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

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscRECEIVED OCT 2 3 2015 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Im pact Analysis Final Report Prepared by ......__concord Xiaoping Zhang Tel: 206.682.0567 0 NCINFF'ilNC Email: xpz@cetransportation.com Concord Engineering 705 2nd Ave, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 October 21, 2015 -··concord Final Report Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Development.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .................................... . ............................ 1 Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 2 Traffic Forecasts ................................................................................................................................... 5 Site Generated Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 5 Site Generated Traffic Distribution ........................................................................................ 7 Site Generated Traffic Assignment ..................................................................................... 8 Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development ........................................................................................................................ 10 Condition Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 13 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................... 16 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 16 List of Tables Table 1: Estimated Percent Increase in Vehicular Trips due to Project.......................... . .. 2 Table 2: Intersection Level of Service (LOS)........ ........................................ . ....................... 3 Table 3: Trip Generation Estimates of Proposed Project (per criteria) ............................................ 6 Table 4: Comparison of Observed Trips to Estimated Trip Generation for Bellevue Mission Healthcare Site ................................................................................................................... 6 Table 5: Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 6 Table 6: LOS and Delay Summary for Study Area Intersections ................................................... 16 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Project Study Area ........................................................................... 1 Exhibit 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS, AM Peak Period ...................................................... 4 Exhibit 3: Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS, PM Peak Period ....................................................... 5 Exhibit 4: Trip Distribution of Site Generated Traffic. ...................................................................... 7 Exhibit 5: AM Peak Hour Site-Generated Traffic Assignment... ...................................................... 8 Exhibit 6: PM Peak Hour Site-Generated Traffic Assignment ......................................................... 9 Exhibit 7: Daily Site-Generated Traffic Assignment .......... . . ...................... 10 Exhibit 8: 2017 Traffic Volumes without the Proposed Development (2017 Base Conditions) ... 11 Exhibit 9: 2017 Traffic Volumes with the Proposed Development (2017 Build Conditions) ....... 12 Exhibit 10: Intersection LOS and Delay -2017 Base Conditions ..................................................... 14 Exhibit 11: Intersection LOS and Delay -2017 Build Conditions................................ . .............. 15 Appendices Appendix A: Existing Traffic Volumes Appendix B: Synchro 8 Reports I Careage · Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ....:.;.;:,concord Final Report Introduction Proposed Development This document summarizes the findings of traffic impact analysis for the development of the Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton (hereafter referred as the Project). The Project will be located in the undeveloped northwest corner of the Valley Hill Plaza in southeast Renton, and the planned year of opening is 2017. This new facility will serve as a rehabilitation center that provides 24-hour skilled nursing service to help people recover from disabilities. The Project includes a three-story facility and parking area. The proposed land use for the Project includes: • Skilled nursing facility (54,000 SF facility floor area) • 56 parking spaces (4 ADA accessible) • A total site area 76,614 SF Study Area The study area for the Project is shown in Exhibit 1 below. Exhibit 1: Project Study Area 1 Careage -Mission Healthcare of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis .....;;.::concord Final Report Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. Table 1 shows the estimated percent increase in vehicular trips at adjacent intersections, based on the trip generation of the proposed site. The Project is not expected to result in an increase of 5% in peak hour traffic volumes at any of the surrounding intersections. While not required by the City of Renton Guidelines, this report documents the traffic impacts to each of the intersections included in Table 1, as well as the impacts at all driveway access points, due to their proximity to the site. Table 1: Estimated Percent Increase in Vehicular Trips due to Project AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Total Total Increase % increase Total Volume Total Increase % increase Benson Drive &SE 174th Street 1951 10 0.51% 2343 13 0.55% 108th Place SE & SE Petrovitsky Road 3210 17 0.53% 4301 25 0.S8% SE Carr Road & 106th Place SE 1509 24 1.S9% 2202 23 1.04% Benson Drive S & Benson Road S 2102 9 0.43% 2393 10 0.42% SE 174th Street & 106th Place SE 183 0 0.00% 278 0 0.00% Existing Conditions The Valley Hill Plaza is bounded by SE Carr Road to the south, 106th Place SE to the west, SE 174th Street to the north, and Benson Drive S/108th Ave SE to the east. SE Carr Road and Benson Drive S/108th Avenue SE are both classified as principal arterials and are the two major corridors serving the study area. SE 174th Street and 106th Place SE are local streets that connect to a primarily residential neighborhood located west of the study area. The Project will be located in the undeveloped northwest corner of the Valley Hill Plaza. The Valley Hill Plaza has three existing businesses, which are: MacDonald's, Double Wired Espresso, and CVS Pharmacy. The Plaza also has three existing driveway access points connecting to SE Carr Road, SE 174th Street, and 106th Place SE. The Project will utilize the three existing driveways as access points to the surrounding street network. No additional access points are proposed as a part of the Project. There is a raised median on Benson Drive S/108th Ave SE near the Valley Hill Plaza that restricts turning movements at the intersection of Benson Drive S & SE 174th Street to right-in/right-out access only. Existing turning movement counts were collected for the intersection at 108th Ave SE & SE Carr Road and the intersection at 106th Pl SE & SE Carr Road. Three-day 24-hour tube counts were collected from 108th Ave SE north of SE Carr road and from SE Carr Road west of 108th Ave SE. The collected traffic volumes are included in Appendix A. Existing traffic volumes are heaviest westbound on SE Carr Road and northbound on Benson Drive S/1081:h Place SE during AM peak, and eastbound on SE Carr Road and southbound on Benson Drive S/108th Place SE during PM peak. The intersection traffic performance was evaluated using the results of the Synchro 8 models. Level of Service (LOS) (Table 2) from Synchro was used to evaluate intersection performance. Synchro 8 reports that show the calculations of the LOS for the 2015 existing conditions models and the 2017 future base and build conditions models are included in Appendix B. 2 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ...::::.concord Final Report Table 2: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) MOEs Definition Level of Service (LOS) LOS is an evaluation of the operational characteristics of roadway intersections, and because these intersections are typically the points of congestion, it is an evaluation of roadway network operations as a whole. Level of service is given designations of A through F by the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual 2000. For signalized and unsignalized intersections, the LOS grades are assigned based on the control delay per vehicle. LOS A, B, and C indicate conditions where traffic moves without significant delays over periods of peak hour travel demand. LOS D and E represent worsening peak hour operating conditions. LOS F represents conditions where average vehicle delay exceeds 80 seconds per vehicle entering a signalized intersection or 50 seconds per vehicle entering an unsignalized intersection and demand exceeds capacity. Typically, this condition is evident in long queues and delays. LOS A B C D E Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec) Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec) Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection ;; 10 :,10 >10 and;; 20 >10 and;; 15 >20 and;; 35 >15 and;; 25 >35 and;; 55 >25 and;; 35 >55 and;; 80 >35 and;; 50 >80 >50 Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 show the existing type of intersection control, traffic volumes, level of service (LOS) and delay (in seconds) at the intersections within the study area. The existing signalized intersections all operate at or above LOS D except for the intersection of SE Carr Road & 108th Place SE which operates as LOSE during the PM peak hour. There are two existing transit routes that serve the study area: Route 169 and Route 906. Both routes operate on SE Carr Road and have bus stops located between 106th Place SE and Benson Drive S/108th Avenue SE. The Route 169 connects the Kent Rail Station to the Renton Transit Center and operates with approximately 30 minute headways from 5:00 AM to 11 :00 PM. The Route 906 is a demand responsive route that connects the Southcenter Mall and Valley Medical Center to Fairwood. Route 906 operates with approximately 1 hour headways from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. While there is transit service within the study area, it is limited in the geographic areas served and frequency of service. Therefore, all trips generated by the proposed site were assumed to arrive via auto in order to establish the maximum impact of the site to the surround street network. 3 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ...:.::::.concord Final Report legend r~1 Un11;rJlrredl~ter~ect,on ~ * ProposedDev<?1op!T'ent ,c .. ,,, ( "' ';- \1-~ c;} ''" t 19,. u, " ~~ t. 10 . \, r 10 tr ~"' t. 34 ""' \. 331 roo,o • 583 -" j C,N- Nr---.:t +-752 .., l I.. r 1sa .., l 1.. r ,o 32J'"ltr ~ 13aJ '"ltr 272 • _,.,,., (J) 418.,. OMl.'"J (J) 40 "'\ ~§"' m 63 "'\ mNS, m Exhibit 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS, AM Peak Period 4 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ~concord Legend aS1gn~hzedlnt,w,ect>on 1/;!iJ,·~ .. ~ L1.11gnal,,edl~ter.1ec~on * PropcsedD,..,eloprnent Es 't. t. 15 r 10 t,. gen ;g (fJ m N ..-i.n t. 41 Nt-..s""; ~ 575 +Jlt.r4s 1s.J<itr 981-+ c.c :'"JOJ 161,. O'JMO"l Final Report 43 "'\ ~ ~§~ !: 1~J +Jlt. r192 1s2., ., tr 9Jj:; 8&~ Exlribit 3: Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS, PM Peak Period Traffic Forecasts Site Generated Traffic Volumes The number of vehicular trips generated by the Project was determined based upon published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The /TE Trip Generation Manual does not have a land use code for a rehabilitation center. Therefore, a similar land use for Nursing Home (!TE Land Use Code: 620) was selected to represent the land use since its primary function of providing 24-hour skilled nursing service is very similar to that of a rehabilitation center. The !TE Trip Generation Manual provides trip generation rates based on the number of employees, number of beds, and gross floor area for Land Use Code 620. Table 3 shows the !TE trip generation rates for each of the three criteria, and the resulting number of trips estimated for the Project based on the proposed size of the facility. 5 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis __;;concord Final Report Table 3: Trip Generation Estimates of Proposed Project (per criteria) Criteria ITE Trip Generation Rates Unit Generated Trip Estimates Daily AM PM Daily AM PM Facility Size per l,OOOSF 7.60 0.55 0.74 54 410 30 40 Number of Beds 2.74 0.17 0.22 60 164 10 13 Number of Employees 3.26 0.23 0.47 90 294 21 42 The estimated number of trips generated varies significantly based on tl1e different criteria used to evaluate the site. Therefore, AM and PM peak hour trips were collected at the existing Mission Healthcare Center within the City of Bellevue to determine how the actual number of peak hour trips compares with estimated trips generated by the three different criteria. Table 4 shows the number of observed AM and PM trips to the Mission Healthcare Center in Bellevue as compared to the number of trips calculated for that facility from the ITE Trip Generation rates for each criterion. Table 4: Comparison of Observed Trips to Estimated Trip Generation for Bellevue Mission Healthcare Site Observed Trips Criteria Unit Generated Trip Estimates AM PM Daily AM PM Facility Size per 1,000SF 99 750 54 73 22 35 Number of Beds 127 348 22 28 Number of Employees 180 588 41 85 While the number of beds is the criteria the yields the strongest correlation to the actual number of trips entering and exiting the existing rehabilitation center in Bellevue, the facility size was ultimately used as the land use criteria for establishing the trip generation of the Project. Using trip generation rates based on facility size results in a higher number of vehicular trips than observed at other rehabilitation centers, and thereby represents the maximum level of impact that may occur from the proposed development to the surrounding transportation system. The resulting number of trips generated by the Project are summarized in Table 5. Table 5: Project Trip Generation ITE Land Land Use AM Peak Hour Trios PM Peak Hour Trios Avera,ze, Dai Iv Trias Land Use Use Code Size Enter I I Enter I Exit I Enter I I Total Exit Total Total Exit Rehabilitation Center 620 54,000 SF 21 I 9 I 30 20 I 20 I 40 205 I 205 I 410 6 Careage • Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis .....;;;;;;concord Final Report Site Generated Traffic Distribution Trip distribution to the Project site was based on the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for roadways within the study area. It was assumed that site generated traffic would follow the same underlying distribution as the existing traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network. Exhibit 4 shows the trip distribution for Project generated traffic based on ADT. Legend I ~1gnal zed lnterse:tion 19, L1n<ignali,ed1r1e-wcTion * P'1JposedDl'"1elopn,enl Exhibit 4: Trip Distribution of Site Generated Traffic 7 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ..:..,;,;concord Final Report Site Generated Traffic Assignment New trips generated by the Project were assigned to the surrounding street network based on the trip distribution shown in Exhibit 4. Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 show the allocation of site- generated traffic to the surrounding street network for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and Daily conditions, respectively. Legend a S1goalaze,:lintersection 'l'JnsKnal.,edlntersect,on * Prc~setOevelopll'ent ;!! 5J IJ> m 1 • ;11 3J 2 ... "' 1 "\ m .. Exhibit 5: AM Peak Hour Site-Generated Traffic Assignment 8 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis -s "'I 5 _concord Legend a S1g11dl,edlnlersec1Jun 1\l:unsignalrzedlr1.,,-secnon .. Pm;,osPciflP~PlopmPnl r17 r" 6 " ... "' m 5 12 t. 1 .., I. 5J ' 0 ~ ;!! "' m -. 5 .., 3"\ ~ 3 •5 • 5J ., 5 ... 5 2., Exhibit 6: PM Peak Hour Site-Generated Traffic Assignment 9 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Final Report .....;;.:,concord Legend ~ 'iignalcZPdln!Prs~mon ,9, Uns,~nal1zcdlntcrsect,on * Propc,se-eDevclop,r,ent r175 r 61 ..-;::!; t. 10 i l.l') "I"'" :J l+ 51J 54 J t 30, 54 30 • 50 • 54J ... ~8:; 50 Final Report 17 DAILY TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Exhibit 7: Daily Site-Generated Traffic Assignment Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development The anticipated year of opening for the Project is 2017. Therefore existing traffic volumes were factored up based on a growth rate of 2% per year to establish the 2017 horizon year traffic volumes. Exhibit 8 illustrates the 2017 horizon year traffic volumes without the proposed development for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The projected horizon year traffic volumes with the proposed development are shown in Exhibit 9 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 10 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis _·concord Legend 4)p1 Unsi~nah,edlMer:.ecron * Propc1~dOe,eopi,Mt Legend ~ S1i;nal1ledln!ersect>on [.L1ns1gnal"edlnwr1cclioo * ~r.:,posedD.-vefopment (r,,!, I.. 10 I I.. ,-,o Ir ~~'"! ... ~ 'L Jti fl,._~ • 782 ...... r 21 ""''lfr 435• ~~~ 56,. ,------ 1 ~~~ !: tJe I.ill.. rso ' rnJ 'ltr 1 1020• 0~["-., 167,. :;:C')~ j el <n m ,Jl wm \. 344 000 •606 ~M-...... r 16-" 144 J 'l Ir 28:-J• ~g~ 42,. t 4o,: ~ ::;"" L1so :;?;::~ .., 504 .i11.. r200 158 J 'l fr" 956• g:g~ 66,. ~in - : ' Final Report Exhibit 8: 2017 Traffic Volumes without the Proposed Development (2017 Base Conditions) 11 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis _concord legend a SKnal,,c~lsterscrnon '.fll1u1sognah,edlntersecoo" if ~opo,cdDc,clopmcn, Legend a S1gs~l,redlncersecMn .1 Jn1,gn;l1te,:llnter5ec~or /r. Pr~po,...dO..valnpm~nl (D ii": t. 1:J "·,." t,. io:::. B ~ '- 1 '-,-27 t,. ~~ ?1 (/) rn ?1 (/) rn s:t N t. 36 N"-l.D ... {82 .J 11.. r 21 38 J "If,. 435• 0.is:tt--66 "l ..r,Ns:t I.. 44 oo~OO N~~ .,. 598 .I I I.. (" 50 21 J "If,., "r020 • s~s 167, j ?1 ., m r...o t.. 344 s:tM~ ... 611 .J 11.. r 16, 147J .,.,. 2~5; §~~ ~0 Ji -18 9\ t ~ l.1so ~N 000 • 509 .I I I.. r200 1o:iJ 'lf(' 961- 68 "l ro:oco -~~ Final Report Exhibit 9: 2017 Traffic Volumes with the Proposed Development (2017 Build Conditions) 12 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis _concord Final Report Condition Analysis The horizon year traffic forecasts with and without the proposed development were evaluated with respect to LOS for all of the study area intersections. For the horizon year analysis, it was assumed that there would be no changes to the traffic control type at each of the study area intersections. Synchro 9 traffic analysis software was used to model the conditions for the AM and PM peak hours and calculate the intersection LOS and delay. Exhibit 10 presents the AM and PM peak hour LOS and delay at each of the study intersections for the 2017 Base conditions without the proposed development. Exhibit 11 presents the AM and PM peak hour LOS and delay at each study intersection for the 2017 Build conditions with the proposed development. 13 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis _concord Legend as,gnala,edlnter,ec~an .Uns,gnal11<'rlln1e«Pctinn Le9end m!js,gnal,icdlrt~rsE-:ton • uos,gna1,,~dln1N=tion ;ii (/) rn Exhibit 10: Intersection LOS and Delay -2017 Base Conditions 14 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Final Report _concord Legend 1!5,Rnal!ledlntersechon * f'rapo,ecDPvdoµn,rnt Leg-end ~ S,M~•li,<dlnlersernoswtrL05&Delay '8 U~"~nali>ed ln!ersecMnwllh L05& Delay * P·ooosede>e,eopment " ,... "' m ;ii "' m j ;ii Ill m Exhibit 11: Intersection LOS and Delay-2017 Build Conditions 15 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Final Report _-concord Final Report The LOS and delay for the existing conditions, 2017 Base conditions, and 2017 Build conditions are summarized in Table 6 for comparison purposes. With the proposed Project in place, the LOS with would remain the same as the horizon year conditions without the proposed development, except at the intersection of SE Carr Road & 108th Place SE. At SE Carr Road & 108th Place SE the signal delay would increase by one second over the future baseline conditions, increasing from 19 to 20 seconds of average delay, which results in LOS C instead of LOS Bat this location. The LOS analysis indicates that the proposed site will not impose a significant impact on the traffic operations in the study area. Table 6: LOS and Delay Summary for Study Area Intersections AM PM Intersection Existing 2017Base 2017 Build Existing 20178ase 20178uild LOS Delav Isl LOS Delav Isl LOS Delav (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delav(s) LOS SE Carr Rd & 106th Pl SE B 19 B 19 C 20 C 20 C 22 C SE Carr Rd & 108th Pl SE D 54 E 57 E 58 E 59 E 64 E Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S C 24 C 24 C 24 B 17 B 18 B SE 174th St & Benson Dr S A 10 A lD A 10 B 12 B 12 B 106th Pl SE & SE 174th St A 9 A 9 A 9 A 10 A 10 A 106th Pl SE Drivewav fWest Accessl A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A SE 174th St Dnvewav (North Access) A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A SE Carr Rd Driveway (South Access) A 10 A 10 A 10 A 9 A 9 A Mitigation Measures Based on the results of the analysis, no mitigation measures are recommended for the proposed development. Conclusions The impacts of the proposed Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton rehabilitation center were evaluated with respect to the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Developments. Based on the results of the analysis, the proposed development will have negligible impacts to the transportation system within the study area. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are recommended for this development with the exception that the developer shall submit applicable impact fee per City of Renton's impact fee schedule. 16 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Delav(s) 23 65 19 12 10 10 9 9 ....:.:.concord Final Report Appendix A: Existing Traffic Volumes 17 Careage • Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis www.idaxdata.com ~ N <fJ "' 0 z 0 <fJ BENSON DRS BENSON RDS Peak Hour Date: Tue, Aug 04, 2015 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Jo IE :g [l) N J L. 1,,._ BENSON RDS L 3s 209 r 114 <s---_____,. r k ODD 0 DDD 1. Jo ~1 c:C::J TEV: 2,102 PHF: 0.96 t "' <") ~ ~1 rs Two-Hour Count Summaries i .... UJ .. <fJ <") UJ > <( :,: hi ~ BENSON RDS BENSON RDS Interval * §o = 400 HV%: PHF WB 1.4% 0.93 NB 21% 0.93 SB 5.6% 0.79 TOTAL 2.5% 0 96 108TH AVE SE BENSON DRS 15-min Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 7:00AM 0 0 0 '" 0 7 0 347 90 2 45 0 535 7:15AM 0 0 0 48 0 8 0 313 99 4 62 0 534 <1,~-·, -,:;·,~1tt~---~MB -~i;;;: ··.--·-· ", . 1~.isAi. ,·,,....,.,-..... ,,,_,!"], .~·{;~•'(, 0 0 0 41 0 6 0 265 103 4 66 0 485 2,102 8·00 AM 36 287 94 4 78 506 2,073 8:15AM 45 277 97 71 500 2,039 8:30 AM 38 238 71 4 71 428 1,919 845AM 42 245 64 4 67 422 1,856 Count Total 335 0 56 0 2,286 713 27 541 0 3,958 Peak Hr 0 0 0 174 0 35 0 1,239 387 13 254 0 2,102 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 7:00AM O O 7 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 7:15 AM O O 12 5 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~-~1ag;:;•1>••~~1~~~1i1:rf~,'.-W/ffe,:~:;;fntrcrtt:n1 7:45 AM O 1 7 4 12 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 O 800AM 12 14 8.15AM 13 21 8·30 AM 16 22 8:45 AM 8 1 0 0 0 Count Total 10 83 25 118 0 0 3 5 Peak Hr 3 34 15 52 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com ~ N <I) "' 0 z 0 <I) i5 <D BENSON DRS BENSON RDS Peak Hour a, ., l L. TEV: 2,393 PHF: 0.96 t <D N <D !l Ii i ., .... N Two-Hour Count Summaries Date: Tue, Aug 04, 2015 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM \.. BENSON RDS L 22 312 r 290 <E--- 317 UJ <I) HV%: UJ > WB 1.0% <t I NB 0.9% Iii ~ SB 0.8% TOTAL 0.9% Peak Hour: 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM PHF 0.91 0.95 0.92 0.96 BENSON RDS BENSON RDS 108TH AVE SE BENSON DRS Interval 15-min Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 65 0 4 0 149 58 16 297 0 589 ti!.!. ··-'P-:"-"' ,, -~n.-.,.-·:,· • .~;,,.· .. -Jf: .. '. r~ 4.30 PM 0 0 50 0 10 138 51 9 318 0 576 4:45 PM 0 0 0 59 0 5 136 73 10 285 0 568 2,355 5:00PM 0 0 0 78 0 4 163 71 9 276 0 601 2,367 5:15PM 0 0 0 78 0 8 0 174 64 6 292 622 2,367 5:30PM 0 0 64 0 6 0 145 82 14 260 571 2,362 5:45PM 0 0 70 0 4 0 144 61 10 310 599 2,393 Count Total 0 0 537 0 50 0 1,183 548 83 2,347 4,748 Peak Hr 0 0 290 0 22 0 626 278 39 1,138 2,393 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM O 2 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ·,l1f~ij; t--;li:,;~,""~-j;.l',,.i~;,,,~· ~·iq,i,t'+'•tf'," 1,i~,,,i:-•~·"l'i...,: li,,l<J\i~,;-..1';:\liA/ti.:""··lA@i''·"iifi.:411"'"''''· ,, l 4:30 PM 4 5 0 4:45 PM 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 5:15PM 0 2 3 6 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 5:30PM 0 2 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 5:45PM 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a Count Total 16 24 48 0 2 3 Peak Hr 0 3 8 10 21 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 2 2 Mark Skaggs. 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com 108TH AVE SE SE PETROVITSKY RD ~ N .., Peak Hour ;ii; N .., 0 Date: Tue, Aug 04, 2015 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 7:30 AM to 6:30 AM _J "' J l L. SE PETROVITSKY RD 792 «--138 _J ~ 272- 450 40 J I TEV: 3,210 PHF: 0.95 ., t ;:: .., .., ~ wl 15 Two-Hour Count Summaries L 331 -583 r 158 r .., Cf) ... 0 0: z 0 Cf) z w "' SE CARR RD SE PETROVITS KY RD Interval Start Eastbound Westbound LT TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 34 46 9 34 152 92 7:15AM 31 44 41 146 107 ,--~· ;,,· 7:45AM 35 71 10 42 144 78 8:00AM 33 65 9 30 141 83 8:15AM 33 80 8 42 138 67 8:30 AM 36 81 11 39 157 53 8:45 AM 38 97 17 47 165 53 Count Total 277 540 85 319 1,203 636 Peak Hr 138 272 40 158 583 331 1,072 «-- ~ Jo 422 HV%: PHF EB 9.3% 0.93 WB 1.6% 0 87 NB 2.9% 0.97 SB 4.8% 0.93 TOTAL 3.6% 0.95 BENSON RDS 10STHAVE SE 15-min Rolling Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT 40 292 12 45 12 773 33 276 26 58 783 44 252 12 25 68 11 792 3,192 46 251 13 28 69 11 779 3,198 35 285 10 29 81 7 795 3,210 55 214 21 20 69 14 770 3,136 44 191 17 20 72 16 777 3,121 343 2,008 94 183 538 87 6,313 171 1,035 45 105 294 38 3,210 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 700 AM 10 23 0 0 0 1 2 715AM 11 9 26 0 0 0 0 0 6 11 itili~ ---~ ,., "' ·~fo!&i,i .ftf~~l~li!,,. " 7:45AM 7 ' 11 5 27 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 s 8:00AM 11 3 6 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 8:15AM 14 4 15 8 41 0 0 0 2 ' 0 7 8:30 AM 10 10 29 0 11 8A5AM 11 8 22 0 0 3 5 Count Total 84 34 68 30 216 0 0 0 0 0 11 18 10 47 Peak Hr 42 17 38 21 116 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 9 1 18 Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com 108TH AVE SE ~; SE PETROVITSKY RD ~ Date: Tue, Aug 04, 2015 N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM !l r~ Jo <D 0 ... _Jmm"7L . _J. o. co .... "' J J L. SE PETROVITSKY RD 705 L 173 850 0~ <E-----152 ..J <E-----= ~ = TEV: 4,301 -485 = = r Jo o:iB 8~ ~ 919-PHF: 0.97 192 ~ = = = = 1,134 63 -. 1,463 ' ')' nmrno ,f-- I i t r 24 ii N ... ... (I) HV%: PHF ::: .... ~ D ., 0: EB 11% 0.95 0 z 0~ 51 15 0 WB 1.4% 0.94 (I) z NB 1.4% 0.94 UJ "' SB 10% 0.94 TOTAL 12% 0.97 Two-Hour Count Summaries SE CARR RD SE PETROVITS KY RD BENSON RDS 108THAVE SE Interval 15-min Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 50 238 13 39 109 33 34 129 47 60 238 10 1,000 4.15 PM 55 196 18 48 83 32 39 130 45 84 270 10 1,010 4:30PM 28 234 17 45 143 39 41 120 39 104 266 12 1,088 4:45PM 41 241 15 51 111 44 49 123 45 70 219 14 1,023 4,121 5:00PM 52 204 20 54 101 42 40 147 40 112 263 9 1,084 4,205 '.¥-'~,le '.,t?t·/' •. ti/.!'~~ <w·,c;:,,,._,,r.: ~•·"f,,,,,._,,,,,:1w11 ~(l;'.i;'.-,;/·· . "'. . , ~.· .... to,,:,. 4,301 5.30 PM 45 241 12 57 139 29 52 148 51 64 226 11 1,075 4,288 545PM 30 205 15 36 91 43 40 108 35 102 257 6 968 4,233 Count Total 332 1,799 121 372 907 310 337 1,062 335 697 1.997 85 8,354 Peak Hr 152 919 83 192 485 173 172 547 157 387 1,006 48 4,301 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 3 2 8 5 18 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 2 11 4:15 PM 2 4 3 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 8 20 4:30PM 2 3 4 4 13 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 5 2 10 4:45PM 2 4 4 4 14 0 0 0 0 a 2 3 4 2 11 5:00PM 6 2 1 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 12 21 -';.fJ~~ts ~~.i~"".r-~x.P<:·i~~l~i, :., ,,~ • .;..,: ",,,'.f,!%•\\~?~t'~:!,~~,}V''iW;ljlf:- 5:30 PM 2 6 2 3 13 0 0 1 0 1 4 4 5 9 22 5:45 PM 4 3 2 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 6 7 23 Count Total 24 27 27 29 107 0 0 1 1 2 29 23 34 50 136 Peak Hr 13 12 12 15 52 0 0 0 1 1 13 8 15 24 60 Mark Skaggs 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata com www.idaxdata.com 106TH PL SE ~~ SE CARR RD A Date: Tue, Aug 04, 2015 N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00AM Peak Hour: 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM ~1 i: L Jo _f " Jmm,>L "' .... " J l L. 823 L 34 806 g * ~ 0 Jo -E---32 ..J TEV: 1,509 -752 -E---= = r Jo U) c::::J c:::::J (',I ~ 418-PHF: 0.91 20 ~ = = = = 513 63 -, 507 . ·r,w,wutl I ., t r 0 "' "' UJ HV%: PHF "' "' " <fl _, EB 7.6% 0 93 0 fl. gl r~ r WB 1.6% 0.91 0~ is NB 4.2% 0.84 SB 1.4% 0.72 TOTAL 38% 0.91 Two-Hour Count Summaries SE CARR RD SE CARR RD 106TH PL SE 106TH PL SE Interval 15-min Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 72 10 1 208 5 10 2 6 5 2 3 324 7:15AM 3 76 6 6 181 9 14 4 6 4 2 4 315 7:30 AM 7 81 14 3 166 28 10 4 14 11 0 5 343 7:45AM 11 87 9 10 146 38 15 2 9 9 3 4 343 1,325 B:OOAM 6 90 13 2 163 14 11 7 10 6 3 4 329 1,330 B:15AM 10 102 16 3 174 B 8 3 14 10 1 7 356 1,371 B:30AM 12 110 16 5 211 5 21 6 B 11 0 5 410 1,438 , . .,__,....,, .. ..-~' ··l•\_;:,;·:-''!£~,li~~;;)Mi'.i' ,;&,.,.;:;ill\, .:.:,-.'iii: ~t'1i{·';;?~ .• ):;~i:~:_·{' h;i;/,il~lf 1,509 Count Total 53 734 102 40 1.453 114 99 35 80 73 14 37 2.834 Peak Hr 32 418 63 I 20 752 34 50 23 45 44 7 21 1,509 Note: Two~hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 7:00 AM 10 3 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7:15AM 11 5 2 0 18 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 1 3 9 7:30 AM 10 6 1 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7:45 AM 6 11 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8:00AM 9 4 3 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15AM 9 1 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 8:30AM 10 4 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 ~-:1.~ " ~ ·' •rw~f,.i\\~;'!f,1:~ffi'""'; ~-" ; , . ._.,~-·> " ·-ll'!l.l!'.r-i'I.'.' ,., 'c ,. . • ·t. ~ ·d,;,,_.) ... Count Total 76 3B 10 2 126 0 1 0 0 1 I 8 6 4 4 22 Peak Hr 39 13 5 1 58 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 5 2 1 10 Mark Skaggs· 425 -250 -0777 mark skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com ~ N 106TH PL SE SE CARR RD Peak Hour Date: Tue, Aug 04, 2015 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM _J ~1,~ L j J t SECARRRO 693 ~ ~ 1,157 15 ..J 981- 161-, I TEV: 2,176 PHF: 0.93 i ti "' "' Two-Hour Count Summaries L 41 664 -575~ r4a~ w <n -' a. I § 1,114 EB WB NB SB HV%: 0.8% 3.8% 0.4% 1.6% TOTAL 1.7% 0.93 SE CARR RD SE CARR RD 106TH PL SE 106TH PL SE Interval Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 15-min Rolling Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT 1 263 25 6 127 5 9 256 35 8 132 4 6 212 23 18 142 10 LT TH RT 22 5 28 18 6 23 26 10 24 LT TH RT 9 13 5 7 16 2 5 16 8 509 516 500 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45PM 2 261 41 10 148 11 24 12 29 4 12 5 559 2,084 5:00 PM 4 256 44 10 126 14 19 5:15 PM 5 215 28 13 144 8 20 ,, .•• , '-,;•-,pj·,:.'"~-,. !11!,l liifl. "· lf)J"'''·'_:,.11,f .·rw: 545 PM 227 21 9 130 5 27 Counl Total 37 1,939 265 89 1,106 65 189 Peak Hr 15 981 161 48 575 41 96 65 33 20 12 15 1 528 26 12 15 6 501 a:-··--·;; ,-:·0-11t·1'· -·';I: ""'W:, 33 6 25 502 206 62 141 39 4,203 98 35 71 22 2,176 2,103 2,088 2,176 2,119 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 3 3 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 3 12 415 PM 1 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 0 1 13 4:30 PM 3 7 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 2 2 13 4:45PM 3 7 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 2 9 21 5:00PM 3 5 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 9 5:15PM 2 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 2 5 23 ~ii'..._, Pt~~ .... • n• f~;\'.'i,·j}-~(,'J{ ;;;::;::--..;:;;::·1/\1f~r::w~1t:im~--;~w.1~•:11 5:45 PM 5 3 1 0 9 0 2 0 0 2 3 7 5 7 22 Count Total 21 43 2 3 69 0 2 0 0 2 41 46 14 33 134 Peak Hr 9 25 1 2 37 0 0 0 0 0 28 20 6 20 74 Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Location: SE CARR RO E/0 106TH PL SE Date Range: 8/4/2015 -8/10/2015 Site Code: 01 Tuesdal Wednesdax: Thursda:.:: 8/412015 8/512015 816/2015 Time EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total 12DOAM 196 86 282 191 90 281 171 89 260 1 OOAM 87 59 146 103 64 167 109 55 164 2 ODAM 100 55 155 77 54 131 108 59 167 3:00AM 58 118 176 59 117 176 60 124 184 4:00AM 79 250 329 75 254 329 65 248 313 5:00AM 149 605 754 153 610 763 163 598 761 6:00AM 306 908 1,214 307 940 1,247 305 916 1,221 7 DO AM 370 795 1,165 375 775 1,150 441 779 1,220 8:00AM 497 791 1,288 501 ao8 1,309 477 792 1,269 900AM 573 803 1,376 559 838 1,397 540 846 1,386 10·00 AM 575 751 1,326 607 804 t.411 573 771 1,344 11 ODAM 716 771 1,487 708 776 t,484 685 789 1,474 12:00 PM 784 759 1,543 761 806 1.567 745 791 1,536 1 DO PM 810 812 1,622 755 792 1,547 755 758 1,513 2 00 PM 884 670 1,554 894 702 1,596 892 675 1,567 3:00 PM 870 649 1.519 882 604 1,486 896 661 1,557 4:00 PM 895 631 1,526 891 580 1,471 853 658 1,511 5:00 PM 880 639 1,519 886 632 1,516 946 632 1,576 6:00 PM 875 654 1,529 776 661 1,437 862 631 1,493 7 00 PM 768 571 1,339 703 567 1,270 706 562 1,268 a 00 PM 689 476 1,165 624 455 1,079 630 483 1,113 9 00 PM 610 426 1,036 617 391 1,008 608 415 1,023 10:00 PM 396 267 663 374 271 645 451 281 732 11:00 PM 310 158 468 297 159 456 311 190 501 ,Total 12,477 12,704 25,181 12,176 12,760 24,926 12,362 12.803 26,166 Percent 50% 50% 49% 51% 49% 51% 1. Mid-week. average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. Mark Skaggs.425-250-0777 mark..skaggs@idaxdata.com ~{ DATA SOLUTIONS Fridal Saturda:l Sundal Monda)[: 817/2016 8/8/2015 81912015 8/10/2015 Mid-Week Avera2e EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total 186 88 274 100 59 159 95 56 151 59 120 179 73 251 324 155 604 759 306 921 1,227 395 783 1,178 492 797 1,289 557 829 1,386 585 775 1,360 703 779 1,482 763 785 1,549 773 787 1,561 890 682 1,572 883 638 1,521 880 623 1,503 904 634 1,538 838 649 1.486 726 567 1,292 648 471 1,119 612 411 1,022 407 273 680 306 169 475 12,336 12,762 25~087 49% 51"!. Location: 108TH AVE SE N/0 SE CARR RO Date Range: 8/4/2015 -8/10/2015 Site Code: 02 Tuesdal Wednesdal Thuradal 8/412016 8/5/2015 8/6/2016 Time NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total 12:00AM 102 203 305 101 186 287 80 169 249 1·00AM 44 111 155 47 124 171 53 127 180 2.00AM 60 106 166 62 82 144 71 92 163 3.00AM 128 61 189 121 59 180 102 50 152 400AM 396 98 494 384 86 470 386 88 474 5DOAM 995 185 1,180 1,040 200 1,240 1,024 170 1,194 6DOAM 1,501 294 1,795 1,488 304 1,792 1,440 275 1,715 7DOAM 1,450 419 1,869 1,507 371 1,878 1,453 374 1,827 8DOAM 1,273 479 1,752 1,227 491 1,718 1,219 457 1,676 9DOAM 953 527 1,480 989 521 1,510 963 540 1,503 10DOAM 790 569 1,359 643 589 1.432 827 546 1,373 11 ODAM 815 622 1,437 734 654 1,388 774 651 1,425 12 00 PM 802 790 1,592 641 738 1,579 859 767 1,626 1:00 PM 1,037 834 1,871 655 846 1,701 844 767 1,611 2 DO PM 1,105 974 2,079 870 983 1,853 794 941 1,735 3 00 PM 977 1,207 2,164 838 1,088 1,926 802 1,082 1,884 4:00 PM 832 1,226 2,056 833 1,222 2,055 901 1,205 2,106 5:00 PM 878 1,239 2,117 838 1,156 1,994 919 1,122 2,041 6 00 PM 795 1,192 1,987 793 1,129 1,922 803 1,102 1,905 7:00 PM 696 914 1,610 660 908 1,568 663 975 1,638 B 00 PM 582 811 1,393 489 815 1,304 584 852 1.436 9 00 PM 496 708 1,204 428 640 1,068 517 690 1,207 10 00 PM 299 500 799 313 492 805 338 524 862 11:00 PM 180 380 560 162 347 529 152 383 535 Total 17,186 14,449 31,635 16,483 14,031 30,514 16,568 13,949 30,617 Percent 54% 46% 54% 46% 54% 46% 1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com ~{ DATA SOLUTIONS Fridal Saturdal Sunda)!'. Monda~ 8/7/2016 8/8/2015 8/9/2015 8/10/2016 Mid-WeekAverase NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total 94 186 280 48 121 169 64 93 158 117 57 174 389 91 479 1,020 185 1.205 1,476 291 1,767 1,470 388 1,858 1,240 476 1,715 966 529 1,498 820 568 1,388 774 642 1,417 834 765 1,599 912 616 1,728 923 966 1.889 872 1,126 1,998 855 1,218 2,073 878 1,172 2,051 797 1,141 1,938 673 932 1,605 552 826 1,376 480 679 1,160 317 505 822 171 370 541 16,746 14,143 30,889 54% 46% -··concord Final Report Appendix B: Synchro 8 Reports 18 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: 106th PL SE (" ' '-. k Lane Configurations V ?i Volume (vph) 10 10 5 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane UtiL Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0 932 Flt Protected 0.976 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1694 1770 Flt Permitted 0.976 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1694 1770 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 199 420 Travel Time (s) 4.5 9.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 11 5 67 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 0 0 72 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 LinkOffset(fl) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 15 Sign Control Stop Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsigna6zed Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing AM Concord Engineering, Inc. \ ~ i=: 84 5 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 1611 30 310 7.0 0.92 0.92 91 5 96 No No Right Right 0 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 9 Free ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 10/22/2015 -> -,. 'f -'-~ t ,,.. \. + ~ Lane Configurations ' ti. 11 ti. 11 lo ' lo Volume (vph) 32 418 63 20 752 34 50 23 45 44 7 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 Storage Length (ft) 110 0 100 0 66 66 70 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1 00 1.00 100 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.980 0.994 0.900 0.888 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 3266 0 1770 3514 0 1736 1627 0 1728 1645 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.732 0.670 Said. Flow (perm) 1668 3266 0 1766 3514 0 1326 1627 0 1215 1645 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 23 6 54 29 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 256 178 271 310 Travel Time (s) 5.8 4.0 6.2 7.0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 5 2 2 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.72 072 0.72 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 8% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 34 449 68 22 826 37 60 27 54 61 10 29 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 517 0 22 863 60 81 0 61 39 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswak Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 108 176 102 222 70 56 73 98 Trailing Detector (ft) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Position(ft) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 88 78 82 82 50 50 53 53 Detector 2 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 713012015 Existing AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 1012212015 .,> -~ 'f -' "'\ t ~ \. + ..,, Detector 3 Position(lt) 170 150 92 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 4 Position(ft) 216 Detector 4 Size(ft) 6 Detector 4 Type Cl+Ex Detector 4 Channel Detector 4 Extend (s) 0.0 Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Penn NA Penn NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Pennitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 4 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 23.0 10.0 23.0 28.0 28.0 27.0 27.0 Total Split (s) 13.0 82.0 13.0 82.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Tota1Spllt(%) 10.0% 63.1% 10.0% 63.1% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% Maximum Green (s) 8.0 77.0 8.0 77.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30 0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5 0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 16 0 160 150 150 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 1 2 2 2 5 5 Act Effct Green (s) 6.5 101.3 6.0 100.9 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.78 0.05 0.78 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 vie Ratio 0.41 0.20 0.27 0.32 0.50 0.42 0.56 0.22 Control Delay 74.2 5.0 49.4 14.7 68.6 27.6 74.5 25.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 74.2 5.0 49.4 15.2 68.6 27.6 74.5 25.4 LOS E A D B E C E C Approach Delay 9.3 16.1 45.1 55.3 Approach LOS A B D E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset: 80 (62%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0 .56 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Intersection Signal Delay: 18.6 Intersection Capacrty Utilization 45.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE I~: [:: Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing AM Concord Engineering, Inc. Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service A I/: 10/22/2015 l Synchro 8 Report Page4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 106th PL SE & SE 174th St -" ('" - Lane Configurations t,. 4' Volume (vph) 12 60 7 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.887 Flt Protected 0.979 Satd. Flow (prot) 1652 0 1824 Flt Pennitted 0.979 Satd. Flow (perm) 1652 1824 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 264 508 Travel Time (s) 6.0 11.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph} 13 65 8 11 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 0 0 19 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 0 0 Link Oflset(ft} 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 Existing AM Concord Engineering, Inc. "'"' ~ ¥ 82 12 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.983 0.958 1754 0.958 1754 30 420 9.5 0.92 0.92 89 13 102 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synch ro 8 Report Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: 108th PL SE/Bensen Dr S & SE 174th St .,> t ...., t Lane Configurations .,, ++ Volume (vph) 0 19 0 1504 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.865 Flt Protected Said. Flow (prot) 1611 3539 Flt Pennitted Said. Flow (perm) 0 1611 3539 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 361 398 Travel T1111e (s) 8.2 9.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 21 0 1635 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 21 0 1635 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two wrry Left Tum lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Tumlng Speed (mph) 15 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalzed Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 Existing AM Concord Engineering, Inc. + ..; tlo- 418 10 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.996 3525 3525 30 367 8.3 0.92 0.92 454 11 465 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Free ICU Level of Se!Vice A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 10/22/2015 ,._:If ' ' ( ' ~ Lane Configurations "i tt ti. "i r Volume (vph) 13 254 1239 387 174 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (fl) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Fri 0.964 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1533 3065 3071 0 1608 1439 Flt Permitted 0.100 0.950 Said. Flow (penn) 161 3065 3071 0 1608 1439 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 59 38 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 276 367 287 Travel Time (s) 6.3 8.3 6.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 2% 2% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 16 322 1332 416 187 38 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 322 1748 0 187 38 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Left Righ1 Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(fl) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two w~ Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 Detector Template Left Left Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 306 306 30 30 Trailing Detector (fl) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 35 6 6 30 30 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 200 300 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Detector 3 Position(ft) 300 Detector 3 Size{fl) 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 Existing AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 10/22/2015 ....:1( 'If. ' ( ' 'It,., Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 Tum Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 2 8 Pennitted Phases 6 8 Detector Phase 6 8 Switch Phase Minimum lnrtial (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 50 5.0 Minimum Spilt (s) 25.5 25.5 39.5 29.5 29.5 Total Split (s) 85.0 85.0 85.0 45.0 45 0 Total Split (%) 65.4% 65.4% 65.4% 34.6% 34.6% Maximum Green (s) 79.5 79.5 79.5 40.5 40.5 Yellow nme (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode C-Min C-Min C-Min None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 27.0 18.0 18.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 Act E1fct Green (s) 99.9 99.9 99.9 20.1 20.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.15 0.15 vie Ratio 0.13 0.14 0.74 0.75 0.15 Control Delay 8.0 4.6 21.7 70.4 14.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.0 4.6 22.8 70.4 14.1 LOS A A C E B Approach Delay 4.7 22.8 60.9 Approach LOS A C E Area Type: CBO Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset: 30 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:NWT and 6:SETL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75 Intersection Signal Delay: 23.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Splits and Phases: 7. Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 Existing AM Concord Engineering. Inc. 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitsk~ Rd 1012212015 .,> -'\, f -'-~ t I" '-.. ! -4" Lane Configurations 'I +t-'I +t-'i'i +t-'i'i +t- Volume(vph) 138 'll2 40 158 583 331 171 1035 45 105 294 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (fl) 223 0 180 0 525 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 100 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.981 0.946 0.994 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 3243 0 1770 3319 3400 3482 3335 3372 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1651 3243 1768 3319 3371 3482 3332 3372 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 13 93 4 10 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 333 686 582 398 Travel Tune (s) 7.6 15.6 13.2 9.0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 9 1 1 9 6 2 2 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles(%) 9% 9% 9% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% Adj. Flow (vph) 148 292 43 182 670 380 176 1067 46 113 316 41 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Row (vph) 148 335 0 182 1050 0 176 1113 0 113 357 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 24 24 Link Offset(fl) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two~ Left Tum Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 68 165 72 156 56 188 54 209 Trailing Detector (fl) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Posttion(ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Posilion(ft) 159 150 182 203 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitskl Rd 10/22/2015 / -,. 'f -' "' t ~ '-. + .; Protected Phases 7 4 2 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 7 4 3 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 35.0 10.0 34.0 10.3 32 3 10.3 33.3 Total Spll (s) 17.0 46.0 21.0 50.0 28.0 50.0 13.0 35.0 Total Split(%) 13.1% 35.4% 16.2% 38.5% 21.5% 38.5% 10.0% 26.9% Maximum Green (s) 12.0 41.0 16.0 45.0 22.7 44.7 7.7 29.7 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 AU-Red nme (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10 0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 15.0 Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 22.0 20.0 21 0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 1 9 2 6 Act Effct Green (s) 12.0 40.3 15.1 43.4 10.8 46.7 7.3 43.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.12 0.33 0.08 0.36 0.06 0.33 vie Ratio 0.97 0.33 0.88 0.90 0.62 0.89 0.61 0.32 Control Delay 123.3 35.7 95.1 48.4 67.1 49.4 69.3 40.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 123.3 35.7 95.1 48.4 67.1 49.4 69.3 40.8 LOS F D F D E D E D Approach Delay 62.6 55.3 51.8 47.6 Approach LOS E E D D Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset: 81 (62%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle. 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 54.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitskl Rd I ,., f o2II 11 I '" 1~4 l 06 iii 1-oa "'05 / 07 Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 11 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 12: SE Carr Rd .,> --' Lane Configurations H ti. Volume(vph) 0 507 782 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.998 Fl Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 3532 Flt Permitted Said. Flow (perm) 3539 3532 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 178 333 Travel lime (s) 4.0 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 551 850 11 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 551 861 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 4 4 Two~ Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing AM Concord Engineering, Inc. '-. .,, '(' 0 24 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 0 1611 30 208 4.7 0.92 0.92 0 26 0 26 No No Left Right 0 0 8 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: SE 174th St -• • - Lane Configurations t,. 4' Volume (vph) 14 10 5 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane U1il. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.943 Flt Protected 0.976 Satd. Flow (prot) 1757 1818 FltPetmitted 0.976 Satd. Flow (perm) 1757 1818 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 508 361 Travel Time (s) 11.5 8.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 11 5 5 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 0 10 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 Existing AM Concord Engineering, Inc. "' ~ V 12 5 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.962 0.965 1729 0.965 1729 30 175 4.0 0.92 0.92 13 5 18 0 No No Left Right 12 0 6 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Service A 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: 106th PL SE (" ' \. !.. Lane Configurations V ~ Volume(vph) 10 15 10 118 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.920 Flt Protected 0.980 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1679 1770 Flt Pennitted 0.980 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1679 1770 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 199 420 Travel Time (s) 4.5 9.