HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Technical_Information_Report_G2Civil_230504_v2
Civil Engineering & Development Services
1700 NW Gilman BLVD, Suite 200; Issaquah, WA 98027
(425) 821-5038
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
CITY OF RENTON
For
Bergman Renton SFR
3900 Park Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
May 4, 2023
Prepared by:
Edward Mecum
Jared Foulk
Prepared For:
Kayla Bergman
575 Pierce Ave SE
Renton, WA 98056
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | i
Technical Information Report
For Directed Drainage Review Project Sites
Project Name: Bergman Renton SFR
Project Address: 3900 Park Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Parcel Number(s): 3342700515
Name of Developer/Owner: Kayla Bergman
Name of Engineer: Edward Mecum, PE
Company: G2 Civil
Address: 1700 NW Gilman BLVD, Suite 200
Issaquah, WA 98027
Phone Number: 425-821-5038
Report Date: May 4, 2023
Engineer’s Stamp:
This box to be completed by COK
staff
PERMIT #
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | ii
Table of Contents
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 1
II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ...................................................................... 6
III. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 10
IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ........................... 12
V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ..................................................................... 13
VII. OTHER PERMITS ..................................................................................................................... 14
VIII. CSWPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .............................................................................................. 14
IX. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES AND DECLARATION of COVENANT .................. 16
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Soils Map and Legend
Figure 3 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 4 – Developed Conditions Map
Figure 5 – Drainage Review Flow Chart
Figure 6 – Downstream Map
Appendix A
WWHM Output
Appendix B
Geotechnical Investigation by Cobalt Geosciences, LLC.
Appendix C
Operations and Maintenance Manual
Appendix D
Bond Quantity Worksheet
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND
PROJECT ENGINEER
Project Owner
Phone _____
Address
Project Engineer
Company ____
Phone _______
Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Project Name _
DLS-Permitting
Permit #_____
Location Township
Range _
Section _
Site Address _______
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION
□ Land use (e.g.,Subdivision / Short Subd. / UPD)
□ Building (e.g.,M/F / Commercial / SFR)
□ Clearing and Grading
□ Right-of-Way Use
□ Other ___________________________
Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS1
□ DFW HPA
□ COE CWA 404
□ ECY Dam Safety
□ FEMA Floodplain
□ COE Wetlands
□ Other _________
□ Shoreline
Management
□ Structural
Rockery/Vault/______
□ ESA Section 7
Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION
Technical Information Report
Type of Drainage Review
(check one):
Date (include revision
dates):
Date of Final:
□
□
□
□
□
Full
Targeted
Simplified
Large Project
Directed
Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans)
Plan Type (check
one):
Date (include revision
dates):
Date of Final:
□ Full
□ Modified
□ Simplified
Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS
Type (circle one): Standard / Experimental /Blanket
Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2)
Approved Adjustment No._ _ Date of Approval: __________________________
1 DFW: WA State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. HPA: hydraulic project approval. COE: (Army) Corps of Engineers. CWA: Clean
Water Act. ECY: WA State Dept. of Ecology. FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency. ESA: Endangered Species Act.
2021 Surface Water Design Manual
1
Last revised 7/23/2021
Kayla Bergman
(425) 281-1160
575 Pierce Ave SE
Renton, WA 98058
Edward Mecum
G2 Civil
(425) 821-1160
Bergman Residence
24N
5E
SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 32,
T24N, R5E, W.M.
X
X X
2/9/2023 2/9/2023
3900 Park Ave N, Renton, WA 98056
4/4/2023 4/5/2023
5/4/2023 5/4/2023
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring Required: Yes / No
Start Date:
Describe:
Completion Date:Re: KCSWDM Adjustment No.
Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community Plan :________________________________
Special District Overlays:_________________________
Drainage Basin:__________________________________
Stormwater Requirements: _______________________
Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS
□ River/Stream □Steep Slope
□ Lake □Erosion Hazard
□ Wetlands □Landslide Hazard
□ Closed Depression □Coal Mine Hazard
□ Floodplain □Seismic Hazard
□ Other □Habitat Protection
□
Part 10 SOILS
Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential
□ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) □ Sole Source Aquifer
□ Other______________ _______________________ □ Seeps/Springs
□ Additional Sheets Attached
2021 Surface Water Design Manual
2
Last revised 7/23/2021
None
None
May Creek Drainage Basin
Flow control Level 2
X
Indianola Loamy Sand 5-15%Low
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT
□ Core 2 - Offsite Analysis____________________ _________________________________
□ Sensitive/Critical Areas_____________________ _________________________________
□ SEPA_____________________________________ _________________________________
□ LID Infeasibility____________________________ _________________________________
□ Other_____________________________________ _________________________________
□
□ Additional Sheets Attached
Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area)
Threshold Discharge Area:
(name or description)
Core Requirements (all 8 apply):
Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations:
Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:
Flow Control (include facility Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number ______________
summary sheet)Flow Control BMPs
Conveyance System Spill containment located at:
Erosion and Sediment Control /CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor:
Construction Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Contact Phone:
After Hours Phone:
Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public
If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No
Financial Guarantees and
Liability
Provided: Yes / No
Water Quality (include facility Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog
summary sheet)or Exemption No.
Landscape Management Plan: Yes / No
For Entire Project:Total Replaced Impervious surfaces on the site
% of Target Impervious that had a
feasible FCBMP
Total New Pervious Surfaces on the site
Repl. Imp. on site mitigated w/flow control facility
implemented Repl. Imp. on site mitigated w/water quality facility
Repl. Imp. on site mitigated with FCBMP
2021 Surface Water Design Manual
3
Last revised 7/23/2021
May Creek Drainage Basin
TBD
TBD
TBD
none
None feasible
0%
N/A (<5,000 SF PGIS)
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area)
Special Requirements (as applicable):
Area Specific Drainage
Requirements
Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac. / None
Name:
Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None
100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range):
Datum:
Flood Protection Facilities Describe:
Source Control
(commercial / industrial land use)
Describe land use:
Describe any structural controls:
Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / No
Treatment BMP:
Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No
with whom?
Other Drainage Structures
Describe:
Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION
^ Clearing Limits
^ Cover Measures
^ Perimeter Protection
^ Traffic Area Stabilization
^ Sediment Retention
^ Surface Water Collection
^ Dewatering Control
^ Dust Control
^ Flow Control
^ Protection of Flow Control BMP Facilities
(existing and proposed)
^ Maintain BMPs / Manage Project
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
^ Stabilize exposed surfaces
^ Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities
^ Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure
operation of Permanent Facilities, restore
operation of Flow Control BMP Facilities as
necessary
^ Flag limits of SAO and open space preservation
areas
^ Other
2021 Surface Water Design Manual
4
Last revised 7/23/2021
residential
none
none
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch)
Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description
□ Detention □Vegetated Flowpath
□ Infiltration □Wetpool
□ Regional Facility □Filtration
□ Shared Facility □Oil Control
□ Flow Control BMPs □Spill Control
□ Other □Flow Control BMPs
□Other
Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
□ Drainage Easement □ Cast in Place Vault
□ Covenant □ Retaining Wall
□ Native Growth Protection Covenant □ Rockery > 4’ High
□ Tract □ Structural on Steep Slope
□ Other □ Other
Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were
incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my
knowledge the information provided here is accurate.
Signed/Date
2021 Surface Water Design Manual
5
Last revised 7/23/2021
4-4-20235/4/2023
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 1
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Project: Bergman Renton SFR
Site Address: 3900 Park Ave N
Tax Parcel #: 3342700515
Zoning District: R-6
Existing Site Area: 25,876 SF (0.59 Acres)
Proposed Site Area: 25,204 SF (0.58 Acres)
Site Location: The site is in the City of Renton within the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of
Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
SITE
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 2
Pre-developed Site Conditions
The project site is in the City of Renton. The site is accessed from Park Ave N. The site is bordered
to the north, east and south by single family residences with Park Ave N to the west.
The project site currently consists of a single-family home. The site slopes from the south to the
northeast & northwest at an average slope of 6%. The property is located within the May Creek
drainage basin. Runoff from the site sheet flows west into the existing conveyance system within
Park Ave N and north into the existing conveyance system within N 39th Pl. See full downstream
analysis in Section III.
Critical Areas
According to COR Maps, there is a portion of moderate landslide hazard area on the southern
part of the site. Refer to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Cobalt Geosciences for
additional information, see Appendix B.
Soils
Per the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Web Soil Survey (WSS) information, the entire project site is underlain with InC – Indianola Loamy
Sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes (See Figure 2 on the following page). The soils were also analyzed
by Cobalt Geosciences. Per the Geotechnical Investigation, the site is underlain by recessional
outwash soils overlying glacial till with mottled soils at a depth of approximately 3’. Refer to
Appendix B for additional information.
Developed Site Conditions
This project proposes the development of a single-family home. Half street right-of-way (ROW)
improvements are required for this project. The half street improvements will consist of 18’ of
pavement, 0.5’ curb, 8’ planting strip, and a 5’ sidewalk. The improvements will require 6.5’ of
ROW dedication. The site will be accessed via a proposed driveway and walkway from Park Ave
N. Site runoff will be managed via conveyance to the existing conveyance system within Park Ave
N.
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 3
Figure 2: Soil Map and Legend
SITE
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 4
Figure 3: Existing Conditions Map
N
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 5
Figure 4: Developed Conditions Map Existing Site
N
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 6
II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
The 2022 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 Directed Drainage Review. Per Section 1.1.2.4 of the RSWDM,
the project must meet all nine core and all six special requirements. See Figure 5 below for more
information on how the type of drainage review was determined.
Figure 5: Drainage Review Flow Chart
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 7
Core Requirements
Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location
The proposed development will follow existing drainage patterns in which runoff flows
west into the existing conveyance system within Park Ave N and north into the existing
conveyance system within N 39th Pl. Refer to the Level 1 Downstream Analysis in Section
III of this TIR for a complete description of the existing drainage paths.
Core Requirement #2: Downstream 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
The project qualifies for Exception #1 per RSWDM Section 1.2.3.1. therefore flow control
is not required. See section IV.
Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System
The proposed on-site conveyance system will route runoff to the existing public
conveyance system within Park Ave N. Please refer to Section V for the conveyance
system analysis.
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. Refer to Section VIII for additional information.
Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations
An Operation and Maintenance Manual will be provided in Appendix C upon review and
acceptance of the drainage design.
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
The proposed pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) is less than the 5,000 SF
threshold (proposed PGIS = 2,860 SF), therefore water quality is not required.
Core Requirement #9: Flow Control BMPs
This proposed project is on a lot larger than 22,000 SF; therefore, it is subject to the Large
Lot BMP Requirements detailed in Section 1.2.9.2 in the RSWDM.
Impervious Surface BMPs
Full Dispersion: Infeasible. The space required for an 100-foot native vegetated flow-path
segment is not available downstream of the target surfaces and the parcel could not
support the NGRA requirement.
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 8
Full Infiltration: Infeasible. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Cobalt
Geosciences, LLC (Appendix B) states that infiltration is infeasible at the site due to
underlain glacial till and the presence of an aquitard at shallow depths.
Limited Infiltration: Infeasible. BMP’s relying on infiltration are not feasible as described
above.
Rain Gardens/Bioretention: Infeasible. BMP’s relying on infiltration are not feasible as
described above.
Permeable Pavement: Infeasible. BMP’s relying on infiltration are not feasible as
described above.
Basic Dispersion: Infeasible. The space required for the required vegetated flow-path
segment is not available downstream of the target surfaces.
Reduced Impervious Surface Credit: Infeasible. The proposed impervious surface exceeds
the 4,000 SF which is required for eligibility for a reduced impervious surface credit.
Native Growth Retention Credit: Infeasible. The necessary area to allow for native
vegetated surface for every SF of impervious surface is not available.
Tree Retention Credit: Infeasible. There are no trees to be retained within 20’ of the
proposed impervious surfaces.
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.
Perforated Pipe Connection: Any connection of roof downspouts to the local drainage
system must be via a perforated pipe connection. Therefore, a perforated pipe
connection is proposed for the roof drainage. The roof area is 3,294 SF, therefore a single
10’ perforated pipe connection is proposed. The footing drains shall bypass the
perforated pipe connection.
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 9
Special Requirements
Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements
Master Drainage Plans– N/A
Basin Plan – N/A
Salmon Conservation Plans- N/A
Lake Management Plans – N/A
Hazard Mitigation Plan- N/A
Shared Facility Drainage Plans – 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
The project does not fall under the classification of a commercial site; therefore, source
controls are not required.
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.
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 10
III. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
A Level 1 Offsite Analysis has been performed on Wednesday November 15, 2022. The analysis
was performed at approximately 3:00 PM with a temperature of about 55°. The property is
currently developed with a single-family home. The site is contained within the May Creek
drainage basin. A map showing the study area is included in Figure 6 on the next page.
Site Photo
We have reviewed the site and the applicable resources for both listed and potential problems.
The receiving waterbody, Lake Washington, is not an impaired Category 5 water body per the
Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Atlas.
Stormwater runoff from the site sheet flows to the north and west to the existing stormwater
system within Park Ave N and N 39th Pl. The existing conveyance system within N 39th Pl directs
runoff west to Park Ave N, merging with the existing conveyance system within Park Ave N 85
feet north of the site. From there, runoff continues north along Park Ave N for 235 feet until N
40th St. Runoff then flows west along N 40th St for 465 feet to Lake Washington N Blvd and is then
routed northwest across Lake Washington Blvd N to Wells Ave N for 170 feet. The existing
conveyance system within Wells Ave N conveys runoff south and west for 315 feet to Lake
Washington and the remainder of the downstream analysis. This Analysis was ended at a point
over ¼ mile downstream of the site discharge location.
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 11
Figure 6: Downstream Map
SITE N
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 12
IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The site was analyzed using the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) provided by
the Department of Ecology (DOE). We are modeling the portion of the site that’s being
developed. The project site is located in the Peak Rate Flow Control Area, therefore existing
conditions have been used for the pre-developed modeling analysis. The hydrologic analysis of
the site was completed in order to determine the increase in 100-year peak. Per Section 1.2.3.1.A,
a formal flow control facility is waived for any threshold discharge area in which the target
surfaces will generate no more than a 0.15 CFS increase in the existing site conditions 100-year
peak flow. The WWHM analysis concluded that the increase in the 100-year peak is 0.0143 CFS
which is less than 0.15 CFS, therefore a formal flow control facility is not required.
Given the topography of the existing project site, a single drainage basin was analyzed for the
project. The site basin criterion is summarized below. Refer to Appendix A for the complete
WWHM analysis.
WWHM Hydrologic Parameters
Soil Type = Till
Rain Region = SeaTac
Precip Scale = 1.0
Existing Conditions:
Project Site Areas
Impervious = 0.08 acre
Pervious (lawn) = 0.51 acre
Total = 0.59 acre
Developed Conditions:
Project Site Areas
Impervious = 0.16 acre
Pervious (pasture) = 0.43 acre
Total = 0.59 acre
Q dev–Q predev = 0.2938 CFS – 0.2795 CFS = 0.0143 CFS; therefore meets the exception, as noted
in the analysis.
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 13
V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The proposed conveyance system will tightline flows through the project site to the existing
conveyance system within Park Ave N. The conveyance calculations were performed using
developed peak flows to ensure that during the 100-year storm event, the system would function
adequately. The 100-year peak flow from the developed site using WWHM with 15-minute time
steps was compared to the maximum capacity of a 4” PVC pipe. Using the Manning’s Equation,
the maximum capacity of a 4” PVC pipe sloped at 2% was calculated to be 0.32 CFS. The 100-year
peak flow from the developed site using WWHM was calculated as mitigated to be 0.2938 CFS,
which is less than the maximum capacity of the proposed pipes. Therefore, the proposed
conveyance system has sufficient capacity for the project.
WWHM Conveyance Analysis:
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 14
VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
• Geotechnical Investigation by Cobalt Geosciences, LLC.
VII. OTHER PERMITS
• Civil Construction Permit
• Building Permits
• Right-of-Way Use Permit
• City of Renton Water Service Application
VIII. CSWPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Part A – ESC Analysis and Design:
Several standard Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be utilized by the contractor to
minimize the amount of erosion and sedimentation that may be perpetuated by the construction
of the site. The thirteen erosion and sedimentation control measures are outlined below:
Erosion/Sedimentation Control Design:
Several standard Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per CORSWDM Appendix D.3 will be
utilized by the contractor to minimize the amount of erosion and sedimentation that may be
perpetuated by the construction of the site. The thirteen erosion and sedimentation control
measures are outlined below:
Clearing Limits-
Prior to any site clearing, the areas to remain undisturbed during the project construction will
be physically marked on the project site. The clearing limits are delineated on the TESC Plan as
the area to be disturbed.
Cover Measures-
Temporary and permanent cover measures will be provided when necessary to protect
disturbed areas. Materials will be stockpiled on-site and will be covered with plastic sheeting
per City of Renton SWDM D.2.1.2.4 when necessary.
Perimeter Protection-
Filter fencing per City of Renton SWDM D.2.1.3.1 will be used downstream of all disturbed
areas to filter sediment from sheet flow.
Traffic Area Stabilization-
A stabilized construction entrance per City of Renton SWDM D.2.1.4.1 will be implemented.
Sediment Retention-
Given the small scope of work and minimal grading, the installation of a filter fence will provide
adequate means of trapping sediment on-site. If sediment is tracked off-site, public roads shall
be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day or more frequently during wet weather, per
CORSWDM Section D.3.2.B.2.
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 15
Surface Water Collection-
Given the small scope of work and minimal grading, runoff can be treated solely with the filter
fence used for perimeter protection. There are no significant sources of upstream surface water
that drain onto the disturbed areas.
Dewatering Control-
Dewatering is not anticipated.
Dust Control-
Dust control is not anticipated to be required but shall be implemented per City of Renton
SWDM Table D.2.1.8.A when necessary.
Flow Control-
Given the scope of the project additional flow control measures are not warranted during
construction.
Control Pollutants-
No pollutants will be stored onsite, but a spill kit shall be retained onsite in case of any fuel
spills from construction equipment.
Protect Existing and Proposed Flow Control BMPs-
There are no proposed BMPs that require protection.
Maintain BMPs-
TESC BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed throughout construction. All disturbed
areas of the project site shall be vegetated or otherwise permanently stabilized once
completed.
Manage the Project-
The TESC plan shall be retained onsite anytime construction work is taking place. Prior to
commencing construction, a TESC contact will be established.
Part B – Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) Measures:
Storage and Handling of Liquids –
Not applicable, since no petroleum products, fuels, solvents, detergents, paint, pesticides,
concrete admixtures, or form oils will be handled or stored on the project site.
Storage and Stockpiling of Construction Materials and Wastes –
Minimal materials will be stockpiled on-site, but will be covered with plastic sheeting when
necessary.
Fueling –
Although expected to be minimal, onsite transfer of fuel to construction equipment will be
limited to pickup truck-mounted DOT approved fuel tanks. The refueling of equipment will be
conducted within the areas of disturbance delineated on the TESC Plan.
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
5/4/2023 Pag e | 16
Maintenance, Repairs, and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment –
Contractor shall provide drip pans under equipment being stored overnight or on a prolonged
basis. No repairs to vehicles will take place on site.
Concrete Saw Cutting, Slurry, and Washwater Disposal –
No truck washout area or associated sump is required for the project site. Contractor shall
provide truck mounted hand tool rinsing tub for cleaning screeds, shovels, rakes, floats and
trowels. Wastewater from hand tool rinsing shall be disposed of offsite.
Handling of pH Elevated Water –
N/A – Minimal concrete work will be performed.
Application of Chemicals Including Pesticides and Fertilizers –
Not applicable, since no chemicals will be used on the project site.
IX. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES AND DECLARATION of
COVENANT
Bond Quantities, Facility Summary and Declaration of Covenant are or will be provided as
needed.
