Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-009 (2 of2)_MiscCONNER HOMES, INC. SHY CREEK DEVELOPMENT FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS DRAFT JANUARY 11, 2006 Prepared for: Triad Associates and Conner Homes, Inc. Prepared by: Montgomery Water Group, Inc. 811 Kirkland Avenue, Suite 200 P.O. Box 2517 Kirkland, WA 98083-2517 www.mwater.com MONTGOMERY WATER GROUP, INC. DRAFTJanuary 11, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. I 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ I 3.0 FLOOD FLOWS ................................................................................................................. I 4.0 FLOODPLAIN ANALySIS ............................................................................................... 2 4.1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Proposed Conditions ....................................................................................................... 4 4.2.1 Flood Water Volumes for Compensatory Storage .................................................. 4 4.2.2 Proposed Bridge or Culvert Crossing Shy Creek ................................................... 5 4.3 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Conditions Floodplains ..................................... 6 5.0 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................... 8 TABLES Table 3-1 -Shy Creek Flood Flows Table 4-1 -Existing Conditions Water Surface Elevations Table 4-2 -Compensatory Storage Volumes Table 4-3 -Comparison of Existing and Proposed Conditions Water Surface Elevations FIGURES Figure 1 -Shy Creek Floodplain Analysis Existing 1 OO-yr Floodplain Figure 2 -Shy Creek Floodplain Analysis Proposed I OO-yr Floodplain APPENDICES Appendix A -Existing Conditions HEC-RAS Output Appendix B -Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Output Shy Creek Development Floodplain Analysis Page i DRAFTJanuary 11, 2006 1.0 Introduction This report has been prepared to summarize the floodplain analysis completed for the proposed Shy Creek Development, which will be located on property north of SE 136 th Street and east of 144th Avenue SE in the City of Renton, WA. Shy Creek (also referred to as Maplewood Creek) conveys runoff from areas surrounding the proposed development. Because the creek flows through the proposed development, a floodplain analysis was performed to delineate the 100- year floodplain and determine flood risks and potential flood mitigation for development of the property. 2.0 Background Conner Homes, Inc. is proposing to develop approximately 61 single-family residential lots on approximately 16 acres. The property, currently occupied by two homes, is located north of SE 136 th Street and east of 144th Avenue SE in the City of Renton, WA. The existing property is gently rolling, with the creek flowing west through the middle of the property and then south along the western edge of the property. The proposed layout of the development, provided by the development's engineer, Triad Associates, is shown in Figure 2. 3.0 Flood Flows Shy Creek is part of the Cedar River basin. The creek primarily conveys storm water runoff from urban areas adjacent to the proposed property. A small portion of the flow is diverted from the creek through a storm drain pipe that currently passes under the 142 nd Street NE along the west edge of the property where Shy Creek bends to the south. Peak flows for the creek were estimated using the King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) model. Table 3-I outlines the peak flows resulting from the KCRTS model. These flows were used for the floodplain analysis. Table 3-\ Shy Creek Flood Flows Return Discharge (cfs) Period Above Storm Drain Pipe Below Storm Drain Pipe Near Bend in Creek Near Bend in Creek 2-Year 24.6 21.6 25-Year 49.3 43.2 100-Year 81.0 70.9 Shy Creek Development Floodplain Analysis Page 1 DRAFTJanuary 11, 2006 4.0 Floodplain Analysis The analysis of the Shy Creek floodplain was completed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS modeling software (Version 3.1.3). HEC-RAS is commonly used as a routing model to estimate the extents of inundation and water surface elevations for a stream channel under specified flow conditions. The software was used to analyze the stream channel under existing conditions and developed conditions for the flow conditions outlined in the previous section. 