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 16 11 128 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 0 0 139 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two~ Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 15 Sign Control Stop Free Area Type: Other Cooool Type: Unsignallzed Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.1 % Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing PM Concord Engineering, Inc. \ ~ IS: 80 9 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 1611 30 310 7.0 0.92 0.92 87 10 97 0 No No Right Right 0 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 9 Free ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 1012212015 _,. -.. f -' "' t I" '-. + .,, Lane Configurations "i tl> "i tl> "i l, "i l> Volume (vph) 15 981 161 48 575 41 96 33 98 35 71 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 Storage Length (ft) 110 0 100 0 66 66 70 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.99 Frt 0.979 0.990 0.888 0.965 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (pro!) 1787 3453 0 1736 3427 1805 1611 0 1711 1777 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0 524 0.464 Said. Flow (penn) m1 3453 0 1711 3427 967 1611 0 805 1777 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 23 10 104 11 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 256 178 271 310 Travel Time (s) 5.8 4.0 6.2 7.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 20 20 20 28 28 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.70 0.70 0.70 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 16 1033 169 52 625 45 110 38 113 50 101 31 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 1202 52 670 110 151 50 132 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 2 3 2 4 2 2 3 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 108 176 102 222 70 56 73 98 Trailing Detector (ft) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Position(ft) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 88 78 82 82 50 50 53 53 Detector 2 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 10/22/2015 .,> -,. 'f -' ...., t ,,. "" + ./ Detector 3 Positlon(ft) 170 150 92 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 4 Position(ft) 216 Detector 4 Size(ft) 6 Detector 4 Type Cl+Ex Detector 4 Channel Detector 4 Extend (s) 0.0 Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Penn NA Penn NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 Pennitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 8 Swm:h Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 23.0 10.0 23.0 28.0 28.0 27.0 27.0 Total Split (s) 13.0 83.0 15.0 85.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split(%) 9.6% 61.5% 11.1% 63.0% 27.4% 27.4% 27.4% 27.4% Maximum Green (s) 8.0 78.0 10.0 80.0 320 32.0 32.0 32.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Aqust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 LeadA.ag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None None None WalkTime(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 16.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 Pedestrian CaHs (#/hr) 20 6 28 28 20 20 Act Effct Green ( s) 5.6 95.3 7.8 101.5 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.71 0.06 0.75 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 vie Ratio 0.22 0.49 0.52 0.26 0.81 0.48 0.45 0.51 Control Delay 69.1 11.1 54.0 10.1 95.4 22.6 63.5 54.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 69.1 11.3 54.0 10.1 95.4 22.6 63.5 54.8 LOS E B D B F C E D Approach Delay 12.1 13.3 53.3 57.2 Approach LOS B B D E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle Length: 135 Offset 60 (44%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.81 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 Existing PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Intersection Signal Delay: 20.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing PM Concord Engineering, Inc. Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service C 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 106th PL SE & SE 174th St .(" --, Lane Configurations t,. .f Volume (vph) 20 118 10 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.885 Flt Protected 0.989 Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 1842 Fft Permitted 0.989 Satd Flow (perm) 1649 1842 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 258 508 Travel Time (s) 5.9 11.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 A~. Flow (vph) 22 128 11 38 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 150 0 0 49 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 0 0 Link Oflset(ft} 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capactty Utilization 22.5% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing PM Concord Engineering, Inc. ~ ~ V 80 15 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.979 0.959 1749 0.959 1749 30 420 9.5 0 92 0.92 87 16 103 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: 108th PL SE/Bensen Dr S & SE 174th St ,,> ,. '\ t Lane Configurations .,, ++ Volume (vph) 0 43 0 872 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 3539 Flt Pennitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1611 3539 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 361 398 Travel Time (s) 8.2 9.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 47 0 948 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 47 0 948 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 Existing PM Concord Engineering, Inc. + .; tl> 1398 30 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.997 3529 3529 30 382 8.7 0.92 0.92 1520 33 1553 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Free ICU Level of Service A 10122/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 10/22/2015 ..J ~ ' ( ' ,.,_, Lane Configurations 11 ++ tt> 11 r Volume (vph) 39 1138 626 278 290 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 storage Length (ft) 175 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 Frt 0.954 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 3410 1787 1599 Flt Penrilled 0.270 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 508 3574 3410 0 1787 1575 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 91 24 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 298 382 287 Travel line (s) 6.8 8.7 6.5 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 42 1237 659 293 319 24 Shared Lane Traffic (%) '--Group Flow (vph) 42 1237 952 0 319 24 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Tumlng Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 Detector Template Left Left Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 306 306 30 30 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Posttion(ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 35 6 6 30 30 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Posilion(ft) 200 300 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Deleclor 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Detector 3 Position(ft) 300 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 10/22/2015 ~ 'It ' ( ' ~ Detector 3 Size(fl) 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 Tum Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 2 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Detector Phase 6 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.5 25.5 39.5 29.5 29.5 Total Split (s) 85.0 85.0 85.0 50.0 50.0 Total Spilt(%) 63.0% 63.0% 63.0% 37.0% 37.0% Maximum Green (s) 79.5 79.5 79.5 45.5 45.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode C-Min C-Min C-Min None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Don! Walk (s) 27.0 18.0 18.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 2 2 Act Effct Green (s) 95.7 95.7 95.7 29.3 29.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.22 0.22 vie Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.39 0.82 0.07 Control Delay 8.8 10.3 10.2 67.1 13.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.8 10 3 10.2 67.1 13.1 LOS A B B E B Approach Delay 10.3 10.2 63.3 Approach LOS B B E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle Length: 135 Offset: 103 (76%), Referenced to phase 2:NWT and 6:SETL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.82 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity UtiHzation 57 .1 % ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Splits and Phases: 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 Existing PM Concord Engineering, Inc. 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitsk::i: Rd 10/22/2015 .,> -t • -' ...., t I' '-. + -4" Lane Configurations "'i ti. 'I ti. 'l'I ti. 'l"'i ti. Volume (vph) 152 919 63 192 485 173 172 547 157 387 1006 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (fl) 223 0 180 0 525 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Taper Length (fl) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 100 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.990 0.961 0.967 0.993 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3529 1787 3405 3467 3432 3467 3545 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow !perm) 1773 3529 1773 3405 3453 3432 3427 3545 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 5 38 25 4 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 333 686 595 398 Travel Time (s} 7.6 15.6 13.5 9.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 24 24 15 8 13 13 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 160 967 66 204 516 184 183 582 167 412 1070 51 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 1033 0 204 700 0 183 749 0 412 1121 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 24 24 Link Ollset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 68 165 72 156 56 188 54 209 Trailing Detector (ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Posttion(ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 159 150 182 203 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s} 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prat NA Prat NA Prat NA Prot NA Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/3012015 Existing PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitsk~ Rd 1012212015 .,,. -• f -"'-..... t ,,. \. + ..,, Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 7 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Mininum lnttial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 35.0 10.0 34.0 10.3 32.3 10.3 33.3 Total Split (s) 26.0 49.0 22.0 45.0 15.0 36.0 28.0 49.0 Total Split(%) 19.3% 36.3% 16.3% 33.3% 11.1% 26.7% 20.7% 36.3% Maximum Green (s) 21.0 44.0 17.0 40.0 9.7 30.7 22.7 43.7 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 30 2.5 3.0 Mininum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 100 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 15.0 Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Walk (s) 23.0 220 20.0 21.0 Pedestrian Calls (111hr) 24 15 13 8 Act Effct Green (s) 15.9 43.2 16.5 43.8 9.4 35.1 19.6 45.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.32 0.12 0.32 0.07 0.26 0.15 0.34 vie Ratio 0.76 0.91 093 0.62 0.76 0.82 0.82 0.94 Control Delay 68.7 51.0 103.8 39.6 81.9 54.7 67.7 61.8 Queue Delay 0.0 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.7 54.2 103.8 39.6 81.9 54.7 67.7 61.8 LOS E D F D F D E E Approach Delay 56.1 54.1 60.1 63.4 Approach LOS E D E E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle Length: 135 Offset: 47 (35%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.94 Intersection Signal Delay: 59.0 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 S I' d Ph p ,ts an ases: 9 108 h t Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr R SEP di k R etrov,ts :y d '-e1 • t S2 IRl fe3 1~4 1 ..... es I + "6CRl• .,,. S7 1-"8 -1 Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 11 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 12: SE Carr Rd .,> --' Lane Configurations tt ti. Volume (vph) 0 1114 644 61 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0987 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 3493 FltPennitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 3493 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 178 333 Travel Time (s) 4.0 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1211 700 66 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1211 766 0 Enter Blocked Intersection Yes Yes Yes Yes Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 Link Oflset(II) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 4 4 Two ww, Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 34. 1 % Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 713012015 Existing PM Concord Engineering, Inc. '-. .,, r 0 20 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 0 1611 30 208 4.7 0.92 0.92 0 22 0 22 No No Left Right 0 0 8 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Service A 10122/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: SE 174th St -,. f - Lane Configurations l> 4' Volume (vph) 25 10 10 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.961 Fl Protected 0.984 Satd. Flow (prot) 1790 1833 Fl Permitted 0.984 Satd. Flow (perm) 1790 1833 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 508 361 Travel Tine (s) 11.5 8.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 11 11 22 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 0 0 33 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignallzed Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 Existing PM Concord Engineering, Inc. ...., I' V 25 18 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.943 0.972 1707 0.972 1707 30 175 4.0 0.92 0.92 27 20 47 0 No No Left Right 12 0 6 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: 106th PL SE .(" ' \. \.. Lane Configurations V ?I Volume(vph) 10 10 5 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.932 Flt Protected 0.976 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1694 1770 Fl Permitted 0.976 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1694 1770 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 199 420 Travel Time (s) 4.5 9.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 11 11 70 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 76 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Widlh(ft) 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Wldth(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 15 Sign Control Stop Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utiization 13.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base AM Concord Engineering, Inc. \ ~ ' 84 5 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 1611 30 310 7.0 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 95 6 101 No No Right Right 0 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 9 Free ICU Level of Service A 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 10/22/2015 .,J -'\, 'f -' ...., t ~ \. + .; Lane Configurations "i tf+ 11 tf+ 11 f+ "i f+ Volume (vph) 32 418 63 20 752 34 50 23 45 44 7 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 Storage Length (ft) 110 0 100 0 66 66 70 0 Storage lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane utlL F ac:tor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.98 Fri 0.980 0.993 0.900 0.887 Flt Protected 0 950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Saki. Flow (prot) 1671 3266 0 1770 3510 0 1736 1627 0 ms 1643 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.731 0.656 Said. Flow (perm) 1668 3266 0 1767 3510 0 1324 1627 0 1189 1643 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Saki. Flow (RTOR) 22 6 56 30 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Di&lance (ft) 256 178 271 310 Travel Time (s) 5.8 4.0 6.2 7.0 Conll. Peels. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 5 2 2 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.84 0 84 0.84 0.72 0.72 0.72 Growlll Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 8% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% AdJ. Flow (vph) 36 467 70 23 869 39 62 28 56 64 10 30 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flaw (¥Ph) 36 537 0 23 898 0 62 64 0 64 40 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Righi Left Left Right Left Ltft Right Left Let! Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 2 2 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 108 176 102 222 70 56 73 98 Trailing Detector (fl) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Position(ft) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(fl) 88 78 82 82 50 50 53 53 Detector 2 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Ct+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Ct+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Careage Mission Healthcare. Renton 7/3012015 2017 Base AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 10/22/2015 .,,. -t 'f -' ~ t ,,. \. + ..,, Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 3 Position(tt) 170 150 92 Detector 3 Size(fl) 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 00 00 0.0 Detector 4 Position(fl) 216 Detector 4 Size(ft) 6 Detector 4 Type Cl+Ex Detector 4 Channel Detector 4 Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type Prat NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 6 5 2 4 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 100 230 10.0 23.0 28.0 28.0 27.0 270 Total Spilt (s) 13.0 82.0 13.0 82.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split(%) 10.0% 63.1% 10.0% 63.1% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% Maximum Green (s) 8.0 77.0 8.0 77.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 16.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 1 2 2 2 5 5 Act Eflct Green (s) 6.6 101.1 6.0 100.6 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.78 0.05 0.77 0.09 0.09 0.09 0 09 vie Ratio 0.43 0.21 0.28 0.33 0.52 0.42 0.59 0.23 Control Delay 75.0 5.2 50.2 15.3 68.9 27.5 76.9 25.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.0 5.2 50.2 15.8 68.9 27.5 76.9 25.0 LOS E A D B E C E C Approach Delay 9.5 16.7 45.1 56.9 Approach LOS A B D E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset: 80 (62%). Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT. Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Base AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Maximum vie Ratio: 0.59 Intersection Signal Delay: 19.1 Intersection Capacity Ulilizallon 46.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base AM Concord Engineering, Inc. Intersection LOS: 8 ICU Level of S81Vlce A I t .. 10122/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 106th PL SE & SE 174th St -~ .(" - Lane Configurations t,. 4' Volume (vph) 12 60 7 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.888 Flt Protected 0.979 Said. Flow (prot) 1654 0 1824 Flt Permitted 0.979 Said. Flow (perm) 1654 1824 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 264 508 Travelrlme (s) 6.0 11.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 14 68 8 11 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 19 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Widlh(ft) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utiization 19.2% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/3012015 2017 Base AM Concord Engineering, Inc. ~ ~ V 82 12 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.982 0.958 1752 0.958 1752 30 420 9.5 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 93 14 107 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 15 9 Slop ICU Level of Service A 10122/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: 108th PL SE/Bensen Dr S & SE 174th St .,> t' ~ t Lane Configurations .,, H Volume (vph) 0 19 0 1504 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.865 Flt Protected Said. Flow (prot) 1611 3539 FltPemilted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1611 3539 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 361 398 Travel Time (s) 8.2 9.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growltl Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 21 0 1700 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 21 1700 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Wldlh(fl) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswal< Wldth(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Area fype: Oll1er Control Type: Unsignalized lnternection Capacity Utilization 46.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base AM Concord Engineering, Inc. ! .,, tfo. 418 10 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.997 3529 3529 30 367 8.3 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 473 11 484 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Free ICU Level of Service A 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 10/22/2015 ~ 'Iii. ' ( ' ~ Lane Configurations 'I tt ti. 'I r Volume (vph) 13 254 1239 387 174 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 Taper Length (II) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 100 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100 Frt 0.964 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1533 3065 3071 0 1608 1439 Flt Permitted 0.088 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 142 3065 3071 0 1608 1439 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 59 39 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 276 367 287 Travel Time (s) 6.3 8.3 6.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 2% 2% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 17 334 1386 433 195 39 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 334 1819 195 39 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Wldth{II) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 3 2 1 1 Detector Template Left Left Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 306 306 30 30 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Poslllon(II) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 35 6 6 30 30 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(tt) 200 300 Detector 2 Size(fl) 6 6 D elector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Detector 3 Position(ft) 300 Detector 3 Size(ft) Careage Mission Healthcare-Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 10/2212015 ,._:I( '!II. ' ( " ~ Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type Perm NA NA Prat Perm Protected Phases 6 2 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 8 8 Switch Phase Mlninum lnftlal (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.5 25.5 39.5 29.5 29.5 Total Split (s) 85.0 85.0 85.0 45.0 45.0 Total Split(%) 65.4% 65.4% 65.4% 34.6% 34.6% Maximum Green (s) 79.5 79.5 79.5 40.5 40.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 Al-Red Time (s} 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Tlll18 (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Gap (s} 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode C-Min C-Min C-Min None None WalkTime(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 27.0 18.0 18.0 Pedeslri!rl Cals (/Mir) 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 99.2 99.2 99.2 20.8 20.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.16 vie Ratio 0.16 0.14 0.77 0.76 0.15 Control Delay 9.5 4.8 22.1 70.1 13.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.5 4.8 22.8 70.1 13.6 LOS A A C E B Approach Delay 5.0 22.8 60.7 Approach LOS A C E Area Type: CBD Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset 30 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:NWT and 6:SETL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.77 Intersection Signal Delay: 23.9 lntellleCtlon LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min} 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Splits and Phases: 7 B B en sen Dr S/Benson Dr S & enson R S d '•2/Rl "II. 06 /Rl Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base AM Concord Engineering, Inc. I '"8 10/2212015 I Synchro 8 Report Page9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitskl Rd 1012212015 .,> -,. 'f -' "" t I' \. + ./ Lane Configurations 11 ti. 11 ti. 'f'I ti. 1111 ti. Volume(vph) 138 272 40 158 583 331 171 1035 45 105 294 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Lenglh (ft) 223 0 180 0 525 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 Taper Length (It) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.981 0.946 0.994 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 3243 1770 3319 3400 3482 3335 3372 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1652 3243 1768 3319 3371 3482 3332 3372 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 13 94 4 10 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 333 686 582 398 Travel Time (s) 7.6 15.6 13.2 9.0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 9 1 1 9 6 2 2 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.93 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles(%) 9% 9% 9% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% Adj. Flow (vph) 154 304 45 189 697 396 183 1110 48 117 329 42 Shared Lane Traffic:(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 349 0 189 1093 183 1158 117 371 0 Enter Blocked ln!elsection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Medan Widlh(fl) 12 12 24 24 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosawak Wldlh(lt) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Deteclors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 68 165 72 156 56 188 54 209 Trailing Detector (ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Posllion(ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 159 150 182 203 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Careage Mission Healthcare· Renton 713012015 2017 Base AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitsk;i Rd 1012212015 .,> -.. f -'-.... t ~ '. + .,, Tum Type Prot NA Prat NA Prat NA Prat NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 50 10.0 50 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 35.0 10.0 34.0 10.3 32.3 10.3 33.3 Total Split (s) 17.0 46.0 21.0 50.0 28.0 50.0 130 35.0 Total Spilt(%) 13.1% 35.4% 16.2% 38.5% 21.5% 38.5% 10.0% 26.9% Maximum Green (s) 120 41.0 16.0 45.0 22.7 44.7 7.7 29.7 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time ( s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lead/lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 15.0 RecallMode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min Walk Time (s) 70 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 22.0 20.0 21.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 1 9 2 6 Ari. Effct Green (s) 12.0 40.7 15.3 44.0 11.1 46.0 7.3 42.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.12 0.34 0.09 0.35 0.06 0.33 vie Ratio 1.01 0.34 0.91 0.92 0.63 0.94 0.63 0.34 Control Delay 132.7 36.0 98.9 50.8 67.1 55.4 68.5 42.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 132.7 36.0 98.9 50.8 67.1 55.4 68.5 42.4 LOS F D F D E E E D Approach Delay 65.6 57.9 57.0 48.6 Approach LOS E E E D Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset: 81 (62%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 1.01 Intersection Signal Delay: 57.4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacly utiization 88.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitskl Rd I ,., I f a2ij Ii I'" 1~4 j a6ii 1-~ .... ~5 .,> al Lanes, Volumes, Timings 12: SE Carr Rd ~ --' Lane Configurations H ti. Volume (vph) 0 508 782 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Utff. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.998 Fl Prolecled Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 3532 Fl Pennllled Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 3532 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 178 333 Travel Time (s) 4.0 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 574 884 11 Sha!ed Lane Tralllc (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 574 895 0 Enter Blocked lnlerseclion No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Median Wlclh(ft) 12 12 Link Offset(tt) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(fl) 4 4 Two way Left Turn Lane Headwlly Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 Sign Control FllNI Free AINTp OIiier Control Type: Unsignalized lotersedlon Capacly UIIUzation 32.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Base AM Concord Engineering, Inc. ~ ~ .,, 0 24 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 0 1611 0 1611 30 208 4.7 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 0 27 0 27 No No Left Right 0 0 8 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU level of Service A 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: SE 174th St -.. ('" - Lane Configurations l> 4' Volume (vph) 14 10 5 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.945 Fl Protected 0.976 Satd. Flow (prot) 1760 1818 Fl Pennitted 0.976 Satd. Flow (perm) 1760 1818 Link Speed (111>h) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 508 361 Travel rme (s) 11.5 8.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 16 11 6 6 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 0 12 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Wldth(ft) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity mization 14.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7 /3012015 2017 Base AM Concord Engineering, Inc. ~ I' ¥ 12 5 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.959 0.966 1726 0.966 1726 30 175 4.0 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 14 6 20 0 No No Left Right 12 0 6 1.00 1.00 15 Stop ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: 106th PL SE ("" "-\. ~ Lane Configurations V =i VolumeM)h) 10 15 10 118 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.918 Fl Prolected 0.981 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1678 1770 Fl Pennilled 0.981 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1678 1770 Lint Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 199 420 Travel Time (s) 4.5 9.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growlh Faclor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 11 17 11 133 Slun:I Lane Traffic{%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 0 0 144 Enter Blocked lnt8nectlon No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Lett Left Median Wldih(ft) 12 12 Link Offset(tt) 0 0 Crosswalc Wldlh(fl) 16 16 Two way Lett Tum Lane HeadW8y Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 15 Sign COl'llld stop Fn,e Aiia'!Wi. Oilier . Control Type: Unsignalized lnlersedion Capacity Utilization 17.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base PM Concord Engineering, Inc. \ ~ ' 80 9 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 1611 30 310 7.0 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 90 10 100 0 No No Right Right 0 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 9 Fn,e ICU Level of Service A 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 1012212015 .,,;, -" f -"-"" t I' \. + .,, Lane Configurations "i ti. 11 ti. 11 i. "i i. Volume (vph) 15 981 161 48 575 41 96 33 98 35 71 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 lane Width (fl) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 Storage Length (ft) 110 0 100 0 66 66 70 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.99 Frt 0.979 0.990 0.887 0.964 Flt Protected 0 950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (pro!) 1787 3453 0 1736 3427 0 1805 1609 0 1711 1775 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.509 0.454 Said. Flow (pem1) 1772 3453 0 1713 3427 0 940 1609 0 788 1775 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 23 9 105 11 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (fl) 256 178 271 310 Travel Time (s) 5.8 4.0 6.2 7.0 Confl. Peds. (#!1lr) 6 20 20 6 20 28 28 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.70 0.70 070 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 18 1074 178 54 650 46 115 39 117 52 105 33 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 1250 0 54 696 0 115 156 0 52 138 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offsel(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 Tumilg Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 2 4 2 2 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 108 176 102 222 70 56 73 98 Trailing Detector (It) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Position(ft) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Size(fl) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Deledor 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s} 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s} 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 88 78 82 82 50 50 53 53 Detector 2 Size(ft} 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Careage Mission Healthcare-Renton 713012015 2017 Base PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 1012212015 .,> -l' 'f -' ~ t I" '.. + .,.,, Deledor 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 3 Position(ft) 170 150 92 Deledor 3 Size(tl) 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 00 0.0 0.0 Deteclor 4 Posion(ft) 216 Detector 4 Size(ft) 6 Deteclor 4Type Cl+Ex Detector 4 Channel Detector 4 Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type Prat NA Prat NA Perm NA Perrn NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 6 5 2 4 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum lnftlal (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 23.0 100 23.0 28.0 28.0 27.0 270 Total Spit (s) 13.0 83.0 15.0 85.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split(%) 9.6% 61.5% 11.1% 63.0% 27.4% 27.4% 27.4% 27.4% Maximum Green (s) 8.0 78.0 10.0 80.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red rime (S) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost rune (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag l.eacM.ag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 RecalMode None C-Max None C-Max None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 16.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 20 6 28 28 20 20 Ad Eltt Green (s) 5.6 94.8 7.9 101.1 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.70 0.06 0.75 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 v/cRallo 0.22 0.51 0.53 0.27 0.86 0.49 0.46 0.52 Control Delay 69.1 11.7 54.2 11.1 102.2 23.1 64.1 54.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 69.1 12.0 54.2 11.4 102.2 232 64.1 54.9 LOS E B D B F C e D Approach Delay 12.7 14.5 56.7 57.4 Approach LOS B B E E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cyde Length: 135 Offset: 60 (44%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT. Start of Green Natural Cyde: 70 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Maximum vie Ratio: 0.86 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73. 7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Base PM Concord Engineering, Inc. Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service D 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 106th PL SE & SE 174th St -(" -" Lane Configurations lo-,f Volume (vph) 20 118 10 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Fador 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.885 Flt Protected 0.989 Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 1842 FltPmlled 0.989 Satd. Flow (perm) 1649 1842 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 258 508 Travel Tune (s) 5.9 11.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 23 133 11 40 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 156 0 0 51 Enter Blocked lntersedion No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Wldlh{ft) 0 0 Link Offset(tt) 0 0 CrosswalkWldth(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Fl88 F188 Aiiia l'ype: Oti\er . Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utllzalion 23.2% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Base PM Concord Engineering, Inc. ~ ~ V 80 15 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.979 0.960 1751 0.960 1751 30 420 9.5 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 90 17 107 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: 108th PL SE/Bensen Dr S & SE 174th St .,> ,. "' t Lane Configurations .,, ++ Volume (vph) 0 43 0 872 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.865 Fl Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 3539 Fl Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1611 3539 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 361 398 Travel r1111e (s) 8.2 9.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 49 0 986 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 0 986 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Widlh{ft) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity utilization 51.2% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base PM Concord Engineering, Inc. + ./ tt,. 1398 30 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.997 3529 3529 30 382 8.7 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 1580 34 1614 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Free ICU Level of Service A 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 10122/2015 ~ ~ ' ( ' 'It-; Lane Configurations 11 tt ti. 11 .,, Volume (vph) 39 1138 626 278 290 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (fl) 175 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (fl) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 100 0.95 0.95 0.95 100 1.00 Ped Bile Factor 0.98 Frt 0.954 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 3410 1787 1599 Flt Pennllted 0.257 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 483 3574 3410 0 1787 1575 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 91 25 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 298 382 287 Travel Tll118 (s) 6.8 8.7 6.5 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Peek Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 44 1286 685 304 331 25 Shanld LIN Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 44 1286 989 0 331 25 Enter Blocked lntenectlon No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right Median Widlt(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswal Wldth(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Deteclors 1 3 2 1 1 Detector Template Left Left Right Leading Detector (I) 35 306 308 30 30 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Deteclor 1 Postion(ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 35 6 6 30 30 Deleclor 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 200 300 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Delull' 2 Chalnel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/3012015 2017 Base PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 10/22/2015 ~ ~ ' ( ' 'It-, Detector 3 Poslion(ft) 300 Detector 3 S,ze(ft) 6 Detector 3 Type Cf+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 2 8 Permitted Phases 6 Detector Phase 6 6 2 8 Switch Phase Minimum lnttial (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.5 25.5 39.5 29.5 29 5 Total Split (s) 85.0 85.0 85.0 50.0 50.0 Total Split(%) 63.0% 63.0% 63.0% 37.0% 37.0% Maximum Green (s) 79.5 79.5 79.5 45.5 45.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 AH-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 100 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 a.a 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode C-Min C-Min C-Min None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 27.0 18.0 18.0 Pedestrian CaUs (#/hr) 0 2 2 Act Effct Green (s) 94.8 94.8 94.8 30.2 30.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.22 0.22 vie Ratio 0.13 0.51 0.41 0.83 0.07 Control Delay 9.4 11.0 12.2 66.8 13.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.4 11.0 12.2 66.8 13.0 LOS A B B E B Approach Delay 11.0 12.2 63.0 Approach LOS B B E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle Length: 135 Offset: 103 (76%), Referenced to phase 2:NWT and 6:SETL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.83 Intersection Signal Delay: 18.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.0% ICU Level of Service B Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Base PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base PM Concord Engineering, Inc. 1012212015 Synchro B Report Page9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitskl Rd 1012212015 .,,. -,. f -' ~ t ~ \. + ..,, Lane Configurations "'i tf. "'i tf. "'i"'i tf. "'i"'i tf. Volume (vph) 152 919 63 192 485 173 172 547 157 387 1006 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (It) 223 0 180 0 525 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.990 0.961 0.966 0.993 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3529 1787 3406 3467 3429 3467 3545 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1774 3529 1774 3406 3454 3429 3429 3545 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 5 38 25 4 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 333 686 595 398 Travel Time (s) 7.6 15.6 13.5 9.0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 15 24 24 15 8 13 13 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 166 1006 69 212 537 191 190 605 174 428 1113 53 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 1075 0 212 728 190 779 428 1166 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 24 24 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswak Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 68 165 72 156 56 188 54 209 Trailing Detector (ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Positlon(ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 159 150 182 203 Detector 2 Size(fl) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Careage Mission Healthcare. Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovits kl Rd 1012212015 .,,. -~ 'f -' ~ t I' \. + ..,, Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 5 1 Pennilted Phases Detector Phase 4 Swilch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 35.0 10.0 34.0 10.3 32.3 10.3 33.3 Total Split (s) 26.0 49.0 22.0 45.0 15.0 36.0 28.0 49.0 Total Split (%) 19.3% 36.3% 16.3% 33.3% 11.1% 26.7% 20.7% 36.3% Maximum Green (s) 21.0 44.0 17.0 40.0 9.7 30.7 22.7 43.7 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Tine Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 LeadA.ag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 15.0 Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Cont Walk (s) 23.0 22.0 20.0 21.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 24 15 13 8 Act Effa Green (s) 16.3 43.6 16.8 44.2 9.4 33.9 20.0 44.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.32 0.12 0.33 om 0.25 0.15 0.33 vie Ratio o.n 0.94 0.95 0.64 0.79 0.89 0.83 0.99 Control Delay 68.7 53.8 107.2 40.1 83.9 60.3 67.1 71.6 QueueDelay 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.7 60.4 107.2 40.1 83.9 60.3 67.1 71.6 LOS E E F D F E E E Approach Delay 61.5 55.2 64.9 70.4 Approach LOS E E E E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle Length: 135 Offset: 47 (35%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.99 Intersection Signal Delay: 64.0 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Util'IZ8llon 92.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitskl Rd I ~., I 1 ~a! f e2cy 1 ·~ 1~4 l 1-~ ~es .,;. el Lanes, Volumes, Timings 12: SE Carr Rd .,,;. --4.... Lane Configurations tt ti. Volume (vph) 0 1113 644 61 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.987 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 3493 FltPennitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 3493 Link Speed (mph} 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 178 333 Travel Time (s} 4.0 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1258 728 69 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 1258 797 0 Enter Blocked Intersection Yes Yes Yes Yes Lane Alignment Left Lett Lett Right Median Wldlh(fl) 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswell Width(ft) 4 4 Two way Lett Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized lnteraection Capacity Utilization 35.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Base PM Concord Engineering, Inc. \. ..,, r 0 20 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 0 1611 30 208 4.7 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 0 23 0 23 No No Lett Right 0 0 8 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of SeNice A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: SE 174th St .. f -- Lane Configurations l> 4' Volume (vph) 25 10 10 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Utif. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.962 Flt Protec:ted 0.984 Satd Flow (prot) 1792 1833 Fl Permilted 0.984 Satd. Flow (perm) 1792 1833 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 508 361 Travel Time (s) 11.5 8.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 28 11 11 23 Shared Lane Trafk (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 0 0 34 Enter Btocked lnlersedion No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left MedlanWldlh(fl) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalt Wfdlh(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Flldor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign COlllrol Free Free Arelfyp'e: Oiler Control Type: Unsignalized lnler1ection capacity Utilzatlon 18.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare· Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Base PM Concord Engineering, Inc. ~ ,,. V 25 18 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.944 0.972 1709 0.972 1709 0 30 175 4.0 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 28 20 48 0 fllo No Left Right 12 0 6 1.00 1.00 15 9 Slop ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: 106th PL SE ~ '-'. ~ Lane Configurations ¥ ?i Volume (vph) 17 10 5 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.950 Flt Protected 0.969 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1715 0 1770 FltPemitted 0.969 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1715 1770 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 199 420 Travel Time (s) 4.5 9.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 19 11 6 70 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 0 76 Enter Blocked ln1ersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Wldth(ft) 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswal< Width(fl) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 15 Sign Control Stop Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Build AM Concord Engineering, Inc. \ ~ IS: 84 11 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 1611 30 310 7.0 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 95 12 107 No No Right Right 0 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 9 Free ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 10/22/2015 _,;. -l' 'f -' ~ t I' \. ! .,' Lane Configurations "i ti. .., ti. .., lo "i lo Volume (yph) 37 418 63 20 752 35 50 23 45 50 7 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (II) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 Storage Length (ft) 110 0 100 0 66 66 70 0 Storage lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Ulll. Fae.tor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 100 100 100 1.00 0.99 0 99 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.980 0.993 0.900 0.885 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (plot) 1671 3266 0 mo 3510 0 1736 1627 0 1728 1638 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.729 0.660 Said. Fbw (perm) 1668 3266 0 1767 3510 0 1321 1627 0 1197 1638 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 22 6 56 33 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Oitllance (II) 256 178 271 310 Travel Time (s) 5.8 4.0 6.2 7.0 Conti. Peels. (#lllr) 2 1 2 5 2 2 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.72 0.72 0.72 Growth Fador 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 8% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% A4. Fbw (yph) 41 467 70 23 869 40 62 28 56 72 10 33 Shared Lane Traffic(%) LaneGnlup flow (yph) 41 537 0 23 899 0 62 84 0 72 43 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Allpnent I.alt left Right Left Left Righi I.ell Left Righi I.ell l.etl Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Ollsel(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two Wtl'f Lall Tum Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1 00 1.00 Tumt,g Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 2 4 2 Deteclllr Template Leading Detector (ft) 108 176 102 222 70 56 73 98 Trailklg 01148dor (ft) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Posttion(ft) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Slze(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Poslllon(ft) 88 78 82 82 50 50 53 53 Detector 2 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Oel8dot 2Ttpe Cl+Ex Clt£x Cl+EX Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Careaga Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 10/22/2015 .,,. -,. f -' ~ t r \. + .,' Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 3 Position(ft) 170 150 92 Detector 3 Size(fl) 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 4 Position(ft) 216 Detector 4 Size(ft) 6 Detector 4 Type Cl+Ex Detector 4 Channel Detector 4 Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 6 5 4 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 100 23.0 100 230 28.0 28.0 27.0 27.0 Total Split (s) 13.0 82.0 13.0 82.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split(%) 10.0% 63.1% 10.0% 63.1% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% 26.9% Maxiirum Green (s) 8.0 77.0 8.0 77.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Wall (s) 11.0 11.0 16.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr} 1 2 2 2 5 5 Act Effct Green (s) 6.7 100.5 6.0 97.8 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 077 0.05 0.75 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 vie Ratio 0.48 0.21 0.28 0.34 0.49 0.41 0.63 0.23 Control Delay 77.8 5.3 50.5 16.8 66.6 26.7 78.6 23.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 77.8 5.3 50.5 17.5 66 6 26.7 78.6 23.9 LOS E A D B E C E C Approach Delay 10.4 18.3 43.7 58.1 Approach LOS B B D E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset: 80 (62%}, Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.4 Intersection Capaclly utilzation 50.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build AM Concord Engineering, Inc. Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Selvice A 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 106th PL SE & SE 174th St (" --, Lane Configurations l> 4' Volume(vph) 12 60 7 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.888 Flt Protected 0.979 Satd. Flow (prot) 1654 1824 Fl Permitted 0.979 Satd. Flow (perm) 1654 1824 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 264 508 Travel rme (s) 6.0 11.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 14 68 8 11 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 19 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Wldth(ft) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Wldth(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized lnter.;ection Capacity Utilization 19.2% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 713012015 2017 Build AM Concord Engineering, Inc. ....... ~ V 82 12 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.982 0.958 1752 0.958 1752 30 420 9.5 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 93 14 107 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Setvice A 10122/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: 108th PL SE/Bensen Dr S & SE 17 4th St .,} ,. "\ t Lane Configurations .,, tt Voklne (vph) 0 20 0 1507 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Ulil. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.865 Fl ProtBcted Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 3539 FIi Pennillad Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1611 3539 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 361 398 T111'181Tune(s) 8.2 9.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 GRl'Mh Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 23 0 1704 Sha!adl-Tralfic('lo) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 23 0 1704 Enlllr Bloc:bd lnterMdion No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Medlin Wlclh(ft) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalt Wldlh(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 Slgn Control Stolt Free Ania f'ftle: . ' 6ilier. Control Type: Unsignalized lntersedlon Capacly Ullization 46.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careaga Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/3012015 2017 Build AM Concord Engineering, Inc. ! .,, tf. 418 15 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.995 3522 3522 30 367 8.3 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 473 17 490 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Fraa ICU level ol Selvk:e A 10/2212015 Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 1012212015 -.JI '-. ' ( ' ~ Lane Configurations 11 tt tf. 11 .,, Volume (vph) 13 257 1240 388 177 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.964 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1533 3065 3071 0 1608 1439 Flt Permitted 0 087 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 140 3065 3071 0 1608 1439 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 59 39 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 276 367 287 Travel Time (s) 6.3 8.3 6.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 2% 2% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 17 338 1387 434 198 39 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 338 1821 0 198 39 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 3 2 1 1 Detector Template Left Left Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 306 306 30 30 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 35 6 6 30 30 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 200 300 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Detector 3 Position(fl) 300 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Build AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 1012212015 ..J ~ ' ( ' ,._.., Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 Tum Type Perm NA NA Prat Perm Protected Phases 6 2 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 8 8 Swnch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.5 25.5 39.5 29.5 29.5 TotalSpltt(s) 85.0 85.0 85.0 45.0 45.0 Total Split(%) 65.4% 65.4% 65.4% 34.6% 34.6% Maximum Green (s) 79.5 79.5 79.5 40.5 40.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 MinimumGap(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode C-Min C-Min C-Min None None WalkTime(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 27.0 18.0 18.0 Pedestrian Cals (#/hr) 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 99.0 99.0 99.0 21.0 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.16 vie Ratio 0.16 0.14 0.77 0.76 0.15 Control Delay 9.8 4.8 22.2 70.1 13.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.8 4.8 22.8 70.1 13.5 LOS A A C E B Approach Delay 5.1 22.8 60.8 Approach LOS A C E Area Type: CBD Cycle Leng111: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset: 30 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:NWT and 6:SETL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.77 Intersection Signal Delay: 23.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 713012015 2017 Build AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Splrts and Phases: 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S t::; Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build AM Concord Engineering, Inc. 10/22/2015 j Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitskt Rd 1012212015 ~ -t' 'f -' "" t ,. \. + ./ Lane Configurations 'I ti. 'I ti. 'l'I ti. 'l'I ti. Volume (vph) 141 274 41 158 588 331 176 1035 45 105 295 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (fl) 223 0 180 0 525 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 2 0 2 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.980 0.946 0.994 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1656 3240 1770 3319 3400 3482 3335 3372 Flt Pennilted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1652 3240 1768 3319 3371 3482 3332 3372 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 13 92 4 10 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 333 686 582 398 Travel rme (s) 7.6 15.6 13.2 9.0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 9 1 1 9 6 2 2 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.93 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles(%) 9% 9% 9% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% Adj. Flow (vph) 158 306 46 189 703 396 189 1110 48 117 330 42 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 352 189 1099 0 189 1158 0 117 372 0 Enter Blocked lntersedlon No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Medlen Wldth(ft) 12 12 24 24 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Leading Detector (fl) 68 165 72 156 56 188 54 209 Trailing Detector (ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detedor 1 Poslion(fl) 46 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detedor 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 159 150 182 203 Detector 2 Size(fl) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Del9c*Jr 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend ( s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Build AM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitsk;i:: Rd 1012212015 .,} " f -' "' t I" \. + ..,' - Tum Type Pro! NA Pro! NA Pro! NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 100 5.0 100 Minimum Spit (s) 10.0 35.0 10.0 34.0 10.3 32.3 10.3 33.3 Total Split (s) 17.0 46.0 21.0 50.0 28.0 50.0 13.0 350 Total Spilt (%) 13.1% 35.4% 16.2% 38.5% 21.5% 38.5% 10.0% 26.9% Maximum Green (s) 12.0 41.0 16.0 45.0 22.7 44.7 7.7 29.7 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 30 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 10 0 15.0 10.0 150 Recall Mode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 22.0 20.0 21.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 1 9 2 6 Act Effct Green (s) 12.0 40.8 15.3 44.1 11.3 46.0 7.3 41.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.12 0.34 0.09 0.35 0.06 0.32 v/cRalio 1.04 0.34 0.91 0.93 0.64 0.94 0.63 0.34 Control Delay 138.8 36.7 98.9 51.4 67.0 55.7 68.3 42.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 138.8 36.7 98.9 51.4 67.0 55.7 68.3 42.4 LOS F D F D E E E D Approach Delay 68.3 58.4 57.3 48.6 Approach LOS E E E D Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Offset: 81 (62%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT. Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 1.04 Intersection Signal Delay: 58.1 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utiization 89.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Splrts and Phases: 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitskv Rd \Bl I t ~2 (R) fB3 1-..4 -I ..., B5 + B6(R) /' Bl 1-"8 I Lanes, Volumes, Timings 12: SE Carr Rd .,,. --' Lane Configurations tt ti> Volume (vph) 0 513 783 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.997 Fl Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 3529 Fl Pennitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 3529 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 178 333 Travel rune (s) 4.0 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 580 885 20 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 580 905 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Median Widlh(ft) 12 12 Link Offset(tt) 0 0 Crosswak Wldth(ft) 4 4 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 Sign Ccrirol Free Free Area Type: Ot'1er Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utifization 33.1 % Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build AM Concord Engineering, Inc. \. .; r 0 24 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 0 1611 30 208 4.7 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 0 27 0 27 No No Left Right 0 0 8 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Service A 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: SE 174th St ,. f -- Lane Configurations i. 4' Volume (vph) 14 10 11 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.945 Flt Protected 0.968 Satd. Flow (prot) 1760 1803 Flt Permitted 0.968 Satd. Flow (perm) 1760 1803 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 508 361 Travel Tme (s) 11.5 8.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 16 11 12 6 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 18 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Width(fl) 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare. Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build AM Concord Engineering, Inc. ~ I" V 12 6 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.955 0.968 1722 0.968 1722 30 175 4.0 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 14 7 21 No No Left Right 12 0 6 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of S81Vice A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: 106th PL SE ('" ' \. k Lane Configurations ¥ %1 Volume (vph) 26 15 10 118 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.950 Fl Protected 0.969 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1715 1770 Flt Permitted 0.969 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1715 1770 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 199 420 Travel rrne (s) 4.5 9.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 29 17 11 133 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 0 144 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Mecfian Widlh(ft) 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 15 Sign Control Slop Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized lntersedlon Capacity Utilization 17.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build PM Concord Engineering, Inc. \ ~ IS: 80 14 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 1611 30 310 7.0 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 90 16 106 No No Right Right 0 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 9 Free ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 10/22/2015 / ' f -'-"' t I' '-. ! .,, - Lane Configurations "'i ti. 11 ti. 11 l, 11 l, Volume (vph) 20 981 161 48 575 42 96 33 98 46 71 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 Storage Length (ft) 110 0 100 0 66 66 70 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 100 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.99 Frt 0.979 0.990 0.887 0.959 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (pro!) 1787 3453 0 1736 3427 0 1805 1609 0 1711 1763 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.490 0457 Said. Flow (perm) 1772 3453 0 1713 3427 0 906 1609 794 1763 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 23 10 105 13 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 256 178 271 310 Travel Time (s) 5.8 40 6.2 7.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 20 20 20 28 28 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.70 0.70 0.70 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 22 1074 176 54 650 47 115 39 117 68 105 40 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 1250 0 54 697 0 115 156 0 68 145 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Righi Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(fl) 12 12 12 12 link Offset(fl) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two Wl!lf Left Tum Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 100 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 1.04 100 100 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 2 2 4 2 Detector Template Leading Detector (fl) 108 176 102 222 70 56 73 98 Traiing Detector (ft) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Position(fl) 23 23 22 22 20 20 22 22 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 88 78 82 82 50 50 53 53 Detector 2 Size(fl) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE 10/22/2015 -> ---.. ., -' ~ t /"' ',. + .,, Detector 2 Elctend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 3 Position(ft) 170 150 92 Detector 3 Slze(ft) 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 4 Poslion(ft) 216 Detector 4 Size(ft) 6 Detector 4Type Cl+Ex Detector 4 Channel Detector 4 Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase 6 5 2 4 4 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 230 10.0 23.0 28.0 28.0 27.0 270 Total Spit (s) 13.0 83.0 15.0 85.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Total Spin(%) 9.6% 61.5% 11.1% 63.0% 27.4% 27.4% 27.4% 27.4% Maximum Green (s) 8.0 78.0 10.0 80.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 AU-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost rme (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-leg Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 RecallMode None C-Max None C-Max None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 70 7.0 7.0 70 Flash Dant Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 16.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 20 6 28 28 20 20 Act Eflct Green (s) 6.0 94.6 7.9 98.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.70 0.06 0.73 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 vie Ratio 0.28 0.52 0.53 0.28 0.88 0.48 0.60 0.55 Control Delay 70.9 11.8 53.7 12.5 107.2 22.9 73.2 55.0 Queue Delay o.o 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 70.9 12.2 53.7 12.7 107.2 23.0 73.2 55.0 LOS E B D B F C E D Approach Delay 13.2 15.7 58.7 60.8 Approach LOS B B E E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle length: 135 Offset: 60 (44%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Careage Mission Healthcare. Renton 7130/2015 2017 Build PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.88 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.9 Intersection Capacity UtHization 73. 7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: SE Carr Rd & 106th PL SE I~: I[:: Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build PM Concord Engineering, Inc. Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service D 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 106th PL SE & SE 174th St -~ -...,.,, Lane Configurations f. 4' Volume(vph) 20 118 10 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Utll. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.885 Fft Prolected 0.989 Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 1842 Fft Penritted 0.989 Satd. Flow (perm) 1649 1842 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 258 508 Travel Time (s) 5.9 11.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Fadllr 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 23 133 11 40 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 156 0 51 Enter Blocked lnter1edlon No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Mecian Wldlh(fl) 0 0 Link Offset(tt) 0 0 Crosswal< Wldth(fl) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Fac:lor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area1ype: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity UtiUzation 23.2% Analysis Period (rnin) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build PM Concord Engineering, Inc. ..__ ~ V 80 15 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.979 0.960 1751 0.960 1751 30 420 9.5 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 90 17 107 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: 108th PL SE/Bensen Dr S & SE 174th St __,. ,. ...., t Lane Configurations r tt Volume (vph) 0 46 0 877 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 3539 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1611 3539 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 361 398 Travel Time (s} 8.2 9.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 52 0 991 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 991 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Median Widlh(ft} 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ll) 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utiization 51.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7130/2015 2017 Build PM Concord Engineering, Inc. + .,' ti. 1398 35 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.996 3525 3525 30 382 8.7 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 1580 40 1620 No No Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 9 Free ICU Level of SetVice A 1012212015 Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 10/22/2015 ~ ~ ' ( ' ~ Lane Configurations ., tt ti. "i .,, Volume (vph) 39 1140 628 281 293 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (fl) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 Frt 0.954 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 3410 1787 1599 Flt Permitted 0.254 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 478 3574 3410 0 1787 1575 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 92 25 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 298 382 287 Travel Tune (s) 6.8 8.7 6.5 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 44 1289 687 308 335 25 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 44 1289 995 0 335 25 Enter Blocked lnlllrsection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right MedlanWldlh(fl) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Wldlh(fl) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Faclor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 3 2 1 1 Detector Template Left Left Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 306 306 30 30 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Posilion(ft) 0 20 200 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 35 6 6 30 30 Detedor 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Deley (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 200 300 Detector 2 Size(fl) 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S 1012212015 ~ 'it ' ( ' ~ Detector 3 Position(ft) 300 Detector 3 Size(ft) Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 Turn Type Perrn NA NA Prot Perrn Protected Phases 6 2 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Detector Phase 6 6 2 8 8 Switch Phase Minimum lnlial (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.5 25.5 39.5 29.5 29.5 Total Spl~ (s) 85.0 85.0 85.0 50.0 50.0 Total Split(%) 63.0% 63.0% 63.0% 37 0% 37.0% Maximum Green (s) 79.5 79.5 79.5 45.5 45.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 10.0 100 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode C-Min C-Min C-Min None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 27.0 18.0 18.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 2 2 Act Effct Green (s) 94.5 94.5 94.5 30.5 30.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.23 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.52 0.41 0.83 007 Control Delay 9.6 11.2 12.5 66.6 12.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.6 11.2 12.5 66.6 12.9 LOS A B B E B Approach Delay 11.2 12.5 62.9 Approach LOS B B E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle Length: 135 Offset: 103 (76%), Referenced to phase 2:NWT and 6:SETL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.83 Intersection Signet Delay: 18.6 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 713012015 2017 Build PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Bensen Dr S/Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build PM Concord Engineering, Inc. 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitsk:z: Rd 10/22/2015 .,,. ,. f -4.... ~ t I" \. + ~ - Lane Configurations ' tf. 11 tf. 1111 tf. 11, tf. Volume (vph) 157 924 65 192 489 173 177 547 157 387 1009 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 223 0 180 0 525 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 Taper Length (It) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.990 0.961 0.966 0.993 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3528 1787 3406 3467 3429 3467 3545 Flt Pennitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1774 3528 1774 3406 3454 3429 3429 3545 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 6 37 25 4 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 333 686 595 398 Travel Time (s) 7.6 15.6 13.5 9.0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 15 24 24 15 8 13 13 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 172 1012 71 212 541 191 196 605 174 428 1116 53 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 1083 0 212 732 196 779 428 1169 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 24 24 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 68 165 72 156 56 188 54 209 Trailing Detector (ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Position(ft) 48 32 52 30 36 36 34 34 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 20 6 20 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 159 150 182 203 Detector 2 Size(fl) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Careage Mission Healthcare· Renton 7/3012015 2017 Build PM Synchro 8 Report Concord Engineering, Inc. Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: 108th Ave SE/108th PL SE & SE Carr Rd/SE Petrovitskl Rd 10/22/2015 .,,. -.. 'f -..__ "'\ t I' \,. ! .,' Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 3 8 5 1 6 Pennitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Mininum Spllt (s) 10.0 35.0 10.0 34.0 10.3 32.3 10.3 33.3 Total Split (s) 26.0 49.0 22.0 45.0 15.0 36.0 280 49.0 Total Spll {%) 19.3% 36.3% 16.3% 33.3% 11.1% 26.7% 20.7% 36.3% Maximum Green (s) 21.0 44.0 17.0 40.0 9.7 30.7 22.7 43.7 Yellow nme (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost T1me Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Leadilag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Belon! Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Time To Reduce (s) 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 15.0 RecaHMode None None None None None C-Min None C-Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Cont Wal! (s) 23.0 22.0 20.0 21.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 24 15 13 8 Act Effct Green (s) 16.6 43.7 16.8 43.9 9.5 33.8 20.0 44.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.32 0.12 0.33 0.07 0.25 0.15 0.33 vie Ratio 0.79 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.81 0.89 0.83 1.00 Control Delay 69.9 55.0 107.2 40.5 86.1 60.5 66.9 72.7 Queue Delay 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 69.9 62.7 107.2 40.5 86.1 60.5 66.9 72.7 LOS E E F D F E E E Approach Delay 63.7 55.5 65.7 71.1 Approach LOS E E E E Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle Lenglh: 135 Offset: 47 (35%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maxiroom vie Ratio: 1.00 Intersection Signal Delay: 65.0 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capecity Utiization 93.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: ... r ::~ "" ,se CITTr=-~ 1 i ~w .,,. ~7 l • • • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 12: SE Carr Rd .,> --' Lane Configurations tt ti. Volume (vph) 0 1125 645 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.986 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 3490 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 3490 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 178 333 Travel Time (s) 4.0 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1272 729 78 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 1272 807 Enter Blocked Intersection Yes Yes Yes Yes Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 4 4 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 7/30/2015 2017 Build PM Concord Engineering, Inc. \. ~ '(' 0 20 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.865 1611 0 1611 30 208 4.7 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 0 23 23 No No Left Right 0 0 8 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Service A 10/22/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: SE 174th St -• f - Lane Configurations lo .f Volume(vph) 25 10 15 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.962 Flt Protected 0.979 Satd. Flow (prot) 1792 1824 HPennitted 0.979 Satd. Flow (perm) 1792 0 1824 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 508 361 Travel rrne (s) 11.5 8.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 104% 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 28 11 17 23 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 0 40 Elter Blocked lnteraaclion No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Lett Lett Median Widlh(ft) 0 0 Link Offset(tt) 0 0 Crosswak Wklth(ft) 16 16 Two way Lett Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 Sign Control Free Free Area Type: other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacly Utiization 18.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Careage Mission Healthcare -Renton 713012015 2017 Build PM Concord Engineering, Inc. "\ ,,. ¥ 25 21 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.938 0.974 1702 0.974 1702 30 175 4.0 0.92 0.92 104% 104% 28 24 52 0 No No Lett Right 12 0 6 1.00 1.00 15 9 Stop ICU Level of Seivice A 10122/2015 Synchro 8 Report Page 13 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Proposed Development SE 174th Street Site Renton, Washington Submitted To: Careage Development 4411 Point Fosdick Drive, Suite 203 PO Box 1969 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 USA August 17, 2015 Rev.1 Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation Project No. 1523372-01 (/fl Golder Associates August2015 ES-1 1523372-01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This geotechnical report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed 3-story building development located at the SE 174'" Street site in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this geotechnical report is to provide a description of the site conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design. Recommendations within this report relate to building foundations, stormwater vault, retaining walls, drainage, cut and fill recommendations, permanent and temporary slopes, and earthwork recommendations. We excavated a total of eight geotechnical test pits, TP-01 through TP-08, extending about 12 to 14.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The test pits encountered between 2 and 7 feet of fill over native ablation and lodgement till. The fill soils general increase in thickness from the northwest corner to the southwest corner of the site. Debris and organic material was encountered in the fill soils, therefore processing will likely be required if the fill is reused for structural fill. Groundwater seepage was encountered about 9.5 to 12.2 feet bgs at the time of our investigation. Perched groundwater conditions should be anticipated in the fill soils and within sandy zones of the till. Based on the geotechnical conditions observed in our study, development of the site using standard construction methods and spread footings appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The opportunities for infiltration on the site appear limited based on the silty soils and proposed site grading and building footprint. The subgrade soils at the base of the proposed detention vault are not recommended for infiltration. Based on the proposed building pad elevation of 358 feet, some sub-excavation of existing loose fill soils will likely be required prior to placement of structural fill or for footing subgrade. As final building plans were not available at the time of this study, we recommend that Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) should review the foundation, retaining wall, and grading plans to verify that they are in accordance with the conditions and recommendations presented in this report. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.Docx JAGolder \SA.ssociates August 2015 1523372-01 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. . ......................................... . . .................................................... ES-1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................... . 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................... . FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING .. Subsurface Explorations .................. . Laboratory Testing ............................... . SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .... . Geologic Setting and Mapped Geology .. Observed Soil Conditions ........................................................ . Groundwater Conditions .................................................... . ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... . 5.1 Seismic Design ................................................................. . 5.1 .1 Site Class .......................................................................... . 5.1.2 Ground Motion Parameters ...................................... . 5.1 .3 Liquefaction Potential. ........................................ . . .................................... 1 ....................................... 2 ........................................ ..3 .. 3 .... 4 ... 5 ......... 5 ......... 5 ......... 6 ............................ 7 . ...................................... 7 . ....................................... 7 . .......................... 7 . ........................................ 8 5.2 Foundations ..................................................... . . .......................................................... 8 5.2.1 Spread Footings .......................................... . 5.2.1.1 Foundations on Structural Fill .......... . 5.3 Slab Subgrade ...................................................... . 5.4 Retaining Walls .............................................. . 5.4.1 Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining Walls ... . 5.4.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls ............... . 5.4.3 Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall ........................ . 5.4.3.1 Soldier Piles .......................... . 5.4.3.2 Temporary Lagging ............. . Detention Vault. ........................... . . ........................................ 8 . ............................................. 9 . ............................................. 9 . .......................................................... 10 . ..................................... 11 ..11 . .. 12 . ........................................................ 12 5.5 5.6 5.7 Permanent Drainage Provisions .. . ............................................... . . ... 12 .... 13 ...... 13 .... 14 Permanent Slopes ................................................................................................ . 5.8 Infiltration ..................................... . 6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................ . Subgrade and Foundation Preparation .............. . Construction Dewatering .................................... . Erosion Control . ....................................... 14 . ............................ 16 ············ ··············· ............................. 16 ......................................... 16 ............................. 16 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Earthworks .............................................................................. . ..................................... 17 6.4.1 General ......................................................... . 6.4.2 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction .... . 6.4.3 Use of Excavated Soils ................................. . OS1715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.0ocx . ............................. 17 . ............................. 17 . ............................. 18 l'AGolder '8'"Associates August2015 Imported Fill Materials ................................... . 6.4.4 6.5 Temporary Slopes ... . 6.6 Utilities ................................................................. . 6.7 Soldier Pile Installation .............................................. . 6.8 Geotechnical Construction Monitoring ........................... .. 7.0 USE OF REPORT ................................................... . 8.0 CLOSING .................................. . 9.0 REFERENCES ....................................................... . List of Tables (in text) Table 3-1 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Laboratory Testing Results -Grain Size Analysis Capillary Break Gradation Drain Gravel Gradation List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Vicinity Map Site Exploration Plan Earth Pressure Diagram Lateral Surcharge Pressure List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Exploration Logs Plans from ESM Consulting Engineers LLC Laboratory Test Results 08171Sjlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.Docx 1523372-01 ........... 18 .. ......... 18 .......... 19 .. .......................... 19 .. .......................... 19 .. .......................... 20 . ................................. 21 . ................................. 22 IAGolder '-SAssociates August2015 1523372-01 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION This geotechnical report presents the results of Golder Associates lnc.'s (Golder's) geotechnical investigation for the proposed 3-story assisted living building at the SE 1741" Street in Renton, Washington. The site is bordered by SE 1741" Street to the north, 1061" Place SE to the west, and existing commercial development to the south and east. The location of the site is shown in Figure 1 . The scope of work presented in our proposal dated June 24, 2015 and authorized on June 25, 2015 consisted of a subsurface exploration program, and engineering analyses and recommendations, which are summarized in the following sections of the report. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the subsurface conditions on the site to determine the feasibility of the future development and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. 081715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx JAGolder \ZPAssociates August2015 2 1523372-01 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site consists of King County parcel number 292305-9042. The 1.76 acre site is bound by SE 174th Street to the north, 1061h Place SE to the west, and existing commercial development to the south and east. The topography at the site slopes from approximately 380 feet on the east side of the property to approximately 350 feet on the west side of the site. The site is generally undeveloped, and consists largely of a vacant grass-covered lot with some small trees toward the west end of the site. An asphalt pad in the northeast corner leads to a gravel driveway and parking area on the eastern border and in the southeastern corner of the site. A small drive-through coffee stand is also located in the southeast corner of the site. Careage Development plans on developing the site. Preliminary project plans indicate the development will consist of a single 3-story building located on the northwest portion of the project site. The building pad elevation is proposed at 358 feet. Based on the site topography, fills up to approximately 8 feet and cuts up to approximately 1 O feet will be needed to construct the building (based on finish floor elevation). An 8- foot deep stormwater detention vault is planned under surface parking on the south side of the project site. Several retaining walls ranging in height from 2 to 13 feet are proposed to support grade changes on the east and west sides of the building primarily for parking. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx A&\Golder \SAssociates August 2015 3 1523372-01 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 Subsurface Explorations Golder's geotechnical field investigation was completed on July 9, 2015 and consisted of excavating eight test pits and advancing five dynamic cone penetration tests (DCPT). Approximate exploration locations are shown in Figure 2. Locations are based on hand measurements from existing site features and should be considered approximate. Exploration locations were selected based on existing site conditions and existing underground utilities. Detailed test pit and DCPT records are contained in Appendix A. It should be noted that the DCPT were co-located with the test pits (e.g. DCPT-01 was performed at the location of TP-01 ). Eight test pits were excavating using a Komatsu WB140 rubber-wheeled excavator operated by Kelly's Excavation under the full-time observation of Golder engineering technician, Brenda Borer. Test pits were excavated to between 12 and 14 feet below ground surface (bgs) and were terminated at either refusal or due to the extent of the reach of the excavator. Five DCPT were advanced near five of the test pits using a Wildcat dynamic cone penetrometer with a 35- pound hammer and 10-square inch cone under the observation of Golder geologist, Alison Dennison. The DCPT tests were conducted to supplement field observations of soil density in the test pits. The data from the DCPT can be converted into equivalent blow count data similar to that obtained from geotechnical drilling and sampling. The DCPT data was used to calibrate the visual observations of soil density as reflected in the test pit records. DCPT were advanced from near the surface of four test pits (DCPT-01, - 03, -04, -05) and from within one test pit (DCPT-02). DCPT were advanced until refusal (50 blows in 6 inches or less). Test pits and DCPT were performed in general accordance with Golder Technical Procedures. Soil samples collected from test pits were collected and sealed in plastic bags and returned to our Redmond, Washington laboratory for further classification and geotechnical laboratory analysis. All of test pits were backfilled with material excavated from the pits. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the test pit records represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted are only for the specific dates and locations reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. Da1715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx JAGolder \SAssociates August 2015 4 1523372-01 3.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing consisting of grain size analysis was completed on three soil samples. All three samples were from the ablation till layer. The soils were test in accordance with ASTM D-421 and D-422 in Golder's Redmond, Washington laboratory. The results of the laboratory tests are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Laboratory Testing Results -Grain Size Analysis Test Pit Sample# Depth % Passing# (feet) 200 Sieve TP-06 S-2 6.5 30.1 TP-08 S-2 4.5 40.3 TP-08 S-3 7.5 28.0 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx A&\Gol<\er '2JAssoaates August 2015 5 1523372-01 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Geologic Setting and Mapped Geology The recent geologic history of the Puget Sound Lowland region has been dominated by several glacial episodes. The most recent, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation (about 12,000 to 20,000 years ago), is responsible for most of the present day geologic and topographic conditions. As worldwide sea levels lowered and the Puget lobe of the Vashon Stade advanced southward from British Columbia into the Puget Sound Lowland extending south of Olympia, sediments composed of proglacial lacustrine silt and clay, advance outwash, lodgment till, and recessional outwash were deposited upon either bedrock or older Pre- Vashon sediments. The older Pre-Vashon deposits include predominantly glacial and nonglacial sediments deposited during repeated glacial and interglacial periods during the past 2 million years. As the Puget Lobe of the Vashon Stade glacier retreated northward, it deposited a discontinuous veneer of recessional outwash and local deposits of ablation till upon the glacial landscape. The sculpted landscape was characterized by elongated north-south oriented uplands, and intervening valleys. The geologic map (Mullineaux 1965) was reviewed for this report. This map indicates the site is underlain by Vashon Drift (Qgt). The Vashon Drift is a glacial till with areas of thin ablation till and is described as a graded mixture of gravel to cobble size clasts in a clayey silt and sand matrix. Beneath the Vashon Drift are rocks of the Renton Formation. Depth to bedrock from glacial sediments is variable (Mullineaux 1965). In general, rocks of the Renton Formation are described as sandstones, mudstones, and shales with coal beds (Mullineaux 1965). 4.2 Observed Soil Conditions All test pits encountered 2 to 7 feet of fill soils. Underlying the fill soils, all eight explorations encountered ablation till and lodgment till, in general agreement with the geologic map (Mullineaux 1965). A summary of the soil units is provided below. For more detail, refer to the test pit records in Appendix A. • Fill -Fill or modified land refers to soil placed or modified by human activity. Fill encountered in test pits TP-1 and TP-8 extended 3 to 7 feet bgs and consisted of loose to compact silty sand to sandy silt with some gravel and cobbles. Several test pits, including TP-2 and TP-6, encountered debris in the fill such as bricks, plastic, and wood. Boulders up to about 3 feet in diameter were also observed in the fill. • Ablation Till and Lodgment Till -Lodgement till is defined as a soil unit deposited directly beneath a glacier and at our site was typically dense to very dense owing to consolidation from the mass of the overlying ice sheet. The till was dense to very dense, non-stratified and contain a heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel, silt, and clay. As the glacier melted, soil within the ice was deposited over the till (ablation till). This soil unit was found above the till in our test pits and is visually similar in texture (generally more sandy) but less dense than the lodgment till. 081715jlh1 _ Renton Geotech Report_ Rev 1 .docx All\Golder \ZPAssociates August 2015 6 1523372-01 4.3 Groundwater Conditions Perched groundwater was encountered in TP-1, TP-3, TP-4, TP-6, TP-7, and TP-8. In TP-1, TP-3, and TP- 8 encountered groundwater flows estimated to be 5 gallons per minute. The investigation was conducted in the dry summer months during one of the driest summers on record. Groundwater levels and seepage rates in excavations should be expected to increase in the winter and spring months. Perched groundwater should be anticipated within the fill material, above the lodgment till, and within sandier zones within the till. A perched groundwater condition occurs when surface water infiltrates through permeable soil and collects on relatively impermeable material. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx l'&Golcler 'Zfr.Assooates August2015 7 1523372-01 5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS Golder was provided with a boundary and topographic survey, grading plan, and storm drainage and utility plan from ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC (ESM). Copies of the survey and plans are included in Appendix B. The engineering recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed grading and building pad elevation shown on the plans in Appendix B. Once the design plans have been finalized, Golder should be given the opportunity to review the plans for consistency with our assumptions and recommendations. 5.1 Seismic Design The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) (ICC 2012) seismic design section provides information to be used as the basis for seismic design of structures. 5.1.1 Site Class Section 1613 of the 2012 IBC provides information on earthquake loads and site ground motion needed for liquefaction potential assessment. Based on the IBC design criteria, sites are classified according to Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010) where the average soil profile properties in the first 100 feet bgs. The deepest test pit for this project site was advanced to a depth of 14 feet bgs. It is our opinion that the site should be classified as Class D based on Table 20.3-1 in ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010). 5.1.2 Ground Motion Parameters Ground motion parameters used for design per the 2012 IBC include the site coefficient and mapped spectral accelerations, which can be found in section 1613.3. The mapped spectral accelerations correspond to Class B conditions. Accordingly, the spectral response accelerations should be adjusted for the site-specific soil conditions. The following design parameters are based on the IBC Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Ground Motion, the 0.2-second spectral acceleration (Ss), and the 1.0-second spectral acceleration (S1) for the project site. The interpolated probabilistic ground motion values in percent gravity (g) were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) US Seismic Design Maps (http://earthquake.usqs.gov/desiqnmaps/us/application.php). The following results were obtained for latitude 47.446389 and longitude -122.199722 (a point located near the center of the site): • Short (0.2 second) Spectral Response (Ss): • Long (1.0 second) Spectral Response (S1): 1.400 g 0.521 g Note that these numbers correspond to Site Classification B and must be adjusted for Site Classification using the IBC procedures. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx '8Golder '25Y.Associates August2015 8 1523372-01 5.1.3 Liquefaction Potential It is our opinion that the risk of liquefaction is negligible due to the presence of dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils. At the time of the investigation, perched groundwater seepage was encountered near the bottom of the test pits associated with dense to very dense glacial till. 5.2 Foundations The proposed building finished floor elevation is at 358 feet. Structural fill placement of up to about 8 feet will be required on the west side of the proposed pad. Cuts of up to about 10 feet below existing grade will be required on the east side of the pad. Foundation and slab subgrade soils over a portion of the east side of the building will likely consist of native dense glacial till, while the remaining portion of the building footprint subgrade will likely consist of compacted structural fill. Conventional spread footings are feasible for the proposed building, provided the foundations extend through the fill materials and bear on native compact to very dense, till soil or properly placed and compacted structural fill. If uncontrolled fill or topsoil is encountered at the footing elevation during construction, the uncontrolled fill and topsoil should be removed and replaced with structural fill in accordance with recommendations contained in Section 6.0. Areas of loose or otherwise unsuitable existing fill are anticipated across the building footprint. Over- excavation of existing soil prior to structural fill placement for the building pad is anticipated. Settlement is expected to occur as the buildings are constructed. Consolidation (long-term) settlements are not expected at the site. 5.2.1 Spread Footings Recommendations for spread footing on the site are provided for spread footings founded on a subgrade consisting of properly placed and compacted structural fill. Based on our understanding of the grading plan, a small portion of the footings on the east side of the building footprint will likely be founded on glacial till. However, the majority of the footings will likely be founded a subgrade of compacted structural fill. Therefore, the foundation recommendations in this section are based on a subgrade consisting of compacted structural fill which are also appropriate for the till. Refer to Sections 6.1 and 6.4 for construction considerations pertaining to spread footings. Foundation recommendations and settlement estimates can be revised once the footing plans and column loads are known. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx 1'8Golder \BAssociates August 2015 9 1523372-01 Foundations on Structural Fill • Assumes spread footings are founded on compacted structural fill. • Design isolated footings using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4 kips per square foot (ksf) assuming a minimum footing width of 2 feet and a maximum footing width of 8 feet. • Design continuous footings using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf assuming a minimum fooling width of 2 feet and a maximum footing width of 3 feet. • The maximum allowable bearing pressures meet the required factor of safety according to IBC. • The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressures are gross bearing pressures. • The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressures will result in less than 1 inch of total settlement. • The values presented may be increased by one-third for short-term wind and seismic loading. • Isolated footings should be embedded at least 24 inches below the adjacent finished grade. • Continuous footings should be embedded at least 18 inches below the adjacent finished grade. • The above recommendations are based on centric pressures applied at the base of the footings. In the case of eccentric pressures (e.g., due to lateral loads), Golder may need to re-€valuate the recommended pressures. A representative from Golder should observe the foundation bearing soils prior to placement of forms and rebar to verify the foundation bearing soils are consistent with the soils encountered at the time of this study. Building foundations must resist lateral loads due to earth pressures, wind, and seismic events. For design purposes, these loads can be resisted simultaneously by: • BASE FRICTION: An allowable value of 0.35 can be assumed for base friction between the soil and spread footings. This value includes a factor of safety of 1.5. The allowable base friction value may be increased by one-third for the seismic loading. • PASSIVE RESISTANCE ON SIDES OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS: For design purposes, we recommend that the allowable passive pressure be based on a fiuid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (including a factor of safety of 1.5) for shallow foundations. The allowable passive resistance can be increased by one-third for seismic loading. Since some disturbance is likely to occur during construction, we recommend the upper 1 foot of passive resistance be neglected. 5.3 Slab Subgrade Conventional slab-on-grade fioors can be supported on a subgrade of the native bearing soils or on a minimum 2-foot thick layer of structural fill placed and compacted as noted in the Earthworks section of this report (Section 6.4.2). Slab-on-grade floors should not be founded on organic soils, loose soils, or uncompact fills. The slabs should be underlain by a capillary break material consisting of at least 4 inches of clean, free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 3% fines passing the No. 200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction); meeting the specification in Table 5-1. 