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
Appendix A
WWHM Analysis
WWHM2012
PROJECT REPORT
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:18:50 PM Page 2
General Model Information
Project Name:Bergman SFR WWHM
Site Name:
Site Address:
City:
Report Date:4/4/2023
Gage:Seatac
Data Start:1948/10/01
Data End:2009/09/30
Timestep:15 Minute
Precip Scale:1.000
Version Date:2021/08/18
Version:4.2.18
POC Thresholds
Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:18:50 PM Page 3
Landuse Basin Data
Predeveloped Land Use
Basin 1
Bypass:No
GroundWater:No
Pervious Land Use acre
C, Lawn, Flat 0.07
C, Lawn, Mod 0.44
Pervious Total 0.51
Impervious Land Use acre
ROADS FLAT 0.06
ROADS MOD 0.02
Impervious Total 0.08
Basin Total 0.59
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:18:50 PM Page 4
Mitigated Land Use
Basin 1
Bypass:No
GroundWater:No
Pervious Land Use acre
C, Lawn, Flat 0.07
C, Lawn, Mod 0.36
Pervious Total 0.43
Impervious Land Use acre
ROADS FLAT 0.02
ROADS MOD 0.03
ROADS STEEP 0.03
ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.08
Impervious Total 0.16
Basin Total 0.59
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:18:50 PM Page 5
Routing Elements
Predeveloped Routing
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:18:50 PM Page 6
Mitigated Routing
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:18:50 PM Page 7
Analysis Results
POC 1
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area:0.51
Total Impervious Area:0.08
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area:0.43
Total Impervious Area:0.16
Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.075695
5 year 0.11875
10 year 0.151773
25 year 0.198678
50 year 0.237433
100 year 0.279507
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.100842
5 year 0.144554
10 year 0.176583
25 year 0.220613
50 year 0.256039
100 year 0.293754
Annual Peaks
Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1
Year Predeveloped Mitigated
1949 0.132 0.160
1950 0.138 0.157
1951 0.076 0.094
1952 0.040 0.058
1953 0.032 0.057
1954 0.059 0.080
1955 0.060 0.086
1956 0.069 0.084
1957 0.089 0.113
1958 0.048 0.072
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:18 PM Page 8
1959 0.043 0.060
1960 0.082 0.102
1961 0.066 0.086
1962 0.037 0.059
1963 0.070 0.091
1964 0.063 0.079
1965 0.095 0.118
1966 0.045 0.065
1967 0.135 0.152
1968 0.102 0.143
1969 0.086 0.107
1970 0.068 0.093
1971 0.087 0.113
1972 0.125 0.146
1973 0.036 0.053
1974 0.090 0.115
1975 0.095 0.117
1976 0.066 0.087
1977 0.059 0.080
1978 0.072 0.100
1979 0.058 0.104
1980 0.163 0.192
1981 0.067 0.095
1982 0.145 0.172
1983 0.080 0.102
1984 0.050 0.069
1985 0.068 0.094
1986 0.074 0.093
1987 0.070 0.104
1988 0.031 0.054
1989 0.036 0.078
1990 0.263 0.286
1991 0.180 0.206
1992 0.057 0.076
1993 0.033 0.055
1994 0.026 0.048
1995 0.057 0.082
1996 0.126 0.143
1997 0.087 0.108
1998 0.069 0.092
1999 0.200 0.236
2000 0.077 0.101
2001 0.048 0.084
2002 0.123 0.148
2003 0.108 0.134
2004 0.168 0.215
2005 0.072 0.091
2006 0.072 0.089
2007 0.244 0.263
2008 0.173 0.197
2009 0.099 0.120
Ranked Annual Peaks
Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1
Rank Predeveloped Mitigated
1 0.2633 0.2855
2 0.2439 0.2633
3 0.1996 0.2360
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:18 PM Page 9
4 0.1804 0.2147
5 0.1731 0.2063
6 0.1675 0.1972
7 0.1631 0.1917
8 0.1449 0.1723
9 0.1381 0.1603
10 0.1351 0.1566
11 0.1324 0.1521
12 0.1259 0.1484
13 0.1247 0.1458
14 0.1231 0.1435
15 0.1078 0.1429
16 0.1021 0.1335
17 0.0992 0.1204
18 0.0954 0.1185
19 0.0948 0.1170
20 0.0898 0.1146
21 0.0894 0.1130
22 0.0874 0.1126
23 0.0868 0.1085
24 0.0856 0.1070
25 0.0817 0.1045
26 0.0802 0.1038
27 0.0767 0.1019
28 0.0762 0.1015
29 0.0738 0.1010
30 0.0725 0.0997
31 0.0724 0.0949
32 0.0719 0.0945
33 0.0696 0.0939
34 0.0696 0.0932
35 0.0693 0.0926
36 0.0693 0.0917
37 0.0683 0.0914
38 0.0681 0.0907
39 0.0674 0.0887
40 0.0663 0.0872
41 0.0659 0.0863
42 0.0632 0.0862
43 0.0596 0.0845
44 0.0593 0.0835
45 0.0590 0.0823
46 0.0576 0.0804
47 0.0572 0.0803
48 0.0570 0.0791
49 0.0501 0.0784
50 0.0483 0.0756
51 0.0476 0.0722
52 0.0454 0.0691
53 0.0433 0.0651
54 0.0404 0.0601
55 0.0366 0.0592
56 0.0363 0.0578
57 0.0358 0.0572
58 0.0331 0.0545
59 0.0320 0.0538
60 0.0308 0.0531
61 0.0259 0.0476
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:18 PM Page 10
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:18 PM Page 11
Duration Flows
Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
0.0378 1166 2706 232 Fail
0.0399 976 2299 235 Fail
0.0419 830 1991 239 Fail
0.0439 704 1732 246 Fail
0.0459 606 1496 246 Fail
0.0479 517 1316 254 Fail
0.0499 455 1140 250 Fail
0.0520 407 1009 247 Fail
0.0540 366 888 242 Fail
0.0560 329 786 238 Fail
0.0580 294 700 238 Fail
0.0600 269 626 232 Fail
0.0620 244 560 229 Fail
0.0641 227 514 226 Fail
0.0661 212 467 220 Fail
0.0681 192 435 226 Fail
0.0701 174 387 222 Fail
0.0721 158 353 223 Fail
0.0741 139 326 234 Fail
0.0762 131 305 232 Fail
0.0782 120 284 236 Fail
0.0802 111 259 233 Fail
0.0822 105 241 229 Fail
0.0842 98 225 229 Fail
0.0862 94 204 217 Fail
0.0882 91 190 208 Fail
0.0903 85 179 210 Fail
0.0923 81 165 203 Fail
0.0943 77 152 197 Fail
0.0963 72 139 193 Fail
0.0983 69 130 188 Fail
0.1003 66 122 184 Fail
0.1024 62 114 183 Fail
0.1044 60 108 180 Fail
0.1064 55 103 187 Fail
0.1084 51 96 188 Fail
0.1104 46 93 202 Fail
0.1124 45 90 200 Fail
0.1145 45 85 188 Fail
0.1165 43 80 186 Fail
0.1185 42 77 183 Fail
0.1205 41 74 180 Fail
0.1225 40 70 175 Fail
0.1245 36 63 175 Fail
0.1266 33 62 187 Fail
0.1286 32 57 178 Fail
0.1306 31 53 170 Fail
0.1326 28 50 178 Fail
0.1346 26 49 188 Fail
0.1366 25 47 188 Fail
0.1386 23 45 195 Fail
0.1407 21 44 209 Fail
0.1427 21 41 195 Fail
0.1447 21 37 176 Fail
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:18 PM Page 12
0.1467 18 36 200 Fail
0.1487 18 35 194 Fail
0.1507 17 34 200 Fail
0.1528 17 30 176 Fail
0.1548 16 29 181 Fail
0.1568 16 26 162 Fail
0.1588 14 26 185 Fail
0.1608 13 24 184 Fail
0.1628 13 24 184 Fail
0.1649 12 22 183 Fail
0.1669 11 21 190 Fail
0.1689 10 21 209 Fail
0.1709 10 20 200 Fail
0.1729 9 19 211 Fail
0.1749 7 18 257 Fail
0.1770 7 17 242 Fail
0.1790 7 17 242 Fail
0.1810 6 17 283 Fail
0.1830 6 16 266 Fail
0.1850 5 15 300 Fail
0.1870 5 15 300 Fail
0.1890 5 14 280 Fail
0.1911 4 14 350 Fail
0.1931 4 12 300 Fail
0.1951 4 12 300 Fail
0.1971 4 11 275 Fail
0.1991 4 10 250 Fail
0.2011 3 9 300 Fail
0.2032 2 9 450 Fail
0.2052 2 9 450 Fail
0.2072 2 8 400 Fail
0.2092 2 8 400 Fail
0.2112 2 6 300 Fail
0.2132 2 6 300 Fail
0.2153 2 5 250 Fail
0.2173 2 4 200 Fail
0.2193 2 4 200 Fail
0.2213 2 4 200 Fail
0.2233 2 3 150 Fail
0.2253 2 3 150 Fail
0.2274 2 3 150 Fail
0.2294 2 3 150 Fail
0.2314 2 3 150 Fail
0.2334 2 3 150 Fail
0.2354 2 3 150 Fail
0.2374 2 2 100 Pass
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.
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:19 PM Page 13
Water Quality
Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1
On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet
On-line facility target flow:0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs.
Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs.
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:19 PM Page 14
LID Report
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:27 PM Page 15
Model Default Modifications
Total of 0 changes have been made.
PERLND Changes
No PERLND changes have been made.
IMPLND Changes
No IMPLND changes have been made.
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:27 PM Page 16
Appendix
Predeveloped Schematic
Bergman SFR WWHM 4/4/2023 3:19:27 PM Page 17
Mitigated Schematic
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
Appendix B
Geotechnical Investigation by Cobalt Geosciences, LLC.
Cobalt Geosciences, LLC
P.O. Box 82243
Kenmore, Washington 98028
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
November 22, 2022
Kayla McLain
Kayla.shea.mclain@gmail.com
RE: Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Residence
3900 Park Avenue North
Renton, Washington
In accordance with your authorization, Cobalt Geosciences, LLC has prepared this letter to
discuss the results of our geotechnical evaluation at the referenced site.
