Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TIR-3966
Rhododendron Ridge Technical Information Report March 2018 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Justin Johnson 02/07/2019 SURFACE WATER UTILITY rstraka 02/11/2019 r14134-1 Introduction TIR 0318.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Project Overview ................................................................................................. 1-1 Chapter 2 Conditions and Requirements Summary .............................................................. 2-1 Chapter 3 Offsite Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3-1 Chapter 4 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design .............................. 4-1 Chapter 5 Conveyance System Analysis and Design ........................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 Special Reports and Studies ................................................................................ 6-1 Chapter 7 Other Permits ....................................................................................................... 7-1 Chapter 8 CSWPPP Analysis and Design ............................................................................ 8-1 Chapter 9 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant .................... 9-1 Chapter 10 Operations and Maintenance Manual ................................................................ 10-1 FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Existing Site Aerial Photo Figure 3 Site Plan Figure 4 Soil Map Figure 5 Existing Conditions Figure 6 Basin Locations Figure 7 Downstream Drainage Map Figure 8 Overall Storm Drainage Plan Figure 9 Storm Conveyance Subbasin Plan APPENDICES A. Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC B. Geologic Document Review and Site Reconnaissance by AESI C. Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance by Altmann Oliver Associates D. Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis by Goldsmith E. Tree Report – Rhododendron Ridge by Creative Landscape Solutions KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner iCap Rhody Ridge LLC Phone (425) 372-7114 Address 3535 Factoria Blvd. SE – Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98006 Project Engineer Mark Barber Company Goldsmith Phone (425) 462-1080 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Landuse Services Subdivision / Short Subd. / UPD Building Services M/F / Commercial / SFR Clearing and Grading Right-of-Way Use Other ERP Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Rhododendron Ridge DDES Permit # Location Township 24N Range 05E, W.M. Section SE ¼ SE ¼ Section 29 Site Address Vacant Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS DFW HPA Shoreline Management COE 404 Structural Rockery/Vault DOE Dam Safety ESA Section 7 FEMA Floodplain COE Wetlands Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review (circle one): Full / Targeted / Large Site Type (circle one): Full / Modified / Small Site Date (include revision dates): June 2017 Date (include revision dates): June 2017 Date of Final: Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE PLAN Community Plan: Special District Overlays: Drainage Basin: Stormwater Requirements: 2009 KCSWDM Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS River/Stream Steep Slope Lake Erosion Hazard Wetlands Landslide Hazard Closed Depression Coal Mine Hazard Flood Plain Seismic Hazard Other Habitat Protection Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential AgD 15-30 Low AgC 8-15 Low High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) Sole Source Aquifer Other Seeps/Springs Additional Sheets Attached KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS Reference Limitation/Site Constraint Core 2 - Offsite Analysis Connection to City of Renton Storm System Sensitive/Critical Areas SEPA Other 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 (incl. facility summary sheet) Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Upstream of Vault Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Type: Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog or Exemption No. Landscape Management Plan: Yes / No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Requirements Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac None Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineations Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control (comm./industrial landuse) Describe landuse: Describe any structural controls: N/A KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No With whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS Minimum ESC Requirements During Construction Minimum ESC Requirements After Construction Clearing Limits Stabilize Exposed Surfaces Cover Measures Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities Perimeter Protection Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities Traffic Area Stabilization Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas Sediment Retention Other Surface Water Collection Dewatering Control Dust Control Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description Detention Vault Biofiltration Infiltration Wetpool Regional Facility Media Filtration Shared Facility Oil Control Flow Control BMPs Spill Control Other Flow Control BMPs Other Cartridge KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 PART 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Drainage Easement Cast in Place Vault Covenant Retaining Wall Native Growth Protection Covenant Rockery > 4' High Tract Structural on Steep Slope Other Other PART 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporate into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Signed/Date Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter1 TIR 0318.doc 1-1 1. Project Overview Project Location The Project Site is comprised of three separate tax parcels, #3343300480, #3343300482, and #3343300483, located in the SE quarter of Section 29, Township 24N, Range 05E, W.M. The Project Site address is 11230 SE 80th St., in Newcastle, Washington. See the attached Vicinity Map (Figure 1). Background and General Site Conditions Rhododendron Ridge LLC proposes the redevelopment of a 3.8-acre site located in the City of Newcastle. This site is commonly referred to as the Rhododendron Farm, due to its years as a commercial nursery producing, primarily, rhododendrons for sale. The Rhododendron Ridge project proposes development of the Project Site into 15 single family lots, as a formal subdivision per the City of Newcastle Comprehensive Plan designation as: urban residential, and the Zoning Code designation of R-4. Access to the site is currently via public roadway: SE 80th St. and 113th Ave. SE. SE 80th Street, an unimproved right-of-way, is proposed to be extended approximately 150 feet along the southeast site boundary with half street improvements (30’ wide). The roadway then transitions to a 48 foot public Right-of-Way (internal plat roadway) serving as access to the proposed plat. Half street improvements will be constructed at the terminus of 113th Ave. SE extending to the intersection with SE 80th Street, completing 113th Ave. SE. Summary of Proposal The proposal is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15 single family residential lots, public Right-of-Way dedication and frontage improvements along 113th Avenue SE, an internal public road, two joint use driveway tracts (private), a landscape tract abutting 113th Avenue SE, a stormwater access tract providing access to the off-site stormwater vault proposed within the unimproved 112th Ave. SE public utilities, and half street frontage improvements along a portion of SE 80th Street which will serve as access into the plat. The subject property, zoned R-4, proposes lots ranging from 7,500 square feet to approximately 8,460 square feet. No on-site recreation space is required or proposed. There is a small critical area tract in the northwest corner of the site for an area of steep slope and associated buffer. An internal plat roadway terminating with a cul-de-sac, curb, gutter and 5 foot sidewalks is proposed in accordance with City standards. Significant trees located on site have been assessed in accordance with City standards and the required tree retention will be met by preserving existing trees. See the attached Rhododendron Ridge Site Plan (Figure 3). Key features of the stormwater control plan include: • Level 2 flow control based on a historical forested site condition, and • Preliminary sizing of the proposed stormwater control vault used for analysis of potential stormwater impacts, based on the maximum impervious area allowed by zoning. The proposed detention vault is located off-site, adjacent to the west site boundary in unimproved Right-Of-Way (112th Ave. SE.). • StormFilter for basic water quality treatment. • Storm outfall off-site in SE 80th Street (unimproved City of Renton right-of-way to existing storm drainage in 110th Ave. SE. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter1 TIR 0318.doc 1-2 FIGURE 1 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter1 TIR 0318.doc 1-3 Existing Site Aerial Photo Source: King County IMAP FIGURE 2 SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSS G G G G G G G G G G OHUOHU OHUOHUOHUOH U OHUOHUOHU OHU OHUOHUOHUOHUOHUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSDSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSDSDSDSDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGSDS SSSSX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXX SXXXW W WRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDRDRDWDWDRDRDRDRDRDDETENTION VAULT50' ROW 30' ROW48' ROW SE 80TH STREET (UNIMPROVED ROW)112TH AVENUE NE(UNIMPROVED ROW)113TH AVENUE SESE 79TH ST.AREA OF >40% STEEP SLOPEAREA OF >40% STEEP SLOPE 10' BUFFER 10' BUFFER115253674910111213148TRACT C(ACCESS)TRACT B(ACCESS)TRACT E(CRITICAL AREA)4920 SF7513 SF12335 SF639 SF7508 SF7552 SF7508 SF7505 SF1402 SF7612 SF7675 SF7505 SF7633 SF7588 SF8456 SF8460 SF8460 SF7503 SF1263 SFTRACT A(LANDSCAPE)TRACT D(ACCESS)ROAD "A"REMOVE EXISTING JERSERYBARRIER WALL & ECOLOGYBLOCK WALL AS NECESSARYFOR CONSTRUCTIONFRONTAGEIMPROVEMENTS4' STREETSCAPE5' SIDEWALK28' CURB TO CURB3H:1V (TYP)STORMFILTER FORWATER QUALITYTREATMENT12' WIDE MAINTENANCEACCESS15% MAX SLOPE LOWPOINT20' TRACT18' PAVEMENT20' MIN. TRACTR=42'R=50' (ROW)PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP)PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP)18' PAVEMENT20' MIN.TRACT 10' TRACT 28' PAVEMENT 4' STREETSCAPE (TYP) 5' SIDEWALK (TYP) 25' ROW DED.2462402422642662602562 5 6 25825 8246 2622762742722702782722702742762781H:1V (TYP.)DETENTION VAULT STORM OUTFALLOFF-SITE TO 110th AVE SE14' CENTERLINETO FACE OF CURBPARTIAL IMPROVEMENT.END FIRST LIFT OF PAVING3' FROM FACE OF CURB2820 SF1H:1V (TYP.)250248 PAD ELEV.270.00PAD ELEV.272.00PAD ELEV.262.00PAD ELEV.273.00PAD ELEV.263.00PAD ELEV.260.00PAD ELEV.259.00PAD ELEV.269.00PAD ELEV.268.00PAD ELEV.258.00PAD ELEV.269.00PAD ELEV.259.00PAD ELEV.272.00PAD ELEV.262.00PAD ELEV.258.00PAD ELEV.248.00PAD ELEV.256.00PAD ELEV.246.00PAD ELEV.256.00PAD ELEV.246.00PAD ELEV.255.00PAD ELEV.245.00PAD ELEV.256.00PAD ELEV.246.00PAD ELEV.256.00PAD ELEV.246.00PAD ELEV.256.95PAD ELEV.260.00280282284286268272276278TOP: 256.00TOP: 255.00TOP: 276.00TOP: 274.05TOP: 272.00TOP: 268.12TOP: 264.42TOE: 264.00TOE: 263.95TOE: 268.00TOE: 271.01TOE: 273.00TOE: 272.03TOE: 263.00TOE: 263.00TOE: 263.00TOE: 273.00TOE: 273.01TOE: 282.00TOE: 245.00TOE: 245.50TOE: 245.76TOE: 246.00TOP: 270.00TOE: 264.02TOP: 277.06TOP: 266.90TOP: 269.29TOP: 272.75TOP: 274.36TOP: 277.81TOP: 282.05TOP: 255.50TOP: 272.36TOP: 276.35TOP: 278.69TOP: 282.71TOP: 286.96WALL 3WALL 4WALL 2TOE: 245.00TOP: 245.01TOP: 244.00TOP: 246.00TOP: 246.00TOP: 248.00TOP: 256.48TOP: 258.00TOE: 240.00TOE: 236.83TOE: 236.03TOE: 231.17TOE: 238.20TOE: 249.40TOE: 256.00SCALE:04010201" = 20'SE 80TH ST. DRAWN: APPROVED: PLOTTED: M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\FIGURES\14134E11.DWG 2018/03/21 08:36 Tsolly EMALM LNYQUIST CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 14134SHEETNEWCASTLE KING COUNTY WASHINGTONJOB NO.:BYREVISIONSDATENO.CHK.SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONSEE SHEET 8/10 FOR ADDITIONALOFF-SITE GRADING & DRAINAGERHODODENDRON RIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE ERP SEE COVER OR SHEET 8 FOR LEGEND85'20'2' GRAVELSHOULDERHWREVISED PER CITY COMMENTS2/161 BPF ICAP RHODY RIDGE, LLC Soil Map—King County Area, Washington (Rhododendron Ridge Preliminary Plat) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/2/2015 Page 1 of 352644505264500526455052646005264650526470052647505264450526450052645505264600526465052647005264750560680560730560780560830560880560930560980561030561080561130561180 560680 560730 560780 560830 560880 560930 560980 561030 561080 561130 561180 47° 32' 0'' N 122° 11' 38'' W47° 32' 0'' N122° 11' 12'' W47° 31' 49'' N 122° 11' 38'' W47° 31' 49'' N 122° 11' 12'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600Feet 0 35 70 140 210Meters Map Scale: 1:2,470 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. SITE FIGURE 4 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 30, 2014 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 8, 2014—Jul 15, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—King County Area, Washington (Rhododendron Ridge Preliminary Plat) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/2/2015 Page 2 of 3 FIGURE 4 Map Unit Legend King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 6.6 23.7% AgD Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 17.1 61.7% KpC Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 3.7 13.3% KpD Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.4 1.3% RdC Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping 0.0 0.0% Totals for Area of Interest 27.8 100.0% Soil Map—King County Area, Washington Rhododendron Ridge Preliminary Plat Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/2/2015 Page 3 of 3 FIGURE 4 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter2 TIR 0318.doc 2-1 2. Conditions and Requirements Summary CORE REQUIREMENTS The following is a preliminary description of how the Rhododendron Ridge project will meet the Core and Special Requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM. Core Requirement #1- Discharge at the Natural Location The proposed development does not propose altering the discharge point from the site. Stormwater from the site will be collected, treated and detained at the proposed detention facility prior to discharging at the natural location. Core Requirement #2 – Off-site Analysis A downstream drainage analysis has been completed and is included in Section 3 of this report. Core Requirement #3 – Flow Control The project is in a Conservation Flow Control area. Conservation Flow Control based on the historic (forested) site conditions will be implemented. Conservation Flow Control provides both flow duration control for 50% of the 2-year through the 50-year peak runoff events. Additionally, peak developed discharges are to match the historic 2 and 10-year historic peak rates. Per the 2009 KCSWDM Table 1.2.3.A, and given the downstream conditions described in Section 3, no additional flow control or mitigation is needed for this project. Details of the proposed flow control plan are provided in Section 4. Core Requirement #3 (Section 1.2.3.3 and Section 5.2.1) also requires that projects or portions of projects that are subject to Core Requirement #3 that will not be served by infiltration facilities per the 2009 KCSWDM Section 5.4 must apply flow control BMPs to either supplement the flow mitigation provided by required flow control facilities or provide flow mitigation where flow control facilities are not required. This requirement will be met on an individual lot basis. Feasibility evaluation and design details will be provided with future building permit applications. Core Requirement #4 – Conveyance System The design and analysis of the stormwater conveyance system to be constructed with the Rhododendron Ridge project will comply with the requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM. Detailed design and analysis of the conveyance system are provided in Section 5.0. Core Requirement #5 – Erosion and Sediment Control The design of the erosion and sediment control (ESC) plans for the proposed improvements will be per the requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM and are provided herein Section 8.0. Core Requirement #6 – Maintenance and Operations Proposed stormwater flow control and water quality facilities will be owned and maintained by Rhododendron Ridge Homeowners Association (or other HOA as deemed appropriate). Details of the Maintenance and Operation have been included in Section 10.0. Core Requirement #7 – Financial Guarantees and Liability This project will comply with all financial guarantees required by the City of Newcastle. Core Requirement #8 – Water Quality The project site is in an area requiring Basic Water Quality Treatment. Basic treatment will be provided by the BMPs as outlined in Section 4.0 Part E. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter2 TIR 0318.doc 2-2 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Special Requirement #1 – Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements At this time, this site does not fall under any other known Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Special Requirement #2 – Flood Hazard Area Delineation This project does not contain, nor is adjacent to, a flood hazard area for a river, stream, lake, wetland, closed depression, marine shoreline, or a King County-mapped channel migration zone. Flood hazard area delineation is not required. Special Requirement #3 – Flood Protection Facilities This project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility for protection against hazards posed by erosion or inundation, or modify or construct a new flood protection facility; therefore, flood protection facilities are not required. Special Requirement #4 – Source Control The proposed project is a single family project per the 2009 KCSWDM the project is exempt from this requirement. Special Requirement #5 – Oil Control This project does not have high-use site characteristics; therefore, oil control BMPs are not required. Conditions of Approval – Rhododendron Ridge Preliminary Plat: 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and make recommendations on the issues presented by this request. Acknowledged. 2. The applicant has shown that the request for preliminary plat approval for Rhododendron Ridge is consistent with the Medium Density Single Family Residential Designation of the Comprehensive Plan and meets all criteria of the applicable R-4 zone classification. The project also satisfies all subdivision criteria set forth in Chapter 17.40 NMC. Acknowledged. 3. The applicant has also shown that the request for a variance satisfies all criteria set forth in NMC 18.44.040. Therefore, the preliminary plat and variance should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All subsequent development review associated with this proposal shall comply with the Newcastle Municipal Code, Newcastle Public Works Development Standards, Newcastle Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable codes and policies. 2. All subsequent development review associated with this proposal shall comply with the Newcastle Municipal Code, Newcastle Public Works Development Standards, Newcastle Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable codes and policies. Items 3.1 and 3.2, above are acknowledged. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter2 TIR 0318.doc 2-3 3. To protect significant trees from the impacts of the proposed development, the Applicant shall provide the best protection for significant trees per the regulations in NMC 18.16.160. At a minimum, any significant trees to be retained shall be fenced two feet outward from the identified drip line with 5-foot chain link fencing mounted on driven steel posts. Trees that sustain damage during the course of construction shall be replaced pursuant to NMC 18.16.160. A representative of the City of Newcastle shall verify protective fencing placement per this condition prior to issuance of a notice to proceed for grading and clearing. The City shall inspect for compliance with the retention plan prior to a final inspection. The inspection shall also evaluate the condition of retained trees and any and all corrections will be required to be completed prior to a final inspection and sign-off. Condition acknowledged. ERP plans demonstrate the requirements for non- disturbance. 4. The Applicant shall install locking mailboxes within the development. The Applicant shall be responsible for installing the mailboxes and distributing individual keys to the residents. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Renton Post Office regarding the location of the mailboxes and the lock for postal carrier access. An approval letter or documentation from the Renton Post Office will be required prior to the issuance of the Engineering Review Permit. The ERP plans contain a mailbox sheet, to be signed by the Renton postmaster. 5. All water and sewer mains for the project shall be constructed by the Applicant and accepted by the CCUD prior to final plat approval. Acknowledged. 6. All proposed water and sewer lines and facilities which are not located within the public right-of-way shall be located in appropriate easements, and these easements shall appear on the final plat as well as on the CCUD standard easement forms recorded against the individual lots or parcels. Easements shall be recorded at final plat recording. Acknowledged. 7. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, sewer and water plans approved by CCUD shall be submitted to the City for review. Acknowledged. 8. The Applicant shall provide mitigation for an increase in stormwater volumes and water quality impacts by complying with the KCSWDM design standards. A complete TIR shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any construction permits. Acknowledged. A complete TIR accompanies the ERP road and storm plans. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter2 TIR 0318.doc 2-4 9. After construction is complete, the Applicant shall clean all pipes, inlets, and outlet areas as directed by the City for those areas affected by the project. The City and Applicant shall inspect the system prior to the start of construction to verify the existing condition of the systems. Acknowledged. 10. The Applicant shall provide all necessary easements for the proposed storm system. Said easements shall be clearly delineated on the plans prior to issuance of any construction permits. Language of the same shall be provided for review and approval by the City Attorney and City Engineer. All drainage easements and covenants shall be recorded at final plat recording. Acknowledged. 11. The Applicant shall adhere to the design requirements and best management practices identified in the KCSWDM, as a minimum, with respect to erosion control. Acknowledged. Erosion control plans, meeting KCSWDM criteria, are included in the ERP road and storm plans. 12. The Applicant shall be required to submit for review and approval all clearing and grading plans, engineering construction drawings, and other site improvement plans to the City prior to issuance of any construction permits. Acknowledged. 13. The proposed preliminary plat has been designed with stormwater runoff which will be directed to a detention vault located off-site in the unimproved right-of-way of 112th Avenue SE. This vault will provide Level 2 Conservation Flow Control prior to discharging to a closed pipe conveyance which will run underground south within 112th Ave SE and then west on the surface within SE 80th Street, which is also an unimproved right-of-way within the City of Renton. A Critical Area exemption permit and right-of-way permit from the City of Renton will be required prior to the City of Newcastle’s approval of the Engineering Review Permit. Failure to provide the required permits prior to Engineering Review permit approval will result in redesign of the preliminary plat’s stormwater system. The Critical Area Exemption permit, from the City of Renton, is undergoing review. The right of way permit will be issued at the time of construction. 14. The Applicant shall apply for all variances to the Public Works standards at the time of Engineering Review Permit submittal. Acknowledged. The variance request letter has been submitted to the City. 15. The Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way and construct drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, landscaping, and related on-site improvements to City standards for local access streets. Acknowledged. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter2 TIR 0318.doc 2-5 16. The Applicant shall restore the existing informal trail along SE 80th Street along with appropriate connections to the City street system, once the required improvements along SE 80th Street have been completed. The restoration shall be to the existing trail conditions prior to disturbance. The applicant will restore the connection to the informal path from the new improvements to the roadway of SE 80th/Road A. 17. The Applicant shall pay the City of Newcastle’s traffic impact fee in accordance with NMC 16.15. The most current fee shall be paid when each building permit is issued. Acknowledged. 18. The Applicant shall submit a copy of appropriate jurisdictional approvals (i.e. City of Renton Critical Area Exemption and Right-of-Way use permit, prior to Engineering Review permit approval. Acknowledged. 19. All critical areas shall be placed within a Critical Areas Tract to be maintained and owned by the future home owner’s association. The critical area tract in the northwest corner of the site is to be conveyed to the HOA. 20. The Applicant shall be required to underground all utilities in accordance with Section 4.31 and standard drawings in the Public Works Standards. Acknowledged. 21. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary state and federal permits and approvals for the project, and is responsible for complying with any conditions of approval placed on these or other state or federal permits or approvals, and for submitting revised drawings to the City for its review and approval, if necessary to reflect these state or federal conditions of approval. Acknowledged. 22. The Applicant shall observe the hours of operation per applicable City ordinances during the construction of the development. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Applicant shall post a notice on site indicating the hours of operation for construction. The size, location, and content of the sign shall be consistent with the notice required for the Notice of Application. The notice shall remain in place until the recording of the final plat. Acknowledged. 23. All of the improvements and amenities required for the project shall be completed and accepted by the City prior to final plat approval, with the exception of the final lift of pavement, street trees, and sidewalks. These three items can be financially assured, but shall be completed within one year of final plat approval, with the Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter2 TIR 0318.doc 2-6 exception of the sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be completed prior to final inspection of the first home within the subdivision. Acknowledged. 24. All easements shall be required to be recorded prior to or upon final plat recording. Acknowledged. 25. To provide a safe pedestrian walking area, the applicant will install a concrete divider consisting of bumper curbs along S.E. 80th Street as shown on Exhibit 15 in accordance with Public Works’ requirements. Painting of a stripe is not sufficient to provide safe walking conditions. Exhibit 15, depicting the “bumper curb” detail, is the basis for the design of this improvement, and included in the ERP road and storm plans. 26. The applicant shall coordinate with Puget Sound Energy regarding street light design and installation and shall use LED lighting where possible; provided, however, that all luminaries and lighting shall comply with City standards. Acknowledged. 27. The recommendation set forth herein is based upon representations made and exhibits, including plans and proposals submitted at the hearing conducted by the hearing examiner. Any substantial change(s) or deviation(s) in such plans, proposals, or conditions of approval imposed shall be subject to the approval of the City and may require further and additional hearings. Acknowledged. The preliminary plat was considered and approved by the Newcastle City Council on November 15, 2016. 28. The recommendation granted herein is subject to all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Compliance with such laws, regulations, and ordinances is a condition precedent to the approvals granted and is a continuing requirement of such approvals. By accepting this/these approvals, the applicant represents that the development and activities allowed will comply with such laws, regulations, and ordinances. If, during the term of the approval granted, the development and activities permitted do not comply with such laws, regulations, or ordinances, the applicant agrees to promptly bring such development or activities into compliance. Acknowledged. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter3 TIR 0318.doc 3-1 3. Offsite Analysis Task 1: Study Area Definition and Maps Existing Land Use/Surface Cover The Project site is 3.8 acres in size and is shown in the attached Aerial Photo (Figure 2). The site is located within the East Lake Washington – Bellevue South (a.k.a Lake Washington East) Basin per the City of Renton Basin Locations Map – Cedar River/Lake Washington Watershed area. The entire site lies within the one basin. The project site vegetation consists of primarily shrubs, second and third growth native deciduous trees and lawn areas. The site consists of three (3) tax lots as mentioned in Section 2, and contains one existing single family residence. The site is commonly referred to as the Rhododendron Farm, and has served as a commercial nursery producing, primarily, rhododendrons for sale. A topographic survey was completed by GOLDSMITH for the project in January 2015, which included the collected field survey data, utilities, buildings, trees, etc. See the Existing Conditions Map (Figure 5). Site Soils/Geology Geotechnical investigations were conducted on the project site by Earth Solutions NW, LLC in January 2015. In general the site is underlain primarily by glacial till in the southern portion of the site, outwash sand and gravel in the northern portion of the site and has limited areas of fill which surrounds the single-family residence and along the hillside at the northeast corner of the site. The site is mapped as Alderwood series soils across the site, and more specifically as AgD gravelly sandy loam (15-30% Slopes). This type of soil is typified by glacial till and generally present a low to moderate erosion hazard. The Washington State USDA Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) on line soil survey Map is included as Figure 4. Groundwater During site investigations conducted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC in July 2014, no groundwater was observed. Perched groundwater is typical on site underlain by glacial till soil, and will likely be encountered at variable depths on site. Seepage should be expected in all grading activities on site, and generally during the winter, spring and early summer months. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations vary depending upon many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the winter months – wetter season. See the Geotechnical Engineering Study by Earth Solutions NW, LLC dated January 2015 located in Appendix A. Existing Topography and On-Site Drainage Patterns The overall site topography slopes moderately to gently down from east to west across the site from the high point at the east boundary adjacent to 113th Avenue SE with an approximately 40 foot elevation change. There is a small draw in the central portion of the site, just north of the single family residence which runs in an east to west alignment. A wetland and stream reconnaissance was performed on the site by John Altmann, of Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter3 TIR 0318.doc 3-2 The site investigation included assessment of the topographic draw to determine if there were any associated wetlands, streams or seeps. No wetlands or streams were observed and borings taken throughout the site revealed high chroma dry non-hydric soils. No evidence of prolonged soil saturation was observed anywhere on the site. See the Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance, Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC dated July 9, 2014 in Appendix B. Two steep slopes as defined by the City of Newcastle (CON) Code Chapter 18.24 are located at the northwest corner of the Project, and off-site adjacent to the south boundary of the Project. The slopes and their associated setbacks were evaluated by Earth Solutions NW, LLC and the findings provided in the Geotechnical Engineering Study dated January 29, 2015 (See Appendix A). Based on site geology and subsurface data the geotechnical report recommends that the steep slope setback can be reduced to 10 feet at both locations. Task 2: Resource Review Sensitive Area Folios Copies of the folios referenced below are provided at the end of this section. o Wetlands: No wetlands were identified on site or immediately downstream of the project site. Streams and 100-year Floodplains: There are no streams or floodplains identified on the Project site. Erosion Hazard Areas: Mapping indicates that the project site is located within erosion hazard areas. Appropriate erosion control measures will be taken during design and construction. Landslide Hazard Areas: Mapping identifies a small area of landslide hazard areas along the most westerly boundary of the site. Development will be set away from slopes. Seismic Hazard Areas: No seismic hazard areas are identified on the project site. Geotechnical assessment characterizes the site as low susceptibility to liquefaction. Coal Mine Hazard Area: No coal mine hazard areas are identified on, or downstream of the project study area. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA): iMAP data indicates that there is no Critical Aquifer Recharge Area beneath the site. Basin Condition: iMAP data indicates the basin condition as high. NRCS – SCS Soils Mapping A copy of the USDA SCS King County Soils Survey soils map identifies that soils found on-site and in the immediate vicinity included Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) typically with 15 – 30% slopes. See the SCS King County Soils Survey - Figure 4. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter3 TIR 0318.doc 3-3 Basin Plans and Studies The following basin plans and studies are provided for reference pertaining to stormwater and drainage o City of Renton Basin Locations Map (See Figure 6) o City of Renton Drainage Complaints (See Appendix) • 9/18/13 Work Order 548930 • 5/04/14 Work Order 568892 Other Reports and Information Reviewed Include: o “Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance – 11230 113th Ave. SE Newcastle, WA” by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC – July 9, 2014 o “Geotechnical Engineering Study Johnson/Hazelwood Property” by Earth Solutions NW, LLC – July 31, 2014 Topographic and Site Survey Information Field survey data for the project site was collected by Goldsmith on September 29, 2014 and included collection of site topography, utilities, buildings, trees, etc. This information is represented on the Existing Conditions Map (Figure 5). Task 3: Field Inspection A field inspection of the project site and downstream systems were conducted on March 4, 2015. Inspections were completed using the guidelines for a downstream analysis as given in Section 2.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM. A Level 1 inspection was completed for the downstream system. The basin boundaries were verified, along with an examination of on-site and off-site drainage conditions and systems. Ground cover, slopes, soil types, and other topographic features were also observed. The 2009 KCSWDM requires observing the downstream flowpath a minimum of one mile from the project site discharge location and extending upstream as necessary to encompass the offsite drainage area tributary to the project site. The primary purposes of our field visit was to observe and verify the known downstream path and its conditions. Photos were taken of the downstream corridor during the field visit. These photos have been compiled together with reference numbers and descriptions at the end of this section. Upstream Observation Based on available aerial maps and a site visit, it is estimated that approximately 0.4 acres north of Lake Washington Highlands is tributary to the project site. This area is heavily covered primarily with shrubs and second or third growth native deciduous trees. The Soils report prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC states that the site lies in a transition zone between two geologically distinct areas. The soil conditions throughout the site are generally consistent with glacial till deposits and glacial outwash deposits. Test pit information indicates that glacial outwash deposits are found Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter3 TIR 0318.doc 3-4 mainly in the north end of the site. Therefore, it is assumed that the surface runoff from the upstream area running onto the site would be negligible. Downstream Observation Downstream and immediately west of the project is 112th Ave. NE which is an unimproved right-of- way. Project drainage sheet drains onto this right-of-way and then collects into broad draws which direct interflow to wetlands on the parcel (Parcel #3343300780) west of 112th Ave. NE. Access was limited to this property at the time of the downstream walk, so observations are limited to the perimeter of the parcel and rely on mapping prepared by Altman Oliver Associates, LLC. Based on the mapping, there are four (4) sloped wetland across this unimproved parcel which channel interflow from east to west for approximately 330 feet to the east property line of the Cedar Rim Apartment Homes (“CRAH”). During the site visit, a peculiar shaped and aligned 18 inch open CMP culvert system was found at the top of an existing rockery along the east property line of the CRAH site (see Picture #8). Exposed portions of the CMP culvert in the north end of the site indicates that surface runoff from the eastern un-developed parcel is not being captured by the system. At the time of our site visit, this culvert was mostly dry and was not carrying any noticeable flow. There was however, evidence of groundwater seepage into the CMP culvert at the northeast corner of the CRAH site. It is not verified but our assumption is that the insignificant amount of seepage may be coming from the storm drainage system located in 111th Place SE (see Figure 7). As shown on Pictures #7 and #9, it appears that the existing 18” CMP culvert system has not been maintained for some time. Excessive amounts of sediment were found at the bottom of the catch basins and in the lower end of the culvert. We believe that surface water flows from Parcel 3343300780 were intended to be intercepted by the storm drainage system on the eastern border of the CRAH site. However, flows bypass this system and now sheet flow over and through the existing rockery. As shown on Picture #11, the existing rockery (as high as 13 to 14 feet tall) runs along the entire east property line of the CRAH site. Discolored pavement in the parking lot indicates that there is a constant flow that seeps through the rockery. When the above described flows are captured by catch basins in the CRAH parking lot, they travel west through the private storm drainage system connecting to the City of Renton’s public drainage system in 110th Ave. SE. The sub-basin for the pipe drainage in 110th Ave. SE begins at the intersection of Lincoln Ave. NE and NE 43rd Place. Drainage is conveyed north, then west in the public drainage system within NE 44th Street which connects to a regional drainage facility located at the SE corner of the intersection of the I-405 ramp and NE 44th Street. This drainage facility then conveys stormwater to a bigger regional detention facility located to the north of NE 44th via a 24 inch diameter CMP pipe. From there, stormwater travels west merges into the WSDOT drainage pond prior to crossing under I-405 via a 48 inch diameter pipe. After crossing under I-405, it flows into another drainage facility located between Seahawks Way and I-405. Eventually, the stormwater travels west through the City of Renton’s public drainage system through the Seahawks training facility and discharges directly into Lake Washington via a series of 36 inch diameter pipes. See the Downstream Drainage Map (Figure 7). See the Downstream Drainage Map (Figure 7) which identifies the downstream analysis discussed above. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter3 TIR 0318.doc 3-5 Task 4: Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The downstream drainage path was determined from the project site to the ultimate receiving waters of Lake Washington approximately 5,000 feet (0.95 mile) from the discharge point. Please reference the Existing Conditions Map (Figure 5) and the Downstream Drainage Map (Figure 7) and the Off-Site Analysis Drainage System Table -1 below. With the exception of the unknown drainage system from undeveloped Parcel 3343300780 to the CRAH’s drainage system, there are no known drainage problems, inadequate capacity, or erosion problems within the quarter mile downstream from the Project Site. It was evident that maintenance work of the existing half-pipe 18 inch CMP culvert along the east property line of the CRAH site has not been performed for a while. It is also unclear who is responsible for the maintenance and repair work of the damaged portion of the culvert. Site observation did not reveal any apparent or significant problems with respect to hydraulic capacity, overtopping or flooding, siltation, erosion, or damage in the CRAH’s system, nor in the City of Renton’s public drainage system. The City of Renton identified some storm drainage issues with an unnamed creek which crosses Lincoln Ave. / 110th Ave. SE, however, this drainage is not part of the project description. Mitigation of potential development impacts will be achieved by conformance with flow control BMPs available in the 2009 King County Storm Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter3 TIR 0318.doc 3-6 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE -1 Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Basin: East Lake Washington – Bellevue South Sub-basin Name: Lake Washington East (per City of Renton Drainage Map) Symbol Keyed to Figure 7 Drainage Component Type, Name, and Size Drainage Component Description Slope (estimated) Distance from site discharge Existing Problems Potential Problems Observations of field inspector, resource reviewer, or resident 1 Wetland Width varies, classification unknown in a undeveloped / vacant property 9 to 10% 330 ft. Unknown Erosion/ Sedimentation Could not be observed due to limited access in wetland. CB on top of existing rockery wall is not functioning due to a fallen tree. 2 Storm pipe in City of Newcastle Closed pipe system (private) in Cedar Rim Apartment Homes (CRAH) Varies 920 ft. None Erosion No signs of erosion or sediment observed in CRAH 3 Storm pipe - City of Renton Closed pipe system in NE 44th Street and 110th Ave. SE Varies 340 ft. None Erosion No signs of erosion or sediment observed in storm drainage system 4 Regional storm detention facility Regional storm detention pond NA 60 ft. None Erosion No signs of erosion or sediment observed from street level (NE 44th St.) 5 Storm pipe – City of Renton 24” Culvert connecting two regional facilities Unknown 100 ft. None Erosion No signs of erosion or sediment observed from street level (NE 44th St.) 6 Regional storm detention facility Regional storm detention pond NA 250 ft. None Erosion No signs of erosion or sediment observed from street level (Lake Washington Blvd. NE) 7 Storm pipe – City of Renton Closed pipe system from the regional pond crossing under I-405 to another unknown drainage facility west of I-405 Unknown 420 ft. Unknown Erosion/ Sedimentation Could not be observed 8 Unknown storm drainage facility Appears to be another drainage facility Unknown 60 ft. Unknown Erosion/ Sedimentation Could not be observed 9 Storm pipes – City of Renton Closed pipe system through Seahawks training facility to Lake Washington – Drainage map shows multiple 36” diameter pipes and 60” diameter pipe to Lake Washington Unknown 350 ft. +/- Unknown Erosion Could not be observed Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter3 TIR 0318.doc 3-7 Task 5: Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems As noted above, there are no known significant existing downstream problems located within the downstream path of the project. Despite of the lack of maintenance work in the existing drainage system and malfunction in a portion of the culvert system, there was no significant erosion or flooding within the observed portion of the downstream flowpath. At the time of observation, the downstream drainage appears to have adequate capacity to convey the Project Site runoff in the developed conditions. There were three (3) minor drainage complaints noted within the downstream path, however, these were insignificant and potential impacts would be negligible for the proposed development. Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Downstream Photos & Notes Swale formed at upper end of the site – looking west #1 Wet area after crossed over access road – looking north #2 WET AREA Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Swale heading west next to shed and studio - looking east #3 Swale north of house - looking west #4 Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Swale at west property line - looking west #5 Existing wetland enters Cedar Rim Apartments – looking east #6 Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Plugged/non-functional storm system along east property line #7 of Apt. – looking east 18" open CMP culvert system along east property line #8 of Apt. – looking north Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Existing storm system apparently not maintained. Connects to Apt. #9 storm drainage system – looking south Runoff east of Apt. seeps out through rockery wall / 6" pipe connects #10 to Apt. system – looking south Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Storm system merges at this catch basin – looking north #11 Storm system drains toward Apt. entry point – looking north #12 Rockery Wall Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Storm system merges at this catch basin at Apt. entry – looking east #13 Last catch basin before enters public storm system – looking east #14 Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Catch basin on west side of 110th Ave. SE – looking east #15 Catch basin on south side of 110th Ave. SE – looking northwest #16 Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Regional storm drainage facility at southeast corner of NE 44th St. and #17 I-405 ramp – looking south Regional storm drainage facility at northeast corner of NE 44th St. and #18 Lake WA. Blvd. NE – looking north Rhododendron Ridge Photos taken March 9, 2015 Preliminary Drainage Control Plan and Level 1 Downstream Analysis W:\WP\REPORT\14134-1 Rhododendron Ridge TIR\Figures, Exhibits, & Inserts\Chapter 3 Inserts\Downstream Photos\14134 Downstream Photos with notes.docx Existing 24" CMP connecting the above Regional storm drainage #19 facility – looking north Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-1 4. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Drainage Control Plan The stormwater control plan being developed for the Rhododendron Ridge site encompasses all available information about the site and its downstream drainage system. This includes site topography, geology, detailed field investigations, and drainage complaints and observations. Flow control and water quality treatment BMPs have been selected to ensure any potential adverse impacts from development will be prevented. Sizing of flow control and water quality facilities are provided herein. Stormwater runoff for the proposed project will be directed to a detention vault located off-site in the unimproved Right-of-Way of 112th Avenue SE as shown on the Preliminary Drainage Plan (Figure 8). This vault will provide Conservation (Level 2) flow control prior to discharging to a closed pipe conveyance which will run underground south within 112th Ave. SE, and then west on the surface within SE 80th Street, which is also an unimproved right-of-way in the City of Renton. The stormwater will ultimately outfall to the existing piped storm within Lincoln Ave. SE / 110th Ave. SE. Stormwater discharge rates will be maintained at the historic forested site condition runoff rates, as required by Core Requirement #3 of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. As described herein the vault has been designed to account for bypass areas and off-site forested run-on areas. Water quality requirements (Core Requirement #8) will be met by a StormFilter cartridge system that will provide basic water quality treatment of pollution generating surfaces. This section is prepared in conformance with the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and Newcastle Municipal Code (NMC) 13.10 guidelines for drainage review and for downstream analysis of a preliminary subdivision. The following is a summary of the design parameters and required detention volumes based on the proposed development plan as shown on the Stormwater Control Plan (Figure 8). Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-2 Part A: Existing Site Hydrology The following is a summary of the existing state hydrologic input parameters and basin areas used for sizing of the proposed stormwater flow control BMP. The 2009 KCSWDM requires projects located in conservation flow control areas to assume a forested historical site condition for the existing site conditions. These assumptions have been used for calculating allowable release rates and flow durations from the proposed stormwater control facilities. Existing site hydrology has been modeled using the King County hydrologic program KCRTS. KCRTS Input Parameters: Regional Rainfall Scale Factor = Landsburg 0.85 (See Figure 9) Time Step = 1.0 hr Existing Basin Area = 5.21 Ac. (includes on-site and off-site areas and frontage improvements) Effective Impervious Area (EIA) = 0.00 Ac. Till Forest = 5.21 Ac. Existing Conditions Peak Runoff Rates: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:ex.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.408 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.483 1 100.00 0.990 0.066 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.408 2 25.00 0.960 0.259 4 2/28/03 16:00 0.332 3 10.00 0.900 0.047 8 3/03/04 3:00 0.259 4 5.00 0.800 0.238 5 1/05/05 10:00 0.238 5 3.00 0.667 0.192 6 1/18/06 21:00 0.192 6 2.00 0.500 0.332 3 11/24/06 5:00 0.066 7 1.30 0.231 0.483 1 1/09/08 7:00 0.047 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.458 50.00 0.980 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-3 Part B: Developed Site Hydrology The following is a summary of the developed state sub-basin area used for simulating the developed conditions both for runoff tributary to the proposed stormwater detention vault and bypass areas as shown on the Stormwater Control Plan (Figure 8). The proposed site development includes 15 Lots, roadway and associated infrastructure. The proposed on lot maximum impervious surface area per the 2009 KCSWDM has been taken as the lessor of 4,000sf or 45% of the lot area. Additional impervious areas include; the proposed impervious areas within the right-of-way, access tract areas, the vault top surface, and off-site frontage improvements to 113th Ave. SE. The remaining on-site surface area has been modeled as till grass including the vault bypass area. The bypass area is a 0.18 ac. graded area to the west of the vault not able to drain to the vault. Developed Basin Total Area = 5.21 Ac. On-lot Impervious (EIA) = 1.21 Ac. (45%) Road way, sidewalks, vault and access tracts Impervious = 0.84 Ac. Total Impervious = 2.05 Ac. Till Grass = 1.99 Ac. Off-site Run-on Till Forest = 0.99 Ac. Total Area to Vault = 5.03 Ac. Bypass Area (Till Grass) = 0.18 Ac. Developed Conditions Peak Runoff Rates to Vault: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.877 4 2/09/01 2:00 1.61 1 100.00 0.990 0.470 8 12/03/01 17:00 1.04 2 25.00 0.960 0.769 6 9/10/03 15:00 0.918 3 10.00 0.900 0.918 3 8/26/04 1:00 0.877 4 5.00 0.800 0.756 7 10/28/04 18:00 0.779 5 3.00 0.667 0.779 5 10/22/05 17:00 0.769 6 2.00 0.500 1.04 2 11/21/06 9:00 0.756 7 1.30 0.231 1.61 1 1/09/08 7:00 0.470 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.42 50.00 0.980 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-4 Developed Conditions Bypass Area: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:bypass.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.024 3 2/09/01 2:00 0.052 1 100.00 0.990 0.007 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.029 2 25.00 0.960 0.014 5 2/28/03 16:00 0.024 3 10.00 0.900 0.017 4 8/26/04 1:00 0.017 4 5.00 0.800 0.013 6 1/05/05 10:00 0.014 5 3.00 0.667 0.012 7 10/22/05 17:00 0.013 6 2.00 0.500 0.029 2 11/21/06 9:00 0.012 7 1.30 0.231 0.052 1 1/09/08 7:00 0.007 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.044 50.00 0.980 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-5 Part C: Performance Standards As specified in 13.10.040 of the City of Newcastle Surface Water Management Code at the time of project vesting, stormwater control is to be provided in accordance with the latest King County Surface Water Design Manual (2009 KCSWDM). The following defines the required flow control and water quality treatment standards for the Rhododendron Ridge project. Flow Control Standard The project is in a Conservation Flow Control area. Conservation Flow Control using the historic (forested) site conditions will be implemented. Flow control will provide both flow duration control for 50% of the 2-year through the 50-year peak runoff events. Additionally, peak developed discharges are to match the historic 2 and 10-year historic peak rates. Per Table 1.2.3.A, and given the downstream conditions described previously, no additional flow control or mitigation is needed for this project. Flow Control BMPs The proposed project requires providing flow control BMPs according to the individual lot BMP requirements. Per Section 5.2.1.1, flow control BMPs must be applied to an impervious area equal to at least 10% of the site/lot. Detailed design of these BMPs will be provided with future building permit submittals. Water Quality Treatment Standard Water quality treatment is required for runoff generated from pollution generating surfaces. The project site is located in an area requiring Basic Water Quality Treatment. Basic treatment will be provided by the BMPs outlined in Part E. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-6 Part D: Flow Control System The following gives detailed information related to the design of the proposed detention vault to be constructed for the Rhododendron Ridge project including pond inflows, bypass flows and peak water levels verifying that the project meets the required flow control standards as described in Part C. The following KCRTS output files present the peak site discharge rates (summarized below) and a comparison of existing and developed flow durations showing that the Conservation (Level 2) flow control criteria has been met. Flow Rate (cfs) Event Existing (Historic) Developed 2-year 0.192 0.136 10-year 0.332 0.319 25-year 0.408 0.383 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-7 Peak Flow Comparison Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-8 Flow Duration Comparison Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-9 Flow Duration Comparison Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: ex.tsf New File: dsout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time----- ---------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New %Change Probability Base New %Change 0.096 | 0.10E-01 0.95E-02 -7.2 | 0.10E-01 0.096 0.094 -1.1 0.106 | 0.86E-02 0.88E-02 1.5 | 0.86E-02 0.106 0.108 2.1 0.116 | 0.74E-02 0.81E-02 9.3 | 0.74E-02 0.116 0.126 9.0 0.126 | 0.63E-02 0.74E-02 18.7 | 0.63E-02 0.126 0.137 8.8 0.136 | 0.55E-02 0.63E-02 15.5 | 0.55E-02 0.136 0.146 7.9 0.146 | 0.45E-02 0.56E-02 25.1 | 0.45E-02 0.146 0.155 6.1 0.156 | 0.37E-02 0.44E-02 16.6 | 0.37E-02 0.156 0.166 6.6 0.166 | 0.32E-02 0.38E-02 16.7 | 0.32E-02 0.166 0.172 3.4 0.176 | 0.26E-02 0.28E-02 5.6 | 0.26E-02 0.176 0.177 0.7 0.186 | 0.22E-02 0.22E-02 -1.5 | 0.22E-02 0.186 0.185 -0.5 0.196 | 0.19E-02 0.16E-02 -17.1 | 0.19E-02 0.196 0.190 -3.3 0.206 | 0.16E-02 0.14E-02 -11.1 | 0.16E-02 0.206 0.194 -5.8 0.216 | 0.15E-02 0.14E-02 -6.6 | 0.15E-02 0.216 0.202 -6.7 0.226 | 0.12E-02 0.13E-02 5.3 | 0.12E-02 0.226 0.237 4.7 0.236 | 0.11E-02 0.12E-02 11.8 | 0.11E-02 0.236 0.252 6.6 0.246 | 0.96E-03 0.12E-02 20.3 | 0.96E-03 0.246 0.267 8.5 0.256 | 0.88E-03 0.11E-02 22.2 | 0.88E-03 0.256 0.275 7.1 0.266 | 0.73E-03 0.98E-03 33.3 | 0.73E-03 0.266 0.281 5.3 0.276 | 0.65E-03 0.78E-03 20.0 | 0.65E-03 0.276 0.284 2.7 0.287 | 0.57E-03 0.62E-03 8.6 | 0.57E-03 0.287 0.288 0.4 0.297 | 0.46E-03 0.47E-03 3.6 | 0.46E-03 0.297 0.297 0.2 0.307 | 0.39E-03 0.36E-03 -8.3 | 0.39E-03 0.307 0.304 -0.8 0.317 | 0.29E-03 0.21E-03 -27.8 | 0.29E-03 0.317 0.311 -1.7 0.327 | 0.26E-03 0.98E-04 -62.5 | 0.26E-03 0.327 0.315 -3.7 0.337 | 0.20E-03 0.82E-04 -58.3 | 0.20E-03 0.337 0.317 -5.8 0.347 | 0.16E-03 0.65E-04 -60.0 | 0.16E-03 0.347 0.319 -8.1 0.357 | 0.15E-03 0.49E-04 -66.7 | 0.15E-03 0.357 0.321 -10.0 0.367 | 0.13E-03 0.33E-04 -75.0 | 0.13E-03 0.367 0.322 -12.3 0.377 | 0.11E-03 0.16E-04 -85.7 | 0.11E-03 0.377 0.326 -13.7 0.387 | 0.65E-04 0.00E+00 -100.0 | 0.65E-04 0.387 0.353 -8.8 0.397 | 0.33E-04 0.00E+00 -100.0 | 0.33E-04 0.397 0.369 -7.0 0.407 | 0.16E-04 0.00E+00 -100.0 | 0.16E-04 0.407 0.383 -6.0 Maximum positive excursion = 0.011 cfs ( 9.7%) occurring at 0.119 cfs on the Base Data:ex.tsf and at 0.130 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.055 cfs (-14.4%) occurring at 0.385 cfs on the Base Data:ex.tsf and at 0.329 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-10 Total Developed Peak Vault Inflow Rates Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.877 4 2/09/01 2:00 1.61 1 100.00 0.990 0.470 8 12/03/01 17:00 1.04 2 25.00 0.960 0.769 6 9/10/03 15:00 0.918 3 10.00 0.900 0.918 3 8/26/04 1:00 0.877 4 5.00 0.800 0.756 7 10/28/04 18:00 0.779 5 3.00 0.667 0.779 5 10/22/05 17:00 0.769 6 2.00 0.500 1.04 2 11/21/06 9:00 0.756 7 1.30 0.231 1.61 1 1/09/08 7:00 0.470 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.42 50.00 0.980 Bypass Area Flows Rates Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:bypass.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.024 3 2/09/01 2:00 0.052 1 100.00 0.990 0.007 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.029 2 25.00 0.960 0.014 5 2/28/03 16:00 0.024 3 10.00 0.900 0.017 4 8/26/04 1:00 0.017 4 5.00 0.800 0.013 6 1/05/05 10:00 0.014 5 3.00 0.667 0.012 7 10/22/05 17:00 0.013 6 2.00 0.500 0.029 2 11/21/06 9:00 0.012 7 1.30 0.231 0.052 1 1/09/08 7:00 0.007 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.044 50.00 0.980 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-11 Target Release Rates at Point of Compliance Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:ex.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.408 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.483 1 100.00 0.990 0.066 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.408 2 25.00 0.960 0.259 4 2/28/03 16:00 0.332 3 10.00 0.900 0.047 8 3/03/04 3:00 0.259 4 5.00 0.800 0.238 5 1/05/05 10:00 0.238 5 3.00 0.667 0.192 6 1/18/06 21:00 0.192 6 2.00 0.500 0.332 3 11/24/06 5:00 0.066 7 1.30 0.231 0.483 1 1/09/08 7:00 0.047 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.458 50.00 0.980 Vault Design Summary Required Detention Volume = 42,718 cu.ft. (0.981 ac.-ft.) Design Detention Volume = 43,354 cu.ft. (0.995 ac.-ft.) 100-year Live Storage Depth = 16.68 ft. (height above outlet invert elev.) 100-year Live Storage Elevation = 224.68 ft. Orifice Sizing Table: Orifice Diameter Height Above Outlet (IE) 1 1.10in. 0.00 ft. 2 1.20 in. 7.90 ft. 3 1.15 in. 12.20 ft. Notch Design: Notch Height = 16.0 ft (above outlet invert elev.) Notch Elevation = 224.0ft Notch Width = 1.0 in. Outlet IE = 208.0 ft —1.5 ft lower than sediment storage elevation Riser Height = 16.50 ft. (Above outlet IE) Riser Elevation = 224.50 ft Riser Diameter= 18 inches Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-12 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 134.00 ft Facility Width: 21.00 ft Facility Area: 2814. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 15.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 42210. cu. ft Riser Head: 16.50 ft Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches Number of orifices: 3 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.10 0.133 2 7.90 1.20 0.115 4.0 3 12.20 1.15 0.074 4.0 Top Notch Weir: Rectangular Length: 1.00 in Weir Height: 16.00 ft Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 0.01 0. 0.000 0.004 0.00 0.02 0.02 0. 0.000 0.005 0.00 0.03 0.03 0. 0.000 0.006 0.00 0.05 0.05 0. 0.000 0.007 0.00 0.06 0.06 0. 0.000 0.008 0.00 0.07 0.07 0. 0.000 0.009 0.00 0.08 0.08 0. 0.000 0.009 0.00 0.09 0.09 0. 0.000 0.010 0.00 0.48 0.48 0. 0.000 0.023 0.00 0.86 0.86 0. 0.000 0.030 0.00 1.24 1.24 0. 0.000 0.037 0.00 1.50 1.50 0. 0.000 0.040 0.00 1.88 1.88 1069. 0.025 0.045 0.00 2.27 2.27 2167. 0.050 0.049 0.00 2.65 2.65 3236. 0.074 0.053 0.00 3.03 3.03 4305. 0.099 0.057 0.00 3.42 3.42 5403. 0.124 0.061 0.00 3.80 3.80 6472. 0.149 0.064 0.00 4.19 4.19 7570. 0.174 0.067 0.00 4.57 4.57 8639. 0.198 0.070 0.00 4.95 4.95 9708. 0.223 0.073 0.00 5.34 5.34 10806. 0.248 0.076 0.00 5.72 5.72 11875. 0.273 0.079 0.00 6.10 6.10 12944. 0.297 0.081 0.00 6.49 6.49 14042. 0.322 0.084 0.00 6.87 6.87 15111. 0.347 0.086 0.00 7.26 7.26 16209. 0.372 0.088 0.00 7.64 7.64 17278. 0.397 0.091 0.00 7.90 7.90 18010. 0.413 0.092 0.00 7.91 7.91 18038. 0.414 0.093 0.00 7.93 7.93 18094. 0.415 0.094 0.00 7.94 7.94 18122. 0.416 0.095 0.00 7.95 7.95 18150. 0.417 0.097 0.00 7.96 7.96 18178. 0.417 0.100 0.00 7.97 7.97 18207. 0.418 0.103 0.00 7.99 7.99 18263. 0.419 0.104 0.00 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-13 8.00 8.00 18291. 0.420 0.105 0.00 8.01 8.01 18319. 0.421 0.106 0.00 8.40 8.40 19417. 0.446 0.123 0.00 8.78 8.78 20486. 0.470 0.134 0.00 9.16 9.16 21555. 0.495 0.143 0.00 9.55 9.55 22653. 0.520 0.152 0.00 9.93 9.93 23722. 0.545 0.159 0.00 10.31 10.31 24791. 0.569 0.166 0.00 10.70 10.70 25889. 0.594 0.173 0.00 11.08 11.08 26958. 0.619 0.179 0.00 11.47 11.47 28056. 0.644 0.185 0.00 11.85 11.85 29125. 0.669 0.191 0.00 12.20 12.20 30110. 0.691 0.196 0.00 12.21 12.21 30138. 0.692 0.196 0.00 12.22 12.22 30166. 0.693 0.197 0.00 12.24 12.24 30222. 0.694 0.199 0.00 12.25 12.25 30251. 0.694 0.201 0.00 12.26 12.26 30279. 0.695 0.203 0.00 12.27 12.27 30307. 0.696 0.206 0.00 12.28 12.28 30335. 0.696 0.207 0.00 12.30 12.30 30391. 0.698 0.208 0.00 12.31 12.31 30419. 0.698 0.209 0.00 12.69 12.69 31489. 0.723 0.228 0.00 13.08 13.08 32586. 0.748 0.241 0.00 13.46 13.46 33655. 0.773 0.253 0.00 13.84 13.84 34725. 0.797 0.263 0.00 14.23 14.23 35822. 0.822 0.273 0.00 14.61 14.61 36892. 0.847 0.282 0.00 14.99 14.99 37961. 0.871 0.291 0.00 15.38 15.38 39058. 0.897 0.299 0.00 15.76 15.76 40128. 0.921 0.308 0.00 16.00 16.00 40803. 0.937 0.312 0.00 16.06 16.06 40972. 0.941 0.317 0.00 16.13 16.13 41169. 0.945 0.323 0.00 16.19 16.19 41338. 0.949 0.329 0.00 16.25 16.25 41507. 0.953 0.338 0.00 16.31 16.31 41675. 0.957 0.347 0.00 16.38 16.38 41872. 0.961 0.357 0.00 16.44 16.44 42041. 0.965 0.369 0.00 16.50 16.50 42210. 0.969 0.380 0.00 16.60 16.60 42491. 0.975 0.844 0.00 16.70 16.70 42773. 0.982 1.690 0.00 16.80 16.80 43054. 0.988 2.790 0.00 16.90 16.90 43336. 0.995 4.080 0.00 17.00 17.00 43617. 1.001 5.550 0.00 17.10 17.10 43898. 1.008 6.980 0.00 17.20 17.20 44180. 1.014 7.510 0.00 17.30 17.30 44461. 1.021 8.010 0.00 17.40 17.40 44743. 1.027 8.470 0.00 17.50 17.50 45024. 1.034 8.910 0.00 17.60 17.60 45305. 1.040 9.330 0.00 17.70 17.70 45587. 1.047 9.720 0.00 17.80 17.80 45868. 1.053 10.110 0.00 17.90 17.90 46150. 1.059 10.470 0.00 18.00 18.00 46431. 1.066 10.830 0.00 18.10 18.10 46712. 1.072 11.170 0.00 18.20 18.20 46994. 1.079 11.510 0.00 18.30 18.30 47275. 1.085 11.830 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 1.61 1.53 16.68 16.68 42718. 0.981 2 0.88 0.37 16.44 16.44 42051. 0.965 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-14 3 1.04 0.31 15.70 15.70 39961. 0.917 4 0.77 0.19 11.54 11.54 28266. 0.649 5 0.76 0.18 11.12 11.12 27070. 0.621 6 0.78 0.13 8.61 8.61 20010. 0.459 7 0.92 0.08 5.66 5.66 11707. 0.269 8 0.47 0.07 4.41 4.41 8202. 0.188 Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow Outflow Inflow Inflow Target Calc 1 1.53 0.05 ******** 0.56 1.57 2 0.37 0.02 ******** ******* 0.38 3 0.31 0.03 ******** 0.38 0.32 4 0.19 0.01 ******** ******* 0.19 5 0.18 0.01 ******** ******* 0.19 6 0.13 0.01 ******** 0.22 0.14 7 0.08 0.02 ******** ******* 0.08 8 0.07 0.01 ******** ******* 0.07 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout POC Time Series File:dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 1.61 CFS at 7:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 1.53 CFS at 8:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 16.68 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 16.68 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 42718. Cu-Ft : 0.981 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 1.57 CFS at 8:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.370 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.53 16.68 1 100.00 0.990 0.069 8 11/05/01 3:00 0.370 16.44 2 25.00 0.960 0.186 4 3/01/03 7:00 0.307 15.70 3 10.00 0.900 0.079 7 8/26/04 6:00 0.186 11.54 4 5.00 0.800 0.180 5 1/05/05 16:00 0.180 11.12 5 3.00 0.667 0.129 6 1/19/06 3:00 0.129 8.61 6 2.00 0.500 0.307 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.079 5.66 7 1.30 0.231 1.53 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.069 4.41 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.14 16.64 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.383 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.57 1 100.00 0.990 0.072 8 11/05/01 2:00 0.383 2 25.00 0.960 0.193 4 3/01/03 7:00 0.319 3 10.00 0.900 0.082 7 8/26/04 5:00 0.193 4 5.00 0.800 0.188 5 1/05/05 16:00 0.188 5 3.00 0.667 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-15 0.136 6 1/19/06 2:00 0.136 6 2.00 0.500 0.319 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.082 7 1.30 0.231 1.57 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.072 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.18 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.005 39367 64.199 64.199 35.801 0.358E+00 0.016 4227 6.893 71.093 28.907 0.289E+00 0.026 1430 2.332 73.425 26.575 0.266E+00 0.036 412 0.672 74.097 25.903 0.259E+00 0.047 7219 11.773 85.869 14.131 0.141E+00 0.057 4254 6.937 92.807 7.193 0.719E-01 0.068 1910 3.115 95.921 4.079 0.408E-01 0.078 960 1.566 97.487 2.513 0.251E-01 0.088 771 1.257 98.744 1.256 0.126E-01 0.099 227 0.370 99.114 0.886 0.886E-02 0.109 36 0.059 99.173 0.827 0.827E-02 0.119 46 0.075 99.248 0.752 0.752E-02 0.130 71 0.116 99.364 0.636 0.636E-02 0.140 49 0.080 99.444 0.556 0.556E-02 0.151 75 0.122 99.566 0.434 0.434E-02 0.161 43 0.070 99.636 0.364 0.364E-02 0.171 65 0.106 99.742 0.258 0.258E-02 0.182 43 0.070 99.812 0.188 0.188E-02 0.192 22 0.036 99.848 0.152 0.152E-02 0.202 6 0.010 99.858 0.142 0.142E-02 0.213 4 0.007 99.865 0.135 0.135E-02 0.223 5 0.008 99.873 0.127 0.127E-02 0.234 5 0.008 99.881 0.119 0.119E-02 0.244 6 0.010 99.891 0.109 0.109E-02 0.254 6 0.010 99.901 0.099 0.995E-03 0.265 9 0.015 99.915 0.085 0.848E-03 0.275 12 0.020 99.935 0.065 0.652E-03 0.286 11 0.018 99.953 0.047 0.473E-03 0.296 8 0.013 99.966 0.034 0.342E-03 0.306 10 0.016 99.982 0.018 0.179E-03 0.317 6 0.010 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 0.327 1 0.002 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 0.337 0 0.000 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 0.348 1 0.002 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.358 2 0.003 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.369 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File:dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.005 39437 64.313 64.313 35.687 0.357E+00 0.016 4234 6.905 71.218 28.782 0.288E+00 0.027 1380 2.250 73.469 26.531 0.265E+00 0.038 406 0.662 74.131 25.869 0.259E+00 0.048 7611 12.412 86.543 13.457 0.135E+00 0.059 3945 6.433 92.976 7.024 0.702E-01 0.070 1809 2.950 95.926 4.074 0.407E-01 0.081 969 1.580 97.507 2.493 0.249E-01 0.091 736 1.200 98.707 1.293 0.129E-01 0.102 250 0.408 99.114 0.886 0.886E-02 0.113 33 0.054 99.168 0.832 0.832E-02 0.124 47 0.077 99.245 0.755 0.755E-02 0.134 65 0.106 99.351 0.649 0.649E-02 0.145 53 0.086 99.437 0.563 0.563E-02 0.156 78 0.127 99.565 0.435 0.435E-02 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-16 0.167 43 0.070 99.635 0.365 0.365E-02 0.177 66 0.108 99.742 0.258 0.258E-02 0.188 35 0.057 99.799 0.201 0.201E-02 0.199 30 0.049 99.848 0.152 0.152E-02 0.210 6 0.010 99.858 0.142 0.142E-02 0.221 4 0.007 99.865 0.135 0.135E-02 0.231 6 0.010 99.874 0.126 0.126E-02 0.242 4 0.007 99.881 0.119 0.119E-02 0.253 6 0.010 99.891 0.109 0.109E-02 0.264 6 0.010 99.901 0.099 0.995E-03 0.274 7 0.011 99.912 0.088 0.881E-03 0.285 15 0.024 99.936 0.064 0.636E-03 0.296 9 0.015 99.951 0.049 0.489E-03 0.307 7 0.011 99.962 0.038 0.375E-03 0.317 11 0.018 99.980 0.020 0.196E-03 0.328 6 0.010 99.990 0.010 0.978E-04 0.339 2 0.003 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 0.350 0 0.000 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 0.360 1 0.002 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.371 2 0.003 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.382 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Peak Vault Discharge Rates Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.370 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.53 16.68 1 100.00 0.990 0.069 8 11/05/01 3:00 0.370 16.44 2 25.00 0.960 0.186 4 3/01/03 7:00 0.307 15.70 3 10.00 0.900 0.079 7 8/26/04 6:00 0.186 11.54 4 5.00 0.800 0.180 5 1/05/05 16:00 0.180 11.12 5 3.00 0.667 0.129 6 1/19/06 3:00 0.129 8.61 6 2.00 0.500 0.307 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.079 5.66 7 1.30 0.231 1.53 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.069 4.41 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.14 16.64 50.00 0.980 Peak Site Discharge Rates (Vault Discharge + Bypass) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.383 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.57 1 100.00 0.990 0.072 8 11/05/01 2:00 0.383 2 25.00 0.960 0.193 4 3/01/03 7:00 0.319 3 10.00 0.900 0.082 7 8/26/04 5:00 0.193 4 5.00 0.800 0.188 5 1/05/05 16:00 0.188 5 3.00 0.667 0.136 6 1/19/06 2:00 0.136 6 2.00 0.500 0.319 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.082 7 1.30 0.231 1.57 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.072 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.18 50.00 0.980 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter4 TIR 0318.doc 4-17 Part E: Water Quality System Details of the projects approach to water quality treatment have been described previously. A stormwater cartridge system is proposed to be utilized to provide the required basic level of treatment for pollution generating impervious surfaces (PGIS). The locations of this BMP is shown on the Stormwater Control Plan (Figure 8). The use of cartridge systems for basic treatment has been approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology through their Evaluation of Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies: Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE). Through this program, several cartridge systems have been given a General Use Level Designation (GULD). Detailed design of a cartridge system are provided herein. The project area directed to the proposed cartridge system is as described below. The area will include PGIS on-site road, access, driveway and frontage improvement areas along with non PGIS roof areas from Lots 1-8. In addition to these impervious areas landscaped yard areas from lots 1-8, frontage improvement areas, and off-site forested areas will drain to the proposed cartridge system. Landscape Area = 1.24 Ac. (Till Grass) Off-site Forested Area = 0.99 Ac (Till Forest) Lots 1 - 8 Impervious Area (PGIS and Non-PGIS) = 0.62 Ac. Roadway, Sidewalks, Driveways, Private Access Roads = 0.73 Ac. Total Till Forest Area = 0.99 Ac. Total Till Grass Area = 1.24 Ac. Total Impervious Area = 1.35 Ac. Total Area to Cartridge System = 3.58 Ac. Based on the flow values above, a StormFilter system consisting a 8’x11’ peak diversion vault with fourteen (14), 27 inch, ZPG media cartridges was recommended by Contech Engineered Solutions. Water Quality Peak Flow Rates (15 min time step) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:wq.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.743 7 2/09/01 3:00 2.52 1 100.00 0.990 0.688 8 5/06/02 7:15 1.58 2 25.00 0.960 1.43 4 9/10/03 13:45 1.57 3 10.00 0.900 1.58 2 8/25/04 23:30 1.43 4 5.00 0.800 0.973 6 9/10/05 16:45 1.12 5 3.00 0.667 1.57 3 10/22/05 16:15 0.973 6 2.00 0.500 1.12 5 11/21/06 8:00 0.743 7 1.30 0.231 2.52 1 1/09/08 7:30 0.688 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 2.21 50.00 0.980 SDSDSDSDSS SS SS SS SS G G G G G OHU OHUOHUOH U OHUOHUOHUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSDSDWWWWWWWWWWW W WGGGG GGGGG G G G G G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSDSS SSSSSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX SSSSSSSSSXXXXXXXXXXXXW W W W WRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDWDWDWDWDWDRDRDWDWDWDWDSLOPEAREA OF >40% STEEP SLOPE115253674910111213148TRACT C(ACCESS)TRACT E(CRITICAL AREA)TRACT A(LANDSCAPE)TRACT D(ACCESS)ROAD "A"18' PAVEMENT20' MIN. TRACTSD #16TYPE I CBSD #15ATYPE I CBSD #15TYPE I CBSD #8TYPE I CBw/ THROUGH CURB INLETSD #7TYPE II-48 CBw/ THROUGH CURB INLETSD #6TYPE II-54 MHw/ SPILL CONTROLSD #10TYPE I CBSD #10ATYPE I CBSD #11TYPE II-48 CBSD #12TYPE II-48 CBSD #13TYPE I CBSD #14TYPE I CBSD #17TYPE I CBTRACT B(ACCESS)SD #3TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSD #4TYPE I-54 MHSD #2ATYPE I CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LID& CHANNELIZED BOTTOMSD #9TYPE I CBDETENTION VAULT50' ROW 30' ROW48' ROW 0120802040SCALE: 1" = 40'SE 80TH ST. SE 80TH STREET (UNIMPROVED ROW)112TH AVENUE NE(UNIMPROVED ROW)113TH AVENUE SESE 79TH PLACE 10' BUFFER4' LANDSCAPE5' SIDEWALK28' CURB TO CURB12' WIDEMAINTENANCEACCESSDETENTION VAULT STORM OUTFALLOFF-SITE TO 110th AVE SE10' TRACT 25' ROW DED.20' TRACT28' PAVEMENT 5' SIDEWALK (TYP)R=42'R=50'(ROW)PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP)18' PAVEMENT RHODODENDRON RIDGEREV NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONMADE BYCHECKEDKING COUNTYERP PLAN SETPLOTTED:SHEETJOB NO. 14134iCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCCITY OF NEWCASTLEWASHINGTONSE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONDRAWN:APPROVED:DESIGNED:BPF, SPKJGAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Drainage Exhibits\14134E02.dwg3/21/18 08:43TsollySPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallROVERALL STORM DRAINAGE PLAN8PROPOSED MAJOR 10' CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR 2' CONTOUR430428ROAD CENTERLINEPROPOSED STORM DRAINPROPOSED ROOF DRAINPROPOSED PAVINGPROPOSED SIDEWALKLEGEND:PROPOSED STORMWATER VAULTPROPOSED ROCKERY WALL10' SLOPESETBACK(TYP.)AREA OF >40% STEEP SLOPE POTENTIAL FUTUREROADIMPROVEMENTSSD #58'x11' PEAK DIVERSIONSTORMFILTER OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTSALONG SE 80TH ST, TYP.SEE SHEET D-7.SE 80TH ST CITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONCITY OF NEWCASTLE CITY OF RENTON RDPROPOSED WALL DRAINWD3/21/183/21/18 205210215220225230235240205210215220225230235240PROPOSEDGRADE, TYP.15.18'DEPTHTOP OF VAULTELEV. = 226.50BOT OF VAULTELEV. = 207.756" AVG. SEDIMENTSTORAGE DEPTH(9" TOTALSTORAGE DEPTH)6" GRAVEL BEDBOT OF STORAGEELEV. = 209.50100 YR.W.S.ELEV =224.68LIMIT OFEXCAVATION1'LIMIT OFEXCAVATION1'1'1'2' - 10'COVER21 L F 1 2 " SD @ 1 5 . 45%SD #4TYPE I-54 MHRIM = 237.83I.E. 12" OUT (W) = 228.0021.00'VAULT ACCESS, TYP.SEE NOTE200205210215220225230235240TOP OF VAULTELEV. = 226.50BOTTOM SUMPELEV. 204.00BOT OF STORAGEELEV. = 209.506" AVG. SEDIMENTSTORAGE DEPTH(9" TOTAL STORAGE DEPTH)100 YR. W.S.ELEV = 224.68PROPOSEDGRADE, TYP.2' - 10'COVERLIMIT OFEXCAVATION15.18'DEPTHLIMIT OFEXCAVATION1'1'1'1'BOT OF VAULTELEV.= 207.757 : 10.82' FREEBOARDEND OF PAVING ELEV. = 229.14 START OF PAVING ELEV. = 236.68 SD #3TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDRIM = 218.94I.E. 12" OUT (SW) = 207.6277 LF 12" SD @ 0.50%GRAVEL ACCESSROAD136.00'CONTROLSTRUCTURESEE SHT. SD-2VAULT ACCESS, TYP.SEE NOTEOHUOHUOHUOHUXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RDRDRD DETENTION VAULT30' ROW112TH AVENUE NE(UNIMPROVED ROW)10' BUFFER12' WIDEMAINTENANCEACCESS15% MAX SLOPE20' TRACT246240236238242244 2462602 5 6 256258258SD #6, TYPE II-54 MHw/ SPILL CONTROLSTA. 0+30.00, 3.00' LRIM = 256.27I.E. 12" SD IN (NE) = 249.00I.E. 12" SD OUT (W) = 249.0045 LF 12"@ 2.64%75 LF 12" @ 22.45%21 LF 12"@ 15.45%77 LF 12" @ 0.50%107 LF 12" @ 3.08%SD #3, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 7+01.15, 0.00'RIM = 218.94I.E. 12" N-12 IN (N) = 207.62I.E. 6" PVC FD IN (N) = 208.12I.E. 12" N-12 OUT (SW) = 207.62SD #4, TYPE I-54 MHRIM = 237.83I.E. 12" SD IN (E) = 228.00I.E. 6" RD IN (N) = 228.50I.E. 12" N-12 OUT (W) = 228.00220230218222224226228232234236230228218240SD #2A, TYPE I CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LID& CHANNELIZED BOTTOMSTA. 6+37.14, 0.00'RIM = 206.94I.E. 12" N-12 IN (NE) = 204.00I.E. 12" HDPE SDR-11 OUT (W) = 204.0064 LF 12" @ 5.66%31 LF 12"@ 2.27%SD #5, 8'x11' PEAKDIVERSION STORMFILTERSTA.0+79.38, 0.00'RIM = 250.00I.E. 12" IN (E) = 247.80I.E. 12" OUT (W) = 244.75SEE SHEET SD-2200205210215220225230235240SE 80TH ST.SE 80TH STREET(UNIMPROVED ROW)RHODODENDRON RIDGEREV NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONMADE BYCHECKEDKING COUNTYERP PLAN SETPLOTTED:SHEETJOB NO. 14134iCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCCITY OF NEWCASTLEWASHINGTONSE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONDRAWN:APPROVED:DESIGNED:BPF, SPBPFAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134H01.dwg3/21/18 13:46TsollySPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR3/21/18VAULT SECTION A-ASCALE: 1"=10' HOR. 1"=5' VER.VAULT SECTION B-BSCALE: 1"=10' HOR. 1"=5' VER.DETENTION VAULT & SECTIONSD-1121314TRACT D(ACCESS)15AABB21'21'136'136'EXCAVATION LIMIT AT1:1 SLOPE, TYP.EXCAVATION LIMITBEGINS 3' OFFSETFROM VAULT.VAULT ACCESS1.ACCESS RISERS ARE 48" DIAM. M.H. w/ ECCENTRIC CONE TOP SECTIONSAS NECESSARY (2'EC = 2' HIGH SECTION; 3'EC = 3' HIGH SECTION) OVERMIN. 2' DIAM. HOLE IN VAULT PANELS OR GRADE RINGS (GR). PROVIDELADDER OR STEPS TO BOTTOM OF VAULT PER DETAIL SHT. SD-2.2.PROVIDE ROUND LOCKING MANHOLE COVERS FOR ALL ACCESS RISERS.3.5'x10' REMOVABLE LOCKING PANEL SHALL MEET THE 2009 KCSWDMREQUIREMENTS.VAULT VENTILATION1.1'-1" DIAM. VENT OPENINGS ARE DETAILED ON THE STRUCTURALPLANS.2.VENTS IN PARK/LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE 12" DIAM. IPS SCH 40 PVCPIPE (OR EQUAL) WITH LIGHT DUTY DROP-IN GRATES.3.VENTS IN PAVED AREAS SUBJECT TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SHALL BE 12"DIAM. CLASS 50 DUCTILE IRON PIPE w/ 12" DIAM. CAST IRON RING ANDCOVER (OLYMPIC FOUNDRY, INC. PART NO. MH5, OR EQUAL) w/ 2'SQUARE x 1' DEPTH CONC. CL. 5(S) COLLAR.VAULT CAPACITY:1.THE REQUIRED VAULT CAPACITY FOR THE 100 YR. EVENT IS 42,718CU.FT (0.981 AC.FT.). THE DESIGN VAULT CAPACITY AT THE 100 YR.W.S. ELEVATION 43,354 CU.FT. (0.995 ACRE-FT).CONTROL RISER INVAULT, SEE DETAILSHT. SD-2VAULTOUTLET= 208.0013" DIA. VENT OPENINGS,TYP.2 TOTAL5'x10' REMOVABLELOCKING PANELFG 235.1TV 226.5VAULT ACCESSCOVERFG 236.8TV 226.5w/ ECVAULT ACCESSCOVERFG 239.4TV 226.5w/ ECVAULT ACCESSCOVERFG 235.7TV 226.5w/ EC12" SDVAULT INLETIE = 224.68060401020SCALE: 1" = 20'SEE SHT. SD-3FOR OUTFALLCITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONNOTES:1.WORK SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OFNEWCASTLE. IT IS PART OF NEWCASTLE PERMIT ERP17-009.THIS PLAN IS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. PLANSAPPROVED BY THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE SHOULD BE USED FORIMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE.2.ALL STORM DRAIN PIPES MARKED AS "SD" ARE TO BE BUILTUSING ALLOWABLE MATERIALS AS OUTLINED IN WSDOT/APWASTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 7-02, 7-03 AND 7-04. ALLOWABLEMATERIAL TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONUNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.ALL RETAINED TREES MUST HAVE TREEPROTECTION PER CITY OF NEWCASTLEPUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS. SEE SHEETSTESC-1 & TESC-2 FOR LOCATION & DETAIL.6" ROOF DRAINVAULT INLETIE = 224.686" WALL DRAINVAULT INLETIE = 224.68 RHODODENDRON RIDGEREV NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONMADE BYCHECKEDKING COUNTYERP PLAN SETPLOTTED:SHEETJOB NO. 14134iCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCCITY OF NEWCASTLEWASHINGTONSE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONDRAWN:APPROVED:DESIGNED:BPF, SPBPFAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134H02.dwg3/21/18 13:41TsollySPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR3/21/18DETENTION VAULT CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAILNOTE:SEE FLOW RESTRICTOR DETAIL SW-18FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.ROUND SOLID COVERWITH LOCKING BOLTS100 YR. W.S. ELEV = 224.68TOP OF VAULT ELEV SEESTRUCTURAL PLANSORIFICE NO. 2, ELEV. = 220.20ORIFICE DIA. = 1.15"ORIFICE NO. 2, ELEV. = 215.90ORIFICE DIA. = 1.20"FLOOR GRATE WITH 2'X2' ACCESS DOOR(1"x1/4" GALVANIZED METAL BARS)18" RISERPIPE SUPPORTSPER C.O.N. DETAIL SW-18CLEANOUT GATE: SHEAR GATE WITHCONTROL ROD, PER C.O.N. DETAIL SW-18INSIDE TOP OF VAULTELEV = 225.50ORIFICE NO. 1, ELEV. = 206.00ORIFICE DIA. = 1.10"BOT OF VAULT ELEV.SEE STRUCTURAL PLANSINSIDE BOT OF VAULTELEV. = 208.75KNOCKOUT DIA.= WALLTHICKNESS + PIPE O.D.ORIFICE ELBOWPER C.O.N. DETAILSW-1812" OUTLETI.E. = 208.00SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FORSUMP AND FOOTING DESIGNVAULT WALLDESIGN BY OTHERS2' COVERMINIMUM18" RISER ELEV. = 224.502.0'5.5'2.0'SEDIMENT STORAGEELEV. = 209.501' SECTION OF 18" PIPE ATTACHED BYGASKETED BAND TO ALLOW REMOVAL.PER C.O.N. DETAIL SW-185.5' DEPTH - TYPE II 48" CBSUMP ELEV. = 204.00STORM DETENTION VAULTCONTROL STRUCTURESCALE: 1" = 2'NOTCH 1" WIDEBTM ELEV = 224.00VAULT ACCESSSEE NOTESEE SHT. SD-3 FOROUTFALL PROFILENOTE:1)WORK SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS LOCATEDIN THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE. IT IS PART OFNEWCASTLE PERMIT ERP17-009. THIS PLANIS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. PLANSAPPROVED BY THE CITY OF NEWCASTLESHOULD BE USED FOR IMPROVEMENTS INTHE CITY OF NEWCASTLE.SD-2VAULT ACCESS1.ACCESS RISERS ARE 48" DIAM. M.H. w/ ECCENTRIC CONE TOP SECTIONSAS NECESSARY (2'EC = 2' HIGH SECTION; 3'EC = 3' HIGH SECTION) OVERMIN. 2' DIAM. HOLE IN VAULT PANELS OR GRADE RINGS (GR). PROVIDELADDER OR STEPS TO BOTTOM OF VAULT PER DETAIL SHT. SD-2.2.PROVIDE ROUND LOCKING MANHOLE COVERS FOR ALL ACCESS RISERS. SSSSSSSSSSXXSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWSDSDWWWWEOHUOHUOHUOHUSDWSDSSSSSSWWWDSXXXXXXXXXX X X X X XWWWWWW 1514SD #3, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 7+01.15, 0.00'COR STD. PLAN 201.00SD #2, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 0+49.45, 0.00'COR STD. PLAN 201.00EXIST. SD #1, TYPE I CBSTA. 0+00.00, 0.00'COR FACILITY ID: 114635SD #2A, TYPE I CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LID& CHANNELIZED BOTTOMSTA. 6+37.14, 0.00'COR STD. PLAN 200.00SD #1, TYPE I CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 0+34.45, 0.00'2040608010012014016018020022020406080100120140160180200220SD #3, TYPE II-48 CB w/ SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 7+01.15, 0.00' . RIM = 218.94I.E. 12" IN (N) = 207.62 I.E. 6" IN (N) = 208.12 I.E. 12" OUT (SW) = 207.62BEGIN PIPE BENDAND BURY PIPE AT SURFACE.STA. 0+83, IE = 66.1±DAYLIGHT PIPE TO SURFACE. IE = 202.5±, STA. 6+11.49 64 LF 12"SD @ 5.66%26 LF 12"SD @ 5.04%50.0%77 LF 12"SD @ 0.50%12.4%18.6%22.7%34.8%32.6%25.2%23.5% 31 .1% 3 8 . 5%26.4%19.5%14.0%DETENTION VAULTSLIDE 7.5' LENGTH OF 12" PIPEINTO 10' LENGTH OF 18" PIPE@ STA. 0+98, IE = 68.2±PIPE ANCHORS 10' O.C.VERTICAL SPACING PER CORSTD. PLAN 221.20, TYP.PIPE ANCHORS 10' O.C.VERTICAL SPACING PER CORSTD. PLAN 221.20, TYP.I.E. 12" OUT (N) = 55.24I.E. 12" IN (S) = 54.84SD #1, TYPE I CBCONNECT TO EXISTINGCITY OF RENTON STORMAT EXIST. 