No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_ Drainage_Technical_Information_Report_(TIR)_20210118_v3 Western Washington Division Eastern Washington Division 165 NE Juniper St., Ste 201, Issaquah, WA 98027 108 East 2nd Street, Cle Elum, WA 98922 Phone: (425) 392-0250 Fax: (425) 391-3055 Phone: (509) 674-7433 Fax: (509) 674-7419 www.EncompassES.net TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT For Madrona Electric 1500 Raymond Avenue SW Renton, WA 98057 July 23, 2020 Revised: January 12, 2021 1/12/2021 Prepared by: Sam Salo Encompass Engineering Job No. 19656 Prepared For: Chris Lermusik 13205 173rd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Nathan Janders 01/27/2021 SURFACE WATER UTILITY jfarah 01/28/2021 Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | i Table of Contents I. PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 1 II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ...................................................................... 6 III. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 11 IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ........................... 17 V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ..................................................................... 20 VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES ............................................................................................ 20 VII. OTHER PERMITS ..................................................................................................................... 20 VIII. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN............................................................................................ 20 IX. BOND QUANTITIES and DECLARATION of COVENANT .......................................................... 20 X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL .......................................................................... 20 List of Figures Figure 1 – TIR Worksheet Figure 2 – Vicinity Map Figure 3 – Soils Map and Legend Figure 4 – Existing Conditions Map Figure 5 – Developed Conditions Map Figure 6 – Drainage Review Flow Chart Figure 7 – Downstream Map Appendix A Geotechnical Engineering Study by Geotech Consultants, Inc dated March 30, 2020. Appendix B Operations and Maintenance Manual Appendix C Bond Quantity Worksheet Appendix D Declaration of Covenant Appendix E WWHM Output Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 1 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW Project: Madrona Electric Site Address: 1500 Raymond Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057 (See Vicinity Map) Tax Parcel #: 334040-5150 Zoning District: IM, Industrial/Manufacturing Site Area: 19,151 SF (0.44 Acre) Site Location: The site is in the City of Renton within the SW quarter of Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M, King County, Washington. The site is located on the northeast corner of the Raymond Avenue SW/SW 16th Street intersection. Figure 2: Vicinity Map Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 2 Pre-developed Site Conditions The project site is located in the City of Renton on a 19,151 SF (0.44 Acre) lot that is zoned IM (Industrial/Manufacturing). The site is located on the northeast corner of the Raymond Avenue SW/SW 16th Street intersection. The site is bordered to the north by a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) building, to the east by an existing stormwater detention pond for WSDOT, to the west by Shuttle Express airport shuttle service, and to the south across SW 16th Street by a daycare center. The site is accessed via Raymond Avenue SW via a small gravel pad along the western property line. The remainder of the site is currently undeveloped and vegetated with shrubs and grasses. The property is located within a single drainage basin that slopes toward the southwest property corner at grades between 0-2%. Runoff from the site enters the SW 16th Street stormwater system along the southern property line. The existing storm system conveys water to the west where it is ultimately discharged to Springbrook Creek. Please refer to the full downstream analysis in Section III of this Technical Information Report (TIR). An Existing Conditions Map is included as Figure 4 at the end of this section. Critical Areas According to the City of Renton (COR) Maps available online, the site is located entirely within a seismic hazard area. Please refer to the Geotechnical Report provided by Geotech Consultants Inc included in Appendix A of this TIR for additional information. The site has no other critical areas per COR Maps. Soils Per the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) information, the entire project site is underlain with Urban Land, Ur (See Figure 3 on the following page). The Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants Inc (Appendix A) labels the soils on site as medium-dense, gravely, slightly silty sand fill underlain with medium-stiff alluvial silty sands and sandy silts. Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 3 Figure 2: Soil Map and Legend Developed Site Conditions The parcel is zoned IM, which does not limit the impervious surface coverage on the site. The project includes the construction of a 1,500 SF building, a 196 SF driveway with access from Raymond Avenue SW, and a 4,775 SF parking lot. The total proposed impervious surface is 6,471 SF. Approximately 4,685 SF of new pervious surface will also be created with the development. The proposed improvements will result in a 33.8% impervious surface coverage. Stormwater runoff from the proposed improvements will be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible via native growth retention credits. Please refer to Core Requirement # 9 in Chapter II and Chapter IV of this TIR for additional discussion. A Developed Conditions Map is provided as Figure 5 at this end of this Chapter. Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 6 II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM) was utilized to determine and address all core and special requirements. Based on the criteria specified in Figure 1.1.2.A of the RSWDM, the project falls under Full Drainage Review. Per Section 1.1.2.4 of the RSWDM, the project must meet all nine (9) core and all six (6) special requirements. See Figure 6 below for more information on how the type of drainage review was determined. Figure 6: Drainage Review Flow Chart Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 7 Core Requirements Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location The proposed development runoff will follow existing drainage patterns that flow southwest towards the SW 16th Street storm system. Refer to the Level 1 Downstream Analysis in Section III of this TIR for a complete description of the existing drainage path. Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis A Level 1 Downstream analysis has been completed for the site and no existing or potential problems have been identified. This analysis is included in Section III of this TIR. Core Requirement #3: Flow Control Facilities Based on the City of Renton’s flow control map, the project site is located within the Peak Rate Flow Control Area (existing site conditions). However, it meets the flow control exemption criteria by increasing flow less than 0.15 CFS per Section 1.2.3.1 of the RSWDM. See Section IV of this TIR for a detailed discussion on flow control. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System Conveyance system analysis will be completed if requested. Core Requirement #5: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan providing details on best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction is included in the engineering plan set. Please refer to Chapter VIII of this TIR for discussion on the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP). Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations Please refer to Chapter X of this TIR for discussion on the Operation and Maintenance Plan. Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability The owner will arrange for any financial guarantees and liabilities required by the permit. Core Requirement #8: Water Quality Facilities In accordance with Section 1.2.8.1.A of the RSWDM, Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment is required for this project. Further discussion of the proposed water quality system is included in Chapter IV of this TIR. Core Requirement #9: Flow Control BMPs This project is classified as a small lot less than 22,000 SF; therefore, it is subject to the Small Lot BMP Requirements detailed in Section 1.2.9.2.1 in the RSWDM. BMPs have been evaluated below in the order of preference referenced in the RSWDM. This project proposes to mitigate for the impervious surface to the maximum extent feasible using Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 8 native growth retention credits. A vegetated area of 7,903 SF is proposed to be retained as part of this development. This allows for mitigation of 7,903 SF / 3.5 SF = 2,258/ SF of impervious area. This equates to 11.8% of the site area. Although this doesn’t meet the 20% required by Section 1.2.9.2.1 of the RSWDM, it is the maximum percentage allowed by the project. Impervious Surface BMPs Full Dispersion: Infeasible · There is not enough on-site area available for the required Native Growth Retention Area (NGRA). Full Infiltration: Infeasible · The Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest (Appendix A) states that full infiltration is infeasible at the site due dense soil characteristics. This was confirmed in an email from the Geotechnical Engineer. A snip is included on the following page. Limited Infiltration: Infeasible · The Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest (Appendix A) states that infiltration is infeasible at the site due dense soil characteristics. This was confirmed in an email from the Geotechnical Engineer. A snip is included on the following page. Rain Gardens: Infeasible · Rain Gardens rely on infiltration to function properly. The Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest (Appendix A) states that infiltration is infeasible at the site due dense soil characteristics. This was confirmed in an email from the Geotechnical Engineer. A snip is included on the following page. Bioretention: Infeasible · Bioretention relies on infiltration to function properly. The Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest (Appendix A) states that infiltration is infeasible at the site due dense soil characteristics. This was confirmed in an email from the Geotechnical Engineer. A snip is included on the following page. Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 9 Permeable Pavement: Infeasible · The Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest (Appendix A) states that infiltration is infeasible at the site due dense soil characteristics. This was confirmed in an email from the Geotechnical Engineer. A snip is included on the following page. Email from Geotechnical Engineer Basic Dispersion: Infeasible · Site topography does not allow for dispersion downstream of the impervious surfaces. Flowpath requirements cannot be met. This project proposes to mitigate for the impervious surface to the maximum extent feasible using native growth retention credits. A vegetated area of 7,903 SF is proposed to be retained as part of this development. This allows for mitigation of 7,903 SF / 3.5 SF = 2,258/ SF of impervious area. This equates to 11.8% of the site area. Although this doesn’t meet the 20% required by Section 1.2.9.2.1 of the RSWDM, it is the maximum percentage allowed by the project. Connection to the existing system within SW 16th Street will be made using a perforated pipe connection. This section of perforated pipe has been sized at 10’ per 5,000 SF of impervious surface for the rooftop area. A minimum trench length of 10’ is proposed. . Pervious Surface BMPs Soil Amendment: Feasible · All disturbed, pervious areas of the project will meet soil amendment requirements as detailed in Section C.2.13 of the RSWDM. Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 10 Special Requirements Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements Critical Drainage Area – N/A Master Drainage Plan – N/A Basin Plan – N/A Lake management Plan – N/A Shared Facility Drainage Plan – N/A Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation The limits of this project do not lie within a delineated FEMA 100-year floodplain. Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities This project does not rely on or propose to modify/construct a new flood protection facility. Special Requirement #4: Source controls Although this project proposes to construct a commercial structure, no source control BMPs are proposed at this time. This project does not incorporate any of the activities included in Section 1.3.4 of the RSWDM. Special Requirement #5: Oil Control This project is not considered high-use in need of oil control. Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protection Area The site is not located within an aquifer protection area; therefore, this requirement is not applicable. Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 11 III. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS A Level 1 Downstream analysis has been conducted per the requirements in Section 1.2.2.1 of the RSWDM. Please see Tasks 1 through 4 below for a summary of the results. Task 1: Define and Map the Study Area The area of analysis extends from the site discharge point along SW 16th Street to approximately quarter-mile downstream of the site in Springbrook Creek. A Downstream Map is provided as Figure 7 at the end of this Chapter. Task 2: Review All Available Information on the Study Area Per King county resources, there are no significant drainage complaints on record within a quarter-mile downstream of the site. The COR Maps were utilized to evaluate the existing stormwater system for SW 16th Street. Task 3: Field Inspect the Study Area A field inspection was performed by Encompass Engineering & Surveying on January 3, 2020. Please refer to Task 4 for a detailed description of the downstream drainage system and analysis. Task 4: Describe the Drainage System Runoff from the site generally sheet flows to the southwest toward the SW 16th Street storm system (A). Runoff enters a shallow grass-lined ditch (B) along the southern property line that conveys stormwater to a Type 1 Catch Basin (C) near the southwest property corner. This is the existing site discharge point. From there, runoff is conveyed 38 FT across Raymond Avenue SW via 12 IN diameter stormwater main (D) to a second Type 1 Catch Basin (E). A 30 FT length of 12 IN diameter stormwater main (F) conveys flow southwest to another Type 1 Catch Basin (G). Then, a 12 IN stormwater main (H) conveys stormwater 5 FT south to a Type 2 Manhole in Raymond Avenue SW (I). From there, water is conveyed to the west approximately 122 FT via 24 IN stormwater main (J) to a second Type 2 Manhole (K). Flow continues to the west through a series of three (3) additional Type 2 Manholes (M, O, Q), which are connected by 24 IN diameter stormwater mains (L, N, P). Near the SW 16th Street/Oakesdale Avenue SW intersection (approximately 1,162 FT downstream of the project site), flow is conveyed through a wet vault for water quality (Facility ID 145057) (R). The water quality wet vault discharges to another Type 2 Manhole in the intersection (S). Stormwater is conveyed 96 feet across the intersection via a 24 IN stormwater main (T) to another Type 2 Manhole (U). Finally, flow is conveyed approximately 34 feet northwest via 24 IN stormwater main (V) where it is discharged into Springbrook Creek at Stormwater Outfall OUT-0044 (W). This is where the analysis was completed, approximately a quarter-mile downstream of the site. Please refer to Figure 7 above, for the approximate location of identified drainage features. There were no apparent on-site or downstream drainage issues observed during the site visit. Photographs from the site visit are included on the following pages. Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 12 Photo 1: Existing Site Conditions (looking northeast) Photo 2: Type 1 Catch Basin (C) Near Southwest Property Corner (looking east) Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 13 Photo 3 – Type 1 Catch Bain (G) and Type 2 Manhole (I) in SW 16th Street (looking west) Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 14 Photo 4 – SW 16th Street Storm System (looking east from midpoint of study area) Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 15 Photo 5 – SW 16th Street Storm System (looking west from midpoint of study area) Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 16 Photo 6 – Stormwater Outfall OUT-0044 (W) to Springbrook Creek Photo 7 – Springbrook Creek Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 18 IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Part A: Existing Site Hydrology The 19,120 SF (0.44 Acre) site is currently undeveloped and vegetated with shrubs and grasses. The property is located within a single drainage basin that slopes toward the southwest property corner at grades between 0-2%. Runoff from the site enters the SW 16th Street stormwater system along the southern property line. The existing storm system conveys water to the west where it is ultimately discharged to Springbrook Creek. Please refer to the full downstream analysis in Chapter III of this Technical Information Report (TIR). The Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants Inc (Appendix A) labels the soils on site as medium-dense, gravely, slightly silty sand fill underlain with medium-stiff alluvial silty sands and sandy silts. WWHM 2012 was used to model the existing condition as 100% forested with flat slopes over Type C soils. Part B: Developed Site Hydrology The project proposes the development of a commercial building, driveway and parking area on a 19,151 SF site. The project includes the construction of a 1,500 SF, a 196 SF driveway with access from Raymond Avenue SW, and a 4,775 SF parking lot. A vegetated area of 7,995 SF is proposed to be retained as part of this development. This allows for mitigation of 7,903 SF / 3.5 SF = 2,258 SF of impervious area. This equates to 11.8% of the site area. Although this doesn’t meet the 20% required by Section 1.2.9.2.1 of the RSWDM, it is the maximum percentage allowed by the project. All disturbed pervious areas will meet soil amendment requirements. The NGPE Tract will be replanted to meet the RSWDM definition of Native Vegetation. WWHM 2012 software was utilized to model the developed conditions as follows: WWHM Model Area Description Size Pre-Existing Condition Post-Development Condition Building Area 1,500 SF (0.034 AC) Modeled as 100% Forest Modeled as 0.004 AC Rooftop 0.03 AC Grass due to NGRA Credits Driveway 196 SF (0.004 AC) Modeled as 100% Forest Modeled as 100% Driveway Parking Lot 4,775 SF (0.11 AC) Modeled as 100% Forest Modeled as 100% Driveway New Pervious Area 4,685 SF (0.108 AC) Modeled as 100% Forest Modeled as 100% lawn Retained Native Vegetation 7,995 SF (0.184 AC) Modeled as 100% Forest Modeled as 0.074 AC Forest 0.11 AC Pasture Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 19 The flow frequency graph for the predeveloped and mitigated scenarios are included on the following page. 0.1500 CFS – 0.0340 CFS = 0.1160 CFS. This is less than the 0.15 CFS exemption criteria, therefore, no flow control facilities are required. Part C: Performance Standards Based on the City of Renton’s flow control map, the project site is located within the Peak Rate Flow Control Area (existing site conditions). However, based on the WWHM model this project meets the flow control exemption criteria by increasing the 100-year peak flow rate less than 0.15 CFS In addition, the site is located within the UGA and is smaller than 22,000 SF. Therefore, the site is subject to the Small Lot BMP Requirements detailed in Section 1.2.9.2.1 of the RSWDM. In accordance with Section 1.2.8.1.A of the RSWDM, Basic Water Quality Treatment would be required, however, this project proposes less than 5,000 SF of PGIS. Therefore, no water quality facility is proposed at this time. Part D: Flow Control System The site meets flow control exemption 2. As shown in the table above, the proposed stormwater BMPs result in a 0.11 CFS increase in the 100-year flow using 15-minutes time steps. This is within the threshold of a 0.15 CFS maximum increase per Section 1.2.3.1.B of the RSWDM. No flow control facilities are proposed at this time; however, flow control BMPs will be implemented as described in Core Requirement #9 in Chapter II of this TIR. Please refer to Appendix B for a copy of the full WWHM data output. Part E: Water Quality System The site meets the surface area exemption for water quality. The site design proposes 4,971 SF of pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS), which is less than the 5,000 SF threshold specified in Section 1.2.8 of the RSWDM. Therefore, water quality facilities are not required for this project. Madrona Electric Technical Information Report 1/12/2021 P a g e | 20 V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Conveyance system analysis will be completed if requested. VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES · Geotechnical Engineering Study by Geotech Consultants, INC dated March 30, 2020. VII. OTHER PERMITS · Building Permit · Clearing and Grading Permit · Right-of-Way Use Permit VIII. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A CSWPPP will be prepared if requested. IX. BOND QUANTITIES and DECLARATION of COVENANT Bond Quantities are included in Appendix C. A declaration of covenant is included in Appendix D. X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL An Operation and Maintenance Manual is included in Appendix B. Madrona Electric Technical Information Report Appendix A Geotechnical Engineering Study by Geotech Consultants, Inc dated March 30, 2020. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Office Building 1500 Raymond Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed office building to be located in Renton. Development of the property is in the planning stage, and detailed plans were not available to us at the time of this study. Based on the preliminary plan provided to us and from conversations with the project team, we understand that the existing vacant lot will be cleared and then developed with a new two-story office building and shop space on the northwestern corner of the lot. The new office building will likely be prefabricated and relatively light weight. A new parking lot is shown surrounding the office building and extends to the east of the proposed structure. The remaining eastern half of the site is shown to remain undeveloped. Some frontage improvements are shown on this plan, likely required by the City of Renton. The new office building is shown to be set back only a few feet from the northern property line, and 14.5 feet from the western property line. At this time, we do not anticipate that excavations for the new structure will be extensive. We understand that stormwater infiltration is being considered as part of this project. If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site in Renton. The rectangular shaped site has approximately 240 feet of frontage along Southwest 16th Street, and 80 feet along Southwest Raymond Street. The vacant site is essentially flat and is set a few feet above the adjacent streets to the adjacent streets. A ditch is located along the Southwest 16th Street frontage. While no structures are located near the property lines, a two-story office building is located on the adjacent northern property, and a stormwater detention pond is located to the east of the site. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating five test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. We initially conducted a study for this site in September 19, 2008 for a previous client. Three test pits were excavated for this report. In addition, five more test pits were excavated on March 9, 2020 as part of this updated report. The test pits were excavated with a tracked excavator. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 2 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 5. The previous test pit logs are attached to the end of this report. Soil Conditions Our test pits encountered relatively consistent subsurface conditions across the site. We observed an upper soil unit of medium-dense, gravelly, slightly silty sand fill containing abundant concrete, metal, asphalt, plastic, and brick debris. The fill was underlain by loose to medium-stiff, native, alluvial (water deposited) silty sands and sandy silts. The depth of the fill cap varied from 4.5 feet to 6 feet across our pits. These loose to medium-dense, interbedded alluvial soils extended to the maximum explored depth of 17.5 feet in our most recent Test Pit 1 and are known to extend to greater than 40 feet beneath this area of Renton. As mentioned above, the fill soils encountered in our test pits contained abundant concrete, asphalt, metal, plastic, and brick debris. Debris, buried utilities, and old foundation and slab elements are commonly encountered on sites that have had previous development. Groundwater Conditions Perched groundwater seepage was observed below a depth of 5 to 6 and groundwater was encountered below 16 feet in the test pits conducted as part of our recent explorations. The shallow groundwater encountered at 5 to 6 feet likely developed following the ongoing wet season. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found in more permeable soil layers. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit and boring logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation and drilling. The compaction of test pit backfill was not in the scope of our services. The test pits were backfilled with excavated soil that was lightly tamped into place. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The test pits conducted for this study encountered loose alluvial soils beneath a layer of medium- dense fill soil. These native soils are alluvial deposits (soils deposited by streams or rivers) that are Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 3 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. is typical of the Renton Valley. Current structures in the surrounding area that have been supported in typical conventional shallow foundation systems atop the alluvial soils can experience significant amounts of post-construction settlement due to consolidation of these loose soils over time. Furthermore, the soil in this area that is below the groundwater table is susceptible to liquefaction during a large seismic event. Considering these issues and the anticipated relatively lightly loaded construction of the new construction, a heavily reinforced mat foundation could be used to support the new office building. A mat foundation is essentially a heavily-reinforced, slab-on-grade foundation that is intended to distribute the building loads, reduce the necessary bearing capacity, bridge over any excessively soft areas of soil or localized soil liquefaction (sand boils) and reduce the amount of differential settlement across the building. The mat foundations should be constructed on top of a minimum 2-foot thick layer of compacted rock overlying the exposed soils (the onsite fill and topsoil found beneath the ground surface will not be suitable for use as structural fill beneath the footings due to its high debris content). This rock layer can consist of either ballast rock, 2 to 4-inch quarry spalls, or 2 to 4-inch concrete spalls. If concrete spalls are considered, the import material must be free of excessive non-structural debris such as large chunks of asphalt, brick, or plastic. If granular soils are present in the base of the excavation, we recommend that the exposed soils be recompacted prior to rock placement. These are typical measures for foundations of new, lightweight structures built atop thick deposits of compressible, alluvial soils. Additional recommendations can be found in the Mat Foundations section of this report. The use of a mat foundation instead of conventional foundations will result in more uniform settlement of the building and interior floors as the underlying soils undergo long-term consolidation. However, settlement tolerant construction such as wood and metal framing and siding should be used. Masonry, stucco, tile, and other settlement sensitive materials should be avoided. Regardless of the construction method chosen, it should be noted that signs of settlement may be noticed over the lifespan of the building. At this time, we anticipate that any excavations needed for the construction of the new development will be limited to several feet below the existing grade. Based on the soils encountered during our explorations, and the caving observed during excavation, a temporary excavation inclination of no steeper than a 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) is appropriate for the soils at this site. We do not recommend that vertical excavations be made in the existing fill soils, or in the underlying alluvial soils. Vertical cuts should also not be made on, or near the shared property lines, or near the adjacent roadways, unless they are properly shored. Regardless of the poor condition of the onsite soils, we anticipate that the excavations for the proposed development will be able to be made without the use of shoring and will be able to be adequately maintained within the property boundaries. We also performed infiltration testing in two of the test pits to assess the infiltration capability of the fill soils overlying the native silts. We originally sought to test the native silts, but the perched groundwater encountered beneath the fill on top of the silts precluded infiltration. Results of our testing are included in the Infiltration Considerations section of this report. The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. The site is flat, so the potential for soil erosion is low. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas. Existing pavements, ground cover, and landscaping should be left in place wherever possible to minimize the amount of exposed soil. Rocked staging areas and construction access roads should be provided to reduce the amount of soil or mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Trucks should not be allowed to drive off the rock-covered areas. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following clearing or rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 4 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. On most construction projects, it is necessary to periodically maintain or modify temporary erosion control measures to address specific site and weather conditions. The drainage and waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking, cleaning, and bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the International Building Code (IBC), the site class within 100 feet of the ground surface would best be represented by Site Class Type F (Failure Prone Site Class), due to its potentially liquefiable nature. However, ASCE 7 allows for an exception from the F classification if the building period is less than 0.5 seconds. We anticipate that the proposed townhomes will be of wood construction and a Site Class E can be used for this project. As noted in the USGS website, the mapped spectral acceleration value for a 0.2 second (Ss) and 1.0 second period (S1) equals 1.54g and 0.59g, respectively. The site is underlain by loose, saturated, alluvial soil consisting of silty sand, sand, and sandy silt. These soils have been demonstrated to have a moderate to high potential for liquefaction during a large earthquake. The IBC and ASCE 7 require that the potential for liquefaction (soil strength loss) be evaluated for the peak ground acceleration of the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) which has a probability of occurring once in 2,475 years (2 percent probability of occurring in a 50- year period). The MCE peak ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (FPGA) equals 0.58g. Current geotechnical analysis cannot accurately predict where and to what extent soil liquefaction will occur during a large earthquake. Using procedures developed by Seed, Idress, et al., we have calculated the approximate total ground settlement that could result if liquefaction were to occur in the saturated, loose to medium-dense soils as a result of the design earthquake for this site, and for nearby projects in the Renton Valley. Review of nearby boring logs obtained from the Washington Department of Natural Resources Subsurface Viewer indicate that the alluvial deposits in this area are on the order of 50 feet deep and are underlain by very dense sandstone. These borings were conducted as part of the previous expansion of the SR-167 flyover ramp. Based on these analyses, Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 5 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. it is probable that soil liquefaction could extend as deep as 50 feet below the grade of the site during the MCE with total calculated ground settlement in the order of 18 inches (Analysis with water table at 6 feet is 18 in, water at 16 feet is 15 in). Differential settlements across the structures would be mitigated by the fill mat and the mat foundations such that we would predict differential dynamic settlements of 6 to 8 inches across the structure. The recommendations for a mat foundation system with underlying rock fill presented in this report are intended to prevent catastrophic foundation collapse during a large seismic event. By preventing catastrophic settlement of the foundations, the safety of the occupants should be protected. The intent is not to prevent damage or ensure continued function of the building after the design seismic event. MAT FOUNDATIONS As discussed in the General section, provided settlement tolerant construction materials are used, the proposed office building can be supported on a mat foundation. The foundation should be supported on at least 2 feet of imported rock fill placed over the exposed soils beneath the surficial topsoil. This rock fill should extend at least one foot outside the edges of the mat foundation. An allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf) should be used for the mat foundation design. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. Mat foundations are typically designed using the appropriate flexible method. Foundations designed using this method are also known as Winkler Foundations. For this analysis, we recommend using a Poisson’s ration of 0.3 and a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (lb/in3). Mat slabs should be thickened a minimum depth of 18 inches below the adjacent finish grade around the perimeter of the mat, and this thickened edge of the structural slabs should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Deflections will depend on the stiffness of the slab, but we anticipate total deflections under static conditions over time to be on the order of 2 to 3 inches and differential settlements across the structure on the order of 1 to 2 inches or less, can be anticipated. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soil, or by passive pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level, well-compacted fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation’s resistance to lateral loading. PARAMETER ULTIMATE VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Where: pcf is Pounds per Cubic Foot, and Passive Earth Pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 6 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation’s resistance to lateral loading when using the above ultimate values. SLABS-ON-GRADE The mat foundation will serve as either the floor slab, or the support for a topping slab for the lowest level of the building. Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through the soil to the new constructed space above it. This can affect moisture- sensitive flooring, cause imperfections or damage to the slab, or simply allow excessive water vapor into the space above the slab. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on-grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture-sensitive equipment or products. ACI recommends a minimum 10-mil thickness vapor retarder for better durability and long term performance than is provided by 6-mil plastic sheeting that has historically been used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 perms, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where vapor retarders are used under slabs, their edges should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.01 perms when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the protection/blotter material. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Footing drains should be used where: (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure; (2) a slab is below the outside grade; or, (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. If the floors of the buildings are at, or above, the surrounding grade, it is likely that footing drains won’t be needed. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth-retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock that is encircled with non- woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space. The discharge pipe for subsurface drains should be sloped for flow to the outlet point. Roof and surface water drains must not discharge into the foundation drain system. A typical footing drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 6. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. Clean-outs should be provided for potential future flushing or cleaning of footing drains. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the rowhouses should slope away at least one to 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. A discussion of grading and Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 7 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. drainage related to pervious surfaces near walls and structures is contained in the Foundation and Retaining Walls section. INFILTRATION CONSIDERATIONS A significant consideration for this report is the feasibility of onsite stormwater infiltration. As part of our field explorations, Falling Head Percolation tests were conducted in the locations of Test Pits 4 and 5 at depths of 3 feet per the procedure listed in the Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems, EPA, 1980. The variable nature of the upper soils resulted in a widely varied measured infiltration rate in each of the testing locations. Based on the tests performed and soils encountered, a average measured infiltration rate of 1.3 inches was obtained, concluding that the upper soils have a low permeability. Considering the low permeability, and depth to a hydraulically restrictive layer (impermeable silt found at depths of 5 to 6 feet beneath existing grade and perched groundwater encountered atop the native silt), the proposed infiltration system will need to be very shallow to maintain minimum separation from this layer. No groundwater mounding analysis was performed as part of our scope of work. Considering this, a shallow permeable pavement system could potentially be implemented for this project. If the client wishes and space allows, a dispersion system could also be considered to convey the onsite stormwater to the vegetated area east of the development area. We recommend using the average test rate (1.3 inches per hour) as a Ksatinitial rate to arrive at a design rate. Washington’s 2019 SWMMWW requires correction factors be applied to the test rates as follows: Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 8 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. CFv (variability) = 0.50 (there was a wide range in the test values) CFt (test) = 0.40 CFm (maintenance) = 0.90 CGT (Total) = 0.18 We arrive at a design infiltration rate (Ksatdesign) of: 1.3 inches per hour x 0.18 = 0.23 inches per hour The underlying alluvial soil has no infiltration potential, as observed by the layer of perched water found atop the native silt. It should be noted that proper function of pervious surfaces is highly dependent on frequent cleaning and removal of silt and debris that nat urally accumulates. The stability of permeable pavement is lessened from traditional asphalt pavement by the larger void spaces and lessened particle contact in typical design mixes. This can lead to premature wear and may require maintenance earlier than anticipated. Heavy wheel loads should be avoided whenever possible to help prolong the pavement lifespan. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. It is important that existing foundations and slabs be removed before site development. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the General section, the on-site soils that will be excavated from the building footprints are not suitable for reuse as structural fill, due to their high organic contents, high silt contents, and fine-grained composition. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches, but should be thinner if small, hand-operated compactors are used. We recommend testing structural fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it should be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended levels of relative compaction for compacted fill: Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 9 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. LOCATION OF FILL PLACEMENT MINIMUM RELATIVE COMPACTION Beneath slabs or walkways 95% Filled slopes and behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits and borings are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking samples in test pits and borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Madrona Electric LLC and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with our understanding of current local standards of practice, and within the scope of our services. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 10 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on-site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 5 Test Pit Logs Plate 6 Typical Footing Drain Detail Attachments Previous Test Pit Logs Attachments Nearby Boring Log We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. James H. Strange, P.E. Associate MKM/JHS:kg 3/30/20 Job No:Date:Plate: 20073 Mar. 2020 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS, INC. 1500 Raymond Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP (Source: Microsoft MapPoint, 2013) 1 NORTH SITE Job No:Date:Plate: 20073 Mar. 2020 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS, INC. 1500 Raymond Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 2 No Scale Legend: NORTH Test Pit Location TP-1 TP-2TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 16th Avenue SouthwestRaymond Avenue Southwest Job Date:Plate: 20073 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG Mar. 2020 Logged by: 1500 Raymond Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington MKM ML 3 TEST PIT 1 * Test Pit terminated at 17.5 feet on March 9, 2020. * Perched groundwater seepage observed at 6 feet during excavation. * Groundwater was encountered below 16 feet during excavation. * Heavy caving observed from 0 to 6 feet and from 10 to 14 feet during excavation. DescriptionDepth (ft.)MoistureContent (%)WaterTableUSCS 5 10 15 20 ML SM Blackberries over; FILL Brown and gray-brown gravelly, cobbly, silty SAND with concrete, asphalt and brick rubble, fine to medium-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) -with large concrete slabs and asphalt chunks -with a 4-foot wide concrete slab and old metal pipe Gray-brown mottled orange, sandy SILT with organics, non-plastic, very moist to wet, loose -becomes blue-gray mottled orange, with numerous roots Blue-gray silty SAND and sandy SILT, fine-grained, wet, loose -with abundant organics and lenses of dark-brown organic silt and silty sand -with lenses of dark-brown silty sand with abundant organics Job Date:Plate: 20073 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG Mar. 2020 Logged by: 1500 Raymond Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington MKM ML TEST PIT 2 DescriptionDepth (ft.)MoistureContent (%)WaterTableUSCSDescriptionDepth (ft.)MoistureContent (%)WaterTableUSCS 5 10 5 10 TEST PIT 3 4 * Test Pit terminated at 7.5 feet on March 9, 2020. * Perched groundwater seepage was observed at 6 feet during excavation. * Caving observed from 0 to 6 feet during excavation. * Test Pit terminated at 6 feet on March 9, 2020. * Perched groundwater seepage was observed at 5 feet during excavation. * Caving observed from 1 to 5 feet during excavation. Gray-brown mottled orange, sandy SILT with organics, non-plastic, wet, loose Brown gravelly, silty SAND with cobbles and concrete debris, fine to medium-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) FILL -with abundant asphalt debris -with fractured pieces of brick ML Gray-brown gravelly, silty SAND with cobbles and concrete and asphalt debris, fine to medium-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) FILL Blue SILT with organics and roots, non-plastic, wet, loose Job Date:Plate: 20073 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG Mar. 2020 Logged by: 1500 Raymond Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington MKM * Test Pit terminated at 4 feet on March 9, 2020. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. DescriptionDepth (ft.)MoistureContent (%)WaterTableUSCSDescriptionDepth (ft.)MoistureContent (%)WaterTableUSCS 5 10 5 10 TEST PIT 5 * Test Pit terminated at 4 feet on March 9, 2020. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. TEST PIT 4 5 Gray gravelly, cobbly, silty SAND with concrete and asphalt debris, fine to medium-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) FILL Brown and dark-brown to black gravelly, silty SAND with cobbles, asphalt, and concrete debris, fine to medium-grained, moist, medium-dense (FILL) FILL Job No:Date:Plate: 20073 Mar. 2020 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS, INC. 1500 Raymond Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 6 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL SLAB Vapor Retarder or Barrier Free-Draining Gravel (if appropriate) Washed Rock (7/8" min. size) Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. 6" min. 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations.Foundation WallBackfill (See text for requirements) Washed Rock (7/8" min. size) Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. 4" min. 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage, waterproofing, and slab considerations.Foundation WallBackfill (See text for requirements) Vapor Retarder/Barrier and Capillary Break/Drainage Layer (Refer to Report text) Possible Slab Madrona Electric LLC JN 20073 March 30, 2020 Page 11 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Previous and Reference Soil Explorations APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-10 NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Structure Sediment accumulation Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Sump of catch basin contains no sediment. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than ½ cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin by more than 10%. No Trash or debris blocking or potentially blocking entrance to catch basin. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). No dead animals or vegetation present within catch basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame and/or top slab Corner of frame extends more than ¾ inch past curb face into the street (If applicable). Frame is even with curb. Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than ¼ inch. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than ¾ inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Cracks in walls or bottom Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Catch basin is sealed and is structurally sound. Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. Settlement/ misalignment Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). No trash or debris in pipes. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-11 NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Inlet/Outlet Pipe (cont.) Damaged inlet/outlet pipe Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. Metal Grates (Catch Basins) Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate free of trash and debris. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing grate Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Cover/lid protects opening to structure. Locking mechanism not working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover/lid difficult to remove One maintenance person cannot remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-12 NO. 6 – CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Pipes Sediment & debris accumulation Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Water flows freely through pipes. Vegetation/root growth in pipe Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of water through pipes. Water flows freely through pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective coating or corrosion Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Damaged pipes Any dent that decreases the cross section area of pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of ditch and slopes. Trash and debris cleared from ditches. Sediment accumulation Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to City personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where City personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Excessive vegetation growth Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. Water flows freely through ditches. Erosion damage to slopes Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. Rock lining out of place or missing (If applicable) One layer or less of rock exists above native soil area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native soil. Replace rocks to design standards. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-17 NO. 11 – GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Trash and debris cleared from site. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to City personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where City personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Excessive growth of grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in height. Grass or groundcover mowed to a height no greater than 6 inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard tree identified Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possible. No hazard trees in facility. Damaged tree or shrub identified Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or broken which affect more than 25% of the total foliage of the tree or shrub. Trees and shrubs with less than 5% of total foliage with split or broken limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or knocked over. No blown down vegetation or knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported or are leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. Tree or shrub in place and adequately supported; dead or diseased trees removed. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-40 NO. 28 – NATIVE VEGETATED SURFACE/NATIVE VEGETATED LANDSCAPE BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Site Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated on the native vegetated surface/native vegetated landscape site. Native vegetated surface site free of any trash or debris. Vegetation Insufficient vegetation Less than two species each of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover occur in the design area. A minimum of two species each of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover is established and healthy. Poor vegetation coverage Less than 90% if the required vegetated area has healthy growth. A minimum of 90% of the required vegetated area has healthy growth. Undesirable vegetation present Weeds, blackberry, and other undesirable plants are invading more than 10% of vegetated area. Less than 10% undesirable vegetation occurs in the required native vegetated surface area. Vegetated Area Soil compaction Soil in the native vegetation area compacted. Less than 8% of native vegetation area is compacted. Insufficient vegetation Less than 3.5 square feet of native vegetation area for every 1 square foot of impervious surface. A minimum of 3.5 square feet of native vegetation area for every 1 square foot of impervious surface. Excess slope Slope of native vegetation area greater than 15%. Slope of native growth area does not exceed 15%. NO. 29 – PERFORATED PIPE CONNECTIONS BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Preventive Blocking, obstructions Debris or trash limiting flow into perforated pipe system or outfall of BMP is plugged or otherwise nonfunctioning. Outfall of BMP is receiving designed flows from perforated pipe connection. Inflow Inflow impeded Inflow into the perforated pipe is partially or fully blocked or altered to prevent flow from getting into the pipe. Inflow to the perforated pipe is unimpeded. Pipe Trench Area Surface compacted Ground surface over the perforated pipe trench is compacted or covered with impermeable material. Ground surface over the perforated pipe is not compacted and free of any impervious cover. Outflow Outflow impeded Outflow from the perforated pipe into the public drainage system is blocked. Outflow to the public drainage system is unimpeded. Outfall Area Erosion or landslides Existence of the perforated pipe is causing or exasperating erosion or landslides. Perforated pipe system is sealed off and an alternative BMP is implemented. Madrona Electric Technical Information Report Appendix C Bond Quantities Worksheet Planning Division |1055 South Grady Way – 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200••Section I: Project Information•••Section II: Bond Quantities Worksheets••Section II.a EROSION CONTROL (Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control (ESC))•Section II.b TRANSPORTATION (Street and Site Improvements)•Section II.c DRAINAGE (Drainage and Stormwater Facilities): •Section II.d WATER - ONLY APPLICABLE IF WATER SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY CITY OF RENTON•Section II.e SANITARY SEWER - ONLY APPLICABLE IF SEWER SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY CITY OF RENTON••••••Section III. Bond Worksheet• This section calculates the required Permit Bond for construction permit issuance as well as the required Maintenance Bond for project close-out submittals to release the permit bond on a project. All unit prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead and profit. Complete the 'Quantity' columns for each of the appropriate section(s). Include existing Right-of-Way (ROW), Future Public Improvements and Private Improvements.The 'Quantity Remaining' column is only to be used when a project is under construction. The City allows one (1) bond reduction during the life of the project with the exception of the maintenance period reduction.Excel will auto-calculate and auto-populate the relevant fields and subtotals throughout the document. Only the 'Quantity' columns should need completing.Additional items not included in the lists can be added under the "write-in" sections. Provide a complete description, cost estimate and unit of measure for each write-in item. Note: Private improvements, with the exception of stormwater facilities, are not included in the bond amount calculation, but must be entered on the form. Stormwater facilities (public and private) are required to be included in the bond amount.BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET INSTRUCTIONSThis worksheet is intended to be a "working" copy of the bond quantity worksheet, which will be used throughout all phases of the project, from initial submittal to project close-out approval. Submit this workbook, in its entirety, as follows:The following forms are to be completed by the engineer/developer/applicant as applicable to the project: The Bond Worksheet form will auto-calculate and auto-populate from the information provided in Section I and Section II.This section includes all pertinent information for the projectSection II contains a separate spreadsheet TAB for each of the following specialties: (1) electronic copy (.xlsx format) and (1) hard copy of the entire workbook for civil construction permit submittal. Hard copies are to be included as part of the Technical Information Report (TIR).