The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscMs. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager City of Renton CIVI: FNGINEERl~JG, LA\D ;::,L,\Nl\'ING. SUllVEYING March 25, 2014 COURIER DELIVERY 425-430-7276 Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way -6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Request for Site Plan and Minor Administrative Modifications QFC Fuel Center -Renton Highlands 4615 N.E. 4th Street, Renton, Washington 98059 City of Renton Land Use Permit No. LUA 12-083 City of Renton Building Permit Nos. 613000880, 613000881, 613000882, and U13000883 QFC Store No. 871 / Our Job No. 15432.1 Dear Ms. Dolbee: Pursuant to the discussion between Renton staff and the QFC design team on February 6, 2013, please consider this letter as our formal request for the necessary modifications to fully implement the changes agreed to at the meeting. Our most recent submittal contains plans which reflect the changes requested through these modifications; please refer to this submittal for plans confirming the modifications specified. A check in the amount of $515.00 is also enclosed; covering administrative modification processing fees. Our response to the requisite criteria is presented in a tabular format below. The changes are presented on a number of individual plans contained in a permit resubmittal currently being routed for internal review by City of Renton staff. In the interim, should you have any questions on specific details, please advise us immediately. Site Plan Modification (LUA 12-083) Prop_Qsaf "* Rescind c?iidittdn' ofAj,provah($; :requiring veiti~l landscaplng etiimilntii at"ffi,ij Duvall Avenue Criteria Response To qualify for administrative determination as a minor modification, the modification must not-. . ... Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in This modification does not increase the area or the approved plan scale of the development ... have_a significantly gTeflter impact on the environment and/or public facftltles than the - approved plan ... phange the boun~a~ of the originatty approved plan .. • ; · . .. This modification is the result of City of Renton staff requesting the rain garden and adjacent landscaping provide more slope to improve site drainage. This precludes the insertion of vertical elements and their structural footings within the prescribed area . . __ This modification does not change the boundaries • of the approved plan. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH. CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA • SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development . 2. March 25, 2014 rtfflJ'~'!:ri!t~tfl.:~,t!f::?m:flfl,,t!fi ;r;e~;.:;::ei'yen1'-'''1~f"'r'""· Cr~ila Response . . I Toapcept these modifications; "the DeparrmentAdministrator must1determine "specific reason. exists, making fill/ compliance impractical, that the proposal still aclclresses the purpose and , l , ·. '' -, · ' I' intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and substantially complies with the purpose and Intent of City co~s. while ... .. . substantially implementing the policies and objectives of the Land Use Element and Community Design Element, while minimizing the adjustment necessary to implement said policies and objectives ... meeting the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code, based upon sound engineering practice ... not being injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity .•. conforming to the purpose and intent of the Code ... $//owing the mod~tfon ~ be justified and ~f(red for the use ancl}~if~intended ·.· .. ,: -1 ; -. ·._ ,;.-• ·._.·; ,'-' ·::. _,' '. -· Given the lack of public access to the trash enclosure and the size and scale of the facility, this adjustment does not adversely impact either plan element and reflects the minimum adjustment necessary. Given the lack of public access to the trash enclosure, signage is not necessary. The pickup of waste will by necessity be a manual process, with dumpsters rolled to the truck -thus operationally, a smaller gate opening addresses the functional needs while meeting all required criteria No adverse impacts are foreseen due to trash pickup operations. Trash pickup operations will meet the purpose and intent of the Code, while adequately addressing form and function of the trash facility. Trash pickup operations will be adequately served by the smaller gate opening, and the removal of signage will have no adverse impacts on said use or function. No adverse impacts are foreseen due to trash 's pickup operations. Criteria fff¥'*"1se i To 'accept these modifications; the Department Adm!nl$trator must determine a specific rea"soil exists, maklng full compliance Impractical; the fJl'OIJOfl#I st/II aclclresses tfle puipose and Intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and llkewlse, substantially compiles with City codes; white ... .. . substantially implementing the policies and objectives of the Land l,Jse. Element and C~mmunity Design Element, while minimizing the adjustment necessary to Implement said policies and objectives The proposed increase will still implement the policies and objectives of both plan elements while providing adequate accessibility for larger vehicles attempting to access the fuel center. - Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development • 3 • March 25, 2014 The increased width supports improved access for larger vehicles and delivery trucks, as well as maintaining adequate maneuverability onsite. No adverse impacts are foreseen due to the added driveway width. The additional width supports the purpose and ,, intent of the Code by improving vehicular access to i' the fuel center and reducing congestion caused by ,; vehicles waiting to access the property from the right-of-way. ' The additional width supports operation of the fuel center by improving vehicular access, reducing congestion caused by vehicles waiting to access :: the property from the right-of-way, and improved maneuverability of vehicles onsite. ,, No adverse impacts are foreseen due to the added driveway width . . (: '•,, As primarily an automotive use set back from the street frontage and partially screened by required landscaping, typical pedestrian traffic is actively discouraged throughout the site, and restricted towards the perimeter by design. However, residual spillover from the fuel canopy's lighting fixtures, while recessed and directed downward, along with street fixtures, provide adequate lighting for any potential pedestrian traffic. No additional fixtures are needed or proposed. Said lighting, combined with the illuminated text and logo on the fuel canopy serve to direct visual interest in the building during the evening hours. Service Element Modification/ Generator Enclosure (RMC 4-3-100-E.1) Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development i ;, i -4 -March 25, 2014 With a portable generator replacing the permanent generator previously required, the fuel center plans now reflect the portable generator being parked in the location originally proposed for the permanent unit. This is the most remote area of the site and \' . while no longer enclosed, will remain screened Controls for the portable unit will be mounted on .. ~1ir11 ~i~J@gi~~~~~ These modifications should accurately reflect the concepts discussed previously. Should you require any additional information, specifications or documentation, please advise us at your earliest convenience. On behalf of the QFC Design Team, I would like to extend our thanks for the consideration provided by the City of Renton by cooperating with our team to find common ground between Code requirements and design standards on one hand, and site constraints and fiscal realities on the other to produce a successful project design. Sincerely, ~:~?Pl RPM/dm 15432c.022.doc enc: As Noted Senior Planner cc: Mr. Timothy Hansen, Quality Food Stores, Inc. Mr. Bryan Gootee, The Kroger Co, (w/enc) Mr. Brian Peterson, The Kroger Co. Mr. James Coombes, Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. Mr. Jay S. Grubb, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Mr. Jason G. Hubbell, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Mr. Chris S. Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. RECEIPT EG00021582 BILLING CONTACT IMPORT IMPORT IMPORT CASHIER CONTACT REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME -· ·- LUA12-083 PLAN -Modification Technology Fee Printed On: 4/7/2014 Prepared By: Vanessa Dolbee TRANSACTION TYPE - Fee Payment Fee Payment Transaction Date: April 07, 2014 PAYMENT METHOD Check #s2ss1 Check #82857 SUBTOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $500.00 $15.00 $515.00 $515.00 ----------------· --- Page 1 of 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT QFC Fuel Center -#871 Renton Highlands 4615 N.E. 4th Street Renton, Washington Prepared for: , J ThecJ~roger Co. 3800 S.E. 22nd Avenue Portland, OR 97202 September 19, 2012 Our Job No. 15432 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES + 0L YMPIA, WA + TACOMA, WA + CONCORD, CA + TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 -Vicinity Map Figure 3 -Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 -Soils Map 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Six Special Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 15432.001.doc • • C 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed QFC Fueling Facility project is a 0.56 acre site located within a portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington. More specifically, the site is located at the southwest corner of NE 4 Street and Duvall Avenue NE in Renton, Washington. The enclosed Figure 2 -Vicinity Map, depicts the approximate location of the proposed site. The site was previously a gas station but the site has since been demolished. The existing topography tends to slope to the southeast corner. There are no existing buildings on the site. The storm drainage facility is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the project site such that the site will discharge in the same location it does under existing conditions. There are no wetlands located on this project site and road improvements are proposed for street widening of NE 4th Street and Duvall Avenue NE. The flow control calculations utilized disturbed area instead of just the development parcel, since there are road improvements along the northern and eastern property lines of the site. The northern boundary of the project site is formed by NE 4th Street. Existing commercial developments are to the south and west and Duvall Avenue NE forms the eastern property boundary. The proposal for this development is to construct a new fueling facility on the site with 5 fuel dispensing islands, a canopy and a kiosk with a restroom. The site will also include a pedestrian plaza at the street intersection. In addition, public road improvements will be constructed along the perimeter. Elevations on the site range from 405.5 at the northwest corner down to 397.5 at the southeast corner of the project site. There is an approximate 0.06-acre upstream basin contributing runoff to the western and southern property line of the project site. This runoff sheet flows onto the site and flows southeast to Duvall. This upstream basin will be routed through the onsite detention and water quality system and will discharge, much as it does under existing conditions, at the southeast corner of the property site. Infiltration is not feasible for this site as the on-site soils do not percolate well enough. 15432.001.doc Figure 1 Tl R Worksheet KING COUNTY, WASHJNGTOI\, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner "Th C /( r o~ t ,-Co"" PCJ1 ':1 Phone 50 3 -7 'f7 -30 2.G Address 3S,o o SE 22nd i'lvL Po,t I <Vl d, Of. 'l7 20'2... Project Engineer .J(,,Son 6. Hvbbdl, et. Company PJIJ./Jh~UI Co11wl h0 (Jry;nee.~.s Phone i./25-Z'i>/ -l.2.Z2.. Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivison / Short Subd. I UPD 31 Buil 0 ·--~ ices M/F("Commericaf) SFR lg Clearing and Grading 1:21 Right-of-Way Use D other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review ~ Targeted {circle): arge Site Date (include revision ,, I t'L dates): Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name OFC fu(lnJ n:.l.Ci{ify t87/ DOES Permit# --------- Location Township _____ _ Range Section ------ Site Address t./!o I§ tJ E </fh !J {2.en fl;/) / w A Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFWHPA 0 COE404 D DOE Dam Safety 0 FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Other __ _ D Shoreline Management ~ Str~ Rocke~-- 0 ESA Section 7 Site Improvement Plan {Engr. Plans) Type {circle one): ~ Modified I Site Date (include revision "L /rz. ' dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard I Complex / Preapplication I Experimental I Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Annroval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual l/9/2009 t KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes~ Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part a SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan : _M_tw_c_a._s~tl~e,~------- Special District Overlays:----------------------- Drainage Basin: Ced (M' (lj V if Stormwater Requirements: ---------------------- Part 9 ONSITE ANO ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS 0 River/Stream --------- 0 Lake 0 Wetlands __________ _ 0 Closed Depression -------- 0 Floodplain----------0 Other ___________ _ Part 10 SOILS D Steep Slope --------- 0 Erosion Hazard ------- 0 Landslide Hazard------- 0 Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ 0 Seismic Hazard ------- 0 Habitat Protection ______ _ )la' A111ifv Pro±lcHon Zont 2. Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential gldu w ooil GravtUtj ~-1'!.7. Sa!'idj {OM! D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) 0 Sole Source Aquifer 0 Other 0 Seeps/Springs D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 2 l/9/2009 KlNG COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET \ Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE D Core 2 -Offsite Analysis D Sensitive/Critical Areas D SEPA D Other LIMITATION I SITE CONSTRAINT D ___________ _ D Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or descriotion) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: I Offsite Analysis Level: IJ.)/ 2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 (J}?,f 3 or Exemption Number (incl. facilitv summary sheet} Small Site BM s Conveyance System Spill containment located at: till,, /t rlflUYO( 5,-n,crv r~ ' Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contact Phone: After Hours Phon°· Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: \.Private)/ Public If Private, Maintenance Loq Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / No Liabilitv Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake cz. Enhanced Basicm)' Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscape Manaqement Plan: Yes / No Soecial Reauirements {as annlicablel Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO / MOP I BP/ LMP / Shared Fae. f None) Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major I Minor I Exemption ~ 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range}: Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe landuse: Fvd Sfa.Ji·fYI (comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: Oi I/ waitr sepa.,o.Jw {tr unctu CIUI ~e. d.f~na.je, 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/912009 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes I No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION Ki Clearing Limits ~ Stabilize Exposed Surfaces J8I Cover Measures J29. Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities !a Perimeter Protection ~ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure ~ Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities ~ Sediment Retention D Flag Limits of SAO and open space D Surface Water Collection preservation areas D Other 181 Dewatering Control f:81 Dust Control D Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Tvne/Descriotion Water Quality Tvoe/Descriotion !El Detention Urv/,e,'9( woo lfo..v It D Biofiltration D Infiltration ~ Wetpool VMlf- D Regional Facility k! Media Filtration Srounfiltlr wl D Shared Facility ~ Oil Control C Sf tv1 (_d.J "'- ~( u11d1;~~i D Flow Control D Spill Control BMPs I D Other D Flow Control BMPs D Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 4 l/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS . 0 Drainage Easement !El Cast in Place Vault D Covenant D Retaining Wall 0 Native Growth Protection Covenant D Rockery> 4' High 0 Tract D Structural on Steep Slope D other 0 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. /!/)A.,t,,,,_ -/.Jy r' I 6 Sianed/Date 1 / f /UJ / 2- 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 5 119/2009 Figure 2 Vicinity Map l N.T.S. VICINITY MAP w z ~ z 0 z ;:, ME 4TH STREET w z w '-< w ~ z ~=======~ Figure 3 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics 15 (N.W. COR, SEC. 15} FIID. COHa!EI[ UOHUIIOO W/ BRf.SS PIN IN CASE /if !MON Nlf. N.E. a: N.E. .ffil ST, w:rTEO OIi 9..-l-2012 (Cfff or ROOOM toNTROl. 11!503) '!-J' f i SCALE 1' -1!!8" &/()' RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS (PER FIRST AMERICAN 1lTI..E INSURANCE COMPAN'l"S FlLE NO. NCS-520794--0RI, ~rro JULY 20, 2012) L !.D OF !HE REAL ESTAT£ EXCISE SALES TAX Alfa SURCHARGE ~ Hf( SALE Of SAID PIIDIS£S, If UNPAID. AS OF THE DATE 1-EREW, THE EXCISE TAX RATE FOR THE CITY OF R~ IS AT 1.78'1:. lB/Y /AAF.A CODE: 211'.IO FOR ALL TRAf6'CIIONS R£CORDED ot.l OR AFTER JU..Y 1, 2005: • A FEE OF $10.00 Yllll BE CHAA:GEll ON All EXEMPT lRM'SIICTIONS; • A fEE OF 15.00 Will BE CHARliED ON AU. TAXABLE ~ IN M>Dl110N TO 1HE EXCISE TAX DUE. 2. DEU,IQUENT GENERAL T.lXES FOR 11-E 'I'm 2012, PWS INT£REST AND PENAL.TIES, TAX >CCOOHT NO.: AMOUNT Siu.ED: AWOI.MT PAID: AMOUNT OUE; .ISSESSED I.AHO VALUE: AS5£SSED lll'RCNEMENT V,lillE': 152.305-9124-03 S 5,856.17 $ 0.00 $ ti,207.55 s .U!,800.00 S 0.00 (HOT PLOTT,'BLE) .3. DEIJlQUENT GENERAL TAXES FOR "THE YEAA 2011, PLUS IITTERCST ANO f'ENALTlt'S. TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 152305-9124-03 AMOUNT BII..L.£D.: AMOU!fi PAD: AMOUliT DUE: ASSESSED LAND YALLE: ASSESSED ll,l'ROVEMENr V/>LUE: S 5,408.2-4 $ 0.00 $ 6,814.39 S 441,800.00 $ 0.00 (HOf PLOTTABL.£) 4. OOJNQUENT CEtmw. TAXES FOR lllE YEM 2010, PLUS INTEREST At«) PENALTIES. lol.l( ACCOUNT NO.: 152305-912~--0J '""""' """" AMOUNT PAID: AMOUNT DI.£: ASSESSW lAND VALUE! ASSE5SED IWPROIEMENT WtUIE. S 4,925.34 $ 0,00 $ 6,796.97 S 441,800.00 $ 0.00 (NOT Pl<ITTABLf) 5. C£TY LIENS IF },JI( OF Tl£ CITY OF 11:ENTON (NOT PLOTTAa.£) B. RESEa/AllONS ANO EXCEPOONS. INCWOING THE TERMS N'iO ~DITIOMS THEREDf'; R~ l,HNERH... RE5SMD BY, troRTHERN PACflC AAII.ROAD COMPiWY RECORDED; UNOJSCL.OSED RECORD!~ tlF"ORW.TION: 192,4.J() (NOT PLOTTAEU) NOTE: NO EXM!JNATION HAS El£lJI w.oE TO DETERUlt£ THE PRESENT RECORD OIIMER Of THE >WI£. MINEiW.S, OR MINERAL LANDS ~D APPURIENANT RIGHTS l)IERETO, OR TO OETERMIHE MAnERS WIICH MAY AFJECT lHE WIDS OR RIGHTS SO RE.SERI/ED 7. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS ANO PROVISIONS CXINTAIPE> 1HERElt RECOROING INFORW.noN: "" AffECIS: ~ ~ 1!182 1JIDER RECOROOIG NO. 8206030185 """"'"' AS DESCRIBED TH£REJN (SHoWN arr PER TOM H.'.S TEfflllWED) 8. RIGHT Til WAKE NECESSIIR'f SL.OPES FOR CUTS OR FlUS UPON SAID PREMISES FOR Kt4G COUNTY /iS GIWITEO B'Y DE£0 R£CORD£0 JUNE 24, 1987 UNDER RECORDING HO.. 87062414M. (NOT Pl.OTlABLE) 9, l)IE TERMS AHO PROVISIONS CONTAIIED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTJ1lED "DRD!NANCE NO. 4612" RECOR!lED ..UNE 21, 1996 AS RfCOROING NO. 9606210956 OF OfFK:tAl R£COffOS. 10. 0EDJ OF 1RUSf AHO lHE lER'-15 ANO CCflOOU.S MREOf. GRANTOR/fRUSTOR: SANDJAY, U.C & SYNNEX, LUZ G!WmE/BEHEFICIAR'V': £ASJ5IOC FUN!llNll, U.C. A WAStUNGTON LUTED '""""' AAIJUKT: """""' RECORDING IIFORM4TIOH: UABIUTY COM?Alf"r' CASCAOC 1RU5TEI SERVIC[S, INC. ~-~2007 :l00701:U001941 (HOT PLOJTIB..E') 11. ,Hf RIGHT, ASSERTED RIGHT, ell. CIWJ..EtroE, UAa:: 6Y N,Y PARIY, INCLUOINO, BIJT NOT wm:o TO, A CREDITTlR, 1RUSTEE OR DElmlR I~ POSSESSION IN 6'Nl<Rllf'TC'r' TO AVOID OR 11#1\UOATE TW\T CERT~ CONVEYANCING OOCUMOO 'Mi!CH RECOffDED DECEMBER Jl, 2009 ~ RECORDERS HO. 2009!231000304 OF OfflCAI. RECORDS. (flOf PU>TTAEII..E) 12. E.WD!CE Of lHE AU1HORl1Y OF THE KIMDUAl.(S) m EXttL/IE lHE FORTHCOMll'E DOCI.JMENT FOR ~ IUIDIMG, LLC. COPIES OF li£ CURROIT OPERA1JNG AGffEEMENT SHOULD BE SUBMITTID PRIOR TO a.ost1G. (Nor PI..DTTMI.E) 13. E.Vl)[HCE OF THE /lllTHORllY OF TIIE OfFURS OF QUAU1Y FOOD CENTERS, A IMSIOH OF FRED M£'1'ER STORES, INC. 10 EXECUTE lllE FamiOOMING INSTRUMENT, COPIES OF n<E CURRENT NmCt.ES OF INCORPORATIOlol, EM..AWS All) oomFIEO COPES DF APPROPRIATE RESOWTIONS SHOULD BE SLBmED PRIOR TO Cl.OSIMG, (Mor PlO'TTABLE) 14. l.tlRECORIIED l.FASEHOUlS, IF ANY, RIGHTS OF 'r'ENDORS ANO SEa.JRITY AGREEMENT ON ?ERSONAl. PROPERlY ANO RIGHTS OF TENANTS. ,'HO SECURED PARTIES 10 REMOVE 1RAD£ fOOURE5 AT lHE O'.PIIWl)ff Of THE TERM. (lfOT PLCJIT,a!) SEWER WlllfCt.E (54• DIA) RIii • ~.45 24"? E -25• -t-Df.EP 24'"7 w • 2S' + DEEP (MWS TO WEsr) 8' ~ l:ROP SSE • 391.B? 8' PYC llROP 11W • .W1,4ll ,. '"'" ..,. """"' 111'4 • 407.29 12" CW' E • 403.29 12· OJ. $ " 405.44 It' CMP Ill • 403.39 .. ~-.-~· . ,• ~- ---n §? SD----- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '"'" .... RIM• 401.25 12" DJ. N ~ -I-OS.EiC IXISJH: RET~l IIJl.Dli'IG ig; :,,,,"" ~-oS-~,-1..1), APN tS2JD$-SO!l4 ~ FAMLY PA!mERS, 11.C .. ~ . ,. tt .. T"""-:'.:::"-Z··· ~S61rm' - I" 128.711'"'"""= \ \/ ~ -,/ ,,,.v.,- RIM "rtPE 1 L 'f'L~ ..,_. .x" l ,,. ""' ' -'""' ~-=• ~-' •.. 12· " .swe.eo I \ -. !81)'21 CMP w ~ 398.60 I ' -~t \ ,.,,_. ,J·· \ ~ ts 400161 ,~· < T j ~ C,l,ltH BAstl • 0 ff'H1~1ll2-4· i . ...., l .SQ.lllll ; ~ 11'1 s,·i &s; ,, .......... ""-" ,· f I 'I • .'1',( '"" I ~ t1' CONC s -~ L~ ™~"' .. (l,i, c!.I~ di, ., __ ,,. _L ... ''""''"""' ,;',,.~~ ~1 k 9CM [liCRlSS WAlI"S WHEN TIIX lOlS / .-"""PA111(J81),\111Jl STREEl TO EASl) ~-REC(R)S r1t1ooo ~~R 11H101 / ' " .«\ -,m...... I \ ' --,--..--""'"' --=---~--·"' -"'·" H~T PUMP I I I I I I I I I I I I t' FIOl.t/O --· """" .../. ' J·. ------:t ...... N-~.37 --=-::-t-\?.'"··'"·"/~'I. --:::=--::;,,._~-----1'"1 --~JOJ.~~-; ' __ ... _,..,.,.,~------,,,,.-..-:c.::-_:,t:r--01·-f~:.\T "i .• =---------~,:-,, --___,r..:: ! = ~~ · • f ,;;J I I ~ I I '1!l •- t ~~ 1~1_ Lc,s L_-----------------1---SCUTHUl£lOT8 ·~--ill d- " ! I tl ,.J rm,,-,, .... _,....., """' '.II I ~-I I.DIT . _____ ,. . ·-J -\-~----1-- Si ft 61'§,1 \\ i' Ass1..1m t ft. r t!.f ttl Cor"tl if t e,,> S o.ob ~c. lo.ncf SCO.fK. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (PER FRST AM£RICAN mu: 1HSUIWfCE COMPANY'S FU: NO. NCS-520794-0Rt, DATED JW" 20, 2012) TI-£ N0RtH 180 FEET (Af; t.lEASlmD ALmltl lHE EIIST LINE} OF 11-£ NOIUHEAST QUARTER Of Tl£ tfOR11iWESf QIJ.IRIER OF 1t£ NORJHE)ST QUAR1ER Of TliE NORTHWEST OUAAtER Of" SECTION 15, TOWNSHf' 2J NORTH. fW« ~ £AST, W.ll., ~ KING COOHTY, """"""' EXCEPT lHE WEST 150 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT lllE £AST 20 FEET lHEREOF CON'JEYEO 10 KN. C:OONTY FOR RO'D PURPOSE"S In' DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORD!l«l NO. 1804907; ~ EXCEP1" THE NCRJ}f J5 FEET 1HEREOf cotM;YED TO t(]HG COI.JHT'I' FOR ROAD RJRPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER R'EOOftDIJolG NO. 5849734; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE AAC OF A CJRCU: ~ A ~ Of 25 FEET, SAi) ClRCLE IIEING TANGENT TO A LINE 3!!o FEET SOI/TH OF AN) PARALID. TO THE NORJH LIME Of S,IJO SIJ8DMS!ON .ANO TANGfNT TO A LINE 20 f"EET WEST Of ANO PAIW.lll. 10 1HE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDMSIOH ~ CXIHVFl'ED TO KJNG COUNTY FOR SL 128TH STRtET Eh' DEEO REOOROED JUNE 24, 1967 IMJER RECORDING NO. 6706241488. ,.,,,,=====sL~EG=eN=o==="' [eJ PMRMl" rn "'IWtDE w.w IRl IQJIWW .--3:( --"° ~-" --e """""' ~ --' .... ~--°' J>IDESlllll l'\Gt IUflON 181 .uaan:(.IO 0 """"'"""' 0 ~-(<B) 0 SIIIIIIMIU{SDll4 0 -mm-.E{sslllt 0 WWII' mu: CWIW\" IS5CO) l!3 NllltfDIC. ~ Ql&Wi'l'C M '""""" IWl W fll:UIIIICIIOII (FN') A IIIE-(ln) e --m \laRlltTSl(',11) . --~ .. s ---(1$talil) +I ...,_,.,_ 0 llll. UID IIIMfl ~ 11C1EJ • 5Ef\fJ'fIJM/rA' "1.5-1111111' c=-1- 1-.. ~·'.·-··~: :.~ CClldOE 1.4:,,~o-:..~.;,.,.-;'.'j -·------·----... --·--........ --11----_,, __ .,_ ..___.,.___.. • i:tllllillR --·---~---,--w .. _ __ , ___ ,......, -pµ:)-f'l)f(RW,I\IIIIWIIS -l'(tn)-tMIHillll'Caltl.JO © rmmBRE * -= ~ ~ MT_. VICINITY MAP ·~ (I '.4,- SITE • ~ ~ ' • ~ i .1£ .ffll SIRl!T , .. \:_~_l,11Eh'lf1/4 ... , ... . ~-~ ClilCH Si1S1N "" 1L RIii • 41ll.71 FM!). 3" OOM(i) 51.ffl'.0: ~ W/ PLKH IN COlmll..tlE OF IH. 4111 sr. (±1Qf WEST Of REW PL. NL) VIS!IID <»I 11-7-2012 (crrt OF" IIElITTIH CCNJROL f1B51} 11" COie £ " 3117,35 12' CO!C W • 397.36 (H. 1/4 ttlR. SEC. 15) 00. S" DOI.IED SURD.CE. IIIWSY W/ PUNCH /aCDITTRI.JNE(f"ll£ffl1Sf. (:t:!2!'!' WES!" OF fE..D PL N.E.) \IISl!ED al 8-7-2012 I I >l'!,I 1~-9057 ~ 15l3QS.-!ICl84 I ¥~ DEV€LO f'E I> &W,,IN PlAP PROCEDURE / NARRATrvE A TRIMlll£ 5800 Gl'"S REOO£R, TRIMBLE 5600 ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION, ANO TUS RAHGER DATA COUECJ'OR Sl.JPPLEMENIID WITH FIElD NOTES WERE USED 10 MEASURE MU ESTABUSll TllE HORIZONTAL ANO VERT1Clll.. CONTROL POtffS HELD FOR THIS S\JK\t.Y. THE RESULTING OA1A MEETS OR EXCUDS llfE STANDARDS FOR LANO BOUNDARY SUJM."/S ~ SET FDfml IN WAC "2-130--090. HORIZONTAL DATUM -BASIS OF BEARINGS WAD 6J(1991) (PER CITY OF RENTON) VERTICAL DATUM -BASIS OF ELEVATIONS (NAVO 88) NAVO 1966 {PER CITY OF RENTON} BENCHUAAK: CITY Df' RENTON Y£RltCAI.. CONTROL POOtT "1651", EIEING El.EV-l9ll.2> FT. (NAVO &I) CALCULATED LAND AREA, 22.091:1: s.r. {o.5U: ACRES) (SITE DOES NOT CONTAIN AfN Sf'ECf"!C STRIPED PARDIG AREAS OR BUILCINCS} SITE AODRESSES, 461S NE 4TH STREET, ROOON WA CATCH 84$1~ RW • 397.0 FLOOD INFORMATION FEDERAL EM~EHC"I' w.w.GEl.ENT AGENCY (FEM.I.) INFORWATIOtt. FRU (FLOOD t/SLIIW,CE RA.TE l,IAF') 1W' Ho. 5JOJJC09S2. f, PANEL 982 OF 1725 DATED MAY 16, 1995. Tl£ SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN ZONE X (\JlliSHADED}, AREAS orn:RfMlEO TD BE OUTSIOt: 500-'l'f.Alt FtOOOPlAtl. 12" D.!. W • 395.l! 12"D.lS•395..JII a· Cr.If> N • 395.lB ll ZONING INFORMATION -CA -COMMERCL<ll. ARTERL<ll. GENERAL O-WW:TERIS1JCS or n£ COMWERClA.L ARTEAAL ZONE ARE: MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 5000 SQUARE FEET """" """"" SIDE SEIBACK (ALONG A STREET):. SIDE SETB.t,CK: REliR SEIB'CK: WIXIM\IM BUI.DING IEIGHT: WOOMUM Blll.DIHG CO\IE/WlE: (FOR LOT CR~TEO AFITR NOl.'EMBER 2004) 10 FEET • 10 FEET • NOt£ •• NOO€" SHEU m% (7.5% IF PARKING IN BUILDING OR ON-SITE """"'1 • SUBJECT TO REDUCTION 1lfl:OUGH SITE PLAN D£VEI..OPMENT REVIEW PROCESS •• 15 FEET REQUIRED IF SITE A8JlS I,. RE:sl>ENTIAL ZotE ZOMNC: INFOJ'UCA.TJOtl WAS NOT PRCMDEO IIY INSURER. Pl..fASE CONSULT TI-IE RElfTI)N lillllflell'AL com: (Rt.I:: IDLE 4) FOR ADDITlC»W. OET.IJLS AND POSSIB...E SITT Sl'fCIFIC """""""'· REFERENCE SURVEYS, 1. C11Y OF RENTON I.I.A Ni LIIA--o!i--OJ1-l.l.A. R£CO!IDINC NO. 200S0719900000. NOTES, 1. tJNOERGROUt() UTIJll£S AND FOOURES O[f>jCTEO IEREON ARE ~ OH AELD OBSERYA"OON, ANO UTIUTl' MARK!NGS ONLY. lHE TRUE l.OCA.TION, NliTIJRE ANO/OR EXISTENCE Of BELOW GROUND FEAMES, DEJECTED ~ UtlOillCTEO, SHOULD BE 'r'ERIFlED. 2, i'LL DISTAf!CES ARE IN FEET (US SUIM."!" FEET) 3. NO E'1DENCE Of SOL BORINGS W£RE OBSERVED Al TttE lJIJE OF llJE FELD SUK\1£Y. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: 10: FREll MEYER S10IIES, IIIC., AHO FIRST AMElllCNI TITL[ INSIAWa COWl'Nfl'! 