HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc'PR l '' '1 n" .., \ ~ t) l·_,i!J
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Elliot Farm
14207 SE Renton Maple Valley Road
Renton, Washington
Project No. T-6737
Terra Associates, Inc.
Prepared for:
Murray Franklyn Companies
· Bellevue, Washington
February 25, 2015
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Mr, Glen Maurer
Murray Franklyn Companies
14410 Bel-Red Road
Bellevue, Washington 98007
Subject: Geotechnical Report
Elliot Farm
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
14207 SE Renton Maple Valley Road
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Maurer:
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical study for the subject project. The attached report presents our
findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction.
Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain by 6 to 12 inches of organic surface soils and roots
overlying either glacially-derived or alluvial soils. Glacially-derived soils are found on roughly the southwestern
half of the site and consist of loose to very dense sand with silt and gravel, dense gravel with cobbles, and
· medium stiff to very stiff sandy silt ( outwash and undifferentiated drift). Alluvial soils are found on roughly the
northeastern half of the site and consist of three to five feet ofloose silty sand and soft silt overlying dense gravel
with sand and cobbles. We expect that there are fill soils immediately adjacent each of the previously
demolished structures associated with previous site grading and development. Groundwater was observed in 5 of
the 8 test pits between 4.5 and 6 feet below current site grades.
In our opinion, the soil and groundwater conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed residential
construction provided recommendations contained herein are incorporated into project design and.construction .
.
12525 Willows Road NE, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334
Mr. Glen Maurer
February 25, 2015
We trust the information provided in the attached report is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please call.
Sincere! y yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. T-6737
Page No. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................... I
2.0 Scope of Work. ................................................................................................................ I
3.0 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................ 2
3. I Surface ................................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................... 2
3.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Erosion ............................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Landslide ............................................................................................................ 3
4.3 Steep Slope ......................................................................................................... 4
4.4 Coal Mines ......................................................................................................... 5
4.5 Seismic ............................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 7
5.1 General ............................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Site Preparation and Grading ............................................................................. 7
5.3 Excavation and Slopes ....................................................................................... 8
5 .4 Foundations ........................................................................................................ 9
5.5 Slab-on-Grade Floors ....................................................................................... I 0
5.6 Lateral Earth Pressure for Below-Grade Walls ............................................... I 0
5.7 Drainage ........................................................................................................... 11
5.8 Utilities ............................................................................................................. 11
5.9 Pavement .......................................................................................................... 11
6.0 Additional Services ....................................................................................................... 12
7. 0 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 12
Figures
Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ Figure I
Exploration Location Plan .................................................................................................... Figure 2
Cross Section A-A' .............................................................................................................. Figure 3
Typical Wall Drainage Detail .............................................................................................. Figure 4
Appendix
Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ....................................................................... Appendix A
Previous Borings ............................................................................................................... Appendix B
Winstabl Graphic Output .................................................................................................. Appendix C
Geotechnical Report
Elliot Farm
14207 SE Renton Maple Valley Road
Renton, Washington
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of redeveloping the property with 18 townhome buildings with 2 to 3 units per building
along with associated utility and roadway improvements. Design details were not available at the time of this
report. Based on current topography, we would expect that cuts and fills up to ten feet may be needed to
establish lot and roadway grades.
The structures will likely be two-to three-story wood-framed buildings constructed over a crawl space with
garages tucked under and constructed at grade. Structural loading should be relatively light; with bearing walls
carrying loads of 2 to 4 kips per foot and isolated columns carrying maximum loads of 30 to 50 kips.
The recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are based on the above design features.
We should review any changes in the grading, utility, and drainage plans as they are developed to verify that
our recommendations are valid for the proposed construction and to amend or modify our report, as necessary.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
On June 15, 2012, we observed soil and groundwater conditions at 8 soil test pits excavated to maximum depths
of 15 feet below existing site grades. Using the information obtained from the subsurface explorations and
laboratory testing, we performed analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for development at the
site. Specifically, this report addresses the following:
• Soil and groundwater conditions
• Geologic hazards
• Seismic design parameters
• Site preparation and grading
• Stormwater dispersion/infiltration
• Excavations
• Foundations
• Floor slabs
• Drainage
• Utilities
• Pavements
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
It should be noted that recommendations outlined in this report regarding drainage are associated with soil
strength, design earth pressures, erosion, and stability. Design and performance issues with respect to moisture
as it relates to the structure environment (i.e., humidity, mildew, mold) is beyond Terra Associates' purview. A
building envelope specialist or contractor should be consulted to address these issues, as needed.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Surface
The site is a 6.07-acre parcel located at 14207 SE Renton Maple Valley Road in Renton, Washington. The
approximate site location is shown on the attached Figure 1.
The project site is bordered to the north by SE Renton Maple Valley Road, to the east by a private gravel drive
and a stormwater detention pond, to the south by a residential lot and vacant forested land, and to the west by a
multi-family residential development and vacant forested land. Access to the site is currently gained from the
north off of SE Renton Maple Valley Road.
The site was formerly occupied by a dairy farm with a residence and garage on the west side of the property and
several barns and structures located on the south side of the site. All buildings and structures had been
demolished prior to our field exploration. The only remaining evidence of the structures are concrete
foundations and floor slabs from both the residence and barns.
In general, topography in the north-northeast portion of the site is flat, from this northern flat area grades rise to
the south-southwest. A ridge of higher elevation is aligned northwest-southeast across the center of the site
closely following a geologic boundary. The northeast facing slope off of this ridge is inclined at approximately
25 to 75 percent for a horizontal distance of IO to 20 feet, and an elevation change of 5 to IO feet.
Ground cover consists primarily of weeds, grass, and brush. Ground cover on the western and southern
portions of the site also includes a forested area of small to medium growth trees.
3.2 Soils
In general, soil conditions consisted of 6 to 12 inches of organic surface soils and roots overlying either
glacially-derived or alluvial soils. Glacially-derived soils are found on roughly the southwestern half of the site
and consist of loose to very dense sand with silt and gravel, dense gravel with cobbles, and medium stiff to very
stiff sandy silt (outwash and undifferentiated drift). Alluvial soils are found on roughly the northeastern half of
the site and consist of three to five feet of loose silty sand and soft silt overlying dense gravel with sand and
cobbles. We expect that there are fill soils immediately adjacent each of the previously demolished structures
associated with previous site grading and development.
The Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965), maps the
soils at the site as Cedar River alluvium (Qac), recessional glacial outwash (Qpa), and undifferentiated glacial
drift (Qsr). The native site soils we observed are generally consistent with the mapped geology.
Page No. 2
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
The preceding discussion is intended to be a brief review of the soil conditions observed at the site. More
detailed descriptions are presented on the Test Pit Logs attached in Appendix A.
3.3 Groundwater
We observed rapid groundwater seepage in five of the eight test pits. The seepage generally occurs within the
gravel encountered in our test pits below depths of about five feet. We did not encounter groundwater in the
glacial deposits found in Test Pits TP-5, TP-6, orTP-7.
We expect the groundwater levels to vary on a seasonal and annual basis. We also expect groundwater levels to
be somewhat lower than the observed levels during dry summer months.
4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
4.1 Erosion
Section 4-3-050.J.1.c of the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC), classifies erosion hazard areas into one of
two categories. Section 4-3-050Jlc(i) defines a "Low Erosion Hazard (EL)" as "Areas with soils characterized
by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or
moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than 15 percent." Section 4-3-0SOJlc(ii) defines a "High
Erosion Hazard (EH)" as "Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more
steeply than 15 percent.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has classified the majority of the site soils as Newberg
silt loam (Ng) having a slight potential for erosion. However, the southwestern comer of the site has been
classified as Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep slopes (AgC). AgC soils have a severe potential for
erosion. Based on the City of Renton's definition, only the steeply sloping area in the southwest comer of the
site classifies as an EH. We understand that there will be no development activity in this area of the site.
Temporary erosion and sedimentation control elements must be implemented in accordance with state and city
requirements during construction.
4.2 Landslide
Section 4-3-050.J.1.b of the RMC, classifies landslide hazard areas in one of four categories. These categories
include the following:
"i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than 15 percent.
ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and
underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel, or glacial till.
Page No. 3
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent, and areas with slopes
between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay.
iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mapable landslide deposits."
According to these classifications, the majority of the site would be classified LL. A I 0-to 20-foot wide
centrally-located slope aligned northwest-southeast across the site would classify as LM. The steep slope
located in the southwest corner of the site would also be classified LM. The City ofRenton's Landslide Hazard
map indicates an "unclassified landslide hazard" on the southern half of the site.
We did not observe indications of instability, emergent groundwater seepage, significant erosion, or historical
movement on or adjacent the site in the areas where soils would classify as LM. No development activity is
planned in the area of the steep slope in the southwest corner of the site. Current preliminary development
plans suggest that the centrally-located slope would be removed or regraded during mass grading. In light of
this, the limited height and width of the centrally-located slope, and considering the majority of the sites gentle
slope inclinations, it is our opinion that the areas to be developed on the site do not pose a risk as a landslide
hazard area.
4.3 Steep Slope
Section 4-3-050.B. l .c of the RMC, classifies steep slope hazard areas into two categories: "Sensitive slopes"
are defined as those with a grade of "25 percent to 40 percent" and "protected slopes" are those slopes with a
grade of"40 percent or greater."
Site plans show that no development activity will occur on the steep slope on the southwest corner of the
property. Also, the slope centrally located on the site would likely be removed or regraded during mass grading
of the site and is limited in height and width. The remainder of the site generally does not slope more than five
percent, and it therefore does not qualify for either category of steep slope hazard areas.
Off-Site Slope
We have performed an analysis of the steep slope located to the south and southwest of the proposed project.
The analysis was performed at a location designated as Cross-Section A-A' using the computer program
WINST ABL. The cross-section location is shown on Figure 2. The cross section is shown on Figure 3.
This portion of the slope is the closest to the proposed development with the toe of the slope approximately 65
feet from the nearest proposed structure. The remainder of the slope is at least the height of the slope away
from the southern edge of the wetland buffer for the proposed development or further.
Our analysis considered both static and the pseudostatic (seismic) conditions. A horizontal acceleration of
0.20g was used in the pseudostatic analysis to simulate slope performance under earthquake loading.
PageNo.4
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Soil parameters used in our analysis are based on our site reconnaissance and previous field exploration we
completed in 1995 for the Cedarwood development located at the top of the steep slope. The test boring Jog
closest to this section is attached in Appendix B the location is shown on Figure 2. Based on our field
exploration and previous experience with similar soil types, we chose the following parameters for our analysis:
Table 1 -Slope Stability Analysis Soil Parameters
Soil Tvne Unit Weioht (ncO Friction AneJe I de2rees) Cohesion lnsfl
Loose Fill 120 28 0
Dense SM/SP 135 38 50
The results of our slope stability analysis, as shown by the lowest safety factors for each condition, are
presented in the following table:
Table 2 -Slope Stability Analysis Results
Conditions Analyzed
Cross Section A-A'
Minimum Safety Factors
1.75
(Seismic FS = I.I 0)
Based on our results, the steep slope off-site is stable in its current condition and shows a negligible risk to the
proposed development. Graphical results of our analysis are attached in Appendix C.
4.4 Coal Mines
Section 4-3-050.J.l.e of the RMC, classifies coal mine hazard areas in one of three categories. These categories
include the following:
"i. Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence.
While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred.
ii. Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than 200 feet for steeply
dipping seams, or deeper than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping
seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence.
iii. High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and
areas underlain by mine workings shallower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or
shallower than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These
areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence."
The City of Renton's Coal Mine Hazards map indicates that no coal mine hazards are found on or near the site.
Page No. 5
4.5 Seismic
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Section 4-3-050.J.l.d of the RMC, classifies seismic hazard areas in one of two categories. Areas classified as
"Low Seismic Hazards (SL)" are defined as "Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally
have site coefficients of Types SI or S2, as defined in the International Building Code." Areas classified as
"High Seismic Hazards (SH)" are defined as "Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils
generally have site coefficients of Types S3 or S4, as defined in the International Building Code. (Ord. 5450, 3-
2-2009) lands or areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope
failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting."
The City ofRenton's Seismic Hazards map indicates that the site is within a "high seismic severity" area. Also,
the City's Liquefaction Hazards map indicates that the northeast half of the site is within a "moderate to high
liquefaction susceptibility" area, and the southwest half of the site is within a "low to moderate liquefaction
susceptibility" area.
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. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained
sands underlying 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, eliminating the soil's strength. Based on the dense, permeable gravel found at or
the groundwater table in our explorations, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur at this site
during an earthquake is negligible. The site conditions found at the time of our investigation do not meet the
City ofRenton's definition of a High Seismic Hazard area, in our opinion.
Seismic Site Class
Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, per Section l 615 of the 2012 International
Building Code (IBC) for seismic conditions, site class "D" should be used in design of the structures. Based on
this site class, in accordance with the 2012 IBC, the following parameters should be used in computing seismic
forces:
Seismic Design Parameters (IBC 2012)
Soectral Resoonse acceleration (Short Period), S, 1.376
Spectral Response acceleration (I -Second Period), S 1 0.771
Five oercent damped .2 second oeriod, Sos 0.917
Five percent damned 1.0 second oeriod, SDI 0.514
Values detennined using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Motion Parameter Calculator
accessed on February 25, 2015 at the web site http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.
Page No. 6
5.0
5.1
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Based on our study, there are no geotechnical conditions that would preclude development of the site as
planned. The residences can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils or
on structural fill placed on competent native soils. Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported.
Some of the native glacial and alluvial deposits encountered at the site contain a sufficient amount of fines (silt-
and clay-sized particles) that will make compaction to structural fill requirements difficult or impossible when
the soils are too wet. Accordingly, the ability to use soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on
their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities
will take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free-draining granular material
for use as structural fill and backfill.
Detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in
the following sections of this report. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design
drawings and construction specifications.
5.2 Site Preparation and Grading
To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious material should
be stripped and removed from below the building lots and roadway areas. Surface stripping depths of
approximately 6 to 12 inches should be expected to remove the organic surface soils. In the developed portions
of the site, demolition of existing structures should include removal of existing foundations and abandonment
of underground septic systems and other buried utilities. Abandoned utility pipes that fall outside of new
building areas can be left in place provided they are sealed to prevent intrusion of groundwater seepage and
soil. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in
nonstructural areas.
Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired
grades. Prior to placing fill, all exposed bearing surfaces should be observed by a representative of Terra
Associates to verify soil conditions are as expected and suitable for support of new fill. Our representative may
request a proofroll using heavy rubber-tired equipment to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are
present. If excessively yielding areas are observed, and they cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, the
affected soils should be excavated and removed to firm bearing and grade restored with new structural fill.
Beneath embankment fills or roadway subgrade if the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive,
the use of geotextile fabrics, such as Mirafi 500X, or an equivalent fabric, can be used in conjunction with clean
granular structural fill. Our experience has shown that, in general, a minimum of 18 inches of a clean, granular
structural fill placed and compacted over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface.
Page No. 7
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Our study indicates that some native soils contain a sufficient percentage of fines (silt and clay size particles)
that will make them difficult to compact as structural fill if they are too wet or too dry. Accordingly, the ability
to use these native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the
prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take place. At the time of our investigation, the near-
surface native soils were generally wet of optimum. If native soils become too wet to properly compact they
could be dried by aeration during dry weather conditions or mixed with an additive such as cement or lime to
stabilize the soil and facilitate compaction. If an additive is used, additional Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for its use will need to be incorporated into the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan
(TESC) for the project.
If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, or if they are initiated during the summer and
extend into fall and winter, the contractor should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this
purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements:
U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passim!
6 inches 100
No.4 75 maximum
No. 200 5 maximum*
•Based on the 3/4-inch fraction.
Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of
95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of
compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In
nonstructural areas, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. All structural fill in City of Renton
rights-of-way must conform to City materials and compaction specifications.
5.3 Excavation and Slopes
Excavation
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches, must be completed in
accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Washington Industrial Safety and
Health Act (WISHA) regulations, the majority of near-surface soils would be classified as Type C soils. Near-
surface soils such as those found in Test Pits TP-6 and TP-7 would be classified as Type B soils.
Accordingly, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type C soils should be
laid back at a slope inclination of l.5H:IV (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter from the toe to the crest of the slope.
The side slopes in Type B soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of IH:IV. All temporary exposed
slopes on excavations that will remain open for an extended time period should be covered with a durable
reinforced plastic membrane during construction to prevent slope raveling and rutting during periods of
precipitation.
Page No. 8
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Excavations in the northern flat area of the site that will extend to depths of five feet and greater below current
site grades will encounter the groundwater table particularly during the winter and spring months of the year.
Depending on the depth of the excavation below the groundwater table the contractor should be prepared to
dewater the excavation using deep pwnp wells or closely spaced well points.
This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be
construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that
job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
Slopes
All permanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finished inclination of no greater than 2H: IV. Upon
completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means
to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the
slope crest. Water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slope face. If surface runoff must be
directed towards the slope, the runoff should be controlled at the top of the slope, piped in a closed conduit
installed on the slope face, and taken to an appropriate point of discharge beyond the toe. All fill placed for
embankment construction should meet the structural fill requirements in the Site Preparation and Grading
Section.
5.4 Foundations
The planned residential structures may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on
competent native soils or on structural fill placed above competent native soils. Perimeter foundations exposed
to the weather should bear at a minimwn depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades for frost protection.
Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab.
In the northern flat area of the site variations in the relative density of the upper native soils (loose to medium
dense) may result in excessive differential settlement of the building foundations. Therefore, we recommend
compacting all foundation subgrades to a firm unyielding condition using a hoe-pack. The compaction zone
should be oversized such that the compacted area will extend laterally from the edge of the footing a distance
equal to the width of the footing. If sub grade soils cannot be compacted to a firm state, the foundation subgrade
should be overexcavated a minimum depth of two feet and grade restored using structural fill. The excavation
should be oversized to allow structural fill placement to extend laterally from the edge of the footing a distance
equal to one-half the depth of the structural fill below the footing. As an alternative, clean, crushed rock or
Controlled Density Fill (CDF) may also be placed in the excavation trenches as structural fill. Foundations may
then be placed on the compacted structural fill, rock, or CDF material. All compacted fill should be tested by
the geotechnical engineer to verify that adequate compaction is being achieved.
We recommend 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 one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be
used. With structural loading as anticipated and these bearing stresses applied, we estimate total foundation
settlement would be less than one-half inch.
Page No. 9
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. Passive earth
pressures acting on the sides of the footings can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral
resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pct). We recommend not including
the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future
grading activity. This value assumes the foundations will be constructed neat against competent soil or
backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. The values recommended include a
safety factor of 1.5.
5.5 Slab-on-Grade Floors
Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on sub grades prepared as recommended in Section 5 .2 of this report.
Immediately below the floor slabs, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-
draining, coarse sand or fine gravel that has less than three percent passing the 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 slabs.
The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor
transmission. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common
practice is to place a durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a
layer of clean sand or fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing of the
concrete slab. It should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to
pouring the slab, it will be ineffective in assisting in uniform curing of the slab, and can actually serve as a
water supply for moisture transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Therefore, in our
opinion, covering the membrane with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided if floor slab construction
occurs during the wet winter months and the layer cannot be effectively drained. We recommend floor
designers and contractors refer to the 2003 American Concrete lnstitute (AC!) Manual of Concrete Practice,
Part 2, 302.1 R-96, for further information regarding vapor barrier installation below slab-on-grade floors.
5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures for Below-Grade Walls
The magnitude of earth pressure development on below-grade walls, such as basement or detention vault walls,
will partly depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as
structural fill as described in Section 5.2 of this report. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development,
drainage must be installed behind the wall. A typical wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 4.
With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, unrestrained walls
can be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an
additional uniform lateral pressure of I 00 psf should be included. For evaluating the walls under seismic
loading, a uniform earth pressure equivalent to 8H psf, where H is the height of the retained earth in feet, can be
used. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic,
sloping embankments, or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions exist, then the imposed
loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of the wall foundation and passive earth
pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in Section 5.4
of this report.
Page No. IO
5.7
Surface
Drainage
February 25, 20 15
Project No. T-6737
Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the site at all times. Water must not
be allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building areas. We recommend
providing a positive drainage gradient away from the building perimeters. If this gradient cannot be provided,
surface water should be collected adjacent to the structures and disposed to appropriate stonn facilities.
Subsurface
We recommend installing perimeter foundation drains adjacent to shallow foundations. The drains can be laid
to grade at an invert elevation equivalent to the bottom of footing grade. The drains can consist of four-inch
diameter perforated PVC pipe that is enveloped in washed pea gravel-sized drainage aggregate. The aggregate
should extend six inches above and to the sides of the pipe. Roof and foundation drains should be tightlined
separately to the storm drains. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations.
lnfdtration
The glacial and alluvial soils composed of silty sand and silt characteristically exhibit low permeability and
would not be a suitable receptor soil for discharge of development stormwater using infiltration/retention
facilities. In conjunction with the elevated groundwater table observed, conventional stormwater detention with
controlled release to the drainage basin should be used to manage development stormwater.
5.8 Utilities
Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA)
or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural
fill, as described in Section 5 .2 of this report. As noted, based on the condition of the soils at the time of our
study, most of the native soils excavated on-site should be suitable for use as backfill during dry weather
conditions. If utility construction takes place during the wet winter months, it may be necessary to import
suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling.
In the northern area of the site, we expect the water table will be encountered in utility excavations extending to
and below depths of five to six feet. If proposed elevations of buried utilities will extend beneath the water
table, dewatering will be necessary and excavations may need to be provided with temporary shoring support.
5.9 Pavements
Pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in Section 5.2 of this report. Regardless of the degree of
relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade
should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition.
Page No. 11
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
The pavement design section is dependent upon the supporting capability of the subgrade soils and the traffic
conditions to which it will be subjected. For residential access, with traffic consisting mainly of light passenger
vehicles with only occasional heavy traffic, and with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we
recommend the following pavement sections:
• Two inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) over eight inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
• Four inches full depth HMA
The paving materials used should conform to the current Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) specifications for Y,-inch hot mix asphalt HMA and CRB surfacing.
Long-tenn 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 subgrade soils and reducing their
supporting capability. To improve pavement performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least
two percent. Some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time.
Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur.
6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Terra Associates, Inc. should review project designs and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and
foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. We should
also provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with our design concepts,
specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for expedient design changes if subsurface conditions
differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the on-site soil test
pits. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until
construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to reevaluate the
recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction.
We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is
intended for specific application to the Elliot Farm project in Renton, Washington. This report is for the
exclusive use of Murray Franklyn Companies and their authorized representatives.
Page No. 12
... -
.... .., ...
!l
~
en rn
~ '6.:bif I Sr
St,.1 ....
( .. ~Od~
s! ,.,s,"S\ ~
~
SE 14:bld St I
~
!:
. ' """
Joe 1.:,ou,r-1
~
-J S E 13911l Pl ~ ,.
i .... :!i! ; -(ll A. 5-'" ID
), l s-'~, ~ :2 ~,s, en ~ ~ .., m • Sf l42rld s, w .... a. • I > ~ j i ,:;I'
VI :ll rn ./ nl -0
'
.,...
~
'SE l~2m1Pl
/ ' .. \. I r-. I ~ l1J
REFERENCE: GOOGLE MAPS, WWW.GOOGLE.COM, ACCESSED 2-25-2015
Terra
Associates, Inc.
V ICINITY MAP
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WASHINGTON
.....
QI ..,
!. ,.
~
In m ,.
C onsultan ts in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
E nvironmental Earth Sciences Proj . No.T-6737 Date FEB 2015 Figure 1
I
NOTE:
THIS SITE PLAN IS SCH EM A TIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS ARE A PPROX IMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR
REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
REFERENCE:
SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH .
LEGEND:
~
~
APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION-TERRA 1995
0 80
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
160
-
Terra
Associates Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical !ngineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T -6737 Date FEB 2015 Figu re 2
LEGEND:
,~~
D
?-
220 ,·· ........ ,···············:······· ·······;···· ·········; ······· · · ··,···············:···············:········ ·····-:--·············,···············,········ ······:·· ···········r·········· ·r· ........ r········ .................................................. i .... ········:·········· .... :············~220
200 ............. , .. : ............... :........ . ............................ ·············· ............. ,:,, ............ ,: ··········•:••• ·················· ................. .
i='
UJ 180 UJ u.
z
.......................................................
Q 160 ~
............ ............... ......... ............. . ....................... : ...... .
UJ
....J
UJ 140 : .............. :. ······:·· ············:····
120 ··················· ................................................................ .
PROPO$ED DEVELOPMENT . . . . 100---------'-----'----'-----.C:
LOOSE FILL
DENSE SAND/SIL TY SAND/SILT
0
APPROXIMATE SOIL BOUNDARY LINE
""!'' .............. ; .. , •.•.... : ..•.. ····:•:········ ·:·············· ........... . ·--' 120
...... : ............... : ........ : .............. : .............. : ......... : .......................... :.-.. .-........ , ............................ : ... : ............. : ....... .-.: ..... :.. . ........ :. ··········--' 100
40 8 0
APPROXIMATE S CALE IN FEET -
Terra .
Associates, Inc.
Consultants i n G eotechnica l Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
CROSS SECTION A-A'
ELLIOT FARMS
RENTON , WASHINGTON
Proj . No.T-6737 Date FEB 2015 Figure 3
12" MINIMUM 3/4"
MINUS WASHED ~ _,
GRAVEL n SLOPE TO DRAIN
12"[ /, •:.::.::: :.:.::: :
'
SEE NOTE
6"(MIN.)
12" OVER PIPE
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE
NOTTO SCALE
NOTE:
MIRADRAIN G100N PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS OR SIMILAR
PRODUCT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE 12-INCH WIDE GRAVEL
DRAIN BEHIND WALL. DRAINAGE PANELS SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM
OF SIX INCHES INTO 12-INCH THICK DRAINAGE GRAVEL LAYER
OVER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE.
EXCAVATED SLOPE
(SEE REPORT TEXT
FOR APPROPRIATE
INCLINATIONS)
. Terra
Associates Inc.
TYPICAL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
ELLIOT FARM
Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T-6737 Date FEB 2015 Figure 4
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Elliot Farm
Renton, Washington
On June 15, 2012, we observed the excavation of 8 test pits to a maximum depth of 15 feet below existing site
grades. The test pits were excavated using a trackhoe. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The
locations were approximately detennined by measuring from existing site features. The Test Pit Logs are
presented on Figures A-2 through A-9.
A geotechnical engineer from our office conducted the field exploration, maintained a log of each test pit,
classified the soils encountered, collected representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. AIi
soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described
on Figure A-1.
Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our
laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is
reported on the corresponding Test Pit Logs. Four grain size analyses were run and the results are shown on
Figures A-10 and A-11.
Project No. T-6737
MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.
GRAVELS Gravels (less
~ than 5%
ti) ., More than 50% fines) GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. ...J C,
~ ., of coarse fraction 0 .!!! N
ti) ~ ·: is larger than No. GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. C ~ > 4 sieve Gravels with w ~ .,
fines z "'·-GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ~ E"' 0 ::R 0 o N C) g. Clean Sands SW Well-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. w 0
C: z SANDS (less than ti)
"' C: D:: :5"' More than 50% 5% fines) SP Poorly-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. < ., .c 0 ~-of coarse fraction C) 0
::l: is smaller than
Sands with SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
No. 4 sieve
fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
~
Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight plasticity. ~ ML 7ii .,
~ EN SIL TS AND CLAYS ~-u.; CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. (Lean clay) 0 -~ ~ Liquid Limit is less than 50%
ti) ., .,
C rn ·w OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. w Ee z ::R 0 ~ o N MH Inorganic silts, elastic. O·
"' 0 C) C: z SIL TS AND CLA VS w "' C: CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. (Fat clay) z .c "' Liquid Limit is greater than 50% -.c u::: ., -~
0 OH Organic clays of high plasticity. ::l:
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
ti) Standard Penetration I 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPILT SPOON SAMPLER ti) Density Resistance in Blows/Foot w
...J
][ 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR z Very Loose 0-4 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER iii Loose 4-10 w Medium Dense 10-30 ::c y WATER LEVEL (Date) 0 Dense 30-50 C) Very Dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, !sf
Standard Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, Isl
Consistancy Resistance in Blows/Foot w DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot ~
ti) Very Soft 0-2 w Soft 2-4 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent ::c
0 Medium Stiff 4-8
C) Stiff 8-16 Pl PLASTIC INDEX
Very Stiff 16-32
Hard >32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
-Terra UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Associates Inc. ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnlcal lngineering
Geologr and Proj. No.T-6737 I Date FEB 2015 I Figure A-1 Environmenta Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-1 FIGURE A-2
PROJECT NAME: Elli!ll Earm -Ceda[ Bil!e[ I igbtfoot PROJ. NO: Ic6Z31 LOGGED BY: SN
LOCATION: Beatoo Wasbiogtoa SURFACE CONDS: Brusb APPROX. ELEV: NIA
DATE LOGGED: J1.1oe 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: t,1/8 DEPTH TO CAVING: 2 Eeet
.:-
II)
;::: 0 t:. z z !!, UJ CONSISTENCY/ UJ
j!: ..I DESCRIPTION ~ .. REMARKS .. RELATIVE DENSITY I;; .. " 3: UJ <( "' C .. u
0 ..
Dark brov,n TOPSOIL, silly, sandy, organic, fine to
Soft medium roots, moist.
1-
2 7.0 1 Brown GRAVEL with sitl and sand, fine to coarse sand,
3-fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles. moist. (GP-GM) Loose to
Medium Dense
4-
5-
6-
7 16.5 2
8-Soft to
Brown sandy SILT, fine sand, moist. (ML) Medium Stiff
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
Bluish-gray silly SAND, fine to medium sand with large Medium Dense
14 3 wood pieces, wet. (SM) to Dense 76.0
15-
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
16-No groundwater seepage encountered.
17-
18-
19-
20-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this tesl pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and .. Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-2 FIGUREA-3
PROJECT NAME: ElliQt Earrn -Cedar Hive[ LigblfQOl PROJ. NO: I-6I3I LOGGED BY: SN
LOCATION: Beotoa Wasbiagtoo SURF ACE CONDS: Brusb APPROX. ELEV: NIA
DATE LOGGED: Juoe 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 6 5 Eeel DEPTH TO CAVING: I Eeet ...
"' ~ cj t:. z z w CONSISTENCY/ l w :c ...J DESCRIPTION .. REMARKS ... .. RELATIVE DENSITY ... .. " ;: w w "" " 0 "' (J
~
Dark brov.n TOPSOIL. silty. sandy, fine roots, organics.
moist Soft
1-
2 31.8
1
3-Brown sandy Sil T, fine sand, scattered fine roots to 4
Soft feet, moist. (ML)
4-
5-
6-
'!!"
Blackish-brown GRAVEL with sand and cobbles, fine to
7 coarse gravel, fine to coarse sand, wet. (GP} Dense 6.0
2
8-
Test pit terminated at 8 feet due to caving at 7 feet.
Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at 6.5 feet.
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface infonnation pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Consultants in Geotechnlcal Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-3 FIGURE A-4
PROJECT NAME: Ellilll Eacm -Ce!.lac Billll[ LigblfQQ\ PROJ. NO: I-l!Z'.\7 LOGGED BY: Sl',l
LOCATION: Beatoo Wasbiagtoa SURFACE CONDS: Brush APPROX. ELEV: l',l/A
DATE LOGGED: J!J!lil 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 6 Eilel DEPTH TO CAVING: l',l/A ..
..,. 0 ;
~ z z w CONSISTENCY/ g w
i: .... DESCRIPTION RELATIVE DENSITY .. REMARKS .. I-.. :,; ;: w w .. "' C .. " 0 ..
Dark brown TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, fine roots, organics,
moist. Soft
1-
2 Brown silty SAND, fine sand, trace fine gravel, moist. Loose 25.6
1
(SM)
3-
4-
5-Brown GRAVEL wiU, silt, sand, and cobbles, fine to Dense
coarse gravel, fine to coarse sand, moist (GP-GM)
"" 6-
7-
8-
Test pit terminated at 8 feet.
Rapid groundwater seepage encountered al 6 feet.
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to lhis test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations al the site. Consultants In Geotechnieal Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-4 FIGUREA-5
PROJECT NAME: Elliot Eaa:n -Qedar Bille[ LighlfQQ! PROJ. NO: I-6I3I LOGGED BY: Sl',I
LOCATION: Beotoo Wasbiogtoa SURFACE CONOS: Brnsh APPROX. ELEV: l',1/A
DATE LOGGED: June 15 2!H2 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: !15 Eeel DEPTH TO CAVING: WA
.:-
;'.;' 0 ~
z z !!;. w CONSISTENCY/ w ::c ... DESCRIPTION "' Cl. REMARKS ,_ Cl. RELATIVE DENSITY "-,_
Cl. ,. ;: w w < " 0 ., 0
0
Cl.
Dark brown TOPSOIL, silly, sandy, fine to medium roots,
organics, moist.
Soft
1-
2 Gray and brown SILT with sand, fine sand, iron oxide Soft 34.5
1
staining, moist. (ML)
3-
4 Loose 20.0 Brown silty SAND, fine to medium sand, trace fine gravel,
2 iron oxide staining, moist. (SM)
y
5-
6-
Brown GRAVEL with sand and cobbles, fine to coarse
7-gravel, fine 10 coarse sand, wel. (GP) Dense
8-
Tesl pil lenninated at 8 feet.
Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at 4.5 feet.
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicattve of other locations at the site. Consultants In Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-5 FIGUREA-6
PROJECT NAME: Elliot Earn, -C!ldar Bi~e[ I igblfQQ! PROJ. NO: I-6Z3Z LOGGED BY: Sl',l
LOCATION: Beotoa Wasbiogtoo SURFACE CONDS: Brusb APPROX. ELEV: l',l/A
DATE LOGGED: June 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 5 Eeel DEPTH TO CAVING: 4 5 Eeet
iL" .,
t 0 t:.
z z w CONSISTENCY/ t w :r -' DESCRIPTION RELATIVE DENSITY .. REMARKS .... .. .... .. "' 3: w w :i " 0 " 0 ..
Brown TOPSOIL, silty. sandy, fine roots, organics, moist. Soft
1-
Brown silty SANO with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine Loose to
to coarse gravel, moist. (SM)
2 Medium Dense 13.5
1
3-
4-Brown GRAVEL with cobbles, fine to coarse gravel, moist.
(GP)
"" 5-Wei Dense
6-
Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet.
7-Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at 5 feet.
8-
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsu,iace information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
nol be interpreted as being Indicative of other locations at the site. Consultants ln Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-6 FIGURE A-7
PROJECT NAME: Elliot Earm -Cedar Billll[ Ligbtfoot PROJ. NO: I-6Z3Z LOGGED BY: St,l
LOCATION: Beotoa Wasbiogtoo SURFACE CONDS: Brusb APPROX. ELEV: N/A
DATE LOGGED: Juae 15 2QJ2 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: NIA DEPTH TO CAVING: NIA
.::
[ d ~
z z w CONSISTENCY/ l w :,: .., DESCRIPTION Q. REMARKS .. .. RELATIVE DENSITY .. Q. :E ;:: w w ;ii "' Q 0
0 ..
Dari< brown TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, fine roots, organics,
moist. Soft
1-
FILL: grayish-brown silty SAND, fine to medium sand,
trace fine to coarse gravel, moist. Medium Dense 15.7
1
2
3-
Dense
4 9.7
2 Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to
coarse gravel, trace cobbles, weakly cemented, iron oxide
staining, moist. {SM)
5-
6-
7-
8-
Test pit terminated at 8 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Consultants in Geotec:hnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-7 FIGUREA-8
PROJECT NAME: ElliQt Eaml -Ceda[ Bi~e[ Ligblfoo.t PROJ. NO: T-6737 LOGGED BY: S!',J
LOCATION: Beaton Wasbiogton SURFACE CONDS: Brnsb APPROX. ELEV: NIA
DATE LOGGED: June 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 1',J/A DEPTH TO CAVING: 1',J/8
~
6 ; ,.: z z !!, w CONSISTENCY/ l w ::c .... DESCRIPTION Q. REMARKS ... Q. RELATIVE DENSITY ... .. .. ;: w w < "' C II)
" C ..
3 inches of dark brown TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, fine roots, Soft "'-organics, moist.
1 4.9 1
Bro'Nr'l SAND vVith silt and gravel, fine to coarse sand, fine Medium Dense
2-to coarse gravel, moist. (SP-SM)
3-
4 Dense 13.8 2
5-
Gray sandy SILT, fine sand, trace fine to coarse gravel,
weakly cemented, moist. (ML)
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
Test pit terminated at 10 feet.
11 -No groundwater seepage encountered.
12-
13-
14-
15-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-8 FIGUREA-9
PROJECT NAME: ElliQJ Ea[Il] -Cedac Bil'llc Ligbtfoot PROJ. NO: T-6Z3Z LOGGED BY: S1',1
LOCATION: Beotoa Wasbiogtoo SURFACE CONDS: Brusb APPROX. ELEV: 1',1/A
DATE LOGGED: Juoa 15 2Ql2 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 5 5 Eaat DEPTH TO CAVING: 5 5 Eeet
ii:'
II)
;I 0 to z z !!,. w CONSISTENCY/ §; w i!: ...I DESCRIPTION RELATIVE DENSITY .. REMARKS ..
Iii .. " 3: w .. "' " u, u
0 ..
Dark brown TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, fine roots, organics,
moist. Soft
1-
2-
Brown sandy SILT, fine to medium sand, trace fine gravel,
moist. (ML)
Soft 35.1 3
1
4-
5-
...
Brown GRAVEL wittl sand and cobbles, fine to coarse
6-gravel, fine to coarse sand, wet. (GP) Dense
7-
Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet due to caving.
Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at 5.5 feet.
8-
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Particle Size Distribution Report
c
i= .S . c 0 0 0 .S .s .f ~ C ·-.: " O O 0 0 .. 0 ;: ~ ·-., .lt ~ .. i ;; ;; N "' ~ N ~~ " .. .. 100 I I I
'1' 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 90 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I \l I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I
l\1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I ' I I I I I I I 70 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
0:: 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I'"" w I I I I I NI I I I I I I z I I I I I I I I I I I I I u::
I-50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I z I I I I I I ~~ I I I I I I w
() I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I 0:: I I I I I I I I w I I .....
0.. 40 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 30 I 11 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 20 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 10
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
0 I II I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm.
%+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0 0.0 28.8 28.2 5.3 13.2 15.4 9.1
D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 l.3 39.l 59.5
) LL PL Dft• Den Den Dftn D•• D•n C,. c ..
0 26.8117 13.9235 9.5250 0.6325 0.2239 0.1001 0.29 139.09
D 0.1800 0.0763
Material Description uses AASHTO
o Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand GP-GM
D Sandy SILT ML
Project No. T-6737 Client: Murray Franklyn Companies Remarks:
Project: Elliot Farm -Cedar River Lightfoot oTested on 6/8/2012
D Tested on 6/8/2012
o Location: Test Pit TP-1 Depth: -2' Sample Number: l
D Location: Test Pit TP-2 Depth: -2' Sample Number: I
Terra Associates, Inc.
Kirkland. WA Figure A-10
Tested By: ..,J"'D"'E~--------
0:: w z u::
~ w u
0:: w a.
0
D
X
0
D
Particle Size Distribution Report
.S .S .S~ c::.S .s: o ~g~ o 8ij ~
1oorT--r---r-f:'--irrin\~:-riN'l~i-
1
rr'r~1~\~"J~f--iii~irr,,{,J~,-,;-(":,....;;;;idi;ri~-i'~'T.l-ii~--,-i'f-r-'7'f-
1
---=;;;rr
1
ri~i1-rrrr--r---r--rr11"T""Tl--rr--r---,
I I I I I 1\ I I
1
1 " I I I I 90~-t--t-,---1-ttt,t+-l--h--+11,-1--fr--r--'t11,tt,f-lr--f-+-----t------f-tlit+-1-+-rf-"<--,---_1-+--1r---rtttill-+-t-t-+---+---l-f+J-t-+-t-+--+------l
I I I I I I I I I I 'h I I I
I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I 80 H-+-+--i-1--t-Hit-H-11i-t-1i-+1--i--til 1lffi..-ti-+-+-+-++,rttt 1+it-+--i1*i--i 1H-tit+++--t--t---+Hf++-t++-+-----+
I i' I I I I I ~ I I I h I I
?ol--+--+---+--1.----l+l:41 -+-1--.fl---+..;l~I --:-I tll-l-+-l-+l,-1r,..---F'.......,_--+*+
1
'1 -++-+.sl,-..+..;.1-+-~1,--,.IH-i;;I -l-l--+---i,---,-----+1-!-+-!-+-J---1----1--------1
I i' I I I I I I '""'-. i 1
1
I I I
I i' I I I I I I ""'-~ I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 ~~ I I I 'j
soH-+---l-i1:--f+JH
1
:1 -+-t--t!l
1
!1
1
--+-+1-l:-1 --+-1 -tH1-++-l-+1f-+-+--t----tf.11++-'l't'±---++1+-1f--+1ftf.f1+++--tf-----1f------H-t+-1-l--l-+--+-----t
I i' 1: I I I I I I 1 '\ I I I I
so>-+--+---+--~I --t-1-1'1++-'l-+--+--'-1-+l~~I -Rl-f-t-,f-<'-1 +--+--+--+++-I <-+-l~l>--+-\lrr+_l~l......,l-+-+-+--+---+--l++i-+-+-+--+--+-------1
I 11 lill I I I I I I I '!!: I I I
I 11 I I I I I I I 1
1 I I I
40 t-t--t-+-cl,-----\-rrtl-H---t:-1r.1-t:-I -,-I ~l-tti~l:-+--t--t--~tH-t--tclt-t~l-ft-l:----;lrt-t;tl-H--t-lr-11-----tl-tti--t-i--+--+------1
I i' I 11 11 I I 1
1
1
1
1
\rl
1
1
I i' I I I I I I I
301--+--+--+--'-l----l-+-ll+-+ll-+-+'-+-.L...J'l~L-Jlll++-f-lL~-l-------l-+'+-l-++-'!-+-'--+-~4+,J4--+--+-1---1---+-~---4+l+4--!--,e--!---+~---1
I i' I I I I I I i' I I I\ I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I
201--+--t--+-~l--1-t-11+-+"-+-+L--f-.L-,'1~1'-j'j+f-f-lL-t---1~1-------1-+'+-1-l-t-'!-+-'-l--+---+--l'tt-t't-t-t-t--+--t---++tt-t-+--,--t----+----1
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
101--+-+---+-~l~t+e->+-1-+--+-<-l~-"'--!'lt+++-l'-+-~+--~H't-<-+-1_.,_--t-'-1-+--~l-'H-l'+++-+--+-~~-++++,-+--t-+----<---<
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I ,I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I
o~-+---+--~'.....,,,,~"~~~ '-'~~~-'-'-+----,,ul'~~~~'~..........,,t'+-4.._._~__..__..._,,...,.,~...._.~_...,,.,,='
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm.
% +3" % Gravel %Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay
0.0 0.0 23.6 7.4 9.5 37.3 22.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.9 I 29.4 64.5
LL PL D~n C~ c ..
7.6479 0.4456 0.2527 0.1278
0.2412
Material Description uses AASHTO
o Silty SAND with gravel SM
ML o Sandy SILT
Project No. T-6737 Client: Murray Franklyn Companies
Project: Elliot Farm -Cedar River Lightfoot
o Location: Test Pit TP-5
D Location: Test Pit TP-8
Depth: -2'
Depth: -3'
Sample Number: I
Sample Number: I
Terra Associates, Inc.
Kirkland. WA
Tested By: ..,J,.,,D'-'E~--------
Remarks:
oTested on 6/8/2012
oTested on 6/8/2012
Figure A-11
APPENDIXB
PREVIOUS BORINGS
Logged by: MFS
Date: 6/19/95
Graph/
uses Soil Description
ALL: Gray-brown silty SAND
with gravel, moist.
FILL: Gray-brown sandy SILT/
silty SAND, ·moist. (Mottled)
ALL: Gray-orange-brown silty
CLAY, wet,
Gray fine SAND with some
gravel, moist.
Gray siltY SAND/sandy SILT ·
with occasional gravel, moist.
Boring terminated at 28 feet.
Boring No. B-6
Consistency
Medium Dense
Loose
Very Soft
Very Dense
Very Dense
Depth
(ft.)
5
10
15
20
25
No groundwater seepage encountered.
Approximate Elev. 186
_gi
a. (N) Water
E Blows/ Content ~ foot (%)
I 26 12.6
Is 21.2
I 1 56.2
I 50/6" 7.0
I 50/6" 10.1
50/6" 7.7
TEST BORING LOG
ELLIOT FARMS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T-6763 Date FEB 2015
APPENDIXC
WINSTABL GRAPHIC OUTPUT
193. 75 Off-site Slope
155.00
116.25
77.50
38.75
00 38.75 77.50 116.25 155.00 193.75 232.50 271.25 310.00
Safety Factors
1.75
2.11
2.16
2.18
2.21
2.22
2.24
2.28
2.31
2.38
Profile. out
** PCSTABL6 **
by
Purdue university
modified by
Peter J. sosscher
university of Wisconsin-Madison
--slope stability Analysis--
simplified Janbu, simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION off-site Slope
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
2 Top Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right soil Type
(ft) No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 100.00
2 94.00 100.00
3 94.00 100.00
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
2 Type(s) of soil
Soil
Type
No.
Total Saturated
unit wt. Unit Wt.
(pcf) (pcf)
1 120.0
2 135 .0
130.0
140.0
cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
0.0
50.0
(ft)
94.00
310.00
310.00
Friction
Angle
(deg)
28.0
38.0
Below Bnd
100.00
190.00
170.00
Pore Pressure
Pressure Constant
Par am. (psf)
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
2
1
2
Piez.
Surface
No.
0
0
A critical Failure surface searching Method, using A Random
Technique For Generating Irregular surfaces, Has Been specified.
Page 1
Profile.out
100 Trial surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 surfaces Initiate From Each of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground surface Between x = 90.00 ft.
and x = 94.00 ft.
Each surface Terminates Between x = 95.00 ft.
and x = 300.00 ft.
unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At which A surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft.
15.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical of The Trial
Failure surfaces Examined. They Are ordered -Most critical
First.
**safety Factors Are calculated By The Modified Janbu Method**
Failure surface specified By 15 coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 105. 26 97.67
3 119.62 102.00
4 132. 66 109.42
5 146. 20 115.88
6 159.97 121. 83
7 172. 31 130.36
8 186.15 136.14
9 200.05 141.78
10 214. 70 145.00
11 228 .47 150.94
12 241.19 158.89
13 255.63 162.94
14 267.99 171. 45
15 276.66 176.11
*** 1. 747 ***
Failure surface specified By 15 coordinate Points
Point
NO.
1
x-surf
(ft)
90.00
v-surf
(ft)
100.00
Page 2
Profi 1 e. out
2 103.93 94.44
3 118.93 94.14
4 133. 91 94.87
5 148.44 98. 59
6 163.33 100.44
7 176.94 106.73
8 190.96 112 .08
9 203.57 120.20
10 217.15 126.57
11 231. 24 131. 71
12 242.10 142.05
13 251.85 153.46
14 262.67 163.84
15 264.13 170.89
*** 2 .108 ***
Failure surface specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point x-surf Y-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 94.00 100.00
2 108.96 101.10
3 123.11 106.08
4 137. 25 111.07
5 151. 51 115.72
6 165.98 119.68
7 176.88 129.99
8 177. 59 134.83
*** 2.157 ***
Failure surface specified By 8 coordinate Points
Point x-surf Y-Surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 105. 36 98.38
3 120.15 100.86
4 134.95 103.33
5 149.24 107.89
6 161. 60 116. 38
7 170.98 128.08
8 175 .80 134.08
*** 2.176 ***
Failure surface specified By 11 coordinate Points
Page 3
Profile.out
Point x-surf v-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 94.00 100.00
2 108.89 101.80
3 123.88 101.18
4 137 .00 108.45
5 151. 30 112.99
6 166.03 115.83
7 180.66 119.14
8 195.47 121. 49
9 204.62 133. 37
10 215. 29 143.92
11 218.72 151. 97
*** 2.208 ***
Failure surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 104.93 96.11
3 118.96 101.41
4 132.29 108.30
5 144.72 116.69
6 153.50 124.79
*** 2.221 ***
Failure surface specified By 12 coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
***
x-surf
(ft)
90.89
102.52
117.48
132 .22
145.58
159.23
173.62
186.12
197.65
209.73
217.25
218.45
2.243 ***
v-surf
(ft)
100.00
90.53
89. 36
92.10
98.92
105.14
109.38
117.67
127.26
136.16
149.14
151. 85
Failure surface Specified By 6 coordinate Points
Page 4
Profile. out
Point x-surf v-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 90.89 100.00
2 105 .80 98. 34
3 120.57 100.95
4 135 .23 104.11
5 145.78 114.78
6 154.46 125.19
*** 2.284 ***
Failure surface specified By 6 coordinate Points
Point x-surf Y-Surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 92.67 100.00
2 107.47 97. 56
3 122.17 100. 54
4 133.43 110.45
5 144.52 120.55
6 146. 91 122.04
*** 2 .312 ***
Failure surface specified By 11 coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
***
y
x-surf
(ft)
91.33
105.65
120. 59
135.35
149.74
162.27
175.50
189.46
201.09
205. 62
206.01
2.385 ***
v-surf
(ft)
100.00
95.51
94.18
91.54
95.79
104.03
111.10
116.60
126.06
140.36
146.67
A X
Page 5
I s F T
Profile. out
0.00 38.75 77.50 116.25 155.00 193.75
X 0.00 +---------+---------+-----*---+---------+---------+
38.75 +
A 77. 50 +
1
'fr
721
.93
X 116. 25 + ... 72.6
.. 0.13
...... 7. 6 ..
. . . . 2 .. 413 . ...... . . . . . . . 69
. ..... 27.4519 .
I 155.00 + ............ .. .. 6.
. . .. .. . . 27 .. 41 .. . . . . . . . . 53.4 . ... . ....... 20 .... 13 . . . .5 .... ... IO O o o o o o . . 7 .... 1. s 193.75 + .. . 2 5 ...... ...... .7 .1. .. 2 . 570.0 . . . . . . ... 1
.. 2 .75
. . ........ 1. 232.50 + .2 ..... .
2 .. 1
2
1
2 1 F 271.25 +
1
T 310.00 + *
Page 6
Off-site Slope -Seismic
193.751~---------------------------,
155.00 -----
116.25
77.50
38.7
00 38.75 77.50 116.25 155.00 193.75 232.50 271.25 310.00
Safety Factors
1.10
1.32
1.35
1.36
1.38
1.41
1.43
1.44
1.46
1.49
Profile.out
** PCSTABL6 **
by
Purdue University
modified by
Peter J. Bosscher
university of Wisconsin-Madison
--slope Stability Analysis--
simplified Janbu, simplified Bishop
or Spencer·s Method of Slices
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION off-site slope -seismic
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
2 Top Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
1 0.00 100.00
2 94.00 100.00
3 94.00 100.00
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
2 Type(s) of soil
Soil
Type
No.
Total Saturated
unit Wt. Unit Wt.
(pcf) (pcf)
1 120. 0
2 135. 0
130.0
140.0
cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
o.o so.a
94.00
310.00
310.00
Friction
Angle
(deg)
28.0
38.0
100.00
190.00
170.00
Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00
0.00
Pressure
constant
(psf)
0.0
0.0
A Horizontal Earthquake Loading coefficient
of0.200 Has Been Assigned
A vertical Earthquake Loading coefficient
Page 1
2
1
2
Piez.
surface
No.
0
0
•
Profile.out
of0.000 Has Been Assigned
cavitation Pressure= 0.0 psf
A critical Failure Surface searching Method, using A Random
Technique For Generating Irregular surfaces, Has Been Specified.
100 Trial surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 surfaces Initiate From Each of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 90.00 ft.
and X = 94.00 ft.
Each surface Terminates Between X = 95.00 ft.
and x = 300.00 ft.
unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At which A surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft.
15.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The
Failure surfaces Examined.
First.
Ten Most Critical of The Trial
They Are Ordered -Most critical
**safety Factors Are calculated By The Modified Janbu Method**
Failure surface Specified By 15 coordinate Points
Point X-Surf v-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 105. 26 97.67
3 119.62 102.00
4 132.66 109.42
5 146.20 115.88
6 159.97 121. 83
7 172.31 130. 36
8 186.15 136.14
9 200.05 141. 78
10 214. 70 145.00 11 228.47 150.94 12 241.19 158.89
13 255.63 162.94
14 267.99 171.45
15 276.66 176.11
*** 1.096 ***
Page 2
•
Profile.out
Failure surface specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 90.00 100.00
2 103.93 94.44
3 118.93 94.14
4 133. 91 94.87
5 148.44 98. 59
6 163.33 100.44
7 176.94 106.73
8 190.96 112.08
9 203. 57 120.20
10 217.15 126.57
11 231. 24 131. 71
12 242.10 142.05
13 251.85 153.46
14 262.67 163.84
15 264.13 170.89
*** 1.320 ***
Failure surface specified By 8 coordinate Points
Point x-surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 94.00 100.00
2 108.96 101.10
3 123.11 106.08
4 137. 25 111. 07
5 151. 51 115.72
6 165.98 119.68
7 176.88 129.99
8 177. 59 134.83
*** 1. 347 ***
Failure surface specified By 8 coordinate Points
Point
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
x-surf
(ft)
90.44
105.36
120.15
134. 95
149.24
161.60
170.98
Y-Surf
(ft)
100.00
98.38
100.86
103.33
107.89
116. 38
128.08
Page 3
•
Profile. out
8 175.80 134.08
*** 1. 362 ***
Failure surface Specified By 11 coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
***
x-surf
(ft)
94.00
108.89
123.88
137 .00
151. 30
166.03
180.66
195.47
204.62
215.29
218. 72
1.382 ***
Y-Surf
(ft)
100.00
101.80
101.18
108.45
112.99
115.83
119.14
121.49
133. 37
143.92
151.97
Failure surface Specified By 6 coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 104.93 96.11
3 118.96 101.41
4 132 .29 108.30
5 144.72 116.69
6 153.50 124.79
*** 1.407 ***
Failure surface Specified By 6 coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
***
x-surf
(ft)
90.89
105.80
120. 57
135. 23
145. 78
154.46
1.432 ***
v-surf
(ft)
100.00
98. 34
100.95
104.11
114. 78
125.19
Page 4
Profile. out
Failure surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
***
x-surf
(ft)
90.89
102.52
117.48
132.22
145. 58
159.23
173.62
186.12
197.65
209.73
217. 25
218 .45
1.439 ***
Y-Surf
(ft)
100.00
90.53
89.36
92 .10
98.92
105.14
109. 38
117.67
127. 26
136.16
149.14
151.85
Failure Surface specified By 6 coordinate Points
Point x-surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 92.67 100.00
2 107.47 97. 56
3 122.17 100. 54
4 133 .43 110.45
5 144. 52 120. 55
6 146.91 122.04
*** 1.460 ***
Failure surface Specified By 11 coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 91.33 100.00
2 105.65 95.51
3 120.59 94.18
4 135. 35 91. 54
5 149.74 95.79
6 162.27 104.03
7 175. 50 111.10
8 189.46 116.60
9 201.09 126.06
10 205.62 140. 36
11 206.01 146.67
Page 5
Profile.out
*** 1.487 ***
y A X I s F T
0.00 38.75 77 .so 116.25 155.00 193.75
X 0.00 +---------+---------+-----*---+---------+---------+
38.75 +
A 77. 50 +
1
* 821
. 93
X 116.25 + ... 82.6
.. 0.13
...... 8. 6 ..
