Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP272843
i9 Return Address: Z001010400039 - City Clerk's Office PAGE 001ROFT0N BS R City of Renton 01/04/2001 10 17 9.00 KING COUNTY, tjq 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 2 4 BILL OF SALE Property Tax Parcel Number: Project File#: Street Intersection: Address: Reference Number(s)of ocuments assigned or released:Additional reference numbers are on page_..o ' Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. ut��cL,L 1. City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation 2. The Grantor,as named above,for,and inconsideration of mutual benefits,hereby grants,bargains,sells and delivers to the Grantee,as named above,the following described personal property: a' WATER SYSTEM: Len h M Size Type z) 1ZG, L.F. of� _" _ Water Main L.F.of d L.F. A ( Water Main v L.F.of ! " Water Main O �����T�TTT� each of �� Gate,Valvesr7 i/ each of _S� Gate Valves o �_ each of Fire Hydrant Assemblies SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM: Length Size Type C L.F.of o —t _" ��U Sewer Main "' L.F. of �% _ Sewer Main L.F.of Sewer Main (— each of Diameter Manholes l each of flt Diameter Manholes each of Diameter Manholes STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM: Length Size Type L.F.of Storm Line L.F.of Storm Line L.F.of Storm Line each of �T- -� _ Storm Inlet/Outlet each of z Storm Catch Basin each of �" � Manhole STREET IMPROVEMENTS: (IncludCurb,Gutter,Sidewalk,Asphalt Pavement) Curb,Gutter,Sidewalk rL_L.F. Asphalt Pavement: SY or !�5-2r L.F.of Width STREET LIGHTING: #of Poles By this conveyance,Grantor will warrant and defend the sale hereby made unto the Grantee against all and every person or persons,whomsoever,lawfully claiming or to claim the same. This conveyance shall bind the heirs,executors, administrators and assigns forever. H:\FILE.SYS\FRM\84HNDOUIIBILLSALE.DOC\NIAB Page I Form 84 0001/bh IN WITNE/S/S'WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. — art INDIVIDUAL FORM OF A CKNOfVLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) My appointment expires: Dated: REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING ) a, I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that cY-z o signed this instrument,on oath o stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and o acknowledged it as the and v of to be the free and voluntary act of such o party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 0 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington o Notary (Print) C"i My appointment expires: Dated: CORPORATE FOkVf OF A CKNOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNT QF KG On this ay of � before me personally appeared LpNje Gt S 1 to me known to ����.•N� ,4�0 ��� be of the corporation that g�0 Ze executed t e within instrument,and acknowledge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therein N 'X i �() z mentioned,and each on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said yu pu rya= Co in ent and that the sealaffixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. art '' „�,'„���'�5•T _— s�STA7� Cr�P;- ota ublic in and for the State of Washingt n Notary(Print) - ;1 A ry— ) My appointment expires_: U q a F Z01 Dated: Page 2 AN ABpILT AND ME INFORMAnon SHORN^DCRA LYMARSHALL SHORT PLAT E_n..FlD DF Is DATE:�RTB o PORTION OF NW 114 OF NE 114 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. Ez z CITY OF RENTON As- I III r NOTEs _ AND W W (1�^ I �I -. SYSMEM ISUILT BASED ON fl L I—AONGG YANNHDLES.CATCN BA9N5, 04 I i< I I MT 110N VAULT,%PE INVERTS,VALVES AND WATER METERS. _ ^ NE a T DNA—AitE SAM ON 111E Ott OF RENTON'S NOTE; D.P.S.CONTROL TWpO(. 1 ALL T1F1D WORK WAS PERFptYEO IN DEM.BM.Z000 I I IW=1B1 D STORM FACILITIES FOR LOTS 5-8 usNc A TO—GTs-3 BEN SECDNO TOTAL S—ON a' y I II Tw.IBo.o ew-fs�.0 I 33 5)00182 ARE INTENDED TO COLLECT AS MUCH IMTH RE4ILTNO LLOAIRES E%GELDING THE MINWM 5 E' II 8-51.0 TmE u STORM WATER FROM ROOF AND FLOOR y ACCURACY SIANOARDS A5 SET FORM BY WAC 332-IM. Y� srA D«Ja83,Slr LT DRAWS AS FEASIBLE. REMAINING FLOWS I y W DsxiA�z Bali"faas RrRr. �6 I I \ �M e�al I CAN OUTLET TO WETLANDS. L 1 Imo- — _ (E Wq_15216 h PIYa dR693 014C BI �Y' \•. COAsxe$v sa BODOnx a /WIrUy+� zQq,i-V'ItI o x1ASTRm 10 _INERSC 21 SA 2.A1 RT NC ) _2LITD 1LTY•?ID 8Fx oR.m1A0v4rr9an5 x x ma 3xrROL 0D (.-siwQ 641 _ 9DRTqT RO STORM DRAINAGE CONTROLPP tMf.I$.I11.66.571 RT TVfE r • ( I .I320 NIN RIM11SB62 —II —— - F 1 t� MSONm 1D0 f91J51.9D 1DS.B1 Rw NTe 2 1.30 1, 19UA9 1Se.8 _ I E(5}M822T E_18aM I •_. -e I I _.T_ 1-_r ` _ ; I]OAI.58.58 1BN30B.18 1)A.00 E n11-18222 i I I I _\\ I —+-—— P� I / \ R 'JOH61.2B IM74.8) 15B01 I. 'z' NCW CURB FAf£MWL BE J2'EAST I R; .. 1 I T W _ '1 \ µ a� 8 1J°IJK.Jt IpI.S18.I1 160 .9 0 C) OF RK EKISONO WEST CURB .II -I- .`. eu VJ T IJON59.92 f9r.SBI.61 15).12 Q ALIGNMENT E IR G AUCNMMT n I I i ~� - -+�.�� 1M- Rf1)UfID \ I 8 1JO1J89.9J f9158).52 150.55 FI B E Al STAB a... r-- -�--^ I I ` ( 9 1304ItT 82 19/80158 ISs.Bt �r Z 1. W I I Fr-iSAT p U 0.' + ) LOT,y I ( z. 3345T0082 Q i hl a n^ A .w . 7 LOT J 69 3 �i51' !�� LEGEND (/ L a ie RM-lum fi' e -� 1I.'.1 \ E T1e onAwWlo..r-.•-Ws3Wnm � iTIg9 E(s)-1T9 Je ,4' , 1 �I � _ aT` `. I I �•�_ e�a � cawF�+ous mEE IT-1T16 4W I o . .e. �.•� _\\\\ -- \ \ 1 .a�A O CA—BASw 111E 1 12.i la -- I _ T--{� \ � FlRE NYORANT TD//aruieuwl ��aO pMoD� -... H Xt J 8.' I SYa1M S 0 2i(IW)� uR N01L IIIE EWSRND UIVNM As SHOWN D4 YATR VALVE -.y ____ _ En51w0 UnUWVT MAY LOT, ® YAhR METER , .6 $ ALONG MIs PRarosEO_u .UNT. FF .A '`---� e os�Ev-slMi elae AND/ -w-w TER LwE ! 4MYOF ALL EAWS LOG 1'&AND -,-BARB WWE ENCE u sl)9 YN lu� DEPM s1WG uTIu11Es 9 — •o. I �.,�... - - t ,'.�L-\ __ �m �. rwlpr ro snwnxc_OD, ® SMYTARY SEMER MANIKILE Call Selma You Djg 1-800-424-5555 - I I 91.. w+- `\ rAOS�� ill ✓ 5 EK®TWf' E-r L__ �� •i �. " 4.. "L 'Ir GRAPHIC SCAM LOTS ���� ' 1»mBRAsarLuca lsp.IVl.i: y, �. FF-1e)6 wN I mrlrRars w Moxuloarr AT 38 STR88T 9 } sTA I.t51)Ia88 RT. ARM II AM Ya xa I o Feel) ARM lbPT0F Ma 11p1 - -. N tMNT63L F Imo-m wwAsnW.r«'° qo -'�`_- 3'�� 1NT-1wx-•�-���y- c _ � _-— BENCHMARK WSTALL ME 1 LB IN I%D I 2 .'J -SB TIe 1-- . FAmsxr L B,S,S OF RJUSN"G FIG MB•SipW UNE ��]j2 - Wpv� ID83/➢1 BABBD ON HO1,D1Na STA-0.21$121'RI Ik 2 I ER TMSIWR �rz wRIFg iR8 BBA.RpG OI N019260'8 RIY.191.)5 yy ` 1 TYPE I ROCKEERRY � Al E 0 \ S7.2W. BLTR86N CI1T OF RF .CONTROL [.19a)5(GDNFlRY Iy 13 S(A Of0. TOP_200 {3 ��N�PNTirrvsro I / NT PoA'14 Na 1 —11.. W C04 Is-BUKlS) wY.1DSD2 BOTTgA-198 A•ACCEa 8 $ 8 w ,,,yyad9K VBRSICAL DA" 80"Ra W. W E(E..192. PERFORA IEO GRAIN PIPE UTII/ry EARIMN! I '+3A5)0021) $ NA1D IDBB:BASID ON xOIDING INB ro C ECT ro CB12 33A5)0D216 TRACT A BLe Mx OF me"FBBT MR CITY OP RSMiOx COMWN L POINT Nu I035. ro pSTANDARDSu^NM a m I I ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS By Am_ S~ I I NEANos R nAxm er As.arse A— Br OAro— SHEET 5 OF 21 g Tf0-Y�Vllf I� � ttPnMBER 21 9W er RATE_ .OU.R W 411: ROLL 169 FIB 1' PROJECT CLOSING #4 Final Cost Data I FFINAL COST DATA AND INVENTORY and Inventory SUBJECT: ` \ CITY PROJECT NUMBERS: WTR- WWP- �t' l � S WP- Name of project TRO- TED- / TO: City of Renton FROM: Plan Review Section 2_Z.13�Z(p SI= Chi-Th PI z-2© Planning/Building/Public WorksSS�afly� ; 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 DATE: 1 2 21 mO Per the request of the City of Renton, the following information is fumished concerning final costs for improvements installed for the above referenced project. WATER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION COSTS: A � .— r'�t,Z3? _. Length Size Type > $ L" )T ` 4 ice— L.F.of _ (fl ,. t WATERMAIN kt'Do Lt L.F.of -- 1 WATERMAIN tj b_$`t 37 L.F.of WATERMAIN EACH of �— `�T. GATE VALVES 1`{� t EACH of �_ H, GATE VALVES EACH of — t GATE VALVES q00 ` EACH of _� FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLIES $ (Cost of Fire Hydrants must be listed separately) $ (Include Engineering and Sales Tax if applicable $ TOTAL COST FOR WATER SYSTEM $ Z SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM: STORM DRAINAGES TEM: Length tze Type — Length Size Type *t4-{ L.F.of SEWER MAIN iI _ '?8 L.F.off_ /Ji!Z STORM LINE '78U L.F.of _P SEWER MAINZ-/P'o L.F.of STORM LINE L.F.of SEWER MAIN _ L.F.of STORM LINE EA of 48 DIAMETER MANHOLES� i1' Z c Z. EA of STORM INLEt/oIII LET EA of —���{-- DIAMETER MANHOLES pc� �_ EA of _Z4 L--_ STORM CATCHBASIN (Including Engineering and Sales Tax EA of STORM CATCHBASIN if applicable) $ � (Including Engineering and Sales Tax TOTAL COST FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM $ QL}U if applicable) $ _ TOTAL COST FOR STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM $ STREET IMPROVEMENTS: (Including Curb,Gutter,Sidewalk,Asphalt Pavement and Streyl Lighting) tAewzal�C iaw a' 680 SIGNALIZATION: (Including Eng.Design Costs,City Permit Fees,WA St Sales Tax) STREET LIGHTING: (Including Eng.Design Costs,City Permit Fees,WA St Sales Tax) Print signatory name day phone# (SIGNATURE) forms/COSTDAT2.DOCbh (Signatory must be authorized agent or owner of subject development) Short Plat'(SHPL#L'1a REQUEST FOR PROJECT# Prelirr Plat (PP# CAG# ) To: Technical Services Date Maa 12 WO# 23 cat# vODp lO From: Plan Review/Project Manager Project Name /� (70 cltatadcrS snax) Description of Project: 4t l Circle Size of Waterline: �l 10" 12" Circle One: Ne or Extension Circle Size of Sewerline: �8- 10" 12" Circle One: ew or Extension Circle Size of Stormline: —0�1 15" 18" 24" Circle One: �ev or Extension Address or Street Name(s) Z ZL2LC , /lam Dvlpr/Contractor/Owner/Cnslr.: C4,->i--C"L IV (70 charactcrs mu) Check each discipline involved in Project Ltr Drwg #of sheets per discipline 'l�' Trans-Storm �J/ K� (Road way/Drai nagc) (Off sitc impovcmcnts)(includc basin namc) (includc TESC shccts) C 1 ranspoctation (Sigrul zadon.(hannclizadon,lighting) G/Xwa-stewater llY / Sanitary Scwu Main(includc basin namc) U/ Water (Mains,valvcs,Hydrants) / (Includc compositc Horizontal Ctr1 SI,«s) V- Suface Water ®� O Improvements (CIP ONLY)(includc basin namc) TS Use Only -TED-yo-a��3 R a��3 ago 1 1 1 1 1 EA S TS/DE CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS- SURVEYORS ' TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT ' FOR MARSHALL SHORT PLAT i CITY OF RENTON ' FINAL ENGINEERING iPROJECT NO. LUA-99-039 SHPL-H, ECF t� f r 1 ;:XPIPESOf ' Prepared by: Eastside Consultants, Inc. 415 Rainier Blvd. N. Issaquah, WA 98027 (425) 392-5351 Prepared for: Chambord Development 22526 SE 64th Place Suite 220 Issaquah, WA 98027 i 415 RAINIER BOULEVARD N., ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 PHONE: (425) 392-5351 FAX: (425)392-4676 516 E. FIRST STREET, CLE SLUM, WASHINGTON 98922 PHONE: (509)674-7433 FAX: (509) 674-7419 TABLE OF CONTENTS I: TIR WORKSHEET II: PROJECT OVERVIEW III: PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY ' IV: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS ' V: RETENTION/DETENTION ANALYSIS & DESIGN VI: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS & DESIGN VII: SPECIAL REPORTS & STUDIES VIII: ADOPTED BASIN & COMMUNITY PLANS IX: OTHER PERMITS X: EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN XI: BOND QUANTITIES WORK SHEET RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY SUMMARY XII: MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS MANUAL T.I.R. Section I: Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Refer to the attached TIR Worksheet. Page 1 of 2 King County Building and Land Development Division TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PROJECT ENGINEER. PROJECT OWNER AND Project Owner Chambord Development Project Name Marshall Short Plat ' Address Location Phone 425-333-6998 Township 24N Project Engineer Allen Lang, P.E. Range _ 5E Company Eastside Consultants, Inc. SeCt1On 32 Project Size 1.75 AC _ Address Phone 425-392-5351 — Upstream Drainage Basin Size 4 AC Subdivision ED DOF/G HPA 0 Shoreline Management X� Short Subdivision COE 404 Rockery Grading E] DOE Dam Safety ' Structural Vaults _ Commercial 0 FEMA Floodplain 0 Other Other [� COE Wetlands n HPA • 1 1 Community East Lake Washington Sub-Basin - Drainage Basin ----- redaz_Biver 1L Basj -- ----- - River ___ _ --- - - — ----- Floodplain ---- - i Stream __-- U Wetlands Critical Stream Reach C11 Seeps/Springs Yam'' Depressions/Swales High Groundwater Table Lake Groundwater Recharge Steep Slopes . _. _- __.__.- -__-_ -_ Other Lakeside/Erosion Hazard So:i Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Ve".oC:.,,--,, Ag D 0-301 Severe Additional Sheets Attatched 1 Page 2 of 2 King County Building and Land Development Division TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT (�] Ch.4-Downstream Analysis No Constraints rE Wetland Delineation 50' Buffer Required - L� _ I Additional Sheets Attatched MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION �Kj Sedimentation Facilities Y Stabilize Exposed Surface EXI Stabilized Construction Entrance (]X Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities Ej Perimeter Runoff Control E�j) Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris x] Clearing and Grading Restrictions 0 Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities Cover Practices [ ] Flag Limits of NGPES LE X] Construction Sequence Other Other - —� Grass Lined Channel Tank Infiltration Method of Analysis [� Pipe System ® Vault Depression SBUH L� Open Channel Energy Dissapator 0 Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigation Dry Pond Wetland = Waiver of Eliminated Site Storage 0 Wet Pond Stream = Regional Detention _ Brief Description of System Operation Plat Pipe System to A Combination Detention and Wetvault - Facility Related Site Limitations r (� Additional Sheets Attatched Reference Facility limitation ZIP Drainage Easement g IX ) Cast in Place Vault [] Other Q Access Easement ,X-] r ' Retaining Wall r Native Growth Protection Easemen; Rockery>4'H(gh [ ] Tract Structural on Steep Slope (_ ] Other I or a civil engineer under my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the - _ attatchments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Spn.dD.r< 2 ST.I.R. Section II: Project Overview The proposed project is to subdivide an existing parcel into 8 individual parcels for the purpose of single family residential development. The parcel is located in Section 32, Township 24N., Range 5 East within the City of Renton, on the southeast corner of Lincoln Ave. N.E. and Lincoln Pl. N.E. The existing site consists of approximately 1.75 acres of land containing one home and several outbuildings. A seasonal drainage swale and associated wetland lie on the eastern half of the site. The proposed development would set aside the wetland and its buffers in a Native Growth Protection Easement. Eight (8) building lots would be formed outside of the N.G.P.E. with a private access road created to serve 6 of the lots. Frontage improvements required include pavement widening and curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Lincoln Ave. N.E. r T.I.R. Section III: Preliminary Conditions Summary Currently, the site is heavily vegetated with blackberry brambles, except for the house clearing. The entire site slopes to the north at grades between 5 - 20%. A seasonal drainage swale flows on the eastern half of the site from the north property line to the south line. It probably receives most of its moisture from the Prellwitz Short Plat which releases its runoff onto the northeast corner of this site. A narrow wetland is associated with this swale. A wetland report is attached to this report. Storm water sheet and shallow flows north across the site to the neighboring property where it is directed by a swale into a road ditch and storm system on the east side of Lincoln Ave. With development, excess storm water runoff will be detained in a vault and then released into the road storm system. Existing storm drainage facilities along the property frontage on Lincoln Ave. 1 include a rocked ditch with an underground conveyance system directly below the ditch. The underground system was installed by the builders of the Stafford Crest Plat to the jsouth to mitigate downstream drainage problems from their plat. The open ditch was restored to continue to convey runoff from Lincoln Ave. and neighboring properties. This project proposes to preserve the existing underground conveyance facilities, although the ditch will need to be paved over to accommodate the required widening of Lincoln Ave. Runoff generated by the improvements to Lincoln Ave. will be collected by ' a catch basin towards the north of the property and routed through the plat detention system. ��' 1 it � 1 _.,•w '�.�� ,� .�� �ww oil � ,, � � tip/ r►,► r E� i M I W, is '.. _.� .- =- �.; ` *µ � •f:•+..�710 '`.. J \ �� alb•�T..� r it• .'JI � �� b L . >r� oll �� of of � o II II 11 .+r N r �� jO O o4O Analvsis of Core Requirements: 1. Discharge At The Natural Location Storm water runoff from the existing site sheet and shallow flows to the north property line where it is intercepted by a seasonal swale and directed to a roadside ditch in Lincoln Avenue. This ditch is underlain by a storm drainage piping system with catch basins installed at regular intervals in the ditch bottom to pick up runoff. Upon development, the storm water runoff will be collected by the plat drainage system and routed to a detention vault where it will be detained to mimic the release rates of the existing site. Upon release from the vault, the runoff will be directed to the storm y drainage system in Lincoln Avenue referred to above. ' 2. Off-Site Analysis S A Level I Off-Site Analysis was performed for this site and is included in Section IV of this report. 3. Runoff Control Peak rate runoff control will be provided by a detention vault sized to detain the developed 2-year, 24-hour design storm to 1/2 of the existing 2-year, 24-hour design ' storm with a factor of safety of 10%. The developed site runoff for the 5-, 10-, and 100- year-24 hour design storms will be released at the rate of the existing 5-, 10-, and 100- year-24 hour design storms. A 30% correction factor will be applied to the required ' design volume for the 100-year storm. The required computations will be performed ' using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) Method with User 1 rainfall distribution and 24-hour design storm durations. The computer program "WaterWorks Version 3.1" will be used to develop and manipulate hydrographs, and perform the required level pool routing. ' 4. Conveyance System Y Y The conveyance system has been designed to safely convey the peak runoff rate ' for the 25-year design storm. Per the 1990 KCSWDM, a minimum of 0.50 feet of freeboard between the hydraulic grade line and the top of all proposed structures is provided. 5. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control ' The design of all temporary erosion control facilities is included in Section X of this report. All requirements of Section 12.5 of the KCSWDM are addressed in that section. Analysis of Special Requirements Twelve special requirements are listed in the 1990 KCSWDM to be addressed in ' all drainage control reports. None of the special requirements apply to this site. i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i i T.I.R. Section IV: Off-Site Analysis LEVEL I OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 1. Project Overview This site consists of 1.75 acres of land located in Section 32, Township 24, Range 5 East. It lies within the City of Renton on the southeast corner of the intersection of Lincoln Ave. N.E. and Lincoln Pl. N.E. The property is heavily vegetated with brambles, except for the southwest corner where a house and several outbuildings are located. A ' seasonal swale lies on the eastern part of the property running from beyond the south ' property line to beyond the north property line. The land slopes down to the north at grades from 0% to 30%. See Figures I(a) and I(b). The site lies within the Gypsy Sub-basin of the East Lake Washington Sub-basin of the Cedar River Basin. See Figure 2 for the Gypsy Sub-basin. A review of the 1990 Sensitive Area Map Folio did not reveal any sensitive areas on the site. May Creek, a class 1 stream, is located to the southwest, but the site is not tributary to it. See Figures 3(a)-3(e) for Sensitive Area Maps. A review of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual does not indicate any special community plan requirements. The Washington Soil Survey indicates that the site is underlain b y Alderwood g y y gravelly sandy loam which has medium runoff potential, severe erosion hazard, and moderate slippage potential(Figure 4). 2. Upstream Tributary Area ' The upstream tributary area to this site includes approximately 4 acres of single family homes lying to the south and southeast. The Prellwitz Short Plat is a new 1.7 acre i9 lot development off of the southeast corner of the property. The surface water runoff from this plat is collected in a detention pond in the northwest corner of the plat and outlets directly onto the southeast corner of the proposed Marshall Plat. The remainder of the upstream basin (2.3 acres) consists of large lots of more than 1/2 acre with single family residences (Figure 5). Prior to development, an additional 5±acres lying south of N.E. 36th Street drained through the swale on this site. This area is currently y under development and it ' appears that runoff from this development will be diverted into the new storm system in ' Lincoln Ave. N.E. ' 3. Downstream Analysis ' Runoff from the entire site flows north as both sheet and shallow concentrated flow. The seasonal swale becomes undefined just as it leaves the property, but appears to flow to the northwest across the neighboring lawn where it is picked up by a 12" culvert ' and channeled into the roadside ditch along the east side of Lincoln Ave. N.E. Both ends of the culvert are smashed and silted, but the majority of this ditch has been newly graded ' and rip-rapped with a new storms stem underlying y the channel. The details of the downstream path of this system can be found in the attached off-site drainage system tables. 