12" CULVERTSTA. 0+34.45, 0.00' .RIM = 58.47I.E. 12" IN (E) = 55.24 3 2 . 4% SD #2, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 0+49.45, 0.00' .RIM = 62.41I.E. 18" IN (E) = 53.04I.E. 12" OUT (W) = 56.0415 LF 12"SD @ 5.33%34 LF 12"SD @ 1.18%3 8 . 3% SD #2A, TYPE I CB w/ SOLID LOCKING LID & CHANNELIZED BOTTOM STA. 6+37.14, 0.00' . RIM = 206.94 I.E. 12" IN (NE) = 204.00 I.E. 12" OUT (W) = 204.00EXIST . 8 ' SS0+000+400+801+201+602+002+402+803+203+604+004+404+805+205+606+006+406+807+207+608+008+4057.960.265.872.681.493.6106.7119.1128.7 140.1 154.8 168.7 181.7 189.2 195.7 200.9 206.5 215.5 223.4 226.0 228.1 57.9060.2465.8372.6181.4293.62106.65119.15128.67 140.15 154.79 168.66 181.65 189.16 195.69 200.89 206.50 215.49 223.41 225.98 228.11 SE 80TH STREET(UNIMPROVED ROW)112TH AVENUE NE(UNIMPROVED ROW)110TH AVENUE NELINCOLN AVE.NESE 80TH STREET(UNIMPROVED)SIGNED "NE 43rd STREET" IN RENTON60' ROWCITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONCITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONFLOW CONTROL STRUCTUREI.E. 12" OUT = 208.00SEE SHT. SD-2 FOR DETAIL.0120802040SCALE: 1" = 40'STORM DRAIN OUTFALL PROFILESCALE: 1" = 40' H 1" = 20' VDAYLIGHT PIPETO SURFACE@ STA. 6+11.49IE = 202.5±END PIPE ON SURFACEAND BURY UNDERGROUND@ STA. 0+83, IE = 66.1±570 LF 12" HDPE SDR-11 PIPEON SURFACE. PIPE INSTALLEDBETWEEN CLEARING LIMITS TOAVOID TREES.570 LF 12" HDPE SDR-11 PIPEON EXISTING GRADE, TYP. EXIST. PLUGGED 12" CULVERT,ABANDON IN PLACERHODODENDRON RIDGEREV NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONMADE BYCHECKEDKING COUNTYERP PLAN SETPLOTTED:SHEETJOB NO. 14134iCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCCITY OF NEWCASTLEWASHINGTONSE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONDRAWN:APPROVED:DESIGNED:BPF, SPBPFAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134H03.dwg3/21/18 13:45TsollySPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRLNEM3/21/18SD-3OFF-SITE STORM DRAIN OUTFALLINSTALL HIGH VISIBILITYRIBBON ALONG EXISTINGCLEARING LIMITS, TYP.INSTALL INLET PROTECTION ONEXISTING CATCH BASINS WITHIN200' OF PROJECT PER COR STD.PLAN 216.20 OR 216.30 (TYP.)SLIDE 7.5' LENGTH OF 12" PIPEINTO 10' LENGTH OF 18" PIPE@ STA. 0+98, IE = 68.2±PIPE ANCHORS 10' O.C.VERTICAL SPACING PERCOR STD. PLAN 221.20.SEE SHT. D-712" HDPE SDR-1118" HDPE SDR-1115' LF7.5' LFSLIDE 7.5' LENGTH OF 12" PIPEINTO 15' LENGTH OF 18" PIPE.SLIEVE CONNECTION & SUMP DETAILNTSBURY PIPE AT END OFSLIEVE PER PLAN.12" N-12OUT18" HDPESDR-11 INIE 18" IN = 53.04IE 12" IN = 56.04SD #2TYPE II-48 CATCH BASINW/ SOLID LOCKING LIDCOR STD. PLAN 201.0024" MIN.36"(SEE MANUFACTURERHDPE CONNECTION DETAILN.T.S.HDPE PIPENOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALLSUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION.PROVIDE CONCRETE SUPPORTWALL, FULL DEPTH WITH AMINIMUM OF 12" AROUND TOPAND SIDES12"12"PROVIDE RUBBER O-RINGGASKETS AROUND 36" HDPEHDPE FLANGE ADAPTER6"4 EA. # 6 REBARAS SHOWN2" MIN.CLR.GROUT SHALL BE MASTERFLOW928 EXTENDED WORK-TIMENONSHRINK GROUT OR EQUAL.INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER 'SRECOMMENDATIONSCITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONSS/SD CROSSINGN: 196721.83E: 1304420.22TOP 8" SS = 50.64'BOT. 18" SD = 54.92'VERT. SEP. = 4.28'SS MH/SD PIPEHOR. SEP. = 3.09'INSTALL SILT FENCE WHEREUNDERGROUND STORMINSTALLATION TAKESPLACE PER COR STD. PLAN214.00 OR 214.10 (TYP.)SILT FENCE (TYP.)SS/SD CROSSINGN: 196726.50E: 1305037.53TOP 8" SS = 203.62'BOT. 12" SD = 205.91'VERT. SEP. = 3.29'ALL RETAINED TREES MUST HAVE TREEPROTECTION PER CITY OF NEWCASTLEPUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS. SEE SHEETSTESC-1 & TESC-2 FOR LOCATION & DETAIL.NOTES:1.WORK SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OFNEWCASTLE. IT IS PART OF NEWCASTLE PERMIT ERP17-009.THIS PLAN IS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. PLANSAPPROVED BY THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE SHOULD BE USED FORIMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE.2.ALL STORM DRAIN PIPES MARKED AS "SD" ARE TO BE BUILTUSING ALLOWABLE MATERIALS AS OUTLINED IN WSDOT/APWASTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 7-02, 7-03 AND 7-04. ALLOWABLEMATERIAL TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONUNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.50 LF 18" HDPESDR-11 PIPE50 LF 18" HDPESDR-11 PIPE Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter5 TIR 0318.doc 5-1 5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design This section verifies the capacity of the stormwater conveyance facilities draining to the proposed detention vault as shown on the Rhododendron Ridge plan, and profile sheets (plan sheets RS-1 to RS-8). Also included is the design analysis of the Vault outfall. Sub-basin areas for the conveyance system inlets are shown on Figure 9. Design and analysis of the conveyance system is per the 2009 KC Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) criteria for conveyance capacity (using Uniform Flow and Backwater Analysis Methods). The results of the analysis indicating that the system meets the required design criteria are shown on the enclosed analysis spreadsheets. The capacity analysis of the storm conveyance system is based on the following assumptions. Refer to Figure 9 for Conveyance Configuration and Sub-Basin Areas. Assumptions: 1. Analysis has been completed using the Modified Rational Method for the 25-year and 100- year, 24-hour storms. The 25-year is to be fully contained in the conveyance system and per the 2016 KCSWDM surcharge of the system for the 100-year is permitted with conditions. 2. The soils on the site are identified as Alderwood series soils Hydrologic Group C. For the modified rational method, impervious areas =0.90; lawn areas =0.25; dense forested area = 0.10. 3. Land surface cover is assumed to be 85% impervious for the sub areas with the exception of roof drain connections that are modeled as 100% impervious and large landscaped or forested areas that are respectively modeled as grass or forested areas. 4. For the analysis a minimum Time of Concentration Tc, used with the King County Modified Rational Formula is 3.5 minutes. With an initial inlet time based on the following: Pervious: Kr = 7 V = KrxS0^1/2 = 7*0.02^1/2 = 0.99 T1 = sheet flow across furthest lot to conveyance system T1 = L / 60V = 140 / 60 (.99) = 2.36 min. Impervious: Kr = 20 V = KrxS0^1/2 = 20*0.02^1/2 = 2.83 T2 = sheet flow along road to catch basin (typical) T2 = L / 60V = 200 / 60 (2.83) = 1.18 min. Tc = (T1) + (T2) = 2.36 + 1.18 = 3.54 min. 5. Mannings roughness coefficients used was: n = 0.014 for N-12 or concrete pipe, 0.009 for HDPE pipe for the uniform flow analysis. A Mannings roughness coefficient of n=0.012 was used for the backwater analysis. 6. The peak rainfall intensity, IR, for the 100-year/24-hour storm is determined using a unit peak rainfall intensity factor iR which is calculated from the appropriate Tc and coefficients, and PR which is the total precipitation at the project site for the 100-year/24-hour storm event. Total Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter5 TIR 0318.doc 5-2 precipitation is found on isopluvial Figure 3.2.1.D of the SWDM. The value for a Type 1A 25- year storm is 3.45 inches and the 100-year storm is 3.92 inches as shown on the isopluvials provided herewith. 7. Drainage areas and the storm sewer layout are shown on the ERP plans and on the Storm Conveyance System Plan Sheet, Figure 9. 8. Tail water elevations: based on the modeled 25-year and 100-year water surface elevations for each proposed vault the following elevations are used to define the tail water elevations used for the backwater analysis. Vault: 25-year W.S. elev. = 224.44 100-year W.S. elev. = 224.68 Summary of Results: 25-year Event As shown on the enclosed conveyance analysis spreadsheets, the closed conveyance system elements do not surcharge above the rim elevations for the 25-year event. 100-year Event No surcharging of the closed conveyance system was simulated for the 100-year event in the storm system, Outfall The peak discharge for the outfall has been estimated to be 1.61 cfs for the 100-year event (peak vault 100-year inflow). The outfall has been assessed both for capacity and for the peak outlet velocity. Analysis indicates that the outfall capacity for the 12” diameter pipe segment with lowest slope (0.5%) is adequate as shown in the attached capacity calculation. For the steepest section of the 12” diam. outfall (SDR 11 HDPE ID = 10.293 in, slope = 38.5%) the calculated velocity is 21.4 ft/s (see below). This outfall is proposed to connect to the City of Renton stormwater conveyance system downstream of the project site. Additional analysis of this conveyance system is provided in Appendix C Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis. Based on the potential velocity at the end of the outfall a energy dissipator is necessary before connecting to the City of Renton stormwater system. A stilling well dissipator is proposed. The 12” HDPE will transition into an 18” HDPE Pipe (ID=14.532 in) before connecting to the stilling well structure. The stilling well will be a 48” diameter catch basin with the inlet depressed below the outlet elevation. Ponded water in the catch basin will act to dissipate the energy of the incoming flow. This well has been designed per the Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels, Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number 14, Third Edition. The following are the design calculations for the stilling well as shown on the design plans. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter5 TIR 0318.doc 5-3 Design Q = 1.61 cfs Inlet Diameter D = 14.532 in (1.21 ft) Required Stilling Well Diameter (Dw) = D Design Dw/D ratio = 48/14.532 = 3.3 H1 = Depth of Stilling Well below inlet H1/Dw = 0.38 for a slope of 38.5% per Figure 12.3 Required H1=48x0.38 = 18.24 in = 1.52 ft Design H1 = 2 ft H2 = Depth of Well above inlet = 2D = 2x1.21 = 2.42 ft Design H2 = 3ft. Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Mar 5 2018 Minimum Pipe Slope Section Circular Diameter (ft) = 1.00 Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%) = 0.50 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 1.61 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.58 Q (cfs) = 1.610 Area (sqft) = 0.47 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.40 Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.73 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.54 Top Width (ft) = 0.99 EGL (ft) = 0.76 0 1 2 3 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.50 -0.50 100.00 0.00 100.50 0.50 101.00 1.00 101.50 1.50 102.00 2.00 Reach (ft) Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Mar 5 2018 Maximum Pipe Slope Section Circular Diameter (ft) = 0.86 Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%) = 38.50 N-Value = 0.009 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 1.61 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.16 Q (cfs) = 1.610 Area (sqft) = 0.08 Velocity (ft/s) = 21.40 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.77 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.57 Top Width (ft) = 0.67 EGL (ft) = 7.28 0 1 2 Elev (ft)Section 99.75 100.00 100.25 100.50 100.75 101.00 Reach (ft) 7513 SF12335 SF7508 SF7552 SF7508 SF7505 SF1402 SF7612 SF7675 SF7505 SF7633 SF7588 SF8456 SF8460 SF8460 SF7503 SFSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDDX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDRDRDWDWDWDWDWDSD #7, TYPE II-48 CBw/ THROUGH CURB INLETSD #14, TYPE I CBSD #12, TYPE II-48 CBSD #13, TYPE I CBSD #11, TYPE II-48 CBSD #10, TYPE I CBSD #10A, TYPE I CBSD #17, TYPE I CBSD #16, TYPE I CBSD #15A, TYPE I CBSD #15, TYPE I CBSD #6, TYPE II-54 MHw/ SPILL CONTROLSD #8, TYPE I CBw/ THROUGH CURB INLETSD #4, TYPE I-54 MHSD #3, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSD #2A, TYPE I CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LID& CHANNELIZED BOTTOMSE 80TH STREET (UNIMPROVED ROW)112TH AVENUE NE(UNIMPROVED ROW)113TH AVENUE SESE 79TH ST. SE 80TH ST.SD #9, TYPE I CB0120802040SCALE: 1" = 40'SE 80TH ST.115253674910111213148TRACT C(ACCESS)TRACT B(ACCESS)TRACT E(CRITICAL AREA)TRACT A(LANDSCAPE)TRACT D(ACCESS)ROAD "A"RHODODENDRON RIDGEREV NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONMADE BYCHECKEDKING COUNTYERP PLAN SETPLOTTED:SHEETJOB NO. 14134iCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCCITY OF NEWCASTLEWASHINGTONSE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONDRAWN:APPROVED:DESIGNED:BPF, SPKJGAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Drainage Exhibits\14134E01.dwg3/21/18 08:45TsollySPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRSTORM CONVEYANCESUBBASIN PLANLEGENDPROJECT BOUNDARYPROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP)9OFF-SITE OUTFALL TO CITY OFRENTON STORM SYSTEMSD #7SD #15SD #17SD #10SD #13SD #10ASD #8SD #15ASD #4SD #4ASD #4SD #4A, 12"AREA DRAINSD #5, 8'x11' PEAKDIVERSION STORMFILTERSUBBASIN BOUNDARYSD #7SUBBASIN NAMESD #4B, 12"AREA DRAINSD #4BSD #9SD #14CITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONSD #163/21/183/21/18 SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.1.C 25-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 6/15/2016 2016 Surface Water Design Manual 3-18 Site Rhododendron ridge 3.45 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD FIGURE 3.2.1.D 100-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 2016 Surface Water Design Manual 6/15/2016 3-19 Site Rhododendron ridge 3.92 Project #: 14134RHODODENDRON RIDGE25-YEAR FOR VAULTSUBBASIN AREA = 5.09R25P253.45 6.30 2.66br0.65Tc6.3 Calcs. by: TASArea C C*A Sum TC i25 I25QRPipe Typ. SlopeQFV L From To(AC) C (AC) C(ac) C*A (Min.) (c.f.s.) (in.) n (ft./ft.) (Full) (Full) (ft.)SD #17SD #160.0080.250.0210.90.030.720.020.026.300.802.770.06120.0140.0070422.783.5471SD #16SD #150.1790.250.0230.90.200.320.070.096.300.802.770.24120.0140.0208004.786.0996SD #15ASD #150.5850.250.1050.90.690.350.240.246.300.802.770.67120.0140.0629008.3210.5928SD #15SD #70.0180.250.1800.90.200.840.170.496.300.802.771.37120.0140.0308005.827.41107SD #14SD #131.0410.250.0230.91.060.260.280.2823.070.351.190.34120.0140.0413006.748.58194SD #13SD #120.0470.250.0840.90.130.670.090.376.300.802.771.02120.0140.0055002.463.13195SD #12SD #110.0000.250.0000.9---------0.376.300.802.771.02120.0140.044100------96SD #11SD #100.0000.250.0000.9---------0.376.300.802.771.02120.0140.084400------59SD #10ASD #100.0000.250.0490.90.050.900.040.046.300.802.770.12120.0140.0618008.2510.5024SD #10SD #90.0460.250.1800.90.230.770.170.596.300.802.771.62120.0140.09930010.4513.3147SD #9SD #80.0020.250.0240.90.030.850.020.616.300.802.771.69120.0140.0374006.428.1799SD #8SD #70.7620.250.0490.90.810.290.230.846.300.802.772.34120.0140.0356006.267.9725SD #7SD #60.0130.250.0750.90.090.800.071.416.300.802.773.90120.0140.0227005.006.3631SD #6SD #50.0000.250.0000.9---------1.416.300.802.773.90120.0140.026400------45SD #5SD #40.0000.250.0000.9---------1.416.300.802.773.90120.0140.224500------75SD #4VLT-10.6500.250.6610.91.310.580.762.176.300.802.776.01120.0140.15450013.0416.6021SD #4AVLT-10.0010.250.0750.90.080.890.070.076.300.802.770.19120.0140.0060002.573.271SD #4BVLT-10.1900.250.0000.90.190.250.050.056.300.802.770.13120.0140.0060002.573.271CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND SIZING TABLE USING THE RATIONAL METHODACRESLocation Pervious ImperviousH:\ENGDATA\XLS\14134\14134 - Conveyance Analysis using Rational Method_2018-03.xlsxBasin 1 - 25 YR 1.76(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)1.76 15Barrel Entr. Entr. Exit Outlet Inlet Appr. Bend Junc.Pipe Pipe Outlet Inlet Barrel Barrel Vel. TW Friction HGL Head Head Control Conrol Vel. Head Head HW GroundSegment Q Length Size "n" Elev. Elev. Area Velocity Head Elev. Loss Elev. Loss Loss Elev. Elev. Head Loss Loss Elev. Elev. (Upstream) Diff.CB to CB (cfs) (ft) (in) Value (ft) (ft) (sq ft) (fps) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)VLT-1 SD #46.01 21 12 0.012 224.68 228.00 0.79 7.65 0.91224.440.50 229.00 0.45 0.91 230.36 230.92 0.38 -0.01 -0.14 231.16 237.83 6.67SD #4 SD #53.90 75 12 0.012 228.00 244.75 0.79 4.97 0.38 231.16 0.76 245.75 0.19 0.38 246.33 246.29 0.38 -0.01 0.00 246.70 250.00 3.30SD #5 SD #63.90 45 12 0.012 247.80 249.00 0.79 4.97 0.38 246.70 0.46 250.00 0.19 0.38 250.58 250.64 0.38 -0.01 0.00 251.02 256.28 5.26SD #6 SD #73.90 31 12 0.012 249.00 249.70 0.79 4.97 0.38 251.02 0.31 251.33 0.19 0.38 251.91 251.34 0.14 -0.07 -0.06 251.91 255.57 3.66SD #7 SD #82.34 25 12 0.012 249.70 250.60 0.79 2.98 0.14 251.91 0.09 252.00 0.07 0.14 252.21 251.60 0.07 -0.04 -0.02 252.22 255.55 3.33SD #7 SD #151.37 107 12 0.012 249.70 253.00 0.79 1.75 0.05 251.91 0.13 254.00 0.02 0.05 254.07 253.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 254.07 257.39 3.32SD #8 SD #91.69 99 12 0.012 250.60 254.30 0.79 2.15 0.07 252.22 0.19 255.30 0.04 0.07 255.41 255.13 0.07 -0.09 0.00 255.38 259.01 3.63SD #9 SD #101.62 47 12 0.012 254.30 259.01 0.79 2.07 0.07 255.38 0.08 260.01 0.10 0.07 260.18 259.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 260.18 264.01 3.83SD #10 SD #10A0.12 24 12 0.012 259.01 260.51 0.79 0.15 0.00 260.18 0.00 261.51 0.00 0.00 261.51 261.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 261.51 263.99 2.48SD #10 SD #111.02 59 12 0.012 259.01 264.00 0.79 1.30 0.03 260.18 0.04 265.00 0.01 0.03 265.04 264.70 0.03 -0.01 0.00 265.06 272.03 6.97SD #11 SD #121.02 96 12 0.012 264.00 268.13 0.79 1.30 0.03 265.06 0.07 269.13 0.01 0.03 269.17 268.85 0.03 -0.01 0.00 269.19 278.25 9.06SD #12 SD #131.02 195 12 0.012 268.13 269.20 0.79 1.30 0.03 269.19 0.14 270.20 0.01 0.03 270.24 269.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 270.24 273.21 2.97SD #13 SD #140.34 194 12 0.012 269.20 277.20 0.79 0.43 0.00 270.24 0.01 278.20 0.00 0.00 278.20 277.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 278.20 281.17 2.97SD #15 SD #160.24 96 12 0.012 253.00 255.00 0.79 0.31 0.00 254.07 0.00 256.00 0.00 0.00 256.00 255.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 256.00 259.41 3.41SD #15 SD #15A0.67 28 12 0.012 253.00 254.75 0.79 0.85 0.01 254.07 0.01 255.75 0.01 0.01 255.77 255.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 255.77 257.53 1.76SD #16SD #170.0671120.012255.00255.500.790.080.00256.000.00256.500.000.00256.50256.170.000.000.00256.50260.173.67Rhododendron Ridge - Vault 25 year Backwater Calculation SheetH:\ENGDATA\XLS\14134\14134 - Backwater Analysis_2017-05-23.xlsmVAULT 25YR Project #: 14134RHODODENDRON RIDGE100-YEAR FOR VAULTSUBBASIN AREA = 5.09R100P1003.92 6.30 2.61br0.63Tc6.3 Calcs. by: TASArea C C*A Sum TC i25 I25QRPipe Typ. SlopeQFV L From To(AC) C (AC) C(ac) C*A (Min.) (c.f.s.) (in.) n (ft./ft.) (Full) (Full) (ft.)SD #17SD #160.0080.250.0210.90.030.720.020.026.300.823.210.07120.0140.0070422.783.5471SD #16SD #150.1790.250.0230.90.200.320.070.096.300.823.210.28120.0140.0208004.786.0996SD #15ASD #150.5850.250.1050.90.690.350.240.246.300.823.210.77120.0140.0629008.3210.5928SD #15SD #70.0180.250.1800.90.200.840.170.496.300.823.211.59120.0140.0308005.827.41107SD #14SD #131.0410.250.0230.91.060.260.280.2823.070.361.420.40120.0140.0413006.748.58194SD #13SD #120.0470.250.0840.90.130.670.090.376.300.823.211.18120.0140.0055002.463.13195SD #12SD #110.0000.250.0000.9---------0.376.300.823.211.18120.0140.044100------96SD #11SD #100.0000.250.0000.9---------0.376.300.823.211.18120.0140.084400------59SD #10ASD #100.0000.250.0490.90.050.900.040.046.300.823.210.14120.0140.0618008.2510.5024SD #10SD #90.0460.250.1800.90.230.770.170.596.300.823.211.88120.0140.09930010.4513.3147SD #9SD #80.0020.250.0240.90.030.850.020.616.300.823.211.95120.0140.0374006.428.1799SD #8SD #70.7620.250.0490.90.810.290.230.846.300.823.212.70120.0140.0356006.267.9725SD #7SD #60.0130.250.0750.90.090.800.071.416.300.823.214.52120.0140.0227005.006.3631SD #6SD #50.0000.250.0000.9---------1.416.300.823.214.52120.0140.026400------45SD #5SD #40.0000.250.0000.9---------1.416.300.823.214.52120.0140.224500------75SD #4VLT-10.6500.250.6610.91.310.580.762.176.300.823.216.95120.0140.15450013.0416.6021SD #4AVLT-10.0010.250.0750.90.080.890.070.076.300.823.210.22120.0140.0060002.573.271SD #4BVLT-10.1900.250.0000.90.190.250.050.056.300.823.210.15120.0140.0060002.573.271CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND SIZING TABLE USING THE RATIONAL METHODACRESLocation Pervious ImperviousH:\ENGDATA\XLS\14134\14134 - Conveyance Analysis using Rational Method_2018-03.xlsxBasin 1 - 100 YR 1.76(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)1.76 15Barrel Entr. Entr. Exit Outlet Inlet Appr. Bend Junc.Pipe Pipe Outlet Inlet Barrel Barrel Vel. TW Friction HGL Head Head Control Conrol Vel. Head Head HW GroundSegment Q Length Size "n" Elev. Elev. Area Velocity Head Elev. Loss Elev. Loss Loss Elev. Elev. Head Loss Loss Elev. Elev. (Upstream) Diff.CB to CB (cfs) (ft) (in) Value (ft) (ft) (sq ft) (fps) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)VLT-1 SD #4 6.95 21 120.012 224.68 228.00 0.79 8.85 1.22224.680.67 229.00 0.61 1.22 230.82 231.71 0.51 -0.01 -0.18 232.03 237.83 5.80SD #4 SD #5 4.52 75 120.012 228.00 244.75 0.79 5.75 0.51 232.03 1.02 245.75 0.26 0.51 246.52 246.63 0.51 -0.01 0.00 247.13 250.00 2.87SD #5 SD #6 4.52 45 120.012 247.80 249.00 0.79 5.75 0.51 247.13 0.61 250.00 0.26 0.51 250.77 250.97 0.51 -0.01 0.00 251.48 256.28 4.80SD #6 SD #7 4.52 31 120.012 249.00 249.70 0.79 5.75 0.51 251.48 0.42 251.90 0.26 0.51 252.67 251.68 0.18 -0.10 -0.08 252.68 255.57 2.89SD #7 SD #8 2.70 25 120.012 249.70 250.60 0.79 3.44 0.18 252.68 0.12 252.80 0.09 0.18 253.07 251.72 0.10 -0.05 -0.03 253.09 255.55 2.46SD #7 SD #15 1.59 107 120.012 249.70 253.00 0.79 2.02 0.06 252.68 0.18 254.00 0.03 0.06 254.10 253.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 254.10 257.39 3.29SD #8 SD #9 1.95 99 120.012 250.60 254.30 0.79 2.48 0.10 253.09 0.25 255.30 0.05 0.10 255.44 255.20 0.09 -0.12 0.00 255.41 259.01 3.60SD #9 SD #10 1.88 47 120.012 254.30 259.01 0.79 2.39 0.09 255.41 0.11 260.01 0.04 0.09 260.14 259.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 260.14 264.01 3.87SD #10 SD #10A 0.14 24 120.012 259.01 260.51 0.79 0.18 0.00 260.14 0.00 261.51 0.00 0.00 261.51 261.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 261.51 263.99 2.48SD #10 SD #11 1.18 59 120.012 259.01 264.00 0.79 1.51 0.04 260.14 0.05 265.00 0.02 0.04 265.05 264.72 0.04 -0.01 0.00 265.08 272.03 6.95SD #11 SD #12 1.18 96 120.012 264.00 268.13 0.79 1.51 0.04 265.08 0.09 269.13 0.02 0.04 269.18 268.87 0.04 -0.01 0.00 269.21 278.25 9.04SD #12 SD #13 1.18 195 120.012 268.13 269.20 0.79 1.51 0.04 269.21 0.18 270.20 0.02 0.04 270.25 269.96 0.00 -0.01 0.00 270.25 273.21 2.96SD #13 SD #14 0.40 194 120.012 269.20 277.20 0.79 0.51 0.00 270.25 0.02 278.20 0.00 0.00 278.21 277.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 278.21 281.17 2.96SD #15 SD #16 0.28 96 120.012 253.00 255.00 0.79 0.35 0.00 254.10 0.00 256.00 0.00 0.00 256.00 255.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 256.00 259.41 3.41SD #15 SD #15A 0.77 28 120.012 253.00 254.75 0.79 0.99 0.02 254.10 0.01 255.75 0.01 0.02 255.77 255.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 255.77 257.53 1.76SD #16SD #170.0771121.012 255.00 255.50 0.79 0.09 0.00 256.00 1.58 257.59 0.00 0.00 257.59 256.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 257.59 260.17 2.58Rhododendron Ridge - Vault 100 year Backwater Calculation SheetH:\ENGDATA\XLS\14134\14134 - Backwater Analysis_2017-05-23.xlsmVAULT 100YR Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter6 TIR 0318.doc 6-1 6. Special Reports and Studies • Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance – 11230 113th Ave. SE Newcastle, by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC; July 9, 2014 • Geotechnical Engineering Study Rhododendron Ridge – Southeast 80th Street and 113th Ave. SE Newcastle, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC; January 29, 2015 • Geologic Document Review and Site Reconnaissance – 11230 SE 80th St. Newcastle, by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.; June 7, 2016 • Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance – SE 80th Corridor Renton, by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC; November 19, 2016 • Tree Report – Rhododendron Ridge, by Creative Landscape Solutions; February 28, 2018 Copies of the reports and studies above are attached in the appendicies. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter7 TIR 0318.doc 7-1 7. Other Permits • Preliminary Plat File No.: SUB15-002, SEPA15-005 • FPA (if required) • NPDES (if required) • City of Renton Critical Areas Exemption - Project Number: LUA17-00565 - Approved: September 05, 2017 • Engineering Review Permit (ERP) • Building Permits -Residential • Stormwater Vault Building Permit • ROW Permits Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter8 TIR 0318.doc 8-1 8. CSWPPP Analysis and Design Part A – ESC Analysis and Design Purpose and Scope As stated in the King County Surface Water Design Manual, “The purpose of erosion and sediment control (ESC) is to prevent the transport of sediment to streams, wetlands, lakes, drainage systems and adjacent properties.” This section of the TIR outlines the site specific strategies to minimize erosion and transportation of sediment throughout construction of the Rhododendron Ridge Project. ESC Implementation Requirements The Rhododendron Ridge Project erosion and sediment control implementation requirements are detailed below, per City of Newcastle Public Works Standards. These requirements, accompanied by the ESC Plans, shall serve as the principle guidelines for control of erosion and sediment transport. Construction Sequence The following is a construction sequence which identifies required ESC measures and implementation requirements. Although site specific, the construction sequence is general in nature. This provides the owners and the City of Newcastle some flexibility while still achieving the intent of the ESC requirements. Construction Sequence 1. Flag or fence new clearing limits and tree protection and notify the City for inspection. 2. Hold a pre-construction meeting. 3. Post a sign with the name and phone number of the project supervisor. 4. Install off-site catch basin protection. 5. Grade and install construction entrance(s). 6. Install perimeter protection. 7. Clear and Grub within clearing limits. 8. Construct sediment traps (if required). 9. Grade and stabilize construction roads. 10. Construct surface water controls (interceptor swales, rock check dams, etc.) simultaneously with clearing and grading for project development. Construct rockeries per grading detail Sheet G-4. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter8 TIR 0318.doc 8-2 11. Maintain erosion control and SWPPS measures in accordance with City of Newcastle Standards and manufacturer’s recommendations. 12. Relocate erosion control and SWPPS measures, or install new measures so that as site conditions change, the erosion and sediment control is always in accordance with the erosion and sediment control standards per the King County Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Standards. 13. Cover all areas that will be unworked for more than seven (7) days during the dry season or two (2) days during the wet season with straw, wood fiber mulch, compost, plastic sheeting, or equivalent. 14. Stabilize all areas within seven (7) days of reaching final grade. 15. Seed or sod any area to remain unworked for more than 30 days. 16. Upon completion of the project, stabilize all disturbed areas. The construction sequence is supported by the following ESC plan notes. Erosion and Sediment Control Notes The standard ESC plan notes must be included on all ESC plans. At the applicant's discretion, notes that in no way apply to the project may be omitted: however, the remaining notes must not be renumbered. 1. Approval of this erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan does not constitute an approval of permanent road or drainage design (e.g., size and location of roads, pipes, restrictors, channels, retention facilities, utilities, etc.). 2. The implementation of these ESC plans and the construction, maintenance, replacement, and upgrading of these ESC facilities is the responsibility of the applicant/ESC supervisor until all construction is approved. 3. The boundaries of the clearing limits show on this plan shall be clearly flagged by a continuous length of orange protection fencing prior to construction. During construction, no disturbance beyond the clearing limits shall be permitted. The clearing limits shall be maintained by the applicant/ESC supervisor until all construction is approved. 4. The ESC facilities shown on this plan must be constructed prior to or in conjunction with all clearing and grading so as to ensure that the transport of sediment to surface waters, drainage systems, and adjacent properties is prevented. 5. The ESC facilities shown on this plan are the minimum requirements for anticipated site conditions. During the course of construction, these ESC facilities shall be upgraded as needed for unexpected storm events and modified to account for changing site conditions. 6. The ESC facilities shall be inspected daily by the applicant/ESC supervisor and maintained to ensure continued proper functioning. Written records shall be kept of weekly reviews of the ESC Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter8 TIR 0318.doc 8-3 facilities during the wet season (October 1 to April 30) and of monthly reviews during the dry season (May 1 to September 30). 7. Any areas of exposed soils, including roadway embankments, that will not be disturbed for two days during the wet season or seven days during the dry season shall be immediately stabilized with the approved ESC methods (e.g., seeding, mulching, plastic covering, etc.). 8. Any area needing ESC measures that do not require immediate attention shall be addressed within fifteen (15) days. 9. The ESC facilities on inactive sites shall be inspected and maintained a minimum of once a month or within 48 hours following a storm event. 10. At no time shall more than one (1) foot of sediment be allowed to accumulate within a catch basin. All catch basins and conveyance lines shall be cleaned prior to paving. The cleaning operation shall not flush sediment-laden water into the downstream system. 11. Stabilized construction entrances and roads shall be installed at the beginning of construction and maintained for the duration of the project. Additional measures, such as wash pads, may be required to ensure that all paved areas are kept clean for the duration of the project. 12. Any permanent flow control facility used as a temporary settling basin shall be modified with the necessary erosion control measures and shall provide adequate storage capacity. If the facility is to function ultimately as an infiltration system, the temporary facility must be graded so that the bottom and sides are at least three feet above final grade of the permanent facility. 13. Where straw mulch for temporary erosion control is required, it shall be applied at a minimum thickness of 2 to 3 inches. 14. Prior to September 15, all disturbed areas shall be reviewed to identify which ones can be seeded in preparation for the winter rains. Disturbed areas shall be seeded prior to October 1. A sketch map of those areas to be seeded and those areas to remain uncovered shall be submitted to the City inspector. The City inspector can require seeding of additional areas in order to protect surface waters, adjacent properties, or drainage facilities. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter8 TIR 0318.doc 8-4 Site Specific ESC Design The site is 3.8 acres in size and will be graded per the ERP plan set to grades identified for future development during building permitting. A combination of perimeter ESC drainage swales and culvert crossings will direct site runoff to the proposed vault which will be used in place of a temporary pond or sediment trap. In addition, the site plan proposes to implement erosion and sediment control with typical perimeter protection and cover measures such as silt fence, high visibility fence, tree protection fencing, etc. It is recommended that the site be stabilized whenever possible through the use of hydroseed and other bmps as recommended in the SWDM. Sediment Control within Vault Design Calculations SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.1.A 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 6/15/2016 2016 Surface Water Design Manual 3-16 Site Rhododendron ridge 1.98 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD FIGURE 3.2.1.B 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 2016 Surface Water Design Manual 6/15/2016 3-17 Site Rhododendron ridge 2.92 ESC Design Calculations Vailt for Temporary Sediment - Rhododendron Ridge Description: Verification of Vault size Design Method: Rational Method Design Event: 2-year Design Summary Surface Area: Required: 1,579 ft2 Provided: 2,856 ft2 Rational Method Calculations Land Surface C Area (Ac.) Developed Basin Area: 3.80 AC.Grass 0.25 3.80 2-year ppt. 1.98 in Forest 0.10 0.00 10-year ppt. 2.92 in Gravel 0.80 0.00 100-year ppt. 3.92 in Total 0.25 3.80 Rainfall per KCSWDM Figures 3.2.1.A-3.2.1D. Runoff coeficients are from KCSWDM Table 3.2.1A. and WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual Time of Concentration Segment L (ft)kR S (ft/ft) Tc (min) 1 693 10.1 0.0700 4.32 2 395 10.1 0.0700 2.46 3 598 10.1 0.0700 3.73 Total 10.52 TC=L/60(kR*sqrt(S)) per KCSWDM 3.2.1 kR per KCSWDM Table 3.2.1C Peak Runoff Rates Storm Event aR bR iR I (in/hr) Q (cfs) 2-year 1.58 0.58 0.40 0.80 0.76 10-year 2.44 0.64 0.54 1.58 1.50 100-year 2.61 0.63 0.59 2.32 2.21 aR and bR per KCSWDM Table 3.2.1B Vault Design Surface Area Required:As= 2080*Qdes ft2 As=1,579 ft2 at bottom of spillway H:\ENGDATA\XLS\14134\14134-TESC.xlsx SDSDSDSDSS SS SS G G G G G OHUOHUOH U OHUOHUOHUOHUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSDSDWWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGG G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSDSS SSSSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX SSSSSSSXXXXXXXXXXXXW W W27027227427628027 2274276278 282268268272274276278270272260 2 6 0 25 6256 258 258262264266268250248252254256242244220 230 218 222 224 226 228 232 234 23 6 240234236238242244246 27027 2 280272274276278282284286260258262DETENTION VAULT0120802040SCALE: 1" = 40'SE 80TH ST. SE 80TH STREET (UNIMPROVED ROW)112TH AVENUE NE(UNIMPROVED ROW)113TH AVENUE SESE 79TH ST.115253674910111213148TRACT C(ACCESS)TRACT B(ACCESS)TRACT E(CRITICAL AREA)TRACT A(LANDSCAPE)TRACT D(ACCESS)ROAD "A"RHODODENDRON RIDGEREV NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONMADE BYCHECKEDKING COUNTYERP PLAN SETPLOTTED:SHEETJOB NO. 14134iCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCCITY OF NEWCASTLEWASHINGTONSE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONDRAWN:APPROVED:DESIGNED:BPF, SPBPFAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134R01.dwg3/21/18 11:45TsollySPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR3/21/18TESC OVERALLPROPOSED STORMWATER VAULTLEGENDPROPOSED MAJOR 10' CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR 2' CONTOUR230228ROAD CENTERLINEPROPOSED ROCKERY WALLPROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP)TESC-1LIMIT OF WORK, TYP.CONNECT INTERCEPTER SWALES TOSTORM SYSTEMINTERCEPTER SWALES w/ CHECKDAMS, TYP.SILT FENCE ALONGLIMIT OF WORK, TYP.ORANGE FENCE ON UPHILL ALONG LIMITOF WORK, TYP.20'x100' CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE, TYP.EXISTING CATCH BASIN'S WITHIN 200' OF PROJECT TO BEPROTECTED, TYP.VAULT EXCAVATION LIMIT AT1:1 SLOPE, TYP.SEE OFF-SITE TESC ON SHT. SD-3EXISTING BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHEDUNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.ALL RETAINED TREES MUST HAVE TREEPROTECTION PER CITY OF NEWCASTLEPUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS. SEE SHT.TESC-2 FOR DETAIL.12" ADSIE IN = 266.0±12" ADSIE OUT = 258.0±12" ADSIE IN = 255.0±12" ADSIE OUT = 254.0±12" ADSIE IN = 238.0±PIPE SLOPEDRAINPIPE CROSSINGCLEARING AND GRADING LIMITSSILT FENCEXSOD-LINED INTERCEPTER SWALEw/ CHECKDAMSHIGH VISIBILITY FENCECONSTRUCTION ENTRANCECATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTIONXXX TREE PROTECTION FENCECITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONUTILIZE LOT 8 ASSTAGING AREA10' SLOPESETBACK (TYP. )AREA OF >40% STEEP SLOPE AREA OF >40% STEEP SLOPE10' BUFFERSILT FENCE ALONGLIMIT OF WORK, TYP.ALL RETAINED TREES MUST HAVE TREEPROTECTION PER CITY OF NEWCASTLEPUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS. SEE SHT.TESC-2 FOR DETAIL.ALL EARTHWORK OUTSIDE TREEPROTECTION FENCING AND WITHIN TREECRZ SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITHTREE PROTECTION DETAIL ANDARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS. SEEATTACHED TREE RETENTION ANDREMOVAL REPORT.PERMANENT SPLIT RAIL FENCE ANDCRITICAL AREA SIGN ALONGADJOINING PROPERTY AND CRITICALAREA TRACT PER CITY OF NEWCASTLEDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TYP.SEE DETAIL SHEET TESC-3 M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134RD2.dwg AND/OR FREQUENCY OF THE DIKES/SWALES SHALL BE INCREASED.2. IF THE FACILITIES DO NOT REGULARLY RETAIN STORM RUNOFF, THE CAPACITYREPAIRED IMMEDIATELY.1. DAMAGE RESULTING FROM RUNOFF OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BEMAINTENANCE STANDARDSN.T.S.INTERCEPTOR SWALEBOTTOMMAX.2:12:1 MAX.LEVEL1' MIN.2' MIN.SWALE SPACING DEPENDS ON SLOPE GRADIENT1.5'SPILLWAY2h : 1vCONVEYANCE,DISCHARGECREST OF RISER PIPE (PRINCIPALN.T.S.SEDIMENT POND CROSS SECTION(SEE RISER DETAIL)1' MIN.1'3h : 1v MAX.MAX.3H:1V MAX.CONCRETE BASELEVEL SPREADERTO STABILIZEDOUTLET OR6' MIN. WIDTHEMERGENCY (SEE RISER DETAIL)DEWATERING DEVICESPILLWAY) OPEN ATTOP WITH TRASH RACKPER FIG. 4.4.4EEQUIVALENT DIVIDERWITH FILTER FABRIC, ORSTAKED HAYBALES WRAPPEDWIRE-BACKED SILT FENCE.EMBANKMENT COMPACTED 95%PERVIOUS MATERIALS SUCH ASGRAVEL OR CLEAN SAND SHALLNOT BE USED.3h : 1v MAX.3.5' - 5'FLAT BOTTOM4' MIN.WASHED GRAVELMIN. 1' DEPTH 3/4"-1.5"2"-4" ROCKMIN. 1' DEPTHGEOTEXTILECOMPACTED BACKFILLNATIVE SOIL OR6' MIN.1' MIN. DEPTH OVERFLOW SPILLWAYTRAP OUTLETMAINTENANCE STANDARDS:2. ANY DAMAGE TO THE TRAP EMBANKMENTS OR SLOPES SHALL BE REPAIRED.1. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE TRAP WHEN IT REACHES I FOOT IN DEPTH.CROSS SECTION1' MIN.SURFACE AREADETERMINED ATTOP OF WEIR3/4" - 1 3/4"WASHED GRAVELRIP-RAP2"-4" ROCKGEOTEXTILEDISCHARGE TO STABILIZEDCONVEYANCE, OUTLETOR LEVEL SPREADERNOTE: TRAP MAY BE FORMED BY BERM ORBY PARTIAL OR COMPLETE EXCAVATIONSEDIMENT TRAPN.T.S.1' MIN.OVERFLOW1' MIN.WATER- MOST COMMONLY USED PRACTICE- EVAPORATES QUICKLY- LASTS LESS THAN 1 DAYFOR ALL LIQUID AGENTS: - BLADE A SMALL SURFACE - CROWN OR SLOPE SURFACE TO AVOID PONDING - COMPACT SOILS IF NEEDED - UNIFORMLY PRE-WET AT 0.03 - 0.3 gal/sq yd - APPLY SOLUTION UNDER SOLUTION 6 - 12 INCHES - ALLOW TREATED AREA TO CURE 0 - 4 HOURS - COMPACT AREA AFTER - APPLY SECOND TREATMENT BECOMES INEFFECTIVE0.125 gal/sy yd EVERY 20 TO 30 MINUTESMETHODCONSIDERATIONSRECOMMENDEDAPPLICATION RATE PRESSURE OVERLAY CURING BEFORE FIREST TREATMENT SITE PREPARATIONDUST CONTROL MEASURESTABLE D.3.2.B TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX9840FESTUCA RUBRAFESTUCA RUBRA VAR. COMMUTATA ORCHEWINGS OR RED FESCUE% WEIGHT%PURITY%GERMINATION90ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL RYELOLIUM MULTIFLORUM OR LOLIUM PERENNEREDTOP OR COLONIAL BENTGRASSAGROSTIS ALBA OR AGROSTIS TENUISWHITE DUTCH CLOVERTRIFOLIUM REPENS401010989298908590NOTE: A TACKIFIER IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE HYDROSEED SEED MIX DURING THE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30).(IF NECESSARY)FLOTATIONN.T.S.SEDIMENT POND RISER DETAILTACKRISER (10" DIA.)CORRUGATED METALAASHTO M294DEWATERING ORIFICE,TUBING SHALL COMPLYWITH ASTM F667 ANDMIN. 2" LARGER THANDRAINAGE TUBING, DIAMETERPERFORATED POLYETHYLENEPOLYETHYLENE CAPPROVIDE ADEQUATESTRAPPINGBE USED TO PREVENTSTAKES AND WIRE MAYALTERNATIVELY, METALCONCRETE BASEWELDCOUPLINGWATERTIGHT18" MIN.2x RISER DIA. MIN.6" MIN.3.5'MAINTENANCE STANDARDS1. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE POND WHEN IT REACHED 1 FOOT IN DEPTH.2. ANY DAMAGE TO THE POND EMBANKMENTS OR SLOPES SHALL BE REPAIRED.ELEV. 439.00ELEV. 435.5TO ANY IRREGULARITIESTIGHT - ALLOW THE ROLLS TO MOLDDO NOT STRECH BLANKETS/MATTINGSSHALL BE FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA PROTECTED.3. IF EROSION OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE, THE PROBLEMCONTACT WITH THE GROUND SHALL BE REPAIRED AND STAPLED.2. ANY AREAS OF THE NET OR BLANKET THAT ARE DAMAGED OR NOT IN CLOSENOT BE EROSION BENEATH THE NET OR BLANKET.1. GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED, AND THERE MUSTMAINTENANCE STANDARDSCOMPLETELY REMOVED.3. WHEN THE PLASTIC IS NO LONGER NEEDED, IT SHALL BERADIATION, IT MUST BE COMPLETELY REMOVED AND REPLACED.2. IF THE PLASTIC BEGINS TO DETERIORATE DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET1. TORN SHEETS MUST BE REPLACED AND OPEN SEAMS REPAIRED.MAINTENANCE STANDARDSSTOCKPILE/SLOPE EROSION CONTROL PROTECTIONN.T.S.PLASTIC SLOPE COVERINGBE WEIGHTED OR TAPEDOVERLAP A MINIMUM OF 12" ANDSEAMS BETWEEN SHEETS MUSTMAY BE USED TO WEIGHT PLASTICTIRES, SANDBAGS, OR EQUIVALENTAT TOE WHEN NEEDEDPROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATERMINIMUM 4" x 4" TRENCHTOE IN SHEETING IN10' MAX.10' MAX.BLANKET/MATTING SLOPE COVERINGMAY BE PLACED IN HORIZONTAL STRIPSFOR SLOPES LESS THAN 3H : 1V, ROLLSINSTALLATION.TREES, ETC., SHOULD OCCUR AFTERINSTALLATION. PLANTING OF SHRUBS,LIME, FERTILIZE AND SEED BEFORESTAPLE AT 12" INTERVALSAREA, TURN THE END UNDER 4" ANDBRING MATERIAL DOWN TO A LEVELMAX. 5' SPACINGSTAPLE OVERLAPSAND STAPLE AT 12" INTERVALSANCHOR IN 6" x 6" MIN. TRENCHTHE BERMOF SLOPE, ANCHOR UPSLOPE OFIF THERE IS A BERM AT THE TOPMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONSSTAPLING PATTERN AS PERSOIL CONTACTBEFORE PLACEMENT FOR PROPERSLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE SMOOTHOVERLAPMIN. 2"MIN. 6" OVERLAPOR NET.AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY RIPRAP OR AN EROSION CONTROL BLANKETTHE BED AND BANKS. IF SCOURING OR EROSION HAS OCCURRED, AFFECTED3. THE CHANNEL SHALL BE EXAMINED FOR SIGNS OF SCOURING AND EROSION OFCONSERVATIVE STANDARD TO BE APPROVED BY CITY OF SAMMAMISH.ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AND THE CHANNEL REDESIGNED TO A MOREBERM(S) OR BY EXCAVATION. IF THE PROBLEM IS UNDER-DESIGN, THE DESIGNTHE CHANNEL CAPACITY MUST BE INCREASED THROUGH CONSTRUCTION OF A BEND) OR THE CHANNEL IS UNDER-DESIGNED. IF THE PROBLEM IS LOCAL, BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE PROBLEM IS LOCAL (E.G., A CONSTRICTION OR2. IF THE CHANNEL CAPACITY IS INSUFFICIENT FOR THE DESIGN FLOW, IT MUSTTHAT THE CHANNEL IS RESTORED TO ITS DESIGN CAPACITY.1. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITION OF MORE THAN 0.5 FEET SHALL BE REMOVED SOMAINTENANCE STANDARDS2:1 SLOPEN.T.S.CHECK DAMCHECK DAM SPACINGALBTHAT POINTS A & B AREL = THE DISTANCE SUCH6" MIN24" MIN. (EROSION CONTROL DITCH)CROSS SECTIONROCK MUST COMPLETELYCOVER THE BOTTOM ANDSIDES OF THE DITCH2"- 4" ROCK2:1 S LO P EOF EQUAL ELEVATION.12" MIN.2'MIN.12" MIN. (INTERCEPTOR SWALE)(200 FT. MAX. SPACING FOR EROSION CONTROL DITCH,100 FT. MAX. SPACING FORINTERCEPTOR SWALE)DEWATERING ORIFICE(SIZING PER INDIVIDUALPOND TABLE)DEWATERING ORIFICE,SCHEDULE 40 STEELSTUB MINIMUM.(SIZING PER INDIVIDUALPOND TABLE)RHODODENDRON RIDGEREV NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONMADE BYCHECKEDKING COUNTYERP PLAN SETPLOTTED:SHEETJOB NO. 14134iCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCCITY OF NEWCASTLEWASHINGTONSE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONDRAWN:APPROVED:DESIGNED:BPF, SPBPFAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134RD2.dwg3/21/18 11:49TsollySPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR3/21/18TESC DETAILSTESC-214134RD2.dwg tsolly 03/21/18 11:48 DRIP LINE6' MIN.VARIESSEE PLANDRIP LINEVARIESSEE PLAN1.5" DRIVEN STEELPOSTS @ MAX. 10' O.C.N.T.S.TREE PROTECTION DETAILSIGNIFICANTEXISTING TREECHAINLINK FENCENOTES:1.MINIMUM SIX (6) FOOT HIGH TEMPORARY CHAINLINK FENCE SHALL BE PLACED AT DISTANCE OF GENERALLY TWO (2) FEET OUTSIDE THE DRIP LINE OF THESIGNIFICANT TREE(S). FENCE SHALL COMPLETELY ENCIRCLE TREE(S). INSTALL FENCE POSTS USING 1.5-INCH STEEL POSTS DRIVEN 2 FEET INTO THE GROUND.2.MOVABLE BARRIERS OF CHAIN LINK FENCING SECURED TO CEMENT BLOCKS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR “FIXED” FENCING IF THE PROJECT ARBORIST ANDCITY STAFF AGREE THAT THE FENCING WILL HAVE TO BE MOVED TO ACCOMMODATE CERTAIN PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. MODIFICATIONS TO FENCINGMATERIAL AND LOCATION MUST BE APPROVED BY PLANNING OFFICIAL AND PROJECT ARBORIST.3.THE FENCING CAN BE MOVED WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE IF AUTHORIZED BY THE CLEARING AND GRADING INSPECTOR AND THE PROJECTARBORIST BUT NOT CLOSER THAN 2’ FROM THE TRUNK OF ANY TREE. ONLY EXCAVATION BY HAND OR COMPRESSED AIR SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THEDRIP LINE OF TREES. MACHINE TRENCHING SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED.4.TREATMENT OF ROOTS EXPOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION: FOR ROOTS OVER TWO (2) INCH DIAMETER DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, MAKE A CLEANSTRAIGHT CUT TO REMOVE DAMAGED PORTION OF ROOT. ALL EXPOSED ROOTS SHALL BE TEMPORARILY COVERED WITH DAMP BURLAP TO PREVENTDRYING AND COVERED WITH SOIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.5.NO STOCKPILING OF MATERIALS, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT OR MACHINERY SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE LIMIT OF THEFENCING. WORK WITHIN PROTECTION FENCE SHALL BE DONE MANUALLY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ON-SITE ARBORIST AND WITH PRIOR APPROVALBY THE CITY PLANNING OFFICIAL.6.FENCING SIGNAGE AS DETAILED ABOVE MUST BE POSTED EVERY FIFTEEN (20) FEET ALONG THE FENCE. THE SIGN SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8.5-INCHES BY11-INCHES.WARNING - TREEPROTECTION AREA DOUBLE SILT FENCEN.T.S.12"12"MIN.SLOPESILT FENCEWORK AREANO WORK AREALIMIT OF CLEARING FIELD LOCATED OHW12"PUMP RETAINED STORMWATERAS NECESSARY TO SUITABLELOCATION FOR CAPTURE ORDISPOSAL.1'3.5'1 : 1.7 5 : 1 TYP.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134RD1.dwg NOTICE OF PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTIONACTIVITYType of Action:Project No:Description:Projected Completion Date:Hours of Construction:Newcastle's Contact:Phone Number:Developer's Contact:Phone Number:24"36"48"48"XX425-649-4444DAVID LEE7 AM - 7 PM MON. - FRI.SUMMER 2015XSITE DEVELOPMENT911ERP9 AM - 6 PM SAT./SUN.NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITY SIGNN.T.S.PLANSNTSCLEAN OUT WYE FROM PIPEINFLUENT PIPE (MAX DESIGNFLOW<0.5 CFS PER TRENCH)ATYPE 1 CB w/SOLID COVER (LOCKING)4" or 6" PERFORATED PIPE LAID FLAT/LEVELCLEAN OUT WYE FROM PIPEEND CAP OR PLUGPIPE O.D.1'-0MIN1'-0MINNOTCHEDGRADE BOARD2"x2" NOTCHES18" O.C.A50'FLOW TO SECONDDISPERSAL TRENCHIF NECESSARYTYPE 1 CBw/SOLID COVERFLOW TO OTHERBRANCHING CB'sAS NECESSARYCLEAN (<5% FINES)1 1/2-3/4" WASHED ROCK4" OR 6" PERFORATEDPIPE LAID FLAT*20% MAX1'-0MIN1'-0MINPIPE O.D.GALVANIZED BOLTSSUPPORT POST2" x 12" PRESSURETREATED GRADE BOARD4"x4'FILTER FABRIC*20% MAX MIN 36"MAX 6" MIN* 15? MAX FOR FLOW CONTROL/WATER QUALITY TREATMENT IN RURAL AREAS.SECTION A-AN.T.S.2" GRADEBOARD NOTCHES18" O.C.NOTES:1. THIS TRENCH SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO PREVENT POINT DISCHARGE AND/OR EROSION.2. TRENCHES MAY BE PLACED NO CLOSER THAN 50 FEET TO ONE ANOTHER. (100 FEET ALONG FLOWLINE)3. TRENCH AND GRADE BOARD MUST BE LEVEL. ALIGN TO FOLLOW CONTOURS 4. SUPPORT POST SPACING AS REQUIRED BY SOIL CONDITIONS TO ENSURE GRADE BOARD REMAINS LEVEL.N.T.S.FLOW DISPERSAL TRENCH2"2" OF SITE.IT SHALL BE REPLACED.5. IF THE FILTER FABRIC (GEOTEXTILE) HAS DETERIORATED DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET BREAKDOWN,4. SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED WHEN THE SEDIMENT IS 6 INCHES HIGH.TO THE FENCE. IF THIS OCCURS, REPLACE THE FENCE OR REMOVE THE TRAPPED SEDIMENT.ACTING AS A BARRIER TO FLOW AND THEN CAUSING CHANNELIZATION OF FLOWS PARALLEL3. IT IS IMPORTANT TO CHECK THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE FENCE FOR SIGNS OF CLOGGING ANDAND CONVEYED TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR POND.2. IF CONCENTRATED FLOWS ARE EVIDENT UPHILL OF THE FENCE, THEY MUST BE INTERCEPTED1. ANY DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY.MAINTENANCE STANDARDSSILT FENCEMIN. 12"2' MIN.FILTER FABRIC1.5" WASHED GRAVELNATIVE SOIL OR 3/4"-BACKFILL TRENCH WITHEQUIVALENT, IF STANDARDSTRENGTH FABRIC USEDMINIMUM 4" x 4" TRENCH2" x 2" BY 14 Ga. WIRE OR6' MAX.EQUIVALENT TO ATTACH FABRIC TO POSTS.AT POSTS. USE STAPLES, WIRE RINGS, ORJOINTS IN FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICEDSTEEL FENCE POSTS,2" x 4" WOOD POSTSREBAR, OR EQUIVALENTBACKING IS USEDINCREASED TO 8' IF WIREALONG CONTOUR WHENEVER POSSIBLE.NOTE: FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLEDPOST SPACING MAY BECONTACT: CITY OF NEWCASTLE12835 NEWCASTLE WAYNEWCASTLE, WA 98056425-649-4444After Business Hours for Environmentalor Safety Related Emergencies:TESC SupervisorPhone Number:XXNOTICE BOARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:THE NOTICE BOARD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 4'x4'x1/2" PLYWOOD,EXTERIOR GRADE, GOOD SURFACE ONE SIDE. PROFESSIONALLY PREPAREDPLASTIC BOARD OVERLAYS, PERMANENTLY AFFIXED TO THE BOARD AREPERMISSIBLE. THE NOTICE BOARD SHALL DISPLAY THE INFORMATION ASSHOWN IN THE FIGURE AND AS SPECIFIED AT THE PRE-CONSTRUCTIONMEETING. NOTICE BOARDS MAY BE REUSED BUT THEY MUST BE CLEANAND SHOW NO EVIDENCE OF FORMER WORDING.1. LETTERING STYLE:HELVETICA OR SIMILAR STANDARD TYPE FACE2. LETTERING SIZE:TITLE SHOULD BE 3" CAPITAL LETTERS (NOTICE OFPROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY). OTHER LETTERSSHOULD BE 2" LETTERS AND THE 'EMERGENCY' TEXTAND PHONE MAY BE 1-1/2" LETTERS. SEE ILLUSTRATIONFOR USE OF CAPITAL AND LOWERCASE LETTERS.3. LETTERING:BLACK (PERMANENT INK OR SILK-SCREEN)4. BACKGROUND COLOR: WHITE5. LOGO:CITY OF NEWCASTLE EMBLEMTHE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER SHALL ERECT THE NOTICE BOARD BY SOLIDLY SETTINGTWO 4"x4" POSTS 12 TO 24 INCHES INTO THE GROUND; OR STRUCTURALLY ATTACHINGIT TO AN EXISTING BUILDING. POST LENGTH SHALL BE AT LEAST 7 FEET ABOVE GROUND.TWO 2"x4" DIAGONAL BRACES SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE INSIDE BACK OF THE POSTSAND STAKED AT THE GROUND TO PROVIDE STABILITY AGAINST WIND OR SOFT SOILCONDITIONS IF POSTS ARE LESS THAN 24 INCHES INTO THE GROUND.THE NOTICE BOARD SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE POSTS WITH FOUR LAG BOLTS ANDWASHERS (3/8-INCH DIAMETER AND 3" LONG).NOTICE BOARD LOCATION:THE NOTICE BOARD SHALL BE LOCATED:- AT THE MIDPOINT ON THE SITE STREET FRONTAGE OR AS OTHERWISE DIRECTEDBY CITY OF NEWCASTLE STAFF TO MAXIMIZE VISIBILITY. - AT A LOCATION 5 FEET INSIDE THE STREET PROPERTY LINE; A NOTICE BOARDSTRUCTURALLY ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING BUILDING SHALL BE EXEMPT FROMTHE SETBACK PROVISIONS, PROVIDED THAT THE NOTICE BOARD IS LOCATED NOTMORE THAN 5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY OFNEWCASTLE STAFF.- SO THAT THE TOP OF THE NOTICE BOARD IS BETWEEN 7 TO 9 FEET ABOVE GRADE.- SO THAT IT IS TOTALLY VISIBLE TO PEDESTRIANS.MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF NOTICE BOARD:THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN THE NOTICE BOARD IN GOOD CONDITIONTHROUGHOUT THE SITE IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, WHICH SHALL EXTENDTHROUGH THE TIME OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF NEWCASTLEOR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY OR JURISDICTION. THE NOTICE BOARD SHALL BE REMOVEDWITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER FINAL CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL.N.T.S.STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE100' MIN.4"-8" QUARRY SPALLS12" MIN. THICKNESSR=25' MIN.EXISTING ROAD15' MIN.GEOTEXTILEAS PER KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS,DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE PAVED TO THE EDGEOF R-O-W PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THECONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO AVOIDDAMAGING OF THE ROADWAYIT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THEENTRANCE BE CROWNED SO THATRUNOFF DRAINS OFF THE PADINSTALL DRIVEWAY CULVERT IF THEREIS A ROADSIDE DITCH PRESENT, ASPER KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS.PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OFINGRESS/EGRESS AREABOLTS AND NUTS.FASTEN WITH 1/2 " NON-CORROSIVEPLACES SPACED UNIFORMLY.TO 3/4 " DIA. BAR-FRAME AT 42" x 5" ANCHOR STRIPS WELDEDBAR SPACING4" O.C. MAX.7" - 9" FOR 30" DIA. & GREATER5" - 8" FOR 24" DIA.3" - 5" FOR 18" DIA.FRAMEWEILDED TO BAR-BARS WITH ENDS / " DIA. SMOOTHPIPE COUPLINGBEVELED PIPE END SECTION1' MIN.43MAY BE REMOVEDN.T.S.DEBRIS BARRIERNOTES:1. CMP END SECTION SHOWN2. ALL PARTS MUST BE ALUMINUM OR OTHER NON STEEL MATERIAL IF AVAILABLE. MAINTENANCE STANDARDS1. QUARRY SPALLS (OR HOG FUEL) SHALL BE ADDED IF THE PAD IS NO LONGER IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE SPECIFICATIONS.2. IF THE ENTRANCE IS NOT PREVENTING SEDIMENT FROM BEING TRACKED ONTO PAVEMENT,THEN ALTERNATIVE MEASURES TO KEEP THE STREETS FREE OF SEDIMENT SHALL BE USED. THISMAY INCLUDE STREET SWEEPING, AN INCREASE IN DIMENSIONS OF THE ENTRANCE, OR THEINSTALLATION OF A WHEEL WASH. IF WASHING IS USED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREACOVERED WITH CRUSHED ROCK, AND WASH WATER SHALL DRAIN TO A SEDIMENT TRAP ORPOND.3. ANY SEDIMENT THAT IS TRACKED ONTO PAVEMENT SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY BYSWEEPING. THE SEDIMENT COLLECTED BY SWEEPING SHALL BE REMOVED OR STABILIZED ON SITE.THE PAVEMENT SHALL NOT BE CLEANED BY WASHING DOWN THE STREET, EXCEPT WHENSWEEPING IS INEFFECTIVE AND THERE IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY. IF IT IS NECESSARY TOWASH THE STREETS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SMALL SUMP SHALL BE CONSIDERED. THESEDIMENT WOULD THEN BE WASHED INTO THE SUMP.4. ANY QUARRY SPALLS THAT ARE LOOSENED FROM THE PAD AND END UP ON THE ROADWAYSHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.5. IF VEHICLES ARE ENTERING OR EXITING THE SITE AT POINTS OTHER THAN THE CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE(S), FENCING (SEE SECTION D.4.1) SHALL BE INSTALLED TO CONTROL TRAFFIC.RHODODENDRON RIDGEREV NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONMADE BYCHECKEDKING COUNTYERP PLAN SETPLOTTED:SHEETJOB NO. 14134iCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCCITY OF NEWCASTLEWASHINGTONSE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONDRAWN:APPROVED:DESIGNED:BPF, SPBPFAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134RD1.dwg3/21/18 11:55TsollySPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR3/21/18TESC DETAILSTESC-3N.T.S.14134RD1.dwg tsolly 03/21/18 11:55 4.5' TO GRADE DEVELOPMENT. SIGNS MAY ALSO BE ATTACHED TO FENCES. LOCATION, I.E.: AT THE CLOSEST POINT TO THE PROPOSED SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER AND SHALL BE STATIONED IN A PROMINENT2. ONE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED PER LOT FOR EVERY 100 FEET OF SETBACK TRACT AND THE BUILDING SETBACK AREA. BETWEEN THE CRITICAL AREA BUFFER, SETBACK AREA OR1. THE CRITICAL AREA SIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT THE BOUNDARYCITY OF NEWCASTLE CRITICAL AREA SIGN INSTALLATION DETAILSN.T.S.CRITICAL AREA SIGN DETAIL54"MAX. 10' O.C.CRITICAL AREA SIGN(10"x18")16"'30"16"'16"'6"'7' 4x4 POSTS SET30" INTO HOLE(TYP.)N.T.S.PERMANENT SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAILFENCE RAILNOTES:1.CRITICAL AREA SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ON FENCE AT AN INTERVALOF ONE PER LOT OR EVERY 100 FEET , WHICHEVER IS LESS AND BEMAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER IN PERPETUITY.2.SPLIT RAIL FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE BOUNDARYOF THE CRITICAL AREA TRACT AS DESIGNATED ON PLANS.3.INSTALL FENCING PER MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATION.PRE-PRINTED10"x18" METALSIGN7' 4x4 CEDAR ORPRESSURE-TREATEDPOST SET 30" INTOHOLEATTACH SIGN TO POSTWITH TWO 5/16 ALUMINUMOR EQUIVALENT LAG BOLTSWITH WASHERS M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134RD3.dwg GENERAL NOTES1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEWCASTLE MUNICIPAL CODE (NMC), NEWCASTLE PUBLIC WORKSSTANDARDS, AND THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANTAND THE PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER TO CORRECT ANY ERROR, OMISSION, OR VARIATION FROM THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTSFOUND IN THESE PLANS. ALL CORRECTIONS SHALL BE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST OR LIABILITY TO THE CITY.2. THE DESIGN ELEMENTS WITHIN THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED ACCORDING TO THE NEWCASTLE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICWORKS ENGINEERING REVIEW CHECKLIST. SOME ELEMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED OR MISSED BY THE PLAN REVIEWER. ANYVARIANCE FROM ADOPTED STANDARDS IS NOT ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.3. APPROVAL OF THIS ROAD, GRADING, AND DRAINAGE PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION(E.G., DOMESTIC WATER CONVEYANCE, SEWER CONVEYANCE, GAS, ELECTRICAL, ETC.).4. BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING MUST BE HELD BETWEEN THE PUBLICWORKS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THE APPLICANT, AND THE APPLICANT'S CONSTRUCTIONREPRESENTATIVE.5. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS.6. CONSTRUCTION NOISE SHALL BE LIMITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NMC; NORMALLY THIS IS 7 A.M. TO 7 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 9A.M. TO 6 P.M. ON WEEKENDS AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS.7. IT SHALL BE THE APPLICANT'S/CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ALL CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS NECESSARY BEFOREINITIATING OFFSITE WORK WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.8. FRANCHISED UTILITIES OR OTHER INSTALLATIONS THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE APPROVED PLANS SHALL NOT BECONSTRUCTED UNLESS A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE AGENCY.9. DATUM SHALL BE NAVD 1988 UNLESS OTHERWISE-APPROVED BY THE CITY.10. GROUNDWATER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE WITHIN A RIGHT-OF-WAY OR APPROPRIATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, BUT NOTUNDERNEATH THE ROADWAY SECTION, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY. ALL GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS MUST BECONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION B1 3.02 OF THE APWA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.11. ALL UTILITY TRENCHES SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED TO 95 PERCENT MAXIMUM DENSITY, MODIFIED PROCTOR.12. ALL ROADWAY SUBGRADE SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED TO 95 PERCENT MAXIMUM DENSITY (WSDOT 2-06.3).13. OPEN CUTTING OF EXISTING ROADWAYS IS NOT ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY AND NOTED ON THESEAPPROVED PLANS. ANY OPEN CUT SHALL BE RESTORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEWCASTLE PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS.14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS, SAFETY DEVICES, PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT,FLAGGERS, AND ANY OTHER NEEDED ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE LIFE, HEALTH, AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, AND TO PROTECTPROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK COVERED BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY WORK WITHIN THE TRAVELEDRIGHT-OF-WAY THAT MAY INTERRUPT NORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW SHALL REQUIRE AT LEAST ONE FLAGGER FOR EACH LANE OF TRAFFICAFFECTED. SECTION 1-07.23, "TRAFFIC CONTROL," OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ITS ENTIRETY.15. CALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATE LINE 1-800-424-5555 A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.DRAINAGE NOTES1. ALL FEES, BONDING, AND PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THE PRECONSTRUCTIONMEETING.2. ALL STORM MAINS AND RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS SHALL BE STAKED FOR GRADE AND ALIGNMENT BY AN ENGINEERING ORSURVEYING FIRM CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SUCH WORK, AND CURRENTLY LICENSED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TO DO SO.3. STORM DRAIN PIPELINES SHALL BE INSTALLED TO THE FAR PROPERTY LINE(S) TO SERVE ADJACENT TRIBUTARY AREAS AS MAY BEWARRANTED. THEY SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY SIZED TO ACCOMMODATE FLOWS AS FURTHER IDENTIFIED HEREIN. PIPES SHALL BEDESIGNED TO FACILITATE A MINIMUM 2 FEET/SECOND FLOW UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.4. ALL PIPE AND APPURTENANCES SHALL BE LAID ON A PROPERLY PREPARED FOUNDATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT 7-02.3(1).THIS SHALL INCLUDE LEVELING AND COMPACTING THE TRENCH BOTTOM, THE TOP OF THE FOUNDATION MATERIAL, AND ANYREQUIRED PIPE BEDDING TO A UNIFORM GRADE SO THAT THE ENTIRE PIPE IS SUPPORTED BY A UNIFORMLY DENSE UNYIELDING BASE.5. STEEL PIPE SHALL BE GALVANIZED AND HAVE ASPHALT TREATMENT #1 OR BETTER INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.6. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, SUCH AS CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES, NOT LOCATED WITHIN A TRAVELED ROADWAY ORSIDEWALK SHALL HAVE SOLID LOCKING LIDS. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH A PERMANENT RETENTION/DETENTIONFACILITY SHALL HAVE SOLID LOCKING LIDS.7. ALL CATCH BASIN GRATES SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF NEWCASTLE DRAWINGS, AND SHALL INCLUDE THE STAMPING "OUTFALLTO STREAM, DUMP NO POLLUTANTS" AND "PROPERTY OF CITY OF NEWCASTLE".8. ALL DRIVEWAY CULVERTS LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3:1SLOPE FROM THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY TO THE BOTTOM OF THE DITCH. CULVERTS SHALL HAVE BEVELED END SECTIONS TOMATCH THE SIDE SLOPE (SEE CITY OF NEWCASTLE DRAWINGS).9. ROCK FOR EROSION PROTECTION FOR ROADWAY DITCHES, WHERE REQUIRED, MUST BE OF SOUND QUARRY ROCK PLACED TO ADEPTH OF ONE FOOT, AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS : 4" -8" ROCK/40-70% PASSING: 2"-4" ROCK/30-40%PASSING: AND 2" MINUS ROCK/10-20% PASSING. INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF NEWCASTLE DRAWINGS.10. DRAINAGE OUTLETS (STUB-OUTS) SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT OR BUILDING, EXCEPT FOR THOSE LOTSAPPROVED FOR INFILTRATION BY THE CITY. STUB-OUTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING:A. EACH OUTLET SHALL BE SUITABLY LOCATED AT THE LOWEST ELEVATION ON THE LOT, SO AS TO SERVICE ALL FUTURE ROOFDOWNSPOUTS AND FOOTING DRAINS, DRIVEWAYS, YARD DRAINS, AND ANY OTHER SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE DRAIN NECESSARY TORENDER THE LOTS SUITABLE FOR THEIR INTENDED USE. EACH OUTLET SHALL HAVE FREE-FLOWING, POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO ANAPPROVED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM OR AN APPROVED OUTFALL LOCATION.B. OUTLETS ON EACH LOT SHALL BE MARKED WITH A FIVE FOOT HIGH, 2"X4" STAKE MARKED "STORM" OR "DRAIN". THE STUB-OUTSHALL EXTEND ABOVE SURFACE LEVEL, BE VISIBLE, AND BE SECURED TO THE STAKE.C. PIPE MATERIAL SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES IN DIAMETER, PERFORATED, SMOOTH INTERIOR, RIGID DRAIN PIPE. A METALLICTRACER WIRE SHALL BE ATTACHED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PIPE.D. INDIVIDUAL LOTS STUB-OUTS MAY CONNECT DIRECTLY TO THE ROADWAY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, PROVIDED, THAT SAIDCONNECTION IS MADE THROUGH USE OF A MANUFACTURED TEE SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PURPOSE. IF STUB-OUTS MUST PASS ACROSSINDIVIDUAL LOTS, THEY SHALL BE LOCATED IN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.E. THE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE LOCATIONS OF ALL STUB-OUT CONVEYANCE LINES WITHRESPECT TO UTILITIES (E.G., POWER, GAS, PHONE, CABLE).F. ALL INDIVIDUAL STUB-OUTS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE LOT HOMEOWNER.STRUCTURAL NOTES1. THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR STANDARD ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ONLY. PLANS FOR STRUCTURES SUCH ASBRIDGES, VAULTS, ROCKERIES AND RETAINING WALLS REQUIRE A SEPARATE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENTPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2. ROCKERIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A METHOD OF BANK STABILIZATION AND EROSION CONTROL. ROCKERIES SHALL NOT BECONSTRUCTED TO SERVE AS RETAINING WALLS, EXCEPT AS APPROVED HEREIN. ALL ROCKERIES IN THE CITY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTEDIN ACCORDANCE TO THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE DRAWINGS.EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTESTHE STANDARD ESC PLAN NOTES MUST BE INCLUDED ON ALL ESC PLANS. AT THE APPLICANT'S DISCRETION, NOTES THAT IN NO WAYAPPLY TO THE PROJECT MAY BE OMITTED: HOWEVER, THE REMAINING NOTES MUST NOT BE RENUMBERED.1. APPROVAL OF THIS EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (ESC) PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF PERMANENTROAD OR DRAINAGE DESIGN (E.G., SIZE AND LOCATION OF ROADS, PIPES, RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS, RETENTION FACILITIES,UTILITIES, ETC.).2. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE ESC PLANS AND THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND UPGRADING OF THESEESC FACILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCTION IS APPROVED.3. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOW ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED BY A CONTINUOUS LENGTH OFORANGE PROTECTION FENCING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE CLEARINGLIMITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR UNTIL ALLCONSTRUCTION IS APPROVED.4. THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL CLEARING ANDGRADING SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT TO SURFACE WATERS, DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, AND ADJACENTPROPERTIES IS PREVENTED.5. THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. DURING THECOURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, THESE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE UPGRADED AS NEEDED FOR UNEXPECTED STORM EVENTS AND MODIFIEDTO ACCOUNT FOR CHANGING SITE CONDITIONS.6. THE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR AND MAINTAINED TO ENSURE CONTINUEDPROPER FUNCTIONING. WRITTEN RECORDS SHALL BE KEPT OF WEEKLY REVIEWS OF THE ESC FACILITIES DURING THE WET SEASON(OCTOBER 1 TO APRIL 30) AND OF MONTHLY REVIEWS DURING THE DRY SEASON (MAY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30).7. ANY AREAS OF EXPOSED SOILS, INCLUDING ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS, THAT WILL NOT BE DISTURBED FOR TWO DAYS DURING THEWET SEASON OR SEVEN DAYS DURING THE DRY SEASON SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH THE APPROVED ESC METHODS (E.G.,SEEDING, MULCHING, PLASTIC COVERING, ETC.).8. ANY AREA NEEDING ESC MEASURES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN FIFTEEN (15)DAYS.9. THE ESC FACILITIES ON INACTIVE SITES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED A MINIMUM OF ONCE A MONTH OR WITHIN 48HOURS FOLLOWING A STORM EVENT.10. AT NO TIME SHALL MORE THAN ONE (1) FOOT OF SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE WITHIN A CATCH BASIN. ALL CATCHBASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING. THE CLEANING OPERATION SHALL NOT FLUSHSEDIMENT-LADEN WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM.11. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND ROADS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION ANDMAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. ADDITIONAL MEASURES, SUCH AS WASH PADS, MAY BE REQUIRED TO ENSURETHAT ALL PAVED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.12. ANY PERMANENT FLOW CONTROL FACILITY USED AS A TEMPORARY SETTLING BASIN SHALL BE MODIFIED WITH THE NECESSARYEROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY. IF THE FACILITY IS TO FUNCTION ULTIMATELYAS AN INFILTRATION SYSTEM, THE TEMPORARY FACILITY MUST BE GRADED SO THAT THE BOTTOM AND SIDES ARE AT LEAST THREEFEET ABOVE FINAL GRADE OF THE PERMANENT FACILITY.13. WHERE STRAW MULCH FOR TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE APPLIED AT A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 2TO 3 INCHES.14. PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE REVIEWED TO IDENTIFY WHICH ONES CAN BE SEEDED IN PREPARATIONFOR THE WINTER RAINS. DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1. A SKETCH MAP OF THOSE AREAS TO BE SEEDEDAND THOSE AREAS TO REMAIN UNCOVERED SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY INSPECTOR. THE CITY INSPECTOR CAN REQUIRESEEDING OF ADDITIONAL AREAS IN ORDER TO PROTECT SURFACE WATERS, ADJACENT PROPERTIES, OR DRAINAGE FACILITIES.CONSTRUCTION POLLUTANT CONTROL NOTEALL POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING WASTE MATERIALS AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS, THAT OCCUR ON-SITE SHALL BE HANDLED AND DISPOSEDOF IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSE CONTAMINATION OF STORMWATER. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING AND PREVENTATIVE MEASURESWILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT THE SITE WILL BE KEPT CLEAN, WELL ORGANIZED, AND FREE OF DEBRIS. IF REQUIRED, BMPS TO BEIMPLEMENTED TO CONTROL SPECIFIC SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS ARE DISCUSSED BELOW.VEHICLES, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND/OR PETROLEUM PRODUCT STORAGE/DISPENSING:- ALL VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT, AND PETROLEUM PRODUCT STORAGE/DISPENSING AREAS WILL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY TO DETECT ANY LEAKS OR SPILLS, AND TO IDENTIFY MAINTENANCE NEEDS TO PREVENT LEAKS OR SPILLS.- ON-SITE FUELING TANKS AND PETROLEUM PRODUCT STORAGE CONTAINERS SHALL INCLUDE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT.- SPILL PREVENTION MEASURES, SUCH AS DRIP PANS, WILL BE USED WHEN CONDUCTING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT.- IN ORDER TO PERFORM EMERGENCY REPAIRS ON-SITE, TEMPORARY PLASTIC WILL BE PLACED BENEATH AND, IF RAINING, OVERTHE VEHICLE.- CONTAMINATED SURFACES SHALL BE CLEANED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ANY DISCHARGE OR SPILL INCIDENT.THE FACILITY DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) PLAN UNDER THE FEDERALREGULATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA).RHODODENDRON RIDGEREV NO.DATEDESCRIPTIONMADE BYCHECKEDKING COUNTYERP PLAN SETPLOTTED:SHEETJOB NO. 14134iCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCCITY OF NEWCASTLEWASHINGTONSE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONDRAWN:APPROVED:DESIGNED:BPF, SPBPFAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134RD3.dwg3/21/18 12:00TsollySPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR3/21/18TESC STANDARD NOTESTESC-4WET SEASON SPECIAL PROVISIONS1. THE ALLOWED TIME THAT A DISTURBED AREA MAY REMAIN UNWORKED WITHOUT COVER MEASURES IS REDUCED TO TWOCONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS, RATHER THAN SEVEN (SECTION D.3.2).2. STOCKPILES AND STEEP CUT AND FILL SLOPES ARE TO BE PROTECTED IF UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS (SECTION D.3.2).3. COVER MATERIALS SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STOCKPILED ON SITE (SECTION D.3.2).4. ALL AREAS THAT ARE TO BE UNWORKED DURING THE WET SEASON SHALL BE SEEDED WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE BEGINNING OFTHE WET SEASON (SECTION D.3.2.5).5. MULCH IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT ALL SEEDED AREAS (SECTION D.3.2.1).6. FIFTY LINEAR FEET OF SILT FENCE (AND THE NECESSARY STAKES) PER ACRE OF DISTURBANCE MUST BE STOCKPILED ON SITE(SECTION D.3.3.1).7. CONSTRUCTION ROAD AND PARKING LOT STABILIZATION ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL SITES UNLESS THE SITE IS UNDERLAIN BYCOARSE-GRAINED SOIL (SECTION D.3.4.2).8. SEDIMENT RETENTION IS REQUIRED UNLESS NO OFFSITE DISCHARGE IS ANTICIPATED FOR THE SPECIFIED DESIGN FLOW (SECTIOND.3.5).9. SURFACE WATER CONTROLS ARE REQUIRED UNLESS NO OFFSITE DISCHARGE IS ANTICIPATED FOR THE SPECIFIED DESIGN FLOW(SECTION D.3.6).10. PHASING AND MORE CONSERVATIVE BMP'S MUST BE EVALUATED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY NEAR SURFACE WATERS(SECTION D.5.3).11. ANY RUNOFF GENERATED BY DEWATERING MAY BE REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE TO THE SANITARY SEWER (WITH APPROPRIATEDISCHARGE AUTHORIZATION), PORTABLE SAND FILTER SYSTEMS, OR HOLDING TANKS.12. THE FREQUENCY OF MAINTENANCE REVIEW INCREASES FROM MONTHLY TO WEEKLY (SECTION D.5.4).CRITICAL AREAS SPECIAL PROVISIONS1. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, PHASE ALL OR PART OF THE PROJECT SO THAT IT OCCURS DURING THE DRY SEASON. IF THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE,NOVEMBER THROUGH FEBRUARY SHALL BE AVOIDED SINCE THIS IS THE MOST LIKELY PERIOD FOR LARGER, HIGH-INTENSITY STORMS.2. ALL PROJECTS SHALL BE COMPLETED AND STABILIZED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. LIMITING THE SIZE AND DURATION OF A PROJECTIS PROBABLY THE MOST EFFECTIVE FORM OF EROSION CONTROL.3. WHERE APPROPRIATE, SANDBAGS OR AN EQUIVALENT BARRIER SHALL BE CONSTRUCT- ED BETWEEN THE PROJECT AREA AND THESURFACE WATER IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE CONSTRUCTION AREA FROM HIGH WATER THAT MIGHT RESULT DUE TO PRECIPITATION.4. ADDITIONAL PERIMETER PROTECTION SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SEDIMENT ENTERING THE SURFACEWATERS. SUCH PROTECTION MIGHT INCLUDE MULTIPLE SILT FENCES WITH A HIGHER AOS, CONSTRUCTION OF A BERM, OR A THICKLAYER OF ORGANIC MULCH UPSLOPE OF A SILT FENCE.5. IF WORK IS TO OCCUR WITHIN THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF A STREAM, MOST PROJECTS MUST ISOLATE THE WORK AREAFROM THE STREAM BY DIVERTING THE STREAM OR CONSTRUCTING A COFFERDAM. CERTAIN SMALL PROJECTS THAT PROPOSE ONLYA SMALL AMOUNT OF GRADING MAY NOT REQUIRE ISOLATION SINCE DIVERSIONS TYPICALLY RESULT IN DISTURBANCE AND THERELEASE OF SOME SEDIMENT TO THE STREAM. FRO SUCH SMALL PROJECTS, THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION WITHAND WITHOUT A DIVERSION MUST BE WEIGHED.6. IF A STREAM MUST BE CROSSED, A TEMPORARY BRIDGE SHALL BE CONSIDERED RATHER THAN ALLOWING EQUIPMENT TO UTILIZETHE STREAMBED FOR A CROSSING.MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTSDURING THE WET SEASON, WEEKLY REVIEWS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT EVERY 6 TO 8 CALENDAR DAYS. DURING THE DRY SEASON,MONTHLY REVIEWS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT WITHIN 3 DAYS OF THE CALENDAR DAY FOR THE LAST INSPECTION (E.G., IF ASINSPECTION OCCURRED ON JUNE 6, THEN THE NEXT INSPECTION MUST OCCUR BETWEEN JULY 3 AND JULY 9), REVIEWS SHALL ALSOTAKE PLACE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF SIGNIFICANT STORMS. IN GENERAL, A SIGNIFICANT STORM IS ONE WITH MORE THAN 0.5 INCHESOF RAIN IN 24 HOURS OR LESS. OTHER INDICATIONS THAT A STORM IS "SIGNIFICANT" ARE IF THE SEDIMENT PONDS OR TRAPS AREFILLED WITH WATER, OR IF GULLIES FORM AS A RESULT OF THE RUNOFF.WET SEASON NOTES Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter9 TIR 0318.doc 9-1 9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant The bond quantity work sheet has been omitted from the TIR. The project owner will submit construction cost estimates (under separate cover) directly to the City for the purposes of bonding. 9-2 STORMWATER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET Development: Date Location: ENGINEER DEVELOPER Name Mark Barber, PE Name Firm Goldsmith Firm Address 1215 114th Ave. SE Address Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone 425-462-1080 Phone ( ) Developed Site: Acres Number of lots Number of detention facilities on site: Number of infiltration facilities on site: ponds ponds vaults vaults tanks tanks Flow control provided in regional facility (give location) NA No flow control required Infiltration System Exemption number Downstream Drainage Basins Immediate Major Basin Basin A Basin B Basin C Basin D Number & type of water quality facilities on site: biofiltration swale (regular/wet/ or sand filter (basic or large?) continuous inflow?) sand filter, linear (basic or large?) combined detention/WQ pond sand filter vault (basic or large?) (WQ portion basic or large?) combined detention/wetvault stormwater wetland compost filter wetpond (basic or large?) filter strip wetvault flow dispersion farm management plan landscape management plan storm filter by Contech oil/water separator (baffle or coalescing plate?) catch basin inserts: Manufacturer pre-settling pond pre-settling structure: Manufacturer flow-splitter catchbasin DESIGN INFORMATION INDIVIDUAL BASIN A B C D Water Quality design flow Water Quality treated volume or wetpond Vr 9-3 DESIGN INFORMATION, cont'd TOTAL INDIVIDUAL BASIN Drainage basin(s) A B C D Onsite area c Offsite area Type of Storage Facility Live Storage Volume Predeveloped Runoff Rate Developed runoff rate Type of restrictor NA Size of orifice/restriction No. 1 NA No. 2 NA No. 3 NA No. 4 NA FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET SKETCH All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a sketch per the following criteria: 1. Heading for the drawings should be located at the top of the sketch (top right-hand corner). The heading should contain: North arrow (point up or to left) D9# Plat name or short plat number Address (nearest) Date drawn (or updated) Thomas Brothers page, grid number 2. Label CBs and MHs with the plan and profile designation. Label the control structure in writing or abbreviate with C.S. Indicate which structures provide spill control. Pipes-- indicate: Pipe size Pipe length Flow direction Use s single heavyweight line 4. Tanks-- use a double, heavyweight line and indicate size (diameter) 5. Access roads Outline the limits of the road Fill the outline with dots if the road is gravel. Label in writing if another surface. 6. Other Standard Symbols: Bollards: M M M M O O O O Rip rap Fences: -------------------- Ditches ~D~~D~~D~~D 7. Label trash racks in writing. 8. Label all streets with the actual street sign designation. If you don't know the actual street name, consult the plat map. 9. Include easements and lot lines or tract limits when possible. 10. Arrange all the labeling or writing to read from left to right or from bottom to top with reference to a properly oriented heading. 11. Indicate driveways or features that may impact access, maintenance or replacement. 9-4 After recording return to: DECLARATION OF COVENANT IN CONSIDERATION of the approved King County permit for application No. relating to real property described as follows: . The undersigned as Grantor(s), declares that the above described property is hereby subject to an easement for a natural or constructed conveyance system and hereby dedicates, covenants and agrees as follows: 1. King County shall have the right to ingress and egress over those portions not contained in Exhibit “A” to access such easement area for inspection of and to reasonably monitor the performance, operational flows, or defects in accordance with and [as presented in King County Code Section 9.04.120]. 2. If King County determines that maintenance or repair work is required to be done to the system, the Manager of the Water and Land Resources Division of the King County Department of Natural Resources shall give notice of the specific maintenance and/or repair work required pursuant to K.C.C. 9.04.030. The Manager shall also set a reasonable time in which such work is to be completed by the Grantor(s), its heirs or assigns. If the above required maintenance or repair is not completed within the time set by the Manager, the County may perform the required maintenance or repair. Written 9-5 notice will be sent to the Grantor(s) stating the County's intention to perform such maintenance. Maintenance work will not commence until at least seven (7) days after such notice is mailed. If, within the sole discretion of the Water and Land Resources Division Manager, there exists an imminent or present danger, said seven (7) day notice period will be waived and maintenance and/or repair work will begin immediately. 3. If at any time King County reasonably determines that any existing retention/detention system creates any of the conditions listed in K.C.C. 9.04.030 and herein incorporated by reference, the Water and Land Resources Division Manager may take measures specified therein. 4. The Grantor(s) shall assume all responsibility for the cost of any maintenance and for repairs to the system. Such responsibility shall include reimbursement to the County within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the invoice for any such work performed. Overdue payments will require payment of interest at the current legal rate as liquidated damages. If legal action ensues, the prevailing party is entitled to costs or fees. 5. The Grantor(s) is (are) hereby required to obtain written approval from the Water and Land Resources Division Manager of the King County Department of Natural Resources prior to filling, piping, cutting, or removing vegetation (except in routine landscape maintenance) in open vegetated drainage facilities (such as swales, channels, ditches, ponds, etc.), or performing any alterations or modifications to the drainage facilities contained within said drainage easement. Any notice or consent required to be given or otherwise provided for by the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery, or three (3) days after mailing by Certified Mail, return receipt requested. 6. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and all agreements whatsoever whether oral or written. 9-6 This covenant is intended to protect the value and desirability of the real property described above, and shall insure to the benefit of all the citizens of King County, and shall be binding on all heirs, successors and assigns. OWNER OWNER STATE OF WASHINGTON SS. COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me: , to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein stated. Given under my hand and official seal this _______ day of 20 . NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Technical Information Report r14134-1 Chapter10 TIR 0318.doc 10-1 10. Operations and Maintenance Manual Summary of Proposed Stormwater Infrastructure The operation and maintenance of the proposed stormwater infrastructure installed as part of the Rhododenron Ridge site is divided between three main entities, the City of Newcastle, the City of Renton, and the Rhododendron Ridge Home Owners Association (HOA). All operation and maintenance of stromwater infrastructure shall be in accordance with the 2016 KCSWDM Maintenance Requirements for Flow Control, Conveyance, and WQ Facilities, applicable sections of which are included in this report. The table on the following page shows the proposed infrastructure location and the party responsible for operations and maintenance. 14134 Rhododendron Ridge Infrastructure Element Element Type Location Responsible Party Exist. SD #1 COR Facility ID: 114635 TYPE I CB Located within the City of Renton ROW. W side of 110th Ave. NE/Lincoln Ave. at intersection with NE 43rd St.City of Renton SD #1 TYPE I CB w/ Solid Locking Lid Located within City of Renton ROW. W side of 110th Ave. NE/Lincoln Ave. at intersection with NE 43rd St. Approx. 34' Southeasat of Exist. SD #1.Rhododendron Ridge HOA SD #2 TYPE II-48 CB w/ Solid Locking Lid (Designated Stilling Well)Located within unimproved City of Renton ROW (NE 43rd St./SE 80th St.) at base of slope approx. 15' E of SD #1.Rhododendron Ridge HOA SD #2A TYPE I CB w/ Solid Locking Lid & Channelized Bottom Located within unimproved City of Renton ROW (NE 43rd St./SE 80th St.) near the intersection between unimproved City of Renton ROW (NE 43rd St./SE 80th St.) and unimproved City of Newcaslte ROWs (112th Ave. NE). Approx. 80' SW of the SW property corner of the Rhododenrdon Ridge site. Rhododendron Ridge HOA SD #3 TYPE II-48 CB w/ Solid Locking Lid Located within unimproved City of Newcastle ROW (112th Ave. NE). Approx. 