No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutF_Merrill_Gardens_Renton_Expansion_TIR_181019_V4.pdf Seattle 9706 4th Ave NE Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98115 tel 206.523.0024 Mount Vernon 2210 Riverside Dr, Suite 110 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 tel 360.899.1110 Federal Way 31620 23rd Ave S, Suite 307 Federal Way, WA 98003 tel 206.523.0024 Whidbey Island 1796 E Main St, Suite 105 Freeland, WA 9824 tel 360.331.4131 Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Civil Construction Permit C18002264 Technical Information Report Owner: Merrill Gardens 1938 Fairview Ave E, Suite 300 Seattle, WA, 98102 (206) 676-5600 Contact: John Walker Engineer: Davido Consulting Group 9706 4th Ave NE, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 523-0024 Contact: Tim Gabelein, PE September 20, 2018 (V3) Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 2 Certification of Professional Engineer The technical material and data contained within this report has been prepared by or under the direction of the following registered professional engineer(s), licensed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington to practice in the State of Washington. "I hereby state that this Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Construction SWPPP for the Merrill Gardens Renton expansion at 104 Burnett Ave S in Renton has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the requirements of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual and the standard of care and expertise which is usual and customary in this community for professional engineers. I understand that the City of Renton does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities prepared by me." Digitally signed by Timothy Wilson Gabelein Date: 2018.09.19 15:39:45 -07'00' Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 3 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Description The proposed development, known as “Merrill Gardens- Renton”, consists of the expansion of the existing Merrill Gardens (senior living facility) by the construction of a 6-story addition with associated site and frontage improvements. This project is required to comply with the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (the “Manual”). Project characteristics are summarized in Figure 1 (see next page). CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-A-1 REFERENCE 8-A TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner _____________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Address __________________________________ _________________________________________ Project Engineer ___________________________ Company _________________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Project Name __________________________ CED Permit # ________________________ Location Township ________________ Range __________________ Section _________________ Site Address __________________________ _____________________________________ Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS  Land Use (e.g., Subdivision / Short Subd.)  Building (e.g., M/F / Commercial / SFR)  Grading  Right-of-Way Use  Other _______________________  DFW HPA  COE 404  DOE Dam Safety  FEMA Floodplain  COE Wetlands  Other ________  Shoreline Management  Structural Rockery/Vault/_____  ESA Section 7 Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final:  Full  Targeted  Simplified  Large Project  Directed __________________ __________________ __________________ Plan Type (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final:  Full  Modified  Simplified __________________ __________________ __________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-2 Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Approved Adjustment No. ______________________ Date of Approval: _______________________ Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Start Date: _______________________ Completion Date: _______________________ Describe: _________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Re: SWDM Adjustment No. ________________ Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: ____________________________________________________________________ Special District Overlays: ______________________________________________________________ Drainage Basin: _____________________________________________________________________ Stormwater Requirements: _____________________________________________________________ Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS  River/Stream ________________________  Lake ______________________________  Wetlands ____________________________  Closed Depression ____________________  Floodplain ___________________________  Other _______________________________ _______________________________  Steep Slope __________________________  Erosion Hazard _______________________  Landslide Hazard ______________________  Coal Mine Hazard ______________________  Seismic Hazard _______________________  Habitat Protection ______________________  _____________________________________ REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-3 Part 10 SOILS Soil Type ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Slopes ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Erosion Potential _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________  High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet)  Other ________________________________  Sole Source Aquifer  Seeps/Springs  Additional Sheets Attached Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE  Core 2 – Offsite Analysis_________________  Sensitive/Critical Areas__________________  SEPA________________________________  LID Infeasibility________________________  Other________________________________  _____________________________________ LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________  Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply): Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:__________________ Flow Control (include facility summary sheet) Standard: _______________________________ or Exemption Number: ____________ On-site BMPs: _______________________________ Conveyance System Spill containment located at: _____________________________ Erosion and Sediment Control / Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor: _____________________ Contact Phone: _________________________ After Hours Phone: _________________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-4 Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog or Exemption No. _______________________ Special Requirements (as applicable): Area Specific Drainage Requirements Type: SDO / MDP / BP / Shared Fac. / None Name: ________________________ Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _______________ Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control (commercial / industrial land use) Describe land use: Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High-Use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: _________________________________ Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? _____________________________________ Other Drainage Structures Describe: REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-5 Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION  Clearing Limits  Cover Measures  Perimeter Protection  Traffic Area Stabilization  Sediment Retention  Surface Water Collection  Dewatering Control  Dust Control  Flow Control  Control Pollutants  Protect Existing and Proposed BMPs/Facilities  Maintain Protective BMPs / Manage Project MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION  Stabilize exposed surfaces  Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities  Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure operation of Permanent BMPs/Facilities, restore operation of BMPs/Facilities as necessary  Flag limits of sensitive areas and open space preservation areas  Other _______________________ Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description  Detention  Infiltration  Regional Facility  Shared Facility  On-site BMPs  Other ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________  Vegetated Flowpath  Wetpool  Filtration  Oil Control  Spill Control  On-site BMPs  Other ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS  Drainage Easement  Covenant  Native Growth Protection Covenant  Tract  Other ____________________________  Cast in Place Vault  Retaining Wall  Rockery > 4′ High  Structural on Steep Slope  Other _______________________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-6 Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Signed/Date Digitally signed by Timothy Wilson Gabelein Date: 2018.09.19 15:38:37 -07'00' Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 5 The project parcel address is 104 Burnett Ave S. However, the area of work is confined to the southeastern portion of the property (the “site”), with a frontage on Williams Ave S as shown in Figure 2. The property is located in Renton (the “City”), Washington. The site is bordered to the north by a public alley, to the east by Williams Ave S, to the south by a warehouse, and to the west by the existing Merrill Gardens development. The existing warehouse on the site will be demolished as part of the proposed development, as shown in Figure 3. There are no surface waters or critical areas on or adjacent to the site, and it is located within the Lower Cedar River drainage basin. Figure 2- Vicinity Map Figure 3- Site Drainage Characteristics Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 6 Soil Conditions A complete subsurface investigation was performed by PanGeo, Inc. (2017). Two borings were completed on the site to a depth of up to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface, which were used to analyze the subsurface conditions. Per the project geotechnical report (dated November 2017), “Based on review of the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington (Mullineaux, 1965) the project site is identified as being in an area of ‘urban or industrial land modified by widespread or discontinuous artificial fill’. The primary geologic unit in the vicinity of the site consists of Quaternary Alluvium deposited by the Cedar River (Qac) and is comprised of sand and gravel with occasional layers of silt, clay and peat.” A surficial layer of fill ranging from five to eight feet thick was encountered at both borings. The fill consisted of soils ranging from loose poorly graded sand with a trace of silt, to loose sandy gravel. The full was underlain by loose to medium dense silty sand and gravelly sand with varying amounts of silt (Quaternary Alluvium). Figure 4- Boring Locations & Fill Thickness Encountered Groundwater was encountered at depths of 16’ and 17 below the existing ground surface in borings PG- 1 and PG-2, respectively. Groundwater seepage is not expected to be a concern with the proposed development. There is no evidence of landslides or erosion in the vicinity of the project site. See Appendix A of this report for the complete geotechnical report. Existing Stormwater Conditions The project site is currently almost entirely covered by impervious surfaces, with the existing building taking up most of the area. It is unknown where the downspouts of the existing building drain. There is a single catch basin located in the parking area on the north side of the building, which collects surface runoff from the parking area and from the public alley to the north. This catch basin discharges via an 8” concrete pipe to public catch basin on the 8” public storm main in Williams Ave S, located east of the centerline. Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 7 The Manual defines “Existing Conditions” to mean those conditions that existed prior to May 1979 as determined from aerial photographs. Historical aerial photographs of the project site were obtained from the University of Washington Libraries Map Collection. The photos are dated May 7 th, 1978 and owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Figure 5 below is a portion of the aerial image, with the project site outlined in red. An existing structure (possibly the existing building) is visible in the photo, confirming that the existing conditions in 1978 were impervious. Electronic copies of the aerial photos will be submitted with this report. Figure 5- 1978 Aerial Photo of Project Site (WSDOT) Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 8 Proposed Stormwater Conditions The existing and proposed land cover characteristics of the site are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1- Site Land Cover Summary Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Roof Area 11,657 SF 14,515 Pollution-generating Impervious Area 4,421 SF 475 SF Non-PGIS 20 SF 677 SF Landscaping1 274 SF 705 SF Total Site Area 16,372 SF Total Impervious Area 16,098 SF 15,667 SF Net Impervious Surface Coverage Reduction - 431 SF 1Includes at-grade planting areas only. These areas are illustrated in the Existing and Proposed Surface Coverage Exhibits, included as Appendix B. Surface Runoff Due to the size of the building, the majority of the surface runoff will be from roof areas. Runoff from the roof will be collected by several downspouts, routed internally in the building to a single point of discharge. There are a few downspouts from intermediate canopy areas that will have downspouts on the east face of the building, routed to the storm drainage discharge. A new storm drainage pipe is proposed in approximately the same location as the existing drainage connection, although installed perpendicular to the main instead of diagonally as existing. The replaced pipe discharges to the existing public catch basin on the public storm main in Williams Ave S. This maintains the natural (existing) drainage point of the site. Note that runoff from the public alley currently drains to a catch basin located on the project site, which will be removed and covered under the proposed building footprint. To prevent alley drainage from flowing to the proposed building, the southern portion of the alley will be regraded to redirect drainage to a new catch basin located near the west limit of the alley, with a second catch basin near the driveway entrance to prevent any alley runoff from flowing across the sidewalk. A new storm drain connection will be required from the alley catch basins to the public main in Williams Ave S, with a new structure at the connection. Subsurface Drainage A foundation drain will be constructed around the perimeter of the foundation, consisting of a 4” diameter, Schedule 40 perforated PVC pipe, embedded in a 12” minimum wide zone of washed gravel, wrapped in a non-woven geotextile fabric. Subsurface drainage collected by this system will be conveyed to a catch basin designed with a 2.0’ minimum sump to allow for sedimentation prior to discharging to the site stormwater discharge point. Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 9 2 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Per Section 1.1.2.4 of the Manual, this project is required to meet the standards of Full Drainage Review as a result of proposing greater than 2,000 SF of new plus replaced impervious surfaces. New plus replaced impervious surfaces are subject to Core Requirements #1-#9, and Special Requirements #1-#5. Note that although the parent parcel is greater than 20,000 SF, this project is considered Small Project due to the size of the work area. The following is a summary of the applicability of each of the Core and Special Minimum Requirements. Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location The existing site discharges to the public storm main in Williams Ave S. The same discharge point has been selected for the proposed development, therefore maintaining the existing drainage patterns from the site. No adverse effects to adjacent or downstream properties are anticipated. Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis Per Section 1.2.2 of the Manual, the proposed project is exempt from Core Requirement #2 because the project does not change the rate, volume, duration, or location of discharges to and from the project site (e.g., where existing impervious surface is replaced with other impervious surface having similar runoff-generating characteristics). As shown in Table 1 in Section 1, the project is resulting in a small net decrease in impervious surface coverage. For reference, a map of the downstream storm system is shown in Figure 6 below. The drainage system has a final discharge point of the Cedar River (a flow control exempt receiving water downstream of the Taylor Creek confluence). The site is approximately 800’ upstream from the Cedar River discharge point. Figure 6- Downstream System (COR GIS) Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 10 Core Requirement #3: Flow Control The site is located within the City’s Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area, which requires the proposed development to match the existing 2-year, 10-year and 100-year peak runoff rate. As previously described, this project is resulting in a minor net reduction in impervious surface coverage (and the associated reduction in peak runoff rates), therefore meeting the flow control standard. No flow control facilities are proposed. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System New pipe systems have been designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at a minimum) the 25-year peak flow. See Section 5 of this report for calculations. Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) meeting the requirements of Section 1.2.5 of the Manual has been prepared. See Section 8 of this report. Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations A project-specific operation and maintenance agreement and maintenance manual meeting the requirements of Section 1.2.6 of the Manual has been prepared. See Section 10 of this report. Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability The Bond Quantity worksheet has been completed. See Section 9 of this report. The construction and/or maintenance bonds will be provided by the owner as required by the City. Core Requirement #8: Water Quality This project is proposing less than 5,000 SF of new plus replaced impervious surfaces, and less than ¾ of an acre of new PGPS. Therefore, this project meets the criteria for an exemption from providing Water Quality treatment per Exemption #1 in Section 1.2.8 of the Manual. No water quality treatment facilities are proposed. Core Requirement #9: On-site BMPs This project is required to implement On-site BMPs in accordance with the Small Lot BMP Requirements. The four requirements described in Section 1.2.9.2.1 of the Manual are summarized in this section. 1) Feasibility and Applicability of Full Dispersion There is no existing native vegetation on the project site, and therefore full dispersion is infeasible. The size of the proposed building is the limiting factor in incorporating pervious surfaces on the site. 2) Feasibility of Full Infiltration This site is located in Zone 1 of the Aquifer Protection Area (APA). Per Section 1.3.6 of the Manual, On- site BMPs that rely on infiltration are prohibited in Zone 1. Additionally, the site is not able to meet the required horizontal setbacks for infiltration facilities. 3) Mitigation by Listed BMPs Full Infiltration- Prohibited in Zone 1 of the APA. Limited Infiltration- Prohibited in Zone 1 of the APA. Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 11 Rain Gardens- Per Section C.2.12, infeasibility criteria for rain gardens are the same as for bioretention facilities. See below. Bioretention- Per Section C.2.6, infeasibility criteria #15, bioretention facilities are considered infeasible for sites located within Zone 1 of the APA. Permeable Pavement- Per Section C.2.7, infeasibility criteria #15, permeable pavement is considered infeasible for sites located within Zone 1 of the APA. 4) Basic Dispersion The minimum flow path and setback distances required for Basic Dispersion cannot be achieved and therefore is considered infeasible. 5) BMP Implementation BMPs must be implemented, at minimum, for an impervious area equal to at least 10% of the site/lot for site/lot sizes up to 11,000 square feet, doubled for projects located in Zone 1 of the Aquifer Protection Area. For this project, 10% of the site area is equivalent to 1,637 SF. This minimum area has not been mitigated using feasible BMPs from Requirements 1, 2, 3, and 4 above and therefore one or more BMPs from the following list are required to be implemented to achieve compliance: Reduced Impervious Surface Credit per Appendix C, Section C.2.9. All of the reduced impervious surface strategies are considered infeasible. Restricted Footprint The site is proposing a building footprint greater than 4,000 SF. Wheel strip driveways No private driveways are proposed. Minimum disturbance foundation An elevated foundation is not feasible for the proposed type of building construction as it would prevent connecting to the existing building due to the differential in foundation levels. Open grid decking over pervious surface No decks are proposed that are not underlain by a building level below. Native Growth Retention Credit There is no existing native growth on the project site. Tree Retention Credit There are only two trees on the project site, which are within the proposed building footprint and cannot be retained. Regardless, both of the trees are less than 6” in diameter at breast height and are also ineligible for credit. 6) The soil moisture holding capacity of new pervious surfaces (target pervious surfaces) must be protected in accordance with the soil amendment BMP as detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.13. Soil amendment will be implemented in all new pervious areas on the site. 7) Any proposed connection of roof downspouts to the local drainage system must be via a perforated pipe connection as detailed in Appendix C, Section C.2.11. A minimum of a 5 foot setback is required between any part of the perforated pipe trench and any property line, which cannot be achieved. Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 12 Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements The project site is not subject to any known area-specific requirements (Master Drainage Plan, Salmon Conservation Plan, Lake Management Plan, Hazard Mitigation Plan, or Shared Facility Drainage Plan). The site is within the Watershed Management Committee’s Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan, Adopted in 1997- but it is understood that this does not affect the proposed design. Special Requirement #2: Floodplain/Floodway Analysis This project is not located within the 100-year regulatory floodway and is therefore not subject to the requirements of Special Requirement #3. Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities This project will not rely on an existing flood protection facility (such as a levee or revetment) for protection against hazards posed by erosion or inundation, and will not be modifying or constructing a new flood protection facility and is therefore not subject to the requirements of Special Requirement #4. Special Requirement #4: Source Control The proposed project does not include any of the activities listed in Section 1.3.4 and therefore no structural source control improvements are required. Special Requirement #5: Oil Control The existing and proposed development is not considered a high-use site, and is therefore not subject to the requirements of Special Requirement #5. Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protection Area This project is within Zone 1 of the APA, and as previously discussed, the following drainage facilities are prohibited: a) Open facilities such as flow control and water quality treatment ponds, stormwater wetlands and infiltration facilities. b) On-site BMPs that rely on infiltration. (On-site BMPs that rely on dispersion are allowed for non-PGIS.) c) Open conveyance systems such as ditches and channels. None of the above facilities or systems are proposed. 3 OFFSITE ANALYSIS Not applicable. Per Section 1.2.2 of the Manual, the proposed project is exempt from providing an offsite analysis because the project does not change the rate, volume, duration, or location of discharges to and from the project site. Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 13 4 FLOW CONTROL, LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Not applicable. No Flow Control, Low Impact Development (LID) or Water Quality facilities are proposed. 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN New pipe systems are required to be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at a minimum) the 25-year peak flow. In order to determine the peak flow, modeling of the site using the Western Washington Hydrologic Model was used. Basin 1 is limited to the project site. Basin 2 is the tributary area of the alley flowing to the new catch basin. Each peak flows were compared to conveyance capacity of the proposed discharge pipes, calculated using the Manning’s equation. Peak Flow (WWHM) Pipe Capacity (Manning’s) Basin 1- Project Site 0.232 CFS 2.53 CFS1 (12” dia.) Basin 2- Alley 0.038 2.53 CFS1 (12” dia.) 1 S=0.005 (minimal pipe slope assumed for worst-case condition), n=0.013 The complete WWHM report is included as Appendix C. 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The complete geotechnical report by PanGeo, Inc. is included as Appendix A. 7 OTHER PERMITS The following permits are anticipated to be required:  Building permit  Grading permit  Site Design review  Civil Construction permit application  SEPA 8 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This section summarizes the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) analysis and design. The two components of the CSWPPP are the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) plans. Both the TESC Plan and SWPPS serve as guide for the contractor to implement and maintain a functional CSWPPP for the site. Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 14 TESC Plan Analysis and Design The TESC design follows the guidelines provided in Appendix D of The Manual and is intended to satisfy Core Requirement #5 Erosion and Sediment Control. Because a majority of the site is covered by the proposed building footprint, several of the TESC measures identified on the plan will no longer be necessary or feasible after the building foundation is poured. A stabilized construction entrance will be installed with access via the alley. Silt fencing or straw wattles will be installed around the perimeter of the work area. Chain link fencing will be used to protect the single street tree to remain, and fence off site during construction. Street weeping on Williams Ave S will occur as needed to remove any sediment tracked from the site. Site surface drainage will be maintained to prevent any ponding and inlet protection will be provided at all existing catch basins that may receive runoff during construction. All disturbed areas that will not be paved will be stabilized by planting and mulching immediately after construction. The proposed TESC measures are shown on the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in Appendix E, and summarized in Table 2 below. An TESC supervisor will be designated by the contractor for the project and it is preferred that it be a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL). The TESC supervisor will be responsible for the performance, maintenance, and review of all TESC measures, as well as the compliance with all permit conditions relating to TESC as described in The Manual. Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 15 Table 2- TESC Measures (must comply with Appendix D of the Manual) TESC Measure Comment 1 Identify Project Limits Mark by fencing or other means to contain the grubbing and grading activities. 2 Catch Basin Inlet Protection Install catch basin inlet protection in any drainage structures that may collect any stormwater flowing from the construction site. 3 Phase Grubbing and Grading Phase clearing so that only those areas that are actively being worked are uncovered. From October 1 through April 30, no soils shall remain exposed for more than 2 days. From May 1 through September 30, no soils shall remain exposed for more than 7 days. 4 Install Silt Fence/Straw Wattles Install silt fence/straw wattles as required by site conditions and construction sequencing. 5 Sod/Seed Exposed Areas Cleared areas will be sod/seeded as soon as possible after grading completed (few weeks). 6 Soil Removal Remove excess soil from the site as soon as possible after backfilling. 7 Protect Adjacent Properties Adjacent properties shall be protected from sediment deposition by appropriate use of vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching, or by a combination of these measures and other appropriate BMPs. 8 Street Cleaning Provide for periodic street cleaning to remove any sediment that may have been tracked out. Sediment should be removed by shoveling or sweeping and carefully removed to a suitable disposal area where it will not be re-eroded. 9 Inspect ESC BMPs Inspect all erosion and sediment control BMPs installed regularly, especially after any large storm. Maintenance, including removal and proper disposal of sediment should be done as necessary. Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill Plan Design The Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill Plan (SWPPS) plan is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with stormwater runoff, surface waters, or groundwater, during construction. Vehicles, construction equipment, sediment from clearing and grading, materials, and chemical storage all have the potential to pollute stormwater during construction. The following BMPs are required during construction of all buildings or structures:  Maintain good housekeeping. This includes designating vehicle, equipment, and chemical storage areas.  Inspect vehicle, equipment, and petroleum product storage and dispensing areas regularly to detect any leaks or spills.  Store and contain liquid materials in such a manner that if the tank leaks, the contents will not discharge into the storm drainage system, surface waters, or groundwater. Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 16  Provide maintenance and cleaning of the storm drainage system regularly by removing sediment and debris.  Do not dispose of any wash water to storm drain system. Wash water shall be disposed in the sanitary sewer.  Filter all dewatering water before it is dumped into a catch basin or somewhere offsite.  All spills will be cleaned up immediately and disposed correctly. Do not hose down spill areas to a storm drainage system.  All toxic materials will be stored under cover when not in use or during a rain event.  Use storm drain covers or other similarly effective runoff control measure to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering catch basins. All TESC and SWPP BMPs will be inspected routinely by the TESC supervisor. All TESC measures will be removed, the site stabilized, and the drainage system cleaned once construction is completed. TESC Inspection Logs are included in Appendix E. 9 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT The completed Bond Quantity worksheet has been included in Appendix F. An electronic version (.xls) has also been submitted. 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The Operations & Maintenance Manual is included in Appendix G. Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 17 Appendix A- Geotechnical Report Geotechnical & Earthquake Engineering Consultants GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED MERRILL GARDENS AT RENTON CENTER ADDITION 104 Burnett Avenue Renton, Washington PROJECT NO. 17-300 November 2017 Prepared for: Teutsch Partners, LLC _______________________________________ 3213 Eastlake Avenue East, Suite B Seattle, WA 98102 Tel: (206) 262-0370 Fax: (206) 262-0374 Geotechnical & Earthquake Engineering Consultants November 27, 2017 File No. 17-300 Mr. John Walker Teutsch Partners, LLC 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Mr. John Walker Subject: Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Walker: As requested, PanGEO, Inc. completed a geotechnical study to assist the project team with the design and construction of the proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition at 104 Burnett Avenue South in Renton, Washington. The results of our study are presented in the attached report. In summary, our test borings conducted at the site encountered 5 to 8 feet of very loose to medium dense fill, in turn underlain by soils that marginally susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Based on the underlying soil conditions, it is our opinion that it is appropriate to support the proposed building on footings after the completion of a ground improvement program comprised of aggregate piers or stone columns. We understand conventional footings on aggregate piers were used to support the existing Merrill Gardens building. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call if there are any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, Siew L. Tan, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, Washington November 27, 2017 PanGEO, Inc. 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS ..................................................................................................... 3 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3 4.1 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 3 4.2 SOIL ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 4.3 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................................. 5 5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 5 5.1 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................................................... 5 5.2 SOIL LIQUEFACTION ........................................................................................................................... 6 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 6 6.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION ..................................................................................................................... 6 6.1.1 Spread Footings on Aggregate Piers .......................................................................................... 7 6.1.2 Perimeter Footing Drains ........................................................................................................... 7 6.1.3 Footing Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................... 8 6.2 FLOORS SLABS .................................................................................................................................... 8 6.3 RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 9 6.3.1 Surcharge .................................................................................................................................... 9 6.3.2 Lateral Resistance ....................................................................................................................... 9 6.3.3 Wall Drainage ............................................................................................................................. 9 6.3.4 Wall Backfill .............................................................................................................................. 10 6.4 PERMANENT CUT AND FILL SLOPES ................................................................................................. 10 7.0 EARTHWORK AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................. 11 7.1 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ............................................................................................................. 11 7.2 STRUCTURAL FILL AND COMPACTION .............................................................................................. 11 7.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE ......................................................................................................................... 11 7.4 WET WEATHER EARTHWORK AND EROSION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... 12 7.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ADJACENT WAREHOUSE ........................................................................... 13 8.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 13 9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 16 Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, Washington November 27, 2017 PanGEO, Inc. 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition ii ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Appendix A: Summary Boring Logs Figure A-1 Terms and Symbols for Boring and Test Pit Logs Figure A-2 and A-3 Summary Boring Logs PG-1 and PG-2 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT MERRILL GARDENS RENTON ADDITION 104 BURNETT AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON _______________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical study that was undertaken to support the design and construction of the proposed addition to the existing Merrill Garden Renton located at 104 Burnett Avenue South in Renton, Washington. This study was conducted in general accordance with our scope of work outlined in our proposal dated September 15, 2017. Our scope of services included reviewing readily available geologic and geotechnical data in the vicinity of the project site, conducting a site reconnaissance, drilling two test borings at the site, performing engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 104 Burnett Avenue South in Renton, Washington. The location of the site is approximately shown on the attached Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The approximately 12,500 square foot rectangular-shaped site is bordered to the west by a driveway and the existing Merrill Gardens Renton on the west side of the driveway, to the north by a parking lot, to the east by Williams Avenue, and to the south by a one-story high-bay warehouse building. The site and surrounding area is relatively flat, with only about two feet of elevation change across the length of the site. In the central portion of the site is a one-story, high bay warehouse building. Plates 1 and 2 (next page) show the general site conditions. We understand it is planned to demolish the existing warehouse building and construct an addition to the existing Merrill Gardens facility. The proposed addition will be six stories in height. We anticipate the ground level will be of concrete frame construction with a post-tension transfer slab. The upper five levels of wood-frame construction. The addition will be constructed at or near existing site grades and no below-grade levels are planned. Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 2 PanGEO, Inc. Plate 1: Aerial view of site (outlined in yellow) looking to west. The existing Merrill Gardens Renton is in the upper right of photo. Plate 2: View of site looking from northeast to southwest. Existing warehouse is located near center of photo. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed development, which is in turn based on the project information provided. If the above project description is incorrect, or the project information changes, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this study and make modifications, if needed. In any case PanGEO should be retained to provide a review of the final design Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 3 PanGEO, Inc. to confirm that our geotechnical recommendations have been correctly interpreted and adequately implemented in the construction documents. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Two borings (PG-1 and PG-2) were drilled at the site on October 23, 2017. The borings were drilled using an EC95 track-mounted drill rig owned and operated by Boretec, Inc., subcontracted to PanGEO. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 51½ feet below existing grade and were logged by a geologist with our firm. The approximate boring locations were identified in the field by measuring from property corners and site features and are shown on Figure 2. The drill rig was equipped with an 8-inch outside diameter hollow stem augers. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at 2½- to 5-foot depth intervals using a standard, 2-inch diameter split-spoon sampler. The sampler was advanced with a 140-pound drop hammer falling a distance of 30 inches for each strike, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586, Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils. The number of blows required for each 6-inch increment of sampler penetration was recorded. The number of blows required to achieve the last 12 inches of sample penetration is defined as the SPT N-value. The N-value provides an empirical measure of the relative density of cohesionless soil, or the relative consistency of fine-grained soils. The soils were logged in general accordance with ASTM D2487 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes and the system summarized on Figure A- 1, Terms and Symbols for Boring and Test Pit Logs. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 GEOLOGY Based on review of the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington (Mullineaux, 1965) the project site is identified as being in an area of “urban or industrial land modified by widespread or discontinuous artificial fill”. The primary geologic unit in Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 4 PanGEO, Inc. the vicinity of the site consists of Quaternary Alluvium deposited by the Cedar River (Qac) and is comprised of sand and gravel with occasional layers of silt, clay and peat. 4.2 SOIL For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at each exploration location, please refer to our boring logs provided in Appendix A. The stratigraphic contacts indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate depth to boundaries between soil units. Actual transitions between soil units may be more gradual or occur at different elevations. The descriptions of groundwater conditions and depths are likewise approximate. The following is a generalized description of the soils encountered in the borings: Pavement: Both borings were located in areas that are paved. At the location of Boring PG-1, we encountered a layer of asphalt pavement that was three inches thick. The pavement at the location of Boring PG-2 consisted of 4 inches of concrete. Fill: We encountered a surficial layer of fill in both of our borings. The fill ranged from five feet thick at Boring PG-1 to eight feet thick at Boring PG-2. At the location of Boring PG-1, the fill consisted of loose poorly graded sand with a trace of silt. At the location of Boring PG-2, the fill was about 8 feet thick and consisted of very loose to loose sandy gravel. We encountered a 3-inch thick buried layer of asphalt concrete pavement in the fill at about two feet below grade. Below the buried pavement layer, we encountered another five feet of fill consisting of very loose to loose silty sand with gravel. Quaternary Alluvium (Qac): Underlying the fill we encountered loose to medium dense silty sand and gravelly sand with varying amounts of silt. At about 15 feet below grade, the soil graded into a loose sandy gravel with a trace amount of silt. The gravelly sand generally became denser with depth, grading to medium dense at about 20 feet below grade and dense at 30 to 35 feet below grade. Our subsurface descriptions are based on the conditions encountered at the time of our exploration. Soil conditions between our exploration locations may vary from those Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 5 PanGEO, Inc. encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, PanGEO should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with earthwork and construction. 4.3 GROUNDWATER During drilling, groundwater was encountered at 16 and 17 feet below grade in borings PG-1 and PG-2, respectively. With the planned construction at or near existing grade, we do not anticipate groundwater seepage will result in significant construction related issues. However, it should be noted that groundwater elevations may vary depending on the season, local subsurface conditions, and other factors. Groundwater levels are normally highest during the winter and early spring. 5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS We anticipate the seismic design of the building will be accomplished in accordance with the 2015 International Building Code (IBC). Table 1, below provides seismic design parameters for the site that are in conformance with the International Building Code (IBC), which specifies a design earthquake having a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years (return interval of 2,475 years), and the 2008 USGS seismic hazard maps: Table 1: Seismic Design Parameters Site Class Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec. (g) SS Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec. (g) S1 Site Coefficients Design Spectral Response Parameters Control Periods (sec.) Fa Fv SDS SD1 TO TS D 1.438 0.538 1.000 1.500 0.959 0.538 0.112 0.561 Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 6 PanGEO, Inc. The spectral response accelerations were obtained from the USGS website (2008 data) based on the project latitude and longitude. 5.2 SOIL LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction occurs when saturated predominately sand and silt soils are subjected to cyclic loading. This causes the pore water pressure to increase in the soil thereby reducing the inter-granular stresses. As the inter-granular stresses are reduced, the shearing resistance of the soil decreases. If pore pressures develop to the point where the effective stresses acting between the grains become zero, the soil particles will be in suspension and behave like a viscous fluid. Typically, loose, saturated, clean granular soils, that have a low enough permeability to prevent drainage during cyclic loading, have the greatest potential for liquefaction, while more dense soil deposits with higher silt, clay, or gravel contents have a lesser potential. Soil liquefaction may cause the temporary loss/reduction of foundation capacity and settlement. In our opinion, based on the measured SPT N-values and the gravelly soil types, it is our opinion that the risk of soil liquefaction is relatively low. Given that the groundwater is 16 to 17 feet deep, and hence providing approximately 15 feet of soil crust between the footings and the soils that are marginally liquefiable, it is our opinion that the impacts of soil liquefaction to the footing performance is minor, provided that the recommendations outlined below are incorporated into the design and construction of the footings. 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION As discussed above, the site is mantled by 5 to 8 feet of undocumented fill that are likely highly variable in compositions and density. It is our opinion that the risk of significant settlement for footings founded in fill is relatively high. In order to mitigate the potential for excessive settlement, we recommend a program of ground improvement be performed using aggregate piers, such as Geopiers, to density the uppermost 8 to feet of soils. After completion of the ground improvement, building support can be provided using spread footings. Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 7 PanGEO, Inc. We understand that the existing Merrill Gardens Renton is supported on spread footings on aggregate piers, similar to those being recommended for the addition. 