4.1 Existing Conditions A site visit was made to evaluate the hydraulic characteristics of the existing stream channel and floodplain. Manning's n-values estimated for the site range from 0.05 to 0.07 for the channel and from 0.03 to 0.09 for the overbank areas. The lower Manning's n-values for the channel and overbank areas represent locations of mowed grass and few trees or brush. The higher Manning's n-values for the channel and overbank areas represent locations where there is thick brush or trees. Where the overbank area was a mixture of land cover, mUltiple Manning's n- value were used. Surveyed stream cross-sections and additional data taken from topographic information provided by Triad Associates were input into the model, along with hydraulic characteristic information and peak flows. The location of cross-sections that were used to model the existing conditions are shown in Figure I. The normal depths at the upstream and downstream cross-sections were used as boundary conditions for the analysis. Normal depths were estimated using a slope of 0.007 for the upstream cross section and 0.003 for the downstream cross section. The model of existing conditions was created assuming removal of the footbridge and other potential obstructions to flow within the Broadmoor Development site. The existing culvert at the downstream end of the property at SE 136 th Street was included. Figure I also illustrates the results of the floodplain analysis. The shaded area represents the extents of flooding that would occur under existing conditions as a result of the I OO-yr flood. Table 4-1 shows the water surface elevations for each cross-section that would result from the 100-yr flood, as estimated by HEC-RAS. The output from the HEC-RAS model of existing conditions, including stream profile, table of hydraulic variables, and cross-sections, are attached in Appendix A. Shy Creek Development Floodplain Analysis Page 2 DRAFT January 11, 2006 Table 4-1 Existing Conditions Water Surface Elevations Cross Sectionl 100-Y ea r Flood Cross Section I 100-Year Flood Station WSE Station WSE (See Figure 1) (ft) (See Figure 1) (ft) 50/2+18 402.35 28/7+50 390.06 48/2+50 402.14 27/7+75 389.46 47/2+75 401.99 26/8+00 388.83 46/3+00 401.78 25/8+32 387.85 45/3+25 401.57 24/8+50 387.81 44/3+50 401.27 23/8+75 387.60 43/3+75 400.92 22/9+00 387.05 42/4+00 400.49 21/9+25 386.19 41/4+25 400.01 2019+50 386.11 40/4+50 399.54 1919+75 386.07 39/4+75 399.15 181 10+00 385.75 38/5+00 398.88 16/10+50 384.45 37/5+25 398.64 14/11+00 385.23 36/5+50 397.98 12/11+50 384.94 35/5+75 396.84 10/12+00 384.87 34/6+00 395.48 8/12+51 384.15 33/6+25 394.70 7/12+61 383.54 32/6+50 393.75 Culvert 31/6+75 392.76 5/13+14 381.51 30/7+00 391.43 4/13+50 381.41 29/7+25 390.62 3/13+62 381.38 Shy Creek Development Floodplain Analysis Page 3 DRAFTJanuary 11, 2006 4.2 Proposed Conditions The floodplain analysis discussed in this section is based on the proposed Shy Creek Development, as shown on the base map included in Figure 2. The proposed development includes modifications to the creek and floodplain. Channel modifications include the addition of culverts at two road crossings within the development, relocation of the culvert south end of the property, and relocation and regrading of the channel along the western edge of the property. The modifications are primarily intended to improve channel hydraulics and provide compensatory storage for existing areas of shallow flooding. A HEC-RAS model was developed to analyze the impact of these changes on the extents of flooding and flow through the creek channel. Stream cross-sections and hydraulic characteristic information were generated from design data provided by Triad Associates. The proposed cross- sections, hydraulic characteristic information and peak flows were used as input for the HEC- RAS model. The location of cross-sections that were used to model the proposed conditions are shown in Figure 2. The normal depths at the upstream and downstream cross-sections were used as boundary conditions for the analysis. Normal depths were estimated using a slope of 0.007 for the upstream cross-section and 0.003 for the downstream cross-section. Figure 2 also illustrates the results of the floodplain analysis. The shaded area represents the extents of flooding that would occur under the proposed developed conditions as a result of the 1 OO-yr flood. The results indicate that the areas of shallow overbank flooding will be reduced near the bend in the stream. The downstream portion of the channel was realigned and graded to provide compensatory storage as will be discussed in the following section. 