The purpose of our evaluation was to provide recommendations for foundation design, grading,
and earthwork.
Site Description
The site is located at 3900 Park Avenue North in Renton, Washington. The site consists of one
rectangular shaped parcel (No. 3342700515) with a total area of 25,873 square feet.
The western half of the property is developed with a residence, detached garage, and driveway.
The remainder of the site is vegetated with grasses, bushes, and sparse trees.
The site slopes downward from south to northeast and northwest at magnitudes of less than 15
percent and relief of about 12 feet. There is a new 3 to 4 feet tall lock and load wall near the south
property line facing to the north. This wall is part of a newer development project on the parcel to
the south.
The site is bordered to the north, south, and east by residential properties, and to the west by Park
Avenue North.
The proposed development includes a new residence and driveway in the central portion of the
property.
Stormwater will include infiltration or other systems depending on feasibility. Site grading may
include cuts and fills of 6 feet or less and foundation loads are expected to be light. We should be
provided with the final plans to verify that our recommendations remain valid and do not require
updating.
Area Geology
The Geologic Map of King County, indicates that the site is underlain by Vashon Recessional
Outwash.
The Vashon Recessional Outwash includes fine to medium grained sand with gravel as well as
finer grained lake sediments (silt and clay). These deposits are normally consolidated.
Recessional outwash often overlies Vashon Glacial Till.
Vashon Glacial Till includes dense mixtures of silt, sand, gravel, and clay in a nonsorted matrix or
diamict. These deposits become denser with depth and are glacially consolidated.
November 22, 2022 Page 2 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Soil & Groundwater Conditions
As part of our evaluation, we excavated one test pit and two hand borings where accessible. The
explorations encountered approximately 6 inches of grass and topsoil underlain by approximately
2.5 to 3 feet of loose to medium dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand with gravel (Weathered
Outwash). These materials were underlain by medium dense to dense, silty-fine to medium
grained gravel (Glacial Till?), which continued to the termination depths of the explorations.
Groundwater was not encountered in the explorations during our work. The soils were mottled
below about 3 feet and perched groundwater may develop on the denser soils during the wet
season. We reviewed soil conditions in deeper excavations on the site to the south. We observed
mottled till-like silty-sands in these areas.
Water table elevations often fluctuate over time. The groundwater level will depend on a variety
of factors that may include seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, climatic conditions and
soil permeability. Water levels at the time of the field investigation may be different from those
encountered during the construction phase of the project. It would be necessary to install a
piezometer to determine groundwater depths over a typical year.
Steep Slope/Landslide Hazard
According to City GIS maps, the southeast portions of the site are within a buffer of a steep slope
hazard area. The steep slopes appear to be located on one or more properties to the south of the
subject site. Based on our observations and review of online topographic and LiDAR imagery, it is
our opinion that the mapped steep slopes are associated with prior cuts as part of site
development nearby. This part of Renton has gentle to moderate slopes that resulted from glacial
retreat.
Basement and yard walls often trigger the LiDAR to show these areas as potential landslide
hazard areas based on magnitude. In this case, the vertical relief appears to be very limited and
we did not observe any steep slope or landslide hazards that could affect the project or subject
property. No setback or buffer is warranted for the proposed development.
Erosion Hazard
The Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) maps for King County indicate that the site
is underlain by Indianola loamy sand (5 to 15 percent slopes). These soils would have a slight to
moderate erosion potential in a disturbed state depending on the slope magnitude.
It is our opinion that soil erosion potential at this project site can be reduced through landscaping
and surface water runoff control. Typically, erosion of exposed soils will be most noticeable
during periods of rainfall and may be controlled by the use of normal temporary erosion control
measures, such as silt fences, hay bales, mulching, control ditches and diversion trenches. The
typical wet weather season, with regard to site grading, is from October 31st to April 1st. Erosion
control measures should be in place before the onset of wet weather.
Seismic Parameters
The overall subsurface profile corresponds to a Site Class D as defined by Table 1613.5.2 of the
International Building Code (IBC). A Site Class D applies to an overall profile consisting of
stiff/medium dense soils within the upper 100 feet.
November 22, 2022 Page 3 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
We referenced the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program Website to
obtain values for SS, S1, Fa, and Fv. The USGS website includes the most updated published data
on seismic conditions. The following tables provide seismic parameters from the USGS web site
with referenced parameters from ASCE 7-16.
Seismic Design Parameters (ASCE 7-16)
Site
Class
Spectral
Acceleration
at 0.2 sec. (g)
Spectral
Acceleration
at 1.0 sec. (g)
Site
Coefficients
Design Spectral
Response Parameters
Design
PGA
Fa Fv SDS SD1
D 1.444 0.497 1.0 Null 0.963 Null 0.617
Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground
motions by soft/loose soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a
high groundwater table. The site has a relatively low likelihood of liquefaction. For items listed
as “Null” see Section 11.4.8 of the ASCE.
Conclusions and Recommendations
General
The site is underlain by soils consistent with Vashon Recessional Outwash and Vashon Glacial
Till. These soils become dense below a weathered zone. The proposed residential structure may
be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on medium dense or firmer native soils or
on structural fill placed on the native soils.
Local overexcavation or recompaction of loose weathered native soils may be necessary
depending on the proposed elevations and locations of the new footings. Note that the upper
fine-grained soils were locally loose and may require removal in foundation areas.
Infiltration is not feasible due to the presence of an aquitard at shallow depths. There is a
moderate to high likelihood that groundwater (interflow) will develop on the denser and finer
grained soils. The mottled and denser soils were observed about 3 feet below grade. We
recommend direct or perforated connection of runoff collection devices to City infrastructure. We
can provide additional input once a civil plan has been prepared.
Site Preparation
Trees, shrubs and other vegetation should be removed prior to stripping of surficial organic-rich
soil and fill. Based on observations from the site investigation program, it is anticipated that the
stripping depth will be 6 to 18 inches. Deeper excavations will be necessary below larger trees and
foundation systems.
November 22, 2022 Page 4 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
The native soils consist of silty-sand with gravel. Most of the native soils may be used as
structural fill provided they achieve compaction requirements and are within 3 percent of the
optimum moisture. Some of these soils may only be suitable for use as fill during the summer
months, as they will be above the optimum moisture levels in their current state. These soils are
variably moisture sensitive and may degrade during periods of wet weather and under equipment
traffic.
Imported structural fill should consist of a sand and gravel mixture with a maximum grain size of
3 inches and less than 5 percent fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve).
Structural fill should be placed in maximum lift thicknesses of 12 inches and should be compacted
to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified proctor maximum dry density, as determined by the
ASTM D 1557 test method.
Temporary Excavations
Based on our understanding of the project, we anticipate that the grading could include local cuts
on the order of approximately 6 feet or less for foundation and most of the utility placement.
Temporary excavations should be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) in loose
native soils and fill and 1H:1V in medium dense native soils. If an excavation is subject to heavy
vibration or surcharge loads, we recommend that the excavations be sloped no steeper than
2H:1V, where room permits.
Temporary cuts should be in accordance with the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Part
N, Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring. Temporary slopes should be visually inspected daily by a
qualified person during construction activities and the inspections should be documented in daily
reports. The contractor is responsible for maintaining the stability of the temporary cut slopes
and reducing slope erosion during construction.
Temporary cut slopes should be covered with visqueen to help reduce erosion during wet weather,
and the slopes should be closely monitored until the permanent retaining systems or slope
configurations are complete. Materials should not be stored or equipment operated within 10 feet
of the top of any temporary cut slope.
Soil conditions may not be completely known from the geotechnical investigation. In the case of
temporary cuts, the existing soil conditions may not be completely revealed until the excavation
work exposes the soil. Typically, as excavation work progresses the maximum inclination of
temporary slopes will need to be re-evaluated by the geotechnical engineer so that supplemental
recommendations can be made. Soil and groundwater conditions can be highly variable.
Scheduling for soil work will need to be adjustable, to deal with unanticipated conditions, so that
the project can proceed and required deadlines can be met.
If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, we should be
notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. If room constraints or
groundwater conditions do not permit temporary slopes to be cut to the maximum angles allowed
by the WAC, temporary shoring systems may be required. The contractor should be responsible
for developing temporary shoring systems, if needed. We recommend that Cobalt Geosciences
and the project structural engineer review temporary shoring designs prior to installation, to
verify the suitability of the proposed systems.
November 22, 2022 Page 5 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Foundation Design
The proposed structure may be supported on a shallow spread footing foundation system bearing
on undisturbed medium dense or firmer native soils or on properly compacted structural fill
placed on the suitable native soils. Any undocumented fill and/or loose native soils should be
removed and replaced with structural fill below foundation elements. Structural fill below
footings should consist of clean angular rock 5/8 to 4 inches in size. We should verify soil
conditions during foundation excavation work. Note that the upper fine grained soils are locally
loose and some overexcavation should be anticipated to be necessary.
For shallow foundation support, we recommend widths of at least 16 and 24 inches, respectively,
for continuous wall and isolated column footings supporting the proposed structure. Provided
that the footings are supported as recommended above, a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,500
pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design.
A 1/3 increase in the above value may be used for short duration loads, such as those imposed by
wind and seismic events. Structural fill placed on bearing, native subgrade should be compacted
to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Footing
excavations should be inspected to verify that the foundations will bear on suitable material.
Exterior footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or
adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower. Interior footings should have a minimum depth of 12
inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower.
If constructed as recommended, the total foundation settlement is not expected to exceed 1 inch.
Differential settlement, along a 25-foot exterior wall footing, or between adjoining column
footings, should be less than ½ inch. This translates to an angular distortion of 0.002. Most
settlement is expected to occur during construction, as the loads are applied. However, additional
post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. All
footing excavations should be observed by a qualified geotechnical consultant.
Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be determined using an allowable friction factor of
0.40 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrades. Lateral resistance for
footings can also be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 250 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces (neglect the upper 12
inches below grade in exterior areas). The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be
combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.
Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction.