6.1.1 Spread Footings on Aggregate Piers Aggregate piers consist of drilled holes filled with compacted crushed rock. The columns of compacted stone increase the bearing capacity of poor soils, mitigates the liquefaction potential of the treated soils, and reduces potential settlement. Because the aggregate elements increase the stiffness of the subsurface soils, and provide additional drainage pathways for excess pore water pressure during a seismic event, the potential for earthquake induced liquefaction in the improved soils is reduced. After the aggregate piers elements are installed, conventional spread and continuous footings or a mat foundation can be supported directly on the improved soil. Ground improvement should be conducted to a depth of at least 8 to 10 feet below the existing surface. Although liquefaction could occur during a rare IBC code level earthquake below the treated soils, it is our opinion this will not result in a bearing failure of the building foundation due to the improved upper soil layer. Because aggregate piers are a proprietary system, the Geopier Foundation Company determines allowable bearing pressures, improved soil characteristics and anticipated settlements and, specifically, is responsible for the foundation system design. For design purposes, an allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 psf may be assumed. For lateral load resistance, an allowable passive resistance of 350 pcf and an allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 may be assumed. 6.1.2 Perimeter Footing Drains Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the building, at or just below the invert of the footings. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be con- nected to the footing drain systems. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to appropriate discharge locations. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 8 PanGEO, Inc. 6.1.3 Footing Subgrade Preparation Footing excavations should be observed by PanGEO to confirm that the exposed footing subgrade is consistent with the expected conditions and adequate to support the design bearing pressure. The foundation bearings soils should be in a dense, unyielding condition prior to setting forms and placing rebar. Loose or softened soil should be removed from the footing excavation and backfilled with control density fill (CDF). 6.2 FLOORS SLABS It is our opinion that conventional slab-on-grade construction is appropriate for the project. The exposed slab subgrade should be compacted to a dense and unyielding condition before placing capillary break. Interior concrete slab-on-grade floors should be underlain by a capillary break consisting of at least of 4 inches of pea gravel or compacted ¾-inch, clean crushed rock (less than 3 percent fines). The capillary break material should meet the gradational requirements provided in Table 2, below. Table 2 – Capillary Break Gradation Sieve Size Percent Passing ¾-inch 100 No. 4 0 – 10 No. 100 0 – 5 No. 200 0 – 3 The capillary break should be placed on subgrade soils that have been compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 9 PanGEO, Inc. 6.3 RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures exerted by the soils behind the wall. Proper drainage provisions should also be provided to intercept and remove groundwater that may be present behind the walls. Cantilever walls should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf for a level backfill condition and assuming the walls are free to rotate. If the walls are restrained at the top from free movement, such as basement walls with a floor diaphragm, an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf should be used for a level backfill condition behind the walls. Permanent walls should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure of 7H psf for seismic loading, where H corresponds to the height of the buried depth of the wall. The recommended lateral earth pressures assume the backfill behind the walls consists of a free draining and properly compacted fill with adequate drainage provisions. 6.3.1 Surcharge Surcharge loads, where present, should also be included in the design of retaining walls. We recommend a lateral load coefficient of 0.4 be used to compute the lateral pressure on the wall face resulting from surcharge loads located within a horizontal distance of one- half the wall height. 6.3.2 Lateral Resistance Lateral forces from seismic loading and unbalanced lateral earth pressures may be resisted by a combination of passive earth pressures acting against the embedded portions of the foundations and by friction acting on the base of the wall foundation. Passive resistance values may be determined using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf. This value includes a factor of safety of 1.5, assuming the footing is backfilled with structural fill. A friction coefficient of 0.30 may be used to determine the frictional resistance at the base of the footings. The coefficient includes a factor of safety of 1.5. 6.3.3 Wall Drainage Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 10 PanGEO, Inc. Provisions for wall drainage should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated drainpipe placed behind and at the base of the wall footings, embedded in 12 to 18 inches of clean crushed rock or pea gravel wrapped with a layer of filter fabric. A minimum 18-inch wide zone of free draining granular soils (i.e. pea gravel or washed rock) is recommended to be placed adjacent to the wall for the full height of the wall. Alternatively, a composite drainage material, such as Miradrain 6000, may be used in lieu of the clean crushed rock or pea gravel. The drainpipe at the base of the wall should be graded to direct water to a suitable outlet. 6.3.4 Wall Backfill Retaining wall backfill should consist of free draining granular material. The site soils consist of relatively fine sand with varying amounts of silt. We recommend importing a free draining granular material, such as Seattle Type 17 or a soil meeting the requirements of Gravel Borrow as defined in Section 9-03.14(1) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (WSDOT, 2014). In areas where space is limited between the wall and the face of excavation, pea gravel may be used as backfill without compaction. Wall backfill should be moisture conditioned to within about 3 percent of optimum moisture content, placed in loose, horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in thickness, and systematically compacted to a dense and relatively unyielding condition and to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D-1557 (Modified Proctor). Within 5 feet of the wall, the backfill should be compacted with hand- operated equipment to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. 6.4 PERMANENT CUT AND FILL SLOPES Based on the anticipated soil that will be exposed in the planned excavation, we recommend permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 11 PanGEO, Inc. 7.0 EARTHWORK AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS The contractor is responsible for maintaining safe excavation slopes and/or shoring. Temporary excavations greater than 4 feet deep should be properly sloped or shored. Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with Part N of WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 296-155. For planning purposes, temporary excavations in the very loose to native soil may be inclined as steep a 1H:1V. Temporary cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of PanGEO during construction based on actual observed soil conditions. 7.2 STRUCTURAL FILL AND COMPACTION Unless otherwise noted, we recommend using a granular structural fill material such as WSDOT Gravel Borrow 9-03.14(1) (WSDOT 2014), or other approved equivalent. The structural fill should be moisture conditioned to within about 3 percent of optimum moisture content, placed in loose, horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in thickness, and systematically compacted to a dense and unyielding condition, and to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D 1557. 7.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE Surface runoff can be controlled during construction by careful grading practices. This may include the construction of shallow, upgrade perimeter ditches or low earthen berms to collect runoff and prevent water from entering the excavation. All collected water should be directed to a positive and permanent discharge system such as a storm sewer. It should be noted that some of the site soils are prone to surficial erosion. Special care should be taken to avoid surface water on open cut excavations, and exposed slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting. Permanent control of surface water and roof runoff should be incorporated in the final grading design. In addition to these sources, irrigation and rain water infiltrating into any landscape and/or planter areas adjacent to paved areas or building foundations should also Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 12 PanGEO, Inc. be controlled. Water should not be allowed to pond immediately adjacent to buildings or paved areas. All collected runoff should be directed into conduits that carry the water away from pavements or the structure and into storm drain systems or other appropriate outlets. Adequate surface gradients should be incorporated into the grading design such that surface runoff is directed away from structures. 7.4 WET WEATHER EARTHWORK AND EROSION CONSIDERATIONS The site soils contain a moderate to high amount of fines, and are therefore considered moisture sensitive. As a result, it may be more economical to perform earthwork in the drier summer months to reduce the potential of site soils becoming soft due to excessive moisture. Any softened soils should be removed and replaced with structural fill. General recommendations relative to earthwork performed in wet weather or in wet conditions are presented below: • Because site soils are considered moisture sensitive, all subgrade surfaces should be protected against inclement weather. • Earthwork may need to be performed in small areas to minimize subgrade exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soil should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of structural fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to reduce soil disturbance. • During wet weather, the allowable fines content of the structural fill should be reduced to no more than 5 percent by weight based on the portion passing ¾- inch sieve. The fines should be non-plastic. • The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water, and to prevent surface water from entering the excavations. • Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be strategically located to control erosion and the movement of sediment. Erosion control measures should be installed along all the property boundaries. Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 13 PanGEO, Inc. • Excavation slopes and soils stockpiled on site should be covered with plastic sheeting. • Under no circumstances should soil be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. 7.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ADJACENT WAREHOUSE The proposed addition will be located in close proximity to the existing warehouse building on the adjacent property. Construction-induced vibrations from improvements such as aggregate piers or compaction of structural fill may adversely impact the warehouse building. The contractor should consider using smaller equipment for compactions to other earthwork activities to reduce the magnitude of the vibrations. The design team may also consider locating the proposed footing line several feet from the warehouse, and cantilever the upper floors over the footing line. 8.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Teutsch Partners, LLC and the project team. Recommendations contained in this report are based on a site reconnaissance, a subsurface exploration program, review of pertinent subsurface information, and our understanding of the project. The study was performed using a mutually agreed-upon scope of work. Variations in soil conditions may exist between the explorations and the actual conditions underlying the site. The nature and extent of soil variations may not be evident until construction occurs. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site that are different from those described in this report, we should be notified immediately to review the applicability of our recommendations. Additionally, we should also be notified to review the applicability of our recommendations if there are any changes in the project scope. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors’ methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Additionally, the scope of our work specifically excludes the assessment of environmental characteristics, particularly those involving hazardous substances. We are Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 14 PanGEO, Inc. not mold consultants nor are our recommendations to be interpreted as being preventative of mold development. A mold specialist should be consulted for all mold-related issues. This report may be used only by the client and for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both off and on-site), or other factors including advances in our understanding of applied science, may change over time and could materially affect our findings. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after 24 months from its issuance. PanGEO should be notified if the project is delayed by more than 24 months from the date of this report so that we may review the applicability of our conclusions considering the time lapse. It is the client’s responsibility to see that all parties to this project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor’s option and risk. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify PanGEO of such intended use and for permission to copy this report. Based on the intended use of the report, PanGEO may require that additional work be perform ed and that an updated report be reissued. Noncompliance with any of these requirements will release PanGEO from any liability resulting from the use this report. Within the limitation of scope, schedule and budget, PanGEO engages in the practice of geotechnical engineering and endeavors to perform its services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices at the time the Report or its contents were prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please feel free to contact our office with any questions you have regarding our study, this report, or any geotechnical engineering related project issues. Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 15 PanGEO, Inc. Sincerely, PanGEO, Inc. Scott D. Dinkelman, LEG. Siew L. Tan, P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Report Proposed Merrill Gardens Renton Addition: 104 Burnett Avenue South, Renton, WA November 27, 2017 17-300 Merrill Gardens Renton Addition Page 16 PanGEO, Inc. 9.0 REFERENCES ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010. International Building Code (IBC), 2015, International Code Council. Mullineaux, D.R., 1965, Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405, scale 1:24000. WSDOT, 2016, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridges, and Municipal Construction. Figure No.Project No.17-311 Merrill Gardens at Renton Center Addition 104 Burnett Ave S Renton, WA 1file.grf w/ file.dat 11/10/17 (11:09) SDDVICINITY MAP Not-To-Scale Base Map: WSDOT GeoPortal Project No. Figure No.SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN17-300213-011_Fig 2 Site & Exploration Plan.grf 11/10/17 JCRApproximate Boring Locations,PanGEO, Inc., October 2017(Fill Thickness in Feet)LEGEND:Approx. Scale(feet)Merrill Gardens at RentonCenter Addition104 Burnett Avenue SouthRenton, WASubject SiteWILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTHPUBLIC ALLEYEXISTING MERRILL GARDENS BUILDING APPENDIX A SUMMARY BORING LOGS MOISTURE CONTENT 2-inch OD Split Spoon, SPT (140-lb. hammer, 30" drop) 3.25-inch OD Spilt Spoon (300-lb hammer, 30" drop) Non-standard penetration test (see boring log for details) Thin wall (Shelby) tube Grab Rock core Vane Shear Dusty, dry to the touch Damp but no visible water Visible free water Terms and Symbols for Boring and Test Pit Logs Density SILT / CLAY GRAVEL (<5% fines) GRAVEL (>12% fines) SAND (<5% fines) SAND (>12% fines) Liquid Limit < 50 Liquid Limit > 50 Breaks along defined planes Fracture planes that are polished or glossy Angular soil lumps that resist breakdown Soil that is broken and mixed Less than one per foot More than one per foot Angle between bedding plane and a planenormaltocoreaxis Very Loose Loose Med. Dense Dense Very Dense SPT N-values Approx. Undrained Shear Strength (psf) <4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 >50 <2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 >30 SPT N-values Units of material distinguished by color and/orcomposition frommaterial unitsabove andbelow Layers of soil typically 0.05 to 1mm thick, max. 1 cm Layer of soil that pinches out laterally Alternating layers of differing soil material Erratic, discontinuous deposit of limited extent Soil with uniform color and composition throughout Approx. Relative Density (%) Gravel Layered: Laminated: Lens: Interlayered: Pocket: Homogeneous: Highly Organic Soils #4 to #10 sieve (4.5 to 2.0 mm) #10 to #40 sieve (2.0 to 0.42 mm) #40 to #200 sieve (0.42 to 0.074 mm) 0.074 to 0.002 mm <0.002 mm UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Notes: MONITORING WELL <15 15 - 35 35 - 65 65 - 85 85 - 100 GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT TEST SYMBOLS 50%or more passing #200 sieve Groundwater Level at time of drilling (ATD)Static Groundwater Level Cement / Concrete Seal Bentonite grout / seal Silica sand backfill Slotted tip Slough <250 250 - 500 500 - 1000 1000 - 2000 2000 - 4000 >4000 RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY Fissured: Slickensided: Blocky: Disrupted: Scattered: Numerous: BCN: COMPONENT DEFINITIONS Dry Moist Wet 1. Soil exploration logs contain material descriptions based on visual observation and field tests using a systemmodified from the Uniform Soil Classification System (USCS). Where necessary laboratory tests have beenconducted (as noted in the "Other Tests" column), unit descriptions may include a classification. Please refer to thediscussions in the report text for a more complete description of the subsurface conditions. 2. The graphic symbols given above are not inclusive of all symbols that may appear on the borehole logs.Other symbols may be used where field observations indicated mixed soil constituents or dual constituent materials. COMPONENT SIZE / SIEVE RANGE COMPONENT SIZE / SIEVE RANGE SYMBOLS Sample/In Situ test types and intervals Silt and Clay Consistency SAND / GRAVEL Very Soft Soft Med. Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard Phone: 206.262.0370 Bottom of BoringBoulder: Cobbles: Gravel Coarse Gravel: Fine Gravel: Sand Coarse Sand: Medium Sand: Fine Sand: Silt Clay > 12 inches 3 to 12 inches 3 to 3/4 inches 3/4 inches to #4 sieve Atterberg Limit Test Compaction Tests Consolidation Dry Density Direct Shear Fines Content Grain Size Permeability Pocket Penetrometer R-value Specific Gravity Torvane Triaxial Compression Unconfined Compression Sand 50% or more of the coarse fraction passing the #4 sieve. Use dual symbols (eg. SP-SM) for 5% to 12% fines. for In Situ and Laboratory Testslisted in "Other Tests" column. 50% or more of the coarse fraction retained on the #4 sieve. Use dual symbols (eg. GP-GM) for 5% to 12% fines. DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL STRUCTURES Well-graded GRAVEL Poorly-graded GRAVEL Silty GRAVEL Clayey GRAVEL Well-graded SAND Poorly-graded SAND Silty SAND Clayey SAND SILT Lean CLAY Organic SILT or CLAY Elastic SILT Fat CLAY Organic SILT or CLAY PEAT ATT Comp Con DD DS %F GS Perm PP R SG TV TXC UCC LOG KEY 09-118 LOG.GPJ PANGEO.GDT 11/12/13Figure A-1 Asphalt: 3 inches thick. Loose, moist, gray, slightly silty to clean SAND (FILL). Medium dense, moist, gray-brown silty SAND with gravel; layers of clean sand (QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM). Medium dense, moist, brown, gravelly SAND; occasional silty layers (QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM). Very loose, wet, sandy GRAVEL; medium- to coarse-grained sand; occasional layers of clean, medium-grained sand (QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM). Becomes wet. Becomed medium dense. Becomes dense. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 2 2 5 13 8 5 2 3 7 6 7 6 5 2 2 4 6 9 11 13 13 13 17 21 Remarks: Borings drilled using an EC 95 track drill rig. Standard penetration test (SPT) sampler driven with a 140 lb. safety hammer. Hammer operated with a rope and cathead mechanism. Surface elevation estimated based on Topographic & Boundary Survey by Terrane. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Figure A-2Other TestsSample No.Completion Depth: Date Borehole Started: Date Borehole Completed: Logged By: Drilling Company:Depth, (ft)Merril Gardens at Renton Centre Addition 17-300 104 Burnett Ave S, Renton, WA Northing: , Easting: 51.5ft 10/23/17 10/23/17 J. Manke Boretec, Inc Sheet 1 of 2 Project: Job Number: Location: Coordinates:SymbolSample TypeBlows / 6 in.39.0ft N/A HSA SPT Surface Elevation: Top of Casing Elev.: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: LOG OF TEST BORING PG-1 N-Value 0 Moisture LL 50 PL RQD Recovery 100 Very loose, wet, sandy GRAVEL; medium- to coarse-grained sand; occasional layers of clean, medium-grained sand (QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM). (Continued) Becomes very dense. Becomes medium dense. Becomes very dense. Boring terminated at 51.5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater was encountred at 16 feet during drilling. S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 11 14 16 21 37 27 16 17 12 29 42 45 Remarks: Borings drilled using an EC 95 track drill rig. Standard penetration test (SPT) sampler driven with a 140 lb. safety hammer. Hammer operated with a rope and cathead mechanism. Surface elevation estimated based on Topographic & Boundary Survey by Terrane. 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Figure A-2Other TestsSample No.Completion Depth: Date Borehole Started: Date Borehole Completed: Logged By: Drilling Company:Depth, (ft)Merril Gardens at Renton Centre Addition 17-300 104 Burnett Ave S, Renton, WA Northing: , Easting: 51.5ft 10/23/17 10/23/17 J. Manke Boretec, Inc Sheet 2 of 2 Project: Job Number: Location: Coordinates:SymbolSample TypeBlows / 6 in.39.0ft N/A HSA SPT Surface Elevation: Top of Casing Elev.: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: LOG OF TEST BORING PG-1 N-Value 0 Moisture LL 50 PL RQD Recovery 100 Concrete: 4 inches thick. Very loose to loose, moist, gray-brown, sandy GRAVEL (FILL). Asphalt: 3 inches thick. Loose to medium dense, moist, brown silty SAND; moderate iron oxide staining (FILL). Medium dense, moist, brown SAND with gravel (QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM). Becomes medium dense. Dense, moist, brown, sandy GRAVEL with trace silt (QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM). Becomes wet. Drillers began using drilling mud to maintain the borehole stability at 20 feet. Becomes medium dense. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 4 3 5 6 12 17 24 25 6 6 7 10 13 15 13 14 13 Remarks: Borings drilled using an EC 95 track drill rig. Standard penetration test (SPT) sampler driven with a 140 lb. safety hammer. Hammer operated with a rope and cathead mechanism. Surface elevation estimated based on Topographic & Boundary Survey by Terrane. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Figure A-3Other TestsSample No.Completion Depth: Date Borehole Started: Date Borehole Completed: Logged By: Drilling Company:Depth, (ft)Merril Gardens at Renton Centre Addition 17-300 104 Burnett Ave S, Renton, WA Northing: , Easting: 51.5ft 10/23/17 10/23/17 J. Manke Boretec, Inc. Sheet 1 of 2 Project: Job Number: Location: Coordinates:SymbolSample TypeBlows / 6 in.39.0ft N/A HSA SPT Surface Elevation: Top of Casing Elev.: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: LOG OF TEST BORING PG-2 N-Value 0 Moisture LL 50 PL RQD Recovery 100 Dense, moist, brown, sandy GRAVEL with trace silt (QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM). (Continued) Becomes dense. Becomes very dense. Becomes dense. Becomes very dense. Boring terminated at 51.5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater was encountred at 17 feet during drilling. S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 18 21 15 16 22 40 10 13 22 34 25 26 Remarks: Borings drilled using an EC 95 track drill rig. Standard penetration test (SPT) sampler driven with a 140 lb. safety hammer. Hammer operated with a rope and cathead mechanism. Surface elevation estimated based on Topographic & Boundary Survey by Terrane. 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Figure A-3Other TestsSample No.Completion Depth: Date Borehole Started: Date Borehole Completed: Logged By: Drilling Company:Depth, (ft)Merril Gardens at Renton Centre Addition 17-300 104 Burnett Ave S, Renton, WA Northing: , Easting: 51.5ft 10/23/17 10/23/17 J. Manke Boretec, Inc. Sheet 2 of 2 Project: Job Number: Location: Coordinates:SymbolSample TypeBlows / 6 in.39.0ft N/A HSA SPT Surface Elevation: Top of Casing Elev.: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: LOG OF TEST BORING PG-2 N-Value 0 Moisture LL 50 PL RQD Recovery 100 Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 18 Appendix B- Surface Coverage Exhibits Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 19 Appendix C- WWHM Results WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:24 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:MG Renton Site Name:MG Renton Site Address:104 Burnett Ave S City:Renton Report Date:11/30/2017 Gage:Seatac Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2009/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2017/10/18 Version:4.2.13 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Year MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:24 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.006 Pervious Total 0.006 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.101 ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.269 Impervious Total 0.37 Basin Total 0.376 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:24 PM Page 4 Basin 2 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.059 Impervious Total 0.059 Basin Total 0.059 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:24 PM Page 5 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.018 Pervious Total 0.018 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.011 ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.334 SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.013 Impervious Total 0.358 Basin Total 0.376 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:24 PM Page 6 Basin 2 (Alley Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.059 Impervious Total 0.059 Basin Total 0.059 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:24 PM Page 7 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:24 PM Page 8 Mitigated Routing MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:24 PM Page 9 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.006 Total Impervious Area:0.37 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.018 Total Impervious Area:0.358 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.141455 5 year 0.178799 10 year 0.204186 25 year 0.23713 50 year 0.262353 100 year 0.288197 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.137653 5 year 0.174253 10 year 0.199161 25 year 0.231515 50 year 0.256306 100 year 0.281722 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.184 0.179 1950 0.198 0.191 1951 0.115 0.112 1952 0.102 0.098 1953 0.110 0.106 1954 0.115 0.112 1955 0.130 0.127 1956 0.128 0.125 1957 0.146 0.142 1958 0.117 0.114 Peak flow decrease from the existing condition to the proposed conditions (On-site) MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:53 PM Page 10 1959 0.120 0.116 1960 0.118 0.115 1961 0.124 0.121 1962 0.108 0.105 1963 0.120 0.117 1964 0.118 0.114 1965 0.150 0.147 1966 0.100 0.097 1967 0.173 0.168 1968 0.196 0.191 1969 0.137 0.134 1970 0.132 0.128 1971 0.157 0.153 1972 0.163 0.159 1973 0.098 0.095 1974 0.144 0.140 1975 0.165 0.159 1976 0.111 0.108 1977 0.120 0.116 1978 0.147 0.142 1979 0.201 0.195 1980 0.181 0.178 1981 0.148 0.144 1982 0.209 0.203 1983 0.169 0.164 1984 0.107 0.104 1985 0.147 0.143 1986 0.128 0.124 1987 0.197 0.191 1988 0.119 0.115 1989 0.149 0.144 1990 0.254 0.250 1991 0.202 0.199 1992 0.106 0.103 1993 0.092 0.089 1994 0.100 0.096 1995 0.131 0.127 1996 0.140 0.137 1997 0.136 0.132 1998 0.137 0.133 1999 0.281 0.275 2000 0.140 0.136 2001 0.153 0.149 2002 0.180 0.176 2003 0.140 0.136 2004 0.263 0.257 2005 0.120 0.117 2006 0.106 0.104 2007 0.246 0.240 2008 0.199 0.195 2009 0.182 0.176 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.2813 0.2746 2 0.2631 0.2567 3 0.2536 0.2500 MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:53 PM Page 11 4 0.2460 0.2402 5 0.2086 0.2034 6 0.2022 0.1985 7 0.2010 0.1950 8 0.1987 0.1947 9 0.1976 0.1914 10 0.1969 0.1911 11 0.1965 0.1909 12 0.1836 0.1794 13 0.1824 0.1780 14 0.1814 0.1765 15 0.1796 0.1756 16 0.1728 0.1681 17 0.1694 0.1644 18 0.1647 0.1594 19 0.1628 0.1594 20 0.1572 0.1530 21 0.1533 0.1486 22 0.1502 0.1467 23 0.1492 0.1444 24 0.1478 0.1437 25 0.1475 0.1434 26 0.1468 0.1422 27 0.1458 0.1421 28 0.1435 0.1400 29 0.1399 0.1368 30 0.1398 0.1365 31 0.1396 0.1362 32 0.1371 0.1335 33 0.1368 0.1331 34 0.1357 0.1325 35 0.1318 0.1283 36 0.1310 0.1273 37 0.1303 0.1267 38 0.1283 0.1247 39 0.1276 0.1238 40 0.1245 0.1213 41 0.1205 0.1174 42 0.1203 0.1174 43 0.1200 0.1161 44 0.1195 0.1156 45 0.1193 0.1155 46 0.1178 0.1152 47 0.1178 0.1141 48 0.1174 0.1140 49 0.1150 0.1120 50 0.1147 0.1120 51 0.1112 0.1084 52 0.1097 0.1063 53 0.1082 0.1050 54 0.1070 0.1041 55 0.1063 0.1039 56 0.1060 0.1031 57 0.1016 0.0984 58 0.1002 0.0974 59 0.0996 0.0964 60 0.0980 0.0948 61 0.0917 0.0890 MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:53 PM Page 12 MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:53 PM Page 13 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0707 1791 1625 90 Pass 0.0727 1633 1454 89 Pass 0.0746 1463 1314 89 Pass 0.0765 1339 1199 89 Pass 0.0785 1222 1077 88 Pass 0.0804 1097 981 89 Pass 0.0823 998 899 90 Pass 0.0843 916 835 91 Pass 0.0862 853 769 90 Pass 0.0881 785 707 90 Pass 0.0901 722 639 88 Pass 0.0920 664 598 90 Pass 0.0940 606 554 91 Pass 0.0959 566 511 90 Pass 0.0978 528 471 89 Pass 0.0998 486 430 88 Pass 0.1017 448 405 90 Pass 0.1036 417 378 90 Pass 0.1056 389 349 89 Pass 0.1075 362 322 88 Pass 0.1094 337 305 90 Pass 0.1114 315 281 89 Pass 0.1133 293 264 90 Pass 0.1152 272 243 89 Pass 0.1172 255 227 89 Pass 0.1191 236 212 89 Pass 0.1211 221 200 90 Pass 0.1230 208 182 87 Pass 0.1249 193 172 89 Pass 0.1269 180 161 89 Pass 0.1288 171 148 86 Pass 0.1307 160 141 88 Pass 0.1327 145 135 93 Pass 0.1346 139 125 89 Pass 0.1365 135 115 85 Pass 0.1385 121 107 88 Pass 0.1404 113 104 92 Pass 0.1423 107 98 91 Pass 0.1443 104 91 87 Pass 0.1462 100 88 88 Pass 0.1482 91 81 89 Pass 0.1501 88 78 88 Pass 0.1520 82 70 85 Pass 0.1540 72 67 93 Pass 0.1559 71 64 90 Pass 0.1578 65 62 95 Pass 0.1598 64 58 90 Pass 0.1617 62 55 88 Pass 0.1636 59 53 89 Pass 0.1656 54 52 96 Pass 0.1675 53 50 94 Pass 0.1694 53 46 86 Pass 0.1714 50 44 88 Pass MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:53 PM Page 14 0.1733 47 39 82 Pass 0.1753 44 38 86 Pass 0.1772 40 33 82 Pass 0.1791 38 31 81 Pass 0.1811 34 30 88 Pass 0.1830 31 27 87 Pass 0.1849 29 24 82 Pass 0.1869 28 22 78 Pass 0.1888 25 21 84 Pass 0.1907 22 20 90 Pass 0.1927 21 14 66 Pass 0.1946 20 14 70 Pass 0.1965 16 11 68 Pass 0.1985 14 10 71 Pass 0.2004 12 9 75 Pass 0.2023 9 9 100 Pass 0.2043 9 8 88 Pass 0.2062 9 8 88 Pass 0.2082 9 8 88 Pass 0.2101 8 8 100 Pass 0.2120 8 8 100 Pass 0.2140 8 8 100 Pass 0.2159 8 8 100 Pass 0.2178 8 8 100 Pass 0.2198 8 8 100 Pass 0.2217 8 7 87 Pass 0.2236 8 7 87 Pass 0.2256 7 7 100 Pass 0.2275 7 7 100 Pass 0.2294 7 6 85 Pass 0.2314 7 6 85 Pass 0.2333 7 6 85 Pass 0.2353 6 6 100 Pass 0.2372 6 6 100 Pass 0.2391 6 6 100 Pass 0.2411 6 5 83 Pass 0.2430 6 5 83 Pass 0.2449 6 4 66 Pass 0.2469 5 4 80 Pass 0.2488 5 4 80 Pass 0.2507 4 2 50 Pass 0.2527 4 2 50 Pass 0.2546 3 2 66 Pass 0.2565 2 2 100 Pass 0.2585 2 1 50 Pass 0.2604 2 1 50 Pass 0.2624 2 1 50 Pass MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:53 PM Page 15 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:16:53 PM Page 16 LID Report MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:21 PM Page 17 POC 2 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0 Total Impervious Area:0.059 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0 Total Impervious Area:0.059 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.022495 5 year 0.028413 10 year 0.032435 25 year 0.037651 50 year 0.041643 100 year 0.045733 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.022495 5 year 0.028413 10 year 0.032435 25 year 0.037651 50 year 0.041643 100 year 0.045733 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.029 0.029 1950 0.031 0.031 1951 0.018 0.018 1952 0.016 0.016 1953 0.017 0.017 1954 0.018 0.018 1955 0.021 0.021 1956 0.020 0.020 1957 0.023 0.023 1958 0.019 0.019 1959 0.019 0.019 No change in peak flow from alley (amount of impervious stays the same). 