4. Potential/Existing Problems ' There are no reports of complaints within 1/4 mile downstream of the site. The recent regrading of the ditch and installation of a storm water system along Lincoln Ave. ' N.E. should prevent future problems. However, further downstream, in the vicinity of N.E. 43rd Pl. and Jones Ave N.E., the City of Renton has identified areas of roadway flooding due to lack of culvert capacity. Also, the developers of a large apartment complex to the northwest of the intersection of 110th P1. S.E. and Lincoln Ave. N.E. are altering the channel configuration of the ditch/stream along the west side of Lincoln Ave from the intersection to the point where the stream leaves Lincoln and heads ' northwesterly across undeveloped land. It was impossible to identify potential problems in this area during the site visit as it was in the middle of construction. ,;,:. ,�'� �. �-- � _ �_,✓_ � „ Imo, +.w n.r o r,• � q�,� � s .a► fai3P,it r. m tm = M - am M W z7108-rH AVE Z:Zz Cl LJ 0— Dii 200 O 250 o �Ojjjl cn )o l� 'ti F f �►47 II .Ili II � � �,,;,, • ,., - — t 1 it . ° :II� . .. El EP } III II( rn� , 0 . � 1 LAKE WASHINaTON -- w ` --' ` - S 72n I St. OUTFALL H x; 111 �I I • ' - C/ J' NF8 h` t - ..•nth• S . > ,/ .,/ ��a�% •' '• .Y %..�`,'• '.%•, ',f tom• — _ f 4 / / I7ENNY00 771 _ j CEDAR FIM APT • — ,N,{,•�^ `:f(y •'r_"n:r.,:. ----__--_I :M1:`Y•., - •tn:j�s;, iy—_ ,!`•'-' \4 U05 w � WD + v� h St - - �� f v40th S tSE 84t E d 0 YPSY SUBS t TEn5 rC . / SE 9 st t LEQEND• E N 'T' R A N C O T ' '�'` ARE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM W WOW DRAINING TO ® MODEL SU88A51N ID EMWM , XfMn r PIVIQR$ 9P4WP$ f 1 l+,�. &INGION AmmiA OW.• ��✓!. -- SURFACE CONVEYANCE RT. C�POND OR SWALE + SUBBASIN BOUNDARY , + i� •� FLOW NODE H F�i g u r e Z Drainage Featura8 Pf 500 0 500 1000 the. Gypsy Subbasin SCALE IN FEET N ON i' IFW DAM, Ell Ira LOO W�,`j �1 ���,- ".q. I�j� pI iI• ��� 1 C A e IM Oil : ir4 ! =Fti! •?'r' k `'"V! =1�A ' � `wrl,� • AF��ApD AAm �wr• �� � � jm `` �, +���:,'4 �P et �ri �•s �� ��•r watt �as ` Np�' °-.8 IM.. i�� �.�i4'$ !fir ', i®���� ` G:�+ �•� ^ 11 ^ ' , R, " 1'��W� : �I�il��1 ,'►ti'hr, ",.IYgI 111l1 i " iS�. E1R' ,z -� �1 " �. �I s" rft 11,47 T 1 �`.!}� �1. � ��\� •I7' '���� �� � �� tr�iM�t•.���••ot����p����rt ;� �f��l,r�� f,�eli •['it•+��y� t j- �a °j�4 � A7•_ ��.✓ t� 1}P•i R'�I �� r` � r�ga,\gg �,(�Al �,%� �Xe �F••:. �.,. ,y� Aft Vxi'twn 'Ifij � 7 • ��'; iryy' ii'�/ I _ �"'I / i'E�t,•"tR •"M +li�C 9t i+�=:� • +. � r�.os�.nrs/ I �71 r f •"ti ti�11�1F=1 S ati •Rrr:,� },I, '.`.• r s 'gum ) ^�i�\ / 7�• lr✓ jt� �s .id4 �1}1�� !{ '•'��.7 Y4 # r'�: w'�! �i �+2aw". `I�w 9, ��! P�',►'r�S, `�t�ssS� %'g.�{! api'bit ' 1};1. . ..rw�1014�'r�ijt.•�f� Y9I !, x'• w�r•�w,wa1� a ')fin � } "-. �� •* �t'wa �wYS9S ( 4 �' ' t 5�.�ls' �•M'.:,// '� ',tort.. '1 '�'. t M"• 1,rr r� ,,� «�s�7(��Y.Gl/�IxY � t� �.:�r.�:la�rf.m,R• �r •r, 1 .���; 1 ts. �� � C.i `:i.f*• .�� �s.M"�t�'/w1`'�r''�• ��\ �,3��-.�(%j.n�•y°ra.-' 1 I/,:'(°°r'+M�^�t�A i WHOat all Lou �� ;¢ ��� ������ ��• . �►i1i. a UP -err � $ aL:� ``• ` \ � fail ME >n A Ell OBE \ PAP ` ism OR VA IL .-.ri MRA wl 111, Em Milk. It ,S�N��r�. pall qz —s MOKzk 31= inn 771, Iq (` Mr '„�>• a t ,�lllf�+ ..: -� '� -1 a 9i4:di/+ .- �.�� Z1144M, IA i ;gN\\.m �f1/!/1ii,r°gAl�'�►, �-' z4•r i ; a i �. .~ ill Y [ . 'T'► h E �i�dam I M. ism ' 1 �i'Zi Mill" i73 b f t � 14 ZNR Ra .\X. 9q ", +wi",�`�ar�0 / 'a.r.+ �. � { l� � �y w 'L � -��� _ •�•'� a " t7a1.. �l'�j��.stas� i ��'jj '`� 1 I ii{:.•���''��yy" Fe ��a�cY r� � ,�., �•°ice ru �� v •�A r tt. ,,L )w�i' =\ate �C""� T1. a.. ism !! � �� 1M ��I►'Ii�:7� 1Rd�ji\ `� ��' i�,'t�••� r - rr a:�i tam 1,Mon RW 4210 ���� ,��.• err Ia ,,r, � #.,��-6� I�i� ���V l y#�d4� LIM 40 IZAA 91 A.-tip •lie '�� �}�F140 ' 1p �1� / * -W U11 `iV iMA24 r SP, +�, �"�r'p t���I- -� t+ y„ �► �',� ilo Aw r. ,fir_•�r �, , �� � �► '�► F�A4 .C�S'1hillAM .do z p Win $ r� ■ ■ Ni aAa♦tlrr� 11 � •.� � ,�.. ��" �s �w �■f� � �Yr/1 a� 1` � '�- 7 ■arm �' r '� � � >,. a n. OR 13IUa , 79 :tart ��..,W.r �• Au a Jo mulmn WWI slit lip Kill MEN Ps T ( • � _�� PTO;A MV WO va t AtcR` 1J 1•t �s T ` /� p �„ 4 TY ..•�•� �:� a .� �; �,. � � 1 �� � -� � • - � i�ii�i�— .acn � lla as - AL IM RUN Will .>. .� _ O t x r��jj� 1 I ' Tj VA _ 9 ! nil �11�� � � ® OWN W1f Syr•-a' - ,WE !4�ojhg Zip, OF PNN IN s ,,f\�► '� �jy7/r �—+ tlt►�eC_xs� ' pH �J.`vs ,�„-`'fit a.;.,_.,ate. -/ a3NNki'- v:�YZA Y, MAC`; 7��k1i.i.7,. ,��'�� e s��tiZ�J � \Al Al .����� �f■ram � "Y�J° ,��,�.w��l:��l�,����� � � l�t,�l.`�fi'�€�� ,�� it Y:.-�- � !. `: �:�,+' r �� 7� R►� '�ll� Malys MOM 11 • • � IMiU.- ,, III I\� � �. � -� � �.,��\I �_ I �•_ ey.�Y ye,.!au- � r i ..,.. ..,- � � d � � �..✓ 1 !� )it � J It "' ri El ul no n ,i li ooz 9 r rr rr rr rr ar rr rr rr rr rr rr r rr rr rr �r rr rr 7 }: .:. tJ'1�`Jl:1TYPIZ!C:?�,t.ICMS.l11JCA VENT'4RY�s�a'�,�` S4/R!~ICI tNRTER. 0 UA Oc /'�j (� (� �H���1►1 Y1 Y71:)�tii.tF6: �rc�N,. f ,.vlk+ot�Ph �3�.o h....,,�„,{��..ni:n9��i7G„^A�b`F<C)SIn�G,M>�wpv�>+'+ �u .Z 7[(���t3 yb;�©Y, !?01.+�MM: !•.. ::IYt `Y` �(��'. "s;:<.Y..>r ry}�... t ..{>;.-, -Y�yv >.< 1, ?`.:. .?,K } �`2: -> �'t � -7 ..), :�h•(>3�, `hk' Y �� -.a,F;: �T;C�,,u ��LY4.;�1.;: .,(�,..( .:. .. ...:Y T '. > -.,>:-> >.:'r ..,.ah. ,2F>F �;-: .... :.(1„ ...a•:.�,:>' �- a 4..,,....y,....: �Y•� 'kt; Sw•, ::•x•. .{.y.• { ��. ::u.t:.:r Y.e, .: : :..: .-..:p..y> ,•S 4";.Y..... ..:;f.•c.F>:..t .3.-.. r:.. S•.'k(• Ih fF ,�,iGc^} YF^j t >' �k - 1..,;:: ,.,.;:. .... ..� '. ,.- ..r :.� ,:, :...,: ..:. 5 k .. '.- :i'S,d.,.,,. %..:ty„}�:Y „p Z,.•..,>. '��fizycr..r• r te. ;.fit. .fit o;; t!;• tr;:. �'if: '�' .R-::�,>w>v O .... ;.'i:.a -.,.. ..- s ., >.,r r - ,. a :y,.,,,,.):.•'o:Y�t�� �tF. Ktf!u. i'h �.J' ,c.� .}F,�, .`:�.+c a.:c,),�.. t .:.: � ., .:..,-, F'. hew <k�3a. Ff r+ F So- vl,. �. r 'k..g;•(... IIf F1� c:.., .,",:y':..:^' o .:SC. 7 S<vi4. ..< nj:'�4'•r:,c' S .> .. C. ... .),; :. . . .. +:t9 .t:'++.o.;@<;('.3: hu.(y •r+. y�fi'r'J.t>''+ 'i't`.': i':Qi;af'�%x.:.!j;l>�.:,:k:,.;`.:%;.,..;.,+,YS:':: IJ `t'F '`�'+RSj�%Yt.FFIt I.•> �,,,. .: :. .r..I.:. .+a..ve >� x,. ; ho4'�)'•..:.t.''th:> ,. ,,.;:;�:2;'!�%f:Y........ •.,' '. tJ:iv.Z C'-yf+> F ::(q�e.-�i�>Y�j;�ti<":`j:•'.?i Y'n'vi+:,......�.... < a cr.. r w tk}:y<J.v(Wini>..:'s'!::7?:,}i•S.: :n��..:JR v.. ELW-4- PS-56 2400 BLK PARK PL N EAST 12 POTENTIAL TO CAUSE X y LAKE LANDSLIDE WASH ELW-5-S ti PS-57 HOUSER WAY NORTH EAST 14 STANDING WATER DUE TO X 01 (N 8TH TO LK WA LAKE FAILING STORM SYSTEM WASH (WSDOT&CITY) MAY BE BLVD.) CAUSING ROAD TO DEGRADE ELW&S PS48 NE 5TH AND EDMONDS LAKE 14 LOCALIZED FLOODING OF X AVE NE THE CITY STREET AND WASH PRIVATE PROPERTY DUE TO LACK OF DOWNSTREAM STORM SYSTEM CAPACITY. ELW 8-S EAST i2 CITY SYSTEM X PS�9 NE 28TH ST DISCHARGES TO PRIVATE 0 LAKE -ELW-):M-. -o PS-60 NE 43RD PLACE 1 EAST 1i OVERFLOW OF EXISTING X w JONES AVE NE LAKE DITCH DUE TO LACK OF -o WASH CULVERT AND DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM CAPACITY RESULT IN PONDING OF RUNOFF ACROSS STREET DURING FREQUENT STORM EVENTS. ELW-1-M .� -61 DOWNSTREAM RIPLEY EAST 11 EXISTING STORM SYSTEM X NE TO LAKE LAKE IS UNDERSIZED AND WAS ..._.- LAeK-,&suFFtCtENT--.- -,-.-, __ _.-. CAPACITY TO CONVEY FLOWS WHICH RESULT IN UPSTREAM PONDING (PS- 50) ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 0 0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Basin: r.,,- ,---n(jSubbasin Name: �� ,l I_l y Subbasin Number: Symbol Drainage Drainage Component Slope Distance Existing Potential Observations of field inspector Component Type, Description from site Problems Problems resource reviewer, or resident Name, and Size discharge Type:sheet flow,*wale, constrictions,under capacity,ponding, see map stream,channel,pipe, drainage basin,vegetation,cover, % 114 mi=1,320 ft overtopping,flooding,habitat or organism tributary area,likelihood of problem, pond;Size:diameter, depth,type of sensitive area,volume destruction,scouring,bank sloughing, overflow pathways,potential Impacts. surface area sedimentation incision other erosion GL> T�I IBC I C-U Pr"Ve_Y- oq= NEVI Nol`t E NONL f.,N E.W t_`( 1= T 'T r tZ V = A-"T I L T 14 - t 1 -� I ► p c D l`-I O ` I I ►I b j2"CMNCJLVErCt Rt_CEIVES t�r�cllnr�r�ELt� Z,OTH END: FL.00DINC, Or- LAWN !%2DCSACI.`I eCMraIN D L-10, LDNC FLAW F M S -r= f LOT / I70 ' CZ-US LQ� I-AWN t HOUSC WET 1tt1Z0'..16H R�INY TO NO fLT'it SLtk, 0h4. AM6vN T Of` fLUNOFF *J 1 LL. DEC-EiLA`.l= f�,5 JP5T2b"l"�M DL1(tLOk�MT 1'�GS II�1T0 5T-02M SYSTEM S t LTt_.U, C Tj1 TG 1 S AIL-0 N l l -D �1NC ? 1 -70 (Ltr-0C--FI N!, IDITL(i NpNI= N0N� fl1TC-N NE.WL_`( (aPraC)Ot.� < iI u l a,,� C_P E (> F I C t. E-1z_r XO'L- C Iz o s 1 c s °l US -T`I1-�E I P-4 Q ITCH IS POTCNTI P Ty4 5 1-bI-tDt fv DITGH t'A0Nl= V-AGNc A U 0 E r1TIG I PAIrE p w 7- LlTable.doc 11092 � III III � IIII� � � Illls I� IIII� � IIII� III � i rl IIII� IIII� III OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Basin: E L P.1K I Subbasin Name: G-r ,I cis y Subbasin Number: Symbol Drainage Drainage Component Slope Distance Existing Potential Observations of field inspector Component,Type, Description from site Problems Problems resource reviewer, or resident Name, and Size discharge Type:cheek flow,Swale, constrictions,'under capacity,ponding, see map stream,channel,pipe, drainage basin,vegetation,cover, % 1/4 tnl=1,320 ft overtopping,flooding,habitat or organism tributary area,likelihood of problem, pond;Size:diameter, depth,type of sensative area,volume destruction;scouring,bank sloughing, overflow pathways,potential Impacts. surface area sedimentation incision other erosion _ 'Nvr-�� NaNE .l Nr= S°/a !S_6 V seTzvEU \r-ATIGI PP,:rF p P IT 1 �G/p r Gk-rG H �% S �TL0 E= l_.I NGOt_N A\1L Ir I D \TRH N c w L�i G, z' p X C-L r -7 2Li ckj. " -7 S l7ITc-H t171t-JU Ifv02 CL.tl'NN II w/ RGGc1\ILs- V7t-40VJ re0ty� NC7Nt= 11Or \ZGS-_.E� Li NCGLN I I 1� f' tj�S 2-70 SU x (�'l>��E�rLI-- IJN��_7c r-�alc�-tt �r�Tk.rar.�c- SGl �ll= 1�.1L.Wl-' 1 INST �L_6'\�i - r.,aT r-' 1r-,ISNr✓L TZ S 3l0'1 rf 0 SILTItj C, w CaNSc eL,c_n Q C7t��� �,�I NCB Ice✓-Iz_o�-r1=.0 \I(�1CI(s 13 o > U N 1 :l::lG- I.1 12 1 l_t=rwt�5 L1t--�Lo�.nr t, NGn�� NcN T 7 �A� i Nt- rig ►�a� tJ W. I� t 130 U �� �zv a �' ►,Tlc.l��rF . W L1Table.doc 11/2/92 1 IV Cilccn Thras_h_cr 5.00 3 FAD �S ❑ 7'. '�il 8 ' ` /T: .� I.V `''A�T~ � G. F. Lansing 10 '1 w�, z�►.(� 3 Y. mor $�- sL. i oPEN a Federal S.b L. Ins. Cora ��,.:, AC W. D, Jones .1_17Ac.a 1.6,�c. -_ ,..... �' ," x J 0 � ' N LASTSME r.91��.o'z.lo at. — IS N 53 1 I, � S O - ~ -•,. `—' ., Whitchativlc ?� ,-�==_'' a__ • 1 `I N ...�.. ,. Cori 1-. Olson His I°"Ire .. ' 2 _ t o p.16 A[,LL1 E437 f N 4.41 Ac. is Robert Nissen I L,3 Edmund J. NCurrion 13 ,16G it.,• il. — Rus d �► 1 E e 86T-H , �}�- • '� 'a. I, w :. � 5 ' —6 7a ' 1 $ • � �'� • NOT S 1 OnEN 7� - i6 ti rJ 43 7p v � x m �� 86TH s e .,�. b5•� ,5 a,,PL. ,t. 39Al r c 1Y .. 24 s L l0 W es ei r°I _ 1 12 y 144.It 9 W_ 13 v 23�s�`� �� d 14 c I .,� '��� �� �`�.► �1��'+r +ems � '�.. I v � r"� 15 122 •� E m �� 6 Gal {6.l 4 A! v Z9603 to 20 ! 4�. 5 1 Q94 4c v ... � S E 88 H ST � o n9et �; d 17 67 cos M 1 37 T.I.R. Section V: Retention/Detention System Analysis & Design Storm water runoff from the existing site sheet and shallow flows to the north ' property line where it is intercepted by a seasonal swale and directed to a roadside ditch ' in Lincoln Avenue. This ditch is underlain by a storm drainage piping system with catch basins installed at regular intervals in the ditch bottom to pick up runoff. Upon development, the storm water runoff will be collected by the plat drainage system and routed to a detention vault where it will be detained to mimic the release rates of the existing site. Upon release from the vault, the runoff will be directed to the storm drainage system in Lincoln Avenue. Refer to the following retention/detention analyses and design. ' DETENTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS & DESIGN 1. Overview Total Site Area= 1.73 ac. ' N.G.P.E. = 33,615 sf= 0.77 ac. Developable Area= 0.96 ac. Off-site Area= 0.25 ac. (frontage improvements) ' Total Area for R/D analysis= 1.21 ac. Soils: Alderwood (AgD), Group C Storm Events: Pt-wq= P2/3 = 2/3 in. P2 =2.0 in. P5 =2.5 in. P10 =2.9in. ' P 100 = 3.9 in. Design Standards: ' 1. 1990 KCSWDM & City of Renton Standards 1 �, ;ti,, c� ��b,.� 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 2. Limit post-developed peak runoff to the 1/2 the pre-developed peak runoff for the 2-year, 24-hour design storm. Limit the post-developed ' peak runoff to the predeveloped peak runoff for the 5-, 10-, and 100- year/24 hour design storms. 3. Provide detention for the developed 100-yr. storm and include a 30% factor of safety per KCSWDM Include a 10% factor of safety on the 2- year storm per City of Renton requirements. ' 4. Use a wetvault to provide water quality treatment. Size the volume using a design storm (Pt-wq) =P2/3. 2. Existing Site Hydrology Impervious Area=4 211 sf= 0.10 ac. CN = p � , 98 Pervious Area= 1.11 ac., CN = 81 Time of Concentration: (see basin map) 3. Developed Site Hydrology Proposal is to develop 8 single-family residences ' Use 486A- impervious surface per table 3.5.213 of KCSWDM. Impervious Area: ' 0.96 x 0.48 = 0.56 ac. Off-site improvements = 0.18 ac. Total impervious area= 0.64 ac., CN = 98 ' Pervious Area= 0.57 ac., CN= 86 Time of Concentration= 5 min. (Assumed minimum) 4. Combination Detention/Wetvault Design ' Detention Vault Design Design Volume: F.S. = 30% of required 100 yr. volume 100 yr. vol. = 3769 cf(see level pool table) Design Volume = 1.3 x 3769 =4900 cf Dimensions: ' 42' x 22.9' x 5.09' =4903 cf Wetvault Design Design Surface Area: Surface Area Req'd >_ 1.0% of Impervious Surface ' = 0.01 x 0.64 = 0.0065 ac. = 283 sf Surface Area Prov'd= 42 x 22.9 = 963.2 sf Design Volume: Volume Req'd >_ 0.027 ac-ft= 1228 cf (see attached basin summary for P-WQ) ' Depth Req'd = 3' - 6% use 3' minimum depth Volume Prov'd = 3' x 42' x 22.91= 2890 cf ' Provide 1' sediment storage Total Interior Vault Dimensions: ' Surface Area= 42' x 22.9' (Use 42' x 23.4' to account for control structure and baffle wall) ' Total Interior Height: 1.00' sediment storage t 3.00' permanent pond 5.09' detention storage 0.50' freeboard 9.59' Total Interior Height Multiple vault orifice outlets: Orifice 41 = 0.98" at elevation = 155.55 feet (Top of permanent pond) ' Orifice 42 = 3.25" at elevation = 159.26 feet (3.71 feet above permanent pond) Orifice #3 = 1.00" at elevation= 159.46 feet (3.91 feet above permanent pond) 1 1 MARSHALL PLAT CITY OF RENTON z 1waft CW • WETLANDS FLAGGED BY J.S. JONES & ASSOC. W Co SEPTEMBER 25, 1998. 1 p 15 J 1�p Cc uj 'IO'LINCOLN P 96. 3 ' PL. E — — 60 =60' !�! o C Kc=5 Q J 1 ® ui 7 0 Co 1 r L =18 0 1 S =0.80 N 00 1 �Qo o I� N k rn GRAPHIC SCALE W �RI VEW CP 1- 0, — 0 50 100 Z 1 S=13 0 `s=0.011 W ARL PG ( IN FEET ) Nit 1 — — — 8 1 inch = 50 ft. 4 6 S88 0 28 E 296.40 1 I 1 �E� 1 1 11 2/22/99 Eastside Consultants, Inc . page 1 MARSHALL SHORT PLAT ' CHAMBORD_DEVELOPMENT_________________________________________________ BASIN SUMMARY ' BASIN ID: D10 NAME: 10YR STORM, DEVELOPED SITE SBUH METHODOLOGY 1 - 3s- ' TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION. . . . : 2 . 90 inches AREA. . : 0 . 57 Acres ' TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 . 00 min CN. . . . : 86 . 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 5 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF : 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 64 Acres CN. . . . . 98 . 00 ' PEAK RATE : 0 . 72 cfs VOL: 0 . 22 Ac-ft TIME: 470 min ' BASIN ID: D100 NAME : 100YR STORM, DEVELOPED SITE SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . . 1 . 21 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION. . . . : 3 . 90 inches AREA. . : 0 . 57 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 . 00 min CN. . . . : 86 . 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 5 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ' ABSTRACTION COEFF : 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 64 Acres CN. . . . : 98 . 00 PEAK RATE : 1 . 04 cfs VOL: 0 . 31 Ac-ft TIME: 470 min ' BASIN ID: D2 NAME : 2YR STORM, DEVELOPE SITE SBUH METHODOLOGY ' TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 1 . 21 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION. . . . : 2 . 00 inches AREA. . : 0 . 57 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 . 00 min CN. . . . : 86 . 00 ' TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 5 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF : 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 64 Acres CN. . . . . 98 . 00 ' PEAK RATE : 0 . 44 cfs VOL: 0 . 13 Ac-ft TIME : 470 min ' 2/15/00 Eastside Consultants, Inc . page MARSHALL SHORT PLAT ' CHAMBORD DEVELOPMENT REVISED CALCULATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: D5 NAME : 5 YR STORM, DEVELOPED SITE SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 1 . 21 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA ' PRECIPITATION. . . . : 2 . 50 inches AREA. . : 0 . 57 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 . 00 min CN. . . . : 86 . 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . . 5 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF : 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 64 Acres ' CN. . . . : 98 . 00 PEAK RATE : 0 . 59 cfs VOL: 0 . 18 Ac-ft TIME : 470 min ' BASIN ID : EX5 NAME : 5 YR EXISTING SITE SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 1 . 21 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs ' RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION. . . . : 2 . 50 inches AREA. . : 1 . 11 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 . 00 min CN. . . . : 81 . 00 ' TIME OF CONC . . . . . : 34 . 93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF : 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 10 Acres CN. . . . : 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 70 . 00 ns : 0 . 0110 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 1300 TcReach - Sheet L : 185 . 00 ns : 0 . 8000 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 1600 TcReach - Channel L : 60 . 00 kc : 5 . 00 s : 0 . 0800 PEAK RATE : 0 . 17 cfs VOL: 0 . 11 Ac-ft TIME : 490 min 1 2/22/99 Eastside Consultants, Inc . page ' CHAMBORD DEVELOPMENT MARSHALL SHORT PLAT ' BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: EX10 NAME : 10 YR EXISTING SITE SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 1 . 21 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA ' PRECIPITATION. . . . : 2 . 90 inches AREA. . : 1 . 11 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 . 00 min CN. . . . : 81 . 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 34 . 93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 10 Acres CN. . . . : 98 . 00 TcReach Sheet L: 70 . 00 ns : 0 . 0110 p2yr. 2 . 00 s : 0 . 1300 TcReach - Sheet L: 185 . 00 ns : 0 . 8000 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 1600 ' TcReach - Channel L: 60 . 00 kc : 5 . 00 s : 0 . 0800 PEAK RATE: 0 . 24 cfs VOL: 0 . 14 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min ! BASIN ID: EX100 NAME: 100 YR EXISTING SITE SBUH METHODOLOGY 1 TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 1 . 21 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION. . . . : 3 . 90 inches AREA. . . 1 . 11 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 . 00 min CN. . . . : 81 . 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 34 . 93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 10 Acres CN. . . . . 98 . 00 11 TcReach - Sheet L: 70 . 00 ns : 0 . 0110 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 1300 TcReach - Sheet L: 185 . 00 ns : 0 . 8000 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 1600 TcReach - Channel L: 60 . 00 kc : 5 . 00 s : 0 . 0800 PEAK RATE: 0 .42 cfs VOL: 0 . 22 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min BASIN ID: EX2 NAME: 2 YR EXISTING SITE ' SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 1 . 21 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA ' PRECIPITATION. . . . : 2 . 00 inches AREA. . : 1 . 11 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 . 00 min CN. . . . : 81 . 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . . 34 . 93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 10 Acres CN. . . . : 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 70 . 00 ns : 0 . 0110 p2yr: 2 . 00 s :0 . 1300 TcReach - Sheet L: 185 . 00 ns : 0 . 8000 p2yr: 2 . 00 s : 0 . 1600 1 TcReach - Channel L: 60 . 00 kc : 5 . 00 s : 0 . 0800 PEAK RATE: 0 . 10 cfs VOL: 0 . 07 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min 2/22/99 Eastside Consultants, Inc . page MARSHALL SHORT PLAT CHAMBORD DEVELOPMENT --------- BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: P-WQ NAME : WATER QUALITY DESIGN STORM ' SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 1 . 21 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA ' PRECIPITATION. . . . : 0 . 67 inches AREA. . : 0 . 57 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 . 00 min CN. . . . : 86 . 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 5 . 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 AREA. . : 0 . 64 Acres CN. . . . : 98 . 00 PEAK RATE . 0 . 09 cfs VOL: 0 . 03 Ac-ft TIME : 470 min 1 2/15/00 Eastside Consultants, Inc . page ' CHAMBORD DEVELOPMENT MARSHALL SHORT PLAT REVISED CALCULATIONS HYDROGRAPHSUMMARY=====_____________________ PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf\AcFt Acres --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ' 1 G X 2 0 . 103 490 3080 cf 1 . 21 2 p Z 0 .435 470 5879 cf 1 . 21 3 ExiO 0 . 238 480 5953 cf 1 . 21 4 FDkO 0 . 716 470 9463 cf 1 . 21 5 Ex(Do0 . 418 480 9541 cf 1 . 21 6VD100 1 . 039 470 13597 cf 1 . 21 ' 7 0 . 086 470 1228 cf 1 . 21 _ 8 0 . 051 1450 5809 cf 1 . 21 Ma,-rcH p� r C D la X a 9 0 . 198 540 9391 cf 1 . 21 M/ TGf-t Dt U -rU x (U c 10 0 .424 510 13522 cf 1 . 21 M/�.TG+; I ;D X 100 Q . 0;5-4a-^�--10 4 G o f 0-. 9 6 9-.4-9 14 0----r;Z2 Q c:E Q . 96 t t l l - :9 G . 32669 4599 of 0 . 96 l l l l 9:4 9 . 2-40 549 —10885 of 9 . 96 t ll 15 =XS 0 . 174 490 4621 cf 1 . 21 16 p S 0 . 589 470 7848 cf 1 . 21 �E 17 0 . 133 650 7777 cf 1 . 21 M�-rGf+ DS ro cX S H ,I�D�o G 2..p.F, H s Giza f-. -r- t- (::E-� co r-4 7-rZ6 ST'fZU C-TU 2.E /�,T T H E OU TF=L o t-Aj O f= -r- H( v U LT 2/15/00 Eastside Consultants, Inc . page ' CHAMBORD DEVELOPMENT MARSHALL SHORT PLAT REVISED CALCULATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ' STAGE STORAGE TABLE RECTANGULAR VAULT ID No. 1 Description: VAULT Length: 39 . 00 ft . Width: 19 . 