081715Jlh1 _ Renton Geotech Report_ Rev 1 .docx JAGolder \ZPAssociates August 2015 10 1523372-01 Table 5-1: Capillary Break Gradation Sieve Size or Diameter (inches) % Passing 1 100% passing No. 4 0-20% No. 200 0-3% Vapor transmission through floor slabs is an important consideration in the performance of floor coverings and controlling moisture in structures. Floor slab vapor transmission can be reduced through the use of suitable vapor retarders, such as plastic sheeting placed between the capillary break and the floor slab, and/or specially formulated concrete mixes. Framed floors should also include vapor protection over any areas of bare soils, and adequate crawl space ventilation and drainage should be provided. The identification of alternatives to prevent vapor transmission is outside of our expertise. A qualified architect or building envelope consultant can make recommendations for reducing vapor transmission through the slab, based on the building use and flooring specifications. 5.4 Retaining Walls Seven retaining walls are shown on the grading plan from ESM. The walls include three rock walls supporting 2 to 4-foot grade changes along the west side of the proposed building and four retaining walls supporting 3 to 13 foot grade changes on the east and south sides of the site associated with the parking lot. Our understanding of the walls is as follows: • Rock Walls -The rock walls shown on the grading plan appear to support fills along the west side of the proposed building. Typically, retaining walls supporting fills of 4 feet or less are considered a landscaping feature provided that the wall does not support any other loads (e.g. adjacent footing loads, traffic surcharge, etc.). Rock walls generally should not support fills of greater than 4 feet or other loads or surcharges. • Retaining Wall on North Side of Parking Lot -A retaining wall is shown on the grading plan along the north side of the parking lot, approximately 15 feet off of the north property line. The wall is approximately 90 feet long and appears to retain a minimum height of approximately 5 feet at the west end and a maximum of approximately 13 feet at the east end. Several retaining wall types are feasible to support the 5 to 13-foot cut, such as a cast-in-place concrete, Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall, or a cantilever soldier pile wall. • Retaining Wall in Middle of Parking Lot -A retaining wall is shown on the grading plan running north-south down the middle of the parking lot. The wall is approximately 120 feet long and appears to retain a minimum height of approximately 3 feet at the north end and a maximum of approximately 8 feet at the south end. Several retaining wall types are feasible to support the 3 to 8-foot cut, such as a cast-in-place concrete, MSE wall, or a cantilever soldier pile wall. A rockery is not recommended at this location due to the surcharge load from the cars parked along the top of the wall. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx JAGolder \ZPAssociates August 2015 11 1523372-01 • Retaining Wall on South Side of Parking Lot -A retaining wall is shown on the grading plan along the south side of the parking lot. The wall is approximately 110 feet long and appears to retain a minimum cut of approximately 3 feet at the west end and a maximum of approximately 8 feet at the east end. Several retaining wall types are feasible to support the 3 to 8-foot cut, such as a cast-in-place concrete, MSE wall, or a cantilever soldier pile wall. The area behind this wall appears to be a landscaping area (no surcharge behind the wall); therefore, rockery is a feasible alternative to support cuts of up to 6 feet. • Retaining Wall on East Property Line -A retaining wall is shown on the grading plan approximately 5 feet off of the east property line. The wall is approximately 140 feet long and appears to retain a minimum cut of approximately 3 feet at the south end and a maximum cut of approximately 13 feet at the north end. Several retaining wall types are feasible to support the 3 to 13-foot cut. However, the proximity of the wall to the east property line might limit the options. A cast-in-place concrete or MSE wall will likely require more space than is available. Based on the space constraints, a cantilever soldier pile wall is a feasible alternative for this location. Rockery wall is not recommended at this location due to the surcharge load from traffic on the adjacent property. 5.4. 1 Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained soils and applicable surcharge loads. The following equivalent earth pressures may be used for design of retaining walls in conjunction with the foundation recommendations given in Section 5.2 and the drainage recommendations given in Section 5.6. Earth Pressures for retaining structures or backfilled walls: • Restrained Walls (Equivalent Fluid Weight) • Cantilevered Walls (Equivalent Fluid Weight) • Passive Earth Pressure (ignore upper 1 foot of embedment) 55 pcf 35 pcf 250 pcf The earth pressure values provided in this section are based on the assumption retaining wall backfill will be horizontal and the walls will be fully drained. Surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other surcharge loads should be added to the above design lateral pressure. A uniform seismic surcharge pressure equal to 8H in psf, where H equals the height of the wall in feet, is recommended. 5.4.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls can be designed using the following recommendations. • MSE Wall Fill Parameters: We recommend that a high quality, clean, well-graded sand and gravel fill be used. The fill should contain less than 10% fines. For design, the unit weight can be assumed equal to 130 pcf and an effective stress friction angle (q,') = 34 degrees. The in-situ soil values used for the retained soils behind the geogrid zone can be assumed to have a unit weight equal to 130 pcf and an effective stress friction angle (q,') = 30 degrees. Alternative types of fill can be considered; however different materials possess different strength parameters, which may result in retaining wall design changes and cost. If the wall contractor elects to use a silty backfill(> 10% fines), alternative design parameters and recommendations for improved drainage (curtain, blanket, and finger drains) and additional field testing will be required. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx J8Gol(\er \BAssoctates August2015 12 1523372-01 • Drainage: Proper drainage is critical for retaining walls. MSE walls can perform poorly if the backfill behind the wall and/or in the reinforcement zone becomes saturated. Thus, it is essential to use free-draining fill within the zone of reinforcement. If finer-grained fill is considered a drainage blanket will be required behind the reinforcement to intercept and drain any seepage. A blanket drain, usually consisting of clean gravel or crushed rock meeting filter criteria, is generally constructed immediately behind the MSE wall face. The wall designer should be consulted if material changes occur, so that appropriate drainage provisions are made. The above parameters are general recommendations only. Once site design plans are completed, individual wall locations should be reviewed, and a formal retaining wall design created so as to ensure long-term global stability and performance. 5.4.3 Cantilever Soldier Pile Watt Cantilever soldier pile walls can be designed using the following recommendations. Soldier Piles The design earth pressure configurations are shown in Figure 3 for the active condition of cantilever soldier pile walls. If deformations of the wall must be limited, Golder can provide at-rest earth pressures for the design. The earth pressure recommendations are based on our understanding of the grading plan included in Appendix B. If the configuration of the retaining wall changes, Golder should be notified to review the updated plans and revise earth pressure recommendations accordingly. Additional lateral surcharges should be added to the design earth pressures to account for any vertical surcharges adjacent to the excavation, such as traffic surcharges and construction surcharge loadings, including those from mobile cranes and pump trucks. Surcharges on retaining walls can be calculated using the appropriate equation presented in Figure 4. The earth pressures presented assume level ground above the top of the wall. If sloping ground is present, a surcharge equal to one-half of the height of the slope should be added to the height of the shoring to determine the effective shoring height and corresponding lateral earth pressure. The embedment depth of soldier piles below the base of the excavation should be designed to provide force and moment equilibrium. Soldier piles should be embedded a minimum 10 feet below the base of the excavation. Temporary Lagging Temporary lagging will be necessary to prevent caving of the soil face between the soldier piles. Temporary lagging may be designed for 50% of the lateral soil pressures. However, for an 8-foot center to center span, a maximum thickness of 4 inches is recommended for No. 2 or better Hem-Fir wood lagging, even if the structural calculations show thicker wood lagging is required. Any voids behind the lagging should be backfilled with a permeable granular soil material that does not allow the buildup of hydrostatic pressure or OS1715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx ~Golder ~Associates August 2015 13 1523372-01 controlled density fill (CDF). The excavation height prior to lagging installation should not exceed 4 feet, or less as required to maintain cut face stability. 5.5 Detention Vault A detention and water quality vault is shown on the storm drainage and utility plan from ESM in the south central portion of site. The vault is shown as 125 feet in the east-west direction, 40 feet in the north-south direction, and 8 feet deep. We assume that an open cut excavation will be used to construct the detention vault and then structural backfill placed. Based on this assumption, the detention vault can be designed for the earth pressures given in Section 5.4.1, the foundation recommendations in Section 5.2, and the drainage recommendations in Section 5.6. 5.6 Permanent Drainage Provisions Permanent control of surface water should be incorporated in the final grading design, and vegetative protection should be established. It is important to separate all surface water drainage, including roof downspouts, from any building foundation drainage systems. Surface drainage and building fooling drains must be conveyed in two separate systems. The permanent drainage system for the building should consist of, at a minimum: • PERIMETER FOOTING DRAINS: A footing drain consisting of 4-inch-diameter, heavy-walled, perforated PVC pipe or equivalent should be placed along the perimeter of all structures. The pipe should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of drainage gravel as noted in Table 5-2. A non-woven filter fabric, such a Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent, is recommended between the native soils and the drain rock. Drain cleanouts are recommended. Fooling drains should drain by gravity to a suitable discharge point. • WALL DRAINS: Drainage behind backfilled walls can consist of a full face geocomposite drainage mat or a minimum of a 2-foot wide zone of clean sand and gravel fill with less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. • UNDER DRAINS: The need for underdrains will depend on the groundwater seepage conditions observed during construction. If recommended during construction, the under drain should consist of heavy walled perforated 4-inch diameter PVC or as required by the local building code. We recommend a maximum 20-foot grid spacing of the slab under drain system, combined with the perimeter wall/drain should be used for design and planning purposes. We recommend that the inverts of the pipe be a minimum of 18 inches below the finished floor elevation and be sloped to drain at a minimum one-quarter percent. The drain pipes should be enveloped in drain rock extending to at least 6 inches on the top and sides, with a minimum of 2 inches placed below the pipe invert. A non-woven filter fabric, such a Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent, is recommended between the native soils and the drain rock. Drain cleanouts are recommended. 081715j!h1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx l'AGolder '2:lrA.ssociates August 2015 14 1523372-01 • DISCHARGE: If flow by gravity is not feasible at this site, the wall drainage system should run to a sump for pumping to the storm drainage system. The groundwater flow rate should be evaluated prior to construction and refined during construction. The permanent drainage system should conservatively be sized for that flow. If a sump system is used, a backup pump with emergency power is recommended in case of mechanical breakdown. The dewatering system should be vented to the atmosphere in case of mechanical or electrical failure. As a minimum, we recommend that the sump and drainpipe clean outs be vented to the atmosphere. Table 5-2: Drain Gravel Gradation Sieve Size or Diameter (inches) % Passing 1 y. 100% passing 3/8 10-40% No.4 0-5% No. 200 0-3% 5.7 Permanent Slopes For preliminary design purposes we recommend that long-term permanent cut slopes should be 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter assuming proper drainage and erosion control. Long term permanent fill slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter assuming proper compaction, drainage and erosion control. In our experience, 2H:1 V and steeper slopes are significantly more likely to experience erosion or sloughing during the first winter season, until vegetation is well established. Aggressive erosion control measures, including plastic sheeting are sometimes needed to prevent significant slope damage. In general, 3H:1V slopes or gentler are preferred for ease of maintenance and application of landscaping. 5.8 Infiltration The proposed grading plan from ESM was reviewed with respect to locations for stormwater infiltration. The following locations were investigated: • Parking Lot -The slopes, grades, and soil conditions were reviewed for possible locations to incorporate permeable pavement. Based on a discussion with ESM, areas of the parking lot with slopes greater than 3% were not considered feasible for permeable pavement. Based on a proposed pavement slope of less than 3%, the following locations were reviewed in more detail: • Parking stalls along the east property boundary are shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Cuts in this area will range between approximately 6 and 12 feet, which will likely expose ablation till at subgrade elevation. The ablation till soil will likely have a low infiltration rate (less than 1 inch per hour). • Parking stalls along the middle of the parking lot on top of the proposed retaining wall are shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Infiltration is not recommended at this location because the water will likely enter the retaining wall drains and not infiltrate. • Parking stalls along the middle of the parking lot along the bottom of the proposed retaining wall are shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Cuts in this area will range between approximately 8 and 10 feet, which will likely expose ablation till or 081715Jlh1_Renlon Geotech Report_Rev 1 docx ,AGolder \ZPAssociates August 2015 15 1523372-01 lodgement till at the subgrade elevation. The till soils will likely have a low infiltration rate (less than 1 inch per hour). • Parking stalls along the south side of the proposed building are shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Soils in this area will likely be excavated for the detention vault and replaced with structural fill. Infiltration is not recommended at this location because water will likely enter the detention vault wall drains and not infiltrate. • Driveway entrance to the site near the southwest corner of the property is shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Subgrade soils in this area will likely consist of sandy silt and silty sand consistent with the soils encountered in test pit TP-08. Infiltration might be feasible at this location. If permeable pavement is desired in this location, sieve analysis on soil samples from test pit TP-08 can be completed to estimate infiltration rate. • Detention Vault -Soil conditions at the assumed elevation (-350 feet) of the proposed detention vault will likely consist of very dense Lodgment till. The till will likely have a low infiltration rate (less than 0.5-inch per hour) and is not recommended for stormwater infiltration. • Landscape Area Southwest Corner of the Site -This area, south of the driveway entrance near the southwest corner of the property appears to be intended for landscaping. Based on the soils encountered in test pit TP-08, soils at this location will likely consist of silty sand over ablation till with a low infiltration rate (less 0.5-inch per hour). Stormwater infiltration is not recommended in this area .. • Landscape Area Northwest Corner of the Site -The landscaping area at the northwest corner of the property might be a feasible location for an infiltration facility (rain garden). However, based on the soils encountered in test pit TP-06, soils at this location will likely consist of silty sand over ablation till. The infiltration rate in this area will likely be low (less than 0.5 inch per hour). Stormwater infiltration is not recommended in this area. 081715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx (l!Golder Associates August2015 16 1523372-01 6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Geotechnical related site construction activities include clearing and grubbing, excavation, subgrade preparation, placement of foundations, and placement and compaction of structural fills. Surface water runoff should be controlled and directed away from the excavation and any temporary cut slopes. This section discusses selected elements of these construction items. 6.1 Subgrade and Foundation Preparation If uncontrolled fill or topsoil is encountered at the proposed subgrade elevation, the uncontrolled fill and/or topsoil should be removed and replaced with structural fill in accordance with Section 6.4.2. If soil moisture conditions allow, after clearing and grubbing and prior to placement of structural fill, we recommend a proof roll of the existing subgrade with a loaded dump truck or other heavy wheeled vehicle (e.g. wheel loader). If the subgrade is wet, we do not recommend performing a proof roll. Instead we recommend that the subgrade conditions are observed by qualified geotechnical engineer prior to structural fill placement. Based on our visual examination of soil samples and our experience, the silty sand encountered in the test pits could become loosened and easily disturbed under the influence of surface water and construction equipment. The contractor will have to implement suitable procedures to protect the subgrade, such as excavating without tracking on the native soils, use of a crushed rock or gravel-working mat, dewatering, soil admixing, geotextiles, and other suitable procedures during construction. Native competent subgrade that becomes loosened by the contractor's operation and wet and unsuitable soils should be over-excavated and replaced with a suitable structural fill, or the soil admixed with a moisture reducing agent or cement treated base (CTB), at the contractor's expense. The footing excavations should be free of any loose, soft disturbed material or water prior to placement of reinforcing bars and concrete. 6.2 Construction Dewatering Groundwater seepage may be encountered during the building and vault excavation or retaining wall cuts. In general the contractor must implement necessary dewatering and drainage measures to protect the excavation cut face and to prevent degradation of the excavation area and foundation subgrade until permanent drainage measures can be constructed. Based on our observations groundwater seepage can likely be controlled using standard ditching, sump and pump methods. 6.3 Erosion Control Erosion control for the site will include the Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated in the civil design drawings and may incorporate the following recommendations: 081715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx JAGolder '8Associates August2015 17 1523372-01 • Limit exposed cut slopes. • Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed slopes. • Use silt fences, straw, and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded material on the site. • Seeding or planting vegetation on exposed areas where work is completed and no buildings are proposed. • Retaining existing vegetation to the greatest possible extent. We recommend that the contractor sequence excavations so as to provide constant positive surface drainage for rainwater and any groundwater seepage that may be encountered. This will require grading slopes, and constructing temporary ditches, sumps, and/or berms. 6.4 Earthworks 6.4.1 General Careful earthworks planning and subgrade protection by the contractor and implementation of the recommendations presented below will help minimize unanticipated costs. We recommend that any excavation on the site be sequenced to limit the amount of exposed subgrade particularly if construction starts during the rainy season. The onsite soils are considered moisture sensitive and will become unworkable when over the optimum moisture content. Conversely, if allowed to dry, the silty soils can become an airborne dust problem. Although feasible, earthwork construction during wet weather will significantly increase costs associated with off-site disposal of unsuitable excavated soils, increased control of water, and increased subgrade disturbance and need for soil admixtures, geotextiles, or rock working mats. 6.4.2 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction Where needed, structural fill should be a granular soil (with less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve) that when placed and compacted will meet the required compaction specifications. Structural fill should be placed in 8-inch (or less) loose lifts and compacted to at least 95% of maximum ASTM D 1557 dry density below all footings and within 3 feet of final grade in pavement areas. In addition, structural backfill placed around footings should also be compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D 1557. We recommend a minimum dry density of 90% ASTM D 1557 beneath floor slabs and other structural components, such as utility service trenches, not underlying pavements or footings. Structural fill behind backfilled walls should be compacted to 90% of ASTM D 1557, provided the backfill is not supporting buildings and is not within 3 feet of final grade in pavement areas. If density tests indicate that compaction is not being achieved due to moisture content, the fill should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content, re- compacted, and re-tested, or removed and replaced. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx J8Golder 'l1rAssociates August 2015 18 1523372-01 6.4.3 Use of Excavated Soils In general, organic material, silt, and clay should not be used for structural fill. The silty sands encountered at the site are considered suitable for reuse as structural fill provided that it is free of debris, organics and boulders, and is near the optimum moisture content and can achieve specified compaction. Debris (e.g. concrete, bricks, plastic, wood, organics, boulders etc.) was encountered in test pits TP-02 and TP-06 and may be encountered in other areas of the property. Excavated soils used as structural fill should be placed and compacted near the optimum moisture content and in accordance with the compaction requirements presented in Section 6.4.2. If density tests indicate that compaction is not being achieved due to moisture content, the fill should be scarified, and moisture- conditioned to near optimum moisture content, re-compacted, and re-tested, or removed and replaced. 6.4.4 Imported Fill Materials If imported structural fill is used during wet weather, it should be well-graded sand and gravel with less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. Fills used for drainage should consist of washed gravels with less than 3% passing the No. 200 sieve or equivalent. 6.5 Temporary Slopes Safe temporary slopes are the responsibility of the contractor and should comply with all applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) standards. Temporary, stable cut slopes less than 8 feet in height can generally be constructed using the following recommendations: • Uncontrolled Fill -1.5H:1V • Dense to very dense silty sand, till -1 H:1 V Seepage may be encountered during construction. If temporary cuts encounter groundwater seepage, they should be sloped at 2H:1V or flatter (as recommended by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction) to prevent significant caving or sloughing. Temporary cuts in the loose granular materials are expected to have some raveling at the cut face. Temporary cut slopes in the granular soils may need to be laid back flatter than 1.5H: 1 V if a change in material type or debris is encountered. In the event that groundwater seepage is encountered during excavation, the contractor must install temporary drainage measures to protect the cut face and prevent degradation of the excavation area until permanent drainage measures can be constructed. 08171Sjlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx ~Golder \ZPAssociates August 2015 19 1523372-01 6.6 Utilities Maintaining safe utility excavations is the responsibility of the utility contractor. The soil and groundwater conditions in the utility excavations will vary across the site. Excavations in the loose granular soils may cave easily, while excavations in the dense silty sand soils may be difficult, as occasional boulders and cobbles may be encountered. As appropriate, trench shoring should be employed by the utility contractor. Structural fill placed as utility trench backfill should be placed in 8-inch (or less) loose lifts and compacted to at least 95% of maximum ASTM D 1557 dry density below all footings and within 3 feet of final grade in pavement areas. We recommend a minimum dry density of 90% ASTM D 1557 below 3 feet of final grade in pavement areas. In landscaping or other areas not supporting loads, utility trench backfill should be adequately compacted to prevent excessive future settlement. 6.7 Soldier Pile Installation The contractor should be required to prevent caving and loss of ground in all soldier pile excavations. Appropriate methods may be required to minimize caving and sloughing, such as drilling with slurry or the use of casing, to keep the soldier pile holes open. If slurry drilling is used or more than 1 foot of water is present in the bottom of the hole, placement of concrete by tremie methods will be required. 6.8 Geotechnical Construction Monitoring We recommend that a qualified geotechnical-engineering firm is on-site during critical aspects of the project. This would include observation of footing, slab, pavement, and subgrade preparation; observation of wall and footing drains, and placement of structural fills. The geotechnical engineer of record will perform the special inspection. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx IAGol(\er \ZV'°Assoaates August 2015 20 1523372-01 7.0 USE OF REPORT This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of Careage Development and their consultants. We encourage review of this report by bidders and/or contractors as it relates to factual data only {borehole logs, laboratory test results, conclusions, etc.). The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations and observations completed for this study, conversations regarding the existing site conditions, and our understanding of the planned development. The conclusions are not intended nor should they be construed to represent a warranty regarding the development, but they are included to assist in the planning and design process. Judgment has been applied in interpreting and presenting the results. Variations in subsurface conditions outside the exploration locations are common in glacial environments, such as those encountered at the site. Actual conditions encountered during construction might be different from those observed in the explorations. When the site project plans are finalized, we recommend that Golder be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications to verify that they are in accordance with the conditions described in this report. The explorations were advanced and logged in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice; subject to the time limits, and financial and physical constraints applicable to the services for this project, to provide information for the areas explored. There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the borehole locations and variations over time. The professional services retained for this project include only geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site. Environmental services were performed under a separate scope of work. The presence or implication{s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous site activities and/or resulting from the introduction of materials from off-site sources is included in a separate report. 081715Jlh1 _ Renton Geotech Report_ Rev 1.docx !&Golder \ZPAssociates August 2015 21 1523372-01 8.0 CLOSING We trust that this report meets your needs. If you have questions or comments, please contact us at (425) 883-0777. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services for this project. GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Joshua L. Hanson, PE Senior Engineer JLH/JGJ/sb D81715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Aev 1.docJi: James~ JohlllOn !)a,-'l,L James G. Johnson, LG, LEG Principal !&Golder '25'Associates August 2015 22 1523372-01 9.0 REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA. American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM). C33/C33M. 2013. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates. January 1 ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/ C33/C33M-13, www.astm.org. ASTM 0421. Standard Practice for Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants. ASTM 0422. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/0422, www.astm.org. ASTM 01557. 2012. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbflft3 (2,700 kN-mlm3)). May 1. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/01557-12, www.astm.org. ASTM 02216. 2010. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass, July 1. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/02216-10, www.astm.org. ASTM 02487. 2011. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/02487-11, www.astm.org. ASTM 06913. 2004 {2009). Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/D46913- 04R09, www.astm.org. ASTM D-4318. Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. International Code Council {ICC). 2012. 2012 International Building Code. International Code Council. Mullineaux, D.R. 1965. Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405. 081715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.dOC)( J8Golder \ZPAssociates FIGURES CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. 2015-07-29 <3'~ates REDMOND JH 0 1500 3000 l'""""'l J 1"=3000' FEET PROJ[C~ GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RENTON SITE TIT_F SITE LOCATION MAP ,o ~-JASE 152337201 001 REV A FIGUR 1 E t _, .. 2,e 'E-3.%.8.:18"•CCIM:5f ••=.•116"•CIY'IC""" !:E ;; :f:: [~'~/!rt~::~ ~ :f LEGEND -$- REFERENCE($) GOLDER TEST PIT 10 AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASE MAP PDF PROVIDED BY ESM CONSUL TING ENGINEERS, DELIVERED ON JULY 6TH, 2015 J>-,'4~7l ,.,-<'OH~~ I'-}'11ll"OHCPNI CLIENT CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD ~~ DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED IE•l'l0.,:,0 12·, CPI' S r-S:>C811,J,011m•S3U0-ll0 I ,:.,.,, ":: -• -.,,,. _F ~;~1,~.: ;,~ -"~ "" 2015-07-29 REDMOND JH KC Re.l'fTONBIJUN::>Am' Ll'C AD.JGST.ME."H N::i. S0il..D0tl0 RECORCN'., m f'iJ4aJ'lla2 PROJECT / :tt.:r~··i·z-.~s I r 1: 0 50 !"'I 1"=100' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RENTON SITE TITLE SITE EXPLORATION PLAN PROJECT NO 152337201 PHASE 001 "!O"J-."T:::J/'> ~.-CR-!"I--'-tr. L!JA:3-0:J~B-1' RECO=.'l.'.1'1::'.ZJ'l4./(l"2!JU:::O·,? P.E!.m~ s,...:,,;-Pl:.-: i'Q. I UA·J'.l--iJ:JOtlilJ AF'LCRDm J-0 2014ClB1.?IJOOt)1? 100 FEET REV A FIGU2 1 EXCAVATION BASE SH SEISMIC SURCHARGE 35 (H + d) ACTIVE PRESSURE I 400 (d) PASSIVE PRESSURE NOTE(S) CLIENT 1. ALL DIMENSIONS IN FEET. 2. ALL PRESSURES IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT (PSF). 3. PRESSURES ABOVE THE BASE OF THE EXCAVATION ACT OVER ENTIRE WALL FACE .. 4. PASSIVE PRESSURE ACTS OVER TWO TIMES CONCRETED SOLDIER PILE DIAMETER, OR THE PILE SPACING WHICH EVER IS LESS. 5. SEE REPORT TEXT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO DETERMINE PILE EMBEDMENT AND VERTICAL CAPACITY. 6. SURCHARGE LOADS ARE NOT INCLUDED ON THE DIAGRAM. 7. THE ALLOWABLE PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE INCLUDES A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.5. PROJECT CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RENTON SITE CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2015-07-29 TITLE DESIGNED EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM, CANTILEVER CONDITION ~~ PREPARED REDMOND REVIEWED JH APPROVED KC PROJECT NO 152337201 PHASE 001 REV A e GROUND SURFACE q p12 GROUND SURFACE LINE LOAD q 1.--x = mD PRESSURE i "h DEFINITIONS & UNITS I BASE OF EXCAVATION t d tT _l I BASE OF EXCAVATION BASE OF EXCAVATION D "h q EXCAVATION DEPTH BELOW FOOTING IN FEET LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE IN PSF UNIT LOADING PRESSURE IN PSF a p RADIANS PROJECT ISOLATED FOOTING "h = 0.64q (P -sinpcos2a) CONTINUOUS FOOTING PARALLEL TO EXCAVATION (Form> 0.4) "h = 1.28q m2 n D (m2 + n2)2 (Forms 0.4) "h = Dq 0.2 n (0.16 + n2)2 UNIFORM LOAD DISTRIBUTION "h = 0.20 (ACTIVE CONDITIONS) OR = 0.350 (AT REST CONDITIONS) q = VERTICAL PRESSURE IN PSF CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RENTON SITE j CONSULTANT 2015-07-29 TITLE PREPARED A PARKIN DESIGN ,,.Golder \ZV'Assoc:iat :::: JHANSON LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE ACTING ON BELOW GRADE WALLS PROJECT No PHASE FIGURE t i_ i;'------------A-PP_R.;,_OV.;,_E;_D ____ A.;,_WA.;,_LK;_E;._R ___ .:,15:::2:::3:::37:_:2;,::0.:,1 __ _:0~0:_:1 _______ _:A:..._ _____ _!4!.J APPENDIX A EXPLORATION LOGS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION The Golder Associates Inc. Soil Classification S stem is based on the Unified Soil Classification S stem uses Organic o, Inorganic • ~ E ~ "" zei ;j: ~-!j!E -8 ·i Q, ... Group E E "'~ ~q ~ii C,a ~ <ii: H '7l.!!! ~! 8~ " ~ Type Of SOI Gravels '5 .!!! ~ ~th <12%· un fines (bymass) Gravels (!)~ii with >12% t_.u~ fines (bymass) Sands o.~ ~ with <12%· ~1~s fines (bymass) ~~£ [ij Sands "'" ~5 with ~ ... t..8] Peat and mineral soil rrixtures Pfedom1nanUy peat, may contain some mineralsoit,fibrous,or hous t SLTYCLAY u SLTYClAY..CLA'fEYSLT,CL-ML Gradation orPlasllclty Pool1y Graded Well Graded Below A Line Above A ""' Poorly Graded Well Graded Below A Line Abo,eA SLTYCLA'f u CLA'IEYSLTML ORGII.MC SLTOL Uquldllmlt(Ll) C. :::!!! o,. Slow Slow to very slow Slow to very slow Nooe Nooe None None ,~, '" <4 ,. <6 .. CLA'fE'fSUMH ORGANC SILT OH None to Low Low to medium uowto medium Medium to high Low to medium Medium to high High "' o1, "'' "'' °"" Dull to slight Shght Dull to slight Slight to shiny Slight to shiny Shiny Note 1 -Fl~ralned materials with Pl and LL that plot in this area are named (ML) SILT with sllght plastlcity. Fine-grained materials which are Non-plastlc (I.e. a PL cannot be measured) are named SILT. Note 2 -For solls with <5% organic content, include the descriptor "trace organics.'' For soils with between 5% and 30% organic content include the pmix "organic" before the Primary name. December 2012 1/2 C,::: (D .. 'f "'9ani<: USCSGroup c .... nt -Group Name D1,.xD., :1o1or.i:3 GP GRAVEL 1to3 GW GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL CLAYEY GC GRAVEL <30% S1 or~3 SP SAND Ho3 SW SAND SM SILTY SAND SC 3mmto None to low <5% ML CLAYEY SILT 6mm 3mmto Low 5%to OL ORGANIC 6mm 30% SILT 3mmto Low to <5% MH CLAYEY SILT 6mm medium 1mmto Medium to 5%10 OH ORGANIC 3mm high 30% SILT -3mm Low to 0% CL SILTY CLAY medium to 1mmto Medium 30% CL SILTY CLAY 3mm (see <1 mm High Note 2, CH CLAY below) 30% SILTY PEAT, to 75% SANDY PEAT PT 75% to PEAT 100% * Dual Symbol A dual symbol is two symbols separated by a hyphen, for example, GP-GM, SW-SC, and, CL-ML. For non-cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i.e. to identify transitional material between "clean" and "dirty" sand or gravel). For cohesive soils, the dual symbol must be used when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the Cl-Ml area of the plasticity chart (see plasticity chart at left). Borderline Symbol -A borderline symbol is two symbols separated by a slash, for example, GM/SM, CL/ML. A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil has been identified as having properties that are on the transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline symbol may be used to indicate a range of similar soil types within a stratum. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS Soil Particle Size Inches Constituent Description Millimeters (US Std. Sieve Size) BOULDERS Not > 300 > t2 Aoolicable COBBLES Not 75 to 300 3 to 12 Applicable GRAVEL Coarse 19to 75 0.75 to 3 Fine 4.75 to 19 (4) to 0.75 Coarse 2.00to 4.75 (10)to(4) SAND Medium 0.425 to 2.00 (40)to(10) Fine 0.075 to 0.425 12001 to 1401 SILT/CLAY Classtfied by < 0.075 <(200) plasticity MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS Percentage by Mass •• > 5to 12 > 12to35 >35 Modifier trace some Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SIL TY, CLAVEY" as applicable Use 'and' to combine major consutuents (i.e., SAND and GRAVEL, SAND and CLAY) PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: N = the number of blows required to drive a 2 inch (50 mm) split-spoon sampler one foot (300 mm) using a 140 lb (63.5 kg) hammer falling 30 inches (760 mm) after an Initial 6 inch (150 mm) seating (ASTM D1586). Cone Penetration Test (CPT): An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60° conical tip and a typical projected end area of 1 O or 15 cm2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (q1), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve friction (fa) are recorded electronically in real time during penetration. The seismic CPT (SCPT) adds measurement of shear wave velocity (Vs) to the standard CPT. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (OCP), Nd: The penetration rate by an 8 kg (17.6 lb) hammer dropped 575 mm (22.6 in.) to drive uncased a 20 mm (0.79 in.) diameter. 60° cone attached to 16 mm (5/8 in.) drive rods (ASTM D6951 ). Other test methods exist for DCPs with different configurations and different correlations. PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer WR: Samoler advanced bv weioht of samoler and rod NON~COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS Compactness 1 Term SPT 'N' lblows/foott Very Loose 0-4 Loose 4to 10 Comoact 10to30 Dense 30 to 50 VervOense >50 1 Definition of compactness descriptions based on SPT 'N" ranges from Terzaghi and Peck (1967) and correspond to typical average~ values. 2. SPT 'N' in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects. 'N'-values should be considered ONLY an approximate guide to consistency, for sensitive days the 'N'-value approximation for consistency terms does not apply. Term Dry Moist Wet December 2012 Field Moisture Condition Descriotion Soil flows freely through fingers. Soils are darl<.er than in the dry condition and may feel cool. As moist, but with free water forming on hands when handled. 212 SAMPLE TYPES AS Auger sample cs Chunk sample DO or DP Drive open (SPT) or direct pushed tube sampler DS Denison type sample FS Foil sample PS Pitcher type sample RC Rock core SC Soil core ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TF Thin-walled, piston ws Wash sample SOIL TESTS M A G,H uw Com C u uu CD cu D V(FV) SG p PD 0 PH CHEM water content Atterberg limits (plastic and liquid limits) grain size. hydrometer unit weight compaction consolidation (oedometer) test unconfined compression test unconsolidated undrained triaxial test consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test1 consolidated Isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater pressure measurement1 direct shear test field vane (L V-laboratory vane test) specific gravity permeability pinhole dispersion organic content test pH chemical analysis (refer to text) 1. Tests which are anisotrop1cally consol!dated pnor to shear are shown as CAD. CAU. COHESIVE SOILS Consistency Undrained Undrained SPT'N'1 Term Shear Strength Shear Strength (blows/foot) lkPal /tsfl Very <12 <0.12 Oto 2 Soft Soft 12to25 0.12 to 0.25 2to4 Firm 25 to 50 0.25 to 0.5 4to8 Stiff 50 to 100 0.5 to 1 8to 15 Very 100 to 200 1 to 2 15to30 Stiff Hard :>200 >2 >30 1. SPT 'N" 1n accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrec1ed for overburden pressure effects; approximate only. Term w<PL w-PL w> PL Water Content DescrlDtlon Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic Limit Material Is estimated to be close lo the Plastic Limit. Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic Limit. § ~. 9 " ,AGolder \ZJ'Assoctates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-01 Engineer B. Borer Temp~ °F Weather Sunny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation_3=6=0~.0~ft~------ Location S. Parkina Area Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Operator Pm Date 7-9-2015 Job 152337201 I Datum~Lo=c=a~I ________ _ ii"-,,-! I -1 I I 1 1 0 I I I I 1 ~ I I I I k ,------{) - - - - f--5 f--- f--- f--- f--- "' ,,, "·.,,"A',,",,",,",,", i I ~ I ! ! C I I D -------------~ SAMPLES ~N~T;;-EPTH MOISTURE I. I (ft) (%) S-1 i 2_0 S-2 5.5 S-3 8.5 S-4 11.5 f--10 f------E-+----+--+------+--------l --I i<====F -I Bottom of Test Pit at 12.5 ft UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES I DEPTH OF DEPTH TO I DEPTH TO ~===============~-----! 1 TIME HOLE W/L SEEPAGE A 0.0 -0.4 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, f-----+-~(~fl>~-+-~(ft2)_-+-, -~<fl~) ---1 brown, dry, loose. 10,50 ! B 0.4 -2.0 ft: FILL -(ML) sandy SILT, some fine to coarse, subround gravel; light brown grey, dry, loose to compact. C 2.0 -4.5 ft: (SM) silty, fine to medium SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles; orange and grey mottled, (ABLATION TILL): moist. loose to compact. D 4.5 -7.5 ft: (SP) fine SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt; grey brown, (RECESSIONAL ---r------j--------j---~ SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed. OUTWASH); moist, loose to compact. ~ E 7.5-12.2 ft: (SP-SM) fine to medium SAND, some silt ~ 1 1 and fine to coarse rounded gravel, trace Groundwater seep observed on north pit wall at -12.2 fl bgs, 5-10 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. ~ cobbles; dark yellow brown, socketed; (TILL); moist, compact to dense. i (SM) silty fine to medium SAND, some -fine to coarse, rounded gravel; socketed; a' light olive grey with moderate orange ~ mottling (TILL}; wet, very dense. --~---·~-- 0 1.5 fl: Silt content decreasing with depth, sand content increasing with depth. 8 .0 fl: Cobble content increasping with depth. §'---------------_--_-_-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~ ~ 5 ~ ", "' ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 15 " ,AGolder \ZP"Assoctates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-02 Engineer B. Borer Temp~ °F Weather SunQY Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation ~3~76=·=0~ft~------- Location I=:. Parking Area Contractor_ Kelly's Excavating Inc Datum Local Operator~P~a~t ~---- Date 7-9-2015 Job 152337201 15 -10 15 Bottom of Test Pit at 14.5 ft 20 UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.5 -7.0 ft: FILL -(GM) silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, some cobbles and debris (concrete, plastic, bricks, wood); brown, dry, loose to compact. C 7.0 -9.0 ft: (SP-SM) fine to medium SAND, some silt, fine to coarse rounded gravel; grey brown with moderate orange mottling, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact to dense. D 9.0 -14.0 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with moderate orange mottling (TILL); moist, very dense. 12.0 ft: Heavy orange mottling. 20 SAMPLES DEPTH ! MOISTURE ND. (It) (%) S-1 2.0 S-2 4.5 S-3 9.0 ---- S-4 12.0 S-5 14.0 DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO TIME HOLE W/L SEEPAGE (ft) (ft) (ft) ~ ~- -- SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed. No groundwater seeps observed. Test pit terminated at extent of backhoe reach. I I I I g~-----------------------------------------~ ,.Golder \Zr.Associates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-03 Engineer B. Borer Operator _E&_ ___ _ Temp~ 'F Weather Sunny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation~36=5~·~0~ft~------ Location E. Building Area Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Datum Local Date 7-9-2015 Job 152337201 r 11 r-,11 6 5 10 20 ~.,~,,-.,~,,-.~, .~ ... ~. ~,\ A ~n/~ ... ~. ~-- 1 B -·" ------------- SAMPLES NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) (%) S-1 1.5 S-2 4.5 C S-3 8.0 S-4 10.5 ~ 12.0 10 Bottom of Test Pit at 12.2 ft 15 t-----~ --------t-----------1 20 UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.4 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.4 -3.5 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, fine SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, trace rootlets; light brown, dry, loose to compact. 1.5 ft: Becomes moist. C 3.5 -7.5 ft: (SP-SM) fine to medium SAND, some silt and fine to coarse rounded gravel; grey brown, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact. D 7.5 -12.2 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with minor orange mottling (TILL); moist, compact to very dense. 10.0 ft: Boulder (1 to 2.5 ft diameter) 11.0 ft: Becomes very dense. DEPTH OF i DEPTH TO DEPTH TO I TIME HOLE W/L , SEEPAGE (fl) (11) (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed: Groundwater seep observed on W pit wall at -11 ft bgs, -5 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. 11 b ~ ;:, ~ ~ ~ z i I ~ ~ ~ 0 ,., J§IGolder \ZP"'Assoctates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-04 Temp~ 'F Weather ~unny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation _,,_35,,_7'--'·"'-0-"ft.__ ___ _ Location N. Building Area Engineer B. Borer Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Datum_L,,,,o.,.c"'a,._I ________ _ IT I 10 15 20 ~~~:::.....::,''A',,,,~,\,,~ Operator __l'fil_ Date 7-9-2015 Job 152337201 SAMPLES I B NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (fl) ~ L-.. __ S-1 2.0 L----L--C --------+------+------S-2 5.5 -10 L t15 l20 NOTES LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION A 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sa ndy SILT, brown, dry, loose. : B 0.5 -3.0 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, gravelly, fine to SAND, subround gravel, trace ro brown, moist, compact. medium otlets; red C 3.0 -7.0 ft: (SM) silty, fine to medium SAND to coarse rounded gravel; light g grey with heavy orange mottling TILL); moist to wet, compact. , some fine rey and brown , (ABLATION S-3 8.5 S-4 10.0 S-5 11.0 I DEPTH OF DEPTH TO TIME HOLE W/L (fl) (fl) SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed. (%) -·- -- - --- DEPTH TO SEEPAGE (fl) -- --- ---- D 7.0 -11.0 ft: (SP-SM) fine SAND, some silt, coarse sand, and rounded grav dark yellow brown with minor o (TILL); moist, compact to dens medium to el; socketed; Groundwater seep observed on W pit range mottling e. E 11.0 -11.8 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to me rounded gravel; socketed; ligh (TILL); wet, very dense. dium SAND, t olive grey wall at -11 ft bgs, -2 gpm. 11~ __ ~~- '3L_ _________________________________________ _J Jd.iaGolder '2'"'Assoctates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-05 Temp_ 75 °F Weather Sunny Engineer B. Borer Operator~P=a~t _____ _ Equipment Komatzu WEl1<1Q_ __ _ Elevation----"'35"'4-,__,_.,._0_._.ft'-------- Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Datum Local Date 7-9-2015 Job 152337201 Location SW. Building Area 'TTl UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS ANO EXCAVATI_QN __ ~N,,.O._,_TE'e'S.,_ __ _J A 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.5 -3.5 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, subround gravel, trace rootlets; red brown, dry, loose. C 3.5 -9.0 ft: (SP-SM) fine SAND, some silt and fine to coarse rounded gravel; brown, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact. D 9.0 -11.5 ft: (SP-SM) gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel, some silt; socketed; dark yellow brown with moderate orange mottling (TILL); moist, dense to very dense. E 11.5 -14.0 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; light olive grey (TILL); wet, very dense. 20 -- SAMPLES - NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) (%) S-1 1.5 S-2 5.0 S-3 8.5 -~::1 _J2.5 -~_:§__ 13.5 ' ' -- DEPTH OF HOLE (fl) DEPTH TO DEPTH TO TIME W/L SEEPAGE (ft) (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed. No groundwater seeps observed. Test pit terminated at extent of backhoe reach. L___ _______ J l ____ ___J ,: g I, " ~ "' 9 " I i ~ ~ "' <) Ii: m ~ § ,AGolder ~Associates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-06 Engineer 8. Borer Temp~ °F Weather Sunny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Operator~P~a=t~----- Date 7-9-2015 Elevation 7 3cc5C"C1~.0'c-"ft'c-c-____ _ Datum~Lo=ca=I ________ _ Job 152337201 Location NW. Building A B C D E F b I I I I 10 15 20 UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES 0.0 -0.6 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. 0.6 -2.0 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, subround gravel, some debris, trace rootlets; orange brown, moist, compact. 2.0 -3.5 ft: COBBLES and BOULDERS-up to 3 ft diameter (FILL?) 3.5 -9.0 ft: (SP) fine SAND, some fine to coarse rounded gravel, trace silt; grey brown with heavy orange and red mottling, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact. 9.0 -11.5 ft: (SP-SM) fine SAND, some silt, medium to coarse sand, and rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with minor orange mottling (TILL); moist to wet, dense. 11.5 -12.0 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; socketed; light olive grey (TILL); wet, very dense. SAMPLES NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) (%) S-1 2.0 S-2 6.5 S-3 9.0 S-4 12.0 DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO TI!E HOLE W/L SEEPAGE (ft) (fl) (fl) SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed. Groundwater seep observed on NW pit wall at -9.5 ft bgs, -1 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. ~ ~ I «' ~ ~ ~ z 0 ; i le ti I!' ~ 0 ~ g AIIGo111er \Zr.Associates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-07 Engineer B. Borer Temp___§§_ "F Weather -1?unffi'____ Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation ~3~7'=2~.0~ft~~---- Location E. Parking Area Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Operator~P-at~----~ Date 7-9-2015 Datum ~Lo~c~a~I ________ _ Job_ 152~3~3~72~0~1~---- fs r f"rr·····0~,!, ......... '" I B 5 ·- 10 15 I C Bottom of Test Pit at 12.0 ft ·-20 A B C D E LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. 