25-year peak flow calculated for pipe conveyance check MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 18 1960 0.019 0.019 1961 0.020 0.020 1962 0.017 0.017 1963 0.019 0.019 1964 0.019 0.019 1965 0.024 0.024 1966 0.016 0.016 1967 0.027 0.027 1968 0.031 0.031 1969 0.022 0.022 1970 0.021 0.021 1971 0.025 0.025 1972 0.026 0.026 1973 0.016 0.016 1974 0.023 0.023 1975 0.026 0.026 1976 0.018 0.018 1977 0.019 0.019 1978 0.023 0.023 1979 0.032 0.032 1980 0.029 0.029 1981 0.024 0.024 1982 0.033 0.033 1983 0.027 0.027 1984 0.017 0.017 1985 0.023 0.023 1986 0.020 0.020 1987 0.031 0.031 1988 0.019 0.019 1989 0.024 0.024 1990 0.040 0.040 1991 0.032 0.032 1992 0.017 0.017 1993 0.015 0.015 1994 0.016 0.016 1995 0.021 0.021 1996 0.022 0.022 1997 0.022 0.022 1998 0.022 0.022 1999 0.045 0.045 2000 0.022 0.022 2001 0.024 0.024 2002 0.028 0.028 2003 0.022 0.022 2004 0.042 0.042 2005 0.019 0.019 2006 0.017 0.017 2007 0.039 0.039 2008 0.031 0.031 2009 0.029 0.029 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0447 0.0447 2 0.0418 0.0418 3 0.0401 0.0401 4 0.0391 0.0391 MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 19 5 0.0331 0.0331 6 0.0320 0.0320 7 0.0320 0.0320 8 0.0315 0.0315 9 0.0315 0.0315 10 0.0314 0.0314 11 0.0312 0.0312 12 0.0291 0.0291 13 0.0291 0.0291 14 0.0287 0.0287 15 0.0285 0.0285 16 0.0275 0.0275 17 0.0270 0.0270 18 0.0263 0.0263 19 0.0258 0.0258 20 0.0250 0.0250 21 0.0244 0.0244 22 0.0238 0.0238 23 0.0238 0.0238 24 0.0235 0.0235 25 0.0235 0.0235 26 0.0234 0.0234 27 0.0232 0.0232 28 0.0228 0.0228 29 0.0222 0.0222 30 0.0222 0.0222 31 0.0221 0.0221 32 0.0218 0.0218 33 0.0217 0.0217 34 0.0215 0.0215 35 0.0210 0.0210 36 0.0208 0.0208 37 0.0207 0.0207 38 0.0204 0.0204 39 0.0203 0.0203 40 0.0198 0.0198 41 0.0191 0.0191 42 0.0191 0.0191 43 0.0191 0.0191 44 0.0191 0.0191 45 0.0190 0.0190 46 0.0188 0.0188 47 0.0187 0.0187 48 0.0187 0.0187 49 0.0183 0.0183 50 0.0182 0.0182 51 0.0177 0.0177 52 0.0175 0.0175 53 0.0172 0.0172 54 0.0170 0.0170 55 0.0169 0.0169 56 0.0169 0.0169 57 0.0162 0.0162 58 0.0159 0.0159 59 0.0159 0.0159 60 0.0156 0.0156 61 0.0146 0.0146 MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 20 MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 21 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0112 1806 1806 100 Pass 0.0116 1637 1637 100 Pass 0.0119 1473 1473 100 Pass 0.0122 1346 1346 100 Pass 0.0125 1228 1228 100 Pass 0.0128 1102 1102 100 Pass 0.0131 1005 1005 100 Pass 0.0134 922 922 100 Pass 0.0137 853 853 100 Pass 0.0140 789 789 100 Pass 0.0143 726 726 100 Pass 0.0146 665 665 100 Pass 0.0149 610 610 100 Pass 0.0152 572 572 100 Pass 0.0155 533 533 100 Pass 0.0159 488 488 100 Pass 0.0162 451 451 100 Pass 0.0165 420 420 100 Pass 0.0168 389 389 100 Pass 0.0171 364 364 100 Pass 0.0174 339 339 100 Pass 0.0177 316 316 100 Pass 0.0180 295 295 100 Pass 0.0183 272 272 100 Pass 0.0186 256 256 100 Pass 0.0189 238 238 100 Pass 0.0192 221 221 100 Pass 0.0195 207 207 100 Pass 0.0198 193 193 100 Pass 0.0202 181 181 100 Pass 0.0205 171 171 100 Pass 0.0208 161 161 100 Pass 0.0211 148 148 100 Pass 0.0214 139 139 100 Pass 0.0217 135 135 100 Pass 0.0220 122 122 100 Pass 0.0223 113 113 100 Pass 0.0226 108 108 100 Pass 0.0229 105 105 100 Pass 0.0232 100 100 100 Pass 0.0235 92 92 100 Pass 0.0238 87 87 100 Pass 0.0241 84 84 100 Pass 0.0244 73 73 100 Pass 0.0248 71 71 100 Pass 0.0251 65 65 100 Pass 0.0254 63 63 100 Pass 0.0257 62 62 100 Pass 0.0260 58 58 100 Pass 0.0263 54 54 100 Pass 0.0266 54 54 100 Pass 0.0269 52 52 100 Pass 0.0272 50 50 100 Pass MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 22 0.0275 46 46 100 Pass 0.0278 45 45 100 Pass 0.0281 40 40 100 Pass 0.0284 38 38 100 Pass 0.0287 33 33 100 Pass 0.0291 32 32 100 Pass 0.0294 29 29 100 Pass 0.0297 28 28 100 Pass 0.0300 25 25 100 Pass 0.0303 22 22 100 Pass 0.0306 21 21 100 Pass 0.0309 20 20 100 Pass 0.0312 17 17 100 Pass 0.0315 13 13 100 Pass 0.0318 12 12 100 Pass 0.0321 9 9 100 Pass 0.0324 9 9 100 Pass 0.0327 9 9 100 Pass 0.0330 9 9 100 Pass 0.0334 8 8 100 Pass 0.0337 8 8 100 Pass 0.0340 8 8 100 Pass 0.0343 8 8 100 Pass 0.0346 8 8 100 Pass 0.0349 8 8 100 Pass 0.0352 8 8 100 Pass 0.0355 7 7 100 Pass 0.0358 7 7 100 Pass 0.0361 7 7 100 Pass 0.0364 7 7 100 Pass 0.0367 7 7 100 Pass 0.0370 7 7 100 Pass 0.0373 6 6 100 Pass 0.0377 6 6 100 Pass 0.0380 6 6 100 Pass 0.0383 6 6 100 Pass 0.0386 6 6 100 Pass 0.0389 6 6 100 Pass 0.0392 5 5 100 Pass 0.0395 5 5 100 Pass 0.0398 4 4 100 Pass 0.0401 3 3 100 Pass 0.0404 3 3 100 Pass 0.0407 2 2 100 Pass 0.0410 2 2 100 Pass 0.0413 2 2 100 Pass 0.0416 2 2 100 Pass MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 23 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #2 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 24 LID Report MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 25 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 26 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:50 PM Page 27 Mitigated Schematic MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 28 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 MG Renton.wdm MESSU 25 PreMG Renton.MES 27 PreMG Renton.L61 28 PreMG Renton.L62 30 POCMG Renton1.dat 31 POCMG Renton2.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 IMPLND 1 IMPLND 4 COPY 501 COPY 502 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 2 Basin 2 MAX 1 2 31 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 502 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 29 PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 4 ROOF TOPS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 30 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 4 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 4 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 4 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 16 0.006 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 0.006 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.101 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 4 0.269 COPY 501 15 Basin 2*** IMPLND 1 0.059 COPY 502 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 31 FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 502 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 32 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 MG Renton.wdm MESSU 25 MitMG Renton.MES 27 MitMG Renton.L61 28 MitMG Renton.L62 30 POCMG Renton1.dat 31 POCMG Renton2.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 IMPLND 1 IMPLND 4 IMPLND 8 COPY 501 COPY 502 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 2 Basin 2 (Alley MAX 1 2 31 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 502 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 33 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 4 ROOF TOPS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 8 SIDEWALKS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 34 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 4 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 8 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 16 0.018 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 0.018 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.011 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 4 0.334 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 8 0.013 COPY 501 15 Basin 2 (Alley*** IMPLND 1 0.059 COPY 502 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 35 PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 2 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 702 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 802 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 36 Predeveloped HSPF Message File MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 37 Mitigated HSPF Message File MG Renton 11/30/2017 12:17:51 PM Page 38 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2017; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 20 Appendix D- Historical Aerial Photos Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 21 Appendix E- Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan & Inspection Logs CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-E-1 REFERENCE 8-E CSWPP WORKSHEET FORMS E S C M A I N T E N A N C E R E P O R T Performed By:___________________________ Date:___________________________ Project Name:___________________________ CED Permit #:___________________________ Clearing Limits Damage OK Problem Visible OK Problem Intrusions OK Problem Other OK Problem Mulch Rills/Gullies OK Problem Thickness OK Problem Other OK Problem Nets/Blankets Rills/Gullies OK Problem Ground Contact OK Problem Other OK Problem Plastic Tears/Gaps OK Problem Other OK Problem Seeding Percent Cover OK Problem Rills/Gullies OK Problem Mulch OK Problem Other OK Problem Sodding Grass Health OK Problem Rills/Gullies OK Problem Other OK Problem Perimeter Protection including Silt Fence Damage OK Problem Sediment Build-up OK Problem Concentrated Flow OK Problem Other OK Problem REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual Ref 8-E-2 Flow Control, Treatment, and On-site BMP/Facility Protection Damage OK Problem Sedimentation OK Problem Concentrated Flow OK Problem Rills/Gullies OK Problem Intrusions OK Problem Other OK Problem Brush Barrier Damage OK Problem Sediment Build-up OK Problem Concentrated Flow OK Problem Other OK Problem Vegetated Strip Damage OK Problem Sediment Build-up OK Problem Concentrated Flow OK Problem Other OK Problem Construction Entrance Dimensions OK Problem Sediment Tracking OK Problem Vehicle Avoidance OK Problem Other OK Problem Wheel Wash Dimensions OK Problem Sed build up or tracking OK Problem Other OK Problem Construction Road Stable Driving Surf. OK Problem Vehicle Avoidance OK Problem Other OK Problem Sediment Trap/Pond Sed. Accumulation OK Problem Overtopping OK Problem Inlet/Outlet Erosion OK Problem Other OK Problem Catch Basin/Inlet Protection Sed. Accumulation OK Problem Damage OK Problem Clogged Filter OK Problem Other OK Problem Interceptor Dike/Swale Damage OK Problem Sed. Accumulation OK Problem Overtopping OK Problem Other OK Problem REFERENCE 8-E: CSWPP WORKSHEET FORMS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-E-3 Pipe Slope Drain Damage OK Problem Inlet/Outlet OK Problem Secure Fittings OK Problem Other OK Problem Ditches Damage OK Problem Sed. Accumulation OK Problem Overtopping OK Problem Other OK Problem Outlet Protection Scour OK Problem Other OK Problem Level Spreader Damage OK Problem Concentrated Flow OK Problem Rills/Gullies OK Problem Sed. Accumulation OK Problem Other OK Problem Dewatering Controls Sediment OK Problem Dust Control Palliative applied OK Problem Miscellaneous Wet Season Stockpile OK Problem Other OK Problem Comments: Actions Taken: Problems Unresolved: REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual Ref 8-E-4 BMP Implementation Completed by: Title: Date: Develop a plan for implementing each BMP. Describe the steps necessary to implement the BMP (i.e., any construction or design), the schedule for completing those steps (list dates), and the person(s) responsible for implementation. BMPs Description of Action(s) Required for Implementation Scheduled Milestone and Completion Date(s) Person Responsible for Action Good Housekeeping 1. 2. 3 Preventive Maintenance 1. 2. 3. 4. Spill Prevention and Emergency Cleanup 1. 2. 3. Inspections 1. 2. 3. REFERENCE 8-E: CSWPP WORKSHEET FORMS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-E-5 BMPs Description of Action(s) Required for Implementation Schedule Milestone and Completion Date(s) Person Responsible for Action Source Control BMPs 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Water Quality Facilities 1. 2. 3. 4. Flow Control Facilities 1. 2. 3. 4. On-Site BMPs 1. 2. 3. 4. REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual Ref 8-E-6 Pollution Prevention Team Completed by: ______________________ Title: ______________________________ Date: ______________________________ Responsible Official: Title: Team Leader: Office Phone: Cell Phone: Responsibilities: (1) Title: Office Phone: Cell Phone: Responsibilities: (2) Title: Office Phone: Cell Phone: Responsibilities: REFERENCE 8-E: CSWPP WORKSHEET FORMS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-E-7 Employee Training Completed by: Title: Date: Describe the annual training of employees on the SWPPP, addressing spill response, good housekeeping, and material management practices. Training Topics 1.) LINE WORKERS Brief Description of Training Program/Materials (e.g., film, newsletter course) Schedule for Training (list dates) Attendees Spill Prevention and Response Good Housekeeping Material Management Practices 2.) P2 TEAM: SWPPP Implementation Monitoring Procedures REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEETS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual Ref 8-E-8 List of Significant Spills and Leaks Completed by: Title: Date: List all spills and leaks of toxic or hazardous pollutants that were significant but are not limited to, release of oil or hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities. Although not required, we suggest you list spills and leaks of non-hazardous materials. Date (month/ day/ year) Location (as indicated on site map) Description Response Procedure Preventive Measure Taken Type of Material Quantity Source, If Known Reason for Spill/Leak Amount of Material Recovered Material no longer exposed to stormwater (Yes/No) REFERENCE 8-E: CSWPP WORKSHEET FORMS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-E-9 Potential Pollutant Source Identification Completed by: Title: Date: List all potential stormwater pollutants from materials handled, treated, or stored onsite. Potential Stormwater Pollutant Stormwater Pollutant Source Likelihood of pollutant being present in your stormwater discharge. If yes, explain REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEETS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual Ref 8-E-10 Material Inventory Completed by: Title: Date: List materials handled, treated, stored, or disposed of at the project site that may potentially be exposed to precipitation or runoff. Material Purpose/Location Quantity (Units) Likelihood of contact with stormwater If Yes, describe reason: Past Spill or Leak Used Produced Stored (indicate per wk. or yr.) Yes No Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 22 Appendix F- Bond Quantity Worksheet Planning Division |1055 South Grady Way – 6 th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200 Date Prepared: Name: PE Registration No: Firm Name: Firm Address: Phone No. Email Address: Project Name: Project Owner: CED Plan # (LUA): Phone: CED Permit # (U):Address: Site Address: Street Intersection: Addt'l Project Owner: Parcel #(s): Phone: Address: Clearing and grading greater than or equal to 5,000 board feet of timber? Yes/No:NO Water Service Provided by: If Yes, Provide Forest Practice Permit #:Sewer Service Provided by: AddressAbbreviated Legal Description: See survey City, State, Zip 104 Burnett Ave S, Renton, WA 98057 1938 Fairview Ave E #300 Additional Project OwnerWilliams Ave S btwn S Tobin St and S 