informed Subslll'lace Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was pertormed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- Ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical FIndings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurtace tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory.<Jata and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurtace conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurtace conditions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual October 2, 2007 ES-1020 Amber Properties, LLC PO Box 3015 Renton, Washington 98056 Attention: Mr. Robin Bales Dear Mr. Bales: Earth Solutions NW LLC • (;\.'()tcchni( ',11 Engiller!I'ing • Conslructir)l""l Monil()ritl!!, • EtlvironIW.'l1tr!i Sci(,Il(Y':> Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Key Plaza, Northeast 4th Street and Bremerton Avenue Northeast, Renton, Washington" . Based on results of our fieldwork, the site is underlain primarily by native soils consisting of medium dense to very dense silty sand and silty sand with gravel glacial till deposits. No seepage or indications of the seasonal high groundwater table were encountered in our test sites at the time of our fieldwork (September 2007). In our opinion, residential structures constructed at the subject site can be supported on competent or recompacted native soils or structural fill used to modify existing site grades. We anticipate competent native soil capable of providing adequate foundation support will be encountered at depths of between about one to three feet below existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill, may be necessary. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal 288'1 152ml Avenue NE. Redmond, WA 9IlO';,i (1 (·12'1\ ~:a4-T~()()· FAX (42S) 2R4-2nS5· I()II rrep ((166) 13()-S7"lO TABLE OF CONTENTS ES·1020 PAGE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 General..................... ......... ... ...... ... ... ............... ... ............ 1 Project Description .......................................................... . Surface ........................................................................... . Subsurface ...................................................................... . Geologic Setting ...................................................... . Groundwater .................................................................................. . Critical Area Review .......................................................... . Renton Municipal Code Review ................................. . 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 4 Genera!.. ........................................................................... 4 Site Preparation and Earthwork........... ................................. 5 In-situ Soils.......................................... ......... ........... 5 Structural Fill Placement... ...... ... ..................... ........... 6 Foundations ............................. ' ... ... .................................. 6 Excavations and Slopes..................... ..................... ........... 7 Detention Vault Recommendations ....................................... 7 Rockeries and Modular Block Walls......... ... ..................... .... 8 Utility Trench Backfill............. ............... .............................. 8 Pavement Sections ............................................................. 8 Slab-on-Grade Floors ........................................ , . .. . ... . . . ... .. . . 9 Retaining Walls .................................................................. 10 Drainage......... ......................... .............................. ............ 10 Seismic Considerations... ............. ......... ................................ 10 LIMITATIONS .............. , ...................... ,. ......... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ...... 10 Additional Services............................................................ 11 Earth Solutions t-lW. LLC GRAPHICS PLATE 1 PLATE 2 PLATE 3 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont'd ES-1020 VICINITY MAP TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Field Exploration Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Data Sieve Analyses Earth Solutions NVV, LLC General GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED KEY PLAZA RETAIL DEVELOPMENT NORTHEAST 4TH STREET AND BREMERTON AVENUE NORTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-1020 INTRODUCTION This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed Key Plaza retail development to be constructed at the southwest corner of the intersection of Northeast 4th Street and Bremerton Avenue Northeast in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this study was to excavate a series of test pits across the site to characterize soil and groundwater conditions, perform appropriate geotechnical analyses and develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Providing a characterization of the soil and groundwater conditions which may impact site development plans; • Providing geotechnical recommendations for earthwork, structural fill requirements and drainage in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code requirements; • Assessing the suitability of site soils for use as structural fill; • Providing recommendations for soil bearing capacity, subgrade preparation, recommendations for foundation support and pavement