Any extremely wet or dry materials, or any loose or disturbed materials at the bottom of the
footing excavations, should be removed prior to placing concrete. The potential for wetting or
drying of the bearing materials can be reduced by pouring concrete as soon as possible after
completing the footing excavation and evaluating the bearing surface by the geotechnical engineer
or his representative.
Concrete Retaining Walls
The following table, titled Wall Design Criteria, presents the recommended soil related design
parameters for retaining walls with a level backslope. Contact Cobalt if an alternate retaining wall
system is used. This has been included for new cast in place walls, if any are proposed.
November 22, 2022 Page 6 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Wall Design Criteria
“At-rest” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure – EFD+) 55 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density)
“Active” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure – EFD+) 35 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density)
Seismic Increase for “At-rest” Conditions
(Lateral Earth Pressure)
21H* (Uniform Distribution) 1 in 2,500 year
event
Seismic Increase for “At-rest” Conditions
(Lateral Earth Pressure)
14H* (Uniform Distribution) 1 in 500 year event
Seismic Increase for “Active” Conditions
(Lateral Earth Pressure)
7H* (Uniform Distribution)
Passive Earth Pressure on Low Side of Wall
(Allowable, includes F.S. = 1.5)
Neglect upper 2 feet, then 275 pcf EFD+
Soil-Footing Coefficient of Sliding Friction (Allowable;
includes F.S. = 1.5)
0.40
*H is the height of the wall; Increase based on one in 500 year seismic event (10 percent probability of being exceeded in
50 years),
+EFD – Equivalent Fluid Density
The stated lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic pressure generated by
water accumulation behind the retaining walls. Uniform horizontal lateral active and at-rest
pressures on the retaining walls from vertical surcharges behind the wall may be calculated using
active and at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficients of 0.3 and 0.5, respectively. A soil unit weight
of 125 pcf may be used to calculate vertical earth surcharges.
To reduce the potential for the buildup of water pressure against the walls, continuous footing
drains (with cleanouts) should be provided at the bases of the walls. The footing drains should
consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed
down and enveloped by a minimum 6 inches of pea gravel in all directions.
The backfill adjacent to and extending a lateral distance behind the walls at least 2 feet should
consist of free-draining granular material. All free draining backfill should contain less than 3
percent fines (passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve) based upon the fraction passing the U.S.
Standard No. 4 Sieve with at least 30 percent of the material being retained on the U.S. Standard
No. 4 Sieve. The primary purpose of the free-draining material is the reduction of hydrostatic
pressure. Some potential for the moisture to contact the back face of the wall may exist, even with
treatment, which may require that more extensive waterproofing be specified for walls, which
require interior moisture sensitive finishes.
We recommend that the backfill be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density
based on ASTM Test Method D1557. In place density tests should be performed to verify
adequate compaction. Soil compactors place transient surcharges on the backfill. Consequently,
only light hand operated equipment is recommended within 3 feet of walls so that excessive stress
is not imposed on the walls.
November 22, 2022 Page 7 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Stormwater Management Feasibility
The site is underlain by what appears to be recessional outwash overlying glacial till. Mottled
soils were observed about 3 feet below grade and an aquitard appears to be present at and just
below this depth.
We performed a small scale pilot infiltration test (PIT) in TP-1. The test was performed in general
accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology stormwater manual.
The area was excavated to a testing depth of approximately 4 feet below the ground surface. The
design infiltration rate was determined by applying correction factors to the measured infiltration
rate as prescribed in Volume III, Section 3.3.6 of the DOE. The measured rate must be reduced
through appropriate correction factors for site variability (CFV), uncertainty of test method (CFT),
and degree of influent control (CFM) to prevent siltation and bio-buildup.
It should be noted that construction traffic or other disturbance to the target infiltration area
could compact the soil, which may decrease the effective infiltration rates. The correction factors
and resulting design infiltration rate are also shown in the table below.
Test
Number
Test
Depth (ft)
Measured
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
Correction Factors Design
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr) CFV CFT CFM
TP-1 4.0 0.38 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.1
Infiltration is not feasible due to the presence of an aquitard at shallow depths. The measured and
factored infiltration rate is lower than what is considered to be feasible.
There is a moderate to high likelihood that groundwater (interflow) will develop on the denser
and finer grained soils. The mottled and denser soils were observed about 3 feet below grade.
We recommend direct or perforated connection of runoff collection devices to City infrastructure.
We can provide additional input once a civil plan has been prepared.
Slab-on-Grade
We recommend that the upper 18 inches of the existing native soils within slab areas be re-
compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified proctor (ASTM D1557 Test Method).
Often, a vapor barrier is considered below concrete slab areas. However, the usage of a vapor
barrier could result in curling of the concrete slab at joints. Floor covers sensitive to moisture
typically requires the usage of a vapor barrier. A materials or structural engineer should be
consulted regarding the detailing of the vapor barrier below concrete slabs. Exterior slabs
typically do not utilize vapor barriers.
The American Concrete Institutes ACI 360R-06 Design of Slabs on Grade and ACI 302.1R-04
Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction are recommended references for vapor barrier
selection and floor slab detailing.
Slabs on grade may be designed using a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 210 pounds per cubic
inch (pci) assuming the slab-on-grade base course is underlain by structural fill placed and
November 22, 2022 Page 8 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
compacted as outlined above. A 4- to 6-inch-thick capillary break layer should be placed over the
prepared subgrade. This material should consist of pea gravel or 5/8 inch clean angular rock.
A perimeter drainage system is recommended unless interior slab areas are elevated a minimum
of 12 inches above adjacent exterior grades. If installed, a perimeter drainage system should
consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated drain pipe surrounded by a minimum 6 inches of drain
rock wrapped in a non-woven geosynthetic filter fabric to reduce migration of soil particles into
the drainage system. The perimeter drainage system should discharge by gravity flow to a
suitable stormwater system.
Exterior grades surrounding buildings should be sloped at a minimum of one percent to facilitate
surface water flow away from the building and preferably with a relatively impermeable surface
cover immediately adjacent to the building.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to reduce the transportation of eroded sediment to
wetlands, streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment
control measures should be implemented, and these measures should be in general accordance
with local regulations. At a minimum, the following basic recommendations should be
incorporated into the design of the erosion and sediment control features for the site:
Schedule the soil, foundation, utility, and other work requiring excavation or the disturbance
of the site soils, to take place during the dry season (generally May through September).
However, provided precautions are taken using Best Management Practices (BMP’s), grading
activities can be completed during the wet season (generally October through April).
All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible.
Additional perimeter erosion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the
possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fences, silt
fences with a higher Apparent Opening Size (AOS), construction of a berm, or other filtration
systems.
Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a
sediment trap if there is sufficient space. If space is limited other filtration methods will need
to be incorporated.
Utilities
Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards, by a contractor experienced in such
work. The contractor is responsible for the safety of open trenches. Traffic and vibration adjacent
to trench walls should be reduced; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be
avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into
open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of
precipitation.
In general, silty soils were encountered at shallow depths in the explorations at this site. These
soils have low cohesion and density and will have a tendency to cave or slough in excavations.
Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls is required within these soils in excavations greater than
4 feet deep.
November 22, 2022 Page 9 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
All utility trench backfill should consist of imported structural fill or suitable on site soils. Utility
trench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. The upper 5
feet of utility trench backfill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent
of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Below 5 feet, utility trench
backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry
density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with the pipe
manufacturer's recommendations.
The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trenches regardless of
the backfill location and compaction requirements. Depending on the depth and location of the
proposed utilities, we anticipate the need to re-compact existing fill soils below the utility
structures and pipes. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid
damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction procedures.
CONSTRUCTION FIELD REVIEWS
Cobalt Geosciences should be retained to provide part time field review during construction in
order to verify that the soil conditions encountered are consistent with our design assumptions
and that the intent of our recommendations is being met. This will require field and engineering
review to:
Monitor and test structural fill placement and soil compaction
Observe bearing capacity at foundation locations
Observe slab-on-grade preparation
Monitor foundation drainage placement
Observe excavation stability
Geotechnical design services should also be anticipated during the subsequent final design phase
to support the structural design and address specific issues arising during this phase. Field and
engineering review services will also be required during the construction phase in order to
provide a Final Letter for the project.
CLOSURE
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Kaylan McLain and her appointed consultants.
Any use of this report or the material contained herein by third parties, or for other than the
intended purpose, should first be approved in writing by Cobalt Geosciences, LLC.
The recommendations contained in this report are based on assumed continuity of soils with
those of our test holes and assumed structural loads. Cobalt Geosciences should be provided with
final architectural and civil drawings when they become available in order that we may review our
design recommendations and advise of any revisions, if necessary.
Use of this report is subject to the Statement of General Conditions provided in Appendix A. It is
the responsibility of Kayla McLain who is identified as “the Client” within the Statement of
General Conditions, and its agents to review the conditions and to notify Cobalt Geosciences
should any of these not be satisfied.
November 22, 2022 Page 10 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Sincerely,
Cobalt Geosciences, LLC
11/22/2022
Phil Haberman, PE, LG, LEG
Principal
November 22, 2022 Page 11 of 11 Geotechnical Evaluation
www.cobaltgeo.com (206) 331-1097
Statement of General Conditions
USE OF THIS REPORT: This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of the Client or its
agent and may not be used by any third party without the express written consent of Cobalt
Geosciences and the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this report is the responsibility
of such third party.
BASIS OF THE REPORT: The information, opinions, and/or recommendations made in this
report are in accordance with Cobalt Geosciences present understanding of the site specific
project as described by the Client. The applicability of these is restricted to the site conditions
encountered at the time of the investigation or study. If the proposed site specific project differs
or is modified from what is described in this report or if the site conditions are altered, this report
is no longer valid unless Cobalt Geosciences is requested by the Client to review and revise the
report to reflect the differing or modified project specifics and/or the altered site conditions.
STANDARD OF CARE: Preparation of this report, and all associated work, was carried out in
accordance with the normally accepted standard of care in the state of execution for the specific
professional service provided to the Client. No other warranty is made.