(1) electronic copy (.xlsx format) and (1) hard copy of the entire workbook for final close-out submittal.This section must be completed in its entiretyInformation from this section auto-populates to all other relevant areas of the workbookPage 1 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetINSTRUCTIONSUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 Planning Division |1055 South Grady Way – 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200Date Prepared: Name:PE Registration No:Firm Name:Firm Address:Phone No.Email Address:Project Name: Project Owner:CED Plan # (LUA):Phone:CED Permit # (U):Address: Site Address:Street Intersection:Addt'l Project Owner:Parcel #(s):Phone:Address: Clearing and grading greater than or equal to 5,000 board feet of timber? Yes/No:NOWater Service Provided by:If Yes, Provide Forest Practice Permit #:Sewer Service Provided by: SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETPROJECT INFORMATIONCITY OF RENTONCITY OF RENTON1 Select the current project status/phase from the following options: For Approval - Preliminary Data Enclosed, pending approval from the City; For Construction - Estimated Data Enclosed, Plans have been approved for contruction by the City; Project Closeout - Final Costs and Quantities Enclosed for Project Close-out SubmittalPhoneEngineer Stamp Required (all cost estimates must have original wet stamp and signature)Clearing and GradingUtility ProvidersN/AProject Location and DescriptionProject Owner InformationMadrona ElectricRenton, WA 98059334040-5150Chris LermusikT.B.D.(425)941-80341/12/2021Prepared by:FOR APPROVALProject Phase 1callen@encompasses.netChad Allen38285Encompass Engineering and Surveying165 NE Juniper St, Issaquah, WA 98055(425)392-02501500 Raymond Ave SW13205 173rd Avenue SWAdditional Project OwnerRaymond Ave SW and SW 16th StT.B.D.AddressAbbreviated Legal Description:HILLMANS EARLINGTON GARDENS #1City, State, ZipPage 2 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION I PROJECT INFORMATIONUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.UnitReference #PriceUnitQuantity CostBackfill & compaction-embankmentESC-16.50$ CY Check dams, 4" minus rockESC-2SWDM 5.4.6.380.00$ Each Catch Basin ProtectionESC-335.50$ Each3106.50Crushed surfacing 1 1/4" minusESC-4WSDOT 9-03.9(3)95.00$ CY DitchingESC-59.00$ CY Excavation-bulkESC-62.00$ CY Fence, siltESC-7SWDM 5.4.3.11.50$ LF254381.00Fence, Temporary (NGPE)ESC-81.50$ LF Geotextile FabricESC-92.50$ SY Hay Bale Silt TrapESC-100.50$ Each HydroseedingESC-11SWDM 5.4.2.40.80$ SY6048.00Interceptor Swale / DikeESC-121.00$ LF Jute MeshESC-13SWDM 5.4.2.23.50$ SY Level SpreaderESC-141.75$ LF Mulch, by hand, straw, 3" deepESC-15SWDM 5.4.2.12.50$ SY Mulch, by machine, straw, 2" deepESC-16SWDM 5.4.2.12.00$ SY Piping, temporary, CPP, 6"ESC-1712.00$ LF Piping, temporary, CPP, 8"ESC-1814.00$ LF Piping, temporary, CPP, 12"ESC-1918.00$ LF Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandbaggedESC-20SWDM 5.4.2.34.00$ SY Rip Rap, machine placed; slopesESC-21WSDOT 9-13.1(2)45.00$ CY Rock Construction Entrance, 50'x15'x1'ESC-22SWDM 5.4.4.11,800.00$ Each11,800.00Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1'ESC-23SWDM 5.4.4.13,200.00$ Each Sediment pond riser assemblyESC-24SWDM 5.4.5.22,200.00$ Each Sediment trap, 5' high berm ESC-25SWDM 5.4.5.119.00$ LF Sed. trap, 5' high, riprapped spillway berm section ESC-26SWDM 5.4.5.170.00$ LF Seeding, by handESC-27SWDM 5.4.2.41.00$ SY Sodding, 1" deep, level groundESC-28SWDM 5.4.2.58.00$ SY Sodding, 1" deep, sloped groundESC-29SWDM 5.4.2.510.00$ SY TESC SupervisorESC-30110.00$ HR161,760.00Water truck, dust controlESC-31SWDM 5.4.7140.00$ HR UnitReference #PriceUnitQuantity Cost EROSION/SEDIMENT SUBTOTAL:4,095.50SALES TAX @ 10%409.55EROSION/SEDIMENT TOTAL:4,505.05(A)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROLDescription No.(A)WRITE-IN-ITEMS Page 3 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.a EROSION_CONTROLUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostGENERAL ITEMS Backfill & Compaction- embankmentGI-16.00$ CYBackfill & Compaction- trenchGI-29.00$ CYClear/Remove Brush, by hand (SY)GI-31.00$ SYBollards - fixedGI-4240.74$ EachBollards - removableGI-5452.34$ EachClearing/Grubbing/Tree RemovalGI-610,000.00$ Acre0.262,600.00Excavation - bulkGI-72.00$ CYExcavation - TrenchGI-85.00$ CY20100.00Fencing, cedar, 6' highGI-920.00$ LFFencing, chain link, 4'GI-1038.31$ LFFencing, chain link, vinyl coated, 6' highGI-1120.00$ LFFencing, chain link, gate, vinyl coated, 20' GI-121,400.00$ EachFill & compact - common barrowGI-1325.00$ CY10250.00Fill & compact - gravel baseGI-1427.00$ CYFill & compact - screened topsoilGI-1539.00$ CYGabion, 12" deep, stone filled mesh GI-1665.00$ SYGabion, 18" deep, stone filled mesh GI-1790.00$ SYGabion, 36" deep, stone filled meshGI-18150.00$ SYGrading, fine, by handGI-192.50$ SYGrading, fine, with graderGI-202.00$ SYMonuments, 3' LongGI-21250.00$ EachSensitive Areas SignGI-227.00$ EachSodding, 1" deep, sloped groundGI-238.00$ SYSurveying, line & gradeGI-24850.00$ DaySurveying, lot location/linesGI-251,800.00$ AcreTopsoil Type A (imported)GI-2628.50$ CYTraffic control crew ( 2 flaggers )GI-27120.00$ HRTrail, 4" chipped woodGI-288.00$ SYTrail, 4" crushed cinderGI-299.00$ SYTrail, 4" top courseGI-3012.00$ SYConduit, 2"GI-315.00$ LFWall, retaining, concreteGI-3255.00$ SFWall, rockeryGI-3315.00$ SFSUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:2,950.00(B)(C)(D)(E)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTSQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Page 4 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.b TRANSPORTATIONUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTSQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)ROAD IMPROVEMENT/PAVEMENT/SURFACINGAC Grinding, 4' wide machine < 1000syRI-130.00$ SY5150.00AC Grinding, 4' wide machine 1000-2000syRI-216.00$ SYAC Grinding, 4' wide machine > 2000syRI-310.00$ SYAC Removal/DisposalRI-435.00$ SY5175.00Barricade, Type III ( Permanent )RI-556.00$ LFGuard RailRI-630.00$ LFCurb & Gutter, rolledRI-717.00$ LFCurb & Gutter, verticalRI-812.50$ LF450.00Curb and Gutter, demolition and disposalRI-918.00$ LF472.00Curb, extruded asphaltRI-105.50$ LFCurb, extruded concreteRI-117.00$ LFSawcut, asphalt, 3" depthRI-121.85$ LF2648.10Sawcut, concrete, per 1" depthRI-133.00$ LFSealant, asphaltRI-142.00$ LF2652.00Shoulder, gravel, 4" thickRI-1515.00$ SYSidewalk, 4" thickRI-1638.00$ SYSidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and disposalRI-1732.00$ SYSidewalk, 5" thickRI-1841.00$ SYSidewalk, 5" thick, demolition and disposalRI-1940.00$ SYSign, Handicap RI-2085.00$ EachStriping, per stallRI-217.00$ Each428.00Striping, thermoplastic, ( for crosswalk )RI-223.00$ SFStriping, 4" reflectorized lineRI-230.50$ LFAdditional 2.5" Crushed SurfacingRI-243.60$ SYHMA 1/2" Overlay 1.5" RI-2514.00$ SYHMA 1/2" Overlay 2"RI-2618.00$ SYHMA Road, 2", 4" rock, First 2500 SYRI-2728.00$ SY5140.00HMA Road, 2", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500SYRI-2821.00$ SYHMA Road, 4", 6" rock, First 2500 SYRI-2945.00$ SYHMA Road, 4", 6" rock, Qty. over 2500 SYRI-3037.00$ SYHMA Road, 4", 4.5" ATBRI-3138.00$ SYGravel Road, 4" rock, First 2500 SYRI-3215.00$ SYGravel Road, 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SYRI-3310.00$ SYThickened EdgeRI-348.60$ LF1251,075.00SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:687.101,103.00(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 5 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.b TRANSPORTATIONUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTSQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)PARKING LOT SURFACINGNo.2" AC, 2" top course rock & 4" borrowPL-121.00$ SY53011,130.002" AC, 1.5" top course & 2.5" base coursePL-228.00$ SY4" select borrowPL-35.00$ SY1.5" top course rock & 2.5" base coursePL-414.00$ SYSUBTOTAL PARKING LOT SURFACING:11,130.00(B)(C)(D)(E)LANDSCAPING & VEGETATIONNo.Street TreesLA-1Median LandscapingLA-2Right-of-Way LandscapingLA-3Wetland LandscapingLA-4SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION:(B)(C)(D)(E)TRAFFIC & LIGHTINGNo.SignsTR-1Street Light System ( # of Poles)TR-2Traffic SignalTR-3Traffic Signal ModificationTR-4SUBTOTAL TRAFFIC & LIGHTING:(B)(C)(D)(E)WRITE-IN-ITEMSSUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS:STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL:687.1015,183.00SALES TAX @ 10%68.711,518.30STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL:755.8116,701.30(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 6 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.b TRANSPORTATIONUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostDRAINAGE (CPE = Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, Average of 4' cover was assumed. Assume perforated PVC is same price as solid pipe.) Access Road, R/DD-126.00$ SY* (CBs include frame and lid)BeehiveD-290.00$ EachThrough-curb Inlet FrameworkD-3400.00$ EachCB Type ID-41,500.00$ Each11,500.00CB Type ILD-51,750.00$ EachCB Type II, 48" diameterD-62,300.00$ Each for additional depth over 4' D-7480.00$ FTCB Type II, 54" diameterD-82,500.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-9495.00$ FTCB Type II, 60" diameterD-102,800.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-11600.00$ FTCB Type II, 72" diameterD-126,000.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-13850.00$ FTCB Type II, 96" diameterD-1414,000.00$ Each for additional depth over 4'D-15925.00$ FTTrash Rack, 12"D-16350.00$ EachTrash Rack, 15"D-17410.00$ EachTrash Rack, 18"D-18480.00$ EachTrash Rack, 21"D-19550.00$ EachCleanout, PVC, 4"D-20150.00$ EachCleanout, PVC, 6"D-21170.00$ Each2340.00Cleanout, PVC, 8"D-22200.00$ EachCulvert, PVC, 4" D-2310.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 6" D-2413.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 8" D-2515.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 12" D-2623.