00 ft . STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- 100.00 0.0000 0.0000 102.60 1927 0.0442 105.20 3853 0.0885 107.80 5780 0.1327 ' 100.10 74.100 0.0017 102.70 2001 0.0459 105.30 3927 0.0902 107.90 5854 0.1344 100.20 148.20 0.0034 102.80 2075 0.0476 105.40 4001 0.0919 108.00 5928 0.1361 100.30 222.30 0.0051 102.90 2149 0.0493 105.50 4075 0.0936 108.10 6002 0.1378 100.40 296.40 0.0068 103.00 2223 0.0510 105.60 4150 0.0953 108.20 1076 0.1391 100.50 370.50 0.0085 103.10 2297 0.0527 105.70 4224 0.0970 108.30 6150 0.1412 100.60 444.60 0.0102 103.20 2371 0.0544 105.80 4298 0.0987 108.40 6224 0.1429 100.70 518.70 0.0119 103.30 2445 0.0561 105.90 4372 0.1004 108.50 6298 0.1446 100.80 592.80 0.0136 103.40 2519 0.0578 106.00 4446 0.1021 108.60 6373 0.1463 100.90 666.90 0.0153 103.50 2593 0.0595 106.10 4520 0.1038 108.70 6447 0.1480 101.00 741.00 0.0170 103.60 2668 0.0612 106.20 4594 0.1055 108.80 6521 0.1497 101.10 815.10 0.0187 103.70 2742 0.0629 106.30 4668 0.1072 108.90 6595 0.1514 101.20 889.20 0.0204 103.80 2816 0.0646 106.40 4742 0.1089 109.00 6669 0.1531 101.30 963.30 0.0221 103.90 2890 0.0663 106.50 4816 0.1106 109.10 6743 0.1548 1 101.40 1037 0.0238 104.00 2964 0.0680 106.60 4891 0.1123 109.20 6817 0.1511 101.50 1111 0.0255 104.10 3038 0.0697 106.70 4965 0.1140 109.30 6891 0.1582 101.60 1186 0.0272 104.20 3112 0.0714 106.80 5039 0.1157 109.40 6965 0.1599 101.70 1260 0.0289 104.30 3186 0.0731 106.90 5113 0.1174 109.50 7039 0.1616 ' 101.80 1334 0.0306 104.40 3260 0.0748 107.00 5187 0.1191 109.60 7114 0.1633 101.90 1408 0.0323 104.50 3334 0.0765 107.10 5261 0.1208 109.70 7188 0.1650 102.00 1482 0.0340 104.60 3409 0.0783 107.20 5335 0.1225 109.80 7262 0.1667 102.10 1556 0.0357 104.70 3483 0.0800 107.30 5409 0.1242 109.90 7336 0.1684 102.20 1630 0.0374 104.80 3557 0.0817 107.40 5483 0.1259 110.00 7410 0.1701 102.30 1704 0.0391 104.90 3631 0.0834 107.50 5557 0.1276 110.00 7410 0.1701 102.40 1778 0.0408 105.00 3705 0.0851 107.60 5632 0.1293 102.50 1852 0.0425 105.10 3779 0.0868 107.70 5706 0.1310 2/15/00 Eastside Consultants, Inc . page ' CHAMBORD DEVELOPMENT MARSHALL SHORT PLAT REVISED CALCULATIONS STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE====____________________ MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No . 1 Description: OUTLET Outlet Elev: 100 . 00 Elev: 100 . 00 ft Orifice Diameter: 0 . 9771 in. Elev: 103 . 71 ft Orifice 2 Diameter: 3 . 2500 in. Elev: 103 . 91 ft Orifice 3 Diameter: 1 . 0000 in. ' STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> (ft) ---Cfs-- ------- (ft, ---cfs-- ------- (ft, ---Cfs-- ------- (ft, ---cfs-- ------- 100.00 0 0000 103.10 0 0456 106.20 0.5579 109.30 0 8197 100.10 0.0082 103.20 0.0463 106.30 0.5683 109.40 0.8267 ' 100.20 0.0116 103.30 0.0471 106.40 0.5785 109.50 0.8337 100.30 0.0142 103.40 0.0478 106.50 0.5885 109.60 0.8406 100.40 0.0164 103.50 0.0485 106.60 0.5983 109.70 0.8475 100.50 0.0183 103.60 0.0492 106.70 0.6010 109.80 0.8543 100.60 0.0201 103.70 0.0498 106.80 0.6175 109.90 0.8611 100.70 0.0217 103.80 0.1365 106.90 0.6269 110.00 0.8678 100.80 0.0232 103.90 0.1761 107.00 0.6362 110.10 0.8744 ' 100.90 0.0246 104.00 0.2143 107.10 0.6452 110.20 0.8810 101.00 0.0259 104.10 0.2433 107.20 0.6542 110.30 0.8876 101.10 0.0272 104.20 0.2683 107.30 0.6631 110.40 0.8941 1 101.20 0.0284 104.30 0.2908 107.40 0.6718 110.50 0.9005 101.30 0.0295 104.40 0.3114 107.50 0.6804 110.60 0.9069 101.40 0.0307 104.50 0.3306 107.60 0.6889 110.70 0.9133 101.50 0.0317 104.60 0.3485 107.70 0.6973 110.80 0.9196 101.60 0.0328 104.70 0.3655 107.80 0.7056 110.90 0.9259 101.70 0.0338 104.80 0.3816 107.90 0.7137 111.00 0.9321 101.80 0.0348 104.90 0.3970 108.00 0.7218 111.10 0.9383 ' 101.90 0.0357 105.00 0.4118 108.10 0.7298 111.20 0.9444 102.00 0.0366 105.10 0.4260 108.20 0.7378 111.30 0.9505 102.10 0.0375 105.20 0.4398 108.30 0.7456 111.40 0.9566 102.20 0.0384 105.30 0.4531 108.40 0.7533 111.50 0.9626 102.30 0.0393 105.40 0.4659 108.50 0.7610 111.60 0.9686 102.40 0.0401 105.50 0.4785 108.60 0.7686 111.70 0.9746 102.50 0.0410 105.60 0.4901 108.70 0.7761 111.80 0.9105 102.60 0.0418 105.70 0.5025 108.80 0.7835 111.90 0.9864 102.70 0.0426 105.80 0.5141 108.90 0.7909 112.00 0.9922 102.80 0.0433 105.90 0.5254 109.00 0.7982 102.90 0.0441 106.00 0.5364 109.10 0.8054 103.00 0.0449 106.10 0.5473 109.20 0.8126 2/15/00 Eastside Consultants, Inc . page MARSHALL SHORT PLAT CHAMBORD DEVELOPMENT REVISED CALCULATIONS LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY 1 MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAK-> STORAGE <--------DESCRIPTION---------> (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id VOL (cf) ' MATCH D2 TO 1/2 EX2 ...... ... . 0.05 0.44 1 1 103.70 8 2743.13 cf MATCH D5 TO EXS .......... .... 0.17 0.59 1 1 103.80 17 2812.94 cf MATCH D10 TO EX10 ............ 0.24 0.72 1 1 103.96 9 2932.13 cf MATCH D100 TO EX100 .......... 0.42 1.04 1 1 105.09 10 3768.61 cf I 1 9-o cTO(ZA L (fA L C Uj i 1 i 1 GISTV �\V S`S/ON AL EXPIA ,nee'o0 cro�ea 1 Miles Consulting 14400 Bel-Red Road Suite 105 no Bellevue, WA 98007 """" 1 :a:e ' DETENTION TANK DESIGN: Design is in accordance with the latest edition of the UBC. Design loads are actual dead loads, an HS20 vehicle AASHTO distribution, and soil depth ftom the Civil Plans. Tank foundations have been designed based on; Allowable bearing 2000 PSF (Fill 2000 PSF) Soils Weight 110 PCF (Friction Factor 0. 30) Active Earth Pressure 35 PCF (Retaining) Active Earth Pressure 50 PCF (Restrained or 2 : 1 slope) Passive Earth Pressure 250 PCF Construction should be in accordance with Section 108 of 1997 UBC. Inspection should include; 1. All concrete work phases and strength. 2 . Provide special inspection by Geotechnical Engineer ' confirming assumed soils parameters. 3. Any fill placed below footings or slab has sufficient compaction to at least 95% ASTM D-1557 . Prior to excavation the Contractor will determine if any underground utilities exist in the area of work. Foundation excavation shall extend into undisturbed soil. Should filling occur it will be place to 95% compaction and shall be inspected for adequacy. ' Back-filling of 'the walls shall be accomplished using a free draining material. When required, a sub-drain should be installed to carry away any local ground water which might accumulate in the back-fill or pond behind wall. A pressure relief valve may be used as an alternate to the drain. Raise fill evenly around tank to prevent overloading walls at any specific point. Concrete construction for cast-in-place concrete shall be inspected and tested. The concrete shall attain a minimum 28 day strength of fc'= 3000 psi. Use of add mixtures ' shall have Owner approval. (Strength required to back-fill. ) Reinforcing steel shall conform to ASTM A-615-68, Grade 60. Lap splices shall be a minimum of 30 bar diameters. Fy= 60,000 psi. All horizontal reinforcing bars in walls shall be lapped around the corners. The reinforcing shall ' be protected by minimum cover as detailed on the plans, or when not detailed per UBC Concrete Construction. Pre-cast prestressed hollow-core concrete planks shall be ' designed and detailed by the Manufacturer. Shop Drawings shall be provided for approval prior to fabrication. Design and fabrication shall be under the Manufacturer' s Quality Control and Calculated Data. Approved Shop Drawings, handling and erection details are to be shipped to the job site with the prestressed concrete planks . z 0 H H V • U F 40 J 1-Z i� Tp- Q \Zo"i L,7 i i .= ' I co cl---) :k- 1 1 1 d tJ6 czo- J &L_ 1 a~ I C) L� 1 ►J�1- �� Uzi-1�SZ/Z. �� t Dt ct,b`1 h i Sc� oC �,5v�j X t5 o 1 �-. L. ��►-e0 `,,. L . � boo /'� 1 1 1 1 CD atiV 2X, 1 � i 3► � � C�� oC� n = � ■ � ► to P toll ►D l z 1 1 Z `cv o0 -�' lCpCo`j ►�/�,�. `Z OCR t- �v l zon 1 1 1 1 1 IM,�N C-D�k 1711 �c�• 1 1 w `Zlpz — �` `. 2 ►`z z�— 1 1 1 6000 i L(O000 w ,L 1 1 1 1 1 1 C) `Iz 1 ; �� - 5 1 I-z L 2`7 ( 1 c�> L� z Z Vu- tzoo �Z=( 2-7)IL =7 (-7� l. (4,s77D) tZ 2� � Co�Sg� 00 cis Z (9, G C N 1 • �j � C�C7 l C,� 1 1 1 ¢Oct z -z- 45s el ------------------------- 8 ,j � 1 -7 7 17, C .t5o � t44 s zoo 1 1 � � � ko� W � C � l 55 1 : 8G15c) 1 o1cW 1 H N ' O S-1 ' � V ►-+ S DESIGN 17 cent, respectively, of loading H 20. Loading HS 15 is 75 per cent of ' loading HS 20. If loadings of weights other than those designated are desired, they shall be obtained by proportionately changing the weights shown for both the standard truck and the corresponding lane loads. 1 1° HS20-44 8,0oo CBS. 32,000 Las* i;0�00 L S L1 T•'`� ' HS 15-44 4,000 Las. 1t4,000 LBS. I V it o d 14'- v d 0.1 W 0.4 IN O 4 W ' W• COMBINED WEIGHT ON THE FIRST TWO AXLES WHICH 15 THE SAME AS FOR THE CORRESPONDING N TRUCK. V VARIABLE SPACING- 14 FEET TO 30 FEET INCLUSIVE. SPACING TO BE USED IS THAT WHICH PRODUCES MAXIMUM STRESSES. r -0� CLEARANCEAND AD LANE WIDTH I STANDARD HS TRUCKS FIGURE 1.2.5C ' } •In the design of timber floors and ortbotrapic steel decks (excluding transverse beams) for HS20 loading. one axle load of 24,000 pounds or two rile )oads of 16.000 bounds eacb, spaced 4 feet apart may be used, wbichever produces the greater stress, instead of the 22.000 pound axle abosrn •0 For slab design the center line of wbeels shall be assumed to be I foot from face of curb. (See Art 1.2.2(B)) *Note : An HS 20 Lane Load is 640 #/LF for up to , ` 10 feet +/- . i - 1 1 . 1 App. A 377 LOADING-HS 20-44 (MS18) TABLE OF MAXIMUM MOMENTS, SHEARS AND REACTIONS- SIMPLE SPANS, ONE LANE Spans in feet; moments in thousands of foot-pounds; shears and reactions in thousands of pounds. These values are subject to specification reduction for loading of multiple lanes. ' Impact not included. End shear End shear and end and end Span Moment reaction(a) Span Moment reaction(a) ' I 8.0(b) 32.0(b) 42 485.3(b) 56.0(b) 2 16.0(b) 32.0(b) 44 520.9(b) 56.7(b) 3 24.0(b) 32.0(b) 46 556.5(b) 57.3(b) 4 32.0(b) 32.0(b) 48 592.1(b) 58.0(b) 5 40.0(b) 32.0(b) 50 627.9(b) 58.5(b) 6 48.0(b) 32.0(b) 52 663.6(b) 59.1(b) 7 56.0(b) 32.0(b) 54 699.3(b) 59.6(b) 8 64.0(b) 32.0(b) 56 735.1(b) 60.0(b) 9 72.0(b) 32.0(b) 58 770.8(b) 60.4(b) 10 80.0(b) 32.0(b) 60 806.5(b) 60.8(b) 11 88.0(b) 32.0(b) 62 842.4(b) 61"2(b) 12 96.0(b) 32.0(b) 64 878.1(b) 61.5(b) 13 104.0(b) 32.0(b) 66 914.0(b) 61.9(b) 14 112.0(b) 32.0(b) 68 949.7(b) 62.1(b) 15 I20.0(b) 34.1(b) 70 985.6(b) 62.4(b) 16 128.0(b) 36.0(b) 75 1,075.1(b) 63,1(b) 17 136.0(b) 37.7(b) 80 1,164.9(b) 63.6(b) 18 144.0(b) 39.1(b) 85 1,254.7(b) 64.1(b) 19 152.0(b) 40.4(b) 90 1,344.4(b) 64.5(b) 20 160.0(b) 41.6(b) 95 1,434.1(b) 64.9(b) 21 168.0(b) 42.7(b) 100 1.524.0(b) 65.3(b) 22 176.0(b) 43.6(b) Il0 1,703.6(b) 65.9(b) 23 184.0(b) 44.5(b) 120 1.883.3(b) 66.4(b) 24 192.7(b) 45.3(b) 130 2,063.1(b) 67.6 25 207.4(b) 46.1(b) 140 2,242.8(b) 70.8 26 222.2(b) 46.8(b) 150 2,475.1 74.0 27 237.0(b) 47.4(b) 160 2,768.0 77.2 28 252.0(b) 48.0(b) 170 3,077.1 80.4 29 267.0(b) 48.8(b) 180 3,402.1 83.6 30 282.1(b) 49.6(b) 190 3,743.1 86.8 ' 31 297.3(b) 50.3(b) 200 4,100.0 90.0 32 312.5(b) 51.0(b) 220 4,862.0 96.4 33 327.8(b) 51.6(b) 240 5,688.0 102.8 34 343.5(b) 52.2(b) 260 6,578.0 109.2 35 361.2(b) 52.8(b) 280 7.532.0 115.6 36 378.9(b) 53.3(b) 300 8,550.0 122.0 37 396.6(b) 53.8(b) 38 414.3(b) 54.3(b) 39 432.1(b) 54.8(b) 40 449.8(b) 55.2(b) ' (a)Concentrated load is considered placed at the support.Loads used are those stipulated for shear. (b) Maximum value determined by Standard Truck Loading. Otherwise the Standard Lane Loading governs. 1HP Steel 3uitdi,:9 Pr-ducts g-3o Roof Deck )SA Inc. 23.8'35.8' 6' 8-36—A,!owable Reactions (pif) �.�,��...� Bearing Length Y A o ge j 1,2' i • i • 1' 1 1,2" 2' 121,2'1 3' 131,2" 1 13/4' 36' 416 468 520 572 625 677 729 1 307 1 103 12131 1363 1513 1663 18131 o 4 Welds 0 7 Welds 20 700 1 176 853 929 1005 1082 1158 1495 1617 1739 1897 2088 2280 2472 The B-36 profile has been"enhanced"via 1443 1568 1693 1818 1943 2068 2193 physical testing to give you the highest dia- 2734 2909 3084 3258 3436 1 3710 1 3985 phragm shear values of any of our prior B-series 2434 2608 2782 2957 13131 1 3305 3480 profiles. These values are also among the 1350 4578 4806 5034 5262 5490 5786 highest in the industry. Nestable Sidelap e top value reflects the allowable reaction at the panel condition available;coverage equals 35 1/4". end s;.rports. Flu e be".om value reflects the allowable reaction at the 8 36—Section Pro erties rior supports. es are in pounds per linear foot. Gauge Weight ( S- g (pst) (In4) (In (In3) 22 1.68 0.178 0.180 0.195 20 2.04 0.220 0.235 0.246 18 2.70 0.302 0.321 0.336 16 3.36 0.379 0.407 0.415 1. Section properties are based on minimum 38 ksi steel (Fy)• _ B 36—A!lowable Total OL+LL)Uniform Load( sf) Span an 'onditicr Gauge 5'0" 56" 6'0' 6'6' T0' 22 Stress 109 90 76 65 56 1 49 43 38 34 30 27 Def ec'ion 93 70 54 42 34 28 23 19 16 14 12 20 Stress 143 118 99 85 73 64 56 49 44 40 36 le Deflection 115 87 67 53 42 34 28 23 20 17 14 an 18 Stress 195 161 136 115 100 87 76 68 60 54 49 Deflection 1 158 119 92 1 72 58 47 39 32 1 27 23 20 16 Stress 247 205 172 146 126 110 97 86 76 69 62 Deflection 199 149 115 90 72 59 49 40 34 29 25 22 Stress 119 98 82 70 60 53 46 41 37 33 - 30 Oeflection 119 98 82 70 60 53 46 41 37 33 28 Stress 150 124 104 89 76 66 58 52 46 41 37 b!e 20 Deflection 150 124 104 89 76 66 1 58 52 46 41 35 pan 18 Stress 204 169 142 121 104 91 80 71 63 57 51 Deflection 204 169 142 121 104 91 8o 71 63 56 48 16 Stress 252 209 175 149 129 112 99 87- 78 70 63 Deflection 252 209 175 149 129 112 99 1 87 78 70 60 22 Stress 148 122 103 88 76 66 58 51 46 41 37 Deflection 148 122 102 80 64 52 43 36 30 26 22 Stress 187 -155 130 111 95 83 73 65 58 52 47 Triple 20 Deflection 187 155 126 99 79 65 53 44 37 32 27 Sill 18 Stress 255 211 177 151 130 113 100 88 79 71 64 Deflection 255 211 173 136 109 89 73 61 51 44 37 16 Stress 315 261 219 187 161 140 123 109 97 87 79 Deflection 1 315 261 1 217 171 137 111 92 76 64 55 47 ss b35ed on allowable flexural stress of 22.8 ksi. 3.Adequate bearirg must be provided. Iec`en based on maximum deflection of U240. 4.See page 29 for General Notes. 3 � Max" Id P S stem �Nith B-36 Roof Deck � � y — � Q-Max 9—Allowable Reactions(plf) Bearing Length Gauge I k,71 1,2" 2' 12 1�2" 2 416 468 520 572 625 677 729 1007 1103 1213 1363 1513 1663 1813 5 700 776 853 929 1005 1082 1158 1435 1617 1739 1897 2088 2280 2472 8 1443 1568 1693 1818 1943 2068 2193 909 3084 3258 3436 3710 3985 BHP combines 8-36 with our 16 gauge Shear Resistance 2734 2 2734 208 3082 3257 3131 3710 3985 Angle to offer a very cost effective roofing system which provides 6 4350 4578 14806 5034 1 5262 5490 5786 excellent resistance to lateral loads. 1.The!op value reflects the allowable reaction at the panel ttd supports OD. e bottom value reflects the allowable reaction at the Q-Ma —Section Pro erties erior supports. 3.Values are in pounds per linear foot. Weight :(I S+ S- Gauge (pso 4) (I0) E(In 3) 22 1.68 0.178 0.180 0.195 20 2.04 0.220 0.235 0.246 18 2.70 0.302 0.321 0.336 16 3.36 0.379 0.407 0.415 1.Section properties are based on minimum 38 ksi steel (Fy)• 0-Max_jD—Allowable Total DL+LL Uniform Load sf Span Span Gauge I nd1'on 5'0" 5'6' 6'0" 6'6" TO" T6' 22 Stress 109 90 76 65 56 49 43 38 34 30 27 Deflectior 93 70 54 42 34 28 23 19 16 14 12 20 Stress 143 118 99 85 73 64 56 49 44 40 36 ngle Deffectio 115 87 67 53 42 34 28 23 20 17 14 pan 18 Stress 195 161 136 115 100 87 76 ti8 60 54 49 Deflectior 158 119 92 72 58 47 39 32 27 23 20 16 Stress 247 1 05 172 146 126 110 97 86 76 69 62 Deflector 199 149 115 90 72 59 49 40 34 29 25 22 Stress 119 98 82 70 60 53 46 41 37 33 30 Deflection 119 98 82 70 60 53 46 41 37 33 28 Stress 150 124 104 89 76 66 58 52 46 41 37 louble 20 Deflectior 150 124 104 89 76 66 58 52 46 41 35 Span Stress 204 169 142 121 104 91 80 71 63 57 51 18 Deffectio 204 169 142 121 104 91 80 71 63 56 48 16 Stress 252 209 175 149 129 112 99 87 78 70 63 Deflectior252 209 175 149 129 112 99 87 78 70 60 22 Stress 148 122 103 88 76 66 58 51 46 41 37 Deflectio 148 122 102 80 64 52 43 36 30 26 22 20 Stress 187 155 130 111 95 83 73 65 58 52 47 Triple Deflectior 187 155 126 99 79 65 53 44 37 32 27 pan 18 Stress 255 211 177 151 130 113 100 88 79 71 64 Deflectior 255 211 173 136 109 89 73 61 51 44 37 16 Stress 315 261 219 187 161 140 123 109 97 87 79 lDeflectio 315 261 217 171 137 111 92 76 64 55 47 ttress based on allowable flexural stress of 22.8 ksi. 3.Adequate bearing must be provided. ef!ec!,on based on maximum deflection of Li240. 4. See page 29 for General Notes. BHP Steel Building Products Floor Deck Accessories and Standard Details USA Inc. Profile Closures Filler Plate We offer steel small void and large void closures for our floor deck Varies profiles. Not to exceed 8" (clear span) Small Void 1" ' Large Void "T' Closure Edge Form Cell Closure ' Varies Varies Varies (Based on (Based on deck (Based on slab height) height) deck height) Varies —31 I 1 1!2" I E— TBased on Gauge)"'I ' Edge Form at the Perpendicular Condition Edge Form at the Parallel Condition Filler Plate 9 P on 10 • —o---- ---- -- •-0 o p p A: L.,� Stud Locations Cell Closure • Q: ° . . o ° o. 0 Q . o �. ° ° . .o ° G p . 0 0b. ic c� I 1 1 • 1ADTOPthl \/IWL-T ALCAO M Arp q-( ON)'sb 1 1 . Of u U ea GISTE CNAL EXPtR 1 Nliles Consulting t4400 Bel-Red Road .ae Suite 105 ob Bellevue, WA 98007 1 - .3.P ' DETENTION TANK DESIGN: Design is in accordance with the latest edition of the UBC. Design loads are actual dead loads, an HS20 vehicle AASHTO distribution, and soil depth from the Civil Plans. Tank foundations have been designed based on; ' Allowable bearing 2000 PSF (Fill 2000 PSF) Soils Weight 110 PCF ('Friction Factor 0. 30) Active Earth Pressure 35 PCF (Retaining) Active Earth Pressure. 50 PCF (Restrained or 2 : 1 slope) Passive Earth Pressure 250 PCF Construction should be in accordance with Section 108 of 1997 UBC. Inspection should include; ' 1 . All concrete work phases and strength. 2 . Provide special inspection by Geotechnical Engineer ' confirming assumed soils parameters. 3 . Any fill placed below footings or slab has sufficient compaction to at least 95% ASTM D-1557 . Prior to excavation the Contractor will determine if any underground utilities exist in the area of work. Foundation excavation shall extend into undisturbed soil. Should filling occur it will be place to 95% compaction and shall be inspected for adequacy. Back-filling of 'the walls shall be accomplished using a free ' draining material. When required, a sub-drain should be installed to carry away any local ground water which might accumulate in the back-fill or pond behind wall. A pressure ' relief. valve may be used as an alternate to the drain. Raise fill evenly around tank to prevent overloading walls at any specific point. ' Concrete construction for cast-in-place concrete shall be inspected and tested. The concrete shall attain a minimum 28 day strength of fc '= 3000 psi. Use of add mixtures shall have Owner approval . (Strength required to back-fill . ) Reinforcing steel shall conform to ASTM A-615-68, Grade 60. Lap splices shall be a minimum of 30 bar diameters . Fy= 60, 000 psi. All horizontal reinforcing bars in walls shall be lapped around the corners. The reinforcing shall ' be protected by minimum cover as detailed on the plans, or when not detailed per UBC Concrete Construction. Pre-cast prestressed hollow-core concrete planks shall be ' designed and detailed by the Manufacturer. Shop Drawings shall be provided for approval prior to fabrication. Design and fabrication shall be under the Manufacturer' s Quality ' Control and Calculated Data. Approved Shop Drawings, handling and erection details are to be shipped to the job site with the prestressed concrete planks . r CIVIL EZIGINEERING DATA ' 2. Limit post-developed peak runoff to the 1/2 the pre-developed peak runoff for the 2-year, 24-hour design storm. Limit the post-developed ' peak runoff to the predeveloped peak runoff for the 5-, 10-, and 100- year/24 hour design storms. ' 3. Provide detention for the developed 100-yr. storm and include a 30% factor of safety per KCSWDM Include a 10% factor of safety on the 2- year storm per City of Renton requirements. ' 4. Use a wetvault to provide water quality treatment. Size the volume using a design storm (Pt-wq) = P2/3. 2. Existing Site Hydrology Impervious Area= 4,211 sf= 0.10 ac., CN = 98 ' Pervious Area= 1.11 ac., CN = 81 Time of Concentration: (see basin map) 3. Developed Site Hydrology Proposal is to develop 8 single-family residences ' Use 48% impervious surface per table 3.5.213 of KCSWDM. Impervious Area: ' 0.96 x 0.48 = 0.56 ac. Off-site improvements = 0.18 ac. Total impervious area= 0.64 ac., CN = 98 v' = 0.57 ac. CN = 86 Pervious Area , Time of Concentration = 5 min. (Assumed minimum) ' 4. Combination Detention/`Vetvault Design Detention Vault Design Design Volume: ' F.S. == 30% of required 100 yr. volume 100 yr. vol. = 3769 cf(see level pool table) Design Volume = 1.3 x 3769 =4900 cf Dimensions: ' 42' x 22.9' x 5.09' =4903 cf Wetvault Design Design Surface Area: Surface Area Req'd >_ 1.0%of Impervious Surface ' =0.01 x 0.64 = 0.0065 ac. = 283 sf Surface Area Prov'd=42 x 22.9 = 963.2 sf ' Design Volume: Volume Req'd>_ 0.027 ac-ft= 1228 cf (see attached basin summary for P-WQ) Depth Req'd= 3' - 6', use 3' minimum depth Volume Prov'd = 3' x 42' x 22.9'= 2890 cf ' Provide 1' sediment storage ' Total Interior Vault Dimensions: ' Surface Area = 42' x 22.9' (Use 42' x 23.4' to account for control structure and baffle wall) ' Total Interior Height: 1.00' sediment storage ' 3.00' permanent pond 5.09' detention storage ' 0.50' freeboard 9.59' Total Interior Height Multiple vault orifice outlets: Orifice #1 = 0.98" at elevation= 155.55 feet (Top of permanent pond) Orifice 92 = 3.25" at elevation= 159.26 feet (3.71 feet above permanent pond) Orifice #3 = 1.00" at elevation= 159.46 feet (3.91 feet above permanent pond) (ar 0 ............... 7 LT.,C-P' P @ 0, 5% ...... ........ ........ -------- .... ... ......... ..... CONTROL STR C TURE --SEE DETAIL I E 152. 55 ------ .......... ........... .......... DETENTION & WETVAULT 60 152-55-- 42. 0 4LZY-P,E LL- S TA 3+ 20. 24 158 + ...................... ................... 1 1E S = 155- 50 E&N) 1 =5- `7 ................. ....................................... �. 0 H E-� a V • V � � � � � � � To SLJ 8, A--V -7'/4 • t5l , ��D 1 t fit°° At 0 V2.,T eL, z ■ �� �` ` -, t QU O 1 Z 2e-i i (I-D �4,cM 4(.7(esocD Cj �`Z �•l D,S'� 1 1 _ z,�5.4 'r, 0 �5 z" 4,z&(�o.�') 1 1 � , 'P`D�`Z► �'��CO►j Q Y`YYti(J 1 z . ` - 1 1 1 1 1 T.I.R. Section VI: Conveyance System Analysis & Design ' A brief capacity check shows that the critical length of pipe in the drainage control ' system, the initial length from CB 1 to CB 2, has 3.6 time the amount of capacity needed to safely transport the 100 - year storm. The other lengths have a greater slope and so will ' have even more capacity. Refer to the attached calculations for details. Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning' s Equation ' Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name : MARSHALL PLAT Comment : CONVEYANCE CAPACITY CHECK ' Solve For Full Flow Capacity Given Input Data: Diameter. . . . . . . . . . 1 . 00 ft ' Slope. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0130 ft/ft Manning' s n. . . . . . . 0 . 014 Discharge . . . . . . . . . 3 . 77 cfs ' Computed Results : Full Flow Capacity. . . . . 3 . 77 cfs Full Flow Depth. . . . . . . . 1 . 00 ft Velocity. 4 . 80 fps Flow Area. . . . . . . . . 0 . 79 sf Critical Depth. . . . 0 . 83 ft Critical Slope . . . . 0 . 0128 ft/ft Percent Full . . . . . . 100 . 00 0 Full Capacity. . . . . 3 . 77 cfs ' QMAX @. 94D. . . . . . . . 4 . 06 cfs Froude Number. FULL Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3 . 43 (c) 1991 ' Haestad Methods, Inc . * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 ' 21 ' Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning' s Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name : MARSHALL PLAT Comment : CONVEYANCE CAPACITY CHECK Solve For Actual Depth Given Input Data : Diameter. . . . . . . . . . 1 . 00 ft ' Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0130 ft/ft Manning' s n. . 0 . 014 Discharge . . . . . . . . . 0 . 80 cfs Computed Results : Depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 31 ft ' Velocity. . . . . . . . . . 3 . 81 fps Flow Area . 0 . 21 sf Critical Depth. . . . 0 . 37 ft Critical Slope . . . . 0 . 0066 ft/ft ' Percent Full . . . . . . 31 . 27 Full Capacity. . . . . 3 . 77 cfs QMAX @. 94D. . . . . . . . 4 . 06 cfs Froude Number. . . . . 1 . 41 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3 . 43 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc . * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 20 T.I.R. Section VIL• Special Reports and Studies ' Refer to the attached pages for the May 1999 Geotechnical Report written by S&EE Soil & Environmental Engineers. Also, refer to the December 1998 Wetlands ' Delineation Report written by J. S. Jones & Associates, Inc. ' J. Delvin Armstrong, P.E. A R M ST R O N G Christopher B. Fote, P.E. ENGINEERSuz 1840 - 130th Avenue N.E., Suite #15, Bellevue, Washington 98005-2228 • Phone: (425) 885-2195 Fax: (425) 556-9351 ' April 4, 2000 ' Mr. Laura Grignon, E.I.T. Eastside Consultants, Inc. 415 Rainier Boulevard North Issaquah, Washington 98027 Subj: Marshall Short Plat File: 1746.01 ' Streetlighting Transmit Permit Drawings Dear Laura: Transmitted herewith are the permit drawings for the Marshall Short Plat. Included in this package is the original vellum plot of our sheets 1746-E 1 & E2 along with a set of specifications. Also included in this package are the illumination calculations for our design. We have classified Lincoln Avenue N.E. as residential-collector from the street lighting guidelines set by The ' City of Renton. Utilizing a GE M250A2 luminaire with a 150 watt HIPS lamp, 30 foot pole and 160 foot spacing we have exceeded the minimum 0.2 foot candle and 4:1 uniformity ratio. Have the city include the code numbers on the luminaire labeling schedule. ' Please give us a call if you have any questions or comments regarding this submittal. Sincerely, ' Christopher Fote, P.E. Electrical Engineer ' M:\JOBFILE\746 Marshall Short Plat\LTR01 T4ransmit Permit Drawings.doc ' Specialist in: Illumination - Electrical Power & Controls J. Delvin Armstrong, P.E. A R M ST R O N G Christopher B. Fote, P.E. ENGINEERSuz 1840 - 130th Avenue N.E., Suite #15, Bellevue, Washington 98005-2228 • Phone: (425) 885-2195 Fax: (425) 556-9351 1 ' April 4, 2000 Mr. Gary Moritz Customer Service Planner ' Puget Sound Energy 22828 -68th Avenue South#102 Kent,Washington 98032-1834 ' Subj: Marshall Short Plat File: 1746.02 Streetlighting Request For Service 1 Dear Gary: ' A new streetlighting system is being installed for the Marshall Short Plat Development on Lincoln Avenue N.E. in Renton. We are requesting a 120/240 volt, single phase, three wire, service suitable for handling an initial load of approximately 5 KVA. ' Included are two sets of prints of our sheets 1746 E1 and E2 along with the application for service. The plans are marked up showing the proposed location for the new streetlighting service cabinet. Please mark up one set of plans with the location of the secondary handhole or transformer from which you would like to serve and return to our office. Included any charges by PSE for the work. If possible, please provide us a preliminary reply by April 22°d Give me a call if you have any questions or comments regarding this application for service. Thank you for your assistance with this project. Sincerely, ' Christopher Fote, P.E. Electrical Engineer M. Chambord Development Company, Inc 22526 S.E. 64`"Place 4220 Issaquah, WA 98027 Attn: Mr. LaVern Posten -Please complete the original application for service and forward it to PSE at the address above. Please give me a call with any questions or comments. ' Specialist in: Illumination - Electrical Power & Controls ' -2- April 4, 2000 cc: Eastside Consultants, Inc. 415 Rainier Boulevard North. ' Issaquah, WA 98027 Attn: Ms. Laura Grignon-For your information. ' M:UOBFILE\746 Marshall Short Plat\Ltr02 Request For Service.doc 1 t �ILE D: \AGI\FILES\46CALC.AGI PAGE 1 ATE 04 04-2000 LUMINAIRE : 150 --------------------- obra Head CAD SYMBOL : CIRC. SYM AD SYMBOL SIZE : 2 ILENAME : D: \AGI\PHOT\CSIIIM25 .GE LUMENS = 16000 1LF _ . 62 PIN 0 ESNA91 TEST] GE 35-177304 MANUFAC] GE Lighting Systems - Hendersonville, NC, USA LUMCAT] (not specific to a single catalog number) LUMINAIRE] GE M-250A2 CUTOFF LAMP] HPS 250 [OTHER] Distribution: M-C-III MORE] Socket Pos : 1 Comments : - MORE] Revision No: 0 Rev Date : 850813 Test Date: 85042208 [MORE] Reflector: - Refractor: - PILT=NONE AMPS = 1 LUMENS/LAMP = 10000 PHOTOMETRIC TYPE = 1 WATTS = 0 UMINOUS DIMENSIONS (FEET) :WIDTH = 0 LENGTH = 0 HEIGHT = 0 FACTORS : MULTIPLIER = 1 BALLAST = 1 BALLAST-LAMP = 1 UBER OF VERTICAL ANGLES = 20 0 TO 90 DEGREES BER OF HORIZONTAL ANGLES = 36 0 TO 180 DEGREES FLE D: \AGI\FILES\46CALC.AGI PAGE 2 DATE 04-04-2000 LWAY DESCRIPTION ------------------- ORDINATES IN FEET ADWAY WIDTH = 32 NUMBER OF LANES = 3 RFACE TYPE = R3 S CALCULATIONAL METHOD ID BEGINS AT X = 0 Y = 2 . 666667 Z = 0 LINAIRE LOCATION SUMMARY -------------------------- FORDINATES IN FEET ACING = 160 SETBACK = 0 ULUMINAIRE LABEL X-COORD Y-COORD Z-COORD ORIENT TILT ----------------------------------------------------- 150 -160 0 25 90 0 150 0 0 25 90 0 3 150 160 0 25 90 0 150 320 0 25 90 0 150 480 0 25 90 0 t0 TOTAL NUMBER OF LOCATIONS = 5 lERAGE TILTED LAMP CORRECTION FACTOR APPLIED = 1 1 1 FILE : D: \AGI\FILES\46CALC.AGI PAGE 3 DATE : 04-04-2000 LUMINANCE GRID - ------------- OINT SPACING LEFT-TO-RIGHT = 16 ft OINT SPACING TOP-TO-BOTTOM = 5 . 333333 ft VALUES IN CD/SQ.M kVERAGE _ .48 MAXIMUM = 1 . 54 MINIMUM = . 17 ERAGE/MINIMUM = 2 . 89 MAXIMUM/MINIMUM = 9 . 32 vIMUM LV/Lavg RATIO = .43 LAST COLUMN IS THE LONGITUDINAL UNIFORMITY (MIN/MAX) PER ROW ILLUMINANCE GRID --------------- O0 INT SPACING LEFT-TO-RIGHT = 16 ft DINT SPACING TOP-TO-BOTTOM = 5 . 333333 ft ALUES IN fc IVERAGE _ . 74 MAXIMUM = 4 . 03 MINIMUM = . 21 VERAGE/MINIMUM = 3 . 56 MAXIMUM/MINIMUM = 19 .49 'AST COLUMN IS THE LONGITUDINAL UNIFORMITY (MIN/MAX) PER ROW 0.58 ROADWAY DESCRIPTION D.32 0,26 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.52 COORDINATES IN FEET 0.51 0.31 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.30 0.36 0.37 0.43 0.41 0.34 ROADWAY WIDTH - 32 NUMBER OF LANES - 3 0.78 0.43 0.24 0.17 0.28 0.44 D.50 D.46 0.58 0,68 0.22 SURFACE TYPE = R3 1.08 0.56 0.25 0.20 0.39 0.74 D.89 0.73 0.76 1.DB 0.18 IES CALCULATIONAL METHOD 1.24 0.63 0.26 0.24 0.59 1.13 1.54 1.18 1.05 1.32 0.16 GRID BEGINS AT X = 0 Y = 2.666667 Z = 0 L.UNIF. LUMINAIRE LOCATION SUMMARY LUMINANCE GRID -------------------------- ------ COORDINATES IN FEET POINT SPACING LEFT-TO-RIGHT = 16 ft SPACING = 160 POINT SPACING TOP-TO-BOTTOM = 5.333333 ft SETBACK 0 VALUES IN CD/SQ.M LUMINAIRE AVERAGE - 4B MAXIMUM - 1.54 MINIMUM - .17 N0. LABEL X-COORD Y-COORD Z-COORD ORIENT TILT AVERAGE/MINIMUM = 2.89 ----------------------------------------------------- MAXIMUM/MINIMUM = 9.32 1 150 -160 0 25 90 0 MAXIMUM LV/Lavg RATIO = .43 2 150 0 0 25 90 0 3 150 160 0 25 90 0 LAST COLUMN IS THE LONGITUDINAL UNIFORMITY (MIN/MAX) PER ROW 4 15D 320 0 25 90 0 5 ISO 480 0 25 90 0 150 TOTAL NUMBER OF LOCATIONS = 5 AVERAGE TILTED LAMP CORRECTION FACTOR APPLIED = 1 . 0.3B 1.03 0.81 0.53 0.32 C.Z4 0.21 0.24 0.32 0.53 0.81 0.21 1.62 1.01 0.59 0.32 0.23 D.21 0.23 0.32 0.59 1.01 0.13 2.54 1.41 0.62 0.30 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.30 0.62 1.41 0.09 LUMINAIRE : 150 3.5Z 1.91 0.63 0.32 0.26 0.24 0.26 0.32 D.63 1.91 0.07 ------------------------ 4.03 2.12 0.65 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.29 0.35 0.65 2.12 0.06 Cobra Head CAD SYMBOL CIRC.SYM L.UNIF. CAD SYMBOL SIZE 2 ILLUMINANCE GRID FILENAME : C:�AGI�PHOT�CSIIIM25.GE_ POINT SPACING LEFT-TO-RIGHT = 16 ft LUMENS = 16000 LLF POINT SPACING TOP-TO-BOTTOM = 5.333333 ft _SPIN D 62 VALUES IN fc SPIN AVERAGE = 74 MAXIMUM = 4.03 MINIMUM = .21 I [T TEST] GE 35-177304 AVERAGE/MINIMUM = 3.56 IMANUFAC] GE Lighting Systems - Hendersonville MAXIMUM/MINIMUM = 19.49 ILUMCAT] (not specifgc yo ❑ single catalog number) LAST COLUMN IS THE LONGITUDINAL UNIFORMITY (MIN/MAX) PER ROW (LUMINAIRE] GE P-250A2 CUTOFF [LAMP] HPS 250 [OTHER] Distribution: M-C-III (MORE] Socket Pus: 1 Comments: - (MORE] Revision No: 0 Rev Date: 850813 Test Date: 85042208 [MORE] Reflector: - Refractor: - TILT=NONE LAMPS - 1 LUMENS/LAMP - 10000 PHOTOMETRIC TYPE - 1 WATTS - 0 LUMINOUS DIMENSIONS (FEET) :WIDTH = 0 LENGTH = D HEIGHT = D FACTORS : MULTIPLIER = 1 BALLAST = 1 BALLAST-LAMP = 1 NUMBER OF VERTICAL ANGLES - 20 0 TO 90 DEGREES NUMBER OF HORIZONTAL ANGLES 36 0 TO IBO DEGREES REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MARSHALL SHORT PLAT ' RENTON, WASHINGTON S&EE JOB NO. 9914 ' MAY 24, 1999 9914rpc S&EE ' S&EE SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 Redmond Way Suite M 124 Redmond Washington 99052 (425)868-5869 FAX(425)868-7427 May 24, 1999 ' Chambord Development Company P.O. Box 637 ' Carnation, WA 98014 Attn: Mr. Lavern Poston Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Marshall Short Plat Renton, Washington S&EE Job No. 9914 Dear Lavern: We are pleased to present herewith our Report of Geotechnical Investigation for the referenced project. Our services were authorized by you and have been provided in accordance with our proposal dated April 28, 1999. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. ' Very truly yours, SOIL& ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. Branden Reall �r Staff Engineering Geologist ' 28166 4 jpNALMW G C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E. BO E& /Vt\/- Za'� President CC: Phil Kitz ' Laura Grignon 9914rpt S&EE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pale ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................................2 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS---.....,.— ........****.....*..........* 2 ' 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS............................................................................................................... 3 4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILITY................. 4 ' 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................4 ' 5.1 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL.....................................................................................4 5.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORT......................................................................................................................... 5 5.3 SLAB SUPPORT........................................................................................................................................6 5.4 DRAINAGE................................................................................................................................................ 7 ' 5.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES............................................................................................................... 8 5.6 PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS............................................................................... 8 5.7 INFILTRATION......................................................................................................................................... 9 ' 5.8 ADDITIONAL SERVICES........................................................................................................................ 9 6.0 CLOSURE.................................................................................................................................................... 10 ' FIGURE 1: SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN ' APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATION AND LOGS ' REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MASHALL SHORT PLAT RENTON,WASHINGTON ' for CHAMBORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1.0 INTRODUCTION We present in this report the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development ' located at 3712 Lincoln Ave. NE, Renton, Washington. We understand from Mr. Lavern that the proposed development will involve the construction of 8 single family residences. We further understand from the civil engineer, Ms. Laura Grignon of Eastside Consultants, that minimal excavation and fill will be required to establish final grades. We assume that the structural loads will be typical for residential homes. A site plan is shown in Figure 1, which is included at the end of this report. ' 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our geotechnical investigation is to develop information for recommendations regarding site development and foundation support. Specifically, our services included: 1. Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site through the excavation of 6 test pits to depths of 5.8 to 10.1 feet. Details of the exploration program and the logs of the test pits are presented ' in Appendix A at the end of this report. ' 2. Recommendations regarding type of foundation support for the proposed houses. ' 3. Evaluation of the stability of the ou-site slopes in regards to pre-and post-development conditions. 4. Recommendations regarding the subsurface drainage system to be used for under slab-on-grade, footings, and subsurface walls. 9914rpt S&EE 5. Recommendations regarding active and at-rest earth pressures to be used for the design of any retaining structures. 6. Recommendations g n re ardi passive soil resistance and coefficient of friction for the resistance of lateral g ' loads. 7. Recommendations regarding temporary and permanent slopes. 8. Recommendations regarding site preparation, including removal of unsuitable soils, suitability of on-site ' soils for use as fill, fill placement techniques, and compaction criteria. ' 9. Seven copies of a written geotechnical report containing a site plan, test pit logs, a description of subsurface conditions, and our findings and recommendations. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ' The site is located on a hillside with slope inclinations varying from about 10 to 30 percent. The site is bounded ' by Lincoln Avenue NE to the west, and single-family residences to the north, south and east. At the time of this report, the eastern portion of the site is occupied by wetlands. A drainage ditch, and overhead power and communication lines are present along Lincoln Avenue NE. A house, garage, and several small sheds occupy the southwestern portion of the site. We understand that the ' drain field of a septic system is present to the north of the house. We observed an overhead power and communication lines connecting from the street to the house. An existing water well which serves the on-site ' residence, is located approximately 40 feet south of the existing house. This well is connected to the house by an underground pipe. The remaining portion of the site is covered with high brush and young to older deciduous and ' coniferous trees. ' 9914rpt 2 S&EE ' 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 1 The soil conditions underlying the site were explored by the excavation of 6 test pits, TP-1 through TP-6, on May 4, 1999. The approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 1. Details of the field exploration program are ' included in Appendix A. The test pit logs are included in Figures A-1 through A-6 in Appendix A. ' Test pits were excavated using a trackhoe to depths of 5.8 to 10.1 feet below the current ground surface. In general, our test pits indicate that the site is covered by approximately 6 to 18 inches of topsoil. This topsoil is underlain by a surficial layer consisting of a light brown to gray, loose to dense silty sand and a soft to stiff sandy silt. This surficial layer is approximately 2 to at least 7.5 feet in thickness. Underlying this layer is a brown to ' gray, dense to very dense silty sand (weathered glacial till). The top of this till layer is approximately 3 to 8 feet below the ground surface. Four of the six test pits were terminated in this weathered glacial till. The remaining two test pits were terminated in the surficial layer. The variation in the generalized soil profile described above includes a layer of gray, slightly silty sand with ' gravel observed in the glacial till layer. This silty sand was approximately 3 feet thick, and was probably an old subglacial stream (r-chatmel or n-channel)_ Such subglacial streani deposits are common in glacial till. Due to ' their relatively permeable nature, groundwater flow in these old subglacial streams is common. These streani deposits typically meander, making there location difficult to predict. 3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater seepage was only encountered in TP-4, and was observed in the gray silty sand layer mentioned ' above. The seepage rate was estimated to be approximately 2 gallons per minute (gpm). Although no groundwater was encountered during the excavation of the other test pits, it is our opinion that water from surface ' infiltration may perch on top of the relatively impermeable glacial soils. The amount of perched water will vary with the seasons and precipitation. 9914rpt 3 S&EE 4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILITY Based on our understanding of the soil conditions underlying the site and our estimate of the soil parameters, we have conducted slope stability analyses using the computer program STABL5. Our analyses considered the static and dynamic conditions as well as the loading of the proposed houses. The dynamic loading condition included ' an earthquake producing a ground acceleration of 0.2g. The slope stability is expressed in terms of a factor of safety against failure. A factor of safety is defined as the ' summation of resisting forces divided by the summation of driving forces. The standard engineering practice considers a slope to be acceptably stable if it demonstrates a factor of safety of at least 1.5 and 1.1 for static and dynamic loading conditions, respectively. The analysis conducted for the current slope condition indicated a factor of safety of 2.2 for the static loading condition, and 1.2 for the dynamic loading condition. With the building loads applied to the slopes, the factors of safety become 1.9 and 1.1, respectively. These results indicate that the on-site slope is currently stable, and the ' risk of future movement is low. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' 5.1 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL We recommend that areas of proposed structures and roads be first stripped of vegetation, tree roots, stumps and topsoil. All underground utilities should be removed. After stripping and removal, all subgrade of proposed ' slabs or asphaltic concrete pavement should be thoroughly proof-rolled using heavy construction equipment. If the subgrade is wet, the subgrade should be probed so as to avoid disturbance and rutting of the subgrade soils. ' Areas which are found to be loose or soft, or which contain organic soils should be over-excavated. A qualified geotechnical engineer should conduct the proof-rolling and/or probing to assist in evaluating the over-excavation requirements. After stripping, over-excavation and excavation to the design grade, the top 12 inches of the native soils should be ' re-compacted to at least 95% of their maximum dry density as determined using ASTM D-698 test procedures (Standard Proctor test). Structural fill can then be placed in the over-excavation and fill areas. 1 9914rpt 4 S&EE The structural fill materials should meet both the material and compaction requirements presented below. ' Material Requirements: Structural fill should be free of organic and frozen material and should consist ' of hard durable particles, such as sand, gravel, or quarry-processed stone. The on-site silty sands are suitable for use as structural fill. However, due to their silty nature, these soils are moisture sensitive and should be moisture-conditioned to within ± 2% of their optimum moisture content prior to use. Conditioning of these soils may involve drying, which could be a lengthy process, and may not be feasible during wet seasons. The on-site native sandy silt is very moisture sensitive due to its fine-grained ' composition, and is not suitable for use as structural fill. Suitable imported structural fill materials include sand and gravel (pitrun), and crushed rock. Placement and Compaction Requirements: Structural fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not exceeding a thickness of 6 to 12 inches, depending on the material type, compaction equipment, and number of passes made by the equipment. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the ' maximum dry density as determined using the ASTM D-698 test procedures (Standard Proctor test). Note that structural backfill may be required for footing construction. The fill material for this purpose ' should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined using the ASTM D-1557 test procedures (Modified Proctor test). ' 5.