. • • • 2 •. 413 . ...... . . . . . . . 69
..... 28.4519 .
I 155.00 + . . . . . . . ..... . . . . 6.
. . . . . . . . 28 .. 41. .
. . . . . 53. 4 . ... . . . . . . . . 20 .... 13 . . . . s .... . . . . ....... . .8 .... 1 .
s 193.75 + .. 2 5 ...... ...... .8 .1. .. 2 .580.0 . . . . .. . . . 1
.• 2 .85 .. •'•I• 0' 0 1.
232.50 + . 2 .....
2 .. 1
2
1
2 1
F 271. 25 +
1
T 310.00 + * *
Page 6
Raedeke /
December 15, 2014
Mr. Glen Mauer
Pacific Properties, Inc.
14410 Bel-Red Road, Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98007
RE: Elliot Farm -Wetland Delineation
RA.I. Project #2012-024-002
Dear Glen:
Wetland & Aquatic Sciences
Wildlife Ecology
Landscape Architecture
APR 1 3 2015
At your request, we conducted a site investigation on June 26 and 27, 2012 to determine
whether wetlands and streams were present on the Elliot Farm property.
PROPERTY LOCATION
The Elliot Farm property consists of an approximately 6-acre parcel, located along the
south side of SR 169 (Renton-Maple Valley Highway), approximately 1,000 feet east of
140'h Way SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. The property is identified as Tax
Parcel No. 2223059004. This places the property in a portion of Section 22, Township 23
North, Range 5 East, W.M. Parcel maps retrieved on-line from King County (2012)
iMAP depict the property boundaries.
METHODOLOGY
In order to identify potential wetland areas, we used the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The COE, which
requires use of the 1987 delineation manual, as amended, has federal regulatory
jurisdiction of the dredging or filling of"Waters of the United States," including
wetlands. As outlined in this methodology, the interaction ofhydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soil, and wetland hydrology must be present for an area to be classified as wetland.
To be consistent with current regulations, field investigations were consistent with the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast Region (COE 2010).
BACKGROUND REVIEW
Prior to conducting our site reconnaissance, we reviewed existing background maps and
information from the U.S.D.A Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2014)
Web Soil Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS 2014) National Wetland
Inventory (NWI).
9510 Stone Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98108 206-525-8122 www.raedeke.com
Mr. Glen Mauer
December 15, 2014
Page 2
The USDA NRCS (2014) Web Soil Survey shows the majority of the study area as an
Newberg series soil. Newberg series soil is not considered a hydric soil (USDA Soil
Conservation Service 1991 Federal Register l 995). Soil series boundaries or mapping
units are mapped from aerial photographs with limited field verification. Thus, the
location and extent of the boundaries between mapping units may be approximate for a
given parcel of land within the survey area.
The USFWS (2014) NWI does not depict wetlands on or within the immediate vicinity of
the study area. Wetlands shown on the NWI are general in terms of locations and extent,
as they are determined primarily from aerial photograph interpretation. Thus, the number
and extent of existing wetlands located within the project area may differ from those
marked on an NWI map.
RESULTS
During our site visit on June 26 and 27, 2012 we identified and delineated the boundary
of a wetland located in the southwest portion of the Elliot Farm property (Figure 2).
The wetland is a low-lying forested area in the southwest portion of the site. Vegetation
in the wetland area is comprised of a red alder (A/nus rubra, F AC) canopy over a
salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC) and Himalayn blackberry (Rubus armeniancus,
F ACU) shrub layer. Field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, F AC) and creeping buttercup
(Ranunculus repens, FAC) are the dominant species identified in the herbaceous layer
(Sample Plots 2 and 4, Appendix A). The majority of the species observed are rated
facultative or wetter (Reed 1988), so the vegetation community would be considered
hydrophytic, per the COE (2010) guidelines.
Soils observed in the wetland are very dark grayish brown ( 1 OYR 3/2) silt loam over gray
(IOYR 5/1) and dark grayish brown (IOYR 4/2) silt loams. The deeper soil profiles
exhibited many redoximorphic features (mottles). Dark soils with mottles are positive
indicators ofhydric (wetland) soils per the COE (2010) guidelines. We encountered a
water table at 18 inches below the ground surface during our June 2012 field
investigations, and soils were saturated at a depth of 12 inches. These are considered
positive indicators of wetland hydrology
We did not identify any wetlands or critical areas in the remaining portion of the property.
In general the property consists of previously cleared and graded areas that now support a
vegetation community dominated by invasive plant species such as Himalayan blackberry
and Scot's Broom (Cytisus scoparius, UPL) and included small stands ofred alder and
black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, F AC). Soils observed in the central portion of
the site were bright (IOYR 5/4) fine sandy loams. No hydrology was observed within 18
inches of the ground surface (Sample plots I, 3, and 5; Appendix A).
Mr. Glen Mauer
December 15, 2014
Page 3
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Wetlands and streams are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and
other state and local policies and ordinances, including City of Renton (2014b) municipal
code. Regulatory considerations pertinent to wetlands identified within the study area are
discussed below; this discussion, however, should not be considered comprehensive.
Additional information may be obtained from agencies with jurisdictional responsibility
for, or interest in, the site. A brief review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State
of Washington regulations and of the City of Renton municipal code, relative to wetlands
and streams, is presented below.
Federal Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
In general, Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) discourages the discharge
of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands and
streams, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Certain
wetlands, including many that are hydrologically isolated from "waters of the United
States," may not be regulated by the COE. The COE has the authority to make a final
determination concerning whether an area (I) meets the definition of "waters of the
United States" as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251) and
(2) is under federal jurisdiction.
State of Washington
The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) regulates all wetlands as 'waters of
the State" under Chapter 90.48 RCW (Water Pollution Control), including isolated
wetlands determined to be non-jurisdictional by the COE. In addition, activities that
will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any state waters must be
approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), through its
administration of the State Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20.100-140).
City of Renton
The City of Renton (2014b) municipal code currently regulates wetlands and streams
under Title IV, Chapter 3 -"Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts."
Alterations of wetlands or streams and their buffers are generally prohibited, except as
allowed under certain conditions specified in RMC Title IV. The City of Renton (2014)
code specifies ratings, buffers, and allowed uses of wetlands and other sensitive areas that
are under it's jurisdiction.
The wetland identified on the Elliot Farm property appears to meet the City of Renton
criteria necessary to be considered a Category 2 system because it is not a Category I or 3
wetland. In order to be a Category I wetland the feature must contain habitat for listed
species of wildlife or plants, contain 40% to 60% open water and two or more vegetation
classes, or be greater than 10 acres in size with three or more vegetation classes. No
Mr. Glen Mauer
December 15, 2014
Page 4
species listed as endangered or threatened, or other priority species were observed during
our field investigationa, nor are any mapped for the site by WDFW (2014). Category 3
wetlands are those that have been severely disturbed by human activities or are newly
emerging with little vegetation diversity. The wetland on the Elliot Fann site does not
meet either the Category 1 or Category 3 criteria and therefore meets the City ofRenton's
criteria as a Category 2 wetland. Under the City of Renton code, Category 2 wetlands are
provided with a standard buffer width of 50 feet.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Pacific Properties, Inc. and their
consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or
conclusions contained herein without permission from Pacific Properties, Inc.
The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries
is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different
conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for
regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various resource agencies that regulate
development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency
determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the
appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction
activities.
We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our
field, and that this work was prepared substantially in accordance with then-current
technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of
our analysis of the information provided by the project proponents and their consultants,
together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made.
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this material for you. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call us at (206) 525-8122.
Respectfully submitted,
RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC.
/fu 1J'4r
Christopher W. Wright, Principal
Soil and Wetland Scientist
Mr. Glen Mauer
December 15, 2014
Page 5
LITERATURE CITED
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. I 00 pp.
Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the
Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Federal Register. 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service:
Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Volume 59, No 133, July 13, 1994.
Revised September 15, 1995.
King County. 2012. iMAP GIS Interactive map center, King County, Washington.
http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/iMAP _main.htm#. Accessed June 2012.
Renton, City of. 2014. 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, Title IV, Chapter 3 -
Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Renton Municipal Code online
through Code Publishing Company, Seattle, WA. Current through Ordinance
5707, passed March 24, 2014. www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ Accessed
November, 2014.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers
wetland delineation manual: western mountains, valleys, and coast region
(Version 2.0). Wakeley, J.S., R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. May 2010.
ERDC/EL TR-I 0-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States: In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A.
Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. On-line Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed November, 2014.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online
Mapper. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html . Accessed
November, 2014.
PROJECT LOCATION
Partc Funeral Home
:,1c.Jtd :;;1
,m ':J'
Sf Srh ~·.1
SE !7h·,J 51
Ct2014 Google
~
?"
" z m
;;
0
"
..... .,,u .Sr
NE 2nd St
--
SE l37r.d S1
u:
!,!
" ..
:,.. Sf1rdPr
Sf Lt'd St
SE 136tti St Mapjewood Park < ~
~
I
,f
f
1))
SI:. i ]Rtb I''
SE ;4/nd Sl
.Sl ;:;;1-wo~a 4-;
'o-
c~ ~ ca de· Fi:'11rwn o d
"' rn
FIGURE 1
REGIONAL & VICINITY MAP
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WA
" (iij). -
~ ... --·-
~
,
'3'
> < • " m
~
0 ;;: 5 ~
t 0
~
>
" <
m • ~
~L
Map data.-ll2014-0oo~
.edeke
\ '-'-{ ,, 111 I 1 ", ! 1·:c
------
'.l.',111~:•>Jll" .\1,·,1m· :,.;,,rth
S,·attl<· \\"_\ ~•~lu:I
RAI # 2012-024
WETl.Al'O R..AG EXI-BT
FOR
ELLIOTT FARM
LOCATED IN Tl-E IEY.a AND $E'4 QUARTERS OF
SECTlON 22, TOWNSlf 23 NOR'TH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.
FIGURE 2
WETLAND DELINEATION
KNl COUNTY, WASHNGTON
o s,.# SAMPLE PLOTLOCATIONS
lx.J'. v :
SCALE 1' -40'
JO"XlO'U.S.11EST r~ ~ -I """"'-...,, I -.• ,... • ..,.,_,,
/ ::::::::::'~::--!!! .. ,,,,.., (SR,..169) -.::::::::=..::::::::1::::.:-
_ ., ----
-?S;:::::::::;=--... ~~=--=------...::--,....__ ...... ~:::::::---r--...: ---r:~ ::::::::Cc:----.c::::::::-------... /
-...:-'l:;;-:,...._ ---..::__--,,,____ --...:::::::::,,...._-----
.vx:1$5, IJIIJIY, I.NCISCN'£ --· _.....,,_
/ L ~~------~-::::_---.0: -:----:----:----
/
---.... --..c:-=...,,_ --:----:----......
--=-::::::,,_~ --...:-...: :-=~,, .. .., ----c:..-::::::,,_~ ./-------...: :----~~~~~~-....:: .... LJ ----L--::::_-::::_~:::.--;,~_
¢ _,._ ~~~~-.:::::::-~~s
MOLASSES CREEK CONDOMINIUM
VOL. 159, PAGES 84-96
,------------....
\ ',
\ ' \ ',
\ ' --... ' [•M \ Fu.; .... '
e SP-5 \ "~ ....
\ ' ~, ' ' '
' ' ~-.... ,.../'"'--L:: __ .f.""'"
WETLAND
CAT. II
SO'BUFFER
-------------
.edeke
,\.s.soeiate.s. Inc.
9510 Stone Avenue North
Seattle, \VA 98 IOS
~'t Fl.IC 31,
,i,..,.
Iii'-"'~
-~~----
~~~
~.:.rf~
~'{~y\!>
-------------==----~
~,.-.
"" ~ @!! ... .-" """''
' ', ,UC 1A ..... .J',1_
SP-40 ......
\
' \
' '
•M2 .::-!ii' ... 3
l ...._,UC M
~IUlillQlli
\ 'yfl./GllA
I FLIQl31.
f ~ A.lt.14" ...... ~ y
\
......
L------..,, --.........,\ \
\
'1 --.. \ \,<,., ~,~i~
"-\. ~~,
7 '
/ ' ',
' ', ,,
""' ..... ~(I~ .... ,!, '°"" ,!ID,
-,~--.., ~~------',
~~f~
,r,11,Clf..,jiGS.Y\!, ..,_,-
',,
'\ •1 \ I,
) ' / ', ', ',,
\'~
'
-----EDC:E: or Wl1Nt:I --.,,."' IIEPIClrotwP!JIT ',
/ -/
1.tEl!CEP'IION
""""' I. BOlff«Wf'I' INFORMATION WAS TAICOI FROU: BOONIJM'f
lH: ..ru.tS1'MENT RECORDED Ut«R RECORDING NO.
951017i023 AND THE Pl.AT OF ElLXJIT FARM /IS
RECORDED IN VOLUME 1l!!O Of PLATS, PAGES 4-15
ONO.USMC
2. RIGHTS-Cf"-WA'r' SHC1M1 PER Bl.A AND ASSESSOR'S
IW'S Al«> ~ NOT BEEN VERl'lED.
J. THIS DRAWING DOES NOi" REPRESOIT lffl PUBUSHED
HORIZONTAL OR Y£RT1CAL MTlAil. IT IS FOR UUSTRATIYE
PURPOS[S ONLY.
II
11
~= ... .. ..,n
~
I ~ i
CJ IL ~ ~ I ~
II ~-
1~ I ;~~~ ~ m ~ r ;';
l
j I ! I
1~1~1~:~ l
lill'i j
~ I~ ~ ~ 1! ~1 :l
~~!:!~ 1· l im1, ~
~f-iij I " I() .!!_ ~
;::;;~~~ fl! !:?.
~~.::!:..::!:. !'j 'i
"-# .. , j
§J .... A,..~ .. \ !
411' ,r,J .. 0 c ~ ~~· :-~ i
\
~-' a ' . o' ,
... cO~~ !
-I~ ! ; I I ~ to ... 1 i
APPENDIX A
FIELD DAT A FORMS
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: -=E'-'lli"'o"'tt-'F-'a'"rm"'----________________ City/County: King County Sampling Date:June 27 2012
Applicant/Owner: 0M,,u.,.rcsra.,yc,-F_,r.aaunko,liYnw.._ ____________________ _ State: ,W,,Ac,_ ___ Sampling Point: ,Se_P.c-1c_ __ _
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: S22 T23N R5E W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ,H'"il"'lse,lo,ip,se'----------Local relief (concave, convex, none): ,C~o'-'n~ve~x~-----Slope(%): _2 __
Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests & coasts (LRR-A) Lat: 47.466510 Long: -122.151222 Datum: unknown
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg silt loam. NWI classification: "n,,o,,nee_ _______ _
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes l8] No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Nonnal Circumstances~ present? Yes D No [81
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 12] NoO Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? YesO No 12] within a Wetland? YesO No 12]
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesO No 12]
Remarks: Sample Plot 1 is located outside of the wetland, near wetland boundary flag WL-2A.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Jree Stratum (Plot size: Sm radius) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Thuja Qlicata (western arborviate) 10 y ~ That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: 4 (A)
2. 8k!121e ~12Q-s NI .t:18..___ Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: s (B)
4. ---Percent of Dominant Species
1:; = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~Q (A/8)
Sa12ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. Rubus anneniiijcus (Himalii!lliil[l blai:i~beID:) 70 y f8Q.IL Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Thuiii! 12lirala ,~~~1~rn a!:Qorviat~) s N ~ T ot12I 0/'l: Cover of: Multigl;t: b;t::
3. Italian 12lum 5 NI .t:18..___ OBL species X 1 =
4. FACW species x2= ---
5. ---FAG species x3=
80 = Total Cover FACU species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m radius) UPL species x5=
1. Eguisetum a[Yen~e (fi~I~ horsetail) 20 V ~ Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Ranunculus re12ens (creeging buttercug} 10 y ~
3. Phalaris aruni;;Ua2"ea (reed cana[J!'.grass) 10 V FACW Prevalence Index = BIA=
4. musci SQl2-60 NI .t:18..___ Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
5. ---D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. 12] 2 -Dominance Test is >50% ---
7. D 3 -Prevalence Index is :!>3.0 1
---
8. ---D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. ---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. ---
11.
D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1QQ = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Wood;t: Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. ---Hydrophytlc
2. ---Vegetation
0 ;; Total Cover Present? Yes 12] NoO
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum .1Q.
Remarks: Various mosses were observed in the herb stratum. Musci species were not readily identifiable and therefore were not relied on as an
wetland indicator for this survey.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point· SP 1 -
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inf;;hes} Color (moist) ____%_ Color {moist} ~ _flQL Loe' Texture R§marks
0-10 10YR 412 Silt Loam ------
10-18+ 10YR 413 ------Silt Loam
------
------
------
------
------
------
1T·-e: C-Concentration, 0-Derfetion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS==Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL -Pore Linina, M-Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Solls3 :
D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A 10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stnpped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydrlc Soil Present? YesD No 12]
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prima!Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that ai;2i;2lx:) Seconda!Y Indicators {2 or more reguired)
D Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) {except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11) D Drainage Patterns (810)
D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D DMft Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02)
D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3)
D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5)
D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes D No 12] Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? YesD No 12] Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesD No 12] Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No 12]
fincludes car illan, frinnel
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No evidence of surface water was observed. Soils were not saturated and no water table was present to a depth of 18 inches.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
ProjecUSite: =E~ll~io~tt~F~a"rm~ ________________ City/County: King County Sampling Date:June 27 2012
ApplicanVOwner: .M~u~r"ra~v~-F~r~a~n~kl~y~n ______________________ State: iW,:,A:,,_ __ _ Sampling Point ,Su;P;.-2.._ __ _
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: S22 T23N R5E W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): =Dcse,ap,.,re.,s,.s,.io,cn,_ ________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ,C,,o,cn.,,c,,av,,ee.._ ____ Slope(%): _o __
Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests & coasts (LRR-A) Lat: 47.466269 Long: -122.149914 Datum: unknown
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg silt loam. NWI classification: "n"n'"'---------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 12] No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes D No [8J
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes0 NoD Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes0 NoD within a Wetland? Yes0 NoD
WeUand Hydrology Present? Yes0 NoD
Remarks: Sample Plot 2 is located in wetland, near wetland flag WL-9A.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Jree Stratum (Plot size: 5m radius) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnus rubra (red alder) 30 y .E8L_ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 5 (A)
2. ---Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: R (B)
4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 1Q = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: §3 (A/8)
Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. Rybus armsiniai:;;us (Hims1ls1:a1n Qlackbe!Dll ,lQ V ~ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. B11b11l;i :ii~i;;;labili~ (l;ialmoa llll;i!2b~!Dll 20 y .E8L_ Total %1 Cover of: Multigl~ b~:
3. ---OBL species X 1 =
4. ---F ACW species x2=
5. ---FAG species x3=
40 = Total Cover FACU species x4=
Hsirb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m radius) UPL species x5=
1. Eguisetum arvense (field horssilail) 40 y .E8L_ Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Ranynculus rer;iens (creeging buttercu12} 20 y .E8L_
3. Ath~rium filix-femina (lad~ fern} 20 y .E8L_ Prevalence Index -BIA -
4. ---Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
5. ---D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. 0 2 -Dominance Test is >50% ---
7. D 3 -Prevalence Index is :S:3.0 1
---
8. ---D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. D ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
80 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Wood'i,_ Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. ---
2.
Hydrophytic
---Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? Yes IZJ NoD
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum O
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point· SP 2 -
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
{inches) Color (moist) ____'lli_ Color (mQi§t) ____%._ Type' ....b!lL_ T!i!xtiir~ Remarks
0-6 10YR 3/2 Silt Loam ------
6-12 10YR 5/1 _§Q__ 10YR 4/4 20 C _M __ Silt Loam
12-18+ 10YR4/2 _§Q__ 10YR 4/4 40 C _M __ Sandy Loam
------
------
------
------
---
1Tvne: C-Concentration, D-Oeoletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix.
Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3
:
D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (SS) D 2 cm Muck (A 10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 1 1) 121 Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (If present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes0 NoD
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prima!Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that aggli) Secondaei lndicatgrs (2 Qr m2r~ r~gyir~Ql
D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
181 High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48)
181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (B10)
D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03)
D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05)
D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost.Heave Hummocks (07)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes D No0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes0 NoD Depth (inches): .lJL_
Saturation Present? Yes0 NoD Depth (inches): .1L_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes0 NoD
(includes caoillarv fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Soils become saturated at 12 inches and a water table is present at 18 inches.
US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: ~E"ll"'ioo,tl"'F--'a"-rm"-'-------------------City/County: King County
Applicant/Owner: 0M~u"-r~ra..,y~-F~r~a~n~kl~Y~"----------------------
Sampling Date:June 27 2012
State: ,W~A~----Sampling Point: ,S"-P~-~3 ___ _
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section. Township, Range: S22 T23N R5E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.}: ~H~il~ls~lo~p~•~---------Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~C"'o'"n"'ve,sx"---------Slope(%): _2 __
Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests &coasts (LRR-A) Lat: 47.465922 Long: -122.149948 Datum: unknown
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg silt loam. NWI classification:""=""----------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes [8J No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are gNormal Circumstances" present? Yes D No 12]
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YesD No 181 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 NoD within a Wetland? YesD No 181
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No 181
Remarks: Sample Plot 3 is located outside of the wetland, near wetland boundary flag (WL-9A).
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: Sm radius) % Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. ---That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2. ---Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. ---
n = Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species
S1112ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~o (A/B)
1. B1.1!::u.1s acmeaia~11s (t:timSii!lslYan !21ai;;k!2ercvl 80 y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. ---Total % Cover of: Multi!21Y by:
3. ---OBL species X 1 =
4. ---F ACW species x2=
5. ---FAC species 20 X 3 = 60
80 = Total Cover F ACU species 80 x4 = 320
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m radius) UPL species x5=
1. Eguisetum a~nse (fis!IQ horsetail) 20 y ~ Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. ---
3. ---Prevalence Index = 8/A = ll
4. ---Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. ---D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. ---D 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
7. ---D 3 -Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
8. ---D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. D
---1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
20 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. ---Hydrophytic
2. ---Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? YesD No 181
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Q
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point· SP 3 -
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
{inches} Color (moist) ___%_ Color (moist) _____ji__ Type 1 Loe' Texture Remarks
0-9 10YR 312 ------§ilt Loam
9-13 10YR 412 Q§__ 10YR413 5 C _M __ Silt Loam
13-18+ 10YR 513 ------Sandy Loam
------
------
------
------
------
1Tvne: C=Concentration D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D StMpped MatMx (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed MatMx (F2) D other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) l2J Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1 ) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy GI eyed MatMx (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes l2J NoO
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primai:y ln~iQ!a!Qai: (minimym of one reguired· check all that aggly} ~!iQQnQaQ! lnQiQa!Q~ (2 or more reguired)
D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 4B)
D Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B 11) D Drainage Patterns (B10)
D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9}
0 DMft Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3)
D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (D5)
D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? YesD No 12J Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? YesD No 12J Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesD No l2J Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No l2J
(includes caoillarv frinae)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No evidence of inundation was observed. Soil saturated was not observed and no aparent water table was present within the upper 18
inches of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: ~E,,11,,,io,,tt~F_,a,.,_rme,._ ________________ City/County: ,.,K'-'in,,gccGscoscue,n.et,_y ________ Sampling Date:June 27 2012
Applicant/Owner: Murray-Franklyn State: ,.W"A,...._ ___ Sampling Point: "S'-Pcc-4,.._ __ _
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: S22 T23N R5E W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~D~•~P~r•~s~s~io,.,_n~--------Local relief (concave, convex, none): ,G~o,.,_n~c~av~•~----Slope(%): _O __
Datum: unknown Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests & coasts (LRR-A) Lat: 47.466269 Long: -122.149914
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg silt loam. NWI classification: Ln~o~n~--------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes [8] No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes D No~
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ISi NoD ts the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ISi NoD within a Wetland? Yes ISi NoD
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ISi NoD
Remarks: Sample Plot 4 is located in a paulstrine, forested community near wetland boundary flag 0NL-7A).
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
T re!i!: ~tratum (Plot size: Sm radius) °t'l: Cover §JJ§gies? Q!atys Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnus rubra {red alder} 80 y ~ That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAG: 5 (A)
2. Thµja plicata (western arborviate) 20 y .E8Q__ Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4. ---Percent of Dominant Species
100 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAG: 100 (NB)
Sagling/Shrub; Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. Rubu§ JMl:§gtabilis {sal!!!Q!J r1;1s12bii:CJ:l JO V f8L_ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. llex agyifQlium (English hOIIJ'.) 5 N .EAQ.L T 2tal °t'l: QQver gf: MyltiQIJ'. bl'.:
3. OBL species X 1 = ---
4. ---FACW species x2=
5. ---FAG species x3=
15 = Total Cover FACU species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m radius) UPL species x5=
1. Scrigus microcari;i:us (bulrush} ~o V OOL_ Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Ranunculus reQens (creeging buttercuQ} 30 y .E8Q__
3. L~sichiton americanus (skun~ ~gbagel 10 fl! OOL_ Prevalence Index -B/A-
4. Ath!t'.rium filix-femina {lad!'. fern) 10 N ~ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. Veronica beg~Qunga (!;;~iwpean si;i:ee~well} 10 N Qfil,_ D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. Tolmiea menziesii (giggy-back giant) 5 N FAG ISi 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
7. Urtica dioica {stinging nettle) 5 N FAG D 3 -Prevalence Index is S3.0 1
B. Gl~etia elala (lall mana gra~sl 1 N FACW D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. ---D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetatlon 1 (Explain)
11. ---1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
101 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Wood!'. Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. ---
2.
Hydrophytic
---Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ISi NoD
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Remarks:
US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point· SP-4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist} ~ QQIQr (mQi~t) ~ -TuQL Loe' Texture Remarks
Q-1~+ 10YR 3/1 ------Mucky Peat
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Oentetion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lininn, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Solls3
:
IZI Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) IZI Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydrlc Soll Present? Yes IZI NoD
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PrimaDt: Indicators {minimum gf Qn~ r~gyir~· check all that aQQl:X) SecondaCt Indicators {2 or more !:§9!.!ir~~)
IZI Surface Water (A 1) D Waler-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
IZI High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
IZI Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust(B 11) D Drainage Patterns (B10)
D Waler Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3)
D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5)
D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes IZI NoD Depth (inches): 3"
Water Table Present? Yes IZI NoD Depth (inches): .Q__
Saturation Present? Yes IZI NoD Depth (inches): _a_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes IZI NoD
(includes caoillarv frinae)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections}, if available:
Remarks: Soils are saturated to the surface, and several 100 square-foot pools approximateley 3 inches deep are located adjacent to the sample
plot. A 24 inch wide stream channel is flowing to the west.
US Am1y Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: ,E"'ll,,io,,tt,_,F_,a,,rm,.,_,_ ________________ City/County: King County Sampling Date:June 27. 2012
ApplicanUOwner: ~M~u"rr~a,..y_,-F_,r~a"nk~liY"~---------------------State: ,W.eAc,_ ____ Sampling Point: ,S"P~-5~---
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: S22 T23N R5E W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): 0H~il~ls~lo~p~e~---------Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~Co,oo,n:,.ve,.x,_ _____ Slope(%): _2 __
Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests & coasts (LRR-A) Lat: 47.466510 Long: -122.151222 Datum: unknown
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg silt loam. NWI classification: 0n~o"ne~--------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes [g] No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are ~Nonnal Circumstances" present? Yes D No [8]
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.}
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes l25J NoD Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? YesD No 125J within a Wetland? YesD No 125J
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No 125J
Remarks: Sample Plot 5 is located in a stand of alder and balsam poplar, near the central portion of the site.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: Sm radius) % Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnus rubra (red alder) 50 y .Ee&__ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2. P212ulus bsl!lssl!mifera (!2alsam RQRlar) 25 y .Ee&..._ Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: 0 (B)
4. ---Percent of Dominant Species
75 = Total Cover That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: 75 (A/B)
Sag;ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. RuQus anneniacus (Himalay:an b!ai;;;~t!s::llll::l zs y .EM;lL Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. ---Total % Cover of: Multig;ly: by::
3. ---OBL species X 1 =
4. ---F ACW species x2=
5. ---FAG species 75 X 3 = 225
75 = Total Cover FACU species 75 x4=300
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m radius) UPL species x5=
1. ---Column Totals: 150 (A) 550 (B)
2. ---
3. ---Prevalence Index =BIA= .:U.
4. ---Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
5. ---D 1 • Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. ---l25J 2. Dominance Test is >50%
7. ---D 3 · Prevalence Index is S3.0 1
8. D 4 • Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. ---D 5. Wetland Non.Vascular Plants 1
10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. D ---1
1 ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
0 = Total Cover
WoodY.. Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1. ---
2.
Hydrophytlc
---Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? Yes l25l NoD
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum .Q.
Remarks:
US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point' SP 5 -
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist} ____%_ Color (moist) __%__ _IYQL Loe Texture Remarks
0-12+ 10YR 5/4 ---F.S.L ---
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
1Tune: c-concentration, D=Oeoletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina, M;;Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otheawise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (SS) D 2 cm Muck (A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Hislic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks}
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 fndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (If present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesD No rz1
Remarks: Soils at the sample plot location are extremely rocky/gravely.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PrimaD£ Indicators {minimum Qf QC!fl: rt!:U~ire;$j· gh~gk §II lh§t 8QQl:ot:) SecondaD£ Indicators (2 or more reguired}
D Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48)
D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11 ) D Drainage Patterns (810)
D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02)
D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03)
D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (DS)
D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Fleld Observations:
Surface Water Present? YesD No rz1 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? YesD No 0 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesD No 0 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD Norg]
(includes capillary frinQe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No evidence of inundation was observed. Soils were not saturated and no water table was detected within the upper 12 inches of the soil
profile.
US Amiy Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 11, 2015
TO: City of Renton
FROM: Jeff Schramm
TENW
SUBJECT: Elliott Farm Residential -Renton, WA
Traffic Analysis Addendum
TENW Project # 5021
Traffic Assessment-Elliott Farm Residential
This memorandum documents the traffic impact analysis addendum conducted for the proposed
45-unit Elliott Farm multi-family residential development. The purposed of the addendum is to
provide an updated analysis of the project assuming a new access to SR 169.
The proposed project is located near SE Renton Maple Valley Rd !SR-169) and 1401h Way SE,
east of the Molasses Creek development in the City of Renton as shown in the Figure l site vicinity
map.
Executive Summary
Proposal. The project proposes 45 townhome dwelling units on a site that is currently vacant.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided via a new residential access on SE Renton Maple
Valley Rd !SR 169). Full project buildout is expected in 2017.
Trip Generation, The proposed project is estimated to generate 321 new weekday daily trips,
with 27 new trips occurring during the weekday M!t peak hour 15 entering, 22 exiting), and 31
new trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour 121 entering, l O exiting).
Intersection Operations Analysis, Based on the LOS results conducted at one off-site signalized
study intersection and the site access location, both intersections are expected to operate at LOS E
or better during the M!t and PM peak hours in 2017 with no significant impacts created by the
proposec Elliott Farm residential development.
Concurrency. Since the signalized study intersection is expected to operate at acceptable LOS D
or better, this project is anticipated to meet City concurrency requirements.
Mitigation. Based on our findings, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant
adverse impact on the transportation system. The payment of transportation impact fees will
adequately mitigate project impacts by funding the project's fair shore of the cost of the City of
Renton's planned transportation improvements. Based on the City's current impact fee rate, the
development's impact fee would be $53 137.80 145 X $1,180 84/unit)
Transportation Planning I Design I Traffic Impact & Operations
11400 SE 8'" Street. Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98004 I Office (425) 889-6747
Fi gure 1: Sit e Vicinity
~TENW
Traffic Analys is Addendum -Elliott Form Residential
NOTTO SCALE
December 11. 2015
Page 2
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Ellio11 Farm Residential
Introduction
The following items are addressed in this analysis:
• Project description
• Trip generation
• Trip distribution and assignment
• Traffic volumes
• LOS & Oueue Analysis
• Transportation concurrency
• Traffic Safety Assessment
• Mitigation
Project Description
The project proposes 45 new townhome dwelling units on a site that is currently vacant. The
proposed project is located near SE Renton Maple Volley Rd [SR-169) and 1401h Woy SE just east
of the Molasses Creek development.
Site Access
Vehicular access to the site will be via a new residential access on SE Renton Maple Valley Rd (SR
169), which is located approximately 875 feet east of the Molasses Creek development access.
Full project buildout is expected in 2017. A preliminary site pion is provided in Figure 2.
Trip Generation
The trip generation estimate for the proposed Elliott Form residential development was based on the
trip equations published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th
edition for Land Use Code [LUC) 230 [Residential Condominium/Townhouse). The weekday daily,
AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates associated with the proposed project ore
summarized in Table l .
~TENW December 11, 2015
Page 3
.. ..
" ~" .
Figure 2: Preliminary Site Plan
~TENW
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Form Residential
"
" -=--~·
" " ..
December 11, 2015
Page 4
Traffic Anaiysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
Table 1
Elliott Form Residential -Trie Generation
Dwelling Direcffonol Split
Time Period Units Trife Rate' Enter Exit In
Weekday Daily 45 equation 50% 50% 160
Weekday AM Peak Hour 45 equation 17% 83% 5
Weekday PM Peak Hour 45 equation 67% 33% 21
1 Trip rate based on /TE Trip Generation, 91h Edition, 2012 for Land Use Code 230 Residential
Condominium/Townhome
Trips
Out Total
161 321
22 27
10 31
As shown in Table I, the proposed Elliott Farm project is estimated to generate 321 new weekday
daily trips, wilh 27 new lrips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour [5 entering, 22 exiting),
and 31 new trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour (21 entering, IO exiting).
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The estimated distribution of project traffic was based on existing travel patterns. The weekday AM
and PM peak hour new project-generated trips were generally distributed as follows in the site vicinity:
• 50 percent to/from the west on SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
• 30 percent to/from the east on SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
• 20 percent to/from the south on 1401h Way SE
Figures 3 and 4 provide a graphic illustration of the estimated trip distribution patterns for the
proposed project They also include the assignment of the new weekday AM and PM peak hour
project trips
To provide a conservative worse-case analysis, it was assumed that all site-generated vehicle trips
would use the new access direct to SR 169. The SE Renton Maple Volley Rd / 1401h Woy SE
intersection was analyzed for AM ond PM peak hour LOS.
~TENW December 11, 2015
Page 5
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
Traffic Volumes
Existing weekday NI\ and PM peak hour traffic counts at the signalized study intersections were
conducted on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 by All Traffic Data, Inc. The existing peak hour
traffic volumes represent the highest hour between 7:00-9 00 o.m. and 4 00-6:00 p.m. The existing
count sheets are included in Attachment A
To estimate future 2017 baseline traffic volumes without the proiect at the signalized study
intersection, on annual growth rate of two percent was applied to the existing volumes based on
direction from the City Staff. Future 2017 with-proiect traffic volumes were estimated by adding the
trip assignment from the proposed 45 town home dwelling units to the year 2017 without-proiect
volumes.
The 2015 existing traffic volumes, 2017 without-project traffic volumes, proiect trip assignments, and
2017 with-proiect volumes at the three study intersections are summarized in Figures 3 and 4 for the
NI\ and PM peak hours, respectively.
~TENW December 11, 20 l S
Page 6
2015 Existing
'
~ /
SITE
/
SITE
2017 Future Traffic Volumes
Without-Project
Figure 3: AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
~TENW
Traffic Analysis Addendum'-Elliott Farm Residential
Legend
(';;', Ne...vTrip ~ Distnbution
+ XX AM Volume
SITE
Project Trip Distribution & Assignment
2017 Future Traffic Volumes
With-Project
SITE
December 11, 2015
Page 7
'
2015 Existing
'
I
SITE
I
SITE
2017 Future Traffic Volumes
Without-Project
Figure 4: PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
~TENW
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Form Residential
Legend
~ NewTrip ~ Distribution
t
XX PM Volume
SITE
Project Trip Distribution & Assignment
2017 Future Traffic Volumes
With-Project
December 11, 2015
Page8
Traffic Analysis Addendum~ Elliott Farm Residential
LOS & Queue Analysis
Weekday peak hour level of service (LOS! analyses at the signalized study intersection was
conducted using the methodologies and procedures outlined in the 20 l O Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM 20 I 0) LOS serves as an indicator of the quality of traffic flow and degree of congestion at
on intersection or roadway segment. It is a measure of vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel
delays, and driving comfort. The LOS methodology is described in Attachment B. The Synchro
Version 8 software package was used to determine the reported LOS.
SE Renton Mo pie Valley Rd/ 140th Way SE -This is a major signalized intersection with a five lone
section al the eastbound and westbound approaches, and a live-lane section at the northbound
approach. The current geometry is expected to remain for future conditions.
Tables 2 and 3 summarizes the results of the AM and PM LOS analysis at the three study intersections.
The LOS calculation sheets are included in Attachment B.
Table 2
Elliott Farm Residential LOS Summary
Study lntersectton
AM Peak Hour
I. 140th Way SE & SR 169
2. Site Access & SR 169
Northbound Approach
Westbound Left-Turn
PM Peak Hour
l. 140th Way SE & SR 169
2. Site Access & SR 169
Northbound Approach
Westbound Left-Turn
1 LOS = Level of Service.
201s Existing
Delay
LOS' (sec)'
D 37.3
D 46.4
2 Delay refers to average control delay in seconds per vehicle
~TENW
201 Z Without Project
Delay
LOS' (sec)'
D 39.6
D 49.9
20 I Z WJlb project
Delay
LOS' (sec)'
D
D
B
D
E
C
39.6
25.6
11.6
50.2
36.9
15.7
December 11, 2015
Page 9
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
Table 3
Elliott Farm Residential Queue Analysis Summary
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour
1. 140th Way SE & SR 169
Westbound Left-Turn
Westbound Thru
2. Site Access & SR 169
Northbound Approach
Westbound Left-Turn
PM Peak Hour
1 . 140th Way SE & SR 169
Westbound Left-Turn
Westbound Thru
2. Site Access & SR 169
Northbound Approach
Westbound Left-Turn
201 s Exi•lioq
95'"% Queue
200'
475'
700'
100'
2017 Without
Proiect
95 1h % Queue
200'
500'
700'
75'
20)7 Wijh
Project
95'" % Queue
200'
500'
< 25'
O'
750'
125'
< 25'
< 25'
The results of the LOS analysis shown in Tables 2 and 3 indicate that the signalized study intersection
is expected lo operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours in
2017 without or with the proposed Elliott Form residential development. The northbound approach
at the site access location (exiling vehicles) is expected to operate at LOS E in the AM and PM peak
hours. Westbound 95th percentile queues at the 1401h Way SE / SR 169 signalized intersection
ore not expected to extend back to the site access. Exiling vehicle queues from the site driveway
ore expected to be accommodated by the 60 foot widenend approach to SR 169.
Transportation Concurrency
Since the signalized study intersections is expected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better, we
expect this project would meet City of Renton concurrency requirements.
~TENW December 11, 2015
Page 10
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
Traffic Safety Assessment
Collision records in the study area were reviewed for the three-year period from January 1. 2012 to
December 31. 2014. Collision data was provided by the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOTJ. Summaries of the total, annual average, and collisions per million entering
vehicles [MEVJ and million vehicle miles of travel [MVMJ ore provided in in Table 4.
Table 4
Three Year Collision Summary-January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014
Number of Colfisions
Collisions
1/1/2012-1/1/2013-1/1/2014-Annual perMEV1
Location 12/31/2012 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 Total Average orMVM 1
Intersections
I. SE Renton Maple Valley Rd/ 11 5 8 24 8.00 0.73 1401h Way SE
2. SE Renton Maple Valley Rd/ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Molasses Creek Access
RooQwQJ:'. S~gment~
I. SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
(140 1h Way SE to Molasses Creek 3 1.00 0.45
East Access)
2. SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
(Molasses Creek East Access to 3 6 2 11 3.67 0.72
149th Ave SE)
Source: WSDOT Collision Records {l /1 /2012 -l 2/3 l /2014).
l. MEV = Million Entering Vehicles; MVM = Million Vehicle Miles
Mitigation
To mitigate long-term traffic impacts created by the Elliott Farm residential project, the City of Renton
requires payment of a traffic impact fee. The City's currently adopted impact fee rates are derived
from the 2015 Development Fees per Ordinance 5670. The impact fee for condominium/townhome
is $1,180.84 per dwelling unit. Based on 45 new dwelling units, the resulting impact fee would
be $53 137 80 [45 X $1, 180.84/unitJ The City's impact fee rate is subject to change.
If you hove any questions regarding the information presented in this Traffic Impact Analysis, please
contact me at 425-250-0581 or schramm@tenw.com.
cc: Todd Levitt, Murray Franklin
Rick Lennon, Lennon Investments Inc.
Jeff Haynie, P E -TENW Principal
Attachments:
~TENW
A Existing Traffic Counts
B. LOS Calculations
December 11. 2015
Page 11
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
ATTACHMENT A
Existing Count Sheets
SR 169
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
j 24191
G':)
B§+
143 lil
Approach PHF HV%
EB 0.82 8.1%
WB 0.96 4.8%
NB 0.96 0.9%
SB 0.00 0.0%
Intersection 0.97 3.2%
0
Volume
434
1,349
1,851
0
3,634
Count Period: 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
6:30 AM to 7:30 AM
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
0
N
"*" s
0
!) ~ 1'
I
0 11,2221 B
B 118511
Site ID: 1
-
113491 + 1,197
~
illt 152
>-----
C. 0
~
~
B
SR169
ll!
).
~
i!: c:, ... ,..
Total Vehicle Summary
•+'f·Jlflj.
Enc Bowin
(303) 668-0220
Site ID: 1
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
15-Minute Interval Summary
6·00 AM to 9·00 AM
Interval Northbound
"'" 140THWAY SE
Time u L
6:00 AM 0 26•
615AM 0 275
6:30AM o 288
6:45AM 0 305
7:00AM o 309
7:15AM 0 320
7:30 AM 0 260
7-45 AM 0 219
8:00 AM 0 179
8:15AM 0 242
8:30AM ~ 240
8:4" AM 2°2
~To1al
N
0 3.103
Peak Hour Summary
6'30 AM to 7'30 AM
By Northbound
Approach 140THWAY SE
'" 0"1 Total
Volume 1,851 295 2,146
%HV 0.9%
PHF 0.96
By Northbound
Movement 140THWAYSE
u L
Volume 0 1,222
%HV 0.0% 0.7%
PHF 0.00 0.95
Rolling Hour Summary
6·00 AM to 9·00 AM
Interval Northbound
Start 140TH WAY SE
Time u L T
6:00 AM 0 1,132
6:15 AM 0 1,177
6:30 AM 0 1,222
6:45 AM 0 1.194
7·00 AM 0 1,108
715AM 0 978
7:30 AM 0 900
7:45 AM ~ 880
R
110
155
'60
177
159
133
131
'12
151
202
1~8
1.734
HV
16
R
'" 1.3%
0.89
R
602
651
629
600
535
527
596 :~;
Southbound
""
Southbound
,la
'" 0"1 To1at
0 0 0
0.0%
0.00
Southbound
"''
Southbound
"'' u l 7
Eastl>ournt
SR 169
u T
0 5J
0 63
0 93
0 58
0 72
0 68
0 86
0 64
0 108
0 119
0 111
0 07
0 982
Eastbound
SR 169
HV '" o"' Total
0 434 2,419 2,853
8.1%
0.82
Eastbound
SR 169
u T
0 291
0.0% 8.2%
0.00 0.78
Ea.tbound
SR 169
R u l T
0 267
0 286
0 291
0 26'
0 290
0 326
0 377
0 402
0 425
R u
27 0
22 0
39 o
37 0
3S 0
32 0
37 0
36 0
50 0
70 0
51 0
53 0
491 0
HV '" 35 1,349
R u
143 0
7.7% 0.0%
0.92 0.00
R u
125 0
133 0
1'3 0
141 0
142 0
"' 0
195 0
209 0
224 o
SB -i}
" O"l
HV
PHF
uo
In 434
Out 2.419
HV 8.1%
PHF 0.82
Westbound
SR 169
l T
11 3SB
22 286
23 330
" 280
4S 275
40 312
60 306
56 247
56 220
56 269
" 247
73 245
579 3,377
WHtbound
SR 169
0"1 To1al HV
920 2.269 65
4.8%
0.96
Wfftbound
SR 169
L T
152 1.197
20% 52%
06' 0.91
Weslbound
SR 169
L T R
100 1,254
"' 1,171
152 1,197
189 1.175
203 1,142
216 1,087
232 1,,..
261 983
276 981
u
WB <)aa
1.349
920
t..
+-1.197
,r 152 .~ uo
~ t ,. In 1,651
Out 295
HV 0.9%
PHF 0.96
1.222 629
uo
Peak Hour Summary
6:30 AM to 7:30 AM
Pedestrians & Bicycles
Interval In Crosswalk. (B~ Locahon)
Total South East West
823 0 0 0
823 1 3 0
933 0 0 0
901 o 0 0
895 0 0 0
905 0 1 0
882 o 0 0
738 0 0 0
766 0 0 0
956 0 0 o
"'" 0 0 0
756 0 0 0
10,266 1 ' 0
Pedestrians & Bicycles
Total In Crosswalk (Sy LoceUon)
North Sooth East West
3,634 0 0 1 0
3.2%
0.97
Tot.at
3,634
3.2%
0.97
PedHtrians & Bicycles
Interval In Crosswalk (By Location)
Total North South East West
3,480 1 3 0
3,552 1 3 0
3,634 0 1 0
3,583 0 1 0
3,420 0 1 0
3,291 0 1 0
3.344 0 0 0
3,348 0 D 0
3 366 0 0 0
Heavy Vehicle Summary •.. , ....
Enc 801111n
(303) 668-0220
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
15-MJnure Interval Summary
6·00 AM to 9·00 AM
Interval Northbound
'"" 140THWAY SE
Time u ' R
6:00 AM 0 1 2
6:15AM 0 4 1
6:30 AM 0 0 2
6:45 AM 0 3 1
7:00 AM 0 3 1
7:15AM 0 2 4
7:30 AM 0 1 3
7:45 AM 0 1 9
8:00AM 0 1 8
8·15AM 0 2 5
8:30 Afli 0 0 7
8:45AM 0 ' ' ~T_otal 0 20 45 N-
Peak Hour Summary
6·30AM to 7·30AM
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE Approach lo o,, Total
Volume 16 14 30
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE Movement u L R
Volume 0 8 8
Rolling Hour Summary
6·00 AM to 9·00 AM
Interval Northbound •~rt 140TH WAY SE
Time u L ' R
6:00 AM 0 8 6
6:15AM 0 10 5
6:30 AM 0 8 8
6:45AM 0 9 9
7"00 AM 0 ' 17
7:15AM 0 5 24
7:30 AM 0 5 25
7:45 AM 0 4 29
8:00 AM 0 5 22
Total
3
5
' 4
4
6
4
10
9
7
7
4
65
Total
16
Totel
14
15
16
18
24
29
30
33
27
lo
0
u
UD
0,1 70
In 35
Southboond Eaetbound
rua SR 169
u T
0 6
0 3
0 10
0 2
0 5
0 7
0 12
0 13
0 18
0 17
0 20
0 14
0 0 127
Southbound E11Stbound
"'' SR 169 o,, Total lo 0,1 Total
0 0 35 70 105
Southbound Eastbound
o/a SR 169
u T
0 0 24
Southbound Eastbound
ola SR 169
L ' R Total u L T
0 21
0 20
0 24
0 26
0 37
0 50
0 60 : 68
69
,,.
,. ...
lo
0
Oo<
0
.., "' 14
u
t.
65 +-62
32
11 + [±] ~~o
R
3
' 4
2
1
4
1
' 3
2
3
1
28
R
11
R
11
9
11
8
8
10
8
10
9
" t ,+ uo 8 8
Out lo
14 16
Peak Hour Summary
6:30 AM to 7:30 AM
WBBlbound
SR 169
Total u ' T
9 0 0 13
5 0 1 11
14 0 0 17
4 0 2 19
6 0 0 14
11 0 1 12
13 0 1 16
15 0 1 5
21 0 4 14
19 0 1 19
" 0 6 12
1• 0 1 14
155 0 18 166
Westbound
SR 169
lo Q,I Total
65 32 97
Westbound
SR 169
Total u L T
35 0 3 62
We,tbound
SR 169
Total u L T
32 0 3 60
29 0 3 61
35 0 3 62
34 0 4 61
45 0 3 47
60 0 7 47
68 0 7 " 78 0 12 50
78 0 12 59
Total
13
12
17
21
14
13
17
6
18
20
18
1•
184
Total
65
R Total
63
64
65
65
50
54
61
62
71
lo
Oo<
Interval
Total
25
22
J3
29
24
30
34
31
" 46
" °'
73
Total
116
Tot,I
116
Interval
Tobi
109
108
116
117
119
1'3
159
173
176
SR 169
Enc Bo1vm
1303) 668-0220
110101
G'='
12391111,2471 +
1,144 1111
Approach PHF HV%
EB 0.97 1.5%
WB 0.93 1.5%
NB 0.86 0.9%
SB 0.00 0.0%
Intersection 0.99 1.4%
0
Volume
2,391
1,078
661
0
4,130
Count Period: 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
D
N W*E
s
0
fl ll't 11
I 0 13931 B
I 1sosl B
Site ID: 1
·~8 " 461
C. 0
~
115151
SR 169
~
),.
~
i:
C) ... ...
Enc Bo1vm
(303) 668-0220
Site ID: 1
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
15-Minute Interval Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound .... 140THWAYSE
Time u L
3:00 PM 0 74
3:15PM 0 1'2
3:30 PM 0 87
3:45 PM 0 74
4:00 PM 0 93
4:15 PM 0 76
430 PM 0 109
4:45 PM 0 101
5:00 PM 0 97 s·,s PM 0 86
5:30 PM 0 10,
5:45 PM 0 62
Total 0 1,094 ·"~""
Peak Hour Summary
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
By Northbound
Approach 140THWAYSE
'" °"' Total
Volume 661 1,605 2,266
%HY 0.9%
PHF 0.86
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE Mo;1ement u L
Volume 0 393
%HV 0.0% 0.8%
PHF 000 090
Ro/Jing Hour Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
lnMorval Northbound
Slart 140TH WAY SE
Time u L T
3:00 PM 0 347
3:15 PM 0 366
3:30 PM 0 330
3.45 PM 0 352
4:00 PM 0 379
4:15 PM 0 383
4:30 PM 0 393
4.45 PM 0 387
5:00 PM 0 36B
R
72
69
B6
61
B3
52
63
64
65
56
80
71
842
HV
6
R
268
1.1%
0.81
R
288
299
282
279
282
284
268
265
272
Southbound
rn,
Southbound
'" " O"I Total
0 0 0
0.0%
0.00
Southbound
ala
Southbound ,1,
u L T
Eastbound
SR 169
u T
0 373
0 369
0 284
0 359
0 309
0 341
0 306
0 302
0 332
0 30,
0 333
0 295
0 3,910
EastbOOJnd
SR 169
HV " 0"' Total
0 2.391 1.010 3.401
1.5%
0.97
Eastbound
SR 169
u T
0 1,247
0.0% 2.2%
000 0.94
Eaatbound
SR 169
R u L T
0 1,385
0 1,321
0 1,293
0 1,315
0 1,258
0 1,281
0 1.247
0 1,274
0 1 267
R u
'96 0
252 0
233 0
245 0
265 0
256 0
281 0
290 0
287 0
286 0
252 0
26S 0
3,111 0
HV ,,
36 1,078
R u
1.144 0
0.8% 0.0%
0.9<1 0.00
R u
926 0
995 0
999 0
1,047 0
1,092 0
1,114 0
1,144 0
1,115 0
1 093 0
SB <,7 ,,
Oo<
HV
PHF
uo
Out 1,010
HV 1.5%
PHF 0.97
Waslbound
SR 169
L T
111 146
102 '50
120 1'1
97 121
129 147
127 171
114 142
123 160
103 145
121 170
94 149
103 158
1,344 1,800
Westbound
SR 169
o"' Total HY
1,515 2,593 16
1.5%
0.93
Westbound
SR 169
L T
461 617
1.1% 1.8%
OM 0.91
Weslbourn:I
SR 169
L T R
430 55B
44B 559
473 580
467 581
493 620
467 618
461 617
441 624
421 622
u
we<:=
In 1.078
1,515
~ t ,. In 661
Out 1,605
HV 0.9%
PHF 0.86
393 268
uo
Peak Hour Summary
4:30PM to 5:30PM
Ped11$trlans & Bicycles
Interval In Crosswalk (By Location)
'""' South East West
972 0 0 0
1,054 0 0 0
951 0 0 0
9S7 0 0 0
1,026 0 0 0
1,023 0 4 0
1,035 0 0 0
1.040 0 0 0
1,029 0 1 0
1,026 0 0 0
1,Q11 0 0 0
977 0 0 0
12,101 0 5 0
Pedeslrians & BicyclH
Total In Crosswalk {By location)
North South East West
4,130 0 0 1 0
1.4%
0.99
Total
4,130
1.4%
0 00
Pedestrians & Bicycles
Interval In Crosswalk (By Location)
To1al North S<>ofu East Wast
3,934 0 0 0
3.988 0 0 0
3,957 0 4 0
4,041 0 4 0
4,124 0 4 0
4.127 0 5 0
4.130 0 1 0
4,106 0 1 0
,043 0 1 0
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
15·Minute Interval Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound
Start 140TH WAY SE
Time u L R
3:00 PM 0 5 3
3:15 PM 0 6 2
3:30 PM 0 2 2
3:45 PM 0 3 ' 4:00 PM 0 ' 4
4:15 PM 0 ' 3
4:30 PM 0 2 ' 4·45 PM 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 ' 5:15 PM 0 ' ' 5:30 PM 0 ' 0
,;;4,; PM 0 0 0
Total 0 22 1B ""N""
Peak Hour Summary
4:30 PM lo 5:30 PM
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE Approach
lo ill Total
Volume 6 14 20
By Northbound
140THWAY SE Movement u L R
VI 0 3 3
Rolling Hour Summary
3:00 PM lo 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound
Start 140THWAY SE
nme u L T R
3:00 PM 0 16 8
3:15PM 0 " 9
3:30 PM 0 7 TO
3:45PM 0 7 9
4·00 PM 0 4 8
415PM 0 3 5
4.30 PM 0 3 3
4:45PM 0 2 2
5:00PM 0 2 ,
Total
B
B
4
4
5
4
3
0
' 2
' 0
40
Total
6
Total
24
21
T7
16
" 8
6
4
4
lo
0
u
Southbound
0/a
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Southbound
"' 0,1 Total lo
0 0 36
SouthbO\lnd
Na
u
0 0
S0uthbo1.1nd
'" ' T R Total u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
uo
0"1 14
lo 36
Eastbound
SR 169
T
'3
TO
" 5
TO
TO
7
6
TO
4
3
3
92
Eaatbound
SR 169
0,1 Total
14 50
Eaetbound
SR 169
T
27
Ell$tboUnd
SR 169
' T
39
36
36
32
33
33
27
23
20
,,.
