Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc~::---=--:.:.:-::::::::::::::~~=-~--=,- ____________ ---------- Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2802 Wetmore Avenue Suite 220 Everett, WA 98201 425.339.8266 Renton Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis Jurisdiction: City of Renton March 2015 C GTC #12-163 '.j Renton Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................. 1 2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. I 3. TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................ 4 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................... 4 5. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 7 5.1 Turning Movement Calculations ...................................................................................... 7 5.2 Level of Service Calculations ........................................................................................ 11 5.3 Access Channelization Analysis .................................................................................... 11 6. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 12 7. PARKING ............................................................................................................................. 12 8. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ................................................................................. 13 9. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Development Trip Distribution AM Peak-Hour ............................................................. 5 Figure 3: Development Trip Distribution PM Peak-Hour .............................................................. 6 Figure 4: 2014 Existing Turning Movements ................................................................................. 8 Figure 5: 2016 Baseline Turning Movements ................................................................................ 9 Figure 6: 2016 Future with Development Turning Movements ................................................... 10 LIST OF TABLES Table I: Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................. 3 Table 2: Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................................ 4 Table 3: Level of Service Summary ............................................................................................. 11 ATTACHMENTS Trip Generation Calculations ......................................................................................................... A Count Data, Pipeline Data and Turning Movement Calculations ................................................... B Level of Service Calculations ......................................................................................................... C WSDOT Channelization Guidelines .............................................................................................. D Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com March 2015 GTC#I4-194 Renton Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis 1. DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFICATION Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (GTC) has been retained to provide a traffic impact analysis for Renton Residence Inn development. This report is intended to provide the City of Renton with the necessary traffic generation, trip distribution and intersection analysis to facilitate their review of the development. The Renton Residence Inn development is located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard, north of Coulon Beach/Houser Way, in the City of Renton. A site vicinity map is included in Figure I. The development is proposed to consist of a hotel facility with 146 rooms and limited amenities. Brad Lincoln, responsible for this report and traffic analysis, is a licensed professional engineer (Civil) in the State of Washington and member of the Washington State section of!TE. 2. METHODOLOGY The analysis contained in this report is based on scoping discussions with City of Renton staff and reports completed for the hotel development to the north. The development's access and the adjacent intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way have been analyzed. The level of service analysis has been performed in accordance with the 20 IO Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service (LOS). Road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over-capacity conditions. A summary of the level of service criteria is included in Table I. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com March 2015 GTC #14-194 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS RENTON RESIDENCE INN 146ROOMS CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SITE STUDY INTERSECTIONS N 03127115 NE24TH ST NE 20'THSI NE161HST I NE 12THST 900 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#14-194 FIGURE1 SITE VICINITY MAP Renton Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis Table 1: Level of Service Criteria Intersection Control Delay Level of 1 Expected (Seconds per Vehicle) U nsignalized and Service Delay Roundabout Signalized Intersections Intersections A Little/No Delav <IO <10 B Short Delays >10 and <15 >IO and <20 C Average Delavs >15and<25 >20 and <35 D Lon~ Delays >25 and <35 >35 and <55 E V erv Lon2 Delays >35 and <50 >55 and <80 F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80 The level of service at two-way stop-controlled intersections is based on the average delay for the stopped approach with the highest delay. The level of service at all-way stop-controlled intersections and signalized intersections is based on the average delay for all vehicles. The level of service analysis for unsignalized and signalized intersections has been performed utilizing the Synchro 8. Build 806 software. The trip generation calculations for the development are based on average trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012). 1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010. LOS A: Free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection). LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOSE: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. 2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 3 March 2015 GTC #14-194 Renton Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis 3. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation calculations for the Renton Residence Inn development have been performed utilizing data published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Trip Generation Manual, 9'" Edition, Volume 2: Data (2012). The average trip generation rates for ITE Land Use Code 310, hotel, have been used for the trip generation calculations. The trip generation of the 146-room Renton Residence Inn development is summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Trip Generation Summary Average Daily Trips AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips 146 Room Hotel Inbound I Outbound I Total Inbound I Outbound I Total Inbound I Outbound I Total Generation Rate 8 .1 7 trips per room 0 .5 3 trips per room 0.60 trips per room Splits 50% I 50% I 100% 59% I 41% I 100% 51% I 49% I 100% Trips 597 I 596 I ,,, 93 45 I 32 I 77 45 I 43 I 88 The Renton Residence Inn development is anticipated to generate approximately I, 193 average daily trips with 77 AM peak-hour trips and 88 PM peak-hour trips. 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The Renton Residence Inn development is proposed to have one access to N Lake Washington Boulevard. The distribution of trips is based on surrounding uses and similar uses in the area of the development. It is anticipated that 55% of the development's trips will travel along 1-5, thirty- five percent to and from the south and twenty percent to and from the north. Approximately 25% of the development's trips are anticipated to travel to and from the west. ten percent to and from local areas and fifteen percent along Logan Avenue N. It is estimated that I 5% will travel to and from the east along NE Park Drive. The remaining 5% of the development's trips will travel to and from the north along N Lake Washington Boulevard. Detailed trip distributions for the AM peak-hour and PM peak-hour are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 4 March 2015 GTC #14-194 c-, <-~~~ 7 ~/ 5 ~; GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS RENTON RESIDENCE INN LEGEND AWDT 146ROOMS />M _____. PEAK \_ CITY OF RENTON ..,.-"' (25: , __ / --------·~ N 03/27/15 i' \_ i~c~I 9 I I NE 20THST NE 16TH ST NE 12TH ST 900 /,~ §! ;;f ! ! \ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY I GTC#14-194 I ) FIGURE2 NEW SITE TRAFFIC (DAJLY/l'EAK HOUR) DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION TRIP DIS1RIBUT10N % AM PEAK-HOUR r;:;,c--. ~---~----;/-//-/---------, /JI/ ~ . I I ! GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS RENTON RESIDENCE INN 146ROOMS CITY OF RENTON LEGEND AWDT PM~PEAK (25: -..: ___ / • !tg(~) • NEW SITE TRAFFIC (DAILY/PEAK HOUR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION % NE 24TH ST w z ~ i N 03/27/15 z ~ i NE 12TH ST TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#14-194 FIGURE3 DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PM PEAK-HOUR Renton Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis 5. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS During the scoping process with City of Renton staff it was determined that the adjacent intersection of N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way and the site access intersection are required to be analyzed. The off-site intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way is conditioned to be improved, channelization and signalization improvements, by the Southport development. These improvements are anticipated to be completed before the Renton Residence Inn development is constructed. Therefore the intersection level of service analysis for the 20 I 6 baseline and 20 I 6 future with development conditions include the planned channelization and signalization improvements. Level of service analysis has not been performed at other adjacent intersections since the development will not increase the existing volumes by 5%. Analysis has only been performed the PM peak-hour since this is when the development is anticipated to generate the highest number of trips and previous analysis of surrounding intersections shows that intersections in the vicinity of the development operate at a lower level of service during the PM peak-hour. The PM peak-hour has therefore been analyzed to determine the highest impact of the development during the time when the intersections operate at their lowest level. 5.1 Turning Movement Calculations The existing PM peak-hour turning movements at the study intersections were collected by the independent count firm JDAX in October 2014. The existing turning movements at the study intersections are shown in Figure 4. The future analysis has been performed for the year 2016, which is when the development is anticipated to be constructed. The 2016 baseline turning movements have been calculated by applying a 1 % annually compounding growth rate to the 2014 existing turning movements and adding the following pipeline projects: • Hawk's Landing -Hotel development • Quendall Terminals -Residential and commercial development • Southport Development -Residential and commercial development • Renton Hotel -Hotel development The analysis for the Quendall Terminals and Southport developments both included multiple development scenarios. The highest trip generating scenario, which resulted in the highest impacts to the study intersections, were included for both developments. For the Southport Development, the volumes are based on the 1999 EIS. Subsequently, the trip generation of the Southport Development has been decreased. However, the trip generation from the 1999 EIS has been utilized for the analysis in this report to represent the highest potential impact. Trip assignments for each of the pipeline developments are included in the attachments. The 2016 baseline turning movements at the study intersections are shown in Figure 5. The 2016 future with development turning movements at the study intersections have been calculated by adding the development's trips to the 2016 baseline turning movements. The 2016 future with development turning movements are shown in Figure 6. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 7 March 2015 GTC #14-194 GIBSON TRAFFIC \_ CONSULTANTS RENTON RESIDENCE INN 146ROOMS "'---C_ITY_O_F_R_EN_T_O_N_. XX)( • N 03/27/15 NE 24TH ST NE 20JH SI z ~ I -=NE~1STH~S~T -/-----WI PM PEAK-HOUR 1\JRNING MOVEMENTS NE 12TH ST TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#14-194 FIGURE4 2014 EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENTS PM PEAK-HOUR ~I GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS RENTON RESIDENCE INN 146ROOMS CITY OF RENTON XXX • PM PEAK-HOUR TURNING MOIIE!ENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#14-194 FIGURES 2016 BASELINE TURNING MOVEMENTS PM PEAK-HOUR N30THST z ~' ii GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS RENTON RESIDENCE INN 146ROOMS 1 CITY OF RENTON '--~------ XXX • N 03127/15 ---+------ ___ NE24THSL _ PM PEAK-HOUR nJRNING MO\/Er.ENTS NE16THST I I NE 12TH ST TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#14-194 FIGURES 2016 FUTURE WITH DEVELOPMENT TURNING MOVEMENTS PM PEAK-HOUR Renton Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis 5.2 Level of Service Calculations The 2014 existing level of service calculations have been performed utilizing the ex1stmg channelization, existing intersection control and peak-hour factors and heavy vehicle factors from the 2014 turning movement counts. The intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way will be improved to include additional channelization and a signal. The 2016 baseline and 2016 future with development conditions include these improvements, which are the improvements conditioned to the Southport Development. It is important to note that the volumes from the Southport Development included in the analysis are conservatively high. The level of service summary is included in Table 3. Table 3: Level of Service Summary 2014 Existing 2016 Baseline 2016 Future w Development Intersection Conditions Conditions Conditions LOS Delav LOS Delay LOS Delav I. N Lake Washington Boulevard at B 12.5 sec E 70.4 sec E 74.9 sec Coulon Beach/Houser Wav 2. N Lake Washington Boulevard at C 21.7sec Site Access ------------ The analysis shows that the intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way will operate at LOS E with the conservatively high Southport Development volumes, regardless of whether the Renton Residence Inn is constructed. It is important to note that the actual impacts of the Southport Development are anticipated to be lower and the intersection is likely to operate with less delay with the actual reduced impacts of the Southport Development. The level of service calculations are included in the attachments. 5.3 Access Channelization Analysis The Renton Residence Inn development is proposed to have one access to N Lake Washington Boulevard near the middle of the property, north of the railroad crossing arm. Currently, the posted speed limit is 25 in the site vicinity and there is one lane in each direction. The access to the Renton Residence Inn development has been analyzed to determine if inbound left-tum or right-tum channelization warrants are met. The left-tum channelization has been analyzed based on the Exhibit 1310-?a from the WSDOT Design Manual, July 2013. The right-tum channelization has been analyzed based on Exhibit 1310-11 from the WSDOT Design Manual, July 2013. The channelization analysis has been performed for the 2016 future with development conditions utilizing the turning movements shown in Figure 5. The analysis shows that a southbound left-tum lane is not required. However, a right-turn pocket or taper could be warranted. It is important to note that the access analysis was performed without a northbound right-tum taper or pocket and the access was shown to operate acceptably and that the WSDOT guidelines, included in the attachments, state that right-turn channelization should be considered for several reasons, one of which is maintaining level of service. Although the volume meets the warrant, a right-tum pocket or taper is not required to maintain the level of service and Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 11 March 2015 GTC #14-194 Renton Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis is therefore not a requirement. The channelization warrants are included in the attachments, as well as the WSDOT right-turn guidelines. 6. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Pedestrian generation rates for a hotel are not published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, similar to how the vehicle trip generation rates are published. Although the exact number of pedestrians that will be generated by the development is not known, it is anticipated that the Renton Residence Inn will generate pedestrian traffic. It is anticipated that this pedestrian traffic will be minimal since a significant percentage of the hotel visitors are anticipated to be business related, which are not anticipated to create pedestrian trips. However, the remaining visitors, which will be a mix of vacationers, travelers and others, could generate pedestrians. The existing pedestrian facilities in the area have therefore been inventoried. There are bicycle lanes on each side of N Lake Washington Boulevard. There is curb, gutter and sidewalk north of the site and will be constructed as part of the Renton Hotel development, which is located directly adjacent to the north. South of the site, between the site and the Coulon Beach/HouserWay intersection, there are not any pedestrian facilities, but there is a large gravel area. The Renton Residence Inn will provide standard frontage improvements that will connect to the curb, gutter and sidewalk north of the site. Additionally, the intersection improvements for N. Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way are likely to include pedestrian facilities that could connect to the Renton Residence Inn frontage improvements. However, channelization plans for the intersection have not been made available and it is not known what the extent of the intersections improvements. 7. PARKING The Renton Residence in is proposed to consist of 146 rooms and is proposing to provide 146 parking spaces. This parking supply will therefore meet the required I: I parking supply required by the City of Renton. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 12 March 2015 GTC #14-194 Renton Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis 8. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES The level of service analysis shows that the Renton Residence Inn development wi II not cause the adjacent intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way to operate at a deficient level of service and will only increase the delay at the intersection by approximately 6% and account for approximately 3% of the PM peak-hour trips at the intersection. Additionally, the development is not anticipated to generate a significant number of pedestrians. The Renton Residence Inn development should therefore not be conditioned to provide off-site improvements. The development will be required to provide the appropriate frontage improvements and payment of the City of Renton transportation impact fee will be required. Currently, the fee is $1,464.44 as of January I, 2015. This equates to a total transportation impact fee of$2I3,808.24 for the 146- room hotel development based on the current fees. The actual transportation impact fee will be based on the fee in effect when a complete building permit application is filed. 9. CONCLUSIONS The Renton Residence Inn is proposed to consist of 146 rooms and limited amenities. The development is anticipated to generate I, 193 average daily trips with 88 PM peak-hour trips. The development is not anticipated to cause the off-site intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way to operate at a deficient level of service and should therefore not be conditioned to provide any off-site improvements. An inbound right-tum pocket or taper could be considered, although it is not required to allow the access to operate at an acceptable level of service. The current transportation impact mitigation fees total $213,808.24; however, the actual fee will be determined when a complete building permit application is filed. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 13 March 2015 GTC #14-194 Trip Generation Calculations A Trip Generation for: Weekday (a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT) Gross Trips ITE Trip % % ln+Out LAND USES VARIABLE LU code Rate IN OUT (Total) Hotel 146 rooms 310 8.17 50% 50% 1193 Totals 1193 > Renton Residence Inn GTC#14-194 Internal TOTAL Crossover %of Trips ln+Out Gross ln+Out Trips (Total) (Total) 0% 0 1193 0 1193 NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW LINK LINK %of ln+Out %of ln+Out ln+Out Ext. Ext. In Out In Out In Out Trips (Total) Trips (Total) (Total) 0% 0 0% 0 1193 0 0 0 0 597 596 0 0 1193 0 0 0 0 597 596 Renton Residence Inn GTC#14-194 Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM (a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak Hour NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Internal TOTAL PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW Crossover LINK LINK ITE Trip % % ln+Out %of Trips ln+Out %of ln+Out %of ln+Out ln+Out LAND USES VARIABLE LU Rate IN OUT (Total) Gross ln+Out (Total) Ext. (Total) Ext. (Total) (Total) In Out In Out In Out code Trips (Total) Trips Trips Hotel 146 rooms 310 0.53 59% 41% 77 0% 0 77 0% 0 0% 0 77 0 0 0 0 45 32 Totals 77 0 77 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 45 32 > Renton Residence Inn GTC#14-194 Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM (a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak Hour NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Internal TOTAL PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW Crossover LINK LINK ITE Trip % % ln+Out %of Trips ln+Out %of ln+Out %of ln+Out ln+Out LAND USES VARIABLE LU Gross ln+Out Ext. Ext. In Out In Out In Out code Rate IN OUT (Total) Trips (Total) (Total) Trips (Total) Trips (Total) (Total) Hotel 146 rooms 310 0.60 51% 49% 88 0% 0 88 0% 0 0% 0 88 0 Q Q Q 45 43 Totals 88 Q 88 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 45 43 ;,- Count Data, Pipeline Data and Turning Movement Calculations B www.idaxdata.com LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD um{ HOWSER WAY ~ Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM z 0 Peak Hour: 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM b ~1 r; z Jo :i: U) ~ UJC> .. ~~ "' "' "' N N J l L. HOWSER WAY J.ocrn~~ 126 L 0 . A ~ ~ 8 ...J TEV: 901 -~ ~ * 8 o ~ 8 -PHF: 0.90 r ~ Jo ~§ §~ 97 81 • 42 foo.~r I ., t ,.. ... "' UJZC> HV%: PHF ::! ;'; "o> :'i>-~ ""' EB 0.0% 0.87 . ~l r~ z WB o1) :i: U) NB 0.2% 0.86 ~ SB 0.6% 0.91 TOTAL 0.3% 0.90 Two-Hour Count Summaries COULON BEACH HOWSER WAY LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD Interval 15-mln Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 3 16 0 0 0 25 74 5 8 69 1 201 4:15 PM 1 1 18 0 0 0 24 89 2 8 65 1 209 4:30 PM 2 0 21 0 0 0 16 83 0 4 63 0 189 4:45 PM 0 2 25 0 0 0 14 75 0 9 65 2 192 791 5:00PM 2 3 23 0 0 0 29 75 0 7 68 2 209 799 5:15PM 1 2 23 0 0 0 29 91 0 12 70 0 228 818 879 5:45PM 2 1 18 0 0 0 25 84 2 5 75 2 214 901 Count Total 11 14 161 0 0 0 200 667 12 58 580 9 1,692 Peak Hr 8 8 81 0 0 0 121 346 5 29 298 5 901 Note. Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB 4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4:45 PM 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 5:00 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 5:15PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5:45PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 Count Total 1 0 6 3 10 8 10 Peak Hr 0 0 1 2 3 6 7 Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 Bicycles NB SB Total 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 4 2 1 4 4 0 5 3 2 12 10 11 39 I 9 8 30 I East 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) West 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 North South Total 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 7 10 0 3 5 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com B-1 N.T.S. N. 36th Sl 1-405 -percent d1Sb1bution -daily trips (XX) -AM peak hour b'ips [XX] -PM pea. hourtrlps ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT I-----------, ~------------1 ,.~·i:::;.,."=~~1 FIGURE 4 Hawk,t..ndmg•Hotoi Seattle, WA 98109 Renton. WA. Pogo F--4 B-2 QuendJII Tenninals DEIS Renron, WA T ransportadon Engineering NolthWest, LLC n 405 NB lbmpl / NE 44th St (4S) .. ) (50( ,,.-A J (50)40~, (230) ·,o..,,..~ Figure 9 i t ... 45(45) • """"' t 20 (20) Transportation Impact Study 405SBbnps/NE44thSt Legend t XX A.M. Peak Hour Project Trip (XX) P.M. p.,k Hour Protect T~p Project Trip Assignment (Without 1-405 lmprovments) Quendall Terminals DEIS Renton, WA ~ Transportation Engineering Nort11West. LLC Page 19 December 2, 20 I 0 B-3 --- I -• ii I ii I 1111 • I I I I I I I I I I 900 ENTRANCO Soi B-4 !O ' (190)1688) 0 (21) 98 284 'l_ 698 (354) 41 ) (1C7) 184-' (45) 19-' (856) 382-t G 0 (114) 125 ) +-449 (126) (361) 149--+ (136) 55 -----;. (315) 131t (225) 94 t 0 0 I (1) r4 (2) I 2 I ) ( (11) 1-----;. 1 (11) e CD (14) (5) 18 18 ) +---23 ()) ) (34) 18---,. (5) 7 _J (11) 1--+ J (18) 10t 1port EIS ,,...----_, \ I 882 J (<61) +-134 (67) \ 315 (159) -<-2 (1) +---5 (2) Figure 12 2004 Plan B 8 i (923)401~ 927 (474) 0 (21) 41 l i 18 (34) 0 +---2 (1) (2) 0 _J (9) 1--+ __J Legend xxx c A.M. Peak Hour (xxx) = P.M. Peak Hour Nole: lnthedislribution shown,pass· llytripsaremcludedmthesitetnps, wh1chmayresultinashiftoftraffic fromonemovementloanolherand mayresull1nane\rncreaseor decreaseoffuturetolclllnps Site Trip Dis1ribution 8-5 I \_ RENTON AVES GIBSON TRAFFIC RENTON HOTEL 125 ROOMS CITY OF RENTON N 30TH ST S 2ND ST CONSULTANTS I LEGEND AWDT PM<( >-PEAK 25 ', 5 NEW SITE TRAFFIC (DAILYIPEAK HOUR) 7 'N 20 ,.: 7 TRIP DISTRIBUTION % N 06/27/14 Ii fil TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC #12-163 FIGURE2 DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PM PEAK-HOUR B-6 _,,,/ Synchro ID Existing Counts Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Year 1011412014 Data Source· IDAX Total Pipeline Trips Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Future without Development Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Year 2016 Growth Rate "' 1 0% Years of Growth "' Total Growth"' 1.0201 Development Trips Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Future with Development Average Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 Lake Wash Blvd N @ Coulon __JI 332 29 '6861 s 1 '" 1 _ 354 IL_ 126 ' ' Lake Washington Boulevard N '"'~ "' 0 0 C 0 Coulon Beach ~ Houser Way 42 0 o a Lake Washington Boulevard N O O ~-~~-~=--ii-'-'-' ~1-'="~I -'---<I r---379 1 851 412 . I __J ~~.--;'~''c,-~t~'='"~•~-~'~''-~1 L_ . o 1 11s I o • 474 a c LakeWashi.ngton Boulevard N ...,, <S O 0 e o Coulon Beach ~ Houser Way O ·" 0 lake Washington Boulevard N a fr a 1.039 1 474 I 110 I O I r--- 11,623 _ 584 _ I __J ~~~4~'~'~,=,-!l--"'"'~6~•--~•~11'------~1 L_ . 5 1420 I . 602 lakeWash.1ngton Boulevard N ...,, ¢, 0 0 -0 Coulon Beach ~ Houser 'Nay 43 43 lake Washington Boulevard N < fr 0 ~-~~-~=,..j-'~'-7 ~1~4"'"~1 -''----'I r---1.42a 12.491 1.005 _ I __J J1--,,~---;,:~,...,.1~,-+-~·~4_.__ __ 4~3--~1 L_ " • LakeWashiagloa Bo,le,aro N ~ ,~ 0 0 Coulon Beach ULl Houser Way O 0 0 \:l lake washington Boulevard N " " 41 1°1 " 'lr---1 84 43 . I __J ~~~4~·~·~,~,-t~~-'~'~ol~-~'~'4-'----'1 L_ . 5 1 461 1 . 602 Lake Washington Boulevard N ,., ¢, 0 0 a o Coulon Beach ~ Houser Way 43 C O 43 Lake Washington Boulevard N 0 -------i I 597 I 506 I 5 I r---11 ~ -~,-.46~7~-rl2~.,=15"'>-~-,.-10=,~----, I North North North I North North B-7 Pipeline Trips Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Hav.1('sLanding Pipeline Trips Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Quendall Terminals Pipeline Trips Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Southport Pipeline Trips Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Renton Hotel 1 Lake Wash Blvd N @ Coulon Lake Wash;"'''" 80,lmcd N : ,: 0 ,,, Coulon Beach CJ£:] Houser Way O q 0 '>::I Lake Washington Boulevard N , o a --i 1101° 5 0 1~ 0 Lake wash;ogtoo "°""""' N : ,: 0 Coulon Beach ~ Houser Way 0 a ¢ 0 '>::I Lake Washington Boulevard N " 0 C 75 l o 1'oolo1r-l 145 . I __J rl o,--r--,1 ~~,~o~l~~~I L_ ~-,~~.__,~1-o~s. 474 Lake Washington Boulevard N <::, ,oa O 0 0 0 Coulon Beach ~ Houser Way 0 a 0 Lake Washington Boulevard N 0 923 147410101r- 11.397 474 I O a Lake Wash,ogtoo "°"'""' N =,: 0 !'.I Coulon Beach [}D Houser Way 0 ¢ 0 '>::I Lake Washington Boulevard N ' 0 " North North I North North B-8 Synchro ID: Existing Counts Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Year 10/14/2014 Data Source· IDAX Total Pipeline Trips Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Future without Development Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Year: 2016 Growth Rate= 1.0% Years of Growth = 2 Total Growth = 1.0201 Development Trips Averagelfl/eekday PM Peak Hour Future with Development Average Weekday PM Peak Hour 2 lake Wash Blvd N@ Site __JI 332 j•"I 354 11 l--0-1""'3°"32'-I -o--1-_-""''-L-----':C:...--' L__ ~: 0 N LakeWashrngton Boulevard . <~ " 0 0 o 0 ~ Site Access 0 0 N Lake Washington Boulevard C 0 ------11--".-0_J(L-'3:C::54'-l!_;:_O-al i---- 332 16s6_ 354 .I __J ~_---'1~1''---~!-''~''~l.___~1~10'--__,I I . o I 11a I o _ L__ o 0 N Lake wa,h;.ogtoo Bo,le,acd : ,~ 0 O ; ~ Site Access : " N Lake Washmglon Boulevard ' 0 116 I 226 ~ O ~~~ I O I r-- __J I 455 I 926 I 471 I L_ 0 I 455 I 0 0 0 ~ ·---,, <a O 0 a o ~ Site Access 0 0 0 " 0 s, N Lake Washington Boulevard < 0 C ~ 1 9261 0 I 411 I 0 I r--455 471 __J I 4 I I L_ 0 I 0 I 2 " ~ N Lake Washington Boulevard OD Site Access a 0 " 45 C N Lake Washington Boulevard fr ~ .. I 0 I 0 43 I r--41 I 43 __J I 457 1930 1 473 I L_ 0 1 455 I 2 a 0 -~ ·----,, " 0 43 & 41 ~ Site Access 88 e 0 " 45 C N Lake Washington Boulevard C 0 ., ~ 11.010~ 0 I 411 43 I r--496 514 North I North I North North North I B-9 2 lake Wash Blvd N @ Site Pipeline Trips __J I 10 I L_ Average Weekday 0 I 0 PM Peak Hour " -~ ·----., ¢o O 0 a o Hawtc's Landing ~ Sile Access 0 North 0 0 " 0 C N Lake Wsshmglon Boulevard fr ~ " I 0 I 5 I 0 I r-- Pipeline Trips __J I 75 1451 70 I L_ A1rerage Weekday 0 I 75 I 0 PM Peak Hour a ··----,, ¢o O 0 " 0 QuendallTerrninals ~ Sile Access 0 North ~. " 0 ' N Lake Washington Boulevard ' fr 0 ~ 1451 0 70 0 I r--75 70 Pipeline Trips __J I 0 I I L_ A1rerage Weekday 0 I 0 I 0 PM Peak Hour a ' ~ ··---,, ¢o O 0 6 0 Saulhpori [TI Site Access D North 0 I 0 " 0 ' N Lake Washmglon Boulevard C fr ~ 0 0 I r--I 0 Plpeline Trips __J I 36 I 71 35 I L_ Average Weekday 0 I 36 I 0 PM Peak Hour a ' ~ ·----., ¢o O 0 a O Renian Hotel [zD Site Access D North 0 0 " 0 ' N Lake Washington Boulevard ' " 0 ~ 0 35 0 I r--36 71 35 B-10 Level of Service Calculations C HCM 2010 AWSC 1: N Lake Washinaton Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Wa~ Renton Residence Inn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.5 Intersection LOS 8 Movement EBU ESL EST EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Vol, veh/h 0 8 8 81 0 0 0 0 0 121 346 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 9 9 90 0 0 0 0 0 134 384 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 roach EB NB Opposing Approach SB Opposing Lanes 0 1 Conflicting Approach Lett SB EB Conflicting Lanes Lett 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 HCM Control Delay 9.5 12.9 HCM LOS A B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left,% 100% 0% 8% 9% Vol Thru, % 0% 99% 8% 90% Vol Right,% 0% 1% 84% 2% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 121 351 97 332 LT Vol 121 0 8 29 Through Vol 0 346 8 298 RT Vol 0 5 81 5 Lane Flow Rate 134 390 108 369 Geometry Grp 7 7 2 5 Degree of Util (X) 0.209 0.552 0.16 0.498 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.606 5.093 5.353 4.863 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 637 706 665 738 Service Time 3.364 2.85 3.427 2.919 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.21 0.552 0.162 0.5 HCM Control Delay 9.9 14 9.5 12.7 HCM Lane LOS A 8 A 8 HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 3.4 0.6 2.8 2014 Existing Conditions PM Peak-Hour Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 14-194] C-1 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: N Lake Washington Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way Renton Residence Inn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Vol, vehlh 0 29 298 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 32 331 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 A roach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 2 Conflicting Approach Lett Conflicting Lanes Left 0 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 12.7 HCM LOS B Lane 2014 Existing Conditions PM Peak-Hour Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 14-194] C-2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: N Lake Washinaton Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way_ Renton Residence Inn -" -,. f -'-"" t I'" \. + .., Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'i f. 'i f. 'i f. Volume (vph) 8 8 1006 0 0 0 597 463 5 30 420 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.851 0.998 0.998 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1601 0 0 0 1787 1877 1787 1877 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.121 0.484 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1601 0 0 0 0 228 1877 910 1877 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 626 1 Link Speed (mph) 25 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 189 95 760 215 Travel Time (s) 5.2 2.2 20.7 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 8 8 1059 0 0 0 628 487 5 32 442 5 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 1067 0 0 0 628 492 32 447 Tum Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 4 5 Swttch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 50.0 50.0 37.0 70.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split (%) 41.7% 41.7% 30.8% 58.3% 27.5% 27.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None Max None None Act Effct Green (s) 46.0 46.0 66.0 66.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.55 0.55 0.24 0.24 vie Ratio 0.01 1.07 1.13 0.48 0.15 0.99 Control Delay 23.1 64.5 113.2 18.4 38.0 84.