4.2.1 Flood Water Volumes for Compensatory Storage The existing conditions HEC-RAS modeling indicated three areas beyond the 25-foot stream buffer that currently have the potential for shallow ponding. The first two areas are located where the stream channel bends to the south on both the left and right overbanks. The third area is located just upstream of the culvert at the downstream end of the project site on the left overbank. The shallow ponding is outside of the effective conveyance area for a 1 OO-year flood. Therefore proposed development and grading in these areas will not block flow or reduce the conveyance capacity of the creek and its floodplain. The existing estimated combined volume of floodwater that would inundate these areas during a 1 OO-yr flood is approximately 105 cubic yards. The proposed development will reduce the volume of floodwater that would inundate these areas during a 100-yr flood to approximately 12 cubic yards. The change in the volume of floodwater within the shallow ponding area was estimated for use in designing "compensatory storage" areas to be created along Shy Creek within the buffer area. Compensatory storage is required by the City of Renton when developing in the 1 OO-year floodplain. Table 4-2 shows the volumes in the individual areas. The volume for each area was determined by multiplying the area of the shallow ponding within the floodplain boundary and outside the 25-foot stream buffer by the average depth of water estimated to cover the area. The average depth of water was conservatively estimated by averaging the water surface elevations for all Shy Creek Development Floodplain Analysis Page 4 DRAFT January 11, 2006 cross-sections within the ponding area and subtracting the average ground elevation for the cross section with the most extensive overbank flooding. Description Right Overbank at Bend Left Overbank at Bend Left Overbank at Culvert Total Table 4-2 Compensatory Storage Volumes Existin2 Ave Area Depth Vol. Area (ft2) Jft} . (CY) (re) 1173 0.2 9 322 1164 0.3 13 686 3737 0.6 83 0 IDS Proposed Ave d Depth Vol. Vol (it) (CY) (CY) 0.2 2 (7) 0.4 10 (3) 0 0 (83) 12 (93) The grading plan and cross sections for the project have been prepared by Triad Associates and incorporated into the hydraulic modeling performed for this study. The design includes realignment of the portion of the channel downstream of the bend in Shy Creek. The channel realignment was designed to include compensatory storage. The grading plan includes excavation of portions of the downstream channel above the 2-year water surface elevation within the boundaries defined by the 2S-foot stream buffer and lot layout. The volume of cut between the 2-year and I OO-year water surface elevations was intended to provide compensatory storage as it is effective flood storage and would be used during a flood event. 4.2.2 Proposed Bridge or Culvert Crossing Shy Creek Two culverts are proposed for the road crossings with the Shy Creek Development. Replacement of the culvert at the downstream end of the project under SE 136th Street is also proposed as part of the project. The developer's biologist has indicated that the portion of Shy Creek above SE 136th Street is not fish bearing and so the culvert design does not need to provide the dimensions for fish passage specified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Pipe arch culverts have been proposed the two road crossings within the development and for the culvert replacement at SE 136th Street. The Washington State Department of Transportation Hydraulics Manual (WSDOT, 2004), which is commonly used as guide for culvert design, indicates that, "Circular culverts, box culverts and pipe arches should be designed such that the ration of headwater (HW) to the diameter (D) during the 2S-year event is less than or equal to 1.2S." In addition, the manual recommends that the culvert be designed so that no overtopping of the roadway occurs during the 100-year flood. Culverts were sized as part of the hydraulic analysis of the Shy Creek floodplain. A pipe culvert with a 40-inch rise and a 53-inch span are proposed for both road crossings within the development and for the culvert replacement at SE 136th Street. The culverts were sized conservatively to accommodate the I DO-year flow with very little headwater. The results of the Shy Creek Development Floodplain Analysis Page 5 DRAFTJanuary 11, 2006 analysis indicate that the 25-year flow can be conveyed without any headwater. It should be noted that the proposed culvert dimensions are based on standard dimensions provided by the HEC-RAS software. Manufactured dimensions may be different. The culverts that are installed should have equivalent areas of flow conveyance. 