0.5 -7.0 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, trace angular cobbles, trace rootlets; light grey brown, dry, loose to compact. 2.5 ft: Becomes orange brown and moist. 7.0 -9.0 ft: (SP) fine SAND, some medium to coarse sand and fine rounded gravel; grey brown, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact. 9.0 -11.0 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with minor orange mottling (TILL); moist to wet, dense. 11.0 -12.0 ft: (SM) silly, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; light olive grey (TILL); wet, very dense. _J 20 SAMPLES NO. DEPTH MOISTURE TIME S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 ~ DEPTH OF HOLE (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: (fl) (%) 1.0 -~ 4.5 - 7.5 10.5 11.5 DEPTH TO DEPTH TO W/L SEEPAGE (fl) (fl) No caving observed. Groundwater seep observed on N pit wall at -11 ft bgs, -1 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. JJ § ~ ~ g ~ § t ~ ! I ~ g 0 AIIGolder \ZJ'Assoctates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-08 Temp~°F Weather Sunny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation--="35"=7~-~0~ft~~----~ Location S. Parkin Area Engineer __ B._Borer __ _ Operator Pat Date 7-9-2015 Job 152337201 - Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Datum Local 10 15 20 I 1'o 15 f-----------1-----1-----1----l----------- C ~----~------~- UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.5 -4.0 ft: FILL -(ML) sandy SILT, some gravel, trace angular cobbles, trace rootlets; red brown, moist, loose. C 4.0 -8.0 ft: (SP-SM) fine SAND, some silt, medium to coarse sand, and fine rounded gravel; light grey and brown, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact. 6.0 ft: Becomes grey brown. ; i D 8.0 -11.0 ft: (SM) silty, fine to medium SAND, some rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with minor orange mottling (TILL); moist to wet, dense. E 11.0 -12.5 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; light olive grey (TILL); wet, very dense. 20 SAMPLES NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) (%) S-1 2.0 S-2 4.5 S-3 7.5 S-4 8.5 S-5 12.0 DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO TIME HOLE W/L SEEPAGE : (ft) (ft) (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: Severe caving observed on north pit wall below 11 ft bgs. Groundwater seep observed on N pit wall at -11 ft bgs, -3-5 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. -------------------------' '---------------~ §._ _________________________________________ _J WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page I of 1 Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-1 CREW: AD, CJ, RK, JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St & 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10cm Kg/cm' 50/9 #VALUE! I ft 2ft 3 ft lm 4ft - -5 ft - - -6ft -2m 7ft 8 ft 9ft -3m 10 ft 11 ft -12 ft - - -4m 13ft PROJECT NUMBER: -~l-'-5~23~3,...72 __ DATE STARTED: 07-09-2015 ------- DATE COMPLETED: -----'-07'---'-09'--"'20'-lc.c5 __ SURFACE ELEVATION: -----'3-"6-'-0 __ _ WATER ON COMPLETION: No HAMMER WEIGHT: ---3,-5-,lb-s-. -- CONE AREA: __ I_O_s~q_. c_m __ GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY 0 50 100 150 N' SAND&SILT CLAY #VALUE! ##### #VALUE! #VALUE! WILDCAT.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of I Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-2 CREW: AD, CJ, RK, JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St & 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10cm Ke:/cm2 26 115.4 30 133.2 ]ft 33 146.5 15 66.6 IO 44.4 -2ft 10 44.4 -5 22.2 5 22.2 3ft 4 17.8 Im 3 13.3 3 11.6 4 ft II 42.5 16 61.8 20 77.2 5 ft 21 81.1 26 100.4 26 100.4 6ft 19 73.3 36 139.0 -2m 50/9 #VALUE! -7ft 8 ft 9 ft -3m 10ft lift I2 ft -4m 13ft GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 ................................. ...................................... .......................................... ................... ............ ............ ...... ...... ..... ... ... ............ ................. ...................... ....................... ............................. ............................. ..................... ···•····•·•····························· #VALUE! PROJECT NUMBER: __ :.;I 5c:2c:c33;;..;7..=2 __ DATE STARTED: _---'-07_-""09_-_20_1_5 __ DATE COMPLETED: _ _::_07'--"-09'--"'20::..:1-=5 __ SURFACE ELEVATION: 372 ------WATER ON COMPLETION: __ _..:.N;_:co __ _ HAMMER WEIGHT: ___ 3_5_lb_s_. __ CONE AREA: _ __;I-=0..:'.a.9·c.:c;.:;m;c,.__ TESTED CONSISTENCY N' SAND&SILT CLAY -DENSE HARD DENSE HARD DENSE HARD 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 23 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF DENSE HARD ##### #VALUE! #VALUE! WILDCAT.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page l of I Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-3 CREW: AD, CJ, RK, JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St & 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10cm K•lcm' 50/6 #VALUE! l ft 2 ft - - 3ft Im 4 ft 5 ft -6 ft - -2m 7ft 8 ft 9 ft -3m 10 ft - - lift 12 ft -4m 13 ft GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 #VALUE! PROJECT NUMBER: _ __cl:..:5.:c23:..:3:.__7.:c2 __ DATE STARTED: __ 0'-7_-0_9_-2_0_15 __ DATE COMPLETED: ----=-07'----"'09'----"-20:..:1:..:5 __ SURF ACE ELEV A TION: ---"3-"64-'---- W ATER ON COMPLETION: ___ N_o __ _ N' HAMMER WEIGHT: __ ....:3:..:5....:l;:;bs::.. __ CONE AREA: _ __cl:..:O....:s""q.""c""m-- TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND&SILT CLAY ##### #VALUE! #VALUE! WILDCAT.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page I of 1 Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-4 CREW: AD,CJ,RK,JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St & 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10cm Kg/cm' -18 79.9 23 102.1 1 ft 30 133.2 30 133.2 50 222.0 2 ft 50/8 #VALUE! 3 ft Im 4 ft 5 ft - - -6 ft - -2m 7 ft 8 ft 9 ft -3m !Oft 11 ft 12 ft - - -4m 13ft PROJECT NUMBER: 1523372 ------- DATE STARTED: _ ___.c.07'---"-09'---"20"-1"'5 __ DATE COMPLETED: 07-09-2015 ------- SURFACE ELEVATION: __ __,3..,,5_6 __ _ WATER ON COMPLETION: No ------- HAMMER WEIGHT: --~3~5_l_bs~. __ CONE AREA: __ l_O_s~q_. c_m __ GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY 0 50 100 150 N' SAND& SILT CLAY ....................... 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ............................. MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ...................................... DENSE HARD ...................................... DENSE HARD ........................................... VERY DENSE HARD #VALUE! -#VALUE! #VALUE! WILDCAT.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Pagel of I Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-5 CREW: AD, CJ, RK, JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St & 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10cm Kg/cm' -10 44.4 -9 40.0 -I ft I 4.4 3 13.3 15 66.6 2 ft 20 88.8 22 97.7 44 195.4 3 ft 37 164.3 Im 27 119.9 24 92.6 4 ft 22 84.9 17 65.6 14 54.0 -5 ft 15 57.9 16 61.8 14 54.0 -6 ft 22 84.9 -21 81.1 -2m 18 69.5 7ft 23 78.7 38 130.0 50 171.0 8 ft 50/9 #VALUE! 9 ft -3m 10 ft 11 ft -12 ft - -4m 13 ft PROJECT NUMBER: 1523372 -------DA~:~~!~~~g:--~~~-:~,.,~-:~,.,~-:~;;._-------- SURFACE ELEVATION: 353 -------w ATER ON COMPLETION: __ ___;N;..;.o;;._ __ HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. CONE AREA: --1,...,0-,-q-. c-m-- GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY 0 50 100 150 N' SAND&SILT CLAY ............ 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF ........... 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF I VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT ... 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT ................... 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ......................... 25 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ............................ -MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ........................................... VERY DENSE HARD ........................................... DENSE HARD .................................. DENSE HARD .......................... MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ..........•............. 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ................... 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ............... 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF ................ 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ................. 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ............... 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF ........................ 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ....................... 23 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF .................... 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ...................... 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ..................................... -DENSE HARD ........................................... -DENSE HARD #VALUE! ##### #VALUE! #VALUE• WILDCAT.XLS APPENDIX B PLANS FROM ESM CONSUL TING ENGINEERS LLC Boundary and Topographic Survey Storm Drainage and Utility Plan Grading Plan i:, " = e ~ e :. w .J ~ rn 13 '"'""'' 11: i~; ~iH i ;~; ~ . .,,_.OM <>jlqnd l!uµ-Ufl!'-'31!"1:) woo·nA!:JWS9'MMM ~ns OIHd't'HOOdOl ON't' Rf'o'ONnOB .A.U:::13d0Hd l.3111VV\I d ;1 •' .§ h ~; •• " !; .. ~ i; h ~. ~ I! . ' ~ n: ffi C ~~ I ~ I ~ i! ' n I I I i I ! I j iii j ii ~ ~ .. i ;! ~ n ~ .. i •• "' ! ~ ~-~ u ~ uO ~ i ~ g~~ w .~. ~ ~ > i'' ~ " ~ I I m nii "' ~ JI ij 1! j• iJ I f ! !;; H ,? ;c ii CONNECT TO . EXISTING ,~CA,CH '."''~--;;;, ~ """""· 00 ~'~,--------------~- •• /. POLEWBE .......___, ' -"."" • --------L __ .__ _ --~=:: RO. ------.... ._ ________ • --.. ~--- ~NECT ;t-----------o ITARY SEWER. ,._ --1---. ----J ... - PROPSED 3 STORY BULIDING \ CONNECT TO EXISTING B"• --\\ e " • I PARCEL B ru:NTON BOUNDARY U'IE ADJUSTMENT l'O, 501...00t:IO RECORDffi I'(), 01J4261l02 n EX. HYO~NT SCALE: 1" -20' .~ le ~::~-:___-==== ----------....,-.....::::.,-............._ rl !' if ,. I ' Ii ,. "• Ji i ~ >- Q1 I-~ a: Q. ws a.. - w O '3 (!} a: C ~ a.. ~ er: ~ <I: I-~ (.) w ~ ...J C ...J ~ -0 <( Iii -~--, I ~ t j i I il n ~ £ -"~- \ ,,~ \ \ PROPOSED THREE STORY BUILDING, PAD=:'i58.00 \ / \--·----\ \ \ ~--- \ \ \ \ APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK QUANTmES CUT "" 9,800 CY FILL = 3,500 CY TOTAL = 6,300 NET CY CUT '~ --------------------- n SCALE: 1" = 20' ~ ---- -,,~'"'""'"""' ,. I ,s. ~ : u w, J! I I >-I-a: w a.. ~ 0 ~ <( a: c.. ~ a.. ~ <( I-~ () w <.!> _J _J <( ~ ~ GR-01 4 "B '""'' APPENDIXC LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 8/14/15 1523372-01.001 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D421, D422, D4318 PROJECT NAME: Careage/Renton Geotech/W A SAMPLE ID: TP-06 S-2 Depth: 6.5' TYPE: Grab 1----,,-. 100 1•314• 318" lt4 #10 1#20 % p • s n g I 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000 11 -- -- I ,ll ! :ll --..... I U-.. 1) l-~ ~ F-"------~-·---r---..t, I .! ! I"\ ·1 J_ ~-r- I I _J\ ,-~-I --~--~ r-------- ·~ I \~ ~--C. -r I , __ : i __ , ___ ---,-•--- I ~ --- ------r· -~ ---- i ' I I I I I t--~- ----r 1-ii I I I I Ii I I 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle size in millimeters COBBLES I c, [c,~ I Mei:bum I GRAVEL SAND Silt or Clay FINES Particle Size Particle Size {mm) %Passmg Clas~1ficauon Percenta~ Moisture Content 12.0'' 304.8 100.0 ~ 6.0" 154.2 100.0 ~ 3.0" 75 100.0 Cobbles 0.0 1l § 2.5'' 63.5 100.0 z 2.0" 50 100.0 ~ iii 1.5" 37.5 100.0 .§ 1.0" 25 100.0 <I) 0.75" 19 100.0 Coarse Gravel 0.0 I 0.375" 9.5 95.6 #4 4.75 91.4 Fine Gravel 8.6 'l] #10 2.00 88.1 Coarse Sand 3.4 ] #20 0.85 83.9 ,,; #40 0.43 76.6 Med111mSand ll.4 ::i #60 0.25 62.0 #100 0.15 45.5 #200 O.D75 30.1 FmeSand 46.5 Fmes ---2!!:!_ 0 60 = 0.23 0 30= #N/A D10= #N/A Cu=D60/DIO: #NIA #NIA Cc= D30"2l(Dl0*D60J = #NIA #NIA DESCRIPTION,~ some gravel uses, o 8114/15 100 90 ! JI l I ·1 I PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D421, D422, D4318 PROJECT NAME: Careage/Renton Geotech/W A SAMPLE ID: TP-08 S-2 TYPE: 1"3/4" 3/8" #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 --. i1 I I JI! --I .....,., ' 1523372-01.001 Depth: 4.S' ' l-1 - BO .. ~-111· '"' --· l- --+--~ ,--'--. --- % 70 , __ p 60 - a • 50 s 40 -n g 30 20 10 J_' ! i t I I 1000 l ___ _ \ I --' -I •rr-\ ----,c--, \ i I I ---\ --~ ~-_,_ -~ --' ----I -;~ _,_ n-~ --~ l ·-111· II ii 100 10 0.1 Particle size in millimeters COBBLES I C,= IC=• I Mo>= I GRAVEL SAND Pan1c!eSize (mm} %Passing 12.0" 304.8 100.0 6.0" 154.2 100.0 ~ 3.0" 75 100.0 .Jll ~ 2.5" 63.5 100.0 z 2.0" 50 100.0 ~ 1.5" 37.5 100.0 ~ 1.0" 25 100.0 ui 0.75" 19 100.0 J 0.375" 9.5 '17.7 <I) #4 4.75 94.3 ~ #10 2.00 .... 1" i;J #20 0.85 .... '" #40 0.43 80.0 :::i #60 0.25 68.0 #100 0.15 53.9 #200 0.075 40.3 D60• 0.19 D30• #N/A Cu:D60/D10= #NIA Cc= D30"2/(Dl0*060) = #NIA Particle Size Classification Percenta e Cobbles 0.0 Coarse Grnvel 0.0 Fine Gravel 5.7 Coarse Sand 3.5 Medium Sand 10.9 FmeSand 39.7 D1o= #NIA #NIA #NIA DESCRIPrION:§;:: ~ uscs,t---=0--,---------------~ ,_ - !I 0.01 SdtorCl•y J-lNES ~ -- --, -- -- i 0.001 Moisture Content ~ 8/14/15 1523372-01.001 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D421, ))422, D4318 PROJECT NAME: Careage/Renton Geotech/W A SAMPLE ID: TP-08 S-3 Depth: 7.5' TYPE: 3• 2· 1"3/4" 318" #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 .---rr+---r+-...,.,._+-_+,f-+-,,..,..,.frl-,-,-++--+-,+--+,-+,--++-r<>+--ln.,+,-r-,-r,-,--.,--,-,---,-,--,--, I I \ 'I J_ J I 111 -! I : 90 80 t-++-r+--+--+- % 70 P 60 a s 50 • I 40 n g 30 20 _ __l_ -i \~~I ~--1~~~ ..... _I"--, .__ \ 10 1-+----i I H--+--+----1----+++++-+-+-1 1 I 1000 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle size in millimeters I Coar91' Fine I Coarse I Mtdmm I Sill or Clay COBBLES f---=~GLR-A-VEL~~-+_=~-~=SAN~D-~~--+----~'1~NISS~. ~-------1 Particle Size (mm) %Passing 12.0" 304.8 100.0 6.0" 154.2 100.0 3.0" 75 100.0 2S' 63.5 100.0 2.0" 50 100.0 1.5" 37.5 100.0 1.0" 25 86.2 0.75" 19 83.9 0.375" 9.5 80.3 #4 4.75 77.0 #10 2.00 74.2 #20 0.85 71.3 #40 0.43 65.S #60 0.25 54.2 #100 0.15 41.4 #200 0.075 28.0 I D60= 0.33 I 0 30= 0.08 Cu= D60/DIO = Cc= D30"2/(DIO*D60) = DESCRIPTJON,c SAND uses: o #NIA #NIA I PartideS1ze Cfassifkation Percentage Cobbles 0.0 Coars~ Gravel 16.1 FmeGravel ... Coarse Sand 2.8 MedmmSand 8.7 FmeSam.l. 37.6 fines ____:!.:!...._ D10= #N/A #NIA #NIA I TECH1~K DATE 8/13115 CHECK TCM REVIEW JUI Established in 1960. Golder Associates is a global_ employee-owned organ1zat1on that l1elps clients find sustainable solutions to the challenges of finite resources. energy and ·.,vater supply and management. v,/aste management, urbanization. and climate change. We provide a \v1de range of independent consulting. design. and construction services in our specialist areas of earth. environment_ and energy. By building strong relationships and meeting the needs of clients. our people have created one of the most trusted professional services organizatmns in the world Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 USA Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 Africa , 27 112544800 Asia , 852 2562 3658 Austral3sia •61388623500 Europe , 356 21 42 30 20 North America , 1 800 275 3281 South America , 56 2 2616 2000 solutions@goldcr.com www.golder.com <!II~ EnginHring Earth's Development, Preserving Earth's Integrity Assoaates Golder, Golder Assoaates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation Mission Healthcare at Renton Preliminary Technical Information Report October 7, 2015 Prepared for Careage Inc. 4411 Point Fosdick Drive, Suite 203 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 (253) 853-4457 Submitted by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 33400 81h Avenue S, Suite 205 Federal Way, WA 98003 253.838.6113 tel 253.838.7104 fax www.esmcivil.com PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT FOR October 7, 2015 Approved By: City of Renton MISSION HEALTHCARE at RENTON Prepared for: Careaga Inc. 4411 Point Fosdick Drive, Suite 203 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Prepared by: ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 33400 5th Avenue S, Suite 205 Federal Way, WA 98003 Job No. 845-020-015 Date TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 1-1 2. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY .................................................. 2-1 3. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS .. .. .... .. ...... .. .... .. .... .. .... .. .... .. .... .... .. .. .. .... .... ...... .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .... 3-1 4. FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN........ 4-1 5. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .............................................. 5-1 6. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES ....................................................................... 6-1 7. OTHER PERMITS .................................................................................................... 7-1 8. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN........................................................................ 8-1 9. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT ........ ...... ......................... ........................ ..... ....... ..... .............. ..... ............... 9-1 10. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL...................................................... 10-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Vicinity Map 1.2 Existing Site Conditions 1.3 Proposed Site Conditions 1.4 Soils Map 3.1 KCGIS Parcel Reports/Environmental Hazards 3.2 Drainage Complaint Map 3.3 Site Topography 3.4 Offsite Analysis Downstream Flowpath 3.5 Offsite Analysis Drainage System Table 4.1 Pond Tributary Area 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Mission Healthcare at Renton is a commercial building located southeast of the intersection of SE 174th Street and 1061h Place SE in the City of Renton, WA. The plat incorporates the parcel numbered 2923059042 which is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). See Figure 1.1 for the Vicinity Map. The existing site consists of a mostly undeveloped parcel which drains to the Black River basin, see Figure 3.1 for details. The existing site is relatively flat (mean slope of 7%, less than 15% max slopes on site) with a slope from the east to the west sides of the project site. The pervious portion of the parcel is generally pasture with an existing coffee stand and access road. According to the Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) by Golder Associates, Inc., on August 17, 2015 and attached in Section 6, the soils onsite include 2 to 7 feet of fill over native ablation and lodgment till. See Figure 1.2 for the Existing Site Conditions and Figure 1.4 for the Soils Map. The proposed 1. 76 acre project site consists of developing a three story, approximately 54,400 square foot, short term rehabilitation facility containing 60 beds. Parking is provided within surface parking areas containing a total of 56 parking spaces. Access is proposed via 106th Place SE with an additional connection to the neighboring commercial property to the east. There are no critical areas located on sije. See Figure 1.3 for the Proposed Site Conditions. The stormwater detention and water quality treatment will be provided within a combined detention/water quality vault under the parking lot located in the southwest corner of the site. The combined detention/water quality vault will discharge west to the existing stormwater conveyance system in the intersection of SE 174th Street and 106th Place SE in the project's northwest corner frontage. See Section 3 for the Level 1 Downstream Analysis. Based on the City of Renton's Flow Control Application Map, the project site is in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions, Level 2) area. The project will be subject to Full Drainage Review per the City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendments and the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (2009 KCSWDM). The City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment and the 2009 KCSWDM will collectively be referred to as the "2009 Surface Water Design Manual". 2 Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map 111TH AYE SE 110 LN SE 110TH PL SE 110TH AVE SE Q. ti ~ 0 UJ ,,. 5 ..., I-~ " w Cl) V) 110TH AVE SE 109TH AYE SE n1 ~I ti 0 >. /§ :!= C (..) ·-> S 31\V 111~ Figure 1.2 Existing Site Conditions 4 ' 0 ~j ~] '• lj ! RIM-J-42.18 IE-JJ9.8018"•CONCE l(-~91;1()18"•caNCSE :~=~~:~ ~~\~;NCsw NW S0CB648'- R1M•~.16 IE•J4t.9J 1e•, CUP E IE~J42.41 12-, COIIC SE IE~J~\.SJ 1e·~ COIIC S\11 F'OUNO ~EBAA ANO CJ,P ~t6i:.r~o\J%N:oM TITLE REPORT EXCEPTIONS (PER FIRST AM£RICAN TlTlE 1r,.isuRANCr CoMPANY cciMMITMEITT -ORD£R No. NCS-751199-WA.1 DATED AUGUST 31, 2015.) 1) SUBJECT TO GENERAL TAX[S FOR TH[ YEAR 2015. TAX ACCOUITT NO. 292305-9042-06. NOT A SURVEY MAITER. 2) SUBJECT TO FACJLITY CHARGES UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 820'4020522. NOT A SURVEY MATTER. 3) SUBJECT TO POTENTIAL CHARGES, FOR THE KING COUNTY SEWAGE TREATt.lENT CAPACITY CHARGE, J>5 AUll-lORIZED UNDER RCW 35.58. NOT A SURVEY w.nER. 4) SUBJECT TO A WAIVER OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES J>5 COITTAINED IN THE DOCUMENTS RECORDED UNDER NOS. 791767, 1598785, AND 2762014 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. NOT A SURVEY IMITrR. 5) SUBJECT TO R£SERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS PER INSTRUMENT RECORD£0 UNDER RECORDING 00. 2813921. NITT A SURVEY IMTTER. 6) SUBJECT TO THAT EASEMENT ANO THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS THEREOF FOR WATER PIPEUNE AS CONSTRUCTED PER INSTRUMENT REC0RD£D UNDER RECORDING NO. 4262919. SAID EASEMENT IS DEP1CT£D HEREON. 7) SUBJECT TO "TERMS, COVENANTS, CONDmONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS CONTAINED IN UNRECORDED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (BOUNDARY LINE REVISION) 118'4008. DOCUMENT IS UNAVAILABLE 8) SUBJECT TO AN INGRESS-EGRESS EASEt.lENT INCLUDING TERMS ANO PROVISIONS THEREIN PER INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER R£CORDING NO. 9009170'4'48. SAID EASEMENT IS DEPICTED HEREON 9) SUBJECT TO TERMS, CO\/ENANTS, CONDITIONS ANO RESTRICTIONS AS CONTAINED 1N RECORDED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (BOUNDARY LINE RE.'VISION) S91L0D69. 10) SUBJECT TO THAT EASEMENT ANO THE TERMS ANO CONDITIONS THEREOF FOR TELECOMt.4UNICATIONS SERVICES PER INSTRUt.4ENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9'412220'468. SAJ0 EASEMENT IS DEPICTED HEREON. EASEMENT AS OCSCRIB£D IS DIFFlCULT TO OITTRMlNE EXACT LOCATION AND THE LOCATION SHOWN HEREON IS SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. 11) SUBJECT TO THE TERt.4S, PROVISIONS AND EASEMENT(S) CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTJTl.ED "RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEWENT" RECORDED OCTOBER 01, 2013 AS RECORDING NQ_ 20131001000418 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SA/0 INSTRUMENT IS ~ RE-RECORD OF RECORDING NO. 20130913002675, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 1J. 2013. ~ 12) SUBJECT TO THOSE FACTS, RIGHTS, INTERESTS OR Cl.AIMS THAT MAY SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 29, T, 23 N .• R. 5 E .• W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON S0C!l6"8SWrTHSOLI050Lt/oREUD IE-J41.7212"JCPPH IE~J41.71 12-, CPP E IE~J41.70 12-• CPP S IE-:J.0-1.69 ,r.cPPW / IE•.l4.l.OD. 12"f D,ID ~ /~ / ~~~;:~ ~ MIO CHANNEL = 3JB.JS . / / CIJLVERT ..-LE.~2116. 12"•CONC 12 _CPP ~-35185 ~~BJB Pr1Pr•IO~EC NW S0CB60JO ~IM•J5J.7~ lE=3St71 1r•CONC N t~~;:~ ~~:: ~~ ~ \ SOCB6'69 1[•359 78 12"~ CPP N SSMH6377 Rlt.l~JS9.7B UIOCHANNEL•J~.05 '"""' IE•J56J4.12"•CPP \~ ,,;\ ~-,..----, !IO@llt~~l~l8 I -;" ~-'\..u..,~ {y\~NO'IOO'l170448 SDCB6J70 Rlt.1=.lS2.66 IE=J56.92 U'f Cf'P N lEmJ59.9912"•CPoE 1En.l59.0612-,cpp5 IE•.lSS89 12"• CPP W SOCB6.371W1Tli50UDSOU,tJ!ELJO IE•359.S81Z"fCPPW 11;•35964 H"tCPP ( lr-.}.'\9.0012"4C?PN i[~°d£;!::: © RFNTON Sl--bRT PLAT J'tl. WA"ffl--0008-:B R£CDRD1'.G N:l . .20140813)00012 rouNOR!:BlRANOCAP STAMP£D"l.S4-463!I" ~ LOT 2 RENTON SH:JRT PLAT N:J. WA-0-000818 R£CORDW t,O • .zo-J406-:120000 J2 !¥ g~ §~ ~Ii~ ~ o;:, ! Zz RENTON BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT l'-0. SV--Ji.JJD8EJ ~ORDN3 1't'.:l. EJ--tJ428~02 ''·, ~"-='"'ITT I '!",,_.,.. ~~-OIS>':ffllli)( I I ~ .. ~ ~U~E~Nl/166 -\29/ !::'::,'~!'i:,:"'",,,,,''::C, ~,-~ """" -" 6,s-r6'..Jo. ..-- 50 / ,.---2FB.B7 ~ . N61r~•YOO"E26'6.119"((5M) ' V LEGAL DESCRIPTION (PER TITLE REPORT) PARCEL C QF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NO.-S9iL0069 RECORDED APRIL 26. 1991 UNDER RECORDING NO. 910'4261602 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SITE INFORMATION PARCEL NO.: 292305-9042 BASIS OF HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAO 83/2011 NORTH ZONE NOTES: 1. IJT1unES OTHER. THAN THOSE SHoWN -MAY-EX1ST ON THE SITE. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS Af; SHOWN HEREON ARE "TAKEN FROt.4 A COt.4PllATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS. UNDERGROUND UTIUTY LOCATES AND VISIBLE FlELD E.'VIDENCE. WE ASSUME ~ LIABILITY FOR THE .Jl:CURAC'I' OF THE PUBUC RECORDS. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIOf,/S AAE ONLY APPRQ)(IMATE. UNDERGROUND CONNECTIONS ARE SHO'NN AS STRAIGHT LINES BETWEEN 1/1SIBL£ SURFACE LOCATIONS BIJT MAY CONTAIN BENDS, ANGLE POINTS OR CURVES NOT SHOWN. FJELD VERIFKATION IS NECESSARY PRIOR TO OR DURING ANY CONSTRUCTION. SURVEY REFERENCES R1 -RENTON BOUNDARY LINE AOJUSH.tENT NO. S94LD069 RECORDED UNDER FILE NO. 9104261602. R2-RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. LUA13-00616 RECORD£D UNDER Fil£ NO. 201'4061900012 BASIS OF BEARINGS: N 86""50'00" E BETWEEN FOUND IJONUIJENTS AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER ANO SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 29 Wl'S HELD AS Tl-1£ BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY. LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: FOUNOC.0.SEDWONUMENT J-6AASSOISKWITHX DOWN0.4" CITVOrRE:NTOO >JONUo.lENT NO ~77Q n --1"·· _oec··,· 01;:;.:1 "'· 'l,om;.~;""' SCALE: 1" = 40' r-i-----40" 20· o •o· LEGEND = ~ STRE£.l/l'RAFFlCSIGN ® SAHITAAYSEVl'ERI.WIHO\.E E STORMDR,t1NC.O.TCH8'.SIN @ --~ m ,c- " """""""""'"'-"i"" I II . ' ; H -6-=-·,-~, IM 1:t POWER POLE W/DROP \JIIE & llGKT Un. 1,; POWER POLE W/OOOP UNE. UGHT I: TRANSfORMER Zs <)-PO'#Efl POLEW/MOP UNE &:TIWISF"ORUER t, Z I .. TEUPHONEJUffCTION~(IJC) 1 1 1 0 i I- D flRElf'l'OIW'IT 11 I~ " IRRIGO.TIONOONTROI.VM.VE ® ~-~ rn WAT£RMITUI <( V) wz w a: ~ @ao FOUNOBRASSCl>P II; <( ~ 0 FOIJNOIRONPIF'( (.) 8 .. FOLINO CASED MONUMENT I" "' fOUNORERAA. I-;; (.) ....I I;; e ~~ I I <( x W'-' I "co SUREBAR&:CAPCONTROI.CAP 11 lz @ UCEPIIONPERTTTLEREPOOI 0 ci5 (/) ~ z EIURIEDSANITAR'!"SEWtR I I I i -ni, ~ EXIST OR ARISE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING MA.mRS DISCLOSED BY i SURVEY BY ESM CON'SULTING ENGINEERS LLC DATED JANUARY 19, 2015, ..;::o LAST REVISED JANUARY 26, 2015 DES1G"1ATED JOB NO. 845-020-015. BASIS OF VERTICAL DATUM: 3. EASEhlENTS AFFECTING THE PROPERTIES J>5 SHOWN ARE TAKEN FROM FIRST MIERICAtl TlTL£ INSURANCE COhlPANY FILE NO NCS-751199-WAl. EFFECTIVE DATE AUGUST 31. 2015 FUU RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THIS REPORT AND ESM H/>5 NOT CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDENT TITLE SEARCH. EASEMENTS. ENCUMBRANCES AND RESTRICTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST. THIS UAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY "4ADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE ANO CITY STAllJT( ANO ORDINANCE IN JANUARY. 2015 -- ~; :~t!y ::A\tcs~ui~~TIT~~~~~~ERN(~t~~~~G~H~c:s NIM) 86 ~: SITE BY [SI.I IN JA.NUAAY. 2015 A BOUNDARY ANO TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CITY OF RENTON VERTICAL CON'ffiOL MONUMENT NO 1915 4. TI-IE INFORMATION COITTAJNED IN THIS SURVEY IS TAKEN ~~ WAS COMPLITEO ANO IS BEING UPDATED AS SHOWN HEREOI\I. LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BENSON DR. s AND FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS MADE FROl.1 JANUARY 19-23, 2015. i~ 13-15) NOT REPORTED HEREIN. ~c~~~ON~ Jo.86 FEET ZACHARY T. L£NNON 10/ot/21J15 --- EX-01 f] CER11FICATE NO. 44925 ~IL---------------------------------------------------------------------------' 2 ~ 8 '"= ---- Figure 1.3 Proposed Site Conditions ti ;;: l' F I ,, u J% ;:;i ii Vicinity Map t SITE \ ' - Lo'1 RENTON Sl-nRT PU.T ID. WA13--0006'11 RECORD!hG NJ. Zl-WOS1a)[)(XJ'!2 r~·~= 1-.../. _-,--~"~ UH2 RENTON SJ-l'JRT PlAT 00. WA1:H>OOB1! RECOP.Dtt. 1-b. a'.>-J.1oB120CIOO--J:2 n SCALE: 1" = 40' 4~ }, LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL C OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. S91L0069 RECORDED APRIL 26, 1991 UNDER RECORDING NO. 9104261602 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SITE INFORMATIC)N __ PROPOSED SITE /IDDRESS: XXXXX 106TH PLACE SE PARCEL NO 292305-9042 Sheet Index SHEET NO. DRAWN:; NO. DESCRFTION ST-01 SllE PUN EX--01 EXlS1WG CONDmOHS UT-01 CONCEPl\.W. STORM ORAIN,tl;[ .I: UTIJTY Pl.AN GR-01 CONCEPTU,1,L GRADING P\AN DT-01 CROSS SECTION l..A-01 co+aP1l.W... PREUMINAAY I.HIOSCN>E P\AN LA-02 PLANT LEGEND ANO DETAILS LANDSCAPE CAI.D.A.ATll'.lt.s .I: NOTES :1::;;"'"" :· 1· ·1::::;,,,,,. m w ~ w a: <( 0 it r; ll § Z I 0 i 1-z w a: I- <( w a: z <( :s (J [l. I l'c! I-UJ ...J <( w I z 0 en ~ ~ l'i ~ ST-01 1 OF 8 5.,Ccr;; Figure 1.4 Soils Map 6 Soil Map-King County Area. Was hington 5602<0 "°"" 560200 560,00 560320 5603'0 5603'0 56038) 560<00 ''""" '17" 26''19"N lB .i.... . I . -I ~ '17"26'~"N ~ ~ ~ i I R ~ I 11 -~ ----. ' . \ r ·, \ I ~ ,,,,. . ' \ " ! ~ '" -.( I ~ ~,; '• .,• \ - ~-1P .. . '17"26''1'1"N .... ,I . -· 5602'0 560260 560200 "°""' 560320 5603<0 5603'0 560380 560<00 560420 Map Sc:*: l :944 f pn'ted a, A landscape (11• x 8.S-) sheet """"' N 0 10 20 40 60 A -0 45 90 100 270 Mapprojedm:'NebMercator Coolero:xrdinates:~ Edgetics:l!TMZonelONWGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web So il Survey 9/2 1/20 15 -Conse rvation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page1of3 Iii Soil Map-King County Area, Washington MAP LEGEND Area of Interest {AOI) n Area of Interest (AOI) Solla =i Soil Map Unit Polygons -Soil Map Unit lines • Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Futures (2,1 Dill )II( 0 ;x; 0 A. ... ~ 0 0 " + .. -~ J> Jd Natural Resources Conservation Service Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous water PentnnialWater Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot I!! Spol Area C Stony Spot 03 Very Stony Spot ,zy Wet Spot t::, Other .. Special Line Features Water Features streams and Canals Transportation ...... Rails -Interstate Highways -US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background • Aerial Photography Wab Soll Survey National Cooperative Soll Survey MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. warning: Soil Map may not be vaHd at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soll llne placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilSlMVey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape bu1 distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area. such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product Is generated from the USOA-NRCS certified dala as of the version date(s) listed below . Soll Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Dalo: Version 10, Sep 30. 2014 Soil map units are labeled (as space anows) for map scales 1 :50,000 or larger. Date(s) aertal images were photographed: Aug 31, 2013--0ct 6. 2013 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digHized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 9/21/2015 Page2 of 3 Soil Map-King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Map Untt Symbol AgC AmC Totals for Arn of Intern! Natural Resources Conservation Service King County A-Wahington (WA833) Map UnttNama AcreslnAOI Alderwood gravelty sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Arents, Alderwood material, 6to 15 percent slopes Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soll Survey Pen:entofAOI 0.3 2.1 2.3 11.2% 88.8% 100.0% 9/21/2015 Page 3 of 3 2. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Review of the 8 Core Requirements and 6 Special Requirements This section describes how the project will meet the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual's Core and Special Requirements. Core Requirement No. 1 Discharge at the Natural Location In the existing conditions, the site drains to the northwest and enter the existing storm drain system at the intersection of SE 174th Street and 106th Place SE. In the proposed condition, the combined detention/water quality pond will also discharge east and enter the existing storm drain system at the intersection of SE 174th Street and 106th Place SE which is the natural discharge location for the project site. Core Requirement No. 2 Off-site Analysis A Level 1 Downstream Analysis was performed by ESM on June 24, 2015. See Section 3 for the offsite analysis. Core Requirement No. 3 Flow Control Based on the City of Renton's Flow Control Application Map, the project site is in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions, Level 2) area. See Section 4 for Flow Control Analysis and Calculations. Core Requirement No. 4 Conveyance System The stormwater drainage conveyance system will be sized as part of the final TIR to convey the 25 year design storm event and to contain the 100 year design storm event. Core Requirement No. 5 Erosion and Sediment Control The proposed project will include clearing and grading for the three story short term rehabilitation facility, parking lot, and associated entrances and exits. Erosion and sediment controls will be provided to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the project site to downstream drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties. The Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plans will be shown on the final construction plans and described in the final TIR. Core Requirement No. 6 Maintenance and Operations The Operations and Maintenance Manual will be provided as part of the final TIR. Core Requirement No. 7 Financial Guarantees and Liability All drainage facilities constructed or modified for projects will comply with the financial guarantee requirements as provided in the City of Renton Bond Quantities Worksheet. The Bond Quantities Worksheet, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant will be provided as part of the final Tl R. Core Requirement No. 8 Water Quality The developed site requires enhance basic water quality treatment, because it is a commercial site. Based on the attached Section 1.2.8.1 Exception 4 of the 2009 KCSWDM, the enhanced basic water quality menu may be reduced back to the basic water quality menu provided that the runoff will have no leachable materials used or proposed, will record a covenant that these materials will not be used, and less than 50 percent of the runoff is comprised of commercial land use with certain limits on average daily trips and vehicle repair, maintenance, or sales. The proposed development meets this exception, therefore the basic water quality menu will be applied in the proposed stormwater quality and detention vault. Water quality treatment for the project, including oil control, source control, and enhanced basic treatment, may be required and will be evaluated and provided if necessary at the time of development, prior to connection to the overall project stonn drainage system. Treatment for the pollution generating surfaces will be provided by a combined detention/water quality vault. See Section 4 for more information. Special Requirement No. 1 Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements There are no master drainage plans, basin plans, salmon conservation plans, stonnwater compliance plans, flood hazard reduction plan updates, or shared facility drainage plans for this project. Special Requirement No. 1 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2 Flood Hazard Area Delineation There is no 100-year flood plain associated with a large body of water (i.e. lake or stream) on the site or adjacent to the site. Special Requirement No. 2 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 3 Flood Protection Facilities The project lies outside any pre-defined flood plain. Special Requirement No. 3 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 4 Source Control Water quality source controls prevent rainfall and runoff from coming into contact with pollutants, thereby reducing the likelihood that pollutants will enter public waterways and violate water quality standards. A stormwater vault will be used for water quality treatment of runoff from the paved surfaces subject to vehicular traffic, prior to discharge into the existing conveyance system along at the intersection of SE 17 4th Street and 1061h Place SE. Applicable source control will be provided per the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and King County Code 9.12. Special Requirement No. 5 Oil Control The project does not have a "high-use site characteristic" and is not a redevelopment of a high-use site. Special Requirement No. 5 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 6 Aquifer Protection Area According to the "Groundwater Protection Areas in the City of Renton" map, the project site is not in an Aquifer Protection Area. Special Requirement No. 6 does not apply. 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALITY 1.2.8.1 AREA-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY FACILITY REQUIREMENT Projects subject to Core Requirement #8 must provide a water quality treatment facility selected from a menu of treatment facility options identified in the area-specific facility requirements and exceptions for : the WQ treatment area in which the proposed project or threshold discharge area of the proposed project ~ is located. These WQ treatment areas are listed below and their requirements and exceptions are detailed ~ in the following subsections: E • E N T A. Basic WQ Treatment Areas B. Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas C. Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Areas. Intent: To apply an appropriate level of water quality treatment based on the sensitivities ofreceiving waters for the drainage area in which the project lies. These drainage areas are identified as WQ treatment areas on the WQ Applications Map adopted with this manual. In addition to a minimum basic standard, which applies broadly to most geographic areas, special menus are provided for land uses that generate the highest concentrations of metals in storm water and for sites within the watersheds of sensitive lakes, and sphagnum bog wetlands. A. BASIC WQ TREATMENT AREAS Basic WQ Treatment Areas are designated by King County where a general, cost-effective level of treatment is sufficient for most land uses. Some land uses, however, will need an increased level of treatment because they generate high concentrations of metals in storm water runoff and acute concentrations of metals in streams are toxic to fish. The treatment facility requirements for Basic WQ Treatment Areas provide for this increase in treatment. Basic WQ Treatment Areas are delineated on the WQ Applications Map adopted with this manual (see the map pocket inside the back cover). Any unincorporated areas of King County not shown on this map shall be assumed to be Basic WQ Treatment Areas. A more detailed delineation is available on the County's Geographic Information System. Note: For projects located at or near the delineated boundary of the Basic WQ Treatment Area, site- specific topography or drainage information may be needed to ver/fj; that the project or any threshold discharge area of the project is within the WQ treatment area. Any threshold discharge area is considered to be within the Basic WQ Treatment Area if the threshold discharge area drains to a waterbody or drainage system that is clearly within the mapped Basic WQ Treatment Area. The only exception to this is if the threshold discharge area also drains to a sphagnum bog wetland larger than 0.25 acres in size as described in Subsection C, "Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Areas" (p. 1-73). In this case, the threshold discharge area is considered to be located within a Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Area and is subject to the facility requirement of that area only (i.e., required treatment menu, target surfaces, and exceptions). Required Treatment Menu Within Basic WQ Treatment Areas, a treatment facility option from the Basic WQ menu shall be used to treat runoff from the surfaces listed under "Target Surfaces" below, except where such treatment is waived : or reduced by the area-specific exceptions at the end of this subsection and except where the Enhanced Q Basic WQ menu is applicable as follows. If 50% or more of the runoff that drains to any proposed ~ treatment facility is from one or more of the following land uses, then the Enhanced Basic WQ menu : shall be used in place of the Basic WQ menu for the design of this facility, except if such treatment is : waived or reduced by the area-specific exceptions at the end of this subsection: ~ 1. Residentia] subdivision development in which the actual density of single family units is equal to or greater than 8 units per acre of developed area. 2. Commercial, industrial, or multifamily land use. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 1-67 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS 1/912009 A road with an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 2,000 or more vehicles or expected to serve 200 or more homes. Note: those roads defined in the King County Road Standards as urban subaccess streets, rural subaccess streets, urban minor access streets -residential, rural minor access streets -residential, urban subcollectors, and rural subcollectors all serve less than 100 homes by definition. Treatment Goal and Options The treatment goal for facility options in the Basic WQ menu is 80% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) for a typical rainfall year, assuming typical pollutant concentrations in urban runoff.47 TSS is the general performance indicator for basic water quality protection because it is the most obvious pollutant of concern. The Basic WQ menu includes facilities such as wetponds, combined detention/wetponds, biofiltration swales, filter strips, and sand filters. See Chapter 6 for specific facility choices and design details. The treatment goal for facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu is 50% reduction of total zinc. Zinc is an indicator of a wider range of metals typically found in urban runoff that are potentially toxic to fish and other aquatic life. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu includes options for use of a basic-sized stormwater wetland, a large sand filter, or a combination of two facilities in series, one of which is either a sand filter or a Stormfilter™ (leaf compost filter). See Chapter 6 for specific facility options and designs. Intent The Basic WQ menu is intended to be applied to both stormwater discharges draining to surface waters and those infiltrating into soils that do not provide adequate groundwater protection ( see Exemptions 4 and 5 from Core Requirement #8). Overall, the 80% TSS removal objective, in conjunction with special requirements for source control and high-use site controls, should result in good stormwater quality for all but the most sensitive water bodies. Increased water quality treatment is necessary for developments that generate the highest concentrations of metals and for developments that drain lo sensitive lakes and sphagnum bog wetlands. Facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu are intended to remove more metals than expected from those in the Basic WQ menu. Lower metal concentrations reduce the risk to fish of exposure lo both chronic and acutely toxic concentrations of metals such as copper and zinc. As the toxicity of metals depends on their concentration, this standard is most effective for project sites with a larger proportion of pollution-generating impervious surface like roadways and medium to high density subdivisions. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu is intended to apply lo all such project sites that drain by surface flows to a fish-bearing stream. However, projects that drain entirely by pipe to the major receiving waters listed on page 1-37 are excused from the increased treatment and may revert to the Basic WQ menu because concentration effects are of less concern as the overall flow volume increases. Target Surfaces Facilities in Basic WQ Treatment Areas must treat (either directly or in effect) the runoff from the following target surfaces within the threshold discharge area for which the facility is required: l. New PGIS that is not fully dispersed per the criteria on Page 1-46. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new PGIS shall be assumed based on expected driveway size as approved by ODES. 2. New PGPS that is not fully dispersed and from which there will be a concentrated surface discharge in a natural channel or man-made conveyance system from the site. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new pervious surface shall be assumed to be the entire 47 For evaluation purposes, typical concentrations of TSS in Seattle area runoff are between 30 and 100 mg/L (Table 1, 'Water Quality Thresholds Decision Paper," King County Surface Water Management Division, April 1994). 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1-68 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALITY lot area, except the assumed impervious portion as specified in Chapter 3 and any portion in which native conditions are preserved by covenant, tract, or easement. 3. Existing impervious surface added since January 8, 2001 that is not fully dispersed and not yet mitigated with a County-approved water quality facility or flow control BMP. Note: January 8. 2001 is the effective date of the ESA 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 4. Replaced PG/S that is not fully dispersed on a transportation redevelopment project in which new impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and totals 50% or more of the existing impervious surface within the project limits. 5. Replaced PG/S that is not fully dispersed on a parcel redevelopment project in which the total of new plus replaced impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. Exceptions The following exceptions apply only in Basic WQ Treatment Areas: I. The facility requirement in Basic WQ Treatment Areas as applied to target PGPS may be waived altogether if there is a good faith agreement with the King Conservation District to implement a farm management plan for agricultural uses, or ODES approves a landscape management plan48 that controls solids, pesticides, and fertilizers leaving the site. 2. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is infiltrated according to the standards in Section 5.4. 3. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is discharged directly, via a non-fish-bearing conveyance system, all the way to the ordinary high water mark of a stream with a mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or more (at the discharge point of the conveyance system) or a lake that is 300 acres or larger. 4. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for treating runoff from a commercial land use may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu if all of the following criteria are met: a) No teachable metals (e.g., galvanized metals) are currently used or proposed to be used in areas of the site exposed to the weather, AND b) A covenant is recorded that prohibits future such use of teachable metals on the site (use the covenant in Reference Section 8-Q), AND c) Less than 50% of the runoff draining to the proposed treatment facility is from any area of the site comprised of one or both of the following land uses: Commercial land use with an expected ADT of I 00 or more vehicles per l ,000 square feet of gross building area. Commercial land use involved with vehicle repair. maintenance, or sales. 5. The facility requirement as applied to replaced PGIS may be waived if the County has adopted a plan and implementation schedule for fulfilling this requirement using regional facilities. 48 Landscape management plan means a King County approved plan for defining the layout and long-term maintenance of landscaping features to minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and to reduce the discharge of suspended solids and other pollutants. Guidelines for preparing landscape management plans can be found in Reference Section 4-A Submittal requirements are detailed in Section 2.3.1.5. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 1-69 3. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Task 1: Study Area Definition and Maps Figure 1.2 shows the existing site conditions. Figure 3.4 shows the extent of offsite analysis and the downstream flow path from the site. Task 2: Resource Review Flow Control Map According to the City of Renton Flow Control Application Map, the site is a Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) area. • Soil Survey Map According to the City of Renton Soil Survey prepared by City of Renton Public Works Department on 01/09/2014, the geologic map of the area indicates that the soil type on the project site is AmC: ARENTS, ALDERWOOD MATERIAL, 6 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES. The GER indicates that the soils onsite include 2 to 7 feet of fill over native ablation and lodgment till. Further details and descriptions can be found in the GER attached in Section 6. King County iMap According to the King County GIS Viewer (iMap), the project is NOT in any of the following areas: o Streams & 100 year floodplains o Erosion Hazard Areas o Seismic Hazard Areas o Landslide Hazard Areas o Coal Mine Hazard Areas o Wetlands There is, however, a Coal Mine Hazard Area immediately north of the project site. Further details and descriptions can be found in the Mine Hazard Critical Area Study and the Addendum to Abandoned Coal Mine Hazard Review attached in Section 6. City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Manual Amendments According to Reference 11-B in the City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendments, the project is NOT in any of the following areas: o Aquifer Protection Areas o Groundwater Protection Areas Road Drainage Problems None noted Wetlands Inventory 9 There are no recorded wetlands on or near the site according to iMap and the 1990 King County Wetlands Inventory Notebooks. Migrating River Study None noted • Downstream Drainage Complaints According to the information available on iMap, there have been no downstream drainage complaints in the study area within the last 10 years. Task 3: Field Inspection (Level 1 Inspection} A Level 1 Downstream Analysis was completed by ESM Consulting Engineers in the afternoon on June 24, 2015, when it was partly cloudy and 76'F. During the inspection it was found that the project site appears to be located at a high point with no estimated offsite areas draining to the property. Typical culverts were 12" Concrete Pipe along the west and north frontages and appeared to be not constricted. Task 4: Drainage Description and Problem Descriptions According to iMap, the project site is in the Black River (King County WRIA number: 9) basin. The project site's high point is the east boundary which causes the existing site to flow to the west boundary. All flows on the north and west boundaries flow into roadside ditches and enter the existing storm drain system on 103"' Ave SE. These flows continue along 103"' Ave SE in a piped catch basin system with an unknown discharged location. Task 5: Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems All runoff from the site will be collected in a piped storm system and directed to the proposed combined detention/water quality pond. From there, runoff will be discharged at the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) into the existing storm drain system in 103"' Ave SE. 10 Figure 3.1 KCGIS Parcel Report/Environmental Hazards II 9/22/2015 King COOJJ!y Districts and Development Conditions for parcel runber 2923059042 tQ King County King County Districts and Development Conditions for parcel 2923059042 Parcel number 2923059042 Drainage Address Not AvaHable Jurisdiction Renton Zipcode 98066 Kroll Map page 601 Thomas Guide 656 page Electoral Districts Voting district Basin Watershed WRIA PLSS Latitude Longitude RNT 11-1109 King County Council district District 6, Dave Upthegrove (206) 477-1005 Congressional district 9 Legislative district School district 11 Renton#403 Black River Duwamish -Green River Duwamish-Green (9) SW-29 -23 -5 47.44693 -122.19861 Fire district Water district Sewer district Water & Sewer district Parks & Recreation district Seattle school board district does not apply (not In Seattle) Hospital district Rural library district District Court electoral district Southeast King County planning and critical areas designations King Counll! ZQning NA, check with Potential annexation area jurisdiction Rural town? Develogment conditions None Water service planning area Comprehensive Plan cb Roads MPS zone Urban Growth Area Urban Transportation Concurrency Community Service Area does not apply Management Communih! Planning Area Soos Creek Forest Production district? does not apply does not apply does not apply Soos Creek Water & Se_, District does not apply Public Hospital District No. 1 Rural King County Library System does not apply No does not apply 334 does not apply No Coal mine hazards? None mapped Agricultural Production district? No Erosion hazards? Landslide hazards? Seismic hazards? None mapped Critical aquifer recharge area? None mapped 100-year flood plain? None mapped WeUands at this parcel? Within the Tacoma Smelter Plume? This report was generated on 912212015 1 :55:36 PM Contact us at qiscenter@kinqcounty.gov. © 2015 King County t-llp1/Www5.kingcou,ty.rp,/KCGISReportslddJeporl.Jl'int.aspx?PIN=2923059042 None mapped None mapped None mapped Non-Detect to 20.0 ppm Estimated Arwnlc Concentration In ,,, Figure 3.2 Drainage Complaint Map 12 C: .8 C: Q) ex: ~ ~ (ti (.) :5 iii Q) J: C: 0 ·.; "' ~ ;: i J i' ... i 0 CJ \ ' . ...l ' ~ ··fi [j u.1 '] J. j' i / 11 :;_ ! ;; i i & ' § ! i £ ~ I I I o• . . . . . [J 13 Figure 3.3 Site Topography 14 15 Figure 3.4 Offsite Analysis Downstream Flowpath 16 17 ,,..... I Draln-o,t Compo,MnlT:,pe, Name and Sin --I ,._ ___ _ ----· ----· .,,_ L 1 J)" c~~--~ ,.., r. ... L ~. - Figure 3.5 Offsite Analysis Drai nage System Table O•·F·Sln: A,,\I ,\ SI:,, Ilk '"'\I ;. S\:,, I ~ '1 T ,\111 .1 S I lffAO' W AlTt<lh:!1.l1 ;, \l,\'I Al .('itHf ~U}I IHI \II \I 112 __ Suhha,in 1 ... .,11 .. : °'1llnaa41 Componen1 DncrlDUOl'I "'--·-· --~.·=- """ ~uhha,in ~ 01,1,nc• Exi.tln11 I Potential Ob$ervatlotia of n.ld from allt Problems Probla,nt-lnapa,clor, ra1JOUrc. ~~~r .. :-t--.,-aaaaa.;;-a.!a-==..c--. +.__,aa~:am~:.:aa.'il~-i/lMa;~;a~r;=-alla.:-1 ---.-... -__ .....,..,._,......_ ---~~ - 18 Figure 3.6 Picture from Point #1 Looking northwest along 106'" Pl SE 19 Figure 3.7 Picture from Point #1 Looking at 12" Concrete Culvert on 1061 " Pl SE 20 Figure 3.8 Picture from Point #2 Looking west along SE 1741h St Some of the flows from the site likely enter this drainage ditch and flow toward 103"' Ave SE. 2 1 This is the most likely collection point for runoff from the project site where it enters the existing storm drain system. 22 Figure 3.10 Picture from Point #4 Looking west along 103"' Ave SE Flows from the project site are piped into the storm drain system from this location. The remainder of the offsite flow path is in the piped storm drain system. 23 4. FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology The existing site consists mostly of pervious pasture with an existing coffee stand. The existing site is relatively flat (mean slope of 7%, less than 15% max slopes on site) with a slope from the east to the west sides of the project site. According to the GER, the soils onsite include 2 to 7 feet of fill over native ablation and lodgment till. See Figure 1.4 for the Soils Map. This report shows that the site is generally underlain with Till soils, which are incapable of infiltration. Therefore Till soils are used in the KCRTS model, with the predeveloped area being modeled as Till Forest. The project site's high point is the east boundary which causes the existing site to flow to the north and west boundaries. All flows on the north and west boundaries flow into roadside ditches and enter the existing storm drain system at the intersection of SE 174th Street and 106th Place SE. These flows continue along at the intersection of SE 174th Street and 106th Place SE in a piped catch basin system with an unknown discharged location. The predeveloped basin for the project site also includes the frontage improvements. This area will be improved with a new sidewalk including curb and gutter. TABLE 4.1 Pre-Developed Tributary Area SUBBASIN TOTAL AREA TILL FOREST IMPERVIOUS (Ac) (Ac) (Ac) Onsite Basin 1.76 1.76 0.00 Frontage lmorovements 0.60 0.60 0.00 TOTAL 2.36 2.36 0.00 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology The proposed 1. 76 acre project site consists of a three story, approximately 54,400 square foot, short term rehabilitation facility containing 60 beds. Parking is provided within surface parking areas containing a total of 56 parking spaces. Access is proposed via 106th Place SE with an additional connection to the neighboring commercial property to the east. The stormwater detention and water quality treatment will be provided with a combined detention/water quality vault under the parking lot located in the southeast corner of the site. The combined detention/water quality vault will discharge west to the existing storm drain system at the intersection of SE 17 4th Street and 106th Place SE in the project's northwest corner frontage, which is the site's natural discharge location. 24 D eve ooe on etame TABLE 4.2 dP dD dA rea SUBBASIN TOTAL AREA TILL GRASS (Ac) (Ac) Onsite Basin 1.76 0.46 FrontaQe Improvements 0.60 0.27 TOTAL 2.36 0.73 IMPERVIOUS (Ac) 1.30 0.32 1.62 See Figure 4.1 for a visual representation of the Developed Tributary Area. 4.3 Performance Standards Performance Standards for flow control design use the KCRTS Methodology with hourly time steps as described in Section 4.4 below. Runoff files for the existing, proposed, and bypass conditions were created using the historic KCRTS time series data sets for the SeaTac Rainfall Region with a Correction Factor of 1.0. The site requires basic water quality treatment. Water quality will be satisfied with a retention vault, which will be located in the combined detention/water quality vault. 4.4 Flow Control System The pond was sized per the requirements in the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual. Per the City of Renton's Flow Control Application Map, the project site is in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions, Level 2) area. This standard requires the site to match the durations of high flows at their predevelopment levels for all flows from one-half of the 2 year peak flow up to the 50 year peak flow. There are no upstream Offsite flows being routed through the vault and no Bypass flows that will act on the Point of Compliance. The vault's inflow will be modeled using the Dev time series and the vault's outflow will be the RDout time series. This RDout time series will match the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions, Level 2) at the Point of Compliance 20 feet downstream of the project site. KCRTS v6.0 was used to design the proposed vault. Procedures and design criteria specified in the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual were followed for the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. The KCRTS pond sizing output is included at the end of this section. The approximate vault footprint is 40 feet wide by 125 feet long. The KCRTS output models the required detention volume as 35,625 cubic feet of storage with 7.13 feet of detention. The proposed vault provides 40,000 cubic feet of storage with 8.0 feet of detention, which results in an 11% factor of safety. Flow control BMPs were evaluated and implemented for the proposed development, to the maximum extent feasible, as outlined in section 5.2.2 and Appendix C of the 2009 KCSWDM and described below: 25 1. "Full Dispersion" -Full dispersion on the project site is not feasible due to existing topography, proposed development type, and all adjacent parcels are fully developed. 2. "Full Infiltration" -As evaluated in the GER, infiltration was not considered feasible for the project site. 3. "Limited Infiltration" -As evaluated in the GER, infiltration was not considered feasible for the project site. 4. "Basic Dispersion" -As described in item 1 above, Basic Dispersion on the project site is not feasible due to existing topography, proposed development type, and all adjacent parcels are fully developed which does not allow for a vegetated flow path of 25 feet. 5. "Rain Garden" -Rain Gardens on the project site are not feasible due to the proposed development type and very small landscape planters. 6. "Permeable Pavement" -As evaluated in the GER, infiltration was not considered feasible for the project site. Therefore, we estimate permeable pavement will also be not feasible. 7. "Rainwater Harvesting" -Rainwater Harvesting on the project site is not feasible due to the proposed development type and density. 8. "Vegetated Roof' -Vegetated roofs on the project site are not feasible due to the proposed development type and density. 9. "Reduced Impervious Surface Credit" -The proposed development will not provide a 10 percent impervious surface credit due to the proposed development type and density. 10. "Native Growth Retention Credit" -This credit is not feasible for the project site because there are no existing trees on the project site. 11. "Perforated Pipe Connection" -Perforated Pipe Connections on the project site are not feasible due to the proposed development type and density. 4.5 Onsite Water Quality Facility The proposed water quality vault for Mission Healthcare will use the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual guidance for Basic Menu wetvault(s) that would be sized to a Vsf\/R ratio of 3.0, which will treat approximately 95 percent of all runoff. A V8 NR = 3 is calculated by dividing the wetvault volume (V8 } by the volume of runoff (VR) from the mean annual storm. The sizing of wetvaults is accomplished by determining the acreage of pervious and impervious land. Runoff volumes from pervious and impervious areas were determined by multiplying the acreage of each category by the mean annual storm (0.4 7 inches). Runoff factors of 0.25 for till grass areas, 0.10 for till forest areas and 0.90 for impervious areas were utilized. The sum of these values is the total runoff volume (VR). The required basin volume or the volume of the wetvault is determined by multiplying the VR by 3.0. VR r;n Grass= 0.46 Ac (Table 4.2) x 0.47 in. x 0.25/12 = 0.0045 Acre -feet VR=lm;,.rv,ous = 1.30 Ac (Table 4.2) x 0.47 in x 0.90/12 = 0.0457 Acre -feet Total runoff volume VR = VR_TIII_Grass + VR_lmpervious = 0.0503 Acre -feet 26 Total basin volume Va= 0.0503 x 3 = O 1508 Acre -feet= 6600 cubic feet The first cell of the vault (20 feet by 125 feet) will have 4 feet of Water Quality retention. Retention Vault Volume provided = 1 O 000 cubic feet Additional water quality treatment will be provided by Modular Wetlands MWS-L-4-8-C Stormwater Biofiltration Systems for any flow that bypasses the primary water quality vault. These facilities will be located near the intersection of SE 174th Street and 106th Place SE. Water quality flow into those facilities will be 0.17 CFS and the facilities are designed to treat 0.115 CFS each. Therefore two filtration units will be employed to maintain runoff water quality. TABLE 4.3 VI 5 oume ummarv VAULT MODEL PROVIDED VAULT VAULT POND FUNCTION DIMENSIONS VOLUME VOLUME (ft.) (cu. ft.I (cu. ft.I Water Qualitv 125x20x4 6,600 10,000 Detention 125x40x8 35,625 40,000 27 @I o: I tt t I . ,; J J '' I I 11 ~ i ~ i .3 i 9l'O 1 ID /;¥ I "' § t1·0 ll'O Ol'O 80'0 (s~o) e61e4os1a ~ ( I ) " ~ ~ r; .• t ~ .il ~ ~ 2i l! e a. ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 90'0 to·o zo·o oo·o ~ PreDev: [C] CREATE a new Time Series ST 2.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PreDev.tsf F 1.00000 T 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [Tl Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [Pl Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies predev.tsf PreDev.pks Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass Outwash Forest Outwash Pasture Outwash Grass Wetland Impervious [D] Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence predev.tsf Target.dur F F 36 0.388000E-02 0.290000E-01 [R] RETURN to Previous Menu [X] exit KCRTS Program Dev: [CJ CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 0.00 Dev.tsf F 1.00000 T 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [Tl Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [Pl Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies dev.tsf Dev.pks [R] RETURN to Previous Menu [X] exit KCRTS Program Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass Outwash Forest Outwash Pasture Outwash Grass Wetland Impervious Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage O Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Vault 40.00 ft 125.00 ft 5000. sq. ft 7.13 ft 0.00 ft 35625. 7 .13 18.00 3 cu. ft ft inches Full Head Pipe Orifice II Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 0. 69 0.034 2 4.50 1.25 0.067 4.0 3 5.50 1.13 0.042 4.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 0.01 50. 0.001 0.002 0.00 0.02 0.02 100. 0.002 0.002 0.00 0.03 0.03 150. 0.003 0.002 0.00 0.04 0.04 200. 0.005 0.003 0.00 0.05 0.05 250. 0.006 0. 003 0.00 0.06 0.06 300. 0.007 0. 003 0.00 0.20 0.20 1000. 0.023 0.006 0.00 0.34 0.34 1700. 0.039 0.007 0.00 0.48 0. 48 2400. 0.055 0.009 0.00 0.62 0.62 3100. 0.071 0.010 0.00 0.76 0.76 3800. 0.087 0 .011 0.00 0.90 0.90 4500. 0.103 0.012 0.00 1. 04 1. 04 5200. 0 .119 0. 013 0.00 1.17 1.17 5850. 0.134 0. 014 0.00 1.31 1.31 6550. 0.150 0.015 0.00 1.45 1.45 7250. 0.166 0.015 0.00 1.59 1.59 7950. 0.183 0.016 0.00 1. 73 1. 73 8650. 0.199 0.017 0.00 1. 87 1. 87 9350. 0 .215 0.018 0.00 2.01 2.01 10050. 0.231 0.018 0.00 2.15 2.15 10750. 0.247 0.019 0.00 2.29 2.29 11450. 0. 263 0.019 0.00 2.43 2.43 12150. 0.279 0.020 0.00 2.57 2.57 12850. 0.295 0.021 0.00 2. 71 2. 71 13550. 0.311 0.021 0.00 2.85 2.85 14250. 0.327 0.022 0.00 2.99 2.99 14950. 0.343 0.022 0.00 3.13 3 .13 15650. 0. 359 0.023 0.00 3.27 3.27 16350. 0.375 0.023 0.00 3.41 3.41 17050. 0.391 0.024 0.00 3.55 3.55 17750. 0.407 0.024 0.00 3.69 3.69 18450. 0.424 0.025 0.00 3.83 3.83 19150. 0.440 0.025 0.00 3.97 3.97 19850. 0.456 0.026 0.00 4 .11 4.11 20550. 0.472 0.026 0.00 4.25 4.25 21250. 0.488 0.026 0.00 4.39 4.39 21950. 0.504 0.027 0.00 4.50 4.50 22500. 0.517 0.027 0.00 4.51 4.51 22550. 0.518 0.028 0.00 4.53 4.53 22650. 0 .520 0.029 0.00 4.54 4.54 22700. 0 .521 0.030 0.00 4.55 4.55 22750. 0.522 0.032 0.00 4.57 4.57 22850. 0.525 0.036 0.00 4.58 4.58 22900. 0.526 0. 039 0.00 4.59 4.59 22950. 0.527 0.040 0.00 4.60 4.60 23000. 0. 528 0.041 0.00 4.74 4.74 23700. 0.544 0. 049 0.00 4.88 4.88 24400. 0.560 0.055 0.00 5.02 5.02 25100. 0.576 0.059 0.00 5.16 5.16 25800. 0.592 0.064 0.00 5.30 5.30 26500. 0.608 0.068 0.00 5.44 5.44 27200. 0.624 0.071 0. 00 5.50 5.50 27500. 0.631 0.072 0.00 5.51 5.51 27550. 0.632 0.073 0.00 5.52 5.52 27600. 0.634 0.074 0.00 5.54 5.54 27700. 0.636 0.076 0.00 5.55 5.55 27750. 0.637 0.078 0.00 5.56 5.56 27800. 0.638 0.080 0.00 5.57 5.57 27850. 0.639 0.083 0.00 5.58 5.58 27900. 0.640 0.084 0.00 5.59 5.59 27950. 0.642 0.085 0.00 5.73 5. 73 28650. 0.658 0.094 0.00 5.87 5.87 29350. 0.674 0.102 0.00 6.01 6.01 30050. 0.690 0.108 0.00 6.15 6.15 30750. 0.706 0.114 0.00 6.29 6.29 31450. 0. 722 0.120 0.00 6.43 6.43 32150. 0. 738 0.125 0.00 6.57 6.57 32850. 0.754 0.129 0.00 6. 71 6.71 33550. 0.770 0.134 0.00 6.85 6.85 34250. 0.786 0 .138 0.00 6.99 6.99 34950. 0.802 0.143 0.00 7 .13 7.13 35650. 0.818 0.147 0.00 7.23 7.23 36150. 0.830 0 .612 0.00 7.33 7.33 36650. 0.841 1.460 0.00 7.43 7.43 37150. 0.853 2.560 0.00 7.52 7.52 37600. 0.863 3.850 0.00 7.62 7.62 38100. 0.875 5.330 0.00 7. 72 7. 72 38600. 0.886 6.750 0.00 7.82 7.82 39100. 0.898 7 .290 0.00 7. 92 7.92 39600. 0.909 7.780 0.00 8.02 8.02 40100. 0.921 8.240 0.00 8.13 8 .13 40650. 0.933 8.680 0.00 8.23 8.23 41150. 0.945 9.100 0.00 8.33 8.33 41650. 0.956 9.500 0.00 8.43 8.43 42150. 0. 968 9.880 0.00 8.53 8.53 42650. 0.979 10.250 0.00 8.63 8.63 43150. 0.991 10.610 0.00 8.73 8.73 43650. 1.002 10.950 0.00 8.83 8.83 44150. 1. 014 11. 280 0.00 8.93 8.93 44650. 1.025 11. 610 0.00 9.03 9.03 45150. 1.037 11. 920 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Cale Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.47 ******* 0 .13 6.61 6.61 33 048. 0.759 2 0.53 0.12 6.42 6.42 32107. 0.737 3 0.74 0.12 6.42 6.42 32108. 0.737 4 0.51 0.11 6.08 6.08 30385. 0 .698 5 0.49 0.11 6.05 6.05 30243. 0 .694 6 0.75 ******* 0.06 5.19 5.19 25966. 0.596 7 0.40 0.03 0.03 4. 54 4.54 22690. 0.521 8 0.47 ******* 0.03 3.74 3.74 18695. 0.429 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series Fi le: dev. tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.810 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in 1990 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.146 CFS at 20:00 on Feb 9 in 1951 Peak Reservoir Stage: 7.10 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 7.10 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 35497. Cu-Ft 0.815 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis LogPearson III Coefficients Time Series File:rdout.tsf Mean= -1.345 StdDev; 0.275 Project Location:Sea-Tac Skew; 0.318 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.025 39 2/22/49 22:00 0.146 7.10 1 89.50 0.989 0.061 19 3/05/50 6:00 0.135 6.74 2 32.13 0.969 0.146 1 2/09/51 20:00 0.126 6.45 3 19.58 0. 949 0.023 45 2/04/52 8:00 0.119 6.26 4 14.08 0.929 0.061 18 1/18/53 21:00 0.116 6.19 5 10.99 0.909 0.026 34 1/07/54 21:00 0.113 6 .13 6 9.01 0. 889 0.025 38 11/19/54 20:00 0.111 6.08 7 7.64 0.869 0.089 11 1/06/56 10:00 0.106 5.97 8 6.63 0.849 0.026 35 3/10/57 4:00 0.101 5.84 9 5.86 0.829 0.047 25 1/17/58 7:00 0.093 5. 71 10 5.24 0. 809 0.026 36 1/27 /59 1:00 0.089 5.65 11 4.75 0.789 0.106 8 11/21/59 3:00 0.072 5.49 12 4.34 0.769 0.069 15 11/24/60 11:00 0. 071 5.47 13 3.99 0.749 0.023 46 12/24/61 6:00 0.069 5.33 14 3.70 0.729 0.051 24 11/30/62 18:00 0.069 5.33 15 3.44 0.709 0.063 16 11/19/63 16:00 0.063 5.14 16 3.22 0.690 0.069 14 12/01/64 8:00 0.062 5.11 17 3.03 0.670 0.042 26 1/07/66 3:00 0.061 5.09 18 2.85 0.650 0.062 17 12/13/66 11:00 0.061 5.08 19 2.70 0.630 0.027 32 1/20/68 21:00 0.059 5.01 20 2.56 0.610 0.029 29 12/11/68 10:00 0.056 4. 93 21 2.44 0 .590 0.056 21 1/27/70 3:00 0.051 4.80 22 2.32 0 .570 0.027 31 12/07/70 13 :00 0.051 4.79 23 2.22 0.550 0.119 4 3/06/72 22:00 0.051 4.78 24 2 .13 0.530 0. 072 12 12/26/72 6:00 0.047 4.70 25 2. 04 0. 510 0.040 28 12/17/73 9:00 0.042 4.62 26 1. 96 0. 490 0.026 37 1/14/75 0:00 0. 041 4.60 27 1. 89 0. 470 0.026 33 12/04/75 5:00 0. 040 4.59 28 1. 82 0. 450 0.020 48 8/26/77 8:00 0.029 4.53 29 1. 75 0.430 0.059 20 12/15/77 19:00 0.028 4.51 30 1. 70 0. 410 0.020 49 2/13/79 0:00 0.027 4.50 31 1.64 0.390 0.113 6 12/17/79 20:00 0.027 4.36 32 1. 59 0.370 0.028 30 12/30/80 22:00 0.026 4.25 33 1.54 0.350 0.093 10 10/06/81 18:00 0.026 4.25 34 1.49 0.330 0.041 27 1/08/83 3:00 0.026 4.17 35 1.45 0.310 0.023 43 11/24/83 9:00 0.026 4.16 36 1.41 0.291 0.023 42 11/11/84 9:00 0.026 3.95 37 1.37 0.271 0.051 23 1/19/86 1:00 0.025 3.85 38 1.33 0. 251 0.101 9 11/24/86 8:00 0.025 3.74 39 1. 30 0.231 0.025 40 12/10/87 8:00 0.025 3. 73 40 1.27 0 .211 0.023 44 11/25/88 1:00 0.024 3.51 41 1.24 0.191 0 .116 5 1/09/90 14:00 0.023 3.26 42 1.21 0.171 0.126 3 11/24/90 16:00 0.023 3.22 43 1.18 0.151 0.051 22 1/31/92 6:00 0.023 3 .21 44 1.15 0 .131 0.021 47 1/26/93 5:00 0.023 3.10 45 1.12 0.111 0.020 50 12/11/93 11:00 0.023 3.08 46 1.10 0.091 0 .071 13 12/27/94 7:00 0.021 2.75 47 1.08 0.071 0.135 2 2/09/96 4:00 0.020 2.46 48 1.05 0.051 0 .111 7 1/02/97 12:00 0.020 2.46 49 1.03 0.031 0.024 41 1/25/98 0:00 0.020 2. 37 50 1. 01 0 .011 Computed Peaks 0 .227 7.15 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks 0.184 7 .14 50.00 0.980 Computed Peaks 0.146 7.09 25.00 0 .960 Computed Peaks 0.103 5.90 10.00 0.900 Computed Peaks 0 .096 5.76 8.00 0.875 Computed Peaks 0.076 5. 54 5.00 0. 800 Computed Peaks 0.044 4.65 2.00 0.500 Computed Peaks 0.028 4.51 1.30 0.231 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.002 183415 41. 876 41. 876 58.124 0.581E+OO 0.006 59265 13.531 55.406 44. 594 0.446E+OO 0.010 61883 14.129 69.535 30. 465 0.305E+OO 0.014 46134 10.533 80.068 19.932 0.199E+OO 0.018 41024 9.366 89.434 10.566 0.106E+OO 0.023 26427 6.034 95.468 4.532 0.453E-01 0.027 15441 3.525 98.993 1.007 0.lOlE-01 0.031 1894 0.432 99.425 0.575 0.575E-02 0.035 142 0.032 99. 458 0.542 0.542E-02 0.039 106 0.024 99.482 0.518 0.518E-02 0.043 282 0.064 99.546 0.454 0.454E-02 0.047 312 0.071 99.618 0. 382 0.382E-02 0.051 293 0.067 99.684 0.316 0.316E-02 0.055 272 0.062 99.747 0.253 0.253E-02 0.059 277 0.063 99.810 0.190 0.190E-02 0.063 169 0.039 99.848 0.152 0.152E-02 0.067 170 0.039 99.887 0 .113 0 .113E-02 0. 072 172 0.039 99. 926 0.074 0.735E-03 0.076 42 0.010 99.936 0.064 0.639E-03 0.080 15 0.003 99.939 0.061 0.605E-03 0.084 10 0.002 99.942 0.058 0.582E-03 0.088 30 0.007 99. 949 0.051 0.514E-03 0. 092 28 0.006 99.955 0.045 0.450E-03 0.096 28 0.006 99.961 0.039 0.386E-03 0.100 18 0.004 99. 966 0.034 0.345E-03 0 .104 25 0.006 99.971 0.029 0.288E-03 0.108 22 0.005 99.976 0.024 0.237E-03 0 .112 27 0.006 99.982 0.018 0.176E-03 0 .117 21 0.005 99.987 0. 013 0.128E-03 0.121 18 0.004 99.991 0.009 0.868E-04 0.125 7 0.002 99.993 0.007 0.708E-04 0.129 10 0.002 99.995 0.005 0.479E-04 0.133 6 0.001 99.997 0.003 0.342E-04 0 .137 6 0.001 99.998 0.002 0.205E-04 0.141 3 0.001 99.999 0.001 0 .137E-04 0.145 4 0.001 100.000 0.000 0.457E-05 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: rdout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- cutoff Base New %Change Probability Base New %-Change 0.029 O.lOE-01 0.61E-02 -39.3 0.lOE-01 0.029 0.027 -7.4 0.039 0.50E-02 0.52E-02 2.7 0.50E-02 0. 039 0.040 3.0 0. 049 0.29E-02 0.36E-02 23.3 0.29E-02 0. 049 0.053 8.6 0.059 0.17E-02 0.20E-02 14.8 0.17E-02 0.059 0.061 3.5 0.069 O.llE-02 0.98E-03 -9.7 0.llE-02 0.069 0.068 -1. 3 0.079 0.66E-03 0.61E-03 -6.9 0.66E-03 0.079 0.074 -6.0 0.089 0.44E-03 0.51E-03 16.1 0.44E-03 0.089 0.092 4.1 0.099 0.30E-03 0.36E-03 18.9 0.30E-03 0.099 0.104 5.0 0.109 0.21E-03 0.23E-03 6.4 0.21E-03 0.109 0.110 1.3 0 .119 O.llE-03 O.llE-03 -6.0 0.llE-03 0 .119 0.118 -0.5 0.129 0.59E-04 0.48E-04 -19.2 0.59E-04 0 .129 0.126 -2.2 0 .139 0.32E-04 0.16E-04 -50.0 0.32E-04 0 .139 0.134 -3.2 0.149 0.68E-05 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.68E-05 0 .149 0.145 -2.5 Maximum positive excursion;;: 0.004 cfs 8. 6%) occurring at 0.049 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.053 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.008 cfs (-21.6%) occurring at 0.035 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.027 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Developed Frontage Peak Flows: Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Developed Frontage Land Use, [Cl CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 Dev0ffsite060.tsf F 1.00000 F ----> 15 minute, 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [Tl Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [Pl Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies devoffsite060.tsf Dev0ffsite060.pks [Rl RETURN to Previous Menu [Xl exit KCRTS Program 0.656 0.528 0.423 0.313 0. 2 94 0.245 0.172 0.139 Historic: Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass Outwash Forest Outwash Pasture Outwash Grass Wetland Impervious 100.00 0.990 50.00 0.980 25.00 0. 960 10.00 0.900 8.00 0.875 5.00 0.800 2.00 0.500 1. 30 0.231 Flow Frequency Analysis LogPearson III Coefficients Time Series File:devoffsite060.tsf Mean= -0.728 StdDev= 0.167 Project Location:Sea-Tac Skew= 1. 396 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0. 262 9 2/16/49 17:45 0.758 1 89.50 0.989 0.356 5 3/03/50 15:00 0.452 2 32.13 0. 969 0.150 35 8/27/51 18:00 0.400 3 19.58 0.949 0.178 27 10/17/51 7:15 0.367 4 14.08 0.929 0.128 44 9/30/53 3:00 0.356 5 10.99 0.909 0.148 38 12/19/53 17:30 0.295 6 9.01 0.889 0.123 46 7/30/55 21:15 0.271 7 7.64 0.869 0.184 20 10/04/55 10:00 0. 268 8 6.63 0.849 0.181 24 12/09/56 12:45 0. 262 9 5.86 0.829 0.166 32 1/16/58 10:00 0.220 10 5.24 0.809 0.210 14 10/18/58 19:45 0.216 11 4.75 0.789 0.214 13 10/10/59 22:00 0.215 12 4.34 0.769 0.180 26 2/14/61 20:15 0.214 13 3.99 0.749 0.148 37 8/04/62 13:15 0. 210 14 3.70 0.729 0.146 39 12/01/62 20:15 0.199 15 3.44 0.709 0 .113 48 6/05/64 15:00 0 .196 16 3.22 0.690 0.170 30 4/20/65 19:30 0 .196 17 3.03 0.670 0 .113 49 1/05/66 15:00 0.191 18 2.85 0.650 0 .196 16 11/13/66 17:45 0.191 19 2.70 0.630 0.400 3 8/24/68 15:00 0.184 20 2.56 0.610 0.174 29 10/20/68 12:00 0.184 21 2.44 0.590 0.104 50 1/13/70 20:45 0.182 22 2.32 0.570 0.126 45 12/06/70 7:00 0.181 23 2.22 0.550 0.271 7 12/08/71 17:15 0.181 24 2.13 0.530 0.149 36 4/18/73 9:30 0.180 25 2.04 0.510 0.182 22 11/28/73 8:00 0.180 26 1. 96 0.490 0.191 19 8/17/75 23:00 0 .178 27 1. 89 0.470 0 .133 42 10/29/7 5 7:00 0.176 28 1. 82 0.450 0.120 47 8/23/77 14:30 0 .174 29 1. 75 0.430 0.216 11 9/17 /78 1:00 0.170 30 1. 70 0.410 0. 295 6 9/08/79 13: 45 0.169 31 1. 64 0.390 0.215 12 12/14/79 20:00 0.166 32 1. 59 0.370 0.199 15 9/21/81 8:00 0.163 33 1. 54 0.350 0.452 2 10/05/81 22:15 0.156 34 1. 49 0.330 0.181 23 10/28/82 16:00 0.150 35 1. 45 0.310 0.140 40 1/02/84 23:45 0.149 36 1. 41 0.291 0.128 43 6/06/85 21:15 0.148 37 1. 37 0.271 0.191 18 10/27/85 10:45 0.148 38 1. 33 0.251 0.220 10 10/25/86 22:45 0.146 39 1. 30 0.231 0.176 28 5/13/88 17:30 0.140 40 1. 27 0 .211 0.163 33 8/21/89 16:00 0.138 41 1. 24 0.191 0. 268 8 1/09/90 5:30 0.133 42 1. 21 0 .171 0.180 25 4/03/91 20:15 0.128 43 1.18 0.151 0.138 41 1/27 /92 15:00 0.128 44 1.15 0.131 0.169 31 6/09/93 12:15 0.126 45 1.12 0 .111 0.156 34 11/17 /93 16:45 0.123 46 1.10 0. 091 0.184 21 6/05/95 17:00 0.120 47 1. 08 0. 071 0 .196 17 5/19/96 11: 30 0 .113 48 1. 05 0.051 0.758 1 12/29/96 11: 45 0 .113 49 1. 03 0.031 0.367 4 10/04/97 14:15 0.104 50 1. 01 0. Oll Figure 4.1 Pond Tributary Area 28 A.Ll:l3dOl:ld l.3lll'vV'l 38V3tlV8 \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I '~+= I 5. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The stormwater drainage conveyance system will be sized to convey the 25 year design stomi event and to contain the 100 year design stomi event. A detailed Conveyance System Analysis and Design will be provided with the final TIR. 29 6. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Following are the reports and studies referenced for the proposed development: Mine Hazard Critical Area Study, by Golder Associates, Inc., dated February 24, 2015 Geotechnical Report, by Golder Associates Inc., dated August 17, 2015 • Traffic Impact Analysis, by Concord Engineering, dated September 15, 2015 • Addendum to Abandoned Coal Mine Hazard Review, by Golder Associates, Inc., dated September 28, 2015 30 Mine Hazard Critical Area Study 31 (fJ···G Id ~ o er Associates February 24, 2015 Mr. George Stephan Careage Development 4411 Point Fosdick Drive, Suite 203 PO Box 1969 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 RE: MINE HAZARD CRITICAL AREA STUDY SE 174TH STEET SITE RENTON, WASHINGTON Dear George: Project No. 1523372 Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is pleased to submit to Careaga Development (Careaga) this letter report documenting the results of our underground coal mine hazard assessment for the property you are considering for development in Renton, Washington (Site). We understand you are still in the process of feasibility assessments for the development and have received comments from the City of Renton (City) stating that the Site was adjacent to a mapped coal mine hazard zone and therefore a geotechnical coal mine hazard study is required. This report is intended to fulfill the City requirement for a coal mine hazard study. Depending on the depth of the mined seams, access slopes, and other factors, abandoned mines can present a potential hazard to surface structures due to regional ground or trough settlement, differential settlement, and sinkhole formation. Based on our assessment of the existing mine maps, publications and geologic conditions present, we conclude that the subject site is located in a medium coal mine hazard zone as strictly defined by the City Municipal Code 4-3-050. The Site is not underlain by any mapped or known coal mine workings, but due to the orientation of the adjacent coal seam the Site may be potentially affected by future mining-related subsidence. Due to the steep dip and orientation of the mined coal seams (dipping down to the south) there is a low risk of regional or trough subsidence that may extend onto the Careage Site. We believe the risk of subsidence at the Site is low and that modest engineering mitigations can be incorporated into the project design to mitigate this risk. Please find accompanying this letter report a map of the subject site with an overlay of the nearest underground mine map (Figure 1 ), and a cross section (Figure 2) providing our conceptual interpretation of the subsurface geologic and mining conditions present adjacent to the Site. 1.0 BACKGROUND Portions of the City are underlain by shallow bedrock that contains several coal seams that were commercially mined below ground from the late 1800s until the 1950s. The approximate location of abandoned coal mines in Renton was researched and mapped in the 1960s and 1970s using historical mine maps. A comprehensive inventory report of the mines was completed in 1985 (Morrison Knudsen 1985). The information from those earlier studies, along with additional information on the overburden thickness (thickness of soil/rock cover over the mine working), was used by the City to create coal mine hazard map folios. The maps indicate areas underlain by coal mines and provide a relative hazard designation (low, moderate, and severe). A fourth term is used only on the City map folio ("unclassified"). In discussions with City staff, we understand the term "unclassified" means that abandoned mines are mapped but no investigation was completed to rank the hazard designation. In simplified terms, the 022415jqj1 careage subsidence hazard assessment.doc,: Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 USA Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation Mr. George Stephan Careage Development 2 February 24, 2015 1523372 shallower the coal mine workings, the higher the risk of potential damage due to ground settlement or collapse. The coal mine hazard map folio in the Renton Municipal code shows a linear shaped hazard zone about 1 mile wide (E to W) and 1/8 mile (N to S) roughly parallel to the north side of SE 174th Street. This zone is designated as "Unclassified." Based on maps available in Golder's reference library, the zone appears to correspond to at least three coal mines named the Spring Brook 1, 2, and 3. Golder was provided with page 5 of 6 of City project review comments dated January 29, 2015. Under the section titled "Critical Areas," City staff cited wording from the Municipal Code 4-3-050 J.2 "Special Studies Required," which describes the requirement for a geotechnical coal mine assessment report. This is based on the subject site's proximity (within 50 feet) to a mapped coal mine hazard area. The City's definitions for coal mine hazard areas as defined in the Municipal Code (4-3-050 Critical Areas) are as follows: • Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred. • Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than two hundred feet (200') for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence. • High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet (200') in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. 2.0 GEOLOGY AND UNDERGROUND MINE DEVELOPMENT The Site considered by Careage for development is underlain by Eocene age sedimentary bedrock of the Puget Group. The rocks are largely composed of sandstone and shale with coal beds ranging in thickness from 11 to 17 feet thick (Evans 1912). The bedrock underneath the subject site is dipping steeply to the south at an angle of about 64 degrees below horizontal. The rock is cut by several faults which tended to restrict mine development. The bedrock is covered by a variable thickness of glacial sediments deposited during the last ice age (Mullineaux 1965). There were three commercially mined coal seams in the Renton area (#1, #2, #3) of which the #3 (lowermost seam) was the most extensively mined. The #3 bed was approximately 11.5 feet thick (Evans 1912). Available mine maps of the Spring Brook mines were obtained from the Washington Department of Natural Resources and reviewed for this study. Selected maps were plotted on a site map using map section coordinates common to the mine map and the present day property boundaries using GIS. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the Spring Brook mine (mine map overlay) relative to the subject site. The map of the Spring Brook mine indicates the location of mine slopes, gangways, elevation of mine workings, and the dip/dip direction of the coal seam. 3.0 SUBSIDENCE HAZARD RISK Surface disturbance from abandoned underground mines (subsidence and collapse) is caused by collapse of mine workings such as slopes, rock tunnels, air and timber chutes or mined out portions of the coal seam. The most dangerous type of subsidence is a collapse or sinkhole depression which can cause severe damage to structures and utilities. The ground above an area of collapse in a mine gradually bulks as the void approaches the ground surface. The likelihood of a void reaching the surface 022415jgj1_careage_subsidence_hazard_assessmenldocx Mr. George Stephan Careage Development 3 February 24, 2015 1523372 and causing a surface collapse are influenced by the strength and character of the mine roof rock, the depth and size of the original opening and the dip of the coal seam. In general, abandoned coal mines in the Pacific Northwest have not caused surface collapse in cases where the workings are at least 150 to 200 feet in depth which guides the depth of hazard classification for most critical areas ordinances. In practical experience where collapse features have been investigated they typically form around partially or improperly abandoned air and timber shafts, main slopes, and areas where workings were mined close to (within about 50 feet) the ground surface (Gray & Bruhn 1984 ). Regional or trough subsidence can form over a large area that extends laterally beyond the vertically projected surface limits of shallow or deep mine workings. Trough subsidence can result in settlement of several inches or feet at the ground surface. This type of settlement does not typically result in significant structural damage but can cause foundation and structure cracks and induce tilt and strain on utilities. Typically, trough subsidence occurs when mine workings are at a depth greater than 50 feet (Gray and Bruhn 1984). Mine maps showing the location of underground mine workings of the Spring Brook mine indicate that mining occurred, at its closest, a horizontal distance of approximately 200 feet to the north of the subject site (Figure 1). The reported maximum depth of mining on the coal seam (WSDNR 1945), at this closest horizontal location to the subject site, is about 400 feet below the surface (Figure 2). Based solely on the reported depth and location of the mined coal seam in relation to the Site it would be classified as a Low Coal Mine Hazard -except that the low hazard designation excludes the risk of subsidence which can extend laterally beyond the vertical projection of the coal seam along a zone bounded by the theoretical angle of draw (Figure 2). The angle of draw is variable but published maxium values range from about 40 to 60 degrees for coal seams dipping at 60 degrees {Whittaker and Reddish 1989). Figure 2 illustrates the possible lateral extent of trough subsidence at the surface for each of the ranges of the angle of draw. The mine maps for the Spring Brook Mine also indicate that mining of multiple coal seams may have occurred at the Spring Brook mine, though there were no reported depths for the mining on this second coal seam on the mine maps reviewed by Golder. Coal mining in the Renton area more commonly occurred in the #2 and #3 coal seams. Morrison Knudsen (1985) indicates that the #2 coal seam is located about 80 feet above the #3 coal seam on which most of the Spring Brook mines are thought to have been developed. Based on the assumed location of additional mine workings shown on the Spring Brook mine maps, and the stratigraphic position of the #2 coal seam relative to the #3 coal seam, we illustrated the location of mining that may have occurred in the #2 seam (Figure 2). Although there is significant uncertainty in this interpretation we feel it is conservative from a subsidence risk and protection standpoint. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Site is not underlain by any known and mapped abandoned underground coal mine workings. Adjacent abandoned mine workings to the north of the Site due to their orientation and depth present a low risk of regional or trough subsidence on the Site. Due to the age of the mine workings and other factors it is likely that any subsidence that occurred as a result of the abandoned mines would have already occurred. However, in the absence of verification of collapse of the abandoned workings it may be prudent for Careaga to provide some mitigation in the design and construction of the facility to mitigate the low risk of potential future subsidence. The risks are not considered life safety issues and the decision to employ the mitigation should be a cost/risk decision by the owner. Typical mitigation measures include the following which can typically be implemented without significant project cost or design modifications. • Avoid settlement sensitive exterior building finishes such as stucco • Increase the fall of gravity utilities such as sewer and storm lines • Increase the stiffness of foundation elements by using additional reinforcing steel or concrete additives 022415JgJ1_careage_subsidence_haZard_assessmenldocx Mr. George Stephan Careage Development 5.0 CLOSING 4 February 24, 2015 1523372 We trust this report meets your needs. We appreciate the opportunity to support Careaga Development with this project. If you have questions please contact Jim Johnson at 425·883-0777. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Clay Johnson Staff Geologist Attachments: Figure 1 Figure 2 CPJ/JGJ/sb Site Map Conceptual Subsurface Cross Secion A-A' 02:2415igj1 _tareage_subsiclence_hazard_assessmen1.dOC)I James G. Johnson, LG, LEG Principal Engineering Geologist Mr. George Stephan Careage Development 6.0 REFERENCES 5 February 24, 2015 1523372 Evans, George Watkins. 1912. 'The Coal Fields of King County" Washington Geological Survey Bulletin No. 3., May. Gray, Richard E., and Robert W. Bruhn. 1984. "Coal mine subsidence-eastern United States." Man- induced land subsidence 6: 35-66. Morrison Knudsen. 1985. "Engineering Investigation for the Renton Washington Area, Office of Surface Mines HML Program", Morrison Knudsen Associates, January. Mullineaux, Donal Ray. 1965. Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. US Geological Survey. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WSDNR). 1945. Mine Map K35B. Scale 1:360. Spring Brook property. Wittaker BN, Reddish DJ. 1989. Subsidence: occurrence, prediction and control. Develop Geotech Eng, 56, Elsevier, 528 p. D22415jgJ1_careage_subs.dence_hazard_assessmenl.docx FIGURES t A A' 0 250 500 F~Eit VICINITY M~P 1•,!lh,. 't::J -.t11f i 0.25 0.5 MUn NOTES 1. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD_ 19&3_STATEPLANE_WASHlNGTON_NORTH_FIPS_4601_FEET 2. PROJECION. L.AMBERT_CONFORMAI.._CONIC REFERENCE UNDERGFIOUND MINE MAP: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (WSDNR) lik& MINE MAP K350. SCM.E 1:1200 SPRING BROOK PROPERTY SERVICE LAYER CREDITS. SOURCES. ESRI, HERE, DELORME, TOMTOM, INTERW.P, INCREMENT P CORP., GEl!9CO, USGS. FAO, NPS, NR<:AN, GEOSASE, IGN, KAOASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESFU JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), SWISSTOPO, MAf>MYlNDIA,C OPEN STREET MAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY SOURCES: ESRI, OEl.ORME, NAVTEQ, USGS, INTERMAP, IPC, NRC..,... ESRI JAPAN. METI ESRI CHINA iHONG KONG). ESRI (THAILAND). TOM TOM. 2013 LEGEND c::::::J SUBJECT SITE CROSS SECTION A-A' SPRINGBROOK MINE MAP (WSDNR) CLIENT CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MINE HAZARD CRITICAL AREA STUDY TITLE SITE MAP CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 02/2412015 .. Golder PREPARED CPJ DESIGN CPJ Associates REVIEW APPROVED " I PROJECT No Re> FIGURE 1523372 0 1 ~ z NORTH A '2COALSEAM (COAL 'i\ORKINGS NOT CONFIRMED) H wo o..z 0::J a: 0 0..aJ .,,o+--------------+-------------+-- "' 250 200 ~>- a:~ WO o..z 0::J a:o O..aJ SOUTH A' 50 DO -:250 I; NOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND MINING BASED ON MINE MAPS COURTESY OF WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • 2. ANGLES OF DRAW ARE PRELIMINARY ANO HAVE NOT BEEN CALCULATED. ..........,. SURFACE ELEVATION DATA COURTESY OF PUGET SOUND UDAR CONSORTIUM (PSLC) 2000. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (WSONR). 11145. MINE MAP K35B. SCALE 1:360. SPRING BROOK PROPERTY. Q 15, ~ -----=r---- --~-•200ftBELOWORACE J ' __ ,_, __ ~,o I LEGEND MAXIMUM~ DEPTH OF MINING CLIENT E§\$§$§$§$q ~~l~~:i~~i~~NAL MINE OORKJNGS CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT HIGH HAZARD ZONE -• __ -~-MEDIUM HAZARD ZONE fS?\ 8 568 kS-8 ki MINED COAL SEAM UNMINEO COAL SEAM ~--~ POTENTIAL ZONE FOR ANGLE OF DRAW ~~ APPROVED DEPTH OF REGULA TED --HIGH MINE HAZA.RO ZONE • ---·--f,too 0 60 120 ~ SCALE FEET HORIZONTAL s VERTICAL PROJECT MINE HAZARD CRITICAL AREA STUDY 2015-02-23 TITLE REDMOND CONCEPTUAL SUBSURFACE CROSS SECTION A-A' CJ PROJECT No PHASE FIGURE JJ 1523372 001 A ---2 Geotechnical Report 32 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Proposed Development SE 174th Street Site Renton, Washington Submitted To: Careage Development 4411 Point Fosdick Drive, Suite 203 PO Box 1969 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 USA August 17, 2015 Rev.1 Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks or Golder Associates Corporation Project No. 1523372-01 (}JtGolder Associates August 2015 ES-1 1523372-01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This geotechnical report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed 3-story building development located at the SE 174'" Street site in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this geotechnical report is to provide a description of the site conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design. Recommendations within this report relate to building foundations, stonnwater vault, retaining walls, drainage, cut and fill recommendations, pennanent and temporary slopes, and earthwork recommendations. We excavated a total of eight geotechnical test pits, TP-01 through TP-08, extending about 12 to 14.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The test pits encountered between 2 and 7 feet of fill over native ablation and lodgement till. The fill soils general increase in thickness from the northwest corner to the southwest corner of the site. Debris and organic material was encountered in the fill soils, therefore processing will likely be required if the fill is reused for structural fill. Groundwater seepage was encountered about 9.5 to 12.2 feet bgs at the time of our investigation. Perched groundwater conditions should be anticipated in the fill soils and within sandy zones of the till. Based on the geotechnical conditions observed in our study, development of the site using standard construction methods and spread footings appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The opportunities for infiltration on the site appear limited based on the silty soils and proposed site grading and building footprint. The subgrade soils at the base of the proposed detention vault are not recommended for infiltration. Based on the proposed building pad elevation of 358 feet, some sub-excavation of existing loose fill soils will likely be required prior to placement of structural fill or for footing subgrade. As final building plans were not available at the time of this study, we recommend that Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) should review the foundation, retaining wall, and grading plans to verify that they are in accordance with the conditions and recommendations presented in this report. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.Docx August 2015 1523372-01 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................... . .. ES-1 ..... 1 1.0 2.0 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..... SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..... FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING. . ................... 2 ................................................ 3 3.1 Subsurface Explorations ...... .. ............................................... 3 3.2 Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.................................................................................... . 5 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.0 Geologic Setting and Mapped Geology .. . Observed Soil Conditions ........................ . Groundwater Conditions ...... . .5 .5 ....... 6 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 7 5.1 Seismic Design ............................................................................................................................. 7 5.1.1 Site Class ................................................................................................................................. 7 5.1.2 Ground Motion Parameters ..................................................................................................... 7 5.1.3 Liquefaction Potential.................................................................................... .. ........... 8 5.2 Foundations................................. .. ........... 8 5.2.1 Spread Footings.............. ...................... ........... .. ........... 8 5.2.1.1 Foundations on Structural Fill ............................................................................................. 9 5.3 Slab Subgrade .............................................................................................................................. 9 5.4 Retaining Walls .......................................................................................................................... 1 O 5.4.1 Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining Walls ................................................................................ 11 5.4.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls ...................................................................................... 11 5.4.3 Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall................... .. ...... 12 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 5.4.3.1 Soldier Piles ........ ... .. . 12 5.4.3.2 Temporary Lagging ........................ .. .............................. 12 Detention Vault.. ............ .. . ............................................................................................ 13 Permanent Drainage Provisions ................................................................................................ 13 Permanent Slopes ...................................................................................................................... 14 lnfiltration .................................................................................................................................... 14 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................... 16 Subgrade and Foundation Preparation ...................................................................................... 16 Construction Dewatering ............................................................................................................ 16 Erosion Control ........................................................................................................................... 16 6.4 Earthworks ................................................................................................................................. 17 6.4.1 General ....... ... ................ ... ...... ... ............. ... ... ..... ... .. ... 17 6.4.2 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction .............................. 17 6.4.3 Use of Excavated Soils ...... 081715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.Docx . .............................. 18 /&\Golder '!1Associates August 2015 1523372-01 6.4.4 Imported Fill Materials ..................................................................... .. .. ................... 18 6.5 Temporary Slopes ................................................ .. 6.6 Utilities ...................................................... . 6.7 Soldier Pile Installation .................................... . 6.8 Geotechnical Construction Monitoring 7.0 USE OF REPORT.. .................................. . 8.0 9.0 CLOSING ....... REFERENCES ..... List of Tables (in text) Table 3-1 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Laboratory Testing Results -Grain Size Analysis Capillary Break Gradation Drain Gravel Gradation List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Vicinity Map Site Exploration Plan Earth Pressure Diagram Lateral Surcharge Pressure List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Exploration Logs Plans from ESM Consulting Engineers LLC Laboratory Test Results 061715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.Docx .. ... 