INTERPRETATION OF SITE CONDITIONS: Soil, rock, or other material descriptions, and
statements regarding their condition, made in this report are based on site conditions
encountered by Cobalt Geosciences at the time of the work and at the specific testing and/or
sampling locations. Classifications and statements of condition have been made in accordance
with normally accepted practices which are judgmental in nature; no specific description should
be considered exact, but rather reflective of the anticipated material behavior. Extrapolation of in
situ conditions can only be made to some limited extent beyond the sampling or test points. The
extent depends on variability of the soil, rock and groundwater conditions as influenced by
geological processes, construction activity, and site use.
VARYING OR UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS: Should any site or subsurface conditions be
encountered that are different from those described in this report or encountered at the test
locations, Cobalt Geosciences must be notified immediately to assess if the varying or unexpected
conditions are substantial and if reassessments of the report conclusions or recommendations are
required. Cobalt Geosciences will not be responsible to any party for damages incurred as a result
of failing to notify Cobalt Geosciences that differing site or sub-surface conditions are present
upon becoming aware of such conditions.
PLANNING, DESIGN, OR CONSTRUCTION: Development or design plans and
specifications should be reviewed by Cobalt Geosciences, sufficiently ahead of initiating the next
project stage (property acquisition, tender, construction, etc), to confirm that this report
completely addresses the elaborated project specifics and that the contents of this report have
been properly interpreted. Specialty quality assurance services (field observations and testing)
during construction are a necessary part of the evaluation of sub-subsurface conditions and site
preparation works. Site work relating to the recommendations included in this report should only
be carried out in the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer; Cobalt Geosciences cannot be
responsible for site work carried out without being present.
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCP.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028
(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
SITE MAP
FIGURE 1
N
Proposed Residence
3900 Park Avenue North
Renton, Washington
Subject Property
TP-1
HB-2
HB-1
Attachment
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCPO Box 1792North Bend, WA 98045
(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
phil@cobaltgeo.com
PT
Well-graded gravels, gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
(more than 50%
retained on
No. 200 sieve)
Primarily organic matter, dark in color,
and organic odor Peat, humus, swamp soils with high organic content (ASTM D4427)HIGHLY ORGANIC
SOILS
FINE GRAINED
SOILS
(50% or more
passes the
No. 200 sieve)
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Gravels
(more than 50%
of coarse fraction
retained on No. 4
sieve)
Sands
(50% or more
of coarse fraction
passes the No. 4
sieve)
Silts and Clays(liquid limit lessthan 50)
Silts and Clays
(liquid limit 50 or
more)
Organic
Inorganic
Organic
Inorganic
Sands with
Fines(more than 12%fines)
Clean Sands
(less than 5%fines)
Gravels with
Fines
(more than 12%
fines)
Clean Gravels
(less than 5%
fines)
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Poorly graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
Inorganic silts of low to medium plasticity, sandy silts, gravelly silts,
or clayey silts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
silty clays, lean clays
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silty soils,
elastic silt
Inorganic clays of medium to high plasticity, sandy fat clay,
or gravelly fat clay
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts
Moisture Content Definitions
Grain Size Definitions
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Moist Damp but no visible water
Wet Visible free water, from below water table
Grain Size Definitions
Description Sieve Number and/or Size
Fines <#200 (0.08 mm)
Sand
-Fine
-Medium
-Coarse
Gravel
-Fine
-Coarse
Cobbles
Boulders
#200 to #40 (0.08 to 0.4 mm)
#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm)
#10 to #4 (2 to 5 mm)
#4 to 3/4 inch (5 to 19 mm)
3/4 to 3 inches (19 to 76 mm)
3 to 12 inches (75 to 305 mm)
>12 inches (305 mm)
Classification of Soil Constituents
MAJOR constituents compose more than 50 percent,
by weight, of the soil. Major constituents are capitalized
(i.e., SAND).
Minor constituents compose 12 to 50 percent of the soil
and precede the major constituents (i.e., silty SAND).
Minor constituents preceded by “slightly” compose
5 to 12 percent of the soil (i.e., slightly silty SAND).
Trace constituents compose 0 to 5 percent of the soil(i.e., slightly silty SAND, trace gravel).
Relative Density Consistency
(Coarse Grained Soils) (Fine Grained Soils)
N, SPT, Relative
Blows/FT Density
0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
10 - 30 Medium dense
30 - 50 Dense
Over 50 Very dense
N, SPT, Relative
Blows/FT Consistency
Under 2 Very soft
2 - 4 Soft4 - 8 Medium stiff8 - 15 Stiff15 - 30 Very stiff
Over 30 Hard
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCP.O. Box 82243Kenmore, WA 98028(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
Soil Classification Chart Figure C1
Proposed Residence
3900 Park Avenue North
Renton, Washington
Test Pit
Logs
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCP.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028
(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
Test Pit TP- 1
Date: November 2022
Contractor: Jim
Depth: ’ 8
Elevation: Logged By: PH Checked By: SC
Groundwater: None
Material Description
Moisture Content (%)PlasticLimit Liquid
Limit
10 20 30 400 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
DCP Equivalent N-Value
7
8
9
10
Loose to medium dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand with gravel,
dark yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist.
( )Weathered Outwash?
Mottled at/near 3.25 feet
SM
End of Test Pit ’8
Topsoil/Vegetation
SM Medium dense to dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand traceto with gravel mottled yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist.
( )Glacial Till?
Proposed Residence
3900 Park Avenue North
Renton, Washington
Hand
Boring
Logs
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCP.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028
(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
Hand Boring HB 1-
Date: November 2022
Contractor: Jim
Depth: ’ 6
Elevation: Logged By: PH Checked By: SC
Groundwater: None
Material Description
Moisture Content (%)PlasticLimit Liquid
Limit
10 20 30 400 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
DCP Equivalent N-Value
7
8
9
10
Loose to medium dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand with gravel,
dark yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist.
( )Weathered Outwash?
Mottled at/near 3 feet
SM
End of Hand Boring 6’’
Topsoil/Vegetation
SM Medium dense to dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand trace
to with gravel mottled yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist.
( )Glacial Till?
Proposed Residence
3900 Park Avenue North
Renton, Washington
Hand
Boring
Logs
Cobalt Geosciences, LLCP.O. Box 82243 Kenmore, WA 98028
(206) 331-1097
www.cobaltgeo.com
cobaltgeo@gmail.com
Hand Boring HB 2-
Date: November 2022
Contractor: Jim
Depth: ’ 6
Elevation: Logged By: PH Checked By: SC
Groundwater: None
Material Description
Moisture Content (%)PlasticLimit Liquid
Limit
10 20 30 400 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
DCP Equivalent N-Value
7
8
9
10
Loose to medium dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand with gravel,
dark yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist.
( )Weathered Outwash?
Mottled at/near 3 feet
SM
End of Hand Boring 6’’
Topsoil/Vegetation
SM Medium dense to dense, silty-fine to medium grained sand trace
to with gravel mottled yellowish brown to grayish brown, moist.
( )Glacial Till?
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
Appendix C
Operations and Maintenance Manual
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
Appendix D
Bond Quantity Worksheet
4-6-2023
10.1%
Total Estimated Construction Costs E
A + B + C + D 34,227.34$
Estimated Civil Construction Permit - Construction Costs2
Stormwater (Erosion Control + Drainage)C 8,462.84$
As outlined in City Ordinance No. 4345, 50% of the plan review and inspection fees are to be paid at Permit Submittal. The balance is due at Permit Issuance.
Significant changes or additional review cycles (beyond 3 cycles) during the review process may result in adjustments to the final review fees.
Roadway (Transportation)D 19,896.17$
Water A -$
Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer)B 5,868.33$
2 All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead, profit, and taxes. City of Renton Sales Tax is:
1 Select the current project status/phase from the following options:
For Approval - Preliminary Data Enclosed, pending approval from the City;
For Construction - Estimated Data Enclosed, Plans have been approved for contruction by the City;
Project Closeout - Final Costs and Quantities Enclosed for Project Close-out Submittal
Page 3 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION I PROJECT INFORMATION
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Unit
Reference #Price Unit Quantity Cost
Backfill & compaction-embankment ESC-1 7.50$ CY
Check dams, 4" minus rock ESC-2 SWDM 5.4.6.3 90.00$ Each
Catch Basin Protection ESC-3 145.00$ Each 4 580.00
Crushed surfacing 1 1/4" minus ESC-4 WSDOT 9-03.9(3)110.00$ CY
Ditching ESC-5 10.50$ CY
Excavation-bulk ESC-6 2.30$ CY
Fence, silt ESC-7 SWDM 5.4.3.1 5.00$ LF 151 755.00
Fence, Temporary (NGPE)ESC-8 1.75$ LF
Geotextile Fabric ESC-9 3.00$ SY
Hay Bale Silt Trap ESC-10 0.60$ Each
Hydroseeding ESC-11 SWDM 5.4.2.4 0.90$ SY 15 13.50
Interceptor Swale / Dike ESC-12 1.15$ LF
Jute Mesh ESC-13 SWDM 5.4.2.2 4.00$ SY
Level Spreader ESC-14 2.00$ LF
Mulch, by hand, straw, 3" deep ESC-15 SWDM 5.4.2.1 2.90$ SY
Mulch, by machine, straw, 2" deep ESC-16 SWDM 5.4.2.1 2.30$ SY
Piping, temporary, CPP, 6"ESC-17 13.75$ LF
Piping, temporary, CPP, 8"ESC-18 16.00$ LF
Piping, temporary, CPP, 12"ESC-19 20.50$ LF
Plastic covering, 6mm thick, sandbagged ESC-20 SWDM 5.4.2.3 4.60$ SY 20 92.00
Rip Rap, machine placed; slopes ESC-21 WSDOT 9-13.1(2)51.00$ CY
Rock Construction Entrance, 50'x15'x1'ESC-22 SWDM 5.4.4.1 2,050.00$ Each 1 2,050.00
Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1'ESC-23 SWDM 5.4.4.1 3,675.00$ Each
Sediment pond riser assembly ESC-24 SWDM 5.4.5.2 2,525.00$ Each
Sediment trap, 5' high berm ESC-25 SWDM 5.4.5.1 22.00$ LF
Sed. trap, 5' high, riprapped spillway berm section ESC-26 SWDM 5.4.5.1 80.00$ LF
Seeding, by hand ESC-27 SWDM 5.4.2.4 1.15$ SY
Sodding, 1" deep, level ground ESC-28 SWDM 5.4.2.5 9.20$ SY
Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground ESC-29 SWDM 5.4.2.5 11.50$ SY
TESC Supervisor ESC-30 125.00$ HR
Water truck, dust control ESC-31 SWDM 5.4.7 160.00$ HR
Unit
Reference #Price Unit Quantity Cost
EROSION/SEDIMENT SUBTOTAL:3,490.50
SALES TAX @ 10.1%352.54
EROSION/SEDIMENT TOTAL:3,843.04
(A)
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL
Description No.