64' NE of SD #2A and 23' W of the SW property corner of the Rhododenrdon Ridge site. Rhododendron Ridge HOA SD #4 TYPE I-54 MH Located within the City of Newcastle near the W side of the Tract D (access).Rhododendron Ridge HOA SD #5 8'x11' Peak Diversion StormFilter Located within the City of Newcastle near the center of Rhododendron Ridge Tract D (access).Rhododendron Ridge HOA SD #6 TYPE II-54 MH w/ Spill Control Located within the City of Newcastle near the E side of Rhododendron Ridge Tract D, just W of Road "A" ROW.Rhododendron Ridge HOA SD #7 TYPE II-48 CB w/ Through Curb Inlet Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for Road "A", On the W side of Road "A" near Rhododendron Ridge Lot 13.City of Newcastle SD #8 TYPE I CB w/ Through Curb Inlet Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for Road "A" on the E side of Road "A" near Rhododendron Ridge Lot 3.City of Newcastle SD #9 TYPE I CB Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for Road "A" on the E side of Road "A" near the corner of Rhododendron Ridge Lots 1 & 2 City of Newcastle SD #10 TYPE I CB Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for Road "A" on the E side of Road "A" at Rhododendron Ridge Lot 1.City of Newcastle SD #10A TYPE I CB Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for Road "A" on the W side of Road "A" near Rhododendron Ridge Lot 15. City of Newcastle SD #11 TYPE II-48 CB Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for SE 80th St. in the road near the S side of Rhododendron Ridge Lot 1.City of Newcastle SD #12 TYPE II-48 CB Located with the City of Newcastle ROW for SE 80th St. at the NW corner of the intersection between SE 80th St. and 113th Ave. SE.City of Newcastle SD #13 TYPE I CB Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for 113th Ave. SE on the W side of 113th Ave SE at the intersection between 113th Ave SE and SE 79th Pl.City of Newcastle SD #14 TYPE I CB Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for 113th Ave. SE on the W side of 113th Ave SE and to the E of Rhododendron Ridge Lot 6.City of Newcastle SD #15 TYPE I CB Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for Road "A" on the W side of Road "A" near the corner of Rhododendron Ridge Lots 11 & 12.City of Newcastle SD #15A TYPE I CB Located within the City of Newcastle ROW for Road "A" on the E side of Road "A" near the corner of Rhododendron Ridge Lots 4 & 5.City of Newcastle SD #16 TYPE I CB Located within the City of Newcastle at the intersection of Rhododendron Ridge Tract C and the ROW for Road "A" near the E side of Rhododendron Ridge Lot 10.City of Newcastle SD #17 TYPE I CB Located within the City of Newcastle at the intersection of Rhododendron Ridge Tract B and the ROW for Road "A" near the SE corner of Rhododendron Ridge Lot 8.City of Newcastle Detention Vault Detention Vault & Control Structure Located within unimproved City of Newcastle ROW (112th Ave. NE) directley W of Tract D.Rhododendron Ridge HOA Conveyance Piping Piping between infrastructure elements Varies, see sheets RS-1 to RS-3 and SD-1 to SD-3 for locations.See Note 1 Roof & Wall Drains Piping & cleanouts for roof and wall drains Varies, see sheets RS-1 to RS-3 and SD-1 to SD-3 for locations.See Note 2 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES Notes: 1. The party responsible for the maintenance of conveyance piping shall be the same as the party responsible for the structures to which the pipe connects. For piping that connects to structures with different responable parties, the party responsible for maintenance of the structure connecting to the upstream side of the pipe shall be responsible for the maintenance of the pipe. It is recommended that any maintenance on pipes connecting to structures with varying responsible parties be coordinated between the responable parties. 2. All wall and roof drains maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Owner of the Lot on which the drain is located. StormFilter Inspection and Maintenance Procedures ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS In addition to these two activities, it is important to check the condition of the StormFilter unit after major storms for potential damage caused by high flows and for high sediment accumulation that may be caused by localized erosion in the drainage area. It may be necessary to adjust the inspection/ maintenance schedule depending on the actual operating conditions encountered by the system. In general, inspection activities can be conducted at any time, and maintenance should occur, if warranted, during dryer months in late summer to early fall. Maintenance Frequency The primary factor for determining frequency of maintenance for the StormFilter is sediment loading. A properly functioning system will remove solids from water by trapping particulates in the porous structure of the filter media inside the cartridges. The flow through the system will naturally decrease as more and more particulates are trapped. Eventually the flow through the cartridges will be low enough to require replacement. It may be possible to extend the usable span of the cartridges by removing sediment from upstream trapping devices on a routine as-needed basis, in order to prevent material from being re-suspended and discharged to the StormFilter treatment system. The average maintenance lifecycle is approximately 1-5 years. Site conditions greatly influence maintenance requirements. StormFilter units located in areas with erosion or active construction may need to be inspected and maintained more often than those with fully stabilized surface conditions. Regulatory requirements or a chemical spill can shift maintenance timing as well. The maintenance frequency may be adjusted as additional monitoring information becomes available during the inspection program. Areas that develop known problems should be inspected more frequently than areas that demonstrate no problems, particularly after major storms. Ultimately, inspection and maintenance activities should be scheduled based on the historic records and characteristics of an individual StormFilter system or site. It is recommended that the site owner develop a database to properly manage StormFilter inspection and maintenance programs.. 2 Maintenance Guidelines The primary purpose of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® is to filter and prevent pollutants from entering our waterways. Like any effective filtration system, periodically these pollutants must be removed to restore the StormFilter to its full efficiency and effectiveness. Maintenance requirements and frequency are dependent on the pollutant load characteristics of each site. Maintenance activities may be required in the event of a chemical spill or due to excessive sediment loading from site erosion or extreme storms. It is a good practice to inspect the system after major storm events. Maintenance Procedures Although there are many effective maintenance options, we believe the following procedure to be efficient, using common equipment and existing maintenance protocols. The following two-step procedure is recommended:: 1. Inspection • Inspection of the vault interior to determine the need for maintenance. 2. Maintenance • Cartridge replacement • Sediment removal Inspection and Maintenance Timing At least one scheduled inspection should take place per year with maintenance following as warranted. First, an inspection should be done before the winter season. During the inspection the need for maintenance should be determined and, if disposal during maintenance will be required, samples of the accumulated sediments and media should be obtained. Second, if warranted, a maintenance (replacement of the filter cartridges and removal of accumulated sediments) should be performed during periods of dry weather. 3 Inspection Procedures The primary goal of an inspection is to assess the condition of the cartridges relative to the level of visual sediment loading as it relates to decreased treatment capacity. It may be desirable to conduct this inspection during a storm to observe the relative flow through the filter cartridges. If the submerged cartridges are severely plugged, then typically large amounts of sediments will be present and very little flow will be discharged from the drainage pipes. If this is the case, then maintenance is warranted and the cartridges need to be replaced. Warning: In the case of a spill, the worker should abort inspection activities until the proper guidance is obtained. Notify the local hazard control agency and Contech Engineered Solutions immediately. To conduct an inspection: Important: Inspection should be performed by a person who is familiar with the operation and configuration of the StormFilter treatment unit. 1. If applicable, set up safety equipment to protect and notify surrounding vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 2. Visually inspect the external condition of the unit and take notes concerning defects/problems. 3. Open the access portals to the vault and allow the system vent. 4. Without entering the vault, visually inspect the inside of the unit, and note accumulations of liquids and solids. 5. Be sure to record the level of sediment build-up on the floor of the vault, in the forebay, and on top of the cartridges. If flow is occurring, note the flow of water per drainage pipe. Record all observations. Digital pictures are valuable for historical documentation. 6. Close and fasten the access portals. 7. Remove safety equipment. 8. If appropriate, make notes about the local drainage area relative to ongoing construction, erosion problems, or high loading of other materials to the system. 9. Discuss conditions that suggest maintenance and make decision as to weather or not maintenance is needed. Maintenance Decision Tree The need for maintenance is typically based on results of the inspection. The following Maintenance Decision Tree should be used as a general guide. (Other factors, such as Regulatory Requirements, may need to be considered) 1. Sediment loading on the vault floor. a. If >4” of accumulated sediment, maintenance is required. 2. Sediment loading on top of the cartridge. a. If >1/4” of accumulation, maintenance is required. 3. Submerged cartridges. a. If >4” of static water above cartridge bottom for more than 24 hours after end of rain event, maintenance is required. (Catch basins have standing water in the cartridge bay.) 4. Plugged media. a. If pore space between media granules is absent, maintenance is required. 5. Bypass condition. a. If inspection is conducted during an average rain fall event and StormFilter remains in bypass condition (water over the internal outlet baffle wall or submerged cartridges), maintenance is required. 6. Hazardous material release. a. If hazardous material release (automotive fluids or other) is reported, maintenance is required. 7. Pronounced scum line. a. If pronounced scum line (say ≥ 1/4” thick) is present above top cap, maintenance is required. Important: Care must be used to avoid damaging the cartridges during removal and installation. The cost of repairing components damaged during maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner. C. Set the used cartridge aside or load onto the hauling truck. D. Continue steps a through c until all cartridges have been removed. Method 2: A. This activity will require that maintenance personnel enter the vault to remove the cartridges from the under drain manifold and place them under the vault opening for lifting (removal). Disconnect each filter cartridge from the underdrain connector by rotating counterclockwise 1/4 of a turn. Roll the loose cartridge, on edge, to a convenient spot beneath the vault access. B. Unscrew the cartridge cap. C. Remove the cartridge hood and float. D. At location under structure access, tip the cartridge on its side. E. Empty the cartridge onto the vault floor. Reassemble the empty cartridge. F. Set the empty, used cartridge aside or load onto the hauling truck. G. Continue steps a through e until all cartridges have been removed. 4 Maintenance Depending on the configuration of the particular system, maintenance personnel will be required to enter the vault to perform the maintenance. Important: If vault entry is required, OSHA rules for confined space entry must be followed. Filter cartridge replacement should occur during dry weather. It may be necessary to plug the filter inlet pipe if base flows is occurring. Replacement cartridges can be delivered to the site or customers facility. Information concerning how to obtain the replacement cartridges is available from Contech Engineered Solutions. Warning: In the case of a spill, the maintenance personnel should abort maintenance activities until the proper guidance is obtained. Notify the local hazard control agency and Contech Engineered Solutions immediately. To conduct cartridge replacement and sediment removal maintenance: 1. If applicable, set up safety equipment to protect maintenance personnel and pedestrians from site hazards. 2. Visually inspect the external condition of the unit and take notes concerning defects/problems. 3. Open the doors (access portals) to the vault and allow the system to vent. 4. Without entering the vault, give the inside of the unit, including components, a general condition inspection. 5. Make notes about the external and internal condition of the vault. Give particular attention to recording the level of sediment build-up on the floor of the vault, in the forebay, and on top of the internal components. 6. Using appropriate equipment offload the replacement cartridges (up to 150 lbs. each) and set aside. 7. Remove used cartridges from the vault using one of the following methods: Method 1: A. This activity will require that maintenance personnel enter the vault to remove the cartridges from the under drain manifold and place them under the vault opening for lifting (removal). Disconnect each filter cartridge from the underdrain connector by rotating counterclockwise 1/4 of a turn. Roll the loose cartridge, on edge, to a convenient spot beneath the vault access. Using appropriate hoisting equipment, attach a cable from the boom, crane, or tripod to the loose cartridge. Contact Contech Engineered Solutions for suggested attachment devices. B. Remove the used cartridges (up to 250 lbs. each) from the vault. 5 8. Remove accumulated sediment from the floor of the vault and from the forebay. This can most effectively be accomplished by use of a vacuum truck. 9. Once the sediments are removed, assess the condition of the vault and the condition of the connectors. 10. Using the vacuum truck boom, crane, or tripod, lower and install the new cartridges. Once again, take care not to damage connections. 11. Close and fasten the door. 12. Remove safety equipment. 13. Finally, dispose of the accumulated materials in accordance with applicable regulations. Make arrangements to return the used empty cartridges to Contech Engineered Solutions. Related Maintenance Activities - Performed on an as-needed basis StormFilter units are often just one of many structures in a more comprehensive stormwater drainage and treatment system. In order for maintenance of the StormFilter to be successful, it is imperative that all other components be properly maintained. The maintenance/repair of upstream facilities should be carried out prior to StormFilter maintenance activities. In addition to considering upstream facilities, it is also important to correct any problems identified in the drainage area. Drainage area concerns may include: erosion problems, heavy oil loading, and discharges of inappropriate materials. Material Disposal The accumulated sediment found in stormwater treatment and conveyance systems must be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory protocols. It is possible for sediments to contain measurable concentrations of heavy metals and organic chemicals (such as pesticides and petroleum products). Areas with the greatest potential for high pollutant loading include industrial areas and heavily traveled roads. Sediments and water must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable waste disposal regulations. When scheduling maintenance, consideration must be made for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes. This typically requires coordination with a local landfill for solid waste disposal. For liquid waste disposal a number of options are available including a municipal vacuum truck decant facility, local waste water treatment plant or on-site treatment and discharge. Inspection Report Date: Personnel: Location: ————————————System Size: ——————————————————————————————————— System Type: Vault Cast-In-Place Linear Catch Basin Manhole Other Sediment Thickness in Forebay: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Sediment Depth on Vault Floor: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Structural Damage: ———————————————————————————————————————————————— Estimated Flow from Drainage Pipes (if available): ———————————————————————————————————— Cartridges Submerged: Yes No Depth of Standing Water: —————————————————————— StormFilter Maintenance Activities (check off if done and give description) Trash and Debris Removal: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Minor Structural Repairs: ———————————————————————————————————————————— Drainage Area Report ————————————————————————————————————————————— Excessive Oil Loading: Yes No Source: ——————————————————————— Sediment Accumulation on Pavement: Yes No Source: ——————————————————————— Erosion of Landscaped Areas: Yes No Source: ——————————————————————— Items Needing Further Work: ———————————————————————————————————————————— Owners should contact the local public works department and inquire about how the department disposes of their street waste residuals. Other Comments: ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Review the condition reports from the previous inspection visits. Date: StormFilter Maintenance Report Date: —————————————Personnel: ———————————————————————————————————— Location: ————————————System Size: ——————————————————————————————————— System Type: Vault Cast-In-Place Linear Catch Basin Manhole Other List Safety Procedures and Equipment Used: —————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— System Observations Months in Service: Oil in Forebay (if present): Yes No Sediment Depth in Forebay (if present): ———————————————————————————————————————— Sediment Depth on Vault Floor: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Structural Damage: ———————————————————————————————————————————————— Drainage Area Report Excessive Oil Loading: Yes No Source: ————————————————————————— Sediment Accumulation on Pavement: Yes No Source: ————————————————————————— Erosion of Landscaped Areas: Yes No Source: ————————————————————————— StormFilter Cartridge Replacement Maintenance Activities Remove Trash and Debris: Yes No Details: —————————————————————————— Replace Cartridges: Yes No Details: —————————————————————————— Sediment Removed: Yes No Details: —————————————————————————— Quantity of Sediment Removed (estimate?): Minor Structural Repairs: Yes No Details: ————————————————————————— Residuals (debris, sediment) Disposal Methods: —————————————————————————————————————— Notes: —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 800.338.1122 www.conteches.com NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESSED WARRANT Y OR AN IMPLIED WARRANT Y OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR AN Y PARTICULAR PURPOSE . SEE THE CONTECH STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SALE (VIEWABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM /COS ) FOR MORE INFORMATION . Contech Engineered Solutions LLC provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. Contech’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater and earth stabilization products. For information on other Contech division offerings, visit contech-cpi.com or call 800.338.1122. Support • Drawings and specifications are available at www.conteches.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS ©2016 CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC. 800-338-1122 www.ContechES.com All Rights Reserved. Printed in the USA. StormFilter Inspection and Maintenance Procedures 8/2016 Appendix A Geotechnical Engineering Study, Earth Solutions Appendix B Geologic Document Review and Site Reconnaissance, Associated Earth Sciences Inc. Kirkland Office | 911 Fifth Avenue | Kirkland, WA 98033 P | 425.827.7701 F| 425.827.5424 Everett Office | 2911 ½ Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 | Everett, WA 98201 P | 425.259.0522 F | 425.827.5424 Tacoma Office | 1552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 | Tacoma, WA 98402 P | 253.722.2992 F | 253.722.2993 www.aesgeo.com May 26, 2016 Project No. KE160152A iCap Rhody Ridge, LLC 3535 Factoria Boulevard SE, Suite 500 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attention: Mr. Levi Rowse Subject: Geologic Document Review and Site Reconnaissance Rhododendron Ridge 11230 SE 80th Street Newcastle, Washington Dear Mr. Rowse: This letter presents the results of Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.’s (AESI’s) site reconnaissance for the property referenced above at 11230 SE 80th Street in Newcastle, Washington. The site reconnaissance was performed in general conformance with AESI’s scope of work outlined in our proposal dated March 30, 2016. Our study was intended to provide information regarding the proposed residential development, particularly the proposed storm drainage outfall to be constructed as a surface-mounted HDPE pipe leading down a steeply sloping, unimproved portion of the City of Renton right-of-way for SE 80th Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is the existing residential property located at 11230 SE 80th Street in Newcastle, Washington (King County Parcel Nos. 334330048-0, -2, -3). We understand that the proposed project includes 15 residential lots, with associated grading, access, and utilities, including a proposed storm drainage outfall to be constructed as a surface-mounted HDPE pipe leading down a steeply sloping, unimproved portion of the City of Renton right-of-way for SE 80th Rhododendron Ridge Geologic Document Review Newcastle, Washington and Site Reconnaissance May 26, 2016 ASSOCIATE EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JPL/ld – KE160152A2 – Projects\20160152\KE\WP Page 2 Street. We understand that the City of Renton has required a geologic reconnaissance of this slope to provide an opinion regarding the suitability of the proposed outfall configuration. The purpose of AESI’s study is to perform a site reconnaissance down the sloping portion of the SE 80th Street right-of-way to provide our opinion regarding stability or erosion issues along the drainage alignment under current conditions, given the proposed surface-mounted drain system. Also, our study includes review of available information, including past explorations, wetland delineations by others, and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) imagery, to provide an opinion regarding the overall stability of the subject site and the slopes leading down to the west, given the proposed improvements. As part of a previous study, AESI observed an exploration boring advanced in the area of the northwest corner of the subject site. Also, for our use in preparing this letter, we have been provided with “Geotechnical Engineering Study – Rhododendron Ridge,” prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (Earth Solutions) and dated January 29, 2015, which documented explorations completed by others at the subject site. RESEARCH RESULTS In addition to performing our site reconnaissance, AESI researched available published geologic, soils, and ground water information about the site and area immediately adjacent to the property. The resources that we consulted were: • King County Website (iMAP) • Previous geotechnical reports by AESI and others (see below) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Maps Site geology and geomorphology were formed from glacial depositional processes and subsequent erosion to form the current topographic landforms. The results of our research are presented below. Aerial Photograph Review Non-stereographic aerial photographs available from iMAP were reviewed for the site. We reviewed selected photographs taken from 1936 to 2013. The objective for the aerial photograph review was to determine the general history of development in the vicinity of and within the site. Rhododendron Ridge Geologic Document Review Newcastle, Washington and Site Reconnaissance May 26, 2016 ASSOCIATE EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JPL/ld – KE160152A2 – Projects\20160152\KE\WP Page 3 • 1936 - This black and white photograph indicates that the subject site, along with the SE 80th Street right-of-way and the slopes to the west of the subject site, is vegetated with what appear to be deciduous trees and shrubs. Several rows of orchard trees are located to the east of the subject site. There are no obvious indications of slope instability on the site. However, the resolution of the photograph is low. • 1998 - This black and white photograph indicates that the current residence exists, along with vegetated garden areas (rhododendrons?), and the slope to the west is vegetated with what appear to be deciduous trees and shrubs. A multifamily residential development is located below the slope to the west. There are no obvious indications of slope instability on the site. However, the resolution of the photograph is low. • 2000 - This color photograph indicates no noticeable changes from the 1998 photograph. The coloring suggests both deciduous and evergreen trees are present on the slope. There are no obvious indications of ground water seepage, erosion, or slope instability on the site. However, as with the 1998 photograph, the resolution of the photograph is relatively low. • 2002 - The resolution of this photograph is good in comparison with the 1998 and 2000 photographs. This color photograph indicates no obviously noticeable changes from the 2000 photograph. Both evergreen and deciduous trees are present on the western slope. There are no obvious indications of ground water seepage, erosion, or slope instability on the site. • 2005, 2007, and 2009 - The resolution of these photographs is good in comparison with the previous photographs. These color photographs indicate no obviously noticeable changes at the subject site from the 2000 or 2002 photographs. The residential plat to the east of the subject site was constructed during this time, along with an improved SE 80th Street segment leading to the east of the site. There are no obvious indications of ground water seepage, erosion, or slope instability on the site. • 2012 and 2013 - The 2012 photograph appears to have been taken in early spring, and many of the deciduous trees are bare, allowing for a somewhat better view to the forest floor along the slopes to the west of the subject site. The 2013 photograph includes fully leafed deciduous trees. There are no obvious indications of ground water seepage, erosion, or slope instability on the site. Rhododendron Ridge Geologic Document Review Newcastle, Washington and Site Reconnaissance May 26, 2016 ASSOCIATE EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JPL/ld – KE160152A2 – Projects\20160152\KE\WP Page 4 Topography/Geomorphology The topographic maps and LIDAR imagery available on iMAP indicate gently to moderately sloping terrain within the subject site, and moderately to steeply sloping terrain to the west. Based on our review of the LIDAR image, the slopes leading upward from the area of Lake Washington to the upland encompassing the subject site include several bowl-shaped slide features, including to the immediate north and south of the subject site. These features are shown in Figure 1. However, based on our review of the above-mentioned aerial photography and the conditions observed during our site reconnaissance, it is our opinion that the landslide scarps suggested by the LIDAR image near to the subject site likely originated in the ancient past, possibly during the lowering of lake levels at the conclusion of the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation. Geology/Ground Water The published geologic and soils literature reviewed during this phase of our study includes the following: • Geologic Map of King County, Washington, by Derek B. Booth, Kathy A. Troost, and Aaron P. Wisher (2006). • “Geotechnical Engineering Study – Rhododendron Ridge”, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (Earth Solutions), January 29, 2015. • “Preliminary Subsurface Findings” memorandum, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI), August 6, 2015. According to published geologic map and literature of the area, the site is underlain by Vashon lodgement till (Qvt). The Qvt was deposited directly from basal, debris-laden glacial ice during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation approximately 12,500 to 15,000 years ago. The high relative density of the unweathered till is due to its consolidation by the massive weight of the glacial ice from which it was deposited. This very dense material is generally considered suitable for support of light to heavily loaded foundations when in an intact, undisturbed condition. Exposures of pre-Fraser sediments (Qpf) are mapped at the downslope, western portion of the SE 80th Street right-of-way. The 2015 Earth Solutions report included exploration test pits completed at the subject site. In summary, the Earth Solutions test pits encountered soils described as glacial till at the southern portion of the site, and sandier soils, described as glacial outwash in the report text, at the northern portion of the site. An exploration boring advanced to a depth of 81.5 feet was Rhododendron Ridge Geologic Document Review Newcastle, Washington and Site Reconnaissance May 26, 2016 ASSOCIATE EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JPL/ld – KE160152A2 – Projects\20160152\KE\WP Page 5 observed by AESI at the northwest corner of the site. The exploration boring described in the 2015 AESI memorandum encountered materials similar to that described in the Earth Solutions report to roughly 13 feet, overlying very stiff to hard silt and clay. These silts were interpreted as pre-Vashon glaciomarine silts, possibly of Possession age, similar to the pre-Fraser sediments shown on the referenced geologic map. The silt displayed a few fractures, although the degree of fracturing can be variable. Our review of the above-mentioned documents suggests that ground water seepage across much of the site is anticipated to be limited to interflow. Interflow occurs when surface water percolates down through the surficial weathered or higher-permeability sediments and becomes perched atop underlying, lower-permeability sediments. The site is located near the southern extent of the mapped Seattle Fault Zone. Recent studies by the USGS (USGS; e.g., Johnson et al., 1994, Origin and Evolution of the Seattle Fault and Seattle Basin, Washington, Geology, v. 22, pp. 71-74; and Johnson et al., 1999, Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and Central Puget Sound Washington - Implications for Earthquake Hazards, Geological Society of America Bulletin, July 1999, v. 111, n. 7, pp. 1042-1053) have provided evidence of surficial ground rupture along a northern splay of the Seattle Fault. The recognition of this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the studies still ongoing. According to the USGS studies, the latest movement of this fault was about 1,100 years ago when about 20 feet of surficial displacement took place. This displacement can presently be seen in the form of raised, wave-cut beach terraces along Alki Point in West Seattle and Restoration Point at the south end of Bainbridge Island. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of several thousand years. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval, the potential for surficial ground rupture along the Seattle Fault Zone is considered to be low during the expected life of the proposed structures. RESULTS OF SITE RECONNAISSANCE An AESI engineering geologist performed a reconnaissance of the site on May 3, 2016. The purpose of our reconnaissance visit was to provide a visual evaluation of the site conditions, including topography, drainage, geology, hydrology, and vegetation. Our observations of the site conditions during our site reconnaissance are in general agreement with site conditions summarized from our literature research presented above. Site topography varies from low relief in the area of the existing house on the subject site to moderately sloping, with limited areas of steeply (greater than 40 percent) sloping ground, in the areas of the SE 80th Street right-of-way and the property to the west of the subject site. Topographic relief along the portion of the SE 80th Street right-of-way from the subject site to 110th Avenue NE is about Rhododendron Ridge Geologic Document Review Newcastle, Washington and Site Reconnaissance May 26, 2016 ASSOCIATE EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JPL/ld – KE160152A2 – Projects\20160152\KE\WP Page 6 160 feet, sloping down to the west. The area of the site surrounding the existing residence is vegetated with landscaping shrubbery, including many rhododendrons, and small- to medium-sized trees, and large (up to 42 inches in diameter) evergreen trees. The sloping area to the west of the subject site is vegetated with abundant ferns, brush, and mixed deciduous and evergreen trees up to 3 feet in diameter. The size and nature of these trees suggests that the slope has been in its current configuration for some time. A series of manhole covers were observed at the ground surface along the SE 80th Street right-of-way, suggesting that utility installation activities have previously been completed down this slope. Several wetland areas have been delineated by others across both the property to the west of the subject site, and at the SE 80th Street right-of-way. We observed horsetail plants in portions of these areas, but no ground water seepage was observed on the slope at the time of our site visit. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The sloping area present to the west of the subject site and the SE 80th Street right-of-way do not show evidence of recent deep-seated landsliding. In our opinion, the slope should not be adversely affected by the proposed improvements, including the proposed surface-mounted HDPE storm water pipe leading down the SE 80th Street right-of-way, using current engineering, architectural, and planning standards. Based on review of available published geologic information, it appears that site soils should be suitable to support the anticipated HDPE storm water pipe. In addition, the proposed storm water detention and discharge system will in effect remove a portion of storm water volume from an area above the top of the sloping ground, reducing the risk of saturation of the slope due to runoff from upgradient locations during or subsequent to significant rainfall events. It is our opinion that the risk of landslides or slope erosion posed by the proposed improvements is low for the site provided current engineering standards and the recommendations contained this letter are followed. The steep slopes at the area of the site were predominantly vegetated with ferns, other brush and trees. This vegetation serves to protect the face of the slopes from soil erosion. We recommend that this vegetation remain in place to provide root support for the near-surface soils along the slopes. Storm water runoff from impermeable surfaces should be collected, routed, and discharged through a properly designed storm water system. Uncontrolled discharge from the impermeable surfaces should not be allowed to flow towards or onto the steep slopes. 520 500 4 804 6 044 04204003 8 0 34032030028026020018016012010080605 40 36040200-20-40-601 2 010080 60402402201406 0 5604403403 2 03201 2040BLACK AND WHITE REPRODUCTION OF THIS COLOR ORIGINAL MAY REDUCE ITSEFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TO INCORRECT INTERPRETATION LIDAR BASED TOPOGRAPHYLANDSLIDE SCARPS Document Path: G:\GIS_Projects\aaYear2016\160152 Rhododendron Ridge\mxd\160152_RR_LandslideScarps11x17_NTRPvert.mxd±LEGEND: SITE LANDSLIDE SCARP CONTOUR 5 FT CONTOUR 20 FT STREET PROJ NO. DATE: FIGURE:1 DATA SOURCES / REFERENCES:LIDAR ACQUIRED BY PSLC. GRID CELL SIZE IS 6'.WA STATE PLANE NORTH COORDINATE SYSTEM.NAD83(1991 HARN). ELEVATION UNITS IN US SURVEY FEET.KING CO: STREETS, WATER, PARCELS LOCATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE KitsapCounty PierceCounty KingCounty 0 500250 FEET 5/16KE160152A RHODODENDRON RIDGENEWCASTLE, WASHINGTON Appendix C Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance December 28, 2016 AOA-5136 Jill Routt Goldsmith Land Development Services 1215 – 114th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: Standard Stream Study for Rhododendron Ridge Storm Extension City of Renton, WA File No. PRE 16-000137 Dear Jill: 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a wetland and stream reconnaissance conducted along the route of a proposed storm line from the Rhododendron Ridge Short Plat located at 11230 SE 80th Street within the City of Newcastle. This storm line would be constructed within the SE 80th right-of-way and would direct treated stormwater runoff from the subdivision to a public stormwater system owned by the City of Renton located within the right-of-way of Lincoln Avenue NE. 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE The SE 80th Street right-of-way in the vicinity of the proposed storm extension is currently unimproved except for a sanitary sewer line that traverses the entire right- of-way. The right-of-way slopes moderately to steeply down from east to west and consists of mixed upland forest interspersed with areas of mowed lawn. 3.0 METHODOLOGY Prior to conducting the site reconnaissance the following mapping systems were reviewed: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Salmonscape Washington Department of Natural Resources’ FPARS mapping Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Species Mapping City of Renton critical area mapping King County iMAP Jill Routt December 28, 2016 Page 2 On May 25, 2016 I conducted a wetland and stream reconnaissance on the subject property utilizing the methodology outlined in the May 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). 4.0 RESULTS None of the critical area maps reviewed indicated any wetlands or streams located on the subject property. The City of Renton critical area mapping does indicate a Type F stream and wetland located off-site to the south. At the time of the field investigation, the site consisted mostly of a mixed upland forest that slopes moderately to steeply down from east to west. Vegetation included a canopy of big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and red alder (Alnus rubra). Commonly observed understory and groundcover species included hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), salal (Gaultheria shallon), tall Oregongrape (Mahonia aquifolium), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), English ivy (Hedera helix), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus). The southwestern portion of the site consisted of a mowed and maintained lawn associated with the off-site residence to the south. In addition, a mowed corridor of grasses extends up the slope within the right-of-way adjacent the existing sanitary sewer line. No hydrophytic plant communities were observed on or immediately adjacent to the site during the reconnaissance. Borings taken throughout and adjacent the undisturbed portions of the site revealed high chroma, non-hydric soils and there was no evidence of ponding or prolonged soil saturation. Soils within the immediate vicinity of the sanitary sewer line were highly disturbed and likely consist of relic back-fill placed during historic installation of the sewer line. 4.1 Off-site Stream One stream was observed off-site to the southwest. The stream within the closest proximity to the site is located within a ditched channel along the north side of the driveway to the existing residence at 4348 Lincoln Ave. NE. Runoff within the stream enters a non-fish passable concrete culvert under Lincoln Ave NE. Although the stream does not currently appear to support salmonids, it is my understanding that the City of Renton has classified this stream as a Type F channel due to the streams potential for fish use. Type F streams require a standard 115-foot buffer per RMC 4-3-050.G.2. This buffer extends into the southwest portion of the SE 80th Street right-of-way. Jill Routt December 28, 2016 Page 3 4.2 Mapped Off-site Wetland The potential off-site wetland to the south as mapped on the City mapping system was not observed and appears to be mis-mapped. This mis-mapping is consistent with a wetland and stream reconnaissance I recently conducted on Parcel 334570- 0020 located further off-site in which the same mapped stream was observed but there was no large wetland system on the parcel as depicted on the City mapping. 5.0 HABITAT ASSESSMENT The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database does not indicate the presence of any threatened, endangered, sensitive, monitored, or priority habitats or species on or adjacent to the property. While the site does likely provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species typically found within suburban environments, no threatened, endangered, sensitive, monitored, or priority species were identified on or adjacent to the site during the field investigations. As defined in RMC 4-11-030.C, Critical Habitat is an area associated with threatened, endangered, sensitive, monitored, or priority species of plants or wildlife and which, if altered, could reduce the likelihood that the species would maintain and reproduce over the long term. Since no critical habitat has been identified on the site, no Habitat Data Report is required. 