'" 0
o,,
0
..., "' ~
u
21-+ [±] '•
R
' 2
3
3
4
3
' ' 4
3
0
' 26
R
9
R
9
" 13
1T
9
9
9
8
8
U 0 " t,..
o,,
14 '" 6
Peak Hour Summary
4:30 PM lo 5:30 PM
Westbound
SR 169
Tolal u L T
14 0 0 " " 0 2 5
14 0 2 5
8 0 2 7
14 0 ' 8
'3 0 0 5
8 0 1 2
7 0 2 3
14 0 1 ' 7 0 ' 5
3 0 ' 2
4 0 ' 7
"' 0 T4 62
W&11tbound
SR 169
lo o,, Total
" 30 46
WHtbound
SR 169
Total u L T
36 0 5 "
Westbound
SR 169
Trnal u L T
48 0 6 29
48 0 7 25
49 0 5 25
43 0 4 22
42 0 4 1B
" 0 4 1T
36 0 5 1T
3T 0 5 1T
28 0 4 15
R
16 In
30 Oul
Interval
Total Total
" 34
7 27
7 25
9 2T
9 28
5 22
3 " 5 " 2 T7
6 T5
3 7
8 " 76 44
Total
56
Total
Total
" 56
Interval
Total Tobi
35 T07
J2 TOT
30 96
26 85
22 76
15 65
16 58
16 51
19 51
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
ATTACHMENT B
LOS Calculations
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
Level of Service Methodology
Level of service calculotions for intersections were bosed on methodology and procedures
outlined in the 20 IO updote of the Highway Capacily Manual, Special Report 209,
Transportation Research Board (HCM 20 I 0) using Synchro 8.0 traffic analysis software.
LOS generally refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection. It is a
measure of vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel delays, and driving comfort. A letter
scale from A to F generally describes intersection LOS. At signalized intersections, LOS A
represents free-flow conditions (motorists experience little or no delays). and LOS F represents
forced-flow conditions where motorists experience an overoge delay in excess of 80 seconds
per vehicle.
The LOS reported for signalized intersections represents the average control delay (sec/veh)
and can be reported for the overall intersection, for each approach, and for each lane group
(additional v/c ratio criteria apply to lane group LOS only).
The LOS reported at stop-controlled intersections is based on the overage control delay and
con be reported for each controlled minor approach, controlled minor lone group, and
controlled major-street movement (and for the overall intersection at all-way stop controlled
intersections. Additionol v/c ratio criteria apply to lone group or movement LOS only).
Table A I outlines the current HCM 20 IO LOS criteria for signalized and stop-controlled
intersections based on these methodologies.
Tobie Al
LOS Criteria for Signalized and Stop Controlled Intersections'
SIGJ::!61.IZetl lNTE!sSi;CDQMS SIQP-CQ!ilRQLLECl l~TERSECIJQ!)!S
LQS bl£ ~luwa-1!:! LQS bl.! ~Qll.!Wfl-lQ
CQC!Q!::ill.! (YlCI RQ!i~ CQgci;;ill,! (V lCI ECfiQ 3
Control Delay Control Delay
(sec/veh) ,; 1.0 > 1.0 (sec/Veh) < 1.0 > 1.0
,; I 0 A F ,; I 0 A F
> lOto,; 20 B F > IO to,; 15 B F
> 20 to,; 35 C F >15tos25 C F
> 35 to,; 55 D F > 25 to,; 35 D F
> 55 to,; 80 E F >35to,;50 E F
> 80 F F > 50 F F
1 Source: HCM201 D Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
2 For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments at signals, LOS is defined solely by control delay.
3 For two-way stop controlled interseclions, the LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach
on the minor street LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole at two-way stop
controlled intersections. For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments at all-way stop controlled intersections,
LOS is solely defined by control delay.
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
Existing LOS Results
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Way SE & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd 12/7/2015 -" (' -.... ,..
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 291 143 152 1197 1222
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300
Storage Lanes 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Right Tum on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 4% 4% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type NA Free Prot NA Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 1 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 11.4 21.4 30.3 11.4
Total Split (s) 38.0 36.0 74.0 56.0 36.0
Total Split(%) 29.2% 27.7% 56.9% 43.1% 27.7%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time ( s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
IW JJUl737MM11'FITT 111777WW;;1'~ff7Tfflwm,r:r-
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 125 (96%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
1: 140th Wa SE & SE Renton Ma le Valle Rd
Elliot Fanm Synchro 8 Report
2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour
Queues
1: 140th Wa~ SE & SE Renton Maele Valle~ Rd 12/7/2015 -l (' -"'
Lane Group Flow (vph) 300 147 157 1234 1260 648
vie Ratio 0.28 0.10 0.64 0.70 0.91 0.69
Control Delay 35.3 0.1 63.3 26.8 47.8 15.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 35.3 0.1 63.3 26.8 47.8 15.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 103 0 127 426 487 212
Queue Length 95th (ft) 148 0 190 474 #662 309
Internal Link Dist (ft) 570 980 295
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 400 300
Base Capacity (vph) 1067 1495 395 1818 1396 1062
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced vie Ratio 0.28 0.10 0.40 0.68 0.90 0.61
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa'i. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'/,. Rd 12/7/2015
---.. f -~ ,..
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 291 143 152 1197 1222 629
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1759 1759 1827 1827 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 300 0 157 1234 1260 546
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 4 4 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1232 551 186 1821 1339 787
Arrive On Green 0.37 0.00 0.11 0.52 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 3431 1495 1740 3563 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 300 0 157 1234 1260 546
Grp Sat Flow(s},veh/hlln 1671 1495 1740 1736 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 0.0 11.5 34.1 45.4 34.2
Cycle Q Clear{g_c), s 8.1 0.0 11.5 34.1 45.4 34.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c}, veh/h 1232 551 186 1821 1339 787
VIC Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.84 0.68 0.94 0.69
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1232 551 396 1821 1356 795
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.5 0.0 57.0 22.8 38.5 25.4
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 11.7 2.0 13.0 2.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 6.1 16.8 24.1 15.6
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.9 0.0 68.7 24.8 51.5 28.3
LnG LOS C E C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 300 1391 1806
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.9 29.8 44.5
Approach LOS C C D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration {G+Y+Rc), s 20.3 54.3 74.6 55.4
Change Period (Y+Rc}, s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting {Gmax), s 29.6 31.6 67.6 50.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 13.5 10.1 36.1 47.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 16.2 21.6 2.7
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.3
HCM 2010 LOS D
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2015 Existing -AM Peak Hour
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Wa"i. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle"L, Rd -"t "" -"'
Lane Configurations ++ I' "I ++ 'l'I
Volume (vph) 1247 1144 461 617 393
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300
Storage Lanes 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Confi. Peds. (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Tum Type NA Free Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases Free
Detector Phase 2 6 8
Switch Phase
Minimum lnilial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 22.4 21.4 30.3
Total Split (s) 70.0 39.0 109.0 31.0
Total Split(%) 50.0% 27.9% 77.9% 22.1%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 140
Actuated Cycle Length: 140
Offset: 100 (71 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Elliot Farm
2015 Existing
1: 140th Wa SE & SE Renton Maple Valle
....,,2 R
Rd
1217/2015
~
I'
268
1900
0
1
Yes
1
0.99
1%
pm+ov
1
8
1
5.0
22.4
39.0
27.9%
5.4
1.0
0.0
6.4
Lead
Yes
None
4\ pB
Synchro 8 Report
Queues
1: 140th Wa~ SE & SE Renton Maele Valle~ Rd -• ~ -
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1260 1156 466 623
vie Ratio 0.81 0.73 0.95 0.23
Control Delay 39.2 3.0 80.0 5.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.2 3.0 80.0 5.3
Queue Length 50U1 (ft) 503 0 -448 76
Queue Length 95th (ft) 596 0 #708 108
Internal Link Dist (ft) 570 980
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 400
Base Capacity (vph) 1607 1583 490 2692
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced vie Ratio 0.78 0.73 0.95 0.23
-Volume exceeds capacity, queue is Uleoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95U1 percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Elliot Farm
2015 Existing
...
397
0.74
64.8
0.0
64.8
179
230
295
300
636
0
0
0
0.62
12/7/2015
271
0.39
24.0
0.0
24.0
144
216
690
0
0
0
0.39
Synchro 8 Report
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa~ SE & SE Renton Maele Valle~ Rd
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOIQ(50%),vehnn
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnG LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y +Re), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
Elliot Farm
2015 Existing
-~
-tt I'
1247 1144
2 12
0 0
1.00
1.00 1.00
1863 1863
1260 0
2 1
0.99 0.99
2 2
1735 776
0.49 0.00
3632 1583
1260 0
1770 1583
39.4 0.0
39.4 0.0
1.00
1735 776
0.73 0.00
1735 776
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.00
28.2 0.0
2.7 0.0
0.0 0.0
19.9 0.0
30.9 0.0
C
1260
30.9
C
1 2
39.0 75.1
6.4 6.4
32.6 63.6
34.6 41.4
0.0 18.8
-f -4\
"i -tt "i"i
461 617 393
1 6 3
0 0 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1863 1863 1881
466 623 397
1 2 2
0.99 0.99 0.99
2 2 1
413 2721 513
0.23 0.77 0.15
1774 3632 3476
466 623 397
1774 1770 1738
32.6 6.9 15.4
32.6 6.9 15.4
1.00 1.00
413 2721 513
1.13 0.23 0.77
413 2721 638
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
53.7 4.5 57.4
84.0 0.2 5.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
25.6 3.4 7.8
137.7 4.7 62.9
F A E
1089 653
61.6 51.0
E D
46.4
D
1217/2015
!'
I'
268
18
0
1.00
1.00
1881
256
1
0.99
1
608
0.15
1599
256
1599
16.5
16.5
1.00
608
0.42
666
1.00
1.00
32.0
0.7
0.0
7.4
32.7
C
6 8
114.1 25.9
6.4 5.3
102.6 25.7
8.9 18.5
54.8 2.1
Synchro 8 Report
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
2017 Future Without-Project LOS Results
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Wa't. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle't. Rd 12/7/2015 -" f -~ ~
Lane Configurations .,,
Volume (vph) 303 149 158 1245 1271 654
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Conft. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 4% 4% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Turn Type NA Free Prot NA Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 11.4 21.4 30.3 11.4
Total Split (s) 38.0 36.0 74.0 56.0 36.0
Total Split(%) 29.2% 27.7% 56.9% 43.1% 27.7%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 125 (96%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
1: 140th Wa Rd
........ 2 R
~ "8
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 Without Project -AM Peak Hour
Queues
1: 140th Way SE & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd 12/712015
Lane Group Flow (vph) 312 154 163 1284 1310 674
vie Ratio 0.30 0.10 0.64 0.73 0.94 0.71
Control Delay 35.9 0.1 63.3 28.0 50.8 16.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 35.9 0.1 63.3 28.0 50.8 16.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 106 0 131 444 527 245
Queue Length 95th (ft) 155 0 196 504 #708 342
Internal Link Dist (ft) 570 980 295
Tum Bay Length (ft) 250 400 300
Base Capacity (vph) 1041 1495 395 1804 1397 1062
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced vie Ratio 0.30 0.10 0.41 0.71 0.94 0.63
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 Without Project -AM Peak Hour
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa'/. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'/. Rd 12/7/2015
-~ f -"' ~
Lane Configurations tt I' 'I tt 'l'I I'
Volume (veh/h) 303 149 158 1245 1271 654
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
lnrtial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1759 1759 1827 1827 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 312 0 163 1284 1310 579
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 4 4 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1207 540 192 1807 1353 799
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.00 0.11 0.52 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 3431 1495 1740 3563 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 312 0 163 1284 1310 579
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1671 1495 1740 1736 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 0.0 12.0 36.6 48.0 36.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 0.0 12.0 36.6 48.0 36.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1207 540 192 1807 1353 799
V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.85 0.71 0.97 0.72
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1207 540 396 1807 1356 800
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.3 0.0 56.7 23.7 38.9 25.5
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 11.7 2.4 17.4 3.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0/0(50%),veh/ln 4.0 0.0 6.4 18.1 26.2 17.0
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.8 0.0 68.4 26.1 56.3 29.0
LnG LOS C E C E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 312 1447 1889
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.8 30.9 47.9
Approach LOS C C D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.8 53.3 74.1 55.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.6 31.6 67.6 50.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 14.0 10.6 38.6 50.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 16.4 21.1 0.6
HCM 2010 Ctr1 Delay 39.6
HCM 2010 LOS D
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 Without Project -AM Peak Hour
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Way_ SE & SE Renton Maele Valley_ Rd 12/7/2015 ---.. f -...,, ~
Lane Configurations H 7' lj ++ lj'I 7'
Volume (vph) 1297 1190 480 642 409 279
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Tum Type NA Free Prat NA Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 22.4 21.4 30.3 22.4
Total Split (s) 70.0 39.0 109.0 31.0 39.0
Total Split(%) 50.0% 27.9% 77.9% 22.1% 27.9%
Yellow nme (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 140
Actuated Cycle Length: 140
Offset: 100 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
1: 140th Wa Rd
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 Without Project-PM Peak Hour
Queues
1: 140th Way SE & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd 121712015 -
LaneGroupFlow(vph) 1310 1202 485 648 413 282
vie Ratio 0.83 0.76 1.02 0.24 0.75 0.42
Control Delay 40.0 3.5 97.1 5.5 65.0 25.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 40.0 3.5 97.1 5.5 65.0 25.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 535 0 -491 82 186 153
Queue Length 95th (ft) 633 0 #748 113 239 229
Internal Link Dist (ft) 570 980 295
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 400 300
Base Capacity (vph) 1607 1583 474 2680 636 679
Starvation Cap Reductn O O O O O 0
Spillback Cap Reductn O O O O O O
Storage Cap Reductn O O O O O 0
Reduced vie Ratio 0.82 0.76 1.02 0.24 0.65 0.42
:: rrr r rrrremrnwerrmr:rmwtrM:1¥"m-,e,mJlillPll11F~w.?1t~1:
-Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 Without Project -PM Peak Hour
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa'i. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'/. Rd 12/7/2015
-"t ~ -..._ ~
Lane Configurations t+ 7' "I t+ ..,.., 7'
Volume (veh/h) 1297 1190 480 642 409 279
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1310 0 485 648 413 269
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1716 768 413 2702 532 617
Arrive On Green 0.48 0.00 0.23 0.76 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 3632 1583 1774 3632 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1310 0 485 648 413 269
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1770 1583 1774 1770 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 42.4 0.0 32.6 7.4 16.0 17.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 42.4 0.0 32.6 7.4 16.0 17.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1716 768 413 2702 532 617
VIC Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 1.17 0.24 0.78 0.44
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1716 768 413 2702 638 666
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.5 0.0 53.7 4.8 57.0 31.7
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 3.3 0.0 101.1 0.2 5.7 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 21.5 0.0 27.6 3.7 8.1 7.8
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.8 0.0 154.8 5.0 62.7 32.4
LnG LOS C F A E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1310 1133 682
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.8 69.1 50.8
Approach LOS C E D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.0 74.3 113.3 26.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.6 63.6 102.6 25.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 34.6 44.4 9.4 19.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 16.9 58.1 2.0
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.9
HCM 2010 LOS D
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 Without Project -PM Peak Hour
Traffic Analysis Addendum -Elliott Farm Residential
•
2017 Future With-Project LOS Results
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Wa'/.. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'/.. Rd 12/7/2015 -~ (' -'\ ,,.
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 306 149 162 1256 1271 655
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Confi. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 4% 4% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Turn Type NA Free Prot NA Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 11.4 21.4 30.3 11.4
Total Split (s) 38.0 36.0 74.0 56.0 36.0
Total Split(%) 29.2% 27.7% 56.9% 43.1% 27.7%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time ( s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 125 (96%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
1: l,. :
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour
Queues
1: 140th Way SE & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd 12/7/2015
Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 154 167 1295 1310 675
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.10 0.65 0.74 0.94 0.71
Control Delay 36.2 0.1 63.3 28.2 50.9 16.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 36.2 0.1 63.3 28.2 50.9 16.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 107 0 135 449 529 248
Queue Length 95th (ft) 157 0 199 511 #708 341
Internal Link Dist (ft) 570 980 295
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 400 300
Base Capacity (vph) 1036 1495 395 1804 1395 1061
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced vie Ratio 0.30 0.10 0.42 0.72 0.94 0.64
w· nrr:r1crrr:rm,r• rrtnrtrnz rr1J11R.rer@r,w1we1~
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is rnaxirnurn after two cycles.
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa'i. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'i. Rd 12/7/2015
-" (' -~ ,..
Lane Configurations -tt 1' 'I -tt 'l'I 1'
Volume (veh/h) 306 149 162 1256 1271 655
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1759 1759 1827 1827 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 315 0 167 1295 1310 582
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 4 4 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1199 536 196 1807 1353 803
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.00 0.11 0.52 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 3431 1495 1740 3563 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 315 0 167 1295 1310 582
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1671 1495 1740 1736 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 00 12.2 37.1 48.0 37.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 0.0 12.2 37.1 48.0 37.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1199 536 196 1807 1353 803
V /C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.85 0.72 0.97 0.72
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1199 536 396 1807 1356 804
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Unifonm Delay (d), s/veh 29.5 0.0 56.6 23.8 38.9 25.3
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 11.6 2.5 17.4 3.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 4.1 0.0 6.5 18.2 26.2 17.1
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 0.0 68.2 26.3 56.3 28.9
LnG LOS C E C E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 315 1462 1892
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.1 31.1 47.9
Approach LOS C C D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.1 53.0 74.1 55.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.6 31.6 67.6 50.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 14.2 10.7 39.1 50.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 16.4 21.0 0.6
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.6
HCM 2010 LOS D
Elliot Fanm Synchro 8 Report
2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: East Drivewal & SE Renton Maele Vallel Rd 12/712015 -~ (' -~
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1057 4 1 1314 15 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 100 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25
Link Distance (ft) 466 400 163
Travel Time (s) 6.4 5.5 4.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Heavy Vehicles(%) 9% 9% 5% 5% 2% 2%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: East Driveway & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd 12/7/2015
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Vol, veh/h 1057 4 1 1314 15 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized None None None
Storage Length 100 0
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 1
Grade,% 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 5 5 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1229 5 1 1528 17 8
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1234 0 1997 617
Stage 1 1231
Stage 2 766
Critical Hdwy 4.2 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84
Follow-up Hdwy 2.25 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 544 52 433
Stage 1 239
Stage 2 419
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 544 52 433
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 160
Stage 1 239
Stage 2 418
11 e n rm rm · rrmrr 11·1
Capacity (veh/h) 200
HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.128
HCM Control Delay (s) 25.6
HCM Lane LOS D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4
Elliot Fanm Synchro 8 Report
2017 With-Project -AM Peak Hour
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th WaY,_ SE & SE Renton Maele ValleY,_ Rd 12/7/2015 -'), .(' -'°\ ~
Lane Configurations tt '!'I 7'
Volume (vph) 1308 1190 482 647 409 283
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Turn Type NA Free Prat NA Prat pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 22.4 21.4 30.3 22.4
Total Spltt (s) 70.0 39.0 109.0 31.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 50.0% 27.9% 77.9% 22.1% 27.9%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
rrrmn1 · r:urr· l'fMtflllli
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 140
Actuated Cycle Length: 140
Offset: 100 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
1: 140th Wa SE & SE Renton Ma le Valle Rd
-2 R
'°\ as
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 With Project -PM Peak Hour
Queues
1: 140th Wa~ SE & SE Renton Maele Valle~ Rd 12i7i2015 -• ., -~
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1321 1202 487 654 413 286
vie Ratio 0.84 0.76 1.03 0.24 0.75 0.42
Control Delay 40. 1 3.5 99.7 5.5 65.0 25.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 40.1 3.5 99.7 5.5 65.0 25.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 542 0 -495 83 186 157
Queue Length 95th (ft) 641 0 #752 114 239 232
Internal Link Dist (ft) 570 980 295
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 400 300
Base Capacity (vph) 1607 1583 472 2680 636 677
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced vie Ratio 0.82 0.76 1.03 0.24 0.65 0.42
-Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 With Project -PM Peak Hour
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa~ SE & SE Renton Maele Valle~ Rd 12/7/2015
-" {' -"' ~
Lane Configurations tt ., .,, tt .,,.,, .,
Volume (veh/h) 1308 1190 482 647 409 283
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1321 0 487 654 413 274
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1709 765 413 2695 538 620
Arrive On Green 0.48 0.00 0.23 0.76 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 3632 1583 1774 3632 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1321 0 487 654 413 274
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1770 1583 1774 1770 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 43.1 0.0 32.6 7.6 16.0 17.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 43.1 0.0 32.6 7.6 16.0 17.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1709 765 413 2695 538 620
V /C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 1.18 0.24 0.77 0.44
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1709 765 413 2695 638 666
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 0.0 53.7 4.9 56.7 31.7
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.0 103.0 0.2 5.4 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back01Q(50%),vehnn 21.7 0.0 27.8 3.7 8.1 7.9
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.3 0.0 156.7 5.1 62.1 32.4
LnG LOS C F A E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1321 1141 687
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.3 69.8 50.2
Approach LOS C E D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.0 74.0 113.0 27.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.6 63.6 102.6 25.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 34.6 45.1 9.6 19.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 16.4 58.8 2.0
HCM 2010 Ctrt Delay 50.2
HCM 2010 LOS D
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 With Project -PM Peak Hour
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: East Drivewa~ & SE Renton Maele Valle~ Rd 1217/2015 ---.. "" -~
Lane Configurations -tf. 'I H ¥
Volume (vph) 1718 15 6 1109 7 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 100 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 25
Link Distance (ft) 651 339 172
Travel Time (s) 8.9 4.6 4.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Elliot Farm Synchro 8 Report
2017 With Project -PM Peak Hour
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: East Driveway & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
1718
0
Free
0
0
98
2
1753
0
15
0
Free
None
98
2
15
0
6
0
Free
100
98
3
6
1768
4.16
2.23
344
344
1109
0
Free
None
0
0
98
3
1132
0
7
0
Stop
0
1
0
98
2
7
2339
1761
578
6.84
5.84
5.84
3.52
31
123
524
30
99
123
515
3
0
Stop
None
98
2
3
884
6.94
3.32
288
288
12/7/2015
,, zrmu11nm,111,rNrrzr: FTt!mrmw@Mtt@1•mvwe~~t:jil;JW
HCM Control Delay, s O 0. 1 36.9
HCM LOS E
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Elliot Farm
123
0.083
36.9
E
0.3
2017 With Project-PM Peak Hour
-344
-O.D18
15.7
C
0.1
Synchro 8 Report
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
April l, 2015
City of Renton
FROM: Jeff Schramm
TENW
Traffic Assessment-Elliott Farm Residential
SUBJECT: Elliott Farm Residential Traffic Assessment -Renton, WA
TENW Project #5021
This memorandum documents the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed 45-unit
Elliott Farm multi-family residential development. The proposed project is located near SE Renton
Maple Valley Rd (SR-169) and 140th Way SE to the east of the Molasses Creek development in the
City of Renton. Location of the site is shown in the Figure l site vicinity map.
Executive Summary
Proposal. The project proposes 45 townhome dwelling units on a site that is currently vacant.
Vehicular access to the site would be shared between the proposed site and the existing Molasses
Creek site utilizing its existing access on SE Renton Maple Valley Rd and 140th Way SE. Full project
buildout is expected in 2017.
Trip Generation. The proposed project is estimated to generate 321 new weekday daily trips,
with 27 new trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (5 entering, 22 exiting), and 31
new trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour (21 entering, l O exiting).
Intersection Operations Analysis. Based on the LOS results conducted at three study
intersections, all intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels (LOS Dor better) during
the AM and PM peak hours in 2017 with no significant impacts created by the proposed Elliott Farm
residential development.
Concurrency. Since all of the study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable LOS Dor
better, this project is anticipated to meet City concurrency requirements.
Mitigation. Based on our findings, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant
adverse impact on the transportation system. The payment of transportation impact fees will
adequately mitigate project impacts by funding the project's fair share of the cost of the City of
Renton's planned transportation improvements. Based on the City's current impact fee rate, the
development's impact fee would be $53 137.80 [45 X $1, 180.84/unit).
Transportation Planning ) Design ) Traffic Impact & Operations
11400 SE 8~ Street. Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98004 I Office (425) 889-6747
Figure 1: Site Vicinity
~TENW
Traffic Assessment -Elliott Farm Residential
c!)
NOTTO SCALE
April I, 2015
Page 2
Traffic Assessment -Elliott Form Residential
Introduction
Consistent with our traffic scoping discussions with City staff, the following items are addressed in
this traffic assessment:
• Project description
• Trip generation
• Trip distribution and assignment
• Traffic volumes
• LOS Analysis
• Transportation concurrency
• Traffic Safety Assessment
• Mitigation
Project Description
The project proposes 45 new townhome dwelling units on a site that is currently vacant. The
proposed project is located near SE Renton Maple Valley Rd ISR-169) and l 40'h Way SE just east
of the Molasses Creek development. Vehicular access to the site will be shared between the
proposed site and the Molasses Creek site utilizing its existing access on SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
and 140th Way SE. Full project buildout is expected in 2017. A preliminary site plan is provided
in Figure 2.
Trip Generation
The trip generation estimate for the proposed Elliott Farm residential development was based on the
trip equations published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th
edition for Land Use Code (LUC) 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse). The weekday daily,
AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates associated with the proposed project are
summarized in Table 1 .
1& TENW Apnl 1.2015
Page 3
Figure 2: Preliminary Site Plan
~TENW
I
I
I
I
I
I
) I
I
~ \ :~.\ ,: . : . : .,~, I
(. ·.:.; i<:r,
Traffic Assessment-Elliott Form Residential
April I. 2015
Page4
Traffic Assessment -Elliott Farm Residential
Table 1
Elliott Farm Residential -Trie Generation
Dwemng Direcfional Split
Time Period Units Trip Rate 1 Enter Exit In
Weekday Daily 45 equation 50% 50% 160
Weekday AM Peak Hour 45 equation 17% 83% 5
Weekday PM Peak Hour 45 equation 67% 33% 21
1 Trip rate based on ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012 for Land Use Code 230 Residential
Condominium/Townhome
Trips
Out Total
161 321
22 27
lO 31
As shown in Table l, the proposed Elliott Farm project is estimated to generate 321 new weekday
daily trips, with 27 new trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (5 entering, 22 exiting),
and 31 new trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour (21 entering, l O exiting).
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The estimated distribution of project traffic was based on existing travel patterns. The weekday AM
and PM peak hour new project-generated trips were generally distributed as follows in the site vicinity:
• 50 percent to/from the west on SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
• 30 percent to/from the east on SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
• 20 percent to/from the south on 1401h Way SE
Figures 3 and 4 provide a graphic illustration of the estimated trip distribution patterns for the
proposed project. They also include the assignment of the new weekday AM and PM peak hour
project trips. Based on our discussions with the City, the following three intersections were identified
and analyzed for AM and PM peak hour LOS:
l . SE Renton Maple Valley Rd / 1401h Way SE
2. SE Renton Maple Valley Rd / Molasses Creek East Access
3. Molasses Creek West Access / 1401h Way SE
~TENW April L 2015
Pages
Traffic Assessment-Elliott Form Residential
Traffic Volumes
Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic counts at the three study intersections were conducted
on Wednesday, February I I, 2015 by All Traffic Data, Inc. The existing peak hour traffic volumes
represent the highest hour between 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. The existing count sheets
are included in Attachment A.
To estimate future 2017 baseline traffic volumes without the project at the study intersections, an
annual growth rate of two percent was applied ta the existing volumes based on direction from the
City Staff. Future 2017 with-project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the trip assignment
from the proposed 45 townhome dwelling units to the year 2017 without-project volumes.
The 2015 existing traffic volumes, 2017 without-project traffic volumes, project trip assignments, and
2017 with-project volumes at the three study intersections are summarized in Figures 3 and 4 for the
AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
~TENW April 1. 2015
Page 6
2015 Existing
2017 Future Traffic Volumes
Without-Project
Figure 3: AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
~TENW
Traffic Assessment-Elliott Farm Residential
Legend
t;;\ Newlrip ~ Distnbution
+ XX AM Volume
Project Trip Distribution & Assignment
2017 Future Traffic Volumes
With-Project
~
""""""
April 1.2015
Page 7
2015 Existing
2017 Future Traffic Volumes
Without-Project
Figure 4: PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
~TENW
Traffic Assessment-Elliott Farm Residential
Legend
r;;-.,. New Trip \el Distribution
+ XX PM Volume
Project Trip Distribution & Assignment
2017 Future Traffic Volumes
With-Project
(!)
NOTTO SCALE
Apnl I, 2015
Page 8
Traffic Assessment -Elliott Farm Residential
LOS Analysis
Weekday peak hour level of service !LOS) analyses at the three study intersections were conducted
using the methodologies and procedures outlined in the 20 IO Highway Capacity Manual IHCM
20 I 0) LOS serves as an indicator of the quality of traffic flow and degree of congestion at an
intersection or roadway segment. It is a measure of vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel
delays, and driving comfort. The LOS methodology is described in Attachment B. The Synchro
Version 8 software package was used to determine the reported LOS.
SE Renton Maple Valley Rd/l 40ih Way SE -This is a major signalized intersection with a live lane
section at the eastbound and westbound approaches, and a live-lane section at the northbound
approach. The current geometry is expected to remain for future conditions.
SE Renton Maple Valley Rd/Molasses Creek East Access -This access is a two-way stopped
controlled intersection. The eastbound and westbound movements along SE Renton Maple Valley
Rd operate as free movements. The northbound movement is stop controlled and supports full access.
This intersection will serve as one of two access locations for the proposed site. The current geometry
is expected to remain for future conditions.
140th Way SE/Molasses Creek West Access -This access a two-way stopped controlled
intersection. The westbound movement is stop controlled while the northbound and southbound
movements operate free. The westbound approach is restricted to allow right in and right out only
movements; no left turns are permitted southbound along 1401h Way SE. This intersection is
anticipated to serve as the second access location for the proposed site. The current geometry is
expected to remain for future conditions.
Tables 2 and 3 summarizes the results of the AM and PM LOS analysis at the three study intersections.
The LOS calculation sheets are included in Attachment B.
Table 2
Signalized
1. l 4oth Way SE & SE Renton
Maple Valley Rd
Unsiqnalized
2. Molasses Creek East Dwy &
SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
Northbound Approach
Westbound Left-Turn
3. 140th Way SE & Molasses
Creek West Dwy
Westbound Right-Turn
1 LOS = Level of Service.
D
C
B
C
37.3
23.0
11.3
20.1
2 Delay refers to average control delay in seconds per vehicle
1" TENW
'Wtt~t Ptbjecf ,' . . Delay
LOS 1 (secJ 2
D
C
B
C
39.6
24.2
11.6
21.2
D
D
B
C
39.9
25.2
11.6
21.6
April I. 2015
Page9
Traffic Assessment -Elliott Farm Residential
Table 3
Elliott Farm Residential PM Peak Hour LOS Summary
2Q 1,5 Existing 2Q1 z WithQut Project 201 z With Proj!,!g
Delay Delay
Study Intersection LOS' {sec)2 LOS 1 {sec)2 LOS 1 Delay {sec)•
Signalized
1. 140th Way SE & SE Renton
Maple Valley Rd D 46.4 D 49.9 D 50.3
Unsignalized
2. Molasses Creek East Dwy &
SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
Northbound Approach C 23.2 C 24.5 D 30.4
Westbound Left-Turn B 14.8 C 15.4 C 15.6
3. 140th Woy SE & Molasses
Creek West Dwy
Westbound Ri:;iht-Turn B 10.7 B 10.9 B 10.9
1 LOS= Level of Service.
2 Delay refers to average control delay in seconds per vehicle
The results of the LOS analysis shown in Tables 2 and 3 indicate that the study intersections are
expected to operate at acceptable levels [LOS D or better) during the Ml\ and PM peak hours in
2017 without or with the proposed Elliott Farm residential development.
Transportation Concurrency
Since all of the study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable LOS Dor better, we expect
this project would meet City of Renton concurrency requirements.
Traffic Safety Assessment
The proposed site will share vehicle access locations with the existing and adjacent Molasses Creek
residential development. Collision records nearest to study area were obtained for documentation
purposes.
Collision records in the study area were reviewed for the three-year period from January l , 20 l 2 to
December 31, 2014. Collision data was provided by the Washington State Department of
Transportation [WSDOT). Summaries of the total, annual average, and collisions per million entering
vehicles [MEY) and million vehicle miles of travel [MVM) are provided in in Table 4.
~TENW April 1. 2015
Page 10
Traffic Assessment-Elliott Farm Residential
Table4
Three Year Collision Summary-January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014
Number of Collisions
Collisions
1/1/2012-l/1/2013 -1/1/2014-Annuol per MEY'
Location 12/31/2012 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 Total Average orMVM 1
Intersections
I. SE Renton Maple Valley Rd / 11 5 8 24 8.00 0.73 1401h Way SE
2. SE Renton Maple Valley Rd/ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Molasses Creek Access
Roadwal' Segments
I. SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
ll40'h Way SE to Molasses Creek 3 1.00 0.45
East Access)
2. SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
(Molasses Creek East Access to 3 6 2 11 3.67 0.72
149th Ave SE)
Source: WSDOT Collision Records fl /1/2012-12/31/2014/.
1. MEY= Million Entering Vehicles; MVM = Million Vehicle Miles
Mitigation
To mitigate long-term traffic impacts created by the Elliott Farm residential proiect, the City of Renton
requires payment of a traffic impact fee. The City's currently adopted impact fee rates are derived
from the 2015 Development Fees per Ordinance 5670. The impact fee for condominium/townhome
is $1, 180.84 per dwelling unit. Based on 45 new dwelling units, the resulting impact fee would
be $53,137.80 (45 X $1, 180.84/unitJ. The City's impact fee rate is subiect to change.
If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this Traffic Impact Analysis, please
contact me at 425-250058 l or schramm@tenw.com.
cc: Todd Levitt, Murray Franklin
Jeff Haynie, P.E -TENW Principal
Attachments: A. Existing Traffic Counts
B. LOS Calculations
~TENW April l. 2015
Page II
Traffic Assessment-Brixton Residential
ATTACHMENT A
Existing Count Sheets
SR 169
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
124191
0'=>
8~+
143 ~
Approach PHF HV%
EB 0.82 8.1%
WB 0.96 4.8%
NB 0.96 0.9%
SB 0.00 0.0%
Intersection 0.97 3.2%
"
Volume
434
1,349
1,851
0
3,634
Count Period: 6:00 AM to 9:00AM
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
6:30 AM to 7:30 AM
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
0
s "*' ,
0
.fl ~ " 1 o 11.2221 B
12951 I 1s51 I
Site ID: 1
·~B II 152
C. 0 -
1920 1
SR169
~
>-
~
~ c:, ... ....
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
Site ID: 1
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
1S.-Minute Interval Summary
6·00 AM to 9·00 AM
Interval Northbound
St,rt 140TH WAY SE
nm, u L
6:00AM 0 264
6.15AM 0 275
6:30AM 0 288
6:45AM 0 305
7:00AM 0 309
7:15AM 0 320
7:30AM 0 260
7:45AM 0 219
8:00 AM 0 179
8:15AM 0 242
8:30AM 0 240
8:45 AM 0 202
Total 0 3,103 surve"
Peak Hour Summary
6"30AM to 7"30AM
By Northbound
Approach 140TH WAY SE
1, Oct Total
VolumB 1,851 295 2,146
%HV 0.9%
PHF 0.96
By Northbourtd
140THWAY SE Movement u L .
Volume 0 1,222 .
%HV 0.0% 0.7%
PHF 0.00 0.95
Rolling Hour Summary
6·00AM to 9·00AM
Interval Northbound
start 140TH WAY SE
Time u L T
6:00AM 0 1,132
6:15AM 0 1.177
6:30AM 0 1,222
6:45 AM 0 1,194
7:00AM D 1,108
7:15AM 0 978
7:30 AM 0 900
7:45 AM 0 890
8:00AM 0 863
R
110
155
1sa
m
159
133
13!
112
15!
202
149
96
1.734
HV
t6
R
629
1.3%
0.89
R
602
651
629
600
535
527
596
613
597
Southbound
cJa
Southbound
e/a
le ··. Oct Total
0 ' 0 D
0.0%
0.00
Southboulld
e/a
Southbound
"' u L T
Eastbound
SR 169
u T
0 53
0 63
0 93
0 58
0 72
0 88
0 86
0 64
0 108
0 119
0 t1t
0 . 97
0 982
Eastbound
SR_169
HV '" Oct Total
0 434 2.419 2,653
8.1%
0.82
Eastbound
SR 169
u • T
0 291
0.0% 8.2%
0.00 0.76
Eastbound
SR 169
R u L T
0 ~ 267
0 286
0 291
0 284
0 290
0 326
0 377
0 402
0 425
SB \7 WB<)=
le u le 1,349
Oct 920
HV .., ,I, ~ PHF
uo
29!
0
~ t ,.
In 1,851
Out 2,419 1,222 629 Out 295
HV 81% uo HV 0.9%
PHF 0.82 PHF 0.96
Peak Hour Summary
6:30AM to 7:30AM
Westbound Pedestrians & Bicycles
SR 169 Interval In _qros_swalk _(By _L()C;SUo~)
R u L T Total SOcth Etist West
27 0 t1 358 823 0 0 0
22 0 22 286 823 1 3 0
39 0 23 330 933 0 0 0
37 0 44 280 90! 0 0 0
35 0 45 275 s9s 0 0 0
32 0 40 312 905 0 1 0
37 0 60 308 882 0 0 0
38 0 58 247 739 0 0 0 .
50 0 58 220 766 0 0 0
70 0 56 269 958 0 0 0
5t 0 89 247 986 0 0 0
53 0 . 73 245 756 0 0 0
49! 0 579 3,377 10,266 1 4 0
Westbound Peda5trians & Blcycfes
SR 169 Total In Crosswalk {By Location)
HV '" Oct Total HV North South Ea• West
35 1,349 920 2,269 65 3,634 0 0 1 0
4.8% 3.2%
0.96 0.97
Westl:Jound
SR 189 Tobi
R u L T
143 0 152 1,197 3.634
7.7% 0.0% 2.0% 5.2% 3.2%
0.92 0.00 084 0.91 0.97
Westbound Pedestrians & Blcyeles.
SR 169 Interval In Crosswalk (By Location)
R u L T R Total Noah Soo~ Ea• w,.
125 0 100 1,254 3,480 t 3 0
133 0 134 1,171 3,552 1 3 0
143 0 152 1,197 3,.,.. 0 1 0
'41 0 189 1,175 3.583 0 t 0
142 0 203 1,142 3,420 D 1 0
157 0 216 1,087 3,291 0 1 0
195 0 232 t.044 3,344 0 0 0
209 0 26! 983 3.348 0 D 0
224 0 276 98! 3366 0 0 D
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
15-Mlnute Interval Summary
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Interval Northbound
st.rt 140THWAYSE
nm, u L R
6:00AM 0 1 2
6:15AM 0 4 1
6:30 AM 0 0 2
6:45AM 0 3 1
7:00AM 0 3 1
7:15AM 0 2 4
7:30AM 0 1 3
7:45AM 0 1 9
8:00AM 0 1 8
8:15AM 0 2 5
8:30AM 0 0 7
8:45 AM 0 2 2
Total 0 20 45 Survev
Peak Hour Summary
6:30 AM to 7:30 AM
By Northbound
Appl"(lach 140THWAY SE
lo Q,t Tolal
Volume 16 14 30
By Northbound
Movement 140TH WAY SE
u L R
Volu!Tltl 0 8 8
Ro/llng Hour Summary
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Interval Northbound
Start 140THWAYSE
nm, u L T R
6:00AM 0 8 6
6:15AM 0 10 5
6:30AM 0 8 8
645AM 0 9 9
7.00AM 0 7 17
7:15AM 0 5 24
7:30AM 0 5 25
7:45AM 0 4 29
8:00AM 0 5 22
' Total
3
5
2
4
4 '
6
4
10
9
7
7
4
65
T°"I
16
Tolal
14
15
16
18
24
29
30
33
27
lo
0
u
uo
Q,t 70
I" 35
Souttibouml Eastbound
ol, SR 169
u T
0 6
0 3
0 10
0 2
0 5
0 7
0 12
0 13
0 18
0 17
0 20
0 14
0 0
'
127
Southbound Entbound m, SR 169
Dot Total lo Dot Tolal
0 0 35 70 105
Southbound Eaatbouml
ma SR 169
u T
. 0 0 24
Southbound Eastbound
ma SR 169
L T R To"' u L T
0 21 .
0 20
0 24
0 26
0 37
0 50
0 60
0 68
0 69
In Out
0 0
u ... "'~ ,, t.
65 In ,. ... ...,,
32 Oen
11. [E 4t t,
R
3
2
' 2
1
4
1
2
3
2
3
1
28
R
11
R
11
9
11
8
8
10
8
10
9
"t ... uo 8 8
Ou1 lo
14 16
Peak Hour Summary
6:30 AM to 7:30 AM
Wastbouml
SR 169
Tot,I u L T
9 0 0 13
5 0 1 11
14 0 0 17
4 0 2 19
6 0 0 14
11 0 1 12
13 0 1 16
15 0 1 5
21 0 4 14
19 0 1 19
23 0 6 12
15 0 1 14
155 0 18 166
WHtbound
SR 169
lo Ou, Total
65 32 97
Westbound
SR 169
T°"I u L T
35 0 3 62
Wastbouml
SR 169
Total u L T
32 0 3 60
29 D 3 61
35 0 3 62
34 0 4 61
" 0 3 47
60 0 7 47
68 0 7 " 78 D 12 50
78 0 . 12 59
Interval
Tot,I Total
13 25
12 22
17 33
21 29
14 " 13 30
17 34
6 31
18 "' 20 46
18 "' 15 34
184 73
Tot.1 .
116
To1a<
Total
. 65 116
Interval
R Tota/ Tot,I
63 109
64 10B
65 116
65 . 11i" -
50 119
" 143
61 159
62 173
71 176
SR 169
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
110101
0'=>
I 2391111,2471 +
1,144 1111
Approach PHF HV%
EB 0.97 1.5%
WB 0.93 1.5%
NB 0.86 0.9%
SB 0.00 0.0%
Intersection 0.99 1.4%,
0
Volume
2,391
1,078
661
0
4,130
Count Period: 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
1/Vednesday, February11,2015
D
N W*E ,
0
!) ~ " I o 1393 I I 2sa I
i 1sosl B
Site ID: 1
·~B It 461
C. 0
~
I 1s1s I
SR169
~
)..
~
~ c:, ... ..
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
Site ID: 1
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
VVednesday,February11,2015
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
15-Minute Interval Summary
3·00PM to 6·00PM
Interval NorthbouOO
Start 140THWAYSE
nm, u L
3:00PM 0 74
3:15PM 0 "' 3:30PM 0 87
:l:45PM 0 74
4:00 PM 0 93
4:15PM 0 76
4:30 PM 0 109
4:45 PM 0 101
5:00 PM 0 97
5:15 PM 0 86
5:30 PM 0 103
5:45 PM 0 82
Total 0 1.094 Sunl(I··
Peak Hour Summary
4·30 PM to 5·30 PM
By Northbound
Approach 140TH WAY SE
t, O,t To1al
Volume 661 1,605 2,266
%HV 0.9%
PHF 0.86
By Northbound
140THWAYSE Movement u L .
Volume 0 393 ·
%HV 0.0% 0.8%
PHF 0.00 0.90
Rolling Hour Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
lflterval Northbound
Start 140TH WAY SE
Time u L T
3;00PM 0 347
3:1sPM 0 366
3:30PM 0 330
3:45 PM 0 352
4:00 PM 0 379
4:15 PM 0 383
4:30 PM 0 393
4:45 PM 0 387
5:00 PM 0 368
R
72
69
86
61
B3
52
B3
" 65
56
80
71
'"
HV
6
R
268
1.1%
0.81
R
288
299
282
279
282
264
268
265
272
Southbound
ma
'
. .
Southbound
nfa ,, Orn TOta1 .
0 0 0
0.0%
000
Southbound
ma
Southbound
"'' u . L T
.
Eastbound
SR 169
u T
0 373
0 369
0 284
0 359
0 309
0 341
0 306
0 302
0 332
0 307
0 333
0 295
.
0 3,910
Eastbound
SR 169
HV " Ou1 Total
0 2,391 : 1,010. 3,401
1.5%
0.97
E111,tbound
SR 169
u T
0 1,247
0.0% 2.2%
0.00 0.9'
Eastbound
SR 169
R u L T
0 1,385
0 1,321
0 1,293
0 1.315
0 1,258
0 1,281
0 1,247
0 1.274
0 1 267
SB S:, WB (;= ,, 0 u " 1.Q78
0,1
HV ~ "' 14. PHF
uo t..
.... 617
,1(461 uo
~ t ,.. ,, 661
Orn 1,010 393 268 Out 1,605
HV 1.5% uo HV 0.9%
PHF 0.97 PHF 0.86
Peak Hour Summary
4:30PM to 5:30PM
Weslb1x.md Pedutriami & Biq,eles
SR 169 Interval In Crosswalk..(E3y _Lo~t_ion)
R u L T Total South East west
'96 0 "' 146 972 0 0 0
252 0 102 150 I ___ 1,()54 0 0 0
233 0 '20 "' 951 0 0 0
245 0 97 121 957 0 0 0
265 0 129 147 1,026 0 0 0
256 0 127 171 1,023 0 4 0 .
281 0 114 142 1,035 0 0 0
290 0 123 160 1.,040 0 0 0
287 0 1·03 145 1,029 0 1 0
286 0 121 170 1,026 0 0 0
252 0 " 14S 1.Q11 0 0 0
268 0 103 156 977 0 0 0
3,111 0 1,344 1.800 12,101 0 5 0
Westbound Pedes1rians & Blcycles
SR 169 Total l_n Cros_swalk (By Location)
HV t, Ou1 Total HV North ''"~ East West
36 1,078 1,515 2,593 16 4,130 0 0 1 0
1.5% 1.4%
0.93 0.99
Westbound
SR 169 Total
R u L T
1,144 0 <61 617 4.130
0.8% 0.0% 1.1% 1.8% 1.4%
0.99 0.00 0.9' 0.91 0.99
Westboond Pedestrians & Blcycles
SR 169 lntervat In Crosswalk (By Location)
R u L T R Total North .,,. East West
926 0 '" 558 3,934 ' 0 0 Cl.
995 0 '" 559 3,988 0 0 0 ... 0 473 580 :l,957 0 4 0 ..
1,047 0 467 581 4,041 0 4 0
1,092 0 '93 620 4,124 0 4 0
1.114 0 467 618 4,127 0 5 0
1,144 0 <61 617 4,130 0 1 0
1,115 0 '" "' 4,106 0 1 0
1 093 0 '" 622 41)43 0 1 0
EricBoMn
(303) 66S..0220
140TH WAY SE & SR 169
VVednesday,February11,2015
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
15-Mlnute Interval Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound
Start 14DTHWAYSE
Time u L R
3:00 PM 0 5 3
1 _3:1_5PM 0 6 2
3:30 PM 0 2 2
3:45 PM 0 3 1
4:00 PM 0 1 4
4:15PM 0 1 3
4:30 PM 0 2 1
4:45 PM 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 1
5:15 PM 0 1 1
5:30 PM 0 1 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0
Total 0 22 18 Survev
Peak Hour Summary
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE Approach
'" o" Total
Volume 6 14 20
By Northbound
Movement 140THWAY SE
u L R
Volume 0 3 3
Rolling Hour Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound
Start 140THWAY SE
Timo u L 7 R
3:00PM 0 16 8
3:15PM 0 12 9
3:30PM 0 7 10
3:45PM 0 7 9
4:00 PM 0 4 8
4:15PM 0 J 5
4:30 PM 0 3 3
4:45 PM 0 2 2
5:00 PM 0 2 2
Total
8
8
4
4
5
4
3
0
1
2
1
0
40
7olal
6
Total
24
21
17
16
12
8
6
4
4
'" 0
u
Southbound
rua
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Souttlbound
rua
Doi To<al lo
0 0 36
SOtlthbound
rua
u
0 0
Southbound
"" L T R Total u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OU! 14
In 36
uo
Eastbound
SR 169
. T
13
10
11
5
10
10
7
6
10
4
J
3
•
92
Eastbound
SR 169
Out · Total
14 50
Eastbound
SR 169
7
27
Eastbound
SR 169
L T
39
36
36
32
JJ
JJ
27
23
20
R
1
2
3
3
4
3
1
1
4
3
0
1
26
R
9
R
9
12
13
11
9
9
9
8
8
In Out
0 0
uo 3
Out In
14 6
Peak Hour Summary
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
Westbound
SR 169
To<al u L T
14 0 0 12
12 0 2 5
14 0 2 5
8 0 2 7
14 0 1 8
13 0 0 5
8 0 1 2
7 0 2 3
14 0 1 1
7 0 1 5
J 0 1 2
4 0 1 7
118 0 14 62
Westbound
_s_~_16s
'" Ool Total
16 30 46
Westbound
SR 169
Total u L T
36 0 5 11
Westbound
SR 169
Total u . L 7
48 0 ' 29
48 0 7 25
49 0 5 25
43 0 4 22
42 0 4 18
42 0 4 11
36 0 5 11
31 0 5 11
28 0 4 15
R
.
16 In
30 OLJ1
Interval
To<al Total
12 34
7 27
7 25
9 21
9 28
5 22
3 14
5 12
2 17
6 15
J 7
8 12
76 44
T""I
58
Total
Total
16 58
Interval
Total Total
JS 107
32 101
30 96
26 85
22 76
15 65
16 58
16 51
19 51
Peak Hour Summary
.W,·
SR 169
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
11211!
0'=>
I 101a I 11,0121 +
6 ~
Approach PHF HV%
EB 0.77 9.1%
WB 0.93 5.1%
NB 0.54 0.0%
SB 0.00 0.0%
Intersection 0.86 6.9%
140TH WAY SE DWY & SR 169
0
Volume
1,018
1,263
13
0
2,294
8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
0
N W*E ,
0
fl ~
I O I 9 I
11
8
0 G
Count Period: 6:00 AM to 9:00AM
Site ID: 2
·~E "' 1
C. 0
0
i 101si
SR169
lll
>-~
§~
:!: Q
Total Vehicle Summary
Eric Boivin
(303) 668--0220
Site ID: 2
140TH WAY SE DWY & SR 169
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
15wM/nute Interval Summary
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
lnlerval NorlhbCK.ind
S<art 140TH WAY SE DWY .
Time u L R
6:00AM 0 0 0
6:15AM 0 , 2
6:"30",i.j,j 0 3 ' 6:45 AM 0 3 1
7:00 AM 0 2 4
7:15AM 0 ' 2
7:30AM 0 7 ' 7:45 AM 0 ' ' 8:00AM 0 ' ' 8:15AM 0 3 0
8:30AM 0 4 2
8:45 AM 0 ' ' Total 0 surve11 33 21
Peak Hour Summa,y
B·OOAM to 9·00AM
By Northbound
Approach 140TH WA_Y ?E.Dyv:'I'
la 0,1 Total HV
Volume " 7 20 0
%HV 0.0%
PHF 0.5'
By Northbound
Mo~eme11t 140TH WAY SE DWY
u L R
Volume 0 9 4
%HV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PHF 0.00 0.56 0.50
Rolling Hour Summary
6,00 AM to 9:00 AM
Interval Northbound
S,,rt 140TH WAY SE DWY
nm, u L T R
1_6:QQAM 0 8 9
6;15AM 0 ,0 " 6:30AM 0 " " 6:45AM 0 18 8
7:00AM 0 16 8
7:15AM 0 " 5
7:30AM 0 " 3
7:45 AM 0 9 4
8:00AM 0 9 4
Southbound
a/a
Sol.lttlbol.lnd
"' la o"' Total
0 0 0
0.0%
0.00
souttibound
"'
Southbound
ala
u L T
HV
0
R
.
Eastbound
SR 169
u T
0 158
0 218
0 245
0 236
0 228
0 20,
0 "' 0 179
0 247
0 326
0 255
0 1B4
0 2.669
Eastbound
SR 169
la o"' Total
1,o18 1,271 2,289
9.1%
0.77
Eastbound
SR 189
u T
0 1,012
0.0% 9.2%
0.00 0.78
Eastbound
SR 169
u L T
0 B57
0 927
0 910
0 877
0 820
0 B39
0 964
0 1,007
0 1 012
R
1
0
0
1
0
' 2
0
' 3
1
' "
HV
93
R
6
0.0%
0.50
R
2
1
2
4
3
4
6
5
6
u
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'
la
.. ,;,
la 0
0~ 0
HV
PHF
uo
•• ca:>
In 1,018
Out 1,271
HV 9.1%
PHF 0.77
Westbound
SR 169
L T
0 356
0 330
1 324
0 319
' 340
0 341
0 353
2 3'3
0 267
' 334
0 340
0 321
5 3,938
Westbound
SR 169
o"' Totai HV
1,26J° · 1,016 2,279 65
5.1%
0.93
We&tbound
SR 169
u L T
0 ' 1,262
0.0% 0.0% 5.2%
0.00 0.25 0.93
Wflstbound
SR 169
u L T R
1 1 1,329
0 2 1.313
0 2 1.324
0 1 1,353
0 3 1,347
0 2 1.274
0 3 1,267
0 3 1,254
0 1 1,262
u
0
WO<)=
1,263
1,016
ITl OITJO .... 1,262
,It ~o
0
~ t ,. In 13
Out 7 9 4
uo HV 0.0%
PHF 0.54
Peak Hour Summary
8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Pedesbians & Bicycles
Interval In _Crosswalk (By Location)
Total South E,.. West
516 0 0 0
552 0 0 0
579 0 0 b
560 0 0 0
575 1 0 0
55' 0 0 0
575 0 0 0
496 1 0 0
5H 0 0 0
667 0 0 0
602 0 0 0
508 0 0 0
6,698 2 0 0
Pedestrlana & Bicycles
Total In_ Crossw_alk (By Location)
"""" ·-Eao Weo
2,294 0 0 0 0
6.9%
O.B6
Total
2.294
6.9%
0.86
Pedestrians & Bicycles
Interval In Crosswalk (By Location)
T°"'I """" South EaO West
2,207 0 0 () __
2,266 1 0 0
2,265 ' 0 0
2.261 ' 0 0
2,197 2 0 0
2.139 ' 0 0
2.255 ' 0 0
2.282 ' 0 0
2294 0 0 0
Eric Boivin
(303) 668,0220
140TH WAY SE DWY & SR 169
I/Vednesday,February11,2015
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
15-Mlnute Interval Summary
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Interval Norihbour>d .... 140TH WAY SE OWY
Time u L R
6:00AM 0 0 0
6:15AM 0 0 0
6:30AM 0 0 0
6:45 AM I. _Q 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0
7:15AM 0 0 0
7:30AM 0 0 0
7:45 AM ' 0 0 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0
6:15AM 0 0 0
8:30AM 0 0 0
8:45AM 0 0 0
Tolal 0 0 0 Survev
Peak Hour Summary
8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE DWY Approach '" Out · Total
Volume 0 0 0
By Northbound
Movement 140TH WAY SE DWY
u L R
Volume 0 0 0
Rolling Hour Summary
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Interval Northbound
S1art 140TH WAY SE DWY
nm, u L T R
6:00 AM 0 0 0
6:15AM 0 0 0
6:30AM 0 0 0
6:45AM 0 0 0
7·00AM 0 0 0
7:15AM 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0
NSAM 0 0 0
6.00 AM 0 0 0
Southbound
"'' Total
0 o
0
o __ -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Southbound
"' 1, 0"1 Tatal
0 0 0
Southbound
"'' Total
0
Southbound
"'' Total u L T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
'" 93
u
0 0
R Total u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Out 65
In 93
uo
Eastbound
SR 169
T
8
4
11
2
5
11
12
21
27
25
25
16
167
Eastbound
SR 169
Out : Toui
65 158
Eastbound
SR 169
T
93
Eastl:Jound
SR 169
L T
25
22
29
30
49
71
85
98
93
In Out
0 0
t.