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORT ' We recommend that the proposed houses be supported by conventional spread footings, which must penetrate topsoil and loose/soft surficial soils, and be founded on at least medium dense or medium stiff native soils. Such ' native soils include the silty sand and sandy silt in the surficial layer and the underlying till soils. Based on our test pit results, we anticipate that these foundation bearing soils can be encountered at about 3 to 4 feet below current ground surface. Details of our recommendations regarding the footing design are presented in the following sections. ' Bearing Capacity: We recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf for the design of the footings. This value includes a safety factor of at least 3, and can be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loads. 9914rpt 5 S&EE ' Footing Construction: The footing bearing materials should be native soils of at least medium dense or medium stiff. These materials are moisture sensitive and susceptible to strength loss due to wetting and disturbance. As ' such, the footing bearing surfaces should be protected from weather and disturbance, and all softened and loosened soils must be removed prior to re-bar and concrete placements. Note that loose and soft soils are present in the upper portion of the surficial soil layer. If these soils are encountered at the footing subgrade, they should be overexcavated to at least a medium dense to medium stiff soil. ' Any overexcavation of the footing subgrade should be backfilled with structural fill compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined using the ASTM D-1557 (Modified Proctor Test) test method. All exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the adjacent finished grade to provide protection against frost action, and should be at least 18 inches in width to facilitate construction. Furthermore, for any footings constructed on slopes steeper than 25% inclination, the footings should be extended to a depth that will provide a minimum horizontal distance of 15 feet from the side of the footing to the slope face. Settlement: Interior column footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations are expected to experience approximately 1/2 inch of settlement. Continuous wall footings should experience about 1/4 to 1/2 inch. The settlement will occur rapidly, essentially as the loads are applied. Differential settlement between adjacent footings is expected to be small, generally less than 1/4 inch. ' Lateral Resistance: Lateral resistance can be obtained from the passive earth pressure against the footing sides and the friction at the contact of the footing bottom and bearing soil. The former can be obtained using an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the latter using a coefficient of friction of 0.3. The above equivalent fluid density includes a safety factor of 1.5. 1 5.3 SLAB SUPPORT ' All slabs-on-grade can be soil supported on structural fill, recompacted or at least medium dense native soils. We ' envision that the soil at the slab subgrade will be disturbed and loosened by construction activities at the time of slab construction. We therefore recommend that the slab subgrade be proof-rolled or probed. Any wet and loose areas should be over-excavated and backfilled with structural fill. 9914rpt 6 S&EE ' In order to promote uniform support and provide a capillary break, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a 6 mil. vapor barrier over a 4-inch thick layer of free draining gravel. The subgrade should be sloped at about one ' to two percent so that any water in the gravel layer can be collected and directed toward a permanent discharge location. 5.4 DRAINAGE This site is situated on a hill and is underlain by relatively impermeable till. Therefore, surface water may enter ' the site from the high ground at the south side and seasonal shallow groundwater may occur in portions of the site. The surface water and groundwater may enter crawl spaces or other low areas if not properly drained. ' Depending on the grading plan, a yard drain may be considered near the south property line to intercept runoff from the neighboring property. This yard drain should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated drain pipe in a ' shallow (one to two feet deep) trench. The trench should be backfilled with drain gravel to die top of the trench. Additional yard drains may be considered within the development to intercept surface water flows between lots. ' Perforated drain pipes should be installed around all parameter footings and retaining structures to avoid the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. The pipe should be at least 4 inches in diameter, covered by a layer of uniform ' size drain gravel of at least 12 inches in thickness, and sloping at least one percent to a suitable discharge location. An adequate number of cleanouts should be installed along the drain line for future maintenance. Footing drains should be separated from the surface/storm water drainage system. 9914rpt 7 S&EE 5.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Lateral earth pressures on permanent subsurface walls and resistance to lateral loads may be estimated using the following recommended soil parameters: llqu valent.1uid Unit Weight WC)n Coefficient ' of Friction. Fictive fit rest Passive Native Soils or 35 50 250 0.3 Structural Fill The active case applies to walls that are permitted to rotate or translate away from the retained soil by approximately 0.002H, where H is the height of the wall. This would be appropriate for a retaining wall. The at- rest case applies to unyielding walls, and would be appropriate for walls that are structurally restrained from lateral deflection such as utility trenches or pits. Additional lateral earth pressures will result from surcharge loads from floor slabs or pavements for parking that ' are located immediately adjacent to the walls. The surcharge-induced lateral earth pressures are uniform over the depth of the wall. Surcharge-induced lateral pressures for the "active" case may be calculated by multiplying the applied vertical pressure (in psf) by the active earth pressure coefficient (Ka). The value of Ka may be taken as 0.3. The surcharge-induced lateral pressures for the "at-rest" case are similarly calculated using an at-rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of 0.5. Note that hydrostatic pressure must be added to these pressures unless drainage is provided behind the walls. 5.6 PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ' For temporary excavations less than 4 feet in depth, the soil banks may be excavated vertically. For temporary excavations greater than 4 feet in depth, the soil banks should be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V (one horizontal to one vertical). Flatter slopes may be required if seepage occurs. All permanent slopes should be no steeper than 9914rpt 8 S&EE 2H:1V. Water should not be allow to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanent slopes should be seeded with the appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and maintain dle slope stability. 5.7 INFILTRATION i Based on our investigation, we recommend that infiltration not be used as a means to disperse storm water. We believe that infiltration of storm water may saturate the surficial soils, increase their weight, and thus increase the risk of slope instability. 5.8 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional services may be required during the design and construction of the project_ We envision that these additional services may include the following: 1. Review of design plans. 2. Monitoring the foundation subgrade preparation. Our representative will confirm the bearing capacity of the subgrade soils, and will assist the contractor in evaluating the protection and over-excavation requirements, if any. 3. Monitoring the placement and compaction of structural fill. Our representative will confirm the suitability of the fill materials, perform field density tests, and assist the contractor in meeting the compaction requirements. 4. Monitoring the installation of drains. Our representative will ensure these drains are installed in accordance with our recommendations. ' 5. Monitoring the preparation of the slab subgrade. We will provide recommendations regarding the subgrade stabilization, if needed. 6. Other geotechnical issues deemed necessary. 9914rpt 9 S&EE r t 6.0 CLOSURE The recommendations presented in this report are provided for design purposes and are based on soil conditions disclosed by field observations and subsurface explorations. Subsurface information presented herein does not constitute a direct or implied warranty that the soil conditions between exploration locations can be directly interpolated or extrapolated or that subsurface conditions and soil variations different from those disclosed by the ' explorations will not be revealed. The recommendations outlined in this report are based on the assumption that the development plan is consistent with the description provided in this report. If the development plan is changed or subsurface conditions different from those disclosed by the exploration are observed during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions, and if necessary, reconsider our design recommendations. It should be noted that there is always an inherent risk of slope instability when building on a hillside. Damage caused by slope movement is a risk that owners must be prepared to accept. In addition to natural factors (lieavy precipitation and strong earthquakes), other factors include water leaks, pipe breaks, improper or inappropriately ' redirected drainage, lack of maintenance for drains or vegetation cover, filling or saturation on the slope or excavation at the bottom of slope, unwise development by adjacent property owners, or other actions, events, or unknown conditions which could cause slope instability. 9914rpt 10 S&EE __N181010'N 796 43 160 50' suf FER 4 lJ Ir I LOT 1 I &220 SF sufFER T-,, I a I �-- - - - AQ z 1 / Q L REDUCED R0f USCO tlUFFCR 1411 SF \ / -•-- � T 1170 _\ N TP-4 m ry I LOT Ke 21.79J SF LOT 2 I I \ IA / Q t Y ..591 v I I L — T T� TP: Test Pit Location o i \ , - - - _ l LOT \7 rn L O T s ..ss. y I I r- — — TP-2 — I 71 I 16 I I �� ----PROPOSED tlUFffA \ I \ (Approximate North) LOT 6 I - i — — — — ; I Imo{\ 10.6J1 SF I' ` \ t 0 20 40 L — ` — — SCALE IN FEET 117' j l.O T 4 I r —r y �/ - - \ 1 inch=40 feet 1,D5 6,01{ SF I I I_ — — — \ • — I ADDI nONAL f I I BurfER L - - - - LOT 5 ►- — — — — — — --- - , I I 10.197:f if - I - Figure 1 -PRIVATE • Q _ r I I �, Site and Exploration Plan — - — ___I .__ _. __ _ _ __• _. _ __I_ �__ _ _ _' Proposed Marshall Short Plat TP-6 — ° L• 66109'1e•E `- - Reference:'Topography'Plan,prepared by Eastside Consultants, Inc., Issaquah, WA, 12-96. APPENDIX A ' FIELD EXPLORATION AND LOGS ' The subsurface conditions at the project site were investigated by the excavation of 6 test pits. These test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 5.8 to 10.1 feet on May 4, 1999. Excavations were performed using a Komatsu PC120 series trackhoe. A representative of S&EE was present throughout the exploration to observe ' excavation procedures, log the subsurface soil conditions, and to obtain representative soil samples. Test pit logs are presented at the end of this appendix. A chart showing the Unified Soil Classification System and a key to Samples follows the test pit logs. All test pits were backfilled with the excavated soils, which were placed in 2- to 3-foot lifts and compacted with the trackhoe bucket. r i 9914rpt S&EE a Test Pit TP-1 ' U ZD Soil Description Dark brown organic silty fine sand. (loose)(damp) (topsoil) ' sMi Light brown to gray silty fine sand/sandy silt with little to trace fine to ML course gravel. (loose to dense/soft to stiff)(damp) III Ilil III III III III g III III III III III III sM Gray silty fine to medium sand with trace fine to course gravel and ' trace boulder. (dense to very dense) (damp to wet) (weathered till) IIII I 10 LIlll Test pit terminated at a depth of 10.1 feet on 5-4-99. No groundwater encountered during excavation. r 15 1 20 ' Client: Chambord Development Company Excavation Method: Komatsu PC120 trackhoe Contractor: Langsholt Construction ' Exploration Date: May 4, 1999 Ground Elevation: Approximately 192 feet Figure A-1 SUE Proposed Marshall Short Plat Job No.9914 0 Test Pit TP-2 U) QU j Soil Description Dark brown organic silty fine sand. (loose)(damp)(topsoil) smi Light brown silty fine sand/sandy silt with trace fine to course gravel. I ML (loose to medium dense/soft to medium stiff)(damp) III III III III III 5 III III III -very dense/very stiff below 6 feet III ' Test pit terminated at a depth of 7 feet on 5-4-99. No groundwater encountered during excavation. 10 15 20 ' Client: Chambord Development Company Excavation Method: Komatsu PC120 trackhoe Contractor: Langsholt Construction ' Exploration Date: May 4, 1999 Ground Elevation: Approximately 182 feet Figure A-2 S&EE Proposed Marshall Short Plat ' Job No.9914 N O Test Pit TP-3 U Q Soil Description Dark brown organic silty fine sand. (loose)(damp)(topsoil) ' 'sMr Light brown silty fine sand/sandy silt with trace fine to course gravel. I ML (loose to medium dense/soft to medium stiff) (damp) III III III I III 5 III III ' sM Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with little to trace fine to course gravel. (dense to very dense)(damp)(weathered till) III III III Test pit terminated at a depth of 9 feet on 5-4-99. No groundwater encountered during excavation. 10 15 20 Client: Chambord Development Company Excavation Method: Komatsu PC120 trackhoe Contractor: Langsholt Construction ' Exploration Date: May 4, 1999 Ground Elevation: Approximately 176 feet Figure A-3 S&EE Proposed Marshall Short Plat ' ,kb No.9914 y Test Pit TP-4 ' ` 0 a U j Soil Description Dark brown organic silty fine sand. (loose)(damp)(topsoil) SMr Light brown silty fine sand/sandy silt with trace fine to course gravel. ML ' (loose to medium dense/soft to medium stiff)(damp) ! II IIII ISM Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with little to trace fine to course gravel. I (medium dense to dense)(damp)(weathered till) illy 6 III III snn Gray slightly silty fine to course sand with fine to course gravel. I I (medium dense to dense)(damp) _groundwater seepage from 5.7 to 8.7 feet (at approximately 2 gpm) III III . - sM Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with little to trace fine to course gravel. (dense to very dense) (damp)(weathered till) 10 Test pit terminated at a depth of 9.7 feet on 5-4-99. Groundwater seepage observed at approximately 5.7 to 8.7 ' feet below ground surface. ' 15 20 ' Client: Chambord Development Company Excavation Method: Komatsu PC120 trackhoe Contractor: Langsholt Construction ' Exploration Date: May 4, 1999 Ground Elevation: Approximately 170 feet Figure A-4 ' SUE S& Proposed Marshall Short Plat Job No.9914 0 Test Pit TP-5 U Q j Soil Description 0 Dark brown organic silty fine sand. (loose)(damp)(topsoil) sMi Light brown silty fine sand/sandy silt with trace fine to course gravel. ' I I ML (loose to medium dense/soft to medium stiff)(damp) III 7 IT III t III III sM Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with little to trace fine to course gravel 5 III and trace boulder. (dense to very dense)(damp) (weathered till) Test pit terminated at a depth of 5.8 feet on 5-4-99. No groundwater encountered during excavation. 10 15 20 ' Client: Chambord Development Company Excavation Method: Komatsu PC120 trackhoe Contractor: Langsholt Construction ' Exploration Date: May 4,1999 Ground Elevation: Approximately 159 feet Figure A-5 S&EE Proposed Marshall Short Plat Job No.9914 y O Test Pit TP-6 L U Qj Soil Description 0 Dark brown organic silty fine sand. (loose)(damp)(topsoil) III sMi Light brown to grayish brown silty fine sand/sandy silt with trace course ' III ML gravel. (loose to medium dense/soft to medium stiff) (damp) III III III III 6 III ' III I -dense/stiff below 5.5 feet III III III Test pit terminated at a depth of 7.5 feet on 5-4-99. No groundwater encountered during excavation. 10 15 20 ' Client: Chambord Development Company Excavation Method: Komatsu PC120 trackhoe Contractor: Langsholt Construction ' Exploration Date: May 4, 1999 Ground Elevation: Approximately 199 feet Figure A-6 S&EE Proposed Marshall Short Plat ' Job No.9914 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM J � m w > DESCRIPTION MAJOR DIVISIONS � J p GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, CLEAN �p LITTLE OR NO FINES • POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, GRAVELS z Q m GP (LITTLE OR J a z w }a J • LITTLE OR NO FINES NO FINES) W Z<Q F la� O T w GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT GRAVELS Q =wow yH y MIXTURES w w o g" WITH FINES (9 (r<c �o way CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY O L)a w z _Z S GC (APPRECIABLE U J w 0 c MIXTURES AMOUNT OF FINES) i Q �O z WELL-GRADED SAND OR GRAVELLY SANDS, a =z "`` SW LITTLE OR NO FINES CLEAN LL E z , z a :>. Q rl'w W i i _w POORLY-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, SANDS t'o z y> Qf W W i=a SP LITTLE OR NO FINES NO FINES) Z Q Q N v a Q o o'x SM SILTY SANDS,SAND-SILT MIXTURES SANDS Q r-w w w 'n U mw III WITH FINES U) oa<`� sy a SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY MIXTURES (APPRECIABLE °u1) LL w AMOUNT OF FINES) m Ili INORGANIC SILTS,VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR z> ML CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY co w w y v INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY I =� a 0 CL SILTS & CLAYS p w SQ CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS,SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 it w S -- ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILT-CLAYS OF LOW 1 c o w - OL I PLASTICITY Z U.o w INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE Q z MH SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS z C9 a� INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT Lu CH CLAYS SILTS & CLAYS W �w LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 Z x �— OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, EL2 c ORGANIC SILTS PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS I HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS I SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO TEST PIT LOGS S&EE ' a. .S_ Jones and Associa.tcs , IIMC. t WETLAND ASSESSMENT Of i ' 3712 Lincoln Avenue N.E. Renton, Washington ' Prepared for: Phil Kitzes Charbord Development 23126 S.E. 285th Street Maple Valley, Washington 98038 (360) 886-7786 r December 4, 1998 Prepared By: Charles Repath, Wetland Biologist Jeffery S. Jones, Certified Professional Wetland Scientist 3408 52nd Place , N . E . T A C 0 M A . W A S H I N G T 0 N 9 8 4 2 2 253 -942 - 7131 / FAX 2 5 3 - 9 4 2 - 7 1 3 2 J. S. Jones and Associates. Inc. ' Table of Contents 1.0 Project Description............... 2.0 Site Location and Directions...........................................................................................1 3.0 Methodology...................................................................................................................1 ' 4.0 General Site Description.................................................................................................1 5.0 Vegetation.......................................................................................................................3 5.1 Vegetation Methodology ................................................................................................3 5.2 Vegetation Results..........................................................................................................3 6.0 Soils ................................................................................................................................6 6.1 Soils Methodology..........................................................................................................6 t6.2; Soils Results....................................................................................................................6 7.01 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................8 7.1 Hydrology Methodology.................................................................................................8 ' 7.2 Hydrology Results ..........................................................................................................8 8.0 Wetland Determination...................................................................................................8 8.1 Uplands...........................................................................................................................8 8.2 Wetlands .........................................................................................................................8 9.0 Wetland Rating and Buffer Regulations.........................................................................9 ' 10.0 Functional Assessment..................................................................................................9 11.0 Authority.......................................................................................................................10 12.0 Limitations....................................................................................................................10 12.0 References.....................................................................................................................11 Figures 1.0 Vicinity Ma 2.0 Soils Map........................................................................................................................7 ' Tables ' 1.0 Plant Indicator Status......................................................................................................3 2.0 Plant Species Found at Sample Locations......................................................................5 Attachments ' Wetland Map King County Wetlands Inventory Sheets Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment i ' J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. ' 1.0 Project Description The applicant proposes to shortplat 1.73 acres. This study was conducted to determine if wetlands ' are present and the type and extent of wetlands on or near the property. 