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT IPACTS The proposed storm line has been designed to avoid all direct impacts to critical areas. To further minimize impacts to wildlife and significant vegetation, the pipe would be installed within the existing maintained areas. Although crossing the buffer from the off-site stream in the southwestern corner of the property is unavoidable, the storm line would be installed within the mowed lawn portion of the right-of-way and would therefore not require the removal of any significant buffer vegetation (Figure 1). All of the temporary disturbance within the buffer will be fully restored by seeding with native grass following installation of the storm line. Jill Routt December 28, 2016 Page 4 If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC John Altmann Ecologist 1512335 SF SSSSSSSSSSSSXX SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSW SDSDSDWWWW W EEOHU OHU OHU OHU OHU SD SD W SD S S S S S S W W W DS X XXXXX X X XXXXXXWWWWWWWW 30' ROW1512335 SF SSSSSSSSSSSSXX SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSW SDSDSDWWWW W EEOHU OHU OHU OHU OHU SD SD W SD S S S S S S W W W DS X XXXXX X X XXXXXXWWWWWWWW 50352 50358 5035950360503615036650367503685036950370503715037350379503805038450404PROJECT DRAWNDATESCALEREVISEDLandscapeArchitectureAOAEnvironmentalPlanning &Office (425) 333-4535PO Box 578Carnation, WA 98014Fax (425) 333-4509Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC5136-MIT-12-14-16.dwg Rhododendron Ridge Storm Extension Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityWDFW All SalmonScape Species December 28, 2016 0 0.15 0.30.075 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:9,028 Site WDFW Salmonscape 12/28/2016 Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPAMT) https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/fpamt/1/1 DNR Home (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/)FPARS Home (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programsandservices/forestpractices/forestpracticesapplic Practices (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programsandservices/forestpractices)FP Rules (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/about/boardsandcouncils/forestpr andboardmanualguidelines)FP Manual (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/about/boardsandcouncils/forestpracticesboard/rulesandguidelinTownship 1:18,056 Esri, HERE + – 0 0.1 0.2mi Map Themes Activity Map Townships Section Survey Lines Map Registration Tics Water Type Break Roads Trails and Railroads Watershed Analysis Search for Layers Data Active (17)Legend Site WDFW Test Map Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), PHS Report Clip Area PT LN POLY AS MAPPED SECTION QTR-TWP TOWNSHIP December 28, 2016 0 0.3 0.60.15 mi 0 0.55 1.10.275 km 1:19,842 Site SITE King County Rhododendron Ridge Storm Extension Date: 12/28/2016 Notes: ±The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to changewithout notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness,or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liablefor any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map isprohibited except by written permission of King County. 2,257 188 City of Renton Print map Template This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. None 4/22/2016 Legend 128064 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Feet Notes 128 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Information Technology - GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov City and County Boundary Other City of Renton Addresses Parcels Environment Designations Natural Shoreline High Intensity Shoreline Isolated High Intensity Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy Jurisdictions Streams (Classified) Type S Type F Type Np Type Ns Wetlands Site Appendix D Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis Rhododendron Ridge Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis Revised March 2018 June 2017 r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Project Overview .....................................................................................................1 Section 2 Drainage Control Plan ..............................................................................................6 Section 3 Proposed Off-Site Outfall ..........................................................................................6 Section 4 Downstream City of Renton Drainage System .........................................................7 Section 5 Hydrologic Analysis ................................................................................................10 Section 6 Hydraulic Analysis ..................................................................................................21 FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Existing Site Aerial Photo Figure 3 Site Plan Figure 4 Off-Site Drainage Basin Plan (full size) Figure 5 Downstream Conveyance System Model APPENDICES Appendix A SWMM Modeling Results Appendix B SWMM Existing and Developed Input Files Appendix C Rhododendron Ridge Storm Drainage Outfall Engineering Plans Appendix D City of Renton As-Built Plans Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 1 1. Project Overview Purpose and Scope As described herein the proposed Rhododendron Ridge project proposes to construct 15 lot single family lots and related infrastructure. The stormwater control plan proposed includes a detention vault and a tight-lined piped outfall system. The outfall system is to run westward along the SE 80th St unimproved right-of-way parallel to an existing sanitary sewer system descending from the project site to the intersection of NE 43rd PL and 110th Ave NE/ Lincoln Ave NE where a connection to the City of Renton stormwater conveyance system is proposed. This report analyzes the hydraulic capacity of the City of Renton stormwater conveyance system downstream of the Rhododendron Ridge project site to ensure that there is sufficient capacity within this system for the proposed project vault discharges. The following provides details of the proposed project including details of the development plan and the proposed drainage control and outfall plan. The hydraulic analysis presented herein is based on the best available information about the site and its downstream drainage system. This includes site topography, field survey data, GIS data, as-built plans and field investigations. Project Location The Rhododendron Ridge project site address is 11230 SE 80th St., in Newcastle, Washington. See the attached Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The project site is comprised of three separate tax parcels, #3343300480, #3343300482, and #3343300483, located in the SE quarter of Section 29, Township 24N, Range 05E, W.M (Figure 2). From the project site the proposed outfall route runs westward along the unimproved SE 80th Street right-of-way to the City of Renton storm system as shown on the enclosed Off-site Drainage Basin Plan (Figure 4). Project Background and General Site Conditions Rhododendron Ridge LLC proposes the redevelopment of a 3.8-acre site located in the City of Newcastle. This site is commonly referred to as the Rhododendron Farm, due to its years as a commercial nursery producing, primarily, Rhododendrons for sale. The Rhododendron Ridge project proposes development of the Project Site into 15 single family lots, as a formal subdivision per the City of Newcastle Comprehensive Plan designation as: urban residential, and the Zoning Code designation of R-4. Access to the site is currently via public roadway: SE 80th St. and 113th Ave. SE. An unimproved right-of-way (SE 80th St.) is proposed to be extended approximately 150 feet along the southeast site boundary with half street improvements (30’ wide). The roadway then transitions to a 48 foot public Right-of-Way (internal plat roadway) serving as access to the proposed plat. Summary of Development Proposal The Rhododendron Ridge project proposes 15 single family residential lots, public Right-of-Way dedication and frontage improvements along 113th Avenue SE, an internal public road, two joint use driveway tracts (private), a landscape tract abutting 113th Avenue SE, a stormwater access tract providing access to the off-site stormwater vault proposed within the unimproved 112th Ave. SE public utilities, and half street frontage improvements along a portion of SE 80th Street which will serve as access into the plat. The subject property, zoned R-4, proposes lots ranging from 7,500 square feet to approximately 8,460 square feet. An internal plat roadway terminating with a cul-de-sac, curb, gutter and 5 foot sidewalks is proposed in accordance with City of Newcastle standards. See the attached Rhododendron Ridge Site Plan (Figure 3) for reference. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 2 Figure 1 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 3 Existing Site Aerial Photo Source: King County IMAP Figure 2 SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSS G G G G G G G G G G OHUOHU OHUOHUOHUOH U OHUOHUOHU OHU OHUOHUOHUOHUOHUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSDSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSDSDSDSDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGSDS SSSSX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXX SXXXW W WRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDRDRDWDWDRDRDRDRDRDDETENTION VAULT50' ROW 30' ROW48' ROW SE 80TH STREET (UNIMPROVED ROW)112TH AVENUE NE(UNIMPROVED ROW)113TH AVENUE SESE 79TH ST.AREA OF >40% STEEP SLOPEAREA OF >40% STEEP SLOPE 10' BUFFER 10' BUFFER115253674910111213148TRACT C(ACCESS)TRACT B(ACCESS)TRACT E(CRITICAL AREA)4920 SF7513 SF12335 SF639 SF7508 SF7552 SF7508 SF7505 SF1402 SF7612 SF7675 SF7505 SF7633 SF7588 SF8456 SF8460 SF8460 SF7503 SF1263 SFTRACT A(LANDSCAPE)TRACT D(ACCESS)ROAD "A"REMOVE EXISTING JERSERYBARRIER WALL & ECOLOGYBLOCK WALL AS NECESSARYFOR CONSTRUCTIONFRONTAGEIMPROVEMENTS4' STREETSCAPE5' SIDEWALK28' CURB TO CURB3H:1V (TYP)STORMFILTER FORWATER QUALITYTREATMENT12' WIDE MAINTENANCEACCESS15% MAX SLOPE LOWPOINT20' TRACT18' PAVEMENT20' MIN. TRACTR=42'R=50' (ROW)PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP)PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP)18' PAVEMENT20' MIN.TRACT 10' TRACT 28' PAVEMENT 4' STREETSCAPE (TYP) 5' SIDEWALK (TYP) 25' ROW DED.2462402422642662602562 5 6 25825 8246 2622762742722702782722702742762781H:1V (TYP.)DETENTION VAULT STORM OUTFALLOFF-SITE TO 110th AVE SE14' CENTERLINETO FACE OF CURBPARTIAL IMPROVEMENT.END FIRST LIFT OF PAVING3' FROM FACE OF CURB2820 SF1H:1V (TYP.)250248 PAD ELEV.270.00PAD ELEV.272.00PAD ELEV.262.00PAD ELEV.273.00PAD ELEV.263.00PAD ELEV.260.00PAD ELEV.259.00PAD ELEV.269.00PAD ELEV.268.00PAD ELEV.258.00PAD ELEV.269.00PAD ELEV.259.00PAD ELEV.272.00PAD ELEV.262.00PAD ELEV.258.00PAD ELEV.248.00PAD ELEV.256.00PAD ELEV.246.00PAD ELEV.256.00PAD ELEV.246.00PAD ELEV.255.00PAD ELEV.245.00PAD ELEV.256.00PAD ELEV.246.00PAD ELEV.256.00PAD ELEV.246.00PAD ELEV.256.95PAD ELEV.260.00280282284286268272276278TOP: 256.00TOP: 255.00TOP: 276.00TOP: 274.05TOP: 272.00TOP: 268.12TOP: 264.42TOE: 264.00TOE: 263.95TOE: 268.00TOE: 271.01TOE: 273.00TOE: 272.03TOE: 263.00TOE: 263.00TOE: 263.00TOE: 273.00TOE: 273.01TOE: 282.00TOE: 245.00TOE: 245.50TOE: 245.76TOE: 246.00TOP: 270.00TOE: 264.02TOP: 277.06TOP: 266.90TOP: 269.29TOP: 272.75TOP: 274.36TOP: 277.81TOP: 282.05TOP: 255.50TOP: 272.36TOP: 276.35TOP: 278.69TOP: 282.71TOP: 286.96WALL 3WALL 4WALL 2TOE: 245.00TOP: 245.01TOP: 244.00TOP: 246.00TOP: 246.00TOP: 248.00TOP: 256.48TOP: 258.00TOE: 240.00TOE: 236.83TOE: 236.03TOE: 231.17TOE: 238.20TOE: 249.40TOE: 256.00SCALE:04010201" = 20'SE 80TH ST. DRAWN: APPROVED: PLOTTED: M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\FIGURES\14134E11.DWG 2018/03/21 08:36 Tsolly EMALM LNYQUIST CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 14134SHEETNEWCASTLE KING COUNTY WASHINGTONJOB NO.:BYREVISIONSDATENO.CHK.SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONSEE SHEET 8/10 FOR ADDITIONALOFF-SITE GRADING & DRAINAGERHODODENDRON RIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE ERP SEE COVER OR SHEET 8 FOR LEGEND85'20'2' GRAVELSHOULDERHWREVISED PER CITY COMMENTS2/161 BPF ICAP RHODY RIDGE, LLC SDGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGDXSDDXXXX X X X X 18"18"18"12"12"12"12"12"24"24"8"8"12"18"18"18"12"12"12" RHODODENDRON RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAWN: DESIGNED: PLOTTED: M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\EXHIBITS\14134E07.DWG 2018/03/08 11:51 Tsolly SP, MB SP, BFOFF-SITE DRAINAGE BASIN PLAN 14134NEWCASTLE KING COUNTY WASHINGTONJOB NO.:BYREVISIONSDATENO.CHK.SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONICAP RHODY RIDGE, LLC300200501000SCALE: 1" = 100'APPROVED:KG 24" CULVERTDITCHDITCH24" CULVERTE1.11 AC.D0.21AC.C0.21AC.B0.21 AC.A12.46 AC.VAULTBASIN5.21 AC.DETENTION VAULTSTREAM12" HDPE OUTFALLPLUGGED 12"DIVERSION PIPEDITCHCULVERTJONES AVE. NE I-405NE 44th ST.LINCOLN AVE. NE SE 77th PL.SE 80th ST.ENERGYDISSIPATORPROPOSEDCONNECTIONLOCATIONPROPOSED 12"DIAM. PIPENE 43rd PLACETASREVISED PER CITY COMMENTS2/181 BF Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 6 2. Drainage Control Plan The stormwater control plan developed for the Rhododendron Ridge site encompasses all available information about the site and its downstream drainage system. This includes site topography, geology, detailed field investigations, and drainage complaints and observations. Flow control and water quality treatment BMPs have been selected to ensure any potential adverse impacts from development are not created and exacerbation of existing downstream flooding does not occur. Stormwater runoff for the proposed project will be directed to a detention vault located off-site in the unimproved Right-of-Way of 112th Avenue SE as shown on the site development plan (Figure 3) and in the Off-site Drainage Basin Plan (Figure 4). This vault will provide Conservation (Level 2) flow control prior to discharging to a closed pipe conveyance which will run underground south within 112th Ave. SE, and then west on the surface within SE 80th Street, which is also an unimproved right-of-way in the City of Renton. The stormwater will ultimately outfall to the existing piped storm within Lincoln Ave. SE / 110th Ave. SE. As detailed in the project Technical Information Report the design of the stormwater control plan was completed in conformance with the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and Newcastle Municipal Code (NMC) 13.10 guidelines for drainage review and for downstream analysis of a preliminary subdivision. Details of the hydrologic analysis for this project are provided herein. Stormwater discharge rates will be maintained at the historic forested site condition runoff rates, as required by Core Requirement #3 of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. As the vault has been designed to account for bypass areas and for off-site forested run-on areas. Water quality requirements (Core Requirement #8) will be met by a cartridge system that will provide basic water quality treatment of pollution generating surfaces. 3. Proposed Off-Site Outfall The outfall route will travel along the surface of the unimproved SE 80th Street right-of-way from the project site to the intersection of 110th Ave NE and NE 43rd PL. The pipe alignment will roughly parallel an existing sanitary sewer main staying in previously cleared areas as shown on Figure 4 and on the attached Plan Sheets SD-1 to SD-3. As shown on the enclosed plans the outfall will be constructed of HDPE pipe. The total pipe length is approximately 570 ft with slopes ranging from 14% to 38%. The overall elevation change from the project site (vault discharge) to the proposed point of connection to the Renton system is approximately 152 ft. The proposed pipe will be constructed with a continuous fused welded 12 inch diameter HDPE pipe. To accommodate thermal expansion of the pipe the pipe will be anchored to resist lateral expansion. To accommodate longitudinal expansion the 12” diameter pipe will be inserted into a large 18” HDPE pipe at the end of the outfall. The transition point to the larger pipe will be where the above ground pipe transitions to below ground directly upstream of the catch basin proposed for energy dissipations. This larger pipe will act like a sleeve allowing for expansion. The peak discharge for the outfall as documented below has been estimated to be 1.61 cfs for the 100-year event. The outfall has been assessed both for capacity and for the peak outlet velocity. Analysis indicates that the outfall capacity for the 12” diameter pipe segment with lowest slope (0.5%) is adequate. Analysis also indicates for the steepest section of the 12” diameter outfall (SDR 11 HDPE ID = 10.293 in, slope = 38.5%) the calculated velocity is 21.4 ft/s. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 7 Based on the potential velocity at the end of the outfall an energy dissipator is necessary before connecting to the City of Renton stormwater system. A stilling well dissipator is proposed. The 12” HDPE will transition into an 18” HDPE Pipe (ID=14.532 in) before connecting to the stilling well structure. The stilling well will be a 48” diameter catch basin with the inlet depressed 3' below the outlet elevation. Ponded water in the catch basin will act to dissipate the energy of the incoming flow. This well has been designed per the Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels, Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number 14, Third Edition. The following are the design calculations for the stilling well as shown on the enclosed design plans. Design Q = 1.61 cfs Inlet Diameter D = 14.532 in (1.21 ft) Required Stilling Well Diameter (Dw) = D Design Dw/D ratio = 48/14.532 = 3.3 H1 = Depth of Stilling Well below inlet H1/Dw = 0.38 for a slope of 38.5% per Figure 12.3 Required H1=48x0.38 = 18.24 in = 1.52 ft Design H1 = 2 ft H2 = Depth of Well above inlet = 2D = 2x1.21 = 2.42 ft Design H2 = 3ft. 4.0 Downstream City of Renton Drainage System The downstream City of Renton drainage system is shown on the Drainage Basin Plan (Figure 4). The proposed point of connection is at the intersection of 110th Ave NE and NE 43rd PL near the start of a closed storm conveyance system that runs north within 110th Ave NE and west along NE 44th St. This system discharges to a ditch along the south side of NE 44th St before crossing north beneath the roadway and west under the I-405. As-Built plans have been included in Appendix C for reference. Flooding of this system downstream of the proposed connection system has not been reported and appears to have adequate conveyance capacity under the existing condition. Site observations do not indicate any drainage problems within this system. Near the upper end of this drainage system is an un-named stream. The route of this stream is shown on Figure 4. The stream flows across Lincoln Ave NE through a 24” culvert and discharges to a ditch along the south side of NE 43rd PL. At the inlet of this culvert is a drainage structure and debris barrier as shown in the photos below. The inlet to the 24” culvert has been constructed to be efficient with a depressed inlet and flume to direct flows smoothly into the culvert. This structure has a second outlet connecting to the closed system described above. This pipe is a 12- inch diameter pipe raised 0.5 ft above the 24” invert elevation. The 12-inch diameter pipe was constructed as a temporary diversion pipe to allow city crews to install a new culvert for the stream under 44th Street and remains plugged during normal system operations. Normal stream flows are directed to the 24” culvert. As reported by the City of Renton, and through discussions with a neighboring property owner (Frank Coad, 4348 Lincoln Ave NE Renton 98056) the un-named stream floods during larger precipitation events overtopping Lincoln Ave NE. It appears that flooding is a result of a combination of the 24” conveyance capacity relative to the size of the drainage area draining to this culvert, and from sediment transport from the active erosion of upstream stream banks. Sediment is deposited directly upstream of the culvert within the culvert inlet area reducing the capacity of the 24" diameter culvert. The neighbor indicates that the city frequently removes this debris and inspects the inlet prior to larger rain events. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 8 Un-named Stream Culvert Inlet Structure and Debris Barrier (East View) Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 9 24" Culvert Inlet Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 10 5.0 Hydrologic Analysis To assess the impacts of the proposed outfall connection on the City of Renton drainage system hydrologic modeling of the contributing sub-basin areas has been completed by creating the sub- basins as shown on the Drainage Basin Plan (Figure 4). Basins A through E are the existing sub- basins draining to the storm inlets as shown on Figure 4. The Vault Basin sub-basin is the proposed discharge from the Rhododendron Ridge Vault. To be conservative, contributions from this sub-basin have not been included in the Existing Conditions Hydraulic Analysis Model. The land surface coverage used for the hydrologic model assumes that the roadway inlet sub- basins B, C, D and E are 100% impervious. Sub-basin A is the area draining to the Cedar Rim Apartment complex on the east side of 110th Ave SE. This includes approximately 8.46 Ac of upslope forested area and the 4 Ac apartment complex. The apartment complex has been assumed to be 85% impervious. The following table provides the land surface areas and the peak simulated 25-year and 100-year runoff rates. Basin Total Area (acres) Impervious Area (acres) Till Grass (acres) Till Forest (acres) 25-Year Peak Discharge (cfs) 100-Year Peak Discharge (cfs) A 12.46 3.4 0.6 8.46 3 3.75 B 0.21 0.21 --0.16 0.19 C 0.21 0.21 --0.16 0.19 D 0.21 0.21 --0.16 0.19 E 1.11 1.11 --0.83 1.02 Vault Basin 5.21 2.05 2.17 0.99 0.38 1.57 - Vault basin runoff from Rhododendron Ridge TIR calculations based on KCRTS. - Basin A-E based on WWHM 2012. Drainage Basin Land Surface Data and Peak Runoff Rates Notes: With the exception of Vault Basin the simulated peak flows are based on modeling completed by using the continuous hydrologic modeling software WWHM2012. The Vault Basin peak flow that is based on the simulated total site discharges modeled using KCRTS completed for the design of the Rhododendron Ridge stormwater control plan. Documentation of supporting the list peak flows is presented below. This includes a copy of the WWHM report with sub-basin areas, peak flow frequency analysis for each of the sub-basins and documentation showing the proposed detention vault KCRTS Model. Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 11 A B C D E Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 12 Sub-Basin - Vault Basin Peak Runoff (from Rhododendron Ridge TIR) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.383 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.57 1 100.00 0.990 0.072 8 11/05/01 2:00 0.383 2 25.00 0.960 0.193 4 3/01/03 7:00 0.319 3 10.00 0.900 0.082 7 8/26/04 5:00 0.193 4 5.00 0.800 0.188 5 1/05/05 16:00 0.188 5 3.00 0.667 0.136 6 1/19/06 2:00 0.136 6 2.00 0.500 0.319 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.082 7 1.30 0.231 1.57 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.072 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.18 50.00 0.980 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 13 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: 14134OFFSITE Site Name: Site Address: City : Report Date: 6/20/2017 Gage : Seatac Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.00 Version Date: 2017/04/14 Version : 4.2.13 PREDEVELOPED LAND USE MITIGATED LAND USE Name : A Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Mod 8.46 C, Lawn, Mod .6 Pervious Total 9.06 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 3.4 Impervious Total 3.4 Basin Total 12.46 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ Name : B Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 0.21 Impervious Total 0.21 Basin Total 0.21 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ Name : C Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 14 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 0.21 Impervious Total 0.21 Basin Total 0.21 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ Name : D Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 0.21 Impervious Total 0.21 Basin Total 0.21 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ Name : E Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 1.11 Impervious Total 1.11 Basin Total 1.11 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 15 Rhododendron Ridge Detention Vault Design Summary Vault Design Summary Required Detention Volume = 42,718 cu.ft. (0.981 ac.-ft.) 100-year Live Storage Depth = 16.68 ft. (height above outlet invert elev.) 100-year Live Storage Elevation = 224.68 ft. Orifice Sizing Table: Orifice Diameter Height Above Outlet (IE) 1 1.10 in. 0.00 ft. 2 1.20 in. 7.90 ft. 3 1.15 in. 12.20 ft. Notch Design: Notch Height = 16.0 ft (above outlet invert elev.) Notch Elevation = 224.0ft Notch Width = 1.0 in. Outlet IE = 208.0 ft —1.5 ft lower than sediment storage elevation Riser Height = 16.50 ft. (Above outlet IE) Riser Elevation = 224.50 ft Riser Diameter = 18 inches Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 16 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 134.00 ft Facility Width: 21.00 ft Facility Area: 2814. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 15.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 42210. cu. ft Riser Head: 16.50 ft Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches Number of orifices: 3 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.10 0.133 2 7.90 1.20 0.115 4.0 3 12.20 1.15 0.074 4.0 Top Notch Weir: Rectangular Length: 1.00 in Weir Height: 16.00 ft Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 0.01 0. 0.000 0.004 0.00 0.02 0.02 0. 0.000 0.005 0.00 0.03 0.03 0. 0.000 0.006 0.00 0.05 0.05 0. 0.000 0.007 0.00 0.06 0.06 0. 0.000 0.008 0.00 0.07 0.07 0. 0.000 0.009 0.00 0.08 0.08 0. 0.000 0.009 0.00 0.09 0.09 0. 0.000 0.010 0.00 0.48 0.48 0. 0.000 0.023 0.00 0.86 0.86 0. 0.000 0.030 0.00 1.24 1.24 0. 0.000 0.037 0.00 1.50 1.50 0. 0.000 0.040 0.00 1.88 1.88 1069. 0.025 0.045 0.00 2.27 2.27 2167. 0.050 0.049 0.00 2.65 2.65 3236. 0.074 0.053 0.00 3.03 3.03 4305. 0.099 0.057 0.00 3.42 3.42 5403. 0.124 0.061 0.00 3.80 3.80 6472. 0.149 0.064 0.00 4.19 4.19 7570. 0.174 0.067 0.00 4.57 4.57 8639. 0.198 0.070 0.00 4.95 4.95 9708. 0.223 0.073 0.00 5.34 5.34 10806. 0.248 0.076 0.00 5.72 5.72 11875. 0.273 0.079 0.00 6.10 6.10 12944. 0.297 0.081 0.00 6.49 6.49 14042. 0.322 0.084 0.00 6.87 6.87 15111. 0.347 0.086 0.00 7.26 7.26 16209. 0.372 0.088 0.00 7.64 7.64 17278. 0.397 0.091 0.00 7.90 7.90 18010. 0.413 0.092 0.00 7.91 7.91 18038. 0.414 0.093 0.00 7.93 7.93 18094. 0.415 0.094 0.00 7.94 7.94 18122. 0.416 0.095 0.00 7.95 7.95 18150. 0.417 0.097 0.00 7.96 7.96 18178. 0.417 0.100 0.00 7.97 7.97 18207. 0.418 0.103 0.00 7.99 7.99 18263. 0.419 0.104 0.00 8.00 8.00 18291. 0.420 0.105 0.00 8.01 8.01 18319. 0.421 0.106 0.00 8.40 8.40 19417. 0.446 0.123 0.00 8.78 8.78 20486. 0.470 0.134 0.00 9.16 9.16 21555. 0.495 0.143 0.00 9.55 9.55 22653. 0.520 0.152 0.00 9.93 9.93 23722. 0.545 0.159 0.00 10.31 10.31 24791. 0.569 0.166 0.00 10.70 10.70 25889. 0.594 0.173 0.00 11.08 11.08 26958. 0.619 0.179 0.00 11.47 11.47 28056. 0.644 0.185 0.00 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 17 11.85 11.85 29125. 0.669 0.191 0.00 12.20 12.20 30110. 0.691 0.196 0.00 12.21 12.21 30138. 0.692 0.196 0.00 12.22 12.22 30166. 0.693 0.197 0.00 12.24 12.24 30222. 0.694 0.199 0.00 12.25 12.25 30251. 0.694 0.201 0.00 12.26 12.26 30279. 0.695 0.203 0.00 12.27 12.27 30307. 0.696 0.206 0.00 12.28 12.28 30335. 0.696 0.207 0.00 12.30 12.30 30391. 0.698 0.208 0.00 12.31 12.31 30419. 0.698 0.209 0.00 12.69 12.69 31489. 0.723 0.228 0.00 13.08 13.08 32586. 0.748 0.241 0.00 13.46 13.46 33655. 0.773 0.253 0.00 13.84 13.84 34725. 0.797 0.263 0.00 14.23 14.23 35822. 0.822 0.273 0.00 14.61 14.61 36892. 0.847 0.282 0.00 14.99 14.99 37961. 0.871 0.291 0.00 15.38 15.38 39058. 0.897 0.299 0.00 15.76 15.76 40128. 0.921 0.308 0.00 16.00 16.00 40803. 0.937 0.312 0.00 16.06 16.06 40972. 0.941 0.317 0.00 16.13 16.13 41169. 0.945 0.323 0.00 16.19 16.19 41338. 0.949 0.329 0.00 16.25 16.25 41507. 0.953 0.338 0.00 16.31 16.31 41675. 0.957 0.347 0.00 16.38 16.38 41872. 0.961 0.357 0.00 16.44 16.44 42041. 0.965 0.369 0.00 16.50 16.50 42210. 0.969 0.380 0.00 16.60 16.60 42491. 0.975 0.844 0.00 16.70 16.70 42773. 0.982 1.690 0.00 16.80 16.80 43054. 0.988 2.790 0.00 16.90 16.90 43336. 0.995 4.080 0.00 17.00 17.00 43617. 1.001 5.550 0.00 17.10 17.10 43898. 1.008 6.980 0.00 17.20 17.20 44180. 1.014 7.510 0.00 17.30 17.30 44461. 1.021 8.010 0.00 17.40 17.40 44743. 1.027 8.470 0.00 17.50 17.50 45024. 1.034 8.910 0.00 17.60 17.60 45305. 1.040 9.330 0.00 17.70 17.70 45587. 1.047 9.720 0.00 17.80 17.80 45868. 1.053 10.110 0.00 17.90 17.90 46150. 1.059 10.470 0.00 18.00 18.00 46431. 1.066 10.830 0.00 18.10 18.10 46712. 1.072 11.170 0.00 18.20 18.20 46994. 1.079 11.510 0.00 18.30 18.30 47275. 1.085 11.830 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 1.61 1.53 16.68 16.68 42718. 0.981 2 0.88 0.37 16.44 16.44 42051. 0.965 3 1.04 0.31 15.70 15.70 39961. 0.917 4 0.77 0.19 11.54 11.54 28266. 0.649 5 0.76 0.18 11.12 11.12 27070. 0.621 6 0.78 0.13 8.61 8.61 20010. 0.459 7 0.92 0.08 5.66 5.66 11707. 0.269 8 0.47 0.07 4.41 4.41 8202. 0.188 Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow Outflow Inflow Inflow Target Calc 1 1.53 0.05 ******** 0.56 1.57 2 0.37 0.02 ******** ******* 0.38 3 0.31 0.03 ******** 0.38 0.32 4 0.19 0.01 ******** ******* 0.19 5 0.18 0.01 ******** ******* 0.19 6 0.13 0.01 ******** 0.22 0.14 7 0.08 0.02 ******** ******* 0.08 8 0.07 0.01 ******** ******* 0.07 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 18 POC Time Series File:dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 1.61 CFS at 7:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 1.53 CFS at 8:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 16.68 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 16.68 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 42718. Cu-Ft : 0.981 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 1.57 CFS at 8:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.370 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.53 16.68 1 100.00 0.990 0.069 8 11/05/01 3:00 0.370 16.44 2 25.00 0.960 0.186 4 3/01/03 7:00 0.307 15.70 3 10.00 0.900 0.079 7 8/26/04 6:00 0.186 11.54 4 5.00 0.800 0.180 5 1/05/05 16:00 0.180 11.12 5 3.00 0.667 0.129 6 1/19/06 3:00 0.129 8.61 6 2.00 0.500 0.307 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.079 5.66 7 1.30 0.231 1.53 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.069 4.41 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.14 16.64 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.383 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.57 1 100.00 0.990 0.072 8 11/05/01 2:00 0.383 2 25.00 0.960 0.193 4 3/01/03 7:00 0.319 3 10.00 0.900 0.082 7 8/26/04 5:00 0.193 4 5.00 0.800 0.188 5 1/05/05 16:00 0.188 5 3.00 0.667 0.136 6 1/19/06 2:00 0.136 6 2.00 0.500 0.319 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.082 7 1.30 0.231 1.57 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.072 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.18 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.005 39367 64.199 64.199 35.801 0.358E+00 0.016 4227 6.893 71.093 28.907 0.289E+00 0.026 1430 2.332 73.425 26.575 0.266E+00 0.036 412 0.672 74.097 25.903 0.259E+00 0.047 7219 11.773 85.869 14.131 0.141E+00 0.057 4254 6.937 92.807 7.193 0.719E-01 0.068 1910 3.115 95.921 4.079 0.408E-01 0.078 960 1.566 97.487 2.513 0.251E-01 0.088 771 1.257 98.744 1.256 0.126E-01 0.099 227 0.370 99.114 0.886 0.886E-02 0.109 36 0.059 99.173 0.827 0.827E-02 0.119 46 0.075 99.248 0.752 0.752E-02 0.130 71 0.116 99.364 0.636 0.636E-02 0.140 49 0.080 99.444 0.556 0.556E-02 0.151 75 0.122 99.566 0.434 0.434E-02 0.161 43 0.070 99.636 0.364 0.364E-02 0.171 65 0.106 99.742 0.258 0.258E-02 0.182 43 0.070 99.812 0.188 0.188E-02 0.192 22 0.036 99.848 0.152 0.152E-02 0.202 6 0.010 99.858 0.142 0.142E-02 0.213 4 0.007 99.865 0.135 0.135E-02 0.223 5 0.008 99.873 0.127 0.127E-02 0.234 5 0.008 99.881 0.119 0.119E-02 0.244 6 0.010 99.891 0.109 0.109E-02 0.254 6 0.010 99.901 0.099 0.995E-03 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 19 0.265 9 0.015 99.915 0.085 0.848E-03 0.275 12 0.020 99.935 0.065 0.652E-03 0.286 11 0.018 99.953 0.047 0.473E-03 0.296 8 0.013 99.966 0.034 0.342E-03 0.306 10 0.016 99.982 0.018 0.179E-03 0.317 6 0.010 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 0.327 1 0.002 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 0.337 0 0.000 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 0.348 1 0.002 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.358 2 0.003 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.369 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File:dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.005 39437 64.313 64.313 35.687 0.357E+00 0.016 4234 6.905 71.218 28.782 0.288E+00 0.027 1380 2.250 73.469 26.531 0.265E+00 0.038 406 0.662 74.131 25.869 0.259E+00 0.048 7611 12.412 86.543 13.457 0.135E+00 0.059 3945 6.433 92.976 7.024 0.702E-01 0.070 1809 2.950 95.926 4.074 0.407E-01 0.081 969 1.580 97.507 2.493 0.249E-01 0.091 736 1.200 98.707 1.293 0.129E-01 0.102 250 0.408 99.114 0.886 0.886E-02 0.113 33 0.054 99.168 0.832 0.832E-02 0.124 47 0.077 99.245 0.755 0.755E-02 0.134 65 0.106 99.351 0.649 0.649E-02 0.145 53 0.086 99.437 0.563 0.563E-02 0.156 78 0.127 99.565 0.435 0.435E-02 0.167 43 0.070 99.635 0.365 0.365E-02 0.177 66 0.108 99.742 0.258 0.258E-02 0.188 35 0.057 99.799 0.201 0.201E-02 0.199 30 0.049 99.848 0.152 0.152E-02 0.210 6 0.010 99.858 0.142 0.142E-02 0.221 4 0.007 99.865 0.135 0.135E-02 0.231 6 0.010 99.874 0.126 0.126E-02 0.242 4 0.007 99.881 0.119 0.119E-02 0.253 6 0.010 99.891 0.109 0.109E-02 0.264 6 0.010 99.901 0.099 0.995E-03 0.274 7 0.011 99.912 0.088 0.881E-03 0.285 15 0.024 99.936 0.064 0.636E-03 0.296 9 0.015 99.951 0.049 0.489E-03 0.307 7 0.011 99.962 0.038 0.375E-03 0.317 11 0.018 99.980 0.020 0.196E-03 0.328 6 0.010 99.990 0.010 0.978E-04 0.339 2 0.003 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 0.350 0 0.000 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 0.360 1 0.002 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.371 2 0.003 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.382 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Peak Vault Discharge Rates Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.370 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.53 16.68 1 100.00 0.990 0.069 8 11/05/01 3:00 0.370 16.44 2 25.00 0.960 0.186 4 3/01/03 7:00 0.307 15.70 3 10.00 0.900 0.079 7 8/26/04 6:00 0.186 11.54 4 5.00 0.800 0.180 5 1/05/05 16:00 0.180 11.12 5 3.00 0.667 0.129 6 1/19/06 3:00 0.129 8.61 6 2.00 0.500 0.307 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.079 5.66 7 1.30 0.231 1.53 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.069 4.41 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.14 16.64 50.00 0.980 Peak Site Discharge Rates (Vault Discharge + Bypass) Flow Frequency Analysis Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 20 Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Landsburg ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.383 2 2/09/01 20:00 1.57 1 100.00 0.990 0.072 8 11/05/01 2:00 0.383 2 25.00 0.960 0.193 4 3/01/03 7:00 0.319 3 10.00 0.900 0.082 7 8/26/04 5:00 0.193 4 5.00 0.800 0.188 5 1/05/05 16:00 0.188 5 3.00 0.667 0.136 6 1/19/06 2:00 0.136 6 2.00 0.500 0.319 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.082 7 1.30 0.231 1.57 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.072 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.18 50.00 0.980 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 21 6. Hydraulic Analysis The Hydraulic capacity of the City of Renton conveyance system has been assessed by comparing the system capacity under the existing conditions to the system capacity with additional inflow from the proposed outfall. The hydraulic analysis program SWMM (5.1.012) with dynamic wave routing has been used to for this analysis allowing for an accurate assessment of the system capacity. The analysis conservatively assumes the input of the peak flows occurs without hydrologic lagging, inputting the flows as a steady flow. The system has been evaluated using the 25-year and 100-year events. The evaluation criteria used for the 25-year event verifies that all flows are contained within the system and not surcharging under either the existing or developed condition. For the 100-year event surcharging is permitted as long as it does not aggravate an existing severe flooding issue. The model of the City of Renton system is based on a combination of as-built plans and field survey data. As-built plans were obtained from the City GIS system and have been added as Appendix D. The as-built plans were supplemented with field survey data obtained in the vicinity of where the outfall is proposed to connect. This includes a survey of the stream inlet and storm structures at the intersection of NE 43rd Pl and Lincoln Ave NE. Field survey data and the as-built elevations are on different elevation datums. For the SWMM model, the field data was adjusted to match the as-built data. For the hydraulic analysis of the stream culvert inlet structure the field data datum (NAVD88) has been used. The Off-site Drainage Basin Plan (Figure 4) shows the downstream conveyance system. Figure 5 show the schematic of the SWMM model with City of Renton GIS mapping as a background. Conveyance System Evaluation The conveyance system has been evaluated under existing and the proposed developed conditions. The system capacity was modeled using the SWMM model for configurations under both the 25-year and 100-year events. Results of the model are include in Appendix A. Hydraulic profiles of the existing and developed system under both the 25-year and 100-year events are included below. The detailed SWMM model input files have been attached for reference as Appendix B. Hydraulic simulations indicate that under the 25-year event the capacity evaluation criteria has been met. The system does not surcharge above the ground surface at any point for both the existing and developed conditions. For the 100-year event, the model indicates that the capacity evaluation criteria has been met as system does not surcharge above the ground surface at any point for both the existing and developed conditions. Based on the SWMM model results the conveyance system downstream of the proposed Rhododendron Ridge Plat has adequate capacity for the proposed project discharges. Downstream Conveyance System ModelFIGURE 576548310219 Appendix A SWMM Modeling Results Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 24 Existing – 25 year Existing – 100 year Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 25 Developed – 25 year Developed – 100 year Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 26 Existing – 25 year EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ NO RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 10/01/1948 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 10/01/1948 01:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.005000 ft ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.369 0.120 External Outflow ......... 0.340 0.111 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.013 0.004 Continuity Error (%) ..... 4.275 ************************* Highest Continuity Errors ************************* Node 6 (5.35%) Node 3 (4.86%) Node 2 (4.13%) Node 4 (1.47%) Node 5 (1.19%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link 11 (99.62%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 27 All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 1.66 sec Average Time Step : 2.06 sec Maximum Time Step : 6.54 sec Percent in Steady State : 93.59 Average Iterations per Step : 2.10 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 JUNCTION 0.00 0.00 51.27 0 00:00 0.00 2 JUNCTION 0.19 0.19 47.93 0 00:03 0.19 3 JUNCTION 0.20 0.20 46.72 0 00:03 0.20 4 JUNCTION 0.78 0.79 43.65 0 00:03 0.79 5 JUNCTION 0.58 0.59 41.38 0 00:03 0.59 6 JUNCTION 1.25 1.28 36.72 0 00:03 1.28 8 JUNCTION 0.31 0.52 46.79 0 00:00 0.31 10 JUNCTION 0.25 0.35 48.19 0 00:00 0.25 7 OUTFALL 0.77 0.79 35.44 0 00:03 0.79 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 JUNCTION 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 gal 2 JUNCTION 0.00 0.23 0 00:00 0 0.00428 4.303 3 JUNCTION 0.16 0.32 0 00:03 0.00431 0.00841 5.114 4 JUNCTION 0.16 3.94 0 00:00 0.00431 0.093 1.496 5 JUNCTION 0.16 3.61 0 00:03 0.00431 0.0959 1.204 6 JUNCTION 0.83 4.43 0 00:03 0.0224 0.117 5.654 8 JUNCTION 3.00 3.00 0 00:00 0.0808 0.0808 0.113 10 JUNCTION 0.16 0.16 0 00:00 0.00431 0.00431 0.666 7 OUTFALL 0.00 4.25 0 00:03 0 0.111 0.000 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 28 ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- 7 99.95 4.14 4.25 0.111 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 99.95 4.14 4.25 0.111 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CONDUIT 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 0.09 2 CONDUIT 0.16 0 00:03 1.46 0.08 0.19 5 CONDUIT 3.45 0 00:03 4.54 0.47 0.46 6 CONDUIT 3.60 0 00:03 4.11 0.32 0.62 7 CONDUIT 4.25 0 00:03 3.28 0.88 0.69 8 CONDUIT 3.75 0 00:00 10.08 0.11 0.37 9 CONDUIT 0.31 0 00:03 0.79 0.09 0.49 11 CONDUIT 0.23 0 00:00 2.68 0.34 0.33 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Mon Feb 12 15:01:02 2018 Analysis ended on: Mon Feb 12 15:01:03 2018 Total elapsed time: 00:00:01 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 29 Developed – 25 year EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ NO RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 10/01/1948 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 10/01/1948 01:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.005000 ft ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.400 0.130 External Outflow ......... 0.368 0.120 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.015 0.005 Continuity Error (%) ..... 4.236 ************************* Highest Continuity Errors ************************* Node 6 (5.19%) Node 3 (2.38%) Node 2 (1.68%) Node 4 (1.52%) Node 5 (1.34%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link 11 (99.67%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 30 All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 1.66 sec Average Time Step : 2.09 sec Maximum Time Step : 6.37 sec Percent in Steady State : 92.97 Average Iterations per Step : 2.09 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 JUNCTION 0.18 0.20 51.47 0 00:00 0.18 2 JUNCTION 0.37 0.38 48.12 0 00:04 0.38 3 JUNCTION 0.29 0.30 46.82 0 00:04 0.30 4 JUNCTION 0.83 0.84 43.70 0 00:04 0.84 5 JUNCTION 0.61 0.62 41.41 0 00:04 0.62 6 JUNCTION 1.33 1.37 36.81 0 00:04 1.37 8 JUNCTION 0.46 0.61 46.88 0 00:00 0.46 10 JUNCTION 0.31 0.32 48.16 0 00:00 0.31 9 JUNCTION 0.31 0.34 52.00 0 00:00 0.31 7 OUTFALL 0.81 0.82 35.47 0 00:04 0.82 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 JUNCTION 0.00 0.41 0 00:00 0 0.00991 0.514 2 JUNCTION 0.00 0.57 0 00:01 0 0.0141 1.705 3 JUNCTION 0.16 0.69 0 00:04 0.00431 0.0182 2.436 4 JUNCTION 0.16 3.84 0 00:04 0.00431 0.103 1.545 5 JUNCTION 0.16 3.98 0 00:04 0.00431 0.105 1.362 6 JUNCTION 0.83 4.79 0 00:04 0.0224 0.126 5.479 8 JUNCTION 3.00 3.00 0 00:00 0.0808 0.0808 0.184 10 JUNCTION 0.16 0.16 0 00:00 0.00431 0.00431 0.861 9 JUNCTION 0.37 0.37 0 00:00 0.00996 0.00996 0.545 7 OUTFALL 0.00 4.60 0 00:04 0 0.12 0.000 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. *********************** Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 31 Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- 7 99.95 4.47 4.60 0.120 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 99.95 4.47 4.60 0.120 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CONDUIT 0.41 0 00:01 4.07 0.08 0.28 2 CONDUIT 0.53 0 00:04 2.27 0.26 0.34 5 CONDUIT 3.82 0 00:04 4.53 0.52 0.49 6 CONDUIT 3.96 0 00:04 4.09 0.36 0.66 7 CONDUIT 4.60 0 00:04 3.33 0.95 0.73 8 CONDUIT 3.40 0 00:00 7.47 0.23 0.43 9 CONDUIT 0.68 0 00:04 1.48 0.20 0.57 10 CONDUIT 0.41 0 00:00 2.83 0.19 0.25 11 CONDUIT 0.23 0 00:00 2.62 0.33 0.51 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 9 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 10 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Mon Feb 12 15:00:52 2018 Analysis ended on: Mon Feb 12 15:00:52 2018 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 32 Existing – 100 year EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ NO RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 10/01/1948 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 10/01/1948 01:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.005000 ft ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.457 0.149 External Outflow ......... 