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.1 64.5 113.2 18.4 38.0 84.9 LOS C E F B D F Approach Delay 64.2 71.5 81.8 Approach LOS E E F Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 -594 -515 222 20 346 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 #853 #747 310 48 #558 2016 Baseline Conditions -with CoR Chann w GTC Volumes PM Peak-Hour Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 14-194] C-3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: N Lake Washington Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way .,> -l' f -' ..,,, Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 15 Tum Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 685 999 554 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.01 1.07 1.13 Intersection Summa~ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.13 Intersection Signal Delay: 70.4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 128.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 -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. Splits and Phases: 1: N Lake Washinaton Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way ""'t,2 -4.-t "'\ ,s I +"""6 2016 Baseline Conditions -with CoR Chann w GTC Volumes Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 14-194] ' ,, Renton Residence Inn t ~ '-. + ~ NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 680 135 1032 219 453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.48 0.15 0.99 PM Peak-Hour C-4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: N Lake Washin~ton Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Wal Renton Residence Inn __;, -,. f -' "' t I"' '-.. + .,' Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 i. 11 i. 11 i. Volume (vph) 8 8 1006 0 0 0 597 506 5 30 461 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.851 0.999 0.998 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (pro!) 1787 1601 1787 1879 0 1787 1877 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.118 0.464 Said. Flow (perm) 1787 1601 222 1879 0 873 1877 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 611 1 Link Speed (mph) 25 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 189 95 760 215 Travel Time (s) 5.2 2.2 20.7 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 8 8 1059 0 0 0 628 533 5 32 485 5 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 1067 628 538 0 32 490 0 Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 5 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split ( s) 49.0 49.0 37.0 71.0 34.0 34.0 Total Split(%) 40.8% 40.8% 30.8% 59.2% 28.3% 28.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None Max None None Act Effct Green (s) 45.0 45.0 67.0 67.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.56 0.56 0.25 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.01 1.09 1.13 0.51 0.15 1.04 Control Delay 23.8 71.9 113.2 18.5 37.3 97.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 Total Delay 23.8 71.9 113.2 18.5 37.3 97.7 LOS C E F B D F Approach Delay 71.5 69.5 94.0 Approach LOS E E F Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 -612 -515 246 19 -412 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 #871 #746 341 48 #621 2016 Future Conditions with Hotel -with CoR Chann w GTC Volumes PM Peak-Hour Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 14-194] C-5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: N Lake Washington Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way / Lane Group EBL Internal Link Dist (ft) Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 670 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.01 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 1.13 -" f -"'- EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 109 15 982 0 0 0 1.09 Intersection Signal Delay: 74.9 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 130.3% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 -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. ...., NBL 100 554 0 0 0 1.13 1'"4:·- ...., ~s ' '~•~~ ::•••~••-•w~ I :J 2016 Future Conditions with Hotel -with CoR Chann w GTC Volumes Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 14-194] Renton Residence Inn t I" \. + ./ NBT NBR SSL SST SBR 680 135 1049 218 469 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.51 0.15 1.04 PM Peak-Hour C-6 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: N Lake Washinaton Boulevard & Site Access Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT Vol, veh/h 41 2 471 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free RT Channelized None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 45 2 512 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Conflicting Flow All 1034 535 0 Stage 1 535 Stage 2 499 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 257 545 Stage 1 587 Stage 2 610 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 256 545 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 256 Stage 1 587 Stage 2 608 A roach WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 21.7 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRW8Ln1 SSL SST Capacity (veh/h) 262 1012 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.178 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 21.7 8.6 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 2016 Future Condrrions with Hotel -with CoR Chann w GTC Volumes Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 14-194) Renton Residence Inn NBR SSL SST 43 2 455 0 0 0 Free Free Free None None 0 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 47 2 495 Major2 559 0 4.12 2.218 1012 1012 SB PM Peak-Hour C-7 WSDOT Channelization Guidelines D 1200 1100 1000 900 > 800 :,:: 0 rn a f-700 600 500 400 300 Total DHV: Left Turns: 0% 971 2 % Left: 0.2% Renton Residence Inn GTC #14-194 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS Lake Washington Boulevard at Site Access Leh-Turn Storage Guidelines 5% 10% Below Curve, storage not needed for capacity. Above curve, further analysis recommended. *DHV is total volume from both directions 0 Speeds are posted speeds 15% 20% % Total DHV Turning Left (single turning movement) Posted Speed: 25 mph 25% Based on WSDOT July 2013 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-?a, Page 1310-14. D-1 100 ~ 80 C: :, ~ 60 ..c: Cl ir :, 40 0 I "" OI Renton Residence Inn GTC #14-194 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS Lake Washington Boulevard at Site Access Right-Turn Lane Guidelines ' Consider right-turn pocket or taper (4] °""""' "'r"m ""' ,. ' <I) 20 c_ -------------------------r----- ~...._------1 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Peak Hour Approach Volume (DDVH) 111 Right Turn Volume: 43 [DDHV] Posted Speed: 25 mph Adjusted Right Turn Volume: 43 [DDHV] Pk Hr Curb Ln Approach Vol: 514 [DDHV] [1 J For two-lane highways, use the peak hour DDHV (through + right turn). For multilane, high speed highways (posted speed 45 mph or above), use the right-lane peak hour approach volume (through + right turn). [2] When all three of the following conditions are met, reduce the right-turn DDHV by 20: -The posted speed is 45 mph or less -The right-turn volume is greater than 40 VPH -The peak hour approach volume (DDHV) is less than 300 VPH. (3] For right-turn corner design, see Exhibit 1310-6. (4] For right-turn pocket or taper design, see Exhibit 1310-12. [5] For right-turn lane design, see Exhibit 1310-13. Based on WSDOT July 2013 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-11, Page 1310-27. D-2 Intersections Chapter 1310 1310.04(3) Right-Tum Lanes Right-turn movements influence intersection capacity even though there is no conflict between right-turning vehicles and opposing traffic. Right-turn lanes might be needed to maintain efficient intersection operation. Use the follovving to determine when to consider right-turn lanes at unsignalized intersections: For two-lane roadways and for multi lane roadways with a posted speed of 45 mph or above. when recommended by E,hibit 1310-11. A collision study indicates an overall crash reduction with a right-turn lane. The presence of pedestrians requires right-turning vehicles to stop. Restrictive geometrics require right-turning vehicles to slow greatly below the speed of the through traffic. There is less than decision sight distance for traffic approaching the intersection. For unsignalized intersections. see 1310.0'!Pl for guidance on right-tum lane lengths. For signaliLed intersections. use a traffic signal analysis to determine whether a right-turn lane is needed and what the length is (sec Chaplcr 1330). A capacity analysis may be used to determine whether right-turn lanes are needed to maintain the desired level of service. Where adequate right of way exists. providing right-tum lanes is relatively inexpensive and can provide increased operational efficiency. The right-turn pocket or the right-turn taper (see bhibit 1310-J_;;_) may be used at any minor intersection where a right-turn lane is not provided. These designs reduce interference and delay to the through movement by offering an earlier exit to right-turning vehicles. If the right-turn pocket is used. l.,hibit 1310-J_;;_ shows taper len~>ths for various posted speeds. Page 1310-26 WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.10 July 2013 D-3 .. , .. Intersections Chapter 1310 Posted Speed Limit Below 40 mph 40 mph or above -----y----11 ft min L (see table) - 40 ft 100 ft 60 ft min Right-Turn Pocket 100 ft Right-Turn Taper See Exhibit 1310-6 for nght- turn corner design Right-Turn Pocket and Right-Turn Taper Exhibit 1310-11 1310.04(4) Speed Change Lanes A speed change lane is an auxiliary lane primarily for the acceleration or deceleration of vehicles entering or leaving the through traveled way. Speed change lanes are normally provided for at- grade intersections on multi lane divided highways with access control. Where roadside conditions and right of way allow. speed change lanes may be provided on other through roadways. Justification for a speed change lane depends on many factors. including speed: traffic volumes: capacity: type of highway: design and frequency of intersections and collision history When either deceleration or acceleration lanes are to be used. design them in accordance with fahibits 1310-Ll and 1310-H. When the design speed of the turning traffic is greater than 20 mph. design the speed change lane as a ramp in accordance with Chapter 1360. When a deceleration lane is used with a left-turn lane. add the deceleration length to the storage length. A dedicated deceleration lane (see E\hibit 1310-Ll) is advantageous because it removes slowing vehicles from the through lane. An acceleration lane (see hhihit 1310-l±) is not as advantageous because entering drivers can wait for an opportunity to merge without disrupting through traffic. HmNever, acceleration lanes for left-turning vehicles provide a benefit by allowing the turn to be made in two movements. Page 1310-28 WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.10 July 2013 D-4 <i. 0 ... .:. WEST (LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD.) ELEVATION 17'-3'[," Inn ~~r ~~a rrt ot~GOLDFILLER .,'ft. ~ RED 3M 3630-2382 9'-9'h" A RI 30S•CL LETTER DISPLAY W (1) SET REQ'D • MANUFACTURE & INSTALL SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0" 0 <i. ---GOLD FILLER DUAL-COLOR 3M 3635-2079 ILLUMINATES WHITE@ NIGHT SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" NOTE: /_L:fl_" Rool ~ ~ 1.0. Piute 50'-0" 5th Floor 0 41h4r;~~; 0 .. 30'-0'' 3rd Floor 0 2na2fi~~·; 0 Mezla0~i~~ 0 D' O" .i!l].QQI ~ VERIFY ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS PERTINENT TO MANUFACTURING SIGN BEFORE FABRICATING SIGN SI~ ~,S r; alf!6S ::~-' ,pc r,1 ;, -Residence Inn .,\\amott -J 0382873A Sheet of 6 RESIDENCE INN 1100 WE WMlllllr;TON BLVD. N . RENTON, WASHINGTON Account Re]'_, DS[AN Desi1ner MAB Date 4-21-15 (lll!nt ..... Estimating Art EIIJ111eering Landlord ~ Chandler Signs Bni~, lml9'1 lltljins H•re· llOI MiUIOf" Way D.-llas, TX 75235 214-901-1000 Fu 114-902-1044 17319 San Pedro Annul!, Sulk 100 San Arltonio, TX 78116 210-l49.J804 Fax 210-349-8714 lllSParicCet1tli!rDriff, UnltC Vista. CA92081 760-967-7003 Fu 760-967-7033 1584SarK1Hi11PointCircle ~~~L 338fu 863-424-1160 9651uterAvenue, SuitclOO Loulsvllle, KY4G204 502-479-1075 Fu502-411-0Cll3 l1W.terfrontParkCourt Daw.onY!lle. GA 30534 800-851-7062 Fu 210-349-8n4 P.O.Bm:125 l06Doral Drive Pertland,.1X78l74 Ul-563-5599 Fn:J61-643-6Sll Th,.draw,ni: ,slh£proptnyof Chr>dl~rs,,n, LP: LLP. andalln(ht5tort.,u..,ro,,...produc11on ;in resernd by (handf~r S,zn• l fl Ll r. Tn f i: EAST ELEVATION 29'-4'h" SCALE: 1/32" = 1 '-0" ~ ~I Residence I J "[ '~a ot•+--GDLDFILLER \ ~ .I" r r 1 ~ RED 3M 3630-2382 nn,~ 11'-9'/16" 0 RI 36L-CL LETTER DISPLAY (1) SET REQ'D -MANUFACTURE & INSTALL SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" DUAL-COLOR 3M 3635-2079 ILLUMINATES WHITE @ NIGHT 75'-0" Roof 60'-0" T.O. Plole i!t:O_" 5th Floor .4!t.:O." 4th floor .N:.O_" 3rd Floor ID" 2nd Floor Jjt:JJ." Mezzanine u· Ground floor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTE: VERIFY ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS PERTINENT TO MANUFACTURING SIGN BEFORE FABRICATING SIGN -Residence Inn A\amott _J 0382873A Sheet 2 of 6 RESIDENCE INN 1100 l..,..E WASH1t1GTOt1 BLvo. N . RENTON, WASHINGTON Account R•J'.· OSLAN Desi.1.ner MAB Date 4-21-15 , .... Sales Estlmadn1 ... Ell(lneerinr Ulldlonl ~ Chandler Signs BrandlmlQIIBttlMHm· 3201 Manor w.., Dallas, TX 752JS 1~902-2000 Fax 214-90Z.l044 17119 San Pedro A¥1!nue, Suite 200 San Arltonic,, TX 18116 210-349-3804 Fax 2ID-34Un4 IDS Puk Center Drive, Unit C Vista, CA.92081 760-967-7003 Fu: 760.967-703] 1584 Sand HIii Point Cirde =~r:.~L JJ~~86J-424-1160 965 luter AYenue, Suite 100 Lauisvill4!, KY 40204 SCll-479-3075 FuSOl-412-0011 37Waterlrontl'ari!Court Dawsonville,GAlOS34 I00-851--7062 Fax 210-349-8Il4 P.O. Bax 125 206 Doral Drive Port1Uld, 1X78l74 l61-$6J..559t Fu.Ml-6<1J....45J3 Th,s dr~w,nc,. th~ proP"rty of Ch=dluS,gn, LP. LLP. and all richt.ta lb u,o far .._production aroresorv,,dby{hand!<,rS11n•LP.LLP. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 15'-0" Roof 60'-0" 1.0. Plote 50'-0" 5th Floor 40'-0" 4th Floor .l!l'.cO." 3rd floor N:ft" 2nd Floor 10',0" M · ezzonine 0'-0" Ground Floor J "' .;. ~~I 0 RI 24L•CL LETTER DISPLAY (1) SET REQ'D • MANUFACTURE & INSTALL 0 SOUTH ELEVATION 19'-7" '~arr101~ -GOLDFILLER J'D.. ct----RED 3M 3630-2382 7'-10Yui" SCALE: 1/2"=1'·0" SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" +-----GOLD FILLER II ~ NOTE: VERIFY ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS PERTINENT TO MANUFACTURING SIGN BEFORE FABRICATING SIGN -Residence Inn A\,arnott ---J 0382873A Sheet 3 of 6 RESIDENCE INN 1100 WE wo\5HINGTON BLvD. N . RENTON, WASHINGTON Account Rep_. OSLAN Desi1ner MAB Date 4-21-15 Client l~u Estimating ... Et11ineerin_! Land .... ~ Chandler Signs Br1ndl1111Q11Bealns1terr 3201 M;uivr Way Dallas, TX 15235 214-901-lOOD Fax 214-902-2044 17319 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 100 San Antonio, lX 78116 110-J49..J804 Fu 21o-349-8n4 lll5Parir.C,mterDrift. UnltC Vl,ta,. CA92011 760-967-7003 Fu760-967-70ll 1584 Nncl Hill Point Circle ::i~~~L ~~ 863--414-1160 965 Bater Avenue, Suite 100 Loulnille. KY 40104 502-479-3075 fu:502-412-(1013 J7 WaC,m,ont Park Court DaWICNMHe, GA 30534 800-851-7061 Fu210-l49-8n4 P.O. IOI 125 106 Doral Driff Portland, TX71374 J61-563-55'9 Fax361-643-6533 Th., dr~w•n&" the propi,rtyol (handl•r S,Kn• l, Ll P. and all roghts to"" u,e far reproduction ~re reserved by Chandler Signs L' l L'- FABRICATED ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERS ------, OUTSIDE RETURNS PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 872c c;OLD SATIN FINISH -PAINT 5" INSIDE LETTERS Ll(;HT ENHANCIN(; WHITE - .050' RETURNS & .063" BACKS 1" JEWELITE RETAINERS PAINTED TO n· MATCH PMS 872c METALLIC (;OLD .177 WHITE CYRO FACES w/ 1st • SURFACE 3M 3635-2079 BUR(;UNDY DUAL-COLOR VINYL OVERLAYS LETTERS INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED w/ ----------ll--+11 TETRA MAX WHITE L.E.D. MODULES POWER CABLE THRU 1/2" DIA. FLEXIBLE -------- METALLIC CONDUIT TO REMOTE POWER SUPPLY IN TRANSFORMER BOX BEHIND FASCIA AS REQUIRED 1/4" DIA. WEEP HOLES IN ALL LOW POINTS --------tt--~ LETTERS MOUNTED FLUSH TO WALL SURFACE -----------,..., w/ NON-CORROSIVE FASTENERS U.L. LABEU REQUIRID INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODES ® ~ AA RESIDENCE INN LETTER SECTION ~ NOT TO SCALE (WHITE LED ILLUMINATION) (REMOTE POWER SUPPLY) FABRICATED ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERS ------, OUTSIDE RETURNS PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 872< (;OLD SATIN FINISH -PAINT INSIDE LETTERS Ll(;HT ENHANCINc; WHITE - .050' RETURNS & .063" BACKS 5" .:J.~J~I;s R:Jf~~~~~/~1JgL6° ~ .177 WHITE CYRO FACES LETTERS INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED w/ ----------<!---.,. TETRA MAX WHITE L.E.D. MODULES POWER CABLE THRU 1/2" DIA. FLEXIBLE -------- METALLIC CONDUIT TO REMOTE POWER SUPPLY IN TRANSFORMER BOX BEHIND FASCIA AS REQUIRED 1/4" DIA. WEEP HOLES IN ALL LOW POINTS --------If-~ LETTERS MOUNTED FLUSH TO WALL SURFACE --------'=----J-J w/ NON-CORROSIVE FASTENERS U.L. LABEU RIQUIRID INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODES ® 0 RESIDENCE INN LETTER SECTION NOTTO SCALE (WHITE LED ILLUMINATION) (REMOTE POWER SUPPLY) FABRICATED ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERS - OUTSIDE RETURNS PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 872< (;OLD SATIN FINISH -PAINT INSIDE LETTERS Ll(;HT ENHANCINc; WHITE - .050' RETURNS & .063" BACKS 1' JEWELITE RETAINERS PAINTED TO ----~ MATCH PMS 872c METALLIC c;OLD ® 3~73~~~1;E3~i~tt~~~rbv'" '"'Ma ~ I ERLAYS ----· ,' (·· ~ ! LETTERS INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED w/ ClJ I I TETRA MAX RED LED MODULES! POWER CABLE THRU 1/2" DIA. FLEXIBLE ~ 111 Ill JII l / METALLIC CONDUIT TO REMOTE POWER SUPPLY IN TRANSFORMER BOX BEHIND FASCIA AS REQUIRED WEEP HOLES IN ALL LOW POINTS ---------1-~ LETTERS MOUNTED FLUSH TO WALL w/ ----------t~ ANCHORS & NON-CORROSIVE HARDWARE U,L, LABEU RIQUIRID INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODES AA MARRIOTT LETTER SECTION ~ NOT TO SCALE (RED LED ILLUMINATION) (REMOTE POWER SUPPLY) FABRICATED ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERS - OUTSIDE RETURNS PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 872c (;OLD SATIN FINISH -PAINT INSIDE LETTERS LJc;HT ENHANCIN(; WHITE - .050' RETURNS & .063" BACKS 1" JEWELITE RETAINERS PAINTED TO ----~ MATCH PMS 872c METALLIC (;OLD .177 WHITE CYRO FACES W/ 1st SURFACE 3M 3630-2382 RED VINYL OVERLAYS 5" LETTERS INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED w/ C I ! IJ TETRA MAX RED LED MODULES , POWER CABLE THRU 1/2" DIA. FLEXIBLE ~ •II 111 Ill i 1 METALLIC CONDUIT TO REMOTE POWER SUPPLY IN TRANSFORMER BOX BEHIND FASCIA AS REQUIRED WEEP HOLES IN ALL LOW POINTS---------,>-~ LETTERS MOUNTED FLUSH TO WALL w/ ----------t~ ANCHORS & NON-CORROSIVE HARDWARE U.L. LABEU RIQUIRID INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODES @ 0 MARRIOTT LETTER SECTION NOTTO SCALE (RED LED ILLUMINATION) (REMOTE POWER SUPPLY) -Residence Inn .,M.amott ---.J 0382873A 5heet4of6 RESIDENCE INN 1100 Lm WASMIMf.iTON BLVD. N. RENTON, WASHINGTON Account R•J>.· DSLAN Desij!!er MAB Date 4-21-15 ~lieftt SillH &tirnatl11,1 .... Enfi11Hrin1 L.andlard ~ Chandler Signs 8rt11111m,,.aq1nsH11.- llOI Manar Way ~lu, TX 752J5 214-902-2000 Fu 21+902-2044 17319 S;ui Pedro Avenue, Suite 200 S;ui Antonio, TX 78216 210-349-3804 Fu: 210-349-8n4 13351'arti:Cer!tffDr1ve, UnitC YIN, U.92081 760-967-7003 Fax 760-967-7033 2S84 Sand Hill Point Cin:le =-..:~:L 339fax 86l-424-1160 965 Buter ffln11e, Suite 200 Loulmlle, KY 40204 582-479-3075 FuSDl-412-000 37WaterfrontP'an.Court Dawsati'lille,Gll.30534 800-851-7062 Fu 210-349-8724 P.O. Box 125 206 Donl Drive Pord;uid, TX7&J74 361-563-5599 Fu 36l-6U-6S3J Th,sdraw1n,:1stheprop.-rtyof ChandlcrS,gns l P. L l P. andallr1chut<11uuselorreproduction anerc,cnocdbpChandlerS1gnsLP.LLP. = ONIIKTIOII R i < c:i 9 "' 71-8~16" 71-45[16• hl Residence ~I [ ?;-Inn ~ ~arr1ott "' ~ ... a D/F MONUMENT ELEVATION SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" 30.77 Sq.Ft. .125" FABRICATED ALUMINUM CABINETS PAINTED MATTHEWS MP 3B021 RESIDENCE INN BURGUNDY (SATIN FINISH) - PAINT INSIDE CABINET LIGHT-ENHANCING WHITE ROUTED-OUT COPY -BACKED UP w/ .118" WHITE SOLAR GRADE POLYCARBONATE -ALL COPY WHITE DURING DAY - "Residence Inn" -WHITE LED ILLUMINATION - "Marriott" -RED LED ILLUMINATION FABRICATED ALUMINUM REVEAL w/ PMS 877c SILVER (SATIN FINISH) - CONCEAL FASTENERS FABRICATED ALUMINUM BASE/COVER w/ MATTHEWS MP 41342SP BRUSHED ALUMINUM (SATIN FINISH) -CONCEAL FASTENERS STEEL SUPPORT & CONCRETE PIER FOUNDATION AS REQUIRED NIGHT VIEW SCALE: 3/8" = 1 '-0" 1'-6' 6" I 6" I 6" rt[ END VIEW SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" -Residence Inn .,\\amott -J 0382873A Sheet 5 of 6 RESIDENCE INN 1100 L.i;E WMHl~ON BLVD. N. RENTON, WASHINGTON Account ReJ'c OSLAN Desi1ner MAB Date 4-21-15 Chnt Sales Estimating "' &!cinnring t.,,,lo,< ~ Chandler Signs 8"1ndlm111llglnsH1rr 1201 Manor Way D;atw, TX 7S235 ZM-902-2000 Fu 21+902-2044 17Jl9Sanl'eclroAven11e, SultelOO San Antonia, TX 7Bll6 llD-149-3804 Fu 110-349-8724 IJJS Parii.Centil!r Drive, Un/tC YIN, CAtlOBI 76G-967-700l Fax 760-967-70ll 2584 Sand Hill l'uint Circle :6H~o=L~~863-424-1160 965 Buter Affn11e, Suite 200 Louinille, KY 40104 502-479-3075 F.u:502-411-00ll 37 W..tHfnmt hrtr. Court D.nnonville,fiAJ0534 800-,851-7062 fax110-349-8n4 P.O. leg: Ill l<N Don.I Drift Pnrtlancl, TX71374 361-563-5599 FuJ61-44J-6SJl This draw,nf" tht p,..,p,rtyul C~ndltrStgns.lr. Ll'- and ~II rights to ,ts ust for reproduction areruen-~dbyChandlerS,gns LP. LLP. -----~~----~ e D/F MONUMENT LOCATION T.B.D. NEW~:~R~~~ SEESHEETC8FORROAD IWPIWYOIENTP!.AN ANDPROFllEOESICN NEWCBfJTYPfl W/STAMJAltD GRATE (PERDETA1LDNSHEETC10) RIW,.40.!0 IE,.J6.80(12"S.E) 106 If 12· CPEP so o 2.oex t -------~-~--.'.s':l,s:o NEWASP11AI.TT1WfSITIONRAMP- PER 01'1' RrnfON STOS.. / FND. 6" CONC. IAONW.lENT W/ J" BRASSIE & PUNCH l I.IARl<ED "PSPL ELEV. = 2B.70 PROP. COR." (MEASURED ELEVATION = 31.80') (VISITED ON 8/24/2014) SITE PLAN ex. ,. \ ,. \ rfl sr S 1£-1 1 ~r Av!:}- (uol<~-~ \~ {~. ;<--__FNO 4"X4H CONG. R.O.W. MONUMENT N7iw 0. !J' FROM CALC"O \ i__ _ \ __ ------"""-----,~c"-------------------------\ _.-\ 1 II I\ ... I \ I \, I FNO. 1/2H REBAR dt CAP ~~tA~-;gf ',:~~tt 0 CALC'O ti ·--'"""" }\ -~---------=--------------\ I ~~Y2"R£BAR .. CA \ NBO'W AD LSftJ7Jt" p I 0. 11 FROM CALC'D \ \ \ I \ ~) -------------~ ~f~~ -~-~~ND. CONC. MONUMENT N 4-12-00 PARK DR. ~-~sfic:oc. SUNSET BLVD~/1 :,RAS$ NAIL SCALE: 1" = 601-0" -Residence Inn .,\\amott -J 0382873A Sheet6of6 RESIDENCE INN 1100 L.tE WASHINGTON BLVD. N. RENTON, WASHINGTON Account R•JJ.· OSLAN Desi.1.ner MAB Date 4-21-15 Client ..... Estimatina; ... Ena;ineerina; Landlord ~ Chandler Signs Bn,ndlm1g,Beg1111Hen," llOI Manor Way Dallas, TX 75m 214-901-1000 Fu 114-902-2044 17319 Nn Pmro Annue, Suite 200 Sa11Anto1do, TX7111l6 210-349-3804 Fu 110..349-8724 1335 Park Center Drive, Unit C Yista, CA 92081 760-967-700] Fu 760..967-70ll 2584 Salld HIii Point Circle :63~/oT.'~L~~ 163-414-1160 965B~ro\ven11e, SuitelOO Louimlle, KY 40204 !iOl-479-3075 Fu50l-4ll-00D l7WaterfrontParkCourt D1MnCK1Ville,GAl0Sl4 B00-851-7062 Fu210-l49-87l4 P.O. Box 125 204 Doral Drt.,,, l'nrtland, TX 78174 J61-S6.J.5Sff Ful6t-643-65ll Tf115 drawmtlilh< property of ChandlorS1in•LP. LlP. andallr1hi:.to11:>us•for,..,produc11on anre,uudbyChandluS,,n, LP: LLP: • (Jeotechnica! [ngineering Geology Fnvironmental Scicntisb Con:itruction \lonitoring PREPARED FOR W.I. REALTY ACQUISITION CORP. November 20, 2014 Updated April 21, 2015 ~~E.I.T Staff Engineer Raymond A. Coglas, P.E. Principal UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN PROPOSED HOTEL FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3569.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -1361h Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construcllOf7 delays, cost overruns, claims, and d1sp 11/es • The followmg mformalwn rs prov,ded to help you manage your nsks Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specnic Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients, A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer, Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -not even you-should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplaled. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did nol read it all, Do not rely on an executive summary Do not read selecled elements only. A Geotechnicat Engineering R~ort ts Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, Unless tt,e geotechnical erigineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • lhe function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage lo an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight ol the proposed structure, • composition ol lhe design team, or • project ownership As a general rule, always inform your geotechrical engineer of proiect changes--<Jven minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not 1nlormed Subsurface Conditions CIII Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it 1s still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Profe11ional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tesls are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurtace conditions trroughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is ttie most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions, A Report's Recommendations Are Nat Anal Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations cnly by observing actual subsurtace conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your repott cannot assume responsibility or !!'ability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construe/ion observation A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems Lower that risk by having your geo- ;echnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the desigr, teafl'· after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractms can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk cy having your geotechnical engirmer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observat:on. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs baSBd upor. their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating togs from the report can elevate risk Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and oesign professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurtace conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report. bu/preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. tn that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or tu conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to pertorm additional study. Only then might you be in a posi1ion to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisioos Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that --------------- have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety al explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where goatechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnrcal engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered Tne equipment, techniques, and personnel used to pertorrn a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to pertorm a geotechnie,at study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations, e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. It you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Prolesslonal Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surtaces. To be eftective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose ot mold prel/€ntion, integrated into a com-i prehensive plan, and executeo with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keepiny building surtaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge or this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sumcient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. RelJ on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engmeer lor Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques trat can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer tor more intonmtion. ASFE TU IUI P11JII II larlll 8811 Colesville Ruad/SLite G106. Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone 301/c,65-2733 Facsimile· 301/589-2017 e-mail 1nfo@as:e.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, rnc. Duptrcat1on, reproduction. or copying of this document, in whole or in part /Jy any means whatsoever, is strictly pron1bltet1, except with ASFE's specific written permission Excerpting, quuliriy, or oth1mv1se extracting wording from f/l1s tJocumenl is permitted only with tile express wn·rtefl permission of ASFE, and only tor purposes of scl10/arly research or book re11iew Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element at a geotectmical engineermg rBport. Any otner firm. individual, ur other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent} m1srepreserrtation. IIGlR06045 OM November 20, 2014 Updated April 21, 2015 ES-3569.01 W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. 13647 Montfort Drive Dallas, Texas 75240 Attention: Ms. Cary Fisher Dear Ms. Fisher: • Earth Solutions NW LLC • Ccti'.echnit di F.nginc\'ri11~ • ( on:,lruUio11 Monitoring • Environnwnt,11 Scil'W!'" Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Updated Geotechnical Engineering Study, Marriott Residence Inn, Proposed Hotel Facility, Renton, Washington". This report has been updated to provide additional discussion and analysis of critical areas and groundwater. Based on the conditions encountered during the fieldwork, the site is underlain primarily by firm pre-Fraser silt and sand deposits with upper loose soil deposits throughout the western portions of the proposed structure location. We understand the site will be developed with a hotel facility and related infrastructure improvements including exterior parking lot areas. The proposed hotel structure will largely be constructed at-grade throughout the topographically lower west side of the site. Excavations of up to approximately six to eight feet are estimated to be necessary to complete the outdoor parking lot structure construction. We anticipate the excavations will be completed using temporary slope excavations. Based on the results of our study, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. To mitigate post construction settlement of the proposed hotel facility structure, foundation support will need to be derived in the underlying dense to very dense silt and sand deposits. In our opinion, conventional foundations supported on aggregate piers advanced into the underlying silt and sand deposits can be considered where these deposits are not exposed at or near design footing elevations. Due to groundwater levels at-depth and the loose nature of the upper soil deposits, casing of open-hole the aggregate pier excavations should be anticipated. Recommendations for site excavations, foundation design, aggregate piers, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in this study, as appropriate. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions re~ng the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. :r;o:~:LUTI? ( 1 J (, //1 7:f,, Rayr1foncf'.A. Cogla's, ;(t_ 'Principal 1805 -11f.th ~>lc1c-c NJ:., Suite 20"1 • 8ell~.'vuP, WA 91300S • (42SJ 449-.-t704 • rAX (42~) 44g_471·1 INTRODUCTION General ............. .. Table of Contents ES-3569.01 Project Description ............... . SITE CONDITIONS Surface. .. ............... . Slope Reconnaissance/Stability Assessment... ........... .. Aerial Photograph Review ........................ .. Subsurface............ .. .. .. . .. .. ...... .. .... .. ...... ... .. ............ . Topsoil .............................................................. . Fl"···················································· ................. . Native Soil ................................................................ . Geologic Setting ............ .. Groundwater ........................................................... . Seasonal Groundwater Monitoring ........................... . CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT ................................................................. . Site and Construction Plans ................................................ . Landslide Hazard ...................... .. Steep Slopes ............................................... _ Erosion Hazard... .. ................................ . Numerical Slope Stability Analysis ................... . Analysis of Proposal ................................................................. . DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. .. General ...................................... . Site Preparation and Earthwork ................................. . Excavations ..... . Structural Fill ............................................... .. PAGE 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 9 9 9 10 10 10 Erosion Control... 11 Foundations......................................................................... 11 Aggregate Piers...................................................... 12 Slab-On-Grade Floors........................................................ 13 Retaining Walls................................................................... 13 Excavations and Slopes..... 14 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents Continued ES-3569.01 Seismic Considerations .................................... . Drainage ..................................... . Infiltration Evaluation ........ . Utility Support and Trench Backfill LIMITATIONS ........... . Additional Services ...... GRAPHICS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 APPENDICES Appendix A AppendixB Appendix C Appendix D Vicinity Map Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Cross Section A -A' Cross Section B -B' Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Footing Drain Detail Subsurface Exploration Boring and Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Grain Size Distribution Aerial Photographs Slope-W Computer Output Earth Solutions NW, LLC PAGE 14 15 15 15 15 15 UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN PROPOSED HOTEL FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3569.01 INTRODUCTION This updated geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed hotel facility to be developed along Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton, Washington (see Vicinity Map - Plate 1 ). This geotechnical engineering study has been updated to address recent City of Renton review comments regarding groundwater conditions and project impacts on the steep slope areas. The overall purpose of this study was to explore subsurface conditions across the site and develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed project. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Subsurface exploration and characterization of soil and groundwater conditions by advancing borings and excavating test pits on the accessible areas of the site; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during field exploration; • Site reconnaissance and aerial photo review; • Providing an assessment of slope stability; • Groundwater level monitoring and data collection; • Conducting engineering analyses including temporary shoring and foundations, and; • Preparation of this updated report. The following documents/maps were reviewed as part of our report preparation: • AL TA/ACSM Land Title Survey, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated September 9, 2014; • Slope Over 40% Encroachment Exhibit, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated September 9, 2014; • Architectural Plans, prepared by Jensen Fey, dated April 1, 2015; • Aerial Photographs (ca. 1951 to 1970); • Geologic Map of Washington, Northwest Quadrant, and; • Renton Municipal Code, Development Regulations. W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 Project Description ES-3569.01 Page 2 Based on the project information provided to us, we understand the subject site will be developed with an at-grade five-level hotel facility with an adjoining outdoor parking lot structure. The parking lot structure will be cut into the sloped topography to the east up to approximately six to eight feet. The western portions of the site are relatively level (proposed hotel building location) with moderate to steep slopes throughout the eastern portions of the site. Approximately 2,181 square feet of the proposed hotel facility and associated parking area will encroach into the steeply sloped areas. Based upon visual slope reconnaissance, historic excavation activity has occurred on-site and has created the majority of the steep portions of the site. Based on preliminary plans, the majority of the hotel facility would be established along the Lake Washington Boulevard (west) frontage and outside of the steep slope areas. Based on the referenced architectural plans, excavations of up to six to eight feet will be necessary to accommodate the alignment of the proposed parking lot structure relative to the east ascending grade changes. The proposed hotel structure is anticipated to consist of four stories of wood framing constructed over a podium post-tensioned slab. Based on past experience with similar structures, we anticipate column loads associated with the concrete podium supported structure to be on the order of 300 to 400 kips. The exterior parking areas will likely incorporate retaining wall structures to support the necessary cuts. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS The subject site is located west of Interstate 405 at approximately 1250 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton, Washington, as illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site consists of two commercial tax parcels (King County parcel numbers 082305905604 and 334450000602) totaling approximately 2.89 acres of land area. The site is bordered to the west by Lake Washington Boulevard North, to the north by an undeveloped lot, to the east by Interstate 405 and to the south Northeast Park Drive. The majority of the site is undeveloped; however, the western portion of the site currently ccnsists of a gravel-surfaced parking lot. The western portions of the site are relatively level (proposed hotel building location) with moderate to steep slopes throughout the eastern portions of the site. Based upon visual slope reconnaissance and aerial photograph review, historic excavation activity has occurred on-site and has created the majority of the steep portions of the site. The steep slopes immediately east of the existing gravel-surfaced parking lot are in excess of 40 percent in some areas. The majority of the site and site slopes are vegetated with trees, saplings, and brambles. Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 Slope Reconnaissance/Stability Assessment ES-3569.01 Page 3 During our fieldwork, we performed a visual slope reconnaissance across portions of the steep slope areas of the site. The main focus of our reconnaissance was to identify signs of instability or erosion hazards along the site slopes. The typical instability indicators include such features as head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, groundwater seeps along the surface and erosion features such as gulleys and rills. During the slope reconnaissance, no signs of recent, large scale erosion or slope instability were observed. Signs of previous excavation activity such as steep to near vertical reliefs were observed. Based on the observed steep to near vertical reliefs as well as data obtained during our subsurface exploration, the site soils exhibit good soil strength characteristics. In general, based on the slope reconnaissance, stability of the slope areas of the property can be characterized as good. The planned outdoor parking lot structures incorporating structural retaining wall elements will effectively improve overall site stability and support at the base of the slope. Aerial Photograph Review A series of aerial photographs (ca. 1951 to 1970) were reviewed as part of our overall assessment of site stability. The aerial photos are provided in Appendix C of this study. As depicted in the aerial photos, the site and surrounding areas were modified and cut, producing the areas of steep topography that currently exist throughout the eastern portions of the site. Based on our review, in spite of the extent of historic modifications and steep slope creation, overall stability is characterized as good. The stable conditions that exist are a reflection of the high strength characteristics of the underlying geology. The subsurface data (and Standard Penetration Blow Count data) collected as part of our subsurface investigation support this finding. The results of numerical slope stability analyses presented later in this study also demonstrate overall good existing site stability. Subsurface Five borings were advanced using a drill rig and operator retained by ESNW in October 2014 to assess soil and groundwater conditions. Six test pits were also excavated by an excavator and operator retained by ESNW in October 2014. The approximate locations of the borings and test pits are depicted on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the boring and test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Topsoil In the undeveloped portions of the site, topsoil was observed in the upper approximately six inches. The topsoil was characterized by dark brown color and the presence of fine organic material. Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 Fill ES-3569.01 Page4 Existing fill was encountered within the existing gravel-surfaced parking lot (west frontage) portion of the site. The existing fill extended to a maximum depth of approximately six to seven feet below existing grade at boring location B-1 (located near the Lake Washington Boulevard North frontage). The existing fill primarily consisted of loose silty sand material. Existing fill should be anticipated within the existing gravel-surfaced parking lot portion of the site. Native Soil Underlying the topsoil and fill, native soils consisting primarily of medium dense to dense silt (Unified Soil Classification ML), silty sand (SM), poorly graded sand (SP), and poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) deposits were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of 41 feet below existing grades. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map resource indicates the site is underlain by pre-Fraser silt and sand deposits. The native soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the geologic mapping. The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey identifies the majority of the site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils, with urban land mapped along the western portion of the site. The soil conditions observed are generally consistent with the NRCS designation. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed at all boring locations during our fieldwork in October 2014 at depths of approximately 19 to 35 feet below existing grades. Locally shallow perched seepage was also observed at boring locations B-1 and B-5 (western portion of the site) at depths of approximately nine feet and five and one-half feet, respectively. To further evaluate groundwater conditions, piezometers were installed at boring locations B-1 and B-2. In our opinion, the groundwater level observed at boring location B-2 (15.5 feet below existing grade) likely represents the local groundwater table. The proposed building will be constructed at a finish floor elevation of approximately elevation 42 feet and will not extend into the local groundwater table elevation. However, localized zones of perched seepage should be anticipated in the excavations for the outdoor parking lot structures as well as utility excavations throughout the western portion of the site. Given the very dense and competent nature of the native soil deposits, we do not expect discrete groundwater seepage zones will adversely impact excavation stability, provided appropriate slope layback or shoring methods are utilized. Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.1. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 ES-3569.01 Page 5 Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter and early spring months. Seasonal Groundwater Monitoring As previously described, two groundwater monitoring wells were installed to monitor the seasonal groundwater levels in the vicinity of the proposed hotel structure at boring locations B- 1 and B-2. ESNW has been observing the groundwater levels at the monitoring wells on a biweekly basis to establish the local seasonal high groundwater levels. The following table displays the groundwater levels observed to date. -Marriott Residence Inn Groundwater Monitoring Data Location B-1 B-2 Surface Elevation (ft.)* 42 49 Date Groundwater Depth I Elevation (ft.)• Groundwater Depth I Elevation~ 10/29/2014 8.33 33.67 19.25 29.75 11/10/2014 8.33 33.67 19.25 29.75 11/25/2014 8.00 34.00 19.00 30.00 ----j 12/12/2014 7.83 3417 18.50 30.50 I -- 12/24/2014 7.50 34.50 18.17 30.83 ~ ~--- 1/6/2015 8.00 18.00 31.00 34.00 1/19/2015 7.33 34.67 18.00 31.00 1/29/2015 742 34.58 18.00 31.00 2/10/2015 5.50 36.50 16.67 32.33 2/24/2015 7.50 34.50 16.17 32.83 3/10/2015 8.25 33.75 16.00 33.00 3/24/2015 5.83 36.17 t 15.25 33.75 4/7/2015 7.50 34.50 17.00 32.0~ -- * All depths and elevations are approximate. Note: Seasonal high levels are bold and italicized Based on the groundwater conditions observed during our subsurface exploration, the groundwater levels observed at boring location B-2 likely represents the local groundwater table elevation and the groundwater levels observed at boring location B-1 likely represents a shallow perched seepage zone. CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT As part of this geotechnical engineering study and critical areas report, the section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code was reviewed. Per the Renton Municipal Code requirements, the following topics related to development plans and site conditions are addressed Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.1. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 Site and Construction Plans ES-3569.01 Page 6 Construction of a new five-level hotel facility, outdoor parking lot structure, and associated improvements is planned. We understand the building pad will be located along the Lake Washington Boulevard North (west) frontage. Based on the referenced preliminary plans, we anticipate the building pad elevation will align approximately with the existing roadway elevation of Lake Washington Boulevard North. We anticipate the maximum cuts for the proposed development will be on the order of six to eight feet in order to construct outdoor parking lot structures to the east of the new hotel facility, as illustrated on Cross Sections A -A' and B -B' (Plates 3 and 4). Approximately 2,181 square feet of the proposed facility will encroach into the designated steep slope area on the east side of the site. Based on the results of this study, overall stability of the moderate to steep slope areas can be characterized as good. Landslide Hazard With respect to landslide hazard areas, Part 4-3-050J-1b of the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations defines landslide hazard areas as the following: • Low Landslide Hazard: Areas with slopes less than 15 percent. • Medium Landslide Hazard: Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. • High Landslide Hazards: 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. • Very High Landslide Hazards: Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. The steep slopes throughout the eastern portions of the site exhibit moderate to high landslide hazard characteristics, as defined by the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations, based on a greater than 40% slope condition. However, the slopes are underlain primarily by dense to very dense silt and sand soil, and were created through previous land modification activities (see aerial photos -Appendix C). As previously described in the Slope Reconnaissance and Aerial Photograph Review sections of this study, in spite of the extent of historic modifications and steep slope creation, overall stability is characterized as good. The stable conditions that exist are a reflection of the high strength characteristics of the underlying geology. Steep Slopes With respect to steep slope areas, Part 4-3-0509-1 c of the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations defines steep slope areas as the following: • Sensitive Slopes: Areas with slopes between 25 percent and 40 percent. • Protected Slopes: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 ES-3569.01 Page 7 Based on our observations, review of the referenced topographic survey, and as demonstrated by the City of Renton GIS data, sensitive and protected slopes are present through the eastern portions of the property. Based upon visual slope reconnaissance, in our opinion, previous excavation activity has occurred on-site which created portions of the steep slopes to near vertical reliefs through the eastern portions of the property. Based on the identified subsurface conditions and site reconnaissance, the overall stability of the slope areas can be characterized as good. Erosion Hazard With respect to erosion hazard areas, Part 4-3-050J-1 c of the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations defines erosion hazard areas as the following: • Low Erosion Hazard: Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than 15 percent. • High Erosion Hazard: Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than 15 percent. The majority of the existing slope areas would be classified as a high erosion hazard, as defined by the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations, based on the National Resource Conservation Service soil designation and on-site slopes. Based on our site reconnaissance work, there is no evidence of widespread severe erosion activity throughout the site. In our opinion, the planned development will not increase the erosion hazard at the site, provided appropriate Best Management Practices are implemented during the earthwork and development activities. General guidelines for erosion control are provided in the Site Preparation and Earlhwork section of this study. Numerical Slope Stability Analysis Analysis of existing slope stability (static and seismic) was completed as part of our overall evaluation of site conditions. The slope stability analysis focused on the steep slopes present throughout the eastern portions of the site. Representative cross-sections (A-A' and B-B') were developed through the eastern slope areas of the site for purposes of evaluating stability. The cross sections are illustrated on Plates 3 and 4 of this study. A limit equilibrium computer modeling program (Slope-W) was used to model the slope stability along the easterly segment of Cross Section B-8'. The computer modeling software models slope stability based on soil strength parameters and groundwater conditions that the user inputs. The soil strength parameters used in the analysis were based in part on the observed soil conditions, Standard Penetration blow count data, and engineering judgment. The following table provides the soil strength parameters used for the slope stability analyses: Earth Solutions NW, LLC WI. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 --~-~--·~· I Saturated Unit Soil Type Weight (pcf) Med. Dense/ 135 Dense SM V. Dense ML/SM 135 V. Dense Sand 125 I Moist Unit ! Weight (pcf) 125 125 120 I Friction I Angle I (degrees) 34 32 38 ES-3569.01 Page 8 Cohesion Intercept (psf) ~--·- 0 - 550 0 The soil strength parameters assumed in the analysis are considered conservative based on the observed soil conditions and Standard Penetration blow count data acquired at the boring locations. In any case, the Slope-W stability analysis provides a theoretical factor-of-safety with respect to stability of the slope evaluated. In general, a static factor-of-safety of at least 1.5 and a seismic factor-of-safety of at least 1.2 are considered acceptable. With respect to seismic loading, and based on review of local mapping of peak ground acceleration, a conservative lateral seismic coefficient of 0.3g was used for the seismic stability analysis. It should be noted that the mapped peak ground acceleration for the site and surrounding area is approximately 0.44g. Based on the results of the slope stability analysis, the static factor-of-safety exceeded 1.5 and the seismic factor-of-safety was at least 1.2, indicating acceptable overall site stability. The results of the stability analysis and accompanying computer output are provided in Appendix D. While the results of the slope stability analysis indicate an adequate factor-of-safety for deep- seated rotational failure, the potential for relatively shallow debris flow type failures does exist. Although no areas of historic debris flow activity were identified as part of our site investigation and fieldwork, the potential does exist, and is common for most sloped topographic settings. With respect to the existing slope areas of the site that will remain unaltered as part of the proposed development, maintaining the current vegetative cover that currently exists on the slopes will help mitigate the potential for shallow debris flow events. Based on the findings of the subsurface investigation, slope reconnaissance, and results of the slope stability analysis, the site slopes are considered to possess an acceptable level of stability. Provided the proposed construction and related excavation activities are performed in accordance with the recommendations of this study, it is our opinion the proposed development will not adversely impact the existing slopes or increase the potential for slope instability. Earth Solutions i'lW, LLC I W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 Analysis of Proposal ES-3569.01 Page 9 The planned development activity will involve grading and construction of a new six-level hotel facility, outdoor parking lot structures, and associated improvements. The proposed development activity will include maximum excavations of approximately 6 to 8 feet within moderate to steep slope areas throughout the eastern portions of the property in order to construct the proposed outdoor parking lot structures. Based on the referenced slope encroachment exhibit, the total steep slope encroachment area for the proposed structures will be 2,181 square feet. As previously described, the site soils exhibit good strength characteristics and site slopes exhibit good stability, and in our opinion, portions of the steep slopes were previously excavated to the current condition. The proposed development activity, in our opinion, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. and "(i). The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre- development conditions; and (ii). The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and (iii). The development can be safely accommodated on the site." DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS In our opinion, construction of the proposed five-level hotel facility, outdoor parking lot structure, and associated improvements at this site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Loose soil deposits are present to varying depths throughout the western portions of the proposed building site. Given the proposed construction and foundation loads, these upper soil deposits in the western portions of the proposed building location are not suitable for support of foundations. The depth to the competent native soil deposits is estimated to be on the order of up to 20 feet below existing site grades (and possibly deeper at some locations). In our opinion, the proposed building structure can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soils where exposed along the base of the building excavations. Where loose upper deposits are exposed at the foundation subgrade elevation, overexcavation of the loose soil in foundation areas and replacement with crushed rock is recommended. Additionally, where the loose upper deposits are found to extend more than approximately five feet below the proposed foundation subgrade elevation, the use of aggregate piers in lieu of overexcavation and replacement may be more practical. Recommendations for foundations and preliminary guidelines for aggregate piers are provided in the Foundations section of this study. Excavations to accommodate the planned outdoor parking lot structures will require cuts of up to roughly six to eight feet. We anticipate the excavations will be completed using temporary slope excavations. Recommendations for temporary slope excavations, foundation design, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this study. Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.1. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 ES-3569.01 Page 10 This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork The primary geotechnical considerations with respect to earthwork are related to the outdoor parking lot structure excavation, temporary slope construction, and foundation subgrade preparation for the main building structure. The soils encountered in the building excavations should largely consist of loose silt and sand deposits throughout the western portions of the proposed structure which transitions to medium dense to dense native deposits throughout the eastern portions of the proposed structure. The native silt deposits can be characterized as having a generally moderate to high sensitivity to moisture. Excavations As excavation of the outdoor parking lot structure progresses, the soil relative density should generally increase and is expected to exhibit good stability in open cut excavations. Localized perched zones of groundwater seepage should be expected in the outdoor parking lot structure excavations. Overall stability of the excavation is anticipated to be good, provided appropriate means for sloping or shoring the excavation are utilized. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, the following allowable temporary slope inclinations can be used: • Loose to Medium Dense Native Soil • Dense to Very Dense Native Soil* 1 H: 1V (Horizontal:Vertical) 0.5H:1V to 0.75H:1v·· • Based on data obtained during the subsurface exploration, the native silt soils should become dense to very dense at a depth of approximately five feet below existing grades. •• Steeper temporary slope inclinations of 0.25H:1V may be feasible based on actual conditions encountered, and based on observation and approval by the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer should observe the excavations and assess the allowable temporary slope inclination based on the soil and groundwater conditions exposed in the excavations. Supplement recommendations for sloping the excavations may be made by the geotechnical engineer based on conditions observed. Structural Fill We anticipate structural fill placement will generally be required behind foundation walls and within utility trench excavations. Structural fill may also be necessary in slab-on-grade areas. Due to the building load and bearing capacity requirements, the building foundations should be founded directly on competent native soils, or two-inch crushed rock immediately underlain by competent native soils (where overexcavation in lieu of aggregate piers is utilized). Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 ES-3569.01 Page 11 Where structural fill is utilized outside foundation areas, a suitable granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level should be used. The native soils can be considered for use as structural fill provided the soil is at or near the optimum level at the time of placement. The native soils have a moderate to high sensitivity to moisture, and will become unstable if exposed to excessive moisture. If the native soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of five percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed as wall backfill and in slab-on-grade, utility trench, and roadway areas. Soils placed in structural areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557-02) and placed in maximum 12 inch lifts. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of the structural fill should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. As indicated above, structural fill placed below foundation elements should consist of two-inch crushed rock immediately underlain by competent native soils. Erosion Control In general, control of off-site erosion for this project will likely be limited to construction entrances. Silt fencing should be installed as appropriate, and as needed along the site perimeter. Construction entrances should consist of quarry spalls underlain by a non-woven filter fabric. Quarry spall thickness will depend on subgrade stability at the entrance, but should typically be at least six inches. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed hotel facility building can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent undisturbed dense to very dense native soil or aggregate piers. Where the upper loose soil deposits are relatively shallow (less than five feet), overexcavation of the loose soils and replacement with two inch crushed rock can be considered. Where areas of the existing loose deposits extend more than approximately five feet below the proposed foundation subgrade elevation, the use of aggregate piers in lieu of overexcavation and replacement may be more practical. Preliminary guidelines for aggregate piers are discussed in greater detail later in this section of the report. The extent of the deeper loose soil deposits should be further explored at the time of the building excavations. Based on the data collected at the boring locations, we anticipate a depth of approximately 20 feet to competent native soil within the vicinity of boring location B-1 which we anticipate to transition to near-surface competent soils at boring locations B-2 and B-5. The Boring and Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates an approximate area where we anticipate aggregate pier ground improvement will be necessary. Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 ES-3569.01 Page 12 Assuming the foundations are supported on competent native soils, suitable crushed rock material, or aggregate piers the following parameters should be used for foundation design: • Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity 5,000 psf 0.40 • Friction • Passive Resistance 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) For short term wind and seismic loading, a one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed. A factor-of-safety of one and one half has been applied to the friction and passive resistance values. With structural loading as expected, and assuming foundations are supported on competent native soils, crushed rock structural fill, or aggregate piers as described above, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of about one-half inch or less over the span of a typical column spacing. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Aggregate Piers In our opinion, where the upper loose soil deposits are encountered to depths of greater than approximately five feet at the foundation subgrade elevation, the use of aggregate piers can be considered for support of the foundations, in lieu of overexcavation and replacement. Aggregate piers would replace the existing loose soils with a series of crushed rock columns. The building foundations would derive support along the crushed rock columns, mitigating the potential for excessive foundation settlements. A formal design for aggregate piers should be developed during the design phase of the project when the foundation plan and loading has been determined. In general, aggregate piers are constructed as follows: • Pier Diameter • Pier Depth • Installation Method • Aggregate Material • Pier Spacing • Cost 24 to 30 inches (typical) Varies. Extend to five feet into competent soils. Augered Holes. Casing should be anticipated. Typically one to one and one-half inch crushed rock. Varies. Depends on soil conditions and foundation loads. Varies, but is typically less than piling (estimated $850/pier) Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring and test pit locations, the western portions of the proposed building location generally were found to possess existing loose soil deposits to depths of approximately 20 feet or greater. Therefore, for preliminary design purposes, it should be expected that these areas would require the use of aggregate piers. Ea~h Solutions NW. LLC W.1. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 Slab-On-Grade Floors ES-3569.01 Page 13 Slab-on-grade floors for the proposed building structure should be supported on competent native soil or a compacted structural fill subgrade, as appropriate. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free-draining material should have a fines content of five percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. Sub-slab drainage is discussed in the Drainage section of this study. Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist earth pressures and any applicable surcharge loads. With respect to building and site retaining walls, the following values should be used for design: • Active Earth Pressure (Yielding Wall) • At-Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) • Traffic Surcharge (Passenger Vehicles) • Passive Resistance • Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity • Coefficient of Friction • Seismic surcharge (where applicable) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid/ granular fill)* 50 pcf* 70 psf (rectangular distribution) 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) 5,000 psf 0.40 6H** *The building foundation wall design should be further evaluated with respect to slope surcharge loading: supplement design criteria should be provided by the geotechnical engineer, as appropriate . .. Where H equals the retained height Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design, as appropriate. The geotechnical engineer should review retaining wall designs to confirm that appropriate earth pressure values have been incorporated into the design and to provide additional recommendations, as necessary. Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.1. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 ES-3569.01 Page 14 Retaining walls should be backfilled with free-draining material that ex1ends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least eighteen inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable (surface seal) soil, if desired. In lieu of free draining backfill, use of an approved sheet drain material can also be considered, based on the observed subsurface and groundwater conditions. The geotechnical engineer should review conditions at the time of construction and provide recommendations for sheet drain, as appropriate. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an appropriate discharge location. Where foundation walls are formed against the temporary shoring walls, a sheet drain and related waterproofing should be utilized. For site retaining walls receiving backfill, the retaining wall and drainage detail illustrated on Plate 5 should be considered. Excavations and Slopes The Federal and state Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA/WISHA) classifies soils in terms of minimum safe slope inclinations. In our opinion, based on the soil conditions encountered during fieldwork for this site, the upper loose to medium dense native soils and fill encountered to depths of up to approximately 5 to 1 O feet would be classified by OSHA/WI SHA as Type B. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type B soils should be sloped at an inclination that is no steeper than 1 H: 1 V. In our opinion, the dense to very dense native soils below approximately 5 to 10 feet below existing grades would be classified by OSHA/WISHA as Type A. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 0.75H:1V. With respect to the proposed building excavations, temporary slopes inclined at 0.5H:1V (or steeper) are feasible within the very dense silt and silty sand deposits. The geotechnical engineer should observe the excavations to confirm the appropriate allowable temporary slope inclination. If the above slope gradients cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be required. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H: 1V, or flatter, and should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. Seismic Considerations The 2012 !BC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. If the project will be penmitted under the 2012 !BC, in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class C, should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction susceptibility at this site is generally low. Along the westerly (frontage) side of the property, a moderate susceptibility would exist in our opinion. Crushed rock and aggregate pier support of foundations would mitigate this risk. Earth Solutions NW, LLC W.1. Realty Acquisition Corp. November 20, 2013 Updated April 21, 2015 Drainage ES-3569.01 Page 15 The proposed building will be constructed at a finish floor elevation of approximately 42 feet and will not extend into the local groundwater table elevation. However, localized zones of perched seepage should be anticipated in the excavations for the outdoor parking lot structures as well as utility excavations throughout the western portion of the site. Groundwater should be anticipated in site excavations. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff and groundwater during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps. ESNW should be consulted during preliminary grading to identify areas of seepage and to provide recommendations to reduce the potential for instability related to seepage affects. The geotechnical engineer should assess conditions during excavation activities and provide supplement recommendations for sub-slab drainage, as necessary. In our opinion, foundation drains should be installed along perimeter footings of the buildings. A typical (shallow) foundation drain detail is provided as Plate 6. Infiltration Evaluation Based on the groundwater conditions observed at elevations close to the proposed building foundation elevations, in our opinion, infiltration should not be utilized as a storm drainage measure for the proposed project. Utility Support and Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils anticipated to be exposed in utility excavations should generally be suitable for support of utilities. Existing fill, organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. Moisture conditioning of the soils will likely be necessary prior to use as structural backfill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to 95 percent of the modified proctor, or to the applicable specifications of the responsible utility district or jurisdiction. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Reference : King County, Washington Map 626 By The Thomas Gu ide Rand McNally 32nd Edition ~ ,:..NOR~9' • Earth Solutions NWLLC --------------- Geo tech n I ca I Engmeermg. Construcc1on Monitoring and Environmental Sciences Vicinity Map Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washington NO TE: This plate may contain areas of co lor. ESNW cannot be respons ible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resu lting from black & white reproduct ions of this plate Drwn. GLS Date 04 /20 /2015 Proj . No . 3569 01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Plate C. !,;: :s TP7"1~ I s--=aj-. TP~j_ l ' ' '~" -~-e· @ 0 30 60 120 1"=60' --Scale in Feet LEGEND B-1-. 1 1 -Approximate Location of ESNW Boring,. Proj. No. ES-3569, Oct. 2014 TP-1-l-Approximate Location of I ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-3569. Oct. 2014 --I Subject Site D Proposed Building LJ Cross Section Line (See Plates 3 & 4) • Anticipated Approximate Extent of Ground Improvement (Aggregate Piers) NOTE Thegraph1csshownonth1splatearenot1nlendedfmdes1gn pu111osesorprec1sescalemeasuremenls,butonlyto1llustraletha approx1matetestlooationsrelal1l'l'lotheappro:<1matelocat1onsof e~ist1ngandlorpmposeds1lafeature& Theinlarmal1onilluslrated 1slargelybassdoodalapm\lldedbylhecltentatthel1meofour studyESNWcannoll>erespons.bleforsubsequantdarugnchanges orinterpretationoflMdatabyolhars NOTE Th1splalamaycontamara.isolcolor ESNWcannotbe respoos1bleforan1subsequenlm1runlarprstat1onof!l101nloonation rooul~r,gfromblack&whilereproduc!1onsofth1s~ate C rn a: CC ~~£ ~~r ~]~_ ~-~! rnrno: .§~ al • Checked By HTW ~ 04/20/2015 ~ 3569.01 ~ 2 A 100 75 ( 50 11~~;;J---,L~.,--~"='1J.1..!""_~_=_:,--::'_"""".-~- ~ _!I-~ 25 -~ ff.,.,PITPTN15'1iW1 SM,ML Proposed Hotel Bui!~ln.R (Ekringll.JClfful!rNW) B-3 ___ _:r------------ SM,ML >.---- __....,,./,,,./ TP-4 SP, SP-SM ---~-----------:/--------i--- SP, SP-SM O 25 50 Horizontal Scale -----1" ::: 25' Scale in Feet 0 25 00 Vertical Scale -• ---1" = 25' Scale in Feet NOTE Thegraph1,::,ishownonth1splatearenot1nlend8dtordesign purposesorprecisascalemeasuremenls.bulootyto,lluslra1elhe approx1matelestlocalionsrelal1vetotheapprOXJmalelcw..ationsof exist1ngandlorproposeds1tefeatures Themfmmal1001llustrated islargelybasedondalaprovidsdbylh,:,cl1.:mtallhet1meof0ll" studyESNWci.inotberesponsible!orsubssquentdesignchanges. or1nlerprelabonollh8databyothers NOTE Theslrabficaboninessho1Vnonth1scrossrachonrepresent theapproximaleboundariesbelweensoillypes Theaciuallroosit1ons maybeetthermomgradualorrooresevere Theyarebasedonour 1oterpretalionofltlesubsurfacecondrtionsencountemdatlher1d1v1dual les(locat1oosandourJudgemamandaxper1aoca ESNWcanoo/00 resporn.1blalortheinte,pretahonofthadalabyolhars NOTE Th1splatemayconlainareasofcolor.ESNW~annotbe responsibleioranysubsequentm1smtarpretat1onoflhe1nformat1on rasult1nglromblack&wt11tereprOOuchonso'fltl1splata A' 00 1eom,gB•ON&,,94si~75 -?--50.!i-l ~ 50 z 0 " ~ 25 <(EC <(~El iii ~&S:" ~ 1' C 5-E~ :)lo: ' Drwn. By GLS ~y HTW ~ 04/20/201511 ProJ. No 356901 ~ 3 B 100 75 i 50 Proposed Hotel Building z 0 CT"-l!PitTP·20IIH!2'5"S){Bo""!IB-50IIM!Bl'S) ~ -----"l I Loose, FILL w -?-----25 . :eonag e.1 fil M1 TP-2 8-5 _...:, __ .::..~ SP, SP-SM 0 Horizontal Scale -- 1" ==25' 0 Vertical Scale - 1"=25' -- Proposed Retaining Wall SM,ML [Boon"l)S-i_T'21:r") l.':I SM,ML Drive Lane/ Walkway -----?--!!!!---~ -'L ,,..------'-~• ·r-----. ------ SP, SP-SM 25 50 Scale in Feet 25 50 ~ , Scale in Feet SP, SP-SM NOTE Thegr~h1csshownonth1splatearenolinlendedfordes1gn purposesorprecisascalemaasuremenls,bulonlylodluslratelhe approxirrlalelestlocationsrelal1velotheapproxmralelocationso! ex1stingandlorproposeds1teleaturas The111fmma11onilluslralad 1slwgelybasedondalapro,id9dbylhechantatthebmeolour studyESNWcanl\OltieresponS1bitiforsubsaquenldesignchangss or1n(erpietationoflhedatabyolheit NOTE TheslraUficationlines.shownon lhisc:rO&SS6Ctionrepr6Senl 1heapproximlleOOIJndariesbatweenro1ltypesTOOac:l11altrans1tions maybaartharmomgradualormornsavere Theyarnhasedonour l!llerpretationotlh0subsurfacecond1l1onsanoountaradalth01ndividual lestlocationsandourjudgemB11landexper1ence ESNWcannotbe responsibleforlhe,nl61]lrelafonofthBdalabyothBrs. NOTE Th1splalamaycontam;i-easofoolor ESNWcannolt:>e 1r,sponrubleforanysubsequenlm1runterpra1ahonoftheinform.111on r9SUlt1ngfromblack&whil0reproductionsolth1splat0 B' 00 75 § ~ 50 z 0 ii' ~ 25 • C <DCC ~ §.I cm~ ~li U)"'. ~~B ~I& I Drwn. By GLS Checked By HTW ~ 04/20/2015 ~ 3569.01 ~ 4 .. NOTES: • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: rn Free Draining Structural Backfill 1 inch Drain Rock 18" Min . Structural Fill SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOTTO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING • '• Solutions NWLLc Engineering, Construction Monitoring and Environmental Sciences RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 04/20/2015 Proj. No. 3569.01 Checked HTW Date April 201 Plate 5 2" (Min.) Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. 1" Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING • Solutions NWLLc Engineering. Consrruction Momtot mg • and Environmental Sciences Drwn. GLS FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washington Date 04/20/2015 Proj. No. 3569.01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Plate 6 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration ES-3569.01 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by advancing five borings and excavating six test pits across accessible and representative portions of the property. The subsurface explorations were completed in October 2014. The approximate boring and test pit locations are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. Logs of the borings and test pits are provided in this Appendix. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Earth Solutions NWLLc SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATEFUAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL 1$ SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS (LITnE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH MOo~\~sli'% FINES FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE {APPRECIABLE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS AMOUNT OF FINES) UQUIOLIMrT LES$ TI-lAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL· SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GAADEO GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SANO MIXlURES. LITTLE ORNO FINES SIL TY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - Sil T MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SANO· CLAY MIXTIJRES WEU.-ORAOED SANOS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTI.E OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SANO-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SIL TS AND VERY FINE SANDS. ROCK FLOUR, SIL 1Y OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR a.A YEY SIL TS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CL.A YS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SIL TS ANO ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SIL TS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS ftNE SANO OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLA VS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLA VS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY. ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borde~ine soil classifications The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW • 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. PROJECT NUMBER 3569 DATE STARTED 10/6/14 COMPLETED 10/6114 DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec DRILLING METHOD HSA LOGGED BY HTW NOTES Gra~~I _ 5 w Q. >-0: f-W w"' -':; Q.::, ::.z ~ ss ss >-0: w 8 w 0: 100 100 5-3-3 (6) 3-2-3 (5) --i- ss 100 1Q ss 100 15 ' ss 100 20 3-3-3 (6) 3-3-3 (6) 5-7-9 (16) CHECKED BY HTW TESTS MC= 10.50% MC= 13.10% MC= 20.80% SM MC= 15.00% ML MC= 28.10% 11 0 20 D BORING NUMBER B-1 PROJECT NAME Marriott Residel}_ce Inn PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington GROUND ELEVATION 38 ft HOLE SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: -¥AT TIME OF DRILLING 23.0ft/ Elev 15 0 It AT END OF DRILLING AFTER DRILLING - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Daric: brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) Brown Silty SAND, loose, moist (Fill) Brown silty SAND, loose, moist to wet -heavy seepage Tan SILT, loose to medium dense, wet to saturated -increasing gravel content /Con#nued Next Page/ PAGE 1 OF 2 36.0 .]1 0 27.0 18 0 • Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-1 1805 -136th Place N.E, Suite 201 PAGE 2 OF 2 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax. 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I Realty Acq~is_i_tl9_i:i_ Corp PROJECT NAME Ma.!i!._ott Residence Inn PROJECT NUMBER 3569 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Wash1n_gton -- I w i) a. U) UJ u I >-"' if) >-w ,:>-::, 'i:(!) >--wai 0Z-' c.; MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a."' TESTS a.o w-_J:,; i5 ~5~ U) ~-' Cl 0.::, :>;z u u~ ::, (!) ;Ji w "' 20 [XJ ss 100 40-50/3" MC a 9.50% Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist (Till) ---monled coloring SM 25 -lense of clean sand >: ss 100 --MC a 9.50% -becomes saturated __2()/4" ! 25.5 -------12 5 Boring terminated at 25 5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 9.5 feet and groundwater table encountered at 23.0 feet below existing grade. 2" PVC standpipe installed to 25.5 feet. 5.0 to 15.0 feet slotted. Boring backfilled with bentonite chips and sand Bottom of hole at 25.5 feet. I • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -1361h Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax. 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I. ~ealty Acquisition Corp PROJECT NUMBER. 3569 DATE STARTED 10/6/14 DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec DRILLING METHOD HSA LOGGED BY DAM NOTES Bra~bles J 5 10 20 w 0. >-0:: >-w wai __,:; a.::, :F U) ss ss ss ~- )~ ss 100 100 100 100 ss 100 12-10-10 (20) 8-16-23 (39) 14-14-15 (29) 17-50 14-S-7 (15) COMPLETED 10/6/14 CHECKED BY HTW TESTS MC= 11.10% ---- . ···--··---· MC= 9.10% MC= 13.80% SM ---~- MC= 8.90% SM BORING NUMBER B-2 PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence Inn PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Wa~h~~ton GROUND ELEVATION 49 ft HOLE SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: ¥ AT TIME OF DRILLING 19.0 ft/ Elev 30.0 ft AT END OF DRILLING - AFTER DRILLING - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 OF 2 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, dry to damp -becomes medium dense -becomes dense to very dense -becomes damp to moist -becomes very dense -becomes medium dense -large cobbles, increasing gravel content 1B 5 30.5 'Sl Grayish-brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, wet to saturated (T~I) -mottled coloring (Continued Next Page) • Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER 8-2 1605 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 2 OF 2 Bellevue, Washington 9BOD5 Telephone· 425--449-4704 Fax· 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I. -~e~lty AcquisitiQ!l C,_Qrp. PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence Inn --- PROJECT NUMBER 3569 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington --------------- I w ;fl I Q_ I >-0'. >-"'w ui (J f-W "' s:>-:::i rCJ b::2 w"' w 0Z-' 0 .... ::;; > r55:; TESTS ui a_o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-a_::, 0 ~-' 0 ::.z (J ()6 ::, CJ <( w (/) "' 20 Grayish-brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, wet to saturated (Till) ss 100 22-25-19 j MC: 9.50% (continued) (44) -mottled coloring SM 25 ss 100 40-33-24 MC= 15.70% (57) I ,., 225 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table I encountered at 19.0 feet during drilling. 2" PVC standpipe installed to 26.0 feel. Lower 10.0 feet slotted. Boring backfilled with bentonite chips and sand. Bottom of hole at 26.5 feet. I I • Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-3 1 B05 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 2 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.l. Realty Acquisition Corp. PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence Inn PROJECT NUMBER _ 3569 PROJECT LOCATION Re11ton_, Washington ---- DATE STARTED 10/6/14 COMPLETED 10/6/14 GROUND ELEVATION 73 ft HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD HSA IJ' AT TIME OF DRILLING 35.0 ft/ Elev 38.0 ft LOGGED BY DAM CHECKED BY H_TW AT END OF DRILLING - NOTES J;X!lQ.Sed Di~/ TogsoiL(.Brambl~~J_ AFTER DRILLING --- LJ.J * 0. :,: >-Cl'. >-"'ui (/) u >-LJ.J Cl'. ,:>-::, :Ce, >--u.,tD LJ.J 0Z-' <.i O.,e -'::; > ffi5~ TESTS en "-o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-0.:, 0 if-' D ::.z u u~ :::j io <{ LJ.J Cl) "' 0 SM I I Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, dry to damp 1 0 72.0 Tan sandy SILT with scattered gravel. very dense, dry to damp I ML ss 100 15-25-50 MC= 16.60% (75) . ---40 ---------~90 Olive brown and gray sandy SILT, medium dense to >Jery dense. moist 5 -mottled coloring ,-------------- ss 100 12-15-20 MC= 29.20% (35) ss 100 13-27-33 MC= 24.00% (60) -becomes dense to very dense 10 ; ----- ss 100 17-17-24 MC= 26.00% -oxidation layering (rust color) (41) ML ~ ' ss 100 11-2S-37 MC= 24.10% '' (65) ': ' I ! I 20 ! : 20.0 53 0 (Continued Next Page) ~ a "' '" " 'z " ~ i j ~ :,c ~ " i '-' Earth S0lu11ons NW • 1805 -1361h Place N E , Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone 425-449-4704 Fax. 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I._Rfl,alfy Aet:1uisition Corp PROJECT NUMBER 3569 UJ ;!'. 0.. I >-0'. >-U) Cu 1-UJ "' ,: l-::, Ii:~ UJ a, UJ 0Z-' w-_,:; 6 ffi6~ O..::, 0 :az u "6 <( w U) "' 20 : ss 100 12-20-25 (45) 25 ,-~- ss 100 42-50 -- 30 ~ ss 100 5_0/3" 35 X] ss 100 22-50/5" 40 >r~; 100 21-5014" ---- TESTS MC= 26.90% MC= 12.00% --- MC= 2.60% MC= 12.00% Fines = 8.90% MC= 14.00% U) u ui ::, ML SP- SM s1 Ic., a.o ci.-' " I 25.5 . ' ; I ,, 41.0 BORING NUMBER 8-3 PAGE 2 OF 2 PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence Inn PROJECT LOCATION R.enton, Washington MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Gray sandy SILT, dense to very dense, moist Gray poorly graded SAND wH:h silt, very derise, moist -increased gravel content -becomes wet to saturated -very dense B0ring terminated at 41.0 teit-below el<istlng grade GroundWater table encountered at 35.D feet below existing grade. Boring backfilled with bent on ite chips. Bottom of hole at 41 .0 feet. 47.5 32 D 5 • Eanh Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax· 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I. R~al!}:_A__cq_ul~Lt1on Corp PROJECT NUMBER 3569 DATESTARTED 10/6/14 COMPLETED 10/6/14 DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec DRILLING METHOD HSA LOGGED BY DAM CHECKED BY HTW NOTES Exposed Topsoil (~rambles) U.J ... ! a. I >-"' >-U) iii' U) {) ,_ U.J "' s: ,_::, :i:c, ,__ U.J°' U.J 0Z--' {) Q.¢' --'::E > ~6~ TESTS Cl) "-o U.J-0.::, 0 ~--' Cl ::Ez {) {)~ :j C) ;;i U.J "' D SM -1· ss 100 7 -14-50/4" I MC= 11.70% ML 5 >~] ss 100 50 MC= 1260% ss 100 36-21-13 MC= 28.20% (34) Fines = 91.60% 10_ 2"' ss ML 100 5013" MC= 14.50% 3 15 __ ,-------- z a ~ ~ j ~ ~ ffi " 20 MC= 10.20% SP- SM 10 7 0 _11.0 BORING NUMBER 8-4 PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence Inn PROJECT LOCATION Renton. Wa~hington GROUND ELEVATION 70 ft HOLE SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: ¥AT TIME OF DRILLING 27.5 ft/ Elev42.5 ft AT END OF DRILLING --· AFTER DRILLING -__ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist ------ Tan sandy SILT, very dense, dry to damp Gray SILT, medium dense to very dense, moist Gray poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, dense, moist •increased gravel content (ConUnuad Next Page) PAGE 1 OF 2 690 --630 57 0 ~ I ~ • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E , Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone. 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT \IV.I. R~~tty Acquisition Corp. PROJECT NUMBER 3569 w $-"- I >-0:: >-... w 0:: ... _ wm UJ "-4= _,::; > w- D 0.::, 0 :.iz u <( w "' 0:: 20 ' ss 100 25 ss 100 30 J /< ss .. 100 i ss 100 "'"' ,::1-:::i 02---' s5~ UE, 16-21-21 (42) 20-27-34 (61) - 30-50 - 12-24- 5015" TESTS MC;;: 19.00% MC= 7.70% SP- SM MC= 9.90% --- MC= 22.70% SM I i ' I 1;. 36.0_ 36 5 BORING NUMBER 8-4 PROJECT NAME Marriott Resid_e_n_ce Inn PROJECT LOCATION Re_nto_n, yYashingtO!l_ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION PAGE 2 OF 2 Gray poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, dense, moist (continued) -becomes wet -becomes saturated Brown Silty fine SAND, very dense, °wet 10 saturated __ 34.0 335 Boring terminated at 36.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 27.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. Bottom of hole at 36.5 feet i e;,L_..L __ .t__l-__ ..L ______ .L_L-_JL-________________________ _J ;. b ~ "' ~ 'z a ~ " ~ ~ ~ I ~ i " • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -1361h Place N.E, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone 425-449-4704 Fax 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I. Realty Acqu1s1tion Corp. PROJECT NUMBER 3569 DATE STARTED 10/8114 COMPLETED 1018114 DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec DRILLING METHOD HSA LOGGED BY ITTW NOTES Gravel w * 0. J: >-0: >-oow I t-w 0: ;s:>-::1 ti:£ w"' w ~~~ I w-_.:,, 6 0 O.:::, :,,z u ;ii w U~I 0: 0 ss 100 15-16-30 (46) 5 --· ss 100 19-25- 5015" ---- 12-14-17 CHECKED BY HTW 00 TESTS u <Ii :::, SM MC= 4.90% SP MC= 11.70% MC= 23.30% ss 100 (31) Fines= 74.10% I 10 I ss 100 5-10-15 MC= 26.20% (25) ML 15 --· B-12-15 ss 100 MC= 29.20% (27) ' 20 u il:g ~ ... " I i I i I 15 l 65 " BORING NUMBER B-5 PROJECT NAME Marriott Resid~n~_lnn PROJECT LOCATION Renton, W~Jb[ogton GROUND ELEVATION 38 ft GROUND WATER LEVELS: HOLE SIZE 4 AT TIME OF DRILLING 20.0 ft I Elev 18 0 ft AT END OF DRILLING - AFTER DRILLING - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist ----- Gray poorly graded SAND with gravel, dense, damp -becomes wet -light seepage Tan-SILT with sand~edium dense, wet -mottled coloring -increasing fine sand content (Continued Next Page) PAGE 1 OF 2 36.5 -- 315 - • Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-5 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 2 OF 2 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.,.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. PROJECT NAME fltlarriott R~sid_ence_lnn PROJECT NUMBER 3569 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington w a'-I "- :,: >-0: >-oo w ui CJ 1-W 0: s: I-:, i',, t2 w"' w oZ.J t.i .J::i; > a:t5::; TESTS U) "-o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-a_:, 0 ~.J D ::;z CJ CJ,'S :, Cl .. w U) 0: 20 Tan SILT with sand, medium dense, wet (continued) ' ss 100 10-12-18 MC= 32.50% (30) - ML 25 ss I 100 31-50/2" MC= 15.40% ?_5 __ 5 -· ____!b§ I SP .• 26.0 Gray pOorly graded SAND with gravel, very dense. saturated 12.0 I Borlng terminated at 26.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater I seepage encountered at 5.5 feet and groundwater table encountered at I 20.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite. Bottom of hole at 26.0 feet. ~ I ~ • Earth Solutions NW 1B05-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PAGE 1 OF 1 Fa.: 425-449-4711 CLIENT W .I. Realty Acquisition Corp. PROJECT NUMBER 3569 PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence Inn PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 10/2114 COMPLETED 1012114 GROUND ELEVATION _1~ ft _ _ _ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Ex~vating EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY HTW NOTES Braf!lt>l~s CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION - TESTS MC~ 2.90% Fines = 0.50% MC =2.60% MC= 3.10% SM %22~ [1120 SP J. 8.5 AFTER EXCAVATION ____ _ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Dark brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, damp (Fill) Gray poorly graded SANO, loose to medium dense, damp ·--- [USDA Classification: SAND] -medium dense -oxide staining -moderate cobbles Test pit terminated at 8.5 feet below e}(isting grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.5 feet. 44.0 37.5 i OL_ _ _L __ L_. _____ ....J._-1. _ _L ______________________________ ....J = m i • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washmgton 9800.5 Telephone: 425-449--4704 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PAGE 1 OF 1 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I Realty Acquisition Co!l). PROJECT NUMBER 3569 PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence .!nfl_ __ _ PROJECT LOCATION R~nton. Wa_shington _ DA TE STARTED 10/2/14 COMPLETED 10/2/14 GROUND ELEVATION 38 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD GROUND WATER LEVELS, LOGGED BY HTW NOTES Gravel CHECKED BY HTW AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - AT END OF EXCAVATION - AFTER EXCAVATION - w a. ~ffi w"' _,::; a.:, :.z ;;; TESTS MC= 9.60% MC =-19.70% MC= 30.80% SM ?-.5 SP- SM [45 ML ML [so MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Dark brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) -metal pipe Dark brown poorly graded SAND, loose, damp (Fill) ·----------··---- Tan SILT, medium dense, moist Olive gray fine sandy SILT, medium dense, moist to wet Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. 35.5 33.5 320 --290 "~-~-~~-----~-~-~------------------------------~ ~ ~ w ffi • Earth Solutions NW 1805-136th Place NE, Suite 201 BeUe\lue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PAGE 1 OF 1 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.l. Re~lty A_9q_ujsition G.9r:p_ PROJECT NUMBER 3569 PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence Inn _ _ PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington CATE STARTED 101211_4 COMPLETED 1012114 GROUND ELEVATION 43 ft GROUND WATER LEVELS: TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGEC BY H1111/ NOTES Light firamb~s CHECKED BY Ji~ __ _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT ENC OF EXCAVATION -- AFTER EXCAVATION - w a. I >-a'. >-w b::~ w"' w-...,:; Cl a.:, :;z " V) 0 TESTS MC"' 6.40% MC = 13. 70°/ao Fines = 49.20% SM 80 I~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Dari< brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, dry to damp (Fill) Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp -becomes tan, medium dense -weakly cemented -mottled coloring [USDA Classification· LOAM] Test pit terminated at 8 0 feet be10W exiSiirlg grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8 O feet. 41 5 350 ~~-~--~----------~-~------------------------------~ • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N E , Suite 201 Bellevue. Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 PAGE 1 OF 1 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. PROJECT NUMBER 3569 PROJECl NAME Marriott Residence Inn PROJECT LOCATION -~~-n~~n. ~a~hingt_on DATE STARTED 1012114 COMPLETED 1012114 GROUND ELEVATION 66 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY HJW CHECKED BY HTVI/ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION •·· AT END OF EXCAVATION --- AFTER EXCAVATION -NOTES Depth of T9p~oiJ & Sod 6"· grass w 0.. I: >-0: 1-UJ .... _ w"' fu !S _,:; 0 o..=, :ez <t w 0 TESTS MC= 7.90% MC= 5.70% vi u vi =, TPSL SM SP- SM u :l:g ii _J (j 0.5 6.5 ---6.5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL to 6" Gray silty SANO with gravel, dense. damp -moderately cemented -increasing sand content Gray poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense to dense, damp Test pit terminated at 8.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom oftest pit at 8.5 feet. -~5 59 5 57 5 • Earth Solutions NW 1805-136th Place NE., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 PAGE 1 OF 1 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Jl'tj Real~_A~siti9J1 CQrnc PROJECT NUMBER 3569 PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence Inn PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 1Q/2/14 COMPLETED 10/2114 GROUND ELEVATION _68 ft GROUND WATER LEVELS: TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - AT END OF EXCAVATION - AFTER EXCAVATION ,:-NOTES ~pth of Topsoil ~ $0~ s~·; _ _ug~Lbrambles w "- :,: >-0:: >--w ~£ w<n w--'::. C ll.::::, ::.z ~ 0 ._5 TESTS MC= 8.70% MC= 10.70% Fines= 58.60% u <n :i:" u ll.o <n ii!-' ::::, " TPSL --0.5 ML MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL to 6" Tan sandy SILT, medium dense to dense, damp -becomes dense -moderately cemented [USDA Classification: LOAM] 67 5 7.0 610 Tes!: Pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. ~ ~ ai I • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 PAGE 1 OF 1 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT W.I. R~alt_y Acqu_isition Corp PROJECT NUMBER 356~ PROJECT NAME Marriott Residence Inn PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 10/2114 COMPLETEO 1012114 GROUND ELEVATION 55 ft TEST PIT SIZE EX CAVA 110N CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD GROUND WATER LEVELS: LOGGED BY I-fly,/_ NOTES Brambles_ CHECKED BY HTW AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION - AFTER EXCAVATION - 0 w [L >-0'. >-w w"' _,::, [L::, ~z "' TESTS MC= 3.00% MC= 6.20% MC= 10.00% "' 0 If) ::, SP- SM SP 6.0 9.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Dark brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) Tan poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, loose to medium dense, dry to damp -oxide staining Gray poorly grade SAND, medium dense, damp Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. 53.5 __ 460 l'iL._..L __ J_ _____ _J_.....L_...1.. ______________________________ __. Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-3569.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC ..__;~ _J Earth Solutions NW \ 1805-136thPlaceNE.,Surte201 , Bellevue, WA 98005 · · _ Telephone: 425-284-3300 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CLIENT _\IY.L Re~_fi_~l,l(~tigr,_pp~ _ PROJECT NAME Marriott B_csit;ie_nce Inn PROJECT NUMBER E'_S-356'L_ _ _ --____ PROJECTLOCATION _Ren!Qn_ U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 100 ~~11 1 95 90 - 85 80 --t' -75 70 -ii i I .... 65 :r: CJ 60 ~ >-55 cc ll'. w 50 -z u:: .... z w u ll'. w <l. _j I 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS • Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1805-136th Place N.E, Suite 201 Bellevue. WA 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT W.I. R~~lty Acq_u.ifiliQJl C_orp __ PROJECT NUMBER ES03569 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES PROJECT NAME _Marriott Residence In'! PROJECT LOCATION _8entQn US. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1-S 1 314 1/23lB 3 " 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200 100 fl '~HlI'f 1~:~ ~ J I Ii L -.. r ... \J_ 11 i Le-.-----_ -~ _Jr~\ -"---!--+-'-----+H -r I ___ ~ -- 90 - I 95 ~ -------- 85 -- , --'·=J·,~.-~ J ~~~' -=-l-- -__ ,_ I i I ~1-· --I \' -~----·r-~~H'-1-+-+--c---l-------1--:l -= --r, ___ J l L_j_~~---,r -. ---- ., T H=~ Vv:-i T-111 :t - 35 ~---l -----'----t-'-----i·J _J_c___ 30 -----. I I .... ---f+H-+-+-+-+-~'1 l-l-!-l-+--l-l---1----I l --- 25 --1-----+ ,-- 1 ---l------l---------1 ___ I __ \--1-+++-1--+-'-''--'--~ __ _ 20-+ I -1,--!-------_,_. ,____ +-~+\---+ \·-/-l--/-1H+-------·-I :;L.J.......J.._~=' __.__r--'-L.LI-!1---'---'---'-=~ _--'----~----ilW..J...L.~-l..-L.-.....J..I LI....L...J-1 ----'---'---1 i _..w..\. L.J...J....l...n-~~---=-1.u..w....i.L.-J-~~1L-.....1·----- 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001 80 ... 75 70 65 ~--------- 60 55 -L-....... . 50 I----- 45 ------------- 40 --- GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES _ GRAVE__t,__ _ __SAND_ l-----------~--~--------_____ h .... J_ fine co•rs• 1 medilJ_".'_L SILT OR CLA ___ Y _-_-1 • __ i ___ _ ~ :P~~i~en ldentifi!:~:-____ ---~~~=:~~. 5~_ =-:---==µq____P_L -f ~;Tcu i ~ ::: a;-: ~ o., •~• ""'"' :_;~:;: :;.o;;;aom •. ,,..,. If F, ,,. r -_e_--_-5 _______ 1_.~ft: __ Tan SILT with s_a_.,_d~ ML _ _ -----_E-=----= " Specimen Identification D100 ~0---_L _ D30 _ D1_0 _ i %Gr~~ _ %Sand ·~Silt_ %Clay g; 0 S:1-------2.~---19 0.352 ~.181 5.8 80.2 --!4.0 __ ! 0 e-"3 ______ 35:ott. 37.5 0.11s __ J_ __ o.229 __ 0.00s __ __ 22.s 68.6 __ ___!!_ ~ 6 _l!_-4 _____ 7_.5ft. 4.75 I 0.0 8.4 _____ 9_1._6 __ _ i * B-5 _____ _'7.5ft. 9.5 1.3 24.6 74.1 "'--'---------.....L ___ __J ____ _L_ ___ -----'-. ____ J.._ ___ ..L.. ___ ....1,. _______ __J Appendix C Aerial Photographs ES-3569.01 Earth Sotutions NW, LLC • Solutions l'\IWLLc Enimeermg, Construction Monitoring d Environmental Sciences Drwn. GLS Aerial Photograph 1951 Marriott Residence Inn Renton , Washington Date 04 /20 /2015 Proj No . 3569.01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Plate C1 • Solutions NWLLc Engineenng, Construction Monitoring Environmental Sciences Drwn . GLS Aerial Photograph 1951 Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washington Date 04 /20 /2015 Proj No. 3569 01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Plate C2 • Earth Solutions NWLLc ------------ Geoteehmcal Engineering. Construction Momtonng and Environmental Sciences Drwn . GLS Aerial Photograph 1961 Marriott Residence Inn Renton , Washington Date 04 /20/2015 P roj . No . 356 9 01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Pla te C3 • Earth Solutions NWLLc GeotechmQI Engmeenng, Construction Mon1to1 mg and Environmental Sciences Drwn . GLS Aerial Photograph 1961 Marriott Residence Inn Renton , Washington Date 04 /20 /2015 Proj . No . 3569 .01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Plate C4 • • E.artli :Solutions NWLLc ------------- Geo tech m ca I Engineering. Construction Momtonng and Environmental Sciences Drwn. GLS Aerial Photograph 1967 Marriott Residence Inn Renton , Washington Date 04 /20 /2015 Proj No . 3569 .01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Plate C5 • Solutions NWuc Engineering:, Construction Monitoring Environmental Sciences Drwn . GLS Aerial Photograph 1967 Marriott Residence Inn Renton , Washington Date 04 /20/2015 Proj . No . 3569 .01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Plate C6 • l Eartli Solutions NWLLc ------------ Geo tech ni ca I Engmeen ng, Const ruc uon Mon1to1 mg and Environmental Scre nces Drwn . GLS Aerial Photograph 1970 Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washington Date 04 /20/2015 Proj . No . 3569 .01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Plate C7 • Earth Solutions NWu c -------------Geo tech ma I Engineenng, Construction Momronng and Environmental Sciences Diwn . GLS Aerial Photograph 1970 Marriott Residence Inn Renton , Washington Date 04 /20 /20 14 Proj . No . 3569 .01 Checked HTW Date April 2015 Plate CB Appendix D Slope-W Computer Output ES-3569 .01 Earth Solutions NW , LLC C: 0 ~ > Q) w 125 100 75 50 ES -3569 .01 Marriott Residence Inn Existing Condition Static Condition Proposed Hotel Building Proposed Retaining Wall / B-3 ,,. ··-~sl I f 50/".f' 1IClllr. 6C¥4" Dense/ Ver, Dense Ml.ISM Very Dense Sand o _____ .._ ____ .._ ____ ...._ ____ _._ ____ _.. ____ ...... ____ ...., ____ __,..._ ___ _ 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Distance C: 0 ~ > Q) w 125 100 75 50 ES-3569.01 Marriott Residence Inn Ex isting Condition Static Condition Proposed Hotel Building 2 .041 .-Proposed Retaining Wall / B-3 Dense/ Very Dense ML/SM 5G'4" Very Dense Sand O'------....._ ____ ..._ ____ ...._ ____ _,__ ____ ....... ____ ...... ____ ....... ____ _,, ____ __, 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Distance 4120'2015 Exisling Conditions Existing Conditions Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.21. Copyright© 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. File Information Title: Marriott Residence Inn Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 14 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 4/20/2015 Time: 2:13:43 PM File Name: Existing Condition, Seismic.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\3569.01\ Last Solved Date: 4/20/2015 Last Solved Time: 2:13:46 PM Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pd View: 2D Analysis Settings Existing Conditions Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: (none) Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced file:/I/C:/Users/henry.wrigtt/Oocunents/SlopeW!3569.01/existirg%20Condition,%20sefsmic.html 1/4 4120/2015 Existing Conditions Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5" Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Materials Medium Dense ML/SM Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: O psf Phi: 34' Phi-B: 0 ° Dense ML/SM Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 550 psf Phi: 32' Phi-B: 0' Very Dense Sand Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 38' Phi-B: 0' Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (7.81225, 40.3662) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (110.80393, 66.55993) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (164.33071, 80) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (225, 80) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits file:I//C:AJsers/henry.wrighl/OocL1T1erts/SlopeWl3569.01/existing%20condition,%20Seismic.html 2/4 412[1'2015 Left Coordinate: (0, 40) ft Right Coordinate: (225, 80) ft Ex1stirg ConditiOf'IS Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.3 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Regions Region 1 j_ Medium Dense ML/SM 2,11,13,12 ___ J 838 _J~-Material ---~·____:_---Points ___ . TAi~~:(tt::_j_ ~ Regi<)n2 l Very Dens., Saod ±.1. 2,1.3,11,3,4,5,10~4 _ I Region 3 l_Dense ML/SM_ I 5,6,7,8,10 __ ___J 3272 __ _ Points ---i=X_lft) 1~ !!!U Point 1 . O J O ] Point2 IO __ -~ Point 3 8~ __ _j_44 1 .Po(rit~ _ 9~~-! Point 5 95 I 49 I Point 6 . 122 J 79 _ _J Point 7 124 80 i Point 8 225 80 Point 9 _225 0--j _Point lCl_ 225 54 [ Point 11 f--~4 43 I Poin!_ 12 I o __ lZ_ _ Point 13 i 30 , 2§ __J Critical Slip Surfaces 1 -IS!iP Surface I F()S_ r _ce-nter~j-~Tu-s-(ft) · l' . Entry (ft) -~ Exit (ft)---] .::IJJ'i _ _ !_1.226 _!_(55.326, 21~~2Jl_i7o.3s3 (164.331, 80) 1 (35.8814, 41.6819) I Slices of Slip Surface: 27 ITT . Slip . X (ft) . ·1 Y (ft) Surface =2·7· -·· 38.21~~3~]~~4_4_6~8_? 27 42.88502 41.039695 ----"--·· 27 47.554105 . 40.76215 -:r~;---~ !