2nd St C18002264 (206) 919-7009 9/18/2018 Prepared by: FOR APPROVALProject Phase 1 tim@dcgengr.com Tim Gabelein 47652 Davido Consulting Group 9706 4th Ave NE, Suite 300, Seattle WA 98115 (206) 523-0024 SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET PROJECT INFORMATION CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 1 Select the current project status/phase from the following options: For Approval - Preliminary Data Enclosed, pending approval from the City; For Construction - Estimated Data Enclosed, Plans have been approved for contruction by the City; Project Closeout - Final Costs and Quantities Enclosed for Project Close-out Submittal Phone Engineer Stamp Required (all cost estimates must have original wet stamp and signature) Clearing and Grading Utility Providers N/A Project Location and Description Project Owner Information Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion Seattle, WA 98102 7231502030 & 7231502120 Merrill Gardens c/o Teutsch Partners 17-000827 Page 2 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION I PROJECT INFORMATION Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Unit Reference #Price Unit Quantity Cost Backfill & compaction-embankment ESC-1 6.50$ CY Check dams, 4" minus rock ESC-2 SWDM 5.4.6.3 80.00$ Each Catch Basin Protection ESC-3 35.50$ Each 12 426.00 Crushed surfacing 1 1/4" minus ESC-4 WSDOT 9-03.9(3)95.00$ CY Ditching ESC-5 9.00$ CY Excavation-bulk ESC-6 2.00$ CY Fence, silt ESC-7 SWDM 5.4.3.1 1.50$ LF 415 622.50 Fence, Temporary (NGPE)ESC-8 1.50$ LF Geotextile Fabric ESC-9 2.50$ SY Hay Bale Silt Trap ESC-10 0.50$ Each Hydroseeding ESC-11 SWDM 5.4.2.4 0.80$ SY Interceptor Swale / Dike ESC-12 1.00$ LF Jute Mesh ESC-13 SWDM 5.4.2.2 3.50$ SY Level Spreader ESC-14 1.75$ LF Mulch, by hand, straw, 3" deep ESC-15 SWDM 5.4.2.1 2.50$ SY Mulch, by machine, straw, 2" deep ESC-16 SWDM 5.4.2.1 2.00$ SY Piping, temporary, CPP, 6"ESC-17 12.00$ LF Piping, temporary, CPP, 8"ESC-18 14.00$ LF Piping, temporary, CPP, 12"ESC-19 18.00$ LF Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandbagged ESC-20 SWDM 5.4.2.3 4.00$ SY 20 80.00 Rip Rap, machine placed; slopes ESC-21 WSDOT 9-13.1(2)45.00$ CY Rock Construction Entrance, 50'x15'x1'ESC-22 SWDM 5.4.4.1 1,800.00$ Each 1 1,800.00 Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1'ESC-23 SWDM 5.4.4.1 3,200.00$ Each Sediment pond riser assembly ESC-24 SWDM 5.4.5.2 2,200.00$ Each Sediment trap, 5' high berm ESC-25 SWDM 5.4.5.1 19.00$ LF Sed. trap, 5' high, riprapped spillway berm section ESC-26 SWDM 5.4.5.1 70.00$ LF Seeding, by hand ESC-27 SWDM 5.4.2.4 1.00$ SY Sodding, 1" deep, level ground ESC-28 SWDM 5.4.2.5 8.00$ SY Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground ESC-29 SWDM 5.4.2.5 10.00$ SY TESC Supervisor ESC-30 110.00$ HR 20 2,200.00 Water truck, dust control ESC-31 SWDM 5.4.7 140.00$ HR 8 1,120.00 Unit Reference #Price Unit Quantity Cost NGPE Fence 1.50$ LF 335 502.50 EROSION/SEDIMENT SUBTOTAL:6,751.00 SALES TAX @ 10%675.10 EROSION/SEDIMENT TOTAL:7,426.10 (A) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL Description No. (A) Temporary Chain Link Fence WRITE-IN-ITEMS Page 3 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.a EROSION_CONTROL Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost GENERAL ITEMS Backfill & Compaction- embankment GI-1 6.00$ CY Backfill & Compaction- trench GI-2 9.00$ CY 70 630.00 170 1,530.00 Clear/Remove Brush, by hand (SY)GI-3 1.00$ SY Bollards - fixed GI-4 240.74$ Each Bollards - removable GI-5 452.34$ Each Clearing/Grubbing/Tree Removal GI-6 10,000.00$ Acre Excavation - bulk GI-7 2.00$ CY Excavation - Trench GI-8 5.00$ CY 70 350.00 170 850.00 Fencing, cedar, 6' high GI-9 20.00$ LF Fencing, chain link, 4'GI-10 38.31$ LF Fencing, chain link, vinyl coated, 6' high GI-11 20.00$ LF Fencing, chain link, gate, vinyl coated, 20' GI-12 1,400.00$ Each Fill & compact - common barrow GI-13 25.00$ CY Fill & compact - gravel base GI-14 27.00$ CY Fill & compact - screened topsoil GI-15 39.00$ CY Gabion, 12" deep, stone filled mesh GI-16 65.00$ SY Gabion, 18" deep, stone filled mesh GI-17 90.00$ SY Gabion, 36" deep, stone filled mesh GI-18 150.00$ SY Grading, fine, by hand GI-19 2.50$ SY Grading, fine, with grader GI-20 2.00$ SY Monuments, 3' Long GI-21 250.00$ Each Sensitive Areas Sign GI-22 7.00$ Each Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground GI-23 8.00$ SY 18 144.00 78 624.00 Surveying, line & grade GI-24 850.00$ Day 1 850.00 1 850.00 Surveying, lot location/lines GI-25 1,800.00$ Acre Topsoil Type A (imported)GI-26 28.50$ CY 6 171.00 26 741.00 Traffic control crew ( 2 flaggers )GI-27 120.00$ HR 20 2,400.00 Trail, 4" chipped wood GI-28 8.00$ SY Trail, 4" crushed cinder GI-29 9.00$ SY Trail, 4" top course GI-30 12.00$ SY Conduit, 2"GI-31 5.00$ LF 100 500.00 Wall, retaining, concrete GI-32 55.00$ SF Wall, rockery GI-33 15.00$ SF 134 2,010.00 SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:5,045.00 6,605.00 (B)(C)(D)(E) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) Page 4 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.b TRANSPORTATION Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) ROAD IMPROVEMENT/PAVEMENT/SURFACING AC Grinding, 4' wide machine < 1000sy RI-1 30.00$ SY 560 16,800.00 AC Grinding, 4' wide machine 1000-2000sy RI-2 16.00$ SY AC Grinding, 4' wide machine > 2000sy RI-3 10.00$ SY AC Removal/Disposal RI-4 35.00$ SY 435 15,225.00 Barricade, Type III ( Permanent )RI-5 56.00$ LF Guard Rail RI-6 30.00$ LF Curb & Gutter, rolled RI-7 17.00$ LF Curb & Gutter, vertical RI-8 12.50$ LF 220 2,750.00 Curb and Gutter, demolition and disposal RI-9 18.00$ LF 150 2,700.00 Curb, extruded asphalt RI-10 5.50$ LF Curb, extruded concrete RI-11 7.00$ LF Sawcut, asphalt, 3" depth RI-12 1.85$ LF 500 925.00 Sawcut, concrete, per 1" depth RI-13 3.00$ LF Sealant, asphalt RI-14 2.00$ LF 500 1,000.00 Shoulder, gravel, 4" thick RI-15 15.00$ SY Sidewalk, 4" thick RI-16 38.00$ SY 173 6,574.00 Sidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and disposal RI-17 32.00$ SY 173 5,536.00 Sidewalk, 5" thick RI-18 41.00$ SY Sidewalk, 5" thick, demolition and disposal RI-19 40.00$ SY Sign, Handicap RI-20 85.00$ Each Striping, per stall RI-21 7.00$ Each Striping, thermoplastic, ( for crosswalk )RI-22 3.00$ SF Striping, 4" reflectorized line RI-23 0.50$ LF Additional 2.5" Crushed Surfacing RI-24 3.60$ SY HMA 1/2" Overlay 1.5" RI-25 14.00$ SY HMA 1/2" Overlay 2"RI-26 18.00$ SY 560 10,080.00 HMA Road, 2", 4" rock, First 2500 SY RI-27 28.00$ SY HMA Road, 2", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500SY RI-28 21.00$ SY HMA Road, 4", 6" rock, First 2500 SY RI-29 45.00$ SY HMA Road, 4", 6" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY RI-30 37.00$ SY HMA Road, 4", 4.5" ATB RI-31 38.00$ SY Gravel Road, 4" rock, First 2500 SY RI-32 15.00$ SY Gravel Road, 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY RI-33 10.00$ SY Thickened Edge RI-34 8.60$ LF SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:46,365.00 15,225.00 (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 5 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.b TRANSPORTATION Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) PARKING LOT SURFACING No. 2" AC, 2" top course rock & 4" borrow PL-1 21.00$ SY 2" AC, 1.5" top course & 2.5" base course PL-2 28.00$ SY 4" select borrow PL-3 5.00$ SY 1.5" top course rock & 2.5" base course PL-4 14.00$ SY SUBTOTAL PARKING LOT SURFACING: (B)(C)(D)(E) LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION No. Street Trees LA-1 $350.00 EA 4 1,400.00 Median Landscaping LA-2 Right-of-Way Landscaping LA-3 20.00$ SF 156 3,120.00 Wetland Landscaping LA-4 SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION:4,520.00 (B)(C)(D)(E) TRAFFIC & LIGHTING No. Signs TR-1 Street Light System ( # of Poles)TR-2 7,550.00$ EA 2 15,100.00 Traffic Signal TR-3 Traffic Signal Modification TR-4 SUBTOTAL TRAFFIC & LIGHTING:15,100.00 (B)(C)(D)(E) WRITE-IN-ITEMS Street light system = pole + foundation+ handhole, 2017 APWA unit prices SUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS: STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL:71,030.00 21,830.00 SALES TAX @ 10%7,103.00 2,183.00 STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL:78,133.00 24,013.00 (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 6 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.b TRANSPORTATION Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost DRAINAGE (CPE = Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, Average of 4' cover was assumed. Assume perforated PVC is same price as solid pipe.) Access Road, R/D D-1 26.00$ SY * (CBs include frame and lid) Beehive D-2 90.00$ Each Through-curb Inlet Framework D-3 400.00$ Each CB Type I D-4 1,500.00$ Each 3 4,500.00 1 1,500.00 CB Type IL D-5 1,750.00$ Each CB Type II, 48" diameter D-6 2,300.00$ Each for additional depth over 4' D-7 480.00$ FT CB Type II, 54" diameter D-8 2,500.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-9 495.00$ FT CB Type II, 60" diameter D-10 2,800.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-11 600.00$ FT CB Type II, 72" diameter D-12 6,000.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-13 850.00$ FT CB Type II, 96" diameter D-14 14,000.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-15 925.00$ FT Trash Rack, 12"D-16 350.00$ Each Trash Rack, 15"D-17 410.00$ Each Trash Rack, 18"D-18 480.00$ Each Trash Rack, 21"D-19 550.00$ Each Cleanout, PVC, 4"D-20 150.00$ Each Cleanout, PVC, 6"D-21 170.00$ Each Cleanout, PVC, 8"D-22 200.00$ Each 1 200.00 Culvert, PVC, 4" D-23 10.00$ LF 470 4,700.00 Culvert, PVC, 6" D-24 13.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 8" D-25 15.00$ LF 93 1,395.00 Culvert, PVC, 12" D-26 23.00$ LF 120 2,760.00 46 1,058.00 Culvert, PVC, 15" D-27 35.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 18" D-28 41.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 24"D-29 56.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 30" D-30 78.00$ LF Culvert, PVC, 36" D-31 130.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 8"D-32 19.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 12"D-33 29.00$ LF SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:7,260.00 8,853.00 (B)(C)(D)(E) Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES Page 7 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES DRAINAGE (Continued) Culvert, CMP, 15"D-34 35.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 18"D-35 41.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 24"D-36 56.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 30"D-37 78.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 36"D-38 130.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 48"D-39 190.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 60"D-40 270.00$ LF Culvert, CMP, 72"D-41 350.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 8"D-42 42.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 12"D-43 48.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 15"D-44 78.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 18"D-45 48.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 24"D-46 78.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 30"D-47 125.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 36"D-48 150.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 42"D-49 175.00$ LF Culvert, Concrete, 48"D-50 205.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 6" D-51 14.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 8" D-52 16.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 12" D-53 24.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 15" D-54 35.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 18" D-55 41.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 24" D-56 56.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 30" D-57 78.00$ LF Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 36" D-58 130.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 6"D-59 60.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 8"D-60 72.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 12"D-61 84.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 15"D-62 96.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 18"D-63 108.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 24"D-64 120.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 30"D-65 132.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 36"D-66 144.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 48"D-67 156.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 54"D-68 168.00$ LF SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE: (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 8 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES DRAINAGE (Continued) Culvert, LCPE, 60"D-69 180.00$ LF Culvert, LCPE, 72"D-70 192.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 6"D-71 42.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 8"D-72 42.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 12"D-73 74.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 15"D-74 106.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 18"D-75 138.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 24"D-76 221.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 30"D-77 276.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 36"D-78 331.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 48"D-79 386.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 54"D-80 441.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 60"D-81 496.00$ LF Culvert, HDPE, 72"D-82 551.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 6"D-83 84.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 8"D-84 89.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 12"D-85 95.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 15"D-86 100.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 18"D-87 106.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 24"D-88 111.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 30"D-89 119.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 36"D-90 154.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 48"D-91 226.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 54"D-92 332.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 60"D-93 439.00$ LF Pipe, Polypropylene, 72"D-94 545.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 6"D-95 61.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 8"D-96 84.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 12"D-97 106.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 15"D-98 129.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 18"D-99 152.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 24"D-100 175.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 30"D-101 198.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 36"D-102 220.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 48"D-103 243.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 54"D-104 266.