93-+
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1' t ...
U O 0
Out In
0 0
Peak Hour Summary
8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Westbound
SR 169
Total u L T
8 0 0 11
4 0 0 17
11 0 0 15
2 0 0 20
5 0 0 15
11 0 0 16
12 0 0 17
21 0 0 9
27 0 0 16
25 0 0 " 25 0 0 16
16 0 0 15
167 0 0 185
Westbound
SR 169
'" 0"1 Total
65 93 158
Westbound
SR 169
To<al u L T
93 0 . 0 65
Westbound
SR 169
Total u L T
25 0 0 6J
22 0 0 67
29 0 0 66
30 0 0 68
49 0 0 57
71 0 0 58
85 0 0 60
98 0 0 59
93 0 0 65
R
65 In
93 Out
lntetYat
Tatal Total
11 19
17 21
15 26
20 22
15 20
16 2T
17 29
9 30
16 " " " 16 41
15 31
185 0
Total
156
Total
Total
65 158
Interval
Total Total
6J 88
67 89
66 95
68 98
57 106
58 129
60 145
59 157
65 158
Peak Hour Summary ._.,
SR 169
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
110631
0'='
11659111,6461 +
13 llll
Approach PHF HV%
EB 0.98 2.4%
WB 0.92 2.7%
NB 0.88 0.0%
SB 0.00 0.0%
Intersection 0.98 2.5%
140TH WAY SE DWY & SR 169
..
Volume
1,659
1,066
7
0
2,732
3:45 PM to 4:45 PM
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
0
N
"*" '
1
fl ~
I O I 2 I
" 0
G ~
Count Period: 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Site ID: 2
·~8 Ile 5
C. 0 ..
116511
SR 169
LU
Cl)
>-
~
§~
:! Cl
Total Vehicle Summary
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
Site ID: 2
140TH WAY SE DWY & SR 169
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
3:00PM to 6:00PM
15-Mlnute Interval Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound
"'" 140TH WA_Y _SE D_WY .
Time u L R
3:00 PM 0 1 2
3:15 PM 0 1 1
3:30 PM 0 1 1
3:45 PM 0 0 ' . 4:00 PM 0 0
4:15 PM 0 1
4:30 PM 0 1
4:45 PM 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0
5:15 PM 1 1
5:30 PM 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0
Total 1 6 Surve"
Peak Hour Summary
3:45 PM to 4:45 PM
Northbound
2
1
0
1 0 .
1
1
' 14
By
Approach 140TH WAY SE DWY
lo °"' To\a1 HV
Vojume 7 18 25 0
%HV 0.0%
PHF 0.68
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE DWY Movement u L R
Volume 0 2 5
%HV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PHF 0.00 0.50 0.63
Rolling Hour Summary
3·00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound
'"" 140TH WAY SE DWY
Time u L T R
3:00 PM 0 3 6
3:15PM 0 2 6
3:30 PM 0 2 6
3:45 PM 0 2 5
4:00 PM 0 2 4
4:15PM 0 2 2
4:30 PM 1 2 2
4:45 PM 1 1 3
5:00 PM 1 1 4
Southbound
"''
.
Southbound
"'' lo 0,1 Total
0 0 0
0.0%
0.00
Solllhbound
"''
.
Solllhboulld
"'' u L T
HV
0
R
Ea1Jtbound
SR 169
u T
0 435
0 450
0 370
0 407
0 410
0 '°' 0 424
0 370
0 406
0 361
0 40,
1 360
1 4,801
Eastbound
SR 1~9
lo Oot Total
1,659 1,063 2,722
2.4%
0.96
Eastbound
SR 169
u T
0 1,646
0.0% 2.4%
0.00 0.97
Eastbound
SR 169
u L T
0 1,662
0 1.637
0 1,592
0 1,646
0 1,609
0 1.605
0 1,561
0 1,540
1 1 530
•• 'l WB ¢,,
lo u 1,066
0,1
HV .,
"' ~ PHF
uo
lo ~ t ,.
la 7
0,1 1,063 2 5 Out 18
HV 2.4% uo HV 0.0%
PHF 0.98 PHF 0.88
Peak Hour Summary
3:45 PM to 4:45 PM
Westbound Pedesbiana & Bieyelea
SR 169 Interval In _C~walk _(By _l()CS_tion)
R u L T Total Soulh East w .. ,
5 0 0 247 690 0 0 0
4 0 0 257 713 1 0 0
3 0 1 252 62s 0 0 0
5 0 1 236 651 0 0 0
5 0 f 264 662 0 0 0
2 0 1 289 699 0 0 0
1 0 2 272 700 1 0 0
8 0 3 265 647 0 0 0
1 0 1 262 670 1 0 0
6 0 2 266 638 0 0 0
9 0 2 256 671 0 0 0
7 0 1 256 627 0 0 0
56 0 15 3,122 8,016 3 0 0
Westbound Pedntlians & Bicycles
SR 169 Total In Crosswalk {By Location)
HV la Oot Total HV North South East Wes!
'° 1.066 1,651 2,717 29 2,732 0 1 0 0
2.7% 2.5%
0.92 0.98
Westbound
SR 169 Total
R u L T
13 0 5 1.061 2,732
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 2.5%
0.65 0.00 0.63 0.92 0.98
Westbound Pedestrians & Bicycles
SR 169 Interval In Crosswalk (By Location)
R u L T R Total North South East W~I
17 0 2 992 I. 2,682. 1 0 0
17 0 3 1,009 2,674 1 0 0
15 0 4 . 1,041 2,660 0 0 0
13 0 5 1,061 2,732 1 0 0
16 0 7 1.090 2,728 1 Q 0
12 0 7 1,088 2,716 2 0 0
16 0 8 1,065 2,655 2 0 0
24 0 8 1,049 2,626 1 0 0
23 0 6 1 040 2606 1 0 0
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
140TH WAY SE DWY & SR 169
ll,lednesday,February11,2015
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
15-Minute Interval Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound
'"" 140TH WAY SE DWr'
r1-u L R
3:00 PM 0 0 0
3:15PM 0 0 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0
4:15PM 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 D 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 a
5:30 PM 0 0 a
5:45 PM 0 0 D
foiaJ 0 0 D SUIVEI"
Peak Hour Summary
3:45 PM to 4:45 PM
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE DWY Approach lo Oot Total
Volume D D D
., Northboond
Movement 140TH WAY SE OWY
u L R
Volume D D D
Rolling Hour Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
lntarval Northbound
'"" 140TH WAY SE DWY
Timo u L T R
3"CXl PM 0 D D
3:15 PM 0 D D
3.30 PM 0 D D
3:45 PM 0 0 D
4:00 PM 0 0 D
4:15 PM 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0
To<al
0
0
0
z-.
0
0
0
0
a
0
D
D
Total
0
Total
D
D i '
D
0
0
0
D
Southbound
"'·
.
SOuthbound
"' lo Oot Total
0 D D
Southbound
"'
Southbound
ola
u L 7
u
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
D
D
D D
'" 40
u
0 D
R Total u
D
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
Out 29
In 40
EHtbound
SR 169
T
12
14
12
6
12
12
10
7
11
4
3
3
106
Eastbound
SR 169
Out : Total
29 • 69
Eastbound
SR 169
T
40
Eastbound
SR 169
L T
44
44
42
40
41
40
32
25
21
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
R
D
R
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
D
0
In Out
0 0
U O 0
Out In
0 0
Peak Hour Summary
3:45 PM to 4:45 PM
We5tbound
SR 169
Total u L T
12 0 0 11
14 0 0 4
12 0 0 5
6 0 0 13
12 0 0 9
12 0 0 5
10 0 0 2
7 0 0 4
11 0 0 0
4 0 0 4
3 D D 3
3 D D 5
106 0 0 65
Westbound
SR 169
lo Oot Total
29 40 69
Weslbaurn:I
SR 169
Total u L T
40 D 0 29
Westbound
SR 169
Total u L T
44 0 D 33
44 D D 31
42 0 a 32
40 D 0 29
41 0 0 20
40 0 0 11
32 0 0 10
25 0 0 11
21 0 0 12
'
R
29 In
40 Out
Interval
Total Total
11 23
4 18
5 17
13 19 .
9 21
5 17
2 12
4 11
0 11
4 8
3 6
5 8
65 D
Total
69
Total
To<al
29 69
Interval
To<al Total
33 77
31 75
32 74
29 69
20 61
11 51
10 42
11 36
12 33
.
Eric:Boivin
(303) 668-0220
Approach PHF
EB 0.00
WB 0.80
NB 0.95
SB 0.91
Intersection 0.95
Count Period: 6:00 AM
HV%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
4.5%
1.3%
140TH WAY SE & EAST ACCESS
6:30 AM to 7:30 AM
Vllednesday, February11,2015
El l1sssl
1291 1 0 I O I
+ ~ lJ
Peds o
N ••E >
Peds 0
fl ... 11
0 11,8491 3 I
El I 1ss2i
Volume
0
16
1,852
291
2,159
to 9:00AM
Site ID: 3
II: G
G ~8]
C. 0
N
• .,, • ..
0
EAST ACCESS
~
),.
~
i:
C) ... ...
Total Vehicle Summary
Eric Bar.in
(303) 668-0220
Site ID: 3
140TH WAY SE & EAST ACCESS
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
15-Mlnute Interval Summary
6·00 AM to 9·00 AM
Interval Northbound .... 140THWAYSE
Time u T
6:00AM 0 367
6:15AM 0 424
6:30AM 0 '56
6:45 AM 0 485
7:00AM 0 462
7:15AM 0 ...
7:30AM 0 388
7:45AM 0 330
8:00AM 0 330
8:15AM 0 419
8:30AM 0 380
8:45AM 0 . 298
Total 0 4,785 Surve··
Peak Hour Summary
6·30 AM to 7·30 AM ., Northbound
Approach 140T_H W,AY SE
"' o"' To1al
Volume 1,852 291 2,143
%HV 0.8%
PHF 0.95
., Northbound
Movement 140THWAYSE
u T
Volume 0 1,849
%HV 0.0% 0.8%
PHF 0.00 0.95
Rolling Hour Summary
6:00 AM to 9·00 AM
Interval Northbound .... 140THWAY SE
Time u L T
6:00AM 0 1,732
6:15AM 0 1,827
6:30AM 0 . 1,849
6:45AM 0 1,781
7:00AM 0 1,626
7:15AM 0 1.494
7:30 AM 0 1,467
7:45 AM 0 1,459
8:00AM 0 1 427
R
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
6
HV
14
R
3
0.0%
0.38
R
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
Southbound
140TH WAY SE
u L T
0 0 3T
0 0 41
0 0 61
0 0 80
0 0 " 0 0 72
0 0 95
0 0 96
2 0 106
0 0 126
0 0 138
0 0 128
2 0 1,058
Southbound
140THWAYSE
"' Out Toi.
291 1,865 2,156
4.5%
0.91
Southbound
140TH WAY SE
u L T
0 0 291
0.0% 0.0% 4.5%
0.00 000 0.91
Southbound
140THWAYSE
u L T
0 0 219
0 0 260
0 0 291
0 0 325
0 0 341
2 0 369
2 0 423
2 0 466
2 0 49'
HV '" 13 0
R u
.
.
Eastbound
"" u
0
0
0
0 ..
0
0
0
0 ..
0
0
0
0
0
Eastbound
"'' '"" Toi. HV '" 0 0 0 18
0.0%
0.00
Ea5tbound
"'' u
0
0.0%
0.00
Ea5tbound ,.,,
L T R u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'" Ou!
•• '1
HV
PHF
u
'" 0 Ocrt 0
HV 0.0%
PHF 0.00
Westbound
,EAST ACCESS
L R
0 5
.
0 1.
0 5
0 3
0 5
0 3
0 2
0 2
1 3
2 8
0 4
0 3
3 44
Westb~nd
EAST ACCESS
0,1 Tola! HV
3 19 0
0.0%
0.60
Wntbourtd
EAST ACCESS
L R
0 16
0.0% 0.0%
0.00 0.80
Westbound
EAST ACCESS
L T R
0 14
0 14
0 16
0 13
0 12
1 10
3 15
3 17
3 18
'
uo
291 0
WB (l=
In 16
~ t,.. In 1,852
Out 291
HV 0.8%
PHF 0.95
1,849 3
uo
Peak Hour Summary
6:30 AM to 7:30 AM
Pedeslriam1 & Bicycles
Interval ln __ Crosswalk (By _L_ocation)
Tot,! North SooO East
409 0 0 0
466 0 0 0
524 0 0 0
569 0 0 1
545 0 0 0
521 0 0 1
485 0 0 0
429 0 0 0
442 0 0 0
555 0 0 0
523 0 0 0
430 0 0 0
5.898 0 0 2
Pedestrians & Blcycl"
Total ln Crosswalk_ (By_ Location)
North So,• East West
2,159 0 0 2 0
1.3%
0.95
Total
2,159
1.3%
0.95
Pedeatrlans & Blcycles
Interval In Cros$walk (By Location)
Total North South East w .. ,
1,968 0 0 1
2,104 0 0 1
2.159 0 0 2
2.120 0 0 2
1,980 0 0 1
1,877 0 0 1
1,911 0 0 0
1,949 0 0 0
1950 0 0 0
Heavy Vehicle Summary
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
140TH WAY SE & EAST ACCESS
I/Vednesday,February11, 2015
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
15-Minute Interval Summa,y
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Interval Northbound .... I 140THWAY ~E
Time u T R
6:00AM 0 2 0
6:15AM 0 3 0
6:30AM 0 2 0
6:45AM 0 3 0
7:00AM I Q ' 0
7:15AM 0 5 0
7:30AM 0 4 0
7:45 AM I. _Q 8 0
8:00AM 0 9 0
8:15AM 0 7 0
8:30AM 0 6 0
8:45AM a 4 0
Total 0 57 0 Surve"
Peak Hour Summary
6:30AM to 7:30AM
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE Approach 1, Ou1 To,.
Total
2
3
2
3 4·.
5
4
B_ -
9
7
6
4
57
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,
Volume 14 13 27 13
By Northbound
140THWAYSE Movement u T R
Volume 0 14 0
Ro/llng Hour Summary
6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
lnttirval Northbound
Start 140THWAY SE
Timo u L T R
6:00AM 0 10 0
s:1sAM 0 12 0
6:30AM 0 14 0
6:45AM 0 16 0
7:00AM 0 21 0
7:15AM 0 26 0
7:30AM 0 28 0
7:45AM 0 30 0
8:00AM 0 26 0
Total u
14 0
Total u
10 0
12 0
14 0
16 0
21 0
26 0
28 0
30 0
26 0
Southbound
14{)Tl:l_~AY _SE
L T
0 3
0 3
0 4
0 4
0 1
0 4
0 2
0 3
0 7
0 4
0 9
0 2
0 "
Southbound
140TH WAY SE
Q,t To,-
14 27
Southbound
140TH WAY SE
L T
0 13
Southbound
140THWAYSE
L T R
0 14
0 12
0 13
0 11
0 10
0 16
0 16
0 23
0 22
•
.
Total
3
3
4
4
1
4
2
3
7
4
9
2
"
le
0
To,.
13
Total u
14
12
13
11
10
16
16
23
22
Out 0
le 0
u
Easlbourtd
""
.
Eastbound
"1•
Out : iota1
0 0
Eastbound
"1•
Eastbound
"1a
L T R
le
13
Oot
14
0 U 0
u a 14 o
Out In
13 14
Peak Hour Summary
6:30 AM to 7:30 AM
Westbound
EAST ACCESS
u L R
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
WHtbourHI
EAST ACCESS
1, o,t Total
0 0 0
Westbound
EAST ACCESS
u L R
0 0 0 0
Westbound
EAST ACCESS
Total u . L T R
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
Tot,I
0
Total
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
le
Oot
Interval
Total
5
6
6
7
5
9
6
" " " 15
6
0
Total
27
Total
27
Interval
Total
24
24
27
27
31
42
44
53
48
Eric Boivin
(303) 668-0220
Approach PHF
EB 0.00
WB 0.80
NB 0.93
SB 0.97
Intersection 0.99
Count Period: 3:00 PM
140TH WAY SE & EAST ACCESS
HV% Volume
0.0% 0
0.0% 16
0.9% 650
0.9% 1,624
0.9% 2,290
to 6:00 PM
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
v.tednesday, February11,2015
116241 B
11,6201 4 I 0 I .. 1111 lJ
Peds D
N
w .. ,
'
Peds 0
fl ... 11
0 16361141
116231 B
Site ID: 3
"G G ~ [IJ
C. 0
Q
0
" ~ a.
G
EAST ACCESS
~
Cl)
:,.
~
i!:
C, ... ...
Enc Boivin
{303) 66S.0220
Site ID: 3
140TH WAY SE & EAST ACCESS
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
1s.Mlnute Interval Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbo\Jnd
Sta" 140TH _'?JAY SE
Tl-u T
3:00 PM 0 172
3:15PM 0 166
3:30 PM 0 179
3:45 PM 0 143
4:00 PM 0 161
4:15 PM 0 139
4:30 PM 0 172
4:45 PM_ 0 155
5:00PM 0 158
5:15PM 0 151
5:30PM 0 168
5:45PM 0 164
Total 0 Surv=' 1,928
Peak Hour Summary
4·30 PM to 5·30 PM
By Northbound
Approc1ch 140THWAYSE
" Oot To<al
Volume 650 1.623 2,273
%HV 0.9%
PHF 0.93
By Northbound
Movement 140THWAYSE
u T
Volume 0 636
%HV 0.0% 0.9%
PHF 0.00 0.92
Rolling Hour Summary
J·OOPM to 6·00PM
Interval Northbound
""" 140THWAY SE
Time u L T
3:00 PM 0 660
3:15 PM 0 649
3:30 PM 0 622
3:45 PM 0 615
4:00 PM 0 627
4:15 PM 0 624
4:30 PM 0 636
4:45 PM 0 632
5:00 PM 0 641
..
R
2
2
2
1
1
1
3 • 3 • 1
1
25
HV
6
R
14
0.0%
0.68
R
7
6
5
6
9
11
14
12
9
Southbound
~40THWAYSE
u L T
1 0 316
0 0 364
0 t 359
0 1 350
0 1 384
0 0 373
0 1 391
0 2 416
0 1 396
0 0 417
0
•
1 367
0 1 389
.
1 9 4,522
Southbound
140TH WAY SE
lo o,t Total
1,624 649 2,273
0.9%
0.97
Southboulld
140THWAYSE
u L T
0 4 1,620
0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
OO<J 0.50 0.97
Southbound
140TH WAY SE
u L T
1 2 1,389
0 3 1,457
0 3 1,466
0 3 1,498
0 4 1,564
0 4 1,576
0 4 1,620
0 4 1.596
0 . 3 1 569
..
HV lo
14 0
R u
Eastbound
"'
.
Eastbound
"' o,, Total
0 0
0.0%
0.00
Eastbound
ola
Eastbound
"'' L T
SB \7 WB <J=
" 1,624 uo In 16
Oot 649 1,620 4 Out 18
HV .,J + '$,.
PHF
0
u lt-orno t.13
-+ ... .. -IC t,
" 0 ~ t ~ lo 650
Out 0 636 14 Out 1,623
HV 0.0% uo HV 0.9%
PHF 0.00 PHF 0.93
Peak Hour Summa,y
4:30PM to 5:30PM
W11$1bound Pedeatrlane & Bieyelee
EAST ACCESS Interval In Crosswalk _(By _L_oc;alion}
u L R Total NO<th South e~,
0 0 1 492 0 0 0
0 t 0 ' !j3;! ... 0 0 0
0 0 0 541 0 0 1
0 1 1 497 0 0 0
0 1 2 550 0 0 0
0 1 1 515 0 0 0
0 0 3 570 0 0 0
0 0 4 581 0 0 0
0 0 4 562 0 0 0
0 3 2 577 0 0 0
0 1 1 539 0 0 0
0 2 4 561 0 0 0
0 10 " 6,518 0 0 1
Weetbound Pedeslrian11 & Bicycles
EAST ACCESS Tots! In_ Cross~_al~ (By Loca_tion)
HV lo Oot Total HV North Sooth East West
0 16 18 34 0 2,290 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.9%
0.80 0.99
Westbound
EAST ACCESS Total
u L R
0 3 13 2.290
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
O.O<J 0.25 0.81 0.99
Weslboulld Pedestrians & BlcyclH
EAST ACCESS Interval In Crosswalk (By Location)
R u L T R Tolsl North South e,a w,a
0 2 2 2,063 ' 0 0 1
0 3 3 2,121 0 0 1
0 3 • 2,103 0 0 ' 0 3 7 2,13i 0 0 0
0 2 10 2,216 0 0 0
0 1 12 2,228 0 0 0
0 3 13 2,290 0 0 0
0 4 11 2,259 0 0 0
0 6 11 2 239 0 0 0
Eric Boivm
(303) 668-0220
140TH WAY SE & EAST ACCESS
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
1S..Mlnute Interval Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound
Start 140THWAYSE
Tim• u T R
3:00PM 0 8 0
3:15PM 0 8 0
3:30PM 0 3 0
3:45PM 0 4 0
4:00PM 0 ' 0
4:15PM 0 4 0
4:30 PM 0 3 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0
5:00PM 0 1 0
5:15PM 0 2 0
5:30 PM 0 2 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0
Total 0 39 0 Survev
Peak Hour Summary
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
By Northbound
140THWAY SE Approach lo Oot Total
Total
8
8
3
' ' 4
3
0
1
2
2
0
39
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lo
Volume 6 14 20 14
By Northbound
140TH WAY SE Movement u T R
Volume 0 6 0
Roi/Ing Hour Summary
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Interval Northbound .... 140TH WAY SE
Tl-u L T R
3:00 PM 0 23 0
3:15PM 0 19 0
3:30 PM 0 15 0
J:45 PM 0 15 0
4:00 PM 0 11 0
4:15PM 0 8 0
4:30 PM 0 6 0
4:45 PM 0 5 0
5:00 PM 0 5 0
Total u
6 0
Total u
23 0
19 0
15 0
15 0
11 0
8 0
6 0
5 0
5 0
Southbound
140TH WAY SE
L T
0 1
0 3
0 5
0 8
0 6
0 3
0 4
0 ' 0 3
0 3
0 1
0 3
0 44
Southbound
140THWAY SE
Oot Total • 20
Southbound
140THWAYSE
L T
0 14
Southbound
140THWAY SE
L T R
0 17
0 22
0 22
0 21
0 17
0 14
0 14
0 11
0 10
Total
1
3
5
8
6
3
4
' 3
3
1
3
'
44
Total
14
Total
17
22
22
21
17
14
14
11
10
u
Oot
'" 0
Eastbound
"'' .
Eastbound
ma
lo Oot Total
0 0 0
Eaatbovnd
ma
Eastbound
ma
u L T R
.
lo Oot
14 ' 14 0 uo
.... ,I,-14
lt t.,
0 lo ... +-O Oot • rn ~~o
uo "t ...
0,1
14
0
'" 6
Peak Hour Summary
4:30 PM to 5:30 PM
Wastbound
EAST ACCESS
u L R
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Westbound
EAST ACCESS
lo 0,1 Tot,I
0 0 0
Westbound
EAST ACCESS
u L R
0 0 0 0
Westbound
EAST ACCESS
Total u L T R
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
: Total
0
Total
0 0 0 • 0 .
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
lnlerval
Total
9
11
' 12
10
7
i .
' 4
5
3
3
0
Total
20
Total
20
Interval
ToW
40
41
37
36
28
22
20
16
15
Traffic Assessment-Brixton Residential
ATTACHMENT B
LOS Calculations
Traffic Assessment-Brixton Residential
Level of Service Methodology
Level of service colculotions for intersections were based on methodology and procedures
outlined in the 2010 update of the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209,
Transportation Research Board (HCM 2010) using Synchro 8.0traffic analysis software.
LOS generally refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection. It is o
measure of vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel delays, and driving comfort. A letter
scale from A to F generally describes intersection LOS. At signalized intersections, LOS A
represents free-flow conditions (motorists experience little or no deloys), and LOS F represents
forced-flow conditions where motorists experience on average delay in excess of 80 seconds
per vehicle.
The LOS reported for signolized intersections represents the average control delay (sec/veh)
and can be reported for the overall intersection, for each approach, and for each lane group
(additional v/c ratio criteria apply to lane group LOS only).
The LOS reported at stop-controlled intersections is based on the average control delay and
can be reported for each controlled minor approach, controlled minor lane group, and
controlled major-street movement (and for the overall intersection at all-way stop controlled
intersections. Additional v / c ratio criteria apply to lane group or movement LOS only).
Table A I outlines the current HCM 20 IO LOS criteria for signalized and stop-controlled
intersections based on these methodologies.
Table Al
LOS Criteria for Signalized and Stop Controlled lntersections1
.,,.,.~NJ~f'qi<¢],~._~~-/J~;i~~~~~;,~·~· .. ··
. . .Q!Qgdfy IY/Q ~ . ·· · . .. · · · ·. ~QifyNJC) Ra!io3
Conlrol De!Gy control Delcly
{sec/Veh) s 1.0 > 1.0 fsec/veh) s 1.0 > 1.0
,; I 0 A F ,; I 0 A F
> !Oto,; 20 B F >IOto,;15 B F
>20ta,;35 C F >15to,;25 C F
>3Sto,;55 D F >2Sto,;35 D F
>5Sto,;B0 E F >35tos:50 E F
>80 F F > 50 F F
l Source: HCM2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
2 For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments at signals, LOS is defined solely by control delay.
3 For two-way stop controlled intersections, the LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach
on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole at two-way stop
controlled intersections. For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments at all-way stop controlled intersections,
LOS is solely defined by control delay.
Traffic Assessment-Brix.ton Residential
Existing LOS Results
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Wa'i. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'i. Rd 3/23/2015 -t f -..., ~
Lane Configurations tt I' ., tt .,., I'
Volume (vph) 291 143 152 1197 1222 629
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 4% 4% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Turn Type NA Free Prot NA Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum lnttial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 11.4 21.4 30.3 11.4
Total Spltt (s) 38.0 36.0 74.0 56.0 36.0
Total Split (%) 29.2% 27.7% 56.9% 43.1% 27.7%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 125 (96%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: 140th Way SE & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
I '101 ~ l :--1·1
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak -2015 Existing
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa'i. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'i. Rd 312312015
-+ l' 1 -~ I"
Lane Configurations tt r 'I tt 'l'I r
Volume (veh/h) 291 143 152 1197 1222 629
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1759 1759 1827 1827 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 300 0 157 1234 1260 546
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 4 4 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1232 551 186 1821 1339 787
Arrive On Green 0.37 0.00 0.11 0.52 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 3431 1495 1740 3563 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 300 0 157 1234 1260 546
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1671 1495 1740 1736 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 0.0 11.5 34.1 45.4 34.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.1 0.0 11.5 34.1 45.4 34.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1232 551 186 1821 1339 787
VIC Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.84 0.68 0.94 0.69
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1232 551 396 1821 1356 795
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh 28.5 0.0 57.0 22.8 38.5 25.4
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 11.7 2.0 13.0 2.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 6.1 16.8 24.1 15.6
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.9 0.0 68.7 24.8 51.5 28.3
LnG LOS C E C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 300 1391 1806
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.9 29.8 44.5
Approach LOS C C D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.3 54.3 74.6 55.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.6 31.6 67.6 50.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 13.5 10.1 36.1 47.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 16.2 21.6 2.7
HCM 2010 Cb1 Delay 37.3
HCM 2010 LOS D
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak-2015 Existing
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: Molasses Creek East D~ & SE Renton Maele Vallel Rd 3/23/2015 -t f -...., I"
Lane Configurations tt T' 11 tt ¥
Volume (vph) 1012 6 1 1262 9 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 50 100 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30
Link Distance (ft) 1060 667 192
Travel Time (s) 14.5 9.1 4.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Heavy Vehicles(%) 9% 9% 5% 5% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak-2015 Existing
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Molasses Creek East Dwy & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
AM Peak -2015 Existing
215
0.07
23
C
0.2
1012 6 1 1262
0 0 0 0
Free Free Free Free
None None
50 100
0 0
0 0
86 86 86 86
9 9 5 5
1177 7 1 1467
0 0 1177 0
4.2
2.25
572
572
0 0
572
-0.002
11.3
B
0
9
0
Stop
0
1
0
86
0
10
1913
1177
736
6.8
5.8
5.8
3.5
61
259
440
61
174
259
439
23
C
3/23/2015
4
0
Stop
None
86
0
5
588
6.9
3.3
457
457
Synchro 8 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: 140th Wa'i. SE & Molasses Creek West D:::::i: 3/23/2015
(' '-t ~ 'I.. +
Lane Configurations 7' tt+ ttt
Volume (vph) 0 16 1849 3 0 291
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Grade(%) 0% 6% 6%
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 153 434 172
Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.4 2.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr} 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Heavy Vehicles (%} 0% 0% 1% 1% 5% 5%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak -2015 Existing
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: 140th Way SE & Molasses Creek West Dwy
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage,#
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Criticel Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Sig 1
Critical Hdwy Sig 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
AM Peak -2015 Existing
0
0
Stop
0
0
95
0
0
2071
1948
123
6.25
5.8
6
3.65
65
98
855
65
88
98
854
20.1
C
16 1849
0 0
Stop Free
None
0
0
6
95 95
0 1
17 1946
975 0
6.9
3.3
255
255
0
-255 285
-0.066
20.1 0
C A
0.2 0
3/23/2015
3 0 291
2 0 0
Free Free Free
None None
0
6
95 95 95
1 5 5
3 0 306
0 1949 0
4.2
2.25
285
285
0
Synchro 8 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Way_ SE & SE Renton Maele Valley_ Rd 3/23/2015
-+ ~ • -"" I"
Lane Configurations tt ., 'I tt 'l'I .,
Volume (vph) 1247 1144 461 617 393 268
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Right Tum on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Tum Type NA Free Pro! NA Pro! pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 22.4 21.4 30.3 22.4
Total Split (s) 70.0 39.0 109.0 31.0 39.0
Total Split(%) 50.0% 27.9% 77.9% 22.1% 27.9%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red nme (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost nme Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 140
Actuated Cycle Length: 140
Offset: 100 (71 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases:
I d~1
:--1·1 l
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2015 Existing
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa'i. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'f._ Rd 3/23/2015
-,. ('" -~ ,..
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 1247 1144 461 617 393 268
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
lnttial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h~n 1863 1863 1863 1863 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1260 0 466 623 397 256
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1735 776 413 2721 513 608
Arrive On Green 0.49 0.00 0.23 0.77 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 3632 1583 1774 3632 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1260 0 466 623 397 256
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/Mn 1770 1583 1774 1770 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 39.4 0.0 32.6 6.9 15.4 16.5
Cycle Q Ctear(g_c), s 39.4 0.0 32.6 6.9 15.4 16.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1735 776 413 2721 513 608
V/C Ratio(X) 073 0.00 1.13 0.23 077 0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1735 776 413 2721 638 666
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filte~I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.2 0.0 53.7 4.5 57.4 32.0
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.0 84.0 0.2 5.5 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 19.9 0.0 25.6 3.4 7.8 7.4
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.9 0.0 137.7 4.7 62.9 32.7
LnG!E LOS C F A E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1260 1089 653
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.9 61.6 51.0
Approach LOS C E D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.0 75.1 114.1 25.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.6 63.6 102.6 25.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 34.6 41.4 8.9 18.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 18.8 54.8 2.1
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 46.4
HCM 2010 LOS D
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2015 Existing
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: Molasses Creek East D~ & SE Renton Maele Vallei'. Rd 3/2312015
-+ ~ (' -'"\ I"
Lane Configurations t+ f "I t+ V
Volume (vph) 1646 13 5 1061 2 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 50 100 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30
Link Distance (It) 1060 667 192
Travel nme (s) 14.5 9.1 4.4
Confl. Pads. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Shared Lane T raffle (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2015 Existing
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Molasses Creek East Dwy & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Vol, vehlh
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
PM Peak -2015 Existing
205
O.Q35
23.2
C
0.1
1646
0
Free
0
0
98
2
1680
0
0
13
1
Free
None
50
98
2
13
0
-372
-0.014
14.8
B
0
5 1061
1 0
Free Free
None
100
0
0
98 98
3 3
5 1083
1681 0
4.16
2.23
372
372
0.1
2
1
Stop
0
1
0
98
0
2
2233
1681
552
6.8
5.8
5.8
3.5
37
139
546
36
111
139
538
23.2
C
3/2312015
5
1
Stop
None
98
0
5
842
6.9
3.3
312
311
Synchro 8 Repcrt
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: 140th Wa'L SE & Molasses Creek West D~ 3/2312015
f ' t I" \. ,I.
Lane Configurations 'f' tf. ttt
Volume (vph) 3 13 636 14 4 1620
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Grade(%) 5% 6% 6%
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 153 434 172
Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.4 2.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2015 Existing
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: 140th Way SE & Molasses Creek West Dwy
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
PM Peak-2015 Existing
3
0
Stop
0
5
99
0
3
1312
649
663
7.25
6.8
7
3.65
127
395
373
121
226
395
355
10.7
B
13
0
Stop
None
0
99
0
13
328
7.4
3.3
644
644
644 940
0.02 0.004
10.7 8.8 0.1
B A A
0.1 0
3/23/2015
636 14 4 1620
0 0 0 0
Free Free Free Free
None None
0 0
6 6
99 99 99 99
1 1 0 0
642 14 4 1636
0 0 657 0
4.1
2.2
940
940
0 0.1
Synchro 8 Report
Traffic Assessment -Brixton Residential
2017 Future Without-Project LOS Results
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Wa'i. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'i. Rd 3/2312015 -.. f -~ ,,..
Lane Configurations tt r 'I tt 'l'I r
Volume (vph} 303 149 158 1245 1271 654
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft} 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft} 25 25
Right Tum on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph} 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s} 11.1 14.5 6.4
Con fl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 4% 4% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Turn Type NA Free Prot NA Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 11.4 21.4 30.3 11.4
Total Spltt (s} 38.0 36.0 74.0 56.0 36.0
Total Split (%) 29.2% 27.7% 56.9% 43.1% 27.7%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s} 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a.a
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 125 (96%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
l
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak -2017 Without Project
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa't. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'/. Rd 3/23/2015
-• f -~ I""
Lane Configurations t-t 'l'I 1'
Volume (vehlh) 303 149 158 1245 1271 654
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1759 1759 1827 1827 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 312 0 163 1284 1310 579
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 4 4 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1207 540 192 1807 1353 799
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.00 0.11 0.52 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 3431 1495 1740 3563 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 312 0 163 1284 1310 579
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1671 1495 1740 1736 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 0.0 12.0 36.6 48.0 36.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 0.0 12.0 36.6 48.0 36.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1207 540 192 1807 1353 799
VIC Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.85 0.71 0.97 0.72
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1207 540 396 1807 1356 800
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.3 0.0 56.7 23.7 38.9 25.5
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 11.7 2.4 17.4 3.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile Back0IQ(SO%),veh/tn 4.0 0.0 6.4 18.1 26.2 17.0
LnGrp Delay( d) ,s/veh 29.8 0.0 68.4 26.1 56.3 29.0
LnG LOS C E C E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 312 1447 1889
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.8 30.9 47.9
Approach LOS C C D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.8 53.3 74.1 55.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.6 31.6 67.6 50.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 14.0 10.6 38.6 50.0
Green Ext nme (p_c), s 0.4 16.4 21.1 0.6
HCM 2010 CtM Delay 39.6
HCM 2010 LOS D
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak· 2017 Wijhout Project
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: Molasses Creek East D~ & SE Renton Maele Valle;t Rd 3/23/2015 -,. f -..,, I"
Lane Configurations tt 'I' 'I tt V
Volume (vph) 1053 6 1 1313 9 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 50 100 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30
Link Distance (ft) 1060 667 192
Travel Time (s) 14.5 9.1 4.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Heavy Vehicles(%) 9% 9% 5% 5% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic{%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak -2017 Without Project
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Molasses Creek East Dwy & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
CMtical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
BMxton Renton
203
0.074
24.2
C
0.2
AM Peak -2017 Without Project
1053
0
Free
0
0
86
9
1224
0
0
6
0
Free
None
50
86
9
7
0
549
-0.002
11.6
B
0
1 1313
0 0
Free Free
None
100
0
0
86 86
5 5
1 1527
1224 0
4.2
2.25
549
549
0
9
0
Stop
0
1
0
86
0
10
1990
1224
766
6.8
5.8
5.8
3.5
54
245
425
54
164
245
424
24.2
C
3/2312015
4
0
Stop
None
86
0
5
612
6.9
3.3
441
441
Synchro 8 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: 140th Wa'f. SE & Molasses Creek West D~ 3123/2015
f '-t /" \. +
Lane Configurations I' tf. ttt
Volume (vph) 0 17 1924 3 0 303
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Grade(%) 0% 6% 6%
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 153 434 172
Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.4 2.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 1% 1% 5% 5%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak -2017 Without Project
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: 140th Way SE & Molasses Creek West Dwy
Int Delay, slveh 0.2
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
0
0
Stop
0
0
95
0
0
2155
2027
128
6.25
5.8
6
3.65
58
89
850
58
80
89
849
21.2
C
AM Peak -2017 Without Project
17 1924
0 0
Stop Free
None
0
0
6
95 95
0 1
18 2025
1014 0
6.9
3.3
240
240
0
-240 265
-O.D75
21.2 0
C A
0.2 0
3/2312015
3 0 303
2 0 0
Free Free Free
None None
0
6
95 95 95
1 5 5
3 0 319
0 2028 0
4.2
2.25
265
265
0
Synchro 8 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Way_ SE & SE Renton Maele Valley_ Rd 3/23/2015
t f -4'I I' -+
Lane Configurations tt 'f 'I tt 'l'I 'f
Volume (vph) 1297 1190 480 642 409 279
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
RightT urn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Con fl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Turn Type NA Free Prat NA Prat pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 22.4 21.4 30.3 22.4
Total Split (s) 70.0 39.0 109.0 31.0 39.0
Total Split(%) 50.0% 27.9% 77.9% 22.1% 27.9%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 140
Actuated Cycle Length: 140
Offset: 100 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTand 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: 140th Way SE & SE Renton Maple Valle Rd
de1
-116 R 4\\,a
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2017 Without Project
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa~ SE & SE Renton Maele Valle~ Rd 3/2312015
-+ '), f -"' ,..
Lane Configurations tt 'I' 'I tt 'l'I 'I'
Volume (veh/h) 1297 1190 480 642 409 279
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 1310 0 485 648 413 269
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1716 768 413 2702 532 617
Arrive On Green 0.48 0.00 0.23 0.76 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 3632 1583 1774 3632 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), vehlh 1310 0 485 648 413 269
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1770 1583 1774 1770 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 42.4 0.0 32.6 7.4 16.0 17.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 42.4 0.0 32.6 7.4 16.0 17.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 1716 768 413 2702 532 617
VIC Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 1.17 0.24 0.78 0.44
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1716 768 413 2702 638 666
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.5 0.0 53.7 4.8 57.0 31.7
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 3.3 0.0 101.1 0.2 5.7 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 21.5 0.0 27.6 3.7 8.1 7.8
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 32.8 0.0 154.8 5.0 62.7 32.4
LnG LOS C F A E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1310 1133 682
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.8 69.1 50.8
Approach LOS C E D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.0 74.3 113.3 26.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.6 63.6 102.6 25.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 34.6 44.4 9.4 19.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 16.9 58.1 2.0
HCM 2010 Ctr1 Delay 49.9
HCM 2010 LOS D
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2017 Without Project
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: Molasses Creek East D:!:!i: & SE Renton Maele Valle:t Rd 3/23/2015 -t f -~ ,..
Lane Configurations tt .,, ., tt ¥
Volume (vph) 1712 14 5 1104 2 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 50 100 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30
Link Distance (ft) 1060 667 192
Travel Time (s) 14.5 9.1 4.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2017 Without Project
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Molasses Creek East Dwy & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
Int Delay, slveh 0.1
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Crttical Hdwy Sig 1
Critical Hdwy Sig 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
192
0.037
24.5
C
0.1
PM Peak -2017 Without Project
1712
0
Free
0
0
98
2
1747
0
0
14
1
Free
None
50
98
2
14
0
-351
-0.015
15.4
C
0
5 1104
1 0
Free Free
None
100
0
0
98 98
3 3
5 1127
1748 0
4.16
2.23
351
351
0.1
2
1
Stop
0
1
0
98
0
2
2321
1748
573
6.8
5.8
5.8
3.5
32
128
533
31
102
128
525
24.5
C
3123/2015
5
1
Stop
None
98
0
5
875
6.9
3.3
297
297
Synchro 8 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: 140th Wa'i. SE & Molasses Creek West D~ 3/23/2015
f '-t ~ '-. +
Lane Configurations 1' tf. ttt
Volume (vph) 3 14 662 15 4 1685
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Grade(%) 5% 6% 6%
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 153 434 172
Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.4 2.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2017 Without Project
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: 140th Way SE & Molasses Creek West Dwy
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (vehlh)
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
3
0
Stop
0
5
99
0
3
1365
676
689
7.25
6.8
7
3.65
117
380
359
108
210
380
330
10.9
B
PM Peak -2017 Without Project
14
0
Stop
None
0
99
0
14
342
7.4
3.3
629
629
-629 919
-0.022 0.004
10.9 8.9 0.2
B A A
0.1 0
3123/2015
662 15 4 1685
0 0 0 0
Free Free Free Free
None None
0 0
6 6
99 99 99 99
1 1 0 0
669 15 4 1702
0 0 684 0
4.1
2.2
919
919
0 0.2
Synchro 8 Report
Traffic Assessment-Brixton Residential
201 7 Future With-Project LOS Results
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Way_ SE & SE Renton Maele Valley_ Rd 3/23/2015 -'), f -"" ~
Lane Configurations tt ., 'I tt 'l'I .,
Volume (vph) 306 149 162 1251 1276 654
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
RightTum on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Conft. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 8% 4% 4% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Turn Type NA Free Prat NA Prat pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 1 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 11.4 21.4 30.3 11.4
Total Split (s) 38.0 36.0 74.0 56.0 36.0
Total Split(%) 29.2% 27.7% 56.9% 43.1% 27.7%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 130
Actuated Cycle Length: 130
Offset: 125 (96%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases:
I d.1 :-.1'1 l
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak -2017 With Project
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Way_ SE & SE Renton Maele Valley_ Rd 3/23/2015
-'t ., -...._ ~
Lane Configurations 'I' ., tt .,., 'I'
Volume (veh/h) 149 162 1251 1276 654
Number 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1759 1759 1827 1827 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 315 0 167 1290 1315 581
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 4 4 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1198 536 196 1806 1354 803
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.00 0.11 0.52 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 3431 1495 1740 3563 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 315 0 167 1290 1315 581
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1671 1495 1740 1736 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 0.0 12.2 36.9 48.3 36.9
Cycle Q Clea~g_c), s 8.7 0.0 12.2 36.9 48.3 36.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1198 536 196 1806 1354 803
V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.85 0.71 0.97 0.72
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1198 536 396 1806 1356 804
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filte~I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh 29.5 0.0 56.6 23.8 39.0 25.3
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 11.6 2.4 18.0 3.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a.a 0.0
o/oile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 0.0 6.5 18.2 26.6 17.0
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 0.0 68.2 26.2 56.9 28.8
LnG LOS C E C E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 315 1457 1896
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.1 31.1 48.3
Approach LOS C C D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.1 53.0 74.0 56.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.6 31.6 67.6 50.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l 1 ), s 14.2 10.7 38.9 50.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 16.4 21.0 0.4
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.9
HCM 2010 LOS D
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak -2017 With Project
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: Molasses Creek East Dw~ & SE Renton Maele Valle~ Rd 3/23/2015 -'), -( +-' ~
Lane Configurations 'I tt V
Volume (vph) 1053 2 1313 19 11
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30
Link Distance (ft) 1060 667 192
Travel Time (s) 14.5 9.1 4.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Heavy Vehicles(%) 9% 9% 5% 5% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak -2017 With Project
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Molasses Creek East Dwy & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Sig 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
AM Peak -2017 With Project
213
0.164
25.2
D
0.6
1053
0
Free
0
0
86
9
1224
0
0
9
0
Free
None
50
86
9
10
0
549
• 0.004
11.6
B
0
2 1313
0 0
Free Free
None
100
0
0
86 86
5 5
2 1527
1224 0
4.2
2.25
549
549
0
19
0
Stop
0
1
0
86
0
22
1992
1224
768
6.8
5.8
5.8
3.5
54
245
424
54
164
245
422
25.2
D
3/23/2015
11
0
Stop
None
86
0
13
612
6.9
3.3
441
441
Synchro 8 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: 140th Way_ SE & Molasses Creek West DY!'f. 3/23/2015
f '-t ~ ... +
Lane Configurations I' ti. ttt
Volume (vph) 0 22 1924 4 0 307
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Grade(%) 0% 6% 6%
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (fl) 153 434 172
Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.4 2.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 1% 1% 5% 5%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
AM Peak -2017 With Project
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: 140th Way SE & Molasses Creek West Dwy
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Sig 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
AM Peak -2017 With Project
0
0
Stop
0
0
95
0
0
2156
2027
129
6.25
5.8
6
3.65
58
89
849
58
80
89
848
21.6
C
22 1924
0 0
Stop Free
None
0
0
6
95 95
0 1
23 2025
1015 0
6.9
3.3
240
240
0
-240 265
-0.096
21.6 0
C A
0.3 0
3/23/2015
4 0 307
2 0 0
Free Free Free
None None
0
6
95 95 95
1 5 5
4 0 323
0 2029 0
4.2
2.25
265
265
0
Synchro 8 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: 140th Wa'f. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle'/. Rd 3/23/2015
t f -'4\ ~ -
Lane Configurations tt 'I' 'I tt 'l'I 'I'
Volume (vph) 1308 1190 482 645 411 279
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 250 400 300 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Right Tum on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 50 40
Link Distance (ft) 650 1060 375
Travel Time (s) 11.1 14.5 6.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type NA Free Prat NA Prat pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 1
Permitted Phases Free 8
Detector Phase 2 6 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum lniUal (s) 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 33.4 22.4 21.4 30.3 22.4
Total Split (s) 70.0 39.0 109.0 31.0 39.0
Total Split(%) 50.0% 27.9% 77.9% 22.1% 27.9%
Yellow Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.4
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total LostTime (s) 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.4
Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode C-Min None C-Min None None
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 140
Actuated Cyde Length: 140
Offset: 100 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTand 6:WBT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases:
I d,1
:--i-1 ~'4\es
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2017 With Project
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: 140th Wa'i. SE & SE Renton Maele Valle't. Rd 3/23/2015
-,. 'f -~ ,..
Lane Configurations ., .,., .,
Volume (veh/h) 1190 482 645 411 279
Number 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 100 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1881 1881
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1321 0 487 652 415 269
Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1716 768 413 2702 532 617
Arrive On Green 0.48 0.00 0.23 0.76 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 3632 1583 1774 3632 3476 1599
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1321 0 487 652 415 269
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1770 1583 1774 1770 1738 1599
Q Serve(g_s), s 43.0 0.0 32.6 7.5 16.1 17.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 43.0 0.0 32.6 7.5 16.1 17.4
Prop In Lane 100 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1716 768 413 2702 532 617
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 1.18 0.24 0.78 0.44
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1716 768 413 2702 638 666
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.6 0.0 53.7 4.8 57.0 31.7
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 3.4 0.0 103.0 0.2 5.9 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),vehnn 21.7 0.0 27.8 3.7 8.2 7.8
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 0.0 156.7 5.0 62.9 32.4
LnG LOS C F A E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1321 1139 684
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.0 69.9 50.9
Approach LOS C E D
Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.0 74.3 113.3 26.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.6 63.6 102.6 25.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 34.6 45.0 9.5 19.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 16.5 58.7 2.0
HCM 2010 Ct~ Delay 50.3
HCM 2010 LOS D
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2017 With Project
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: Molasses Creek East Dw~ & SE Renton Maele Valle~ Rd 3/23/2015 -.. • -"\ ~
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1712 25 11 1104 7 8
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 50 100 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30
Link Distance (ft) 1060 667 192
Travel Time (s) 14.5 9.1 4.4
Confl. Pads. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Free Free stop
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2017 With Project
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Molasses Creek East Dwy & SE Renton Maple Valley Rd
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
PM Peak -2017 With Project
157
0.097
30.4
D
0.3
1712
0
Free
0
0
98
2
1747
0
0
25
1
Free
None
50
98
2
26
0
-351
• 0.032
15.6
C
0.1
11 1104
1 0
Free Free
None
100
0
0
98 98
3 3
11 1127
1748 0
4.16
2.23
351
351
0.2
7
1
Stop
0
1
0
98
0
7
2334
1748
586
6.8
5.8
5.8
3.5
32
128
525
31
102
128
508
30.4
D
3/23/2015
8
1
Stop
None
98
0
8
875
6.9
3.3
297
297
Synchro 8 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: 140th Wa'i. SE & Molasses Creek West D~ 3/23/2015
f "-. t I" .,.. !
Lane Configurations I' tf+ +++
Volume (vph) 3 16 662 19 4 1687
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Grade(%) 5% 6% 6%
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (It) 153 434 172
Travel Time (s) 3.5 7.4 2.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic(%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Brixton Renton Synchro 8 Report
PM Peak -2017 With Project
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: 140th Way SE & Molasses Creek West Dwy
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage,#
Grade,%
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Sig 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
Brixton Renton
PM Peak -2017 With Project
3
0
Stop
0
5
99
0
3
1368
678
690
7.25
6.8
7
3.65
116
379
358
106
209
379
329
10.9
B
16
0
Stop
None
0
99
0
16
344
7.4
3.3
627
627
-627 916
-0.026 0.004
10.9 8.9 0.2
B A A
0.1 0
3/23/2015
662 19 4 1687
0 0 0 0
Free Free Free Free
None None
0 0
6 6
99 99 99 99
1 1 0 0
669 19 4 1704
0 0 688 0
4.1
2.2
916
916
0 0.2
Synchro 8 Report
PRELIMINARY
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
Proposed Plat of Elliott Farm
Renton, Washington
RECEIVED
APR I 3 2015
CITY Of i<".:!,TON
PLAN~,;;~,;(; D!ViSKi!',l
Prepared for:
Brixton Homes, LLC
14410 Bell-Red Rd
Bellevue, WA 98007
April 10, 2015
Our Job No. 15734
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH . KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251"9222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES + TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH, CA + ROSEVIUE, CA + SAN DIEGO, CA
www.barghausen.com
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Figure 1 -TIR Worksheet
Figure 2 -Site Location
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 3 -Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics
Figure 4 -Soils
Figure 5 -FEMA Map
Figure 6 -Sensitive Areas Map
2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements
2.2 Analysis of the 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 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPPP) ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN
9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT
10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
APPENDIX A -Lower Cedar River Basin and Non point Pollution Action Plan
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Plat of Elliott Farm is an attached single-family residential project consisting of
45 lots zoned R-14. The tax parcel number is 2223059004 and is 6.07 acres in size. The site is
located on the south side and adjacent to Maple Valley Hwy (WA-169) at the eastern terminus of
1401
" Way SE (Private Road), in a portion of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.,
in the City of Renton. Please refer to the vicinity map in the section.
The site is rectangular in shape with 691.70' of frontage along Maple Valley Hwy (WA-169). A
condominium site, known as Molasses Creek Phase 1, is located on the west side of the project.
A single family residential development, known as Pioneer Place, is located to the east and a
single family residence is located south. A wetland exists at the southwest corner of the site with
a 50' buffer. This site is currently undeveloped, but contains remnants from an existing farm,
including partially buried building foundations and concrete slabs. Existing on-site utilities were
constructed along the northern portion of the site for this development. On-site soils are mapped
as Newberg (till soils). Please refer to the Soils Map in this section.
The subject property has been planned for development as a future phase of Cedarwood or
Molasses Creek Condominiums. Development of the Elliot Farms site was delayed by a prior
King County historical designation, then annexation into Renton, and finally by the economic
downturn that affected all property development. As such, a formal development application of
the subject Elliot Farms site has been delayed until now. What remains consistent is that the
development of the site was planned as a future phase of either Cedarwood or Molasses Creek
Condominiums, and the drainage systems for those projects accommodated the development of
the subject Elliot Farms site. The project has a Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of
Renton and Cedar River Lightfoot, Inc, which is included in section 7.0 of this TIR.
The proposed on-site road will utilize vertical curb and gutter with depressed curb and sidewalk at
driveway connections. The road will connect to the existing 140'" Way S.E that was stubbed to
the property by Molasses Creek. The private alley will be extended into the site to provide private
access and circulation. An emergency access will be provided to WA-169. Frontage
improvements along WA-169 are required, including new asphalt, new curb and gutter, sidewalk,
and planter strip. The project is proposing to install a piped conveyance system along the
frontage to convey the runoff from WA-169 and a portion of the site to the existing ditch along
Molasses creek frontage.
The on-site topography is generally flat. The southwest corner of the project (approximately 1.85
acres) gently slopes toward the wetland. The remaining portion of the site drains into the roadside
ditch along WA-169. There is an existing drainage ditch along the east side of the project that
conveys off-site upstream flows from the southeast. The elevations on the site range from 107 to
87. The project will be mass graded with cuts and fills balanced on site.
The drainage system for this project is required to meet the requirements of the 2009 King
County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), and the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to
the KCSWDM. Flow control is exempt for this project as the projects drainage flows to the Cedar
River which is listed as a receiving water in core requirement no. 3. The water quality facility
(wetpond) that was built with previous development was sized to accommodate the project.
Please refer to Section 4.0 for a more detailed summary.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
Figure 1
TIR Worksheet
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND
PROJECT ENGINEER
Project Owner Brixton Homes. LLC
Phone 425-644-2323
Address 14410 Bell Red Rd
Bellevue WA 98007
Project Engineer Mark Sumrok
Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Inc.