sections, and; • Providing additional geotechnical recommendations, necessary. The following documents were reviewed as part of preparing this Geotechnical Engineering Study: • Faxed copy of the proposed site layout and topography provided by the client; • City of Renton Ordinance 4-3-050 Critical Areas; • Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, D.R. Mullineaux, 1965, 1985, scale 1 :24,000; and, • King County Soil Conservation Survey (SCS). Earth Solution. NW. LLC I Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 Project Description ES-1020 Page 2 We understand the subject site will be developed with two retail buildings, parking areas and infrastructure improvements. Due to the lack of topographic relief across the site, we anticipate grading will be relatively minimal, requiring cuts and fills of less than about five feet to achieve design elevations, except for the detention vault construction, which will require a deeper excavation. The proposed structures will likely consist of relatively lightly loaded one-story structures supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar developments, we anticipate wall loads on the order of two kips per lineal foot column loads of 50 to 80 kips and slab-on-grade loading of about 150 pounds per square foot (psf). Stormwater generated from site development will be directed to a detention vault to be located at the northwest corner of the site. The detention vault design was not completed at the time of this report, however, we anticipate cuts of up to ten feet will be required for vault construction. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the plans. Surface The site is located along the south side of Northeast 4th Street and the west side of Bremerton Avenue Northeast in Renton, Washington. The approximate location of the subject property is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site consists of a roughly rectangular property that includes one tax parcel. The approximate limits of the property are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). The site is bordered to the north by Northeast 4th Street, to the south by an apartment complex, to the east by Bremerton Avenue Northeast and to the west by a retail center. The property is currently undeveloped. Vegetation throughout the site consists primarily of brambles and trees. The overall site topography is relatively flat, with very little vertical relief observed across the site. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 Subsurface ES-1020 Page 3 A total of four test pits were excavated across the subject site for purposes of assessing soil and groundwater conditions, and for characterizing and classifying the site soils. Our test pit locations were focused on the proposed layout of buildings and the storm-drainage vault. Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Topsoil was encountered at all of the test sites and was on the order of six inches in thickness. Indications of extensive areas of fill were not encountered or observed during our fieldwork. At all our test sites, the topsoil was underlain by medium dense, grading to very dense silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM) and silt (ML) glacial till deposits. Soil relative density generally increased with depth. Geologic Setting Our review of the referenced geologic map identifies ground moraine deposits (Qgt) throughout the site and surrounding area and is commonly referred to as glacial till. Till soils consist primarily of a non-sorted mixture of compact silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders in a consolidated condition at depth. The thickness of the till layer typically varies from a few meters to several tens of meters. The King County Soil Survey for the area identifies Alderwood series (AgB) gravelly sandy loam 6 to 15 percent slopes, glacial till deposits throughout the site and surrounding areas. Alderwood series soils occur commonly along upland and terrace settings and typically exhibit an undulating relief. Alderwood series (Map Unit 1) soils present a slight erosion hazard and exhibit slow runoff. The soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork generally correlate with the geologic and soil map designations. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was not encountered during our fieldwork (September 2007). Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. Perched groundwater seepage should be expected in site excavations made in the winter and spring months. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 Critical Area Review Renton Municipal Code Review ES-1020 Page 4 As part of our report preparation, we reviewed Title 4-3-050 -Critical Areas Regulations, of the City of Renton Municipal Code to determine if potential critical areas that may meet current geologically hazardous area definitions, are present on the subject site. Based on field estimates and our review of the referenced site plan, the site topography is gently inclined at an average gradient of less than 10 percent, and is underlain by a relatively homogeneous deposit of glacially consolidated till. In our opinion, the site soils would present a slight erosion hazard. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the time of our fieldwork (September 2007) no geologically hazardous areas meeting the current City of Renton Municipal Code definitions are present on the subject site. In our opinion, Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with current City of Renton development standards and the recommendations detailed in this report should be implemented in site design and construction planning. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed retail development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include site grading and earthwork, detention vault construction, foundation support, structural fill placement, appropriate erosion control and the suitability of the on-site soils for use as structural fill. Based on the results of our study, the proposed retail structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous foundations bearing on competent native soils or structural fill. We anticipate competent soil capable of providing adequate foundation support will be encountered at depths of approximately one to three feet below existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. In our opinion, the soils generated from cuts throughout the site should generally be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are close to optimum moisture. The silty sand with gravel soils encountered at the majority of the test sites will generally exhibit good soil strength when compacted to structural fill specifications. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 ES-1020 Page 5 The presence of groundwater seepage in deeper utility and site excavations should be anticipated, depending on depth and seasonal weather conditions. Supplemental recommendations for controlling groundwater seepage should be provided by the geotechnical engineer during the grading activities, as appropriate. However, based on the data obtained from the test sites, and our overall characterization of subsurface conditions, extensive site dewatering will likely not be necessary for the proposed site development. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Amber Properties, LLC, and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork The primary geotechnical considerations during the proposed site preparation and earthwork activities will involve structural fill placement and compaction, site drainage and erosion control, and detention vault construction. In-situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the silty sand with gravel soils encountered at our test sites are generally suitable for use as structural fill. The moisture sensitivity of the native soils can be generally characterized as moderate. As the native soils are moderately sensitive to moisture, successful use of the on-site soils will largely be dictated by the moisture content of the soils at the time of placement and compaction. Soils encountered during site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content may require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction. Conversely, if the native soils are found to be dry at the time of placement, moisture conditioning through the application of water may be necessary prior to compacting the soil. If the on-site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a maximum aggregate grain size of four inches, and a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of five percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural Fill Placement In general, areas to receive structural fill should be sufficiently stripped of organic mailer and other deleterious material. The geotechnical engineer should observe cleared and stripped areas of the site prior to structural fill placement. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 ES-1020 Page 6 Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, in general accordance with the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM 0-1557) and placed in maximum 12 inch lifts. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of the structural fill should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent and be in stable, non-yielding condition. Foundations In our opinion, the proposed buildings can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent, undisturbed native soils or structural fill. Assuming the buildings will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be considered for design of the new foundations: • Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity 2,500 psf • Passive Resistance 350 pet (equivalent fluid) • Friction 0.40 • IBC Site Class Site Class C (Table 1613.5.2,2006 IBC) • Liquefaction Susceptibility None A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations are anticipated to be encountered at depths of approximately one to three feet below existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soils are encountered at the foundation subgrade elevation, the soil should be recompacted or replaced with a suitable structural fill soil. Ea~h Solulion. NW. LLC Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 Excavations and Slopes ES-1020 Page 7 The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) classify soils in terms of minimum safe slope inclinations (see WAC 296-155-66401 Appendix A-Soil classification). Based on the soil conditions encountered at our test pit sites, the site soils across the property within the upper four feet would be classified by OSHAlL&1 as type B. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type B soils should be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Soils encountered below four feet would be classified as Types A. Type A soils should be sloped no steeper than 0.75H:1V. If appropriate slopes cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support the excavations Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. The geotechnical engineer should observe temporary and permanent slopes to verify that the inclination is appropriate, and to provide additional grading recommendations, as necessary. Detention Vault Recommendations We understand a stormwater detention vault will be constructed along at the northwest corner of the site. The detention vault designs were not finalized at the time of this report, however, cuts of up to ten feet are anticipated. With respect to the proposed detention vault construction, competent native soils suitable for support of the vault foundations are anticipated to be exposed at the vault subgrade elevation. For design, the following design parameters should be used: • Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity • Active Earth Pressure (yielding Wall) • At-Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) • Soil Unit Weight 6,000 psf 35 pet 50 pet 125 pet Traffic surcharge loading above the vault should be included in the design pressures, if applicable. Drainage around the vault walls or a means to relieve the buildup of hydrostatic pressures should be provided. In our opinion, the use of sheet drain around the vault walls can be considered in lieu of free draining backfill. The geotechnical engineer should review the vault design, and provide supplemental recommendations, as appropriate. The presence of perched groundwater seepage should be expected in the detention vault excavations, depending on the time of year grading takes place. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 Rockeries and Modular Block Walls ES-1020 PageS In our opinion, the use of rockeries or modular block walls at this site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Rockeries or modular block walls over four feet in height will require an engineered design. ESNW can provide engineered rockery and modular block wall designs, upon request. The geotechnical engineer should review the final wall alignments and wall heights with respect to the proposed site grading. Utility Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils observed at the test sites are generally suitable for support of utilities. Organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. In general, the native soils anticipated to be exposed during grading should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction and fines contents are within acceptable limits to maintain stability. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable speCifications of the City of Renton, as appropriate. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade will require remedial measures such as overexcavation and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 ES-1020 Page 9 For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to automobiles and occasional truck traffic, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: • Two inches of AC placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The AC, ATB and CRB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. Heavier truck-traffic areas generally require thicker pavement sections depending on site usage, pavement life expectancy, and site traffic. ESNW can provide appropriate pavement section design recommendations for truck traffic areas and right-of-way improvements, as necessary. Additionally, the City of Renton road standards may supersede the recommendations provided in this report. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors for the proposed buildings should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of competent native soil or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of five percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If used, the vapor barrier should consist of a product specifically designed to function as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with he manufacturers specifications. Retaining Walls If retaining wall will be utilized at this site, they should be deSigned to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. For design, the following parameters can be used for retaining wall design: • Active Earth Pressure (Yielding Wall) 35 pet (equivalent fluid) • At-Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) 50 pcf • Traffic Surcharge (Passenger Vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution) • Passive Resistance 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) • Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Earth Solutions MN. LLC Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 ES-1020 Page 10 Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be included in the retaining wall design, if applicable. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. ESNW should review retaining wall designs to verify that appropriate earth pressure values and drainage have been incorporated into design, and to provide additional recommendations, if necessary. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least eighteen inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A rigid, perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an appropriate discharge location. Drainage No seepage or indications of the seasonal groundwater table were observed at the time of our fieldwork (September 2007). However, perched groundwater commonly travels along the shallow contact between the weathered and unweathered soil horizon within glacial till deposits. As such, groundwater seepage could be encountered in deeper site excavations, particularly during the wetter winter months. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. In our opinion, perimeter drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 3 of this report. Seismic Considerations The 2006 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, Site Class C, from table 1613.5.2 should be used for design. In our opinion, the liquefaction susceptibility of the soil underlying the site is low. The relative density of the site soils and the absence of a relatively shallow groundwater table is the primary basis for this designation. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test sites may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Amber Properties, LLC October 2, 2007 Additional Services ES-1020 Page 11 ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Referen ce : King Coun ty Map 656 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 2008 NE 4TH _. M 2r NOTE : This plale may contain areas of color . ESNW cann ol be respons ible for any subsequent misinterpretati on of the infor mat ion result ing from t>ack & while reproduct kms of th is pl ate . ... : ~,~ (I ~!' '" :-.<':q MAPleWOOD GOLf COURSE Drwn . GL S Checked JNC " R.O~ REGIS PARI( Vicinity Map Key Plaza Renton , Washington Date IIU /1 Lim III Proj . No. Date Sept. 2007 Plate Sf 1020 r ------, ' , I Retention I I WQVauit ) I , -.-I I TP-1, N.E. 41 H '-,111.1 1 I Propos ed Bank ITP-4 --.- Bank Dnv Thru " I -0 -,---'------'1<-----I TP -3 Proposed Buildi ng 1 I TP-2 -0 - I LEGEND Trash Area o 25 50 100 TP -1-j -Approximate Loca tion of ESNW Test Pit , Proj No . ES-1020, Sept. 2007 1"=50' -d b Sca le in Feet Subject Site NOTE : The graphics shown on this plate are not intend ed for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illu strate th e approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and I or proposed site features . The information ill ustra ted is largely based on data provided by the clie nt at the time of ou r study . ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or in terpretation of the data by other s. NOTE : This plate may contai n areas at color . ESNW cann ot be respons ible for any subsequent misinterpretat ion of the information resulting from black & whne reproduct ions of this plate . Drwn . GLS Checked JNC . .. lutions NWllC . g. Constructi on M on Itoring mental Sciences .~,' Test Pit Location Plan Key Plaza Renton , Washington Date 09 /19/2007 Proj . No . 1020 Date Sept. 2007 Plate 2 • Slope ~ • • • • -t 2" (Min .) Perforate d Rigid Drain Pipe (Surrou nd with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspout s to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suita ble soil. Slope away from build ing. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material 1" Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT OT SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Drwn. GLS Solutions NWllC 'neering. Construction M onitoring ironmental Sciences FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Key Plaza Renton, Washington Date 09/25/2007 Proj . No. 102 0 Checked JNC Date Sept 2007 Plate 3 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ES-1020 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating a total of four test pits. The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The subsurface exploration was completed in September 2007. Logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE lltAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER lltAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMAlleR THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE lltAN 50% OFCQARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH MORE lltAN 50% FINES OFCQARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS AMOUNT OF FINES) LlQUIDUMIT LESS THAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT WElL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL· SAND MIXTURES, liTTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEl-SAND MIXTURES,lITTlE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL-SAND- SilT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEl-SAND- CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS. llT11.E OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVEllY SAND, lITTlE OR NO FINES SilTY SANDS, SAND -SilT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SilTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, Sil TV OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITIi SLIGHT PLASllClTY INORGANIC CtA YS OF lOW TO MEDIUM PlASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SilTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PlASTICITY INORGANIC SilTS. MICAceous OR DIATOMACeOUS FINE SAND OR SilTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PL.ASnCITY ORGANIC etA YS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SilTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 2881 152nd Avenue NE PAGE 1 OF 1 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-284-3300 Fax: 425-284-2855 CUENT Amber Pro~erties, LLC PROJECT NAME Key: Plaza PROJECT NUMBER 1020 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 9/12107 COMPLETED 9112/07 GROUNO ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR SeaQort Dozing GROUNO WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY JNC CHECKED BY JNC AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES DeQth of TOQsoil & Sod 6": brambles and trees AFTER EXCAVATION w 0. I ~ffi en 0 x(!) ~g will TESTS 0 0.