4.3 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Conditions Floodplains Table 4-3 summarizes flood levels under the existing and proposed conditions. A comparison between the results of the proposed and existing conditions hydraulic analyses indicates the following: • Water surface elevations during the I DO-year flood condition would be higher along the creek at locations that are immediately upstream of the culverts proposed for the two crossings within the development. The results indicate that during a I DO-year flood, water surface elevations would be as much as 2.35 feet higher for the proposed condition upstream of the culvert at Road B than for the existing condition. At the culvert upstream of Road C the increase would be as much as 2.73 feet. Although I DO-year flood elevations will be higher than would be expected under existing conditions, the culverts have been sized to pass the I DO-year flood with very little headwater. No impacts to infrastructure or property are anticipated as a result of the increase in water surface elevations upstream of the culverts during the 1 DO-year flood. • Water surface elevations and flood extents under the I DO-year flood would be the same for existing and proposed conditions at the first cross sections downstream of the culverts under Roads Band C. As noted in the previous paragraph, the difference in the existing and proposed 1 DO-year water surface elevations will increase from the downstream end of the culvert under Road B to the upstream end of the Culvert under Road C. The 1 DO-year flood water surface elevations and extents would be similar (within 0.0 I feet) under both existing and proposed conditions from the culvert under Road C to Section 29, upstream of the bend in the Creek. • The extents of shallow overbank flooding will be reduced along the channel near the bend in Shy Creek as a result of grading outside the 50-foot stream buffer. Portions of the channel downstream of the bend have been designed to include compensatory storage, as outlined in the previous section. • Shallow flooding would occur under both existing and proposed conditions during a 100- year flood along the west side of the development. The shallow flooding would likely extend across I 42 nd Avenue SE. Analysis of the extents of shallow flooding was not done as part of this study. It is anticipated that the volume of shallow flooding would be reduced as a result of channel modifications and grading that will be done for the proposed development. • The realignment of the portion of Shy Creek adjacent to 142nd Avenue SE will reduce 1 DO-year flood water surface elevations along the downstream portion of the creek by as much as 1.2 feet. Shy Creek Development Floodplain Analysis Page 6 DRAFTJanuary 11, 2006 Table 4-3 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Conditions Water Surface Elevations Cross Existing Proposed Cross Existing Proposed Section I IOO-Year IOO-Year Sectionl IOO-Year IOO-Year Station Flood Flood Station Flood Flood (See WSE WSE (See WSE WSE Figure 1) (ft) (ft) Figure 1) (ft) (ft) 50/2+ 18 402.35 404.36 28/7+50 390.06 390.07 48/2+50 402.14 404.35 27/7+75 389.46 389.51 47/2+75 401.99 404.34 26/8+00 388.83 389.36 46/3+00 401.78 Culvert 25/8+32 387.85 388.68 45/3+25 401.57 Culvert 24/8+50 387.81 387.99 44/3+50 401.27 401.27 23/8+75 387.60 386.90 43/3+75 400.92 400.99 22/9+00 387.05 385.79 42/4+00 400.49 400.80 21/9+25 386.19 384.99 41/4+25 400.01 400.74 20/9+50 386.11 384.89 40/4+50 399.54 400.72 1919+75 386.07 384.83 39/4+75 399.15 400.71 181 10+00 385.75 384.77 38/5+00 398.88 400.71 16/10+50 384.45 384.49 37 I 5+25 398.64 400.71 14/11+00 385.23 384.10 36/5+50 397.98 400.71 121 11 +50 384.94 383.82 35/5+75 396.84 Culvert 10/12+00 384.87 383.63 34/6+00 395.48 395.48 8/12+51 384.15 383.51 33/6+25 394.70 394.69 7/12+61 383.54 Culvert 32/6+50 393.75 393.75 Culvert Culvert 31/6+75 392.76 392.76 5/13+14 381.51 381.69 30/7+00 391.43 391.43 4/13+50 381.41 381.60 29/7+25 390.62 390.72 3/13+62 381.38 381.57 Shy Creek Development Floodplain Analysis Page 7 DRAFT January 11, 2006 5.0 Regulatory Implications No regulatory floodway was modeled for this floodplain analysis since the floodway would be within the 25-foot stream buffer and no houses will be constructed within that buffer. The regulatory floodway would likely be contained close to the creek banks, as the creek is relatively small and the floodplain is not very wide. The 25-foot stream buffer ensures the floodway will not be encroached upon. It should also be noted that the property proposed for development is currently given a designation of Zone X (Shallow Flooding) on the approved FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM 53033C0982 F, May 16, 1995). The property is not located within zones A or Y, which are the areas defined as special flood hazard zones by the City of Renton Municipal Code. Regulations that apply to construction within special flood hazard zones include the prohibition against increased flood levels due to construction within the flood hazard zone. Because the property is not in a special flood hazard zone, a rise in flood levels upstream of culverts at Roads Band C should be allowable .. Respectfully Submitted, MONTGOMERY WATER GROUP, INC. Robert A. Montgomery, P.E. Principal Engineer Shy Creek Development Floodplain Analysis Page 8 i J ~ I I ~;~ , (I II -;~., 1 ,II ;1" 'I " -:!' , ',:i ~: , , , • ,. .