(A)
WRITE-IN-ITEMS
Page 4 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.a EROSION_CONTROL
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
GENERAL ITEMS
Backfill & Compaction- embankment GI-1 7.00$ CY
Backfill & Compaction- trench GI-2 10.25$ CY
Clear/Remove Brush, by hand (SY)GI-3 1.15$ SY
Bollards - fixed GI-4 275.00$ Each
Bollards - removable GI-5 520.00$ Each
Clearing/Grubbing/Tree Removal GI-6 11,475.00$ Acre
Excavation - bulk GI-7 2.30$ CY
Excavation - Trench GI-8 5.75$ CY
Fencing, cedar, 6' high GI-9 23.00$ LF
Fencing, chain link, 4'GI-10 44.00$ LF
Fencing, chain link, vinyl coated, 6' high GI-11 23.00$ LF
Fencing, chain link, gate, vinyl coated, 20' GI-12 1,600.00$ Each
Fill & compact - common barrow GI-13 28.75$ CY
Fill & compact - gravel base GI-14 31.00$ CY
Fill & compact - screened topsoil GI-15 44.75$ CY
Gabion, 12" deep, stone filled mesh GI-16 74.50$ SY
Gabion, 18" deep, stone filled mesh GI-17 103.25$ SY
Gabion, 36" deep, stone filled mesh GI-18 172.00$ SY
Grading, fine, by hand GI-19 2.90$ SY
Grading, fine, with grader GI-20 2.30$ SY
Monuments, 3' Long GI-21 1,025.00$ Each
Sensitive Areas Sign GI-22 8.00$ Each
Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground GI-23 9.25$ SY
Surveying, line & grade GI-24 975.00$ Day
Surveying, lot location/lines GI-25 2,050.00$ Acre
Topsoil Type A (imported)GI-26 32.75$ CY
Traffic control crew ( 2 flaggers )GI-27 137.75$ HR 32 4,408.00
Trail, 4" chipped wood GI-28 9.15$ SY
Trail, 4" crushed cinder GI-29 10.25$ SY
Trail, 4" top course GI-30 13.75$ SY
Conduit, 2"GI-31 5.75$ LF
Wall, retaining, concrete GI-32 63.00$ SF
Wall, rockery GI-33 17.25$ SF
SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:4,408.00
(B)(C)(D)(E)
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
Page 5 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.b TRANSPORTATION
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
ROAD IMPROVEMENT/PAVEMENT/SURFACING
AC Grinding, 4' wide machine < 1000sy RI-1 34.50$ SY
AC Grinding, 4' wide machine 1000-2000sy RI-2 18.25$ SY
AC Grinding, 4' wide machine > 2000sy RI-3 11.50$ SY
AC Removal/Disposal RI-4 40.00$ SY 18 720.00
Barricade, Type III ( Permanent )RI-5 64.25$ LF
Guard Rail RI-6 34.50$ LF
Curb & Gutter, rolled RI-7 19.50$ LF
Curb & Gutter, vertical RI-8 14.25$ LF 107 1,524.75
Curb and Gutter, demolition and disposal RI-9 20.50$ LF
Curb, extruded asphalt RI-10 6.25$ LF
Curb, extruded concrete RI-11 8.00$ LF
Sawcut, asphalt, 3" depth RI-12 3.00$ LF 151 453.00
Sawcut, concrete, per 1" depth RI-13 5.00$ LF
Sealant, asphalt RI-14 2.25$ LF
Shoulder, gravel, 4" thick RI-15 17.25$ SY
Sidewalk, 4" thick RI-16 43.50$ SY 56 2,436.00
Sidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and disposal RI-17 37.00$ SY
Sidewalk, 5" thick RI-18 47.00$ SY 7 329.00
Sidewalk, 5" thick, demolition and disposal RI-19 46.00$ SY
Sign, Handicap RI-20 97.00$ Each
Striping, per stall RI-21 8.00$ Each
Striping, thermoplastic, ( for crosswalk )RI-22 3.50$ SF
Striping, 4" reflectorized line RI-23 0.55$ LF
Additional 2.5" Crushed Surfacing RI-24 4.15$ SY
HMA 1/2" Overlay 1.5" RI-25 16.00$ SY
HMA 1/2" Overlay 2"RI-26 20.75$ SY
HMA Road, 2", 4" rock, First 2500 SY RI-27 32.25$ SY
HMA Road, 2", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500SY RI-28 24.00$ SY
HMA Road, 4", 6" rock, First 2500 SY RI-29 51.75$ SY 55 2,846.25
HMA Road, 4", 6" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY RI-30 42.50$ SY
HMA Road, 4", 4.5" ATB RI-31 43.50$ SY
Gravel Road, 4" rock, First 2500 SY RI-32 17.25$ SY
Gravel Road, 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY RI-33 11.50$ SY
Thickened Edge RI-34 10.00$ LF 77 770.00
SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:3,566.25 4,742.75 770.00
(B)(C)(D)(E)
Page 6 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.b TRANSPORTATION
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
PARKING LOT SURFACING No.
2" AC, 2" top course rock & 4" borrow PL-1 24.00$ SY 191 4,584.00
2" AC, 1.5" top course & 2.5" base course PL-2 32.00$ SY
4" select borrow PL-3 5.75$ SY
1.5" top course rock & 2.5" base course PL-4 16.00$ SY
SUBTOTAL PARKING LOT SURFACING:4,584.00
(B)(C)(D)(E)
LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION No.
Street Trees LA-1
Median Landscaping LA-2
Right-of-Way Landscaping LA-3
Wetland Landscaping LA-4
SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING & VEGETATION:
(B)(C)(D)(E)
TRAFFIC & LIGHTING No.
Signs TR-1
Street Light System ( # of Poles)TR-2
Traffic Signal TR-3
Traffic Signal Modification TR-4
SUBTOTAL TRAFFIC & LIGHTING:
(B)(C)(D)(E)
WRITE-IN-ITEMS
SUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS:
STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL:3,566.25 9,150.75 5,354.00
SALES TAX @ 10.1%360.19 924.23 540.75
STREET AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL:3,926.44 10,074.98 5,894.75
(B)(C)(D)(E)
Page 7 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.b TRANSPORTATION
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
DRAINAGE (CPE = Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, Average of 4' cover was assumed. Assume perforated PVC is same price as solid pipe.)
Access Road, R/D D-1 30.00$ SY
* (CBs include frame and lid)
Beehive D-2 103.00$ Each
Through-curb Inlet Framework D-3 460.00$ Each
CB Type I D-4 1,725.00$ Each
CB Type IL D-5 2,000.00$ Each
CB Type II, 48" diameter D-6 3,500.00$ Each
for additional depth over 4' D-7 550.00$ FT
CB Type II, 54" diameter D-8 4,075.00$ Each
for additional depth over 4'D-9 570.00$ FT
CB Type II, 60" diameter D-10 4,225.00$ Each
for additional depth over 4'D-11 690.00$ FT
CB Type II, 72" diameter D-12 6,900.00$ Each
for additional depth over 4'D-13 975.00$ FT
CB Type II, 96" diameter D-14 16,000.00$ Each
for additional depth over 4'D-15 1,050.00$ FT
Trash Rack, 12"D-16 400.00$ Each
Trash Rack, 15"D-17 470.00$ Each
Trash Rack, 18"D-18 550.00$ Each
Trash Rack, 21"D-19 630.00$ Each
Cleanout, PVC, 4"D-20 170.00$ Each 5 850.00
Cleanout, PVC, 6"D-21 195.00$ Each 1 195.00
Cleanout, PVC, 8"D-22 230.00$ Each
Culvert, PVC, 4" D-23 11.50$ LF 274 3,151.00
Culvert, PVC, 6" D-24 15.00$ LF
Culvert, PVC, 8" D-25 17.00$ LF
Culvert, PVC, 12" D-26 26.00$ LF
Culvert, PVC, 15" D-27 40.00$ LF
Culvert, PVC, 18" D-28 47.00$ LF
Culvert, PVC, 24"D-29 65.00$ LF
Culvert, PVC, 30" D-30 90.00$ LF
Culvert, PVC, 36" D-31 150.00$ LF
Culvert, CMP, 8"D-32 22.00$ LF
Culvert, CMP, 12"D-33 33.00$ LF
SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:4,196.00
(B)(C)(D)(E)
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES
Page 8 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES
DRAINAGE (Continued)
Culvert, CMP, 15"D-34 40.00$ LF
Culvert, CMP, 18"D-35 47.00$ LF
Culvert, CMP, 24"D-36 64.00$ LF
Culvert, CMP, 30"D-37 90.00$ LF
Culvert, CMP, 36"D-38 150.00$ LF
Culvert, CMP, 48"D-39 218.00$ LF
Culvert, CMP, 60"D-40 310.00$ LF
Culvert, CMP, 72"D-41 400.00$ LF
Culvert, Concrete, 8"D-42 48.00$ LF
Culvert, Concrete, 12"D-43 55.00$ LF
Culvert, Concrete, 15"D-44 89.00$ LF
Culvert, Concrete, 18"D-45 100.00$ LF
Culvert, Concrete, 24"D-46 120.00$ LF
Culvert, Concrete, 30"D-47 145.00$ LF
Culvert, Concrete, 36"D-48 175.00$ LF
Culvert, Concrete, 42"D-49 200.00$ LF
Culvert, Concrete, 48"D-50 235.00$ LF
Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 6" D-51 16.00$ LF
Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 8" D-52 18.00$ LF
Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 12" D-53 27.00$ LF
Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 15" D-54 40.00$ LF
Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 18" D-55 47.00$ LF
Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 24" D-56 64.00$ LF
Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 30" D-57 90.00$ LF
Culvert, CPE Triple Wall, 36" D-58 149.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 6"D-59 69.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 8"D-60 83.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 12"D-61 96.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 15"D-62 110.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 18"D-63 124.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 24"D-64 138.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 30"D-65 151.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 36"D-66 165.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 48"D-67 179.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 54"D-68 193.00$ LF
SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:
(B)(C)(D)(E)
Page 9 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES
DRAINAGE (Continued)
Culvert, LCPE, 60"D-69 206.00$ LF
Culvert, LCPE, 72"D-70 220.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 6"D-71 48.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 8"D-72 60.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 12"D-73 85.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 15"D-74 122.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 18"D-75 158.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 24"D-76 254.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 30"D-77 317.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 36"D-78 380.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 48"D-79 443.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 54"D-80 506.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 60"D-81 570.00$ LF