1115 IS TO CER1l'Y 11W 11-iS WJI OR PlAT Nib "DiE SUIM:I' CH MICH IT IS IWiED WERE MADE IN JCCOlllWIC( 111H ll£ 2011 MINIIUI SrNll:WID OE1'.III.. REll(.a£M£IITS FOR IUA/ICSM. I.AND TIT1£ SUl{IIC'I'$, .RJl"'1.T ~NII~ Bf IUA »c PISPS HID /Ml.llOES IIE1l!S 1, 2, J, 'I, 5. ~~ 'l:us\1~ 13, 17, 21 #ll 22 OF TABLE A TIOEOF", lHE F\El.D WORI( W/tS !WE Of PlAT CII 1W': JtJGUSI" 20, 2012 OllEN B. HII..LL P J..S. '"" WASHN;TDN IIElllSTRI.TION ND. 40016 - THEI 3980 C D I ., SURVI p I l= ·~ ·~ --' $ ,c, PM DA, - a.. <( :?! z Cl) ~ 0 w a.. 0 _J w > w 0 I ! 0 !·;.'; ~~ ~I~ ij I ----'l"'X Sll:lcHH~ ,,.., --., SNOISIA3tl ' • "l !. w ! g Iii j • l ~ I _________________________ J a ~ ~ ' ' ,: ~ l " I~ .I ~~ ~ i • ii' ~ &' .. " .. t ! ! ~-I r ll i i ~, ~ ~- Figure 4 Soils Map 47" 29' 18" 47' 29' 16" "' I:! 1G "' lo N lJ> ;,, ~ N A Soil MaP-Ki ng County Area, Washingt on 563:493 563,502 56351 1 563520 563529 563493 563502 56351 1 563520 563529 Map Scale: 1:422 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet 0 -----=====----------=========Feet •---c:===-------~=======;Meters 30 5 10 20 0 20 40 80 120 563_538 563538 US DA Natural Resources = -Conservation Service We b Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey ~7 563,556 563565 563547 563556 563565 563574 ~ 47' 29' 18' ,o, "' ~ 563574 5/29/201 2 Page 1 of 3 47' 29' 16" ii Soil Ma~ng County Area, Washington MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) _J Area orlnterest (AOI) Soils _J Soll Map Units Special Point Features .,, Blowout ll5I Borrow Pit * Clay Spot • Closed Depression X Gravel Pit .•. Gravelly $pol C Landfill A Lava Aow .... Marsh or swamp .. Mine or Quarry @ Miscellaneous Water ® Perennial. Water V Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot . Sandy Spot -=-Severely Eroded Spat 0 Sinkh~e p Slide or Slip % Sodic Spot !! Spoil Area 0 stony Spot Natural Resources Conservation Service ro Very Stony Spot 't Wet Spot ... Other Special Line Features '"-GuUy ... Short Steep Slope ,,. ' Other Political Features • Cities Water Featw'es ~-Streams and Canals Transportation ....... Rais ...... Interstate Highways ~ US Routes Major Roads /V Local Roads Map Scale: 1 :422 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detaBed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 1 ON NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 6, Sep 22, 2009 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/2412006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/29/2012 Page 2 of 3 Soil Map-King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol AgC Totals for Area of Interest Natural Resources Conservation Service King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Name Acres lnAOI Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Web Soil Survey National Cooperative SoU Survey Percent of AOI 0.6 0.6 100.0% 100.0% 5/29/2012 Page 3 of 3 I\) • 0 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: This project site will discharge to the existing storm system in Duvall near the southeast corner of the site, the same as current conditions. Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: This project has prepared an off-site analysis that is located in Section 3.0 of this Technical Information Report. Please refer to that document for the off-site analysis. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: This project will provide flow control in the form of a wet/detention vault located in the southeast corner of the project site discharging to the same location as it does under existing conditions. Level 2 (Duration standard) flow control was used to size the facility. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance system for this project site was sized according to the 2005 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Since the project site is less than 10 acres in size, the pipe conveyance system was sized based on the Rational method utilizing an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes and a Manning's "n" value of 0.014. The 100-year event was analyzed. Core Requirement No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: This project site will follow the erosion and sediment control measures as delineated in City of Renton Core Requirement 5, section 8.0 of this report and the Demolition and TESC Plan included in the construction plans. Clearing limits will be specified, cover measures will be instituted, perimeter protection will be installed in the form of silt fences, a rock construction entrance will be installed, and the streets will be swept clean of sediment after construction at the end of each day. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project will concur with all maintenance and operations requirements as delineated in the 2005 KCSWDM for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: This project will concur with all financial guarantees and liability requirements of the 2005 KCSWDM as delineated for projects of this nature. 15432.001.doc Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: The Water Quality Menu followed for this project site requires that the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu be followed for this development due to its commercial nature. One of the options of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu is to use a two-facility treatment train. This project is proposing a combined detention and wet vault with water quality volume located below the live storage in the vault such that three times the mean annual storm will be provided as dead storage below the live storage in the wet/detention vault. The second treatment will be a Stormfilter manhole with CSF media. 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Response: To the best of our knowledge, the site is not located in an Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirement area; therefore, Special Requirement No. 1 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: This project does not contain, nor is it adjacent to a flood hazard area for a river, stream, lake, wetland, closed depression, marine shoreline, or a King County mapped channel migration zone. Therefore, the requirements of this Special Requirement do not apply. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This proposed project will not rely on an existing flood protection facility, nor does it propose to modify or construct a new flood protection facility. Therefore, the requirements of this Special Requirement do not apply. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: This project is a commercial site development; therefore, source control is required. Sources controls on this project include covering the fuel dispensing islands with an overhead canopy as well as routing the under-canopy drainage through an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: An oil/water separator will be installed to collect runoff from the under- canopy area of the fuel facility. Special Requirement No. 6: Aquifer Protection Area. Response: This site is located in Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. This project will not include any open facilities or conveyance systems; therefore, no additional requirements are necessary. 15432.001.doc 0 (h· w • 0 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis has been prepared for this project site. That document is attached herewith in its entirety. This document should meet all of the requirements of the City of Renton for off-site analysis for this development. 15432.001.doc LEVEL 1 OFF-SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS QFC Fuel Center -#871 Renton Highlands 4615 N.E. 4th Street Renton, Washington Prepared for: The Kroger Co. 3800 S.E. 22nd Avenue Portland, OR 97202 September 19, 2012 Our Job No. 15432 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LANO PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com TASK 1 TASK2 TASK3 TASK4 TABLE OF CONTENTS STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map EXHIBIT B Downstream Drainage Map EXHIBIT C Upstream Basin Map RESOURCE REVIEW EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I FEMA Map Sensitive Areas Map SCS Soils Map Assessor's Map Wetland Inventory Map Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report FIELD INSPECTION EXHIBIT J Off-Site Analysis Drainage System Table 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS EXHIBIT K Drainage Complaints 15432.003.doc TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The proposed QFC Fuel Center project is a 0.56 acre site located within a portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington. More specifically, the site is located at the southwest corner of NE 4th Street and Duvall Avenue NE in Renton, Washington. The enclosed Exhibit A -Vicinity Map, depicts the approximate location of the proposed site. The site was previously a gas station but the site has since been demolished. The existing topography tends to slope to the southeast corner. Elevations on the site range from 405.5 at the northwest corner down to 397.5 at the southeast corner of the project site. There are no existing buildings on the site. The storm drainage facility is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the project site such that the site will discharge in the same location it does under existing conditions. There are no wetlands located on this project site and road improvements are proposed for street widening of NE 4th Street and Duvall Avenue NE. The fiow control calculations utilized disturbed area instead of just the development parcel, since there are road improvements along the northern and eastern property lines of the site. The northern boundary of the project site is formed by NE 4th Street. Existing commercial developments are to the south and west and Duvall Avenue NE forms the eastern property boundary. The proposal for this development is to construct a new fueling facility on the site with 5 fuel dispensing islands, a canopy and a kiosk with a restroom. The site will also include a pedestrian plaza at the street intersection. In addition, public road improvements will be constructed along the perimeter. The storm drainage facility is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the project site such that the site will discharge in the same location it does under existing conditions. The City of Renton GIS mapping shows a wetland on the site but there is no evidence of a wetland per the Critical Areas Review report by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC. (See Exhibit E) Infiltration is not feasible for this site as the on-site soils do not percolate well enough. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Based on review of the project survey and our site visit, there is an approximate 0.06-acre upstream basin contributing runoff to the western and southern property line of the project site. This runoff sheet flows onto the site and flows southeast to Duvall. This upstream basin will be routed through the onsite detention and water quality system and will discharge, much as it does under existing conditions, at the southeast corner of the property site. 15432.003.doc Exhibit A Vicinity Map ;; N.T.S. VICINITY MAP SITE w z ~ < z 0 z => NE 4TH STREET ~========J Exhibit B I Downstream Drainage Map KC D~pYtmt!!nl o f Trnn~por;ition .'>!. _.;}),.~., Notes None 1891 City of Renton Downstream Drainage Path l ·'1 l I n U J -. 3: :.J ...... -~ l --. '. ....- ) . -! -'}_ .,, u l -·;~;,,,J. -'ci r /\.f:..... -r----Hc:rlbge I 0-P;ark •u J· {= / (·:·':'c. ~-L-S -~-.... ~ C: ~ ...,. ~ h f :src(1·· r ' I If , _ '€1:. ~.·:'.)f ·· .. ------- ·. -,w- . --• --~t:::... l"'---'!i .J -' I.. <.:: .z -~ "<<::i,rLCCK ~C:.-~-:.._- .-~( .. : •. Lb.~, ... 5: .. r (, ~ . \ .: . \ I :.; ,\ :. \\ .• I :::, ' .. - ~ :: ·.:.: ..:., ,":- . .,., ... ~ -s.,, !;,_ 0 1 : 11,345 0 ~ .A t",;,., '" .J/ u i ll ~· --~·.:.: . : .. _. .. '. ..: 1-L •'<' /t=..::t;::, . / -~ ----~----·------·--- -~·"'' ·---·----.. ,;~--. \. ~: .. -'~'., ~ - --~~-~ .,,7"-li :.--. -..-., •. 1" n . . -,.;._ . 1 ~ " -·-·-·-·-1\111·•. ~ .11 .'" ti sr ,.;,,:1-t ::.>u. ir ,U ")JI - 11 II " JI II V. ,;. ~ ,:; ~ M.iplewood P:inc ·-z ·t -.:: .... ·r. --.. .. .. ;! ~r ·1.:r.'HP!. .... \o"'; ~ :.1 , JJ . .,, :I ~ Rrnton • -;°" ~·!!1!1.!Y ~ ~ !! l,r111011 • -• -. _ •· II ---, :;_ ~c ·.tJ 7H ~? I fv;. -.. • -. ~ ;~:- ,'- { t -~ .. ., l/ y ~ ~· "" ~ ·-;, -'v r,:,>s r 945 . _, ,·. ~ \ ... "'='' ·-r.. ' 1891 Feet 0-".',5 .. -.... --· Legend II Pump Sta ti on Conveyance (A ll) Pip e Culvert Pipe Culvert Pipe Culvert Channel Diteh Facility Outli ne (Renton Maintai ned ) E] Pond [ill Vault ~ Bioswale (;I In filtrati on Trench ~ Filter Strip ' [El Vault HJ Bioswale [;I Infiltration Trench ~ m er Strip ~ Ra in Garden ts] Stoonwater Wc~a nd ~ Natural WeUand D Olher D Unl<nown 2' Primary 2' Intermediate -::-,•._,:, ----______ ,. __ _ Nf' ··2,•.,.. .. 1~ ··- .. ;: -.:: " ~ . -... : - =i ... l "c..,:, "'\'"" I NAD_ 1983_HARN_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_ 4601 ~ RalnGarden Information Te chnology_ G IS T hi s map is a user generated static o utput f rom an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate. RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa .gov current. or otherwi se reliable. 9/19/2012 THIS MAP IS NOTTO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION ---------..._ --City of Renton Downstream Conveyance . ,--. ·, \ '''"'\ ...... rD . '\ \ --=· =.:.;_.:._..;_..;..'"""':/'" /, / . , I ci)j:::::::::-:::::::::::;;\ ...... .,_;.i> I ) . \ ,...._ / '· la ---.. I -~/'. ( . ./' .:::..__.... ,. .. -\. :'/ ~-· '--"•::-..«7..,---=-.C:...:;---]. I l ~1,1· . --,. t ., .. /_ -~ : ..I / .(, ·1 ·-i ~ ? / / ,'::: '"·,,,,.'-.....£.j I /' .. 1 • .,. rk 1 ,... \ .' ·-1 '· ·, . ..,\, . -• • ------I , __ __,..._,, ( ~ -~----\ .. "' . ..----. ' -z;u;:_~ • --~-=:::./ ' . ;..._-~~---\ ~= / 1 -------...! F /,J~ ...____.._,--..... =--- ,.. -'1. • . • ~ - !I \.. 0 0 ~ ~~-~ 0 '1 -,• . -• - I ' /~---.... .,~-:'. ) . "" ~ . ~ I r ·t f ' f\. / ·,, (\\ _/ / --\ \,i I . / ~ ,, I"/,.,/~ (!:• I ~· I J ' ·-JI 'f / r--/ lr ~· I . --/ l •, .. J, . .i : ~0-.. ~;-.J----·) -; I ~ I ·; -· ··] I ' r , , . ~---! -~· -. { l • --I ( • ~---· ..• __ ,):, ' 'loo \ /.----.._ ., .... ..:... ,o -. __, : \ /\'-,)~ <"'\ ... ~<··, £ .... {4 0,0 1 ! _.:.i r r ' ~) -' I ---/· ·!·-I'--··» -II) )!ii ' .. '----/ i ---·-~. ' V ~ J(> \ ' . ----,. \ ,' -• ~ : -~. •,\ '-.J / ./. r ;,; y' f . . ' . @ ':-:-----· . ~-"'··. ' 0 ~ ' • • l2--' . _____ .;;.,,-... f ' --~ -'~ ~ . . \ .-' '-__ , . ,; : ; .. ~-, ~ t ,.---·.-:---r \ Self sw/~e \\, \.,. 1~·\· ~--"-s ·tl J \ \ ,_ --. )Ii . 0 ' ·--\ ' ~'-I ', I ,,· v' ''\, .... i I ·'-,_ i '~ ' , ·,1,-1,· . . ! {: .!aiii.. . /. _, . '•···,I · ' ' . .. '·r . . : f::: i. • • l \ ·,. ,. ···: \ . ' --; ~,·\_ .. /· \._ . . \ ~. I:::~, ' I J •~·. '', ; . I . !j~j • '· c::, }, ·' • '.:::: ,, -·':· ·---. .\ \ •• \ ~ 0 t ;' .. ,:..!;.6! , , ...... i.,.. 1•• ·-....·· ....... •, •. ·:._';;}; ;: ·. ,.-' \ ..... '\ ._,_..__ ___ ..... 'J /Jr,_;:.~,,;.: ... : ..... \ ·-. ····~)·,._.,· .. .,, ~ ,· I @ • ./ /) ! / : .'("· <--....._,J t ,•'1 1-.:' 1 1 ·-,..::=----~ :;:-.., ' ·' •. ' -------., L. ' \ ----· ~ . ::._~ ·":·-....... ~ \ \ . ....---\ .-J I~-.· . ...:..--. -~.:ii , 1 1 \ .,_.,.-----.:'L,·;:• " ....... ~,. , .•· -,·•I \ ,I j ~ ),~.1· ·~J •.1:~; ~ \ j L' , •· t . , -\.1 L...:;. =-\_a 0 __ -..., 0 7. \ \ '· , ... -...,. ' . \ _.,.,..-...."-'-\ • --'°': .-, .... ,, ~~--···, ,("-"· 1-·-· LJ .:,. \ . '1· I :c' o \ Ji, 00 ) rl ~,\· ' \ \. -... , ..... .""'-· { 1 ? ...__ ~ "\ •, '\ "' \ ' \ .. ; ... _ \ ··. ' -..... ·, t,'E JP.O :>.:. • \ I I,, :~ ... ... \ ·, '\ \ \ _,...__,.. •. ' \ \ r-\ _.,. ! r \ -l-: I ' ' ·...: ....... l \ '\ j··, . \ ,.._ ) .\ '•. {\ -. •• \ -~· ... ~ ~/ \ I/ L ~ /'·' 1 I · \ 51 ' ··. -,.-~, .' l' I ..... ' ----·/ 1· _ __,.. j ( '\ '· 137 0 69 137 Feel Information Technology· GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 09/19/2012 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, curren~ or otherwise re liable. NAO 1983 HARN StatePlane Washington North_FIPS_ 4601 ---THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Structure a Catchbasln • Type 1 a Catchbasin • Type1 L • • • ~ Concrele/Curb Inlet -Type 4 Drop Inlet Catchbasin -Type 2 MH Access Riser UlilityVault Unknown Struelure Catchbasln -Type 1 Catchbasin -Type1L Concrete/Curt, Inlet • Type 4 a Drop Inlet Gatchbasin • Type 2 MH c Access Riser Uijlity Vault • Cleanout • Olher , Unknown Structure Catchbasin • Type 1 Catchbasin ·Type 2 MH Control Structure ,:, Rentoo Maintained • Privately Maintained la Pump Station Outfall fJ Renton Maintained O utfall fJ P rivately Maintained Outfall Fitting Intake ,:, Outfall Notes None Bend 0 1: 1,647 ~ono Finance & IT Division Exhibit C Upstream Basin Map 16 0 1n 19 (H.W. ca:t. SEC. 15) FMO. CO!ICREIE MO!MltNT "' BAAS5 l'tl IN CASE Jf.I UNON Ill£.. 11.E. & H.t "1li sr. YISITED ON B-6-2012 (ar, OF RElffilN COHIROl f\503) . 30 40 ';;ALE 1' -W '/{)1 RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS (PER FlRST AMERICAN TITLE INSIJIW«:[ COMPAMV'S FILE NO. NCS-5207B4-0RI, oom JlllY 20, 2012) 1, LIEN Of TI,E Fi£AL ESTATE EXCISE sr.L.ES TAX At«> ~ I.FON Nl1 SAU: Of So\10 PRaE:S, IF" UNPA!O. AS OF lHE DATE ltffiEIN, TIJE EKCISE TAX RATE FOR THE CfTY Of" ROOON IS AT 1.78:n. IIY'f/AAfA CODE: 2100 f'OR All. 'JRANSICIIONS RECORDEO ON OR AflER JULY 1. 2005: • A FtE or $10.00 Will. BE CHAROOJ ON All. EXEMPT lRANSACTlONS; • A fEE Of' $5.00 WIU BE CHAAGED ON fil TAXIIEU TRANSACl'lONS IN .-.oomoN TO THE EXCISE TAX OOE. 2. DEUNQUOO GENER,+J. TAX!S fOR THE YEAR 2012, PWS lmEREST AND PENALTIES. TAX ACCOUNT NO.: AMOUNT Bill.ED, AhlOUNT PAID: AMOUNT OUE: A.SSESSED !J,NO VALUE: ASSESSED IIPRO\.'EMENT VM.JJE: 152305-9124-0J $ 5~17 I o.oo S 6,2(l7.55 $ #1,800.00 $ 0.00 (Ncrr PLOTTABLE) J. OEU«ll.lENT GENEIW.. TAXES FOR THE 'l'£AA: 2011, PLUS lN'TEREST ANO PfNAl.TlE:s. TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 152305-9121-03 AMOUNT 81LLEO: AMOUNT PAI); AMOUNT DUE: ASSESSED I.ANO '11"1.UE: ASSESSED IW'ROVEMOO VALUE: $ 5,108.H $ O.DO S 6,1314.Jt $ 441,800.00 $ D.00 (MOf PLOTTAEII.£) ,4.. tEl.MOUENT GOIEAAL TAXES FOR IBE YEAR 20!0, PLUS INTEREST AtM) POOI.Tl(S. TAX N:cOl.NT NO.: 152JOS-9124-!l3 AMOOlfl" 111.l..m AMO\.Wr PM>; AMOJNT DUE: ASSESSED I.AND VALi£; ASSESSED IMPROVEMENT VALUE: $ 4,925.34 $ o.oo $ 8,7f.16.97 $ 441,600.00 $ 0.00 (Nor PLOTTMU) 5. CITY utNS F lffi Of Tl£ CllY CF RENTON {NOT PLOTTAB.f) 6. llESE!NATIOtlS AND EXCEl'TJONS, tlCWDI~ Tl-£ TEffMS ANO CON!llTIONS TliEREOf: RE'SOMNG: MINER>J.. RESER\.'ED Bl': NOIID£RN PACl'IC RAlROACJ COlilPAN'T" RECOR OED: utlOISC!.OSEO RECORDING NFOR~TIOH: 1&2'f.JO {HOT PLDTTAB..E) HIJIE: HO EXAAIINATION ~ BEEN Wo.0t: TO OOERlalE THE PRESO« REGORD OWNER OF THE i1SCM: lilNCRAL.S, OR hll,IERAl. J.ANIJS AND IIPPURJENNlf RICHTS ll-lEREl"O,. OR TO DETERMlt£ MATTERS WHICH MAY AfFECf THE l.ANOS OR RIGHTS SO RESERVED 7. EASEMENT, INCI.LOING TERMS AND PROV!SKlNS COOTAIIIEO THERON: RECORDING fMFQRWA.1100: FOR, lffECTS, JUNE J. 11182 l*IOCR RECORDING HO. 62060J0188 ""''""" ~ ~IBED THEREIN (Sllowtl. BUT PER TERMS MS TERYWJED) 8. RIGHT TO MA.I([ NECESSARY SLOPE:S FOR CUTS OR FIU5 l6'0N SAID PREMISES FOR Kt«, CO.Jff('( ,s GRANTED 8'f DEED RECORDED JUNE 24, 1987 UNOCR RECORDlNG NO. 8706241486. (Nor PUITTABI.E) 9. THE 1ERMS ANO Pf«MSIOtiS CDftlTAINED IN TIE OOCUMOO ENTffi.£D "oROtW.C£ NO. 4612' RH:a!DED Jilt£ 21, 1996 ,-.S RECORDING NO. 9606210966 OF OFf1CIAl. RECORDS.. ,o. OEEII OF TRUSI" AND TH[ TERMS ~0 COODITIONS Ti£REOF. GRAHTOR/TRUSTOR: SAN:llAY, UC ,t SYNNEX, UC GIWIJEE/SENEFIC!ARY: fASl"SIOE ArnDING, UC, A WASlilHGTON Ul.lTED """'"' AWOIMT: RECOROEJ> RECORDH. fiFORMATKJH: UA!!IUIY COMPANY CASCAD£ TRUSlU 5ERVICES, INC. f56-4,1!110,02 JAfflJIRf 22. 2007 20070122001941 (NOT PLOTTAll.E) 11. NN RIGHT, ASSERrnl RG-11", OR CHAI..LENGE. WDE st Wt' PARTY, INCLUDING, BUT HOT UMITED TO, ,-., CREDITOR. lRUSTEE OR DEBTOR IN POSSESSION IN BANKRUPl'CY TO AVCXO DR IWAI.JCW'E THAT CERTAIN COINEYN<ICII«; OOCUMOO WH!CH RECORD£0 D£C£U8ER J1. 2009 1'S R~t>ERS HO. 200912J1000J0-4 Of orncw.. tE:alD5. (NOT PI.OITMI.E} 12. EWE.NCE CF 1HE MmiOftlTY Of n£ IMOMCI.W..{S) TO EXECilrE 11£ fORiHCOhl!NG DOCUMOO FOR £AS1SU: fWDING. Lil:, CORE'S Of T1-E CURRENT OPERAllNC AGREEMENT SHOUlD f£ SU9.1ITT£D PRIDR TO Q.OSltlG. (NOT F'I.OWa.E) 1J. E.'YllElfCE OF Tl£ AIJTHORf1Y OF T1-E OfFICERS OF OUAIJTV fOOO CENTERS, A DMSION Of FRED MEYER STORES, INC, TO EXECUTE lHE FORTHCOMll.c IHSl'RUIENT. CXW1ES OF THE CURRENT ART1ClES OF INOORl'ORAllOH, El'l'lAWS Al() C£RTf1ED C0P£S Of APPROPRIATE RESOLUIJONS st!OIJLD BE 5UEll.llTED PRl'.JR TO a.o51NG. (MOT PI.OTT,ISLE) 1-4. UMRECORDEO l.fASEHOtDS, If Am, RIGHTS Of" YEN'.lORS AND SECURITY .-oRm,lOO ON PERSONM... PROPERTY ANO RjGffiS OF l"Ett,lfflS, ANO SECURECI PNU1:S TO REMOVE TRAD£ FIXTURES AT lHE EXPlfWIJN OF TIIE TERliC. (HOT Pl.OTTIS.!) SO/ER w.MICU (,.. DIA.) All • 40B.4S 2+"? E • 2!i't-DEEP 24"'1 Ill • 25'+ bEEP (F\.CNIS TO WEST) B" PYC llRllP SSE • 39U7 e• PJC IIIOP NW • 4<11,411 "- """' ""' sruo"' RN • '4-01.29 lz" QF' E '" 403.29 12" Dl. Si • 405.-«, 12" CNF' W • 403.J9 ,.,.. ~ -~ ... --~" " ----- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Co\ltH BASIi R(l,j ., 407.15 1:..• DJ. N • 405.60 D:tSJH: RETAIL lllll.Dl"1Cl "" £,,.i<>" ~-:-~~-W> N"N \52JOS-1iO'o4 KC\I fA!.ILY PARTNERS, U.C ...., "'" st'WER~ (M"Dl-'I) RlU • -403.66 24" COHC /IE• 3112.2111 11" M N -382.16 = = • ' 24" CONC W ·-382.10 4. · • -·.·. • ----~-lD 'llf¥) '/~"0b.L.,-'!'ERf:.S1!."".":397.26 • .-, ·.·.. ..._ . f\'· ..... ,. --...,.,. JIIOX SM'1Ll'1i"i 1 --\ Z!l.71'--= CI.TCH 8'SN 'l:/.·~.ffl' . ...,, 12.0 CMP [ "' '400,JO 12· CW' W • -400.38 \ \ ( """' """ "" " RIii • 403.0S 12" CMP E • 3iS..60 1r Cl,(P w .. Ju.so \ . \_ r I.Si .«>CU6i Otisik A -· : .. ~ ~(} cores -'~a7.s2 L A~fl r ' ' __L ~~~"""· ... A ..,:;--' 1057&~[~WHENTA:i:1.01S J •.., ME PR(P,'lllN)offlll STR£(T TO CASir I --REl:CRlS rHJC,.l[ ~~~ WHril • -~ ' \ ,oo -I \ \ \ ,,, --""" .... -=--"'"'"' -.:c-=-).. "' . "'·" ---=cc--, .... ' .... ,, --=-~-===------~I __ -;::-. ..J ~~) i S1Y1ER ~HOLE (!4" tv,) RM• 403.ll6 24" CONC E • .362.56 2+" t:OHC 'Sf • 38Z.U """'"' - '""' .... -""""' --Rj1.f.;. 402.n ·-,2~~ E.-JBll.42 .._-. • 12~--~ .w-;,,-;m,.M, ,ei.ai_; Ni·?I6t" :::NONfl_~ Nr0l4 ., ~.--.;. •,-· ,· '"'" ""' """ Rll,I --401.71 Fl'ID. 3" OCIE) SUlfM:E EffilSS1" W/ P1M:1! 1H COlltRlM OF 11.E. •rn sr. (t1D5" wrsr Of FIEl.D PL H£.) ~ITTD ON 11-7-2012 (CIIT Of RDffilM CONTROL #11151) --.JO 15 lt' CONC E • JB1.J5 1r ewe w -5117.311 (M. 1/4 C0R. SH:. 15) Flit>. 3" OCII.IED SUl!D.Cl'. !1tA$SY W/ PUNCH Jf.I CBIJDUtE Cf" tlL 4TH ST. (±125' WEST Cf" flELJ> PL N.L) -.,SIIEO ON B-1-2012 I I N"N ,~-90$1 CA'lt:H ~N RIM -:5iU4- I 8" CUP Si • JSS.70 r-------- 1.- I I .PR£ DfVft,O PEP &w.,1 N m At' PROCEDURE / NARRATIVE A Tlml3L£ 5!!00 GPS ~ TRIUBLE 5600 ROBOTIC TOTAL S'T°'TION, ANO TOS RANC£R MTA COlt£CTOR Slffl..EMENTED WfTl1 flRD NOTES \!,'£RE llSED TO t.lWURE >ND ESTABtlIIJ TttE HORIZONTAL AND VER11C,,\L CONTROL POMS Hao fOR TttlS SURVEY. THE RESULTIIIG DATA ME£TS OR EXCEEDS lliE S'TANDARCS fOR lAND BOUNDARY S\.IRVO'S M. SU fOHTH IN WAC .5J2-1JIH)90. HORIZONTAL DATUM -BASIS OF BEARINGS NAO B:5{1991) (PER arr Of ROOON) VERTICAL DATUM -BASIS OF B_EVATIONS (NAVO 88) Nf\VD 19511 (PER Cl1Y Of RENTON) BENCHWARI<: CITY OF RENTON VERTI~ COHTROL POIKT "1651', BEING EL.EV• J9B.55 FT, (MIIVD 88) CALCULATED LANO AAEA 22,091:1: S.F". (O.Sl:t ACRES) I I I I I I I I I I I 1' IIOIAID lll!lC. ca.JJM~ """"' J. ·----:_~c:::-, ,;,~·-=»/N . ,....---~-~--__ . .--~2."-or,~~97,311\· -~-·=" . • li'f-ml I ! .. 1 --------!'-'-'"_. --""" -112· D -J95~ T -12· .I. [., JB:i.4:'I ~ (SITT: DOES HOT CONTAIN J.Nf SPECIFIC STRIPED PARll:~G ARfA5 OR BU!LOINGS) SfTE ADDRESSES, .. 1:. -1-w1--1 I I I ~\-1 ' L______ l:£sl LCA51 -----------/!.•---;,;,;;;r;;,,~~-~~-- " I , .. -~ - :• ... .,, !: ,, ... ~,# l'\wif1.. 12" ADS S •.: i ..1.5m.J-l2" .IIDS • 7 »5.52 .,__,_ __ ·-, -1_~--~-t-- Si .t &7§,1 \\ -- AsstJmt ft;rt~fttl C(;t'd; ff e,, > S 0.0b Ile. lo.ncf SCO..fJ£-oot:H RI.SIii RIM • 3911.4.:5 I 12" b.L N • !H.!&I 12'D.L$ .. ~~g LEGAL DESCRIPTION (PER FIRSI" ANrnlCAN TinE IWSURAHCE OOMPANV'S Fl.£ NO. NCS-520794-0RI. DATED JIU" 20, 2012) Tl£ NORTH 180 FID {AS liEASleD Al..DHti THE EIISl LIi£) or TI-IE NORJHEAST QIJA!mR rT Tl£ tlJlffillVEST Q\llt!ITTR Of nE NOlm!EAST QUARTER Of THE NORJHWEST OUMTER OF SEcnON 15. TOWMSHI' 2J HORTH, RN« 5 £AST, W.J.1., IN KINI; COUNTY, "''''"'"'" EXCEPT THE WEST 150 FEET THEREOF; NlD D:Clf'f lliE EAST 20 FEET lHEREOF COtM'r'ED TO KING COUNTY FOR R<W> PURPOSES B'I' OffD RECORDt:D UNDER RECORDING NO. 1&'.14907; NIO EXCEPT lliE NCl{Tt{ .35 FEEr THEREOF CCIMYED TO IDNG COUNTY FOR ROAD f\JRPOSai B'I' DEED RECORDED UilDER RECORDING NO, ~49734; ANO rnD'1" THAT PORTION L'r'ING NOIITTIEASlERLY OF THE AAC OF" A CIRC!..£ Hit.YING A RADIUS OF 25 FEET. SM! CIRa.E BEING TANGENT TO A LINE 35 FEET SOUTH OF mD PARttl..W. TD TllE NOlffil l.lNE Of SAil S\JBOMSION ,'NO TANGENT TO A UH£ 20 FEET WEST OF ANO PNW..L.El. TO 1HE EAST ~E Of' SAil st18DM510N ~ COINEYED TO k1MG COIJNTY FOR SL. 1:mlll STREET B'I' DEED RECOftOEO JUN[ 24, 1987 UNlER RECOROlilG NO. 87062.41488. ,yr=~LE~G=EN-D ===="s [e) POU 'IH.tT [I] llUl'ffXIIMI [RJ RIIIIIIJ" ~ ...... .a "'""' " .. "" El FIIIEII IEUI ~ ...... < ~ ... ---0< ---1!:1 ,.unlll .. '-'Ii ~ ~~ 0 l:IICl-!al) 0 SltlllllMQ[(Slllltj 0 ~ SEJIII MKt.E [,sq WIND" !IBID twfGl1" (n2f ....... a ~ u ~ w---.. -----... ---""'.., & -ti • --1/8111111) su:rDIQlll!Pt~~ 111:1.PID'-(GDBJ) 5EI \fl' ff1fM/rN "Is "'311" c=::i- ~ I··~"· . (: _:.~ Dlll;llt!E ~~--·------·---------------//---- --••--m-~~---.._ --·---......... __ , __ ,.,._ --,--~w.-- -"'1-_,,.._ ------ ~ . ( APN152:l05--!11184 """ '"'" RlU • l97.-4J l:t" Ill. W • 3115.lll l:t" D.I. Si • 3115.38 8" a.I~ N • 3U.5.l8 :I -\ l-f··: IS! \. t' ~ I~ "-· I IVAlJLT 1$ I '" """Iii \,"-:'" j ~~ ~ J--~ ~"""" 1-r-------- 1 I I I I I 4615 NE -4-lll STI!ED, RENTON WA FLOOD INFORMATION FEDEJW. EMERGE:NCY w.NAGEWENf AGEta (FOAA.) INfOflW.TIOl'I: F1W (MOO IHSIJW«::E RATE liW') t.W' No. 5JOJJC0982 F, PN>IEL 982 OF !725 DATID MAY 16, 1995. THE SIRJECT PROPERTY IS IN ZONE X (UNSHIIOED). AREAS DO(Ri,11Nffi ffi BE OOTSIOE 500-YEAR FlOOOPI.Jllol. ZONING INFORMATION -CA -COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMr.ERCIAL ARTERIAL ZONE AAf:: l.fNAIM LOT SIZE; 5000 50U'RE FEEJ FRONT srnw:K, SIDE SEJR.I.CK (Al.ONG A STRE£T}; SIDE Srnw::K: REAR SETIW:K: MAX11AUM BUI.DING HEIGHT: UAlCIUUM BUI..DWG COVER.lilE: (FOR LOT CREATID AFTER NO'I/Ell3ER 2004) 10 FEET• 10 FEET• NOHE •• _ .. '""' 65i: {75~ F PAAKING IN 9LllDlt!G ~ ON-SIT£ ......, • SUBJEcr TO REDLCT!ON Tlf{()UGH SITE P1AN Df'IIELOPI.ElT R£I/EW PROCESS •• 15 FEET RWUfiEO IF SITE ,'8JTS A RCSUNTW.. ZONE ZotlNG t!FOffl,IA~ ~ NOT PROYIDED BY NSURER. Pl.£ASE CONSULT THE RENTON WNICIPAL COOE (RMc TTIU: -4) FOR >DllfTI0™1. OETNLS AND P0SS181..[ SITE SP£C1fJC R£QUIREUENTS. REFERENCE SURVEYS: 1. CITY OF ROmlN UA NO. Ll,Lt,-05-0~1-l.LA, RECORDING NO. 20050719900009. NOTES: VICINITY MAP 1. LtlDER(;ROUNII 1JIIJT1ES AND fFATllRES OD'ICTEO HER£0N AA£ BASED O!ol FlUD OBSEINATIOM, »ID UTIUTY MARKINGS ONLY. THE lRUE LOCATIOH, W.TI.M: ANO/OR EXISTENCE OF BELOII GROUND F'EA.Tt.ll:ES, D£TEC1Ell 00 UNDElEC'IEO, SHOUI.O BE '1/ERlFlED. ,. SITE <!"1;,;;,_ '-""' '• ' 2. AU. DISTANCES AAE 1N FEU (us SURVEY Fil.T) 3. NO E.\'lllEJ<EE OF SOIL BOOINGS WERf OBSERVED AT THE TUE Cf" THE F1ElD SLIR'JEY. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: TO: RID) Memt SIORES, INC., NtD FIRST N.IERDJI Tlll..E: Ri\MNlQ; t:OIIPll!fl': 1llS IS lO CERtF1 Tlll,J ttts MAP Oii l'I.At'ANO 1HE SUIM.'," Oii llllDI rr IS 8',SE1) MRE MID[ .. JO::amUtC( NTH l>IE 2011 MINIMUII SWGWI ocra RflUl(WOO"S f'CII ,m./JeaM. LANI> 1lll.[ 9.IIMYS, .IOINII.Y ~ IHD ~ IJI' olil..1' NI) NSPS Mil INCUDES ITEMS 1, 2, :5, ~ • .5, ~\ ~1~ 1.1, 17. 21 N'fll 22 OF tlill.! A M;IIEDf. ntl;: f1WI WOlffl - ll,l(IEOf PlA1" !ll l.W': .NJl)USJ;!O, Zl\2 • • = ....... ~ .. 0 * ......... ~ OM'.N a. H!LLE. PJ...S . i).(tt" ~ RElllSIRA.llON ND. '40016 --KT& • I. THE I 3980 C D I - ., SUR.VI /J l i= I ... "~ --... 