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 60"D-105 289.00$ LF Culvert, DI, 72"D-106 311.00$ LF SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE: (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 9 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES Specialty Drainage Items Ditching SD-1 9.50$ CY Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+)SD-3 28.00$ LF French Drain (3' depth)SD-4 26.00$ LF Geotextile, laid in trench, polypropylene SD-5 3.00$ SY Mid-tank Access Riser, 48" dia, 6' deep SD-6 2,000.00$ Each Pond Overflow Spillway SD-7 16.00$ SY Restrictor/Oil Separator, 12"SD-8 1,150.00$ Each Restrictor/Oil Separator, 15"SD-9 1,350.00$ Each Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18"SD-10 1,700.00$ Each Riprap, placed SD-11 42.00$ CY Tank End Reducer (36" diameter)SD-12 1,200.00$ Each Infiltration pond testing SD-13 125.00$ HR Permeable Pavement SD-14 Permeable Concrete Sidewalk SD-15 Culvert, Box __ ft x __ ft SD-16 SUBTOTAL SPECIALTY DRAINAGE ITEMS: (B)(C)(D)(E)STORMWATER FACILITIES (Include Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch) Detention Pond SF-1 Each Detention Tank SF-2 Each Detention Vault SF-3 Each Infiltration Pond SF-4 Each Infiltration Tank SF-5 Each Infiltration Vault SF-6 Each Infiltration Trenches SF-7 Each Basic Biofiltration Swale SF-8 Each Wet Biofiltration Swale SF-9 Each Wetpond SF-10 Each Wetvault SF-11 Each Sand Filter SF-12 Each Sand Filter Vault SF-13 Each Linear Sand Filter SF-14 Each Proprietary Facility SF-15 Each Bioretention Facility SF-16 Each SUBTOTAL STORMWATER FACILITIES: (B)(C)(D)(E) Page 10 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES WRITE-IN-ITEMS (INCLUDE ON-SITE BMPs) WI-1 WI-2 WI-3 WI-4 WI-5 WI-6 WI-7 WI-8 WI-9 WI-10 WI-11 WI-12 WI-13 WI-14 WI-15 SUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS: DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES SUBTOTAL:7,260.00 8,853.00 SALES TAX @ 10%726.00 885.30 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES TOTAL:7,986.00 9,738.30 (B) (C) (D) (E) Page 11 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Connection to Existing Watermain W-1 2,000.00$ Each 3 6,000.00 Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 4 Inch Diameter W-2 50.00$ LF Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 6 Inch Diameter W-3 56.00$ LF Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 8 Inch Diameter W-4 60.00$ LF Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 10 Inch Diameter W-5 70.00$ LF Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 12 Inch Diameter W-6 80.00$ LF Gate Valve, 4 inch Diameter W-7 500.00$ Each Gate Valve, 6 inch Diameter W-8 700.00$ Each 1 700.00 1 700.00 Gate Valve, 8 Inch Diameter W-9 800.00$ Each 2 1,600.00 Gate Valve, 10 Inch Diameter W-10 1,000.00$ Each Gate Valve, 12 Inch Diameter W-11 1,200.00$ Each Fire Hydrant Assembly W-12 4,000.00$ Each 1 4,000.00 Permanent Blow-Off Assembly W-13 1,800.00$ Each Air-Vac Assembly, 2-Inch Diameter W-14 2,000.00$ Each Air-Vac Assembly, 1-Inch Diameter W-15 1,500.00$ Each Compound Meter Assembly 3-inch Diameter W-16 8,000.00$ Each 1 8,000.00 Compound Meter Assembly 4-inch Diameter W-17 9,000.00$ Each Compound Meter Assembly 6-inch Diameter W-18 10,000.00$ Each Pressure Reducing Valve Station 8-inch to 10-inch W-19 20,000.00$ Each WATER SUBTOTAL:4,700.00 16,300.00 SALES TAX @ 10%470.00 1,630.00 WATER TOTAL:5,170.00 17,930.00 (B) (C) (D) (E) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR WATER Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) Page 12 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.d WATER Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 CED Permit #:C18002264 Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements (D) (E) Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Clean Outs SS-1 1,000.00$ Each 2 2,000.00 Grease Interceptor, 500 gallon SS-2 8,000.00$ Each Grease Interceptor, 1000 gallon SS-3 10,000.00$ Each Grease Interceptor, 1500 gallon SS-4 15,000.00$ Each Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 4 Inch Diameter SS-5 80.00$ LF Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 6 Inch Diameter SS-6 95.00$ LF 24 2,280.00 Sewer Pipe, PVC, 8 inch Diameter SS-7 105.00$ LF Sewer Pipe, PVC, 12 Inch Diameter SS-8 120.00$ LF Sewer Pipe, DI, 8 inch Diameter SS-9 115.00$ LF Sewer Pipe, DI, 12 Inch Diameter SS-10 130.00$ LF Manhole, 48 Inch Diameter SS-11 6,000.00$ Each Manhole, 54 Inch Diameter SS-13 6,500.00$ Each Manhole, 60 Inch Diameter SS-15 7,500.00$ Each Manhole, 72 Inch Diameter SS-17 8,500.00$ Each Manhole, 96 Inch Diameter SS-19 14,000.00$ Each Pipe, C-900, 12 Inch Diameter SS-21 180.00$ LF Outside Drop SS-24 1,500.00$ LS Inside Drop SS-25 1,000.00$ LS Sewer Pipe, PVC, ____ Inch Diameter SS-26 Lift Station (Entire System)SS-27 LS SANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL:4,280.00 SALES TAX @ 10%428.00 SANITARY SEWER TOTAL:4,708.00 (B) (C) (D) (E) SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET FOR SANITARY SEWER Quantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C) Page 13 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.e SANITARY SEWER Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 Planning Division |1055 South Grady Way – 6 th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200 Date: Name: Project Name: PE Registration No: CED Plan # (LUA): Firm Name:CED Permit # (U): Firm Address: Site Address: Phone No. Parcel #(s): Email Address:Project Phase: Site Restoration/Erosion Sediment Control Subtotal (a) Existing Right-of-Way Improvements Subtotal (b) (b)83,303.00$ Future Public Improvements Subtotal (c)-$ Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Public & Private) Subtotal (d) (d)17,724.30$ (e) (f) Site Restoration Civil Construction Permit Maintenance Bond 20,205.46$ Bond Reduction 2 Construction Permit Bond Amount 3 Minimum Bond Amount is $10,000.00 1 Estimate Only - May involve multiple and variable components, which will be established on an individual basis by Development Engineering. 2 The City of Renton allows one request only for bond reduction prior to the maintenance period. Reduction of not more than 70% of the original bond amount, provided that the remaining 30% will cover all remaining items to be constructed. 3 Required Bond Amounts are subject to review and modification by Development Engineering. * Note: The word BOND as used in this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to the City of Renton. ** Note: All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead and profit. EST1 ((b) + (c) + (d)) x 20% -$ MAINTENANCE BOND */** (after final acceptance of construction) 7,426.10$ 83,303.00$ 142,678.80$ 7,426.10$ -$ 17,724.30$ -$ 150,104.90$ P (a) x 100% SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET BOND CALCULATIONS 9/18/2018 Tim Gabelein 47652 Davido Consulting Group R ((b x 150%) + (d x 100%)) S (e) x 150% + (f) x 100% Bond Reduction: Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (Quantity Remaining)2 Bond Reduction: Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Quantity Remaining)2 T (P +R - S) Prepared by: Project Information CONSTRUCTION BOND AMOUNT */** (prior to permit issuance) (206) 523-0024 tim@dcgengr.com Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 17-000827 104 Burnett Ave S, Renton, WA 98057 7231502030 & 7231502120 FOR APPROVAL C18002264 9706 4th Ave NE, Suite 300, Seattle WA 98115 Page 14 of 14 Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION III. BOND WORKSHEET Unit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016 Version: 04/26/2017 Printed 9/18/2018 Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion 104 Burnett Ave S Renton 23 Appendix G- Operations & Maintenance Manual Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion Storm Drainage Operation and Maintenance Manual Agreement Project name: Merrill Gardens Renton Expansion Address: 104 Burnett Ave S, Renton, WA 98057 Party responsible for maintenance and operation of the system: Merrill Gardens 1938 Fairview Ave E, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98102 Operations and Maintenance Standard: This property is required to maintain stormwater facilities in accordance with the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. Operations and Maintenance Manual Agreement: A copy of this document shall be retained onsite or within reasonable access to the site, and shall be transferred with the property to the new owner. The manual and log sheets must be available for inspection by the City of Renton upon request. Engineer’s Description of Storm Drainage Facilities: The drainage system for this property is relatively simple. There are no flow control or water quality systems. Runoff from the roof is collected by downspouts and routed internally through the building (see plumbing as-built plans). All stormwater from the site discharges to a 12” storm drain pipe approximately 16’ south of the alley, which connects to a Type 1 catch basin on the existing 8” public storm main in Williams Ave S. The building also has a perimeter foundation drain system. Drainage collected is conveyed to a catch basin between the building and Williams Ave ROW, which discharges to the 12” site stormwater discharge line. Maintenance Activity Log: See next page APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-10 NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Structure Sediment accumulation Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Sump of catch basin contains no sediment. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than ½ cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin by more than 10%. No Trash or debris blocking or potentially blocking entrance to catch basin. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). No dead animals or vegetation present within catch basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame and/or top slab Corner of frame extends more than ¾ inch past curb face into the street (If applicable). Frame is even with curb. Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than ¼ inch. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than ¾ inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Cracks in walls or bottom Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Catch basin is sealed and is structurally sound. Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. Settlement/ misalignment Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). No trash or debris in pipes. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-11 NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Inlet/Outlet Pipe (cont.) Damaged inlet/outlet pipe Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. Metal Grates (Catch Basins) Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate free of trash and debris. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing grate Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Cover/lid protects opening to structure. Locking mechanism not working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover/lid difficult to remove One maintenance person cannot remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-12 NO. 6 – CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Pipes Sediment & debris accumulation Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Water flows freely through pipes. Vegetation/root growth in pipe Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of water through pipes. Water flows freely through pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective coating or corrosion Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Damaged pipes Any dent that decreases the cross section area of pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of ditch and slopes. Trash and debris cleared from ditches. Sediment accumulation Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to City personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where City personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Excessive vegetation growth Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. Water flows freely through ditches. Erosion damage to slopes Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. Rock lining out of place or missing (If applicable) One layer or less of rock exists above native soil area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native soil. Replace rocks to design standards. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-44 NO. 36 – VEGETATED ROOF BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Preventive Vegetation Vegetation to be watered and pruned as needed to maintain healthy growth. Healthy vegetation growth with full coverage as designed. Site Trash and debris Trash and debris has accumulated on the vegetated roof. Vegetated roof free of any trash or debris. Waterproof Membrane Leaking waterproof membrane Waterproof membrane breached. Waterproof membrane has no tears or holes allowing water through it. Drainage Layer Drainage pathway plugged/obstructed Drainage layer flow plugged or obstructed. Drainage layer passing water with no obstruction. Drainage Overflow obstructed Drainage of overflow is obstructed. Overflow has no obstruction. Growth Media Compaction Soil in the growth media area compacted. No part of the growth media is compacted. Erosion Growth media washed out. Growth media is not being washed away. Insufficient nutrients Plants are not thriving. Growth media has proper nutrients to support plant growth. Vegetation Insufficient vegetation Vegetation species not succulents, grass, herbs, and/or wildflowers adapted to harsh conditions. Correct species of vegetation is used. Poor vegetation coverage Healthy vegetation covers less than 90% of vegetation area. Healthy vegetation covers more than 90% of vegetation area. Undesirable vegetation Weeds and other undesirable plants are invading more than 10% of vegetated area. No undesirable vegetation occurs in the vegetated area. No herbicides or pesticides used to control undesirable vegetation. Poor vegetation growth Special vegetation not thriving. Special vegetation is kept healthy and inspected on frequent schedule. Border Zone Access restricted Border zone limited by vegetation overgrowth or other means. Border zone is kept open so vegetated area is accessible. Gravel Stop Overflow uncontained Gravel stop does not contain overflow or divert it to a designed outlet. Overflow water is only exits from the designed outlet. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-47 NO. 38 – SOIL AMENDMENT BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Soil Media Unhealthy vegetation Vegetation not fully covering ground surface or vegetation health is poor. Yellowing: possible Nitrogen (N) deficiency. Poor growth: possible Phosphorous (P) deficiency. Poor flowering, spotting or curled leaves, or weak roots or stems: possible Potassium (K) deficiency. Plants are healthy and appropriate for site conditions Inadequate soil nutrients and structure In the fall, return leaf fall and shredded woody materials from the landscape to the site when possible Soil providing plant nutrients and structure Excessive vegetation growth Grass becomes excessively tall (greater than 10 inches); nuisance weeds and other vegetation start to take over. Healthy turf- “grasscycle” (mulch-mow or leave the clippings) to build turf health Weeds Preventive maintenance Avoid use of pesticides (bug and weed killers), like “weed & feed,” which damage the soil Fertilizer needed Where fertilization is needed (mainly turf and annual flower beds), a moderate fertilization program should be used which relies on compost, natural fertilizers or slow-release synthetic balanced fertilizers Integrated Pest Management (IPM) protocols for fertilization followed Bare spots Bare spots on soil No bare spots, area covered with vegetation or mulch mixed into the underlying soil. Compaction Poor infiltration due to soil compaction • To remediate compaction, aerate soil, till to at least 8-inch depth, or further amend soil with compost and re-till • If areas are turf, aerate compacted areas and top dress them with 1/4 to 1/2 inch of compost to renovate them • If drainage is still slow, consider investigating alternative causes (e.g., high wet season groundwater levels, low permeability soils) • Also consider site use and protection from compacting activities No soil compaction Poor infiltration Soils become waterlogged, do not appear to be infiltrating. Facility infiltrating properly Erosion/Scouring Erosion Areas of potential erosion are visible Causes of erosion (e.g., concentrate flow entering area, channelization of runoff) identified and damaged area stabilized (regrade, rock, vegetation, erosion control matting).For deep channels or cuts (over 3 inches in ponding depth), temporary erosion control measures in place until permanent repairs can be made Grass/Vegetation Unhealthy vegetation Less than 75% of planted vegetation is healthy with a generally good appearance. Healthy vegetation. Unhealthy plants removed/replaced. Appropriate vegetation planted in terms of exposure, soil and soil moisture. Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds Listed noxious vegetation is present (refer to current County noxious weed list). No noxious weeds present.