~ .I ;;l ~,! , , EXTENT OF SHALLOW OVERFLOW AREA WAS NOT ESTfAfA TED AS PART OF THIS STUDY. OVERFLOW OCCURSATSECnON10ANDAT SECTIONS EXISTING CULVERT ,'t·_~ ~ EXISTING STORM DRAIN (FLOWS A WA Y FROM CREEK) ~ .. ) ---;;:j~. "L~ '~~-----' -.'''''-= .--=-.::;;;;:::....::::::;.~> --:-T.;~~;~: "'" ._-----------.~-----" .',---------'. /"" \ ,'iL; LEGEND: \ NOTES; EXISTING 100-YR FLOODPLAIN 11 !, "'--==.. '----. .~'":--. • '" .-".--,. "'.-.-..... ,~-'-o""" .. : " it • .<~-=~ .---=---<..- , . . PROPOSED SHY CREEK DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY , c'- c L I r I;' , . ", .. ,.~"" -~~ ::----~-"----=.--'-..... _ •• -~~-. -,,,.;'::'';' ~ .'-' -'-; ....,-¥",- ";'-rr-"~~_:- .~ "" .... ~ ,', "l"'!" , ' fl ~" ,! , " r I~ !( " I, I" ! ~;: f ii' . ,,-' ! 'I' ',.-1, ,,' ",11 :) J II " I ~::-:T_"':---::'~ -,)' .i , " , " '_;.I '1;- . _.v;:y -:"fi~;C 1-, " , r/// EXISTING 100-YR FLOODPLAIN 1) BASEMAP, INCLUDING GRADING PLAN AND TOPOGRAPHY PROvtDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES. Figure 1 Shy Creek Floodplain Analysis Existing 100-yr Floodplain ~ /'// / (OVERBANK PONDING AREAS USED TO ESTIMATE COMPENSA TORY STORAGE) ............ ~ //// EXISTING 1QO..YR FLOODPLAIN i //// (SHALLOWFLOOD/NG,OVERFLOWAREA) Shy Creek Development • MONTGOMERY IurUGROIJP,IN( '.j " • .~, , ' EXTENT OF SHALLOW OVERFLOW AREA WAS NOT ESTIMATED AS PART OF THIS STUDY. OVERFLOW " OCCURS AT SECTIONS 24 AND 25. ~1~~;;~'_ >~,,:, ~~ />----.-_ . if i"- ': I / ~. i ' 'I , .. 't . - 'I / PfOPOSED ~ULVERr :.'iNg!,-:_2l I I ~'~:&-~~-;'c'~~:L.,s, _,_ .' <' PROPOSED-<- CULVERT (NOTE 2) ~, , - PROPOSED SHY CREEK r DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY p " " ~ k ,'J .. --~----',:" -=:-'~~"--=-';~''-;; +=i~~ --~-' .. -------/--.,,~ -~'. -- ;;_~ _______ .:L.'- '--'- -;7:r---~' ____ , , '. , , '-:;~/-, , , , , '."....::,- i.,"~:-- I' e ~ \ , , , I )-~- -"" ' • I, :: -';-,'-~ :J' , " -) " " -, "', -----<,::: I --I i -F " I. i \' :1 " EXJSnN~ r /' ~ CREEK 4UGNMENT - - --'I- ~I, __ .: I . ,"!::-=;-=-,.-:-=-::;;--=-,_==~---,,-, ~_', --,*,,-~p. -b.T-~'-o-~' ~----J" --~ • PROPOSED u~ STORM _ . --. : ~IN--OUTLET- --,-",:,:,,,,, -.-'~.o.-"' ~ , Ii , -p ,..--1,,· '"":;,: ~':-:'.--,---, . • -0, . "-\'" . "'" _._--i. _ ~- "" : . --rL--"....,-. •• -1,' , " LEGEND; \ , NOTES; 1& EXISTING 1QO-YR FLOODPLAIN • ~ EXISTING 100-YR FLOODPLAIN (OVERBANK PONDING AREAS USED TO ESTIMATE COMPENSATORY STORAGE) EXISTING 100-YR FLOODPLAIN (SHALLOW FLOODING, OVERFLOW 1) BASEMAP, INCLUDING GRADING PLAN AND TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES. 2) THE PROPOSED CUL VERTS WERE EACH MODELED IN HEC-RAS AS SMooTH·WALLED CORRUGATED METAL PIPE ARCH CULVERTS (4(J-RISE, 53-SPAN). Figure 2 Shy Creek Floodplain Analysis Proposed 100-yr Floodplain Shy Creek Development a ......... MONTGOMERY \\~ru GOOlll'.lhC Appendix A Existing Conditions HEC-RAS Output "eo·"" ., ,"~, "'" ",," , '"_, 'mo" , ~ ~ I .....,. , ; 1 .... = ~ , , , , ......" --,,-, " ._.,'J' liiif ... · , ~ , , ~ , , ""-""'- , =m , I i , ~ , -'- , ~ m , , , , , , , . " .c .. , , =f, , ... .,~ , o· 0; , 0. , 0;, -., ....,. "' , .. '6, , " " , ,,' " , " 0- . ".' ~ , , . .~:; Oi<i ~ , " , -i, 0; , ~ , ... ,,;; .;~ !II ~ "" , , , ,a , ~ , I 'I , .. --"." 1------,--; , ,,," .. ~ , "" "" -, .' ";; , "" ""'"" "" """ oM " .. ,' "'"'"'''.~ I ~ ~ " 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 O ___ ~ 0 ~ , i- 0 t-",," ----0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 I-I 0 0 0 ~O 0 0 ~ 0 -;;j 0 , --:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ~ 0 I 0 --I 0 0 0 --%li 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 , , ::lli'o 0 0 0 , 0 0 -": 0 , 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 € 1 € ~ € 1 , ~ • I Shy Creek Development Plan: Existing FINAL \·06 111012006 RS· so S10b<>0 2+1$ ------00 -------+------------oo------~ +------ :j -: '------- ~ ~, -_,00 ~j "' ~l :1--- ~, :i , -' ,00 407~ L-=- '00 WStOO-yr , ::; I' ,,- s.':s.. ~, s .. ,,,,,,{ft) Shy Creek Developmenl Plan: Exi!tlng FINAL 1·06 1110f2006 RS-.oe S1._2<{i(l -----+-----00-----+--------03-·- 03---- ,00 Shy Creek Developmenl Plan' Exlstmg FINAL 1·06 111 Df2006 flS·4ISt._.·1"!i '00 Shy Creek Developmem Plan: Elo:ilting FINAL 1·06 1110/2006 AS'''' S1._J>OO -----+-~-00~~+1~~~~~-00~~------~1 ~~ ~ ~;:; ='" ,,~ ---'O--~~=========;;7"-~ ~ --~------~~---'-"=--c-~~~---------.