61 DA" - TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW • Adopted Basin Plans: The site is part of the Lower Cedar River drainage basin, and is in the Maplewood Sub Basin. • Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable. • Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: Once again, the site is located in the Lower Cedar River drainage basin and is in the Maplewood Sub Basin. • Critical Drainage Area Maps: According to the city of Renton, Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment is required. Also, Level 2 (Duration standard) flow control is required for this site. • Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please the enclosed Exhibit D -FEMA Map utilized for this analysis. Panel No. 982 of 1,725, Map No. 53033C0982 F, revised May 16, 1995, indicates that the proposed project site does not lie within a floodplain or floodway of a stream. • Other Off-Site Analysis Reports: A review of Exhibit I -Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report and the site investigation work conducted in the preparation of this Level 1 Drainage Analysis. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service (SCS) soils map is also provided (see Exhibit F -SCS Soils Map). • Sensitive Areas Folios: Based on a review of the sensitive areas as shown on the City of Renton GIS maps, it was found that there may have been a wetland on subject site. However, a Critical Areas review was done for the site and no evidence of a wetland was found. There are no landslide, flood, seismic or coal mine hazards, etc., associated with this project site. • Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable. • United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on our review of the soils map for this area, the entire site lies within Alderwood type soils. • Wetland Inventory Map: There is a wetland mapped on this site per the Renton GIS mapping but the site was analyzed for wetland characteristics and none were found. • Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable. 15432.003.doc Exhibit D FEMA Map ,: ~ STAI SOUTHEAST I 126TH I w "' w ~1 §' l SIT€ I I I ... , ~ I w ~I "' I ' w :::, ii z ~ -' w ~ ~ ~1 ,r ~ ii ~ SOUTHEAST 136TH STREET I 128TH STR~ I I I I I I SOUTHEAST 129TH I I Pt.ACE I I STREET APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 500 0 500 e all NATIONAL ~OD INSURANCE PROGRAM j 11111111m111m1 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP DIIIIIIIUIIIIUI KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND 111111111111111111 INCORPORATED AREAS 11111111~~11 r~ ..!~! 1!,~5 eANELS NOT eR<NTED> 00~111111111 -~· ~PANEL.~ ----"''''"""""" IID1 MAP NUMBER 53033C0982 F MAP REVISED: MAY 16, 1995 1lm. ~ ~ o&cia copy of a potticn of the aiiiM!i refefenced flood map. It WB5 axtracted using F-MrT On-Line. Thia map does not relect ~ or amendment& which may haw been made sUbsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest PA)Cluc:t lnfonnaticn about National Flood lrmuranee P~ lood ma,:,e check the FEMA Flood Map Store at_"'!!'!"'-!!!f$C,~~-~ Exhibit E Sensitive Areas Map City of Renton Sensi t ive Areas \~_~:-~~;;·::"' ~:;~ ~:~~,+~\}j;;.··:. -~;;:~{~::~;; ·~: ·:~=· <:~~---:~> ;\~i:: ·. ~ :/~~? ,:[~·:·;t-}~;·:~i~~r~~~~if: ~~~~~~1·:·~~(tt~ir.:~;~~~:r f~~~~;:~ite>!r~;~:~: ·· ;~!f?2~(:~;ci?· ·:': .. :.\I.·,::· ··-· ·"' /~cs·,,; .. :::··.tr·.:::·:·. .'W-" · ... :·: •.[, •. 117 0 58 117 NAD_ 1983_HARN_StatePlane_ Washington_ North_FIPS_ 4601 Feet Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 09/19/2012 ----~,j~~t~:~i~!~~;~ ....... -:-:-~ This map is a user generate d static output fro m a n Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate. current, or otherwise rel iable . THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATI ON Legend D ml D W ellfield Capture Zone • One Year Capture Zone O Five Year Capture Zone D Ten Year Capture Zone Coalmine • HIGH D MODERATE UNCLASSIFIED Erosion Flood Landslide • VERY HIGH • HIGH D MODERATE UNCLASSIFED Slope City of Renton >15%& ¢25% >25% & <=40o/o (Sensi~ve) -- II >4 0% & <=90% (Protected) • >90% (Protected) Seismic Environment Designations O Natural D Shoreline High Intensity O Shoreline Isolated High Intensity D Shoreline Residential O Urban Conservancy 0 Jurisdictions Streams (C lassified) Notes None 2 3 0 1: 1,399 ~on~ Finance & IT Division I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Exhibit F Soils Map ------------ 47• 29' 18" 4 7° 29' 16" "' ~ O> "' N "' "' ~ O> "' N "' .... .... .... O> "' N "' "' :e O> "' N "' ~ .... ~ N "' N A Soil Map-King County Area, Washington 563493 563502 563511 563520 563,529 563493 563502 563511 563520 563529 Map Scale: 1 :422 if printed on A size (8 .5"x 11") sheel ----====--------c::=========iMeters 30 10 20 0 -----======----------==========Feet 5 0 20 40 80 120 563538 563538 USDA Natural R esources ,;;:; Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperati ve Soi l Survey ---- 563547 563556 563565 563547 563556 563565 - 563574 563574 -- ~ 47' 29' 18" O> "' N "' "' ~ O> "' N "' .... ~ O> "' N "' "' "' ,._ f1l N "' lll ,._ ,o, "' N "' 55 .... lll N "' "' .... lll N "' 47° 29' 16" 5/29/2012 Page 1 of 3 ~ Soil Map-King County Area, Washington MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) _J Area of Interest (AOI) Soils _J Soil Map Units Special Point Features (!J Blowout ~ Borrow Pit * Clay Spot • Closed Depression X Gravel Pit . Gravelly Spot 0 landfill A Lava Flow ... Marsh or swamp .. Mine or Quarry @ Miscellaneous Waler @ Perennial Water " Rock Outcrop -t Saline Spot Sandy Spot -Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole p Slide or Slip ,. Sadie Spot !I Spoil Area 0 Stony Spot Natural Resources Conservation Service G') t Very Stony Spot Wet Spot & Other Special Line Features ~ Gully Short Steep Slope ,,,.. " Other Polltical Features • Cities Water Features ~·-· Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails ....... = Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads /V local Roads Web Soil Suivey National Cooperative Soil Survey MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1 :422 if printed on A size (8.5ft x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause , misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line I placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown_at a more detailed scale. I Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Suivey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 6, Sep 22, 2009 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 5/29/2012 Page 2 of3 Soil Map-King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol AgC Totals for Area of Interest Natural Resources Conservation Service I King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes I Acres in AOI Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey I Percent of AOI 0.6 0.6 100.0% 100.0% 5/29/2012 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit G Assessor's Map in 0 I C") N I in ..... s z l I ! . ' ' DD ,; n ! j ' l ; ,hhh , I: 111: i .I hill! 111111 "' , . ..;,,-,;;;,,,, .. ~ ,.,. ---_- 9 aa0' ~.?(oeo 0 ,, '''''"<;;;''' ~, __ _!!~ .. 1··1---...1 r-~,,_..1-''- I :· {"j, ' ,' ,,·t-, ----4....J r--------_J.~! /) ;11t~~ i:I : !~ 1t-·-·------.---·'' ~,;:,w;;;-~-~-;i:::"f_-:·:\ -~~: ---~;-~~- I , r , ,, ! /'1,J--,.:.;.d...:::a ~,;;r:!hK i.l~~ I· I ,, cf Exhibit H Wetland Inventory Map City of Renton Sensitive Areas 1::-:----·--------------~--- ~10*~; >::~r-~~-~~:;~::~l~ ·:: :::f \t:.-~r:~~1;;, ·~: ')\fl ... :.~:;:: • I . i I I , 1 I --.. --=.:.____. ------ ~1i~[:~~~rf ~~~:1, t\it}t) ~-'.·!~ ·.::·~·-·j:,-· .. ;:_: ~ff~,~ ·:..~; '..~·:··~~ .:·:. ·. ··:-,;:.1.,:<. ·:· .... :;,. :=:::'~·:·~ -~-; ~JL!/;' ..... : ... :.:.-- Legend D - D Wellfie ld Capture Zone • One Year Capture Zone O Five Year Capture Zone O Ten Year Capture Zone Coalmine • HIGH D MODERATE UNCLASSIFIED Eros ion Flood Land slide • VERY HIGH • HI GH D MODERATE UNCLASSIFED Slope C ity of Renton >15% & <=25% >25% & <=40% (Sensitive) -. • >40% & <=90% (Protected) • >90% (Protected) Seismic Environment Designations O Natural D Shoreline High Intensity ....... / ~ I I O Shoreline Isolated High Intensity 11 7 0 58 117 NAD_ 1983_HAR N_StatePlan e_Washington_ North_FIPS_ 4601 Feet Information Technology • GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 09/19/2012 . ...--~·-=-~· This map is a user generated static output from an I nternet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION O Shoreline Residential 0 Urban Conservancy 0 Jurisdictions Streams (Classified) Notes None 2 3 0 1: 1,399 ~on® Finance & IT Division I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC March 21, 2012 Brian Jessen Eastside Funding LLC 3933 Lake WA Blvd. NE, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: Critical Areas Review for 4615 NE 4th Street Renton, WA (Parcel 152305-9124) Dear Brian: AOA EI ffi ro11111c 11 tal Planning & Landscape Architecture AOA-4169 On March 20, 2012 I conducted a wetland and stream reconnaissance on the subject property utilizing the methodology outlined in the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Existing Conditions It is my understanding that the site was previously developed with a gas station and associated food mart. At the time of the site visit, the property was undeveloped and consisted primarily of compact fill. Vegetation on the site was generally confined to a small remnant depression in the southern portion of the property and consisted of an upland plant community that included big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), hazelnut (Cory/us cornuta), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius). No hydrophytic plant communities were observed on the site. Borings taken throughout the vegetated portion of the property revealed dry, non- hydric, high chroma soils and there was no evidence of ponding or prolonged soil saturation anywhere on the site. Surrounding land use includes NE 4th Street to the north, Duvall Ave. NE to the east, and retail development with associated paved parking immediately adjacent the west and south property boundaries. Brian Jessen March 21, 2012 Page 2 Conclusion No wetlands or streams are located on or adjacent to the property. This conclusion is based on a field investigation that did not identify any hydrophytic plant communities, hydric soils, or evidence of wetland hydrology anywhere on or adjacent to the site. If you have any questions regarding the reconnaissance, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC John Altmann Ecologist Exhibit I Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 13 LOWER CEDAR CREEK BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County. Washington Department o[ Pub~c Works Don LaBelle, Director King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District 1 Cynthia Sullivan, District 2 Bill Reams, District 3 Lois North, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 Parks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River & Water Natural Resources and Parl<s Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Bill Eckel~ Manager, Basin Planning Program Resource Seel ion Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section Contributing Starr Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer RandaH Parsons, Sr.· Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Bnice Barker, Engineer Arny Stankus, Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Starr Don Spencer, Associate Geologist, Earlh Consultants, Inc. John Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth Consultants, Inc. P:CR Contnouting Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager & Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologist & Team Leader Matth~· J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda, Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Dyanne Sheldon, Wetlands Biologist Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Robert Radek, Planning Suppart Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bentler, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Suppart Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Suppart Technician Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician Carolyn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Typescuer Leta Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, ornce Technician TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY II. INTRODUCTION III. FINDINGS IN LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN IV. V. A. Overview of Basin D. Effects of Urbanization C. Specific Problems 1. 2. 3. Drainage and flooding problems Damage lo property Destruction of habitat RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION A. Reduce landslide hazards B. Reduce erosion and flooding C. Prevent fulure erosion and flooding with appropriate analysis, planning, and policy development D. Stop present (and prevent future) damage to habitat by addressing specific problems in stream systems MAP APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPEDDIX C: Estimaled Costs Capital Improvement Project Ranking Detailed Findings and Recommendations 1 1 2 2 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 11 A-1 B-1 C-1 I. SUMMARY The Lower Ccd•r River Basin, in southwest King County, is unique in its development pat- terns and the associated environmental problems that appear throughout the basin. Except for the city of Renton and areas on the Cedar River Valley floor, most of the development in the basin has occurred on the upland plateaus. Most of this development is recent and primarily residential. In addition, the plateau is the site of numerous sand and gravel mining operations and, in the southern uplands, an abandoned coal mine. Peat is also being mined north of Otter lake. In some areas livestock are being raised on small farms; there are no major crop-related agricultural activities in the basin. The effects of development are most apparent where storm drainage is routed over the valley walls. Impervious surfaces on the plateau have iocreased the rate and volume of storm runoff, resulting in substantial erosion, siltation, and Dooding below. In addi- tion, erosion and siltation have damaged or destroyed habitat in many tributaries, threatening the survival of fish. Habitat and water quality throughout the basin are also threatened by the filling of wetlands and the presence of large amounts of domestic haSb in some streams. The reconnaissance team noted that the Peterson Creek system has so far remained in its natural, nearly pristine condition. Maintaining this quality should be a high priority in future basin planning capital project programs. Recommendations in the Lower Cedar River Basin include 1) designing and constructing appropriately sized R/D and other drainage facilities·, 2) establishing stricter land use policies regarding floodplains, wetlands, and gravel mining; 3) conducting more detailed and comprehensive hydraulic/bydrologic analyses of proposed developments; and 4) preventing damage to the natural drainage system. The field team also recommends 5) restoring the habitat of several tributaries (e.g., cleaning gravels, revegetating stream banks, and diversifying slreambeds for spawning and rearing) as well as 6) protecting the nearly pristine quality of Peterson Cn:ck. Il. INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program P:LC In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effon began ,.,th an initial investigation of three basins -· Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks •• in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recommend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investiga- tions used available data and new field ob.seivations to examine geology1 hydrology, and habitat conditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important ele- ment or surface water managemenl. The goaJs of the program are to provide useful data with regard to I) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage and problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage con- ditions in the County in order to transmil information to policymakers [o aid them in developing more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They are not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion I Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) problems; instead~ they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions_ The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case-by-case basis by County offi- cials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among competing projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site~spccific basis for any proposal. ill-FINDINGS IN WWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN P:LC The field reconnaissance of Lower Cedar River Basin was conducted in January 1987 by Robert R. Fuerstenberg, biologist; Bruce L Barker, engineer; and Lee Benda, geologist. Their findings and recommendations are presented here. A OvelView of Lower Cedar River Basin The lower Cedar River Basin is located in soulhwest King Coun1y and is 27 square miles in area. Ir extends southeast from the mouth of the Cedar River on Lake Washington to approximately river mile 14.0. The boundarv to the northeast is marked by a ridgetop connecting lhc city of R~nton 10 Webster and Franklin Lakes; the boundary to the southwesl runs along Petrovilsky Road to Lake Youngs. Renton is the only incorporated area in 1he basin. Other populntion centers include Fairwood, Maplewood Heights, and Maple Valley. Except for the city of Renton, most of the residential concentrations are located on the upland plateaus overlooking the Cedar River Valley_ These upland developments are recent compared to the smaller established communities on the valley floor. The basin lies within portions of three King County planning areas: Newcastle in the northeast (which includes Renton), Tahoma-Raven Heights in the easl, and Soos Creek (the largest of the three) in the wesl. Rural areas exist on the valley floor on t>oth sides of <he Lower Cedar River, from approximately river mile 5.50 to 13.00. These are limited to pastureland for horses, cows, and some sheep and several small "u-pick" fn1it and vegetable farms. Siinil;:lr areas are located on the southern uplands above the reach from river mile 5.50 to 7.00 and in the Lake Desire-Otter Lake area. The plateau is also the site of sand and gravel mining operations and, in the southern uplands. of the abandoned Fire King Coal Mine. Peat deposits exist west of Lake Desire and north and south of Otter L1ke. and peat mining is being carried out north of Ouer Lake. Present zoning a!IO\VS for urban and suburban densities throughout much of the basin. particularly on the upland plateaus and in the Cedar River Valley from its mouth to appoximately river mile 6.50. Population projections for the year 2000 in the three plannign areas containing the Lower Cedar Basin are over 311,000~ an increase of 47 2 P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin ( continued) percent from the present. Mosl of 1his growth will occur in the Soos Creek Planning Area. Dominant geological and geomorphic feature.<. The geology of the Lower Cedar River Basin is diverse. Geological formations exposed along the valley include sedimentary rocks, undifferentiated older glacial dri(t, extensive ground moraine deposits, recent alluvium along the Cedar River, and landslide deposits along the river and its tribu- taries. The sedimentary rocks, composed of moderately dipping sands1ones, con- glomerates, mudstones, and shales, are exposed locally along the cliffs of 1hc Cedar River Valley near the mouth of the Cedar River. In addi1ion, 1he Ren1on formation, composed of sandstones, mudstoncs, and shales with periodic deposi1s of coal, is also exposed along the lower portion of the Lower Cedar River Valley. Undifferentiated glacial deposits found here are composed of three or more till sheets, glacio-fluvial sand and gravel, glacio~lacustrine clay, and sand, and non-glacial sand, clay and 1hin peat. These lie over the sedimentary rock formarions and are besl exposed in cross-section along the cliffs of the main valley and major tribularies. The morphology of the Lower Cedar River Basin is dominaled by lhc vallev formed l>y the Cedar River. Valley walls are sleep cliffs formed by landslides in glacial sedi- ments. A once extensive and meandering River, which created a wide valley floor as it cul ils way westward, the Cedar loday is diked for most of ils lenglh 1hrough the 101,.ver valley. A narrow but extensive band or landslide deposits exists along the sleep cliffs of the main river and its major lribularies. The landslide deposi1s consist of deformed blocks of glacial sediments and colluvium derived from slides or mnss flowage, such as landslides and debris flows. Reccnl alluvial dcposi1s fill the valley and major tributaries. Small, composite, alluvial debris fans exist at the mouths of the largesl tributa1ies. Closed depressions, principa!Jy in the uplands, have lacustrine and peat deposils, The Lower Cedar River Valley has a high potential for erosion due 10 sleep slopes and the existence of a day layer that pron1otes soil failures. In addition, the confined nalure of tributary channels between sleep hillslopes promotes bank erosion during high flows. Numerous recent landslides are evidenl along cliffs of many of the steep trjbutaries and along the main stem of the Cedar River. These have been accelerated by the removal of vegetation and the routing of concentrated storm flows over sleep slopes in areas where development has occurred. Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics. The Cedar River Basin is composed of a complex drainage ne~urk consisling of the Cedar River and 17 tributaries. The larger tributaries begin in lakes or wetlands on the bluffs and flow through relatively flat~ stable channels to the edge of the Cedar River Valley, then plunge down to 1he valley floor through steep, erodible ravines. Tributaries of 1his type such as Tributary 0304 (wilh headwaters al Welland 3111) and Tributary 0328 (which begins al L~ke Desire). are found on lhe soulh side of lhe Cedar River. Another type of tributary collects surface runoff from urbanized areas. pastureland. and wooded areas. Tribularies 0302, 0307, and 0312 are examples of lhis 1ype of tributary. They are intermillenl (depending on rainfall), shorter in lenglh. flow 1hrough shallower channels that are sleeper al the bluffs and lransport more material during limes of 3 P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) high nows. Some of the worst problems located during field investigation (see Appendix C for a full listing) occur on this type of tributary. Catchments 5, 6, and 12 have very infiltrative soils. Urban developments hvae utilized R/0 poinds to effectively infiltrate all urban runoff before it reaches the valley hillslopes. The infiltrated runoff then reappears as springs. Two large lakes (Desire and Otter), together with four smaller ones (Shady, Peterson, Webster, and Francis) lie in the southeast third of the basin. Numerous large wetland areas exist in this section as welL The field ream identified 10 potential wetland sites that had not been previously identified in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). The system of lakes and wetlands in this area effectively buffers the high flows draining to these tributaries. Habitat characteristics.. With few exceptions, usable fish habitat exists only in peren- nial streams (i.e., Trib. 0302, 0304, 0305, 0328, and possibly 0308). In other streams (e.g., Trib. 0303 and 03!0), Sleep gradients preclude fish use. Steep gradients also reduce fish use in the perennial systems (except for Trib. 0328). Hal>itat is in various stages of degradation in these systems; pools are being filled and gr.ivels and dehris shift regularly. In Tributary 0328 (Peterson Creek), however, habitat diversity is extensive1 and the channel is not seriously degraded. Al this location the field team observed at least three species of salmonoids. In general, the most diverse and least disturbed habitat in a tributary system occurs in the large wetland areas in the southeast third of the basin. Usable habitat for anadromous fish is found in the low-gradient portions of streams where channels cross the Cedar River Valley floor. In these reaches, however, only spawning habitat is likely to be available, as the pools and woody debris necessary for successful rearing either do not exist or are quite limited_ Excellenl spawning and rearing areas exist where pools and riffles are exlensive, instream cover and bank vegetation are intact, and diversity of habitat types is abundant. B. Effects of U rbanaation in the Basin Flooding, erosion, and the degradation of habitat associated with development in the Lower Cedar River Basin are most apparent where development has eliminated vege- tation along the edges of the valley and where stormwater has been routed down channels and swales. The removal of vegetation, such as t.ree~ above and below the edges of valley walls, as wetl as lhe discharging of stormwater over the valley wall, has resulted in tension cracks and landslides that are endangering some houses. The sedi~ ments from these failures are depositing in streams and on valley floors and damaging fish habitat and private property. Discharging stormwater from increased impervious areas into steep tributary channels and swales is seriously des1abilizing channels and valley walls; this in turn results in channel downcutting, bank erosion, and landslides. The sediments from these problems often degrade fish habitat and settle out on pri- vate property along the valley floor. Two serious instances of development-related erosion occurred during the November 1986 storm: l) culverts rerouting the stream were plugged, causing the formation of a new channel that destroyed portions of roads on Tributary 0314; and 2) new, uncom- 4 P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) pacted fill adjacent to new residences near collection point 5 was washed partly away during the storm, causing landsliding and gullying. Future problems will be similar to these, as commercial and residential developments increase now rates and volumes by decreasing natural storage and infiltration. This is expected to occur if wetlands on the upper plateau are encroached upon or lost (e.g., on Trib. 0304 at RM 2.30 and on Trib. 0304A at Rm 1.60). The preservation of wetlands and streambank vegetation and the attenuation of storm flows are essential in this basin. C. Specific Problems Identified The steep valley sideslopes through which streams pass and the often dense upland development result in a number of similar probiems that repeat themselves throughout the Lower Cedar River Basin. The most significant of these are oullined and discussed below. 