Phone (425) 251-6222
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION
[gj Landuse Services
Subdivision / Short Subd. / UPD
[g] Building Services
M/F I Commercial I SFR
[g] Clearing and Grading
[g] Right-of-Way Use
D Other
Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION
Technical Information Report
Type of Drainage Review IFulj / Targeted
(circle): Large Site
Date (include revision AQril IO. 2015
dates):
Date of Final:
Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS
I
Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Project Name ~E=l=lio=t~F~a=rm~------
DDES Permit# ----------
Location Township _.2=3~N~---
Range ~5=E~-----
Section _.2"'2~-----
Site Address not available. Renton. WA
Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS
D DFW HPA
0 COE404
D Shoreline
Management
D DOE Dam Safety
D FEMA Floodplain
[gj COE Wetlands
D Structural
RockeryNaulU __
D ESA Section 7
D Other __ _
Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans)
Type (circle one): IFulj I Modified I
Small Site
Date (include revision AQril I 0. 2015
dates):
Date of Final:
Type (circle one): Standard I Complex I Preapplication I Experimental I Blanket
Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2)
Date of Annroval:
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/1/09
15734.005.doc
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring Required: Yes / No Describe:
Start Date:
Completion Date:
Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community Plan:-------------
Special District Overlays: _______________________ _
Drainage Basin: Lower Cedar River Basin -Mainstem -2
Stormwater Requirements:
Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS
D River/Stream ________ _
D Lake
1:2] Wetlands-----------
D Closed Depression _______ _
D Floodplain __________ _
D Other ------------
Part 10 SOILS
Soil Type Slopes
D Steep Slope ---------
1:2] Erosion Hazard --------
D Landslide Hazard ______ _
D Coal Mine Hazard-------
D Seismic Hazard --------
D Habitat Protection ______ _ o __________ _
Erosion Potential
Newberg 0-2 Percent slight
1:2] High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet)
D Other
D Additional Sheets Attached
2009 Surface Water Design Manual
D Sole Source Aquifer
D Seeps/Springs
2
1/1/09
15734.005.doc
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT
D Core 2 -Offsite Analysis
D Sensitive/Critical Areas
D SEPA
D Other
D
D Additional Sheets Attached
Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area)
Threshold Discharge Area:
(name or description) Direct Discharge to Cedar River
Core Requirements (all 8 apply)
Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: 1
Offsite Analysis Level: l]/213 dated:
Flow Control Level: 1 I 2 I 3 or Exemption Number Direct Discharge
(incl. facility summarv sheet) Small Site BMPs
Conveyance System Spill containment located at: NIA
Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: TBD
Contact Phone: TBD
After Hours Phone: TBD
Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: IPrivatel I Public
If Private, Maintenance Loa Reauired: Yes I No
Financial Guarantees and Provided: ~ I No
Liabilitv
Water Quality Type: ~ I Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm I Bog
(include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No.
Landscaoe Manaaement Plan: Yes I iNrl
Special Requirements (as applicable)
Area Specific Drainage
Requirements
Floodplain/Floodway Delineation
Flood Protection Facilities
Source Control
(comm.lindustrial landuse)
2009 Surface Water Design Manual
Type: CDA I SDO I MDP I BP I LMP I Shared Fae. I~
Name:
Type: Major I Minor I Exemption / ~
100-year Base Blood Elevation (or range):
Datum:
Describe: NIA
Describe landuse: NIA
Describe any structural controls: NIA
3
1/1/09
15734.005.doc
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Oil Control High-use Site: Yes I [!',!.QI
Treatment BMP:
Maintenance Agreement: Yes I [Hg
with whom?
Other Drainage Structures
Describe:
Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION
[8J Clearing Limits [8J Stabilize Exposed Surfaces
[8J Cover Measures [8J Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities
[8J Perimeter Protection [8J Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure
[8J Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities
[8J Sediment Retention [8J Flag Limits of SAO and open space
preservation areas
[8J Surface Water Control D Other
D Dewatering Control
[8J Dust Control
[8J Flow Control
Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summarv and Sketch)
Flow Control Tvoe/Description
D Detention
D Infiltration
D Regional Facility
D Shared Facility
D Flow Control
BMPs
D Other
2009 Surface Water Design Manual
Water Qualitv
D Biofiltration
[8J Wetpool
D Media Filtration
D Oil Control
D Spill Control
D Flow Control BMPs
D Other
4
Tvne/Descriotion
WetJlond
1/1/09
15734.005.doc
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 15 EASEMENTSffRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
D Drainage Easement D Cast in Place Vault
D Covenant D Retaining Wall
[81 Native Growth Protection Covenant D Rockery> 4' High
[81 Tract D Structural on Steep Slope
D Other D 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 id ccurate.
2009 Surface Water Design Manual
5
April 10, 2015
1/1109
15734.005.doc
Figure 2
Site Location
REFERENCE: Rand McNally (2015)
ScsJa:
HOrizontal: N. T.S. Vertical: NIA
18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
(4:ib) :lb 1-ti:i:i:i
(425) 251-8782
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PlANNING,
SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
P:\ 1 SOOOs\ 15734\exhibit"(}l'sphlcsl 15734 vmap.cdr
... ,,
·--
For:
------
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Title:
VICINITY MAP
Job Number
15734
aAIE; 03120/15
11:0U. LHUJIJ
.,
REFERENCE: King County Department of Assessments (Dec. 2011)
Scale:
Horizontal: N. T.S. Vertical: NIA
18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
(4l!>) l!>1-olll
(425) 251-8782
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING,
SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
P:\ 150008\ 15734lexhiblflgraphlcs\ 15734 amap.cdr
For:
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Title:
ASSESSOR MAP
Job Number
15734
· 03120/15
..........
..........
)........._
I .......... ~
' '
' /'' '
.j>.
~ ........ ,
.... . " I ,
-, ' ,·rt lb " 'V '-.... '
(1-1 ITI nt '-' ______ :,..
O ~ Kuch ·C. Coldamllh A< A11oel1lc1, Ille.
4jU CIAllllUac b,uiec11 • S11m1an • PlllllCrl
111, 11&\al a...11o.-H
Wlffllilri. ll NON
t.A .... *' w .. ,~. n at.0t
• • ••
""I'"''°_, .. r.11= u.c.J tu-n11
li,.61t0o llHO.t.l.ht NNX OJ/ll/lt ~IO ...... ,/•Mo' -·~ H,fh ..... , ..... ..... ...... -.... _ .. ... ....
.v, .. .,lll, ....
Ac. 1111aa.1o SUIKII ""'
os:o
:00< mr-m > 5!?
;,;; (I] 0
-(I] z "m I (I) Cf
~ I
o;::m :oar m r C: m:,.Q
;,;; (I] -I
-(I] .,, "m > I CIJ :0 > s: ~ /
~/
0 < cii
0 0 z < N
cii
B z
~
TUE C(DARWOOO OAOUP
AREAS DRAINING TO POND
CED ARWOOD
~
~
0 liOO 1200
....;;;.-o,
.iG• Nil, 97~20
Sill:U
A-I
KING COUNTY WASIIIHG TOIi
Figure 3
Drainage Basins,
Subbasins, and Site
Characteristics
r
•
•
•
..I ..
-
I
~
.,_
(,\
;-'.
,.J
~ .
. ~ ' I '-·F: ·---.... ,-
/··· ·. ) i -! -t>-'3) .,
':•,.,._
i! i j,r· \ ,._ i . \ I ·-s.;
• i .-· -., • < --·-·-, v--·i
l ,-.;
I I i j ·--,,.~
<;·· -~·
•.' :-:1!-t,
; .t.:.:•~\ •
' ' ,
. ',
Northern
Tributaries
Subarea
1>.:i.c: x
·i
• '""\Moinstenf
.• \Subarea . .
Petersorf .... ,
Creek ~
Subo~ : ii,., I .
.._ IOU '
........ 111,
\ •,
• ',
\ \ ·'.,J;i,•H',
\ '-... SI.th.,,-, · ... \
... ~.
• ... ~
tl!,..-,· .',ec.:'tf l::iit r-•" • •1.. , I c~;l:,o~r "
... :;<. " .,,,.,,_..._,
' . . . !. • .:. ...• ,,,, .. ·· ......... -\ .,. • • ·~ ..
', ,., . .,,. ' . .. '--~-_..I, \ __ ,..-~~v I \.
~~\-'/' ...
,/ . II ' . . ...... _ .... , '·
,.
• ...... •
• • • • ·-•• ··-' ~.. ,· ''' ,· .. " .....
a>
'• ·~ ... .,f .......... .... •"' . . ... 'l: .,,..-, ...... !• ;_, ........ ~ r;.;,,.(.J.;.,.,,: ~·.a'J,t'N•
~\il'-lS"
/ '" .)··· !,.l.l;.nr. '
0
·'"•r•
•···· \ MidJjla Tri~t9ries Suba_ ~ .--'~•7:.._ ........ '· .· _ ... ,,.. '"I"'""-.~
"', ' ""' -I
a>
MAPLE
VAllEY
---,
~-.... ~. ,..;::,~· .,•'
. ·······"" .....
•" -, .,. ........... .. .. "·\
• • , .... "' ...... . \ .............
_ _..:!:·:.L. _____ I __ ...._..... ____ _
I ' ' I I, . ,_ ! \
:. _____ -·-·· ·-'--f.
/
,'
r
],.
I'-,
l ·',
': 1 •• \
;
L. .... 1
'
• ' ,........ . . ... •./
·-.... J
Rock Creek
Suborea
.-,. . .,. .,.--, .•.
I i
I i
Figure 3-1
Subarea Boundaries
Cedar River Basin Planning Area
__.-Srreom
... lake/River
--8a,ln Pion Boundo,y
... ........ Suboreo Boundary
· . · · · Subbosin Bounclo,y
C-.::-_) lncorporoted Areo (o, of 6/981
Urban Growth Arco Boundary
lo• ol 6/98)
N t
0
~ ~~-i}
\\':II ~ '" .......
2f.t.,u
&lap ,«ldll(td '7.
ViM11J(.i.uiu,raiu1MM.& 1,n Unit,
P..blic Ov11u1h Sttdon
'~'"'" ... ,hi.not 1 ""
i
! • ' I
I
I
I
!
I
I
Figure 4
Soils Map
REFERENCE: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Scale:
Horizontal: N. T.S . Vertical: NIA
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH
KEN T, WA 98032
(4:.!o) £01-t:iLLL
(425) 251-8782
CIVI L ENGINEERING, LANO PLANNING,
SURVEYING, ENVlRONMENTAL SERVICES
P:\ 15000s \ 15734\exhibit\graphics\ 15734 soi/.cdr
LEGEND:
Ng = Newberg si lt loam
AkF = Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep
For:
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Title :
SOIL SURVEY MAP
Job Number
15734
~03/20/1 5
Figure 5
FEMA Map
~ ZONE X ZONE AE /'7'!!, CITY OF RENTON
----FLOODING EFFECTS ~ ----:__---...,. ':i!Y OF R _ FROM CEDAR RIVER 530088
~ ---KIN~Otv cou,vry ..
\
' ' \
@;
SITE
ZONE X
SOU' HEAST '62'>:0 PLACE
\
lauR/.INGTON NORTHERN A/\D CHICAGO
!.'I! ,MUKEE ST 01,u /IJ>JO PACIFIC
LEGEND
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Arus t1ettm,;ned 10 bt ouuide 500--y,,,t
floodpl,;n.
REFERENCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Portion of Map 53033C0984 F, May 1995)
Scale:
Horizontal: N. T.S. Vertical: NIA
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
(4Lo) £~1-olU
(425) 251-8782
CIVI L ENGINEERING , LAND PLANNING ,
SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
P :\ 15000s\1 5 734\exhibit\graphics\ 15734 fema.cdr
For:
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Title :
FEMAMAP
Job Number
15734
DATE : 03/20/15
Figure 6
Sensitive Areas Map
I
.-_. County Boundary SAO Stream
X lllounealn Peah ': c-,
Highways a..J .......
Strwatl ;V c-2......., ...... /V C-l
M-. u-...
t..oc,,I D Lakaa and Large Rtvare
Parcels N Streams
REF ERENCE: King County iMAP (2014)
ScaJe:
Horizon tal: N. T.S.
Cl>"' " <., ~ ~I \\'~
,1 7,. . .
'6 0 s ! . .
.,,.,Ive a NG,,....,..,:
Vertical: NIA
18215 72N DAVEN UE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
( 4L!>) L!> 1-oLLL
(4 25 ) 25 1-8782
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LANO PLANNING ,
SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
P:\ 1 SOOOs\ 15734\exhibillgraphics\ 15734 sens.cdr
Legend rn SA0 Wa1tand
~ SAO Landslide
ffl S AO Coal Mine
~ SAO Seismic
S AO Era.Ion
2001 Color Aamil Photos
(etn)
ZUVV CO!ot Mttal I'~
(1 21n)
For:
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON , WASH I NGT ON
Title :
S E NSITIVE AREAS
MAP
Jo b Number
15734
~03/20/15
2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements
Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location.
Response: The project will be maintaining the natural discharge location for the site.
The runoff from the existing site drains to the existing drainage ditch along WA-169,
where it is conveyed westerly to the existing water quality drainage facility built my
previous development, then to the Cedar River. The project will be discharging developed
drainage at two locations. A portion of the developed run-off will discharge to the existing
conveyance system in Molasses Creek, which also drains to the existing water quality
pond. The other portion of the site will discharge developed flows to the proposed
conveyance system along WA-169 which also drains to the existing water quality
drainage facility.
Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis.
Response: An Off-Site Analysis has been performed pursuant to the 2009 KCSWDM.
See Section 3.0 for the Level 1 Off-Site Analysis.
Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control.
Response: Flow control is exempt for this project. The project will be discharging flows
to the Cedar River, which is listed as a Major Receiving Water in the 2009 KCSWDM.
The project is less than on-half mile to the 100 year flood plain, therefor, the project can
us the direct discharge exemption identified in section 1.2.3 in the 2009 KCSWDM and
the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. See Section 4.0 for more
information.
Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System.
Response: A 100 year conveyance capacity analysis of the existing pipe conveyance
system through Molasses Creek to the existing wetpond has been performed to show the
system has adequate capacity for the future developed flows from Elliott Farm and is
included in section 5. The rest of the conveyance system will be designed in accordance
with the 2009 KCSWDM and the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM.
Conveyance and backwater analysis will be provided during the final engineering design.
Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control.
Response: Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures will be provided in
the final engineering plan set and will be in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM and
DOE Guidelines.
Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations.
Response: The majority of the new roadways and conveyance system will be privately
maintained, so the project will provide a Maintenance and Operations schedule during
final engineering design. The existing drainage facility is publically maintained by the City
of Renton; therefore, no operation and maintenance manuals is required for the drainage
facility.
Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
Response: The project will provide a Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet to
establish a bond amount for drainage facility restoration and site stabilization financial
guarantee prior to construction.
Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality.
Response: Basic water quality is required for this project. The project will be utilizing
the existing wetpond built by previous development and sized for this project. Please
refer to section 4.0 for a more detailed description of the existing water quality facility.
2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements
Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements.
Response: The proposed project is not localed in a designated Critical Drainage Area.
Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation.
Response: As indicated by the FEMA Map included in this report, the proposed site
does not lie within a floodplain or floodway of a stream, so this special requirement does
not apply.
Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities.
Response: This project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility or propose lo
modify or construct a new flood protection facility, so this special requirement does not
apply.
Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control.
Response: The project does not require a commercial building or commercial site
development permit, so this special requirement does not apply.
Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control.
Response: This site is not classified as a High Use Site given the criteria in the 2009
KCSWDM, so this special requirement does not apply and no special control treatment is
necessary.
Special Requirement No. 6: Aquifer Protection Area
Response: The project site is not located within an Aquifer Protection Area and,
therefore, this special requirement does not apply.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS
The proposed Plat of Elliott Farm is an attached single-family residential project consisting of 45 lots
zoned R-14. The tax parcel number is 2223059004 and is 6.07 acres in size. The site is located on the
south side and adjacent to Maple Valley Hwy (WA-169) at the eastern terminus of 1401
" Way SE (Private
Road), in a portion of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton. Please
refer to the vicinity map in the section.
The site is rectangular in shape with 691.70' of frontage along Maple Valley Hwy (WA-169). A
condominium site, known as Molasses Creek Phase 1, is located on the west side of the project. A single
family residential development, known as Pioneer Place, is located to the east and a single family
residence is located south. Ground cover mainly consists of weeds, grass and brush; however, the
southwest corner of the site contains a mixed variety of trees. A wetland exists at the southwest corner of
the site with a 50' buffer. This site is currently undeveloped, but contains remnants from an existing farm,
including partially buried building foundations and concrete slabs. Existing on-site utilities were
constructed along the northern portion of the site for this development. On-site soils are mapped as
Newberg (till soils).
The on-site topography is generally flat. The southwest corner of the project (approximately 1.85 acres)
gently slopes toward the wetland. The wetland is approximately 4-6 feet lower than the edge of the 50'
buffer and drains westerly through more wetlands located behind Molasses Creek before entering into a
24-inch culvert under 1401
" Ave Se. The remaining portion of the site drains into the roadside ditch along
WA-169. There is an existing drainage ditch along the east side of the project that conveys off-site
upstream flows from the southeast. The elevations on the site range from 87 to 107.
TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW
• Adopted Basin Plans: The site is located within Mainstem Reach 2 of Lower Cedar River Basin.
Refer to Appendix A for the portions of the basin that applies to this project.
• Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable.
• Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: This site is located in the Mainstem Reach 2 in
Lower Cedar River Basin, which is covered by the Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint
Pollution Action Plan dated July 1997 (included in Appendix A).
• Critical Drainage Area Maps: This project will not discharge drainage to any critical areas or
wetlands as it will be discharging developed run-off to existing conveyance system that is
conveyed to an existing water quality facility prior to discharging into the Cedar River. Therefore,
no critical areas are to be affected.
• Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the attached FEMA Map (Section 1.0)
utilized for this analysis. As indicated on the map, the site is located in Zone X and is outside of
the 500-year floodplain.
• Other Off-Site Analysis Reports: A site investigation was conducted in preparation of this
Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils
Conservation Service Map is also provided. See Figure 4 -Soils Map in Section 1.0.
• Sensitive Areas Folios: Based on review of the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folios
located in this section and special reports prepared by consultants included in section 6.0 of the
TIR, the site contains a wetland and buffer at the southwest corner of the site. The site is also
located within an erosion, landslide, and seismic hazard area.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
• Road Drainage Problems: The project researched drainage complaints from King County and
the city of Renton. The city had no records of any downstream drainage complaints within the
drainage investigation areas. King County had a listing of the drainage complaints within a mile of
the site; however, none of the complaints were within the downstream drainage area and were
not applicable.
• United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on the Soils Map
(Figure 4 -Soils Map, Section 1.0) for this area, the site contains Newburg (Ng) silt loam with a
small portion of Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF), very Steep, located near the south boundary line.
The soils were modeled as till soils for drainage computations.
• Wetland Inventory Map: From the Wetland Assessment Report by Radakke Associates located
in section 6.0 of this TIR, there is a wetland in the southwest corner of the site.
• Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable.
• City of Renton Aquifer Protection Zones: Per the City of Renton's GIS Map, the project site is
not located within an Aquifer Recharge Area.
TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION
The field inspection for this Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis was conducted on April 3, 2015 for the
purpose of analyzing the proposed project site and its upstream and downstream corridors. The weather
was cloudy with occasional rain showers. The off-site drainage system was inspected from the project
limits to the edge of the outfall at the Cedar River. The boundary and topographic survey and LIDAR map
were also used to identify the drainage patterns associated with the property.
Upstream Drainage Area
The project contains two off-site upstream drainage areas that drain onto the project. See Exhibit A
showing the upstream drainage areas. The more southwesterly upstream drainage basin (Basin OS1)
area contains 3.3 acres of upstream drainage area. The majority of the area is steep slopes. The
upstream drainage area drains to the existing wetland at the southwest corner of the site where flows are
then conveyed westerly to a larger wetland. The south easterly upstream drainage area (Basin OS2)
contains approximately 17.2 acres. The drainage from this upstream drainage basin is collected in a ditch
along the projects easterly boundary line and conveyed to an existing 18-inch culvert crossing WA-169.
Onsite Drainage
In the pre-developed condition approximately 1.85 acres of the site drains toward the wetland in the
southwest corner of the site. The remaining 4.22 acres drains toward the north into the existing ditch
alongWA-169.
3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1)
Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but not chronic flooding or erosion problems
that result from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system that is substandard or has
become too small as a result of upstream development. Such problems warrant additional
attention because of their chronic nature and because they result from the failure of a
conveyance system to provide a minimum acceptable level of protection.
There were no conveyance system nuisance problems observed during the site visit.
Furthermore, based on a review of the drainage complaints received from King County and the
City of Renton, there is no evidence of past conveyance system nuisance problems occurring in
the direct downstream drainage course, as there are no records that have been submitted.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2)
Severe erosion problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the concentration of
runoff into erosion-sensitive open drainage features. Severe erosion problems warrant additional
attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety or to public or private
property.
Based on our site visit, there was no evidence of, or potential for, erosion/incision sufficient to
pose a sedimentation hazard downstream within the limits of the study. All runoff sheet flows to
existing conveyance channels, where flows are then conveyed off site. Stormwater runoff from
the proposed roads and rooftops from the developed project will be collected in catch basins and
conveyed through pipes to an existing water quality facility where it will then be discharged
directly to the Cedar River. As a result no future erosion problems should occur downstream
because of this development.
3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3)
TASK4
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 are defined
as follows:
• Flooding of the finished area of a habitable building for runoff events less than or equal to
the 100-year event. Examples include flooding of finished floors of homes and
commercial or industrial buildings. Flooding in electrical/heating systems and
components in the crawlspace or garage of a home. Such problems are referred to as
"severe building flooding problems."
• Flooding over all lanes of a roadway or severely impacting a sole access driveway for
runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. Such problems are referred to as
"severe roadway flooding problems."
Based on a review of the FEMA Map (Section 1.0) the proposed site is outside of the 500-year
floodplain, and there is no evidence of severe flooding problems encountered during our visit.
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS
DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS:
The downstream drainage course does not exhibit any major concerns and appears to contain plenty of
capacity to convey the additional developed flows from Elliott Farm. Please refer to Exhibit A for the
Upstream/Downstream Drainage Area Map Exhibit B for the Off-site Analysis Drainage System Table.
Drainage complaints were requested from the city of Renton and King County Water and Land Resources
as required. however, there were no applicable complaints within the downstream drainage course within
the last 10 years.
In the developed condition, storrnwater generated from the new impervious surfaces, including road and
rooftops, will discharge in two locations. The westerly portion of the site will discharge into the
conveyance system constructed by Molasses Creek and be conveyed to the existing water quality facility
(wetpond) before discharging into the Cedar River. The drainage from the north easterly portion of the
project will be conveyed to a proposed 24-inch conveyance system that will replace the existing ditch
along the WA-169 frontage. From here the drainage will be directed through a series of ditches and
culverts before entering into the existing wetpond.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
TASKS MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
The only mitigation required, based on the analysis performed on the downstream drainage course is to
upsize the existing 12-inch storm pipe to an 18-inch where the project will be connecting to the existing
conveyance system in Molasses Creek. Please refer to the 100 year Conveyance Capacity Analysis in
section 5.0 showing that the existing convyance system in Molasses Creek contains enough capacity to
convey the future developed flows from Elliott Farm.
The project is required to provide frontage improvements along WA-169. This will include installing curb,
gutter and sidewalk. The existing ditches will be replaced with a 24-inch piped conveyance system along
the frontage and will discharge to the existing ditch. The existing conveyance system appears to contain
plenty of capacity to convey the future developed flows from the developed project to the Cedar River.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
Exhibit A
Upstream/Downstream
Drainage Area Map
dv'V'l \13!:lv' 30\INl\l!:la
V'lv'3!::U.SNMOG/V'lv'3!:l1Sdn
//
L0086 v'M 'anAa11as
om: a11ns 'peo!:l pa!:j-1as oun,I
011 'saWOH UO\X!J8
,emJ. 00:1
qJ'M:1]; lv1N]1'1NO~IMH '')fJ!.S31,:,ns
'')\IMfJ'rfld QN\11 '')N'clJ3Nl'.)N] li/\1:)
t\f.J Z9L9-li;G (i;Gv'.·
GGzg-rc;: (c;:v)
Zl:::J'35 VM '1N3)1
Hlnos ]nN]AV ONGL c;1zg1
Exhibit 8
Off-Site Analysis Drainage
System Table
Basin: Lower Cedar River
Location Drainage Component
ID Type, Name, and Size
Type: sheet flow, swale, stream,
channel, pipe, pond; size,
See Map diameter, surface area
IA 18" CULVERT
18 Channel
IC 18" CULVERT
2A Channel
28 18" culvert
2C Channel
20 18" Culvert
2E Channel
OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE
Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2
Subbasin Name: Mainstem Reach 2
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
Drains across ex gravel road, 0-1% Discharges Outlet should
17 .2 acre up-stream basin onto site be maintained
6"-1' wide x 1.5 to 2' deep 0-1% Along None seen.
with gentle side slopes. site's west
Covered in blackberry bushes boundary
line
Crosses under W A-169 0-1% Discharge None seen
from Ditch
at NE
corner of
site
Channel draining east to west 0-1% North None noted
along south side ofWA-169, boundary
1.5'-2' deep with 4:1 side of site
slopes
Drains under existing access 0-1% 0 None noted
Drains West along WA-169, 0-1% 0 None noted
1.5' to 2' deep with 4:1 side
slopes
Drains under access 0-1% NW corner None noted
of site
Drains West along WA-169, 0-1% 0-220' None noted
1.5-2' deeo with 4:1 side
Subbasin Number: ----
Observations of Field Inspector,
Resource Reviewer, or
Resident
Tributary area, likelihood of problem,
overflow pathways, potential impacts
Culvert conveying flows to
existing ditch
Flows observed in channel,
heavy blackberry bushes
Flows observed during site
visit. Receives flows from
pond on Pioneer place and 17 .2
acre upstream basin
Grass lined channel with very
little slope.
No restrictions, outlets to
channel
Grass lined channel with very
little slope
No restrictions, outlets to
channel
Grass lined ditch outletting to
24" D.I. Culvert. Flows
15734-0ff-Site Analysis Drainage System Table.doc
slopes, receives drainage from observed during site visit.
WA-169
2F 18" D.l. Culvert Drains across paved driveway 0.10% 220-570' Debris in inlet Culvert should be cleaned and
free of debris and sediment
2G Channel Drains West along WA-169 to
intersection of 140'h Ave, 1.5'
0-1% 570'-1,295 None noted Flows observed in channel.
to 2' deep with 4: 1 side slopes
2H 24" culvert Drains from ditch to CB 0-1% 1,295 ~ None noted No drainage complaints.
adjacent to pond 1,445 Appears to contain enough
capacity
21 24" pipe Inlet to pond 11% 1,445-None noted No drainage complaints.
1463 Appears to contain enough
capacity
21 Wetpond 1,463-None noted No drainage complaints.
1,810 Appears to contain enough
capacity
2K 36" outlet Outlet from wetpond Backsloped No drainage complaints.
Appears to contain enough
capacity
2L 36" pipe 0.9% 1,810-None noted No drainage complaints.
2,000 Appears to contain enough
capacity
2M 36" pipe Outfall to Cedar river 0.1% 2,000-None noted Outfall was roughly 5' above
2,200 water level during site visit
3A 12" pipe conveyance Receives road and roof top 1.3% 0-106' None noted No drainage complaints.
system drainage from Molasses Creek Appears to contain enough
development, 2.7' deep. capacity
38 30" pipe conveyance Receives flow from 0.50% 106'-Last catch No drainage complaints.
system Cedarwood Div. 2 from the 1,11 O' basin buried Appears to contain enough
south and not found capacity
3C 36" pipe conveyance Outfall to wepond 0-0.50% 1,110-Last catch Could not obtain invert
system 1,380 basin full of elevations due to water and
water and sediment build up.
sediment
15734-0ff-Site Analysis Drainage System Table.doc
Photo 6 -WA-169 18" SD outlet along Molasses Cree
Frontage -Looking west.
Photo 8 -WA-169 ditch looking east along Molasses
I Ohntn 7 _ \J\/.0._1~0 1Q" n11tlot _ f11fnl-:iccoc rroolt J:"rnnt-:ino I ~
Exhibit C
Downstream Drainage
Complaints
King r.iurty Water 111d Lalll Re•rces lvllllon -Drainage Services Section
Cllllplaint Search Printed: 3118/201510:59:23 AM
lllnler Typa Type of Problem U*8s8 of Problem Conlnent:B TbrosPage
1991-0005 C EROSION 15240 142ND PL SE EROSION FROM PIPE IN RAVINE 656J5
1991-0005 E EROSION 15240 142ND PL SE EROSION FROM PIPE /DRY WELL 656J5
1991-0023 C DRNG 15805 140TH CT SE /POWELUCONSTRUCTION NO EROSION 656J5
1991-0080 C FLOG 14037 SE 159TH PL WATER AND ICE ON SIDEWALK 656J5
1991-0080 E FLDG 14037 SE 159TH PL RETAINING WALL /PONDING WATER 656J5
1991-0155 C DRNG 14043 SE 159TH PL EXPOSED DRAIN LINE/ROOF 656J5
1991-0155 PN DRNG 14043 SE 159TH PL NOTNDAP 656J5
1991-0345 C DRNG 14031 SE 159TH PL DIVERSION OF WATER TO SIDEWALK 656J5
1992-0414 C DRAINAGE 14059 SE 159TH PL WATER OVER S/W 656J5
1992-0414 E DRAINAGE 14059 SE 159TH PL 656J5
1992-0414 ER DRAINAGE 14059 SE 159TH PL WATER OVER S/W -NOV. MEETING 656J5
1993-0023 C DRAINAGE 14059 SE 159TH ICE ON ROADWAY 656H5
1994-0354 C EASEMENT 13981 SE 159TH PLACE WANTS TO FENCE INSIDE DRAIN ESMT 656H5
1994-0392 C DRNGPIPE 14022 SE 158TH ST WATER OVER SIDEWALK 656J5
1994-0392 E DRNGPIPE 14022 SE 158TH ST WATER OVER SIDEWALK 656J5
1994-0392 ER DRNGPIPE 14022 SE 158TH ST WATER OVER SIDEWALK 656J5
1994-0809 WQC DUMPING SE 159TH PL & 140T SE CONCRETE DISCHARGE/BEAUTY BARK 656J5
1994-0813 C PONDING 14019 SE 158TH ST WATER OVER SIDEWALK MAPLE RIDGE 656J5
1995-0758 WQC DUMPING SE 158TH & 149TH CT NEW D/W CURB CUT & CONC CLEAN-656J5
1995-1190 CL REIMBURS SR 169-MPLWD GOLF REIMBURSEMENT FOR SAND BAGS -656H4
1996-0888 FCS OIL 15282 SE MAPLE DR OIL SEEPAGE INTO POND 656J5
1996-1888 FCR MAINTNC 140TH WY SE & MPL SPEC OPS REQUEST 656H5
1996-1988 C DRNG 15605 139TH CT SE FLOW FROM ADJ PROP IMPACT PVT 656H5
1996-2061 R FLOG 14615 SE RENTON-MAPLE 656H4
1997-0054 C FLOG 13660 143RD AVE SE GROUNDWATER FROM NEIGHBOR 656H4
1997-0248 C DRNG 13970 SE 159TH PL SHEET FLOW ON RD DRNG ISSUE 656H5
1997-0255 C RUNOFF 15805 140TH CT SE BLOCKED DRAINAGE OVERFLOW ON 656H5
1997-0349 C FLOG 138DD SE 156TH PONDING IN ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 656H5
1997-0514 C DRAINAGE 15816 140TH CT SE SUBSTANDARD LOT CONST IMPACT TO 656H5
1997-0514 R DRAINAGE 15816 140TH CT SE SUBSTANDARD LOT CONST IMPACT TO 656H5
1998-0551 C DRAINAGE 14610 142ND AVE SE ROAD DRNG INADEQUATE OFF RD 656H4
1998-0551 NDA DRAINAGE 14610 142ND AVE SE ROAD DRNG INADEQUATE OFF RD 656H4
1998-0551 R DRAINAGE 14610 142ND AVE SE ROAD DRNG INADEQUATE OFF RD 656H4
2000-0700 C DCA 14645 SE RENTON MAPLE PRIVATE DRAINAGE PROJECT AT 656J5
2001-0378 FCS MNM 14645 RENTON MAPLE CONCERN REGARDING KIDS PLAYING 656J5
2002-0275 FCS MNM 14900 RENTON MAPLE VALLY No problem found 656J5
2004-0325 WQA WQAI 15031 MAPLE VALLEY HWY WQA FROM MCL REQUEST 656J5
2005-0142 C MMF 14645 RENTON-MAPLE Ditch backing up onto Wonderland Estates 656J5
2005-0142 R MMF 14645 RENTON-MAPLE Ditch backing up onto Wonderland Estates 656J5
2008-0036 WQC WQI 15417 141ST PL SE Pipe from garage discharges grey water at 656H5
2008-0036 WQR WQI 15417 141STPL SE Pipe from garage discharges grey water at 656H5
2008-0327 C TRE 14435 141ST PL SE Need to remove 2 cottonwood trees on KC 656H4
2010-0272 C DLE 14235 SE 146TH ST Erosion/landslide. TA provided. 656H4
2010-0730 C RFD 14616 142ND AVE SE Flooding on prop? Previous NDAP on 656H4
2010-0730 R RFD 14616 142ND AVE SE Flooding on prop? Previous NDAP on 656H4
2013-0527 FCS MNM 15900 140THWY SE Gate broken @ DR0642? Already identified 656J5
2014-0141 C DDM 14609 142ND AVE SE Property drainage discharges onto hillside? 656H4
4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
A. Existing Site Hydrology
The on-site topography is generally flat with a steep slope in the southwest corner of the
site. The southwest corner of the site contains a wetland with a 50' buffer that will remain
undisturbed. The on-site area draining to the wetland is approximately 1.85 acres and
gently slopes toward the wetland. The remaining portion of the site drains into the
roadside ditch along WA-169, where flows are conveyed west. On-site soils are mapped
as Newberg (till soils). The elevations on the site range from 87 to 107.
There is an existing drainage ditch along the east side of the project that conveys off-site
upstream flows from the southeast to the ditch along WA-169. From here flows are
directed across WA-169 to the north side through an 18-inch culvert.
B. Developed Site Hydrology
The proposed on-site road will utilize vertical curb and gutter with depressed curb and
sidewalk at driveway connections. The road will connect to the existing 140'" Way S.E
that was stubbed to the property by Molasses Creek. Catch basins and storm pipes will
be installed to convey flows from the new roadway and rooftops to the existing
conveyance systems in Molasses Creek and along WA-169.
Frontage improvements along WA-169 are required, including, new curb and gutter,
sidewalk, and planter strip. The project is proposing to replace the existing ditch with a
24-inch piped conveyance system along the frontage to convey the runoff from WA-169
and a portion of the site to the existing ditch along Molasses creek frontage.
The project will not be providing any form of on-site water quality or flow control. The
Elliott Farm project will be utilizing the exiting water quality facility that was sized to
include this project and built with previous development along with the direct discharge
exemption to the Cedar River.
Basin D1, as shown on the Post-Developed Drainage Area Map within this section, will
drain to the existing conveyance system in Molasses Creek. The developed area will
consist of approximately 70% impervious area which includes the proposed roadway an
rooftops.
Basin D2 will drain to the proposed 24-inch conveyance system installed along the
frontage of WA-169. The developed area includes impervious areas from the proposed
roadway, a portion of the WA-169 (half street), and rooftops. An open space and park
area is proposed in the center of the project.
The developed basin can be broken down as follows:
Basin D1:
Total Area= 2.25 acres
Impervious area = 1.60 acres
Till grass = 0.65 acres
Basin D2:
Total Area= 3.00 acres
Impervious area = 1.55 acres
Till grass = 1.45 acres.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
C. Performance Standards
The project is exempt from flow control requirements based on the direct discharge
exemption in core requirement no. 3 of the 2009 KCSWDM and the 2010 City of Renton
Amendments to the KCSWDM. The flowpath from the project site discharge point to the
edge of the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River is no longer than one-half mile.
The project is subject to Basic Water Quality treatment as allowed in Core Requirement
no. 8 because the project drains to a major receiving water. The wetpond provided by
previous development was sized using the 1998 KCSWD. The 2009 KCSWD and 2010
Renton amendment still use the same water quality sizing calculations. Based on the
sizing calculations found in the Hugh Goldsmith & Associates, Inc, Memorandum
included in this section, the Elliott Farm project was allocated 19,000 c.f. of storage for
water quality treatment in the existing wetpond.
D. Flow Control System
Flow Control is exempt for this this project as staled above.
E. Water Quality System
An existing Wetpond sized for basic water quality treatment will be used for water quality
treatment. The existing wetpond was built with previous development and allocated
water quality storage for this project. Refer to the Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc
memorandum dated November 13, 2001 in this section. The wetpond is located at the
SWC of the WA-169 and 140'h Ave SE intersection.
The wetpond was originally sized for several divisions of the Cedarwood projects,
Molasses Creek, areas of the WSDOT right-of way, and this Elliott Farm project. As
identified in the Hugh G. Goldsmith Memorandum, the wetpond contains 28,748 cubic
feet of extra storage. The Elliott Farm project only requires 17,125 cubic feet of storage
based on the Wetpool sizing worksheet found in this section.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
Post-Developed Drainage
Area Map
a..
<( ::.
<( w a:
<(
w
C,
<(
.:;
<( a: LL D 0
D w a..
0
-' ~
D
bi
5:
SNHV.!l J,J,01'17~
::10
d'v'~ 'v'3tl'v' 30'v'Nl'v'tl0 03d013A30-!SOd
~ ~
r!:
~
~ ~
::i ;;:
w
3
w
C, z
<( a: z
z § "' "' !b :E
I ~ 00
~ ;;:
~
oi z
"'
::,
0 zo
0 C, Fz 0-
w "' 00
is
z
0
~ 0 a..
<(
0
0
i
I
I
I .-,_,_,,
ill/\31 000.l ,_l::)\/ .lNO:::J
L0086 \/M '3nA31138
om: 3.11ns ·avot1 03l:!-138 mtti
:::Jll '83~0H NO.lXll:18
l
I
NOil vnNLLNOO ~O=' i l33HS 33S
:JO::!
!1 I /
'II-' :I..! ---J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
z
Ci w
UC)
Z I
0 "T u co
l ltl
'.LI LiJ
w '-' er:: <(
(_) CL /
1./) a,./
~ Lf)
V1 r </ _j
CD 0
12 >
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
__/
I
I
/
,.--p; c,d,,~
/
/·,_,4 <Ric'-I r;((<';;-'-:,,1
l(lC:,-iCliSl:-.1
,";-;-;J8F. 'i.'i. 'I i·JT~
r --I
I I
r --1---1 ' -
r:_1
I
I
I
/
--y·-i-
178LSI
/'
§
~
~
,'ob Numce,
15734
Sl,eel
_g_ ,_2_
\ ~,"' .....................
\\ . -
\---·
I I
----
I
r-
1
I
I
--
'
------------' --' ----. -------Ir ---.......... -.....
I
I
\
\
I
\
I
I
I
I
\ _______ \
1_ I
I
I
I ----L
C "J
)•
~r.i
()
n
CJ
CJ
-----
---------------h-'
--
---
--a -----------I /
7
----II I i ._/ .·/·
I /
I p>,fi
)/
/'
I
I/
I/
I
I
)>
\, I I , ,
i __r------; "" . I , , e ' , /-, ' ,, I /" ~,--"~
V
/" ''""' -,,-. "' ' " , ,,.,·' ~! '),,;· 1~~ i1 if{
cl
~
~
!il
CJ)
ZS~ z ::j Oo oz
0 "' §! ~
~ 0 ~ J
~ !il I
~c;HA(JIS' 47~,~\ ~ ~Q
\ ~il. ... ~ ~ "<,. r "'<to.,.
1~G.E1tGl\l,'E-
....--,; -----<::;--------\...------r------_ ii /{ ; i ~ ' --' ,--' )-\ I I ----r-· --,!l~ \ / I --f: i I I ' ·-. C \ I I I ~I ,12 -,
\ I I , l•· 1 : el' \
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
' \ I , • -• , ,, \
/ I I ,!· ,I ,~
I "·'·' ,, • ~-l \ . ~; ~· ::;o;;i I I -~ I ::;;;:I ,;l /
\./\ ···----1 ·:1 / \ ;ri:g" 1': I •1; /
' • "'"'' ' 1,· / \ ' I I; I I ., '
'. '. ;· /: I ::
', '· I ------; I I '' I ' / ------iL__ ., \ '+-. · ,, ,_0x;;A,.1i,i' _ , ., .
··· \·-t;c::-:;;';':_?.:C' -~:~ c~
loi/ae! "' ':\ , ; r-·· .. ,,.-, I ,o:,'1 .,,,.· ' (',c) >aa"·;/, <•j'C I
' ;;,I "' •' ,$ .• I , "'~ '" ,. . "' I
/ii}:--. ,,,· g";
1"''"--. >,' ;;1·· ... .._ '!
'·' 1 ii,1 "'·''' I '~ ~·, I :1,/ • ._;,: I
c, "" I ,.
0 ,·'f / ~.~.:i~ i' .:i~i f~i ;~ /
as 1z1\c -c I ;.•QI :::.:,.: ~ "(. I if;/ • . : /
--.1 ,' ... 11 .-1 I 11,! ,,
I ;,' i ? ~
I
,'",.~/ \;)
' i~I "' I l ii~/ (,') / I .g '• ' / /k1 . . I
I /!~/' I '"
! ;i"I
~~/ /// ,::
C :, I ;{:: I r:I
ff 11~·~1
,,11
lo
::~
I JI
,',
SEE SHEET 1 FOR CONTINUATION
16215 7'.1.~ID .l.'/':JiUE SOI, -H
"-:Ctr, Wf:\ 98C32
l·es,gn•/J _J_L
Uro~n ______!,._
'ocale
He ,,cn\o
Foe
BRIXTON HOMES, LLC
" " " .,
"
" " " " " " "
><!])~·~.· -b::'2::
:425)2~'-8:'i','.' f,'-:<
C ... I · w:.[Jcl~lh,,, L~i,'.J H.M,111)1~
51_;.;v[r.:·1,;, ~lf>lf'.C,1~•1.ENTAL S[P'11r:c,
fh,c,•c. 1:1
,'cr,,c,eo _!:!_
O~lc _,j_l_,/10
I -'0
f,/A
!~~
'~
14410 BEL -RED ROAD, SUITE 200
BELLEVUE, WA 98007
CONT ACT TODD LEVITI
! t .JS
~ ,.,,
§ g
iJ 6 ...._
ff
/
i "'
l</OU/1~ >J
·fo _ Jut, C1 I Oci
Trtle1
:::! d
> ~
:E CJ)
)> :i: ~ 9j
z "' 0 "' d ,z
z :Jl
:le
ri\
~i ! ~ ;:: rn
~
,m
~
:a, -!! ........ ' I o ~ u CFJ~i ~z "' \ •" q .. , ... ~~
""'
8
PPELl~INAR\' PLAT ,us~,r"
ee,·,soo
OFF-SITE EX CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
OF
ELLIOTT FARMS
l",ie_~\l~O,)Os\1~734\p,el,rrn•u,,-\Fr~l;n,n~,1 T.P\'~1',4-r•.'•• '•~ llcl(,/],,ne·4/I 1/:,,,1'., 8.\1 1.,, ~,.I, ,1~1_11.11<\,~ (,et
Wetpool Sizing Worksheet
Wetpool Sizing Worksheet
Summary of the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Requirements
Project Name: Elliot Farm Project Number: 15734
Step 1) Determine volume factor f.
Basic size ............................................ .
Large size ............................................ .
Step 2) Determine rainfall R for mean annual Storm
Detemine rainfall R for mean annual storm
Rainfall. ............................................... .
Step 3) Calculate runoff from mean annual storm
V, = (0.9A, + 0.25A,9 + 0.10Aif + 0.01Ao,,) X R
A, = tributary area of impervious surface
A,9 = tributary area of till grass
Ait = tributary area of till forest
Ao,, = tributary area of outwash grass
R = rainfall from mean annual storm
V, = Volume of runoff from mean annual storm
Step 4) Calculate wetpool Volume
v. = f V,
f = Volume Factor
Vr = Volume runoff, mean annual atorm
Vb = Volume of the wetpool
f= 3 ----f= 4.5 ----
__ o_.o_3_9 _ (feet)
137,214 (sf)
91,500 (sf)
0 (sf)
0 (sf)
0.039 (feet)
5,708 (cf)
3
5,708 (cf)
17,125 !(cf)
Nov 13 01 11:0Ba Goldsmith L Associates 425 462 7719 I'. 2
P.O. !\ox :1:;u:;. 1w11,·, ut'. "'·' mmou
l21j 11-llh ,\Wlllll' SE
HL1gt1 G. ,Golds111ith
& [\ssoc1ates, Ir1c .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glen Maurer
FM: Ed Alto C. /),.
. . . Since 195H
RE: Cedarwood. Water Quality Pond.
lkllt'\'lll', II:\ !JIIOO.J
(21JG) 462·101!0 E\X .JlU·771fJ
November 13, 2001
In lieu of the inquisitions we've been receiving as to extra capacity of the Cedarwood
Water Quality Pond, the following is a brea.kdown of allocation made during the design and a
summary of potential available storage for your information.
Division 1 : Single Family
Area = 10.50 ac., 40 lots ~ 3.9 OU/Ac. = 40% Imp.
Imp. = 4.20 BC,
Perv. = 6.3 ac.
OiVision 2: Single f'amily
Area" 14.66
10.65 ac. single family, 56 lots ~ 5.3 DU/Ac. = 49% Imp.
Imp. • 5.22 ac.
Perv. • 5.43 ac.
4.00 ac. forested
Division 3: Multi-family
Area = 14.26 ac.
9.22 ac. multi-family
Imp. = 5.40 ac.
Perv. = 3.82 ac.
5.04 ac. forested
Oivtsion 4: Mu111-famiy
Area• 5.18 ac.
Imp.= 2.70 ac.
Perv. = 2.48 ac:.
W. S.D.O. T. Tributary Area: (Area of SA 189 which discharged to e)dstfng pond which has been
replaced and added to proposed Water Quality Pond)
Area= 7.84 ac.
M97520Ql.61l !':Ip I of l
HCO ""' -..-n. 2001
5.00 ac. road
2.89 ac. long grass
i~UV .LJ U.l 1,1,uu.a UU.LU~lrll'l.fl 1:)1 nsSOCld(.~~
Memorandum continued ...
November 13, 2001
Totals:
--Impervious Area = 22.50 ac.
Till Grass = 18. 03 ac.
Till Forest = 9.04 ac.
Outwash = 2.84 ac.
C = 0.9(22.50) + 0.25(18.03) + 0.10(9.04) + 0.01 (2.84) • 0 _49
52.43
VbNr = 3
R "0.47
V0 = v. R A• C (43 •5601 • 3 (0.47)(52.43)(.49) (43 •560 j • 131,500 cu.ft. V, 12 1 12 1
Note: Required water quality volume of 131.500 cu.rt. was calculated for original Water Quality
Pond located entirely onsite. Subseqt.ently, the King County C.1.P. was added and the
pond expanded into the SR 169 right-of-way. In addition, we allocated some volume for
future Cedarwood expansion or projects.
•
•
•
Original Pond Requirements
140'" Way C.I.P. Project (Upper Region)
Per King County's C.I.P. Project design engineer (Parson
Brinkerhoff) the portion of the C.I.P. project which was to discharge
into an existing Temporary Detenticn Facility located upstream of
the Division 4 project would require 28,000 cu. ft. of permanent
water quality storage
Portion of 140"' Way not yet analyzed (Lower Region)
Area= 1.41 acres (all Impervious)
3(0.47) (1.41 )(.90) ( 43;!60 ) • 6,495 cu.ft.
Total Volume Requirement
131,500 ft'
28,000 ff
6,500 tt3
166,000 It'
Additional volume for Cedarwood expansion or project "not yet used," but designed for:
• Division 4: (Increased by 1.0 acre) Multl-famlly
Area = 1 .0 ac.
Imp. = .52 acres C -.90
Perv. = .48 acres C = .25 Avg. C = .59
3(0.47)(1.0)(.59) ( 43;:60 ) = 3019.80 cu.ft.
3,020 fr'
f' • ..,
M~7 JWql.6al f'>&<2 uO
HOO' In!!. NO\"tn1bcr I.), 200:
Q ~ HW!il G. Golds1nith \{)"V & .. t"ssodares, Inc.
N~v 1:.:, u L 1 , : u~a ~01asm1~h & Associates 425 462 7719 ¥
Memorandum continued .•.
Noliember 13, 2001
~
t/~q,/
el~·
,I
• Allocation for possible future development (Ughtloot Property) 19,000 ft3
Total Used tor Cumnt Projects
Total Volume Requirement
166,000 ft°
188,020 ft 3
The total 188,020 ft" was the quantity reported and designed for wi:h the above referenced
aJlocatJons. The as-built 1/Qlume of the pond Is actually 216,760 ft'. Therefore, as it currently
exists:
As-built volume
Total currently allocated
Cedarwood expansion or
new projects reported
216, 760 ft"
166,000 ft" (includes C.!.P. as requested)
50,760 fr "Total Currently Available'
22,020 It'
28,748 It' "Total Reported as :xcess•
This is the breakdown of the pond for your informalion. As far as any other inquiries that
we received, there is only 28,748 ft' excess volume In the pond as it exists. If yoo have any
further questions please call.
p. 'I
Q £ IIWlh G •. Gol<L<m1lth \O"V & Associates. inc.
May 29, 2001
King. County Tran,portation Road Services
2001 So. Jackson Stre.!t
King Street Center
Sea11lc, WA 98104-38~6
Attention: John O'Brien
Dear John:
Re: Cedalwood OiYision 4 Water Quality
Pond As-Built Volume.
At the request of Glen Maur.r of the Cedarwood Group, our firm llas performed an as-built of
the water quality pond for the Cedarwood Apanments, Division 4 which was built under a commercial
permit.
The W:11or Quality Storage volume was as-buil! at 216,760 cubic f~et. The design water quality
volume was I S8,020 cubic feet.
Th• design information shown hereon is based on the approved .:(lmmertial permit pl1111 set for
the multi-family ccmplex of Cedarwood. Division 4 and the Technical lnfonnatio~ Report dated
September 1997 (revised Jun,, J99S JJ1d January 2000) for the commercial site, Cedarwood Apartments.
Oivisiun 4, a copy ,,r which is attached. In the approved T!R. 34,500 cu. ft. of water quality volume was
allocated to the King Couniy 140'1 Wa)' CIP. Based on as-built ~onditions it appears that an additional
28,650 cu. ft. is anilable for the CIP project, for a total of 63, I SO cu. ft. The auached approved TIR
colll&ins 211d <kscribes the c.ilculatio,,s for water quality volume.
Very truly yours.
HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Jerry Retzlaff. P.LS.
cc: Tenzing Thin:,lcy & Olea M••itt w/eo .. lc,ur,, (T!Rj
Lnl.otl.608 ,... 1 or 1
HGG toe. S.,,.,..... 26, 2001
Very truly yours,
HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Tom Uren, P.E.
November 19, 200 l
Wei Hung
King County
Department of Transportation
King Street Center, MS KSC-TR-0242
20 I South Jackson Street
Seattle WA, 98104-3856
Re: Cedarwood Pond Volumes and Acceptance
Reference:
Dear Wei,
a) Construction and Conveyance Agreement
Dated May 23, 2000
b) Goldsmith & Associates Inc. Letter
Dated May 29 .. , 200 l
c) Goldsmith & Associates Inc. Memorandum
Dated November 13, 2001
--· ; ; !J
!
I am writing this letter on behalf of Lancaster Homes Inc., Molasses Creek Inc. and Cedar River Lightfoot,
Inc. {collectively, "Developer), the parties with whom King County entered into the Construction and
Conveyance Agreement noted above, (the "Agreement"). The purpose of this letter is to clarify the issue of
pond volumes and allotments. The referenced Agreement, Recital A of Page l and Article# 2, Page 2, state
the following:
RecjtiaJ A:
" The storm drainage pond and conveyance system located within the Existing Pond Area have
been designed to manage and treat all of the anticipated storm runoff from all of the Cedarwood Properties
described in this Recital A, which are illustrated in Exhibit A-1."
Article # 2, Construction of New Pond:
"TIie County specifically acknowledges and agrees that after conveyance of the New Pond from
Cedarwood to the County, Cedarwood shall be entitled to connect to the storm drainage facilities and to use
the New Pond for disposal and treatment of storm water runoff from all of the Cedarwood Properties,
including without limitation its planned Cedarwood Apartments, consisting of201 multi-family units to be
located on Cedarwood Div. No. 4/Lightfoot and the proposed multi-family project to be located on real
property adjacent to and east of Cedarwood Division No. 3, Tax Parcel 222305-9004, without cost or
charge to Cedarwood."
As you are aware, the construction of the Cedarwood Water Quality Pond, (the "New Pond") was
completed in 2000. The County bas widened 140th Way SE and bas directed its runoff from the road
improvements into the New Pond In accordance with the Conveyance Agreement, Developer has
submitted to King County the New Pond "asbuilts" and has requested final inspections. We have also
requested payment from King County for the enlargement of the New Pond to carry the County's 140 ..
Way CIP flows, which payment was provided for in the Agreement. Presently, the County is processing
our requests and bas advised us that payment is forthcoming.
1400 Bel-Re-d Road
Bellevue, WA 98007
Phone (HS) 644-2323
PAX (425) 643·3475
w
,, .)
The New Pond "asbuilt" computed by Goldsmith & Associates Inc., has revealed a total water quality
volume of 216,760 ft3. The agreed volume per the Conveyance Agreement was 188,020 ft3. As a result of
Developer's efforts, an additional volume of 28,650 ft3 was consbucted and is reported by Goldsmith. The
purpose of this letter is to insure that the allocations for the Cedarwood Properties are maintained and not
misappropriated by King County for its use or the requested use by the City of Renton, or any other entity.
The Developer consbucted the New Pond at great cost, specifically for the benefit of the Cedarwood
Properties and as otherwise provided in the Agreement. No distribution of excess volumes shall be awarded
without Developer's approval.
I have attached a copy of Goldsmith & Associates Inc., Memorandum that denotes the volume distribution
for the Cedarwood Properties. It also documents the volumes by King County for the CIP. In summary, a
total of 153,520 was allocated for the Cedarwood Properties, 34,500 ft3 for SR 169 and 140111 Wa~, leaving
an excess volume of 28,650 ft3. I need you to review your calculations to detennine the final 140 Way SE
and SR-169 flow requirements. Any distribution of the excess volumes needs to be resolved prior to the
final conveyance of the New Pond to the County.
Please contact me at your earliest opportunity so we can discuss this issue in greater detail.
Respectfully,
/It. :t.17-
Glen L. Maurer
Construction Manager
Agent for the Cedarwood Group
Cc: a) George Reece, President
Lancaster Cedarwood Inc., Lancaster Homes Inc., Molasses Creek Inc.,
b) Rick Leruion, President
Lennon Investments Inc., Cedar River Lightfoot Inc.