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ...J::1 en ~...J 0 0.::> ::i ~z (!) 0 . .. Light brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist ' .. .... · . SM "." MC=5.10% · :. :". ~:::. :'.2.5 · '." Olive brown silty SAND with gravel, dense. moist MC = 4.60% .. · . '. " r--L · . .... -becomes gray, very dense MC = 4.00% · . ' :. 8M ":".: · . : .. .... : -.. ," MC = 6.40% · .:. :". 8.0 Fines = 19.30% Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. ~ 1il ai Earth Solutions NW 2881152nd Avenue N.E. Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-284-3300 Fax: 425-284-2855 CLIENT Amber Prooerties, LLC PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED _9;!!/-"12(d1'!-07'----____ _ COMPLETED .J9!![/.!.!12;!!10!!.7 __ _ EXCAVATIONCONTRACTOR~Se~a~p~ort~D~oz~in~gL-______ __ EXCAVATION METHOD ______________ __ LOGGED BY -'J"'N""C'---___ _ CHECKED BY -'J!£NC!k.. ___ _ NOTES Deoth of Topsoil & Sod 6": brambles and trees UJ "- ~2 ~ffi en \,l I(!) UJm TESTS ti "-0 UJ-...J::; en ~...J 0 "-:> ::i ~z (!) MC = 5.10% TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECTNAME~K~e~y~P~I~~a ____________________________ _ PROJECT LOCATION GROUND ELEVATION _______ __ TEST PIT SIZE ______ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -='---_____________ _ AT END OF EXCAVATION -='---_______________ _ AFTER EXCAVATION - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM ·becomes gray. very dense MC =3.30% MC = 3.60% Test pit excavation. Bottom of test pij at 5.0 feet. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 2881 152nd Avenue N.E. Redmond, Washington 98052 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-284·3300 Fax: 425-284-2855 CLIENT Amber P!:Q!!!!rties, LLC PROJECT NAME Ke~ Plaza PROJECT NUMBER 1020 PROJECT LOCATION Renton , Washington DATE STARTED 9/12107 COMPLETED 9/12107 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sea~ort Dozing GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY JNC CHECKED BY JNC AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES Del1!h of TOl!!i!!iI & Sod 6": brambles AFTER EXCAVATION UJ 0. x ~ffi oj u I(!) h:£ UJIII TESTS U 0.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION UJ-.J:; oj ~.J C 0.:> =i ~z (!) 0 Light brown SILT with sand, dense, moist MC = 16.90% ML . MC= 8.30% 2.S Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist SM ~ . MC = 11.50% . ~. 6.0 Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. No groundWater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet ~ ~ ~ I-0 C> '" " I- Z i5 ~ ~ C> 0 ~ J J ~ ~ t or m J ~ W Z W C> Earth Solutions NW 2881 152nd Avenue N.E. Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-284·3300 Fax: 425-284·2855 CLIENT Amber Prooertie5. LLC PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED ~91,,-1-,,2IO=7 ______ _ COMPLETED ...l9!!../1!..;2'!l/0u.7 ____ __ EXCAVATIONCONTRACTOR~S~e~a~p20rt~D~oz~in~gL-____________ _ EXCAVATION METHOD ___________________________ _ LOGGED BY .,J"'N"'C'-____ _ CHECKED BY -'J~N!!C'-____ _ NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": brambles and trees W 0. :I: I:ffi en <..l llig WID c.i l:(!) .oJ::;; TESTS ~g 0.:> '" Cl ::;;z :> (!) eli MC= 9.70% TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECTNAME~K~e~y~P~I~~a ____________________________ _ PROJECT LOCATION GROUND ELEVATION _______ __ TEST PIT SIZE ______ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -='-____________________ _ AT END OF EXCAVATION -= ________________________ _ AFTER EXCAVATION - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM -becomes olive brown, dense MC = 4.70% MC=4.9D% -becomes gray, very dense excavation. at 5.0 feet below existing grade. No Bottom oftest pit at 5.0 feet. APPENDIXB LABORATORY TEST DATA ES-1020 Earth Solulions NW, LLC • Earth Solutions NW, LLC GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 2881 152nd Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone: (425) 284-3300 Fax: (425) 284-2855 CLIENT Amber Prol2erties , LLC PROJ ECT NAME Key Plaza PROJECT NUMBER ES-1020 PROJECT LOCATION Renton u.s. SIEVE OPENING !N INCHES 1 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 1 HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1 ~ 1/23'8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 5060 100 140 200 100 I I l\' ~~ '-'-i I I I 95 \ -----90 1\ "'- 85 " \ "'\ 80 l\ 75 "- 70 65 I-\ :r: Cl 60 ijj ~ 3: >-55 "" to a: w z 50 u: I-45 z 'I w u 40 a: \ w "-35 1\ 30 25 1\ "\ 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I COBBLES : GRAVEL I SAND I SILT OR CLAY coarse tine I coarse medium 1 fine 1 Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu • TP-Ol 3.Oft. Olive brown silty SAND with gravel, SM ~ TP-Ol 8,Oft. Gray silty SAND with gravel, SM • TP-03 2.5ft. Light brown SILT with sand, ML Specimen Identification 0100 060 030 010 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %elay • TP-Ol 3.Oft. 19 2.443 0.205 30.7 50.8 18.5 ~ TP-Ol 8.Oft. 37.5 3,051 0.206 36.5 44.2 19.3 • TP-03 2.5ft, 19 2.0 27,0 70.9 4 COPIES REPORT DISTRIBUTION ES-1020 Amber Properties, LLC PO Box 3015 Renton, WA 98056 Attention: Mr. Robin Bales Earth Solutions NW, LLC " , r , , • (~ .' ;,> ::-.," -- " ;" .. _)tJJu~E To THII ," I " ~ .. , ' .~, i , . , , i: i . -: " -i' '~,i,,', 'I ". 1·:' ~ ~ f' .1 J I I" I, ;, , I'