1. Drainage and flooding problems are often the result of scverdl conditions: a. Undersized culverts and inadequate entrance structures. The most notable area is on Tributary 0306 at river mile .30! where a culvert here was blocked by debris carried downstream by the stream and caused erosion and flooding of Fairwood Golf Course. The blockage was compounded by the fact that the culvert was undersized; the problem will worsen as fl,w,s increase from upstream development. b. Serious inst.ream erosion and subsequent downstream sedimentation. These have been caused by three main factors: 1) runoff from residential developments on the bluffs above the valley, 2) compacted pastureland due to livestock, and 3) runoff from impetvious areas originating at gravel pits. These prohlems will continue and worsen until mitigative measures are taken. (See Appendix C for specific examples.) c. Undersized recbannelized streams. Tributaries on the valley floor are too small to carry the increased flows originacing in developed residential areas along Che top of the bluffs. For example, Tributary 0302 at river mile .25, the channel along Maplewood Golf Course, overtops and floods during storms. d. c. Construction in wetland and floodplain areas, Many of the wetlands on the south side of the Cedar River arc peat bogs, and roads built through them continue to settle each year, increasing the amount of flooding on the road. For example, the road crossing with Tributary 03288 north of Lake Desire will experience more severe flooding as the road settles. Discharging of slormwater at the top of steep banks At river mile 2.20 on the Cedar River, a trailer park ( constructed on the edge of the cliff) discharges its drainage down the valley wall. Im:reased nows erode the steep valley, depositing sediments on lhe valley floor? blocking channels and causing flooding. These probJems will eventually stabilize, but only after a large quantity of soil has been eroded. 5 P:LC 2. Damage to property is being caused by three Cactors: Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) a. Landslides and potential landslides. Landslides are acceleralcd hy lhe removal of vegetation on steep slopes in preparation for residential construction and/or by the routing of storm flows over hillslopes. For example, a large landslide has already occurred in 1he front yard of a resi- dence on the Cedar River at river mile 7.80. b. Sedimentation (from landslides). Sedimentation and channel and bank ero- sion are damaging private property along the valley floor (Trib. 0299 and 0310). c. Flooding during storms. Flooding has been brought on by the effects of development and associated changes to the natural drainage systems in the basin. (See "B" above.) 3. Destruction of habitat is being caused by four conditions: a. Sedimentation of pools and riffles and cementing of gravels. These prot,Jems, 1he result of severe erosion and the transporl of bedload material, have been caused by upland developments in the basin and lhe presence of associated impervious surfaces, which increast! the rate and quantity of surface runoff. Sedimentation and cementing of gravels in streambeds desrroy narural spawning and rearing habitat. On Tributary 0307 at river mile .40 and Tributaty 0305 at river miles .95, 1.20, and 1.70, recent high fJows have eroded the streambcd at least one foot, con1ributing to a serious siltation problem downstream. Heavy Pedro.ad transport is evi- dent in all syslems of the basin except Tributary 0328. In Tribu1a1y 0303 at ,iver mile .25, fine sediments are accumulating in gravels that may be used by resident fish. In Tribulary 0304 between river miles .95 and 1.20, pools are being filled by sands and gmvels and rearing habitat is being rapidly lost. b. Cbaoncl.izatioo or stream beds.. Los.s of habitat through channcljzation has occurred in all the major streams of the basin, but most noticeably in those reaches that cross the valley floor. These reaches lack habitat diversity, reducing fish use for spawning and rearing. Channelization has damaged or destroyed habitat in several reaches that were once heavily used by fish; these include Tributary 0302 between river mile .30 and 40, Tributary 0304 betv,,·een river miles .0$ and .18, Tributary 0305 between river mile .20 and .75, and Tributary 0328 from river mile 1.10 lo 1.40. These systems cannot afford a further reduction of habitat and still remain viable fishery resour- ces. c. The accumulation of trash in stream beds. This problem occurs in close proximity to residenlial areas. Trash degrades water quality and is visually unpleasant. Tire.5.i appliances, furniture1 and other trash have been thrown into Tributary 0302 at river miles 1.00 and I.JO and in Tributary 0303 at river mile .35. 6 Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) d. Wetland encroacbmcot. Encroachment destroys habitar and eliminates natural water filtration and storage for surface runoff. Examples of this problem were observed on Tributary 0304 at river mile 2.30, Tributary 0308 al .80, and Tributary 0304A at river mile 1.80. Many wcllands have already been completely Josi through filling, for example on Tributary 0306A at river mile .55. Suspected violations were forwarded 10 Building and Land Development for enforcement. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION P:LC The primary recommendations for action in the Lower Cedar River Basin addresses current severe problems related to erosion, habitat destruction, and flooding. Prevention of these problems will be accomplished by controlling locations and densities of new development and providing adequate R/0 fac~lities for stormwalcr. A Reduce landslide ha7.anls by: 1. Including sensitive areas not previously mapped on the Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). See Appendix C for a full listing of sensitive areas. 2 Establishing building setbacks along cliffs and native growth protection easements along steep r.:tVines. Jc Discouraging or eliminating the routing of stormwater over cliffs, unless adequate tightline systems can be constructed to convey nows in a safe 1 nonerosive manner to the botlom of cliffs. 4. Decreasing peak nows by constructing larger R/D facilities to lessen the landslide and erosion occurrence along tributary slopes. B. Reduce cmsion and Oooding in the basin by improving surface water management: 1. Direct the Facilities Management Section of the Surface Water Management DMSion to evaluate existing storm-detention and conveyance facilities lo deter· mine whether 1hey arc properly sized to meel current standards. Evaluation should begin wilh all single-orifice R/0 facilities. 2 Consider areas other than wetlands as regional storm-detention facilities. Tributary 0300 at river mile .42 is the sire for a proposed dam, for example. 3. Utilize existing lower quality wetlands (tho.se rated other than #1) as regional storm-detention facilities. Wetlands 3102 and 3142 could provide more live Slorage, for example. 4. Review channel and culvert capacity for conveying existing and future runoff, and establish floodplain areas in regions of slight gradient for existing and future runoff conditions. 5. Promote the infiltration of surface waler through the use of retention facilities and open channels instead of pipes where the soil and slope conditions permit. Collection points 5, 6. and 12 on plateaus have such soil conditions. 7 P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) C. Prevent future problems or erosion and (Jooding with appropriate analysis, planning, and policy development related to surface water management: L Conduct a detailed, comprehensive hydraulic/bydrologic analysis of any proposed d=lopments 10 determine impacts on the drainage courses downstream. This is especially critical for areas on the upper bluffs and plateau, which drain over sleep, sensitive banks above the Cedar River. 2. Conduct a study of the impact or locating inf"dtration ponds utilized near lhe edge of the bluffs to determine their effect on seepage faces on the lower face of the bluffs. This might be accomplished with a computer-based numerical model of the groundwater flow. 3. Require the tigbtlining of storm drainage down steep or sensitive slopes when they cannol be directed away from the slopes. This is done by piping the flow down the slope and discharging it at the bottom with adequate energy dissipation. Many of the intermittent tributaries flowing down the banks should be tightlined as urban development increases flow to them. 4. Construct oew R/D ponds with filter berms to improve water quality and reduce rme sediment loads. New RID ponds should have two cells with gravel-berm fillers and vegetated swales at the inlet and outlet. Consider Tributaries 0304, 0304A, 0302, and 0303 as sites for this type of facility in order enliance water quality. 5. Maintain natural vegetation on streambaoks and (Joodplains. This is especially important for relatively flat channels flowing on the plateau before they reach the steep !>luffs because these channels and their floodplains will attenuate flows during limes of heavy runoff. 6. Maintain buffer areas around wetlands. Many of the trit,urarics on the south side or rhe Cedar River headwater ar wetlands. These wetlands act as natural storage areas during storms. 7. Reevaluate King County policy regarding permitting for gravel mining on steep, sensitive slopes. 8. Include the city of Rentioo in future interlocal agreements for planning and capi- tal improvement projcc1s where city and county intcres1s overlap. D. Eliminate present damage to habitat and prevent future damage by addressing specific problems in the stream systems. The following activities should he coordinated among King County, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and State Departments of Fisheries and Game: 1. 2. Reduce damaging storm Oows with greater detention volume and lcw,·er release rates at upstream developmenrs. Implement restoration projects on Tributaries 0304 (river mile .00-.20), Trit>ulary 0305 (river mile .20-.80), Tributary 0303 (river mile .25-.35), and Tributary 0328 (river mile 1.10 -1.40): 8 P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) a. On Tnoutary 0304: Clean streambed gravels, add habitat and bed-control weirs, and plant bank vegetation for shade. b. On Tnoutary 0305: Construct a new channel and move stream from road· side channel to its new location on adjacent lands. Implement a full restoration project to provide channel meanders, habitat structures, pool/riffle enhancement, streambed gravel replacement, and revegetation. c. On Tnbutary 0303: Move stream from present channel to a location further north, away from the roadside. If relocation is not possible, these minimum steps should be taken: Add habitat structure to existing channel with root masses, deflectors, boulder clusters, and other features; revegetate channel banks with shrubs and small trees; enhance stream crossings with bottomless pipe arches. d. On Tributary 0328 (Peterson Creek): Add habitat structure by replacing the straight 1 shortened channel with a more naturaJ, meandering one; place habitat structures (such as root masses, deflectors, cover logs, and boulder clusters) throughout the channel; and revegetate banks "ith shrubs common to adjacent riparian zones (salmonberry, ninebark, or dogwood, for example). 3. Protect the Peterson Creek system (Trib. 0328) in its present, near-pristine state. This will include not only the restoration outlined in section A above, but also the adoption of land use management regulations to prevent future habitat deslruction: a. Protect all existing wetlands within the subcatchmeots of Peterson Creek. Employ wetland buffers at least 100 feet wide without exception. b. Restrict development in the critical headwater area (drainage, habitat, water quality) bounded by Lake Desire, Otter Lake, and Peterson Lake to rural densities. c.. Designate and protect streamside management woes of at least JOO feet from the ordinary high-water mark (OIIWM) along the main stem of the creek. Use 25 feet from the OHWM on tributaries. d. Preserve floodplains and their fon:sts for dynamic retention of sediments and water. e.. f. g. Restrict vegetation removal in streamside/wetlaod management zones. Size R/D facilities to store the 100-year storm at a two-to-five-year release rate. Use the twa-ccll type of pond with a forcbay, a gravel filter, and a vegetated swale outflow where feasible. Regulate more closely all septic tank and drain-field installations, as well as maintenance schedules, particularly in the Lake Desire, Oner Lake, and Peterson Lake drainage areas. 9 4. P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) b. Work with the State Department of Ecology to establish nnrumum stream- now requirements for Peterson Creek and L1ke Desire tributary. Develop and promote public education and involvement programs for basin awareness. Work with schools, environmental groups, and the civic and business communities to conduct educational and restoration programs. JO ·-"" \, ,, -~\. 1-1 ·, '"',, \ . , ,......;___~"<:-::_---'"\ \ \· \ . . ,·{:::·2.:·~~/1 ::;JJ FT ·-.II S.:-c~\'''" "·> . ', \ . ~~+~,, ·,: .. )\ ,\ II --:·r' ,_ \\c--. \ . . .. \ ; ·, ;f· ... " . .. I ,·, I· --- ( i ' . \ .· ,;,,, . ,,, •.::, ' . . _, -I --. "·. : ! . r~~,; . . .... , .I f--,-... I \ \ ' . ·. I \ ! ! / \ • 11. ... ,.,;.~1,,_1 . -~ ' !_/ ,······· --1··.-/I . . i ' . ,__ \ I (;__]);J:· --,· .. • . ' -'• . \ ' ,\ -f , I I \ '. • " .• 1. « ' ; - ,,,\ -1 . i -, •• -, \ \ '~-· __ :·=,-'-::. -.. ' 111 ' • ~ ; ~.. " ,\' . '"•' 1-( ' .:':":-<." ~ -., ..• \ ••... _1.~,-.,,,11,,,;,1 '•\ \,.' -1----· • -N:,;,:::'.::::--- I I~ 1 \ "·(' \ i ; . " ~ '\ \· \. • ' I l, . .s:.. • .,.."" I ~\": _.L \ ,./ . ··--,~ <\ ? '<:' I• ... \ \ (; . '; ( \\ '"_.. ..:. "tt- \ \ \I ! .. - ',-""".~:....~--•·· -""°I:'. >(~··:,, -· ; .--... . ._1 I: .. ' ,. ,-, -•• I / ' I I ( ----·1 I • • • ( ··-• [1 - ·1 ~· '_ ·-. +_ k.: .... _--_ ~---," ., \; )_ -----··--· . \ ~ ~ -.. I . . ·----\-----~ L ----, I , ..I 4r ~·1 ) ,, ... . '\:; ""-", .. ' \ . /,, --..J .. ,. y -' '. ···('' ·, .. ··l r -·-. --' .. . -._. .. 1-.-11-\,,, ·, • ' . . . " \._\ . ,~1-:· LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN ® Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary Collection Point ~ Stream 0299 Tributary •3115 Proposed 0 I ) >j.:!!Jll.--. 0 r ·•/ ~t .. ~ ,;. ,\~'\t_•,,, __ ..,i,_ '\i . ~-1 / A/ Number Project I' / 2 Miles ~~ ,} !\\_ ... / ~J \ ~-i. ---....-..,-·-...---...s.1 N \ T ·--\,., \. :: . .....__ C, .. f i{-1:, '"·:R· ~""-; > ', 1··1 ") \ 'p '-•, t <''I ·1 l -. ~--t, . ""'"'': 11• -~ '. @ ~ ,,· •, '~ '. ® -~,~Q'-.-,<; Ai; I 7 '!, ' i 311 \ ,. --'-. --. r . \-. \ \ -, i\~, . ( ·_·j ' .. ,,\(.:....1, . ;_ : _'11;~~1 ... \ -~ / ,; !"\ APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS LOWER CEDAR CREEK BASIN • Indicates project was identified by Surface Water Management ollice prior to reconnaissance. NOTE: AU projects are located on map include(I in !_h_is _!'e,eort. Project Number 3105· 3109° !':LC.APA Collect. Point JO 10 Project Descripl ion Enhance 2200' of Tnh. 0305 from Cedar River to Elliot Bndge. Secure easements to wetland located in Cascnde Park and construct a berm at the outlet. Replace existing cntch hasins with control stn1cturcs. Project should he justified by a (1asin study. Welland rnled #2. (This wetland will require further biological c...~aluution before R/D design and constn1ction.) Prohlem Addressed Mitigrucs floodlng of King County park land. Better utilizes wetland's storage capacity to address peak flows from surrounding urban area. A-I Estimated Costs and Comments $115,000 (NOTE: This project was proposed by Surface Water Management, is in the design phase, and wil I be constructed by !989.) $186,000 Project Number 3JJ1 (Welland 3136) 3112 (Wetland 3142) 3114" (Wetland 3150) 3115 !':LC.APA Collect. Point 19 18 Project Description Secure easements to outlet to Francis Lake and 1100' of channel from lak~ lo SE 184th St. Construct a weir to raise lake level J ', and enhance l JOO' of Tri\>. 0317. Should he j\lstified by a basin plan. Wctlnnd rated # 1. (This wetland will require further biological evaluation before RID design ;rnU cons1ruction.) Secure casement for outlet to wetland and replace existing weir with a concrete-slotted weir. Should t>c juMified by a basin plan. Wetland rated #2. (This wetland will require further hio(ogical evaluation before R/D design and construction. Secure cnse111cn1 10 Wetland 3150 and construct a containment berm and control structure rit the outlet. l'rojccl should be justified l>y a basin plan. Wetland rated #2. ('!'his wetland will require further biological c..-vclluation l'•cforc RID design and construciron.) Install detention pond and 1,000' of tighllinc. Project is indepen- dently justifiable. Prol>lem AJdrc.~sed Will provide additional storage to mitigate anticipated future increased nows. Will provide additional storage for anticipated future peak flows. Addresses anlicipated increases in flow caused by development. Mitigates severe erosion and flooding during limes of high flows. A-2 Estimated Costs and Comments $175,000 $117,000 $134,000 $361,000 Project Nunibcr :l II r, 3117 3118 3119 3120 P:LC.APA Collect. Point 21 16 IO 4 15 Project Description Raise existing; road embankment 2-4'. Prnjcct should t,e indepen- dently justifiable. (Refer 10 Roads Division.) Install 1,400' of tightline, a sediment Imp, and 700' of channel from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. Prnjecl is independently justi- fiable. Install JOO' of 36 11 culvert, a new inlet stn1ct1.1re, manhole, and catch t,asin. Project is independently justifiable. Construct a detention dam and control structure in a deep channelized section of Trib. 0300. Project is independently justifiable. Construct a sedimentation pond and 1,000' of channel from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. Project is indepen- dently justifiable. Prohlcm Addressed Mitigates seasonal flooding of Lake Desire Dr. SE caused by road bed settling in the peat bog. Mitigates severe erosion, sediments deposited on County roads, and flooding during times o[ high flows. Will prevent blockage of culvert and the accompanying flooding and erosion of Fairwood Golf Course and mobile home park below. Projecl location is ideal because it addresses flows from a large residential area before they reach the steep, sensitive area next to the Cedar River. Mitigates flooding of residcnci;-: and sediment deposition on Jones Rd. A-3 Estimated Costs and Com111ents $73,000 $501,000 $87,000 $159,000 $163,000 Project Number 3121 (Welland 3102) 3122 P:LC.APA Collect. Point 7 JI Project Description Secure easement to welland and con- struct a containment berm and concrete weir at outlet. Project should be justified by a bllsin plan. Welland rated #2. l3iologicn\ as...:;essment is needed to ass.ure that this project does not decrease habitat val\leS. Purchase existing pond~ on Fairvmod Golf Course and expand to provide greater flow detention. Project is independently justifiable. Problem Addressed Addresses incrcafied flows in Trib. 0304 anu 0304A from residential developments. Mitigates flooding and erosion downstream. A-4 Estimated Costs and Comments $371,000 $342,000 APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN Prior to the Lower Cedar River Basin field reconnaissance, 12 projects had been identified and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reconnaissance, 13 projects remain proposed for this area. They include eight new, previously unidentified and unrated projects. These displace seven previously selected projects, which were eliminated based on the consensus of the recon- naissance learn. Projects were eliminated for several reasons: tvm sites were annexed by the city of Renton, two projects were found to be unnecessary, two sites were categorized as # l wetlands (and are ineligible), and one project was determined to be infeasible. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the Lower Cedar River Basin had an esti- mated cost of $2,710,000, while the revised list increases to an estimated cost of S2,784,000. This 3 percent increase in estimated capital costs is due to the addition of projects after the reconnaissance. The following table summarizes the scores and costs for the C!Ps proposed for the Lower Cedar River Basin. Thesc projects were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question, ELEMENT J: "GO/NO GO," could be answered affirmatively. Projects v.ith scores of JOO or higher can be considered now for merging into the "Jive" CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. SCORE COST 1 3122 103 $342,000 2 3118 90 87,000 3 3120 75 163,000 4 3109' 67 186,000 5 3121 65 371,000 6 3117 60 501,000 7 3115 60 361,000 8 3116 55 73,000 9 3114* 28 134,000 IO 3111' 25 175,000 11 3112" 17 117,000 12 3119* 15 159,000 13 3105 12 115.000 TOTAL $2,784,000 ' Projects propose<) prior to the Reconnaissance Program P:LC.APB B-1 " All items listed here are located on final display maps APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS · LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN in the oftices of Surface Water Management, Building and L~nd Development, and Basin Planning. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item• River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems 1 .. 5 Geology Gullying and landslides in Continued erosion. uncompacted fill in· new development near edge of steep hillslope. 2 .. 18 Geology Small landslide has formed None (natural failure). debris flow (11/86). Sedimentation in yard of residence. 3 0299 4 Geology Landslides in sedimentary Natural failure. RM 2.6 rock in cutbanks adjacent to railroad. 4 0299 16 Geology Drainage from residential Increasing: erosion. RM 9.65 area is resulting in gullying in swale. P: LC.APC C-1 - Recommendations Recompact fill, revegetate, and drain adequately. None. None. Provide adequate R/D to attenuate flows. :. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and _Problem_s Recommendations 5 0299 18 Geology Horse farm in uplands ilas Continued high erosion and Develop R/D at horse farm RM 12.l created extensive imper~ sedimentation. to attenuate peak flows. vious surfaces, resulting See Project 3115. in channel scour, bank erosion, landslides, and sedimentation at mouth of basin. Residence overcome with sediment. 6 13 Geology Landslide terrain for sale Site of future mass erosion. Prohibit development here. by realtors. High risk for Notify Building and Land landslides, flooding (from Development. Add area to springs). SAMF. 7 --7 Geology Large-scale landsides Natural process. None. adjacent to Cedar River due to springs and cutting of toeslopes by streams. Appears to be natural. 8 --2 Geology Gullying in valley waJI, Unknown. None. possibly from natural springs. 9 14 Geology Landslide debris flow from Existing tension cracks Revegetate hillslope with residence on SE 147th PL, indicate future instability. trees and shrubs. Renton. P: LC.APC C-2 Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 10 11 12 13 14 0299.lA RM .08 0300 RM .00-.40 0300 0300 RM 1.40 ~ RM .SO 21 4 4 4 6 15 0302 6 RM .80-1.00 P: LC.APC Existing Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Hydrology 3116 Geology Hydrology 3119 Hydrology 3109 Geology Geology Frequent flooding of county road caused by low road embankment. Extensive channel and bank erosion and numerous landslides due to development-related stormwater. Development-related peak flows have caused sig- nificant bank erosion. Collection point 4 has been nearly completely urbanized. Channel downcutting and bank erosion. Bank erosion (medium den- sity) at' meanders and obstructions. C-3 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Road located on top of peat bog and will continue to settle, aggravating flooding problem. Problems will continue. Increased erosion on hillslopes below. Degradation of Trib. 0300 from RM .42 downstream. This section is very· steep and susceptible to erosion. Will continue at same level or increase. Increasing erosion with increasing ftow from devel- opments. Recommendations Elevate the road 3-4' by filling on top of the present road embankment. Also stabilize embankment. Provide adequate R/D in uplands. (See Project 3119.) Construct detention dam in deep, channelized reach of Trib. 0300. Construct berm and standard control structure at outlet to Wetland 3120 in Cascade Park. Control storm flows from uplands. Provide adequate RID in uplands as area develops. Trib. & Collect. l!em River Mile Point 16 17 JS 19 20 21 0302 0302 RM .60-.80 0302 RM.35 0302 RM .45 0302 RM .50 0302 RM .90 P: LC.APC 6 6 6 6 6 6 Existing Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Geology Geology Habitat Hydrology Habitat Habitat Gully erosion from broken culverts. Severe gully erosion creating small valleys from daylight culverts. Stream channeled along golf course road. No overhead cover. No habi- tat diversity. Tributary drains down steep bluffs on north side of Cedar River) carrying debris and flooding Maplewood Golf Course. Water supply dam. Full barier to upstream migration. lmpoundment is filling with sediment. Severe gullying from right bank corregated metal pipe. Heavy sediment delivery to stream, C-4 Anticipated Conditions and Problems None. Culvert has been repaired. Continued erosion. While fish now use th is reach, lack of habitat will eventually reduce popllla- tions. Problem will worsen as development upstream continues. As impoundment fills, storm- water will flood over bank. Structure may fail. Will continue to erode until reaches till layer. Recommendations None. Tightline flows to main stem. Add habitat diversity (e.g., structures, overhead vegetation). Gain easement to restore mean· ders, if possible. Construct detention dam upstream of golf course. Dredge pond and maintain it as sediment catch. • Tightline downslope. Add velocity attenuator at stream. Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 22 23 24 25 26 0302 RM 1.00 0302 RM 1.10 0303 0303 RM.is 0303 RM .35 P: LC.APC 6 6 6 6 6 Existing Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Habitat Habitat Geology Habitat Habitat Trash in stream ( auto, tires, appliances). Trash in stream. Water quality problem, unsightly. Extensive bank erosion jn upper portions of trilrn- tary. Habitat suitable for resi- dent fish. Sediment accu- mulating. Trash and litter in channel affecting water quality, causing erosion. C-5 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Area adjacent to corridor, will continue to collect trash and debris. Funher worsening of water quality, sedimentation, erosion. Area adjacent to corridor, wilf conrinue to collect trash and debris. Funher worsening of water quality. None. Sediments will eventually cover gravels. Habitat will become unsuitable for fish use. Further decreases in water quality. Recommendations Remove trash. Distribute educational materials to stream.side residents. Cite violators, if problem persists. Remove trash. Distribute educational materials to streamside residents. Cite violators, if problem persists. Increase R/D volumes, slow release rate to nonerosive levels. Control stormwater volumes and discharge rates from developments. Manually clean gravels when necessary. -Remove trash and litter. Distribute educational materials to streamside residents. Cite violators, if problem persists. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Categorv Prop. Proi. ~ondit_ions anQ Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 27 0304 7 Habitat Landslides contributing Sediment will continue to Maintain riparian corridor RM .40 sediment to channel. Heavy enter system until landslide with setbacks at least 50' deposition in poofs, at stabilizes. from tops of banks. obstructions, even in riffles. 28 0304 8 Habitat Horses have access to ,Further decreases in water Encourage residents to fence RM 2.10 stream, causing some bank quality, hank erosion likely. channel back 15' from ordinary deterioration and possibly high-water mark. affecting water quality. • Limit access to livestock to one or two points along stream. 29 0304 8 Hydrology Flooding caused by failing Problem will continue until Problem referred to Main- RM 2.30 RID at 176th St. & 146th outlet structure is tenance section of Surfoce Ave SE. modified. Water Management Division. 30 0304 8 Habitat Encroachment occurring Wetland likely to be -Require encroaching fills RM 2.40 along all boundaries of reduced slowly until it is to be removed. this headwater wetland. completely destroyed. Loss -Establish specific buffer of storage, filtration, around this wetland. organic production, and Enforce sensitive areas wildlife habitat. ordinances and regula- tions. 