18 .. ......... 19 . .................................. 19 ............................................. 19 .. ................................................. 20 .. 21 .. 22 /BGolder \Z,!lrAssociates August 2015 1523372-01 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION This geotechnical report presents the results of Golder Associates lnc.'s (Golder's) geotechnical investigation for the proposed 3-story assisted living building at the SE 174'" Street in Renton, Washington. The site is bordered by SE 174'" Street to the north, 106'" Place SE to the west, and existing commercial development to the south and east. The location of the site is shown in Figure 1. The scope of work presented in our proposal dated June 24, 2015 and authorized on June 25, 2015 consisted of a subsurface exploration program, and engineering analyses and recommendations, which are summarized in the following sections of the report. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the subsurface conditions on the site to determine the feasibility of the future development and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. 081715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx lfAIGolder \Z:rAssodates August 2015 2 1523372-01 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site consists of King County parcel number 292305-9042. The 1. 76 acre site is bound by SE 17 41h Street to the north, 1061h Place SE to the west, and existing commercial development to the south and east. The topography at the site slopes from approximately 380 feet on the east side of the property to approximately 350 feet on the west side of the site. The site is generally undeveloped, and consists largely of a vacant grass-covered lot with some small trees toward the west end of the site. An asphalt pad in the northeast corner leads to a gravel driveway and parking area on the eastern border and in the southeastern corner of the site. A small drive-through coffee stand is also located in the southeast corner of the site. Careage Development plans on developing the site. Preliminary project plans indicate the development will consist of a single 3-story building located on the northwest portion of the project site. The building pad elevation is proposed at 358 feet. Based on the site topography. fills up to approximately 8 feet and cuts up to approximately 10 feet will be needed to construct the building (based on finish floor elevation). An 8- foot deep stormwater detention vault is planned under surface parking on the south side of the project site. Several retaining walls ranging in height from 2 to 13 feet are proposed to support grade changes on the east and west sides of the building primarily for parking. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx /&Golder \ZJAssociates August 2015 3 1523372-01 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 Subsurface Explorations Golder's geotechnical field investigation was completed on July 9, 2015 and consisted of excavating eight test pits and advancing five dynamic cone penetration tests (DCPT). Approximate exploration locations are shown in Figure 2. Locations are based on hand measurements from existing site features and should be considered approximate. Exploration locations were selected based on existing site conditions and existing underground utilities. Detailed test pit and DCPT records are contained in Appendix A. It should be noted that the DCPT were co-located with the test pits (e.g. DCPT -01 was perfonmed at the location of TP-01 ). Eight test pits were excavating using a Komatsu WB140 rubber-wheeled excavator operated by Kelly's Excavation under the full-time observation of Golder engineering technician, Brenda Borer. Test pits were excavated to between 12 and 14 feet below ground surface (bgs) and were terminated at either refusal or due to the extent of the reach of the excavator. Five DCPT were advanced near five of the test pits using a Wildcat dynamic cone penetrometer with a 35- pound hammer and 10-square inch cone under the observation of Golder geologist, Alison Dennison. The DCPT tests were conducted to supplement field observations of soil density in the test pits. The data from the DCPT can be converted into equivalent blow count data similar to that obtained from geotechnical drilling and sampling. The DCPT data was used to calibrate the visual observations of soil density as reflected in the test pit records. DCPT were advanced from near the surface of four test pits (DCPT-01, - 03, -04, -05) and from within one test pit (DCPT -02). DCPT were advanced until refusal (50 blows in 6 inches or less). Test pits and DCPT were performed in general accordance with Golder Technical Procedures. Soil samples collected from test pits were collected and sealed in plastic bags and returned to our Redmond, Washington laboratory for further classification and geotechnical laboratory analysis. All of test pits were backfilled with material excavated from the pits. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the test pit records represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted are only for the specific dates and locations reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx ,fiGolder \ZPAssociates August 2015 4 1523372-01 3.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing consisting of grain size analysis was completed on three soil samples. All three samples were from the ablation till layer. The soils were test in accordance with ASTM D-421 and D-422 in Golder's Redmond, Washington laboratory. The results of the laboratory tests are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Laboratory Testing Results -Grain Size Analysis Test Pit Sample# Depth % Passing# (feet) 200 Sieve TP-06 S-2 6.5 30.1 TP-08 S-2 4.5 40.3 TP-08 S-3 7.5 28.0 081715jlh1 _ Renton Geotech Report_ Rev 1.dOCJi: -""=> /BGolder 'Z'Associates August 2015 5 1523372-01 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Geologic Setting and Mapped Geology The recent geologic history of the Puget Sound Lowland region has been dominated by several glacial episodes. The most recent, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation (about 12,000 to 20,000 years ago), is responsible for most of the present day geologic and topographic conditions. As worldwide sea levels lowered and the Puget lobe of the Vashon Stade advanced southward from British Columbia into the Puget Sound Lowland extending south of Olympia, sediments composed of proglacial lacustrine silt and clay, advance outwash, lodgment till, and recessional outwash were deposited upon either bedrock or older Pre- Vashon sediments. The older Pre-Vashon deposits include predominantly glacial and nonglacial sediments deposited during repeated glacial and interglacial periods during the past 2 million years. As the Puget Lobe of the Vashon Stade glacier retreated northward, ii deposited a discontinuous veneer of recessional outwash and local deposits of ablation till upon the glacial landscape. The sculpted landscape was characterized by elongated north-south oriented uplands, and intervening valleys. The geologic map (Mullineaux 1965) was reviewed for this report. This map indicates the site is underlain by Vashon Drift (Qgt). The Vashon Drift is a glacial till with areas of thin ablation till and is described as a graded mixture of gravel to cobble size clasts in a clayey silt and sand matrix. Beneath the Vashon Drift are rocks of the Renton Formation. Depth to bedrock from glacial sediments is variable (Mullineaux 1965). In general, rocks of the Renton Formation are described as sandstones, mudstones, and shales with coal beds (Mullineaux 1965). 4.2 Observed Soil Conditions All test pits encountered 2 to 7 feet of fill soils. Underlying the fill soils, all eight explorations encountered ablation till and lodgment till, in general agreement with the geologic map (Mullineaux 1965). A summary of the soil units is provided below. For more detail, refer to the test pit records in Appendix A. • Fill -Fill or modified land refers to soil placed or modified by human activity. Fill encountered in test pits TP-1 and TP-8 ex1ended 3 to 7 feet bgs and consisted of loose to compact silty sand to sandy silt with some gravel and cobbles. Several test pits, including TP-2 and TP-6, encountered debris in the fill such as bricks, plastic, and wood. Boulders up to about 3 feet in diameter were also observed in the fill. • Ablation Till and Lodgment Till -Lodgement till is defined as a soil unit deposited directly beneath a glacier and at our site was typically dense to very dense owing to consolidation from the mass of the overlying ice sheet. The till was dense to very dense, non-stratified and contain a heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel, silt, and clay. As the glacier melted, soil within the ice was deposited over the till (ablation till}. This soil unit was found above the till in our test pits and is visually similar in tex1ure (generally more sandy) but less dense than the lodgment till. Da1715~h1_Renton Geolech Report_Rev 1.docx -ceE! /BGolder 'Z1Associates August 2015 6 1523372-01 4.3 Groundwater Conditions Perched groundwater was encountered in TP-1, TP-3. TP-4, TP-6, TP-7, and TP-8. In TP-1, TP-3, and TP- 8 encountered groundwater flows estimated to be 5 gallons per minute. The investigation was conducted in the dry summer months during one of the driest summers on record. Groundwater levels and seepage rates in excavations should be expected to increase in the winter and spring months. Perched groundwater should be anticipated within the fill material, above the lodgment till, and within sandier zones within the till. A perched groundwater condition occurs when surface water infiltrates through permeable soil and collects on relatively impermeable material. OB1715jlh1_Renlon Geotech Report_Rev 1.00CX lfJit Golder '2'Associates August 2015 7 1523372-01 5.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS Golder was provided with a boundary and topographic survey, grading plan, and storm drainage and utility plan from ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC (ESM). Copies of the survey and plans are included in Appendix B. The engineering recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed grading and building pad elevation shown on the plans in Appendix B. Once the design plans have been finalized, Golder should be given the opportunity to review the plans for consistency with our assumptions and recommendations. 5.1 Seismic Design The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) (ICC 2012) seismic design section provides information to be used as the basis for seismic design of structures. 5. 1. 1 Site Class Section 1613 of the 2012 IBC provides information on earthquake loads and site ground motion needed for liquefaction potential assessment. Based on the IBC design criteria, sites are classified according to Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010) where the average soil profile properties in the first 100 feet bgs. The deepest test pit for this project site was advanced to a depth of 14 feet bgs. It is our opinion that the site should be classified as Class D based on Table 20.3-1 in ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010). 5.1.2 Ground Motion Parameters Ground motion parameters used for design per the 2012 IBC include the site coefficient and mapped spectral accelerations, which can be found in section 1613.3. The mapped spectral accelerations correspond to Class B conditions. Accordingly, the spectral response accelerations should be adjusted for the site-specific soil conditions. The following design parameters are based on the IBC Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Ground Motion, the 0.2-second spectral acceleration (Ss), and the 1.0-second spectral acceleration (S1) for the project site. The interpolated probabilistic ground motion values in percent gravity (g) were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) US Seismic Design Maps (http://earthguake.usqs.gov/desiqnmaps/us/application.php). The following results were obtained for latitude 47.446389 and longitude -122.199722 (a point located near the center of the site): • Short (0.2 second) Spectral Response (Ss): • Long (1.0 second) Spectral Response (S1): 1.400 g 0.521 g Note that these numbers correspond to Site Classification B and must be adjusted for Site Classification using the IBC procedures. 061715jlh1_Renton Geotei:h Report_Rev 1.docx J&IGolder \Z:lr'i\ssociates August 2015 8 1523372-01 5.1.3 Liquefaction Potential It is our opinion that the risk of liquefaction is negligible due to the presence of dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils. At the time of the investigation, perched groundwater seepage was encountered near the bottom of the test pits associated with dense to very dense glacial till. 5.2 Foundations The proposed building finished floor elevation is at 358 feet. Structural fill placement of up to about 8 feet will be required on the west side of the proposed pad. Cuts of up to about 10 feet below existing grade will be required on the east side of the pad. Foundation and slab subgrade soils over a portion of the east side of the building will likely consist of native dense glacial till, while the remaining portion of the building footprint subgrade will likely consist of compacted structural fill. Conventional spread footings are feasible for the proposed building, provided the foundations extend through the fill materials and bear on native compact to very dense, till soil or properly placed and compacted structural fill. If uncontrolled fill or topsoil is encountered at the footing elevation during construction, the uncontrolled fill and topsoil should be removed and replaced with structural fill in accordance with recommendations contained in Section 6.0. Areas of loose or otherwise unsuitable existing fill are anticipated across the building footprint. Over- excavation of existing soil prior to structural fill placement for the building pad is anticipated. Settlement is expected to occur as the buildings are constructed. Consolidation (long-term) settlements are not expected at the site. 5.2.1 Spread Footings Recommendations for spread footing on the site are provided for spread footings founded on a subgrade consisting of properly placed and compacted structural fill. Based on our understanding of the grading plan, a small portion of the footings on the east side of the building footprint will likely be founded on glacial till. However, the majority of the footings will likely be founded a subgrade of compacted structural fill. Therefore, the foundation recommendations in this section are based on a subgrade consisting of compacted structural fill which are also appropriate for the till. Refer to Sections 6.1 and 6.4 for construction considerations pertaining to spread footings. Foundation recommendations and settlement estimates can be revised once the footing plans and column loads are known. 081715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx -~ /BGolder \UA.ssociates August 2015 g 1523372-01 Foundations on Structural Fill • Assumes spread footings are founded on compacted structural fill. • Design isolated footings using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4 kips per square foot (ksf) assuming a minimum footing width of 2 feet and a maximum footing width of 8 feet. • Design continuous footings using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf assuming a minimum footing width of 2 feet and a maximum footing width of 3 feet. • The maximum allowable bearing pressures meet the required factor of safety according to IBC. • The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressures are gross bearing pressures. • The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressures will result in less than 1 inch of total settlement. • The values presented may be increased by one-third for short-term wind and seismic loading. • Isolated footings should be embedded at least 24 inches below the adjacent finished grade. • Continuous footings should be embedded at least 18 inches below the adjacent finished grade. • The above recommendations are based on centric pressures applied at the base of the footings. In the case of ecoentric pressures (e.g., due to lateral loads), Golder may need to re-evaluate the recommended pressures. A representative from Golder should observe the foundation bearing soils prior to placement of forms and rebar to verify the foundation bearing soils are consistent with the soils encountered at the time of this study. Building foundations must resist lateral loads due to earth pressures, wind, and seismic events. For design purposes, these loads can be resisted simultaneously by: • BASE FRICTION: An allowable value of 0.35 can be assumed for base friction between the soil and spread footings. This value includes a factor of safety of 1.5. The allowable base friction value may be increased by one-third for the seismic loading. • PASSIVE RESISTANCE ON SIDES OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS: For design purposes, we recommend that the allowable passive pressure be based on a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (including a factor of safety of 1.5) for shallow foundations. The allowable passive resistance can be increased by one-third for seismic loading. Since some disturbance is likely to occur during construction, we recommend the upper 1 foot of passive resistance be neglected. 5.3 Slab Subgrade Conventional slab-on-grade floors can be supported on a subgrade of the native bearing soils or on a minimum 2-foot thick layer of structural fill placed and compacted as noted in the Earthworks section of this report (Section 6.4.2). Slab-on-grade floors should not be founded on organic soils, loose soils, or uncompact fills. The slabs should be underlain by a capillary break material consisting of at least 4 inches of clean, free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 3% fines passing the No. 200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction); meeting the specification in Table 5-1. 081715jlh1_Renlon Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx August 2015 10 1523372-01 Table 5-1: Capillary Break Gradation Sieve Size or Diameter (inches) % Passing 1 100% passing No.4 0-20% No. 200 0-3% Vapor transmission through floor slabs is an important consideration in the performance of floor coverings and controlling moisture in structures. Floor slab vapor transmission can be reduced through the use of suitable vapor retarders, such as plastic sheeting placed between the capillary break and the floor slab, and/or specially formulated concrete mixes. Framed floors should also include vapor protection over any areas of bare soils, and adequate crawl space ventilation and drainage should be provided. The identification of alternatives to prevent vapor transmission is outside of our expertise. A qualified architect or building envelope consultant can make recommendations for reducing vapor transmission through the slab, based on the building use and flooring specifications. 5.4 Retaining Walls Seven retaining walls are shown on the grading plan from ESM. The walls include three rock walls supporting 2 to 4-foot grade changes along the west side of the proposed building and four retaining walls supporting 3 to 13 foot grade changes on the east and south sides of the site associated with the parking lot. Our understanding of the walls is as follows: • Rock Walls -The rock walls shown on the grading plan appear to support fills along the west side of the proposed building. Typically, retaining walls supporting fills of 4 feet or less are considered a landscaping feature provided that the wall does not support any other loads (e.g. adjacent footing loads, traffic surcharge, etc.). Rock walls generally should not support fills of greater than 4 feet or other loads or surcharges. • Retaining Wall on North Side of Parking Lot -A retaining wall is shown on the grading plan along the north side of the parking lot, approximately 15 feet off of the north property line. The wall is approximately 90 feet long and appears to retain a minimum height of approximately 5 feet at the west end and a maximum of approximately 13 feet at the east end. Several retaining wall types are feasible to support the 5 to 13-foot cut, such as a cast-in-place concrete, Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall, or a cantilever soldier pile wall. • Retaining Wall in Middle of Parking Lot -A retaining wall is shown on the grading plan running north-south down the middle of the parking lot. The wall is approximately 120 feet long and appears to retain a minimum height of approximately 3 feet at the north end and a maximum of approximately 8 feet at the south end. Several retaining wall types are feasible to support the 3 to 8-foot cut, such as a cast-in-place concrete, MSE wall, or a cantilever soldier pile wall. A rockery is not recommended at this location due to the surcharge load from the cars parked along the top of the wall. 081715Jlh1 _ Renton Geotech Report_ Rev 1.docx ,&Golder \ZIAssodates August 2015 11 1523372-01 • Retaining Wall on South Side of Parking Lot -A retaining wall is shown on the grading plan along the south side of the parking lot. The wall is approximately 110 feet long and appears to retain a minimum cut of approximately 3 feet at the west end and a maximum of approximately 8 feet at the east end. Several retaining wall types are feasible to support the 3 to 8-foot cut, such as a cast-in-place concrete, MSE wall, or a cantilever soldier pile wall. The area behind this wall appears to be a landscaping area (no surcharge behind the wall); therefore, rockery is a feasible alternative to support cuts of up to 6 feet. • Retaining Wall on East Property Line -A retaining wall is shown on the grading plan approximately 5 feel off of the east property line. The wall is approximately 140 feet long and appears to retain a minimum cut of approximately 3 feet at the south end and a maximum cut of approximately 13 feet at the north end. Several retaining wall types are feasible to support the 3 to 13-foot cut. However, the proximity of the wall to the east property line might limit the options. A cast-in-place concrete or MSE wall will likely require more space than is available. Based on the space constraints, a cantilever soldier pile wall is a feasible alternative for this location. Rockery wall is not recommended at this location due to the surcharge load from traffic on the adjacent property. 5.4. 1 Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained soils and applicable surcharge loads. The following equivalent earth pressures may be used for design of retaining walls in conjunction with the foundation recommendations given in Section 5.2 and the drainage recommendations given in Section 5.6. Earth Pressures for retaining structures or backfilled walls: • Restrained Walls (Equivalent Fluid Weight) • Cantilevered Walls (Equivalent Fluid Weight) • Passive Earth Pressure (ignore upper 1 foot of embedment) 55 pct 35 pcf 250 pct The earth pressure values provided in this section are based on the assumption retaining wall backfill will be horizontal and the walls will be fully drained. Surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other surcharge loads should be added to the above design lateral pressure. A uniform seismic surcharge pressure equal to 8H in psi, where H equals the height of the wall in feet, is recommended. 5.4.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls can be designed using the following recommendations. • MSE Wall Fill Parameters: We recommend that a high quality, clean, well-graded sand and gravel fill be used. The fill should contain less than 10% fines. For design, the unit weight can be assumed equal to 130 pcf and an effective stress friction angle (cp') = 34 degrees. The in-situ soil values used for the retained soils behind the geogrid zone can be assumed to have a unit weight equal to 130 pct and an effective stress friction angle (cp') = 30 degrees. Alternative types of fill can be considered; however different materials possess different strength parameters, which may result in retaining wall design changes and cost. If the wall contractor elects to use a silly backfill(> 10% fines), alternative design parameters and recommendations for improved drainage (curtain, blanket, and finger drains) and additional field testing will be required. 081715Jlh1_Renton Geolech Report_Rev 1.docx !'&\Golder 'Z'Associates August 2015 12 1523372-01 • Drainage: Proper drainage is critical for retaining walls. MSE walls can perform poorly if the backfill behind the wall and/or in the reinforcement zone becomes saturated. Thus, it is essential to use free-draining fill within the zone of reinforcement. If finer-grained fill is considered a drainage blanket will be required behind the reinforcement to intercept and drain any seepage. A blanket drain, usually consisting of clean gravel or crushed rock meeting filter criteria, is generally constructed immediately behind the MSE wall face. The wall designer should be consulted if material changes occur, so that appropriate drainage provisions are made. The above parameters are general recommendations only. Once site design plans are completed, individual wall locations should be reviewed, and a formal retaining wall design created so as to ensure long-term global stability and performance. 5.4.3 Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall Cantilever soldier pile walls can be designed using the following recommendations. Soldier Piles The design earth pressure configurations are shown in Figure 3 for the active condition of cantilever soldier pile walls. If deformations of the wall must be limited, Golder can provide at-rest earth pressures for the design. The earth pressure recommendations are based on our understanding of the grading plan included in Appendix B. If the configuration of the retaining wall changes, Golder should be notified to review the updated plans and revise earth pressure recommendations accordingly. Additional lateral surcharges should be added to the design earth pressures to account for any vertical surcharges adjacent to the excavation, such as traffic surcharges and construction surcharge loadings, including those from mobile cranes and pump trucks. Surcharges on retaining walls can be calculated using the appropriate equation presented in Figure 4. The earth pressures presented assume level ground above the top of the wall. If sloping ground is present, a surcharge equal to one-half of the height of the slope should be added to the height of the shoring to determine the effective shoring height and corresponding lateral earth pressure. The embedment depth of soldier piles below the base of the excavation should be designed to provide force and moment equilibrium. Soldier piles should be embedded a minimum 10 feet below the base of the excavation. Temporary Lagging Temporary lagging will be necessary to prevent caving of the soil face between the soldier piles. Temporary lagging may be designed for 50% of the lateral soil pressures. However, for an 8-foot center to center span, a maximum thickness of 4 inches is recommended for No. 2 or better Hem-Fir wood lagging, even if the structural calculations show thicker wood lagging is required. Any voids behind the lagging should be backfilled with a permeable granular soil material that does not allow the buildup of hydrostatic pressure or 001715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx -~ /BGolder '2'°Associates August 2015 13 1523372-01 controlled density fill (CDF). The excavation height prior to lagging installation should not exceed 4 feet, or less as required to maintain cut face stability. 5.5 Detention Vault A detention and water quality vault is shown on the storm drainage and utility plan from ESM in the south central portion of site. The vault is shown as 125 feet in the east-west direction, 40 feet in the north-south direction, and 8 feet deep. We assume that an open cut excavation will be used to construct the detention vault and then structural backfill placed. Based on this assumption, the detention vault can be designed for the earth pressures given in Section 5.4.1, the foundation recommendations in Section 5.2, and the drainage recommendations in Section 5.6. 5.6 Permanent Drainage Provisions Permanent control of surface water should be incorporated in the final grading design, and vegetative protection should be established. It is important to separate all surface water drainage, including roof downspouts, from any building foundation drainage systems. Surface drainage and building footing drains must be conveyed in two separate systems. The permanent drainage system for the building should consist of, at a minimum: • PERIMETER FOOTING DRAINS: A footing drain consisting of 4-inch-diameter, heavy-walled, perforated PVC pipe or equivalent should be placed along the perimeter of all structures. The pipe should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of drainage gravel as noted in Table 5-2. A non-woven filter fabric, such a Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent, is recommended between the native soils and the drain rock. Drain cleanouts are recommended. Footing drains should drain by gravity to a suitable discharge point. • WALL DRAINS: Drainage behind backfilled walls can consist of a full face geocomposite drainage mat or a minimum of a 2-foot wide zone of clean sand and gravel fill with less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. • UNDER DRAINS: The need for underdrains will depend on the groundwater seepage conditions observed during construction. If recommended during construction, the under drain should consist of heavy walled perforated 4-inch diameter PVC or as required by the local building code. We recommend a maximum 20-foot grid spacing of the slab under drain system, combined with the perimeter wall/drain should be used for design and planning purposes. We recommend that the inverts of the pipe be a minimum of 18 inches below the finished floor elevation and be sloped to drain at a minimum one-quarter percent. The drain pipes should be enveloped in drain rock extending to at least 6 inches on the top and sides, with a minimum of 2 inches placed below the pipe invert. A non-woven filter fabric, such a Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent, is recommended between the native soils and the drain rock. Drain cleanouts are recommended. 081715jlh1_Renton Gl!Cllech Report_Rev 1.docx JatGolder '2:1Associates August 2015 14 1523372-01 • DISCHARGE: If flow by gravity is not feasible at this site, the wall drainage system should run to a sump for pumping to the storm drainage system. The groundwater flow rate should be evaluated prior to construction and refined during construction. The permanent drainage system should conservatively be sized for that flow. If a sump system is used, a backup pump with emergency power is recommended in case of mechanical breakdown. The dewatering system should be vented to the atmosphere in case of mechanical or electrical failure. As a minimum, we recommend that the sump and drainpipe clean outs be vented to the atmosphere. Table 5-2: Drain Gravel Gradation Sieve Size or Diameter (inches) % Passing 1 y, 100% passing 3/8 10-40% No.4 0-5% No. 200 0-3% 5.7 Permanent Slopes For preliminary design purposes we recommend that long-term permanent cut slopes should be 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter assuming proper drainage and erosion control. Long term permanent fill slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter assuming proper compaction, drainage and erosion control. In our experience, 2H:1V and steeper slopes are significantly more likely to experience erosion or sloughing during the first winter season, until vegetation is well established. Aggressive erosion control measures, including plastic sheeting are sometimes needed to prevent significant slope damage. In general, 3H:1V slopes or gentler are preferred for ease of maintenance and application of landscaping. 5.8 Infiltration The proposed grading plan from ESM was reviewed with respect to locations for stormwater infiltration. The following locations were investigated: • Parking Lot -The slopes, grades, and soil conditions were reviewed for possible locations to incorporate permeable pavement. Based on a discussion with ESM, areas of the parking lot with slopes greater than 3% were not considered feasible for permeable pavement. Based on a proposed pavement slope of less than 3%, the following locations were reviewed in more detail: • Parking stalls along the east property boundary are shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Cuts in this area will range between approximately 6 and 12 feet, which will likely expose ablation till at subgrade elevation. The ablation till soil will likely have a low infiltration rate (less than 1 inch per hour). • Parking stalls along the middle of the parking lot on top of the proposed retaining wall are shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Infiltration is not recommended at this location because the water will likely enter the retaining wall drains and not infiltrate. • Parking stalls along the middle of the parking lot along the bottom of the proposed retaining wall are shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Cuts in this area will range between approximately 8 and 10 feet, which will likely expose ablation till or 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx August 2015 15 1523372-01 lodgement till at the subgrade elevation. The till soils will likely have a low infiltration rate (less than 1 inch per hour). • Parking stalls along the south side of the proposed building are shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Soils in this area will likely be excavated for the detention vault and replaced with structural fill. Infiltration is not recommended at this location because water will likely enter the detention vault wall drains and not infiltrate. • Driveway entrance to the site near the southwest corner of the property is shown on the grading plan to slope at less than 3%. Subgrade soils in this area will likely consist of sandy silt and silty sand consistent with the soils encountered in test pit TP-08. Infiltration might be feasible at this location. If penmeable pavement is desired in this location, sieve analysis on soil samples from test p~ TP-08 can be completed to estimate infiltration rate. • Detention Vault -Soil conditions at the assumed elevation (-350 feet) of the proposed detention vault will likely consist of very dense Lodgment till. The till will likely have a low infiltration rate (less than 0.5-inch per hour) and is not recommended for stonmwater infiltration. • Landscape Area Southwest Corner of the Site -This area, south of the driveway entrance near the southwest corner of the property appears to be intended for landscaping. Based on the soils encountered in test pit TP-08, soils at this location will likely consist of silty sand over ablation till with a low infiltration rate (less 0.5-inch per hour). Stormwater infiltration is not recommended in this area .. • Landscape Area Northwest Corner of the Site -The landscaping area at the northwest corner of the property might be a feasible location for an infiltration facility (rain garden). However, based on the soils encountered in test pit TP-06, soils at this location will likely consist of silty sand over ablation till. The infiltration rate in this area will likely be low (less than 0.5 inch per hour). Stonmwater infiltration is not recommended in this area. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx August 2015 16 1523372-01 6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Geotechnical related site construction activities include clearing and grubbing. excavation, subgrade preparation, placement of foundations, and placement and compaction of structural fills. Surface water runoff should be controlled and directed away from the excavation and any temporary cut slopes. This section discusses selected elements of these construction items. 6.1 Subgrade and Foundation Preparation If uncontrolled fill or topsoil is encountered at the proposed subgrade elevation, the uncontrolled fill and/or topsoil should be removed and replaced with structural fill in accordance with Section 6.4.2. If soil moisture conditions allow, after clearing and grubbing and prior to placement of structural fill, we recommend a proof roll of the existing subgrade with a loaded dump truck or other heavy wheeled vehicle (e.g. wheel loader). If the subgrade is wet, we do not recommend performing a proof roll. Instead we recommend that the subgrade conditions are observed by qualified geotechnical engineer prior to structural fill placement. Based on our visual examination of soil samples and our experience, the silty sand encountered in the test pits could become loosened and easily disturbed under the influence of surface water and construction equipment. The contractor will have to implement suitable procedures to protect the subgrade, such as excavating without tracking on the native soils, use of a crushed rock or gravel-working mat, dewatering, soil admixing, geotextiles, and other suitable procedures during construction. Native competent subgrade that becomes loosened by the contractor's operation and wet and unsuitable soils should be over-excavated and replaced with a suitable structural fill, or the soil admixed with a moisture reducing agent or cement treated base (CTB), at the contractor's expense. The footing excavations should be free of any loose, soft disturbed material or water prior to placement of reinforcing bars and concrete. 6.2 Construction Dewatering Groundwater seepage may be encountered during the building and vault excavation or retaining wall cuts. In general the contractor must implement necessary dewatering and drainage measures to protect the excavation cut face and to prevent degradation of the excavation area and foundation subgrade until permanent drainage measures can be constructed. Based on our observations groundwater seepage can likely be controlled using standard ditching, sump and pump methods. 6.3 Erosion Control Erosion control for the site will include the Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated in the civil design drawings and may incorporate the following recommendations: 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx /&Golder \Z7Associates August 2015 17 1523372-01 • Limit exposed cut slopes. • Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed slopes. • Use silt fences, straw, and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded material on the site. • Seeding or planting vegetation on exposed areas where work is completed and no buildings are proposed. • Retaining existing vegetation to the greatest possible extent. We recommend that the contractor sequence excavations so as to provide constant positive surface drainage for rainwater and any groundwater seepage that may be encountered. This will require grading slopes, and constructing temporary ditches, sumps, and/or berms. 6.4 Earthworks 6.4.1 General Careful earthworks planning and subgrade protection by the contractor and implementation of the recommendations presented below will help minimize unanticipated costs. We recommend that any excavation on the site be sequenced to limit the amount of exposed subgrade particularly if construction starts during the rainy season. The onsite soils are considered moisture sensitive and will become unworkable when over the optimum moisture content. Conversely, if allowed to dry, the silty soils can become an airborne dust problem. Although feasible, earthwork construction during wet weather will significantly increase costs associated with off-site disposal of unsuitable excavated soils, increased control of water, and increased subgrade disturbance and need for soil admixtures, geotextiles, or rock working mats. 6.4.2 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction Where needed, structural fill should be a granular soil (with less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve) that when placed and compacted will meet the required compaction specifications. Structural fill should be placed in 8-inch (or less) loose lifts and compacted to at least 95% of maximum ASTM D 1557 dry density below all footings and within 3 feet of final grade in pavement areas. In addition, structural backfill placed around footings should also be compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D 1557. We recommend a minimum dry density of 90% ASTM D 1557 beneath floor slabs and other structural components, such as utility service trenches, not underlying pavements or footings. Structural fill behind backfilled walls should be compacted to 90% of ASTM D 1557, provided the backfill is not supporting buildings and is not within 3 feet of final grade in pavement areas. If density tests indicate that compaction is not being achieved due to moisture content, the fill should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content, re- compacted, and re-tested, or removed and replaced. OB1715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx "'=" lfMGolder 'Z1Associates August 2015 18 1523372-01 6.4.3 Use of Excavated Soils In general, organic material, silt, and clay should not be used for structural fill. The silty sands encountered at the site are considered suitable for reuse as structural fill provided that it is free of debris, organics and boulders, and is near the optimum moisture content and can achieve specified compaction. Debris (e.g. concrete, bricks, plastic, wood, organics, boulders etc.) was encountered in test pits TP-02 and TP-06 and may be encountered in other areas of the property. Excavated soils used as structural fill should be placed and compacted near the optimum moisture content and in accordance with the compaction requirements presented in Section 6.4.2. If density tests indicate that compaction is not being achieved due to moisture content, the fill should be scarified, and moisture- conditioned to near optimum moisture content, re-compacted, and re-tested, or removed and replaced. 6.4.4 Imported Fill Materials If imported structural fill is used during wet weather, it should be well-graded sand and gravel with less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. Fills used for drainage should consist of washed gravels with less than 3% passing the No. 200 sieve or equivalent. 6.5 Temporary Slopes Safe temporary slopes are the responsibility of the contractor and should comply with all applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) standards. Temporary, stable cut slopes less than 8 feet in height can generally be constructed using the following recommendations: • Uncontrolled Fill -1.5H:1V • Dense to very dense silty sand, till -1 H:1V Seepage may be encountered during construction. If temporary cuts encounter groundwater seepage, they should be sloped at 2H:1V or flatter (as recommended by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction) to prevent significant caving or sloughing. Temporary cuts in the loose granular materials are expected to have some raveling at the cut face. Temporary cut slopes in the granular soils may need to be laid back flatter than 1.5H:1V if a change in material type or debris is encountered. In the event that groundwater seepage is encountered during excavation, the contractor must install temporary drainage measures to protect the cut face and prevent degradation of the excavation area until permanent drainage measures can be constructed. 081715jlh1_Rentori Geotech Report_Rev 1.dOCJC J'SIAiGolder \ZT°Assodates August 2015 19 1523372-01 6.6 Utilities Maintaining safe utility excavations is the responsibility of the utility contractor. The soil and groundwater conditions in the utility excavations will vary across the site. Excavations in the loose granular soils may cave easily, while excavations in the dense silty sand soils may be difficult, as occasional boulders and cobbles may be encountered. As appropriate, trench shoring should be employed by the utility contractor. Structural fill placed as utility trench backfill should be placed in 8-inch (or less) loose lifts and compacted to at least 95% of maximum ASTM D 1557 dry density below all footings and within 3 feet of final grade in pavement areas. We recommend a minimum dry density of 90% ASTM D 1557 below 3 feet of final grade in pavement areas. In landscaping or other areas not supporting loads, utility trench backfill should be adequately compacted to prevent excessive future settlement. 6.7 Soldier Pile Installation The contractor should be required to prevent caving and loss of ground in all soldier pile excavations. Appropriate methods may be required to minimize caving and sloughing, such as drilling with slurry or the use of casing, to keep the soldier pile holes open. If slurry drilling is used or more than 1 foot of water is present in the bottom of the hole, placement of concrete by tremie methods will be required. 6.8 Geotechnical Construction Monitoring We recommend that a qualified geotechnical-engineering firm is on-site during critical aspects of the project. This would include observation of footing, slab, pavement, and subgrade preparation; observation of wall and footing drains, and placement of structural fills. The geotechnical engineer of record will perform the special inspection. 081715Jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx I August 2015 20 1523372-01 7.0 USE OF REPORT This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of Careage Development and their consultants. We encourage review of this report by bidders and/or contractors as it relates to factual data only (borehole logs, laboratory test results, conclusions, etc.). The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations and observations completed for this study, conversations regarding the existing site conditions, and our understanding of the planned development. The conclusions are not intended nor should they be construed to represent a warranty regarding the development, but they are included to assist in the planning and design process. Judgment has been applied in interpreting and presenting the results. Variations in subsurface conditions outside the exploration locations are common in glacial environments, such as those encountered at the site. Actual conditions encountered during construction might be different from those observed in the explorations. When the site project plans are finalized, we recommend that Golder be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications to verify that they are in accordance with the conditions described in this report. The explorations were advanced and logged in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice; subject to the time limits, and financial and physical constraints applicable to the services for this project, to provide information for the areas explored. There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the borehole locations and variations over time. The professional services retained for this project include only geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site. Environmental services were performed under a separate scope of work. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous site activities and/or resulting from the introduction of materials from off-site sources is included in a separate report. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx ~ /'11it Golder '2:'Associates August 2015 21 1523372-01 8.0 CLOSING We trust that this report meets your needs. If you have questions or comments, please contact us at (425) 883-0777. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services for this project. GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Joshua L. Hanson, PE Senior Engineer JLH/JGJ/sb 0817l5Jlh1_Ren1on Geotech Report._Rev 1.tbcx f),,,JyL James G. Johnson, LG, LEG Principal IAGolder '2V"Associates August 2015 22 1523372-01 9.0 REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA. American Society/or Testing and Materials International (ASTM). C33/C33M. 2013. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates. January 1 ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/ C33/C33M-13, www.astm.org. ASTM 0421. Standard Practice for Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle Size Analysis and ~ Determination of Soil Constants. ASTM 0422. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/0422, www.astm.org. ASTM 01557. 2012. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)). May 1. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/01557-12, www.astm.org. ASTM 02216. 2010. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass, July 1. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520102216-10, www.astm.org. ASTM 02487. 2011. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/02487-11, www.astm.org. ASTM 06913. 2004 (2009). Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/D46913- 04R09, www.astm.org. ASTM D-4318. Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. International Code Council (ICC). 2012. 2012 International Building Code. International Code Council. Mullineaux, D.R. 1965. Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405. 081715jlh1_Renton Geotech Report_Rev 1.docx FIGURES UILNT CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. <P~ 0 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RENTON SITE SITE LOCATION MAP 152337201 001 A t -& REFERENCE{S) / _,. iif f~:r~ ;: ~ GOLDER TEST PIT 10 ANO APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASE MAP POF PROVIDED BY ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, DELIVERED ON JULY 6TH. 2015. ~ ~ • • I I CLIENT CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-00 2015--07-29 (#~ DESIGNED PREPARED REDMOND REVIE\NED JH APPROVED KC r SlJu< 6''1 ~a>< SOLO> '.<IJUl't!> '"' 1t-CWl5!112"0CP<' ~ .••~oo 12•,caoN RENTQr,. S.--DRT PLAT 1-C. UJArJ-,::i.JOt!,1; RE.CC,f!D.'.C cc. 20'!4o)(\·,2())Jr,;~ __ [_ __ - l'lE.NrDNdOL-I-vA'lY c.lN/c J\D,..L•STl>£.'fl ,'-0. 5"ll.JX)\10 RECDRD.f'DNO.D'll~'SD2 --ss·oo~r R~2soo· L"=2837' -fl 1: i--~ 0 " !"I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RENTON SITE TITLE SITE EXPLORATION PLAN PROJECT NO PHASE 152337201 001 nr.i..110,, !,•l,;f'l' Pl.AT I-<;; 1.J.JAl&-{;i<JO~·o ~CRD......-,/~;1iJ-14CSl2[)c1JC12 A FIGU2 :,: ~EXCAVATION BASE 35(H+d) ACTIVE PRESSURE 400 (d) PASSIVE PRESSURE NOTE(S) CLIENT 1. ALL DIMENSIONS IN FEET. 2. ALL PRESSURES IN POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT (PSF). 3. PRESSURES ABOVE THE BASE OF THE EXCAVATION ACT OVER ENTIRE WALL FACE .. 4. PASSIVE PRESSURE ACTS OVER TWO TIMES CONCRETED SOLDIER PILE DIAMETER, OR THE PILE SPACING WHICH EVER IS LESS. 5. SEE REPORT TEXT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO DETERMINE PILE EMBEDMENT AND VERTICAL CAPACITY. 6. SURCHARGE LOADS ARE NOT INCLUDED ON THE DIAGRAM. 