0.425 0.138 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.015 0.005 Continuity Error (%) ..... 3.786 ************************* Highest Continuity Errors ************************* Node 3 (6.11%) Node 2 (4.78%) Node 6 (4.30%) Node 4 (1.53%) Node 5 (1.23%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link 11 (99.69%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 33 All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 1.55 sec Average Time Step : 1.97 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.13 sec Percent in Steady State : 94.42 Average Iterations per Step : 2.30 Percent Not Converging : 2.94 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 JUNCTION 0.00 0.00 51.27 0 00:00 0.00 2 JUNCTION 0.20 0.20 47.94 0 00:03 0.20 3 JUNCTION 0.21 0.22 46.74 0 00:03 0.22 4 JUNCTION 0.89 0.90 43.76 0 00:03 0.90 5 JUNCTION 0.65 0.66 41.45 0 00:03 0.66 6 JUNCTION 1.67 1.72 37.16 0 00:03 1.72 8 JUNCTION 0.52 0.71 46.98 0 00:00 0.52 10 JUNCTION 0.28 0.40 48.24 0 00:00 0.28 7 OUTFALL 0.87 0.89 35.54 0 00:03 0.89 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 JUNCTION 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 gal 2 JUNCTION 0.00 0.30 0 00:00 0 0.00508 5.017 3 JUNCTION 0.19 0.37 0 00:03 0.00512 0.00996 6.511 4 JUNCTION 0.19 4.53 0 00:00 0.00512 0.115 1.550 5 JUNCTION 0.19 4.46 0 00:03 0.00512 0.119 1.244 6 JUNCTION 1.02 5.46 0 00:03 0.0275 0.145 4.496 8 JUNCTION 3.75 3.75 0 00:00 0.101 0.101 0.168 10 JUNCTION 0.19 0.19 0 00:00 0.00512 0.00512 0.648 7 OUTFALL 0.00 5.30 0 00:03 0 0.138 0.000 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 JUNCTION 0.95 0.217 1.783 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 34 No nodes were flooded. *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- 7 99.95 5.16 5.30 0.138 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 99.95 5.16 5.30 0.138 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CONDUIT 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 0.10 2 CONDUIT 0.18 0 00:03 1.54 0.09 0.21 5 CONDUIT 4.27 0 00:03 4.77 0.58 0.52 6 CONDUIT 4.44 0 00:03 4.36 0.40 0.72 7 CONDUIT 5.30 0 00:03 3.52 1.09 0.80 8 CONDUIT 4.30 0 00:00 7.86 0.29 0.47 9 CONDUIT 0.36 0 00:03 0.79 0.10 0.56 11 CONDUIT 0.30 0 00:00 2.84 0.43 0.36 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 9 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hours Hours --------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 0.01 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.01 7 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.95 0.01 Analysis begun on: Mon Feb 12 15:01:31 2018 Analysis ended on: Mon Feb 12 15:01:32 2018 Total elapsed time: 00:00:01 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 35 Developed – 100 year EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ NO RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 10/01/1948 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 10/01/1948 01:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.005000 ft ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.583 0.190 External Outflow ......... 0.537 0.175 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.019 0.006 Continuity Error (%) ..... 4.618 ************************* Highest Continuity Errors ************************* Node 4 (3.58%) Node 3 (3.04%) Node 5 (2.68%) Node 2 (2.59%) Node 6 (1.23%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link 10 (93.31%) Link 11 (6.22%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 36 ******************************** Link 11 (1) ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.50 sec Average Time Step : 1.98 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.22 sec Percent in Steady State : 94.88 Average Iterations per Step : 2.40 Percent Not Converging : 1.08 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 JUNCTION 0.37 0.44 51.71 0 00:00 0.38 2 JUNCTION 0.81 0.83 48.57 0 00:03 0.83 3 JUNCTION 0.50 0.52 47.04 0 00:03 0.52 4 JUNCTION 1.09 1.11 43.97 0 00:03 1.11 5 JUNCTION 0.74 0.76 41.55 0 00:03 0.76 6 JUNCTION 2.22 2.94 38.38 0 00:02 2.35 8 JUNCTION 0.52 0.71 46.98 0 00:00 0.52 10 JUNCTION 0.73 0.74 48.58 0 00:03 0.74 9 JUNCTION 0.70 0.76 52.42 0 00:00 0.70 7 OUTFALL 0.96 1.00 35.65 0 00:03 1.00 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 JUNCTION 0.00 1.70 0 00:00 0 0.0411 0.312 2 JUNCTION 0.00 1.84 0 00:00 0 0.0459 2.663 3 JUNCTION 0.19 1.88 0 00:03 0.00512 0.0498 3.138 4 JUNCTION 0.19 5.78 0 00:03 0.00512 0.154 3.711 5 JUNCTION 0.19 5.81 0 00:03 0.00512 0.154 2.754 6 JUNCTION 1.02 6.71 0 00:03 0.0275 0.177 1.242 8 JUNCTION 3.75 3.75 0 00:00 0.101 0.101 0.169 10 JUNCTION 0.19 0.31 0 00:00 0.00512 0.00512 3.446 9 JUNCTION 1.53 1.53 0 00:00 0.0412 0.0412 0.344 7 OUTFALL 0.00 6.71 0 00:03 0 0.175 0.000 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 JUNCTION 0.96 1.442 0.558 10 JUNCTION 0.97 0.074 2.256 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 37 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- 7 99.91 6.32 6.71 0.175 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 99.91 6.32 6.71 0.175 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CONDUIT 1.69 0 00:00 6.28 0.33 0.60 2 CONDUIT 1.69 0 00:03 3.29 0.84 0.67 5 CONDUIT 5.62 0 00:03 4.87 0.76 0.62 6 CONDUIT 5.69 0 00:03 4.44 0.51 0.75 7 CONDUIT 6.71 0 00:03 4.26 1.38 0.83 8 CONDUIT 4.27 0 00:00 7.91 0.29 0.54 9 CONDUIT 1.84 0 00:03 2.88 0.53 0.76 10 CONDUIT 1.70 0 00:00 3.82 0.79 0.58 11 CONDUIT 0.22 0 00:01 2.29 0.32 1.00 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 9 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 10 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hours Hours --------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.01 0.01 7 0.01 0.96 0.01 0.96 0.01 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 38 9 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.01 0.01 11 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.01 Analysis begun on: Mon Feb 12 14:59:39 2018 Analysis ended on: Mon Feb 12 14:59:39 2018 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Appendix B SWMM Existing and Developed Input Files Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 40 Existing Condition SWMM Input File 25-YEAR [TITLE] ;;Project Title/Notes [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW_UNITS CFS INFILTRATION HORTON FLOW_ROUTING DYNWAVE LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH MIN_SLOPE 0 ALLOW_PONDING NO SKIP_STEADY_STATE YES START_DATE 10/01/1948 START_TIME 00:00:00 REPORT_START_DATE 10/01/1948 REPORT_START_TIME 00:00:00 END_DATE 10/01/1948 END_TIME 01:00:00 SWEEP_START 01/01 SWEEP_END 12/31 DRY_DAYS 0 REPORT_STEP 00:15:00 WET_STEP 00:05:00 DRY_STEP 01:00:00 ROUTING_STEP 0:00:30 INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W VARIABLE_STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING_STEP 0 MIN_SURFAREA 12.557 MAX_TRIALS 8 HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005 SYS_FLOW_TOL 5 LAT_FLOW_TOL 5 MINIMUM_STEP 0.5 THREADS 1 [EVAPORATION] ;;Data Source Parameters ;;-------------- ---------------- CONSTANT 0.0 DRY_ONLY NO [JUNCTIONS] ;;Name Elevation MaxDepth InitDepth SurDepth Aponded ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 51.27 3.1 0 0 0 2 47.74 3.2 0 .1 10 3 46.52 4.54 0 0 0 4 42.86 5.33 0 0 0 5 40.79 3.42 0 0 0 6 35.44 3.5 0 0 0 8 46.27 4.73 0 0 0 10 47.84 3 0 0 0 [OUTFALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- 7 34.65 FREE NO [CONDUITS] Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 41 ;;Name From Node To Node Length Roughness InOffset OutOffset InitFlow MaxFlow ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- -------- 1 1 2 55.04 .023 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 120.69 .023 0 0 0 0 5 4 5 134.56 .023 0 0 0 0 6 5 6 152.02 0.023 0 0 0 0 7 6 7 118.39 0.023 0 0 0 0 8 8 4 56.31 0.01 0 0 0 0 9 3 4 123.06 .023 0 0 0 0 11 10 2 10 0.023 0 0 0 0 [XSECTIONS] ;;Link Shape Geom1 Geom2 Geom3 Geom4 Barrels Culvert ;;-------------- ------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 CIRCULAR 1 0 0 0 1 2 CIRCULAR 1 0 0 0 1 5 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 6 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 7 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 8 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 9 CIRCULAR 1 0 0 0 1 11 CIRCULAR .67 0 0 0 1 [LOSSES] ;;Link Kentry Kexit Kavg Flap Gate Seepage ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 .5 1 0 NO 0 2 .5 1 0 NO 0 5 .5 1 0 NO 0 6 .5 1 0 NO 0 7 .5 1 0 NO 0 8 .5 1 0 NO 0 9 .5 1 0 NO 0 11 .5 1 0 NO 0 [INFLOWS] ;;Node Constituent Time Series Type Mfactor Sfactor Baseline Pattern ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 3 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 .16 4 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 .16 5 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 .16 6 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 0.83 8 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 3 10 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 .16 [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 501 FILE "mark.dat" [REPORT] ;;Reporting Options INPUT NO CONTROLS NO SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS -13602888.787 6029202.053 -13602317.301 6029437.933 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ 1 -13602514.990 6029216.185 2 -13602535.796 6029229.622 3 -13602535.709 6029285.247 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 42 4 -13602555.564 6029337.043 5 -13602597.001 6029381.933 6 -13602658.725 6029406.968 8 -13602533.982 6029349.129 10 -13602538.274 6029234.922 7 -13602712.248 6029397.040 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ [BACKDROP] FILE "H:\ENGDATA\SWMM\14134\MODEL 2-18\Export.jpg" DIMENSIONS -13602888.787 6029202.053 -13602317.301 6029437.933 [PROFILES] ;;Name Links ;;-------------- ---------- " " 1 2 9 5 6 " " 7 "MAIN " 1 2 9 5 6 "MAIN " 7 Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 43 Developed Condition SWMM Input File 25-YEAR [TITLE] ;;Project Title/Notes [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW_UNITS CFS INFILTRATION HORTON FLOW_ROUTING DYNWAVE LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH MIN_SLOPE 0 ALLOW_PONDING NO SKIP_STEADY_STATE YES START_DATE 10/01/1948 START_TIME 00:00:00 REPORT_START_DATE 10/01/1948 REPORT_START_TIME 00:00:00 END_DATE 10/01/1948 END_TIME 01:00:00 SWEEP_START 01/01 SWEEP_END 12/31 DRY_DAYS 0 REPORT_STEP 00:15:00 WET_STEP 00:05:00 DRY_STEP 01:00:00 ROUTING_STEP 0:00:30 INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W VARIABLE_STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING_STEP 0 MIN_SURFAREA 12.557 MAX_TRIALS 8 HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005 SYS_FLOW_TOL 5 LAT_FLOW_TOL 5 MINIMUM_STEP 0.5 THREADS 1 [EVAPORATION] ;;Data Source Parameters ;;-------------- ---------------- CONSTANT 0.0 DRY_ONLY NO [JUNCTIONS] ;;Name Elevation MaxDepth InitDepth SurDepth Aponded ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 51.27 3.1 0 0 0 2 47.74 3.2 0 .1 10 3 46.52 4.54 0 0 0 4 42.86 5.33 0 0 0 5 40.79 3.42 0 0 0 6 35.44 3.5 0 0 0 8 46.27 4.73 0 0 0 10 47.84 3 0 0 0 9 51.66 4 0 0 0 [OUTFALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- 7 34.65 FREE NO [CONDUITS] Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 44 ;;Name From Node To Node Length Roughness InOffset OutOffset InitFlow MaxFlow ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- -------- 1 1 2 55.04 .023 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 120.69 .023 0 0 0 0 5 4 5 134.56 .023 0 0 0 0 6 5 6 152.02 0.023 0 0 0 0 7 6 7 118.39 0.023 0 0 0 0 8 8 4 56.31 .023 0 0 0 0 9 3 4 123.06 .023 0 0 0 0 10 9 1 34.45 .023 0 0 0 0 11 10 2 10 0.023 0 0 0 0 [XSECTIONS] ;;Link Shape Geom1 Geom2 Geom3 Geom4 Barrels Culvert ;;-------------- ------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 CIRCULAR 1 0 0 0 1 2 CIRCULAR 1 0 0 0 1 5 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 6 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 7 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 8 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 9 CIRCULAR 1 0 0 0 1 10 CIRCULAR 1 0 0 0 1 11 CIRCULAR .67 0 0 0 1 [LOSSES] ;;Link Kentry Kexit Kavg Flap Gate Seepage ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 .5 1 0 NO 0 2 .5 1 0 NO 0 5 .5 1 0 NO 0 6 .5 1 0 NO 0 7 .5 1 0 NO 0 8 .5 1 0 NO 0 9 .5 1 0 NO 0 10 0.5 1 0 NO 0 11 .5 1 0 NO 0 [INFLOWS] ;;Node Constituent Time Series Type Mfactor Sfactor Baseline Pattern ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 3 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 .19 4 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 .19 5 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 .19 6 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 1.02 8 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 3.75 10 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 .19 9 FLOW "" FLOW 1.0 1.0 1.53 [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 501 FILE "mark.dat" [REPORT] ;;Reporting Options INPUT NO CONTROLS NO SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS -13602888.787 6029202.053 -13602317.301 6029437.933 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord Rhododendron Ridge March 2018 Off-Site Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis r14134-1 Offsite Stormwater Outfall Plan and Analysis 0218.doc 45 ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ 1 -13602514.990 6029216.185 2 -13602535.796 6029229.622 3 -13602535.709 6029285.247 4 -13602555.564 6029337.043 5 -13602597.001 6029381.933 6 -13602658.725 6029406.968 8 -13602533.982 6029349.129 10 -13602538.274 6029234.922 9 -13602514.088 6029200.835 7 -13602712.248 6029397.040 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ [BACKDROP] FILE "H:\ENGDATA\SWMM\14134\MODEL 2-18\Export.jpg" DIMENSIONS -13602888.787 6029202.053 -13602317.301 6029437.933 [PROFILES] ;;Name Links ;;-------------- ---------- " " 1 2 9 5 6 " " 7 "MAIN " 10 1 2 9 5 "MAIN " 6 7 Appendix C Rhododendron Ridge Storm Drainage Outfall Engineering Plans 205210215220225230235205210215220225230235PROPOSEDGRADE, TYP.15.18'DEPTHTOP OF VAULTELEV. = 226.50BOT OF VAULTELEV. = 207.756" AVG. SEDIMENTSTORAGE DEPTH(9" TOTALSTORAGE DEPTH)6" GRAVEL BEDBOT OF STORAGEELEV. = 209.50100 YR.W.S.ELEV =224.68LIMIT OFEXCAVATION1'LIMIT OFEXCAVATION1'1'1'2' - 10'COVER21 L F 12 "SD @ 1 5 .4 5%SD #4TYPE I-54 MHRIM = 237.83I.E. 12" OUT (W) = 228.0021.00'200205210215220225230235240TOP OF VAULTELEV. = 226.50BOTTOM SUMPELEV. 204.00BOT OF STORAGEELEV. = 209.506" AVG. SEDIMENTSTORAGE DEPTH(9" TOTAL STORAGE DEPTH)100 YR. W.S.ELEV = 224.68PROPOSEDGRADE, TYP.2' - 10'COVERLIMIT OFEXCAVATION15.18'DEPTHLIMIT OFEXCAVATION1'1'1'1'BOT OF VAULTELEV.= 207.757 : 10.82' FREEBOARDEND OF PAVING ELEV. = 229.14 START OF PAVING ELEV. = 236.68 SD #3TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDRIM = 218.94I.E. 12" OUT (SW) = 207.6277 LF 12" SD @ 0.50%GRAVEL ACCESSROAD136.00'CONTROLSTRUCTURESEE SHT. SD-2VAULT ACCESS, TYP.SEE NOTEOHUOHUOHUOHUXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD RDRDRD DETENTION VAULT30' ROW112TH AVENUE NE(UNIMPROVED ROW)10' BUFFER12' WIDEMAINTENANCEACCESS15% MAX SLOPE20' TRACT246240236238242244 2462602 5 6 256258258SD #6, TYPE II-54 MHw/ SPILL CONTROLSTA. 0+30.00, 3.00' LRIM = 256.27I.E. 12" SD IN (NE) = 249.00I.E. 12" SD OUT (W) = 249.0045 LF 12"@ 2.64%75 LF 12" @ 22.45%21 LF 12"@ 15.45%77 LF 12" @ 0.50%107 LF 12" @ 3.08%SD #3, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 7+01.15, 0.00'RIM = 218.94I.E. 12" N-12 IN (N) = 207.62I.E. 6" PVC FD IN (N) = 208.12I.E. 12" PVC OUT (SW) = 207.62SD #4, TYPE I-54 MHRIM = 237.83I.E. 12" SD IN (E) = 228.00I.E. 6" RD IN (N) = 228.50I.E. 12" PVC OUT (W) = 228.00220230218222224226228232234236230228218240SD #2A, TYPE I CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LID& CHANNELIZED BOTTOMSTA. 6+37.14, 0.00'RIM = 206.94I.E. 12" PVC IN (NE) = 204.00I.E. 12" HDPE SDR-11 OUT (W) = 204.0064 LF 12" @ 5.66%31 LF 12"@ 2.27%SD #5, 8'x11' PEAKDIVERSION STORMFILTERSTA.0+79.38, 0.00'RIM = 250.00I.E. 12" IN (E) = 247.80I.E. 12" OUT (W) = 244.75SEE SHEET SD-2200205210215220225230235240SE 80TH ST.VAULT SECTION A-ASCALE: 1"=10' HOR. 1"=5' VER.VAULT SECTION B-BSCALE: 1"=10' HOR. 1"=5' VER.121314TRACT D(ACCESS)15AABB21'21'136'136'EXCAVATION LIMIT AT1:1 SLOPE, TYP.EXCAVATION LIMITBEGINS 3' OFFSETFROM VAULT.VAULT ACCESS1.ACCESS RISERS ARE 48" DIAM. M.H. w/ ECCENTRIC CONE TOP SECTIONS ASNECESSARY (2'EC = 2' HIGH SECTION; 3'EC = 3' HIGH SECTION) OVER MIN. 2'DIAM. HOLE IN VAULT PANELS OR GRADE RINGS (GR). PROVIDE LADDER ORSTEPS TO BOTTOM OF VAULT PER DETAIL SHT. SD-2.2.PROVIDE ROUND LOCKING MANHOLE COVERS FOR ALL ACCESS RISERS.3.5'x10' REMOVABLE LOCKING PANEL SHALL MEET THE 2009 KCSWDMREQUIREMENTS.VAULT VENTILATION1.1'-1" DIAM. VENT OPENINGS ARE DETAILED ON THE STRUCTURAL PLANS.2.VENTS IN PARK/LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE 12" DIAM. IPS SCH 40 PVC PIPE(OR EQUAL) WITH LIGHT DUTY DROP-IN GRATES.3.VENTS IN PAVED AREAS SUBJECT TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SHALL BE 12" DIAM.CLASS 50 DUCTILE IRON PIPE w/ 12" DIAM. CAST IRON RING AND COVER(OLYMPIC FOUNDRY, INC. PART NO. MH5, OR EQUAL) w/ 2' SQUARE x 1' DEPTHCONC. CL. 5(S) COLLAR.VAULT CAPACITY:1.THE REQUIRED VAULT CAPACITY FOR THE 100 YR. EVENT IS 42,718 CU.FT(0.981 AC.FT.). THE DESIGN VAULT CAPACITY AT THE 100 YR. W.S. ELEVATION43,354 CU.FT. (0.995 ACRE-FT).CONTROL RISER INVAULT, SEE DETAILSHT. SD-2VAULTOUTLET= 208.0013" DIA. VENT OPENINGS,TYP.2 TOTALFG 235.1TV 226.5VAULT ACCESSCOVERFG 236.8TV 226.5w/ ECVAULT ACCESSCOVERFG 239.4TV 226.5w/ ECVAULT ACCESSCOVERFG 235.7TV 226.5w/ ECVAULT INLETIE = 224.68060401020SCALE: 1" = 20'SE 80TH STREET(UNIMPROVED ROW)SEE SHT. SD-3FOR OUTFALLCITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONDETENTION VAULT PLAN & SECTION16SD-11" = 20'SD-1 R-396601ALL RETAINED TREES MUSTHAVE TREE PROTECTION PERCITY OF NEWCASTLE PUBLICWORKS STANDARDS.DATE:FIELDBOOK:DRAWING NO:PAGE:SHEET: OF:SCALE:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:NO.REVISIONBYDATEAPPRFILENAME:SURVEYED:VERTICAL: NAVD 1988IF NOT ONE INCH ONE INCHAT FULL SCALEHORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991SCALE ACCORDINGLYPlanning/Building/Public Works Dept.CITY OFRENTONIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSRHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION RHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134H01.dwg3/21/18LNBPF, SPSPKJGBPF, KJG2719773/27/18Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRRHODODENDRON RIDGEERP PLAN SETiCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCJOB NO. 14134PR17-000348 C170-003201 TED-40-3966 NOTES:1.WORK SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OFNEWCASTLE. IT IS PART OF NEWCASTLE PERMIT ERP17-009.THIS PLAN IS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. PLANSAPPROVED BY THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE SHOULD BE USED FORIMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE.2.ALL STORM DRAIN PIPES MARKED AS "SD" ARE TO BE BUILTUSING ALLOWABLE MATERIALS AS OUTLINED IN WSDOT/APWASTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 7-02, 7-03 AND 7-04. ALLOWABLEMATERIAL TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONUNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.6" ROOF DRAINVAULT INLETIE = 224.686" WALL DRAINVAULT INLETIE = 224.68 NOTE:SEE FLOW RESTRICTOR DETAIL SW-18FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.ROUND SOLID COVERWITH LOCKING BOLTS100 YR. W.S. ELEV = 224.68TOP OF VAULT ELEV SEESTRUCTURAL PLANSORIFICE NO. 2, ELEV. = 220.20ORIFICE DIA. = 1.15"ORIFICE NO. 2, ELEV. = 215.90ORIFICE DIA. = 1.20"FLOOR GRATE WITH 2'X2' ACCESS DOOR(1"x1/4" GALVANIZED METAL BARS)18" RISERPIPE SUPPORTSPER C.O.N. DETAIL SW-18CLEANOUT GATE: SHEAR GATE WITHCONTROL ROD, PER C.O.N. DETAIL SW-18INSIDE TOP OF VAULTELEV = 225.50ORIFICE NO. 1, ELEV. = 206.00ORIFICE DIA. = 1.10"BOT OF VAULT ELEV.SEE STRUCTURAL PLANSINSIDE BOT OF VAULTELEV. = 208.75KNOCKOUT DIA.= WALLTHICKNESS + PIPE O.D.ORIFICE ELBOWPER C.O.N. DETAILSW-1812" OUTLETI.E. = 208.00SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FORSUMP AND FOOTING DESIGNVAULT WALLDESIGN BY OTHERS2' COVERMINIMUM18" RISER ELEV. = 224.502.0'5.5'2.0'SEDIMENT STORAGEELEV. = 209.501' SECTION OF 18" PIPE ATTACHED BYGASKETED BAND TO ALLOW REMOVAL.PER C.O.N. DETAIL SW-185.5' DEPTH - TYPE II 48" CBSUMP ELEV. = 204.00STORM DETENTION VAULTCONTROL STRUCTURESCALE: 1" = 2'NOTCH 1" WIDEBTM ELEV = 224.00VAULT ACCESSSEE NOTESEE SHT. SD-3 FOROUTFALL PROFILEDATE:FIELDBOOK:DRAWING NO:PAGE:SHEET: OF:SCALE:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:NO.REVISIONBYDATEAPPRFILENAME:SURVEYED:VERTICAL: NAVD 1988IF NOT ONE INCH ONE INCHAT FULL SCALEHORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991SCALE ACCORDINGLYPlanning/Building/Public Works Dept.CITY OFRENTONIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSRHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION RHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134H02.dwg3/21/18LNBPF, SPSPKJGBPF, KJG2719773/21/18Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRRHODODENDRON RIDGEERP PLAN SETiCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCJOB NO. 14134PR17-000348 C170-003201 TED-40-3966 DETENTION VAULT CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL26SD-2VARIESSD-2 R-396602NOTE:1)WORK SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS LOCATEDIN THE CITY OF NEWCASTLE. IT IS PART OFNEWCASTLE PERMIT ERP17-009. THIS PLANIS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. PLANSAPPROVED BY THE CITY OF NEWCASTLESHOULD BE USED FOR IMPROVEMENTS INTHE CITY OF NEWCASTLE.VAULT ACCESS1.ACCESS RISERS ARE 48" DIAM. M.H. w/ ECCENTRIC CONE TOP SECTIONSAS NECESSARY (2'EC = 2' HIGH SECTION; 3'EC = 3' HIGH SECTION) OVERMIN. 2' DIAM. HOLE IN VAULT PANELS OR GRADE RINGS (GR). PROVIDELADDER OR STEPS TO BOTTOM OF VAULT PER DETAIL SHT. SD-2.2.PROVIDE ROUND LOCKING MANHOLE COVERS FOR ALL ACCESS RISERS. SSSSSSSSSSXXSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWSDSDWWWWEOHUOHUOHUOHUSDWSDSSSSSSWWWDSXXXXXXXXXX X X X X XWWWWWW 1514SD #3, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 7+01.15, 0.00'COR STD. PLAN 201.00SD #2, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 0+49.45, 0.00'COR STD. PLAN 201.00EXIST. SD #1, TYPE I CBSTA. 0+00.00, 0.00'COR FACILITY ID: 114635SD #2A, TYPE I CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LID& CHANNELIZED BOTTOMSTA. 6+37.14, 0.00'COR STD. PLAN 200.00SD #1, TYPE I CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 0+34.45, 0.00'2040608010012014016018020022020406080100120140160180200220SD #3, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 7+01.15, 0.00' . RIM = 218.94 I.E. 12" IN (N) = 207.62 I.E. 6" IN (N) = 208.12 I.E. 12" OUT (SW) = 207.62BEGIN PIPE BENDAND BURY PIPE AT SURFACE.STA. 0+83, IE = 66.1±DAYLIGHT PIPE TO SURFACE.IE = 202.5±, STA. 6+11.49 64 LF 12"SD @ 5.66%26 LF 12"SD @ 5.04%50.0%77 LF 12"SD @ 0.50%12.4%18.6%22.7%34.8%32.6%25.2%23.5%31 . 1% 3 8 . 5%26.4%19.5%14.0%DETENTION VAULTSLIDE 7.5' LENGTH OF 12" PIPEINTO 10' LENGTH OF 18" PIPE@ STA. 0+98, IE = 68.2±PIPE ANCHORS 10' O.C.VERTICAL SPACING PER CORSTD. PLAN 221.20, TYP.PIPE ANCHORS 10' O.C.VERTICAL SPACING PER CORSTD. PLAN 221.20, TYP.I.E. 12" OUT (N) = 55.24I.E. 12" IN (S) = 54.84SD #1, TYPE I CBCONNECT TO EXISTINGCITY OF RENTON STORMAT EXIST. 12" CULVERTSTA. 0+34.45, 0.00' .RIM = 58.47I.E. 12" IN (E) = 55.24 32 . 4% SD #2, TYPE II-48 CBw/ SOLID LOCKING LIDSTA. 0+49.45, 0.00' .RIM = 62.41I.E. 18" IN (E) = 53.04I.E. 12" OUT (W) = 56.0415 LF 12"SD @ 5.33%34 LF 12"SD @ 1.18%3 8 . 3% SD #2A, TYPE I CB w/ SOLID LOCKING LID& CHANNELIZED BOTTOMSTA. 6+37.14, 0.00' . RIM = 206.94I.E. 12" IN (NE) = 204.00 I.E. 12" OUT (W) = 204.00 EX IST . 8 ' S S0+000+400+801+201+602+002+402+803+203+604+004+404+805+205+606+006+406+807+207+608+008+4057.960.265.872.681.493.6106.7119.1128.7 140.1 154.8 168.7 181.7 189.2 195.7 200.9 206.5 215.5 223.4 226.0 228.1 57.9060.2465.8372.6181.4293.62106.65119.15128.67 140.15 154.79 168.66 181.65 189.16 195.69 200.89 206.50 215.49 223.41 225.98 228.11 CITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONCITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTON60' ROWFLOW CONTROL STRUCTUREI.E. 12" OUT = 208.00SEE SHT. SD-2 FOR DETAIL.0120802040SCALE: 1" = 40'STORM DRAIN OUTFALL PROFILESCALE: 1" = 40' H 1" = 20' VDAYLIGHT PIPETO SURFACE@ STA. 6+11.49IE = 202.5±END PIPE ON SURFACEAND BURY UNDERGROUND@ STA. 0+83, IE = 66.1±570 LF 12" HDPE SDR-11 PIPEON SURFACE. PIPE INSTALLEDBETWEEN CLEARING LIMITS TOAVOID TREES.SE 80TH STREET(UNIMPROVED)SIGNED "NE 43rd STREET" IN RENTON110TH AVENUE NELINCOLN AVE.NE112TH AVENUE NE(UNIMPROVED ROW)SE 80TH STREET(UNIMPROVED ROW)570 LF 12" HDPE SDR-11 PIPEON EXISTING GRADE, TYP.CB #1, TYPE 1CONNECT TO EXISTING CITY OF RENTONSTORM AT EXIST. 12" CULVERT, SEEPROFILE BELOW FOR DETAIL.INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITYRIBBON ALONG EXISTINGCLEARING LIMITS, TYP.INSTALL INLET PROTECTION ONEXISTING CATCH BASINS WITHIN200' OF PROJECT PER COR STD.PLAN 216.20 OR 216.30 (TYP.)SLIDE 7.5' LENGTH OF 12" PIPEINTO 10' LENGTH OF 18" PIPE@ STA. 0+98, IE = 68.2±PIPE ANCHORS 10' O.C.VERTICAL SPACING PERCOR STD. PLAN 221.20.SEE SHT. D-712" HDPE SDR-1118" HDPE SDR-1115' LF7.5' LFSLIDE 7.5' LENGTH OF 12" PIPEINTO 15' LENGTH OF 18" PIPE.SLIEVE CONNECTION & SUMP DETAILNTSBURY PIPE AT END OFSLIEVE PER PLAN.12" N-12OUT18" HDPESDR-11 INIE 18" IN = 53.04IE 12" IN = 56.04SD #2TYPE II-48 CATCH BASINW/ SOLID LOCKING LIDCOR STD. PLAN 201.0024" MIN.36"(SEE MANUFACTURERHDPE CONNECTION DETAILN.T.S.HDPE PIPENOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALLSUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION.PROVIDE CONCRETE SUPPORTWALL, FULL DEPTH WITH AMINIMUM OF 12" AROUND TOPAND SIDES12"12"PROVIDE RUBBER O-RINGGASKETS AROUND 36" HDPEHDPE FLANGE ADAPTER6"4 EA. # 6 REBARAS SHOWN2" MIN.CLR.GROUT SHALL BE MASTERFLOW928 EXTENDED WORK-TIMENONSHRINK GROUT OR EQUAL.INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONSCITY OF NEWCASTLECITY OF RENTONSS/SD CROSSINGN: 196721.83E: 1304420.22TOP 8" SS = 50.64'BOT. 18" SD = 54.92'VERT. SEP. = 4.28'SS MH/SD PIPEHOR. SEP. = 3.09'INSTALL SILT FENCE WHEREUNDERGROUND STORMINSTALLATION TAKESPLACE PER COR STD. PLAN214.00 OR 214.10 (TYP.)SILT FENCE (TYP.)DATE:FIELDBOOK:DRAWING NO:PAGE:SHEET: OF:SCALE:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:NO.REVISIONBYDATEAPPRFILENAME:SURVEYED:VERTICAL: NAVD 1988IF NOT ONE INCH ONE INCHAT FULL SCALEHORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991SCALE ACCORDINGLYPlanning/Building/Public Works Dept.CITY OFRENTONIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSRHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION RHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134H03.dwg3/21/18LNBPF, SPSPKJGBPF, KJG2719773/21/18Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRRHODODENDRON RIDGEERP PLAN SETiCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCJOB NO. 14134PR17-000348 C170-003201 TED-40-3966 OFF-SITE STORM DRAIN OUTFALL26SD-31" = 40'R-396603SD-3 SS/SD CROSSINGN: 196726.50E: 1305037.53TOP 8" SS = 203.62'BOT. 12" SD = 205.91'VERT. SEP. = 3.29'ALL RETAINED TREES MUSTHAVE TREE PROTECTION PERCITY OF NEWCASTLE PUBLICWORKS STANDARDS.NOTES:1.WORK SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS LOCATED IN THECITY OF NEWCASTLE. IT IS PART OF NEWCASTLEPERMIT ERP17-009. THIS PLAN IS INCLUDED FORREFERENCE ONLY. PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY OFNEWCASTLE SHOULD BE USED FOR IMPROVEMENTS INTHE CITY OF NEWCASTLE.2.ALL STORM DRAIN PIPES MARKED AS "SD" ARE TO BEBUILT USING ALLOWABLE MATERIALS AS OUTLINED INWSDOT/APWA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 7-02, 7-03AND 7-04. ALLOWABLE MATERIAL TO BE DETERMINEDAT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SPECIFIEDOTHERWISE.50 LF 18" HDPESDR-11 PIPE50 LF 18" HDPESDR-11 PIPE 1.THESE NOTES SHALL APPEAR ON PROJECTS FOR THE SURFACE WATER UTILITY.2.BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY OCCURS, APRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING MUST BE HELD BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON PLANREVIEW SECTION AND THE APPLICANT.3.ALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RENTONMUNICIPAL CODE (RMC), THE LATEST EDITION OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONSFOR ROAD, BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION PREPARED BY WSDOT AND THEAMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION (APWA), AS AMENDED BY THE CITY OFRENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. IT SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEAPPLICANT AND THE PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER TO CORRECT ANY ERROR,OMISSION OR VARIATION FROM THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN THIS PLANS.ALL CORRECTIONS SHALL BE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CITY.4.APPROVAL OF THIS ROAD, GRADING, PARKING AND DRAINAGE PLAN DOES NOTCONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION (E.G. DOMESTIC WATERCONVEYANCE, SEWER CONVEYANCE, GAS, ELECTRICAL. ETC.)THE SURFACE WATERDRAINAGE SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS,WHICH ARE ON FILE IN WITH THE CITY. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANSWILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT, SURFACE WATER UTILITY SECTION.5.A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVERCONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS.6.GRADING ACTIVITIES (SITE ALTERATION) ARE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF 7 A.M. TO 7P.M. MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY AND NO WORK ON SUNDAY IS ALLOWED,UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED WITH A WRITTEN DECISION BY THE CITY OF RENTON.7.IT SHALL BE THE APPLICANT'S/CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ALLCONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS NECESSARY BEFORE INITIATING OFF-SITE WORK.EASEMENTS REQUIRE CITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.8.FRANCHISED UTILITIES OR OTHER INSTALLATIONS THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESEAPPROVED PLANS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED UNLESS AN APPROVED SET OFPLANS THAT MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 4 OF THE SURFACE WATERDESIGN MANUAL ARE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON.9.DATUM SHALL BE NAVD 88 UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF RENTON.REFERENCE BENCHMARK AND ELEVATIONS ARE NOTED ON THE PLANS.10.ANY DEWATERING SYSTEM NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATERFACILITIES MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.11.ALL UTILITY TRENCHES AND ROADWAY SUBGRADE SHALL BE BACKFILLED ANDCOMPACTED TO 95 PERCENT DENSITY, STANDARD PROCTOR.12.OPEN CUTTING OF EXISTING ROADWAYS FOR NON-FRANCHISED UTILITY OR STORMDRAINAGE WORK IS NOT ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY OFRENTON AND NOTED ON THESE APPROVED PLANS. ANY OPEN CUT SHALL BERESTORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF RENTON TRENCH RESTORATIONSTANDARDS.13.ALL SEDIMENTATION/EROSION FACILITIES MUST BE IN OPERATION PRIOR TOCLEARING AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AND THEY MUST BE SATISFACTORILYMAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FORON-SITE EROSION HAS PASSED.14.ALL RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITIES MUST BE INSTALLED AND IN OPERATIONPRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY UNLESSOTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SURFACE WATERUTILITY SECTION.15.ALL PIPE AND APPURTENANCES SHALL BE LAID ON A PROPERLY PREPAREDFOUNDATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF WASHINGTONSTANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALLINCLUDE NECESSARY LEVELING OF THE TRENCH BOTTOM OR THE TOP OF THEFOUNDATION MATERIAL, AS WELL AS PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF REQUIREDBEDDING MATERIAL, TO UNIFORM GRADE SO THAT THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PIPEWILL BE SUPPORTED ON A UNIFORMLY DENSE, UNYIELDING BASE. ALL PIPE BEDDINGSHALL BE APWA CLASS “C”, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PVC PIPE.16.STEEL PIPE SHALL BE ALUMINIZED, OR GALVANIZED WITH ASPHALT TREATMENT #1OR BETTER INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.17.ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, SUCH AS CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES SHALL HAVESOLID LOCKING LIDS. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH A PERMANENTRETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY SHALL HAVE SOLID LOCKING LIDS.18. BUILDING AND OTHER STRUCTURES SHALL BE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE4.1 EASEMENT WIDTHS AND BUILDING SETBACKS LINES.19.ALL CATCH BASIN GRATES SHALL BE DEPRESSED 0.10 FEET BELOW PAVEMENT LEVEL.20.ALL DRIVEWAY CULVERTS LOCATED WITHIN CITY OF RENTON RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALLBE OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3:1 SLOPE FROM THE EDGE OFTHE DRIVEWAY TO THE BOTTOM OF THE DITCH. ROCK FOR EROSION PROTECTIONOF ROADSIDE DITCHES, WHERE REQUIRED, SHALL BE OF SOUND QUARRY ROCKPLACED TO A DEPTH OF ONE (1) FOOT AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWINGSPECIFICATIONS: 4 - 8 INCH ROCK / 40 - 70% PASSING; 2 - 4 INCH ROCK / 30 - 40% PASSING; ANDLESS THAN 2 INCH ROCK / 10 - 20% PASSING.21.ALL BUILDING DOWNSPOUTS AND FOOTING DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THESTORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY PLAN REVIEWER ORSURFACE WATER UTILITY SECTION. AN ACCURATELY DIMENSIONED, CERTIFIEDAS-BUILT DRAWING OF THIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITYUPON COMPLETION.22.DRAINAGE OUTLETS (STUB-OUTS) SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT,EXCEPT FOR THOSE LOTS APPROVED FOR INFILTRATION BY THE CITY. STUB-OUTSSHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING:A.EACH OUTLET SHALL BE SUITABLY LOCATED AT THE LOWEST ELEVATION ON THELOT, SO AS TO SERVICE ALL FUTURE ROOF DOWNSPOUTS AND FOOTING DRAINS,DRIVEWAYS, YARD DRAINS, AND ANY OTHER SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE DRAINSNECESSARY TO RENDER THE LOTS SUITABLE FOR THEIR INTENDED USE. EACHOUTLET SHALL HAVE FREE-FLOWING, POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO AN APPROVEDSTORMWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM OR TO AN APPROVED OUTFALL LOCATION.B.OUTLETS ON EACH LOT SHALL BE LOCATED WITH A FIVE-FOOT-HIGH, 2" X 4"STAKE MARKEDC."STORM" OR "DRAIN". THE STUB-OUT SHALL EXTEND ABOVE SURFACE LEVEL, BEVISIBLE, AND BE SECURED TO THE STAKE.D.PIPE MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO UNDERDRAIN SPECIFICATIONS DESCRIBED INCHAPTER 4 OF THE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL AND, IF NON-METALLIC,THE PIPE SHALL BE PLACED INE.A TRENCH WITH A TRACING WIRE ABOVE OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE DETECTION.F.PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ARE REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGNEDTO CONVEY FLOWS THROUGH INDIVIDUAL LOTS.G.THE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THELOCATIONS OF ALL STUB-OUTH.CONVEYANCE LINES WITH RESPECT TO OTHER UTILITIES (E.G. POWER, GAS,TELEPHONE, TELEVISION).I.ALL INDIVIDUAL STUB-OUTS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BYTHE LOT HOME OWNER.J.STORM DRAINAGE PIPE SYSTEMS SHALL NOT PENETRATE BUILDING FOUNDATIONS,EXCEPT FOR SUMP PUMP DISCHARGE LINES USED TO DRAIN CRAWL SPACES,PROVIDED THE SUMP PUMP SYSTEM INCLUDES BACKFLOW PREVENTION OR ACHECK VALVE.23.ALL DISTURBED PERVIOUS AREAS (COMPACTED, GRADED, LANDSCAPED, ETC.) OFTHE DEVELOPMENT SITE MUST DEMONSTRATE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: THEEXISTING DUFF LAYER SHALL BE STAGED AND REDISTRIBUTED TO MAINTAIN THEMOISTURE CAPACITY OF THE SOIL, OR; AMENDED SOIL SHALL BE ADDED TOMAINTAIN THE MOISTURE CAPACITY.24.PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION PERMIT ISSUANCE.25.ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS BY THE CITY OF RENTONDOES NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER OF THE CONTINUING LEGAL OBLIGATION AND/ORLIABILITY CONNECTED WITH STORM SURFACE WATER DISPOSITION. FURTHER, THECITY OF RENTON DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY OBLIGATION FOR THE PROPERFUNCTIONING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM PROVIDED DURINGCONSTRUCTION.26.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEQUATE SAFEGUARD,SAFETY DEVICES, PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, FLAGGERS, AND ANY OTHER NEEDEDACTIONS TO PROTECT THE LIFE, HEALTH, AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, AND TOPROTECT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK. ANYWORK WITHIN THE TRAVELED RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT MAY INTERRUPT NORMALTRAFFIC FLOW SHALL REQUIRE A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN APPROVE BY THE PUBLICWORKS EPARTMENT, TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION. ALL SECTIONS OF THEWSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 1-07-23 TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL APPLY.27.PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA (APA) SHALL COMPLYWITH SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #6 OF THE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL ANDAQUIFER PROTECTION REGULATIONS (RMC 4-3-050).EROSION CONTROL NOTES:1.THESE NOTES SHALL APPEAR FOR ALL PROJECTS - SITE IMPROVEMENTS, SURFACE WATER UTILITY, WASTEWATER UTILITY, WATER UTILITY, ANDTRANSPORTATION PLANS:2.BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY OCCURS, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING MUST BE HELD WITH THE CITY OF RENTON,PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN ENGINEER.3.THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING LIMITS AND AREAS OF VEGETATION PRESERVATION AS PRESCRIBED ON THE PLAN(S) SHALL BE CLEARLYFLAGGED BY SURVEY TAPE OR FENCING IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPENDIX D OF THE SURFACE WATERDESIGN MANUAL AND OBSERVED DURING CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE CLEARINGLIMITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR FOR THE DURATION OFCONSTRUCTION.4.STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OFTHE PROJECT. ADDITIONAL MEASURES, SUCH AS CONSTRUCTED WHEEL WASH SYSTEMS OR WASH PADS, MAY BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT ALLPAVED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN AND TRACK OUT TO ROAD RIGHT OF WAY DOES NOT OCCUR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.5.ALL REQUIRED SEDIMENTATION/EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING AND/ORCONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT TRANSPORTATION OF SEDIMENT TO SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ALLEROSION AND SEDIMENT FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CLEARING AND/ORCONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND POTENTIAL FOR ON-SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. THE IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT ANDADDITIONS TO EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITEE.6.THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS DEPICTED ON THIS DRAWING ARE INTENDED TO BE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MEETANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE PERMITEE SHALLANTICIPATE THAT MORE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITIES WILL BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROLON THE PROPOSED SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITEE TOADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY THE ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, OVER AND ABOVEMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS MAY BE NEEDED, TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WATER QUALITY OF THE RECEIVING DRAINAGE SYSTEM.7.APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN IS FOR EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF STORM DRAINAGEDESIGN, SIZE NOR LOCATION OF PIPES, RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS, OR RETENTION FACILITIES.8.ANY AREAS OF EXPOSED SOILS, INCLUDING ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS, THAT WILL NOT BE DISTURBED FOR TWO DAYS DURING THE WET SEASON(OCTOBER 1ST TROUGH MARCH 30TH) OR SEVEN DAYS DURING THE DRY SEASON (APRIL 1ST TOUGH SEPTEMBER 30) SHALL BE IMMEDIATELYSTABILIZED WITH THE APPROVED ESC COVER METHODS (E.G., SEEDING, MULCHING, PLASTIC COVERING, ETC.).9.WET SEASON SEASONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES CLEARING BETWEEN OCTOBER 1AND MARCH 30 INCLUSIVE, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY THROUGH AN ADJUSTMENT PROCESS. 