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 15" D-2735.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 18" D-2841.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 24"D-2956.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 30" D-3078.00$ LFCulvert, PVC, 36" D-31130.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 8"D-3219.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 12"D-3329.00$ LFSUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:1,840.00(B)(C)(D)(E)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Page 7 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)DRAINAGE (Continued)Culvert, CMP, 15"D-3435.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 18"D-3541.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 24"D-3656.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 30"D-3778.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 36"D-38130.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 48"D-39190.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 60"D-40270.00$ LFCulvert, CMP, 72"D-41350.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 8"D-4242.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 12"D-4348.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 15"D-4478.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 18"D-4548.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 24"D-4678.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 30"D-47125.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 36"D-48150.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 42"D-49175.00$ LFCulvert, Concrete, 48"D-50205.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 6" D-5114.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 8" D-5216.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 12" D-5324.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 15" D-5435.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 18" D-5541.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 24" D-5656.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 30" D-5778.00$ LFCulvert, CPE Triple Wall, 36" D-58130.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 6"D-5960.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 8"D-6072.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 12"D-6184.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 15"D-6296.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 18"D-63108.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 24"D-64120.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 30"D-65132.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 36"D-66144.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 48"D-67156.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 54"D-68168.00$ LFSUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 8 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)DRAINAGE (Continued)Culvert, LCPE, 60"D-69180.00$ LFCulvert, LCPE, 72"D-70192.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 6"D-7142.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 8"D-7242.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 12"D-7374.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 15"D-74106.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 18"D-75138.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 24"D-76221.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 30"D-77276.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 36"D-78331.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 48"D-79386.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 54"D-80441.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 60"D-81496.00$ LFCulvert, HDPE, 72"D-82551.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 6"D-8384.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 8"D-8489.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 12"D-8595.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 15"D-86100.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 18"D-87106.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 24"D-88111.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 30"D-89119.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 36"D-90154.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 48"D-91226.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 54"D-92332.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 60"D-93439.00$ LFPipe, Polypropylene, 72"D-94545.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 6"D-9561.00$ LF472,867.00Culvert, DI, 8"D-9684.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 12"D-97106.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 15"D-98129.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 18"D-99152.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 24"D-100175.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 30"D-101198.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 36"D-102220.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 48"D-103243.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 54"D-104266.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 60"D-105289.00$ LFCulvert, DI, 72"D-106311.00$ LFSUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:2,867.00(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 9 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Specialty Drainage ItemsDitching SD-19.50$ CYFlow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+)SD-328.00$ LF French Drain (3' depth)SD-426.00$ LFGeotextile, laid in trench, polypropyleneSD-53.00$ SYMid-tank Access Riser, 48" dia, 6' deepSD-62,000.00$ EachPond Overflow SpillwaySD-716.00$ SYRestrictor/Oil Separator, 12"SD-81,150.00$ EachRestrictor/Oil Separator, 15"SD-91,350.00$ EachRestrictor/Oil Separator, 18"SD-101,700.00$ EachRiprap, placedSD-1142.00$ CYTank End Reducer (36" diameter)SD-121,200.00$ EachInfiltration pond testingSD-13125.00$ HRPermeable PavementSD-14Permeable Concrete SidewalkSD-15Culvert, Box __ ft x __ ftSD-16SUBTOTAL SPECIALTY DRAINAGE ITEMS:(B)(C)(D)(E)STORMWATER FACILITIES (Include Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch)Detention PondSF-1Each Detention TankSF-2Each Detention VaultSF-3Each Infiltration PondSF-4Each Infiltration TankSF-5Each Infiltration VaultSF-6Each Infiltration TrenchesSF-7Each Basic Biofiltration SwaleSF-8Each Wet Biofiltration SwaleSF-9Each WetpondSF-10Each WetvaultSF-11Each Sand FilterSF-12Each Sand Filter VaultSF-13Each Linear Sand FilterSF-14Each Proprietary FacilitySF-15Each Bioretention FacilitySF-16Each SUBTOTAL STORMWATER FACILITIES:(B)(C)(D)(E)Page 10 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIESQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)WRITE-IN-ITEMS (INCLUDE ON-SITE BMPs)WI-1WI-2WI-3WI-4WI-5WI-6WI-7WI-8WI-9WI-10WI-11WI-12WI-13WI-14WI-15SUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS:DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES SUBTOTAL:4,707.00SALES TAX @ 10%470.70DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES TOTAL:5,177.70(B) (C) (D) (E)Page 11 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.c DRAINAGEUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostConnection to Existing WatermainW-12,000.00$ Each12,000.00Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 4 Inch DiameterW-250.00$ LFDuctile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 6 Inch DiameterW-356.00$ LFDuctile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 8 Inch DiameterW-460.00$ LFDuctile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 10 Inch DiameterW-570.00$ LFDuctile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 12 Inch DiameterW-680.00$ LFGate Valve, 4 inch DiameterW-7500.00$ EachGate Valve, 6 inch DiameterW-8700.00$ EachGate Valve, 8 Inch DiameterW-9800.00$ EachGate Valve, 10 Inch DiameterW-101,000.00$ EachGate Valve, 12 Inch DiameterW-111,200.00$ EachFire Hydrant AssemblyW-124,000.00$ EachPermanent Blow-Off AssemblyW-131,800.00$ EachAir-Vac Assembly, 2-Inch DiameterW-142,000.00$ EachAir-Vac Assembly, 1-Inch DiameterW-151,500.00$ EachCompound Meter Assembly 3-inch DiameterW-168,000.00$ EachCompound Meter Assembly 4-inch DiameterW-179,000.00$ EachCompound Meter Assembly 6-inch DiameterW-1810,000.00$ EachPressure Reducing Valve Station 8-inch to 10-inchW-1920,000.00$ EachWATER SUBTOTAL:2,000.00SALES TAX @ 10%200.00WATER TOTAL:2,200.00(B) (C) (D) (E)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR WATERQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Page 12 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.d WATERUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 CED Permit #:T.B.D.ExistingFuture PublicPrivateRight-of-WayImprovementsImprovements(D) (E)DescriptionNo. Unit PriceUnitQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostQuant.CostClean OutsSS-11,000.00$ Each11,000.00Grease Interceptor, 500 gallonSS-28,000.00$ EachGrease Interceptor, 1000 gallonSS-310,000.00$ EachGrease Interceptor, 1500 gallonSS-415,000.00$ EachSide Sewer Pipe, PVC. 4 Inch DiameterSS-580.00$ LFSide Sewer Pipe, PVC. 6 Inch DiameterSS-695.00$ LF423,990.00Sewer Pipe, PVC, 8 inch DiameterSS-7105.00$ LFSewer Pipe, PVC, 12 Inch DiameterSS-8120.00$ LFSewer Pipe, DI, 8 inch DiameterSS-9115.00$ LFSewer Pipe, DI, 12 Inch DiameterSS-10130.00$ LFManhole, 48 Inch DiameterSS-116,000.00$ EachManhole, 54 Inch DiameterSS-136,500.00$ EachManhole, 60 Inch DiameterSS-157,500.00$ EachManhole, 72 Inch DiameterSS-178,500.00$ EachManhole, 96 Inch DiameterSS-1914,000.00$ EachPipe, C-900, 12 Inch DiameterSS-21180.00$ LFOutside DropSS-241,500.00$ LSInside DropSS-251,000.00$ LSSewer Pipe, PVC, ____ Inch DiameterSS-26Lift Station (Entire System)SS-27LSSANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL:4,990.00SALES TAX @ 10%499.00SANITARY SEWER TOTAL:5,489.00(B) (C) (D) (E)SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEETFOR SANITARY SEWERQuantity Remaining (Bond Reduction) (B)(C)Page 13 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION II.e SANITARY SEWERUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 Planning Division |1055 South Grady Way – 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200Date:Name:Project Name: PE Registration No:CED Plan # (LUA):Firm Name:CED Permit # (U):Firm Address:Site Address:Phone No.Parcel #(s):Email Address:Project Phase: Site Restoration/Erosion Sediment Control Subtotal (a)Existing Right-of-Way Improvements Subtotal (b)(b)2,955.81$ Future Public Improvements Subtotal(c)-$ Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Public & Private) Subtotal(d)(d)5,177.70$ (e)(f)Site RestorationCivil Construction PermitMaintenance Bond1,626.70$ Bond Reduction2Construction Permit Bond Amount 3Minimum Bond Amount is $10,000.001 Estimate Only - May involve multiple and variable components, which will be established on an individual basis by Development Engineering.2 The City of Renton allows one request only for bond reduction prior to the maintenance period. Reduction of not more than 70% of the original bond amount, provided that the remaining 30% willcover all remaining items to be constructed. 3 Required Bond Amounts are subject to review and modification by Development Engineering.