Attachments: I) Construction and Conveyance Agreement, dated May 31, 200
2) Hugh Goldsmith & Associates Letter, dated May 20, 2001
3) Hugh Goldsmith & Associates Memorandum, dated November 13, 2001
Filed For Record At Request Of
AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:
Glen Maurer
Pacific Properties, Inc.
14410 Bel-Red Road, Suite 200
Bellevue WA 98007
'-
CONSTRUCTION AND CONVEYANCE AGREE~IENT
\
THIS CONSTRUCTION AND CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement'') is made as of
this =3 \ day of }I] rll-3 . 2000. by and between LANCASTER/CEDAR WOOD. INC .•
a Washington corporation and LENN N INVESTMENTS, INC., a Washington corporation, as tenants in
common, doing business as THE CEDAR WOOD GROUP, LENNON INVEST!v!ENTS, INC.,
LANCASTER HOMES, INC., MOLASSES CREEK. INC., a Washingtan corporation, and CEDAR
RIVER UGHTFOOT, INC., a Washington corporation, (collectively, "Cedarwood") and KING COUNTY,
a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("King County'' or the "County").
Recitals
A. Cedarwood is the developer of the real property which is legally described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto (the "Cedarwood Properties"), is illustrated in Exhibit A· 1 and which includes the three
divisions of The Cedarwood Plat, Cedarwood Division No. 4, real property located adjacent to Division No.
4 which is owned by Cedar River Lightfoot, Inc. and real property located adjacent to the easterly of
Cedarwood Division 3, Tax Parcel No. 22230S-9004, which is owned by The Cedarwood Group, a tenancy
in common. The Cedarwood Group is the fee owner of real property on which is located a storm drainage
water quality ireatment pond, which is a portion of the Cedarwood, Division No. 4, and which is illustrated
in the drawing attached hereto as Exlu'bit B {the "Existing Pond Area"). The storm drainage pond and
conveyance system located within the Existing Pond Area have been designed to manage and treat all of the
anticipated storm runoff volumes from all of the Cedarwood Properties described in this Recital A, which
are illustrated in Exhibit A· 1.
B. The County will be widening 140• Way Southeast, and in connection therewith will be
installing certain improvements. As part of this construction project, (the "140• CIP"), it will be necessary
for the County to provide storm drainage water quality treatment facilities, including a storm drainage water
quality pond. ·
C. The parties wish to coordinate construction of storm drainage water quality facilities with
sufficient capacity to service the Cedarwood Properties and the 140• CIP, as well as a portion of the Maple
Valley Highway (SR 169).
NOW. THEREFORE, for valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree as follows:
Construction and Conveyance Agreement
I. General Maintenance Agreement. The parties wish 10 relocate the Existing Pond Area and
construct a larger stonn drainage water quality pond with sufficient treatment capacity to service all the
Cedarwood Properties, a portion of the Maple Valley Highway and the 140111 C!P (the "New Pond"). The
New Pond is illustrated in Exhibit C, attached hereto. In order to relocate the Existing Pond Area and
construct the New Pond, the County bas obtained consent from the Washington Department of
Transportation to locate a portion of the New Pond within the State right-of-way for the Maple Valley
Highway, which consent is governed by that certain Agreement GMO 133 l between the County and the State
dated as of January 26, 1999 (the "General Maintenance Agreement''), which is attached hereto and referred
to as Agreement GM0133 land is hereby incorporated by this reference.
2. Construction of New Pond. The County hereby directs the Cedarwood owners, on behalf
of and as agent for the County, to construct the New Pond, substantially in accordance with the terms of the
General Maintenance Agreement and with the engineering plan which has been approved by the County and
the State and which is attached as Exhibit D to the General Maintenance Agreement (the "Pond Plan"), a
copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit D, which in incorporated herein by this reference.
The New Pond bas been designed with capacity sufficient to accommodate the volumes provided by the
County and the volumes generated by all of the Cedarwood Properties, and both the County and the State
have reviewed and approved the projected volumes and have reviewed and approved the Pond Plan. The
County acknowledges and agrees that Cedarwood shall be proceeding to construct the New Pond pursuant
to its existing grading permit, Land Use Pennit No. S9!01004, Activity No. L98GR066, Project No.
L96G00S4. The County specifically acknowledges and agrees that after conveyance of the New Pond from
Cedarwood to the County, Cedarwood shall be entitled to connect to the storm drainage facilities and to use
the New Pond for disposal and treatment of storm water runoff from all of the Cedarwood Properties,
including without limitation its planned Cedarwood Apartments, consisting ofup to 201 multifamily units to
be located on Cedarwood Division No. 4/Ligbtfoot and the proposed multifamily project to be located on
real property located adjacent to and east ofCedarwood Division No. 3, Tax Parcel 222305-900-I, without
cost or charge to Cedarwood.
3. Acceptance of New Pond. Prior to the acceptance of the New Pond by the County,
Cedarwood shall provide all engineering plans and calculations used to size the facility. Cedarwood shall
schedule final inspection with Department of Development & Environmental Services (ODES) and County
Roads Division Staff. Cedarwood, at its sole cost and expense, shall correct all construction deficiencies
which do not substantially conform with the approved Pond Plan attached hereto as Exhibit D, and which
are noted by DOES or County Road Division Staff at time of field inspection.
4. Convevance to Countv. Upon Cedarwood's completion of construction of the
New Pond and acceptance of construction by the County: (which shall not be unreasonable withheld
provided construction substantially confonns with the Pond Plan and required corrections, if any, are
completed): (i) the County shall: reimburse Cedarwood the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars
($75,000), which the panics have allocated as the County's share of construction costs; and (ii) The
Cedarwood Group shall convey that portion of the New Pond which is located on real property owned by
Cedarwood to the County, by Warranty Deed, free and clear of monetary encumbrances, and other
encumbrances except those reasonable acceptable to the County. The County shall not object to
encumbrances of record which do not materially interfere with the use and operation of the New Pond for
its intended purpose. The County shall be responsible for preparing the conveyance documents, at the
County's sole cost and expense. If the County fails to reimburse Cedarwood the $75,000 within 30 days
following completion and acceptance of the New Pond, interest shall commence accruing on the
outstanding unpaid balance at the rate of l o/o per month, until paid. During construction of the New Pond
2
Construction and Conveyance Agreement
and prior to acceptance by the County, Cedarwood shall not be required to post any bonds other !han !he
Construction Performance Bond normally required by ODES for construction of plat improvements, which
!he County acknowledges has already been provided by Cedarwood. Upon acceptance of !he construction of
!he New Pond by !he County, after Cedarwood's correction of any noted deficiencies, !he Construction
Performance Bond shall be released by !he County and a two-year maintenance bond shall be provided by
Cedarwood for !hat portion of the New Pond which is not located on State right-of-way. After conveyance
of the New Pond from Cedarwood to !he County, the County, al County cost and expense, shall be
responsible for performing all of its obligations set forth in the General Maintenance Agreement and for
maintaining, repairing and replacing !hat portion of the New Pond which is located within !he State right-of-
way, including any related facilities and appurtenances. During the term of !he two year maintenance bond,
Cedarwood shall be responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing !hat portion of the New Pond
which was conveyed by Cedarwood to the County and which is not located within !he Stale right-of-way,
including any related facilities and appurtenances. Upon release of the maintenance bond, !he county shall
be responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing all of the New Pond, including any related facilities.
5. Authorltv. Each person signing below represents and warrants that execution of
this Agreement has been duly authorized and !hat no further action on !he part of any party is necessary to
make this Agreement binding in accordance with its terms.
6. Attornevs• Fees. In the event of litigation between parties hereto, declaratoiy or
otherwise, in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover its costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees, including for appeals, which shall be determined and fixed by the court as part of!he
judgment.
7. Binding. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the
heirs, personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns to the parties hereto.
LANCASfICEDARWOOD, INC.,
a Washo;n ~rporation
By: ) (
Ge6rge Reece
Its: President
LENNON INVESTMENTS, INC.,
a Washington corporation
By:£«[&·-?: •.. _ -
Patrick 0. Lennon
Its: President
3
LANCASTER HOMES, INC.,
a Washington corporation
By: 2(_
o?orge Reece
Its: President
MOLASSES CREEK, INC.,
a Washington corporation 2_L
By: J
.7~J!GG:~
(Printed Name)
Its: k'('c·e-,:::>r-'!e:.-s·/l),eA.,lr-
CEDAR RIVER LIGHTFOOT, INC.,
a Washington corporation
B~/d~-
atrickO.Lennon
Its: President
KING COUNTY, a political
Subdivision of the State of Washington
By:VJ ~t4' :z:,;,,,,o a _At-
(Printed Name)
Its: Manager, Property Service Division
Construction and Conveyance Agreement
4
Construction and Conveyance Agreement
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: Ss
COUNTY OF KING )
On the fr!, 1
day of /)IP f" , 2000, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared GEORGE REECE to me known to be the
PRES/DENTofLancaster/Cedarwood, Inc. and Lancaster Homes, Inc., the corporations that executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be free and voluntary act and deed of said
corporations for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute
said inslrllment.
Given under my hand and official seal the day and year first above written.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: Ss
COUNTY OF KING )
NOT ARY PUBLIC i!l, IIJl!i fo e S!llle of Washington
Residing at: 6(~'% /V.C,
My Appointment expires: Y-2 9-6/
I .,,..,-JI I/
On the ,;/ day of /il~/f r , 2000, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared PA TRICK 0. LENNON to me known to be
the PRES/DENTofleMon Investment, Inc. and Cedar River Lightfoot, Inc., the corporations that
executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be free and voluntary act and deed
of said corporations for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to
execute said instrument.
Given under my hand and official seal the day and y . first ab~;• 'tten.
,,1unll1u,,,, . ~t&-/ ,,, .. ,. F ... . .-.
..... , ... '(\l.-'-' li'I',,,
.... Q' ·•······ """,~.. -L...-C..-=::.......-~-='--'f--------/ ~--<~,10• ~·· .. ~·.. NOTARY PUBL\C in and rthe State of Washington
t { ~+t1,0TA11:..._ \ ~: Residing at: E,(ll.:: /v.t>
€ : 3 .... ::: : f My Appointment expires: Co -,}-1 -0 ( -,,,,. /:I .....
;_.;, UOL\C. :":,,f
; ~ •,/'0: o·,..· ., : \ ~ .... '-f,-... · "'-.. t ,, () ••••···• '+(:;·· ,.,,,, /:' IV AS 'I\\ ,,,,· ,,,, ~, ...
'"•un,nu 1'
s
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
)
: Ss
)
Construction and Conveyance Agreement
s--
On the 'JI ~ay of fi1rff" , 2000, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ~JG-e::-~~ to me known to
be thel;f:2{::~t)lfiVr of Molasses Creek, Inc., the corporation that executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and volwitary act and deed of said corporation
for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that (s)he is authorized to execute said
instrument.
Given under my band and official seal the day and
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: Ss
COUNTY OF KING )
On the.;,a day of ~ , 2000, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
duly commissioned an~~personally appeared DAVID PREUGSCHAT to me known to be the
MANAGER, Property Service Division of KING COUNTY, the entity that executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged said instrwnent to be the free and volwitary act and deed of said entity, for
the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that (s)he is authorized to execute said
instrument.
''"'"""''!u Given wide~~~.~~.~t:J~J,.;eal the day and year first above written.
S, "':~;j.\$S1011 ij_;;, •• ( <" ~ ;: '···v· 7,.p_:. """~ :: ..... •,rjS "'cl"• ,,,._ = f \\OlARJ, \ 4s = i i = ;, ---1: S '-. "'ua1.,t. ..: ~
~cP"•A' ,., .. ~-==-~ ,,, .... , 8 (\ ~ ... ··"() s ~., .,..,. ;;·, .. t.J .. •(" ~ ,~~
1111 F WAS\\ ,,,,
111 1111111111111 \
6
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FOR
CEDARWOOD GROUP
OAAINAGe AAeA AT CEOAAWOOO
Eiliott Farm ac:cording to Ula Plat thereot re<:ord&d In
Volume 180 ol Plats. Pages 4 tllrough 15, Recor:ls of King County, Washingtcn El<CE?i that portion
thereof lying within the Renton/Maple Valley Highway Southeast (SA 1 S9) as dedicated en said Plat;
TOGETHER WITI-1 that porticn of :he Northwest 1/4 of the Sc<.:theast 1/4 of Sec:lon 22,
Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willarr.ette Mef.Cian, King Ccuniy, Washinc;tcn described as follows:
Beginning at Point Au shown on said Plat of Elliott Farm;
Thence N a9•17'47• W a dlstar.ce of 675.00 feet:
Thence N 01°41'41~ Ea distance of 473.S6 feet to the Southerly margin of AentorJMa;:le Valley
Highway;
Thence S 75•39'59• E along said Southerly margin a di.stance of 691. 70 feet to ar. ir.tersectlon
with the West line of the East 35 feet of said Nctthwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4;
Thence S 01•41•41• W along said West line a distance of 310.4A f~tto the Pcint of Beginning.
ANO TOGETHER WITH that portion ot Govemment Lot 9 in said Sactlon 22 lying Easterly of
the Cedar River and South of the Renton/M,1ple Valley Highway Southeast (SA 169), the Southerly
margin beir.g described uncter Recording No. 6484109;
ANO TOG!::THEA WITH that portion of Iha Northwest 1/4 of the Southwe.•: 1/4 of said Sec:ion .
22 lying Southerly ot the Cedar Alver EXCEPT the South 970.00 feet thereof;
TOGETHER WITH that portion cl Government Lot 8 in said Section 22 lying Southerly of the
R'"1tln/Maple Vaney Highway Southeast (SR 169) and Westerly ot 140th P!ace Southeast as colll/8yed
to King County by Deeds recorded under Recording No's. 5596210, 6354693, and 6391812, EXCEPT
tllose portion$ conveyed to the State of Washington for tl1e widening of Iha Junction of Renton/Maple
Valley Highway and 140th Plac:4 Southeast by Oeeds recorded under Recording No's. 7707110208,
7707110209,and 7707110210.
ANO TOGETHER WITH that portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section
22 lying Westerly of said 140th Way Southeast and Northerly or the Southerly margin of a drainage
easement recorded under King County Recording No. 8806270224.
EXHIBIT A
Pr:pnred by:
Checked by:
'·.
-=-:.::--= ... 0
0
"'
0
I
I
-
J
i
I
;
I
I
I
I'-
I
..........
0
N
"' ... .. • • • ~
~
0 a: ..
0
" " ..
"' ..
Q ...
"' \,!
;;
~
~
= :,
t1 ' :;
•
/j • • { • I I
I I I I I
1--. I
~ :
~ •
~ :
~
.......... 1)
I k-
I AL__
-.J -l:: me p~
I
<I: ::; .. .
! ..
" .: r
" C ,.
0 z
0 a..
00 1--a
~o
Z3:
z er.
-<I: <Co
0:: w
Ou
UJ
<(
w a::
<( ,.. .. :z: :,
0 ... ..
l!i
"
i ;; ~ ,. ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ • : > • .. C j I 3 .: = -• ~ :j •
& § ;
~ i l s •
.:: •
~ • • a • ~ • • ~ • 'l ~ • • •
dC IE .s a '. H= ~·-,; . .. --!! ..
.i e 0 o ~a .. -.l! u
.>I Ji 0 • •
:I . •
]5.
q u ..
~-!. 'I -sa ; I • I . -. e.;,J ~-/·. "'1 =f.1i .. . . ~ ~ :2:2 •
~ •
10 60
On..0 Buch C. Co\dJmllh le .bloclalu, !no.
(tlQ Coluullla& k(iAem • Sunc7ors • Ph,llll<n
llll lU~ ._. .... 11 ....._ .. _
1.0.. IU »ill ........ uNNt ..... , ... 1 ... --Jil, &U t&1"'7'i'Ll
'
1
I
DIVISION 4
-~I
I:
>-' ~.
3-.•
, . ..,,,.;~7····L~-··1'·
o: . :!i
'•
notu.a. uuori, •"• or111n111 H:11 I THE CEDARWOOD GROUI' j --~ ----· ---I
:atan ...... r ..• ,, .. ".'
to\114, ,hl41il.l!I••
a,w.,,., .... ·-U'taDv£1k
AU• na.. llUOl'M ~
.....
'"' fLUI SKl ,..,,
•s.w,
EXISTING WATER QUALITY POND
CEDARWOOD
IIIHG COUNTY WA$1HWHOH
B
• fl
I-' -ca
::c
X
U.I
-··
-:. ;
;;
!.
J
5
~ ... .. . ..
\ . ..
.·,··. -·· . ' , ,,,.-
,,
. ,i
1 .·/· )'I 'I l i ' .
• ' •• .. I I
·t ! ~I I
" .11
.
1 ·1 ;
1,1 c "f h" a' • . ; ], j • : 11,:
ir'I . • 1·· , ,· i • ·J i, .· ! I,.
!: !
' ,
;;, ,,
~I
-I "".' ,lt-~:. . S:' '. .:, ' \ '•
·I •. I. .• ~·.
' lll---.J·
I : ,· • : i ~ ;
: l i • .. '
-'
, -
r
--,,-.---==~~~;;;;;:::::-:::::::::-~---------sccruONZ:CToW,rsFTIPZ:0rITTR<Tn:-·:,\:'l(GJE:5lE,
0
l\A. S'.ofr-:---~.,w:·~~=~-=~cc=-=~=1·[~;;;~. =\ NSHIP 2 3 NO • Ml' · ~srrc'N,"'"'
S
ECTION 22 TOW . · ~-'°"'"''"''''
' \I / 1Rt?1~ ~i°. Tq Iii , . i= -~~ ...:C:f:-~=='=~· ~~-. _Sf;'~I .. AetE ,/1\lXff . BLACK DIAMOND HIGHWAY) "°gkC'" ": _ t ,~·. ;' ,o• '"' • H,S """"'" .... '"" rn,. '"'""' ., "'·""'"" r #B1Al72 ) -n 50 rOVERFLOW EL. ' 79.00 AS AND Dccacc m ,.ow / o•mcorn . 0 ",,m corn,s,10rnorn. • / .
INST ALL GATES
(SEE DETAIL SHT.
W/81R9cAGE GRATE -79.0 ~.t. ~·'·~~i">s W/GATE VALVE ~~tgPIIONE UflLITIES AS R~Q~6RNED0i+$e I .. / RELOCATE 24" C:VH
" " ·' rn " ,. , , . ,s oo rnos mo Cl mm ~" " ,s cc rn ••• , mos. eo,,
K."' M • n '> • o.oo, . . ,c" """" •
-(SEE OElAIL=°~.'"'
7
ca) ~ , , "" . · ·1···'(°' -···\;-t.'.o~'/--. ·-__ ,-_ ,//
-.... , .. ,,, ~ '1' ' ', V•. , ·... . . • <\• ·;;·.·;,o~·· · · .... ~ · ·· ~ .'. ~ -E-:_ :.-_: ~ :.:_ :"'s-.. _a -_ ---, ,,,n;;r--· ,., -·-,,-B<<c ~.:. · " .'\~··.·····.\ ;~-,~1~i~~
!-]
I.E. = 7L9
~.:t'*35,,-
Ji
21 (!1P / 22 LF 36' Nl2 -, r ----_____________ _c. _, _ -· _ --~ -. r,_S , =-::;:,-·.-! ' "" / -'' . """ ' ,., he'' .. ' '
-E3 C /. ;'"°"' ; '• '"' «· ';• 0 C . -C c, ... .,, Cf •J,\ C cc,, I ,,,,----IE M ,, '•
,x,-=;;-e:::::-,:4:ehX:=,""' x:::::: x_ X X X 1 X X ---X-----,o·· X x-===--\~ s·~'.Hl.'.\2-1 ' ' . ....=-t-~
-----·---·--. ·--.. --~
1
\ Rlt,179·~~, '--. "'"~\
::_:c.:c---===c-c ----==::-. · · --· RM ~-·•"•-..---· --. · -· .. 4 _ c ,e SfC\
0
'~< > ·•·"
-----·-----~ \ ,'t1.-l81~: ~.. . . .·1"(,<\'' ~,
--\ . -~nf"i:if"IC '/I . ~.-1,, ,1:;1
· --------~ 1 '!;JJ;/;,;J __ ~-f::Js~;-~_!;A
~rfr· , ,,·a~l-,,1 __ 1 ~i f 1., __
1
~ POND BOTTOM • 69.0 \
1
..
:1 ~-, -11
,. "" \
-1-15'1-
Al 2-1.TO ·?7 00., ;· "J \·1"'·
\ '.-----\-,8"_cf~P :·•·a.• i\ ...
I/ V"''i
! ~6',~ ',' .r I PROPERTY LINE l. w·:w -~r-....
I ~'" I c--:1-1 20 LF 8" PVC . ' <e A I ~~ ' ,tl-1'. -I ----,_ I : ._=-_---REMOVE OR RELOCATE GRAVIT. y DRAIN .s0> . -------
1 I ,,73 00 0'« 10
1.1,11,~l!= 1-;<E = vc, <:L.U 1
--. __ Mf.1 TEL 2.'l""~t.;P
1
,;,,_ ~,.':.\ ~M
10:: 24 70 70 --· ----_!_f___J:·1.C,0 -------
------·
I .UJ\ -~. r.. . .. l;:XIST, CONTROL .E. i>,s01
l:>l''""·1" 10'. w_ ,o_ E QUARRY .SPAtl
;i ·1 \ A... ' STRUCTURES , ,._1/-ANp GRAVEL FIL Trn '. \-K\--_ AND PIPING __ __ 1'1° __ --WlNOG-W-,lNS+Abb-RIP ~ I ' .'i' ----=---.:.._:_:_ 36",\0S RAP POND BOTTOM
-Hf I.E.·, 70.0b
~l--.·-·-··+-·1···1 I\ . . .· ·.·. IE 70 95 ·rn ~ "----·0 ' I \ t :1 ! I -' 'o..__1
~ i'1,: . POND BOTTOM 69,_Q
1.E ~ 72.0
43 LF 24" Nl2 rs
\
.
::_ , : 1,_,v ±',1', " I I ; ,.. ··1 ~ 11 l r-;-t:--1
'1 . '[' , lb' .. '. '-. ,_;:#.~'. !~ I / ;x.· !' I
-\ I I j Jr'., \\ . I l' .---1--~,
\ I ! ... __J .
15"Jo_ .11 1 -,...V"f,-\
"' w ~ . "'' I
~
\T I [I \ T / \ I 1 J /; o-----' I ' ----_/ !, A\ :I \--.,_ I I / ·-11 GRAVEL ACCESS
-~------· ·-·-~-.. 1--..-R--. --·--,----,-··-~--·-·, ~---, -~---,-a, 1· . I -r
F Evls,eN-
, '
r···:·;!j'"lr1r1.nYnn.E.s. ·I --! ...
---95 ,-
--oo -I
I
---75+----
r~c;_ -------: --1----1-~ ,-----, -.... -1· ---· c--. · 1--.. a---''".'. "' --1--r--;-·-.. ----,t-,-.. ·. -----i--------•-·---~ ··i·--·1 · -17'----------i ----1-'-ii;!L,~:i1~/1y~,''l7f>i0>1----j:""
I I I
' I . ! I r . 1-< ~ ~ -I ! _J ' , ~:,':·,'; ,.. ~ "l}t,,c"ifi.1[1'nov:1, ,·. I ' I -I t---,--,------. ' -.. '_ _ _ _ l _ EX TING GRouh~ .. , _ i ----1 ~ "G I 1
1 1 ,
1
1 1 'I Jl{J,,1\,~: ~:.~r~-;( /',. ---=--1
"'A-, ·:-
__ 10..1------+~----·--·-· _ --_ _ _ ---=--_ I ____ ---~ -=T= = =-=-;---=-= ---=-=---I 1 • I ".',-I
1
• DillE,J\;~\':c\..~i(;,~ ,N_~ ...---
I
F , '"""'""", '" r-r . ·-·------; -·-·-·-------1 __ J__ J~~ .. ·. __ J ___ 1,------~-!----'-.. DJ:if"c~wro,:"' '°'~ -= f-
l
i . I , -----'""" . .
---es-I
I i :, ''"' '"""" ,' "' ; , t';\;~;"o'"'ir· ~ , '1 ::-
/. ________ ---r----:----·--! ·sE_~Q!~~:~2.~A--j---------------~---L---1----~s--: __ II ____ • ----1-------i-~Sf1l~~~c~(:~r=~ le5
--~--L___ J ___ l_ I __ J ___ J ___ J _[~~l __ I __ ~--i ____ \ __ l ___ I ____ : __ ,,,_J __ i __ l. ~-r··~t. .-L--_-~.~~,~
1
___ 1"
I
____ _L_
TOTAL VOLUME
'""'-' ~ =-" H.123 40,9'19
" J9,77al
73,849 n 34,075
TO 29,213 63,269
" 26,"/77 27,995 --
TOTAL 206,081 tu It.
PROVIDED VOLUME
PUBLIC VOLUME PRIVATE VOL,.UME
~T.!l.Qf;, !Eil Y.~ il.>\!ilC ""' ~
" 14.917 14,339 " 27,206 26,SiO
" 13.TGO 25,219 " 26.014 49.570 " 11,519 " 22,556
TO 9,460 <0,919 TO 19.753 42.309
" 9.4H 0,917 " 19,283 19.018
---·---
TOTAL 69,574 OU tT. TO(AL 136.507 '"· tt
~EV ~o OATE
Q rf! Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc,
\O'U Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners
1211> ll4th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA [16004
P.O. Ilox 3565
Bellevue, WA 06000
TEL: 1·125) 462-1080
FAX: ·125) 462-7719
REQUIRED VOLUME
TOT AL: 188,020 cu. ft.
PUBLIC: 72,994 cu. ft.
PRIVATE: 115,026 cu. ft.
HO(R,P1'CH
TA8iE 6.3.1.D FINEL'f TEXTURED PLANTS TOLERANT OF
FREQUENT Sil.TURil.TED SOIL_J;_~Dl"l~NS OR STANDING WATER.
GRA~ES r --WETL~D PLANTS
AIO(,§fYr"• qon1,;iiioriii_ SAW£ I( SEOGE _£p~, jl,palo
Alopoc,,ruJ a~q"ohl SPIKE USH £1,o,~or,J poiu,lr1s
Aqrol1R s SLENO R USH ,l,.nr;u, lonu/S
A. ororolo ---
A o!bo or guq~
;I, /enu1s or cap1/laris
~ /;. occ1donfol,s
i;; ~oreau
.L~ !'pq lri.iolis
Hole~• mOlliJ1
t,j•OEHiCSEC<£C PCOITEO: HHUP12 -~~"°''-Ol/!4/0817 OS.
S<Ol<
OAH,
, .. ,on I v,,~
J~H· 09.,~98 I •Rff,
0,
9r,2cP
-·I oRu~ En [ L,r. ~,,loPoa
OES1G"fD fl OB<,
APPROYEO, '". ACA~ O•G, ~IHOPll •sir 91~10•
, '-..._ I //-I ', . · • • ,I··· .... I
I ,-~1--. 1· .. I ··p .
75)1 .. --e !_PER"4ANE1rWS75.01·_z. , .. t---.1'i/y I 1_._ •_·:_J.,s
, I . , . i . ~ i "' I I ,. I .
,0 I --fc--1--'1" '''''" ,,,,;., ~ --=-F= -_/1----'J~J I ~!D ! ,0--
" L __ J ___ I SECklON BtB _j __ .c_l ___ ""'"G~"'i'""~
1
'"':,, ___ _
KING COUNTY
HORII: 1• • 20'
VERT.: I'• ~·
CEDARWOOO GROUP
WATER QUALITY POND
FOR
CEDARWOOD DIVISION 4
.ca~:, 97520
•~•n
C10
WASHINGTON
5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The on-site Conveyance system analysis and backwater calculations for the proposed
conveyance system will be provided during final engineering design. A 100-year conveyance
analysis was performed on the existing conveyance system through Molasses Creek to the
existing wetpond. The existing system has plenty of capacity for the developed flows from The
Elliott Farm project.
The proposed conveyance system for this project is curb, gutter, catch basins, and storm
drainage pipe. The majority of the storm drainage pipe used will consist of smooth-walled
corrugated polyethylene pipe with a Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.12.
25 and 100-year conveyance calculations for the pipes will be completed using the Rational
Method. The following are the parameters that will be used for final design of the pipes:
1. A Runoff Coefficient -'C' value was calculated from the 2009 KCSWDM for each
tributary area pursuant to table 3.2.1.A.
2. A 100-year/24-hour precipitation of 3.9 inches in accordance with Figure 3.2.1 D.
3. A starting time of concentration of 6.3.
4. An "n" factor of 0.012.
The tributary areas will be calculated to each of the catch basins connecting to the proposed
piping system.
A 50 and 100-year backwater will also be performed to determine the hydraulic grade line and to
see if any catch basin rims overtop. The backwater will be performed on the major pipe runs and
computer printouts will be included within this section with final engineering plan design. The
design flows will be based on the KCRTS method using 15-minute time steps and the design
water surface elevation for the drainage facilities will be used for the tailwater elevation.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
JOB NAME: Elliott Farm PREL
JOB#: 15734
REVISED: 4/10/2015
A= Conlributing Area (Ac)
C= Runoff Coefficient
Tc= Time of Concentration {min)
I= Intensity at Tc (in/hr)
d= Diameter of Pipe (in)
L= Length of Pipe (ft)
D= Water Depth at Qd (in)
FROM TO A s
15734-Conveyance.xls
BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS -PIPE FLOW CALCULATOR
using the Rational Method & Manning Formula
CITY OF RENTON DESIGN FOR 100 YEAR STORM
NOTE: ENTER DEFAULTS AND-STORM DATA BEFORE BEGINNING
DEFAULTS I C= 0.61 n= 0.014 I
d= 12 Tc= 6.3
Qd= Design Flow (els)
Of= Full Capacity Flow (els)
Vd= Velocity at Design Flow (fps)
VI= Velocity at Full Flow (fps)
s= Slope of pipe(%)
n= Manning Roughness Coefficient
Tt= Travel Time at Vd (min)
L d Tc n C
COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD "lr"-EQUATION
STORM Ar Br
2YR 1.58 0.58
10YR 2.44 0.64 PRECIP= 3.9
25YR 2.66 0.65 AT= 2.61
50YR 2.75 0.65 Br= 0.63
100YR 2.61 0.63
SUM A I A"C I SUM A"C Qd Of Qd/Qf
====== ====== ======
CB#1
X3-4A
X3-4
X3-B
X3-10
X3-12
X3-14
X3-16
X3-18
X3-20
X3-25
X3-26
X6
X3-4A
X3-4
X3-8
X3-10
X3-12
X3-14
X3-16
X3-18
X3-20
X3-25
X3-26
X-6
XPOND
2.25
0.69
10.50
0.58
1.18
0.78
1. 11
0.83
1.52
0.72
0.99
0.38
0.20
2.00 142 12 10.0 0.014
0.92 140 18 1 0.4 0.014
0.60 140 30 20.0 0.014
0.66 120 30 20.4 0.014
0.45 159 30 10.8 0.014
0.67 142 30 11.3 0.014
0.55 130 30 11.6 0.014
0.50 130 30 11 9 0.014
1.00 56 30 11.3 0.014
0.50 116 30 11.4 0.014
0.50 115 30 11.7 0.014
0.50 143 30 12.0 0.014
0.50 124 36 12.4 0.014
0.71 2.25 1.60 1.60 2.39 3.81 4.68 0.815
0.6 2.94 0.41 2.01 2.33 4.69 9.35 0.502
054 10.5 5.67 7.68 1.54 11.84 29.49 0.402
0.6 11.08 0.35 8.03 1.52 12.22 30.93 0.395
0.6 12.26 0.71 8.74 2.27 19.87 25.54 0.778
0.6 13.04 0.47 9.21 2.21 20.39 31.16 0.654
0.6 14.15 0.67 9.87 2.17 21.45 28.24 0.760
0.6 14.98 0.50 10.37 2.13 22.12 26.92 0.822
0.6 16.5 0.91 11.28 2.21 24.99 38.07 0.656
0.6 17.22 0.43 11.71 2.20 25.78 26.92 0.958
0.6 18.21 0.59 12.31 2.16 26.63 26.92 0.989
0.6 18.59 0.23 12.54 2.13 26.68 26.92 0.991
0.6 18.79 0.12 12.66 2.09 26.41 43.78 0.603
Page 1
D/d D
0.686 8.23
0.501 9.02
0.441 13.23
0.437 13.10
0.662 19.86
0.592 17.77
0.651 19.54
0.690 20.69
0.593 17.80
0.778 23.33
0.807 24.22
0.809 24.27
0.558 20.07
Vf
5.96
5.30
6.01
6.31
5.21
6.35
5.76
5.49
7.76
5.49
5.49
5.49
6.20
Vd
6.63
5.33
5.69
5.94
5.76
6.77
6.34
6.12
8.28
6.20
6.20
6.20
6.47
Tl
0.36
0.44
0.41
0.34
0.46
0.35
0.34
0.35
0.11
0.31
0.31
0.38
0.32
_ _/
i
I
I
I
I I I
\ , I
I I
\ I
\/
i.i .; + ,..
3' :,: ,..
w
.J
.J .. >
"' ' .J
0. ..
2
' z
0 ,-z
"' 0::
a,
!!!
"' .;
~'
'
~
/ i •
a
• I
~
'i:i •
I-
CD
I
X w
r<J
z
z 0
j en
0. >
w -
"' Cl <t
Z I
~ ::i!
0 a::
0 <[
~ LJ..
0 l-g, l-
o:: 0
0. -_J
s • ' I ! '
i s
; I
' !
' ;
_J
w
i
'
0
i
'
;;.
'
!
.; (l
-:j i! !': ~i::
'' !I !I
• I
i • '
li .... " . ii "i [ = s~ !J
s,~Gt[ '(tlO~ '·· ·-,. ·-..:__::._~ -Ci:-
,:-~-. J-'"" ~;,~.-• ~r.-. . -~•· ·.• .•• .• ~"''~~:.:,: .. ,,, "''"''. ~-" .: :. -, ..
ct'~ ·T _ ---·-·--· CONTROL STRUCTURE AND PiPltlG si. ! ·1 :-:--:-.~~.i-7<:*.0 -. .---::. _ f:OG~l~!~.IN WSOOT DETENTION PONO
C) ~-GRAVEL ACtEss··
li_j '~ _ ,-RO~--::-.,
\J \ Ex1st-..1a· CMP TO BE C() --
REMOVko ANO REPLACED
. IJY A 36' f'IPE AS PART
I . .Of 1iRAC1N~ PERMIT
~ • -I d6G00~4, ; : L] ..:c.fu::,7cc_. --:'""·~ ($EE NOJ,E ON $HT. C2)
tJ ,i·,co ', _
,: . . .. .• ,.;-c::-~· ....... ·.
-~ / '1'" ' C ,,_..,v·
/ ~
·-...,. /' o l"" i•· co•.<..
1 cm sc~" n 6•
.-' A!p~. ~'M , :i ~.u::;~l
10 lf 46' ----x~):~~=-=--~l.....-----,0001
<:, ..... ~'", ' --·· ·· .. \
·,~ 's ' I ACCESS-....
, S.. 1 Et.lERG:tEC/IRONICALL Y
\ \ :~~~ATEO BY FIRE \ • I DISTRICT
• I \
\ I ---.,., I ~ ~-112, \ '11 ·.-'"~6 "~wnoa -
•\ , \ : [o,m ~.. \ ii I
I \ ~ h_l i I ~BJ~~. '!2 ~'1 AOS
<... '\0 < 'E a"•vc '' •• 1-~1 ;1 I :r,~·swn10AOS-, ' ~J ! $? 15 " I W•o• •< "l~-\'~1
~ 0, , '
\ \ ,/ SCALE: 1; • JO , , I 1·
\ ii
\\ 1\ '" .tR f4·2 TYPE I
\. I \ \ \ ,I/ \
\1\i\ (
\, i I h ._
1; t I \' \ 'I 1 \ 1\ '. 1 1
\ I ·,' I 11 1 '. \ \ '
, 1 , 1·\I
STA. 1•2S.00
RIM• 81.50
I.E. • 78.50
)-
"' <(
0 . z I 6
CONSTflUCT RO~KERY CD :\\\: \
.\ I
\\
I
1
1 \ I a'" /' / /I
\,
I \ " I , 1 , "I
\i ' ,, ,I) \ \ ; vi
\ I \ \,/;
0 • L ' 0
i \ I //co
l \ ~ '\ /
I \ \ \ /
l""'i 'rri~~I
\ \\~:-~·~.:_-~:~:~·
-.!!> \ I I ·1 I \
I I I ,
'
I ,/
,/ )
i
\
I\ '
I ,
I I I
1 , I , ,
. "-·-
CR #4·10 lYPE I
STA. 2•59 00
RIM • 6~ 55
IE.• 77.56
0 z
<(
-----1-u
-~-
0
O'. ..
'8'4.·.0A.JJfLI.1"'1
~.00 ------RIM • 62.52
IE.•76.65
f\1 1
1, : : I~ 1--------
\
I~/ 200' SKO~E~INE co SE;RIIANCY ZONf CR #1-5 TYPE 1 I I , ' I I I STA J•9400 ~
, I Rllll•B20B , 11 1 IE•780B I 1
\ \\ I .C.8#4·6!TYPEI \i 1 _ STA 4• 66 / If ··--~R,111 • 82.34
11 , .· J.E.z11.sr
\ : / ;, -. ·. -~ . -\.1 i :;': .' C!NST.flUCi".KEYsrOr.E :-·_sc _ _; · ; / /VI LL Ol'l'"EQL/JVALl;:'ll·.
\ ! I\ 1\,1 I I~'""""""''~ . \ii\\ ('~,_/··~t-:c:-) ,i
\
>o
\\ ',
i
"
\ \ \
'-'
··<·1 -~
j/~11\~•"'"'~'. :5.ECTION 2 2. TOWN SHIP 2 3 NORTH,
~;~~:o~°,.~i~;l~:~-79.0i>" ." -. ·, · "'' 0 ' -•
IE. 36"'•72.75 .
SR . . -
.,,.;~c 1~9 (M~LE: VALt . _ ..
-... ·. · .. -~--""-, ecc· ~.BLACK-01AMeN~
$0Mll/li2A{U") .. · :· -· -:,.::-;--:-· ~_fl/Gfl~[
~?:1~~i!oi\;;r9[00 -...,.-__ -----,-..:~ -· --..:·.-~-~ · ·--.~
IE. 9"•72.25 YI/GATE VALVE
IE. ~6" IN• 75.00 RELOCATE Ex1silNG.POIIER, GAS ANO
IE. ~6·. our • 72.75 fELEPHONE Ullt.lTIES A$ REOUIAEO TO
_(.!E:._~_ETAIL.: O'l ;/IH~ C8t CONSTR.\!_CT WATER QUALITY. PONO !TYP)
RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. I
i
i n
------.... --"'""" -¥)\';:"' -----. ----""' ,'," """'"'" . ''"'"' ' -~ f '" ' "" ' '~ ,, ,-"'"-"' -'"-'" -,_ -'
.I.. eo---_ . ---=~··=, _ , · !',,~\'''"' :1/ \ ~--~~ . _ .__
---~-
REMOVE ~!I" CMP
-----.~s-----i NONOTEso,.:,:mg,"" , -'-__ .:.
c"-~' __ --~----_ ,, -I \ -"'" '"""' ,.,,----. -=,,.o.=---·., ,. IX ' 0 --8 J -----.... _, ____ ----== . .;,_·. ,, . ''"""'"' . --·-\•'"' //
:·"'"\~~i ~-~ ~~.\';~/ ~~~ '·<1~""'
~c'I" ''. C . '-'·'""' ;;._
', ; .. _____________ o,
; ~-.. ·--cc::C.~~--cc---
,--~' ... 1,ir [I--;-.. ·· -------=~·---
j_.e..:=v--: = ~,
1~· (~~
,{ 14 l~ ___ .. _.
--------20 Lf 8' PVC
REMOVE OR RELOCATE GRAVITY DRAIN
Ell/ST. cwtrnQL I E.•73.00
I
I <:i~c•
_?Y ~:, .......... __ ,_
ofa''f.°"
,.,
~~,~\II .,.-!>l.1~ ,~
.,11'·-." SlRIJCTURES. . --
A!.10 PIPl!.G ..
10' -WIDE. OIJARll)".!lf'.MJ.__
!Nt!Ji.1!..;VEL Fil TER
WINOOW. ltl!liTAU: R1P-·-
·~~2:::.:::=:n,~?
-~ ·-RAP PONO BOTTOM
PONO BOTTOM• 6S.
ROCKERY ..----, , ' :· '~
TOPELEV.•6150;, _.....--;-:'. ·. •• •, •,_',_'·. ',
\(CESIGfl f:J»l'ERS,). •, ', .', .', .', ,' • .'.', .', .', .' • ," • ~
· -.;.;:: . .',",.'.':'.-•,,':.':.':.'~E1~.'Afllf,",'.':·:,.',':.':
::,,,11 .. •:··-1\ _j___ -:;', .... \ / .. ~::·; !., ' I
\,ii· clo• · I / 'f. ,a·i,u 1£1141 \ ·. ,{6 ~6'~"' '>·,,, . \. \ ,.::,,:;·.cs
... )?\\\'.L__..M'\'""'' I \ ~ 1£6Sl56·'"" ~-, ~~ """" ''" ' '., -:r N'lo Al 2"1 nf';-',~ SSMl1
·.:~o~.
. : ....
::::· :::::
"",
Q rf? Hugh G. Goldsmith
\.{)'U Consulting Engineers
& Associates, Inc.
Surveyors · Planners
IRE• NO I OU~ I OESCRIPTICII 1~AOE UICMH~EOI PLOTlfD: 9'~.10P-~l-E-•ll009/10/H llcH I
=--------------------------i--:-~·:_·-1--i ~AEr, 91~ZOf
ICOU ,-• ,o '' I ,.,,... OJ I SHEU
IZl5 114th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 08004
P.O. IJ01 :JM6
Bellevue, l'l'A 06009
TEL: (206) 482-1080
FAX: (2{16) 462-7719
i--:..---\""'"1,e~_,000
------------------If JD6___J______I o•n· "''' , ..... ~, '1Dr/H RH PDNOS
~--+---··-·-.. ·-···-f--·J I DR~•"' J •"RF I LIF: n,zoroz
OEUGNE~ U/JL -· -•lU e•·
•••~ovto, '""-' ·~ ,,
•t•O D~,.: tUlOl'OZ •n•· 91~l0P
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (NORTH PORTION)
FOR
CEDARWOOD DIVISION 4 C3
l<ING COUNTY WASl!INGTON _J
6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
This section will include other special reports and studies with the final engineering design
approval process. The following special reports have been prepared for this project and are
included in this section:
6. 1 Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc., dated February 10, 2014
6.2 Wetland Report by Soundview Consultants dated July, 2014
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
6.1 Geotechnical Report by
Terra Associates, Inc.
dated February 25, 2015
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Elliot Farm
14207 SE Renton Maple Valley Road
Renton, Washington
Project No. T-6737
Terra Associates, Inc.
Prepared for:
Murray Franklyn Companies
· Bellevue, Washington
February 25, 2015
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Mr. Glen Maurer
Murray Franklyn Companies
14410 Bel-Red Road
Bellevue, Washington 98007
Subject: Geotecbnical Report
Elliot Farm
Consultants in Geotcdmical Engineering. Geology
and
Environmental Ea.rth Sciences
14207 SE Renton Maple Valley Road
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Maurer:
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
As requested, we have conducted a geotecbnical study for the subject project. The attached report presents our
findings and reconunendations for the geotecbnical aspects of project design and construction.
Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain by 6 to 12 inches of organic surface soils and roots
overlying either glacially-derived or alluvial soils. Glacially-derived soils are found on roughly the southwestern
half of the site and consist of loose to very dense sand with silt and gravel, dense gravel with cobbles, and
medium stiff to very stiff sandy silt (outwash and undifferentiated drift). Alluvial soils are found on roughly the
northeastern half of the site and consist of three to five feet of loose silty sand and soft silt overlying dense gravel
with sand and cobbles. We expect that there are fill soils immediately adjacent each of the previously
demolished structures associated with previous site grading and development. Groundwater was observed in 5 of
the 8 test pits between 4.5 and 6 feet below current site grades.
In our opinion, the soil and groundwater conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed residential
construction provided recommendations contained herein are incorporated into project design and construction.
12525 Willows Road NE, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334
Mr. Glen Maurer
February 25, 2015
We trust the information provided in the attached report is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. T-6737
Page No. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................... I
2.0 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................. I
3.0 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Surface ................................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................... 2
3.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Erosion ............................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Landslide ............................................................................................................ 3
4.3 Steep Slope ......................................................................................................... 4
4.4 Coal Mines ......................................................................................................... 5
4.5 Seismic ............................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 7
5.1 General ............................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Site Preparation and Grading ............................................................................. 7
5.3 Excavation and Slopes ....................................................................................... 8
5 .4 Foundations ........................................................................................................ 9
5.5 Slab-on-Grade Floors ....................................................................................... I 0
5.6 Lateral Earth Pressure for Below-Grade Walls ............................................... IO
5. 7 Drainage ........................................................................................................... 11
5.8 Utilities ............................................................................................................. 11
5.9 Pavement .......................................................................................................... 11
6.0 Additional Services ....................................................................................................... 12
7 .0 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 12
Figures
Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ Figure I
Exploration Location Plan .................................................................................................... Figure 2
Cross Section A-A' .............................................................................................................. Figure 3
Typical Wall Drainage Detail .............................................................................................. Figure 4
Appendix
Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ....................................................................... Appendix A
Previous Borings ............................................................................................................... Appendix B
Winstabl Graphic Output. ................................................................................................. Appendix C
Geotechnical Report
Elliot Farm
14207 SE Renton Maple Valley Road
Renton, Washington
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of redeveloping the property with 18 townhome buildings with 2 to 3 units per building
along with associated utility and roadway improvements. Design details were not available at the time of this
report. Based on current topography, we would expect that cuts and fills up to ten feet may be needed to
establish lot and roadway grades.
The structures will likely be two-to three-story wood-framed buildings constructed over a crawl space with
garages tucked under and constructed at grade. Structural loading should be relatively light; with bearing walls
carrying loads of 2 to 4 kips per foot and isolated columns carrying maximum loads of 30 to 50 kips.
The recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are based on the above design features.
We should review any changes in the grading, utility, and drainage plans as they are developed to verify that
our recommendations are valid for the proposed construction and to amend or modify our report, as necessary.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
On June 15, 2012, we observed soil and groundwater conditions at 8 soil test pits excavated to maximum depths
of 15 feet below existing site grades. Using the infonnation obtained from the subsurface explorations and
laboratory testing, we perfonned analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for development at the
site. Specifically, this report addresses the following:
• Soil and groundwater conditions
• Geologic hazards
• Seismic design parameters
• Site preparation and grading
• Stonnwater dispersion/infiltration
• Excavations
• Foundations
• Floor slabs
• Drainage
• Utilities
• Pavements
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
It should be noted that rec01mnendations outlined in this report regarding drainage are associated with soil
strength, design earth pressures, erosion, and stability. Design and perfonnance issues with respect to moisture
as it relates to the structure environment (i.e., humidity, mildew, mold) is beyond Terra Associates' purview. A
building envelope specialist or contractor should be consulted to address these issues, as needed.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Surface
The site is a 6.07-acre parcel located at 14207 SE Renton Maple Valley Road in Renton, Washington. The
approximate site location is shown on the attached Figure I .
The project site is bordered to the north by SE Renton Maple Valley Road, to the east by a private gravel drive
and a stonnwater detention pond, to the south by a residential lot and vacant forested land, and to the west by a
multi-family residential development and vacant forested land. Access to the site is currently gained from the
north off of SE Renton Maple Valley Road.
The site was formerly occupied by a dairy farm with a residence and garage on the west side of the property and
several barns and structures located on the south side of the site. All buildings and structures had been
demolished prior to our field exploration. The only remaining evidence of the structures are concrete
foundations and floor slabs from both the residence and barns.
In general, topography in the north-northeast portion of the site is flat, from this northern flat area grades rise to
the south-southwest. A ridge of higher elevation is aligned northwest-southeast across the center of the site
closely following a geologic boundary. The northeast facing slope off of this ridge is inclined at approximately
25 to 75 percent for a horizontal distance of 10 to 20 feet, and an elevation change of 5 to IO feet.
Ground cover consists primarily of weeds, grass, and brush. Ground cover on the western and southern
portions of the site also includes a forested area of small to medium growth trees.
3.2 Soils
In general, soil conditions consisted of 6 to 12 inches of organic surface soils and roots overlying either
glacially-derived or alluvial soils. Glacially-derived soils are found on roughly the southwestern half of the site
and consist of loose to very dense sand with silt and gravel, dense gravel with cobbles, and medium stiff to very
stiff sandy silt (outwash and undifferentiated drift). Alluvial soils are found on roughly the northeastern half of
the site and consist of three to five feet of loose silty sand and soft silt overlying dense gravel with sand and
cobbles. We expect that there are fill soils immediately adjacent each of the previously demolished structures
associated with previous site grading and development.
The Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle. King County. Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965), maps the
soils at the site as Cedar River alluvium (Qac), recessional glacial outwash (Qpa), and undifferentiated glacial
drift (Qsr). The native site soils we observed are generally consistent with the mapped geology.
Page No. 2
February 25,2015
Project No. T-6737
The preceding discussion is intended to be a brief review of the soil conditions observed at the site. More
detailed descriptions are presented on the Test Pit Logs attached in Appendix A.
3.3 Groundwater
We observed rapid groundwater seepage in five of the eight test pits. The seepage generally occurs within the
gravel encountered in our test pits below depths of about five feet. We did not encounter groundwater in the
glacial deposits found in Test Pits TP-5, TP-6, or TP-7.
We expect the groundwater levels to vary on a seasonal and annual basis. We also expect groundwater levels to
be somewhat lower than the observed levels during dry summer months.
4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
4.1 Erosion
Section 4-3-050.J.1.c of the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC), classifies erosion hazard areas into one of
two categories. Section 4-3-0SOJ!c(i) defines a "Low Erosion Hazard (EL}" as "Areas with soils characterized
by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or
moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than 15 percent." Section 4-3-050JI c(ii) defines a "High
Erosion Hazard (EH)" as "Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more
steeply than 15 percent.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has classified the majority of the site soils as Newberg
silt loam (Ng) having a slight potential for erosion. However, the southwestern comer of the site has been
classified as Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep slopes (AgC). AgC soils have a severe potential for
erosion. Based on the City ofRenton's definition, only the steeply sloping area in the southwest comer of the
site classifies as an EH. We understand that there will be no development activity in this area of the site.
Temporary erosion and sedimentation control elements must be implemented in accordance with state and city
requirements during construction.
4.2 Landslide
Section 4-3-050.J.l.b of the RMC, classifies landslide hazard areas in one of four categories. These categories
include the following:
"i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than 15 percent.
ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and
underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel, or glacial till.
Page No. 3
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent, and areas with slopes
between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay.
iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mapable landslide deposits."
According to these classifications, the majority of the site would be classified LL. A 10-to 20-foot wide
centrally-located slope aligned northwest-southeast across the site would classify as LM. The steep slope
located in the southwest corner of the site would also be classified LM. The City ofRenton's Landslide Hazard
map indicates an "unclassified landslide hazard" on the southern half of the site.
We did not observe indications of instability, emergent groundwater seepage, significant erosion, or historical
movement on or adjacent the site in the areas where soils would classify as LM. No development activity is
planned in the area of the steep slope in the southwest comer of the site. Current preliminary development
plans suggest that the centrally-located slope would be removed or regraded during mass grading. In light of
this, the limited height and width of the centrally-located slope, and considering the majority of the sites gentle
slope inclinations, it is our opinion that the areas to be developed on the site do not pose a risk as a landslide
hazard area.
4.3 Steep Slope
Section 4-3-050.B. l.c of the RMC, classifies steep slope hazard areas into two categories: "Sensitive slopes"
are defined as those with a grade of "25 percent to 40 percent" and "protected slopes" are those slopes with a
grade of"40 percent or greater."
Site plans show that no development activity will occur on the steep slope on the southwest comer of the
property. Also, the slope centrally located on the site would likely be removed or regraded during mass grading
of the site and is limited in height and width. The remainder of the site generally does not slope more than five
percent, and it therefore does not qualify for either category of steep slope hazard areas.
Off-Site Slope
We have performed an analysis of the steep slope located to the south and southwest of the proposed project.
The analysis was performed at a location designated as Cross-Section A-A' using the computer program
WINST ABL. The cross-section location is shown on Figure 2. The cross section is shown on Figure 3.
This portion of the slope is the closest to the proposed development with the toe of the slope approximately 65
feet from the nearest proposed structure. The remainder of the slope is at least the height of the slope away
from the southern edge of the wetland buffer for the proposed development or further.
Our analysis considered both static and the pseudostatic (seismic) conditions. A horizontal acceleration of
0.20g was used in the pseudostatic analysis to simulate slope perfomtance under earthquake loading.
PageNo.4
,.
Febrnary 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Soil parameters used in our analysis are based on our site reconnaissance and previous field exploration we
completed in 1995 for the Cedarwood development located at the top of the steep slope. The test boring log
closest to this section is attached in Appendix B the location is shown on Fi!,'llre 2. Based on our field
exploration and previous experience with similar soil types, we chose the following parameters for our analysis:
Table 1 -Slope Stability Analysis Soil Parameters
Soil Tvne Unit Wei.,bt tncn Friction An.,le (del!reesl Cohesion tnsn
Loose Fill 120 28 0
Dense SM/SP 135 38 50
The results of our slope stability analysis, as shown by the lowest safety factors for each condition, are
presented in the following table:
Table 2 -Slope Stability Analysis Results
Conditions Analyzed
Cross Section A-A'
Minimum Safety Factors
1.75
(Seismic FS = 1.10)
Based on our results, the steep slope off-site is stable in its current condition and shows a negligible risk to the
proposed development. Graphical results of our analysis are attached in Appendix C.
4.4 Coal Mines
Section 4-3-050.J.Le of the RMC, classifies coal mine hazard areas in one of three categories. These categories
include the following:
"i. Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence.
While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred.
ii. Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than 200 feet for steeply
dipping seams, or deeper than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping
seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence.
iii. High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and
areas underlain by mine workings shallower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or
shallower than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These
areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence."
The City of Renton' s Coal Mine Hazards map indicates that no coal mine hazards are found on or near the site.
Page No. 5
4.5 Seismic
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Section 4-3-050.J.l.d of the RMC, classifies seismic hazard areas in one of two categories. Areas classified as
"Low Seismic Hazards (SL)" are defined as "Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally
have site coefficients of Types SI or S2, as defined in the International Building Code." Areas classified as
"High Seismic Hazards (SH)" are defined as "Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils
generally have site coefficients of Types S3 or S4, as defined in the International Building Code. (Ord. 5450, 3-
2-2009) lands or areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope
failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting."
The City ofRenton's Seismic Hazards map indicates that the site is within a "high seismic severity" area. Also,
the City's Liquefaction Hazards map indicates that the northeast half of the site is within a "moderate to high
liquefaction susceptibility" area, and the southwest half of the site is within a "low to moderate liquefaction
susceptibility" area.