31 0304 7 Geology Several gullies due to Problem will continue. Tightline drainage. RM .80 daylight culverts; a few have recent landslides. P: LC.APC C-6 Trib. & Collect. Item 32 River Mile Point 33 34 36 37 0304 RM .00 !llQ± RM.20 0304 RM .62 0304 RM .80 0304A RM 1.30 P: LC.APC 7 7 7 7 7 Category Hatiitat Habitat Habitat Habitat J lydrology Prop. Proj. 3102 Existing Conditions and Pwtilems Extensive riffle (to RM .15. Creek channeled. No woody debris, little bank vegetation. Steelhead, coho spawners here. Debris jam may be a partial migration barrier. Debris jam. Bed drops 3' over jam and sediment, forming anadromous barrier. Water turbid; oily sheen and odor present. Storm drains empty directly into stream. Existing forested wetland provides detention for Trib. 0304A and 0304 in heavily developed area. C-7 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Gravels risk becoming cemented. Few resting areas for upstream migrating fish. Debris will continue to accumulate. Channel will likely divert or jam will fail, releasing accumulated sediment. 'Debris will continue to accumulate. Channel will likely divert or jam will fail, releasing accumulated sediment. Water quality will continue to decline as runoff and waste enter st·ream. Additional storage could be utilized by constructing berm and weir at outlet. This could be done to atten- uate increased peak flows as upstream area develops. Recommendations Enhance habitat by addi- tion of woody debris rn stream. Revegetate bank. Enhance pool/riffle ratio. Selectively remove debris to a !low fish passage. Stabilize large woody debris. Selectively remove debris to allow fish passage. Stabilize large woody debris. Educate residents about how to maintain water quality. Mark storm drains with "Dump no oil" signs. Emphasize recycling of oil. Construct a proportional weir and berm at wetland outlet. Project could be used instead of Project 3107 to rpeserve the #1 rated wetland (where project would be built). Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated r rem River Mile Point Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 38 0304A 18 Hydrology 3115 Runoff genernted on top of Flooding will continue as -Construct detention pond RM .40 bluffs on southwest side long as land use remains the at top of bluffs. of Cedar River is causing same on top of bluffs or • Tightline drainage down severe bank erosion, until mitigating measures bluffs, then channelize it flooding and debris flows are taken. Runoff origin. to an existing ditch onto several residences ates from highly compacted alongside SR 169. of valley floor. pnstureland on uplands. Prevent similar prohlems elsewhere with land use regulations, including provisions for preservation of vegetation buffers near tops of cliffs. 39 0305 10 Geology Extensive bank erosion, Susceptible to increases Attenuate high flows. partly due to subsurface with increasing storm flow. clay layer and landslide topography. 40 0305 10 Geology Local severe bank Problem will continue. Existing rock-filled RM 1.10 erosion. • gabions are deflecting flow. 41 0305 10 Geology Extensive channel down-Continued erosion. Attenuate high flows with RM 2.10-cutting and bank erosion. adequate R/D. (RID J.75 currently exists.) 42 0305 10 Geology Several gullies and asso-Erosion will continue. Tightline culverts. RM 2.15· ciated landslides due to 1.75 daylight culverts on steep slopes adjacent to chan- nels. P: LC.APC C-8 Trih. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Cotegorv Prop. ProL Conditions_ and Pr_9_L,lems Ccmdition~an_d Problems Recommendations 43 0:105 JO Hahitat Madsen Creek in ditch along Potential for fuel entry in-Acquire 30' easement away RM .20 SE Jones Rd. Heavy sill; to creek_ Further decreases from roadside. Construct road runoff; water quality in water quality can be exa new stream channel. adversely affected. pectcd. 44 0305 10 Habitat Creek in ditch along south Further decreases in water Acquire 30' easement away RM .35 side of SR 169. Heavy quality can be expected. from roadside. Construct inputs of oils, anti-Potential for autos to enter new stream channel. freezes, heavy metals, channel. Lack of habitat. organic pollutants likely. Sand, sill from roadside (of SR 169) enters also. 45 0305 RM .DO-10 Hydrology 3105 Section of Trib. 0305, Flooding will continue. Construct and enhance 2200' of .40 RM .00-.40 is experiencing (See Appendix A, Project channel through undeveloped extensive flooding. 3105.) King County Park Land. 46 0305 10 Habitat Channelized along dri-Further siltation, water Acquire easement; move RM .SO veway; lacks habitat quality degradation can be creek from driveway diversity. Driveway scdi~ anticipated. Lack of habitat 10-15'. Add meanders and ments enter channel, and precludes optimum salmonid habitat structures to oil. placed on driveway use. increase diversity. enters stream. 47 0305 10 Habitat Channelized tributary •Little salmonid use Add structures to increase RM .65 lacks habitat diversity, anticipnted. Spawning and diversity in stream. cover for salmonids. rearing success limited Manually clean gravels by Gravels compacted. (unless reach is restored). churning them. P: LC.APC C-9 Trib. & Collect. Item 48 River Mile Point 49 50 51 52 0305 RM .90 0305 RM .95 0305 RM 1.20 0305 RM 1.70 0306 RM .40 P: LC.APC 10 10 10 JO 10 Categorv Habitat Habitat Habitat Hatiitat Geology Prop. Proj. Existing Conditions and Problems Good spawnjng riffles occur here. V.2-3" gravels~ few fines, not compact. High flows are moving material, however. Severe bank cutting and erosion occurs here. Ded scouring evident. Reach subject to high, rapid flows. Much woody debris movement and numerous debris jams. Reach is subject to high, rapid flows. Channel erosion, bank failures, downcutting oc- curring. Reach subject to high, rapid rlows. Failure of manhole during 11/86 storm has resulted in gully erosion. C-10 Anticipated Con<JitiQns and Problems Increased flows may cause gravel har movement. Suitable gravels may be transported downstream to unusable areas for spawning salmon ids. Further erosion/scouring can be expected. Channel deterioration will continue. Flows appear to be generated at developments. Debris jams will occur with greater frequency as flows increase. Sediments will build up and channel will divert. Further channel deteriora- tion may be expected. Silt, sand transport to maim;tem will increase. Not applicable. Recommend'1Jions Control flows into system from developed areas upstream. If necessary, add bed controls to hold gravels or "vee" struc- tures to recruit them. Control high flows by increasing upper basin R/D facilities, lowering discharge rates to stream. Control upstream flows with greater R/D volume, lower discharge rates. Selectively remove debris. -Increase R/D capacity. • Decrease discharge rates. Repair manhole. Item 53 54 55 56 57 58 Trib. & River Mile 0~06 RM .20 0306 RM .30 0306 RM .25 ~ RM .30-.45 0306 RM .30 0306A RM J.30 P: LC.APC Collect. Point Categorv IO Geology 10 Geology II Habitat JO Geology Hydrology 11 Hydrology Existing Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 3118 3122 Channel downcutting, bank erosion and several landslides, due both from increased storm flows and development along edge. Undersized culvert in arti- ficial fill in golf course threatens to build lake and possibly overtop bank. Breach flood possible. Channel subject to l1igh, damaging flows. Erosion evident. Downcutting, bank erosion and landslides. Trib. 0306 connects with large tributary at manhole here. Debris from 0306 clogs this manhole, causing severe erosion of FaiIWood Golf Course. Existing small ponds on 0306A are overtopped and receive considerable silt during high flows. The ponds are located on l'airwood Golf Course. C-11 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Erosion will increase. Clay layer in valley makes area sensitive to landslides. Possible fill failure: Lake ponded behind culvert in in 1981 and threatened the fill. Further channel damage can be expected. Sediment transport downstream will continue. Will continue or increase in future. Problem will worsen as development upstream continues. Area upstream is developing quickly, thus worsening the problem. Recommendations Further increase in runoff should be attenuated; this is a sensitive channel. Enlarge the corregated metal pipe and/or construct adequate trash rack. Increase RID capacity, decrease discharge rate. Attenuate storm flows. Replace existing pipes with larger diameter pipes (if downstream analysis allows for increased flows). [nstall new inlet struc- tures with trash racks. Acquire easements for ponds and additional area around ponds and construct detention pond. Location is ideal for addressomg peak flows before they reach the sensitive Cedar Reiver bluffs. Trill. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 59 0306A 11 Habitat Some usable habitat exists F\lrther habitat deterioration -Increase RID capacities. RM .25 for resident salmonids. likely. Channel erosion will -Decrease discharge rates. Water quality is poor. increase. • Encourage use of 2-cell Channel subject to high detention ponds, swales. flows. -Prohibit filling of existing wetlands, ponds in upper basin. 60 0307 12 Geology Extensive bank erosion at Increased erosion will Mitigate development· RM .10-.40 all meanders and obstruc-result with increased [lows. related high flows. tions (trees, cars) due -Provide adequate R/D. to increased flows from development. 61 0307 12 Geology Stream eroding toes of Increasing erosion w\th Mitigate development RM .10-.60 slopes resulting in increasing flows. related high flows. landslide failures. Provide adequate R/D. 62 0307 12 Habitat Stream channel pushed to Erosion will worsen as Increase R/D capacity at RM .30 one side of ravine for stream flows increase. all delivery points. roadway. High energy May threaten road bank at Reduce release rnte l)e!ow system. Much bnnk cutting, toe of slope. channel scour level. sediment transport, debris movement. 63 0307 D Hydrology Area on top of hluffs near Infiltration sites should Construct retention faci- RM .60 Trib. 0307 has excellent be used whenever possible. lities for new develop- infiltrative capacity. These would provide ground-ments in area at these sites. water recharge. P; LC.APC C-12 Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 64 65 66 67 6S 0309 RM .10 0310 RM .60 0310 RM .05 0310 RM 1.50 0310 RM .25 P: LC.APC 15 15 15 15 15 Existing Categorv Prop. Proj. Conditions and Prohlems Habitat Geology Geology Geology llabitat 3120 Subject to heavy, rapid flows. Channel erosion, deposition bars migration. Sedimentation upstream from culvert due to debris and undersized culvert. New corregated metal pipe con- tinues to pass water through. Severe erosion below culvert, severe sedimen. tation in residence yard. Road drainage forming gully adjacent to road; road be<.I in danger. Corregated metal pipe is anadromous harrier. C-13 Anticipated Conditions an_<l Problems Erosion, deposition will increase. Sediments will migrate downstream 1 creating a water quality problem. Continued sedimen.tation. Continued erosion and sedimentation. Continued erosion. Problem will continue. Rec;:ommendations Control storm flows upstream. Control volume and discharge rates. See "Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics" section in this report. Install energy dissipater below corregated metal pipe. Excavate channel through yard where original channel was located. Reroute drainage. Refer problem to Roads Maintenance. Reinstall corregated metal pipe at or below bed level. Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 69 70 71 72 73 0310 RM .40 0310 RM .60 0311 RM 1.70 0314A RM .20 0314A/ 03J4D RM .J0-.40 P: LC.APC 15 15 13 16 16 C~tegorv Prnp. Proj. Hydrology 3120 Habitat Geology Hydrology 3117 Geology Existing Conditions and Problems Existing channel draining off bluffs on north side of Cedar River, causing flooding of residences and debris flows onto Jones Rd. during peak flows. Corregated metal pipe outlet approximalely 9' above bed level. Complete barrier to fish. Old culverts at bed level are plugged. Gully erosion in drainage swale due to outflow of wetland that partly seems to act as an R/D facility. Severe erosion, flooding, damage to County and private roads from increased runoff from gravel pit operations on hillside. lnadeguate R/0, plugged culvert caused by exten~ sive channel and bank erosion and landslides. Water has cut a new channel. C-14 Anticipated Conditions and _Problems Frequency and severity of problem will worsen as development on bluffs increases. Problems will continue and worsen as outfall velocities will scour bed and banks. Upstream has recent (11/86) deposition up to 4' deep. Continued accelerated ero- sion. Problem will be aggravated as area above develops. Not applicable. Recommendations Construct detention pond on upstream side of Jones Rd. to trap sediments, and enhance 1,000' of creek from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. Remove new and old pipes; replace at lower level with oversized pipe with trash rack. If possible, enlarge R/0 prior to its outlet in the wetland. Tightline drainage between detention ponds in gravel pit. Construct detention pond next to Jones Rd. to trap sediments. Constmct channel from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. See hydrology comment above. Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 74 75 76 77 0317 RM 1.60 0320 RM 2.40 0318 RM .JO 0382 RM .35 P: LC.APC 19 19 Existing Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Prohlems Hydrology 3111 Hydrology 3114 Habitat Habitat Francis L1ke is only hydraulic control for Trib. 0317. Existing forested wetland with large amount of un- utilizeu storage. Welland currently detains flows on Trib. 0320. Salmonid parr in many pools. L1rge pools up to l. 75' deep. Some deposi- tion in pools, behind obstructions. Salmonid use apparent from carcasses. Sockeye, Chinook spawner:;. Some sedimentation occurring. C-15 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Trib. 0317 flows through steep area downstream of lake. If area around Francis Lake develops, increased peak flows could cause severe damage to Trib, 0317 in the steep region. If surrounding area urban~ izes, this would be a good site to attenuate peak flows. Decrease in water quality with increasing develop- ment. Loss of habitat. Decrease in fish use. System is mostly in natural condition. As development increases1 higher flows and worse water quality can be expected. R~commendations Constnict proportional weir at outlet. Enhance 1,100' from Francis Lake to SE 1B41h St. Constn1ct containment berm and control structure at outlet of wetland (if bio- logical analysis permits). Establish and maintain adequate buffers, 100' from ordinary high-water mark or 25' from top fo slope break, whichever ls greater. Maintain adequate stream corridor buffers. Reduce discharge rates to pre-development levels. Prevent clearing, grading within buffers. Trib. & Collect. Item 78 River Mile Point 79 80 81 0328 RM .50 0328 RM .70 0328 RM 1.10 J.40 0328 RM J.40 P, LC.APC 19 19 19 19 Categorv Geology Habitat Hahitat Hydrology Prop. Proj. 3112 Existing Condition_s and Prohlems Medium-density landslides and high-density bank erosion occurring due to natural causes. This indi- cates channel amt valley sensitive to effects of development. (Sensitivity due 10 clay layer. Basin hosts some of best fish habitat in upper reaches.) Significant salmonid use throughout. Sockeye spawners, carcasses present. Coho, steelhead parr in pools. Excellent habitat for spawning and rearing (a redd site). Much diversity •· most exemplary in basin. Channelized reach. Uniform channel, no habitat diver- sity. Heavy sand deposition. Little overhead canopy or bank vegetation. Lake Peterson is small, open~water wetlanU with a weir at outlet. C,16 Anticipated Conditio_ns and l'roblems None. Sedimentation from upstream reach possible. Adjacent development will likely reduce diversity and quality of habitat. May cause thermal problems as water temperatures rise. No useful lrnbitat. Lake provides good peak flow attenuation and will become more important as upstream tributary area develops. Recommendations Limit development in the basin. Maintain leave strips adjacent to stream at least 100' from ordinary high-water mark. Restrict use/development within this streamside management zone. Restore stream habitat throughout: add structure, diversity, bank vegetation, and canopy. Cost should be borne by party(ies) who channelized this reach. Replace weir at outlet with a higher weir in order to gain additional storage. TASK3 FIELD INSPECTION There were no problems observed during the resource review. Based on a review of the drainage complaints of the downstream drainage course, there were a few minor drainage issues in the Maplewood Creek drainage basin, downstream of the site. 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) Conveyance system nuisance problems, in general, are defined as any existing or predicted flooding or erosion that does not constitute a severe flooding or erosion problem. Conveyance system nuisance problems are defined as flooding or erosion that results in the overflow of the constructed conveyance system for runoff events less than or equal to a 10-year event. Examples include inundation of a shoulder or lane of a roadway. Overflows collecting in yards or pastures, shallow flows across driveways, minor flooding in crawlspaces or unheated garages/outbuildings and minor erosion. Based on a review of the drainage complaints, there were complaints of localized flooding approximately 1700 feet downstream of the site where Maplewood Creek crosses NE 2°d. The localized flooding was due to plugged roadside culverts and the drainage ditch and fallen trees blocking the drainage. Other localized flooding of backyards were due to a depression that has since been corrected by the home builder. The Maplewood Creek Sedimentation Pond also has heavy siltation but it is maintained annually as needed. These complaints all occurred prior to 2006 when this area was annexed to the City of Renton. With the improvements of this project site, there is the potential that problems on the downstream drainage course may be helped somewhat by providing onsite detention of storm water. 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) Severe erosion problems are defined as downstream channels, ravines, or slopes with evidence of or potential for erosion/incision, sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems or propose a landslide hazard by undercutting adjacent slopes. Severe erosion problems do not include roadway or minor ditch erosion. The site visit did not find erosion problems evident anywhere along the downstream drainage course. 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) Severe flooding problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems warrant additional attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety or to public or private property. Neither the review of the drainage complaints nor the site visit noted any severe flooding problems in the downstream drainage course. Portions of the downstream drainage course investigated by the site visit and a review of the soils map indicates that the downstream drainage course occurs through till type soils. The field reconnaissance for this off-site analysis drainage report was conducted on the morning of September 19, 2012. The skies were clear and the temperature on this day was approximately 65 degrees. 15432.003.doc Exhibit J Off-Site Analysis Drainage System Table Basin: Cedar River Drainage Component Symbol Type, Name, and Size Type: sheet flow, swale, stream, channel, pipe, pond; size, See Map diameter, surface area l. Sheetflow to the southeast corner of the site 2. 12-inch pipe 3. 12-inch pipe 4. 18-inch pipe 5. 18-inch pipe 6. 18-inch pipe 7. 18-inch pipe 8. 18-inch pipe 9. 18-inch pipe 10. 18-inch pipe 11. 18-inch pipe 12. Shallow Flow 13. Maplewood Creek OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Subbasin Name: Maplewood Creek Distance Drainage Component from Site Existing Potential Description Slope Discharge Problems Problems Constrictions, under capacity, ponding, overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism Drainage basin, vegetation, cover, destruction, scouring, bank sloughing, depth, type of sensitive area, volume % Ft. sedimentation, incision, other erosion Discharges to existing catch 2 0 -10 None Noted None Noted basin Flows from structure to 0.5 10-24 None Noted None Noted strucure Flows from structure to 0 24-59 None Noted None Noted structure (cast across Duvall) Flows from structure to unknown 59-262 None Noted None Noted structure (south on Duvall) Flows from structure to 0.08 262-284 None Noted None Noted structure (east) Flows from structure to 0.25 284-402 None Noted None Noted structure ( east) Flows from structure to 1.08 402-417 None Noted None Noted structure ( cast) Flows from structure to 1.9 417-428 None Noted None Noted structure (cast) Flows from structure to 0.1 l 428-558 None Noted None Noted structure (east) Flows from structure to 0.22 558-652 None Noted None Noted structure (east) Flows from structure to outfall 0.16 652-675 None Noted None Noted ( cast) Flows east in wooded area 2.5 675-863 None Noted None Noted Flows south 0.6 863-1400 None Noted None Noted Subbasin Number: ---- Observations of Field Inspector, Resource Reviewer, or Resident Tributary area, likelihood of problem, overflow palhways, potential impacts Solid lid 18" pipe flows through catch basin (solid pipe) Solid lid Solid lid, collects runoff from the north Solid lid 18" CPEP outfall to wooded area, sediment in end of pipe, no signs of erosion or channel 15432.003.doc TASK4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS Runoff leaves the site by discharging east into Duvall Ave NE. Runoff enters the existing catch basin at the southeast corner of the project site. Flow is conveyed east in a 12" pipe to the east side of the road and then south in an 18" pipe. The pipe system turns east and is routed through an 18" pipe system within a drainage easement on private property (Storage One on 41 h, self-storage). The 18" pipe system discharges east of the self-storage buildings to a wooded area that encompasses Maplewood Creek. Flow continues overland to the east to Maplewood Creek and then south in the creek. Maplewood Creek eventually joins another branch of Maplewood Creek before it flows through the Maplewood Golf Course and discharges into the Cedar River. The drainage complaints were forwarded to this office by Gary Fink, City of Renton Utility Systems Division -Surface Water Utility and are located on the following pages of this report; however, none of them were within Y. mile downstream of the project site. They were placed into this report for reference and there are no anticipated problems associated with the development of this project site. 15432.003.doc Exhibit K Drainage Complaints I Karen Harris From: Colleen Allen Sent: To: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:12 PM File Cc: Karen Harris Subject: Attachments: FW: Drainage Complaints-4th & Duvall, Renton -Question/ BCE #15432 AreaMap.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Karen, I will also save these in Filing. From: Gary Fink [mailto:GFink@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:05 PM To: Colleen Allen Subject: RE: Drainage Complaint Request -4th & Duvall, Renton -Question Good Afternoon Colleen, Per the Renton manual, I've reviewed drainage issues for a distance of one mile downstream of your project at NE 4th Ave & Duvall Ave NE. While the manual requires one mile downstream, I've reviewed to a radius of one mile as the remainder of the course runs through Maplewood Creek channel. The drainage course reviewed is as follows: From parcel #1523059124, east on NE 4th Ave approximately 650' to an outfall contained in a drainage easement. South from NE 4th Ave, approximately 990' via channel to a City-maintained detention facility. South from detention pond via conveyance appr. 910' along Field Avenue undeveloped right-of-way, turning southeast across residential property to NE 1" St. East on NE 1" St, South on Hoquiam Ave NE Outfall to tributary of Maplewood Creek, South of SE 2•• St. Maplewood Creek to City of Renton Maplewood sedimentation pond, continuing to Cedar River. We have reports of minor drainage issues at properties located on NE 2°• Ct & NE 1" Ct. All occurred prior to 2006 annexation: NE 2°• Ct -4901, 4907,, 5003: Localized flooding due to plugged roadside culverts and ditch line. 4921: Localized flooding on property due to fallen trees and plugged seasonal stream channel. NE 1" Ct-4904, 4905, 4910, 4913: Localized backyard flooding due to depression. Addressed through builder. Maplewood Creek Sedimentation pond -heavy siltation due to erosion for storm events. Maintained annually as needed. Please feel free to contact me if you need further information. Best Regards, 1 Gary Fink City of Renton Utility Systems Division -Surface Water Utility Phone:(425) 430-7392 / Fax:(425) 430-7241 GFink@RentonWa.gov From: Colleen Allen fmailto:callen@barghausen.com) Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:54 PM To: Gary Fink Cc: Karen Harris; File Subject: RE:'Drainage Complaint Request -4th & Duvall, Renton -Question Gary, page 2-10 of the City of Renton Drainage Manual requires a 1-mile radius for the Task 2 Resource Review of a Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis. Thank you. Colleen From: Gary Fink fmailto:GFink@Rentonwa.gov1 Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:47 PM To: Colleen Allen Subject: Drainage Complaint Request -4th & Duvall, Renton -Question Hi Colleen, I'm pulling the information you're requested together today, my apologies for the delay. Just wanted to confirm that you were looking for drainage issues within a one mile radius of 4'" & Duvall. Typical request in a X-mile radius. Thanks, Gary Fink City of Renton Utility Systems Division -Surface Water Utility Phone:(425) 430-7392 / Fax:(425) 430-7241 GFink@RentonWa.gov -------J{ ~Jit () Jl Q~~) 2 ~ • 0 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology The entire 0.56 acres of new development is considered till forest for pre-developed condition. There is a small amount of oflsite landscaping that contributes runoff to the site under existing conditions. The site is modeled as till forest and the oflsite area is modeled as till grass for the pre-developed condition. The flow control facility will be located at the southeast corner of the project site and will discharge to the existing conveyance system along Duvall Avenue NE. B. Developed Site Hydrology Under developed conditions. the site has 0.50 acres of impervious and 0.06 acres of landscape. The entire site and 0.06 acres of oflsite landscaping will be directed to the detention vault and have been included in the fiow control calculations. See the detention and water quality sizing criteria on the following pages of this report. C. Performance Standards The Area-Specific Flow Control Standard required for this project site is determined to be Level 2 Flow Control. The applicable conveyance system capacity standard was mentioned in the Conditions and Requirements Summary, which is to size the on-site conveyance system by the Rational Method utilizing an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes and a Manning's "n" value of 0.014 with the 100-year precipitation. The Area- Specific Water Quality Treatments Menu followed for this project was the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. and the treatment selected from this menu is to use the wet pool in the vault in combination with a Stormfilter manhole with CSF media. D. Flow Control System Flow control for this project will be in a underground vault utilizing 7.9 feet of live storage. Discharge will be through a control structure and then to a Stormfilter manhole for additional water quality treatment. Because of the depth of this system, discharge will then be directed to a duplex pump station and then to the existing conveyance system in Duvall. The design of the pump station is included in this report. A single pump will be used to pump the 2-year flow rate and both pumps will be utilized to convey the 100-year discharge from the vault. E. Water Quality System The Enhanced Basic Water Quality requirement will be achieved with 3 feet of dead storage in the water quality and detention vault and then a three-cartridge Stormfilter manhole with CSF media downstream of detention. Sizing calculations for the wet vault and the Stormfilter manhole are included. 