2.0 Site Location and Directions The site is located at 3712 Lincoln Avenue N.E. in Renton, Washington (see map). The King County tax parcel number is 334570-0020. The site is in Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian. Directions to the site from the junction of Interstate 405 and N.E. 44th Street in Renton are as follows: Take N.E. 44th Street east; N.E. 44th Street becomes Lincoln Avenue N.E.; at the Y at ' the junction of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and 110th Place N.E., stay to the right on Lincoln Avenue N.E.; the site is the third property on the left south of N.E. 36th Street. ' 3.0 Methodology The wetland assessment and delineation were performed using the Routine Small Area Methodology as described in Part IV, Section D of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation ' Manual (COE, 1987). The Routine Small Area Methodology is "used when the project area is small, plant communities are homogeneous, plant community boundaries are abrupt, and the ' project is not controversial." The wetland determination was based on the presence of the three criteria for jurisdictional wetlands: hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. All three criteria must be present in order to classify an area as a wetland. The wetland assessment included a review of the King County Wetlands Inventory (King County, 1991), and the USDA Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of King County(Snyder, 1973). ' The on-site evaluation was completed on August 10th, 1998. Wetland boundaries were delineated and marked with consecutively numbered orange flagging, based upon an evaluation of soils, vegetation and hydrologic characteristics. The wetland boundaries and buffers are presented on ' the attached wetland map. 4.0 General Site Description ' The property is located on a north facing hillside. Slopes are from 10% to over 30%. One single- family residence is present on-site. A drainage feature is located along the east property line. The drainage feature flows to the north. On-site vegetation is deciduous forest with a dense understory of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus). Surrounding land use is residential with areas of deciduous forest. 1 V ti �i 01 N Q O MV pR SE It ` � ll 1 w z o � :AW n M IAVF NE t «� \ crfAM j ?n no a t 7 iyy t o rr Wj}4�A F FPyr�Vi� `rF� ��� •��� :��A"�<� s'a. tom,�;,, ��rx r � y,�F,t ��a,�� p�,}�,�� {,.,�::;r xf+ J. S. Jones and.-Associates, Inc. 5.0 Vegetation 5.1 Vegetation Methodology Rules for determining dominant species were established in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands ' Delineation Manual (COE, 1987). Dominants are determined using the 50/20 rule. To use this rule, percent cover is added by order of descending cover until 50% cover is reached. These species are considered dominants. The next most common species is also included as a dominant ' if it has over 20% cover. Species with less than 5% cover are not considered dominant species. ' Hydrophytic vegetation has adaptations that allow these species to survive in saturated or inundated environments. These environments are classified according to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979). The probability of ' species being found in wetland environments has been determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (U.S. FWS, 1996) (see Table 1). An indicator status was applied to each species according to its ' probability of occurring in wetlands. Table 1: Plant Indicator Status ' Indicator Categ� Symbol Occurrence in Wetlands Obligate Wetland OBL > 99% Facultative Wetland FACW 67-99% ' Facultative FAC 34-67% Facultative Upland FACU 1-33% Upland UPL > 1% ' Note: FACW, FAC and FACU have+and-values to represent species near the wetter end of the spectrum(+)and the drier end of the spectrum (-). (National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary, Reed 1988) 5.2 Vegetation Results A small area of lawn and ornamental landscaping is present around the residence. The remainder ' of the property is deciduous forest dominated by red alder and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with a dense understory of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus). The drainage feature is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and lady fern ' (Athyrium filix femina), with areas of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). At sample location 1 (SL-1), an upland, deciduous-forested plant community is present. Dominant ' species are big-leaf maple, Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), Himalayan blackberry and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Dominant species at SL-1 are 25% FAC and 75% FACU. An upland plant community is present because less than 50% of dominant species are FAC, FACU ' and OBL. ' At SL-2, a Palustrine scrub/shrub plant community is present. Vegetation is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, lady fern, giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia) and reed canarygrass. Dominant species at SL-2 are 75% FAC and FACW and 25% FACU. A hydrophytic plant ' community is present because over 50% of dominant species are FAC, FACU and OBL. ' 3 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. ' At SL-3. an upland. deciduous-forested plant community is present. Vegetation is dominated by red alder and Himalayan blackberry. Other dominants within 100 feet of SL-3 in the same ' vegetation community include big-leaf maple and western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla), two FACU species. Dominant species at SL-3 are 50% FAC and 50% FACU. To be considered hydrophytic, over 50% of the dominant species must be FAC, FACW or OBL. At SL-4 land, deciduous-forested plant community is present. Vegetation is dominated by an upland, big-leaf maple, western hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), Himalayan blackberry and bracken fern ' (Pteridium aquilinum). Dominant species at SL-4 are 100% FACU. An upland plant community is present because less than 50% of the dominant species are FAC, FACW or OBL. At SL-5, a Palustrine emergent plant community is present. SL-5 is located in a plant community. Vegetation is dominated by bluegrass (Poa sp.), large-leaf avens (Geum macrophyllum) and giant horsetail. Dominant species at SL-7 are 100% FAC, FACW and FACW-. A hydrophytic plant community is present because over 50% of dominant species are FAC, FACU and OBL. ' At SL-6, an upland. deciduous-forested plant community is present. Dominant species are big-leaf maple and Himalayan blackberry. Dominant species at sample location 6 are 100% FACU. An upland plant community is present because less than 50% of the dominant species are FAC, FACW or OBL. 4 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Table 2: Plant Species Found On-Site and at Sample Locations Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Sample Location(s) Status 1 2 3 4 5 6 Trees. Acer macrophyllum big-leaf maple FACU x x x x Alnus rubra red alder FAC x Tsuga heterophylla western hemlock FACU x Shrubs: ,. Corylus cornuta western hazelnut FACU x Salix lasiandra Scouler willow FAC x Woody Nimes .: Rubus procerus Himalayan FACU x x x x x blackberry ._.. .. ' Herbs: Athyrium ftlix femina lady fern FAC x Equisetum telmateia giant horsetail FACW x x Geum macrophyllum large-leaf avens FACW- x Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass FACW x Poa sp. bluegrass FAC x ' Polystichum munitum sword fern FACU x Pteridium aquilinium bracken fern FACU x t 1 t 5 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 6.0 Soils 6.1 Soils Methodology Hydric soils are soils that are "saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part" (NTCHS, 1987). They are either organic soils (peats and mucks), or are mineral soils that are saturated long enough to produce soil properties associated with a reducing environment. These soils have low chroma, and have redoximorphic characteristics (characteristics related to an anaerobic environment) such as redox concentrations (mottles), redox depletions (gleying), or a reduced matrix (a matrix that changes color when exposed to air). ' 6.2 Soils Results USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) mapped on-site soils as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgQ (Snyder, 1973). The site visit confirmed Soil Conservation Service mapping. In a representative profile for Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, "the surface layer and subsoil are very dark brown, dark brown, and grayish-brown gravelly sandy loam about 27 inches thick. The substratum is olive-gray silty clay loam. It extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. The substratum is grayish-brown, weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated glacial till that extends to a depth of 27 inches or more" (Snyder, 1973). An inclusion of Norma sandy loam is present in the drainage feature. This inclusion was not identified by the SCS. In a representative profile for Norma sandy loam "the surface layer is black sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is dark grayish-brown and dark-gray sandy loam and extends to a depth of 60 inches or more" (Snyder, 1973). The soil at SL-1 is non-hydric. From 0 to 18 inches, the "A" horizon is brown (IOYR 4/3) ' gravelly sandy loam. The soil is non-hydric because it has a high chroma matrix and lacks mottles at ten inches. The soil at SL-2 is hydric. From 0 to 18 inches, the "A" horizon is black (1 OYR 2/1) silt loam. The soil is hydric because it has a one chroma matrix at ten inches. fThe soil at SL-3 is non-hydric. From 0 to 8 inches, the "A" horizon is brown (IOYR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam. From 8 to 18 inches, the "B" horizon is 10YR 4/4 gravelly sandy loam. The soils is ' non-hydric because it has a high chroma matrix and lacks mottles at ten inches. The soil at SL-4 is non-hydric. From 0 to 3 inches, the "A" horizon is very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) gravelly sandy loam. From 3 to 18 inches, the "B" horizon is very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) gravelly sandy loam. The soils is non-hydric because it has a high chroma matrix and lacks mottles at ten inches. The soil at SL-5 is hydric. From 0 to 20 inches, the "A" horizon is black (10YR 2/1) gravelly sandy loam. Below 20 inches, the"B" horizon is dark brown (IOYR 3/3) with many yellowish red (5YR 5/6 mottles). The soil at SL-5 is hydric because it has a one chroma matrix at ten inches. 6 All �, ' _ / r � ' ��a ••fir. � .'we�� •yZJ,t �r: exv " - fib �• �r . �'" j. � � • ' J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. The soil at SL-6 is non-hydric. From 0 to 2 inches, the "A" horizon is very dark grayish brown ' 0OYR 3/2) gravelly sandy loam. From 2 to 18 inches, the "B" horizon is dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) gravelly sandv loam with common, distinct, yellowish red (5YR 5/6) mottles. The soil at SL-6 is non-hydric because it has a high chroma matrix at ten inches. 7.0 Hydrology 7.1 Hydrology Methodology The 1987 manual requires inundation, flooding, or saturation to the surface for at least 5% to 12.5% of the growing season to satisfy the hydrology requirements for jurisdictional wetlands (COE, 1987). In Western Washington, wetland hydrology is typically present between the months of December and May. The growing season can either be defined by the number of frost-free days (temperatures above 28(F), or the period during which the soil temperature at a depth of 19.7 ' inches is above biological zero (41(F). The growing season is all but a few weeks of the year. The delineation took place August 15th, during a week of heavy precipitation. At each sample location, wetland hydrology indicators such as inundation, saturation, water marks, and drainage patterns in wetlands were assessed in a twenty-inch soil pit. 7.2 Hydrology Results Wetland hydrology is associated with the drainage feature located near the east property line. Hydrology comes from rainfall, surface flow, seeps and the upstream portion of the drainage feature. A surface water flow 2 inches deep was present in the drainage feature at the time of the site visit. ' At SLA, SL-3, SL-4 and SL-6, wetland hydrology was not present at the time of the site visit. Wetland hydrology indicators including water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits or drainage patterns in wetlands were not present at these sample locations. At SL-2 and SL-5, the wetland hydrology criteria was positive because the soil was saturated to the surface. A defined stream channel was present in the drainage feature at both sample locations. 8.0 Wetland Determination ' 8.1 Uplands SLA. SL-3, SL-4 and SL-6 are upland sample locations. Upland vegetation is dominant. Soils are high chroma and lack redox features. Wetland hydrology indicators were not present. 8.2 Wetlands The on-bite wetland is 8470 square feet. The wetland is associated with the drainage feature ' located along the east property boundary. The wetland extends off-site to the north and south. On-site wetlands were not identified in the City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory(Renton, 1991) ' or the King County Wetland Inventory (King County, 1990). The on-site wetland was delineated on the basis of the presence of Norma soils and a hydrophytic vegetation community. Wetland hydrology was observed in the bottom of the drainage feature. 8 ' J. S. Jones and.-Associates, Inc. Wetland hydrology was not present throughout the entire area of both Norma soils and ' hydrophytic vegetation because the delineation took place during the summer dry season. Himalayan blackberry. a FACU is a dominant in both uplands and wetlands on-site. Himalayan ' blackberry is commonly found in wetlands as well as uplands in Western Washington and was not considered in determining the wetland boundary. SL-2 and SL-5 are located in the drainage feature along the east property boundary. Vegetation at both SL-2 and SL-5 is hydrophytic. Soils are one chroma at ten inches and soils were saturated to the surface. 9.0 Wetland and Stream Rating and Buffer Requirement The wetland in the drainage feature is over one acre in size. According to Chapter 32 of the ' wetlands greater than 2,200 square feet are Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are required to have a 50-foot buffer. ' 10.0 Functional Assessment Wetlands have three primary functions. Wetlands improve water quality, as soils and leafy emergents act to filter and bind water borne pollutants. Wetlands provide important water-holding and flood storage functions, by slowly releasing storm runoff to rivers, reducing the extent of flooding downstream. Wetlands provide important wildlife habitat for a large number of invertebrate, plant and animal species. Benefits to nearby human residents include buffering from surrounding development and opportunities for enjoying native wildlife and vegetation. On-site wetlands are in the upper third of the watershed. Hydrology comes from hillside seeps, ' rainfall and sheet flow from the surrounding uplands. Water quality improvement is high. Vegetation cover is over 90% and flow-through is moderate. Water holding and storm water functions are moderate due to the unconstrained outlet and the size of the wetland. Wetland and ' wetland buffer functions were assessed using the Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi- quantitative Performance Assessment (Cooke, 1995). Flood and stormwater functions are moderate. The wetland is associated with a tributary of May Creek, the wetland, includind off-site area, is 5 to 10 acres and is located in the upper 1/3rd of the drainage. Base flow and groundwater support is moderate because of the wetlands size, position in the watershed, seasonal flooding and low-flow sensitive fish populations downstream. Erosion and shoreline protection is moderate because of the dense vegetation along the ordinary high water mark and moderate development upstream. Water quality improvement is moderate because of the size of the wetland, high vegetation cover and moderately developed upstream basin. the on-site wetland provides moderate biological support because of its' size, variety of habitat types, high invasive species, seasonal surface water, moderate organic export and connection to upland habitats. Overall habitat functions are moderate because the wetland size, moderate habitat ' diversity and moderate function as sanctuary or refuge from surrounding development. Specific habitat functions are moderate for invertebrates, amphibians, mammals and birds and low for fish. Cultural and socioeconomic functions are low. The wetland is privately owned and therefore lacks 9 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. ' educational and passive and active recreational opportunities. Aesthetic value is low because views of the wetland are blocked by Himalayan blackberry. The presence of historical or archaeological resources is not known. ' 11.0 Authority This determination is in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the objective of which is to "maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States" (COE, 1987). Wetlands are "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3). 7 12.0 Limitations Wetlands are subject to seasonal and annual variation. Wetland determinations and delineations are not final until approved by regulatory agencies and/or local jurisdictions. 10 J. S. Jones and,associates, Inc. 13.0 References COE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 11anual, Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksberg, Mississippi. ' Cowardin, Lewis M. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jamestown, North Dakota. Federal Register. 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. Vol. 45, No. 249, 85352-85353. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Federal Register. 1982. Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p 31810. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. King County. 1991. King Counry Wetlands Inventory. King County Environmental Division. Bellevue. Washington. King County. 1996. Zoning Code Title 21A. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. Renton, Washington. MacBeth Division. 1990. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. Baltimore. Maryland. Reed, Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg, Florida. Renton. 1992. Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton. Renton, Washington Snyder. Dale E., Phillip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. USDA, SCS. Washington, D.C. 1 11 J. S.Jones and Associates, Inc. r Attachments 12 ' J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: 1 A.) A"'e C, Date: Applicant/Owner: 5 County: l j±!!g Investigator: ^Z,4 State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation) Yes t:0 Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? Yes C Plot ID: Explain: Sample Loc.: Wetl./Upl: ' VEGETATION Dominant Indicator Percent Basal Dominant Indicator Percent Stem Tree Species tat v r Area Woody Vines StatusCover Count 1 /-�}CU _ � 9. �6 2. 10. 3. 11. q. 12. Dominant Indicator Percent Stem Dominant Indicator Percent ShrubStatusCover Coutit Herb Speciea Status Cove 5�i , 13. o 6. 14. 7. 15. g, 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: ��y (Excluding FAC-) 2— /v Basis for Decision: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Primary Indicators: _Stream, Lake or Tide Guage _Inundated _Aerial Photographs _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Other —Water marks -t_,-<o Recorded Data Available: Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits ' Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels(upper 12") _ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit (in.) = Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks) Basis for Decision: e�l / J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. SOILS Map Unit Name / Drainage Class: (Series and Phase): L Do Field Observations ' Taxonomy(Subgroup): .� Confirm Mapped Type? No ' pofile Description: Texture, Structure Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle (Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Abundance/contrast retions- etc, S Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Concretions Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface layer _ Histic Epipedon in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ' = Aquic Moisture Regime — Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ 2 Chroma with Mottling Basis for Decision: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes N Is the Sampling Point in a Wetland? Yes <E6:7 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: * This data form is a combination of the original and amended 1987 Routine Wetland Determination data forms. i 1 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: G-. Date: Z Applicant/Owner: County: Investigator: State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation) Yes 0 Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? Yes Plot ID: Explain: Sample Loc.: Z ' Wetl./Upl: ' VEGETATION Dominant Indicator Percent Basal Dominant Indicator Percent Stein Tree Species Status v r Area Woody viqe5 taus t " ' Cove Coun W t 2. 10. 3. I I. q. 12. Dominant Indicator Percent Stem Dominant Indicator Percent Shrub Species Status Cover Coun Jerb Specie5Status Cove� 5. 