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. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained
sands underlying 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, eliminating the soil's strength. Based on the dense, permeable gravel found at or
the groundwater table in our explorations, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur at this site
during an earthquake is negligible. The site conditions found at the time of our investigation do not meet the
City of Renton's definition of a High Seismic Hazard area, in our opinion.
Seismic Site Class
Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, per Section 1615 of the 2012 International
Building Code (IBC) for seismic conditions, site class "D" should be used in design of the structures. Based on
this site class, in accordance with the 2012 !BC, the following parameters should be used in computing seismic
forces:
Seismic Design Parameters (/BC 2012)
Spectral Response acceleration (Short Period), S, 1.376
Soectral Resoonse acceleration (I -Second Period), S1 0.771
Five percent damped .2 second oeriod, Sos 0.917
Five oercent damned 1.0 second neriod, Sm 0.514
Values determined using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Motion Parameter Calculator
accessed on February 25, 2015 at the web site http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.
Page No. 6
5.0
5.1
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Based on our study, there are no geotechnical conditions that would preclude development of the site as
planned. The residences can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils or
on structural fill placed on competent native soils. Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported.
Some of the native glacial and alluvial deposits encountered at the site contain a sufficient amount of fines (silt-
and clay-sized particles) that will make compaction to structural fill requirements difficult or impossible when
the soils are too wet. Accordingly, the ability to use soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on
their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities
will take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free-draining granular material
for use as structural fill and backfill.
Detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in
the following sections of this report. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design
drawings and construction specifications.
5.2 Site Preparation and Grading
To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious material should
be stripped and removed from below the building lots and roadway areas. Surface stripping depths of
approximately 6 to 12 inches should be expected to remove the organic surface soils. In the developed portions
of the site, demolition of existing structures should include removal of existing foundations and abandonment
of underground septic systems and other buried utilities. Abandoned utility pipes that fall outside of new
building areas can be left in place provided they are sealed to prevent intrusion of groundwater seepage and
soil. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in
nonstructural areas.
Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired
grades. Prior to placing fill, all exposed bearing surfaces should be observed by a representative of Terra
Associates to verify soil conditions are as expected and suitable for support of new fill. Our representative may
request a proofroll using heavy rubber-tired equipment to detennine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are
present. If excessively yielding areas are observed, and they cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, the
affected soils should be excavated and removed to firm bearing and grade restored with new structural fill.
Beneath embankment fills or roadway subgrade if the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive,
the use of geotextile fabrics, such as Mirafi 500X, or an equivalent fabric, can be used in conjunction with clean
granular structural fill. Our experience has shown that, in general, a minimun1 of 18 inches of a clean, granular
structural fill placed and compacted over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface.
Page No. 7
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Our study indicates that some native soils contain a sufficient percentage of fines (silt and clay size particles)
that will make them difficult to compact as structural fill if they are too wet or too dry. Accordingly, the ability
to use these native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the
prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take place. At the time of our investigation, the near-
surface native soils were generally wet of optimum. If native soils become too wet to properly compact they
could be dried by aeration during dry weather conditions or mixed with an additive such as cement or lime to
stabilize the soil and facilitate compaction. If an additive is used, additional Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for its use will need to be incorporated into the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan
(TESC) for the proj eel.
If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, or if they are initiated during the summer and
extend into fall and winter, the contractor should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this
purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements:
U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passln2
6 inches 100
No.4 75 maximum
No. 200 5 maximum•
*Based on the 3/4-inch fraction.
Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of
95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of
compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In
nonstructural areas, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. All structural fill in City of Renton
rights-of-way must conform to City materials and compaction specifications.
5.3 Excavation and Slopes
Excavation
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches, must be completed in
accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Washington Industrial Safety and
Health Act (WISHA) regulations, the majority of near-surface soils would be classified as Type C soils. Near-
surface soils such as those found in Test Pits TP-6 and TP-7 would be classified as Type B soils.
Accordingly, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type C soils should be
laid back at a slope inclination of l .5H:I V (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter from the toe to the crest of the slope.
The side slopes in Type B soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of IH:IV. All temporary exposed
slopes on excavations that will remain open for an extended time period should be covered with a durable
reinforced plastic membrane during construction to prevent slope raveling and rutting during periods of
precipitation.
Page No. 8
•
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Excavations in the northern flat area of the site that will extend to depths of five feet and greater below current
site grades will encounter the groundwater table particularly during the winter and spring months of the year.
Depending on the depth of the excavation below the groundwater table the contractor should be prepared to
dewater the excavation using deep pump wells or closely spaced well points.
This infonnation is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be
construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that
job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
Slopes
All permanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finished inclination of no greater than 2H: 1 V. Upon
completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means
to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the
slope crest. Water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slope face. If surface runoff must be
directed towards the slope, the runoff should be controlled at the top of the slope, piped in a closed conduit
installed on the slope face, and taken to an appropriate point of discharge beyond the toe. All fill placed for
embankment construction should meet the structural fill requirements in the Site Preparation and Grading
Section.
5.4 Foundations
The planned residential structures may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on
competent native soils or on structural fill placed above competent native soils. Perimeter foundations exposed
to the weather should bear at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades for frost protection.
lnterior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab.
In the northern flat area of the site variations in the relative density of the upper native soils (loose to medium
dense) may result in excessive differential settlement of the building foundations. Therefore, we recommend
compacting all foundation subgrades to a firm unyielding condition using a hoe-pack. The compaction zone
should be oversized such that the compacted area will extend laterally from the edge of the footing a distance
equal to the width of the footing. If sub grade soils cannot be compacted to a firm state, the foundation sub grade
should be overexcavated a minimum depth of two feet and grade restored using structural fill. The excavation
should be oversized to allow structural fill placement to extend laterally from the edge of the footing a distance
equal to one-half the depth of the structural fill below the footing. As an alternative, clean, crushed rock or
Controlled Density Fill (CDF) may also be placed in the excavation trenches as structural fill. Foundations may
then be placed on the compacted structural fill, rock, or CDF material. All compacted fill should be tested by
the geotechnical engineer to verify that adequate compaction is being achieved.
We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot
(psf). For short-tern1 loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be
used. With structural loading as anticipated and these bearing stresses applied, we estimate total foundation
settlement would be less than one-half inch.
Page No. 9
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. Passive earth
pressures acting on the sides of the footings can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral
resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pct). We recommend not including
the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future
grading activity. This value assumes the foundations will be constructed neat against competent soil or
backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. The values recommended include a
safety factor of 1.5.
s.s Slab-on-Grade Floors
Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on subgrades prepared as recommended in Section 5.2 of this report.
Immediately below the floor slabs, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-
draining, coarse sand or fine gravel that has less than three percent passing the 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 slabs.
The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor
transmission. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common
practice is to place a durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a
layer of clean sand or fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing of the
concrete slab. It should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to
pouring the slab, it will be ineffective in assisting in uniform curing of the slab, and can actually serve as a
water supply for moisture transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Therefore, in our
opinion, covering the membrane with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided if floor slab construction
occurs during the wet winter months and the layer cannot be effectively drained. We recommend floor
designers and contractors refer to the 2003 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual of Concrete Practice,
Part 2, 302.1 R-96, for further information regarding vapor barrier installation below slab-on-grade floors.
5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures for Below-Grade Walls
The magnitude of earth pressure development on below-grade walls, such as basement or detention vault walls,
will partly depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as
structural fill as described in Section 5.2 of this report. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development,
drainage must be installed behind the wall. A typical wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 4.
With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, unrestrained walls
can be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an
additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included. For evaluating the walls under seismic
loading, a uniform earth pressure equivalent to SH psf, where His the height of the retained earth in feet, can be
used. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic,
sloping embankments, or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions exist, then the imposed
loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of the wall foundation and passive earth
pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in Section 5.4
of this report.
Page No. 10
5.7
Surface
Drainage
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the site at all times. Water must not
be allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building areas. We recommend
providing a positive drainage gradient away from the building perimeters. If this gradient cannot be provided,
surface water should be collected adjacent to the structures and disposed to appropriate storm facilities.
Subsurface
We recommend installing perimeter foundation drains adjacent to shallow foundations. The drains can be laid
to grade at an invert elevation equivalent to the bottom of footing grade. The drains can consist of four-inch
diameter perforated PVC pipe that is enveloped in washed pea gravel-sized drainage aggregate. The aggregate
should extend six inches above and to the sides of the pipe. Roof and foundation drains should be tightlined
separately to the storm drains. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations.
Infiltration
The glacial and alluvial soils composed of silty sand and silt characteristically exhibit low permeability and
would not be a suitable receptor soil for discharge of development stormwater using infiltration/retention
facilities. In conjunction with the elevated groundwater table observed, conventional stormwater detention with
controlled release to the drainage basin should be used to manage development stormwater.
5.8 Utilities
Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA)
or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural
fill, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. As noted, based on the condition of the soils at the time of our
study, most of the native soils excavated on-site should be suitable for use as backfill during dry weather
conditions. If utility construction takes place during the wet winter months, it may be necessary to import
suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling.
In the northern area of the site, we expect the water table will be encountered in utility excavations extending to
and below depths of five to six feet. If proposed elevations of buried utilities will extend beneath the water
table, dewatering will be necessary and excavations may need to be provided with temporary shoring support.
5.9 Pavements
Pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in Section 5.2 of this report. Regardless of the degree of
relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade
should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition.
Page No. 11
February 25, 2015
Project No. T-6737
The pavement design section is dependent upon the supporting capability of the subgrade soils and the traffic
conditions to which it will be subjected. For residential access, with traffic consisting mainly of light passenger
vehicles with only occasional heavy traffic, and with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we
recommend the following pavement sections:
• Two inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) over eight inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
• Four inches full depth HMA
The paving materials used should conform to the current Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) specifications for Yi-inch hot mix asphalt HMA 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 subgrade soils and reducing their
supporting capability. To improve pavement performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least
two percent. Some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time.
Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur.
6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Terra Associates, Inc. should review project designs and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and
foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. We should
also provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with our design concepts,
specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for expedient design changes if subsurface conditions
differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the on-site soil test
pits. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until
construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to reevaluate the
recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction.
We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is
intended for specific application to the Elliot Farm project in Renton, Washington. This report is for the
exclusive use of Murray Franklyn Companies and their authorized representatives.
Page No. 12
I J. { (
st \t'\6' S\
SE 1"42fld St
~
I
~
:!
i
9 J'~ )r 1.,, ~ ,, $/ u, ... '" .. w a
> i
Ill rn
se 1'62nc1 Pl
~C. l.,)OU r,-,
;
...... SI: l~IIPI ;.
' Ji!
, -9-C.11 A-'" '!f l =r
:2 ~ ~
SE 142ocl St -... I r. -i ~
~ V t,
ffl
...) ' ,-, . ~ w
REFERENCE: GOOGLE MAPS, WWW.GOOGLE.COM, ACCESSED 2-25-2015
Terra
Associates Inc.
VICINITY MAP
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WASHINGTON
.....
QI r ,.
~
(I> m
*
Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineering
Geology and
En vi ronme ntal Earth Sciences Proj. No.T-6737 Date FEB 2015 Figure 1
'
NOTE :
THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHE MATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND
DIMEN SIONS ARE A PPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR
REF ERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR
DESIGN O R CO NSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
REFERENCE:
SITE PLAN PROVI DED BY GOOGLE EARTH .
LEGEND :
~
~
APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION
APPROX IMATE BORING LOCATION -TERRA 1995
0 80
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
t
J{
160 ~ ~
Terra .
Associates, Inc.
Consul tants in Geot echnical En gineering
G eology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON , WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T-6737 Date FEB 2015 Figure 2
LEGEND :
c=J
?--
220
200
i=-
w 180 w
lJ.. -z
Q 160 I-~ w m 140
120
' ' ' ' •' o • ' ' ' : • ' ' ' ' • • • • ' ' • i • • ' ' • • o • ' 0 • • • • o ~ • ' • • • ' • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' ~ • • • ' • • • ' ' ' ' • • o • : • • • • • ' ' • o • • • ' o 1 • 0 ' ' ' ' ' I • • o ' • • : ' ' ' • • • • ' ' ' ' ' • • : • • • ' o ·····································································•···················· ............................ , ............ ,220
............ ............... ............... .............. ··············· ............................ . .: ............... : ............. : ............. . . ....................................... ··············· ........................ .
.. · · · · · · : · · · · · · · · · • · · · · 1 · · • · • · · · · · · · · i · · .. · · · · · · · · · · ~ · · · .. · · · · · · · · · · : · · · · · · · .. · · .. · I· · · · · · · · .. · · · · : .... · · .. ·.. · .. : · · · · .. · · · .. · · . : .. ·
STEEP SLOPE i
. . ............................................ ········: ............ ,,,:,,, ............ : ............................. ···············;'········
· ~140
........ ~120
I F'ROPOSED DEV!EL \ : j ~~ ., ........ · ···
100 , ; , OPl\,iENT ...-,,J.'-<" ' I
. ~ ........ ~ ............. : ............. : ..... ~ ............. : .......... =. . .... , ............. ~ ...................... : .. . ...................... : .......... .' ........ : ....... --1 100
LOOSE FILL
DENSE SAND/SIL TY SAND/SILT
0 40 80
APPROXIMATE SOIL BOUNDARY LINE
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ~
Terra
'
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
CROSS SECTION A-A'
ELLIOT FARMS
RENTON , WASHINGTON
Proj . No.T-6737 Date FEB 2015 Figure 3
SEE NOTE
6"(MIN.)
SLOPE TO DRAIN
. . . . .. ' ..... .
. :: .. :: .... ::·::::-.:·_·::_-:::-.:·-·--.··
·:·., .. : .. · ........ ·:·. :·· -· ... .
· i c6i...1PAc:r1c6
. STRUCTURAL FILL
EXCAVATED SLOPE
(SEE REPORT TEXT
FOR APPROPRIATE
INCLINATIONS)
-', /-... /.,, /, /-... /, /, /, /.<. . .~. ... .-' .. ~ ·.~ . . . ~-·
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE
'
NOTTO SCALE
NOTE:
MIRADRAIN G100N PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS OR SIMILAR
PRODUCT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE 12-INCH WIDE GRAVEL
DRAIN BEHIND WALL. DRAINAGE PANELS SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM
OF SIX INCHES INTO 12-INCH THICK DRAINAGE GRAVEL LAYER
OVER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE.
Terra
Associates Inc.
TYPICAL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
ELLIOT FARM
Consultants in Geotechnical lngineerlng
GeoloQvand
Environmental Earth Sciences
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T-6737 Date FEB 2015 Figure 4
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Elliot Farm
Renton, Washington
On June 15, 2012, we observed the excavation of8 test pits to a maximum depth of 15 feet below existing site
grades. The test pits were excavated using a trackhoe. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The
locations were approximately detennined by measuring from existing site features. The Test Pit Logs are
presented on Figures A-2 through A-9.
A geotechnical engineer from our office conducted the field exploration, maintained a log of each test pit,
classified the soils encountered, collected representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All
soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described
on Figure A-1.
Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our
laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is
reported on the corresponding Test Pit Logs. Four grain size analyses were run and the results are shown on
Figures A-IO and A-11.
Project No. T-6737
MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, litUe or no fines.
GRAVELS Gravels (less
~ than 5% u, Q) More than 50% fines) GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Cl _.
L Q) of coarse fraction 0 _!'l N
u, ~ ·~ is larger than No. GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
C L > 4 sieve Gravels with w 2 Q) fines z "' ·-GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ~ E"' 0 ~o o N Cl ~o Clean Sands SW Well-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. w cz SANDS (less than II) Cl! C 0:: ,5 Cl! More than 50% 5% fines) SP Poorly-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. <( Q) .c 0 L-of coarse fraction 0 0
::lE is smaller than
Sands with SM Silty sands, sand-sill mixtures, non-plastic fines.
No. 4 sieve
fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
L
~ ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight plasticity.
76 Q) u, EN SILTS AND CLAYS _. "' --CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. (Lean clay) 0 -"' Liquid Limit is less than 50% -~ a> II) Q) a'i
C -·-OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. Cl! "' w Eo z ~~ ~ O· MH Inorganic silts, elastic.
"' 0 Cl cZ SILTS AND CLAYS w t1l C
Liquid Limit is greater than 50% CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. (Fat clay) .c Cl! z -.c iL Q) -L
0 OH Organic clays of high plasticity. ::lE
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
u, Standard Penetration I 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPILT SPOON SAMPLER II) Resistance in Blows/Foot w Density _.
K 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR z
0 Very Loose 0-4 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER iii Loose 4-10 w Medium Dense 10-30 ::c ~ WATER LEVEL (Date) 0 Dense 30-50
0 Very Dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf
Standard Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, Isl
Consistancy Resistance in Blows/Foot w DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot 2!::
II) Very Solt 0-2 w Solt 2-4 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent :c
0 Medium Stiff 4-8
0 Stiff 8-16 Pl PLASTIC INDEX
Very Stiff 16-32
Hard >32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
~Terra UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .
ELLIOT FARM Associates Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnlcal ~nglneering
Proj. No.T-6737 I Date FEB 2015 Geologaand Figure A-1 Environmenta Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-1 FIGUREA-2
PROJECT NAME: Elliot Eacm. Cedac Bi~e[ I igb!foot PROJ. NO: I-6232 LOGGED BY: Si'J
LOCATION: Beoloo Wasbiogtoo SURFACE CONDS: Brusb APPROX. ELEV: NIA
DATE LOGGED: Juoa 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: N/A DEPTH TO CAVING: 2 Eeet
;;:-
UI
,-: 0 t:. z z !!:. w CONSISTENCY/ l w j!: .J DESCRIPTION .. REMARKS .. RELATIVE DENSITY ... .. "' l w w " "' Q UI 8 ..
Dark brov.n TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, organic, fine to
Sett medium roots, moist
1·
2 7.0 1 Brown GRAVEL with siU and sand, fine to coarse sand,
3-fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles, moist. (GP-GM) Loose to
Medium Dense
4-
5-
6-
7 16.5 2
8-Soft to
9-
Brown sandy SILT, fine sand, moist. (ML) Medium Stiff
10-
11-
12-
13-
Blulsl>-gray silty SAND, fine to medium sand with large Medium Dense
14 wood pieces, wet. (SM) to Dense 76.0 3
15-
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
16-No groundwater seepage encountered.
17·
18-
19-
20-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being Indicative of other locations at lhe site. Consuttants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-2 FIGUREA-3
PROJECT NAME: Elliot Eaan -Cedat Billll[ L igbtfoot PROJ. NO: I,liZ3Z LOGGED BY: S1'l
LOCATION: Beatoo. Wasbiagtoa SURFACE CONDS: Brusb APPROX. ELEV: NIA
DATE LOGGED: Juae Hi 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 6 5 Eeel DEPTH TO CAVING: Z Eeel ..
U)
~ c:i t:. z z w CONSISTENCY/ l w ~ .... DESCRIPTION RELATIVE DENSITY .. REMARKS ..
Iii :I! ~ w "' "' Q U) u
0 ..
Dark brown TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, fine roots, organics,
moist. Soft
1-
2 31.8
1
3 Brown sandy SILT, fine sand, scattered fine roots to 4
Soft feet, moist. (ML)
4-
5-
6-
""
Blackish-brown GRAVEL wilh sand and cobbles, fine to
7 coarse gravel, fine to coarse sand, wet. (GP) Dense 6.0
2
8-
Test pit tenninated at 8 feet due to caving at 7 feet.
Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at 6.5 feet.
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface Information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Consultants In Geotechnieal Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-3 FIGUREA-4
PROJECT NAME: Elliot Farm -Cedar River Lightfoot PROJ. NO: I::fil_37 LOGGED BY: SN
LOCATION: Renton Washington SURFACE CONDS: Brush APPROX. ELEV: NIA
DATE LOGGED: Juael5 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 6 feet DEPTH TO CAVING: NIA .. ..
~ d I:. z :i. "' CONSISTENCY/ t IU
i!: ~ DESCRIPTION RELATIVE DENSITY .. REMARKS
I-.. :E 3' IU IU ~ "' 0 u
0 ..
Dari< brown TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, fine roots, organics,
moist. Soft
1-
2 Bro'Wfl silty SANO, fine sand, trace fine gravel, moist. Loose 25.6 (SM)
1
3-
4-
5-Bro= GRAVEL with silt, sand, and cobbles, fine to Dense
coarse gravel, fine to coarse sand, moist. (GP-GM)
"" 6-
7-
8-
Test pit terminated at 8 feet.
Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at 6 feel.
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locatiOns at the stle. Consultants In Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-4 FIGUREA-5
PROJECT NAME: Elliol Earm -Ceda[ Biver Lightfoot PROJ. NO: I-6Z3Z LOGGED BY: SN
LOCATION: Beotoo Wasbiagtoo SURFACE CONDS: Brush APPROX. ELEV: NIA
DATE LOGGED: Juae 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: ,t 5 Feet DEPTH TO CAVING: NIA
;;:-
~ ci ~ z z w CONSISTENCY/ t w t .., DESCRIPTION .. REMARKS .. RELATIVE DENSITY ti "' ;;: w ~ " 0 u
~
Dark brown TOPSOIL. silly, sandy. fine to medium roots,
organics, moist.
Soft
1-
2 Gray and brmm SILT with sand, fine sand, iron oxide
Soft 34.5
1
staining, moist. (ML)
3-
4 Loose 20.0 Brown silly SAND, fine to medium sand, trace fine gravel.
2 iron oxide staining, moist. (SM) .,..
5-
6-
Brown GRAVEL with sand and cobbles. fine to coarse
7-gravel, fine to coarse sand, wet. (GP) Dense
8-
Test pit terminated at 8 feet.
Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at 4.5 feet.
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface Information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be Interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-5 FIGURE A-6
PROJECT NAME: Ellilll EaCill -Ceaar Bi'le[ Ligblfool PROJ. NO: I-6Z3Z LOGGED BY: SN
LOCATION: Beaton Wasbiogtaa SURFACE CONDS: Brusb APPROX. ELEV: NIA
DATE LOGGED: Juoe 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 5 Eeel DEPTH TO CAVING: 4 5 Eeel
.:-
Cl)
f ci t:. z z w CONSISTENCY/ @: w ~ -' DESCRIPTION .. REMARKS .. RELATIVE DENSITY Iii :I! ;:: w ~ " 0 u
!l
Brown TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, fine roots, organics, moist.
Soft
1-
Brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine Loose to
to coarse gravel, moist. (SM)
2 Medium Dense 13.5
1
3-
4-Brown GRAVEL with cobbles, fine to coarse gravel, moist.
(GP)
... 5-Wet Dense
6-
Test pit lermlnated at 6.5 feet.
7-Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at 5 feet.
8-
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be inlerpreted as being lndlcstive of other locations at the site. Consullants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Eanh Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-6 FIGUREA-7
PROJECT NAME: Elliot Ea[ill -Cada[ Bi~e[ I igbtfool PROJ. NO: I:6Z31 LOGGED BY: Si'l
LOCATION: Baokm Wasbiogtoo SURFACE CONDS: Brush APPROX. ELEV: i'l/A
DATE LOGGED: Juae 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: i'j/A DEPTH TO CAVING: i'j/A
~
~ cj c
z z w CONSISTENCY/ l w
~ .., DESCRIPTION 0. REMARKS 0. RELATIVE DENSITY .. :E :l w w i! ,.
D 8
0.
Dari< brown TOPSOIL. silty, sandy, fine roots, organics,
moist. Soft
1-
FILL: grayish-brown silty SAND, fine to medium sand,
trace fine to coarse gravel, moist. Medium Dense 15.7
1
2
3-
Dense
4 9.7
2 Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to
coarse gravel, trace cobbles. weakly cemented, iron oxide
staining. moist. (SM)
5-
6-
7-
8-
Test pit terminated at 8 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface lnfonnation pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations al the stte. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-7 FIGURE A-8
PROJECT NAME: ElliQt Eacrn -Cedac Bil'llC I igbt!QQ! PROJ. NO: T-6737 LOGGED BY: Sill
LOCATION: Bentoa WasNogtoa SURFACE CONDS: Brnsh APPROX. ELEV: Ill/A
DATE LOGGED: Juae 15 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 1\1/A DEPTH TO CAVING: Ill/A
.:-
? d !;
z z w CONSISTENCY/ l w
j!: ..., DESCRIPTION .. REMARKS .. RELATIVE DENSITY I-.. "' 3: w w ~ " 0 " i
3 inches of dark brown TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, fine roots. Soft
~ organics, moist.
1 4.9
1
Brown SAND with silt and gravel. fine to coarse sand, fine Medium Dense
2-
to coarse gravel, moist. (SP-SM)
3-
4 Dense 13.8
2
5-
Gray sandy SILT. fine sand, trace fine to coarse gravel,
weakly cemented. moist. (ML)
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
Test pit terminated at 10 feet.
11-
No groundwater seepage encountered.
12-
13-
14-
15-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit locaUon and should Associates, Inc.
not be inlerpreled as being indicative of other locations at the site. Consuttants In Geotechnicat Engineering
Geology and
Enviro,vnental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-8 FIGUREA-9
PROJECT NAME: Elliot Earm -Ceda[ Bi~e[ I igbt!oot PROJ. NO: T-6Z3Z LOGGED BY: SI\I
LOCATION: Beotoo Wasbiagtoa SURFACE CONDS: Brnsh APPROX. ELEV: 1\1/A
DATE LOGGED: June j 5 2Qj2 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 5 5 Eeet DEPTH TO CAVING: 5 5 Eeet ...
;:: ci ~
z z !!:. w CONSISTENCY/ @: w
:,: ...I DESCRIPTION .. REMARKS ,_ .. RELATIVE DENSITY ,_ .. :I 3:: w w .. " 0 ., u
~
Dark brown TOPSOIL, silty, sandy, fine roots, organics,
moist. Soft
,-
2-
Brown sandy SILT, fine to medium sand, trace fine gravel,
3
moist. (ML)
Soft 35.1 ,
4-
5-
,...
Brown GRAVEL with sand and cobbles, fine lo coarse
6-gravel, fine to coarse sand, wet. (GP) Dense
Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet due to caving.
7-Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at 5.5 feet.
8-
9-
10-
Terra
NOTE: This subsurface inronnaUon pertains only to this test pit locatk>n and should Associates, Inc.
not be interpreted as being indfCatlve of other locations al the site. Consultants in Geolechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Q:
w z
ii:
1-z w
t)
Q:
~
0
D
0
D
Particle Size Distribution Report
1oor-r-,--,--,'i'-;T1TI;"TT~'i~:>-;,-,:.~1-nl:.... -'~r-:·ir;rTTrCi~"T"""r--i~,__~rt'.~~~:.,~L~r-~-r~"r:-,-i'-'.1 --';TI": Tl!TI": ~,--,---r--TTT";;;,,---,--,-----,
901-++-+--;1-l+t-l+l--+-\-;--ll;..._l.;.....i; 1+++-H+-+--l---+lri-l+-hl--!--;l.\l--..;.1-.;++i;j+++--l--+--+l-l--l-l-l--++-+--I
I I I I I 11 I I 1
1
1
1
\ I
1
1 1
1 I I I I I I I I \I
ao1-+--+---+--i----1f+li1f-t-t-.llr-+-i~-.;.....i;11-++-f--lr-+--+----+---Hil-+-+-+-il----+-i1--l-il\~;i+t;t-t-+-+--+---+------++++-+-+-+--+----1----1
I I I I I I 11 I I 1
1
I 1
1
I I
I I I I ci I I I I I I 7o1-+--+---+--;-1--++-+1;++-.-.-l-+.;-l-4'---;--I -+.11++-+--+.-l-1---1---11-----+8-I ++-1-,1-1--!--i-l-+--.;...I --\hi-i,l;+-1--1-+--+--+---+++++-,1-!--+--+----1
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'""
60 I-+--+---+--:-: --++~: f-t-t--.:r-+-i:'-lf-: --1\H:f++-I-+.-: +--+----+--Hi:!-+-+-++: --H:-+--+-: -c::t-H'l l-+-l-+--+---+------++++-+-+-+--+----1----l
so1-+--t--;--;-I ---+t+lctt-l-f.-l-t-,-1--f.-l --f--1 -ci-t++-t;-1 t--t-------11-----+Htl ++-t-slt--t-+l-+-+-1 --;HI H:l:t-i-t-t--t---t---tttt-t,t-t--t---t------l I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I ., '.l. I I I I I I
4ol-+--+--+-L-l++!Yl4+-l!-J-JI-IL-~lll++-J.-ILP">kc-+---I-J!lµ.++!J--J-+l--+-LI ...Jl!J-l-j!lf+-1--+-+--+----+H+l-+-i--!--+--l
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
aol-!--+---!-...Ll~~f-+4---jL-l--'--/IL--.l--Jlll-l-l--l--iL-l---l----1---1-11l-""-if-4--+-11-+--'-l---'l+J!f-l--l-+--l---l---+l-l-l+-l-!-+--+---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 l 201-!--+--I-..L..-l+iJ.l.4-1--<ll--l-~L--.l--Jll-l-l--l-il+-1----1---l-lll-l+l~lw....l-+-.J..._Jl-l<lll-+-l--l-l----1---J.l~l-l--l---l-1-----1
I I I I I I I I I I '1, I I I
I I I I I I I I I I 'r'
1
~ I I
101f-t-f--t-'l-ttft-t-Jl-t'--f-'-l---j'--.l..-f'Lftt-t--l'-f---l---t----H'J-tf-J--'t----t..J-f-_.:c:,"'l,l,!'t-f-+--if--t--j----f-!+++-f-f--f--t-----l
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
0 LJ.....L..--L.-.J1~!-..u.LW-1L...L..J.1 ...!1..-.1...,J! 1 l'-LJ..Lil...L.1-..L..-.µll..U..U!..-'-'1....L.....L1-eJ.µJJ...L...L...J....J..._..L.-..l,J,l.U..L..I.....L......L..-,J
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm.
%+3" %Gravel %Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt I Clay
0.0 28.8 28.2 5.3 13.2 15.4 9.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 39.1 59.5
I
LL PL Dftft D•n c ..
26.8117 13.9235 9.5250 0.6325 0.2239 0.1001 0.29 139.09
0.1800 0.0763
Material Description uses AASHTO
o Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand
D Sandy SILT
GP-GM
ML
Project No. T-6737 Client: Murray Franklyn Companies
Project: Elliot Farm -Cedar River Lightfoot
o Location: Test Pit TP-1
D Location: Test Pit TP-2
Depth: -2'
Depth: -2'
Sample Number: I
Sample Number: 1
Terra Associates, Inc.
Kirkland-WA
Tested By: ..,J"'D,,,E,__ _______ _
Remarks:
oTested on 618/2012
oTested on 61812012
Figure A-10
Particle Size Distribution Report
.. S -~ ~ . c 8 0 8 .5 .5 .5 ~ C --~ ,: 11 ; .: v --'2 v .; .; ~ <O ~ "' --~ M " " 100 I I '1' 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
90 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
80 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 70 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
0:: I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I
w 60 I I I I I I I I I 11\ I I I I z u:: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I-50 I I I I I I I I I I \I. I I I z I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I w
t) I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I 0:: I I I I I I w 40 I I I I a. I I I I I I I I I I I \l I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I 30 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
20 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
10 I I I I I
I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I
I I I I I
! ,' ,! I I I I I I
0 I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm.
%+3" %Gravel %Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay
0 0.0 0.0 23.6 7.4 9.5 37.3 22.2
D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.9 29.4 64.S
X LL PL Do" D"" Drn D"" D11: D•n c~ c ..
0 7.6479 0.4456 0.2527 0.1278
D 0.2412
Material Description uses AASHTO
o Silty SAND with gravel SM
D Sandy SILT ML
Project No. T-6737 Client: Murray Franklyn Companies Remarks:
Project: Elliot Farm -Cedar River Lightfoot o Tested on 618/2012
oTested on 6/8/2012
o Location: Test Pit TP-5 Depth: -2' Sample Number: 1
o Location: Test Pit TP-8 Depth: -3' Sample Number: 1
Terra Associates, Inc.
Kirkland. WA Figure A-11
Tested By: ..,J,:D,:E~--------
APPENDIXB
PREVIOUS BORINGS
Boring No. 8-6
Logged by: MFS
Date: 6/19/95
Graph/
uses Soil Description
RU: Gray-brown silty SAND
with gravel, moist.
ALL: Gray-brawn sandy SILT/
silty SAND,'molst. (Mottled)
ALL: Gray-orange.brown silty
CLAY, wet.
Gray fine SAND with some
gravel, moist.
Gray silty SAND /sandy SILT
with occasional gravel, moist.
Boring terminated at 28 feet,
Consistency
Medium Dense
Loose
Very Soft
Very Dense
Very Dense
No groundWater seepage encountered.
~,~,'.·· Terra
··!'":··,· ~ . ·· . · Associates, Inc.
ConsultanlS In Geotechnical Engineering
Environ~~ Sciences
Depth
(ft.)
5
10
15
20
25
Approximate Elev. 186
I
(NJ
Blows/
foot
26
Is
I 1
I 50/6"
I 50/6"
50/6"
Water
Content
(%)
12.6
21.2
56.2
7.0
10.1
7.7
TEST BORING LOG
ELLIOT FARMS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T-6763 Date FEB 2015
193.75 Off-site Slope
-------------,.-,·
-------------------~-
38.75 77.50 116.25 155.00 193.75 232.50 271.25 310.00
Safety Factors
1.75
2.11
2.16
2.18
2.21
2.22
2.24
2.28
2.31
2.38
Profi 1 e. out
** PCSTABL6 **
by
Purdue University
modified by
Peter J. Bosscher
university of Wisconsin-Madison
--slope stability Analysis--
simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Off-site slope
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
2 Top Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right NO. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 o.oo 100.00 94.00 100.00 2 94.00 100.00 310.00 190.00
3 94.00 100.00 310.00 170.00
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
2 Type(s) of soil
soil Type
Below Bnd
2
1
2
Soil
Type
No.
Total saturated cohesion
unit wt. Unit Wt. Intercept
Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
1
2
(pcf) (pcf) (psf)
120.0
135.0
130.0
140.0
0.0
50.0
Angle
(deg)
28.0
38.0
Pressure constant surface
Param. (psf) No.
o.oo 0.0 0
0.00 0.0 0
A critical Failure surface searching Method, using A Random
Technique For Generating Irregular surfaces, Has Been specified.
Page 1
Profile. out
100 Trial surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 surfaces Initiate From Each of 10 Points Equally spaced
Along The Ground surface Between X = 90.00 ft.
and x = 94.00 ft.
Each surface Terminates Between x = 95.00 ft.
and X = 300.00 ft.
Unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At which A surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft.
15.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most critical of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are ordered -Most critical
First.
**Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method**
Failure Surface Specified By 15 coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 105.26 97.67
3 119.62 102.00
4 132 .66 109.42
5 146.20 115.88
6 159.97 121.83
7 172.31 130. 36
8 186.15 136.14
9 200.05 141. 78
10 214. 70 145.00
11 228.47 150.94
12 241.19 158.89
13 255.63 162.94
14 267.99 171.45
15 276.66 176.11
*** 1. 747 ***
Failure surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point
NO.
1
x-surf
(ft)
90.00
v-surf
(ft)
100.00
Page 2
Profi 1 e. out
2 103.93 94.44
3 118.93 94.14
4 133. 91 94.87
5 148.44 98.59
6 163.33 100.44
7 176.94 106.73
8 190.96 112.08
9 203.57 120.20
10 217.15 126.57
11 231. 24 131. 71
12 242.10 142.05
13 251.85 153.46
14 262.67 163.84
15 264.13 170.89
*** 2.108 ***
Failure surface Specified By 8 coordinate Points
Point x-surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 94.00 100.00
2 108.96 101.10
3 123.11 106.08
4 137. 25 111.07
5 151. 51 115. 72
6 165.98 119.68
7 176.88 129.99
8 177.59 134. 83
...... 2.157 ......
Failure surface specified By 8 coordinate Points
Point x-surf Y-Surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 105.36 98.38
3 120.15 100.86
4 134.95 103.33
5 149.24 107 .89
6 161. 60 116.38
7 170.98 128.08
8 175.80 134.08
...... 2.176 ......
Failure surface specified By 11 coordinate Points
Page 3
Profile.out
Point x-surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 94.00 100.00
2 108.89 101.80
3 123.88 101.18
4 137 .00 108.45
5 151. 30 112.99
6 166.03 115.83
7 180.66 119.14
8 195.47 121.49
9 204.62 133. 37
10 215.29 143.92
11 218.72 151. 97
*** 2.208 ***
Failure surface Specified By 6 coordinate Points
Point x-surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 104.93 96.11
3 118.96 101.41
4 132.29 108.30
5 144.72 116.69
6 153.50 124.79
*U 2.221 ***
Failure surface Specified By 12 coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
***
x-surf
(ft)
90.89
102.52
117.48
132 .22
145.58
159.23
173.62
186.12
197.65
209.73
217.25
218.45
2.243 ***
Y-Surf
(ft)
100.00
90. 53
89.36
92.10
98.92
105.14
109.38
117.67
127. 26
136.16
149.14
151.85
Failure surface specified By 6 coordinate Points
Page 4
Profile. out
Point x-surf v-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 90.89 100.00
2 105.80 98.34
3 120.57 100.95
4 135 .23 104.11
5 145.78 114.78
6 154.46 125.19
*** 2.284 ***
Failure surface specified By 6 coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 92.67 100.00
2 107.47 97.56
3 122.17 100. 54
4 133 .43 110.45
5 144, 52 120.55
6 146.91 122.04
*** 2.312 ***
Failure surface Specified By 11 coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
***
y
x-surf
(ft)
91.33
105.65
120. 59
135.35
149.74
162.27
175. so
189.46
201.09
205.62
206.01
2.385 ***
A
v-surf
(ft)
100.00
95.51
94.18
91. 54
95.79
104.03
111.10
116.60
126.06
140.36
146.67
X
Page 5
I s F T
Profi 1 e. out
0.00 38.75 77.50 116.25 155.00 193.75
X 0.00 +---------+---------+-----*---+---------+---------+
38.75 +
A 77 .so +
1
* 721
.93
X 116.25 + ... 72.6
.. 0.13
...... 7. 6 ..
. . . . 2 .. 413 . ...... . . . . . . . 69
I 155.00 +
. . . . . 27 .4519 . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . 6.
. . . . . . . . 27 .. 41. . . . . . . . . . 53.4 .
... . . . . . . . . 20 .... 13 . . . . 5 .... ... . ....... . .7 .... 1. s 193.75 + .. 2 5 ...... . . ..... . 7 .1. .. 2 .570.0 . . . . . . ... 1
. .2 .75 . . ........ 1. 232.50 + . 2 ..... .
2 .. 1
2
1
2 1
F 271. 25 +
1
T 310.00 + *
Page 6
Off-site Slope -Seismic
--···· ~
----./'.'J9.. -~~ .-.--------~--·-_,,,--------
116.25
38.75 77.50 116.25 155.00 193.75 232.50 271.25 310.00
Safety Factors
1.10
1.32
1.35
1.36
1.38
1.41
1.43
1.44
1.46
1.49
Profile.out
** PCSTABL6 **
by
Purdue university
modified by
Peter J. Bosscher
university of Wisconsin-Madison
--slope stability Analysis--
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer·s Method of slices
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Off-site slope -Seismic
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
2 Top Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
1 0.00 100.00
2 94.00 100.00
3 94.00 100.00
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
2 Type(s) of soil
Soil
Type
No.
Total Saturated
unit Wt. unit Wt.
(pcf) (pcf)
1 120.0 130.0
140.0 2 135. 0
cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
0.0
50.0
94.00
310.00
310.00
Friction
Angle
(deg)
28.0
38.0
100.00
190.00
170.00
Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00
0.00
Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0
0.0
A Horizontal Earthquake Loading coefficient
of0.200 Has Been Assigned
A vertical Earthquake Loading coefficient
Page 1
2
1
2
Piez.
surface
No.
0
0
Profile. out
of0.000 Has Been Assigned
cavitation Pressure= 0.0 psf
A critical Failure surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Irregular surfaces, Has Been Specified.
100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 surfaces Initiate From Each of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground surface Between X = 90.00 ft.
and X = 94.00 ft.
Each surface Terminates Between X = 95.00 ft.
and X = 300.00 ft.
unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft.
15.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most critical Of The Trial
Failure surfaces Examined. They Are ordered -Most critical First.
**Safety Factors Are calculated By The Modified Janbu Method**
Failure Surface Specified By 15 coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 105.26 97.67
3 119.62 102.00
4 132.66 109.42
5 146.20 115.88 6 159.97 121. 83
7 172.31 130. 36
8 186.15 136.14 9 200.05 141. 78
10 214. 70 145.00
11 228.47 150.94 12 241.19 158.89
13 255.63 162.94
14 267.99 171. 45
15 276.66 176.11
*** 1.096 *** Page 2
Profi 1 e. out
Failure surface Specified By 15 coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 90.00 100.00
2 103.93 94.44
3 118.93 94.14
4 133. 91 94.87
5 148.44 98.59
6 163. 33 100.44
7 176.94 106.73
8 190.96 112.08
9 203.57 120. 20
10 217 .15 126. 57
11 231. 24 131. 71
12 242.10 142.05
13 251. 85 153.46
14 262.67 163.84
15 264.13 170.89
*** 1.320 ***
Failure surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 94.00 100.00
2 108.96 101.10
3 123.11 106.08
4 137. 25 111.07
5 151. 51 115.72
6 165.98 119.68
7 176. 88 129.99
8 177. 59 134.83
*** 1. 347 ***
Failure surface specified By 8 coordinate Points
Point
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
x-surf
(ft)
90.44
105. 36
120.15
134. 95
149.24
161. 60
170.98
v-surf
(ft)
100.00
98.38
100.86
103.33
107.89
116.38
128.08
Page 3
Profile.out
8 175. 80 134. 08
*** 1.362 ***
Failure surface specified By 11 coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
***
x-surf
(ft)
94.00
108.89
123.88
137 .oo
151. 30
166.03
180.66
195.47
204.62
215.29
218.72
1.382 ***
v-surf
(ft)
100.00
101.80
101.18
108.45
112.99
115.83
119.14
121.49
133.37
143.92
151. 97
Failure surface Specified By 6 coordinate Points
Point x-surf v-surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 90.44 100.00
2 104.93 96.11
3 118.96 101.41
4 132. 29 108.30
5 144.72 116.69
6 153.50 124.79
*** 1.407 ***
Failure surface Specified By 6 coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
***
x-surf
(ft)
90.89
105.80
120. 57
135. 23
145.78
154.46
1.432 ***
v-surf
(ft)
100.00
98.34
100.95
104.11
114.78
125.19
Page 4
Profile .out
Failure surface specified By 12 coordinate Points
Point
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
***
x-surf
(ft)
90.89
102.52
117.48
132.22
145.58
159.23
173.62
186.12
197.65
209.73
217.25
218.45
1.439 ***
Y-surf
(ft)
100.00
90.53
89.36
92.10
98.92
105.14
109.38
117.67
127. 26
136.16
149.14
151.85
Failure surface Specified By 6 coordinate Points
Point x-surf Y-Surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 92.67 100.00
2 107.47 97. 56
3 122.17 100. 54
4 133.43 110.45
5 144.52 120.55
6 146.91 122.04
*** 1.460 ***
Failure surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
X-Surf
(ft)
91.33
105.65
120.59
135. 35
149.74
162.27
175. 50
189.46
201.09
205. 62
206.01
Y-Surf
(ft)
100.00
95. 51
94.18
91.54
95.79
104.03
111.10
116.60
126.06
140. 36
146.67
Page 5
Profi 1 e. out
*** 1.487 ***
y A X I s F T
0.00 38.75 77.50 116.25 155.00 193.75
X 0.00 +---------+---------+-----*---+---------+---------+
38.75 +
A 77. 50 +
1
* 821
.93
X 116.25 + ... 82. 6
.. 0.13
...... 8. 6 ..
. . . . 2 .. 413 . ...... . . . . . . . 69
. . . . . 28. 4519 .
I 155.00 + . . . . . . . ..... . . . . 6.
. . . . . . . . 28 .. 41. .
. . . . . 53. 4 . ... . . . . . . . . 20 .... 13 . . . . 5 .... ... . ....... . . 8 .... 1. s 193.75 + .. 2 5 ...... ...... .8 .1. .. 2 . 580.0 . . . . . . ... 1 . .. 2 .85
. . ........ 1. 232.50 + .2 .....
2 .. 1
2
1
2 1
F 271. 25 +
1
T 310.00 + * *
Page 6
6.2 Wetland Report by
Raedeke Associates,
Inc. dated December 15,
2014
Raedeke
December 15, 2014
Mr. Glen Mauer
Pacific Properties, Inc.
14410 Bel-Red Road, Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98007
RE: Elliot Farm -Wetland Delineation
RA.I. Project #2012-024-002
Dear Glen:
Wetland & Aquatic Sciences
Wildlife Ecology
Landscape Architecture
At your request, we conducted a site investigation on June 26 and 27, 2012 to determine
whether wetlands and streams were present on the Elliot Farm property.
PROPERTY LOCATION
The Elliot Farm property consists of an approximately 6-acre parcel, located along the
south side of SR 169 (Renton-Maple Valley Highway), approximately 1,000 feet east of
1401
h Way SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. The property is identified as Tax
Parcel No. 2223059004. This places the property in a portion of Section 22, Township 23
North, Range 5 East, W.M. Parcel maps retrieved on-line from King County (2012)
iMAP depict the property boundaries.
METHODOLOGY
In order to identify potential wetland areas, we used the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The COE, which
requires use of the 1987 delineation manual, as amended, has federal regulatory
jurisdiction of the dredging or filling of"Waters of the United States," including
wetlands. As outlined in this methodology, the interaction ofhydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soil, and wetland hydrology must be present for an area to be classified as wetland.
To be consistent with current regulations, field investigations were consistent with the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast Region (COE 2010).
BACKGROUND REVIEW
Prior to conducting our site reconnaissance, we reviewed existing background maps and
information from the U.S.D.A Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2014)
Web Soil Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS 2014) National Wetland
Inventory (NWI).
95IO Stone Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98IO:J 206-525-8122 www.raedeke.com
Mr. Glen Mauer
December 15, 2014
Page 2
The USDA NRCS (2014) Web Soil Survey shows the majority of the study area as an
Newberg series soil. Newberg series soil is not considered a hydric soil (USDA Soil
Conservation Service 1991 Federal Register 1995). Soil series boundaries or mapping
units are mapped from aerial photographs with limited field verification. Thus, the
location and extent of the boundaries between mapping units may be approximate for a
given parcel ofland within the survey area.
The USFWS (2014) NWI does not depict wetlands on or within the immediate vicinity of
the study area. Wetlands shown on the NWI are general in terms oflocations and extent,
as they are determined primarily from aerial photograph interpretation. Thus, the number
and extent of existing wetlands located within the project area may differ from those
marked on an NWI map.
RESULTS
During our site visit on June 26 and 27, 2012 we identified and delineated the boundary
ofa wetland located in the southwest portion of the Elliot Farm property (Figure 2).
The wetland is a low-lying forested area in the southwest portion of the site. Vegetation
in the wetland area is comprised ofa red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) canopy over a
salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, F AC) and Himalayn blackberry (Rubus armeniancus,
FACU) shrub layer. Field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, F AC) and creeping buttercup
(Ranunculus repens. F AC) are the dominant species identified in the herbaceous layer
(Sample Plots 2 and 4, Appendix A). The majority of the species observed are rated
facultative or wetter (Reed 1988), so the vegetation community would be considered
hydrophytic, per the COE (2010) guidelines.
Soils observed in the wetland are very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam over gray
(IOYR 5/1) and dark grayish brown (IOYR 4/2) silt loams. The deeper soil profiles
exhibited many redoximorphic features (mottles). Dark soils with mottles are positive
indicators of hydric (wetland) soils per the COE (20 I 0) guidelines. We encountered a
water table at 18 inches below the ground surface during our June 2012 field
investigations, and soils were saturated at a depth of 12 inches. These are considered
positive indicators of wetland hydrology
We did not identify any wetlands or critical areas in the remaining portion of the property.
In general the property consists of previously cleared and graded areas that now support a
vegetation community dominated by invasive plant species such as Himalayan blackberry
and Scot's Broom (Cytisus scoparius, UPL) and included small stands ofred alder and
black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, F AC). Soils observed in the central portion of
the site were bright (IOYR 5/4) fine sandy loams. No hydrology was observed within 18
inches of the ground surface (Sample plots I, 3, and 5; Appendix A).
Mr. Glen Mauer
December 15, 2014
Page 3
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Wetlands and streams are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and
other state and local policies and ordinances, including City of Renton (2014b) municipal
code. Regulatory considerations pertinent to wetlands identified within the study area are
discussed below; this discussion, however, should not be considered comprehensive.
Additional information may be obtained from agencies with jurisdictional responsibility
for, or interest in, the site. A briefreview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State
of Washington regulations and of the City of Renton municipal code, relative to wetlands
and streams, is presented below.
Federal Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
In general, Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) discourages the discharge
of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands and
streams, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Certain
wetlands, including many that are hydrologically isolated from "waters of the United
States," may not be regulated by the COE. The COE has the authority to make a final
determination concerning whether an area (I) meets the definition of "waters of the
United States" as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251) and
(2) is under federal jurisdiction.
State of Washington
The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) regulates all wetlands as 'waters of
the State" under Chapter 90.48 RCW (Water Pollution Control), including isolated
wetlands determined to be non-jurisdictional by the COE. In addition, activities that
will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any state waters must be
approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), through its
administration of the State Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20.100-140).
City of Renton
The City of Renton (2014b) municipal code currently regulates wetlands and streams
under Title IV, Chapter 3 -"Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts."
Alterations of wetlands or streams and their buffers are generally prohibited, except as
allowed under certain conditions specified in RMC Title IV. The City of Renton (2014)
code specifies ratings, buffers, and allowed uses of wetlands and other sensitive areas that
are under it's jurisdiction.
The wetland identified on the Elliot Farm property appears to meet the City of Renton
criteria necessary to be considered a Category 2 system because it is not a Category I or 3
wetland. In order to be a Category I wetland the feature must contain habitat for listed
species of wildlife or plants, contain 40% to 60% open water and two or more vegetation
classes, or be greater than IO acres in size with three or more vegetation classes. No
Mr. Glen Mauer
December 15, 2014
Page 4
species listed as endangered or threatened, or other priority species were observed during
our field investigationa, nor are any mapped for the site by WDFW (2014). Category 3
wetlands are those that have been severely disturbed by human activities or are newly
emerging with little vegetation diversity. The wetland on the Elliot Farm site does not
meet either the Category I or Category 3 criteria and therefore meets the City of Renton' s
criteria as a Category 2 wetland. Under the City of Renton code, Category 2 wetlands are
provided with a standard buffer width of 50 feet.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Pacific Properties, Inc. and their
consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or
conclusions contained herein without permission from Pacific Properties, Inc.
The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries
is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different
conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for
regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various resource agencies that regulate
development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency
determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the
appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction
activities.
We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our
field, and that this work was prepared substantially in accordance with then-current
technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of
our analysis of the information provided by the project proponents and their consultants,
together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made.
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this material for you. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call us at (206) 525-8122.
Respectfully submitted,
RAEDEKE AS SOCIA TES, INC.
tfu IJ 4--
Christopher W. Wright, Principal
Soil and Wetland Scientist
Mr. Glen Mauer
December 15, 2014
Page 5
LITERATURE CITED
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. I 00 pp.
Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the
Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Federal Register. 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service:
Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Volume 59, No 133, July 13, 1994.
Revised September 15, 1995.
King County. 2012. iMAP GIS Interactive map center, King County, Washington.
http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/iMAP _ main.htm#. Accessed June 2012.
Renton, City of. 2014. 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, Title IV, Chapter 3 -
Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Renton Municipal Code online
through Code Publishing Company, Seattle, WA. Current through Ordinance
5707, passed March 24, 2014. www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ Accessed
November, 2014.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers
wetland delineation manual: western mountains, valleys, and coast region
(Version 2.0). Wakeley, J.S., R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. May 2010.
ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States: In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A.
Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. On-line Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed November, 2014.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online
Mapper. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html . Accessed
November, 2014.
~· _, __ , . ..,
'"''""'"' .... -.... ...... ,..,._I --------~· 17· •,:;.=c,,
PROJECT LOCATION
Par1c Funeral HCNl1e
J.Jrd '.:,!
> ; .. ,
~-· -~'-·'-" . ~ -
I »
l
s;::,...
--
NE 2nd s~ SE t31nd$t
Sf Ll'd SI
~•F l JO!h SI Maplewood Plri
• ~
.I • • ~
C.as ca de-Fa ,rwc od-
FIGURE 1
REGIONAL & VICINITY MAP
ELLIOT FARM
RENTON, WA
-----·-
'
",I
';!_ l 1~
Mao dafa.G2014-Gooale;
.edeke
\, ,, ,i·i ,I I ( ·:,., ] 11(
!).) ](I Slul\c .\ H'1'Ul' :-.-01 ll1
~t·;>11k,\\':\1Hl(d
' /
RAI # 2012-024
z
0
~ w
NZ w-e::: [d
:::, 0
I.!) 0
u. z
<(
....J
1-w :s:
ril::l't::I llOm3
lJ81HX3 ~'1,::1 ON\f1.J.3M
-
V, z
Q < g
§
Q.
~
Q.