* Note: The word BOND as used in this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to the City of Renton.** Note: All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead and profit. (425)392-0250callen@encompasses.netMadrona ElectricT.B.D.1500 Raymond Ave SW334040-5150FOR APPROVALT.B.D.165 NE Juniper St, Issaquah, WA 9805514,116.47$ P (a) x 100%SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET BOND CALCULATIONS1/12/2021Chad Allen38285Encompass Engineering and SurveyingR((b x 150%) + (d x 100%))S(e) x 150% + (f) x 100%Bond Reduction: Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (Quantity Remaining)2Bond Reduction: Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Quantity Remaining)2T(P +R - S)Prepared by:Project InformationCONSTRUCTION BOND AMOUNT */**(prior to permit issuance)EST1((b) + (c) + (d)) x 20%-$ MAINTENANCE BOND */**(after final acceptance of construction)4,505.05$ 2,955.81$ 9,611.42$ 4,505.05$ -$ 5,177.70$ -$ Page 14 of 14Ref 8-H Bond Quantity WorksheetSECTION III. BOND WORKSHEETUnit Prices Updated: 06/14/2016Version: 04/26/2017Printed 1/12/2021 Madrona Electric Technical Information Report Appendix D Declaration of Covenant Form Revised 12/12/06 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: DECLARATION OF COVENANT PROHIBITING USE OF LEACHABLE METALS Grantor: _ Grantee: City of Renton Legal Description: _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Legal(s) on: Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#: IN CONSIDERATION of the approved City of Renton ________________________ permit for application file No. relating to real property legally described above, the undersigned as Grantor(s), declares(declare) that the above described property is hereby established as having a prohibition on the use of leachable metals on those portions of the property exposed to the weather for the purpose of limiting metals in stormwater flows and is subject to the following restrictions. The Grantor(s) hereby covenants(covenant) and agrees(agree) as follows: no leachable metal surfaces exposed to the weather will be allowed on the property. Leachable metal surfaces means a surface area that consists of or is coated with a non-ferrous metal that is soluble in water. Common leachable metal surfaces include, but are not limited to, galvanized steel roofing, gutters, flashing, Chris Lermusik LOTS 26 AND 27 IN BLOCK 30 OF C.D.HILLMAN'S EARLINGTON GARDENS ADDITION OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE DIVISION NO 1.AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 74, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY AUDITOR 334040-5150 Civil Construction TED-40-4142 City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 DRAFT COPY Form Revised 12/12/06 2 downspouts, guardrails, light posts, and copper roofing. City of Renton or its municipal successors shall have a nonexclusive perpetual access easement on the Property in order to ingress and egress over the Property for the sole purposes of inspecting and monitoring that no leachable metal is present on the Property. This easement/restriction is binding upon the Grantor(s), its heirs, successors, and assigns unless or until a new drainage or site plan is reviewed and approved by the City of Renton or its successor. Form Revised 12/12/06 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration of Covenant is executed this _____ day of ____________________, 20_____. GRANTOR, owner of the Property GRANTOR, owner of the Property STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING )ss. 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_____. Printed name Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires Madrona Electric Technical Information Report Appendix E WWHM Output WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: Flow Control Site Name: Site Address: City : Report Date: 12/9/2020 Gage : Seatac Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.00 Version Date: 2019/09/13 Version : 4.2.17 ___________________________________________________________________ Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year ___________________________________________________________________ High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year ___________________________________________________________________ PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat .44 Pervious Total 0.44 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.44 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat .138 C, Forest, Flat .074 C, Pasture, Flat .11 Pervious Total 0.322 Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.004 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.114 Impervious Total 0.118 Basin Total 0.44 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration ___________________________________________________________________ Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.44 Total Impervious Area:0 ___________________________________________________________________ Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.322 Total Impervious Area:0.118 ___________________________________________________________________ Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.012936 5 year 0.020317 10 year 0.0245 25 year 0.028931 50 year 0.031673 100 year 0.034005 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.058137 5 year 0.079422 10 year 0.094781 25 year 0.11567 50 year 0.132337 100 year 0.149974 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.013 0.086 1950 0.016 0.081 1951 0.028 0.056 1952 0.009 0.037 1953 0.007 0.037 1954 0.011 0.047 1955 0.018 0.050 1956 0.014 0.050 1957 0.011 0.065 1958 0.013 0.044 1959 0.011 0.038 1960 0.019 0.060 1961 0.011 0.053 1962 0.007 0.038 1963 0.009 0.051 1964 0.012 0.046 1965 0.009 0.067 1966 0.008 0.040 1967 0.018 0.083 1968 0.011 0.075 1969 0.011 0.059 1970 0.009 0.054 1971 0.009 0.063 1972 0.021 0.080 1973 0.010 0.036 1974 0.010 0.061 1975 0.014 0.068 1976 0.010 0.050 1977 0.001 0.043 1978 0.009 0.054 1979 0.005 0.067 1980 0.020 0.094 1981 0.008 0.058 1982 0.015 0.097 1983 0.014 0.059 1984 0.009 0.043 1985 0.005 0.056 1986 0.022 0.057 1987 0.020 0.067 1988 0.008 0.038 1989 0.005 0.048 1990 0.041 0.158 1991 0.025 0.108 1992 0.010 0.043 1993 0.010 0.033 1994 0.003 0.032 1995 0.014 0.050 1996 0.030 0.076 1997 0.025 0.064 1998 0.006 0.049 1999 0.024 0.117 2000 0.010 0.058 2001 0.002 0.052 2002 0.011 0.082 2003 0.014 0.069 2004 0.018 0.110 2005 0.013 0.056 2006 0.015 0.052 2007 0.031 0.140 2008 0.040 0.106 2009 0.019 0.069 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0415 0.1583 2 0.0397 0.1399 3 0.0308 0.1172 4 0.0303 0.1102 5 0.0285 0.1080 6 0.0253 0.1061 7 0.0250 0.0966 8 0.0238 0.0945 9 0.0224 0.0857 10 0.0212 0.0829 11 0.0201 0.0823 12 0.0198 0.0815 13 0.0195 0.0797 14 0.0193 0.0765 15 0.0181 0.0746 16 0.0178 0.0689 17 0.0176 0.0688 18 0.0158 0.0676 19 0.0155 0.0672 20 0.0153 0.0666 21 0.0144 0.0666 22 0.0142 0.0650 23 0.0141 0.0636 24 0.0140 0.0631 25 0.0139 0.0609 26 0.0130 0.0602 27 0.0129 0.0590 28 0.0127 0.0588 29 0.0122 0.0580 30 0.0114 0.0576 31 0.0111 0.0575 32 0.0110 0.0559 33 0.0110 0.0559 34 0.0110 0.0557 35 0.0109 0.0544 36 0.0107 0.0535 37 0.0105 0.0533 38 0.0102 0.0518 39 0.0100 0.0516 40 0.0100 0.0513 41 0.0096 0.0502 42 0.0096 0.0499 43 0.0095 0.0497 44 0.0093 0.0496 45 0.0090 0.0488 46 0.0090 0.0476 47 0.0089 0.0475 48 0.0087 0.0458 49 0.0086 0.0442 50 0.0084 0.0432 51 0.0080 0.0428 52 0.0078 0.0427 53 0.0073 0.0401 54 0.0068 0.0383 55 0.0057 0.0381 56 0.0054 0.0379 57 0.0051 0.0372 58 0.0051 0.0367 59 0.0034 0.0357 60 0.0018 0.0329 61 0.0012 0.0318 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility FAILED Facility FAILED duration standard for 1+ flows. Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0065 17547 66690 380 Fail 0.0067 16164 62883 389 Fail 0.0070 14964 59375 396 Fail 0.0072 13854 56188 405 Fail 0.0075 12812 53130 414 Fail 0.0077 11811 50328 426 Fail 0.0080 10900 47676 437 Fail 0.0083 10119 45173 446 Fail 0.0085 9383 42885 457 Fail 0.0088 8729 40681 466 Fail 0.0090 8145 38650 474 Fail 0.0093 7593 36682 483 Fail 0.0095 7060 34864 493 Fail 0.0098 6590 33174 503 Fail 0.0100 6149 31548 513 Fail 0.0103 5784 30030 519 Fail 0.0105 5433 28554 525 Fail 0.0108 5106 27185 532 Fail 0.0111 4808 25923 539 Fail 0.0113 4528 24683 545 Fail 0.0116 4263 23549 552 Fail 0.0118 4019 22458 558 Fail 0.0121 3794 21496 566 Fail 0.0123 3551 20570 579 Fail 0.0126 3341 19663 588 Fail 0.0128 3138 18685 595 Fail 0.0131 2954 17858 604 Fail 0.0133 2787 17058 612 Fail 0.0136 2601 16341 628 Fail 0.0139 2447 15618 638 Fail 0.0141 2308 14951 647 Fail 0.0144 2160 14313 662 Fail 0.0146 2028 13648 672 Fail 0.0149 1904 13084 687 Fail 0.0151 1790 12568 702 Fail 0.0154 1694 12040 710 Fail 0.0156 1588 11550 727 Fail 0.0159 1484 11079 746 Fail 0.0161 1381 10602 767 Fail 0.0164 1293 10155 785 Fail 0.0167 1219 9768 801 Fail 0.0169 1155 9379 812 Fail 0.0172 1098 8966 816 Fail 0.0174 1049 8626 822 Fail 0.0177 997 8303 832 Fail 0.0179 930 8008 861 Fail 0.0182 884 7700 871 Fail 0.0184 838 7409 884 Fail 0.0187 790 7140 903 Fail 0.0189 743 6866 924 Fail 0.0192 713 6613 927 Fail 0.0195 668 6355 951 Fail 0.0197 633 6124 967 Fail 0.0200 595 5856 984 Fail 0.0202 567 5651 996 Fail 0.0205 539 5441 1009 Fail 0.0207 497 5257 1057 Fail 0.0210 473 5101 1078 Fail 0.0212 435 4902 1126 Fail 0.0215 401 4735 1180 Fail 0.0217 366 4562 1246 Fail 0.0220 348 4400 1264 Fail 0.0223 323 4273 1322 Fail 0.0225 296 4130 1395 Fail 0.0228 272 3993 1468 Fail 0.0230 256 3846 1502 Fail 0.0233 235 3707 1577 Fail 0.0235 217 3561 1641 Fail 0.0238 195 3444 1766 Fail 0.0240 180 3324 1846 Fail 0.0243 158 3191 2019 Fail 0.0245 145 3091 2131 Fail 0.0248 129 2986 2314 Fail 0.0251 119 2877 2417 Fail 0.0253 109 2772 2543 Fail 0.0256 97 2674 2756 Fail 0.0258 91 2584 2839 Fail 0.0261 82 2502 3051 Fail 0.0263 76 2434 3202 Fail 0.0266 69 2368 3431 Fail 0.0268 61 2299 3768 Fail 0.0271 54 2235 4138 Fail 0.0273 48 2177 4535 Fail 0.0276 41 2116 5160 Fail 0.0279 38 2064 5431 Fail 0.0281 33 1999 6057 Fail 0.0284 27 1945 7203 Fail 0.0286 22 1893 8604 Fail 0.0289 21 1829 8709 Fail 0.0291 20 1782 8910 Fail 0.0294 19 1730 9105 Fail 0.0296 17 1683 9900 Fail 0.0299 13 1637 12592 Fail 0.0301 12 1591 13258 Fail 0.0304 8 1532 19150 Fail 0.0307 4 1499 37475 Fail 0.0309 3 1454 48466 Fail 0.0312 3 1417 47233 Fail 0.0314 3 1382 46066 Fail 0.0317 3 1338 44600 Fail _____________________________________________________ The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. ___________________________________________________________________ Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. ___________________________________________________________________ LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volume Volume Volume Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft.) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit Total Volume Infiltrated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Failed ___________________________________________________________________ Perlnd and Implnd Changes No changes have been made. ___________________________________________________________________ This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2020; All Rights Reserved.