-----,00 S ... ",,(ftl Shy Creek Develapmenl Plan Exlsling FINAL 1·06 11101200Ei RS·~ S1."""J.:/5 _1<--------00--------1-----00 WSIOO-yr =~" ~ Co_ . ~ ~, -~-------=-------~----~~~-_/~----------~-------~ .00 i._ S,.'"", 1ft) Shy Creek Development Plan EltlslingFINAL 1·06 111012006 RS· ... SI.~,," J.se 00------f.---------.. --C3 ~, ~ -~ w ~ WS100-yr m~" ~ 0,,,,,,," • ~, ~ -~ ,~ ,00 ,00 S~.,..,(I) e i € I € I - I € I l g j Shy Creek Oevelopmeot Plan: Existing FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS'~J SI.tJon3+75 ~, }---------------o.---------------+----~----~-----,-O;--~_'::!p"'""=11 ~ Q ~ ~ <00 m ~, m ~ =~" ~; -----, Q!O<rII! , So':SIJ I ---' ~----------------------_OC_----------------------~----------------------~~C---------------------~oo '" .@ 0. ~ Q - m ml ",1-- ·'00 oQ/I~, i :t :1 '00 ~ - m S!.ol"", (~) Shy Cr!tek Developmenl Plan: ExistinQ FINAL 1·06 1I10f2006 RS • 42 Stobon 4000 --------~~-------oo------~~----------- / I~, WSl00-~ , :::1 0,-• ~ --:;;----~ -.-----.-, ---------T---~-----------------------"'00 sl'''''''lft) Shy Cf~k Development Plan: Existing FINAl 1·06 1110.'2006 RS' 41 SlobOo\ 4+25 00----·-----+-------------Q.3-----.r-----_-1I~~ SIIo/IO<1(11 Shy Creek Davelcpmant Plan' ExJsHnQ FINAL ,·06 111012006 RS·oIO'5I._4·~ ------------~~-----oo =~" ~ ,,- ~ -------, '00 WSl00-)" =~" ~ 0,,:,", I ~ m '" .00 L---~~~~~~~~---~ ,00 S""O" III Shy C'tI9k Development Plan E.>:isling FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS. lS $0._ •. 75 Q ---------------+------~------~--------------- m @ '" -'00 Sial"", II) Shy Creak Development Plan: existing FINAL 1·06 1110i2{lQ(i RS. J.9 St.""" 5.00 WS25-yr ~ Q - m m 1--------------0.--------------,,-----00------+----------. ---oo------------~I 'F m '" '00 .00 SI'llO~ift) • I g ~ - j • I ! • i € ! Sh),CreakOevelofllT1ent Plan' existing FINAL t·06 111012006 RS' 37 Sl~,.,.., 5+25 ----+-~--------.--~ 05-----·------>l~----__ ~ ~~, ~ 0._ · -~ ,.,'ooc_-----------~-----------_O------------O~c-----------~ 51.llOnl!1 Sh)' Creek Development Plan' ExI51lng FINAL 1-06 111012006 RS _ J6 Sl.1Ion 5+50 -------------_r--~-_r--------------~ w @ ~ 'I'I&'(,'().)'I ---------------·1 ~~, ~ ~ ,. ,. '00 stol"", I~I Shy Creek Development Plan: Exisling FINAL 1·06 111012006 R~· J'j Sl'1Ion5+75 ro @ ----------+-------~-----~~------------ ~ m ~ ,. ,. ~ ... . ---,----,- ·,ro stol"",{11 Shy Creel< Oelltllopment P1an-Existing FINAL 1·06 111 012006 RS-l-4Sl_S«l(l ----~------~----~-------------ro---·· ~ ~ m ~ ,. ,. ~ '00 51.1'''''' I~I Shy CrtleK Delllliopmenl Plan Ex,stlng FINAL 1-06 111012000 AS. lJ 51._ 5+25 ~ ~====~--oo----------------+----~---+I--------------- m ~ ,. ,. ~ m ·,ro ----.~------·-··T~--·~---- 5lahon (~I Shy Cr&ek Oevelopm,ml Plan: E~lltlng FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS'J~ Sl.~on6.511 ~ e----------------oo----------------+---~----~-------------- = ~ -OJ- ~ ,.~ · ~,. ,ro -, WS'OO-". ~~, ~ -~ · -~ WS'OO-". ~~, ~ !~ a. ... 510 l~=- WSl00-,. ~~, ~ 0.:;;;;-· -~ .- ~ ~~, ,. '" ~ m ·'00 ~ :lc ___________ -o~'_~~~~~~::::::~~~::=-==~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~ G,o~ .l .. J,,, '00 Shy Creek Development Plan: Existing FINAL 1·06 111012006 AS.J' stobonS+7, ~ ----------------~--~--~-----------------,,--------- ~ • m , '" ! ~ ~ m m _'00 -!;;-------------.----~~£iJ- ~to'.,njft) Shy CrlHlk Davelopmen! P1an' Existing FINAL '·06 111012006 AS· XI So"'on 7<00 "' --------00-----------+----M----.fl~------------------ '" m • I ~ j m "'I "'I m1 '00 ~"""ll Shy CrlHlk Dewlopment Plan_ E.x~l.,g FINAL '-06 111012006 115.29 Slo,.,..,1_;>5 --+ ---~---~-- i :J · :1 ---------.- -, WS'OO-f' WS2s.yr ~ -;;;;;;;- o ,.,"ko-----------------------oc-----------------------cc-----------------------'.c-----'00 StohOn,ll Shy CrlHlk Developmant P1an-Existing FINAL 1·06 1'10/2006 AS. 25 Stot>on 7+50 '" r--------------,,--------------4------~----_+----------------- ~ € ! ! ,. '00 SIo,,,,,, {~) Shy CrlHlk Dewlopmenl Plan: Existing FINAL 1·06 111012006 liS. 27 Stol>on7.1'5 -------------+-----M----~----------------OO----------------~ -----------.-------------------------,C------------~"'"---------------- S""on(il) Shy CrHk DeYillopmen! P1ln: Eld,'lng FINAL 1·06 111012006 AS.26 Slo~on8_ m --------------~---"'--~~-----------------~------------------~ , 311'; € m 1 i ,.) WJ: 381-i 186~-'00 Stolion Iftl WSl00-)" =~" ~ ,,~ ,- o 90,-,$0. ,- ~~!.:I WS25-)" I ----, WS2." , ~i e~:r: .. J g j g I g ! ~ g J '" m ~ ~ ~ i ~ Shy Craa~ Dav810pmanl Plan, ExistIng FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS_:/5 a'J:I ,,--+-------00-------1 '00 S"'IOI'(ft\ Shy Creak DaV1jlopmeTTl Plan: Existing FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS -2~ ~._ a.ro .~----------~~-----------+-,,-+---- ~~ :1 ----------~\7~~,~ .~-----,~ / :1 V V .,'ooc---------~cc---------c<oc---------c.,c---------c.