15432.001.doc DETENTION VAULT CALCULATIONS I - DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA Level 2 Flow Control Pre-Developed: 0.56 acres of till forest 0.06 acres of till grass (offsite landscaping) Developed: 0.50 acres of onsite impervious 0.06 acres of till grass (onsite landscaping) 0.06 acres of till grass (offsite landscaping) Total = The KCRTS calculations are on the following pages. 0.62 Acres 15432.001.doc Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15432-pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.040 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.012 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.032 3 2/28/03 3:00 0.002 8 3/24/04 19:00 0.019 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.031 4 1/18/06 20:00 0.028 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.055 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.055 1 100.00 0.990 0. 040 2 25.00 0.960 0.032 3 10.00 0.900 0.031 4 5.00 0.800 0.028 5 3.00 0.667 0.019 6 2.00 0.500 0.012 7 1. 30 0.231 0.002 8 1.10 0.091 0.050 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15432-dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.132 6 2/09/01 2:00 0 .112 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.158 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.127 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.151 4 10/28/04 16:00 0 .141 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.184 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.261 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.261 l 100.00 0.990 0.184 2 25.00 0. 960 0.158 3 10.00 0.900 0.151 4 5.00 0.800 0.141 5 3.00 0.667 0 .132 6 2.00 0.500 0.127 7 1.30 0.231 0.112 8 1.10 0.091 0.236 50.00 0.980 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage O Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Vault 58.00 ft 20.00 ft 1160. 7.90 100.00 9164. 7.90 sq. ft ft ft cu. ft ft 12.00 inches 2 Orifice# Height (ft) 0.00 5.25 Diameter (in) 0.38 0.75 Full Head Discharge (CFS) 0.011 0.025 Pipe Diameter ( in) 1 2 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage 4.0 (ft) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.17 0.30 0.43 0.57 0.70 0.84 0.97 1.10 1.24 1.37 1.50 1.64 1. 77 1.91 2. 04 2.17 2.31 2.44 2.58 2.71 2.84 2.98 3.11 3.25 3.38 (ft) 100.00 100.01 100.02 100.03 100.17 100.30 100.43 100.57 100.70 100.84 100.97 101.10 101.24 101. 37 101. 50 101.64 101. 77 101.91 102.04 102.17 102. 31 102.44 102.58 102. 71 102.84 102.98 103 .11 103.25 103.38 (cu. ft) (ac-ft) Discharge (cfs) 0. 12. 23. 35. 197. 348. 499. 661. 812. 974. 1125. 1276. 1438. 1589. 1740. 1902. 2053. 2216. 2366. 2517. 2680. 2830. 2993. 3144. 3294. 3457. 3608. 3770. 3921. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.008 0.002 0.011 0.003 0.015 0.003 0.019 0.003 0.022 0.004 0.026 0.004 0.029 0.004 0.033 0.004 0.036 0.005 0.040 0.005 0.044 0.005 0.047 0.005 0.051 0.005 0.054 0.006 0.058 0.006 0.062 0.006 0.065 0.006 0.069 0.006 0.072 0.006 0.076 0.007 0.079 0.007 0.083 0.007 0.087 0.007 0.090 0.007 Percolation (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.51 103.51 4072. 0.093 0.007 0.00 3.65 103.65 4234. 0.097 0.007 0.00 3.78 103.78 4385. 0.101 0.008 0.00 3.91 103. 91 4536. 0.104 0.008 0.00 4.05 104.05 4698. 0.108 0.008 0.00 4.18 104.18 4849. 0 .111 0.008 0.00 4.32 104.32 5011. 0 .115 0.008 0.00 4.45 104.45 5162. 0 .119 0.008 0.00 4.58 104.58 5313. 0.122 0.008 0.00 4. 72 104.72 5475. 0.126 0.009 0.00 4.85 104.85 5626. 0.129 0.009 0.00 4.99 104.99 5788. 0.133 0.009 0.00 5.12 105.12 5939. 0.136 0.009 0.00 5.25 105.25 6090. 0.140 0.009 0.00 5.26 105.26 6102. 0 .140 0.009 0.00 5.27 105.27 6113. 0 .140 0.010 0.00 5.28 105.28 6125. 0 .141 0. 011 0.00 5.29 105.29 6136. 0 .141 0.012 0.00 5.30 105.30 6148. 0 .141 0.013 0.00 5.31 105.31 6160. 0 .141 0. 013 0.00 5.45 105.45 6322. 0 .145 0.016 0.00 5.58 105.58 6473. 0 .149 0.018 0.00 5.71 105. 71 6624. 0.152 0.020 0.00 5.85 105.85 6786. 0.156 0.021 0.00 5.98 105.98 6937. 0.159 0.023 0.00 6.12 106.12 7099. 0.163 0.024 0.00 6.25 106.25 7250. 0.166 0.025 0.00 6.38 106.38 7401. 0.170 0.026 0.00 6.52 106.52 7563. 0.174 0.027 0.00 6.65 106.65 7714. 0.177 0.028 0.00 6.79 106.79 7876. 0.181 0.029 0.00 6.92 106. 92 8027. 0.184 0.030 0.00 7.05 107.05 8178. 0.188 0.031 0.00 7.19 107.19 8340. 0.191 0.032 0.00 7.32 107.32 8491. 0.195 0.033 0.00 7.45 107.45 8642. 0.198 0.033 0.00 7.59 107.59 8804. 0.202 0.034 0.00 7.72 107.72 8955. 0.206 0.035 0.00 7.86 107.86 9118. 0.209 0.036 0.00 7.90 107.90 9164. 0.210 0.036 0.00 8.00 108.00 9280. 0.213 0.344 0.00 8.10 108.10 9396. 0.216 0.908 0.00 8.20 108.20 9512. 0.218 1. 640 0.00 8.30 108.30 9628. 0.221 2.430 0.00 8.40 108. 4 0 9744. 0.224 2.710 0.00 8.50 108.50 9860. 0.226 2.970 0.00 8.60 108.60 9976. 0.229 3.200 0.00 8.70 108.70 10092. 0.232 3.420 0.00 8.80 108.80 10208. 0.234 3.630 0.00 8.90 108.90 10324. 0.237 3.820 0.00 9.00 109.00 10440. 0.240 4.010 0.00 9.10 109 .10 10556. 0.242 4.180 0.00 9.20 109.20 10672. 0.245 4.350 0.00 9.30 109.30 10788. 0.248 4.520 0.00 9 .40 109.40 10904. 0.250 9.50 109.50 11020. 0.253 9.60 109.60 11136. 0.256 9.70 109.70 11252. 0.258 9.80 109.80 11368. 0.261 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Target Cale Stage Elev 1 0.26 0. 04 0.15 7.94 107.94 2 0.13 ******* 0. 04 7.88 107.88 3 0.18 ******* 0. 03 6.88 106.88 4 0.16 ******* 0.03 6.93 106.93 5 0.14 ******* 0.02 5.56 105.56 6 0.15 0.01 0.01 4.76 104.76 7 O. ll ******* 0.01 4.69 104.69 8 0.13 ******* 0.01 3.43 103.43 --------------------------~------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:15432-dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.262 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.149 Peak Reservoir Stage: 7.94 Peak Reservoir Elev: 107.94 Peak Reservoir Storage: 9206. 0. 211 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File!rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac CFS at CFS at Ft Ft Cu-Ft Ac-Ft 4.680 0.00 4.830 0.00 4.980 0.00 5.120 0.00 5.260 0.00 Storage (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 9206. 0. 211 9140. 0.210 7979. 0.183 8036. 0 .184 6447. 0.148 5518. 0.127 5439. 0.125 3979. 0.091 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.036 2 2/09/01 20:00 0 .149 7.94 1 100.00 0.990 0.009 7 1/07/02 4:00 0.036 7.88 2 25.00 0. 960 0.030 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.030 6.93 3 10.00 0.900 0.007 8 8/26/04 8:00 0.030 6.88 4 5.00 0.800 0.009 6 1/08/05 5:00 0.018 5.56 5 3.00 0.667 0.018 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.009 4.76 6 2.00 0.500 0.030 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.009 4.69 7 1.30 0.231 0.149 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.007 3.43 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.112 7.92 50. 00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.001 28233 46.042 46.042 53.958 0.540E+OO 0.001 4353 7.099 53 .141 46.859 0.469E+OO 0.002 6929 11.300 64.441 35.559 0.356E+OO 0.003 6122 9.984 74.424 25.576 0.256E+OO 0.004 5426 8.849 83.273 16.727 0.167E+OO 0.005 4095 6.678 89.951 10.049 O.lOOE+OO 0.006 2367 3.860 93.811 6.189 0.619E-Ol 0.007 1812 2.955 96.766 3.234 0.323E-01 0.008 1311 2 .138 98.904 1.096 0. llOE-01 0.009 401 0.654 99.558 0.442 0.442E-02 0.010 8 0.013 99. 571 0.429 0.429E-02 0. 011 7 0. 011 99.583 0. 417 0.41'/E-02 0.012 5 0.008 99. 591 0 .409 0.409E-02 0.013 12 0.020 99.610 0. 390 0.390E-02 0.014 22 0.036 99.646 0.354 0.354E-02 0.015 11 0.018 99.664 0.336 0.336E-02 0.016 20 0.033 99.697 0 .303 0.303E-02 0.017 24 0.039 99.736 0.264 0.264E-02 0.018 24 0.039 99.775 0.225 0.225E-02 0.019 11 0.018 99.793 0.207 0.207E-02 0.020 10 0.016 99.809 0.191 0.191E-02 0.021 9 0.015 99.824 0.176 0.176E-02 0.022 6 0.010 99.834 0.166 0.166E-02 0.023 4 0.007 99.840 0.160 0.160E-02 0.024 12 0.020 99.860 0 .140 0.140E-02 0.025 12 0.020 99.879 0 .121 0.121E-02 0.026 8 0. 013 99.892 0.108 O.lOBE-02 0.027 8 0. 013 99.905 0.095 0.946E-03 0.028 8 0.013 99.918 0.082 0.815E-03 0.029 13 0.021 99.940 0.060 0.603E-03 0.030 17 0.028 99.967 0.033 0.326E-03 0.031 2 0.003 99.971 0.029 0.294E-03 0.032 2 0.003 99.974 0.026 0.261E-03 0.033 5 0.008 99.982 0.018 0.179E-03 0.034 3 0.005 99.987 0. 013 0 .130E-03 0.035 3 0.005 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.036 2 2/09/01 20:00 0 .149 7. 94 1 100.00 0.990 0.009 7 1/07/02 4:00 0.036 7.88 2 25. 00 0.960 0.030 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.030 6.93 3 10.00 0.900 0.007 8 8/26/04 8:00 0.030 6.88 4 5.00 0.800 0.009 6 1/08/05 5:00 0.018 5.56 5 3.00 0.667 0.018 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.009 4.76 6 2.00 0.500 0.030 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.009 4.69 7 1.30 0.231 0.149 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.007 3.43 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0 .112 7.92 50.00 0.980 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: 15432-pre.tsf New File: rdout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of cutoff Base New %Change Probability Base 0.009 0.86E-02 0.44E-02 -48.7 0.86E-02 0.009 0.012 0.61E-02 0.41E-02 -32.5 0.61E-02 0.012 0.014 0.47E-02 0.36E-02 -24.1 0.47E-02 0. 014 0.016 0.36E-02 0.30E-02 -17.7 0.36E-02 0.016 0.019 0.28E-02 0.21E-02 -23.5 0.28E-02 0.019 0.021 0.21E-02 0.18E-02 -15.0 0.21E-02 o. 021 0.024 0.14E-02 0.15E-02 8.0 0.14E-02 0.024 0.026 O.llE-02 0.llE-02 6.1 O.llE-02 0.026 0.028 0.64E-03 0.78E-03 23.1 0.64E-03 0. 028 0.031 0.34E-03 0.31E-03 -9.5 0.34E-03 0.031 0.033 0.23E-03 0.21E-03 -7.1 0.23E-03 0.033 0.035 0.15E-03 0.82E-04 -44.4 O.lSE-03 0.035 0.038 0.98E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.98E-04 0.038 0.040 0.16E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.16E-04 0.040 Maximum positive excursion= 0.002 cfs 5.9%) occurring at 0.026 cfs on the Base Data:15432-pre.tsf and at 0.028 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.006 cfs (-38.5%) occurring at 0.015 cfs on the Base Data:15432-pre.tsf and at 0.009 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Tolerance------- New %Change 0.009 -5.2 0.009 -23.8 0.009 -36.3 0.014 -14.2 0.017 -10.1 0.019 -9.3 0.024 2.5 0.026 1.4 0.029 2.3 0.030 -1. 8 0.033 -0.2 0.034 -4.6 0.035 -7.6 0.036 -9.8 WATER QUALITY CALCUATIONS WETVAUL T SIZING WORKSHEET Pro'ect name: METHODS OF ANALYSIS (see 6.4.2) Step 11 Determine volume factor f, Basic size f = ----'3 __ Consu It WQ requirements( Section 1.2.8) Step 2) Determine rainfall R for mean annual storm. Rainfall (R) Q, 03~ (feet) Required from Figure 6.4.1.A Step 3) Calculate runoff from mean annual storm V,= (0.9A1+ 0.25Ai,+ 0.10A~.0.01 Aog) X R A;= tributary area of impervious surface 2/, 180 A,_= tributary area of till grass , ; 22. 7 Alf= tributary area of till forest t; tributary area of outwash grass rainfall from mean annual storm V, = volume of runoff from 0 0,03'J {sf) (sf) (sf) (sf) (ft) mean annual storm 8/5 (cf) Step 4) Calculate wetpool volume Vb= f V, Determine now Determine now Determine now Determine now From Step 2 f= V,= v.= Volume factor 3 volume of runoff, mean annual storm g / 5 Volume of the wetpool 2, <f q(, (unitless) From Step 1 ( cf) From Step 3 (cf) Step 51 Determine wetpool dimensions a) Determine geometry of first cell Volume in first cell Depth h 1st cell (minus sed. star.) Determine horizontal xs-area at surface Atop= ___ (cf) ___ (fl) ___ (sf) Find top dimensions by adjusting for shape geometrics Dimension of 1st cell: width length b) Determine geometry of second cell Volume in second cell Depth h of 2nd cell Determine xs-area at surface Atop= Dimension of 2nd cell: width ___ (ft) ___ (ft) ___ (cf) ____ (ft) ___ (sf) Must be 25 -35% See Section 6.4.1 .2 If square = take sqrt Must be 65 • 75% See Section 6.4.1.2 Dimension of 2nd cell: length (ft) If rectangular, short side= Geometry check: overall pond L : Wat mid depth = 3 : 1 Cell 1 length (mid-depth) Cell 2 length (mid-depth) Vault length = cell 1 + 2 Vault width Lmid: Wmid= Step 6) Design rest of vault {Section 6.4.2.1) Internal baffle -No/ rtyv;r lt/.. Inlet & Outlet Access 2 _ ,; 1 )( 10' Access 3re,-fes ---- ___ (ft) ___ (ft) bo (ft) 20 (ft) 3:1 Effective area /ZOO (3.2.2.1) Note 5'X10" access, grating and corner vent holes Other Design Details (Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.3, and 6.2.4) Sequence of Facilities Setbacks Sideslopes, fencing, embankment SIZE SUMMARY: Surface area, change in elevation Vault width 'Z-0 (ft) (ft) 12 oo (sf) ~O_, 2._ (ftl Vault length (.,O Surface area Elevation change needed: 24 ft to match cell 1 Karen Harris From: Sent: To: Hass, Chris <CHass@conteches.com> Friday, August 31, 2012 9:37 AM Karen Harris Cc: Zeman, Mark; Scott, Mike Subject: Attachments: RE: New Project in Renton, WA BCE #15432 DSOD-Filtration Design.pdf; SFMH48-DTL.dwg Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hey Karen, Follow up Flagged ..!.!.!S!.!!U:l!.11.Ll,llUr/'e email. Based on your release rate and our mass loading calculations you will need a 48" SFMH with 3 ..;:;_..::=:..;;.:.:~~ lease see attached calculations. The calculations are based on 6" of dea storage an a 70m concentration. The estimated cost for the unit is $18,060. In addition, I have also attached the CAD file of our standard detail. Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Chris R. Hass, E.I.T. Stormwater Designer-Engineering and Customer Solutions Contech Engineered Solutions LLC 11835 NE Glenn Widing Drive I Portland, OR 97211 Office: (503) 258·3156 I Fax: (800) 561-1271 chass@conteches.com www.ContechES.com From: Karen Harris (mailto:kharris@barqhausen.com) Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:10 AM To: Hass, Chris Subject: FW: New Project in Renton, WA BCE #15432 Chris-Hopefully you can help me while Mark is on vacation. Thanks, Karen From: Karen Harris Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:08 AM To: Zeman, Mark (MZeman@conteches.com) Subject: New Project in Renton, WA BCE #15432 Mark- I have a new QFC fuel station in Renton, WA and we will be doing a storm vault with water quality (wetvault) and detention and then a Stormfilter with CSF per the 2009 King County Storm Manual. The discharges from the vault are attached. 1 The developed site is 0.5 acres impervious and 0.12 acres landscape. The detention design was done using KCRTS. If you could give me a size and cost that would be great. Please let me know if you need any additional information for your design. Thank you, Karen Karen E. Harris, P .E. Project Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 -Phone (425) 251-8782 -Kent Office Fax http://www.barghauscn.com The infonnation contained in this message may be confidential and/or proprietary, and legally protecled from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us Immediately by replying to the message and pennanently deleting it from your computer. Thank you, Contech Engineered Solutions LLC 2 Ct:\NTECH. ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Inc. Engineer: Date Site Information Project Name Project State Project Location Drainage Area, Ad Impervious Area, Ai Pervious Area, Ap % Impervious Runoff Coefficient, Re Upstream Detention System Peak release rate from detention, 0,.,.,.. peak Treatment release rate from detention, Q,.~.,. •••• Detention pretreatment credit (from removal efficiency calcs) Mass loadlng calculatlons Mean Annual Rainfall, P Agency required % removal Percent Runoff Capture Mean Annual Runoff,V, Event Mean Concentration of Pollutant, EMC Annual Mass Load, M_, FIiter System Filtration brand Cartridge height Specific Flow Rate Number of cartridges • mass loading Mass removed by pretreatment system, Mp,. Mass load to filters after pretreatment, Mpass1 Estimate the required filter efficiency, Er11ter Mass to be captured by filters, M,.., Allowable Cartridge Flow rate, Ocart Mass load per cartridge, Mcart (lbs) Number of Cartridges required, Nmass Treatment Capacity Determine Critical Sizing Value Number of Cartridges using 0.-, • ...,, ~ Method to Use: SUMMARY Treatment Flow Rate, cfs Cartridge Flow Rate, gpm Number of Cartrfdaes Determining Number of Cartridges for Systems Downstream of Detention CRH 8/31/2012 QFC Fuel Washington Renton 0.62 ac 0.50 ac 0.12 81% 0.78 0.15 cfs 0.01 cfs 50% 36 in 80% 90% 57,106 ft" 70 mg/I 249.40 lbs Storm Filter 18 in 1.0 gpm/ft2 124.70 lbs 124.70 lbs 0.60 74.82 lbs 7.50 36.00 lbs 3 0.05 cfs 1 MASS-LOADING 0.05 7.5 3 1 of 1 (II • Q 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance system for this project is sized to convey the 100-year storm event based on the modified rational method with an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes. This site is approximately 0.62 acres in size (including offsite basin), which is significantly less than the 10- acre requirement for using the modified rational method. For this project, we are using the modified rational method. 15432.001.doc JOB NAME: ng Facility #871 JOB#: 15432 REVISED: 9/4/2012 A= Contributing Area (Ac) C= Runoff Coefficient 15432-klngco.xls BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS-PIPE FLOW CALCULATOR using the Rational Method & Manning formula KING COUNTY OESIGN FOR 100 YEAR STORM NOTE: ENTER DEFAULTS AND STORM DATA BEFORE BEGINNING DEFAULTS I C= 0.91 n= 0.014 I d= 12 Tc= 6.3 Qd= Design Flow (els) COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD "!~-EQUATION Of= Full Capacity Flow (els) STORM Ar Br Tc= Time of Concentration {min) I= Intensity atTc (in/hr) Vd= Velocity al Design Flow (fps) Vf= Velocity at Full Flow (fps) 2YR 10YR 1.58 0.58 2.44 0.64 PRECIP= 4 d= Diameter of Pipe (in) L= Length of Pipe (ft) D= Water Depth at Qd (in) FROM TO CB 1 VAULT CANOPY VAULT s= Slope of pipe(%) n= Manning Roughness Coefficient Tt= Travel Time at Vd (min} < • < f O •• " C ====== ===== ====== ==== ====== --==== ====== 0.54 2.00 11 12 6.3 0.014 0.9 0.08 0.50 80 6 6.3 0.014 0.9 25YR 2.66 0.65 Ar= 2.61 50YR 2.75 0.65 Br= 0.63 100YR 2.61 0.63 SUMA ,~ r~·~ ' ~ cr -====== ====== ========== ====== ===== ====== =--==- 0.54 0.49 0.49 3.27 1.59 4.68 0.340 0.08 O.D? 0.07 3.27 0.24 0.37 0.640 Page 1 Did D Vf Vd I Tl ====== ====== ====-------------- 0.403 4.84 5.96 5.41 0.03 0.587 3.52 1.88 2.00 I o.s7 O') • c:, 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES A geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this site by The Riley Group dated August 22, 2012. The report is enclosed. 15432.001.doc Westen, Washi11gton, Corporate Office /7522 Bothell Way Northeast Botltefl, Washilrgton 98011 Phone425.4/5.055/ • Fax425.4/5.03/J ~ ~: The Rilev Group. lnc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BY: THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 BOTHELL WAY NORTHEAST BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 PREPARED FOR: KROGER, INC. 36631ST AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 PROJECT No. 2012-345 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SERVING THE fAQF[C NoRTffWEST www.rilev-group.com QFC 871 FuEL STATION 4615 NORTHEAST 4TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 AUGUST 22, 2012 Eastern Washington and Orego11 Office 1838 South Washington Sll'eet Kennewick, Washing/on 99337 Phone 509.586.4840 • Fax 509. 586.4863 . I - • Tl,e Riley G1'011p, I11c. August 22, 2012 Mr. Brian Peterson Kroger, Inc. 3663 1st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98134 Subject: Gcotcchnical Engineering Repo1·t QFC 871 Fuel Station 4615 Northeast 4th Sti·eet Renton, Washington 98059 Project No. 2012-345 Dear Mr. Peterson: As requested, The Riley Group, Inc. (RGI) has performed a Geotechnical Engineering Rep011 (GER) for the QFC 871 Fuel Station located at 4615 Nmtheast 4th Street in Renton, Washington. RGI understands that Kroger, Inc. is planning to construct a fuel station at the site. Our services were outlined in our proposal dated December 21, 2011 and authorized on July 27, 2012. This GER presents our geoteclmical findings and recommendations for the proposed project. These recommendations should be incorporated into project design and construction. RGI also recommends that a representative of our firm be present on site during p011ions of the project construction to confirm that the soil and groundwater conditions are consistent with those that form the basis for the engineering recommendations in this GER. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call us at (425) 415- 0551. Respectfully submitted, THE RILEY GROUP, INC. El'ic L. Woods, LG Project Geologist EWIRW/sp Wtsler11 Washil,gfo11, CoTJ10mf• Office J 7J22 Bothell W<o> Norlhea<f, S111te A Bothell, Was/1h1g10,1 98011 Phorre 42J.4/5.0J5/ + Fax425.4/5.031/ Ricky R. Wang, PhD, PE Principal Engineer SERVING TUE PACIFIC NORTmVF.ST 1vw11•.1·lley-grm.q1.com Easttm JJ'nsl1l11gto11 a11d Orego11 Office 1838 S0111/, H'a1hl11glon Slreel Ke,mewlck, Was/1/1Jgl011993J7 Phom J09.S86.4840 • Fa.,· 509. 586.4863 I Geotec/mical Engineering Report Page ii August 22, 2011 RGI Projeet No. 2012-345 QFC 871 Fuel Station, Renton, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECTDESCRIPTfON .............................................................................................................. I 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................... I 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 2 3. 1 SURFACE ............................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 SOILS ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.3 GROUNDWATER ..................................................................................................................................... 2 3.4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 3 4.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ........................................................................................................ 4 4.3 STRUCTURALFILL ................................................................................................................................. 4 4.4 EXCAVATIONS AND SHORING ................................................................................................................ 5 4.5 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (USTS) ............................................................................................. 5 4.6 FOUNDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 6 4. 7 KIOSK SLAB-ON-GRADE ........................................................................................................................ 6 4.8 DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................................. 6 4.9 UTILITIES ............................................................................................................................................... 7 4.10 PAVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................................................... 8 6.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 8 FIGURES AND APPENDICES Figure 1 ................................................................................................................... Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 ............................................................................................. Geo technical Exploration Plan Appendix A ........................................................................ Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineen'ng Report QFC 871 Fuel Station, Renton, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page I August 22, 20/ 2 RGI Project No. 2012-345 The Riley Group, Inc. (RGI) has performed a Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) for the proposed QFC 871 Fuel Station located at 4615 Northeast 4th Street in Renton, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure l. The site is currently vacant. The proposed project consists of a fueling facility including two underground storage tanks (UST). Our understanding of the project is based on the Detailed Site Plan (DD2) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated June 25, 2012. At the time of preparing this GER, detailed design plans were not available for our review. Based on our experience with similar projects, RGI expects that the proposed kiosk will be a one-story, light-weight structure supported on perimeter walls and spread-footing foundation. Steel columns at each pump island will support the pump island canopy. The maximum load for the canopy is expected to be 50 kips per column. RGI expects that excavations up to 20 feet in depth will be needed for the UST installation. The recommendations in the following sections of this GER are based upon our understanding of the above design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, RGI should review them in order to modify our recommendations as required. In addition, RGI requests to review final design drawings and specifications to verify that our project understanding is correct and that our recom1,11endations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK On August 9, 2012, RGI drilled two test borings to a maximum depth of 26 feet below ground surface (bgs). The borings were drilled with a rubber-track, hollow stem auger drill rig within the proposed fueling facility and UST area. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, RGI developed geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction for the following: » Soil and groundwater conditions » Underground storage tanks » Seismic considerations » Foundations » Site preparation and grading » Slab-on-grade » Excavations » Utilities and pavements Field screening of the soils was completed as part of the explorations on site. The result of the field screening and testing of the groundwater is provided under separate cover. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnr'cal E11gfnee1·ing Report QFC S7 l Fuel Station. Renton, Washington 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE Page2 August 22. 2012 RGI Project No. 2012-345 The site is a rectangular-shaped property located at the southwest corner of Northeast 4th Street and Duvall Avenue. The site is bound to the north by Northeast 4th Street, to the east by Duvall A venue, to the south and west by commercial properties. The site is currently vacant. The site is relatively flat with overall elevation difference less than 5 feet. 3.2 SOILS The soil encountered during the field exploration was consistent in the two locations explored. The site is underlain by over 25 feet of very dense glacial till which consists of silty sand with gravel. Our review of the Geologic Map of Swjicial Deposits in the Seattle 30' by 60' Quadrangle, Washington (James C. Yount, etc. 1993) indicates that the native soil in the area was mapped as Vashon till (Map unit Qvt). Glacial till is described as a light to dark gray, nonsorted, nonstratified mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel to boulder size. The native soils encountered at the site are generally consistent with the above description. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. Grain-size analyses were performed on selected samples and the results are located in Appendix A. During the geotechnical investigation, RGI project geologist field screened the soil samples using a photoionization detector (PID). Field screening with a PIO was accomplished by placing a small amount of soil in a plastic bag and sealing the bag, allowing any vapors to collect. The metal tip of the PID was used to pierce the bag and a reading was taken after the values had stabilized. No visual indications of contamination or readings with the PID were observed. 3.3 GROUNDWATER A groundwater table was not encountered during the field exploration. Light groundwater seepage was encountered at Boring B-1 at a depth of 6 feet. The seepage appears to be indicative of seasonal groundwater collecting within clean sand interbeds. Fluctuations in groundwater level should be expected on a seasonal and annual basis. The level will be highest during the extended periods of heavy seepage in the wet winter months. Groundwater seepage may be encountered in excavations area if the construction occurs in the wet season. It will not likely affect the construction activities. 3.4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Based on the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), RGI recommends the following seismic parameters for design: THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical E,rglneering Report QFC 871 F11e/ Station, Renton, Washington Parameter Site Soil Page3 Table 1 2009 IBC August 22, 2012 RGI Project No. 2012-345 Site Latitude 47.488203 Site Longitude Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, (percent g) I -Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, (percent g) 122.[56704 139 47.3 Seismic Coefficient, l.000 ------------------------·------------~--------···------·-------··--·-··-· ·····-···-----··--·---------------·--···--- Seismic Coefficient, 1.327 I. Note: In general accordam::e with the 2009 IBC, Table 1613.5.2, IBC Site Class is based on the average chamcteristics of the ;pper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. 2. Note: The 2009 IBC requires a site soil protilc determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The eurrent scope of our services does not include the required l 00-foot soil profile detennination. Borings extended to a maximum depth of 26 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that sirnilar soil continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface el!:ploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be required to confinn the conditions below the current depth of exploration. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations from a seismic event. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from intergranular friction. The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular friction, thus reducing or eliminating the soil's strength. RGI reviewed the soil conditions encountered during field exploration and assessed the potential for liquefaction of the site's soil during an earthquake. The native soil is very dense glacial and is generally considered not subject to soil liquefaction during an earthquake. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL Based on our explorations, the site is suitable for the proposed project from a geotechnical standpoint. The native soil is suitable for supporting of the proposed foundations and tanks. The canopy for the proposed fueling facility can be supported on column footing foundations bearing on stiff native soil. The proposed kiosk can be supported on spread footing foundation bearing on native soil. Pavement can be similarly supported on native soil. Detailed recommendations regarding the above issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotecl111ical Engineering Report Page4 QFC 871 Fuel Station, Renton, Washir?glon 4.2 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING August 22, 20/2 RGI Project No. 2012-345 The site should be prepared for construction by removing the asphalt surfacing. Utilities to be abandoned should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Proofrolling and subgrade verification should be considered an essential step in site preparation. After stripping and prior to placement of structural fill, RGI recommends proofrolling sub grades of the canopy area, pavement area, and areas to receive structural fill. These areas should be compacted to a film and unyielding condition in order to achieve a minimum compaction level of 95 percent of the modified proctor maximum dry density as detennined by the American Society of Testing and Materials D1557-09 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (ASTM D1557). Proofrolling and adequate subgrade compaction can only be achieved when the soils are within approximately± 2 percent moisture content of the optimum moisture content. Soils that appear firm after stripping and grubbing may be proofrolled with a heavy compactor, loaded double-axle dump truck, or other heavy equipment under the observation of an RGI representative. This observer will assess the subgrade conditions prior to filling. The need for or advisability of proofrolling due to soil moisture conditions should be determined at the time of construction. In wet areas it may be necessary to hand probe the exposed subgrades in lieu ofproofrolling with mechanical equipment. Subgrade soils that become disturbed due to elevated moisture conditions should be overexcavated to reveal firm, non-yielding, non-organic soils and backfilled with compacted structural fill. In order to maximize utilization of site soils as structural fill, RGI recommends that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of warm and dry weather, if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November through May) it will be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork will require additional mitigative measures beyond that would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. 4.3 STRUCTURAL FILL The native soil is moisture sensitive and may not be suitable to be used as structural fill if the construction occurs in the wet season. If the site soils become wet or the construction takes place in wet weather, RGI recommends import material that meets the following grading requirements for site grading and backfill. Table 2 Structural Fill Gradation U.S. Sieve Size 3 inches No. 4 sieve No. 200 sieve *Based on minus 3/4 inch fractioIL THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 100 75 percent 5 percent• Geoteclmical Engineering Repo,·t QFC 871 Fuel Station, Renton, Waslri11gton Page5 A ugusl 22, 2012 RG[ Project No. 2012-345 Prior to use, an RGI representative should observe and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill materials should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 10 inches and compacted as specified in Table 3. The soil's maximum density and optimum moisture should be detennined by ASTM D1557. Loca«on Foundations Slab-on-grade General Fill (non- structural areas) Pavement -Subgrade and Base Course Table 3 Structural Fill Compaction ASTM D1557 Material Type Approved imported fill soils: Approved imported fill soils: Approved imported fill soils: Approved imported fill soils: ~h1i1t1~m · (:)1mpaction l'ercentage 95 95 90 95 Moisture ()oiJ.tent .llange +2 +2 +3 +2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Placement and compaction of structural fill should be observed by RGI. A representative number of in-place density tests should be performed as the fill is being placed to confirm that the recommended level of compaction is achieved. 4.4 EXCAVATIONS AND SHORING Site excavations for US Ts, pump island dispensers, and utility and piping trenches must be completed in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and American Petroleum Institute (API) or other requirements. Based on OSHA regulations, the native soil classifies as a Group A soil. In all cases, however, appropriate inclinations will depend on the actual soil and groundwater conditions encountered during earthwork. Ultimately, the site contractor must be responsible for maintaining safe excavation slopes that comply with applicable OSHA or Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) guidelines. Accordingly, for excavations more than 4 feet but less than 20 feet in depth, the temporary side slopes should be laid back with a minimum slope inclination of 3/4H: IV (Horizontal: Vertical). Following excavation, all exposed slopes must be covered with reinforced plastic sheeting that is securely anchored to the slope face. This sheeting will contain loose soil conditions that may develop on the slope face and ravel off, therefore, preventing erosion of the slope face during periods of precipitation. 4.5 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (USTs) RGI understands that two US Ts will be installed to the south of the canopy and near the existing restaurant dumpster area. The installa.tion of the US Ts will require an excavation ofup to 20 feet bgs. The US Ts can be installed in a single excavation. The depth to the top of the USTs is typically 3 feet below finished grade with at least 2 feet of appropriate backfill material. The backfill can be either pea gravel or other material per API specifications for setting the tanks. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. GeotecluJ ica/ Engilteering Report QFC 871 Fuel Station, Re111011, Washington Page 6 Augml 22, 2012 RGI Project No. 2012-345 Seepage should be expected in the excavation, however, if the excavation is completed in the drier summer months, this seepage should be controllable with sumps set in the excavation. The installation will require tank hold down slabs or anchors to accommodate possible buoyant forces. The UST system installation and design must be in accordance with API regulations. 4.6 FOUNDATIONS Following the site grading and UST installation, the proposed canopy can be supported on column foundations bearing on dense native soil. The proposed kiosk can be supported on continuous footing bearing on native soil. RGI recommends designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 1/3 increase in this allowable capacity can be used. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.30 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing can also be considered for resisting lateral loads. RGI recommends calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pct). This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent structural fill as described in Section 4.2. The recommended friction and passive resistance values include a safety factor of 1.5. With foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations in this section, maximum total and differential post-constmction settlements of I inch and 1/2 inch in 50 feet, respectively, should be expected. 4.7 KIOSK SLAB-ON-GRADE RGI recommends that slab-on-grade be supported on film native soil subgrade. Immediately below the floor slab, RGI recommends placing a 4-inch-thick capillary break layer of clean, free-draining pea gravel, washed rock, or crushed rock that has less than 5 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, an 8-to 10-millimeter- thick plastic membrane should be placed on a 4-inch-thick layer of capillary break. 4.8 DRAINAGE Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from building. Water must not pond or collect adjacent to the kiosk or within the immediate canopy area. RGI recommends providing a minimum drainage gradient of 3 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the canopy perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of I percent should be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the stmcture. RGI understands that an infiltration system is being considered for the on-site disposal of stonn water run-off in the parking area. The native soil is not suitable for infiltration. In our opinion, an on-site infiltration system below the ground surface is not feasible. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geoteclwical Engineering Report QFC 871 Fuef Station, Renton, Washingw,i 4.9 UTILITIES Pagel August 22, 2012 RGI Project No. 20/2-345 Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. For site utilities located within the City of Renton right-of-ways, bedding and backfill should be completed in accordance with City of Renton specifications. The trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 4.2. Where utilities occur below unimproved areas, the degree of compaction can be reduced to a minimum of 90 percent of the soil's maximum density as determined by the referenced ASTM standard. As noted, excavated native soil is moisture sensitive and may not be suitable for being used as backfill. Imported structural fill should be used for all backfills if the constrnction occurs in wet season. The backfill material should satisfy the strnctural fill requirements listed in Section 4.3. Product and vent piping trenches should be sloped, bedded, and backfilled in accordance with the AP! specifications. 4.10 PAVEMENTS Pavement section may match the existing pavement section on the site. For new pavement, the subgrade should be prepared as described in Section 4.2 of this GER and as discussed below. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be fim1 and relatively unyielding before paving. This condition should be verified by proofrolling with construction equipment or hand probe by an RGI representative. With the pavement subgrade prepared as described above, RGI recommends that the area be paved with flexible pavement surface. The following pavement sections are recommended: ~ For heavy truck traffic areas: 4 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 8 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) ~ For general parking areas: 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB The asphalt-paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Hot-Mix Asphalt 1/2-inch Class and CRB surfacing. Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the sub grade soils and reducing their supporting capability. For optimum pavement performance, surface drainage gradients of no less than 2 percent are recommended. Also, some degree of longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. GeotedmicaJ Engineering Report QFC 871 Fuel Station~ Renton, Washington 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Page8 August 22, 2012 RGI Pr~ject No. 2012-345 RGI is available to provide further geotechnical consultation as the project design develops. RGI should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. RGI is also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the earthwork and construction depends on proper site preparation and procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know and RGI will prepare a cost proposal. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This GER is the property of RGI, Kroger, Inc., and their designated agents and was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This GER is intended for specific application to the QFC 871 Fuel Station in Renton, Washington. This GER was prepared for the exclusive use of Kroger, Inc. and its authorized representatives. It should be made available to prospective contractors for information or factual data only and not as a warranty of ground conditions. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any biological (for example, mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. Field screening of the soils and sampling of the groundwater was completed as part of the explorations on site. The result of the field screening and testing of the groundwater is provided under separate cover. The analyses and recommendations presented in this GER are based upon data obtained from the test borings drilled on site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this GER are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this GER shall not be considered valid unless RGI is requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this GER prior to proceeding with construction. It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designers, contractors, subcontractors, are made aware of this GER in its entirety. The use of information contained in this GER for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. USGS, 1994, Renton, Washington 7 .5-Minute Quadrangle • The Riley Group, Inc . 17522 Bothell Way Northeast, Suite A Bothell , Washington 9801 J Phone: 425.415 .0551 + Fa x: 425.415.0311 Approximate Scale: l "= 1000' 0 500 1000 QFC 871 Fuel Station RGI Project Number 20 12-345 Site Vicinity Map 2000 Figure 1 Date Drawn: 08/2012 Address: 4615 No1tbeast 4th Street, Renton, Washington 98059 N.E. 4TH STREET ---------------- ... -.: , .. . .~ . . . --,. .• '·' ~-., -. ' ··: I I @ Q • / B-1 ~ @ GI €) . I I 0 B-1 to B-2 Test Borings up to 25' bgs ___ .,...... .. -. " -~ I ' .. , I .. I I Approximate Scale: l "=30' EX. TIWflC SIGNAL POLE TO BE RELDC/\TED PLAZA N1fA w => z ~ ...J ...J ~ 0 Drawn from Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., DD-2 Detailed Site Plan, 06/25/12 0 15 30 60 • The Riley Group, Inc. ~ 17522 Bothell Way Northeast, Suite A Bothell, Washington 98011 I Phone: 425.415.0551 + Fax: 425.415.0311 QFC 871 Fuel Station Figure 2 RGI Project Number Date Drawn: Geotechnical Exploration Plan 2012-345 08/2012 Address: 4615 Norlheast 4th Street, Renton, Washington 98059 Geotechnical Engineering Report QFC 871 Fuel Station, Renton, Washington APPENDIX A August 22, 2012 RGJ Project No. 2012-345 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING QFC 871 Fuel Station 4615 Northeast 4th Street Renton, Washington 98059 On August 9, 2012, RGI performed our field exploration using a rubber-track drill rig. RGI explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by advancing two test borings to a maximum depth of 26 feet below existing grade. The boring locations are shown on Figure 2. The boring locations were approximately determined by interpolating from existing property features. A geologist from our office conducted the field exploration and classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test boring, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pe1iinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on the sheet behind the boring logs. Representative soil samples obtained from the borings were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of selected samples was measured and is reported on the boring logs. Grain-size analyses were performed on selected samples. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Project Name: QFC 871 Fuel Station Project Number: 2012-345 Client: Kroger, Inc. Date{s) Drillod: 8/8/12 Drilling Method(s): HSA Drill Rig Type: Rubber Track Drill Rig Groundwater Level and Date Measured: Not Encountered ATD Borehole Baddlll: Bentonlte Chips ii C 'if i :s " l ~ 'if " Q a:: 1 C ~ t1 ~ 0 I .. "' °R > U) .. 8 () ~ E E E o .. "l .. .. U) 0 U) "l JS 0: :, D SM 50/6" 5 " 10 50/5" t5 20 50/3" 25 5013" Logged By: EW Drlll Bit Size/Type: 6" Diameter Drilling Contractor: Boretec , Boring No.: B-1 ·• .·,q t,:i Sheet 1 of 1 ' surface Conditions: Grass Tolal Depth of Borehole: 25.25 feet bgs Approximate nJ Swface E1evation: a Sampling Method{s): SPT H O ta . 140 lb, 30 In drop, rope and ammer a , cathead Location: 4615 Northeast 4th Street, Renton, WA 98059 s §: e .ll .c _i C. I'! 0 C!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ::;; Gray silty SAND with some gravel, very dense, moisl (Glacial Til) 3.9 Becomes moist to wet, 28.5% fines 114• sand interbeds with light groundwater seepage at 6' 6.6 16.0 No recovery , .. 6.4 ,.,...1....1._..L_...1. __ .1.__J_..J.. _______________________ ...1. ___ --I The RIiey Group, Inc. 17522 Bolhell Wey NE, Bothell. WA 98011 1B38 South Washington Slreet. Kennewick, WA 99337 Project Name: QFC 871 Fuel Station Project Number: 2012-345 Client: Kroger, Inc. Date(s) Drilled: 8/8112 Drilling Method{s): HSA Drill Rig Type: Rubber Track Drill Rig Groundwater Level Not Encounte d ATD and Date Measured: re Borehole Backfill: Bentonlte Chips ii C: 'i i g " l ~ 'i Q) Q a: 1 C: ~ "' c:' 0 .!! tl ~ "' j t Q. ~ E 8 " .. ::o " "' w 0 "' 0:: ::, 0 90 5 50/3" 10 50/3" 15 50/5" 20 50/6" 25 Logged By: EW Drill Bit Siz.e/Type: 6" Diameter Drilling Contractor: Boretec ~ Boring No.: B-2 -Sheet1 of1 surface Conditions: Grass Total Depth of Borehole: 20.5 feet bgs Approximate surface Elevation: n/a Sampling Method(s}: SPT H O ta 140 lb, 30 In drop, rope and ammer a : cathead LocaUon: 4615 Northeast 4th Street, Renton, WA 98059 8' ..J -~ .c: Q. ~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (!) Gray silty gravelly SAND, very dense, moist (Glacial TIii) 13.5% fines 14.1 Gray silty SAND wtth some gravel, very dense, moist (Glad~ THI) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.2 30-'--'--'~-~--.L..-~-'----------------------------'-------1 The RIiey Group, Inc. 17522 BolJell WB'J NE, Bothell, WA. 98011 1838 south Waahlngton Street, Kennewldc, WA 99337 Project Name: QFC 871 Fuel Station Project Number: 2012-345 Client: Kroger, Inc. 1J " ~ i 15 g_ l .!! ~ ~ .c Q E " I-C> "' "' 0 ! 1 {~ " (/) ,., £ 8 f'.l ~ C. E E E ~ .l!! .. .. .. ~ :E " (/) w Cl (/) (/) 0:: :, w 1£.1 l liJ w lfil lll COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 8' -' .'1 .c C. !! C!) .! • . Key to Log of Boring Sheet 1 of 1 ' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION i Elevation (feet): Elevation (MSL. feet). [ru Recovery(%): Core Recovery Percentage is determined based on Depth (feet): Depth In feet below the ground surface. a ratio of the length of core sample recovered compared to the Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth Interval cored Interval length. shown. @ uses Symbol: uses symbol of the subsurface material. @ Sample ID: Sample Identification number. 00 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material [fil Sampling Resistance, blows/ft: Number of blows to advance driven encountered. sampler one foot (or distance shown) beyond seating interval [!l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. using the hammer identified on the boring log. May Include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivlty COMP: Compaction test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test LL: Liquid Limit, percent MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS • SIity SAND (SM) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS rv, Shelby Tube (Thin-walled, l,'\J fixed head) ~ Auger sampler ~ Bulk Sample rfl 3-lnch-OD California w/ 161 brass rings GENERAL NOTES rn CME Sampler rn Continuous Core Sampler rn Grab Sample 12.5-inch-OD Modified California wl brass liners ffg Moisture(%}: Moisture, expressed as a water content. Pl: Plastlclty Index, percent SA: Sieve anafysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test. Qu, ln ksf WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) ~ Pitcher Sample ~ 2-inch-OD unlined split CS spoon (SPn OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS -¥ WaterJevel (attima ofdrifillng, ATD) -! Water level (after wailing} rv1 Shelby Tube (Thin-walled, 1 Minor change In material properties within a stratum ~ fixed head) --lnferred/gradational contact between strata -? -Queried contact between strata 1: Soil dassifications are based on the Unified Soll Classlficatlon System. Descriptions and stratum lines are Interpretive, and actual lltho1oglc changes may be gradual. Field desaipUons may have been modified to renect results of lab lests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representaUve of subsurface conditions at other locations or Umes. The Rnay Group, Inc. 17522 Bolld Way NE. Bolhen, WA 98011 1838 South Waahingtoo Street, Kennewick, WA 99337 THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 421, D 2217, D 1140, C 117, D 422, C 136 PHONE: (425} 415-0551 FAX: (425) 415-0311 PROJECT TITLE QFC Fuel station Renton PROJECT NO. 1---~--20-12-.345------r----~ SAMPLE ID/TYPE I 8-1 SAMPLE DEPTH 5' TECH/DATE ELW 08/9/12 Wf\TER CONTENT (DeJJywed M dstyre) T .... ..., ,,i,..,,._ r v c-..........1 .... 11"'""' c-...... c-: ......... 'c-. . ... Wt Wet Soil & T,re (gm) Wt Dry Soil & Ta-e(gm) Weight of Ta-e(gm) Weight of WrJ.e,; (gm) Weight of Dry Soi I (gm) Moi!rureCont<11t (%) %COBBLES %CGRAVEL % FGRAVEL % CSA.ND % M SA.ND % FSA.ND % FINES %TOTAL D10(nm) D30(nm) D60(nm) Cu Cc 100 % 90 80 p 70 A 60 s 50 · s 40 I 30 N 20 G 10 0 1000 0.00 6.71 17.30 7.50 12.01 27.95 28.53 100.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a . . Weigrt Of Sar4>I e (gm) T,re Weight (gn) (w1 )t---'-61_1-'".50'---I 57 4.40 ~~-~57~4~M~-I 1~20 /W6l Tota Div Weiahtfnm\ §I ~I; l\.!llAbYl!I § (w3)1-~1~4-::;;20::.....+------..l!!:~.!.=~~=i:..::.l~__;---1.__;560==·20::.........1..--1 (w4--w1-w2)--=3'-'7 . .:.:10:.....-1 (w5=w2-w3)-~560=.20~-I (w4/w5)· 100 6.62 12.0'' 3.0'' 2.5" 2.0" 1.5" 1.0" 0.75'' 0.50" 0.375'' 114 #10 #20 l/40 #60 #100 #200 PAN .. . ~ .l":d.B!l! +Tore 14.20 14.20 14.20 51.80 100.10 148.70 190.70 258.00 357.40 414.60 574.40 ----- ('l!I!· Iillll 0.00 0.00 0.1)() 37.60 85.90 134.50 176.50 243;80 343.20 400.40 560.20 . Currulgjlif~ (%R.t;io!lll ··- 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.71 15.33 24.01 31.51 43.52 61.26 71.47 100.00 %e8SS 11nQ.."'~' 100.00 100.00 100.00 93.29 84.67 75.99 68.49 56.48 38.74 28.53 0.00 cobbles c:oa-se gravel co,rse grate! co,rse grate! coa-oo grate! coarse grate! fine gravel fine gravel flnegratel c:oa-se SEl'ld mEdium S"1d medium S"1d fine5'Jld linesrid finesrid fines silVday · I+· t++++-+---+---H+l-l-+-1-·-----+--+++++-11-+''-'k.·-.. ----·--1-U-1-.W.--l-+--+----4-l-l+-W->-- ' --·- 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain size In mllllmeters -~,nON r·S"D•·~- USCS. SM I The Riley Group, Inc. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 421, D 2217, D 1140, C 117, D 422, C 136 PROJECT Tl TLE 1--....;:;Q:;..F..;.;C.:..F;::;uel::..;:;St;:;at:;.;ion:;.;.:..R;;;;ent=on'---~----' PROJECT NO. 2012-345 SAMPLE ID/TYPE I SAMPLE DEPTH TECH/DATE ELW 08/9/12 PHONE: (425) 415-0551 FAX: (425) 415-0311 B-2 I I 2.5' W8JER CONTENT (Delivered Mqstyrel Total "'"' nht u.-.-1 en,. Si ""~er Fn•H C ••-u - Wt WEi Soil & Ta-e (gm) Wt Dry Soi I & T a-e (gm) Weight of Ta-e (gm) Weight of Weter {!Jll) Weight of Dry Soil {gm) Moisture Content (%) %COBBLES %CGRAVEL %FGRAVEL %CSAND %M SAND % FSAND % FINES % TOTAL D10(mrn) D30(mrn) D60(mrn) Cu Cc 100 ·-· % 90 80 p 70 A 0.00 3.66 27.30 13.97 22.91 18.70 13.45 100.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a (w1 ),___43_1_.4_0 __, Weight Of 5'rll>le (gm) 399.10 Ta-e Weight (gm) 14.10 (W6) Tota Drv Weiaht lnml 385.00 !1El£E ANALY!i!li (w2)1---"399""-'.1"-0 ---l (w3l1-...:1..;.;4·..;.;10'---i------,-,.,,--"=-...:.::=-:::.L.:.:.::.;a:.::.;='--....L_..;=;::::..---1.---1 (w4--w1-w2)1--..;:32::;:·.::.;30;.._-1 (w5---w2-w3)1---"385'-'=.oo-'---I (w4/w5)• 100 8.39 .. 12.0" 3.0" 2.5" 2.0" 1.5'' 1.0" 0.7511 0.5011 0.375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 PAN .. .w.t..Blt (WJ-To:~} + T= 14.10 0.00 14.10 0.00 14.10 0.00 28.20 14.10 71.90 57.80 133.30 119.20 187.10 173.00 275.30 261.20 329.70 315.60 347.30 333.20 399.10 385.00 Culll!ll etil!'.§ (%~iiia~l 't,e8SS ··-1100-"·~' 0.00 100.00 cobbles 0.00 100.00 coa-se gr""" coa-se grave coa-se grave 0.00 100.00 coa-se gravel coa-se grave 3.66 96.34 fine grave fine gravel 15.01 84.99 fine gravel 30.96 69.04 coa-seSlld 44.94 55.06 medium said medium&nd 67.84 32.16 fine ""1d fine ""1d 81.97 18.03 fine""1d 86.55 13.45 fines 100.00 0.00 silt/day 60 s 50 -~ --f-------+!