13 Z 6. I 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: D (Excluding FAC-) ' Basis for Decision: HYDROLOGY Wetland IJ tvcrology Indicators: Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Primary Indicators: Stream, Lake or Tide Guage Inundated _Aerial Photographs _maturated in Upper Q Inches _Other _Water marks _No Recorded Data Available: _ Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Field Observations: �ainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels(upper 12") _ Water-Stained Leaves ' Dept (in.)Free Water in Pit ��(in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data L N`AC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks) Basis for Decision: J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: �i (Series and Phase): AMA- Do Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): - ✓ Confirm Mapped Type? Ye Pofile Description: Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Structure Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/contrast Concretions. etc, ' Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Concretions _ Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface layer _ Histic Epipedon in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ' —Reducing Conditions = Listed on National Hydric Soils List `::'Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain in Remarks) _ 2 Chroma with Mottling Basis for Decision: ep �2 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Is the Sampling Point in a Wetland? No Wetland Hydrology Present? No ' Hydric Soils Present? No Remarks: * This data form is a combination of the original and amended 1987 Routine Wetland Determination data forms. J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. ' Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ' Project/Site: Z Date: ApplicandOwner County: Investigator: State: ' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation) Yes Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? Yes �I / Plot ID: Explain: Sample Loc.: Wetl./Upl: ' VEGETATION Dominant Indicator Percent Basal Dominant Indicator Percent Stem Tree Svecie Cover Area' Woody 'Vines / Status Coverunt Co I. �l b 9.�t�p� � LJ 2. to. 3. I I. ' 4. 12. Dominant Indicator Percent Stem Dominant Indicator Percent Shrub Species Status Cover Count Herb Species Status Cover ' 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. ' g. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (Excluding FAC-) Basis for Decision: o� ��/�� � ��j/y �•--�� %�f ����j��3 ' HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Primary Indicators: _Stream, Lake or Tide Guage _Inundated _Aerial Photographs _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches , � _Other _Water marks Y0VO Recorded Data Available: _ Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels(upper 12") _ Water-Stained Leaves ' Depth to Free Water in Pit (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Basis for Decision: J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. ' SOILS Map Unit Name / Drainage Class: (Series and Phase): Do Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? e No Pofile Description: Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture,' Structure(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/contrast Concretion n ' SL Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Concretions _ Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface layer Histic Epipedon in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions — Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain in Remarks) _ 2 Chroma with Mottling ' Basis for Decision: I <<Alioz� dt WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is the Sampling Point in a Wetland? Yes o Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �T Hydric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: * This data form is a combination of the original and amended 1987 Routine Wetland Determination data forms. J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ' Project/Site: /z /N — Date: Z� Applicant/Owner: XAC�_" County: Investigator:Investigator: State: ' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? a No Community [D: Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation) Yes (fp Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? Yes <fTo Plot ID: ' Explain: Sample Loc.: G— Wetl./Upl: VEGETATION Dominant Indicator Percent Basal Dominant Indicator Percent Stem Tree Species t o y r Area Woud ViijesStatusCover Count 9. A4 J v Fo 2. 10. 3. ' q, 12. Dominant Indicator Percent Stem Dominant Indicator Percent ShrubShrub Species Status Cover Coun lierb SpeciesStatus Cover 5. /�,��[ _ 3 d 13. �- 6?"'�'y" 14. 7. 15. g, 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (Excluding FAC-) Basis for Decision:�x!/I lU 7 "c , HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Primary Indicators: _Stream, Lake or Tide Guage _Inundated —Aerial Photographs _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Other =Water marks (,- No Recorded Data Available: Drift Lines _ Sediment Deposits ' Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels(upper 12") _ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks) ' Basis for Decision: /P✓Jt 4-�5 ' J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. ' SOILS 06 Map Unit Name /' Drainage Class: (Series and Phase): Z11ej YC� Do Field Observations ' Taxonomy(Subgroup) Confirm Mapped Type? 6 Pofile Description: Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Structure ' (Inches) I (Munsell Moist) Abundance/contrast Concretions. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Concretions Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface layer ' = Histic Epipedon in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ 2 Chroma with Mottling ' Basis for Decision: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is the Sampling Point in a Wetland? Yes o Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: * This data form is a combination of the original and amended 1987 Routine Wetland Determination data forms. J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. ' Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ' Project/Sit • .v uC Date: I Applicant/Owner: County:' -��Investigator: / State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? A6P No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation) es 11 Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? Yes Plot ID: ' Explain: Sample Loc.: Wetl./Upl: ' VEGETATION Dominant Indicator Percent Basal Dominant Indicator Percent Stem 1 Tree Species Status Cover Area Woody Vines Status Cover Count l. 9. 2. 10. 3_ 11. 4. 12. Dominant Indicator Percent Stem Dominant Indicator Percent Shrub S ecies Status Cover Count Herb Series — Status Cover g. -�— 13. 6. _14. 7, g, 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: _ (Excluding FAC-) J D ' Basis for Decision: ' v HYDROLOGY — Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Primary Indicators: _Stream, Lake or Tide Guage _Inundated _Aerial Photographs _-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _Other _Water marks k--No Recorded Data Available: _ Drift Lines — Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _✓ISrainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water (in.) 12") — Oxidized Root Channels(upper ' Water-Stained — Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit _ (in.) Local Soil Survey Data ;;'FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) — Other (Explain in Remarks) Basis for Decision: �/f tA2 t l ' J. S. Jones and Associates. Inc. SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: ' (Series and Phase): - Do Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type. Y o Pofile Description: ' Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Structure Inches Horizon unsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/contrast Concretion etc. '2 yt �3- v Z 3 z G ESL Hydric Soil Indicators: — Concretions — Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface layer _ Histic Epipedon in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor — Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils — Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List -tleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ 2 Chroma with Mottling Basis for Decision: 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Is the Sampling Point in a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? No Hydric Soils Present? No Remarks: * This data form is a combination of the ongmai and amended 1987 Routine Wetland Determination data forms. J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. ' Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ' Project/Site: 3 17— Date: G/Z Applicant/Own�4 County: ' Investigator: State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation) Yes Transect ID: ' Is the area a potential problem area? Yes Plot ID: Explain: Sample Loc.: Wetl./Upl: o VEGETATION Dominant Indicator Basal Dominant Indicator Stem ' Tree Species Status Area Woodv Vines Status Count 2. 10. 3_ 11. 4. 12. Dominant Indicator Percent Stem Dominant Indicator Percent ' Shrub Species Status Cover Count Herb Species Status Cover 5. 13. 6. 14. ?_ 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: ' (Excluding FAC-) Basis for Decision: HYDROLOGY ' Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Primary Indicators: _Stream, Lake or Tide Guage _Inundated Aerial Photographs _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _Other _Water marks _-No Recorded Data Available: _ Drift Lines ' — Sediment Deposits Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators(2 or more required): Depth to Surface Water (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels(upper 12") _ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Basis for Decision: J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. ' SOILS Map Unit Name n(� J /� L Drainage Class: (Series and Phase): k / ���Yh7.t r J -� Do Field Observations ' Taxonomy(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Ye No Pofile Description: Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Structure ' Inche Horizon Munsell M ist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/contrast Concretions,etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Concretions _ Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface layer Histic Epipedon in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions — Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain in Remarks) _ 2 Chroma with Mottling Basis for Decision: (,+ (j)�dh��u��'�u l - 11 r WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is the Sampling Point in a Wetland? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ' Hydric Soils Present? Yes Remarks: * This data forth is a combination of the original and amended 1987 Routine Wetland Determination data forms. ! Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment ! Wetland # 3712 Lincoln Ave. N.E. Staff Repath Date 9/25/98 Location S T R ! Criteria Function Group 1 1 Pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Natural _ size<5 acres 2L size 5-10 acres _size>10 acres Biological _ ag land,low veg structure 2L 2 level veg _high veg structure ! Support X seasonal surface water _ permanent surface water _open water pools through summer _one habitat type 2L two habitat types _>_3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST _ low plant diversity(<6 species) 2i moderate plant diversity(7-15 _high plant diversity(>15 species) ! Pointsl — species) (max 36) >50%invasive species X_10-50%invasive species — <l0%invasive species _low primary productivity X_moderate primary productivity _ high primary productivity _ low organic accumulation _ moderate organic accumulation high organic accumulation = low organic export 2L moderate organic export — high organic export few habitat features 2L some habitat features many habitat features _buffers very disturbed 2L buffers slightly disturbed _buffers not disturbed _ isolated from upland habitats _ partially connected to upland 2i well connected to upland habitats — X_ —habitats Overall Habitat size<5 acres size 5-I0 acres size> 10 acres Functions _low habitat diversity 2L moderate habitat diversity _high habitat diversity Points I _low sanctuary or refuge 2C moderate sanctuary or refuge _ high sanctuary or refuge ' (max 9)Specific — Low Invertebrate Habitat 2L moderate invertebrate habitat _high invertebrate habitat Habitat _low amphibian habitat 2L moderate amphibian habitat _high amphibian habitat ! Functions 2i low fish habitat _ moderate fish habitat —high fish habitat= low mammal habitat 2L moderate mammal habitat _high mammal habitat Points 2 low bird habitat X_ moderate bird habitat _high bird habitat (max 15) CulturaU 2C low educational opportunities _ moderate educational opportunities _ high educational opportunities SOCioeconimic 2L low aesthetic value! _ moderate aesthetic value _high aesthetic value Points X-lacks commercial fisheries. _ moderate commercial fisheries _ high commercial fisheries (max 21) agriculture,renewable resources agriculture,renewable resources agriculture,renewable resources 2L lacks historical or archeological _ moderate historical or _ important historical or resources archeological site archeological site ! 2L lacks passive and active _some passive and active recreational _ many passive and active recreational opportunities opportunities recreational opportunities 2_privately owned _ privately owned,some public _ unrestricted public access access 2L not near open space _ some connection to open space _directly connected to open space Notes: ! ! Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment ' Wetland# 3712 Lincoln Ave. N.E. Staff Repath Date 9/25/98 Location S T R ' Criteria Function Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ _size<5 acres 2t size 5-10 acres _size>10 acres ' Storm Water = riverine or lakeshore wetland 2L mid-sloped wetland —depressions,headwaters,bogs,flats < 10%forested cover 2C 10-30%forested cover >30%forested cover Control 2( unconstrained outlet _ semi-constrained outlet _ culvert/bermed outlet _ located in lower 1/3rd of the _ located in middle 1/3'd of the 2L located in upper 1/3'd of drainage drainage drainage Points IQ (max 15) Base Flow/ 2i size<5 acres _ size 5-10 acres —size> 10 acres ' Ground Water _ riverine or lakeshore wetland 2L mid-sloped wetland _depressions,headwaters,bogs,flats _ located in lower 1/3 d of the _ located in middle 1/3 of 2t located in upper 1/3 d of drainage Support drainage drainage _ temporally flooded or saturated 2L seasonally or semi-permanently _permanently flooded or saturated.or ' — flooded or saturated intermittently exposed no flow-sensitive fish populations 2i low flow-sensitive fish high flow-sensitive populations Points 1Q on-site or downstream populations on-site or downstream contiguous with site in highly permeable (Max 15) strata ' Erosion/ _Sparse grass/herbs or no veg along _ moderate wood or veg along 2t dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM OHWM Protection 2C wetland extends <30 m from _ wetland extends 30-60 m from — wetland extends>200 m from OHWM OHWM OHWM ' _ highly developed shoreline or 2L moderately developed _undeveloped shoreline or Points subcatchment shoreline or subcatchment subcatchment (Max 9) Water Quality 2i rapid flow through site _ moderate flow through site _ slow flow through site ' Improvement — <50%veg cover _ 50-80%cover 2L>80%veg cover Points Z _ upstream in basin from wetland is 2L 5 50%of basin upstream from _ >50%of basin upstream from wetland (max 12) undeveloped wetland is developed developed 2t holds<25%overland runoff holds 25-50%overland runoff _holds>50%overland runoff N?A =Not Applicable, N/I =No Information Available Dominant Vegetation: Deciduous forest, Himalayan blackberry understory plant community. ' Wildlife: ' T.I.R. Section VIII: Basin & Community PlanninIz Areas ' The Marshall Short Plat Project does not lie within an Basin or proposed J Y ' Community Planning areas; therefore, this section does not apply. Refer to Figure 2 for a depiction of the Gypsy Sub-basin. 1 1 T.I.R. Section IX: Other Permits 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 1 ' T.I.R. Section X: Erosion/Sedimentation Control Design A T.E.S.C.P. is included with the project engineering plans. ' Proper erosion and sedimentation control must be implemented on this site to prevent erosion and excessive siltation of the downstream area. To this end, erosion control measures as specified in the 1990 KCSWDM have been specified. BMP's referred to in the plans include silt fences, catch basin protection, stabilized construction ' entrances, and a sediment trap. The wetland area and buffer will be delineated by a silt fence marked with brightly colored survey tape to protect the N.G.P.E. area. ' Refer to the temporary sediment pond calculations included herein. Sediment Trap Design ' Surface Area=FS (Q2/Vs) FS =2 Q2 = 0.44cfs Vs = 0.00096 fps Surface Area= 917 sf min. ' Depth=Use 3.5' min. Length= 66 ft ' Width=21 ft ' Use underground outlet pipe from a temporary cone riser. Outlet to CB #8. ' Spillway,Emergency Overflow, Orifice Calculations PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY: Q i o= 0.24 cfs (pre-developed) Qorifice= 3.72 x D^2 x H^(1/2) (Head=2') D =2.54" Use minimum 3"riser ' EMERGENCY OVERFLOW Qioo = 1.04 cfs (developed) ' L = Qloo/(3.21 x HA(3/2)) - (2.4 x HA2) (Hmin = 0.2') L = 1.04/.287 - 0.096 = 3.53' ' DEWATERING ORIFICE Ao =As x (2H)^.5 ' 0.6x3000xTg^.5 Ao = 0.0082 sq. ft. D =24 x (0.0082/3.14)^0.5 = 1.23" ' Vertical perforated tubing connected to dewatering orifice: Dv=2 +Do = 3.23" r T.I.R. Section XI: Bond Quantities Worksheet i A King County Bond Quantities Worksheet has been attached. Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet King County Department of Development & Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton,Washington 98055-1219 Project Name: M.N�-' tAN L_ 'Sy\yfz�T RA-T Date: Location: 4ofl 32- SIERRA Project No.: SIERRA Activity No.: Note: All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead and Clearing greater than or equal to 5000 board feet of timber? profit. Prices are from PIS Means data adjusted for the Seattle area / or from local sources if not included in the IRS Means database. ✓yes no If yes, Forest Practice Permit Number:_ (RCW 76.09) Page 1 of 9 Unit prices updated 12/97 S:PUBLIC\LUSD\LUIS\REF8D SITE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET Revision date: 8/22/98 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet n .... f3eernCe Prtc ... Unit...: gelantif .... ......A hca�lons.:.. .Coat: ....; ER I / MMEN ONT OL Backf ill & compaction-embankment $ 4.89 CY Check dams, 4" minus rock SWDM 5.4.6.3 $ 58.70 Each Crushed surfacing 1 1/4" minus WSDOT 9-03.9 3 $ 74.30 CY Ditching $ 7.03 CY Excavation-bulk $ 1.30 CY Fence, silt SWDM 5.4.3.1 $ 1.20 LF Fence, Temporary (NGPE) $ 1.20 LF Hydroseeding SWDM 5.4.2.4 $ 0.51 SY Jute Mesh SWDM 5.4.2.2 $ 1.26 SY Mulch, by hand, straw, 3" deep SWDM 5.4.2.1 $ 1.75 SY Mulch, by machine, straw, 2" deep SWDM 5.4.2.1 $ 0.46 SY Piping, temporary, CPP, 6" $ 9.30 LF Piping, temporary, CPP, 8" $ 14.00 LF Piping, tern orary, CPP, 12" $ 18.00 LF Plastic cov6rin , 6mm thick, sandbagged SWDM 5.4.2.3 $ 2.00 SY Rip Rap, machine laced; slopes WSDOT 9-13.1(2) $ 33.98 CY Rock Construction Entrance, 50'x15'xi' SWDM 5.4.4.1 $ 1,273.34 Each Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1' SWDM 5.4.4.1 $ 2,546.68 Each Sediment pond riser assembly SWDM 5.4.5.2 $ 1,695.11 Each / Sediment trap, 5' high bean SWDM 5.4.5.1 $ 15.57 LF Sed.trap,5'high,riprapped spillway berm section SWDM 5.4.5.1 $ 59.60 LF D Seeding, by hand SWDM 5.4.2.4 $ 0.44 SY Sodding, 1" deep, level ground SWDM 5.4.2.5 $ 5.24 SY Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground SWDM 5.4.2.5 $ 6.48 SY TESC Supervisor $ 65.00 HR Water truck, dust control SWDM 5.4.7 $ 85.00 HR Each ESC SUBTOTAL: $ (j COLUMN: A Page 2 of 9 Unit prices updated 12/97 S:PUBLIC\LUSD\LUIS\REF8D SITE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET Revision date: 8/22/98 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet .::. .. ::>: i rtd.tectr�canr:.......................... zcitrt n future f'ublla::. I'rlymte Rt Bt a[W. > Ihaa <thi rav�rrients aiii avement ;;;::;;;.:<:.<;>:::::;::;;:;::.>;;>: :.::..:.;.:... ..:;::..::p .:.:..:. �,aJri�Inpgcilltiea:: ;:truant Urnt pace;>:_: _uf11t.:, _:Glaant.. . :host. tUaiit . ..:.:........Gnr<t:........' Cvst:.: GENFtA[.:ITEMS;;. Backfill&Compaction-embankment $ 4.89 CY Backfill&Compaction-trench $ 7.42 CY Clear/Rernove Brush,by hand $ 0.31 SY Clearing/Grubbing/Tree Removal $ 7,718.40 Acre Excavation-bulk $ 1.30 CY Excavation-Trench $ 3.53 CY Fencing,cedar,6 hi h $ 16.13 LF Fencing,chain link,vinyl coated, 6'hi h $ 11.69 LF Fencing,chain link,gate,vinyl coated, 20' $ 1,105.92 Each Fencing,split rail,S hl h $ 10.54 LF Fill&compact-common barrow $ 19.63 CY Fill&compact ravel base $ 22.16 CY Fill&compact-screened topsoil $ 32.91 CY Gabion, 12'deep,stone filled mesh $ 47.23 SY Gabion, 18'deep,stone filled mesh $ 65.09 SY Gabion,36'deep,stone filled mesh $ 115.20 SY Grading,fine,by hand $ 1.76 SY Grading,fine,with grader $ 0.83 SY Monuments,S Ion $ 117.50 Each Sensitive Areas Sign $ 2.50 Each Sodding, 1'deep,sloped ground $ 6.49 SY Surveying,line&grade $ 685.44 Da Surveying,lot Iocation4ines $ 1,353,60 Acre Traffic control crew 2 fla ers $ 74.07 FIR Trail,4'chipped wood $ 6.60 SY Trail,4'crushed cinder $ 7.24 SY Trail,4'top course $ 7.12 SY Wall,retaining,concrete $ 38.40 SF Wall,rockery $ 8.25 SF Page 3 of 9 SUBTOTALS "KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Unit prices updated 12/97 S:PUBLIC\LUSD\t_UIS\REFBD SITE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET Revision date: 8/22/98 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet .........X.�N..-. L.... .............. ,.. ..................................... ............................................................. .... ..........................................I.............................................".. .....-........ ............. ...............................- ............ ...... ... x.. ........ ...... ....... . ............... .. ............ .. ......... ...X............ral ......................-. ..................D.... ....... RI ht .40 n MPMve on 11w .. . ......... moist .. . . 01 . ... ..... ............. ......... - ............ ...... ROAD I M P R 0 V E M .... ............. ... ..... . ...... AC Grinding,4'wide machine<1000sy 20+00 SY AC Grinding,4'wide machine 1000-2000sy 5.00 SY AC Grinding,4'wide machine>2000sy $ 1.20 SY AC Removal/Dispo sal/Re pair $ 35.77 SY Barricade,type 1 $ 26.11 LF Barricade,type III(Permanent $ 39.17 LF Curb&Gutter,rolled $ 11.54 LF Curb&Gutter,vertical $ 8.43 LF Curb and Gutter,demolition and disposal $ 11.81 LF Curb,extruded asphalt $ 2.12 LF Curb,extruded concrete $ 2.23 LF SaWCLJt,asphalt,3'depth $ 1.61 LF Sawcut,concrete,per V depth $ 1.47 LF Sealant,asphalt $ 0.86 LF Shoulder,AC, (see AC road unit price $ SY Shoulder,gravel,4'thick $ 6.55 SY Sidewalk,4'thick $ 26.54 SY I 2-S f-E,24-7 2) Sidewalk,4*thick,demolition and disposal $ 24.11 SY Sidewalk,5'thick $ 30.38 SY Sidewalk,5'thick,demolition and disposal $ 30.13 SY Sign,handicap $ 74.16 Each Striping,per stall $ 5,06 Each Striping,thermoplastic,(for crosswalk) $ 2.07 SF ,Striping,4'reflectorized line $ 0.22 LF Page 4 of 9 SUBTOTAL *KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Unit prices updated 12/97 S:PUBLIC\LUSD\LUIS\REF8D SITE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET Revision date: 8/22/98 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet :.::...:.......:...:::.:::.f?icixate.:.:.:::. find t edfrpOR.,;::..::,... lsttn ;...:......... utura.