:;;
<(
V,
" i/;
•
r
' I
I
I
I
I
~:~ •'! •'R m:1
I
I
(
\
\
\
\
'
'
APPENDIX A
FIELD DATA FORMS
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Projec-USite: .E~ll~io~tt~F~a~rm~ ________________ City/County: King County Sampling Date:June 27 2012
Applican-UOwner: ,,M,,.u,err"'a"y"-F-'r"a"'nk,,l.,yg,_ _____________________ State: .w~A~----Sampling Point: .s~P_-~1 ___ _
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: S22 T23N R5E W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~H"'il~ls~lo"p"'e~ _________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~c~o~n~ve~x~-----Slope(%): _2 __
Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests & coasts (LRR-Al Lat 47.466510 Long: -122.151222 Datum: unknown
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg silt loam. NWI classification: ~n.on~e~--------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site lypical for this time of year? Yes 181 No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes D No ISi
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes IZI NoO Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? YesD No IZI within a Wetland? YesO No [l
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No IZI
Remarks: Sample Plot 1 is located outside of the wetland, near wetland boundary flag WL-2A.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Q:tratum (Plot size: Sm radius) 0t'i! !;;:Qver ~gecies? S!atys Number of Dominant Species
1. Thuja glicata (western arborviate} 10 y FAG That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2. Ann]e snn. 5 NI !it,__ Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: 5 (8)
4. ---Percent of Dominant Species
1~ = Total Cover That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAC: ~Q (A/B)
Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. BUb'!li ii!WJS:Diiil!:iU~ (t:iiaJiilli:'!l£i::\l[l bli::li.;;~bs:Wt:} ZQ y .E&;l,I._ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Thyja gliQrua (we2tern arborviate) 5 N .E8L_ Total °La Cover of: MultiglJ'.bJ'.:
3. Italian 12lum 5 NI !it,__ OBL species X 1 =
4. ---FACW species x2 =
5. ---FAC species x3=
80 = Total Cover F ACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m radius) UPL species x5=
1. !;!:UJilifitlUaJ a~O~sl (fi~lt! !JQC~Ctail) 20 y FAG Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Ranunculus regens (creeging buttercugJ 10 y fi'&..__
3. E!hals!d::i li!llHJ!i:lios1,~ii! (~!i:I i.;;ii!mUY.9!a:Z§l 10 y FACW Prevalence Index = BIA=
4. musci sgg. 60 NI !it,__ Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
5. D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ---
6. IZI 2 -Dominance Test is >50% ---
7. D 3 -Prevalence Index is s3.01
---
8. D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. D ---1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100 = Total Cover
Wood:!£ Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1. ---Hydrophytic
2. ---Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? Yes IZI NoO
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 1Q
Remarks: Various mosses were observed in the herb stratum. Musci species were not readily identifiable and therefore were not relied on as an
wetland indicator for this survey.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: SP-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) CQIQr (mQi~O -1,__ Color (moist) ~ -ilQL Loe' Texture Remarks
0-10 10YR 4/2 Silt Loam ------
10-18+ 10YR4/3 Silt Loam ------
------
------
------
------
------
------
1Tune: C;Concentration, o-oealetion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL -Pore Linino, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Red ox (SS) D 2 cm Muck (A 10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dari< Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remar1<s)
D Depleted Below Dari< Surface (A 11 ) D Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dari< Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy GI eyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesO No ilsl
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primaey: lndi91.tors (minimum of one regyir~!f s:;;h~k all !ha! a1212l:l) Secondary Indicators (2 or more reguired)
D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A. and 48) 4A, and 48)
D Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust(B 11) D Drainage Patterns (810)
D Water Mar1<s (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates {B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots {C3) D Geomorphic Position (02)
D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3)
D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (DS)
D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? YesD No Ci!:! Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? YesD No0 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesD No Ci!:! Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No ilsl
(includes capillary frinQe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No evidence of surface water was obse1Ved. Soils were not saturated and no water table was present to a depth of 18 inches.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: ,E~ll~io~tt~F~a~rm= ________________ City/County: King County Sampling Date:June 27 2012
Applicant/Owner: ~M~u~rr~a,..y~-F~r~a~nkwl~vn~---------------------State: ~W~A~---Sampling Point: ;S,:P.:,-2._ __ _
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: S22 T23N R5E W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): "D~e~p~re~s~s~io~n~ ________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): "Co,o,,n"ca,.v.,e,_ ____ Slope(%): _O __
Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests & coasts (LRR-Al Lat: 47.466269 Long: -122.149914 Datum: unknown
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg siltloam. NWI classification: ~n~o~ne~--------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes C8l No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Nomial Circumstances~ present? Yes D No [SI
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 NoD Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 NoD within a Wetland? Yes 181 NoD
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 NoD
Remarks: Sample Plot 2 is located in wetland, near wetland flag WL-9A.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree S:lrsllum (Plot size: Sm radius) 0f,;i QQver §~s!gis!§? §tatus Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnys rubra (red alder} 30 y ~ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2. ---Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: a (B)
4. ---Percent of Dominant Species
3Q = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: aJ (A/B)
Sa121ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. B11b11~ aWJ~aiai;;us (t:Jim1a12:t~n QlagkQs!rD'.} 2Q y .E8Q.L Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. R!,!bUS SQ~t2t!ili~ (~atmgn rasgQ~ID'.} 2Q V .Ee&.__ Total °Lo Cover of: MultiQlj'. bj'.:
3. ---OBL species X 1 =
4. ---F ACW species x2 =
5. ---FAG species x3=
40 = Total Cover F ACU species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m radius) UPL species x5=
1. !,;gui~~tiJm a~~D§~ (fi~ld hor§etail) 40 y ~ Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Ranunculus reQens (creeQing buttercuQ} 20 y .Ee&.__
3. Atb:ttium fili~-mmias:1 !ls1!J:t f~m) 20 y ~ Prevalence Index = B/A =
4. ---Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
5. ---D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. 181 2 -Dominance Test is >50% ---
7. ---D 3 -Prevalence Index is s;3.0 1
8. ---D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
11. D
---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
80 = Total Cover
Woodj'. Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1. ---Hydrophytlc
2. ---Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? Yes0 NoD
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum .Q.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point· SP 2 -
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) QQIQr (mgist) _j\_ Color (moist) ----1_ _TuQft_ Loe' Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 3/2 ------Silt Loam
6-12 10YR 511 llQ___ 10YR 414 20 C _M __ Silt Loam
12-18+ 10YR 412 fill.__ 10YR 414 40 C _M __ Sandy Loam
------
------
------
------
------
1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL:;;;:Pore Lininn, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless othetwlse noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) C8l Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Red ox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (II present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes0 NoO
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primact lndjcatorn (minim~Jm Qf Qn~ r!i!;guired· check all that agglJ'.} SecondaCl Indicators {2 or mQte !!l:!J!JirflQl
D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
C8l High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48)
[8J Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11) D Drainage Patterns (B10)
D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposns (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Ddor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3)
D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CS) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (D5)
D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? YesD No0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes0 NoD Depth (inches): .1lL_
Saturation Present? Yes [8J NoD Depth (inches): .1L_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [8J NoO
(includes caoillarv frinae)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Soils become saturated at 12 inches and a water table is present at 18 inches.
US Amiy Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
ProjecUSite: =E~lli~ott~F~a~rm~---------------City/County: ~K~in~q~C~o~u~n~ty ________ Sampling Date:June 27. 2012
Applicant/Owner: Murray-Franklyn State: ~W~A~---Sampling Point: ~S~P~-3~---
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section. Township. Range: S22 T23N R5E W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~H~il~ls~lo~p~e~ _________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~C~o~n~ve~x~-----Slope(%): _2 __
Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests & coasts ILRR-A\ Lat: 47.465922 Long: -122.149948 Datum: unknown
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg silt loam. NWI classification: 0n~o~ne~--------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ISi No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes D No ISi
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YesD No[gi Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes0 NoD within a Wetland? YesD No[gi
Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No[gl
Remarks: Sample Plot 3 is located outside of the wetland, near wetland boundary flag (WL-9A).
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
I~~ ~lrnlum (Plot size: 5m radius) 0i'l "gy~c ~12~,i~s? ~hillUS Number of Dominant Species
1. ---That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: 1 (A)
2. ---Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. ---Percent of Dominant Species
0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~Q (A/8)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. Ri~t!!.!S iilrm~nia,us (Himalax:an Qla!;;;kb~!n!l ~Q y ~ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. ---Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. ---OBL species X 1 =
4. ---FACW species x2=
5. ---FAC species 20 X 3 = 60
80 = Total Cover F ACU species ~Q x4 = 320
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m radius) UPL species x5=
1. Eguisetum arvense (field horsetail} 20 y .EAQ_ Column Totals: (A) (8)
2. ---
3. Prevalence Index =BIA= M ---
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ---
5. D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ---
6. D 2 -Dominance Test is >50% ---
7. D 3 -Prevalence Index is :s3.0 1
---
8. D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. ---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. D ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 20 = Total Cover
~QQg~ l!in~ ~trnlu!!I (Plot size: 3m radius)
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1. ---Hydrophytic
2. ---Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? YesD No0
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Q
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point· SP 3 -
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist} .Js__ Color (moist) ~ _TuruL_ Lacz Texture R~mgrk§
0-9 1QYR Ji2 ------Silt Loam
9-13 10YR4/2 .!l§___ 10YR 4/3 5 C _M __ Silt Loam
13-18+ 10YR 5/3 ------Sandy Loam
------
------
------
---
---
1T"ne: c-concentration, D=Dealetion, RM==Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL -Pore Linino M-Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Solls3:
D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 181 Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 NoD
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prim£to: lndig£t!Q~ {minimum Qf gn§! r§!gyirs!!t gh§!gk all !hat a~RIJ'.} Seconda[J'. Indicators {2 or more reguired)
D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48)
D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11) D Drainage Patterns (B10)
D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3)
D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5)
D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Waler Present? YesD No0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? YesD No 181 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesD No 181 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No0
(includes caoillarv frinael
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No evidence of inundation was observed. Soil saturated was not observed and no aparent water table was present within the upper 18
inches of the soil profile.
US Amiy Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: =E~ll~io~tt~F~a~rm~ ________________ City/County: King County Sampling Date:June 27 2012
ApplicanUOwner: ~M~u~rr~•~v-~F~r~an~k~ly,.,n~---------------------State: 0W,.,A~----Sampling Point: ~S~P-4~---
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: S22 T23N R5E W.M.
Landform (hillstope, terrace, etc.): ~D~e~p~re~s~s~io~n~ ________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~C~o~n~ca~v~e~----Slope(%): _o __
Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests & coasts (LRR-A) Lat: 47.466269 Long: -122.149914 Datum: unknown
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg silt loam. NWI classification: ~n~o~n•~--------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 12] No D (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are WNormal Circumstances" present? Yes D No [8]
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 NoD Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 NoD within a Wetland? Yes 181 NoD
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 NoD
Remarks: Sample Plot 4 is located in a paulstrine, forested community near wetland boundary flag r,NL-7A).
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Im~ Slwlum (Plot size: Sm radius) 0/q Qgver Sge~i~s? ~tatus Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnus rubra (red alder} 80 y .EAQ_ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2. Ibuilil 12lii;;ii!lii1 ,~~ii![!l Si11!2120£ia~) 2Q y .EAQ_ Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4. ---Percent of Dominant Species
1QQ = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1QO (A/B)
Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. Bubus si;i~i;;lii!bilis (sii1lw1;2a ws12b~!n!l lQ y .EAQ_ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. ll~x ag~ifolium (English hollJ'.} 5 N .Et&l.L Total 0/o Cover of: Multiglj'. bj'.:
3. ---OBL species X 1 =
4. ---FACW species X 2 =
5. ---FAC species x3=
15 = Total Cover F ACU species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m radius) UPL species x5=
1. ~QriQus micr~2wus (tu.1l!l!sh) ;)Q y .ooL_ Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Rijnunculus regens (cree(2ing blJtlercug) 30 y .EAQ_
3. LJ'.SiQtJilQn ii!W~d,ii!D!IS (s~1int ~bt!sig~} lQ ~ .@L_ Prevalence Index = B/A =
4. Athy:rium filix-femina {lady: fern) 10 N .EAQ_ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. V~r2niga b~g2Q1,mga (E!dt:2ti~aa sti~~Q~lll rn ~ .Q!lL_ D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. Tolmiea menziesii {giggy:-back giant} 5 N .EAQ_ 181 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
7. Urtica dioica (stinging nettle) 5 N .EAQ_ D 3 -Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
8. Gl~eria elata (tall mana grass) 1 N FACW D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. D ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
101 = Total Cover
Woogy: Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1. ---Hydrophytic
2. ---Vegetation
Q = Total Cover Present? Yes 181 NoD
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Q
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point· SP-4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
{inches) Color (moist) ____%_ Color {moi§t} ~ .lillL Loe' Texture Remarks
0-18+ 10YR 3/1 Mucky Peat ------
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
1T ·-e: C=Concentration D-Denletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL Pore Linina, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
~ Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) ~ Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy GI eyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes~ NoO
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primsl!Ol lngjcators (minimum of one reguired· check all that ai;i:glJ'.} Segond§!Ci lnijiga1Q~ (2 Qr mQre reguired)
~ Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
~ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
~ Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust(B 11) D Drainage Patterns (B10)
0 Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2)
D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03)
D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05)
D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D 1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes~ NoO Depth (inches): 3"
Water Table Present? Yes0 NoO Depth (inches): _a_
Saturation Present? Yes0 NoO Depth (inches): _a_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 NoO
iincludes canillan, frinne\
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Soils are saturated to the surface, and several 100 square-foot pools approximateley 3 inches deep are located adjacent to the sample
plot. A 24 inch wide stream channel is flowing to the west.
US Am,y Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: =E"lli~o~tt~F~a~rm~ ________________ City/County: King County Sampling Date:June 27 2012
Applicant/Owner: 0M~u~r~ra~v~-F~r~auo~kliY"u----------------------State: ,W~A~----Sampling Point: ~§~P~-5~---
lnvestigator(s): Chris Wright Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: S22 T23N R5E W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~H~il~ls~lo~p~e~---------Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~G~o~n~ve~x~-----Slope(%): _2 __
Subregion (LRR): Northwest forests & coasts (LRR-Al Lat: 47.466510 Long: -122.151222 Datum: unknown
Soil Map Unit Name: Newberg silt loam. NWl classification: 0n~oune~--------
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes [8J No D {If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes D No [81
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ISi NoO Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? YesO No ISi within a Wetland? YesD No!Si
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No!Si
Remarks: Sample Plot 5 is located in a stand of alder and balsam poplar, near the central portion of the site.
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Ia;:e ~lwluw (Plot size: 5w wdius) ot'I ~Q~[ ~~i;;;ies? ~l8hlS Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnus rubra (red alder) 50 y ~ That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAG: 2 (A)
2. P2oulus balsamifera (balsam ooolarl 25 y .E8l:;__ Total Number of Dominant
3. ---Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4. ---Percent of Dominant Species
75 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAG: zs (NB)
Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
1. B11b1is acm~ni!i!i;;;11s (Hiooals.l:Qll b!ii!i;;~b~!n!l zs y .EllQ.!..__ Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. ---Total % Ccwer of: Multiply by:
3. ---OBL species X 1 =
4. ---FACW species x2=
5. ---FAC species 75 x3 = 225
75 = Total Cover F ACU species 75 x4 = ~QQ
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m radius) UPL species xS =
1. ---Column Totals: 15Q (A) 55Q (B)
2. ---
3. ---Prevalence Index = BIA= ll
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ---
5. ---D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. 0 2 -Dominance Test is >50% ---
7. D 3 -Prevalence Index is s3.01
---
8. D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. ---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. D ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
0 = Total Cover
Wood~ Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius)
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1. ---Hydrophytic
2. ---Vegetation
0 = Total Cover Present? Yes0 NoD
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum .Q.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point· SP 5 -
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(in~h~~l QQIQr (mgi~t) _Jg_ QQlor (mgi~t) _.?&...__ ~ Lod1 Texture Remarks
0-12+ 10YR 5/4 F.S.L ------
------
------
------
------
------
------
------
1Tvne: C=Concentration, O=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otheiwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10)
D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2)
D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11 ) D Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1 ) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (If present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesD No 0
Remarks: Soils at the sample plot location are extremely rocky/gravely.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prima!Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that aggl'.!l) Seconda!Y Indicators (2 gr more r!;lguire~D
D Surface Water (A 1 ) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 46)
D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11 ) D Drainage Patterns (B10)
D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CS)
D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02)
D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4} D Shallow Aquitard (DJ)
D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5)
D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? YesD No0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? YesD No0 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? YesD No0 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? YesD No0
(includes caoillarv frinoe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No evidence of inundation was observed. Soils were not saturated and no water table was detected within the upper 12 inches of the soil
profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0
7.0 OTHER PERMITS
This section will be completed during the final engineering review process. The following is a list
of permits that will be required during final engineering design and approval:
7.1 Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
7.2 Approved Fire Hydrant Location
7 .3 Postmaster I Mailbox Locations Approval
7 .4 Street Name Approval
7.5 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Department of Ecology)
7.6 Forest Practices Permit (Department of Natural Resources
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PUBLIC REARING
April 21, 2008
Development Agreement Cedar River Lightfoot Inc
The subject property, PID# 222305-9005, is a six-acre parcel with a two-story, five-bedroom
home built in 1911. This 6-acre parcel is part of the proposed 397-acre New Life -Aqua Barn
annexation. In 2007 Rick Lennon. property owner, requested Residential Medium Density
(RMD) designation with Residential 14 ( R-14) zoning, subject to a development agreement
restricting development to no more than 45 dwelling units during the annual Comprehensive
Plan amendment review cycle. The City Council approved this request in December 2007. The
development agreement is now before the City for approval.
The subject 6-acre site was already reviewed by King County as Phase 2 of the Molasses Creek
Condominium development project, although it is not yet vested. According to the applicant, a
number of improvements have already been completed to allow this 6-acre parcel to be added to
the existing condominium project to its west. These include the storm water control system of
Phase I that was designed and constructed to serve both Phase I and Phase 2. All utilities
(water, sewer, etc.) have been designed and constructed to serve Phase 2 and utility lines have
already been extended to the western edge of PID# 222305-9004 to facilitate future connections.
Phase 2 is planned and has been designed for approximately 45 units with a density comparable
to that of Phase 1. The project was designed under King County zoning that allows a cluster
form of multi-family and condominium development consistent with Renton's R-14 zone
development standards.
RECOMl\IENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed development agreement with Cedar River
Lightfoot Inc. This agreement restricts the total number of units on the 6-acre site to 45
condominium units that arc architecturally compatible with the character of Phase 1 of the
Molasses Creek Condominium development.
CLIENT'S COPY -~ .,-._ ' . . .
·::-.· !.1. .. ·-;,;
.. ·-. _.,_ ·.•.
. .. ' ...
?-~ ... _; ' '"' .
APR 1 4 2008
CITY OF RENTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
. ~-····-· -· .
. :.)i,,·; ·:rh::,'jf~·:,;:.,:.'.fi-.;.\. ii~.
1 · .;· ,·:.,:~-• .-:. •.r: . ·},
.... ,.-----· -·~---~····--.. ~--...... ·-· ··-. -
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 21st day of
April, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the
seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057, to consider the following:
Pre-annexation development agreement with Cedar River Lightfoot, Inc. and
Lennon Investments, Inc. for the 6-acre Lennon Property, PID# 222305-9004,
located immediately south of SE May Valley Road, abutting the south side of the
Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR 169), within the proposed New Life-Aqua
Barn annexation area, restricting development to no more than 45 ( condominium)
dwelling units in the proposed R-14 zone.
All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral
comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American
Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon
prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510.
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Published: Renton Reporter
April 12, 2008
Account No. 50640
PRE-ANNEXATOIN AGREEMENT
CITY OF RENTON
and
CEDAR RIVER LIGHTFOOOT, INC
This PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT is entered into this _ day of _____ _,
2008, between the City of Renton. a Wa'!bington municipal corporation. {"City") and Cedar
River Lightfoot, Inc., a Washington corporation, and Lennon Investments, Inc., a Washington
corporation ( collectively referred to as "Cedar River").
RECITALS
A. Cedar River Lightfoot, Inc., and Lennon Investments, Inc., own the following described
property ("the Property") as a joint venture:
Parcel A of King County Boundary Line Adjustment No, L95LOil3, recorded under
King County Recording No. 9510179023, (being a portion of Government Lot 3 in the
NE ~ of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, records of King County,
Washington.
B. The Property is approximately 6.07 acres in siz.e and is immediately south of SE Renton
Maple Valley Road (SR 169).
C. The Property is currently located in unincorporated King County and is zoned R-6 by the
County, a zoning which would permit development of the property with approximately
45 dwelling units as Phase 2 of the adjacent Molasses Creek Condominiums. The
utilities serving the Property were designed and installed during construction of the first
phase of the Molasses Creek Condominiums to serve the Property based on its
development capacity pursuant to the County zoning. In addition, access from SR 169 to
the Property has been limited to a common access shared with the first phase of the
Molasses Creek Condominiums.
D. The City of Renton is in the process of annexing the Property and other properties in the
vicinity.
E. The City of Renton does not have a zoning designation that is the equivalent of King
County's R-6 zoning classification.
F. The parties wish to enter into a pre-annexation agreement that will permit the
development of the second phase of the Molasses Creek Condominiums at a density
which is comparable to the density permitted by King County.
PRE-ANNEXA110N AGREEMENT-I
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and duties set forth in this
Agreement, the City of Renton, Cedar River Lightfoot, Inc. and Lennon Investments, Inc. agree
as follows:
1. Agreement to Annex. Cedar River hereby consents to and agrees to support the
annexation of the Property to the City of Renton.
2. Zoningof Property. The City of Renton agrees that, following annexation of the
Property, the Property will be zoned R-14 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Renton Development Regulations, Title N of the Renton Municipal Code, subject to the
following condition:
The maximum number of dwelling units permitted on the Property shall be
forty-five (45).
3. Parties and Authority. The signatories to this Agreement represent that they have the full
authority of their respective entities to commit to all of the terms of this Agreement, to
perform the obligations hereunder and to execute the same. A complete copy of this
Agreement may be recorded and a copy kept at Renton City Hall and made available to
anyone requesting review or a copy.
4. Voluntary Agreement. The Parties intend and acknowledge that this Agreement is a
voluntary contract binding upon the Parties hereto, as well as their successors and
assigns.
5. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement shall only be amended in writing, signed by
all Parties to this initial Agreement and only after approval by the Renton City Council.
6. Successors and Assigns. The terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the successor and assigns of the Parties hereto.
Dated as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RENTON
By~~~~~~~~~~
Title ___________ _
PRE·ANNKXATION AGREEMENT-2
CEDAR RIVER LIGHTFOOT, INC. a
Washington corporation.
By~~~~~~~~~-
Title ------------
LENNON INVESTMENTS, INC. a
Washington corporation.
By __________ _
Title ___________ _
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the
________ of the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation, and is the person
who appeared and acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument on behalf of such City, on oath stated
that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the free and voluntary act of
such City for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED: ___________ _
Notary Seal
STATEOFWASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
___________ (Print Name)
Notary Public
Residing at ___ ,--_______ _
My appointment expires:-------
I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the
------of Cedar River Lightfoot, Inc, a Washington corporation, and is person who appeared
and acknowledged that he signed this instrument on behalf of such corporation and company, on oath
stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the free and voluntary act
of the corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED:------------
Notary Seal
----------(Print Name)
Notary Public
Residing at ___________ _
My appointment expires:-------
STATEOFWASHINGTON )
PRE-ANNEXATIONAGREEMENT-3
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the
-----,-----,-of Lennon Investments, Inc, a Washington coiporation, and is person who appeared and
acknowledged that he signed this instrument on behalf of such coiporation and company, on oath stated
that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the free and voluntary act of the
coiporation for the uses and pU!pOses mentioned in this instrument.
DATED:------------
Notary Seal
___ .,..,.,.. ______ (Print Name)
Notary Public
Residing at ___ -=---------
My appointment expires:-------
Pre-Anne.xationAgreement-Molosses Creek Ph 2 Rev. 04-01-08
PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT-4
8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPP) ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN
A. Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan Analysis and Design
This section will be completed during final engineering design and approval however, The
erosion and sediment control plans will be prepared in accordance with the 2009 King
County Surface Water Design Manual, and standard industry practices throughout the
construction process to limit the amount of sediment traveling into the downstream
systems.
BMPs that are normally proposed include a rocked construction entrance, silt fence
where needed, straw mulch for the areas that reach final grade in the lot areas, V-ditches
with rock check dams, and hydroseeding. Clearing limits will be established and shown
on the final engineering plans.
B. Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) Plan Design
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared with the final engineering plan
approval process. This SWPPP report will be prepared following the Department of
Ecology (DOE) format and will be kept on-site during all construction activities. The
SWPPP report includes a narrative discussion of construction BMP's that will be
implemented during construction, based on the 12 required elements as defined by DOE.
The SWPPP report also outlines inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements to
meet the requirements of the NP DES permit.
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) Site Plan will be included in the
construction plans. This plan will provide suggested locations for:
• equipment parking/maintenance areas
• chemical storage areas with secondary containment
• construction materials and construction waste storage areas
• truck washout areas
This plan will also provide general locations of erosion control such as silt fencing, sediment
pond, construction entrance, and clearing limits
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT
This section will be provided during the final engineering approval process.
15734-PREL-TIRdoc
10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
An Operations and Maintenance Manual will be included with the final engineering approval
process. The project does not contain any drainage facilities; however, it is proposing private
roads and drainage systems that will be maintained by the Home Owners Association.
The drainage system along WA-169 will be owned and maintained by the city of Renton.
15734-PREL-TIR.doc
Appendix A
Lower Cedar River Basin
and Nonpoint Pollution
Action Plan
-
•
-
Watershed Management Committee
Lower Cedar River Basin
and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan
~ ~KING COUNTY
~ '8f Department of Natural Resources •
IAIHINBIDI IHIE e
IEPAl!lfll DF •ft•
ECOLOGY
• •
.J
•
L
l
I,
I
I
•
Watershed Management Committee
Lower Cedar River Basin and
Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan
Adopted by Metropolitan King County Council
July 1997
July 1998 Printing
KIDg Cou1lty Deparlmeat or Natural RHoul'CII
Water aod Land~ Division
Cedar River Watershed Management Conunittee
City of Renton
700 Fifth A ffl!UO
Sv.i~2200
Seattle, Washington 98104
{206) 2~51!>
King Conservation Dislrlct
King County
Mucldeshoot Indian Tn'be
Seattle Public Utilities Department
Trout Unlimited
Uni\ed States Anny Corps of Engineers
Washington Dc,partment of Fish and Wildlife
Wasbmgllm Department of Natural Resources
WasbingmnDepartinentofTransportation .
Washington Fann Forestry Association
Funded in part by the Washington Strlte Department of Ecology Cemennlal Clean Water Fund
-
,.
•
-
II
I ..
r
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures and Tables ................................ , ........................................................................... v
Ex.ecutive Suntm&ry' ............................................... u ....... u •.••.••......••.. · ...................... ,,u,, ................ vii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Cedar River Basin and NoupointPollution Action Plan ....... 1-1
The Major Conditions in the Cedar River Basin ................................................................... 1-1
The Major Plan Reco:rnmeiidations ......... h .............. nh .. ,, ............................... " .... u .................... 1 .. 5
The Basin Plamting Area, .... u,,, .................................... ~ .................... u .. ,u .................................. 1-8
About the Plan Itself .............................................................................................................. 1-15
Chapter 2: Goals and Priority Actions ................................................................................... 2-1
Introd.uction.,u, ................. ~ .....•....... ,h ........................................... ,n,,oou,,,, ............... , •• u.,, ............ 2-1
Flood-Damage Reduction .................................................................................................... ;.2-4
Aquatic Habitat Protection and Restoration .......................................................................... 2-11
Protection of Water Quality from Nonpoint Source Pollution ........... : .................................. 2-16
Aquifer.Protection .................... , ... u ... , ..................... , •• u,,, ............................................................. 2-20
Cedar River Watershed Management Program ..................................................................... 2-23
Relationship of Chapter 2 to Chapters 3 and 4 ...................................................................... 2-24
Chapter 3: Subarea Rccommendations .................................................................................. 3-1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... ~ ......... , ...... 3 ... 1
Cedar River Mainstetn ..... ,u,,u ............ ,u,,, ................. , .... u,, ................................................ , .... 3-S
NortbC[Jl. TnOOtaries ...................................................................................................................... 3 .. 17
South.cm. Tributaries ........•. ,~ ....................... ···~·· .............. H ............................. u ........................ 3 ... 27
Taylor Creek .................................................................... : ..................................................... 3-37
PcteISon Ct'eCck ...................... ,.,u,,, ....... , •• h, ............................ 4-, .............................................. 3-43
Middle Tn"butaries ...................... ,,,u, ........... , .• u,, ••• n ... , ............................. u,,, ................................. 3..49
Rock Creek. ............................................................................................................................ 3-55
Chapter 4: Detailed Descriptions of Recommendations.; ...................................................... 4-1
Introduction ...................................................................... ,uu, ...................................................... 4-1
Capital IDlprovcmcnt Projects ............................................................................................. ~ ... 4--3
Buinwide R,cc".Qmfflendations .................. ,,,,u,, ........................................................................ 4-31
Subarea. Progrmmn.atic Recommmdations ................................................................................. 4-83
. Chapter S: Iinplcmentation Strategy ...................................................................................... 5-l
Introduction ........... UU•. IU .................................. u.,. u, ................................................... ~ ............. 5-1
Priority Setting: Balancing Competing Needs ....................................................................... 5-l
Sharing Implementation Roles ............................................................................................... 5-5
Implementation Process: Long-Term Watershed.Management ................................ ;,. ......... S-10
iii Table ofConten~
Appendix A; WMC Vision, Go1ds, and Objectives ................................................................... A-1
Plart Vision Statmlent .................... u ........... u,, ........ u., ................................................................. A-1
Goals and Obj~ves ............................................................................................................ .A-1
Appendix B: Addendum to Bedload Transport Analysis ......................................................... .A-9
Appendix C: Hydrology and Forest Retention .......................................................................... A-11
Technical Note 1: Upland Flooding and Channel Stability .................................................. .A-11
Technical Note 2: Downstream Analysis Peterson. Rock, and Taylor Creek Ravines ........ A-19
Appendix D: Significant Resource Area Map, Definitiorui. and List ........................................ A-29
Definitions.. .................... , ... u, .................... ,u,, ................. , .... uuun,,, ................ ,u,,, .. , ..................... A .. 29
Sigri:ificant Resource Areas (SRAs) ............................... · ......... ,u .. , ................................................ A-30
Appendix E: Estimation of Salmonid Production Potential and Costs of Fish Habitat
Restoration Opportunities .•..... ,n., ......... ,u •••.•••.• ~ ................................................................ A-3S
Ex.ec,utlve Stumn.a1'Y' .............................................. uu ............................................ ro .................... .A--35
Introduction .................................. ~ ...................................................... u .... , ........................................... ..A-38
Background ...................... , .................................................................................................... .A-39
Mctltod.su,oo•••uuu,,,..,,. ... ,,,u1,o,ru•uouuooo*•••••n•••••••n•ou~,.•••••••oo••n11•••nnHu'•••ouuo,01uu,1,1to•u••••••••••.A42
Results ................................................................... : ... 1 ... ,, ............................................................ .A-SS
Disc118Sion .............. u., .................................. · .. u ...................... ~ ........ ~ ....................... · ........... uh .. ,.A-58
C()nclusions ...... u .. ,u, ........... ~.,u .............. u .................................... ,u .... , ............. ttn,, .... u,, .................. A--65
Acknowledgmmts. .................................................................................................................. .A-66
Literature Citec:l ................................ u, ............................................................. ~ ••• , ................... A-66
List ofTables and Figures. ..................... , ...... ; ...... ::. ................. ~.~ ....................... u, .. : ............ '" . .-.•. A-69
Cedar River Habitat Opportunity Concept Reports ........... ; ................................................... A-89
Bibliogr.aphy .. ~ ..................... , .. u.,, ..................................... , ... u ................................................ : ........ A-14S
List of Acronyms
WMC Lower Cedar Riller BasiJI Plan iv
-•
11111
•
•
I
I
..
-
-,
t
t
II
I
..
Cedar River Mainstem
INTRODUCTION
The Mainstem subarea consists of the Cedar River valley floor and its steep walls, and the
surrounding plateau areas that drain small, unnamed tributaries. The vallsy extends roughly 17
miles from Renton to Landsburg, varying in width from a few hundred to a few thousand feet.
· While the Mainstem subarea represents less than 1 S% of the 66-square-mile basin planning area,
· it includes the largcat and most hazardous flood risk sites and is disproportionately rich in both
current and potential future aquatic resources. Therefore, actions in this subarea are given very
high priority.
Major human alterations to the Cedar River valley began in the late 1800s and have included
logging, railroad construction, agricultural land conversion, dam construction and water
diversion, redirection of the river's outlet, construction oflev~ and revetments, dredging, aod
more recently, urbanizatioIL These activities have had significant impacts both on flood risks and
aquatic habitat. Channelization of the river through Renton and construction of levees and
revetments along 14 of the 21 river miles in the Mainstem subarea have encouraged agricultural,
residential, and commercial development within the floodplain, placing more property at risk of
flood damage. ·
Flood-control projects have provided limited localized flood protection at the cost of aggravating
upstream and do.wnstream flood damages by removing floodplain storage and increasing flood
depths and velocities. To date, the most significant flooding damage has occurred in the City of
Renton (river mile [RM] 0.0-1.6), along lower Jones Road (RM S.4-6.0), upstream and
downstream of Cedar Grove Road (RM 10.6-12.0), along lower Bain Road (RM 14.6), and in the
neighbomood ofDorre Don (RM 15.8-16.4).
Aquatic habitats within the Mainstem subarea have been reduced significantly in both quantity
aod quality by logging, floodplain development, river engineering, and diversion of river flow.
Large woody debris recruitment has declined, meanders and side channels have been cut off, ·
riparian wetlands have been filled, the river has narrowed, and summer flows have been
depleted. Generally, these changes have tended to reduce the hydraulic complexity that supports
the wide variety of salmonid species and life stages that depend on the river.
The Mainstem subarea recommendations consist of capital improvement projects (CIPs) and
programs that focus mainly on the two primary, and often rel11,ted, issues of flood-damage
reduction and aquatic habitat restoration and enhancerqent. These recommendations strive to:
1. Remove or protect occupied structures from the most hazardous areas;
2. Modify or remove certain existing levees and revetments, allowing the river access to its
historical floodplains and restoring floodplain storage;
3. Protect. restore, and enhance existing aquatic habitat; and
4. Prevent siting of additional structures within hazardous areas .
3-5 . Chapter 3: Subarea Recommendations
These objectives are consistent with the goals and policies of the King County Flood Hazard -
Reduction Plan, which was adopted by the King County Council in 1993. In fact, the Mainstem
subarea recommendations follow many specific solutions outlined by the Flood Hazard
ReducJion Plan, and augment them by adding water quality and aquatic habitat restoration and
enhancement components to create a more comprehensive floodplain management program for
basin planning area.
As explained in "Mainstem Recommendations," under "Recommendations to Reduce Fl90d
Damage" in Chapter 2, properties proposed for acquisition would be acquired only on a
willing-seller basis. Landowners who choose not to sell to the County would not face any penalty
or loss of existing benefit as a result oflheir decision.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
See Chapter 4 for the complete text of all recommendations, the locations of which are shown on
Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 at the end of this section ..
Capital Improvement Projects
* Denotes Core Plan recommendations, which are those recommendations that would
accomplish, at a minimum, the major Plan goals (see Chapter 5).
• Rainbow Bend Flood-Dalllllge Reductioa/F1oodplaln Restoration (CIP 3108):
Approximately S5 mobile homes in the Cedar Grove Mobile Home Parle and nine nearby
permanent houses on the right bank between RM 10.8 and RM t 1.3, below Cedar Grove Road,
were damaged by fast, deep flood flows, erosion, and deposits of large debris during the
November 1990 flood. The pennanent houses are !!ubject to hazardous flows when the Rainbow
Bend levee overtops. The mobile home park, at the downstream, unleveed end of this reach,
experiences hazardous flooding during much smaller, more frequent events. Emergency access
to and egress from all houses in this reach are frequently blocked by flooding. This area is a
high-velocity floodway and presents serious threats to human safety. This recommendation
would purchase and remove all occupied structures from this reach and reestablish the
floodplain'& aquatic habitat and flood storage functiol!S, Because the mobile home park provides
affordable housing to low income families, and because King County policy requires re1ocation
assistance and replacement housing when displacements from below-market-rate housing are
unavoidable,' the Plan recommends offering these services, rather than a simple marltet-value
buyout, to the mobile home residents. A park closure plan would also be developed to include
owners and tenants in the planning, design. and implementation of this recommendation. A
potential relocation site is the adjacent Stoneway Sand and Gravel mine, once it has been
reclaimed.
* Dorre Don Flood-Damage Reduction/Floodplain Restoratioa (CIP 3102): Several houses,
a County road, and a County-maintained levee in this neighborhood. located on the right bank of
the Cedar River surrounding the railroad bridge at RM 16.4, have been damaged repeatedly by
• King Q)unty Comprehensive l'lan Policy R-108.
WMC Lawer Cedar River Basin Plan 3-6
•
,....
I
I
I
-
-
•
...
.J
-
debris and fast, deep floodwaters. The Basin Plan's highest-priority flood-damage reduction
recommendation would purchase and remove the 20 houses in the most hazardous locations,
eliminating the flood threat to these residents. It would also remove the upstream portion of the
Lower Dorre Don levee and restore approximately six acres of floodplain to its historic aquatic
habitat and floodwater storage functions. In addition, approximately 600 linear fel)t of Lower
Dorre Don Way would be elevated to continue to provide sole access to the remaining eight,
less-severely threatened houses.
"Elliot Bridge/Lower Jones Road Flood-Damage Reduction (CIP 3111): Below Elliot
Bridge (RM 5.4), two left-bank houses were inundated by water over three feet in depth during
.the November 1990 flood. Upstream, to RM 6.0, 22 houses between Jones Road and the Cedar
River experienced erosive, high-velocity flows as is common during large floods. Eighteen
houses on 156th Place SE are inaccessible when Jones Road floods, an approximately 2-year
occurrence, and 20 additional houses are exposed to less-hazardous flooding during large events.
This recommendation would purchase and remove the 24 houses in the most hazardous areas,
raise approximately 2,300 linear feet of Jones Road to. ensure access to 156th Place SE and to
reduce flood damage to the less-severely threatened houses, and restate up to 16 acres of flood
storage and habitat area.
* Ricardi Flood-Damage Reduction/Floodplain Restoration (CIP 3109): Two houses subject
to frequent hazardous flooding would be purchased and removed, and the area restored as open
space for aquatic habitat and floodwater storage. Nearly one-half of the estimated cost would be.
paid by federal and state matching funds •
• Byers Bend/Cedar Grove Road Flood-Damage Reduction (CIP 3107): Frequent and severe
flood damage to an entire neighborhood would be reduced or eliminated by removing up to eight
houses, raising an additional eight houses; improving the Byers Bend levee, and building an
overbank conveyance channel along Byers Road to carry floodwater safely back to the Cedar
River. ·
* Dorre Don Court Flood-Damage Reduction/Floodplain Restoration (CIP 3103): Three
houses subject to hazardous flooding would be removed and the area would be restored as
floodplain for aquatic habitat and floodwater storage.
• Lower Bain Road and Royal Arch Flood-Damage Reduction/Floodplain Restoration (CIP
3104): Between three and nine houses, typically flooded at about the 10-year event and damaged
by huardous flows during the November 1990 flood, would be removed and floodplain storage
and habitat would be reestablished.
• Maplewood Flood-Damage Reduction (CIP 3112): Approximately 60 houses in .the
Maplewood subdivision that are threatened with severe damage during the I 00.year flood would
be protected by the cons1ruction of a 1,200-foot-long levee (to a maximum height of
approximately four feet). As mitigation for this activity, a suitable project should be selected and
implemented from the mainstem. enhancement and restoration projects listed in basinwide
reconunendation (BW) 6 and Main stem recommendation (MS) 4 of this Plan.
• Jan Road Flood-Damage Reduction/Habitat Restoration (CIP 3106): Frequent damage to
roads and houses would be reduced and emergency access to 14 houses would be ensured by
3-7 . Chapter 3: Subarea Recommendations
ponstructing a stable overbank conveyance channel to safely direct .floodwatm overtopping the
Jan Road levee back to the Cedar River.
• Riverbend Mobile Home Park Revetment Modification (CIP 3110): The rock revetment on
the left bank of this constricted reach of the Cedar River would be recontoured using
bioengineering techniques to provide stability and additional conveyance and aquatic habitat• Up
to 19 mobile homes nearest the river would be moved or purchased and replaced.
• Dorre Don Way SE Elevation (Orchard Grove) (CIP 3101): Approximately 650 linear feet
ofDorre Don Way SE would be raised an average of two feet.to ensure access to 15 houses in
·the Orclwd Grove neighborhood currently cut off by floodwater at about the 10-year flood
event
' • Getcllman Levee Modlllcations (CIP 3105): Frequent damage to the Rhode levee, which
protects nearly 20 houses, would he reduced by moving the Getchman levee back from the, Cedar I
River and strengthening the faces of both structures using bioengineering techniques. One or two
house& at the downstream end of the Rhode levee would be removed. -
• Penon Revetment Modlllcatlons (CIP 3113): A private revetment would be rccontowed and
strengthened using bioengineering techniques to prevent continued release of large quantities of
sediment. In addition, a gravel mine-site and landslide scar would be stabilized with vegetation.
• Arcadill/Noble Flood and Erosion Dama1e Reduction (CIP 3100): One house.at the
downstream end of this frequently damaged revetment would be removed and up to 1,600 linear
feet of revetment would be modified using bioengineering techriiqDC!I,
Prognmmatlc Recommendations .
* Denotes Core Plan recommendations, which are those recommendations thst would
accomplish, at a minimum. the major Plan goals (see Chapter 5).
* Open Space Acquisition (BW 4): Sites in the Cedar River floodplain have been identified and
prioritized for acquisition as open space to allow protection or restoration of their aquatic habitat
. value. See Tahlcs 4-1 and 4-2 in Chapter 4. ·
* Aq•atlc Resoarce Mit11atlon Bank Sites (BW 6): This recommendation would allow public
agencies to fulfill their mainstem mitigation obligations in high-quality mitigation bank sites
away ftom project sites, where such mitigation may be less effective.
* Road/Urban Rnnoff Water Quality Reco~eadations (BW !>): The drainage facilities of
1-405 and numerous County roads would be maintai,ned and retrofitted with water quality .
controls to reduce the impacts of contaminated road runoff. · ·
* Water Quality Treatment Standards (BW 12): Sphagnum bog water quality treatment
standards would be applied to all development in catchment MS 16 that drains to Wetland 38 to
• Bioengineering technique11 me materials such u rock, timbers, soil, plant!, and natural fabrics to reduce erosion
and stabilize steep slopes.
WMC Lawer Cedar River Bann Plan 3-8
•
I
I -
I
I
maintain the health of this wetland. Regionally significant resource area (RSRA) stream
protection standards would reduce concentrations of toxic metals in catclunents draining to river
-reaches at RM 9.6-10.7, RM 15.7-15.9, and wall base tributaries at RM 11.5 and RM 14.9.
""'!
• Basin Plan Evaluation (BW 13): Evaluate implementation and effectiveness of Plan
recommendations.
* Forest Incentive Prognm (BW 23): An incentive program to encourage landowners to retain
their forest in the rural areas of the basin will be implemented in order to ensure that the Cedar
River has clean, stable streams. Incentives will include tax relief, direct technical assistance,
forest stewardship classes, a small-scale forestry demonstratioo site, and individual recognition
of good forest stewards.
• Masonry Dam Operations Stady (MS 1): Masoruy Dam operations would be analyzed in
cooperation with the Seattle Water Department and affected parties for the purpose of
developing flood season operating guidelines that enhance flood control, assure power
generation, and improve water supply availability for both instream and consumptive uses.
• Renton Reach Capacity (MS 2): The ongoing City ofRenton/Anny Coips of Engineers study
of flood-damage reduction alternatives in the lower Cedar River channel should be supported.
Neighboring jurisdictions, tribes, and resource and permitting agencies would be encouraged to
participate.
1 • * Seek State and Federal Funding for Flood-Hazard Reduction Measures (MS ~): King
County, acting as "local sponsor," will continue to request state and federal aid to help reduce I flood damage along the Cedar River.
I
•
I
!
• Mainstem Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Program (MS 4): Where consistent with
state and tribal goals. aquatic habitat and floodplain areas would be restored or enhanced. Types
of projects may include construction of ponds and channels and removal or reconfiguration of
levees and revetments. Many such sites are listed in Chapter 4, and they will be more fully
described in a separate teclmical document.
* Channel Migration Hazard Areas ~ 6): The risk of severe hazards to human life would be
reduced by the limitation of new development in areas where the Cedar River channel is most
likely to migrate in the next 100 years.
* Floodplain Mapping Analysis, Revision, and Distribution (MS 7): Existing County and
federal floodplain maps should be revised to reflect the latest floodplain infonnation, and gages
along the Cedar River should be replaced, augmented, or recalibrated to aid in future map
revisiom.
* Flood Education (MS 8): Reduce flood damage by making floodplain residents more aware of
safe evacuation routes and the extent of the floodplain, and by teaching them flood protection
and damage reduction techniques. This recommendation would expand existing county and City
of Renton public education programs in these a.mas.
3.9 · Chapter 3: Subarea Recommendations
* Debris Flow Protection fur Mobile Home Park (MS 12): Owners of a mobile home park on
Tributary 0313, which is at risk of severe damage from debris flows, would be provided with a
list of alternative private actions that could be taken to reduce their risk.
• Salmonid Productivity (BW1 7 and 8*): These recommendations would support an ongoing
study to detennine the causes of salmon decline, and would continue to support a temporary
sockeye hatchery at Landsburg, and reserve the option to use County open space at RM 9.0 for
possible future development as a spawning channel. A final decision to construct a spawning
channel at this site will depend on results of the Lake Washington Ecological Studies and
additional evaluation of the environmental impact of a spawning channel at this site relative to
· others, and comparison to other production methods that could produce the desired sockeye fry
production with less cost and environmental impact. The final decision will be made by the
Cedar River Sockeye Spawning Channel Policy Committee, or its designee.
• Stormwater Quallty (MS 9, 10*, 11): Extensive source control strategies for cleanup efforts
and elimination of stonnwater pollutants are recommended for industrial and commercial lll'CllS
(MS 10). Stormwater discharges from major highways and the Renton Municipal Airport would
be addressed by National Pollutant Diseharge Elimination System industrial stonnwater
pollution prevention plans (MS 9, MS 11) and the W8$hington State Department of Ecology
Highway Runoff Program.
• Remove Qualifying Structures from Haurdous Areas (BW 1): Occupied structures at high
risk of hazardous flooding. and not included in the CIPs abovi,, would be removed from the
floodplain on a willing..aeller basis as they are identified and as funding is available.
• Reduce Less-Hazardous Flood Damage (BW 2): Occupied structures at risk of
less-hazardous flooding, many of which are identified in the full text of this reconunendation
found in Chapter 4, may be eligi1,le for teclmical and limited financial assistance for removal or
other floodproofing. ·
. .
• Modify Levees and Revetments {MS 5): Selected County-maintained levees and revetments
would be modified, relocated, or removed. to reestablish aquatic habitat and increase the storage
volume of the Ooodplain. ·
• Aquifer Protection (BW 17): Aquifer recharge and groundwater quality would be protected as
a potable drinking water source.
..
• Urban Stormwater Management (BW 18): To promote more efficient use of land in the
Renton Urban Growth Area, public/private partnCl'Sbips would be encouraged to build regional ·
stonnwatea-quality and quantity treatment facilities ..
WMC I.ower Cedar Jlh,er Basin Plan 3-10
•
•
I
I
I
-
~·
' ' .. -• •
Ill
-. -·i...:., -~-' ~ ,.
( , __
;
I ; ""-·-, .... / J '\\-... , , 1\ .... ;r \ t i I ~ ~' • 4' • • •.. Ja,~-=----~..._
I '·.. ~ ' y· \ .. .... \ ~\ .• :' t. • I
I \ I •
I .. ,: \~ \ ,, •,,. \
. • ·o " • , " . I I I \. ' • I • ·~
i -\ .. • •. ~\ \ \\ o' , ~ ', ~:>.;·\() , •.•.•• , ',· . ij ,t,,41,
: , # I MS7 ,\0 ,,, ......
l '\. °' -, I ,1~~oh I I ' " :,{•~'; I ••""' '
V t. °'o ' .,• t fHN10U ~, .... ·! I "' ... ,-\ I ···\:•.. I • ' X I • ••
,, ;, .. :•·u•
' 'l_,
i c.;.,.•c:i., ...... _, 3113, 1 ,,., 1' 7 • 1 I r-·-~ .. .,.."g ... , ·-·-_I I \ "' ~~ I • I 1,
't ! ,.J .. \>-·---~\I MS3 : , " .... ., ,, f,,' • · ,, ,.,, ",• J ~ -:
J ._r11 J uo-1 MS6 I ,... ..,_ .<-.,,,,. t. t " ,-•-·--• _,. 1,/,. .·. \o '\ I \' o .,,. I ~ j ·,_j 'I.\ ,.,,,. o'y{,~' .-SITE \~t "',,.. I ~u MS8 .,,,. I \ I ' / ~ ...... ~ .... ,"'\/ 1 I ' ~ ""°' ,,. I .,,., I ' j, -· ' / • "~ ' -.. I 101 ;" I • ~
; o ·,},-, \ ( { ;; ... t\ ~~ ~OJ ~ ..... '......_, I • ~ ~ ... ~ / I ,.,.O'
I I ' I '' . , •. -~ / • '<, t i ;.. ,. . 1 t \ ··... ...... \ '\ ..._
' ' • •"o ' I t, ..... ! l :~ ! f..... \ l •, \ \ .. ~ • t 2 ····--::! \\ I '. .' I ) -''! •. :1 ' ,·
locolion Map
~c~
• ,' -·-• \~ 0) , ~ .. • 8t 30 1i ( ,'"4 .
I ,----·-· , .~ \. , \ \ a .-,-. ..,
~. 'i ., \ · /
1
""• I• , ; I .-·-/ 'I • ', ~ · I '•"-3 08 ,., ;
,;_ / '\ o.,. 114 31 .... t " • -.......... o I e ," .,...----~.,. "'-I 1 ·--·---• I _, r.
0
, ,~
• j AREA ' • 1 ., ••••,1'1 1/ "(> l
· r.==·---·-·------···-· _ , ~ i ,,, j , "''-':" > •. /w.''
... 0 , ......... .,,, t ,. 1 u \ . ProgrommallcRecommendotl0111 ~ .,. "'\. -~' \~n ..;•\oc ~ .,
' . .,,. , "~"-r-:: """ BWI tol!'11-.:,.,o.....,•;;,.gS'ri.<Vtifl:c-,.K,za,,.4«,i,ilJt.lJ 2 '! I ' ........ M~I ',. '. -';' t,
\I ll.W2 P,.J.x.ttn-HJ.ur,i_"'J1P.c«lf'o"'o~ ~ ;; j \ "5-H_!~/ 3107• ,9 \.; . ,
11
· a1v4 r,,.,.,,.,1o,eo,,5po-:,,oi,,·,;,.,,, ~ \ ~-
1
,
1
~ /
SW b .Aq.,o•.c ln,vc~ M~•.,:,11 {(,,-.t S:'es =>
0
, 1, ) \~ ,
BWl .L.r.},:;~S.,i·r:or:Jfrr:,&.,:.t.:,f";//-tc1~~·u ~· \ , t ,\ \
8W8 lol:tWc),~-~9!:<'iS\JtJ , , '\ ,... ~] .., .-'• .,,. ... • ~/ ~.
:. SWJO OrS.ttSl;,.cS1,1~:nPo~~. -----· -~ <>;' o'I ·.·/ , \ ,, • • .-:~ ,. •••• I , ~ Loi< ~ '). • ~ .. _... Ol '\
j &W l I V,tt•xlKt~':-~ fro:~•• _ _..,. ~ :::, I '/ o?-t,,'-'
8\\"12 ~\'a-wr0,,d.!'/1tt.ll'>'l:,1'S~·&3•d1.&1'd:t-.1'IT-!'',1
--·-.......... -:C ~\..,?, ,<;:, ';---/ /" ,'i 8WIJ &,J·11N.,,,,£,0s'i.,,,&;i,-, . . . 1 (' _-~o,, -. .,;-..,..-/;':;, ,· ,.. .. MS12 .c, u,
j; BW14 Wa-.v:ftJ.C,.-~..t,EcJ.x,Y(ll';C""..::P,ii<~, • ..;},tt.rr--t',
1
• '\,. fl'\!~.( ·\~ ".,
1
" 1i 0:!•1.~
· iw15 C1:d.,,£,.~(<'<. ... .,d \ '}., ""~ 1 3105
1
1-\ \ i · 6}\' /6 &1t1 S~)",O':Jf,,~"<3T. '"~,.,!------'ti IIC> 1
1
1
. P.W t8 L~bo-i $t.-rr.~-::-'E-1.'~~'"-f,..-~,._: ~. ~J'•.?! \ ... ...,
4
"~ . ' •· ,-..!'. -,,
.. ~W 19 ~~'t'.,i..-n/1)u,·'~··,St:.-d.n/1 ~.l(Co".:f . .,..:!.·-'l t I ", .• ,. .f ---.,)a t!t;·-1
:, 1~.t1'0 r"-!~,-F.<-o 'IU Dtn1C>.J,d-.o~ \ , : , \' '· 1,.,, 1, ,.,,,f ... •1.h~DK-kge • '., • r'
31V,\' ,,., .. ,,"'''''!"'";!;·d •• ~-.. -# ·"' "" /
Bw :~· f,.:i, ... l; -,,d M:J,"'~-"·'.:i'.Y c .. ~.1-.,
1
$t,,,h-J} , ·:
111
•. • , --; -----:--,1 • ....
iii\';:,: f,.Jorh·~c.•,, F,,:,'f;:i-,, I l • \ · ~-,
. ' .. , ,., t ,c ...
•.-;; l .'/c,,,.,ec,. !,o. \ ' '·., '• ) ,. :, 3 .<,,,I ;,,. " ; id,,,.,, f_,;., •,.-fsyd•'o;,·.1',,.,.,.,, • "' ""• ,
,.,..,.,H.·'f:J \ MS13 w 'lit~ / ,.·,,,,,d<,h· '(•\·.-,•.,.· o·, l•·o·.-,,, ' • \ ,•.:!,~
... :~
MS.
,.-:$
1,:5 e
,•,'.$ ,;
i.·;S I,)
•.:s 11
•/{ '
...... ...., .. ) !!',{i'; .;·,::J ·~.,"?'~·\ \. 7$ " 1'
~b,.-~.,1:.r~·:1,Ho:.,·.J.t..-.,.,~ , ,,. •,',, ,,':16
i!,,J;•o,.'i~,,-·;;<,d;(> ,, .... ,,., ,.,,,.,, .. _,,, I \ · '•'<-, ,' /
r-,.~:)i5 .'--:i5"·.:,. :,• ...... ~ ... ~.J·-:1·1~--r-~. ,_.. _,.-.,. ....... _,-,.,
:i•~y.,.,,.:1·~; Q •. J'·', · 'r-:o.·i~.:/C,·.i:"'-t·.;.::./ t.-~~; .. .. • • ....__
!.·,.;;·~"·'~ '-J,J.'i .,.-:i.·P-:::',, S·:··"·,'r.'!'=' /,
1
1
I
,.,,·Ji.J..:yy, •, ~--'-,~' ~" .
P,!. ,.,,-... ,,,,,c,-,c. h .','.~.,,e.,-, ,,.) / ••. ~.. • : ·· .... ·. =·
I -: ::__.:.: :,_-:..:...:.. ·...=----· .. -... •• '
l 1
j I
I I
I I i '
1 ·
I I
I !
11
i I
I I . I
I
I I I l
!
!
!
!
I
I
I
l f
J I
i
!
' !
i I
-~..c.....o.-=-..,
Figure 3·3
Cedar River
Mainstem Reach 2
Cedar River Basin Planning Area
Recommendations
.2~!.. Stream & Slreom Number
-pP~ --Unclassified Stream
.. lake/River
"• River Mile (RM)
30 -Welland & Welland Number
@-Clo" I We~ond & Welland Number
• _. ._ .. Subbo,i n Boundary
... ., -Cokhment Boundary
MS I Co1chn1enl Number
--Urban Growth Area Boundory (os of 6/98)
,: .:::] Incorporated Area (as of 6/98)
3122 Capitol Improvement Project locotion & Number
Programmatic Recommendolions:
:~7-.: MS 6: Channel Migtolion Hozord Ateos
liJ MS 12: Debris Flow Proleclioo for Mobile
Home Parl:.
N
* "
®e1
'C. (g\l ....
1,2 I f.U•
M•pp,odumlbJ:
V-uu•I Co1111111Unlution & CIS Uni 1,
Publi(Out,,e,chStftion
~N'..ttnnUM w,