10. COVER MEASURES WILL BEAPPLIED IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPENDIX D OF THE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL.11.ANY AREA NEEDING ESC MEASURES, NOT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS. 12. THE ESCFACILITIES ON INACTIVE SITES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED A MINIMUM OF ONCE A MONTH OR WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING ASTORM EVENT.13.AT NO TIME SHALL MORE THAN ONE (1) FOOT OF SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE WITHIN A CATCH BASIN. ALL CATCH BASINS ANDCONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING. THE CLEANING OPERATION SHALL NOT FLUSH SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER INTO THEDOWNSTREAM SYSTEM.14.DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH MARCH 30TH, ALL PROJECT DISTRIBUTED SOIL AREAS GREATER, THAT ARE TO BE LEFT UN-WORKED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS, SHALL BE COVERED BY MULCH,SODDING OR PLASTIC COVERING.15.ANY PERMANENT RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY USED AS A TEMPORARY SETTLING BASIN SHALL BE MODIFIED WITH THE NECESSARYEROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY. IF THE PERMANENT FACILITY IS TO FUNCTION ULTIMATELYAS AN INFILTRATION SYSTEM, THE TEMPORARY FACILITY MUST BE ROUGH GRADED SO THAT THE BOTTOM AND SIDES ARE AT LEAST THREE FEETABOVE THE FINAL GRADE OF THE PERMANENT FACILITY.16.PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON (OCT. 1), ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE REVIEWED TO IDENTIFY WHICH ONES CAN BE SEEDEDIN PREPARATION FOR THE WINTER RAINS. DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON. ASKETCH MAP OF THOSE AREAS TO BE SEEDED AND THOSE AREAS TO REMAIN UNCOVERED SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FORREVIEW.17.ALL ESC MEASURES MUST BE REMOVED AFTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE.SURFACE STANDARD PLAN NOTES:DATE:FIELDBOOK:DRAWING NO:PAGE:SHEET: OF:SCALE:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:NO.REVISIONBYDATEAPPRFILENAME:SURVEYED:VERTICAL: NAVD 1988IF NOT ONE INCH ONE INCHAT FULL SCALEHORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991SCALE ACCORDINGLYPlanning/Building/Public Works Dept.CITY OFRENTONIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSRHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION RHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134D09.dwg3/21/18LNBPF, SPSPKJGBPF, KJG2719773/21/18Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRRHODODENDRON RIDGEERP PLAN SETiCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCJOB NO. 14134PR17-000348 C170-003201 TED-40-3966 SURFACE AND EROSION CONTROL STANDARD NOTES26D-6NTSD-6 STORM DRAINAGE DETAILS26D-7NTSD-7 DATE:FIELDBOOK:DRAWING NO:PAGE:SHEET: OF:SCALE:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:NO.REVISIONBYDATEAPPRFILENAME:SURVEYED:VERTICAL: NAVD 1988IF NOT ONE INCH ONE INCHAT FULL SCALEHORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991SCALE ACCORDINGLYPlanning/Building/Public Works Dept.CITY OFRENTONIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSRHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION RHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134D10.dwg3/21/18LNBPF, SPSPKJGBPF, KJG2719773/21/18Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRRHODODENDRON RIDGEERP PLAN SETiCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCJOB NO. 14134PR17-000348 C170-003201 TED-40-3966 STORM DRAINAGE DETAILS26D-8NTSD-8 DATE:FIELDBOOK:DRAWING NO:PAGE:SHEET: OF:SCALE:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:NO.REVISIONBYDATEAPPRFILENAME:SURVEYED:VERTICAL: NAVD 1988IF NOT ONE INCH ONE INCHAT FULL SCALEHORIZONTAL: NAD 1983/1991SCALE ACCORDINGLYPlanning/Building/Public Works Dept.CITY OFRENTONIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSRHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION RHODODENDRON RIDGE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF NEWCASTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONAPPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:BY:CITY OF NEWCASTLETHESE DRAWINGS ARE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 12MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN HEREON. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHTTO MAKE REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULDCONSTRUCTION BE DELAYED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMITATION. THE CITY, BYAPPROVING THESE DRAWINGS, ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN REGARDS TOTHEIR ACCURACY OR OMISSIONS.M:\ACAD\PLATS\14\14134\Infrastructure ERP\14134D11.dwg3/21/18LNBPF, SPSPKJGBPF, KJG2719773/21/18Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRRHODODENDRON RIDGEERP PLAN SETiCAP RHODY RIDGE, LLCJOB NO. 14134PR17-000348 C170-003201 TED-40-3966 Appendix D City of Renton As-Built Plans Appendix E Tree Report – Rhododendron Ridge, Creative Landscape Solutions February 27, 2018 Goldsmith Land Investments Attn: Brian Fields PO Box 3565 Bellevue, WA98006 Site: TPN# 3343300480, 3343300482, 3343300483 Dear Brian: Thank you for requesting my services. On October 19, 2014, I was contacted by Jill Routt of Goldsmith Land Development Services who requested that I perform a Visual Risk Assessment (VRA) for all the significant* trees growing on the site above, as well as the ROW’s surrounding the property. The information gathered and included in this report is a necessary part of the City of Newcastle’s requirement for a Tree Preservation Plan to be submitted as part of a proposed site development. The table of trees shows compliance with NMC 18.16.130 (B), NMC 18.16.150B. I examined the trees on October 29th, 30th and 31st, 2015. In summary: Tree Retention Calculations Total number of site trees 123 total number of non-viable trees 36 Total number of significant trees 87 Total number of trees removed for site improvements 73 Total number of trees retained 14 total number of incentive credits 11 Total number of tree credits (with incentives) 25 Required number of tree credits (87*25%) 22 I have included a detailed report of my findings, if you have any questions please contact me. I can be reached on my cell phone: 425.890.3808 or by email: sprince202@aol.com. Warm regards, Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions ISA Certified Arborist #1481 TRAQ Certified Arborist #481 Landscape Designer 425.890.3808 • The City of Newcastle defines a significant tree as an existing healthy tree which, when measured four feet above grade, has a minimum diameter of: o 8’ for evergreen trees or o 12’ for deciduous trees (NMC 18.06.598) Personal qualifications, scope of work and methodology: To evaluate the trees and prepare the report, I drew on my formal college education in botany, preparation and training used to obtain my ISA certification in addition to my certification as a Tree Risk Assessor. I have been an ISA Certified Arborist for over fifteen years and have been TRACE/TRAQ certified for four years. I followed protocol delineated by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Visual Risk Assessment (VRA). By doing so, I am examining each tree independently as well as collectively as groups or stands of trees provide stability and can lower risk of independent tree failure. This scientific process examines tree health (e.g. size, vigor, and insect and disease process) as well as site conditions (soil moisture and composition, amount of impervious surfaces surrounding the tree etc.) Site Observations: The site is a gently sloping property to the west. It has been until recently a rhododendron growing nursery. It has a small house on the center of the site and is surrounded by large rhododendrons and native trees. The area surrounding the site has been developed into subdivisions. Offsite trees Potentially Impacted by Development: See table and site map. Method’s used to determine tree location and tree health: Trees were identified previously by numbered aluminum tags attached to the western side of the tree. All of the trees on site were examined using the Matheny and Clark1 criteria for determining the potential hazard of trees in an urban environment as well as the Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and The Urban/Rural Interface by Julian Dunster2. The tree diameter was measured using an aluminum “diameter tape measure.” Tree canopy was measured from longest branch to longest branch with a cloth tape measure secured by a stake. Species ID: Spreadsheet contains common names of trees which correspond to scientific names as follows: • Apple: Malus sp. • American sycamore: Plantanus occidentalis • Austrian pine: Pinus nigra • Bigleaf maple: Acer macrophyllum • Birch: Betula nigra • Bitter Cherry: Prunus emarginata • Blue atlas cedar: Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’ • Cedar: Thuja plicata • Cherry: Prunus sp. • Dawn redwood: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis • Deodora cedar: Cedrus deodara • Colorado blue spruce: Picea pungens • Cottonwood: Populus trichocarpa • Dogwood: Cornus nuttallii • Douglas fir: Pseudotsuga menziesii • English laurel: Prunus laurocerasus • Filbert: Corylus avellana var. • Grand fir: Abies grandis • Hemlock: Tsuga hetrophylla • Holly: Ilex aquifolium • Japanese maple: Acer palmatum • Leylandii cypress: Cupressocyparis leylandii • Lodgepole pine: Pinus contorta • Mountain ash: Sorbus americana • Mountain hemlock: Tsuga mertensiana • Pear: Pyrus sp. • Plum: Prunus • Red Alder: Alnus rubra • Red maple: Acer rubrum • Walnut: Juglans sp. • Western red cedar: Thuja plicata • Weeping Alaska cedar: Metasequoia glyptostrobides • White pine: Pinus strobus Abbreviated legend – see report for greater detail #1: Graph number #2: Filed tag unique to each tree #3: Tree species #4: Trunk diameter measured 4.5 above ground #5: Adjusted DBH is the measure of trunk totals or a multiple of the tree diameter (.5 in some municipalities for cottonwood or alder) #6: Measure of branch length #7: Current health rated Excellent, Good, OK, Fair, Poor or Dead #8: More specific health observations about the tree #9: Proposed action as a consequence tree health and location - viability: the determination that a specific significant tree is in good health with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is relatively wind firm if isolated or as part of a grove. #10: Critical root zone/ Tree protection zone/Limits of disturbance in each direction #11: Measure of tree “value” may be determined by municipality formula or a direct measure of the trunk diameter to determine significance #12: Any code reference Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 4 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 Specific Tree Observations: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip-line Radiu s feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 1 50000 Douglas fir 17.5 17.5 18 OK Exposed roots, dead wood, dead twigs, sap 1 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 2 50001 Douglas fir 17 17 18 OK Ivy-removed dead wood, dead twigs 1 17 17 17 17 3 50002 Douglas fir 17 17 18 OK Dead twigs, ivy, column of decay sparse canopy 1 17 17 17 17 4 50068 Douglas fir 16 16 18 Poor Abnormal bark, popping bark, ivy-removed, dead wood, low live canopy ratio 1 16 16 16 16 5 50069 Douglas fir 16 16 18 OK Ivy-removed, dead wood, dead twigs, exposed roots, small crack at 7' (east side) 1 16 16 16 16 6 50070 Douglas fir 16 16 18 Fair abnormal bark, shedding bark, small mushrooms on bark, Low live crown ratio 1 16 16 16 16 7 50071 White pine 17 17 18 Good Dead wood 1 17 17 17 17 8 50072 Douglas fir 17/6 18 18 Poor Co-dominant leader, with ivy, dead wood, dead twigs, asymmetric canopy leaning on 073 1 18 18 18 18 9 50073 Douglas fir 16 16 18 Fair Exposed roots, abnormal bark, popping bark, dead wood 1 16 16 16 16 10 50079 Balsam fir 11 11 6 Fair typical of species, Flagging low live crown ratio 1 11 11 11 11 11 50080 Balsam fir 9 9 7 Poor Trunk split with column of large decay 1 9 9 9 9 12 50088 Balsam fir 9 9 9 Fair Exposed roots, flagging low live crown ratio 1 9 9 9 9 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 5 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 13 50089 Balsam fir 14 14 9 OK typical of species, dead wood, flagging 1 14 14 14 14 14 50090 Balsam fir 12 12 9 OK typical of species, Dead wood, Low live crown ratio 1 12 12 12 12 15 50091 Bigleaf maple 13 13 9 OK TPS, some sap, dead wood flagging 1 13 13 13 13 16 50092 Japanese maple 12 12 12 Good 3 Scaffolds, some decay typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 17 50212 Douglas fir 16 16 18 Poor Abnormal bark, shedding bark, carpenter ants, sap, pileated woodpecker damage 1 16 16 16 16 18 50213 White pine 17 17 18 Good Dead wood, girdling root 1 17 17 17 17 19 50214 Douglas fir 16 16 18 Fair self-corrected lean, dead wood, abnormal popping, shedding bark 1 16 16 16 16 20 50215 Douglas fir 18 18 18 Poor self-corrected lean, dead wood, exposed roots, diffuse canker 1 18 18 18 18 21 50216 Douglas fir 14.5 14.5 18 OK exposed roots, low live crown ratio, dead wood 1 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 22 50217 Douglas fir 14 14 18 Poor Abnormal shedding bark, carpenter ant, decay @ root crown, sap 1 14 14 14 14 23 50218 Douglas fir 16 16 18 Poor Abnormal shedding bark, carpenter ants, dead wood, asymmetric canopy, bulge at 3', perennial canker 1 16 16 16 16 24 50219 Douglas fir 16 16 18 Fair Exposed roots, dead wood, asymmetric canopy, column of decay, (north) 1 16 16 16 16 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 6 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 25 50220 Douglas fir 14 14 18 Poor Co-dominant leader with included bark @ 12", abnormal shedding bark, concrete retaining wall over roots, bulge at 5' 1 14 14 14 14 26 50221 Douglas fir 22 22 20 Poor No taper, column of decay, abnormal popping bark, red ring rot @5', bulge @ 5 ', carpenter ants, flagging crack @ 5' east 1 22 22 22 22 27 50224 Cherry 12 12 20 Fair Exposed roots, epicormic roots, gall @2' 1 12 12 12 12 28 50225 Norway spruce 14 14 10 Good Sap, dead wood, flagging 1 14 14 14 14 29 50226 Balsam fir 9.5 9.5 8 OK Dead wood, low live crown ratio 1 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 30 50227 Balsam fir 10 10 10 Good Dead wood, low live crown ratio 1 10 10 10 10 31 50228 Douglas fir 9 9 12 OK Sap, flagging 1 9 9 9 9 32 50229 Douglas fir 12.5 12.5 12 OK Exposed roots, sap, dead wood 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 33 50230 Douglas fir 10.5 10.5 12 OK Dead wood, self-correct lean, vertical wound, bulge @ 12', flagging 1 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 34 50231 Douglas fir 11 11 12 OK No taper, sap 1 11 11 11 11 35 50232 Douglas fir 13.5 13.5 12 Poor Sap, "S" shape trunk, dead wood, red ring rot 1 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 36 50233 Douglas fir 15 15 12 Poor Exposed roots, bulge at 4', wound, column of decay with crack at 6' 1 15 15 15 15 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 7 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 37 50234 Douglas fir 14 14 12 OK Exposed roots, sap, dead wood 1 14 14 14 14 38 50235 Douglas fir 16 16 12 OK Sap dead wood, exposed roots 1 16 16 16 16 39 50236 Douglas fir 12 12 12 Fair Dead wood, severed roots, coning 1 12 12 12 12 40 50237 Douglas fir 12 12 12 OK Sap, dead wood, red ring rot, dead wood, 1 12 12 12 12 41 50238 Douglas fir 17 17 12 Fair sap, abnormal bark, column of decay 1 17 17 17 17 42 50239 Douglas fir 14 14 12 OK Exposed roots, sap, dead wood, epicormic branches 1 14 14 14 14 43 50240 Douglas fir 14 14 12 OK sap, bore beetle, dead wood, popping bark, flagging 1 14 14 14 14 44 50241 Douglas fir 12 12 12 Poor Mushrooms 1 12 12 12 12 45 50242 Douglas fir 18 18 12 Poor Sap!! Dead wood, dead twigs, column of decay, crack @ 12' west side 1 18 18 18 18 46 50243 Douglas fir 16 16 12 OK Exposed roots, sap, dead wood, flagging 1 16 16 16 16 47 50269 Hemlock 10 10 13 Poor Dead wood, healed wound, exposed roots, unhealed wound with decay on SE side 1 10 10 10 10 48 50270 Hemlock 11.5 11.5 13 Poor Column of decay, diffuse canker 1 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 49 50271 Hemlock 12 12 13 Poor diffuse canker 1 12 12 12 12 50 50272 Hemlock 9.5 9.5 13 Poor diffuse canker 1 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 51 50273 Hemlock 10 10 13 Poor Diffuse canker, vertical crack at 20', exposed roots 1 10 10 10 10 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 8 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 52 50274 Hemlock 17 17 13 Poor self-corrected lean, "S" shaped trunk, exposed roots, Diffuse canker 1 17 17 17 17 53 50275 Hemlock 15 15 13 Poor column of decay, exposed roots, Diffuse canker 1 15 15 15 15 54 50276 Hemlock 15 15 13 Poor Exposed roots!!! Diffuse canker 1 15 15 15 15 55 50277 Douglas fir 22 22 12 Poor Ivy, carpenter ants, suppressed canopy, abnormal shedding bark, low live crown ratio 1 22 22 22 22 56 50280 Western red cedar 38 38 18 Poor Ivy, carpenter ants, pileated woodpecker, previous top failure @ 30', strong lateral attaches though, cavity (completely through base 1 38 38 38 38 57 50318 Japanese maple 9/9/9 16 18 Excel- lent Co-dominant with included bark, exposed roots, typical of species 1 16 16 16 16 58 50348 Chinese Empress 12.5 12.5 16 OK Top broken off, damaged branches 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 59 50351 Chinese Empress 27.5 27.5 18 Excel- lent Broken branch, hanger, exposed roots 1 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 60 50352 Japanese maple 12 12 18 Excel-lent typical of species, some decay in scaffolds 1 12 12 12 12 61 50358 Douglas fir 46 46 20 Poor sway, sap @ branch collars, carpenter ants, abnormal, shedding bark, copious amounts of sap, popping bark, crack @30' east side 1 46 46 46 46 62 50359 Douglas fir 9 9 10 OK typical of species, suppressed canopy 1 9 9 9 9 1 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 9 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 63 50360 Douglas fir 45 45 20 OK Bird holes, carpenter ants, large lateral @25', flagging previous top failure, dead wood, dead twigs 1 45 45 45 45 64 50361 Douglas fir 46 46 20 OK Previous top failure, dead wood, broken branches, flagging, epicormic bran, sap sucker 1 46 46 46 46 65 50366 Douglas fir 12 12 12 OK dead wood, sparse canopy 1 12 12 12 12 2 66 50367 Douglas fir 14 14 10 OK dead wood, exposed roots, sparse canopy 1 14 14 14 14 2 67 50368 Douglas fir 14 14 12 OK Dead wood, asymmetric canopy, exposed roots 1 14 14 14 14 2 68 50369 Bigleaf maple 36 36 25 Good column of decay, galls on east side typical of species 1 36 36 36 36 2 69 50370 Douglas fir 10 10 10 Fair Dead wood, asymmetric canopy, exposed roots, OK in grove 1 10 10 10 10 2 70 50379 Cherry 10/8 12 22 Good Co-dominant @4' Dead wood 1 12 12 12 12 71 50380 Cherry 15 15 22 Poor Co-dominant with one scaffold broken, 2nd has decay 1 15 15 15 15 72 50384 Magnolia 14 14 11 Good self-corrected lean, 3 scaffolds 1 14 14 14 14 73 50389 Cherry 15 15 14 OK typical of species some decay 1 15 15 15 15 74 50400 Cherry 10/12/1 0 18 26 Good typical of species, some decay in scaffolds 1 18 18 18 18 75 50402 Cherry 16 16 16 Good Gumosis in 3 scaffolds 1 16 16 16 16 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 10 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 76 50406 Western red cedar 42 42 22 OK Large column of decay West; pileated woodpecker, carpenter ants, decay less than 70% Previous top loss 1 42 42 42 42 77 50407 Douglas fir 30 30 15 Poor Abnormal popping, shedding bark, carpenter ants, bird holes 1 30 30 30 30 78 50409 Douglas fir 48 48 25 Poor Abnormal shedding bark, carpenter ants, bird holes, popping bark, previous top failure 1 48 48 48 48 79 50410 Rhamnus purshian a 20 20 24 Excel- lent typical of species 1 20 20 20 20 80 50412 Cherry 20 20 20 Good 3 scaffolds, typical of species 1 20 20 20 20 81 50415 Dogwood 12 12 15 Good typical of species, some decay, sap 1 12 12 12 12 82 50416 Douglas fir 48 48 20 Poor Red ring rot, column of decay with crack, sap, SE side, Bulge @ 7', popping bark, shedding bark, carpenter ants, bird holes, dead wood, previous top failure 1 48 48 48 48 83 50422 Cherry 14 14 15 OK Column of decay, Cavity in scaffold 1 14 14 14 14 84 50426 Cherry 14 14 15 Poor Exposed roots 1/2 broken off co-dominant leader reduced to 1 1 14 14 14 14 85 50427 Western red cedar 48 48 18 OK Lightning strike, dead wood less than 70% pileated woodpecker 1 48 48 48 48 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 11 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 86 50428 Douglas fir 48 48 24 OK Popping bark, shedding bark, broken branches, carpenter ants 1 48 48 48 48 87 50432 Douglas fir 16 16 14 Good Ivy 1 16 16 16 16 88 50433 Douglas fir 13 13 14 Fair Abnormal bark, sap, epicormic branches, ivy 1 13 13 13 13 89 50434 Douglas fir 16 16 14 OK Ivy, dead wood 1 16 16 16 16 90 50435 Douglas fir 20 20 14 Poor Abnormal shedding bark, carpenter ants, popping bark, previous top failure at 35', weak multi-laterals 1 20 20 20 20 91 50444 Douglas fir 16/9 18 14 Fair Dead wood, codominant leader @ 1 ' dead spur X 2 epicormic branches @ 10' 1 18 18 18 18 92 50445 Douglas fir 15 15 14 OK dead wood, epicormic branch @ 8 ' 1 15 15 15 15 93 50446 Douglas fir 15/11 15/11 14 Fair Co-dominant leaders @ 2', dead wood, sap, dead spurs (3) asymmetric crown, OK in grove 1 15/1 1 15/1 1 15/1 1 15/1 1 1 94 50447 Douglas fir 16 16 14 Fair Dead wood, self-corrected lean, crack @25' sap, OK in grove 1 16 16 16 16 1 95 50448 Douglas fir 17 17 14 Poor abnormal bark, dead wood, epicormic branches, sap, column of decay, large lateral @ 6' with decay 1 17 17 17 17 96 50449 Douglas fir 9 9 14 Poor Co-dominant leader @ 14', dead wood, intertwined with Ash # 94 1 9 9 9 9 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 12 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 97 50451 Douglas fir 15 15 14 OK Abnormal bark, self-corrected lean, spur @8' north side, coning, decay @ root collar 1 15 15 15 15 2 X 98 50452 Douglas fir 14 14 14 OK Exposed roots, dead wood 1 14 14 14 14 2 X 99 50453 Douglas fir 14 14 14 OK Exposed roots, self-corrected lean, sap 1 14 14 14 14 2 X 10 0 50454 Douglas fir 9 9 14 OK Dead wood, healed wound 1 9 9 9 9 2 X 10 1 50455 Douglas fir 14/8 16 14 OK Co-dominant leader @5', dead wood 1 16 16 16 16 2 X 10 2 50456 Douglas fir 10/6 11.5 14 OK codominant leaders with included bark, epicormic branch, dead wood 1 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 2 X 10 3 50457 Douglas fir 14 14 14 Good Sap, exposed roots 1 14 14 14 14 10 4 50458 Douglas fir 14 14 14 Good typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 10 5 50459 Douglas fir 14 14 14 Good Exposed roots, sap 1 14 14 14 14 10 6 50460 Douglas fir 10 10 14 Good Sap, dead wood, epicormic branch 1 10 10 10 10 10 7 50461 Douglas fir 13 13 14 Good Sap, Dead wood, exposed roots 1 13 13 13 13 10 8 50462 Douglas fir 9.5 9.5 14 OK Sap, no taper, dead wood 1 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 10 9 50464 Douglas fir 12/14 18 14 OK Co-dominant leaders @ 2', asymmetric canopy, dead twigs, self-correct lean 1 18 18 18 18 11 0 50465 Douglas fir 18 18 21 Good typical of species, Epicormic branches, sap 1 18 18 18 18 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 13 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 11 1 50467 Magnolia 14 14 19 Excel- lent typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 11 2 50468 Plum 25 25 20 OK Large column of decay, Galls, carpenter ants, poor pruning 1 25 25 25 25 11 3 50469 Japanese maple 14 14 15 Good self-corrected lean-to west, typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 114 50470 Japanese maple 14 14 25 Good Intertwined, co-dominant leaders, column of decay typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 11 5 50471 Japanese maple 26 26 25 Good 3 scaffolds, co-dominant leaders with included bark 1 26 26 26 26 11 6 50472 Japanese maple 12/10 15 20 Good typical of species 1 15 15 15 15 11 7 52000 Douglas fir 54 54 12 Poor Bird holes, abnormal popping bark, shedding bark, carpenter ants, sap, Previous top failure, low live crown ratio, column of decay west side 1 54 54 54 54 11 8 52001 Hemlock 33 33 24 Fair Column of decay, west side, dead wood, broken branches, self-corrected lean to west, vertical crack @ 10' south side, Column of decay SE side with sap 1 33 33 33 33 119 52002 Japanese maple 10/12 15 21 Good Reaction wood, some decay, typical of species 1 15 15 15 15 12 0 52003 Magnolia 10/14/9 19 12 OK Decay @ root collar, exposed roots, dead wood, poor pruning 1 19 19 19 19 12 1 52004 River birch 14 14 20 Fair Decay from poor pruning in scaffolds, dead wood 1 14 14 14 14 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 14 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inche s Drip- line Radiu s feet Healt h Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value NMC 18.16.150B Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Removed N W E S 12 2 52006 Styrax japonica 12 12 9 Poor Galls, large cavity of decay 1 12 12 12 12 12 3 52007 Japanese maple 22 22 22 Excel- lent Reaction wood, typical of species 1 22 22 22 22 14 36 73 123 25 Offsite potentially impacted trees: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Remove N W E S 1 50045 Douglas fir 22 22 12 OK Asymmetric canopy, Previous top failure 1 12 12 12 12 2 50046 Douglas fir 17 17 12 Fair "S" shaped trunk, self-corrected lean, dead wood, dead twigs, sap 1 12 12 12 12 3 50046 Douglas fir 17 17 12 Fair "S" shaped trunk, self-corrected lean, dead wood, dead twigs, sap 1 12 12 12 12 4 50371 Douglas fir 12 12 10 OK Dead wood, Flagging 1 10 10 10 10 5 50373 Douglas fir 12 12 10 OK Dead wood, asymmetric canopy, flagging, sap, fence caused canker 1 10 10 10 10 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 15 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Remove N W E S 6 50374 Douglas fir 13 13 10 OK Fence wound caused canker, Dead wood, asymmetric canopy 1 10 10 10 10 7 50375 Douglas fir 13 13 10 OK Fence wound caused canker, Dead wood, asymmetric canopy 1 10 10 10 10 8 50376 Douglas fir 12 12 10 OK Fence wound caused canker, Dead wood 1 10 10 10 10 9 50377 Douglas fir 16 16 10 OK Dead wood, asymmetric canopy, fence caused wound and canker 1 10 10 10 10 10 50404 Rhamnus purshiana 18 18 18 Good Exposed roots, decay cavities 1 18 18 18 18 11 50405 Douglas fir 38 38 20 Poor Abnormal popping shedding bark, carpenter ants, self- corrected lean, Decay in plane of lean to west 1 20 20 20 20 12 50414 Bitter cherry 9 9 12 OK Typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 13 50429 Cherry 22 22 27 Good Abnormal bark, shedding bark, 3 leaders @ 5' 1 27 27 27 27 14 50431 Douglas fir 27 27 14 Poor Ivy, abnormal bark, exposed roots, shedding bark, decay Previous top loss popping bark, crack @12' Low live crown ration, cracks @ 30' and 40' 1 14 14 14 14 15 50545 Bigleaf maple 11/9 14 18 Excellent Typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 16 50546 Red alder 10 10 6 Dead Dead 1 6 6 6 6 17 50547 Red alder 10 10 12 Good Low live crown ratio 1 12 12 12 12 18 50548 Red alder 13 13 12 Good self-corrected lean, Typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 16 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Remove N W E S 19 50549 Cotton- wood 18 18 10 Excellent Typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 20 50550 Hemlock 29 29 25 Poor dead wood, hangers, broken out top 1 25 25 25 25 21 50551 Western red cedar 24 24 18 Excellent Some flagging 1 18 18 18 18 22 50552 Western red cedar 18 18 12 OK Large column of dead wood in trunk with bird holes @8' Typical of species, decay is >70 percent 1 12 12 12 12 23 50553 Douglas fir 31 31 20 Good Abnormal shedding, popping bark, vertical cracks, carpenter ants (good for its age and size) 1 20 20 20 20 24 50554 Douglas fir 53.5 53.5 25 Good Bird holes, pileated woodpecker, some abnormal shedding, popping bark, Typical of species, crack SW side @ 15' 1 25 25 25 25 25 50555 Cherry 10 10 12 Good Gall, some decay 1 12 12 12 12 26 50556 Cherry 10.5 10.5 24 Good Co-dominant reduced to one, Typical of species 1 24 24 24 24 27 50557 Cherry 13 13 12 Poor Gumosis, column of decay, exposed roots 1 12 12 12 12 28 50566 Douglas fir 9 9 12 Poor Topped at 12' mushroom conk @ 12' 1 12 12 12 12 29 50568 Douglas fir 14 14 15 OK Topped @ 12', co-dominant leaders reduced to one, dead wood, asymmetric canopy 1 15 15 15 15 30 50569 Western red cedar 52 52 20 Excellent Carpenter ants, Bore better, sapsucker holes 1 20 20 20 20 31 50571 Douglas fir 10 10 15 OK Dead wood, suppressed canopy, asymmetric canopy 1 15 15 15 15 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 17 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Remove N W E S 32 50572 Douglas fir 10 10 10 Fair "S"-shaped trunk, dead wood, 10 degree lean to east, suppressed canopy 1 10 10 10 10 33 50573 Douglas fir 10 10 10 Fair Topped at 12', Co-dominant leaders reduced to one, reaction wood 1 10 10 10 10 34 50576 Cherry 18 18 12 Poor Lost top 2/3 1 12 12 12 12 35 50577 Western red cedar 14 14 10 Good Typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 36 50578 Western red cedar 15 15 10 Good Exposed roots, asymmetric canopy, Typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 37 50579 Bigleaf maple 26 26 20 Fair Cavity at root crown, Typical of species, Hangers, dead top, column of decay 1 20 20 20 20 38 50579 Bigleaf maple 26 26 20 Fair Cavity at root crown, Typical of species, Hangers, dead top, column of decay 1 20 20 20 20 39 50580 Bigleaf maple 24 24 20 Poor Large column of decay, exposed roots 1 20 20 20 20 40 50581 Bigleaf maple 22/21/18 35 18 Poor Canopy recently lost 4 leaders, Ganoderma applanatum 1 18 18 18 18 41 50584 Western red cedar 10 10 10 Good Exposed roots, self-corrected lean, sparse canopy, flagging 1 10 10 10 10 42 50585 Western red cedar 12 12 10 Good Exposed roots, self-corrected lean, asymmetric canopy Typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 43 50586 Western red cedar 20 20 12 OK small Column of sap @ 3 ' exposed roots, dead wood, flagging, hangers 1 12 12 12 12 44 50587 Western red cedar 12 12 10 Good Exposed roots, asymmetric canopy, flagging 1 10 10 10 10 45 50588 Western red cedar 12 12 10 Good Exposed roots, asymmetric canopy, flagging 1 10 10 10 10 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 18 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retained Non- viable Remove N W E S 46 50589 Western red cedar 12 12 10 Good Exposed roots, dead wood, flagging asymmetric canopy 1 10 10 10 10 47 50590 Western red cedar 11 11 10 Fair Dead wood, suppressed canopy- (low light) 1 10 10 10 10 48 50591 Douglas fir 9 9 11 Fair Dead wood, no taper, 1 11 11 11 11 49 50597 Douglas fir 10 10 8 OK Dead wood, self-corrected lean 1 8 8 8 8 50 50598 Douglas fir 11 11 10 Poor Previous top failure @ 11' multi- weak branch attachments 1 10 10 10 10 51 50599 Douglas fir 11.5 11.5 12 Poor Previous top failure @ 10' (topping) with multi-weak attachments 1 12 12 12 12 52 50600 Douglas fir 11 11 12 Poor "S"- Shaped trunk, self- corrected lean 20 degrees to NE 1 12 12 12 12 53 50832 Douglas fir 9 9 10 Poor Abnormal shedding, popping bark, previous top loss, Ivy 1 10 10 10 10 37 13 3 Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 19 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 Discussion and Conclusion: The parcel contains 123 significant trees. Thirty-six (36) of the trees are not viable. Of the eighty-seven (87) viable trees, seventy-three (73) will be removed for improvements. On the eastern perimeter of the site is a mixed species row of trees that are proposed to be removed per NMC requiring future ROW access. Trees on the site will be removed for building sites, utilities and other improvements. Due to topographical constraints, grading and utility access only fourteen (14) trees can be retained, however ROW on the south and west side do provide additional privacy, wind block, etc. for this site. Of the fourteen (14) trees to be retained most are Douglas fir’s (Pseudotsuga menziesii) located on the north perimeter of the property. The trees are healthy; provide a privacy buffer and some of their canopies overlap qualifying them for additional incentive tree credits. The total number of tree credits including incentives is 25. NMC 18.16.130(B) requires that 25% of the significant trees be retained: 87 significant trees * 25% = 22 tree credits. Three (3) off-site trees are proposed to be removed for installation of the detention vault they are: 50405, 50414, 50429. Mitigation for these removed trees is necessary. Tree Protection Fencing: First, protect roots that lie in the path of construction. Approximately 90 to 95 percent of a tree's root system is in the top three feet of soil, and more than half is in the top one foot. Construction activities should be avoided in this area. Protect as much of the area beyond the tree's dripline as possible. Some healthy trees survive after losing half of their roots. However, other species are extremely sensitive to root damage even outside the dripline. Do not disturb the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). The CRZ is defined by its "critical root radius." It is more accurate than the dripline for determining the CRZ of trees growing in forests or that have narrow growth habits. To calculate critical root radius, measure the tree's diameter (DBH) in inches, 4.5 feet above the ground. For each inch, allow for 1 to 1.5 feet of critical root radius. If a tree's DBH is ten inches, its critical root radius is 10 to 15 feet. In addition to the CRZ, it is important to determine the Limits of Disturbance (LOD) for preserved trees. Generally, this is approximates the CRZ however in previously excavated areas around the dripline the LOD may be smaller, or in the case of a tree situated on a slope the LOD may be larger. The determination of LOD is also subject to the particular tree species. Some tree species do better than others after root disturbance. Tree protection is advised throughout the duration of any construction activities whenever the critical root zone or leaf canopy many be encroached upon by such activities. The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) or LOD should be protected with fencing adequate to hinder access to people vehicles and equipment. Fencing detail is provided. It should consist of continuous 4 ft high temporary chain-link fencing with posts sec at 10’ on center or polyethylene laminar safety fencing or similar. The fencing must contain fencing signage detailing that the tree protection area cannot be trespassed on. Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 20 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 Soil compaction is one of the most common killers of urban trees. Stockpiled materials, heavy machinery and excessive foot traffic damage soil structure and reduce soil pore space. The effected tree roots suffocate. When construction takes place close to the protected CRZ, cover the site with 4 inches of bark to reduce soil compaction Tree Protection fencing must be erected prior to soil excavation, boring, grading or fill operations. It is erected at the LOD. If it is necessary to run utilities within the LOD, the utilities should be combined into one cut, as practical. Trenching is not allowed in the LOD. In these areas boring or tunneling techniques should be used. In the event that roots greater than 1” diameter near the LOD are damaged or torn, it is necessary to hand trim them to a clean cut. Any roots that are exposed during construction should be covered with soil as soon as possible. During drought conditions, trees must be adequately watered. Site should be visited regularly by a qualified ISA Certified Arborist to ensure the health of the trees. Tree protection fencing is the last item to be removed from the site after construction is completed. After construction has been completed, evaluate the remaining trees. Look for signs and symptoms of damage or stress. It may take several years for severe problems to appear. In the event that fencing around portions of the CRZ of a tree to be retained are not practical to erect due to construction or obstacles, tree protection fencing should be placed three feet laterally from the obstruction (ex. three feet back of a curb, building, or other existing or planned permanent infrastructure. Tree trunk protection is required where CRZ fencing is not practical. Tree trunks should be wrapped in pine 2X4’s and accessible critical structural root zones covered with wooden pallets. Glossary: Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 21 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care Chlorotic: discoloration caused by lack of chlorophyll in the foliage Conifer: A tree that bears cones and has evergreen needles or scales Crown: the above ground portion of the tree comprised of branches and their foliage Crown raise pruning: a pruning technique where the lower branches are removed, thus raising the overall height of the crown from the ground DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade Deciduous: tree or other plant that loses its leaves annually and remains leafless generally during the cold season Epicormic: arising from latent or adventitious buds Evergreen: tree or plant that keeps its needles or leaves year round; this means for more than one growing season Increment: the amount of new wood fiber added to a tree in a given period, normally one year. ISA: International Society of Arboriculture Landscape function: the environmental, aesthetic, or architectural functions that a plant can have Lateral: secondary or subordinate branch Limits of disturbance: The boundary of minimum protection around a tree, the area that cannot be encroached upon without possible permanent damage to the tree. It is a distance determined by a qualified professional and is based on the age of the tree, its health, the tree species tolerance to disruption and the type of disturbance. It also considers soil and environmental condition and previous impacts. It is unique to each tree in its location. Limited visual assessment: a visual assessment from a specified perspective such as foot, vehicle, or aerial (airborne) patrol of an individual tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify specified conditions or obvious defects (ISA 2013) Live crown ratio: the percentage of living tissue in the canopy versus the tree’s height. It is a good indicator of overall tree health and the trees growing conditions. Trees with less than a 30% Crown ratio often lack the necessary quantity of photosynthetic material necessary to sustain the roots; consequently, the tree may exhibit low vigor and poor health. Monitoring: keeping a close watch; performing regular checks or inspections Owner/manager: the person or entity responsible for tree management or the controlling authority that regulates tree management Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 22 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 Pathogen: causal agent of disease Phototropic growth: growth toward light source or stimulant ROW: Right-of-way; generally referring to a tree that is located offsite on a city easement Reaction wood: Specialized secondary xylem which develops in response to a lean or similar mechanical stress, it serves to help restore the stem to a vertical position Self-corrected lean: a tree whose trunk is at an angle to the grade but whose trunk and canopy changes to become upright/vertical Significant tree: a tree measuring a specific diameter determined by the municipality the tree grows in. Some municipalities deem that only healthy trees can be significant, other municipalities consider both healthy and unhealthy trees of a determined diameter to be significant Snag: a tree left partially standing for the primary purpose of providing habitat for wildlife Soil structure: the size of particles and their arrangement; considers the soil, water, and air space Sounding: process of striking a tree with a mallet or other appropriate tool and listening for tones that indicate dead bark, a thin layer of wood outside a cavity, or cracks in wood Structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which may lead to failure; may be genetic, or environmental Tree credit: A number assigned to a tree by a municipality that may be equal to the diameter of the tree or a numerical count of the tree, or related to diameter by a factor conveyed in a table of the municipal code Trunk area: the cross-sectional area of the trunk based upon measurement at 54 inches (4.5 ft.) above grade Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees by noting the pattern of growth. Developed by Claus Mattheck (Harris, et al 1999) detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site that may include the use of simple tools. It requires that a tree risk assessor walk completely around the tree trunk looking at the site, aboveground roots, trunk, and branches (ISA 2013) Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 23 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 References Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Company, 1990. Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban-Rural Interface. US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA, 2006. Dunster, J. A. 2003. Preliminary Species Profiles for Tree Failure Assessment. Bowen Island: Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013. Harris, Richard W, James Clark, and Nelda Matheny. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004. Lilly, Sharon. Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 2001. Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Second Edition. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994 Schwarze, Francis W.M.R. Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Development of Wood Decay in Urban Trees. Australia: ENSPEC Pty Ltd. 2008 Sinclair, Wayne A., Lyon, Howard H., and Johnson, Warren T. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1987. Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices, ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management—Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment: Tree Structure Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011. Thies, Walter G. and Sturrock, Rona N. Laminated root rot in Western North American. United States Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest. Resource Bulletin PNW- GTR-349. April 1995. Rhododendron Ridge February 27, 2018 - 24 - Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as thou free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of the report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 5. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. 7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of the report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser – particularly as to value conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or instate or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in her qualification. 8. The report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 9. Sketches, diagrams, graphs and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aid, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or survey. 10. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2: the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is not warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.