++-l-+-<-+---+----+++++--+--!--+ -~ ~-l+-H-+--+--!--+---+-----l--l-l-+-+---l--l-----+-----+----l--l-l--i--+--,L-1--I---I-----I s 40 I 30 N 20 G 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 O.o1 0.001 Grain size in millimeters ~PnON I""-"""" uses. SM I The Riley Group, Inc. ...... • 0 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Other permits for this project include: • Building Permit • Right-of-Way Use Permit 15432.001.doc Q) • Q 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This project will utilize appropriate erosion and sediment control measures in order to protect the site and adjacent properties. 1. Clearing Limits -The clearing limits are shown on the Demolition and TESC Plan, part of the site development drawings. 2. Cover Measures -Cover measures are added in the TESC notes on the engineering plans. 3. Perimeter Protection -Perimeter protection is shown on the engineering plans (silt fencing). 4. Traffic Area Stabilization -A stabilized construction entrance is shown on the engineering plans. 5. Sediment Retention -Catch basin filters will be used for sediment retention. 6. Surface Water Collection -Onsite surface water will be routed through an onsite BMP prior to being discharged from the site. 7. Dewatering Control -Dewatering may be necessary during onsite excavation. Only clean water may leave the site. Dewatering may be accomplished through the use of sump pumps. 8. Dust Control -Dust control by sprinklering will be utilized if needed. 9. Flow Control -Permanent flow control will be through the proposed water quality and detention vault. Because this site is less than 1 acre, a General Permit from the Department of Ecology is not required. 15432.001.doc (0 • 0 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT Bond Quantities will be submitted to the city after the initial project review. 15432.001.doc \ 10.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 15432.001.doc OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL QFC Fueling Station #871 4615 N.E. 4th Street Renton, Washington Prepared for: The Kroger Co. 3800 S.E. 22nd Avenue Portland, OR 97202 September 19, 2012 Our Job No. 15432 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES + OLYMPIA, WA + TACOMA, WA + CONCORD, CA + TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION EXHIBIT A MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 15432.002.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION Catch basins are located on the QFC Fueling Facility site that collect runoff from the project site and route that runoff through conveyance piping to the southeast corner of the site where runoff enters a wet/detention vault which provides water quality treatment as well as flow control for the new land covers on the project site. Level 2 Flow Control is the required means of providing Flow Control for this project. Additional water quality treatment will be provided in a Stormfilter manhole with CSF media cartridges to meet the City of Renton's Enhanced Basic Water Quality. The release mechanism from the wet/detention vault is a control structure located on the west side of the vault, which has a riser pipe inside of rt that releases runoff at a slow rate and tends to back up water in the vault during peak storm events. The release to the downstream drainage course is also through the Stormfilter manhole, then a pump system and force main to Duvall Avenue NE. All facilities on the project site should be maintained on a regular basis of at least twice a year at an interval of every six months. Should vegetation become sparse or should It die out, then it should be replaced around the site to match what the design conditions of the site were when the site was initially constructed. The following pages of this report delineate the requirements for flow control, conveyance, and water quality facilities maintenance. Please refer to these documents when performing your maintenance on the project site. 15432.002.doc Exhibit A Maintenance Guidelines APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEY i\NCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 3-DETENTION TANKS AND VAULTS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general. there should be no Visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 inches. Tank or Vault Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated in vault or tank No trash or debris in vault. Storage Area (includes floatables and non-floatables). Sediment Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 10% of the All sediment removed from storage accumulation diameter of the storage area for 1h length of area. storage vault or any point depth exceeds 15% of diameter. Example: 72-inch storage tank would require cleaning when sediment reaches depth of 7 inches for more than 1h length of tank. Tank Structure Plugged air vent Any blockage of the vent. Tank or vault freely vents. Tank bent out of Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape more Tank repaired or replaced to design. shape than 10% of its design shape. Gaps between A gap wider than 1h-inch at the joint of any tank No water or soil entering tank sections, damaged sections or any evidence of soil particles entering through joints or walls. joints or cracks or the tank at a joint or through a wall. tears in wall Vault Structure Damage to wall, Cracks wider than Yi-inch, any evidence of soil Vault is sealed and structurally frame, bottom, and/or entering the structure through cracks or qualified sound. top slab inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Inlet/Outlet Pipes Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than 1h-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A l/9/2009 A-5 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ F ACIUT!ES NO. 3-DETENTION TANKS AND VAULTS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Access Manhole Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requires immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. not working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self.locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access Damaged or difficult Large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so it doors/plate to open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. Gaps, doesn't cover Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and covers access completely opening not completely covered. opening completely. Lifting Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or plate. remove door or plate. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-6 APPENDIX/\ MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Mainte.nance ls Performed Structure Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than ;/2 cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the structure potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the structure by structure. more than 10%. Trash or debris in the structure that exceeds 1/J No trash or debris in the structure. the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the Sump of structure contains no bottom of the structure to the invert of the lowest sediment pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section. Damage to frame Corner of frame extends more than % inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than ~ inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than 3.4 inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in wails or Cracks wider than 1h: inch and longer than 3 feet, Structure is sealed and structurally bottom any evidence of soil particles entering structure sound. through cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than Yi, inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1 /4 inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the joint of in!et'outlet pipe. of soil particles entering structure through cracks. Settlement/ Structure has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the No cracks more-than %-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. the structure at the joint of the inleUoutlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Ladder rungs missing Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design standards and or unsafe misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. allows maintenance person safe access. FROP-T Section Damage T section is not securely attached to structure T section securely attached to wall wall and outlet pipe structure should support at and outlet pipe. least 1,000 lbs of up or down pressure. Structure is not in upright position (allow up to Structure in correct position. 10% from plumb}. Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight or Connections to outlet pipe are water show signs of deteriorated grout. tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes-other than designed holes-in the Structure has no holes other than structure. designed holes. C!eanout Gate Damaged or missing Cleanout gate is missing. Replace cleanout gate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A I/9/2009 A-7 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Cleanout gate is not watertight. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and down easily and maintenance person. is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged. Chain is in place and works as designed. Orifice Plate Damaged or missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and works as missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. designed. Obstructions Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation Plate is free of all obstructions and blocking the plate. works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking (or having the Pipe is free of all obstructions and potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. works as designed. Deformed or damaged Lip of overflow pipe is bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow lip overflow at an elevation lower than design Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-inch wide at inleUoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inleUoutlet pipes. Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/6 inch. Grate opening meets design (If Applicable) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grata missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove caver/lid after applying BO lbs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix. A A-8 /\PP END TX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FAC!LITTES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Structure Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the Sump of catch basin contains no bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the sediment. lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than X cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the catch basin potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin catch basin. by more than 10%. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds No trash or debris in the catch basin. 1 /3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within catch basin. gases (a.g., methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame Comer of frame extends more than ~ inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than 1.4 inch. Frame not silting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than 74 inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than ~ inch and longer than 3 feet, Catch basin is sealed and bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch structurally sound. basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Cracks wider than ~ inch and !anger than 1 foot No cracks more than 1 /4 inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than Yi-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than 114-inch wide at inleUoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than 1/z-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than Y.-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of tha inlet/outlet pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-9 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7 /a inch. Grate opening meets design (Catch Basins) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design Any open structure requires urgent standards. maintenance. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self~locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. I/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-tO APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ F AC!L!TIES NO. 6 -CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Pipes Sediment & debris Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds Water flows freely through pipes. accumulation 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation/roots Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of Water flows freely through pipes. water through pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. coating or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Damaged Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris cleared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the Ditch cleaned/flushed of a!I sediment accumulation design depth. and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Water flows freely through ditches. through ditches. Erosion damage to Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. slopes Rock lining out of One layer or less of rock exists above native soil Replace rocks to design standards. place or missing (If area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native Applicable) soil. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-II APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 9 -FENCING Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Erosion or holes Erosion or holes more than 4 inches high and 12-No access under the fence. under fence 18 inches wide permitting access through an opening under a fence. Wood Posts, Boards Missing or damaged Missing or broken boards, post out of plumb by No gaps on fence due to missing or and Cross Members parts more than 6 inches or cross members broken broken boards, post plumb to within 11.4 inches, cross members sound. Weakened by rotting Any part showing structural deterioration due to All parts of fence are structurally or insects rotting or insect damage sound. Damaged or failed Concrete or metal attachments deteriorated or Post foundation capable of post foundation unable to support posts. supporting posts even in strong wind. Metal Posts, Rails Damaged parts Post out of plumb more than 6 inches. Post plumb to within 11h inches. and Fabric Top rails bent more than 6 inches. Top rail free of bends greater than 1 inch. Any part of fence (including post, top rails, and Fence is aligned and meets design fabric) more than 1 foot out of design alignment. standards. Missing or loose tension wire. Tension wire in place and holding fabric. Deteriorated paint or Part or parts that have a rusting or scaling Structurally adequate posts or parts protective coating condition that has affected structural adequacy. with a uniform protective coating. Openings in fabric Openings in fabric are such that an 8·inch Fabric mesh openings within 50% of diameter ball could fit through. grid size. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A A-14 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FAC[LITIES NO. 10-GATES/BOLLARDS/ACCESS BARRIERS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Chain Link Fencing Damaged or missing Missing gate. Gates in place. Gate members Broken or missing hinges such that gate cannot Hinges intact and lubed. Gate is be easily opened and closed by a maintenance working freely. person. Gate is out of plumb more than 6 inches and Gate is aligned and vertical. more than 1 foot out of design alignment. Missing stretcher bar, stretcher bands, and ties. Stretcher bar, bands, and ties in place. Locking mechanism Locking device missing, no-functioning or does Locking mechanism prevents does not lock gate not link to all parts. opening of gate. Openings in fabric Openings in fabric are such that an 8-inch Fabric mesh openings within 50% of diameter ball could fit through. grid size. Bar Gate Damaged or missing Cross bar does not swing open or closed, is Cross bar swings fully open and cross bar missing or is bent to where it does not prevent closed and prevents vehicle access. vehicle access. Locking mechanism Locking device missing, no-functioning or does Locking mechanism prevents does not lock gate not link to all parts. opening of gate. Support post Support post does not hold cross bar up. Cross bar held up preventing vehicle damaged access into facility. Bollards Damaged or missing Bollard broken, missing, does not fit into support No access for motorized vehicles to hole or hinge broken or missing. get into facility. Does not lock Locking assembly or lock missing or cannot be No access for motorized vehicles to attached to lock bollard in place. get into facility. Boulders Dislodged Boulders not located to prevent motorized vehicle No access for motorized vehicles to access. get into facility. Circumvented Motorized vehicles going around or between No access for motorized vehicles to boulders. get into facility. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A l/9/2009 A-15 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Defect or ?roblem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash or litter Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation Were County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass/ground cover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a No hazard trees in facility. potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possible. Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than 5% broken which affect more than 25% of the total of total foliage with split or broken foliage of the tree or shrub. limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or No blown down vegetation or knocked over. knocked over vegetation, Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and supported or are leaning over, causing exposure adequately supported; dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-16 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 12 -ACCESS ROADS Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Roadway drivable by maintenance square feet (i.e., trash and debris would fill up vehicles. one standards size garbage can). Debris which could damage vehicle tires or Roadway drivable by maintenance prohibit use of road. vehicles. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Blocked roadway Any obstruction which reduces clearance above Roadway overhead clear to 14 feet road surface to less than 14 feel high. Any obstruction restricting the access to a 10-to At least 12-foot of width on access 12 foot width for a distance of more than 12 feet road. or any point restricting access to less than a 10 foot width. Road Surface Erosion, settlement, Any surface defect which hinders or prevents Road drivable by maintenance potholes, soft spots, maintenance access. vehicles. ruts Vegetation on road Trees or other vegetation prevent access to Maintenance vehicles can access surface facility by maintenance vehicles. facility. Shoulders and Erosion Erosion within 1 foot of the roadway more than 8 Shoulder free of erosion and Ditches inches wide and 6 inches deep. matching the surrounding road. Weeds and brush Weeds and brush exceed 18 inches in height or Weeds and brush cut to 2 inches in hinder maintenance access. height or cleared in such a way as to allow maintenance access. Modular Grid Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of Pavement pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damaged or missing Access surface compacted because of broken on Access road surface restored so missing modular block. road infiltrates. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPEND[X A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FAC!UTIES N0.17-WETVAULT Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance ls Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated on facility site. Trash and debris removed from facility site. Treatment Area Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated in vault No trash or debris in vault. (includes floatables and non-floatables). Sediment Sediment accumulation in vault bottom exceeds No sediment in vault. accumulation the depth of the sediment zone plus 6 inches. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vault Structure Damage to wall, Cracks wider than Yz-inch, any evidence of soil Vault is sealed and structurally frame, bottom, and/or entering the structure through cracks, vault does sound. top slab not retain water or qualified inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/or Repair or replace baffles or walls to showing signs of failure or baffle cannot be specifications. removed. Ventilation Ventilation area blocked or plugged. No reduction of ventilation area exists. ln!eUOutlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inletlout!et No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than Yz-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-inch wide at inletloutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the in!etloutlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. Gravity Drain Inoperable valve Valve will not open and close. Valve opens and closes normally. Valve won't seal Valve does not seal completely. Valve completely seals closed. Access Manhole Access cover/lid Access cover/lid cannot be easily opened by one Access cover/lid can be opened by damaged or difficult to person. Corrosion/deformation of cover/lid. one person. open Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. not working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs of !ift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Access doors/plate Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and covers access has gaps, doesn't opening not completely covered. opening completely. cover completely Lifting Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or plate. remove door or plate. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I APPENDIX A MATNTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 21 -STORM FILTER (CARTRIDGE TYPE) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash or debris which impairs the function of Trash and debris removed from the facility. facility, Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oils, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surlace oil film. Life cycle System has not been inspected for three years. Facility is re-inspected and any needed maintenance performed. Vault Treatment Sediment on vau!t Greater than 2 inches of sediment. Vault is free of sediment. Area floor Sediment on top of Greater than ~ inch of sediment. Vault is free of sediment. cartridges Multiple scum lines Thick or multiple scum tines above top of Cause of plugging corrected, above top of cartridges. Probably due to plugged canisters or canisters replaced if necessary. cartridges underdrain manifold. Vault Structure Damage to wall, Cracks wider than Yi-inch and any evidence of Vault replaced or repaired to design Frame, Bottom, and/or soil particles entering the structure through the specifications. Top Slab cracks, or qualified inspection personnel determines the vault is not structurally sound. Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, cracking warping, and/or showing signs of failure as determined by Repair or replace baffles to specification. maintenance/inspection person. Filter Media Standing water in 9 inches or greater of static water in the vault for No standing water in vault 24 hours vault more than 24 hours following a rain event and/or after a rain event. overflow occurs frequently. Probably due to plugged filter media, underdrain or outlet pipe. Short circuiting Flows do not properly enter filter cartridges. Flows go through filter media. Underdrains and SedimenUdebris Underdralns or clean-outs partially plugged or Underdrains and clean-outs free of Clean-Outs filled with sediment and/or debris. sediment and debris. lnleUOutlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non.floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than X-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X.-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. Access Manhole Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requires immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. not working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs of lift. reinstal!ed by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access Damaged or difficult Large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so it doors/plate to open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-30 I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 21 -STORMFIL TER (CARTRIDGE TYPE) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed Gaps, doesn't cover Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and cover access completely opening not completely covered. opening completely. Lifting Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or plate. remove door or plate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDlX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FAC[LITIES NO. 22-BAFFLE OIUWATER SEPARATOR Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash or debris which impairs the function of Trash and debris removed from the facility. facility. Contaminants and Floating oil in excess of 1 inch in first chamber, No contaminants present other than pollution any oil in other chambers or other contaminants a surface oil film. of any type in any chamber. Vault Treatment Sediment Sediment accumulates exceeds 6 inches in the No sediment in the vault. Area accumulation vault. Discharge water not Inspection of discharge water shows obvious Effluent discharge is clear. clear signs of poor water quality-effluent discharge from vault shows thick visible sheen. Trash or debris Any trash and debris accumulation in vault Vault is clear of trash and debris. accumulation (floatables and non-floatables). Oil accumulation Oil accumulations that exceed 1 inch, at the No visible oil depth on water. surface of the water in the oil/water separator chamber. Vault Structure Damage to Wall, Cracks wider than %-inch or evidence of soil Vault replaced or repaired to design Frame, Bottom, and/or particles entering the structure through the specifications. Top Slab cracks, or maintenance/inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/or Repair or replace baffles to showing signs of failure as determined by specifications. maintenance inspection personnel. Gravity Drain Inoperable valve Valve will not open and close. Valve opens and closes normally. Valve won't seal Valve does not seal completely. Valve completely seals closed. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inleVoutlet pipes. Access Manhole Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requlres immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. not working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and remove cover/lid after applying BO lbs of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access Damaged or difficult Large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so it doors/plate to open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. Gaps, doesn't cover Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and cover access completely opening not completely covered. opening completely. Lifting Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or cover/lid. remove cover/lid. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-32