~1~s l :~::}i~!5 6. I n ----~ .. f3_,i1=1 :~'.1~{j:: 7_f 2_7 - file:JJ/C:/Users/henry.wrighUOocur,erts/SlopeW/3569.01fexlstirg%2Ck:ondition,%20seismic.html 314 ' 4/2[1'2015 Existing Corditions 8 1 27 I 70.3 41.2411 0 I 520.43051 406.60488 9 27 1 74.5 41:66424 I o _ 480.09702 375.0929 10 27 178_:7_ -~ ~~9~_J_ 0 ---~5.48629 -316.80061 _I _g - 11 27 _ _!l2.9_ __ _J ,g 82823 o J04.os_g2z__ __ 237 572'.5_5 __ J_o _12 , 2J _[ 87.5 J 43 653435 ___ o _ -J-~4.78098 __ _'.J]_5_§_1_8_l.5 o 13 : 27 92.5 I 44 693195 O 348 78787 , 272.50295 O _1_4 j_?_Z__~---i~~8 ~i~~! -1 :f-;~}t= -~---:~; !i~::--i fi~ }~1f 8 --~-~ -I _1~_22__ I 1 16 27 104.3705 j 47 791745 1 0 --1132 3093 __ J 884 65697 _ 1 0 _ j 11 27 108.1187 I 48 96_58_6 __ j_Q__~ 1320.3711 1__1.0_3_!__~2__ ~ _o _______ ~ 18 27 111.994 -I 50.282465 0 1744.9784 -I_ 1090 3835 --550 -----1 19 27 115.9964 I 51 750935 0 1842.2186 11151146 550 j -20 -27 _ ~ 119.99s8 -i-5333471 o _ 19_44.~381----121s.019s ___ __ sso ------J 21 27 i 123 1 54.58864 o 1985.70n 1240 3041 550 I 22--27--J__i._26 2406 -n6 04717-o 1867.8914 -1167.1881 --ssa--~-~ 23-27 -J 130.7218 r 58.118565-o 1671.9786 -1044 7682 --sso I 1~ l 25 _ 27 ___ 1 139 ~ 1 52 94015 o ____ 1295.60_1:__ so9.s8138 1 5~ _ I 26 27 144.1654 65.58649 0 1095.6834 684.65895 1 550 [j'l Tj7 __ l_!_48--:-64655 68_j22845_ -0----874.09594 --~-546.19577 ---' 550 -I :-}} 1-}} -I i~~~~~~~---~Hi~!!~ I+-:i~:~{~~8 --: ~-:~:~:~:! 550 --- j =-1-;:------j I_!_:~_ -------_:] ! 30 I _27 ______ 162.0901 78.19so~L_(l_ ____ -53.043401 __ -33.145195_ _ _ _ _ file:lf/C:/Usersnienry.wrighUDocLments/SlopeW/3569.01/existing%20con::hlion,%20seismic.html 414 EMAIL ONLY Report Distribution ES-3569.01 W.I. Realty Acquisition Corp. 13647 Montfort Drive Dallas, Texas 75240 Attention: Ms. Cary Fisher Earth Solutions NW, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 -Site Location Figure 3 -Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 -Soils 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 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 15564.004.doc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The total area of this two-parcel site is approximately 2.84 acres ± and the site is located within a portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 5 and of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, King County, Washington. More particularly the site is located at the northeast corner of Lake Washington Boulevard North and N.E. Park Drive. Please see the attached Vicinity Map for an exact location of the project site. Under existing conditions the majority of the site consists of forested land. There is also an area in the western portion of the project consisting of gravel surface area which serves as a parking lot for vehicles totaling 0.47 acre of impervious surface. The remainder of the site is moderate and steep slope till forest. There is also a Puget Sound Energy power easement for transmission mains comprising most of the southern parcel on the project site. The steep slopes in the central and eastern portions of the project site will make it difficult to construct a parking facility and parking lot. Runoff from the upper reaches of the project site will sheet flow into the back of the retaining walls constructed along the eastern portions of the overall development. These retaining walls will collect upstream contributing runoff in their footing drains and will bypass this runoff around the project site. This overall project only comprises 1.17 acres of land, most of which will be impervious surface, approximately 95 percent impervious surface, with the remainder till grass landscaping. 15564.004.doc FIGURE 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR} WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Western International Phone-----------~ Address 13647 Montfort Drive Dallas TX 75240 Project Engineer ~Al~i S=a=dr~------ Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone /425) 251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivision / Short Subd. / UPD ~ Building Services M/F / jcommercialj / SFR ~ Clearing and Grading ~ Right-of-Way Use D Other Parts PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review ~/ Targeted (circle): Large Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Marriott Residence Inn DDES Permit# ---------- Location Township 23 North Range ~5~E=a=s~t---~ Sections ~5'-'an"""d-"8'----- Site Address NEC -Lake Washington Boulevard North and N.E. Park Drive Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFWHPA 0 COE404 D Shoreline Management ~ Structural RockeryNaulW D DOE Dam Safety D FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Other D ESA Section 7 Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): ~ I Modified I Small Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/1/09 15564.003.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part? MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: ~/ No Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: ~R=e=n=to=n~---------- Special District Overlays:------------------------ Drainage Basin: Lake Washington Stormwater Requirements: Part 9 · ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS ~ River/Stream ~ Steep Slope ~ Lake ~ Erosion Hazard D Wetlands D Landslide Hazard D Closed Depression D Coal Mine Hazard D Floodplain D Seismic Hazard D Other D Habitat Protection D Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes AKF Alderwood and Kitsa11 Very stee11 Urban Land ~ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Sole Source Aquifer D Other D Seeps/Springs D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 2 Erosion Potential 1/1/09 15564.003.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT [gl Core 2 -Offsite Anal)lsis [gl Sensitive/Critical Areas [gl 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 descriotionl Core Requirements {all 8 apply) Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharrie Locations: 1 Offsite Analysis Level: 1!J / 2 / 3 dated: Se11tember 24, 2014 Flow Control Level: l:!J / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: ~/ Public If Private, Maintenance Loa Reauired: IYesl / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / No Liabilitv Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake / !Enhanced Basicml / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscape Manariement Plan: Yes / INol Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Requirements Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control (comm./industrial landuse) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Type: CDA / SDO / MOP / BP / LMP / Shared Fae. I None Name: Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / ~ 100-year Base Blood Elevation (or range): Datum: NGVD 29 Describe: Describe landuse: Describe any structural controls: 3 1/1/09 15564.003.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR} WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes/ if'!Qj Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / [llil with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION 0 Clearing Limits 0 Stabilize Exposed Suliaces 0 Cover Measures 0 Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities 0 Perimeter Protection 0 Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure D Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities 0 Sediment Retention D Flag Limits of SAO and open space D Suliace Water Control preservation areas D Dewatering Control D Other 0 Dust Control 0 Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facilitv Summarv and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description 0 Detention Peak Rate Std. D Infiltration D Regional Facility D Shared Facility D Flow Control BMPs D Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Water Qualitv D Biofiltration D Wetpool 0 Media Filtration D Oil Control D Spill Control D Flow Control BMPs D Other 4 Tvoe/Descriotion MWS 1/1/09 15564.003.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part15 EASEMENTSfTRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS D Drainage Easement [81 Cast in Place Vault D Covenant [81 Retaining Wall D Native Growth Protection Covenant D Rockery> 4' High D 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 t information rovide here is accurate. Si ned/Date 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/1/09 15564.003.doc FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION • S 114th St 121st St J S Tobin St I~ 3~th Sr N 30th St I~ 28th Pl ·• Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park z ., ~ r: .. .,, __ .3 N8ilt5e N 3rd St 1'-; "'<" -i;. -S 2nd St---•@•-- REFERENCE: Rand McNally (2014) Scale: Horizon fa/: N. T.S. Vertical: NIA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:\ 15000s\ 15564\exhibit\graphics\ 15564 vmap.cdr For: Title: Ne 31st 5t N" 27th St Ke1111ydale Lions Park Ne 24th St Ne 20th St m Q. 3 0 ::, Se 91st St 6\- { ~ North Highlar1ds Park. Ne 12th St Ne 9th St Highlands Park Ne 7\'rl <,\ Ne 5th Pl Windsor Hills Park-_Ne .4th St Mt Olivet Cemetery Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP May Cre, Park Ne 10th Ne 8th St Greenwoo, Memotial Park Job Number 15564 Qfil; 09/23/14 FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1-N ~I-Ii Ill 1-1 .~L w'."~E \~ (/) I a.. a.. a.. ~ ~ ~ ~~; ii: IE<( I:!:! fi= ;ril::I tii5~ ~~@ ~ I l f:i;/H "'" ~ ><z ~ d~ i 11 ~ -~ ,";fo ~ : SCALE: ...... IWiJSOfBEARIN{;S:(AA0~1) NOF:IH811"~'15"WEST,I\SMEASURrn8EIWED!Clfl'OFRE'NTON ll0RIZONTN.CONTROLMONUMENTN0'557AND7I ';arnclt.OATIJM:WMJ&B --CIT'/OFROITONVERTICALCO~t,IONUMENTN0.57,6[1)1GAFOUMD COIICROEJ,OM,!ENTINCASEwrJHAJ"BRASSDS<&"X",ON.0.50'Af lflrlERSEC110N0fNE\2TH5TREETANDEDMOHDS""8iUENE ELtV.r32MJUSF'EFJ [W[SOfS\fiVEY; ~=:==~~~~INAOOJSf, WCACCOJNT NUMBERS; ILP.N.OS2305-9055-G4.1ZlD3M45a...OOC6-Q2 """"' \100IJIKEW1,Sfll'il;!ONBL'o1J.IIE (0006) gooHOUSfRVIJ.YM {0055) '"""""" Fmll~l:lC0(;64f.R™SEDW.Y\6.1sg::; ZONE")("(/il£AOCIER/Mll£DTOIIE0l/TSID£500-YEARFI.OOU'tAIH) CllOSSLANDARE'A: 125,66:»sr(l!OO;iAC.) ZOIIO«lCl>SSIAC'J!OH: URIWIC€NIB\NcmH2(1X-H2) IIDl.ffiONrSEJ&\Cl(O' MAX.FROHTSETBACl(5' MtN.SIOES£!8ACl(At.Ol'IGSlllffTrJ W!IX.Sll[SEJRICKMJ)NCSTilfETS' MIN/J,I.IXll<Msrnw:KC' W,X.EUJ)tlGltEIGlfT: 10SJORIE'SkOOGPW,R'fl!SEC0NDl,R'l'N!lERIALS 6Sl'ClRlfSMONGl!E5lOOfflALl!t.litOl1l!OU..ECIOOS 1-.----l==-~~~AREA~~RlilOOEBr f&l~ll.74 ".'@ QISEBQ!ISIKllllJIBEmHl)WIIHlffEarl'Ofmrn»I) , c!;.:2i.38(a"E.S) 1: ~ -~'~"W12~.D~.~-~ ~ ' ·----. ' \__FN(l6"CONC.MONUME'NTW/J=PUNCH liltl ~ :1· I' ·l ~I~ ill~ ~ § ~I~ ffi ~ -1 ~ lolAAKEil"i>sPLEL£V.•25.70PROP.COII." (MEISJRIDELE'¥ATIONmJ1.80') (',lSITEDONS/24/2014) FNO. CONC. IWNUMENT/N CASE~ VISITED ON g<J-2014 \ LEGEND: S FOIJMDMCt1U1,1ENT/600iCR!BEO 1/2"R!IIAR&:GAPSETPE1iR.O.S.RS:.~.20010511S00012 $ FND.PROJ>ERTVCOf:NERf,SOESCRIBED -0--. LmlJIYPOlE • snlrl'/IR'l'SEWERWilU-IOLE M GASVAI.VE 111 WATERMEl£R ,. ~ WATERVN..VE ,....=i GUYANafOR a """""' .. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP e I PORTION OF THE NE1/4, OF THE NW1/4 OF SEC. B, AND THE SE1/4, OF THE :;t' p.1~ SW1/4 OF SEC. 5 TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 EAST, W. M. t µ~, KING COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON ,,,..---·-f. J, 'b. ~ /iHDlRANSfORMER rf!J._:.;..----,.-C D.Hll.11,lAN'SWEWASH/NGTOII FNOCONCUON~ /''/ ~10 j,S'\S( ./ \GARD£NDFEVENADDIT10NTOSEi\ffiE J..'j" B~ I S r.:' ti,G1' ,,.---DMS/ON N0.5 ,..,,,.,, JV:,,_.,,~ \ TAXLOTj082J05-905fJ ;(\ .s""" f /.~/ ,. -_ n/0, CONC. UONUMfNT W/ BRASS NAIL '{ 0 CL P.T. SUNSU e1._vo./ NE: PARK DR. ;;,U) 11/SITEO ON .f-12-00 1.£GA1.DESCRIPTI0t.: (PER 5TEWARTTITlEGUARANlYCOIIIPANYALTACOl,O.IITM[NTOROER k0.01148-2483JDAlc.O AUG1JST7,2014AT8:00AM} PARCELk THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SECTION B, TOWNSHIP 23 NORll-1, RANGE 5 EAST, W. )!.., IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOUOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTI--lfAST CORNER OF GOVERN~ENT LOT 1, SAID POINT BEING THE NORlHW[cST CORNER0Fll-lENORTHEASTQllARTER0fSAIDSECTION8: THENCE WESTERLY /\LONG THE NORTI-1 LJNE OF SAID LOT I, A DISTANCE OF 758 FEET. MORE OR lESS,TOAPOIW100FEEf01$T/\NTEIISTERLYfROM,I.IEASIJREOATRIGl-lTANGLEST0,Tl-lE CENTER LINE OF PACIFIC COAST RAILROAD COMPANY'S LAKE WASHINGTON BRA.NCH: THENCES0U1llE'A51ERLYALONGALJNEPAAALLELWITHAND100FTITOISTANTffiOM,1.1EASUREDAT RIGHT Af11Gl.£S TO, THE CENTER UNE OF SAID RA.IL.ROAD. A DISTANCE OF 221 FEET, MORE OR lESS, TO A POINT DISTAf/T 2DO FEET SOUTHERLY FROM, ldB\SURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO, THE NORTH LJNE OFSAJDLOT1; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG A LJNE PAAAUEL WITH, AND 200 fUT DISTANT FROM, MEASUR£D AT RIGKTANGLESTO,THENORTHLJNEOFSAJOLOT1,TOTHEEASTUNEOFSAl0GO\IERNMENTLOT ,, TK[NCENORTHALONGSAIOEASTUNETOTH[POINTOfBEGINNING; EXCEPTPORTIONTHEREOFL'TlNGEASTERLYOFSTATEROADN0.405, AND OiCEPTTHOSE PORTIONS/IND INTERESTS CONVEYED TO WE STATE OFW/1.SHINGTON BY DEEDS REC0ROE0UNDERREC0RDINGNUMB£RS-476227JAND6189556 PARCELS· TRACTS 312, J1J, 314 AND J15, OF C, O. HILlhlAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN Of EDEN ADDffiON TO SEATTLE DMSION NO. 5, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED iN VOLUME 11 OFPLIITS,PAGE{S)83,RECOROS0FKINGCOUN"TY,WASHINGTON; EXCEPTTHENORTHERLY2J5FEfTTHEREOF; EXCEPT THE WESTERLY 60 FEET Of SAID 1RACT 312 CONVEYED TO KING COUl'llY FOR ROAfJ AY DITORECOROEOUNOERRECOROINGN0,1DJ5005; EXCEPTTH,\l PORTION CON\/EYEOTOTllE STAl'E Cf'WASHINGTON BY OHO RECORDED UNDER RECOROINGN0.466001-4; ANO EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS THEREOF CONOEMNEll IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ~NOER DECREE ENTEREOJUNE2-4,19661NKINGC0UNl'fSUPERKlRCOURTCAUSEN0.6:S6276 ~,(l?TJrJb c:,o,Jp IT /0;../j M~ q /is,;;:;,,, . .---c-------11 i/ I CITY OF RENTON :iJ I I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ..-///.#' FECOI.MHE) FORAl'PROl'AL "---- ~~....,.,.,.~ _______ ..,, ___ _ ----------- "°''---- -BAAGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1821572NDAVENUESOUTli KENT,W/198032: (425)251-6222 {-42!i)2~1--87B2 FAX CONTACT:nr.NBALMEUJ EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP ITT RESIDENCE INN c:i z Ill 0 I""~ I' ,_c2..."'c.JL w <5 o:i I- I- I- '! 11 C/) C/) ii 0 z;; ~ ~l; 1~~ w><:J ,:::W...J ~ I ww ~ 1:u5i!: ~~g 0 z "' ~ - " r..z ~ Oo o E-, ~ :,..z ~ E-,r:,:i ~ u~ ~ IJ J~ 11 I --,----- ~:I ;11 ~ ~ ~ IT! I{ sT-p ;:/ slU'd,.°J ,,,J-RELIMINARY -~ m--" ' ,,, ~ ~g:,Ji'i\i;:re'%\""es 11' ,:::. !&i~ I / IF/~ .,,. .,,. MODIFICATION TO FOR R£LOCAmN OCAL / Ll.lf.l EJL POWER POUES '",k LI ;ti I NES. I ' :' lrl_,· i ', ,V " "- ~ ~ S£ESHEETC8FORR0AD II.IPROJEMBfTPLANEX.S5MH- ANO PROl'll.E DESIGN Rl~~35.74 :E~29 . .3S (8" E, S) 100 Lf 12" CPEP SD O O.S:VC CALc'D /J.C._/ ~ t ___ N~~]_2M2__~-~,.85 FND. s· CONC. MONUMENT W/ 3• SRASSIE & PUNC;1,f i MARK£0 "PSPL El.EV. "" 28.70 PROij~;:gR-i2" CPEP or· . (MEASURED El£VATION = 31.80') (VISITED ON 8/24/2014) " EX-J;i/1:, POLC,, 000 "" ~ W/7·A,R£ ~, / I . '. GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN \,, ~~. ---,-P(IJfi) -·- /)~,l~L()f'a:) t.-orJ o rn o,.; J ~ $ 1 1 ' mA-P t ~-----------·1' ~ ';;, ~-l'~~;; ,,·o2'' Ro'"°7296" /n•?O>J•' i 9-,'IC>· -:;'~L ci~c. fONUMfNT W/ BRASS NAIL / #'~ I/JS/T£0 'oii ~':.o~LVD./ NE PARK DR. 'l~I I TAX LOT #0823D5-9056 oePA~n:,'.,;>F RENTON /?ii OF PUBLIC WORKS ~ -~ ~-ii , CALL BEFORE YOU DIG: 11 I I I I g I I 1-aoo-424-5555 '"""""'""' FOR APPROVAL BY ___ _ BY ___ _ BY ___ _ CHECKED FOR """9'UANCE TO QTY STANDARDS BARGIWJSENCONSULTINGEHGINEERS 1821572NDAVENUESOl.1Ttt KENT, WA 9BOJ2 (425)251-6222 (425)251-87B2ffaY. cotlTACT: !WI BAL.MEW PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN LEVEL 1 RESIDENCE INN g [II ~ u.i _cs.~ 11 I ~ FIGURE 4 SOILS REFERENCE : USDA, Natura l Resources Conse rv ation Service Scale: Hori:zonfal: N. T.S. Vertical: NIA 18215 72 ND AVENU E SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (42 5) 25 1-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIV IL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNI NG, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:\ 15000s\15564\exhibit\graphics\ 15564 soil.cdr LEGEND : AkF = Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep Ur = Urban land For: Title: Ma rr iott Residence Inn Renton , Washington SOIL SURVEY MAP Job Number 15564 DAT E: 09 /23 /14 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The following is the analysis of the Eight Core Requirements and Six Special Requirements as delineated in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as modified by the City of Renton. 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: This project will continue to discharge off the western property line of the site, much as it does under existing conditions; however, under proposed conditions that sheet flow will discharge via a pipe system. Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: Please see Section 3.0 of this Technical Information Report for the off-site analysis prepared for this project. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: Peak rate flow control is the standard for this portion of the City of Renton and that is what is used here. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance system for this project will be sized in accordance with City of Renton standards with the Final Technical Information Report prepared for this project. The Modified Rational Method will be utilized with a 1 DO-year precipitation, a Manning's 'n' value for the pipes of 0.014, and an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been prepared in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as modified by the 2010 City of Renton Amendments. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared with the final submittal of this project. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: A Maintenance and Operations Plan will be prepared with the final submittal of this project. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: This project will concur with all City of Renton financial guarantees and liability requirements for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: This project is proposing a modular wetland system (MWS) which meets the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Requirement Menu as required by the City of Renton in the amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 15564.004.doc 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Response: There are no known other adopted area-specific requirements for this area of the City of Renton. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: There is no Flood Hazard Area associated with this project site since it is so much higher than the surrounding ground. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project does not meet the requirement for flood protection facilities for this development. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: Applicable source control methodology will be applied to this project, which will include at a minimum educating the owner about the proper use of pesticides and fertilizers, covering the trash enclosure, and sweeping the parking lot on a regular basis. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This project does not meet the requirements for Oil Control. Special Requirement No. 6: Aquifer Protection Area. Response: This project site lies in Zone 2 of an Aquifer Protection Area and therefore, no open ponds or open water quality features are allowed. As a result, this project is proposing an enclosed water quality feature known as a modular wetland system. 15564.004.doc 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS LEVEL 1 0FF•S1TE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Marriott Residence Inn NEC -Lake Washington Boulevard North and N.E. Park Drive Renton, Washington Prepared for: Western International 1364 7 Montfort Drive Dallas, Texas 75240 Revised March 31, 2015 September 24, 2014 Our Job No. 15564 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH, CA • ROSEVILLE, CA • SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com TASK 1 TASK2 TASK3 TASK4 TASKS TABLE OF CONTENTS STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C Vicinity Map Downstream Drainage Map Upstream Basin Map RESOURCE REVIEW EXHIBITD EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBITG FEMA Map Sensitive Areas Folios SGS Soils Map Assessor's Map FIELD INSPECTION EXHIBIT H Off-Site Analysis Drainage System Tables 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS, INCLUDING WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS 15564.001.doc TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The proposed Marriott Hotel site is located on two separate parcels of land which total approximately 2.84 ± acres in size located within a portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 5 and of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, King County, Washington. More particularly the site is located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard North and lying northerly of N.E. Park Drive a.k.a. Sunset Boulevard. 1-405 forms the project site's eastern boundary and there is currently a new hotel going in immediately north of the project site soon. The existing topography of the site is such that the site consists chiefly of steep slopes coursing from 1-405 down towards the right-of-way of Lake Washington Boulevard North, which limits the area on the project site that can be developed. The total area of the project site to be developed is approximately 1.17 acres. City of Renton maps were used to aid in determining the downstream drainage course from this project site; however, the area immediately adjacent to the site between Lake Washington Boulevard North and the western property line of the site is being used at this time as a construction staging area so it was difficult to determine where the existing catch basin was on that portion of the site. Approximately 140 feet of sheet flow is currently draining from the project site in a southwesterly direction toward an unfound existing catch basin near the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in the Lake Washington Boulevard North roadway, which then drains in a southerly direction and ultimately southwesterly again, and then northerly into Lake Washington. Please refer to the Downstream Drainage Course Map and Off-Site Analysis Drainage system Table for a complete description of the downstream drainage course from this project site. The proposal for this development is to construct a large hotel with accompanying parking garage and parking lot located in the northwestern corner of the property. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Based on the site visit and analysis of the upstream basin, there is a portion of forested land that does flow onto the project site totaling approximately 0.45 acre of land consisting of runoff from the right-of-way of 1-405. There is no other contributing area from the north, south, or west on this project site 15564.001.doc EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map 5 114th St Cl\ "' .. "' J: ~ .. ~ ~ .i= ~ ! -<=. "' ;::, "' "' 121st St 'i<o '>·,ives- ; 134th St J ._,_'?- N 3~th St N 30th St N 2Blh Pl ·• Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park NStltSt ':t ~~ -~ a ftl ~ z ~ "' N 4th St' z N3rd St ·er 1,,1: "'<' -.i;. REFERENCE: Rand McNally (2014) Scale: Hon"zontal: N. T.S. Vertical: NIA 18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 For: ~ 0 :, m ~ "' if (425) 251-6222 Title: (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:\ 15000s115584\exhibff\graphics\ 15564 vmap.cdr m Se '11st St N.,J1st5t Ne 27th St Kennydale Lions Park Ne 24th St m CL Ne 20th St ~ ""' ::, D.. North .. "' :;j' ~ Highlands ro if ro z "' ro ;t "' Ne 12th St Highlands l'ark Park Ne 7\\l ',\ Ne 5th Pl Windsor Hills Park Ne 4th St Mt Olivet Cemetery Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP May Cre, Park se 951 9; ::r '![ "' ,f, "' Ne 10th Ne Bth St ;;;: 0 ;;;, ~ -Ne, 6• )> I Greenwoo, Memorial Park Job Number 15564 DATE: 09/23/14 EXHIBIT B Downstream Drainage Map 512 0 256 WGS_ 1984_Web_Mercator_Auxi liary_Sphere City of Renton Print map Template 512 Feet RentonMapSupport @Rentonwa.gov 09/2 3/20 14 Th is map is a user generated static output from a n Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may o r may not be accura te, current. or otherw ise reliab le. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Leg e nd City and County Boundary Other [:J City ofRentan Add resses Parcels 1st Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor Other Build ings Buildings Sites Other Municipal Government Facility Community I Recreation Center Libiary Muse um Firo Sta1ion I EMS Station Air port Runwa y / Airfield P,'1< Openspacc Golf Course Greenhouse I Nursery Undeveloped Par',c Par1':.i ng Lot Structure / Garage Network Structures ~ In let @ Manhole I] UblityVault D Unknown Structure ® Control Structure Pump Station Discharge Point Water Quality Detenti on Facilities t:i Pooo I••: i5',' a Tank -Vault J.:. Wetl an d Pipe Culvert None ()Owfl~TUA,¥\ OM»,/~£. CtJv.fl-';;,1£ MA(> 0 City of &errfofl e Finance & IT Division EXHIBIT C Upstream Basin Map City of Renton Print map Template -:-Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Re ntonwa .gov 09/23/2014 This map is a use r generated stat ic output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise re liable. 512 0 256 512 Feet WGS_ 1984_Web_Me rcator_Auxiliary_Sphere TH IS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION C ity and County Boundary Other CJ CityofRenton Addresses Parcels 1st Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor Other Bui ldings Bui ldings Sites Other Mun icipal Government Facility Community/ Recreation Center Library Museum bJ Fire Station/ EMS Station Airport Runway/Airfield Park Openspace Golf Course Greenhouse/ Nurser; Undeveloped Park Par king Lot Structure/Garage Network Structures ll,I Inlet @ Manhole Ell Utility Vault D Unknown Structure Control Structure Pump Station Discharge Point Water Quali ty Dete ntion Facilities t:i Pond 0 Tank -Vault .f:. Wetland Pipe Cu lvert I I -v5ii' tAP"T~ ~A6JrJ NIAP 0 City of Reiff on 0 Finance & IT Division TASK2 RESOURCE REVIEW TASK2 RESOURCE REVIEW Adopted Basin Plans: There are no available adopted basin plans for this area of King County and the City of Renton has already indicated that either Enhanced or Basic Water Quality are required for this project site. Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the enclosed Exhibit D -FEMA Map Panel No. 53033C0664 F dated May 1995 that indicates the project site is not located within a floodplain or floodway of a stream or a river. Other Off-Site Analysis Reports: There are no known other Off-Site Analysis Reports performed for this project site. Sensitive Areas Folios: The King County Sensitive Areas Folios were reviewed for this site and there was a sensitive area covering most of the project site which consists of erosion potential. Please refer to the Sensitive Areas Folios on the following pages of this report for a complete description of the sensitive areas on this project site. Drainage Complaints and Studies: Since this project is in the City of Renton, there are no known drainage complaints from King County associated with this project area. Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable. United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on the Soils Survey for this portion of King County, most of the project site lies in Alderwood and Kitsap soils, which are very steep, and portions of the small remainder of the site lie in area designated Urban Land. • Wetlands Inventory Map: There are no known wetlands on the project site to the best of our knowledge. • Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable. Adopted Stormwater Compliance Plans: This is not applicable. 15564.001.doc EXHIBIT D FEMA Map / A \ T \ \ ) I / /!// /// /,;</,:· // /" /">/ CJ LEGEND OTHER AREAS ZONE X Ne;,,, determined to be ootside 500--year 1loodplain. NE w z NE\ 16TH 14TH STREE" REFERENCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Portion of Map 53033C0664 F, May 1995) Scale: Horizontal: N. T.S. Vertical: NIA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:\ 15000s\ 15564\exhiM\graphic.s\15564 fema.cdr For: Title: Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washington FEMAMAP Job Number 15564 DATE: 09/23/14 EXHIBIT E Sensitive Areas Folios Lake Washington -I County Boundary I _ x Motlntaln Peaks Highways Streets ,,,,__ H,gh~ ;:I Artcriak Loc,I Parcels SAO Stream ;I Ci.a.I // Cbu2Pw.ing1 J4,I c~ 2 Sanond ;./ ems, D Lakes a nd La rge Rivers ;./ Streams REFERENCE: King County iMAP (2014) Scale: Horizontal: N. T.S. Verlicaf: NIA 18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANN ING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:\ 15000s\ 15564\exhibit\graphics\ 15564 sens.cdr Legend m ~ lffl ~ For: Title: SAOWetJand SAO landslide SAO Coal Mino SAO Seismic SAO Erosion 2009 Color Aerial Photos {6in> 2009 Color Aerial Photos (121n) Marriott Residence In n Renton, Washington SENSITIVE AREAS MAP Job Number 15564 DATE : 09/23/14 EXHIBIT F SCS Soils Map REFERENCE : USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Scale: Horizontal: N. T.S . Vertical: WA 182 15 72N D AV ENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:\ 15000s\ 15564\exhibit\graphics\ 15564 soil. cdr ~ AkF ; Ald erwood and Kitsap soils, very steep Ur ; Urban la nd For: Title: Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washingto n SOIL SURVEY MAP Job Number 15564 Q£>J!s; 09/23/14 EXHIBIT G Assessor's Map REFERENCE: King County Department of Assessments (Feb. 2013) Scale: Horizontal, N. T.S. Verlical: NIA 18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:\ 15000s\15564\exhibft\graphics\ 15564 amap.cdr For: Title: Marriott Residence Inn Renton, Washington ASSESSOR MAP Job Number 15564 DATE: 09/23/14 TASK3 FIELD INSPECTION EXHIBIT H Off-Site Analysis Drainage System Table Basin: Lake Washington Drainage Component Symbol Type, Name, and Size Type: sheet flow, swale, stream, channel, pipe, pond; size, See Map diameter, surface area I Sheet flow 2 Catch basin to manhole 3 24-inch culvert 4 Ponding area 5 Twin 54-inch RCP with twin 48-inch RCP culverts 6 Open channel 7 84-inch RCP with 54-inch RCP 8 Open channel 9 Large culverts 10 Open channel 11 Three 54-inch CMP culverts 12 Open channel OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Subbasin Name: ----------- Distance Drainage Component from Site Existing Potential Description Slope Discharge Problems Problems Constrictions, under capacity, ponding, ovcrtopping, flooding, habitat or organism Drainage basin, vegetation, cover, destruction, scouring, bank sloughing, depth, type of sensitive area, volume % FL sedimentation, incision, other erosion From site over gravel to catch 3.5 0'-140' None Noted None Noted basin 12-inch pipe ---140'-330' None Noted None Noted To wetland/channel ---330'-530' None Noted None Noted Wetland Flat 530'-580' None Noted None Noted Under Lake Washington Flat 580'-655' None Noted None Noted Boulevard North 10'-15'deep, IO'bottom, 1:1 0.1 655'-755' None Noted None Noted side slopes, thickly vegetated Flows under railroad tracks 0.1 755'-805' None Noted None Noted 15' bottom, 15' -20' deep, Flat 805'-985' None Noted None Noted flows north Under road, flows north 0.1 985'-1,049' None Noted None Noted Flows into Coulon Park 0.1 l,049'-1,149' None Noted None Noted Under Coulon Park entrance 0.1 l,149'-1,225' None Noted None Noted road Through Coulon Park to Lake 0.25 1,225'=2, 175' None Noted None Noted Washington Subbasin Number: Observations of Field Inspector, Resource Reviewer, or Resident Tributary area, likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential impacts Catch basin and manhole could not be found due to cons1ruction activity. Culvert could not be found. 15564.002.doc TASK3 FIELD INSPECTION There were minor problems reported during the resource review; however, the field reconnaissance did not find any potential constrictions or lack of capacity in the existing drainage system proposed to be utilized for this project site downstream from the project site. However, one catch basin and one manhole as indicated by the City of Renton COR Map could not be located, but that was because the area that the catch basin and manhole are located in was under construction due to grinding N. E. Park Drive east of the site. This area downstream from the project site was being used as a staging area for that construction. 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but 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. Based on the resource review and site visit, there is little evidence of past conveyance system nuisance problems occurring. In fact, the entire downstream drainage course appears to consist of pipes sized adequately for the flows contributing to them. 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. Per the resource review and our site visit, there is a potential erosion problem on the upper portions of the area of the site adjacent to 1-405 since that area is so steep. However, there is no sign of erosion occurring during our site visit but the Sensitive Areas Folios indicate this as a potential erosion problem area. 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) Severe flooding problems, i.e., a severe building flooding problem or severe roadway flooding problem can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water ·surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems warrant additional attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety or to public or private property. There are no known flooding problems associated with this project site to the best of our knowledge. The downstream drainage course appears adequate for the flow that was draining to it on the day of our site visit, which was September 23, 2014 at approximately 11:00 a.m. The sky was overcast and it had rained earlier in the day. The high temperature on this day was approximately 64 degrees. 15564.001.doc TASK4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS TASK4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS Runoff from the project site from the project site will be routed to an existing catch basin which was not found at the time of the site visit. However, the City of Renton mapping website indicates that there is a catch basin adjacent to the railroad tracks in Lake Washington Boulevard North which drains in a southeasterly direction to a manhole prior to crossing Houser Way. All of the rest of the downstream drainage course appeared more than adequate to convey the minor runoff coming from this project site. Also, water quality will be provided meeting the Enhanced Water Quality Menu with the use of a modular wetland system which has GULD approval from the Department of Ecology for Enhanced Water Quality. 