Culvert, HDPE, 72"D-82 632.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 6"D-83 96.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 8"D-84 100.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 12"D-85 100.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 15"D-86 103.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 18"D-87 106.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 24"D-88 119.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 30"D-89 136.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 36"D-90 185.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 48"D-91 260.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 54"D-92 381.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 60"D-93 504.00$ LF
Pipe, Polypropylene, 72"D-94 625.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 6"D-95 70.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 8"D-96 101.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 12"D-97 121.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 15"D-98 148.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 18"D-99 175.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 24"D-100 200.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 30"D-101 227.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 36"D-102 252.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 48"D-103 279.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 54"D-104 305.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 60"D-105 331.00$ LF
Culvert, DI, 72"D-106 357.00$ LF
SUBTOTAL THIS PAGE:
(B)(C)(D)(E)
Page 10 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES
Specialty Drainage Items
Ditching SD-1 10.90$ CY
Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+)SD-3 32.00$ LF
French Drain (3' depth)SD-4 30.00$ LF
Geotextile, laid in trench, polypropylene SD-5 3.40$ SY
Mid-tank Access Riser, 48" dia, 6' deep SD-6 2,300.00$ Each
Pond Overflow Spillway SD-7 18.25$ SY
Restrictor/Oil Separator, 12"SD-8 1,320.00$ Each
Restrictor/Oil Separator, 15"SD-9 1,550.00$ Each
Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18"SD-10 1,950.00$ Each
Riprap, placed SD-11 48.20$ CY
Tank End Reducer (36" diameter)SD-12 1,375.00$ Each
Infiltration pond testing SD-13 143.00$ HR
Permeable Pavement SD-14
Permeable Concrete Sidewalk SD-15
Culvert, Box __ ft x __ ft SD-16
SUBTOTAL SPECIALTY DRAINAGE ITEMS:
(B)(C)(D)(E)
STORMWATER FACILITIES (Include Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch)
Detention Pond SF-1 Each
Detention Tank SF-2 Each
Detention Vault SF-3 Each
Infiltration Pond SF-4 Each
Infiltration Tank SF-5 Each
Infiltration Vault SF-6 Each
Infiltration Trenches SF-7 Each
Basic Biofiltration Swale SF-8 Each
Wet Biofiltration Swale SF-9 Each
Wetpond SF-10 Each
Wetvault SF-11 Each
Sand Filter SF-12 Each
Sand Filter Vault SF-13 Each
Linear Sand Filter SF-14 Each
Proprietary Facility SF-15 Each
Bioretention Facility SF-16 Each
SUBTOTAL STORMWATER FACILITIES:
(B)(C)(D)(E)
Page 11 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES
WRITE-IN-ITEMS (INCLUDE ON-SITE BMPs)
WI-1
WI-2
WI-3
WI-4
WI-5
WI-6
WI-7
WI-8
WI-9
WI-10
WI-11
WI-12
WI-13
WI-14
WI-15
SUBTOTAL WRITE-IN ITEMS:
DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES SUBTOTAL:4,196.00
SALES TAX @ 10.1%423.80
DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES TOTAL:4,619.80
(B) (C) (D) (E)
Page 12 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.c DRAINAGE
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
Connection to Existing Watermain W-1 3,400.00$ Each
Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 4 Inch Diameter W-2 58.00$ LF
Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 6 Inch Diameter W-3 65.00$ LF
Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 8 Inch Diameter W-4 75.00$ LF
Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 10 Inch Diameter W-5 80.00$ LF
Ductile Iron Watermain, CL 52, 12 Inch Diameter W-6 145.00$ LF
Gate Valve, 4 inch Diameter W-7 1,225.00$ Each
Gate Valve, 6 inch Diameter W-8 1,350.00$ Each
Gate Valve, 8 Inch Diameter W-9 1,550.00$ Each
Gate Valve, 10 Inch Diameter W-10 2,100.00$ Each
Gate Valve, 12 Inch Diameter W-11 2,500.00$ Each
Fire Hydrant Assembly W-12 5,000.00$ Each
Permanent Blow-Off Assembly W-13 1,950.00$ Each
Air-Vac Assembly, 2-Inch Diameter W-14 3,050.00$ Each
Air-Vac Assembly, 1-Inch Diameter W-15 1,725.00$ Each
Compound Meter Assembly 3-inch Diameter W-16 9,200.00$ Each
Compound Meter Assembly 4-inch Diameter W-17 10,500.00$ Each
Compound Meter Assembly 6-inch Diameter W-18 11,500.00$ Each
Pressure Reducing Valve Station 8-inch to 10-inch W-19 23,000.00$ Each
WATER SUBTOTAL:
SALES TAX @ 10.1%
WATER TOTAL:
(B) (C) (D) (E)
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR WATER
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
Page 13 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.d WATER
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
CED Permit #:########
Existing Future Public Private
Right-of-Way Improvements Improvements
(D) (E)
Description No. Unit Price Unit Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost Quant.Cost
Clean Outs SS-1 1,150.00$ Each 1 1,150.00
Grease Interceptor, 500 gallon SS-2 9,200.00$ Each
Grease Interceptor, 1000 gallon SS-3 11,500.00$ Each
Grease Interceptor, 1500 gallon SS-4 17,200.00$ Each
Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 4 Inch Diameter SS-5 92.00$ LF
Side Sewer Pipe, PVC. 6 Inch Diameter SS-6 110.00$ LF 38 4,180.00
Sewer Pipe, PVC, 8 inch Diameter SS-7 120.00$ LF
Sewer Pipe, PVC, 12 Inch Diameter SS-8 144.00$ LF
Sewer Pipe, DI, 8 inch Diameter SS-9 130.00$ LF
Sewer Pipe, DI, 12 Inch Diameter SS-10 150.00$ LF
Manhole, 48 Inch Diameter SS-11 6,900.00$ Each
Manhole, 54 Inch Diameter SS-13 6,800.00$ Each
Manhole, 60 Inch Diameter SS-15 7,600.00$ Each
Manhole, 72 Inch Diameter SS-17 10,600.00$ Each
Manhole, 96 Inch Diameter SS-19 16,000.00$ Each
Pipe, C-900, 12 Inch Diameter SS-21 205.00$ LF
Outside Drop SS-24 1,700.00$ LS
Inside Drop SS-25 1,150.00$ LS
Sewer Pipe, PVC, ____ Inch Diameter SS-26
Lift Station (Entire System)SS-27 LS
SANITARY SEWER SUBTOTAL:5,330.00
SALES TAX @ 10.1%538.33
SANITARY SEWER TOTAL:5,868.33
(B) (C) (D) (E)
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
FOR SANITARY SEWER
Quantity Remaining
(Bond Reduction)
(B)(C)
Page 14 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION II.e SANITARY SEWER
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
1055 South Grady Way – 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7200
Date:
Name:Project Name:
PE Registration No:CED Plan # (LUA):
Firm Name:CED Permit # (C):
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)3,926.44$
Future Public Improvements Subtotal (c)10,074.98$
Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Public & Private) Subtotal (d)(d)4,619.80$
(e)
(f)
Site Restoration
Civil Construction Permit
Maintenance Bond 3,724.24$
Bond Reduction 2
Construction Permit Bond Amount 3
Minimum Bond Amount is $10,000.00
1 Estimate Only - May involve multiple and variable components, which will be established on an individual basis by Development Engineering.
2 The City of Renton allows one request only for bond reduction prior to the maintenance period. Reduction of not more than 70% of the original bond amount, provided that the remaining 30% will
cover all remaining items to be constructed.
3 Required Bond Amounts are subject to review and modification by Development Engineering.
* Note: The word BOND as used in this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to the City of Renton.
** Note: All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead, profit, and taxes.
EST1
((b) + (c) + (d)) x 20%
-$
MAINTENANCE BOND */**
(after final acceptance of construction)
3,843.04$
3,926.44$
10,509.46$
3,843.04$
-$
4,619.80$
-$
14,352.50$
P
(a) x 100%
SITE IMPROVEMENT BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET
BOND CALCULATIONS
2/9/2023
Edward Mecum
39374
G2 Civil
R
((b x 150%) + (d x 100%))
S
(e) x 150% + (f) x 100%
Bond Reduction: Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (Quantity
Remaining)2
Bond Reduction: Stormwater & Drainage Facilities (Quantity
Remaining)2
T
(P +R - S)
Prepared by:Project Information
CONSTRUCTION BOND AMOUNT */**
(prior to permit issuance)
(425) 821-5038
edm@g2civil.com
Bergman Renton SFR
##-######
3900 Park Ave N, Renton, WA 98056
3342700515
FOR APPROVAL
########
1700 NW Gilman BLVD, Suite 200, Issaquah
Page 15 of 15
Ref 8-H Bond Quantity Worksheet SECTION III. BOND WORKSHEET
Unit Prices Updated: 01/07/2022
Version: 01/07/2022
Printed 2/9/2023
Bergman Renton SFR Technical Information Report
Appendix D
Bond Quantity Worksheet