#ubltc. ::..:.:::.: g t�lgnlr of way I�u�id t men a::: Irnpr+av Men. .... I�;ratna a �alllttes E Qpant t nst ;;.. .cuan< Gvyi:>. ...... :Gn[n 1;3Ie` .. dust.:;:. U..rs1s;. ;:;c�uant ' ..:.:..:...Cn i... ::::: ':quart... ..... . �:._. ..:.:.:... ...... ..... . ........ ..........:......... ...... _. ....... �; �: 6:..to aura...:< C.J3>KGR�a :f3 ra. Hxk :6.:ba5..... .G.aa c©utse . ::::.:::.:...:.::::.:::::::,.::.:::.,..:...:. :.:,.:.::::::.::::, WOAD 5tlEtFAC1NC�1.:....�� . K .2,�bad i .;;.: p::. 1..::: : .:..::. (....:.::..:..::...:......:. p .... , .:......::;::::<....,::::>:>:;:>::::::: For KCRS'93,(additional 2.5'base)add: $ 3.13 SY AC Overlay, 1.5'AC $ 6.43 SY AC Overlay,2'AC $ 7.61 SY AC Road,2%4'rock, First 2500 SY $ 14.99 SY AC Road,2',4'rock,Qty.over 2500SY $ 11.62 SY AC Road,3",4'rock,First 2500 SY $ 17.12 SY AC Road,3%4'rock,Qty.over 2500 SY $ 13.75 SY AC Road,5',First 2500 SY $ 12.67 SY AC Road,5",City.Over 2500 SY $ 12.12 SY AC Road,6',First 2500 SY $ 14.57 SY ��, AC Road,6',Qty.Over 2500 SY $ 14.02 SY Asphalt Treated Base,4'thick $ 8.01 SY Gravel Road,4'rock,First 2500 SY $ 9.92 SY Gravel Road,4'rock,Qty.over 2500 SY $ 6.55 SY PCC Road,5",no base,over 2500 SY $ 18.70 SY PCC Road, 6',no base,over 2500 SY $ 19.02 SY Thickened Edge $ 5.99 LF Page 5 of 9 SUBTOTAL 7o za a i 'KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Unit prices updated 12/97 S:PUBLIC\LUSD\LUIS\REF8D SITE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET Revision date: 8/22/98 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet cisttnutur�:publk;: »:>:::::::: ieona RedEt �op »>>s:: Flo u a f... :;:RI >frt-6i.Wa.:;.. . ...;�d Ctn r v�etriepE� Im ...:.... :;;;::<:.;::::::::.- &'Itirtnal a :::........ �"atn late :.. 'i�a9E... :: .., . tetl:F'lastlG: r a N12>ctt t" i ivalattf I z i cns:.:vmra a >c >is gss r Assn e a nr �ti P cas m� 1 es' 61 ,.1 a DRAINAGE. > t'P�corruga...::.: p... .... .....q_ .._. _.,.., �orGuv rf ra R..__ __.14usrw.. .....u.n ..... m. .rt._ t V g ski :..::.: Access Road,R/D $ 14.56 1 SY Bollards-fixed $ 209.34 Each Bollards-removable $ 393.34 Each "(CBs include frame and lid) CB Type 1 $ 1,093.60 Each Z 20 CB Type IL $ 1,246,60 Each CB Type 11,48"diameter $ 1,768.32 Each 2 for additional depth over 4' $ 379.58 FT CB Type II,54"diameter $ 1,906.56 Each for additional depth over 4' $ 423.07 FT CB Type II,60"diameter $ 2,044.80 Each for additional depth over 4' $ 466.56 FT CB Type It,72'diameter $ 2,793.60 Each for additional depth over 4' $ 601.92 FT Through-curb Intel Framework(Add) $ 318.34 Each Cleanout,PVC,4" $ 113.52 Each Cleanout,PVC,6" $ 152.09 Each Cleanout,PVC,8' $ 194.95 Each Culvert,PVC,4' $ 7.51 LF Culvert,PVC,6" $ 10.96 LF Culvert,PVC, 8' $ 11.59 LF Culvert,PVC, 12' $ 18.93 LF Culvert,CMP,8" $ 15.00 LF Culvert,CMP, 12' $ 23.00 LF Culvert,CMP, 15' $ 28.46 LF Culvert,CMP, 18' $ 32.82 LF Culvert,CMP,24" $ 46,37 LF Culvert,CMP,30" $ 62.13 LF Culvert,CMP,36' $ 97.49 LF Culvert,CMP,48" $ 122.46 LF Culvert,CMP,60" $ 204.74 LF Culvert,CMP,72' $ 263.11 LF Page 6 of 9 SUBTOTAL 'KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Unit prices updated 12/97 S:PUBLIC\LUSD\LUIS\REF8D SITE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET Revision date: 8/22/98 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet . ............................. . ....... ..................................o................ ... ................ �U Oro' . ................. ..........:B.6h4� .......... ................. .'0 R006.061P.............. ...... ..... ....... ..... . ....... ................ X: ..... ............... ........ ........................................ ........ ................ ........ ....... ................................. .......... ..... ............................................... ....................................... .......... ..................... .......i.. ....... ................ ............Da P�t� :. ....:.... to ... ....................... Ili ............ .... . .... ................ ... .......... DRAINAGE . . .. . ........... ... Q0 0...., ... ............. .... ...................... . ..... Arit 0666t, . . J n_..M P 0.9: aUni r .. Culvert,Concrete,8' $ 18.28 LF Cutvert,Concrete, 12* $ 26.13 LF Culvert, Concrete, 15" $ 32.47 LF Cutvert, Concrete, 18' $ 38.70 LF Cutvert,Concrete,24* $ 53.10 LF Culvert,Concrete,30' $ 90.59 LF Culvert,Concrete,36" $ 119.68 LF Cutvert,Concrete,42" $ 137.76 LF Culvert,Concrete,48" $ 152.99 LF Culvert,CPP,6" $ 9.30 LF Culvert, CPP'8' $ 14.001 LF Culvert,CPP, 12' $ 18.00 LF Culvert,CPP, 15' $ 20.00 LF Culvert,CPP' 18' $ 24.00 LF Culvert,CPP,24" $ 32.00 LF Culvert, CPP,30' $ 42.00 LF Culvert, CPP,36' $ 48.00 LF Ditching $ 7.03 CY Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+) $ 22.60 LF French Drain (3'clepth) $ 19.65 LF Geotextile,laid in trench,polypropylene $ 2.09 SY Infiltration pond testing $ 65,00 FiR Mid-tank Access Riser,48"clia, 6'deep $ 1,396.00 Each Pond Overflow Spillway_ $ 12.18 SY Restrictor/011 Separator, 12" $ 908.86 Each Restrictor/Oil Separator, 15' $ 952,66 Each Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18' $ 996.66 Each Riprap,placed $ 33.98 CY Tank End Reducer(36*diameter) $ 870.00 Each Trash Rack, 12' $ 184.32 Each Trash Rack, 15" $ 206.32 Each Trash Rack, 18" $ 233.82 Each ,Trash Rack,21 $ 266.82 Each Page 7 of 9 SUBTOTAL *KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Unit prices updated,12/97 1 Ile OCCan CITC: BOND Q1 IANTITY WORKSHEET S:P U BLIC"LUSDINL \1 ReviSlor,date: 8/22/98 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Bastng ..... ptahleu 4U,FaiclullbttIeC�s!P .. .. .... Pr vatea vnd�tuducHar nw ; 4. . ...:wig ap & • Wit Price: Unit t�ui�nt, prlcg. .. t�uani. host Quent; Cost: ......: C�: C 2'AC,2'top course rock&4'borrow $ 13.77 SY 2'AC, 1.5' top course& 2.5'base course $ 14.99 SY 4'select borrow $ 3.96 SY 1.5'top course rock&2.5'base course $ 9.92 SY _T EA. EA. SUBTOTAL �1 SUBTOTAL(SUM ALL PAGES): I 2�542, 00 282.64 30%CONTINGENCY&MOBILIZATION: ,3 0762,6-0 L`70q?9 GRANDTOTAL: 1� , (Zo 6-25� 41617, 43 COLUMN: B C D E Page 8 of 9 'KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Unit prices updated 12/97 S:PUBLIC\LUSD\LUIS\REF8D SITE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET Revision date: 8/22/98 M = = M M M MI M M Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Original bond computations prepared by: Name: �Uh�l-L�l, ,k�Q FC',tL Date: Q z&�- PE Registration Number: Tel.M: - 2— _ Firm Name: U / lAle Address: RI V!_-) Al WA 0 C-30?=a PUBLIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PERFORMANCE &DRAINAGE FACILITIES Column BOND'AMOUaNT MAINTENANCE/DEFECT Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control(ESC) (A) $ 3�� / BOND"AMOUNT Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (B) $ _�— Future Public Road Improvements&Drainage Facilities (C) $ 6-4 2, o- (B+C)X 0.25= $ Private Improvements (D) $ !q 7_f-39 ,(,o• (A+B+C+D) =TOTAL(T) $4 I g&s-s PERFORMANCE BOND AMOUNT Minimum bond amount Is$1000. SITE RESTORATION BOND (A) $ (First$7,500 of bond shall be cash.) RIGHT-OF-WAY BOND (B) $ TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY&SITE RESTORATION BOND"" (A+B) $ (First$7,500 of bond shall be cash.) PERFORMANCE BOND TOTAL AFTER BOND (T-E) REDUCTION— NAME OF PERSON PREPARING BOND REDUCTION: Date: *NOTE:The word'bond'is used to represent any financial guarantee acceptable to King County. "NOTE: KCC 27A authorizes bonds to be combined when both are required. ***NOTE:Per KCC 27A,total bond amounts remaining after reduction shall not be less than 30%of the original amount. Page 9 of 9 Unit prices updated 12/97 S:PUBLIC\LUSD\LUIS\REF8D SITE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET Revision date: 8/22/98 1 T.I.R. Section XII: Maintenance & Operations Manual Appurtenant sections of the Maintenance and Operations Manual are included herein. 1 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 3- CLOSED DETENTION SYSTEMS(PIPES/TANKS) ' Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed ' Storage Area Plugged Air Vents One-half of the cross section of a vent is blocked at Vents free of debris and any point with debris and sediment sediment Debris and Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 10%of the All sediment and debris ' Sediment diameter of the storage area for 1h length of storage removed from storage area. vault or any point depth exceeds 15%of diameter. Example:72-inch storage tank would require cleaning when sediment reaches depth of 7 inches for more than 1/2 length of tank. ' Joints Between Any crack allowing material to be transported into All joint between tank/pipe Tank/Pipe Section facility sections are sealed ' Tank Pipe Bent Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape more than Tank/pipe repaired or replaced Out of Shape 10%of its design shape to design. Manhole Cover Not in Place Cover is missing or only partially in place.Any open Manhole is closed. manhole requires maintenance. Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance Mechanism opens with proper Mechanism Not person with proper tools.Bolts into frame have less tools. Working than 1/2 inch of thread(may not apply to self-locking lids.) Cover Difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove lid after Cover can be removed and Remove applying 80lbs of lift. Intent is to keep cover from reinstalled by one maintenance sealing off access to maintenance. person. ' Ladder Rungs King County Safety Office and/or maintenance person Ladder meets design standards Unsafe judges that ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, allows maintenance person safe misalignment,rust,or cracks. access. ' Catch Basins See"Catch Basins"Standards No.5 See"Catch Basins"Standards No.5 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/1/98 ' A-3 ' APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES ' NO. 4-CONTROL STRUCTUREIFLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed ' General Trash and Debris Distance between debris build-up and bottom of All trash and debns removed. (Includes Sediment) orifice plate is less than 1-1/2 feet. Structural Damage Structure is not securely attached to manhole wall Structure securely attached to and outlet pipe structure should support at least wall and outlet pipe. 1,000 Ibs of up or down pressure. Structure is not in upright position(allow up to Structure in correct position. 10%from plumb). Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight and Connections to outlet pipe are show signs of rust. water tight;structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes—other than designed holes—in the Structure has no holes other structure. than designed holes. ' Cleanout Gate Damaged or Missing Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and down easily maintenance person. and is watertight. Chain leading to gate is missing or damaged. Chain is in place and works as designed. ' Gate is rusted over 50%of its surface area. Gate is repaired or replaced to meet design standards.. Orifice Plate Damaged or Missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and works as missing,out of place,or bent orifice plate. designed. Obstructions Any trash,debris,sediment,or vegetation Plate is free of all obstructions blocking the plate. and works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking(or having the Pipe is free of all obstructions potential of blocking)the overflow pipe. and works as designed. Manhole See"Closed Detention Systems"Standards No.3 See"Closed Detention Systems' ' Standards No.3 Catch Basin See"Catch Basins"Standards No.5 See'Catch Basins"Standards No.5 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual ' A-4 ' APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS ' Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed ' General Trash&Debris Trash or debris of more than 1/2 cubic foot which is No Trash or debris located (Includes Sediment) located immediately in front of the catch basin immediately in front of catch opening or is blocking capacity of the basin by basin opening. more than 10% Trash or debris(in the basin)that exceeds 1/3 the No trash or debris in the catch depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest basin. ' pipe into or out of the basin. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking Inlet and outlet pipes free of more than 113 of its height trash or debris. ' Dead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within the catch basin. gases(e.g.,methane). ' Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which volume would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Structure Damage to Comer of frame extends more than 3/4 inch past Frame is even with curb. Frame and/or Top Slab curb face into the street(If applicable). ' Tap slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks wider than 1/4 inch(intent is to make sure cracks. all material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab,i.e.,separation Frame is sitting flush on top ' of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. slab. Cracks in Basin Walls/ Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 3 feet, Basin replaced or repaired to ' Bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin design standards. through cracks,or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. ' Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1/4 inch at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence wide at the joint of inlet/outlet of soil particles entering catch basin through pipe. cracks. Sediment/ Basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated Basin replaced or repaired to Misalignment more than 2 inches out of alignment design standards. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/l/98 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS (CONTINUED) Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed ' Fire Hazard Presence of chemicals such as natural gas,oil and No flammable chemicals gasoline. present. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more than No vegetation blocking opening ' 10%of the basin opening. to basin. Vegetation growing in inlet/outiet pipe joints that is No vegetation or root growth more than six inches tall and less than six inches present. apart. ' Pollution Nonflammable chemicals of more than 1/2 cubic foot No pollution present other than per three feet of basin length. surface film. ' Catch Basin Cover Cover Not in Place Cover is missing or only partially in place.Any open Catch basin cover is closed catch basin requires maintenance. Locking Mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by on maintenance Mechanism opens with proper Not Working person with proper tools.Bolts into frame have less tools. than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove lid after Cover can be removed by one Remove applying 80 lbs.of lift;intent is keep cover from maintenance person. sealing off access to maintenance. Ladder Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs,misalignment, Ladder meets design standards Unsafe rust,cracks,or sharp edges. and allows maintenance person safe access. Metal Grates Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design (If Applicable) standards. ' Trash and Debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20%of Grate free of trash and debris. grate surface. 1 Damaged or Grate missing or broken member(s)of the grate. Grate is in place and meets Missing. design standards. NO. 6 DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G.,TRASH RACKS) Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is;Needed Results Expected When Components Maintenance is Performed. ' General Trash and Debris Trash or debris that is plugging more than 20%of Barrier clear to receive capacity the openings in the barrier. flow. ' Metal Damaged/Missing Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. Bars in place with no bends more Bars than 3/4 inch. Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars in place according to design. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50%deterioration Repair or replace barrier to to any part of barrier. design standards. 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual ' A-6 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 8- FENCING Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Components Maintenance is Performed General Missing or Broken Any defect in the fence that permits easy entry Parts in place to provide adequate Parts to a facility. security. Erosion Erosion more than 4 inches high and 12-18 No opening under the fence that ' inches wide permitting an opening under a exceeds 4 inches in height. fence. Wire Fences Damaged Parts Post out of plumb more than 6 inches. Post plumb to within 1-1/2 inches. Top rails bent more than 6 inches. Top rail free of bends greater than 1 inch. Any part of fence(including post,top rails,and Fence is aligned and meets design fabric)more than 1 foot out of design alignment. standards. Missing or loose tension wire. Tension wire in place and holding fabric. Missing or loose barbed wire that is sagging Barbed wire in place with less than more than 2-1/2 inches between posts. 3/4 inch sag between post. Extension arm missing,broken,or bent out of Extension arm in place with no ' shape more than 1 1/2 inches. bends larger than 3/4 inch. Deteriorated Paint or Part or parts that have a rusting or scaling Structurally adequate posts or Protective Coating condition that has affected structural adequacy. parts with a uniform protective coating. Openings in Fabric Openings in fabric are such that an 8-inch- No openings in fabric. diameter ball could fit through. NO. 9-GATES Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When ' Component Maintenance is Performed General Damaged or Missing Missing gate or locking devices. Gates and Locking devices in Members place. Broken or missing hinges such that gate cannot Hinges intact and lubed.Gate is be easily opened and closed by a maintenance working freely. person. ' Gate is out of plumb more than 6 inches and Gate is aligned and vertical. more than 1 foot out of design alignment. Missing stretcher bar,stretcher bands,and ties. Stretcher bar,bands and ties in place. Openings in Fabric See"Fencing"Standard No.8 See"Fencing"Standard No.8 9/l/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual A-8 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 12-ACCESS ROADS/EASEMENTS Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed ' General Trash and Debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Roadway free of debris which square feet i.e.,trash and debris would fill up could damage tires. one standards size garbage can. Blocked Roadway Debris which could damage vehicle tires(glass Roadway free of debris which or metal). could damage tires. Any obstruction which reduces clearance above Roadway overhead Gear to 14 feet road surface to less than 14 feet high. 1 Any obstruction restricting the access to a 10 to Obstruction removed to allow at 12 foot width for a distance of more than 12 feet least a 12 foot access. or any point restricting access to less than a 10 ' foot width. Road Surface Settlement,Potholes, When any surface defect exceeds 6 inches in Road surface uniformly smooth Mush Spots,Ruts depth and 6 square feet in area.In general,any with no evidence of settlement, surface defect which hinders or prevents potholes,mush spots,or ruts. maintenance access. Vegetation in Road Weeds growing in the road surface that are Road surface free of weeds taller Surface more than 6 inches tall and less than 6 inches than 2 inches. tall and less than 6 inches apart within a 400- square foot area. Modular Grid Build-up of sediment mildly contaminated with Removal of sediment and disposal Pavement petroleum hydrocarbons. in keeping with Health Department recommendations for mildly contaminated soils or catch basin sediments. Shoulders and Erosion Damage Erosion within 1 foot of the roadway more than 8 Shoulder free of erosion and Ditches inches wide and 6 inches deep. matching the surrounding road. Weeds and Brush Weeds and brush exceed 18 inches in height or Weeds and brush cut to 2 inches ' hinder maintenance access. in height or cleared in such a way as to allow maintenance access. 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual ' A-10 ' APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 13-WATER QUALITY FAC1LMES(CONTINUED) ' D.)Wetvau Its Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed ' Wetvault Trash/Debris Trash and debris accumulated in vault,pipe or Trash and debris removed from Accumulation inlet/outlet,(includes floatables and non- vault. floatables). ' Sediment Accumulation Sediment accumulation in vault bottom that Removal of sediment from vault. in Vault exceeds the depth of the sediment zone plus 6- inches. Damaged Pipes Inlet/outlet piping damaged or broken and in Pipe repaired and/or replaced. need of repair. Access Cover Cover cannot be opened or removed,especially Pipe repaired or replaced to Damaged/Not Working by one person. proper working specifications. Vault Structure Vault:Cracks wider than 1/2-inch and any No cracks wider than 1/4-inch at Damaged evidence of soil particles entering the structure the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. through the cracks,or maintenance/inspection Vault is determined to be personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. structurally sound. Baffles Baffles corroding,cracking,warping and/or Repair or replace baffles to showing signs of failure as determined by specifications. maintenance/inspection staff. Access Ladder Damage Ladder is corroded or deteriorated,not functioning Ladder replaced or repaired to properly,missing rungs,has cracks and/or specifications,and is safe to misaligned. use as determined by inspection personnel. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual A-13 9/1/98 '