15564.001.doc TASKS MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS, INCLUDING WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS TASKS MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS, INCLUDING WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS There are no problems associated with this downstream drainage course or upstream basin contributing to this project site. Since this project site is providing Enhanced Water Quality, runoff conditions from the project site should be improved over what currently exists on the project site. This modular wetland system meets the Enhanced Water Quality Menu with a General Use Level Designation from the Department of Ecology for Enhanced, Phosphorus, and Basic Water Quality. 15564.001.doc 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology The total area of development on this project site is approximately 1 .17 acres of the overall 2.89-acre ± site. Of that 1.17 acres, 0.47 acre is considered existing impervious surface and the remainder is till forest, portions of which are steep (over 15 percent slopes) and other portions are in the range of 5 to 15 percent slopes totaling 0.95 acre of forest. All soils types in the area to be developed are Alderwood and Kitsap type soils. Please see the Existing Condition Basin Map in Section 1.0 of this Preliminary Technical Information Report for the land cover associated with the area to be developed on this project site. B. Developed Site Hydrology Under developed conditions the site was determined to be 95 percent impervious surface totaling 1 .11 acres with 0.06 acre of landscaping for a grand total developed area on the project site of 1.17 acres. Please see the Developed Condition Basin Map in Section 1.0 of this Preliminary Technical Information Report. C. Performance Standards The area-specific flow control facility is the Peak Rate Runoff Flow Control Standard as delineated by the City of Renton in their Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This is a peak rate runoff matching standard in which the 2-, 10-, and 100-year pre-developed peak runoff rates utilizing existing conditions are the release rates during the same 2-, 10-, and 100-year respectively storm events for the developed condition. The applicable conveyance system capacity standard is the Modified Rational Method as delineated in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual utilizing a 100-year precipitation, a Manning's 'n' value of 0.014 in the pipes and an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes. This is a very conservative methodology and usually creates pipes larger in size than what would normally be required for a given storm event. The applicable land use-specific water quality requirement as determined per Section 1.2.8.1 of the City of Renton Amendments is the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Standard which is being met with the modular wetland system located downstream of detention for this project. Please see the calculations on the following pages of this report. In addition, oil control is not required and the Source Control BMPs for this project site include covering the trash enclosure and educating the owner about the proper use of pesticides and fertilizers as well as regular sweeping of the parking lot. D. Flow Control System Please see the Grading Plan on the following pages of this report which shows the water quality facilities proposed for this development. In addition, calculations to size the water quality facility are included on the following pages of this report. 15564.004.doc E. Water Quality System Please see the Grading Plan on the following pages of this report which shows the water quality facility for this project, which is a modular wetland system meeting the General Use Level Designation of the Department of Ecology for Enhanced Basic Water Quality. The calculations to size this facility are also included on the following pages of this report. 15564.004.doc FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA Pre-Developed: Existing Impervious Till Forest Developed: 95% Impervious Till Grass TOTAL Water Quality Menu used TOTAL 1.11 Acre 0.06Acre 1.17 Acres Enhanced Basic 0.47 Acre 0.70 Acre 1.17Acres A Modular Wetland System with G.U.L.D. from D.O.E. for Enhanced Water Quality was chosen. 15564.004.doc GRADING PLAN ~ § MI . .I. 1·1 1'•30' Vl I CL CL CL ~ ~ ~ ~~i ti~ ~il'.JJ i5rrl !~ i .... l oz t 0 0 e--< ~ ~~ ~ u~ i wl en; -~ £ n~~ Ii ~ 'I Ji:i ~!! ~1~1 ! ~~ 12i;l ;~ ~ (D ~=J~1i~~rt!1ti\1/~L~- POWER COMPANY FOR RaOCATIOli AND UOOIFICATlON TO EX. POWER f'OlfS ANO LINES. 20 LF 12" CPEP SD O O!;mC , I I I CALL BEFORE YOU DIG• I NI-I g 11-800-424-5555 c-,'~ ·~,; d't. TAX LOT #082305-9056 IECOIAEN)E!) ""'""'"""'-"'---- CHECICE> FOR COU'I..IAHae TOaTYSTAM:'IAFD3 "'----1------- FND.. 1/2 ~ REBAR & CAP =~-;gf~~JJ"CALC'D ~-,• ----\ '\ 0 Cl P.C. 5UNSIT BLVD./ NE PARK DR. I #~ \ VISITED ON 4-12-00 ca: ~ -' CITY OF RENTON :8 Df=PARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ..- """"" EIARCHAUS£N CONSUI.TNG ENCNEERS 18215nNDA\1£NUESOUTl1 KENT,WA980J2 {425}2~1-6222 (425)251-8782FAX CO!fl"ACT: llAN IW..MEW PRELIMINARY GRADING AND ci STORM DRAINAGE PLAN LEVEL 1 z ITT AESI NC ~ , ui 0 m I- ~~ ~-Id I 1_ !:l CL CL ~ ~1; ZS<'. 0: ~<( ~~;r:_ ~ I ~W~ ~~@ z II) i ! r..z ~ 0~ ~ ~~d 1--4 i:t: a: u ~ ! -~ • I ~ ii~ I IJl1 ~ :1· 1, ,i I I ~ ~ i ! ~ ~ ~ ~, I ii • ~ I ~ 1"•30' 60 I f:cH:·~o't:RNING------------ EX. SSMH ~ RIM.:;35.74 . \ __ NB§~l~~L: MC-~ \__FND, 6' CONC. MONUMENT W/ J' BRASSIE,& PUNCHJ-!,, MARKED 9pspL ELEV. = 28.70 PROP. COR. (MEASURED ELEVATION = 31.80') (VisrTEO ON 8/24/2014) WMINAIRE: & UG LIN£ f1 r.'- I'\ / i I CALL BEFORE YOU DIG g II 1-800--424-5555 ' ' 'Tl 10 ri\fj PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN -LEVEL 2 'Ji1 •NA_~ ~ \ \ \ (ff i / _..-\''e,_ I S:ltr(i)G": ~ "i;. s ~ I • ~' ---------~ < \ ' I~ k , -- TAX LOT #082305--9056 fE<XlMISE1ED RlR APPROVAL Of, ___ _ ct£a<ED FOR CO!l'IJiW::E TO aJY STAIC>NDB "' 1------~ £ff, ___ _ 26~-I 3_5~-\ \ \ t 'Iii 2000~----------------__!\, -~ -----\% " a \ I 408_J4 i--s. w. s w. 1;,. sec. s \ , ----'-----. I 1- L __ N, LN. N.W. 1/4, SEC. 8 -1-: '\ l "' ~ \i i' j t ~ { ~ --------;:-----§ ~ -~~72.96 , Nc"'205.J ~ t, ~~-tozRod C ~ ·-~l' _ ,,..ao3 f FND. CGNC. MONUME/'/T W/ BRASS NAIL ii' ~· -fl CL P.C. SUNS(T BLVD./ NE PARK OR. I #~ VISITED ON 4-12-00 ;2; ~ -' CITY OF RENTON :g GHA(t. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOAKB - """""' BARGIWJSENCONSIJLTINGENGINEERS 1821572NDAVENUESOU11, KENT,Wl.96032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8762 FAX CONTACT; DNI BAUEW ~ QI ~ --\ i "'""' <1:,· '{l't'iGeNGll't,t.+ PRELIMINARY GRADING AND 0 STORM DRAINAGE PLAN LEVEL 2 z INN ~ ~:;=--;~4~~'.,gg.--1"~~~~ -, u.i ~ KCRTS PEAK RATE FLOW CONTROL CALCULATIONS Return Period 2 5 10 20 1 o0 ------. -----·-··- . 15564rdout.pks in Sea-Tac en u. 2, (1) e> 10 ca .c (.) (/) i5 U)- U) + 15564pre.pks + 2 5 10 R __ _ N + + + + + 00 I I 1 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 Cumulative Probability + 50 100 + 1 ·-·-1 98 99 KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series 15564pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTF60R.rnf Till Forest 0.70 acres Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI60R.rnf 0.47 acres Total Area 1.17 acres Peak Discharge: 0.272 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:15564pre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:15564pre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:15564pre.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series 15564dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTG60R.rnf Till Grass 0.06 acres Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI60R.rnf 1.11 acres Total Area 1.17 acres Peak Discharge: 0.537 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:15564dev.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:15564dev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:15564dev.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command Size a Retention/Detention FACILITY Loading Retention/Detention Facility File:15564convey.rdf Retention/Detention Facility Design Edit Facility Loading Time Series File:15564dev.tsf Time Series Found in Memory:15564dev.tsf Saving Retention/Detention Facility File:15564convey.rdf Starting Documentation File:C:\KC_SWDM\Output\15564convey.doc Time Series Found in Memory:15564dev.tsf Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:15564dev.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Faci1ity] Inflow/Outflow Analysis Storing Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Facility Routing Complete Peaks Calculation .. R/D Facility Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:15564rdout.pks Peaks Plotting Reading Flow Frequency:15564rdout.pks Reading Flow Frequency:15564pre.pks End Graphics Command Downstream Analysis Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design End Sizing Retention/Detention Facility KCRTS Command Size a Retention/Detention FACILITY Loading Retention/Detention Facility File:15564convey.rdf Retention/Detention Facility Design Edit Facility Saving Retention/Detention Facility File:15564convey.rdf Starting Documentation File:C:\KC_SWDM\Output\15564convey.doc Time Series Found in Memory:15564dev.tsf Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:15564dev.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Inflow/Outflow Analysis Storing Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Facility Routing Complete Peaks Calculation .. R/D Facility Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:15564rdout.pks Peaks Plotting Reading Flow Frequency:15564rdout.pks Reading Flow Frequency:15564pre.pks End Graphics Command Downstream Analysis Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:15564dev.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Inflow/Outflow Analysis Storing Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Facility Routing Complete Peaks Calculation .. R/D Facility Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:15564rdout.pks Peaks Plotting Reading Flow Frequency:15564rdout.pks Reading Flow Frequency:15564pre.pks End Graphics Command Downstream Analysis Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design End Sizing Retention/Detention Facility KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command exit KCRTS Program Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.142 5 2/09/01 2:00 0.272 1 100.00 0.990 0 .112 8 1/05/02 16:00 0 .171 2 25.00 O. 960 0.164 3 2/27/03 7:00 0.164 3 10.00 0.900 0 .117 7 B/26/04 2:00 0.153 4 5.00 0.800 0 .139 6 10/28/04 16:00 0.142 5 3.00 0.667 0.153 4 1/18/06 16:00 0 .139 6 2.00 0.500 0.171 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.117 7 1.30 0.231 0.272 1 1/09/08 6:00 0 .112 8 1.10 0. 091 Computed Peaks 0.238 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.275 7 2/09/01 2:00 0.240 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.333 3 12/08/02 18:00 0. 277 6 8/26/04 2:00 0.330 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.293 5 1/18/06 16:00 0 .404 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.537 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.537 1 100.00 0.990 0.404 2 25.00 0.960 0.333 3 10.00 0.900 0.330 4 5.00 0.800 0.293 5 3.00 0.667 0.277 6 2.00 0.500 0.275 7 1.30 0.231 0.240 8 1.10 0. 091 0.493 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.149 4 2/09/01 19:00 0 .271 6.00 1 100.00 0.990 0.075 8 1/05/02 18:00 0.158 4.69 2 25.00 0. 960 0.107 5 2/27/03 10:00 0.153 4.55 3 10.00 0.900 0. 077 7 8/24/04 0:00 0.149 4.46 4 5.00 0.800 0. 091 6 10/28/04 20:00 0.107 3.53 5 3.00 0.667 0.153 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.091 2.61 6 2.00 0.500 0.158 2 11/24/06 6:00 0.077 1.83 7 1.30 0.231 0. 271 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.075 1. 75 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.234 5.83 50.00 0.980 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage O Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention vault 68.00 ft 20.00 ft 1360. sq. 6.00 ft 32.00 ft 8160. cu. 6.00 ft ft ft 12.00 inches 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice# Height (ft) 0.00 4.00 Diameter Discharge Diameter 1 2 Top Notch Weir: Length: Weir Height: Outflow Rating Curve: Stage Elevation (in) 1.45 1.25 Rectangular 1.25 5.50 None Storage (CFS) (in) 0 .139 0.060 4. 0 in ft Discharge (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) 0.00 32.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.02 32.02 27. 0.001 0.007 0.03 32.03 41. 0.001 0.010 0.05 32.05 68. 0.002 0.012 0.06 32.06 82. 0.002 0.014 0.08 32.08 109. 0.002 0.016 0.09 32.09 122. 0.003 0.017 0 .11 32 .11 150. 0.003 0.018 0.12 32.12 163. 0.004 0.020 0.24 32.24 326. 0.007 0.028 0.36 32.36 490. 0. 011 0.034 0.47 32.47 639. 0.015 0.039 0.59 32.59 802. 0.018 0.044 0. 71 32. 71 966. 0.022 0.048 0.83 32.83 1129. 0.026 0.052 0.94 32. 94 1278. 0.029 0.055 1. 06 33.06 1442. 0.033 0.058 1.18 33.18 1605. 0.037 0.062 1.30 33.30 1768. 0.041 0.065 1.41 33.41 1918. 0.044 0.067 1.53 33.53 2081. 0.048 0.070 1. 65 33.65 2244. 0.052 0.073 1. 77 33.77 2407. 0.055 0.075 1. 89 33.89 2570. 0.059 0.078 2.00 34.00 2720. 0.062 0.080 2.12 34.12 2883. 0.066 0.083 2.24 34.24 3046. 0.070 0.085 Percolation (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.36 34.36 3210. 0.074 0.087 0.00 2.47 34.47 3359. 0.077 0.089 0.00 2.59 34.59 3522. 0.081 0.091 0.00 2. 71 34. 71 3686. 0.085 0.093 0.00 2.83 34.83 3849. 0.088 0.095 0.00 2.94 34.94 3998. 0.092 0.097 0.00 3.06 35.06 4162. 0.096 0.099 0.00 3.18 35.18 4325. 0.099 0.101 0.00 3.30 35.30 4488. 0.103 0.103 0.00 3.41 35.41 4638. 0.106 0.105 0.00 3.53 35.53 4801. 0.110 0.107 0.00 3.65 35.65 4964. 0.114 0.108 0.00 3.77 35.77 5127. 0.118 0 .110 0.00 3.89 35.89 5290. 0.121 0 .112 0.00 4.00 36.00 5440. 0.125 0 .113 0.00 4.01 36.01 5454. 0.125 0 .114 0.00 4.03 36.03 5481. 0.126 0 .115 0.00 4.04 36.04 5494. 0.126 0 .117 0.00 4.05 36.05 5508. 0.126 0 .119 0.00 4.07 36.07 5535. 0.127 0.123 0.00 4.08 36.08 5549. 0.127 0.126 0.00 4.09 36.09 5562. 0.128 0.128 0.00 4.10 36.10 5576. 0.128 0.129 0.00 4.22 36.22 5739. 0.132 0.137 0.00 4.34 36.34 5902. 0.136 0 .143 0.00 4.46 36.46 6066. 0 .139 0 .149 0.00 4.57 36.57 6215. 0.143 0.154 0.00 4.69 36.69 6378. 0.146 0.158 0.00 4.81 36.81 6542. 0.150 0.163 0.00 4.93 36.93 6705. 0.154 0.167 0.00 5.05 37.05 6868. 0.158 0 .171 0.00 5.16 37.16 7018. 0.161 0.175 0.00 5.28 37.28 7181. 0.165 0.178 0.00 5.40 37.40 7344. 0.169 0.182 0.00 5.50 37.50 7480. 0.172 0.185 0.00 5.56 37.56 7562. 0.174 0.192 0.00 5.63 37.63 7657. 0.176 0.200 0.00 5.69 37.69 7738. 0.178 0.208 0.00 5.75 37.75 7820. 0.180 0.218 0.00 5.81 37.81 7902. 0.181 0.230 0.00 5.88 37.88 7997. 0.184 0.243 0.00 5.94 37.94 8078. 0.185 0.257 0.00 6.00 38.00 8160. 0.187 0 .272 0.00 6.10 38.10 8296. 0.190 0.583 0.00 6.20 38.20 8432. 0.194 1.150 0.00 6.30 38.30 8568. 0.197 1. 880 0.00 6.40 38.40 8704. 0.200 2.670 0.00 6.50 38.50 8840. 0.203 2. 960 0.00 6.60 38.60 8976. 0.206 3.220 0.00 6.70 38.70 9112. 0.209 3.450 0.00 6.80 38.80 9248. 0.212 3.670 0.00 6.90 38.90 9384. 0.215 3.880 0.00 7.00 39.00 9520. 0.219 4.080 0.00 7.10 39.10 9656. 0.222 4.270 0.00 7.20 39.20 9792. 0.225 7.30 39.30 9928. 0.228 7.40 39.40 10064. 0.231 7.50 39.50 10200. 0.234 7.60 39.60 10336. 0.237 7.70 39.70 10472. 0.240 7.80 39.80 10608. 0.244 7.90 39.90 10744. 0.247 8.00 40.00 10880. 0.250 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Target Cale Stage Elev 1 0.54 0.27 0.27 6.00 38.00 2 0.29 ******* 0.16 4.69 36.69 3 0.29 0.16 0.15 4.55 36.55 4 0.27 ******* 0.15 4.46 36.46 5 0.33 ******* 0 .11 3.54 35.54 6 0.33 0.14 0.09 2.62 34.62 7 0.28 ******* 0.08 1. 83 33.83 8 0.24 ******* 0.07 1. 74 33.74 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:15564dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.537 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.271 Peak Reservoir Stage: 6.00 Peak Reservoir Elev: 38.00 Peak Reservoir Storage: 8157. 0.187 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac CFS at CFS at Ft Ft Cu-Ft Ac-Ft 4.440 0.00 4.620 0.00 4.780 0.00 4.940 0.00 5.090 0.00 5.240 0.00 5.390 0.00 5.530 0.00 5.670 0.00 Storage (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 8157. 0.187 6380. 0 .146 6185. 0 .142 6062. 0.139 4815. 0 .111 3563. 0.082 2494. 0.057 2371. 0.054 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks (CFS) (CFS) 0 .149 4 2/09/01 19:00 0 .271 0.075 8 1/05/02 18:00 0.158 0.107 5 2/27/03 10:00 0.153 0.077 7 8/24/04 0:00 0 .149 0. 091 6 10/28/04 20:00 0.107 0.153 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.091 0.158 2 11/24/06 6:00 0.077 0.271 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.075 Computed Peaks 0.234 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:15564dev.tsf --Rank Return Prob (ft) Period 6.00 1 100.00 0.990 4.69 2 25.00 0.960 4.55 3 10.00 0.900 4.46 4 5.00 0.800 3.53 5 3.00 0.667 2.61 6 2.00 0.500 1. 83 7 1.30 0.231 1. 75 8 LlO 0. 091 5.83 50.00 0.980 Outflow Time Series File:15564rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak Outflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage: Peak Reservoir Elev: Peak Reservoir Storage: 0.537 0 .271 6.00 38.00 8157. 0.187 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:15564rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Ft Ft Cu-Ft Ac-Ft ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.149 4 2/09/01 19:00 0 .271 6.00 1 100.00 0.990 0.075 8 1/05/02 18:00 0.158 4.69 2 25.00 0.960 0.107 5 2/27/03 10:00 0.153 4.55 3 10.00 0.900 0.077 7 8/24/04 0:00 0.149 4.46 4 5.00 0.800 0.091 6 10/28/04 20:00 0.107 3.53 5 3.00 0.667 0.153 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.091 2.61 6 2.00 0.500 0.158 2 11/24/06 6:00 0. 077 1. 83 7 1.30 0.231 0.271 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.075 1. 75 8 1.10 0. 091 Computed Peaks 0.234 5.83 50.00 0.980 WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NAME MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN PROJECT LOCATION RENTON, WA STRUCTURE ID TREATMENT REQUIRED VOLUME BASED {CF) FLOW BASED (CFS) 0.09 TREATMENT HGL AVAILABLE (FT) PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED {CFS) -IF APPUCABLE 0.27 PIPE DATA I.E. MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 31.73 PVC 12" INLET PIPE 2 OUTLET PIPE 30.40 PVC 12· PRETREATMENT BIOFILTRATION DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION 39.90 39.90 39.90 SURFACE LOAD NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN FRAME & COVER ,Jo" (2) fJJO" ¢24" WETLANDMEDIA VOLUME {CY} 4.84 WETLANDMEDIA DEUVERY METHOD TBD ORIFICE SIZE {DIA INCHES} ¢2.16" MAXIMUM PICK WEIGHT {LBS) TBD NOTES: INSTALLATION NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURERS CONTRACT. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BASE. MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY PROJECT ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. J. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE. (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH}. INVERT OF oumow PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL GAPS AROUND PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATER TIGHT WITH A NON-SHRINK GROUT PER MANUFACTURERS STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL AND SHALL MEET OR EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECTION STANDARDS. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. 5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL RISERS, MANHOLES, AND HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO GROUT ALL MANHOLES AND HATCHES TO MATCH FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. 6. DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGATION REQUIRED ON ALL UNITS WITH VEGETATION. GENERAL NOTES 1. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES ARE SUBJECT TO INLET PIPE SEE NOTES 1-1 I M n "LJ I ----J---r!=~.,.....;;!:HC,:, --i..-.d;:°'J• PLANVJEW C/L ----,JR go :f,M' ' 'F"S) +=, ==,, ' 'E5l. ----!-----------1 I I l I __ J_= OUTLET PIPE SEE NOTES ~ : \I "";,7Y I<-YYI J1t -·==1 12 .Pl,t' i-----s·.:.o• L6· -----9·-o·------.I ELEVATION VIEW TH£ PRODUCT OESCRlBfD ~y BE PROrmrD BY ONC OR 11/111£ OF PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: CHANGE. FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DETAILING EXACT DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS THE FOl.lJJWING US PATENTS.: 7.425,262: 7.410.J62; 7.674.JlB; 8,ol)J.816; RfJ.A1fD F1JREJfJN •• PA1FNfS-OR OTHER. PATENTS P£N!)ING . 111£ /NFORM41KJN CO/fTNNED II 111/S Dli411N1 IS 111£ SfM PROPCHlY OF JIOIJlJlM WEfU.NDS S'YSTfJIS. Ml'/ REPROOICl10N IN PART OR AS A WHOIE Wfl1IOlff 111£ WRiTTf1I PfJIJl1SS10N OF /IOOIJ/N1 WfJW/D5 S'IS1EJIS IS l'ROHi8flFI). AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE-CONTACT MANUFACTURER. C/L ~MANHOLE I ,--......::: ::::---, , I<::::::: ::::::::::,..,,1 \:. I 1c:::::::: ::::::::,,'----r-- ' I . ~::: ·' ·' 0, "' ~ 5• .. . "'<:> ·' ·' a, I\:> ,-...----s·.:.o·-----i ,------9~0·----~~ LEFT END VIEW B/OFIL17lA TIONf PRETHEA TMENT MANHOLE C/L ~ r-----------t---1~1 ' ' P--_!!I_!! .b!,lffi,.,.,, • .,. RIGHT END VIEW DISCHARGEjB/OFIL17lA TION TREATMENT FLOW (CFS) OPERATING HEAD {FT) PRE.TREATMENT LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} 5• 0.091 2.7 0.80 0.5 tJ. " ' _J~:11°ETLANDS wwv,.ModulorWetlal1ds.com j (85S] SMOD-\IIET MWS-L-8-8-V STORMWA TER 8/0FIL TRA T/ON SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FINAL TIR 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FINAL TIR 7.0 OTHER PERMITS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FINAL TIA 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan For Marriott Residence Inn Prepared For Western International 13647 Montfort Drive Dallas, TX 75240 Owner Western International 13647 Montfort Drive Dallas, TX 75240 Developer Western International 13647 Montfort Drive Dallas, TX 75240 Operator/Contractor TBD Project Site Location NEC of Lake Washington Boulevard North and N.E. Park Drive Renton, Washington Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead TBD SWPPP Prepared By Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 -72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 Ali Sadr, Senior Project Engineer SWPPP Preparation Date April 21, 2015 Approximate Project Construction Dates August 2015 June 2016 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Contents 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Site Description ................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities ........................................................................... 3 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs ........................................................................................ 5 3.1 The 14 BMP Elements .......................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Element #1 -Mark Clearing Limits ........................................................... 5 3.1.2 Element #2 -Establish Construction Access ........................................... 5 3.1.3 Element #3 -Control Flow Rates ............................................................. 6 3.1.4 Element #4 -Install Sediment Controls ................................................... 6 3.1.5 Element #5 -Stabilize Soils ..................................................................... 7 3.1.6 Element #6 -Protect Slopes .................................................................... 8 3.1.7 Element #7 -Protect Drain Inlets ............................................................. 8 3.1.8 Element #8 -Stabilize Channels and Outlets .......................................... 9 3.1.9 Element #9 -Control Pollutants ............................................................... 9 3.1.10 Element #10 -Control Dewatering ......................................................... 1 O 3.1.11 Element #11 -Maintain BMPs ............................................................... 11 3.1.12 Element #12 -Manage the Project ........................................................ 11 3.1.13 Element #13 -Construction Stormwater Chemical Treatment .............. 13 3.1.14 Element #14 -Construction Stormwater Filtration ................................. 19 3.2 Site Specific BMPs .............................................................................................. 20 4.0 Construction Phasing and BMP lmplementation ............................................................. 21 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team .............................................................................................. 22 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................. 22 5.2 Team Members ................................................................................................... 23 6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring ...................................................................................... 24 6.1 Site lnspection ..................................................................................................... 24 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency ...................................................................... 24 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation ............................................................... 24 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring ............................................................................ 25 6.2.1 Turbidity Sampling .................................................................................. 25 6.2.2 pH Sampling ........................................................................................... 26 7.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping ........................................................................................ 27 7.1 Recordkeeping .................................................................................................... 27 7.1.1 Site Log Book ......................................................................................... 27 7.1.2 Records Retention .................................................................................. 27 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records ................................................................. 27 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP ............................................................................. 27 7.2 Reporting ............................................................................................................. 28 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports ................................................................ 28 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance ................................................................ 28 15564.005.doc Appendix A Site Plans Appendix B Construction BMPs Appendix C Alternative BMPs Appendix D General Permit Appendix E Site Inspection Forms (and Site Log) Appendix F Engineering Calculations iii Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 1.0 Introduction This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared as part of the NPDES stormwater permit requirements for the Marriott Residence Inn project in Renton, Washington. The proposed site is located on the northeast corner of Lake Washington Boulevard North and N.E. Park Drive, Renton, Washington. Construction activities will include the addition of one building, asphalt parking lots, landscaping, utility work, including power, telephone, gas, cable television, water, sewer, and storm appurtenances with catch basin collection, pipe conveyance, stormwater quality, and flow control facilities, etc. The purpose of this SWPPP is to describe the proposed construction activities and all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures, pollution prevention measures, inspection/monitoring activities, and recordkeeping that will be implemented during the proposed construction project. The objectives of the SWPPP are to: 1. Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and to identify, reduce, eliminate or prevent stormwater contamination and water pollution from construction activity. 2. Prevent violations of surface water quality, ground water quality, or sediment management standards. 3. Prevent, during the construction phase, adverse water quality impacts including impacts on beneficial uses of the receiving water by controlling peak flow rates and volumes of stormwater runoff at the Permittee's outfalls and downstream of the outfalls. This SWPPP was prepared using the Ecology SWPPP Template downloaded from the Ecology website on July 2, 2005. This SWPPP was prepared based on the requirements set forth in the Construction Stormwater General Permit, Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW 2005). The report is divided into seven main sections with several appendices that include stormwater related reference materials. The topics presented in the each of the main sections are: • • • Section 1 -INTRODUCTION. This section provides a summary description of the project, and the organization of the SWPPP document. Section 2 -SITE DESCRIPTION. This section provides a detailed description of the existing site conditions, proposed construction activities, and calculated stormwater flow rates for existing conditions and post-construction conditions. Section 3 -CONSTRUCTION BMPs. This section provides a detailed description of the BMPs to be implemented based on the 12 required elements of the SWPPP (SWMMEW 2004). 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Section 4-CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND BMP IMPLEMENTATION. This section provides a description of the timing of the BMP implementation in relation to the project schedule. Section 5 -POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM. This section identifies the appropriate contact names (emergency and non-emergency), monitoring personnel, and the onsite temporary erosion and sedimentation control inspector Section 6 -INSPECTION AND MONITORING. This section provides a description of the inspection and monitoring requirements such as the parameters of concern to be monitored, sample locations, sample frequencies, and sampling methods for all stormwater discharge locations from the site. Section 7 -RECORDKEEPING. This section describes the requirements for documentation of the BMP implementation, site inspections, monitoring results, and changes to the implementation of certain BMPs due to site factors experienced during construction. Supporting documentation and standard forms are provided in the following Appendices: Appendix A -Site Plans Appendix B -Construction BMPs Appendix C -Alternative BMPs Appendix D -General Permit Appendix E -Site Inspection Forms (and Site Log) Appendix F -Engineering Calculations 2 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 2.0 Site Description 2.1 Existing Conditions The total area of this two parcel site is approximately 2.84-acres and the site is located within a portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 5 and of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, King County, Washington. More particularly the site is located at the northeast corner of Lake Washington Boulevard North and N.E. Park Drive. Please see the Vicinity Map for an exact location of the site. Under existing conditions the majority of the site consists of forested land. There is also an area in the western portion of the site consisting of gravel surface area of approximately 0.47-acre of impervious surface which serves as a parking lot for vehicles. The remainder of the site is moderate and steep slope till forest. A Puget Sound Energy power easement for transmission mains comprises most of the southern parcel on the site. 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities The area-specific flow control facility is the Peak Rate Runoff Flow Control Standard as delineated by the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This is a peak rate runoff matching standard in which the 2-, 10-, and 100-year pre- developed peak runoff rates utilizing existing conditions are the release rates during the same 2- 10-, and 100-year respective storm events for the developed condition. The applicable conveyance system capacity standard is the Modified Rational Method as delineated in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual utilizing a 100-year precipitation, a Manning's 'n' value of 0.014 in the pipes and an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes. This is a conservative methodology and usually creates pipes large in size than what would normally be required for a given storm event. The applicable land use-specific water quality requirement as determined per Section 1.2.8.1 of the City of Renton Amendments is the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Standard which is being met with the modular wetland system located downstream of the detention for this project. Please see the calculations in this report for additional information. In addition, oil control is not required and the Source Control BMPs for this site include covering the trash enclosure and educating the owner about the proper use of pesticides and fertilizers as well as regular sweeping of the parking lot. Construction activities will include site preparation, TESC installation, building construction, stormwater and utility appurtenance installation, and asphalt paving. The schedule and phasing of BMPs during construction is provided in Section 4.0. Stormwater runoff rates and volumes were calculated using the KCRTS hydrology model and the detention vault was sized by matching predeveloped peak rates to release rates for the 2-, 10-and 100-year events. 3 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stormwater runoff rates and volumes were calculated using the KCRTS hydrology model and the detention vault was sized by matching predeveloped peak rates to release rates for the 2-, 10-and 100-year events. The following summarizes details regarding site areas: Total site area: 2.84 acres • Percent impervious area before construction: 16% • Percent impervious area after construction: 39% • Disturbed area during construction: 3.0 acres Disturbed area that is characterized as impervious (i.e., access roads, staging, parking): 0.5 acre All stormwater flow calculations are provided in Appendix F. 4 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs 3.1 The 14 BMP Elements 3.1.1 Element #1 -Mark Clearing Limits To protect adjacent properties and to reduce the area of soil exposed to construction, the limits of construction will be clearly marked before land-disturbing activities begin. Areas that are to be preserved, as well as all sensitive areas and their buffers, shall be clearly delineated, both in the field and on the plans. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing limits that will be applied for this project include: • High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) The clearing limits shall be as shown on the plans and all vegetation outside of the clearing limits preserved. Alternate BMPs for marking clearing limits are included in Appendix Casa quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.2 Element #2 -Establish Construction Access Construction access or activities occurring on unpaved areas shall be minimized, yet where necessary, access points shall be stabilized to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads. Street sweeping and street cleaning shall be employed to prevent sediment from entering state waters. All wash wastewater shall be controlled on site. The specific BMPs related to establishing construction access that will be used on this project include: • The roads shall be swept daily should sediment collect on them . Alternate construction access BMPs are included in Appendix Casa quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 5 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.1.3 Element #3 -Control Flow Rates In order to protect the properties and waterways downstream of the project site, stormwater discharges from the site will be controlled by construction of a sediment trap combined with Baker tanks as one of the first items of construction. Alternate flow control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the project must comply with Minimum Requirement 7 (Ecology 2005). In general, discharge rates of stormwater from the site will be controlled where increases in impervious area or soil compaction during construction could lead to downstream erosion, or where necessary to meet local agency stormwater discharge requirements (e.g., discharge to combined sewer systems). 3.1.4 Element #4 -Install Sediment Controls All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through an appropriate sediment removal BMP before leaving the construction site or prior to being discharged to the downstream drainage course. The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project include: Silt Fence (BMP C233) Sediment Trap (BMP C240) A silt fence shall be installed along the downstream perimeter of the proposed site. Alternate sediment control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In addition, sediment will be removed from paved areas in and adjacent to construction work areas manually or using mechanical sweepers, as needed, to minimize tracking of sediments on vehicle tires away from the site and to minimize washoff of sediments from adjacent streets in runoff. Whenever possible, sediment-laden water shall be discharged into onsite, relatively level, vegetated areas (BMP C240 paragraph 5, page 4-102). 6 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan In some cases, sediment discharge in concentrated runoff can be controlled using permanent stormwater BMPs (e.g., infiltration swales, ponds, trenches). Sediment loads can limit the effectiveness of some permanent stormwater BMPs, such as those used for infiltration or biofiltration; however, those BMPs designed to remove solids by settling (wet ponds or sediment ponds) can be used during the construction phase. When permanent stormwater BMPs will be used to control sediment discharge during construction, the structure will be protected from excessive sedimentation with adequate erosion and sediment control BMPs. Any accumulated sediment shall be removed after construction is complete and the remainder of the site has been stabilized. The following BMPs will be implemented as end-of-pipe sediment controls as required to meet permitted turbidity limits in the site discharge(s). Prior to the implementation of these technologies, sediment sources and erosion control and soil stabilization BMP efforts will be maximized to reduce the need for end-of-pipe sedimentation controls. • • • Temporary Sediment Trap (BMP C240) Construction Stormwater Filtration (BMP C251) Construction Stormwater Chemical Treatment (BMP C 250) (implemented only with prior written approval from Ecology). 3.1.5 Element #5 -Stabilize Soils Exposed and unworked soils shall be stabilized with the application of effective BMPs to prevent erosion throughout the life of the project. The specific BMPs for soil stabilization that shall be used on this project include: • • Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Mulching (BMP C121) Dust Control (BMP C 140) Seeding shall occur on all areas to remain unworked pursuant to below. Dust shall be controlled if construction occurs during the summer. Alternate soil stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, no soils shall remain exposed and unworked for more than 7 days during the dry season (May 1 to September 30) and 2 days during the wet season (October 1 to April 30). Regardless of the time of year, all soils shall be stabilized at the end of the shift before a holiday or weekend if needed based on weather forecasts. 7 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan In general, cut and fill slopes will be stabilized as soon as possible and soil stockpiles will be temporarily covered with plastic sheeting. All stockpiled soils shall be stabilized from erosion, protected with sediment trapping measures, and where possible, be located away from storm drain inlets, waterways, and drainage channels. 3.1.6 Element #6 -Protect Slopes All cut and fill slopes will be designed, constructed, and protected in a manner that minimizes erosion. The following specific BMPs will be used to protect slopes for this project: • Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C 120) Temporary and permanent seeding shall be used at all exposed areas pursuant to the prior mentioned schedule (seasonal restrictions). Alternate slope protection BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.7 Element #7 -Protect Drain Inlets All storm drain inlets and culverts made operable during construction shall be protected to prevent unfiltered or untreated water from entering the drainage conveyance system. However, the first priority is to keep all access roads clean of sediment and keep street wash water separate from entering storm drains until treatment can be provided. Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) will be implemented for all drainage inlets and culverts that could potentially be impacted by sediment-laden runoff on and near the project site. The following inlet protection measures will be applied on this project: • Excavated Drop Inlet Protection • Block and Gravel Drop Inlet Protection • Gravel and Wire Drop Inlet Protection • Catch Basin Filters • Culvert Inlet Sediment Trap If the BMP options listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D), or if no BMPs are listed above but deemed necessary during construction, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall implement one or more of the alternative BMP inlet protection options listed in Appendix C. 8 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3. 1.8 Element #8 -Stabilize Channels and Outlets Where site runoff is to be conveyed in channels, or discharged to a stream or some other natural drainage point, efforts will be taken to prevent downstream erosion. The specific BMPs for channel and outlet stabilization that shall be used on this project include: • Site runoff shall be discharged to a sediment trap Alternate channel and outlet stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix Casa quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NP DES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, all temporary on-site conveyance channels shall be designed, constructed, and stabilized to prevent erosion from the expected peak 1 O minute velocity of flow from a Type 1 A, 10-year, 24-hour recurrence interval storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the 10-year, 1-hour peak flow rate indicated by an approved continuous runoff simulation model, increased by a factor of 1.6, shall be used. Stabilization, including armoring material, adequate to prevent erosion of outlets, adjacent streambanks, slopes, and downstream reaches shall be provided at the outlets of all conveyance systems. 3. 1.9 Element #9 -Control Pollutants All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. Good housekeeping and preventative measures will be taken to ensure that the site will be kept clean, well organized, and free of debris. If required, BMPs to be implemented to control specific sources of pollutants are discussed below. Vehicles, construction equipment, and/or petroleum product storage/dispensing: • • All vehicles, equipment, and petroleum product storage/dispensing areas will be inspected regularly to detect any leaks or spills, and to identify maintenance needs to prevent leaks or spills. On-site fueling tanks and petroleum product storage containers shall include secondary containment. Spill prevention measures, such as drip pans, will be used when conducting maintenance and repair of vehicles or equipment. In order to perform emergency repairs on site, temporary plastic will be placed beneath and, if raining, over the vehicle. 9 15564.005.doc Demolition: • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any discharge or spill incident. Dust released from demolished sidewalks, buildings, or structures will be controlled using Dust Control measures (BMP C140). Storm drain inlets vulnerable to stormwater discharge carrying dust, soil, or debris will be protected using Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220 as described above for Element 7). Process water and slurry resulting from sawcutting and surfacing operations will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention measures (BMPC152). Concrete and grout: • 3.1.10 Process water and slurry resulting from concrete work will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Concrete Handling measures (BMP C151). Element #10 -Control Dewatering All dewatering water from open cut excavation, tunneling, foundation work, trench, or underground vaults shall be discharged into a controlled conveyance system prior to discharge to the downstream drainage course. Channels will be stabilized, per Element #8. Clean, non- turbid dewatering water will not be routed through stormwater sediment ponds, and will be discharged to systems tributary to the receiving waters of the State in a manner that does not cause erosion, flooding, or a violation of State water quality standards in the receiving water. Highly turbid dewatering water from soils known or suspected to be contaminated, or from use of construction equipment, will require additional monitoring and treatment as required for the specific pollutants based on the receiving waters into which the discharge is occurring. Such monitoring is the responsibility of the contractor. However, the dewatering of soils known to be free of contamination will trigger BMPs to trap sediment and reduce turbidity. At a minimum, geotextile fabric socks/bags/cells will be used to filter this material. Other BMPs to be used for sediment trapping and turbidity reduction include the following: • Concrete Handling (BMP C151) Concrete shall be handled pursuant to BMP C151 wherever and whenever concrete is mixed and poured at the project site. Alternate dewatering control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate 10 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.11 Element #11 -Maintain BMPs All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with each particular BMP's specifications. Visual monitoring of the BMPs will be conducted at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any rainfall event that causes a discharge from the site. If the site becomes inactive, and is temporarily stabilized, the inspection frequency will be reduced to once every month. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after the final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil resulting from removal of BMPs or vegetation shall be permanently stabilized. 3.1.12 Element #12 -Manage the Project Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following principles: • • • • • • Design the project to fit the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns. Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control. Minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed . Keep runoff velocities low . Retain sediment on site . Thoroughly monitor site and maintain all ESC measures . Schedule major earthwork during the dry season. In addition, project management will incorporate the key components listed below: As this project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest, the project will be managed according to the following key project components: Phasing of Construction • The construction project is being phased to the extent practicable in order to prevent soil erosion, and, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the site during construction. 11 15564.005.doc • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Revegetation of exposed areas and maintenance of that vegetation shall be an integral part of the clearing activities during each phase of construction, per the Scheduling BMP (C 162). Seasonal Work Limitations • • From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities shall only be permitted if shown to the satisfaction of the local permitting authority that silt-laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following: D Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to receiving waters; and D Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and D Proposed erosion and sediment control measures. Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the local permitting authority may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations: D Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs; D Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil; and D Activities where there is 100 percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. Coordination with Utilities and Other Jurisdictions • Care has been taken to coordinate with utilities, other construction projects, and the local jurisdiction in preparing this SWPPP and scheduling the construction work. Inspection and Monitoring • All BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Site inspections shall be conducted by a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. This person has the necessary skills to: D Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater, and 12 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan D Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. • A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall be on-site or on-call at all times. • Whenever inspection and/or monitoring reveals that the BMPs identified in this SWPPP are inadequate, due to the actual discharge of or potential to discharge a significant amount of any pollutant, appropriate BMPs or design changes shall be implemented as soon as possible. Maintaining an Updated Construction SWPPP • This SWPPP shall be retained on-site or within reasonable access to the site. • • The SWPPP shall be modified whenever there is a change in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. The SWPPP shall be modified if, during inspections or investigations conducted by the owner/operator, or the applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site. The SWPPP shall be modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7) days following the inspection. 3.1.13 Element #13 -Construction Stormwater Chemical Treatment Turbidity is difficult to control once fine particles are suspended in stormwater runoff from a construction site. Sedimentation ponds are effective at removing larger particulate matter by gravity settling, but are ineffective at removing smaller particulates such as clay and fine silt. Sediment ponds are typically designed to remove sediment no smaller than medium silt (0.02 mm). Chemical treatment may be used to reduce the turbidity of stormwater runoff. Chemical treatment can reliably provide exceptional reductions of turbidity and associated pollutants. Very high turbidities can be reduced to levels comparable to what is found in streams during dry weather. Traditional BMPs used to control soil erosion and sediment loss from sites under development may not be adequate to ensure compliance with the water quality standard for turbidity in the receiving water. Chemical treatment may be required to protect streams from the impact of turbid stormwater discharges, especially when construction is to proceed through the wet season. Formal written approval from Ecology and the Local Permitting Authority is required for the use of chemical treatment regardless of site size. The intention to use Chemical 13 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Treatment shall be indicated on the Notice of Intent for coverage under the General Construction Permit. Chemical treatment systems should be designed as part of the Construction SWPPP, not after the fact. Chemical treatment may be used to correct problem sites in limited circumstances with formal written approval from Ecology and the Local Permitting Authority. The SEPA review authority must be notified at the application phase of the project review (or the time that the SEPA determination on the project is performed) that chemical treatment is proposed. If it is added after this stage, an addendum will be necessary and may result in project approval delay. See Appendix 11-B for background information on chemical treatment. Criteria for Chemical Treatment Product Use Chemically treated stormwater discharged from construction sites must be nontoxic to aquatic organisms. The following protocol shall be used to evaluate chemicals proposed for stormwater treatment at construction sites. Authorization to use a chemical in the field based on this protocol does not relieve the applicant from responsibility for meeting all discharge and receiving water criteria applicable to a site. • • • • • Treatment chemicals must be approved by EPA for potable water use. Petroleum-based polymers are prohibited . Prior to authorization for field use, jar tests shall be conducted to demonstrate that turbidity reduction necessary to meet the receiving water criteria can be achieved. Test conditions, including but not limited to raw water quality and jar test procedures, should be indicative of field conditions. Although these small-scale tests cannot be expected to reproduce performance under field conditions, they are indicative of treatment capability. Prior to authorization for field use, the chemically treated stormwater shall be tested for aquatic toxicity. Applicable procedures defined in Chapter 173-205 WAC, Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Limits, shall be used. Testing shall use stormwater from the construction site at which the treatment chemical is proposed for use or a water solution using soil from the proposed site. The proposed maximum dosage shall be at least a factor of five lower than the no observed effects concentration (NOEC). The approval of a proposed treatment chemical shall be conditional, subject to full-scale bioassay monitoring of treated stormwater at the construction site where the proposed treatment chemical is to be used. 14 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Treatment chemicals that have already passed the above testing protocol do not need to be reevaluated. Contact the Department of Ecology Regional Office for a list of treatment chemicals that have been evaluated and are currently approved for use. Treatment System Design Considerations The design and operation of a chemical treatment system should take into consideration the factors that determine optimum, cost-effective performance. It may not be possible to fully incorporate all of the classic concepts into the design because of practical limitations at construction sites. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the following: • • The right chemical must be used at the right dosage. A dosage that is either too low or too high will not produce the lowest turbidity. There is an optimum dosage rate. This is a situation where the adage "adding more is always better" is not the case. The coagulant must be mixed rapidly into the water to insure proper dispersion. A flocculation step is important to increase the rate of settling, to produce the lowest turbidity, and to keep the dosage rate as low as possible. Too little energy input into the water during the flocculation phase results in floes that are too small and/or insufficiently dense. Too much energy can rapidly destroy floe as it is formed. Since the volume of the basin is a determinant in the amount of energy per unit volume, the size of the energy input system can be too small relative to the volume of the basin. Care must be taken in the design of the withdrawal system to minimize outflow velocities and to prevent floe discharge. The discharge should be directed through a physical filter such as a vegetated swale that would catch any unintended floe discharge. Treatment System Design Chemical treatment systems shall be designed as batch treatment systems using either ponds or portable trailer-mounted tanks. Flow-through continuous treatment systems are not allowed at this time. A chemical treatment system consists of the stormwater collection system (either temporary diversion or the permanent site drainage system), a storage pond, pumps, a chemical feed system, treatment cells, and interconnecting piping. 15 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan The treatment system shall use a minimum of two lined treatment cells. Multiple treatment cells allow for clarification of treated water while other cells are being filled or emptied. Treatment cells may be ponds or tanks. Ponds with constructed earthen embankments greater than six feet high require special engineering analyses. Portable tanks may also be suitable for some sites. The following equipment should be located in an operations shed: the chemical injector; • • • secondary containment for acid, caustic, buffering compound, and treatment chemical; emergency shower and eyewash, and monitoring equipment which consists of a pH meter and a turbidimeter . Sizing Criteria The combination of the storage pond or other holding area and treatment capacity should be large enough to treat stormwater during multiple day storm events. It is recommended that at a minimum the storage pond or other holding area should be sized to hold 1.5 times the runoff volume of the 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Bypass should be provided around the chemical treatment system to accommodate extreme storm events. Runoff volume shall be calculated using the methods presented in Volume 3, Chapter 2. If no hydrologic analysis is required for the site, the Rational Method may be used. Primary settling should be encouraged in the storage pond. A forebay with access for maintenance may be beneficial. There are two opposing considerations in sizing the treatment cells. A larger cell is able to treat a larger volume of water each time a batch is processed. However, the larger the cell the longer the time required to empty the cell. A larger cell may also be less effective at flocculation and therefore require a longer settling time. The simplest approach to sizing the treatment cell is to multiply the allowable discharge flow rate times the desired drawdown time. A 4-hour drawdown time allows one batch per cell per 8-hour work period, given 1 hour of flocculation followed by two hours of settling. The permissible discharge rate governed by potential downstream effect can be used to calculate the recommended size of the treatment cells. The following discharge flow rate limits shall apply: • If the discharge is directly or indirectly to a stream, the discharge flow rate shall not exceed 50 percent of the peak flow rate of the 2-year, 24-hour event for all storm events up to the 10-year, 24-hour event. 16 15564.005.doc • • • Monitoring Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan If discharge is occurring during a storm event equal to or greater than the 10-year, 24-hour event, the allowable discharge rate is the peak flow rate of the 10-year, 24-hour event. Discharge to a stream should not increase the stream flow rate by more than 1 O percent. If the discharge is directly to a lake, a major receiving water listed in Appendix C of Volume I, or to an infiltration system, there is no discharge flow limit. If the discharge is to a municipal storm drainage system, the allowable discharge rate may be limited by the capacity of the public system. It may be necessary to clean the municipal storm drainage system prior to the start of the discharge to prevent scouring solids from the drainage system. Runoff rates shall be calculated using the methods presented in Volume 3, Chapter 2 for the pre-developed condition. If no hydrologic analysis is required for the site, the Rational Method may be used. The following monitoring shall be conducted. Test results shall be recorded on a daily log kept on site: Operational Monitoring • • • • • • pH, conductivity (as a surrogate for alkalinity), turbidity and temperature of the untreated stormwater Total volume treated and discharged Discharge time and flow rate Type and amount of chemical used for pH adjustment Amount of polymer used for treatment Settling time Compliance Monitoring • pH and turbidity of the treated stormwater pH and turbidity of the receiving water Biomonitoring: Treated stormwater shall be tested for acute (lethal) toxicity. Bioassays shall be conducted by a laboratory accredited by Ecology, unless otherwise approved by Ecology. The 17 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan performance standard for acute toxicity is no statistically significant difference in survival between the control and 100 percent chemically treated stormwater. Acute toxicity tests shall be conducted with the following species and protocols: • • Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (96 hour static-renewal test, method: EPA/600/4-90/027F). Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (96 hour static-renewal test, method: EPA/600/4-90/027F) may be used as a substitute for fathead minnow. Daphnid, Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia pulex, or Daphnia magna (48 hour static test, method: EPA/600/4-90/027F). All toxicity tests shall meet quality assurance criteria and test conditions in the most recent versions of the EPA test method and Ecology Publication # WO-R-95-80, Laboratory Guidance and Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Review Criteria. Bioassays shall be performed on the first five batches and on every tenth batch thereafter, or as otherwise approved by Ecology. Failure to meet the performance standard shall be immediately reported to Ecology. Discharge Compliance: Prior to discharge, each batch of treated stormwater must be sampled and tested for compliance with pH and turbidity limits. These limits may be established by the water quality standards or a site-specific discharge permit. Sampling and testing for other pollutants may also be necessary at some sites. Turbidity must be within 5 NTUs of the background turbidity. Background is measured in the receiving water, upstream from the treatment process discharge point. pH must be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 standard units and not cause a change in the pH of the receiving water of more than 0.2 standard units. It is often possible to discharge treated stormwater that has a lower turbidity than the receiving water and that matches the pH. Treated stormwater samples and measurements shall be taken from the discharge pipe or another location representative of the nature of the treated stormwater discharge. Samples used for determining compliance with the water quality standards in the receiving water shall not be taken from the treatment pond prior to decanting. Compliance with the water quality standards is determined in the receiving water. Operator Training Each contractor who intends to use chemical treatment shall be trained by an experienced contractor on an active site for at least 40 hours. Standard BMPs Surface stabilization BMPs should be implemented on site to prevent significant erosion. All sites shall use a truck wheel wash to prevent tracking of sediment off site. 18 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Sediment Removal and Disposal • 3.1.14 Sediment shall be removed from the storage or treatment cells as necessary. Typically, sediment removal is required at least once during a wet season and at the decommissioning of the cells. Sediment remaining in the cells between batches may enhance the settling process and reduce the required chemical dosage. Sediment may be incorporated into the site away from drainages. Element #14 -Construction Stormwater Filtration Filtration removes sediment from runoff originating from disturbed areas of the site. Traditional BMPs used to control soil erosion and sediment loss from sites under development may not be adequate to ensure compliance with the water quality standard for turbidity in the receiving water. Filtration may be used in conjunction with gravity settling to remove sediment as small as fine silt (0.5 µm). The reduction in turbidity will be dependent on the particle size distribution of the sediment in the stormwater. In some circumstances, sedimentation and filtration may achieve compliance with the water quality standard for turbidity. Unlike chemical treatment, the use of construction stormwater filtration does not require approval from Ecology. Filtration may also be used in conjunction with polymer treatment in a portable system to assure capture of the flocculated solids. Design and Installation Specifications -Background Information Filtration with sand media has been used for over a century to treat water and wastewater. The use of sand filtration for treatment of stormwater has developed recently, generally to treat runoff from streets, parking lots, and residential areas. The application of filtration to construction stormwater treatment is currently under development. Two types of filtration systems may be applied to construction stormwater treatment: rapid and slow. Rapid sand filters are the typical system used for water and wastewater treatment. They can achieve relatively high hydraulic flow rates, on the order of 2 to 20 gpm/sf, because they have automatic backwash systems to remove accumulated solids. In contrast, slow san_d filters have very low hydraulic rates, on the order of 0.02 gpm/sf, because they do not have backwash systems. To date, slow sand filtration has generally been used to treat stormwater. Slow sand filtration is mechanically simple in comparison to rapid sand filtration but requires a much larger filter area. Filtratlon Equipment Sand media filters are available with automatic backwashing features that can filter to 50 µm particle size. Screen or bag filters can filter down to 5 µm. Fiber wound filters can remove 19 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan particles down to 0.5 µm. Filters should be sequenced from the largest to the smallest pore opening. Sediment removal efficiency will be related to particle size distribution in the stormwater. Treatment Process Description Stormwater is collected at interception point(s) on the site and is diverted to a sediment pond or tank for removal of large sediment and storage of the stormwater before it is treated by the filtration system. The stormwater is pumped from the trap, pond, or tank through the filtration system in a rapid sand filtration system. Slow sand filtration systems are designed as flow through systems using gravity. If large volumes of concrete are being poured, pH adjustment may be necessary. Maintenance Standards Rapid sand filters typically have automatic backwash systems that are triggered by a pre-set pressure drop across the filter. If the backwash water volume is not large or substantially more turbid than the stormwater stored in the holding pond or tank, backwash return to the pond or tank may be appropriate. However, land application or another means of treatment and disposal may be necessary. • • Screen, bag, and fiber filters must be cleaned and/or replaced when they become clogged. Sediment shall be removed from the storage and/or treatment ponds as necessary. Typically, sediment removal is required once or twice during a wet season and at the decommissioning of the ponds. 3.2 Site Specific BMPs Site specific BMPs are shown on the TESC Plan Sheets and Details in Appendix A. These site specific plan sheets will be updated annually. 20 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 4.0 Construction Phasing and BMP Implementation The BMP implementation schedule will be driven by the construction schedule. The following provides a sequential list of the proposed construction schedule milestones and the corresponding BMP implementation schedule. The list contains key milestones such as wet season construction. The BMP implementation schedule listed below is keyed to proposed phases of the construction project, and reflects differences in BMP installations and inspections that relate to wet season construction. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the dry season is considered to be from May 1 to September 30 and the wet season is considered to be from October 1 to April 30. • Estimate of Construction start date: August2015 • Estimate of Construction finish date: June 2016 • Mobilize equipment on site: • Mobilize and store all ESC and soil stabilization products (store materials on hand BMP C150): • Install ESC measures: • Install stabilized construction entrance: • Begin clearing and grubbing: • Temporary erosion control measures (hydroseeding): • Site inspections reduced to monthly: • Begin concrete pour and implement BMP C151: • Excavate and install new utilities and services (Phase 1 ): • Complete utility construction: • Begin implementing soil stabilization and sediment control BMPs throughout the site in preparation for wet season: . WET SEASON STARTS: October 1, 2015 21 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities The pollution prevention team consists of personnel responsible for implementation of the SWPPP, including the following: • • • • • Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) -primary contractor contact, responsible for site inspections (BMPs, visual monitoring, sampling, etc.); to be called upon in case of failure of any ESC measures. Resident Engineer -For projects with engineered structures only (sediment ponds/traps, sand filters, etc.): site representative for the owner that is the project's supervising engineer responsible for inspections and issuing instructions and drawings to the contractor's site supervisor or representative Emergency Ecology Contact -individual to be contacted at Ecology in case of emergency. Go to the following website to get the name and number for the Ecology contact information: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/org.html Emergency Owner Contact -individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner to be contacted in the case of an emergency. Non-Emergency Ecology Contact -individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner than can be contacted if required. Monitoring Personnel -personnel responsible for conducting water quality monitoring; for most sites this person is also the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead. 22 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.2 Team Members Names and contact information for those identified as members of the pollution prevention team are provided in the following table. Title Name(s) Phone Number Certified Erosion and Sediment Control TBD Lead (CESCL) Resident Engineer Ali Sadr (425) 251-6222 Emergency Ecology Contact Clay Keown (360) 407-6048 Emergency Owner Contact TBD Non-Emergency Ecology Contact Ali Sadr (425) 251-6222 Monitoring Personnel TBD 23 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring Monitoring includes visual inspection, monitoring for water quality parameters of concern, and documentation of the inspection and monitoring findings in a site log book. A site log book will be maintained for all on-site construction activities and will include: • • A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements; Site inspections; and, Stormwater quality monitoring . For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site log book. This SWPPP may function as the site log book if desired, or the forms may be separated and included in a separate site log book. However, if separated, the site log book but must be maintained on-site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.1 Site Inspection All BMPs will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. The inspector will be a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) per BMP C160. The name and contact information for the CESCL is provided in Section 5 of this SWPPP. Site inspection will occur in all areas disturbed by construction activities and at all stormwater discharge points. Stormwater will be examined for the presence of suspended sediment, turbidity, discoloration, and oily sheen. The site inspector will evaluate and document the effectiveness of the installed BMPs and determine if it is necessary to repair or replace any of the BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. All maintenance and repairs will be documented in the site log book or forms provided in this document. All new BMPs or design changes will be documented in the SWPPP as soon as possible. 