7. THE ALLOWABLE PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE INCLUDES A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.5. PROJECT CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RENTON SITE CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 201$-07--29 TITLE EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM, CANTILEVER CONDITION ~~ PREPARED REDMOND REVIE'NED JH APPROVED KC PROJECT NO 152337201 PHASE 001 REV. A CLIENT GROUND SURFACE GROUND SURFACE I J BASE OF EXCAVATION LINE LOAD qrx=mD PRESSURE "h BASE OF EXCAVATION GROUND SURFACE BASE OF EXCAVATION DEFINITIONS & UNITS D "h q a. p EXCAVATION DEPTH BELOW FOOTING IN FEET LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE IN PSF UNIT LOADING PRESSURE IN PSF RADIANS ISOLATED FOOTING "h = 0.64q (P-sinpcos2a) CONTINUOUS FOOTING PARALLEL TO EXCAVATION (Form> 0.4) "h = 1.28q --ll2..n__ D (m2 + n2)2 (Form s0.4) ah= qD 02n (0.16 + n2)2 UNIFORM LOAD DISTRIBUTION "h = 0.20 (ACTIVE CONDITIONS) OR = 0.350 (AT REST CONDITIONS) q = VERTICAL PRESSURE IN PSF CAREAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RENTON SITE 201s.o7.29 A.PARKIN A.\NALKER LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE ACTING ON BELOW GRADE WALLS PROJECT Ne PHA.SE 152337201 001 A FIGURE 4 APPENDIX A EXPLORATION LOGS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION The Golder Associates Inc:. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification S tstem (USCS) Organic ., Inorganic Soll -Type of Soll Gravels G...ootlon orPlaattctty Poorly Graded s1 or~3 Orpnlc Content USCSGroup Symbol GP GroupNNM GRAVEL o~~ <~t. i!Ji+--=('~'fi~="=ss~)+-w_,_uG_ra_,_''-+~~~-~~~~~~~~-'-'°-'~~~----< ffi ~ ~ ~ G:;:ls B~:A GW GRAVEL SILTY tB I ~~~~ (by mass) Sands Line Poorly Graded "'' <6 GM GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL "'30% SP SAND .. 0 !!1 ~ <;;~. ~ I i ~ (b::sss) !:i~;r-'-S~!-~~~,-'-+~B-t_:_A~t-~~~~~~~ol-,~~~~~~~----< ~,§ 1 ;~!~ Well Graded 1to3 SW SAND SM SILTY SAND {by mass) _ ..... Peat and mneral SOIi ITT:dures Predomnantlypeat. may contain some mneralsoil,fibrous,or a__._ous,,..,t _,A Line L1quidLimt <50 L1qu1dLimt >50 LI(f.lk1Llml1(LL) Rapid Slow Slow to very slow Slow to very~ow N~& N~• None to low Low to medium Low to medium High "'' None Dull Dull to slight Slight Shiny Note 1 -Fine-grained materials with Pl and LL that plot In this a111a are named (ML) SILT with slight plastlctty. Flne-g,alned materials which are Non-iilaatlc {I.e. a PL cannot be measured) are named SILT. Note 2 -For 11011s with <5% organic content, Include the dea<:r1ptor ''trace organics." For sells with between 5% and 30% organi<: content ln<:lude the prefix uorganl<:" before the Primary name. December 2012 1/2 >6mm 3mmto 6mm Jmmto 6mm 3mm1o 6mm 1mmto 1mmto 3mm <1mm T~~ ~ N/A{can't mll3mm thread) None to low low low ta medium Medium to high low ta medium Medium High = <5% <5% 5%to 30% <5% 5%\o 30% 0% lo 30% ( .. e Note 2, below) 30% to 75% 75% to 100% SC CLAYEY SANO .. 17::' ---- Ml SILT Ml CLAYEY SILT Ol ORGANIC SILT MH CLAYEY SILT OH ORGANIC SILT Cl SILTY CLAY Cl SILTY CLAY CH CLAY SILTY PEAT, SANDY PEAT PT PEAT '* Dual Symbol -A dual symbol is two symbols separated by a hyphen, for example, GP-GM, SW-SC, and; CL-ML. For non-cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i.e. to identify transitional material between "clean" and "dirty" sand or gravel). For cohesive soils, the dual symbol must be used when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart (see plasticity chart at left). Borderline Symbol -A borderline symbol is two symbols separated by a slash, for example, GM/SM, CUML. A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil has been identified as having properties that are on the transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline symbol may be used to indicate a range of similar soil types within a stratum. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS Soll Particle Size Inches Constituent Description Millimeters (US Std. Sieve Size) BOULDERS Not > 300 > 12 Applicable COBBLES Not 75 to 300 3 to 12 Applicable GRAVEL Coarse 19to 75 0.7510 3 Fine 4.75 to 19 (4)1o0.75 Coarse 2.00to4.75 (10)1o(4) SAND Medium 0.425 to 2.00 (40)10(10) Fine 0.075 to 0.425 (200\ to 1401 SILT/CLAY Classified by < 0.075 < (200) plasticity MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS Percentage by Mass Modifier :S:5 trace > Sta 12 > 12to35 , 35 Primary soi! name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, CLA YEr as applicable Use 'and' to combine major constituents (i.e., SAND and GRAVEL, SAND and CLAY) PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Resistance {SPT), N: N = the number of b!om required to drive a 2 inch (50 mm) split-spoon sampler one foot (300 mm) using a 140 lb (63.5 kg) hammer falling 30 inches (760 mm) after an initial 6 inch (150 mm) seating (ASTM 01586). Cone Penetration Test (CPT): An electronic cone i:;ienetrometer with a 60° conical tip and a typical projected end area of 10 or 15 cm2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tlp resistance (q 1), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve friction (fs) are recorded electronically in real time during penetration. The seismic CPT (SCPT) adds measurement of shear wave velocity (Vs) to the standard CPT. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP), Nd: The penetration rate by an 8 kg (17.6 lb) hammer dropped 575 mm (22.6 in.) to drive uncased a 20 mm (0.79 in.) diameter, 60" cone attached to 16 mm (5/8 in.) drive rods (ASTM 06951 ). Other test methods exist for DCPs with different configurations and different correlations. PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer WR: Samoler advanced bv weioht of samoler and rod NON-COHESIVE (COHESIONLESSI SOILS Compactness 1 Tam, SPT 'N' blows/footl& Verv Loose 0-4 Loose 4 to 10 Compact 101030 Dense 30 to 50 Very Dense ,50 1. Defini~on of co"l)actness descriplloos based on SPT 'N' ranges from TerzaghiandPeck{1967)andoorrespondtotyp1calaverageNi;c. values. 2 SPT 'N' in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects. 'N'-values should be considered ONLY an approximate guide to conStstency; for sensi~ve clays the 'N'-value approxunation lor consistency terms does not apply. Tam, D,y Moist Wet December 2012 Field Moisture Condition Descriotion Soil flows freely through fingers. Soils are dark.er than in the dry condition and may feel cool. As moist, but with free water forming on hands when handled. 212 SAMPLE TYPES AS Auger sample cs Chunk sample DO or DP Drive open (SPT) or direct pushed tube sampler DS Denison type sample FS Foil sample PS Pitcher type sample RC Rock core SC Soil core ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston ws Wash sample SOIL TESTS M water content A G.H uw Com C u uu CD cu D V(FV) SG PO 0 PH CHEM Atterberg limits (plastic and liquid limits) grain size, hydrometer unit weight compaction consolidation (oedometer) test unconfined compression test unconsolidated undrained lriaxial test consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test 1 consolidated isotropically undrained triaxlaf test with porewater pressure measurement1 direct shear test field vane (L V-laboratory vane test) specific gravity permeability pinhole dispersion organic content test pH chemical analysis (refer to text) 1. Tests which are a111sotropically consolidated pnor to shear are shown as CAD, GAU. COHESN'E SOILS Consistency Undrained Undrained SPT'N'1 Tom, Shear Strength Shear Strength (blows/foot) lkPa} ttsfl Ve,y <12 <0.12 Oto 2 Soft Soft 12to25 0.12 to 0.25 2to4 Firm 25 to 50 0.25to 0.5 4to8 Stiff 50 to 100 0.5101 8to 15 Ve,y 100 to 200 1 to2 151030 Stiff Harn >200 >2 ,30 1. SPT 'N' in accordance withASTM 01566, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects;approximateonly. Tem, w<PL w-PL w> PL Water Content Descrl tion Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic limit. Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic limit. Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic limit. •~es LOG OF TEST PIT TP-01 Temp_lQ_ °F Weather Sunny Engineer B. Borer ______ Operator~P=at~----- Equipmentl<o_f!1<1tz.=u~W~B=14~0~---Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Date 7-9-2015 Elevation~3~6"=0~·-=c0-"'ft~~-----Datum Local Job~15-2~3~3~7~2-0~i ____ _ Location _S. Parking A~r~e=a ________________________ _ I do -o SAMPLES I ! I -5 I i NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) (%) ---- S-1 2.0 S-2 5.5 S-3 8.5 ------- S-4 11.5 I --- -10 r-----E--+--+--+-------+---- 1 t<==== F =taz2<?22<ZJ=vj I Bottom of Test Pit at 12.5ft ~15 -20 UlliOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.4 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.4 -2.0 ft: FILL -(ML) sandy SILT, some fine to coarse. subround gravel; light brown grey, dry, loose to compact. C 2.0 -4.5 ft: (SM) silty, fine to medium SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles; orange and grey mottled, (ABLATION TILL); moist, loose to compact. D 4.5 -7.5 ft: (SP) fine SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt; grey brown, (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH); moist, loose to compact. E 7.5 -12.2 ft: (SP-SM) fine to medium SAND, some silt and fine to coarse rounded gravel, trace cobbles; dark yellow brown, socketed; (TILL); moist, compact to dense. F 12.2 -12.5 ft: (SM) silty fine to medium SAND, some fine to coarse, rounded gravel; socketed; light olive grey with moderate orange mottling (TILL); wet, very dense. ~-------------- DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO TIME I H~ 'fi:~ SE~::GE 10:so r----~--r-~~-----1r-~~-----j f--~-----+-----+------ SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed. Groundwater seep observed on north pit wall at-12.2 ft bgs, 5-10 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. 1.5 ft: Silt content decreasing with depth, sand content increasing with depth. 8 .0 ft: Cobble content increasping with depth. AIIGo111er \ZJ'Assocmtes LOG OF TEST PIT TP-02 Temp~'F Weather Sunny Engineer_ B. Borer Operator _P=a~t _____ _ Equipment Komatzu WB140 __ _ Elevation~3c-7~6c__c.-'c0ccft~~----- Contractor Kelly's Excavating _Inc__ Date~7=·"='9:CC-2CC:Occ1cc5~--- Datum Local Job_ 15~2~3_3_72_0~1 ____ _ Location E. Parking Area 15 10 15 Bottom of Test Pit at 14.5 ft 20 UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.5 -7.0 ft: FILL -(GM) silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, some cobbles and debris (concrete, plastic, bricks, wood); brown, dry, loose to compact. ! C 7.0 -9.0 ft: (SP-SM) fine to medium SAND, some silt, fine to coarse rounded gravel; grey brown with moderate orange mottling, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact to dense. D 9.0 -14.0 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with moderate orange mottling (TILL); moist, very dense. 12.0 ft: Heavy orange mottling. - 20 SAMPLES ----~-, NO. DEPTH MOISTURE ~- S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 i I DEPTHOF TIME HOLE (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: (ft) 2.0 4.5 9.0 12.0 14.0 DEPTH TO W/L (ft) No caving observed. (%) -- - ·- No groundwater seeps observed. Test pit terminated at extent of backhoe reach. JMGold.er \ZJ"Assoctates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-03 Engineer B. Borer Temp~ °F Weather Sunny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation-=-36cc:5c".-'c0--"ft,__~------ Location E. Building Area Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Datum Local Operator~P=at"-=-____ _ Date 7-9-2015 Job 152337201 I C 10 Bottom of Test Pit at 12.2 ft ,.L-1 20 UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.4 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.4 -3.5 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, fine SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, trace rootlets; light brown, dry, loose to compact. 1.5 ft: Becomes moist. C 3.5 -7.5 ft: (SP-SM) fine to medium SAND, some silt and fine to coarse rounded gravel; grey brown, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact. D 7.5 -12.2 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with minor orange mottling (TILL); moist, compact to very dense. 10.0 ft: Boulder (1 to 2.5 ft diameter) 11.0 ft: Becomes very dense. L - -· SAMPLES NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) (%) ··- S-1 1.5 S-2 4.5 _S_-1._ 8.0 ', S--4 10.5 I S-5 12.0 ~ ----------- DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO TIME HOLE W/L SEEPAGE (ft) (ft) (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed. Groundwater seep observed on W pit wall at -11 ft bgs, -5 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. JdllGolder \ZrAssoctates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-04 Engineer B. Borer Operator Pat Temp_ 80 _ °F Weather Sunny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation 357.0 ft Contractor _Kelly's ~xc11.vatinq Inc Date 7-9~-2=0~1=5~---- Location N. -BuITding Area Datum~Lo=c=a~I _______ _ Job 152337201 c-------t--C-+----+------+- 10 Bottom of Test Pit at 11.8 ft 15 20 UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.5 -3.0 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, subround gravel, trace rootlets; red brown, moist, compact. C 3.0 -7.0 ft: (SM) silty, fine to medium SAND, some fine to coarse rounded gravel; light grey and brown grey with heavy orange mottling, (ABLATION TILL); moist to wet, compact. D 7.0-11.0 ft: (SP-SM) fine SAND, some silt, medium to coarse sand, and rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with minor orange mottling {TILL): moist, compact to dense. E 11.0 -11.8 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; socketed; light olive grey (TILL); wet, very dense. 11 20 SAMPLES -- NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) (%) 2=1 -· 2.0 S-2 5.5 S-3 8.5 S-4 10.0 --- S-5 11.0 DEPTH OF DEPTH TO I DEPTH TO TIME HOLE W/L i SEEPAGE (It) (ft) JIil SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed. Groundwater seep observed on W pit wall at -11 ft bgs, -2 gpm. ---------------------~ L------- AJIGolder \ZYAssoctates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-05 Engineer B. Borer Temp~ "F Weather Sunny Equipment Komalzu WB140 Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Operator----'-P,,at'-=------- Date 7-9-2015 Elevation---"35"'4"._,.0_.,ft._ _____ _ Datum_L~o~c~a~I ________ _ Job 152337201 Location SW. Building Area J I I J I 110 ~ 0_!_,_ 0 ~ ~A-,,-"--,,-'--",-:.'....'_-,-"--,,------------ SAMPLES ! B NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (fl) (%) S-1 1.5 S-2 5.0 S-3 8.5 I C S-4 12.5 i I S-5 13.5 I ------------ --10 15 Bottom of Test Pit at 14.0 ft<---'------'------ 20 UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.5 -3.5 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, subround gravel, trace rootlets; red brown, dry, loose. C 3.5 -9.0 ft: (SP-SM) fine SAND, some silt and fine to coarse rounded gravel; brown, (ABLATION TILL); moist. compact. D 9.0 -11.5 ft: (SP-SM) gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel, some silt; socketed; dark yellow brown with moderate orange mottling (TILL); moist, dense to very dense. E 11.5 -14.0 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; light olive grey (TILL); wet, very dense. TIME DEPTH OF HOLE (fl) SPECIAL NOTES: DEPTH TO DEPTH TO W/L SEEPAGE lfll (fl) No caving observed. No groundwater seeps observed. Test pit terminated at extent of backhoe reach. ~ ~ i I< ~ ~ •~es LOG OF TEST PIT TP-06 Engineer B. Borer Temp~°F Weather Sunny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation 351.0 ft Location ~N'c'W-. s=-u""i~ld~in _____ _ Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Datum Local Operator.~Pa=t-____ _ Date 7-9-2015 Job 152337201 6 I I I I 15 20 UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.6 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.6 -2.0 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, subround gravel, some debris, trace rootlets; orange brown, moist, compact. C 2.0 -3.5 ft: COBBLES and BOULDERS-up to 3 ft diameter (FILL?) D 3.5 -9.0 ft: (SP) fine SAND, some fine to coarse rounded gravel, trace silt; grey brown with heavy orange and red mottling, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact. E 9.0 -11.5 ft: (SP-SM) fine SAND, some silt, medium to coarse sand, and rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with minor orange mottling (TILL); moist to wet, dense. F 11.5 -12.0 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; socketed; light olive grey (TILL); wet, very dense. io SAMPLES NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) (%} S-1 2.0 S-2 6.5 S-3 9.0 5-4 12.0 DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO TIME HOl£ WIL SEEPAGE (ft} (ft} (ft} SPECIAL NOlES: No caving observed. Groundwater seep observed on NW pit wall at -9.5 ft bgs, -1 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. ~~---------------------------------~ Ai[IGolder \Zr.Associates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-07 Temp !l5 'F Weather Sunny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Engineer B. Borer_ _ ______ _ Operator Pat Date 7-9-2015 Job _15233_7201 Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Elevation =37°-c2cc.~Occft~~------ Location E. Parkin Area Datum_L~o~c~a~I ________ _ C 10 Bottom of Test Pit at 12.0 ft ~15 I I UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.5 -7.0 ft: FILL -(SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, trace angular cobbles, trace rootlets; light grey brown, dry, loose to compact. 2.5 ft: Becomes orange brown and moist. C 7.0 -9.0 ft: (SP) fine SAND, some medium to coarse sand and fine rounded gravel; grey brown, (ABLATION TILL); moist, compact. D 9.0 -11.0 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; socketed; dark yellow brown with minor orange mottling (TILL); moist to wet, dense. E 11.0 -12.0 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel; light olive grey (TILL); wet, very dense. SAMPLES ---- NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (fl) (%) S-1 1.0 S-2 4.5 S-3 7.5 S-4 10.5 ' S-5 11.5 DEPTH OF : DEPTH TO DEPTH TO TIME HOLE -W/L SEEPAGE (fl) (ft) (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: No caving observed. Groundwater seep observed on N pit wall at -11 ft bgs, -1 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. JfilGolder \ZJ"Assoctates LOG OF TEST PIT TP-08 Temp~ °F Weather Sunny Equipment Komatzu WB140 Elevation~35"'7c-'-.O~ft-~---- Location S. Parking Area Engineer _B. Bor~ _____ _ Operator Pat Date 7-9---~20="1cc5~----Contractor Kelly's Excavating Inc Job 152337201 Datum Lo~c~a~I ________ _ 10 15 20 c---~U~TH~,filOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES A 0.0 -0.5 ft: TOPSOIL -grass roots, some sandy SILT, brown, dry, loose. B 0.5 -4.0 ft: FILL -(ML) sandy SILT, some gravel, trace angular cobbles, trace rootlets; red brown, moist, loose. C 4.0 -8.0 ft: (SP-SM) fine SAND, some silt, medium to coarse sand, and fine rounded gravel; light grey and brown, (ABLATION TILL): moist, compact. 6.0 ft: Becomes grey brown. D 8.0 -11.0 ft: (SM) silty, fine to medium SAND, some rounded gravel; socketed: dark yellow brown with minor orange mottling (TILL): moist to wet, dense. E 11.0 -12.5 ft: (SM) silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rounded gravel: light olive grey (TILL): wet, very dense. TIME ------ SAMPLES ' DEPTH MOISTURE NO. (ft) ('I,,) S-1 ' 2.0 S-2 4.5 S-3 7.5 ___ S-4 8.5 S-5 12.0 --- DEPTH OF HOLE -(ft) DEPTH TO DEPTH TO WIL SEEPAGE (ft) (fl) SPECIAL NOTES: ' Severe caving observed on north pit wall below 11 ft bgs. Groundwater seep observed on N pit wall at -11 ft bgs, -3-5 gpm. Test pit terminated at refusal. WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page I of 1 Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-1 CREW: AD, CJ, RK, JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St & 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10cm Kelcm' 50/9 #VALUE! 1 ft 2 ft 3 ft Im 4 ft 5 ft 6 ft -2m 7 ft 8 ft - 9 ft -3m 10ft 11 ft 12 ft -4m 13ft PROJECT NUMBER: 1523372 ------DATE STARTED: 07-09-2015 DATE COMPLETED: --0--7--0-9--2-01-5-- SURFACE ELEVATION: 360 ------WATERONCOMPLETION: No HAMMER WEIGHT: ---35-1.,..bs-.-- CONE AREA: _ ___.;.l;;..O .;;.;'9 ... · c.;;.;m"--- GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY 0 50 100 150 N' SAND&SILT CLAY #VALUE1 -#VALUE! #VALUE! WILDCAT.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page I of I Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-2 CREW: AD, CJ, RK, JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St & 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10 cm K!!/cm2 26 115.4 30 133.2 I ft 33 146.5 15 66.6 IO 44.4 2 ft IO 44.4 5 22.2 5 22.2 3ft 4 17.8 Im 3 13.3 3 11.6 4ft 11 42.5 16 61.8 20 77.2 5 ft 21 81.1 26 100.4 26 100.4 6ft 19 73.3 36 139.0 -2m 50/9 #VALUE! 7ft 8 ft 9 ft -3m 10 ft I I ft 12 ft -4m 13 fl GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 ···-···························· ····································-·····-··································· ................... ............ ·····-····· ...... ...... ..... ... ... ·····-····· .........•......• .•.•.................. .•..................... ............................. ............................. ..................... ····································-·· #VALUE! PROJECT NUMBER: _......:1.::.;52:::;3.::.37:..:2:....__ DA f: ~~!~~~~~: ===~~;:::::~~9~:~~~~: ~:::::::::::: SURFACE ELEVATION: 372 ------WATERONCOMPLETION: __ ---'-N-'-o __ _ N' 19 12 12 6 6 5 3 3 12 17 22 23 20 HAMMER WEIGHT: __ ..::.35:..=lb::.cs. __ CONE AREA: _......:1.::.0.:::S9i:.· .:::cm.::__ TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND&SILT CLAY DENSE HARD DENSE HARD DENSE HARD MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE STIFF MEDIUM DENSE STIFF LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF VERY LOOSE SOFT VERY LOOSE SOFT MEDIUM DENSE STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF DENSE HARD ##### #VALUE! #VALUE! WILDCAT.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-3 CREW: AD, CJ, RK, JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St & 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10cm KW-cm' 50/6 #VALUE 1 1 ft 2ft 3ft lm 4 ft -5 ft 6 ft - -2m -7 ft 8 ft 9 ft -3m 10 ft 11 ft 12 ft -4m 13 fl PROJECT NUMBER: 1523372 -------DATE STARTED: 07-09-2015 DATE COMPLETED: --0,-7""'-0"'9--2-0-15-- SURFACE ELEVATION: 364 -------WATER ON COMPLETION: No HAMMER WEIGHT,--..,.35"'"1""b-s.-- CONE AREA: __ 1'-'0'-'s"'q.;... c'-'m"--- GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY 0 50 100 150 N' SAND&SILT CLAY #VALUE! -#VALUE! #VALUE! WILDCAT.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page I of I Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-4 CREW: AD, CJ, RK, JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St & 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10cm Ko/cm' 18 79.9 23 102.1 !ft 30 133.2 30 133.2 50 222.0 2 ft 50/8 #VALUE! 3ft Im 4 ft - 5 ft 6 ft -2m 7 ft 8 ft 9 ft -3m !Oft - lift 12 ft -4m 13 ft GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 ....................... ............................. ...................................... ...................................... ........................................... #VALUE! PROJECT NUMBER: _ __:1.:;::52::.:3.::..37:..:2:...__ DATE STARTED: __ 0'-7--0"-9--2-'-0_I 5 __ DATE COMPLETED: __ 0'-'7-'-0c:.9-=-2c::.0;.:I 5 __ SURFACE ELEVATION: __ _::.:35:.::6 __ _ WATER ON COMPLETION: No ------HAMMER WEIGHT: __ .::..35'-l"-b'-'-s. __ CONE AREA: _ __:1.::..0 .::.:sq"-• .::.:cm"--- TESTED CONSISTENCY N' SAND&SJLT CLAY 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF DENSE HARD DENSE HARD VERY DENSE HARD -#VALUE! #VALUE! WILDCAT.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of I Golder Associates 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, WA HOLE#: DCPT-5 CREW: AD, CJ, RK, JJ PROJECT: Careage -Renton Site ADDRESS: SE 174th St& 106 Pl SE LOCATION: Renton, WA 98055 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEl'fH PER 10cm Kwcm' 10 44.4 9 40.0 I ft 1 4.4 3 13.3 15 66.6 2 ft 20 88.8 22 97.7 -44 195.4 3ft 37 164.3 Im 27 119.9 -24 92.6 4 ft 22 84.9 17 65.6 14 54.0 5 ft 15 57.9 16 61.8 14 54.0 6 ft 22 84.9 21 81.1 -2m 18 69.5 7ft 23 78.7 38 130.0 50 171.0 8ft 50/9 #VALUE! 9ft -3 m 10ft lift 12 ft -4m 13 ft GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 ............ ........... . ... ................... ··············-··--··· ················-········-•••••..•.•••...••.•.•.............•..•..... ........................•..•...••.......... .................................. .......................... ........................ ................... ............... ................ ................. ............... ·····-················· ....................... .................... ...................... ..................................... ........................................... #VALUE! PROJECT NUMBER: 1523372 DA TE ST AR TED: --0"'7,-_Q'"'9-=_2"'0""15=--- DATE COMPLETED: __ 0;;..;7_-0;;..;9....;-2;;..;0.;;.15;;.__ SURFACE ELEVATION: 353 WATER ON COMPLETION:---,-N:-o--- HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. CONE AREA: --1""'o""sq"'.""c'-m-- TESTED CONSISTENCY N' SAND &SILT CLAY 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 25 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF VERY DENSE HARD DENSE HARD DENSE HARD MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 23 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF DENSE HARD DENSE HARD -#VALUE! #VALUE' WJLDCAT.XLS APPENDIXB PLANS FROM ESM CONSUL TING ENGINEERS LLC Boundary and Topographic Survey Storm Drainage and Utility Plan Grading Plan ',.,,..., .... ~.;,;;:.""!a::..::y~ _,._,m-==~:o.:= --;oeM,81""" "'"" ,~::::; ..:.:~ ~~~~.~~-~~~~= NOUdll,I003<:J"lV04'l I I I I I I I I : 111. : :~II "!!~"' : Iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,~ ' > ~ " ' ' ' ~ ' / r/f- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ _J 1 I I I I I I I I " " "' '•I I< /, I I -} I '" 9 =-'1! -"'-1 : I \ \ ; ! \ ,/!/ I \ --~ I ,__ _____ c_A_R_E_AG_E _____ ---,Eliillll ~-'oi~J.'!!:,,lll','~'fl.,., MAILLET PROPERTY GRADING PLAN ~~ ~ i .,. g ~ 0 I Q I I ~ "" ,-::s I ' APPENDIXC LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 8/14115 r 100 90 f 80 f--- % 70 p 60 -' a s 50 s I 40 g 30 20 10 0 1000 1523372-01.001 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM 0421, D422, D4318 PROJECT NAME: Careage/Renton Geotech/W A SAMPLE ID: TP-06 S-2 Depth: 6.5' TYPE: Grab !" l ~-~---·1 c---q_ J 11 ---~ 1- 1•314• 3/8" #4 \ \ \ I I 100 10 0.1 0,01 0.001 Particle size In millimeters I Coar« I Coarse I Medium I Sil10.-Cla~ COBBLESt--=~G~R-AV-E~L=-f". =~-=~,A~N•1D-~~--+----~>l~N~ES~------; 12.0" 6.0'' j 3.0" § 2.5" z 2.0" ~ 1.5" ! 1.0'' 0.75" j 0.375" #4 I #10 in #20 '" #40 :j #60 #1(10 #200 uses: Particle Size (mm) '*-Passing 304.8 100.0 154.2 100.0 75 100.0 63.5 100.0 50 100.0 37.5 100.0 25 100.0 19 100.0 9.5 95.6 4.75 91A 2.00 88.l 0.85 83.9 0.43 76.6 0.25 62.0 0.15 45.5 0.o75 JO.I D3o= #NIA IINIA #NIA Particle Si£"' Classificalmn Percentage Cobbles 0.0 Coarse Gravel 0.0 Fine Gravel 8.6 Coarse Sand 3A Medium Sand 11.4 Fine Sand 46.5 D10= #N/A #NIA #NIA Golder Associates Inc. Moisture Content ~ 8/14/15 1523372-01.001 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D421, D422, D4318 PROJECT NAME: Careage/Renton Geotech/WA SAMPLE ID: TP-08 S-2 Depth: 4.5' TYPE: 3" 2· 1•314• #20 #40 #60 11100 #200 100 90 ' -' -i 80 - ~II_ T I --W-l--+---l----l-·-l-1-HO % 70 cJ p 60 ii i ~ JJ..J.J...L._[_J_-----1.~i -i' I I a I • 50 j___ '' 40 h-L~ .... n g 30 I ll W.u..L_L_i___ ' I I-"-' I 20 10 0 n 1000 : 100 10 0.1 0.01 Particle size In mllllmeters ~ _ _,C'°'="'"-'----"'"---fc"w"'=-'l'----"""'""::::'m::....i!_--"'"----+----"s,1:a;,~"'c"'1.y _____ __, COBBLES GRAVEL . SANO ANES PaniclcS11c (mm) ~Passinu 12.0" 304.8 100.0 6.0'' 154.2 100.0 ! 3.0" 75 100.0 § 2.5" 63.5 100.0 z 2.0'' 50 100.0 i 1.5" 37.5 100.0 ii LO" 25 100.0 a; 0.75" 19 100.0 I 0.375" 9.5 97.7 a; #4 4.75 94.3 ~ #10 2.00 90.9 i #20 0.85 .... a; <Ii #40 0.43 80.0 :; #60 0.25 .... #100 0.15 53.9 #200 O.D75 40.3 I D,,,-#NIA Cu= D60/DIO: Cc -DJQA2/{DJO•D60)- #NIA #NIA DESCRIPTION: silty SAND some gravel uscs,L.....Q__j I ParhclcSile Classification Percenta"" Cobbles 0.0 Coarse Gravel 0.0 Fine Gravel 5.7 Coarse Sand 3.5 Mcdmm Sand 10.9 Fine Sand 39.7 #NIA #NIA Golder Associates Inc. MmsrureContent ~ TECH;~K DATE 8/13/15 CHECK TCM REVIEW JLH 8/14115 100 1,, , I 90 ao r % 70 P 60 a 5 50 • I 40 30 ~ ! ! PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D421, D422, D4318 PROJECT NAME: Careage/Renton Geotech/WA SAMPLE ID: TP-08 S-3 TYPE: 3· 2· 1"3/4" 3,'6" #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 I\' I ~,j C--I ! I! ,~ ~-----·-1"'"1-i ~ "' !\ _.:...__ I------H-l+--e-+-+ I\ \ ! L 9" f---.. 1523372-01.001 Depth: 7.5' ~- --------1-f--,--+---+-h-t+-, I -~ r ----- 10 l++-H-Jf---+-+--+H-+-f--L-+---+---+-1++--+--+--++H+++-+-+--+-l+H+---+--+----',++l-+-+--+-f-----+ 20 I I jl 0 ""'-'-LI--'--'----'--..W..U..'-'-'' ..... ~-=-'-'--'---~'---..... .LU-'-'--'-'----'---.U-'-LI--'--'----'---.U..'--'--'----'---' 1000 100 10 0.1 O.D1 0.001 Particle size In millimeters COBBLES I Coar<e I Coo& I ~edmm I flf)e SlliorOay GRAVEL SAND FINES PanideS11.e PanicleSizc (mm) %Pai>Slng Cla~sification Percentage Moi1tureConlenl 12.0" 304.8 100.0 ~ 6.0" 154.2 100.0 i 3.0" 75 100.0 Cobble~ 0.0 2.5" 63.5 100.0 2 ~ 2.0" 50 100.0 • IS 37.5 100.0 ~ LO" 25 .. .2 a; 0.75" 19 83.9 Coarse Gravel 16.1 ~ 0.375" 9.S 80.3 a; #4 4.75 77.0 Fine.GrJvcl 6.9 I #10 2.00 74.2 Coarse Sand 2.8 SJ #20 0.85 71.3 <n #40 0.43 65.5 Medium Sand 8.7 :j lffiO 0.25 54.2 #100 0.15 41.4 #200 O.Q75 28.0 FmeSand 37.6 Fines ......2!:!!..._ D60= 0.33 D30= 0.08 D10= #N/A Cu= D60/Di0= #NIA #N/A Cc-D30"2/(DJO•D60J-#NIA #N/A DESCRIPTIONf lty grnvellyl SAND TECH uses: o DATE CHECK REVIEW Golder Associates Inc. --' Established in 1960. Golder Associates 1s a global. employee-o·sned organization that helps clients find sustainable solutions to the challenges of finite resources. enermr and water supply and management. 1.vaste management, urbanization. and climate change We provide a v;ide range of independent consulting. design. and construction services 1n our spec1al1st areas of earth. envi,onrnenl. and energy. By building strong relattonships and meeting the needs of cl tents. our people have created one of the most trusted professional services organizations m the world Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 USA Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 Africa Asia Australas1J Europe North America South America • 27112544800 • 852 2562 3658 • 61 3 8862 3500 • 356 21 42 30 20 • 1 800 275 3281 .S6 2 261E 2000 solut1ons@goldcrcom www.goldcr.com (!}Golda Engineertng Earth's Development, Preserving Earth's Integrity Associates Golder, Golder Assoaates and th& GA globe design are tfademafks of Golder Associates Corporation Traffic Impact Analysis 33 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Draft Report Prepared by --.......concord ENGINEERING September 15, 2015 Draft Report Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Development ................................................................................................................ 1 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 2 Traffic Forecasts ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Site Generated Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 4 Site Generated Traffic Distribution ............................................................................................ 6 Site Generated Traffic Assignment.. ........................................................................................... 7 Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development ................................................................................................................................. 9 Condition Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 12 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 15 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 15 List of Tables Table 1: Estimated Percent Increase in Vehicular Trips due to Project .............................................. 2 Table 2: Trip Generation Estimates of Proposed Project (per criteria) ............................................... 5 Table 3: Comparison of Observed Trips to Estimated Trip Generation for Bellevue Mission Healthcare Site ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4: Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................................. 5 Table 5: LOS and Delay Summary for Study Area Intersections ...................................................... 15 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Project Study Area .................................................................................................................... 1 Exhibit 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS, AM Peak Period .......................................................... 3 Exhibit 3: Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS, PM Peak Period .......................................................... 4 Exhibit 4: Trip Distribution of Site Generated Traffic ........................................................................... 6 Exhibit 5: AM Peak Hour Site-Generated Traffic Assignment.. .......................................................... 7 Exhibit 6: PM Peak Hour Site-Generated Traffic Assignment... .......................................................... 8 Exhibit 7: Daily Site-Generated Traffic Assignment ............................................................................. 9 Exhibit 8: 2017 Traffic Volumes without the Proposed Development (2017 Base Conditions) .... 10 Exhibit 9: 2017 Traffic Volumes with the Proposed Development (2017 Build Conditions) ........ 11 Exhibit 10: Intersection LOS and Delay -2017 Base Conditions ....................................................... 13 Exhibit 11: Intersection LOS and Delay -2017 Build Conditions ...................................................... 14 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis :::=concorq Draft Report Introduction Proposed Development This document summarizes the findings of traffic impact analysis for the development of the Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton (hereafter referred as the Project). The Project will be located in the undeveloped northwest comer of the Valley Hill Plaza in southeast Renton, and the planned year of opening is 2017. This new facility will serve as a rehabilitation center that provides 24-hour skilled nursing service to help people recover from disabilities. The Project includes a three-story facility and parking area. The proposed land use for the Project includes: • Skilled nursing facility (54,000 SF facility floor area) • 56 parking spaces (4 ADA accessible) • A total site area 76,614 SF Study Area The srudy area for the Project is shown in Exhibit 1 below. Exhibit 1: Project Study Area 1 Careage -Mission Healthcare of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ::::::cor1cqr~ Draft Report Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. Table 1 shows the estimated percent increase in vehicular trips at adjacent intersections, based on the trip generation of the proposed site. The Project is not expected to result in an increase of 5% in peak hour traffic volumes at any of the surrounding intersections. While not required by the City of Renton Guidelines, this report documents the traffic impacts to each of the intersections included in Table 1, as well as the impacts at all driveway access points, due to their proximity to the site. Table 1: Estimated Percent Increase in Vehicular Trips due to Project Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Total Total Increase "increase Total Volume Total Increase "Increase Benson Drive & SE 174th Street 1951 10 0.51% 2343 13 0.55% 108th Place SE & SE Petrovitsky Road 3210 17 0.53% 4301 25 0.58% SE Carr Road & 106th Place SE 1509 24 1.59% 2202 23 1.04% Benson Drive S & Benson Road S 2102 9 0.43% 2393 10 0.42% SE 174th Street & 106th Place SE 183 0 0.00% 278 0 0.00% Existing Conditions The Valley Hill Plaza is bounded by SE Carr Road to the south, 106th Place SE to the west, SE 174th Street to the north, and Benson Drive S/108th Ave SE to the east. SE Carr Road and Benson Drive S/108th Avenue SE are both classified as principal arterials and are the two major corridors serving the study area. SE 174th Street and 106th Place SE are local streets that connect to a primarily residential neighborhood located west of the study area. The Project will be located in the undeveloped northwest comer of the Valley Hill Plaza. The Valley Hill Plaza has three existing businesses, which are: MacDonald's, Double Wired Espresso, and CVS Pharmacy. The Plaza also has three existing driveway access points connecting to SE Carr Road, SE 174th Street, and 106th Place SE. The Project will utilize the three existing driveways as access points to the surrounding street network. No additional access points are proposed as a part of the Project. There is a raised median on Benson Drive S/108th Ave SE near the Valley Hill Plaza that restricts turning movements at the intersection of Benson Drive S & SE 174th Street to right-in/right-out access only. Existing traffic volumes are heaviest westbound on SE Carr Road and northbound on Benson Drive S/108th Place SE during AM peak, and eastbound on SE Carr Road and southbound on Benson Drive S/108th Place SE during PM peak. Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 show the exiting type of intersection control, traffic volumes, level of service (LOS) and delay (in seconds) at the intersections within the study area. The existing signalized intersections all operate at or above LOS D except for the intersection of SE Carr Road & 108th Place SE which operates as LOSE during the PM peak hour. There are two existing transit routes that serve the study area: Route 169 and Route 906. Both routes operate on SE Carr Road and have bus stops located between 106th Place SE and Benson Drive S/108th Avenue SE. The Route 169 connects the Kent Rail Station to the Renton Transit Center and operates with approximately 30 minute headways from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM. The --------- 2 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ::::::::con~or~ Draft Report Route 906 is a demand responsive route that connects the Southcenter Mall and Valley Medical Center to Fairwood. Route 906 operates with approximately 1 hour headways from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. While there is transit service within the study area, it is limited in the geographic areas served and frequency of service. Therefore, all trips generated by the proposed site were assumed to arrive via auto in order to establish the maximum impact of the site to the surround street network. U1jend aSl3,..htfflnwrffC110n .)uni.ignaliledlmervroon *Pro~De..elopownt C: "' c;,i '~'\ \l, ~"' l l. t. ,~',, r '° t,. ~'° / / w ~ T o- .Ji 19 "\ ~ ::!"' t. 331 1 ~N~ ~ 583 Jtl. r 1sa 133J .,.,.. 272-+ ..-lt)II) 40 -a ~ §?"<t Exhibit 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS, AM Peak Period 3 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Legend &s.an1,l<2t>dlnteru-ction (.Un)lj:n<10ledlnter>e<tii.,n * Propo~ °""'lopm~nt ~2 t.. 1s' 11.,-10 t,. ~m ' tri t. 41 1 , gj;:: (") .. s1s 1 'i ;.Ill,,. 481 ~ ' 15 J ., f,. ;!! 981-, :liM:li Jg ; 161 "\ M Exhibit 3: Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS, PM Peak Period Traffic Forecasts Site Generated Traffic Volumes Draft Report The number of vehicular trips generated by the Project was determined based upon published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The /TE Trip Generation Manual does not have a land use code for a rehabilitation center. Therefore, a similar land use for Nursing Horne (!TE Land Use Code: 620) was selected to represent the land use since its primary function of providing 24-hour skilled nursing service is very similar to that of a rehabilitation center. The !TE Trip Generation Manual provides trip generation rates based on the number of employees, number of beds, and gross floor area for Land Use Code 620. Table 2 shows the !TE trip generation rates for each of the three criteria, and the resulting number of trips estimated for the Project based on the proposed size of the facility. 4 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis :::::concorg Draft Report Table 2: Trip Generation Estimates of Proposed Project (per criteria) Criteria ITE Trip Generation Rates Unit Generated Trip Estimates Dailv AM PM Dailv AM PM Facilitv Size oer 1,000 SF 7.60 o.ss 0.74 54 410 30 40 Number of Beds 2.74 0.17 0.22 60 164 10 13 Number of Emolovees 3.26 0.23 0.47 90 294 21 42 The estimated number of trips generated varies significantly based on the different criteria used to evaluate the site. Therefore, AM and PM peak hour trips were collected at the existing Mission Healthcare Center within the City of Bellevue to determine how the actual number of peak hour trips compares with estimated trips generated by the three different criteria. Table 3 shows the number of observed AM and PM trips to the Mission Healthcare Center in Bellevue as compared to the number of trips calculated for that facility from the !TE Trip Generation rates for each criterion. Table 3: Comparison of Obseroed Trips to Estimated Trip Generation for Bellevue Mission Healthcare Site Observed Trips Criteria Unit Generated Trip Estimates AM PM Dallv AM PM Facilitv Size oer l,OOOSF 99 750 54 73 22 35 Number of Beds 127 348 22 28 Number of Emolovees 180 588 41 85 While the number of beds is the criteria the yields the strongest correlation to the actual number of trips entering and exiting the existing rehabilitation center in Bellevue, the facility size was ultimately used as the land use criteria for establishing the trip generation of the Project. Using trip generation rates based on facility size results in a higher number of vehicular trips than observed at other rehabilitation centers, and thereby represents the maximum level of impact that may occur from the proposed development to the surrounding transportation system. The resulting number of trips generated by the Project are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Project Trip Generation land Use ITE land land Use AM Peak Hour Tri.,. PM Peak Hour Trios Ave--Dallv Trlns Use Code Size Enter I Exit I Total Enter I Exit I Total Enter I Exit I Total Rehabilitation Center 620 54,000 SF 21 I 9 I 30 20 I 20 I 40 205 I 205 I 410 5 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Draft Report Site Generated Traffic Distribution Trip distribution to the Project site was based on the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for roadways within the study area. It was assumed that site generated traffic would follow the same underlying distribution as the existing traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network. Exhibit 4 shows the trip distribution for Project generated traffic based on ADT. Exhibit 4: Trip Distribution of Site Generated Traffic 6 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Draft Report Site Generated Traffic Assignment New trips generated by the Project were assigned to the surrounding street network based on the trip distribution shown in Exhibit 4. Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 show the allocation of site- generated traffic to the surrounding street network for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and Daily conditions, respectively. Legend a $'tln•li~lm .. ,,i.e,non • Unu11nai1rec11me1!,('ction * Propgwd~Pffl"'>I 2 6 t. 1 j •5 I .J I.. 3J ., 5J ;!I ;!I fl! ~ :; 5 I • .. Exhibit 5: AM Peak Hour Site-Generated Traffic Assignment 7 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ::::::con.~or~ lqend a S,gn;il,~dlf'IINSecnon • Un1,r,:n.t11f'dl"1~"'-'tnon 5 12 t. 1 ., '- 5-' /"(..,~ ·\~!~ ) \ / .. 5 ., 3"\ I 5 3 -s • 5., ., ~:; 5 Exhibit 6: PM Peak Hour Site-Generated Traffic Assignment 8 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Draft Report :::::::cor,c:qr~ Legend a s,gn;,ll~dlntersec11on • Un11£n~!N'dlll1Nl.Nrion ·,,'· ,-175' ,. 61,. ,· • . . Exhibit 7: Daily Site-Generated Traffic Assignment Draft Report 30 •50 • ~4-' "'I ~g:; 50 Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development The anticipated year of opening for the Project is 2017. Therefore existing traffic volumes were factored up based on a growth rate of 2% per year to establish the 2017 horizon year traffic volumes, Exhibit 8 illustrates the 2017 horizon year traffic volumes without the proposed development for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The projected horizon year traffic volumes with the proposed development are shown in Exhibit 9 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 9 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ::::::concqr~ lt""'d , ...... --t. 16 11. r 10 tr :;ia, ; M.., u:, t. 43 Nr-.M .. 598 ,.Jl'-r&0 , ,.., ,,r !1~i~; ~~g I 20, i I 45,. ~ Draft Report Exhibit 8: 2017 Traffic Volumes without the Proposed Development (2017 Base Conditions) 10 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis :::::::conc:ord L•g111d a ~t=l,ttolnt~,..,..;"on • u,,,.;:n,l,ud1n1_,_, L1g1nd :ii"' t. 10 1-' ''-r" I t,. ' to:: NO ... 16 ''-r" tr , ~~ I ~~ ~ 1.. 44 1 N,-.....,-.. 598 ,111.rso i ' ,,., .,,,.1 !1020-o~g I 167 ... ~ .- t 21"\ ~ ~~~ !: J~f J 11. r 164 147., .,,,. 2BS• ~R!;;: 43, ,-$: ~--1 ~ <'I t. 180 I !??-~ • 509 .111. r200 163 ,I 'If f" 961 • ~O>M .... -iii:" Draft Report Exhibit 9: 2017 Traffic Volumes with the Proposed Development (2017 Build Conditions) 11 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Draft Report Condition Analysis The horizon year traffic forecasts with and without the proposed development were evaluated with respect to LOS for all of the study area intersections. For the horizon year analysis, it was assumed that there would be no changes to the traffic control type at each of the study area intersections. Syncl1ro 9 traffic analysis software was used to model the conditions for the AM and PM peak hours and calculate the intersection LOS and delay. Exhibit 10 presents the AM and PM peak hour LOS and delay at each of the study intersections for the 2017 Base conditions without the proposed development. Exhibit 11 presents the AM and PM peak hour LOS and delay at each study intersection for the 2017 Build conditions with the proposed development. 12 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis ::::::: co ns.9rd L•g•nd a ~1nahtt~l"1~,-~o" Legen!I a~•llottdl .......... ~on •·"""~''"'""""'~" Exhibit 10: Intersection LOS and Delay -2017 Base Conditions 13 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Draft Report :::::concord L•gend aS.Cn•Laodlnlff>e<b"" 18'1un.i1na,redln!erwcbDn Legand a S,c"al11'dl11«!1WC?IO!!Wll~LOS&Dffl~ it!)',·~·"'"'"""'"~·'""''""' Exhibit 11: Intersection LOS and Delay -2017 Build Conditions 14 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Draft Report :::::::coric:qrg Draft Report The LOS and delay for the existing conditions, 2017 Base conditions, and 2017 Build conditions are summarized in Table 5 for comparison purposes. With the proposed Project in place, the LOS with would remain the same as the horizon year conditions without the proposed development, except at the intersection of SE Carr Road & 108th Place SE. At SE Carr Road & 108th Place SE the signal delay would increase by one second over the future baseline conditions, increasing from 19 to 20 seconds of average delay, which results in LOS C instead of LOS B at this location. The LOS analysis indicates that the proposed site will not impose a significant impact on the traffic operations in the study area. Table 5: LOS and Delay Summary for Study Area Intersections AM PM Intersection Exlstina 201111ase 2011Bulld Exlstina Zll1711ase Zll17Bulkt LOS Delavfsl LOS Delwlsl LOS Delavfs LOS Debwls1 LOS 0e1-1,1 LOS SE carr Rd & 106th Pl SE B 19 B 19 C 20 C 20 C 22 C SE Carr Rd & 108th Pl SE D 54 E 57 E 58 E 59 E 64 E Benson Dr S & Benson Rd S C 24 C 24 C 24 B 17 B 18 B SE 174th St&Benson ors A 10 A 10 A 10 B 12 B 12 B 106th Pl SE & SE 174th St A 9 A 9 A 9 A 10 A 10 A 106th Pl SE Driveway (West Access) A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A SE 174th St Drivewav {North Access) A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A SE carr Rd Drivewav (South Access) A 10 A 10 A 10 A 9 A 9 A Mitigation Measures Based on the results of the analysis, no mitigation measures are recommended for the proposed development. Conclusions The impacts of the proposed Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton rehabilitation center were evaluated with respect to the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Developments. Based on the results of the analysis, the proposed development will have negligible impacts to the transportation system within the study area. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are recommended for this development. -------------- 15 Careage -Mission Healthcare at Renton Traffic Impact Analysis 0e1-1, 23 6S 19 12 10 10 9 9 Addendum to Abandoned Coal Mine Hazard Review 34 <!IIGolder Associates TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: September 28, 2015 Project No.: 1523372-01 To: Mr. George Stephan Company: Careage Development From: James G. Johnson, LEG, Golder Associates Inc. RE: REPORT ADDENDUM -ABANDONED COAL MINE HAZARD REVIEW We understand that the City of Renton has requested that Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) provide documentation that we have reviewed the current development plans for the Mission Healthcare at Renton facility proposed by Careage Development at 10635 Southeast 174th Street and confirm that the conclusions stated in our Mine Hazard Critical Areas Study (Golder 2015a 1 ) are still valid. Golder was provided with sheets 1 through 8 by the Civil Engineer ESM Consulting Engineers dated September 24, 2015 to illustrate the current development plans. The sheets included a site plan illustrating the building layout, conceptual grading and storm and utility plan and other details. The ESM development plans are consistent with our understanding of the project and the conclusions and recommendations in our geotechnical (Golder 2015b2) and mine hazard report are valid. If you have any questions, please contact us. GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. f:::J!Ef::::- Principal JGJ/AJW/ks 1 Golder Associates Inc. (Golder). 2015a. Mine Hazard Critical Areas Study SE 174th Street Site, Renton, WA. February 24. 2 Golder. 2015b. Geotechnical Report Proposed Development SE 174th Street, Renton, WA. August 17, Rev. 1 09281 Sjgp Careaga Mine Hazards Tech Memo.Docx Golder Asaoclates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 USA Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and Soulh America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation 7. OTHER PERMITS The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be prepared with the final construction plans. This project will also require the following permits: Building Permits Clearing & Grading Permits 35 8. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CSWPPP analysis and design will be provided with final engineering. 36 9. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant will be provided in the finalTIR. 37 10.0PERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The Operations and Maintenance Manual will be provided in the final TIR. 38