~c----------c----------~~---------O~c---------'ooc---------,,~ m ~ = w Sto,"",(~) Shy Creal<. DevelopmaTTl Pian, Ell.tinl< FIf./All·06 111012006 RS-Z) SO-.3.1'5 ----~-----------_+-o;~~---00--...... ~ SIaI"",(") Shy Creek DlIl'elopmDTTI Plan' ElIls1ing FINAL 1-06 111012006 ~s.2'1 SlI_9-oc> r-------------~----------_+--,,--+_---- Slly Creek Developmem Plan Exl.tlng FINAL '-06 1110/2006 RS -l' SlI"",,(»;?5 r-----------~-------.---+-~o; -~+---.-~-oo-----~ WS;25.)II' WSl00-)'f ~ (>'0,""" L':,-i EII,* 51, ! - ~ M~" ., _---·1='" ~ ~ -= '00 $to1""'(!1 Shy Creak DDvelopmenl Plan, Existing FINAL '·06 11'012006 RS -2Il SI","'o~.5o:J '00 0,- ~­. e,nkS,. '" ~-------~-------~ o;-~+-----------oo-------------~ -(i~- '00 ~ -WIiJ;25.)II' " ~ 0,-~ l ...... '" ., '00 '00 51"0«11!J ~ l ! € ! € ! Shy Cr~k Deveiopmerrt Plan: E:dstinll FINAL HIS 1110!2006 RS·'9s.obon9_75 -----+--m--+--- WS1CO-" ~ WS<_~ '----------------------I~ 5 .. ,,,,,, I~) Shy Crltek Oevel()pmenl Plan: Existing FINAL 1·06 1110l2000 RS. ,8 S1obon 1(1000 j<--------------------~--------------------+_-"'---+---------00--------__1 S"''''''lft) Sit)' Crlte'o. Development P,an Existing FINAL 1-06 111012006 RS·16 _'O+~ ~ ----1)<---Ol-~i'------- ~ ., ~ ~ -~ ill .. .----~- '00 sto_I~) Shy Crltek Oevelopmenl Plan: Exlll1n9 FINAL 1-06 1110J2006 RS·"SI.l>oel1000 , ~, ------------------~-"'---+-------- ., ~ = -j :l ~, '00 s"'.." (~) Shy CrltekOevelopmenl P,an ExlstlogFINAl1·00 ,,1012006 RJ>_W SI.-.".so ~, 1---------------------1)<--'-------+--"'--"'------ :r---------------~"__________.. ~ ~ ill ~, '00 00'00-" -'Wi2s:")"' ~ o,~ ,- WSlOO-~ ~~" ~ "- ~" • 6& ..... so. ~,oo---·-·----------C~--------------------C--------------C~o-------------,ooo:=CC:cJ1 S\o"onlft) Sh,. Creek Development Plan: Ex,st,ng FINAL 1-06 "1012006 RS· 10 &o,on '<->00 ~ j<--------------------~--------------------+-"'~I-------~------I ~. -., ~, , ..... ws,(X).)"' ~ vm:;-"-,,, .. ,, ~ ~" ~, • .tc-~-------------_oc_-----------------~------------_oc_------------c,oocLO ...... s .. ~ ·'00 Shy Cr&ek Development Plen' Exlsling FINAL 1·06 1110/2006 RS' 7 S1"'on 1:1->61 (US 01 SE IJIitt't 51) -----" 1 ,,-,.----·~-----C_I SblII .. n{~) Shy Creek Development Plan: 8clsllng FINAL '·06 1'1012006 RS.6 c...... lJ611>SI,~ S>ohonl~) SITy Creek O"....,lopmert Plan. Exi$101!1 FiNAl 1-06 111012006 RS.6 c.... I:)6tt,SI,.., ~ ~----------oo------00 --+ ---------------oo--------------~ ~ ~ ~.'-, = t "' ~ ., ~ '" ----------~------~ "'C':5~.~".M,'".~ ~ "~;f m ~ ----mc------~c-----------oo------,oo Shy Cr&ek Davalopmant Plan' 8clsllng F1NAL '·06 1110/2006 RS' ~ SOooon 13.1~ (OS 01 SE 1300> SI ) -----------+---00 1 00 ----------------<i ~ ~ " = -----j .. ~ ~, ~ '" no ~ '00 S'.'"n I~I Shy Creek Oevelopmeot Plan Existing FINAL 1-06 111012006 RS· ~ StatiM 13.50 ~ ~-----------oo--------"'1 --------"' ----------+----00---------1 = , "' I ~, ~ ~ om no ~ " ~ m e "' ~ ., "" '" "" ~ Shy Creek Developmen1 Plun: Existing FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS_3 Slajj""l~+ti2 ,'-------oo-------+-------~-------·--~;.._-oo____1 '" swoon(.) '" ~ WSl00-yr ~ ~ o,~ . ~ ~ 9 ~+~ UOIlIl'lS as OS+Z UonelS 9~ SL+Z UOIlBlS H oo+t U()!lU)S 9, S~+f: UanDIS 5' OS+£ UOIlIlIS ," 11 Si .. e UO!\IIIS (, DO'" llollelS Z' SZ .. " !lO!1DIS ~, OS+, uOil"IS Ot SL+, IlO!I"IS 6& 00+5 iJ{)!leIS ~E SZ+S uO!1lllS it OS+5 U<lnilIS 9£ r ~ H+S U~II\S S£ I 00+9 UO!I$\S tt r I SZ+9 UOI\B1S tt I I 05+9 UOnH1S Zt ! , Si+9 UO!IIl)S ~£ r i cO+l UO!181S Of: I € i , SZ+l UO!181S 6l i ~ I OS+! llanelS 91: ~ g • SL +L UO!JB1S a i ~ 0 00+9 UOrjelS 9Z I , ; Ze+9 SZ 05+9 UOIIU)S ,Z SL+8liOfllllS £Z OO+f,I VO!IIIIS ZZ 5Z+6 \lOll"lS ~z 05+6 UO~1I1S 01: Sl+6 U(1 )1I1S6Ij I 00+0 I IlOIlDIS 91 , 05+01 UOIIB]S 9L 00+ ~ l ua'jOIS h QS+lluo'18ISlL DO+U UOIIII)S O' UO>llIlS S \O:lJ)$ ~19E) Ii I+B uOlielS 'i ··+tl UOflDIS" (~) UOn~~eI3 Appendix B Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Output ""_"" ", ".'''''-,-, ~,,' , ,.~, '" "H' I I )) ! II , , ~ , =m ~ , , i , -%~ , ~ , , , , --""i ---.;-'" ~ , , --~~ --Hi .~~ 1- ~ , , ill , , , ~ , , , , iii , ·-i~~ c- , '" , ~ , , , , , :iii: ~. , --,,,,, ,-- ~ I -~-" i , ~ I . --,iii , , , ,,-" -. -'-" f------]-~ , , , I ~ ~ , , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , ~ , , , , ~ , Jllii ~' , • • "~I "~I~ ';:' ;;: ~ :g~~ <0:;:; ::; ,il ~ g -r.::d: ,>;:1;;; N ;:; ~ ~ :::~:s: ~I~ ~ I" , " • ~!~ • "" I~"" 0 000 000 o Q _ 0100 ;; ;1 000 o 0 0 ODD 0y 000 000 i : i , i i , " '""I ~:;1il b';:;;'; ~~;:o: ~:iS ::! ~ N $ ;;;,;lll:g ~I~ " !: ~ ~ ~ ~:::;! '" g:L'" _ i; ~ ~ .;:;;.; 1.5 ::::::,<f: .. , !r' N " . !:l ~;;;; " .. 0 ... .. 0 ... <OJ'' of> '" .n."" -~:'" '" -.. , ~." I"'· ~g : ~ I 1 I s " II !:' ~ 12 ~::: 1ilfCi :q ~ O!i ::! ~ ::! ~N$ N $ ~ W" ~ ~ PI ! ~!