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency Site inspections will be conducted at least once a week and within 24 hours following any rainfall event which causes a discharge of stormwater from the site. For sites with temporary stabilization measures, the site inspection frequency can be reduced to once every month. 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation The site inspector will record each site inspection using the site log inspection forms provided in Appendix E. The site inspection log forms may be separated from this SWPPP document, but will be maintained on-site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 24 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring 6.2.1 Turbidity Sampling Monitoring requirements for the proposed project will include either turbidity or water transparency sampling to monitor site discharges for water quality compliance with the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). Sampling will be conducted at all discharge points at least once per calendar week. Turbidity or transparency monitoring will follow the analytical methodologies described in Section S4 of the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). The key benchmark values that require action are 25 NTU for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) and 250 NTU for turbidity (equivalent to 6 cm transparency). If the 25 NTU benchmark for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) is exceeded, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Ensure all BMPs specified in this SWPPP are installed and functioning as intended. 2. Assess whether additional BMPs should be implemented, and document revisions to the SWPPP as necessary. 3. Sample discharge location daily until the analysis results are less than 25 NTU (turbidity) or greater than 32 cm (transparency). If the turbidity is greater than 25 NTU (or transparency is less than 32 cm) but less than 250 NTU (transparency greater than 6 cm) for more than 3 days, additional treatment BMPs will be implemented within 24 hours of the third consecutive sample that exceeded the benchmark. If the 250 NTU benchmark for turbidity (or less than 6 cm transparency) is exceeded at any time, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Notify Ecology by phone within 24 hours of analysis (see Section 5.0 of this SWPPP for contact information). 2. Continue daily sampling until the turbidity is less than 25 NTU (or transparency is greater than 32 cm). 3. Initiate additional treatment BMPs such as off-site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment within 24 hours of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 4. Implement additional treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but within 7 days of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 5. Describe inspection results and remedial actions taken in the site log book and in monthly discharge monitoring reports as described in Section 7.0 of this SWPPP. 25 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6.2.2 pH Sampling Stormwater runoff will be monitored for pH starting on the first day of any activity that includes more than 40 yards of poured or recycled concrete, or after the application of "Engineered Soils" such as Portland cement treated base, cement kiln dust, or fly ash. This does not include fertilizers. For concrete work, pH monitoring will start the first day concrete is poured and continue until 3 weeks after the last pour. For engineered soils, the pH monitoring period begins when engineered soils are first exposed to precipitation and continue until the area is fully stabilized. Stormwater samples will be collected daily from all points of discharge from the site and measured for pH using a calibrated pH meter, pH test kit, or wide range pH indicator paper. If the measured pH is 8.5 or greater, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Prevent the high pH water from entering storm drains or surface water. 2. Adjust or neutralize the high pH water if necessary using appropriate technology such as CO2 sparging (liquid or dry ice). 3. Contact Ecology if chemical treatment other than CO2 sparging is planned. 26 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping 7.1 Recordkeeping 7.1.1 Site Log Book A site log book will be maintained for all on-site construction activities and will include: • • A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements; Site inspections; and, Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site logbook. 7.1.2 Records Retention Records of all monitoring information (site log book, inspection reports/checklists, etc.), this Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and any other documentation of compliance with permit requirements will be retained during the life of the construction project and for a minimum of three years following the termination of permit coverage in accordance with permit condition S5.C. 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records The SWPPP, General Permit, Notice of Authorization letter, and Site Log Book will be retained on site or within reasonable access to the site and will be made immediately available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. A copy of this SWPPP will be provided to Ecology within 14 days of receipt of a written request for the SWPPP from Ecology. Any other information requested by Ecology will be submitted within a reasonable time. A copy of the SWPPP or access to the SWPPP will be provided to the public when requested in writing in accordance with Permit Condition SS.G. 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP In accordance with Conditions S3, S4.B, and S9.B.3 of the General Permit, this SWPPP will be modified if the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site or there has been a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the site that has a significant effect on the discharge, or potential for discharge, of pollutants to the waters of the State. The SWPPP will be modified within seven days of determination based on inspection(s) that additional or modified BMPs are necessary to correct problems identified, and an updated timeline for BMP implementation will be prepared. 27 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7.2 Reporting 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms will be submitted to Ecology because water quality sampling is being conducted at the site. 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance If any of the terms and conditions of the permit are not met, and it causes a threat to human health or the environment, the following steps will be taken in accordance with permit section S5.F: 1. Ecology will be immediately notified of the failure to comply. 2. Immediate action will be taken to control the noncompliance issue and to correct the problem. If applicable, sampling and analysis of any noncompliance will be repeated immediately and the results submitted to Ecology within five (5) days of becoming aware of the violation. 3. A detailed written report describing the noncompliance will be submitted to Ecology within five (5) days, unless requested earlier by Ecology. 28 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix A -Site Plans 29 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix B -Construction BMPs Preserving Natural Vegetation (BMP C101) High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105) Silt Fence (BMP C233) Sediment Trap (BMP C240) Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Mulching (BMP C121) Dust Control (BMP C140) Check Dams (BMP C207) Construction Stormwater Chemical Treatment (BMP C250) Construction Stormwater Filtration (BMP C251) 30 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix C -Alternative BMPs The following includes a list of possible alternative BMPs for each of the 12 elements not described in the main SWPPP text. This list can be referenced in the event a BMP for a specific element is not functioning as designed and an alternative BMP needs to be implemented. Element #1 -Mark Clearing Limits Element #2 -Establish Construction Access Element #3 -Control Flow Rates Element #4 -Install Sediment Controls Advanced BMPs: Element #5 -Stabilize Soils Element #6 -Protect Slopes Element #8 -Stabilize Channels and Outlets Element #10 -Control Dewatering Additional Advanced BMPs to Control Dewatering: 31 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix D-General Permit 32 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix E -Site Inspection Forms (and Site Log) The results of each inspection shall be summarized in an inspection report or checklist that is entered into or attached to the site log book. It is suggested that the inspection report or checklist be included in this appendix to keep monitoring and inspection information in one document, but this is optional; however, it is mandatory that this SWPPP and the site inspection forms be kept onsite at all times during construction, and that inspections be performed and documented as outlined below. At a minimum, each inspection report or checklist shall include: a. Inspection date/times b. Weather information: general conditions during inspection, approximate amount of precipitation since the last inspection, and approximate amount of precipitation within the last 24 hours. c. A summary or list of all BMPs that have been implemented, including observations of all erosion/sediment control structures or practices. d. The following shall be noted: i. locations of BMPs inspected, ii. locations of BMPs that need maintenance, iii. the reason maintenance is needed, iv. locations of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or intended, and v. locations where additional or different BMPs are needed, and the reason(s) why e. A description of stormwater discharged from the site. The presence of suspended sediment, turbid water, discoloration, and/or oil sheen shall be noted, as applicable. f. A description of any water quality monitoring performed during inspection, and the results of that monitoring. g. General comments and notes, including a brief description of any BMP repairs, maintenance or installations made as a result of the inspection. h. A statement that, in the judgment of the person conducting the site inspection, the site is either in compliance or out of compliance with the terms and conditions of the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. If the site inspection indicates that the site is out of compliance, the inspection report shall include a summary of the remedial actions required to bring the site back into compliance, as well as a schedule of implementation. i. Name, title, and signature of person conducting the site inspection; and the following statement: "I certify under penalty of law that this report is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge and belief". When the site inspection indicates that the site is not in compliance with any terms and conditions of the NPDES permit, the Permittee shall take immediate action(s) to: stop, contain, and clean up the unauthorized discharges, or otherwise stop the noncompliance; correct the 33 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan problem(s); implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), and/or conduct maintenance of existing BMPs; and achieve compliance with all applicable standards and permit conditions. In addition, if the noncompliance causes a threat to human health or the environment, the Permittee shall comply with the Noncompliance Notification requirements in Special Condition S5.F of the permit. 34 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Site Inspection Form General Information Project Name: Marriott Residence Inn Inspector Name: TBD Title: Date: Cl:SCL#: time:· Inspection Type: o After a rain event o Weekly o Turbidity/transparency benchmark exceedance o Other Weather Precipit1ition . . Since last 1nspectlon Description of General Site Conditions: Inspection of BMPs Element 1 :_ Mark Clearing Limits -· ·· · BMP: Location BMP: Location Inspected y N Functioning m Inspected Functioning YN m Elemf!nt 2: Establish Construction Access BMP: Location BMP: Location Inspected y N Inspected y N Furictionirig IYIT'" I Functioning m 35 In last 24 hours · Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action 15564.005.doc Element 3: Con_trol Flow Rates BMP: Location BMP: Location Inspected y N Inspected y N Functioning 1r= Functioning ~ Element 4: Install Sediment Controls BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N m BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N m BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N m BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N m BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N m 36 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 5: Stabilize Soils BMP: ·. Location Inspected Functioning y N 1§ Problem/Corrective Action BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N ~ Problem/Corrective Action BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N ~ Problem/Corrective Action BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N ~ Problem/Corrective Action Element 6: Protect Slopes BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N ~ Problem/Corrective Action BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N ~ Problem/Corrective Action BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N m Problem/Corrective Action 37 15564.005.doc Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets BMP: Location BMP: Location BMP: Inspected y N Inspected y N Functioning ~ Functioning m Location Inspected Functioning YN m Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N ~ BMP: Location Inspected ·Functioning y N ~ BMP: Location Inspected Functioning v N ~ BMP: Location Inspected Functioning y N ~ 38 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Element 9: Control Pollutants BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action y N ~ BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action y N m Element 10: Control Dewatering BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action y N ~ BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action y N m BMP: Location Inspected Functioning . Problem/Corrective Action y N m Stormwater Discharges From the Site Location Turbidity Discoloration Sheen Location Turbidity Discoloration Sheen Observed? y N 39 Problem/Corrective Action 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Water Quality Monitorina Was any water quality monitoring conducted? D Yes D No If water quality monitoring was conducted, record results here: If water quality monitoring indicated turbidity 250 NTU or greater; or transparency 6 cm or less, was Ecology notified by phone within 24 hrs? D Yes D No Ticofogy was notified, indicate the date, time, contact name and phone number below: Date: Time: Contact Name: Phone#: General Comments and ll!otes Include BMP repairs, maintenance, or installations made as a result of the inspection. Were Photos Taken? D Yes D No If ohotos taken,-describe ohotos below: 40 15564.005.doc Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix F -Engineering Calculations 41 15564.005.doc 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FINAL TIR 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 3-DETENTION TANKS AND VAULTS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris deared from site. per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants pre:s;ent other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 inches. Tank or Vault Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated in vault or tank No trash or debris in vault. Storage Area (includes floatables and non-floatables). Sediment Accumulated sediment deptn exceeds 10% of the All sediment removed from storage accumulation diameter of the storage area for '!tfi: length of area. storage vault or any point depth exceeds 15% of diameter. Example: 72-inch storage tank would require cleaning when sediment reaches depth of 7 inches for more than Y.z length of tank. Tank Structure Plugged air vent Any blockage of the vent. Tank or vault freely vents. Tank bent out of Any part of tank/pipe Is bent out of shape more Tank repaired or replaced to design. shape than 10% of its design shape. Gaps between A gap wider than Yi-inch at the joint of any tank No water or soil entering tank sections, damaged sections or any evidence of soil particles entering through joints or walls. joints or cracks or the tank at a joint or through a wall. tears in wall Vault Structure Damage to wall, Cracks wider than %-inch, any evidence of soil Vault is sealed and structurally frame, bottom, and/or entering the structure through cracks or qualified sound. top slab inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Inlet/Outlet Pipes Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non~floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than !4-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X-inch wide at inleUoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-5 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 3 -DETENTION TANKS AND VAULTS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Access Manhole Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requires immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. not working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self.locking cover/lid does not work. Covermd difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access Damaged or difficult Large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so it doors/plate to open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. Gaps, doesn't cover Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and covers access completely opening not completely covered. opening completely. Lifting Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of lrfting weight of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or plate. remove door or plate. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-6 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed Structure Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than Y2 cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the structure potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the structure by structure. more than 10%. Trash or debris in the structure that exceeds 1/3 No trash or debris in the structure. the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the Sump of structure contains no bottom of the structure to the invert of the lowest sediment. pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section. Damage to frame Comer of frame extends more than o/4 Inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than 1h inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than * inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than % inch and longer than 3 feet, Structure ls sealed and structurally bottom any evidence of soil particles entering structure sound. through cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than % inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the Joint of lnleVoutlet pipe. of soil particles entering structure through cracks. Settlement/ Structure has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X-inch wide at inleUoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inleVoutlet pipes. the structure at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Ladder rungs missing Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design standards and or unsafe misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. allows maintenance person safe access. FROP-T Section Damage T section is not securely attached to structure T section securely attached to wall wall and outlet pipe structure should support at and ouUet pipe. least 1,000 lbs of up or down pressure. Structure is not in upright position (allow up to Structure in correct position. 10% from plumb). Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight or Connections to outlet pipe are water show signs of deteriorated grout. tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes-other than designed holes-in the Structure has no holes other than structure. designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or missing Cleanout gate is missing. Replace cleanout gate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-7 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Cleanout gate is not watertight. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and down easily and maintenance person. is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged. Chain is in place and works as designed. Orifice Plate Damaged or missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate Is in place and works as missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. designed. Obstructions Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation Plate is free of all obstructions and blocking the plate. works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking {or having the Pipe is free of all obstructions and potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. works as designed. Deformed or damaged Lip of overflow pipe is bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow lip overflow at an elevation lower than design Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnleUoutlet pipes clear of sediment accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than %-Inch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design (If Applicable) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grata free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate Is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult ta One maintenance person cannot remove Caver/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. relnstalled by one maintenance person. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-8 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Structure Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the Sump of catch basin contains no bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the sediment. lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than ~ cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or Is located immediately in front of the catch basin potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin catch basin. by more than 10%. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds No trash or debris in the catch basin. 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within catch basin. gases (e.g., methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame Comer of frame extends more than % inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than Y.a inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, Le., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than o/. inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than Yz inch and longer than 3 feet, Catch basin is sealed and bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch structurally sound. basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Cracks wider than Yz inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1'4 inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ Catch basin has settled more than 1 Inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than Y.-inch wide at Inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of Inlet/outlet pipes. the catch basin at the joint of the inleVouUet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. lnleUOutlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated In inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than X-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than Y.-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/ouUet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-9 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5 -CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7 /e inch. Grate opening meets design (Catch Basins) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design Any open structure requires urgent standards. maintenance. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not worl<. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-10 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 6 -CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Pipes Sediment & debris Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds Water flows freely through pipes. accumulation 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation/roots Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of Water flows freely through pipes. water through pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs Implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. coating or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Damaged Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris cleared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment accumulation design depth. and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might nomially be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented If appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Water flows freely through ditches. through ditches. Erosion damage to Any erosion obseived on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. slopes Rock lining out of One layer or less of rock exists above native soil Replace rocks to design standards. place or missing (If area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native Applicable) soil. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 119/2009 A-11 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash or litter Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a No hazard trees in facility. potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possible. Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than 5% broken which affect more than 25% of the total of total foliage with split or broken foliage of the tree or shrub. limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or No blown down vegetation or knocked over. knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and supported or are leaning over, causing exposure adequately supported; dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-16 Maintenance Guidelines for Modular Wetland System -Linear Maintenance Summary !_ MODULAR WETLANDS o Remove Trash from Screening Device -average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. (5 minute average service time). o Remove Sediment from Separation Chamber -average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. ( 10 minute average service time). o Replace Cartridge Filter Media -average maintenance interval 12 to 24 months. ( 10-15 minute per cartridge average service time). o Replace Drain Down Filter Media -average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. ( 5 minute average service time). o Trim Vegetation -average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. ( Service time varies). System Diagram Inflow Pipe (optional) Access to screening device, separation chamber and cartridge filter www.modularwetlands.com Access to drain down filter 1- MODULAR WETLANDS Maintenance Procedures Screening Device 1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the Pre- Treatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry. 2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device. 3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole cover when completed. Separation Chamber 1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before maintaining the separation chamber. 2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters. 3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Cartridge Filters 1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters. 2. Enter separation chamber. 3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid. 4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place. 5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants. 6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants. 7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. 8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Drain Down Filter 1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber. 2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place. 3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover. www.modularwetlands.com -1_ MODULAR WETLANDS Maintenance Notes 1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms. 2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time. 3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. 4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations. 5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber. 6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedure Illustration Screening Device The screening device is located directly under the manhole or grate over the Pre-Treatment Chamber. It's mounted directly underneath for easy access and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by hand or with a vacuum truck. Separation Chamber The separation chamber is located directly beneath the screening device. It can be quickly cleaned using a vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure washer is useful to assist in the cleaning process. www.modularwetlands.com Jl_ MODULAR WETLANDS Cartridge Filters The cartridge filters are located in the Pre-Treatment chamber connected to the wall adjacent to the biofiltration chamber. The cartridges have removable tops to access the individual media filters. Once the cartridge is open media can be easily removed and replaced by hand or a vacuum truck. Drain Down Filter The drain down filter is located in the Discharge Chamber. The drain filter unlocks from the wall mount and hinges up. Remove filter block and replace with new block. www.modularwetlands.com MODULAR WETLANDS Trim Vegetation Vegetation should be maintained in the same manner as surrounding vegetation and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall be used on the plants. Irrigation per the recommendation of the manufacturer and or landscape architect. Different types of vegetation requires different amounts of irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com MODULA!', WETLANDS Inspection Form Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. lnfo@modularwetlands.com www.modularwetlands.com Jk__ MODULAR WETLANDS Inspection Report Modular Wetlands System rojectName -----------------------------------For Office Use Only ProjectAddress -------------------------,,,-.,--=,,,-,c·oo-,-, -----J;;(R~&,~, .... -~B~,J~-------, Owner/ Management Company ______________________________ 1;;( 0 ~,.~ •• ) ---------; Contact-------------------Phone ( Inspector Name -----------------Date I I Time ----- Office pel'$Olli:1f:1 to cpmjilete aection to theleft. ______ AM I PM Type of Inspection D Routine D Follow Up D Complaint D Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? D No D Yes Weather Condition Additional Notes Inspection Checklist Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault): Size (22', 14' or etc.): Structural Integrity: Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? orking Condition: Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging th unit? Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber. Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section. Other Inspection Items: ls there an accumulation of sedimenVtrash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below. ls there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Yes Waste: Yes No Recommended Maintenance Sediment I Silt/ Clay No Cleaning Needed Trash/ Bags/ Bottles Schedule Maintenance as Planned Green Waste I Leaves / Foliage Needs Immediate Maintenance ndditional Notes: No 2972 SaJ11:uis Rey Ro~d. Oceanside, CA9205.S P (760).433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 Comments Depth: Chamber: Plant Information DamaQe to Plants Plant Reolacement Plant Trimmino Maintenance Report Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. lnfo@modularwetlands.com www.modularwetlands.com _i__ MODULAR WETLANDS Cleaning and Maintenance Report Modular Wetlands System Project Name -----------------------------------For Office Use Only ProjectAddress ------------------------~,,.,cc,--~,,~,Code~l~---- Owner/ Management Company------------------------------ {~eviewed By) Contact ------------------- 1 n s p e ct or Name ----------------- Type of Inspection O Routine D Follow Up D Complaint Weather Condition Site GPS Coordinates Manufacturer / Trash Map# of Insert Description / Sizing Accumulation Lat: MWS Catch Basins Lona: MWS Sedimentation Basin Media Filter Condition Plant Condition Drain Down Media Condition Discharge Chamber Condttion Drain Down Pipe Condition Inlet and Outlet Pipe Condition Comments: Phone ( Date I I Time ---- l\.,"'4:' . ~ . --. Offic::e personnel to comp~e section to theiefl.' AM/PM ------ D Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? D No D Yes Additional Notes Condition of Media Operational Per Foliage Sediment Total Debris 25/50/75/100 Manufactures' Accumulation Accumulation Accumulation (will be changed Specifications @75%) (If not, why?) 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176