~ ~~r;; !I" :;; :;::! t!' ~:i';::; :7;:? ~ :il &:: ~ ';:!f;l;e 11 8 8 ::;; ~18 '";-'";-0;> 1jl ~ ~ ~p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-;"'; .. ~~~ ~ ~:;' ~~"i' ~I"? "i' ;;: ~ '" :':;"1'";-OJ> "i''':' ;:"1,";-;;: ")'": "-, .......... -;- 3'E I , I ~ I , • ~ :: ~ e "I" t;;)'ili<; ;;;:::n:; ~ ~ 1!l ~ ::; ~ ~:: $ G::::';!:, " '"1 " ~I~ $i<;'{). \il~ [:j I~ ~ :;J 10:.018 · " 8S~ !;iiio ~ . ~ :3 III :::;-;t::; r:::';:!:;:: 1'.: :::.!}:l ~ ~ :::: ~r.:~ ;;, til ~ Plr::»:l ;;, f;;;'!; --1-li:~';:! ;;;!o: ';:! :::::" ';:! :;:"::' ---::.leo'!'. t:;::"::" ~g i i , i 1 , I" ·"l qi' $l&l~ :g :;;;:" I ~ ;! ~ :>l !'1 .. , :e1!!S :l I •• ~! • W :28i:l "", I"· ,.N • 0 0 "" DO. • 0 ~ i<" ~ , ." . ~I~ :;;~ ... f:l::!'" ~~ .... ;/ P::: ,",;::' ;::; ill! :5l:::l, ;;; ~ ~ :;;N~ :5l1f:l ~ '!J \<: ';:! [;j 1(l'!'-:q ;'!;',!! ~i:l':: '!J;;;~ ~! I . , . i : ' i ' i 0 rn Ii::! ::; (!:S N ;,i:;l<;J 1Il:; 1<1 s t!' :8 " "" .. , !I~ " i[; re,<!i ~ ~!~ :;(:1;8 ~i}:l to; ~ ~ i;t; :;; .. , ;;, 8 &::I i;;!8 ~ I" •• • _ "'...: .. .0 .... d ... .., ,..,..; '" ... N .... "',.; '" 1---" NO ':'----NO _ ---~~ , i I i > I h~ P' _. 0 ., . "" ~ i 5ii ~ ~ $I! U~ .U ~ ", "i § .. ~ UlliH , .-" "r ~ ~ ~ §'g ~ ~ ~ 'r § ~ ~ , , O~" ~8 ~§g ,8 ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U§ § § ~ 0 Uo § § 888 888 (j _ C yo "' , " :;;: ~ c;:; i;; ~ :1l 8'-~;e 'fJ ••• ~ R ':t .. . •• 0 i., f1l g :;;: ~,Sj ;; g;:3~ :8;! ~; ~ ~\q; r.:::::s; :g 8 ~ q; ~ r-; !~~ .,; ..s ~ :;;; ; ;; ~ .in ~~~ .U U. U. ... U. "ON ~;~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~!iSi 1id:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ' .. 0-i w i ('I; g:l: ~ & 51 :g!;;i;; :g ~ ~ :8!,;i!': ... Ci ~ gt ~ ~:l ... . '" ~~~ :i2)!3 • ~!? :l :h;<l ~&:~ ~ ~ m :l! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!~ *~~ HI" ;;ll~ ~ ~ ~ ~i U~ ••• ~ ~ ~ ~~~ :st:st~ Ii: ~I~ ~ s:;; · -0 I , ; ... g;: ~ !;j n • ;jrnp! ~ ;:~: "I" '1'-:::l ~ ~i '" . !li C;:;:!! ~ ':t:a 1!Ij 8:0;1 16:8;; :;:;0;;:;; ~ <!i i'i . "" it; Sl N .. ..; ..; ;:;: ; ~ ~ * ilU ~ ~~! U. ilH ~ ;~! nl' :l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i;;:;:1 ~ ~ ~ iHH~ idi~ iii ~ ~ iii ~ ~ ~i2"l!! ... I I • , , I ~~~~g'ii·J-~-~,: ID ~ ~ Pi :<l 1<: R r::. R ;;;;; ;; ;i,a; ;; i~ ; ~I ~ ~I~ ••• ;'!! >':;!. • ~!~ ~I~ ~ ~~ ! ~l-••• I~ ~ ~ • 'I~ ;J~ll! ;: li!;: ~~~ ilU iiil" ll! llIiill !ni~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!~ ... iidi ~ I~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ "i"" I "I" " ~ [:;:; ~ ~,~i :i-I 1 , , L: , ' ; I • I'" ... -'8 ~ 1i! 8':0; ~ ~8 :>!.~ 8 ~;lil .. . ... 8 ,,:,1iS 8O' 'S I'l ~ ! ~!I ••• 81li'i g I:i ~!: : :8 :>l:i ~ ~!!! !-, ,..;"' ... ;z!~ ~ :;; !li~, ;; \i;i~ -"'I'" '"' "' ... ,,..; "' ... -oS ... ;;I~ ~ !J '" "! "~ .. , , .. , "' , "' , .. ''I' ' " i'" .. N ., .. "'! . "' ""I" N .., "'1'" 0 f ~~;;; . -. -!l;~ ~L !l~.-!l~;;; !l ~;;; .-~ -.~ !l." !l " !l ~ .-j ->I.-!l ~ .-!l .- i! ~ " ••• ~~~ ;:'.i~~ """ "" . ~ ~ ~ NO " '" , --------------- • I 1p In HI 111 ~~~ ~!~ 111 HI HI 111 HI HI HI HI 1 HI Ii'! HI • 0 o 0 000 000 000 <JuiJ 000 000 OOU <300 oou 000 oou 0 000 uoo 00 u " H U <; • • I' • • • • • <h<h~ Shy 50 SU~0/\2+18 ---+-------00-------+--------------, Slo'"",lftl Shy Creek D~y(liopmerrt Plan Propo~,d FINAL '-06 111012006 RS· os &_ 2+50 ----+-------~oo--__+.::___~~=--===~~~I o "..,,,,,(ft) Shy CrHk OeveloptTlenc Plan RS_US Slah",,(.) SrTy C,,"k [)e""'QP!T1ent Plan: Proposed FINAl. 1-06 lflCI2C{)6 RS • ..s CuIY Stot""'(ft) Shy CrHk Oevelopmam Plan: P'OfIQse<'l FINAL '·06 111012000 RS'45 c ..... '00 '00 ~ ~~, ~ -=-. ~.~ ------------oo----------~~-------OO-----------+~----------w-----------_1 S!obonl~1 Shy Creek De ... elopment Plan. Proposod FINAL 1_06 111012006 RS'" 5 S..,,,,,, 3'~ (DS c ....... ~ Rood B) 00 ~ c,~ . e ...... 51. ,Wi!. IQO.yr I ::: (;,ound _~.,,:s,. Shy Creek Development Plan: Proposed FINJIL 1.Q6 1/1012006 RS • 40! SI.tia<> 3>50 '" 00 I 00 i 00--' --~--_ .. _------, ,..,.. ... WSl00-yr ~ ~ e ~ i ~ ~ -=-· ~ 11.0",,5," ~ = ~~. '00 .~ , ~ '" SIoh"" I~) Shy Cr8f.lk O"'wk;>~ent Plan Proposed FINAL 1·06 111012006 AS.":) SI;.I"",J.n:; 00 +-~---oo I ru I~ ... ~ WSl00-1' a J m25.:y,-e WSi;" 1 ~ -=-~ m -· ~ = ~ .- ·,ro ~ , ~ '00 Sia'''''(I\) Shy Creek Oewlopment P\¥1' Propo!5ed FINAL 1--{l6 1110/200;, AS' <2 SOOl>Ol'lO+OO .,z ro +---------05--~-... -~+-ro Ir·1 ..... '" I WS 100-1' Q ,--~ ~~, € '--~ ! a , WS2-1' ,-• ~ I ":'"' ~ m ~ ~". ~ -'00 00 , ~ '00 _(R) Shy Creek Developmenl Plan: Proposed FINAL 1-00 1'1012006 AS." SI._~.2S ro I 00 , ro I "2j i """ .,oj J W$IOCL1' ~1 ~ m~, ~ <06: -wsY:;; , , O(I<~ c,~ 1 i ~ ~'i :l-~~_ -=c: --=::::! ?" ·'00 .~ , ~ '00 SiaI"""RI Shy Cr(lek Oewlopment Plan Proposed FINAl 1·06 111012006 RS.OO 31.-<>50 "" ro , 00 I ro I _i.~_ ----WSl00-yr € a ~ j J WS2·1' ~ 0,"_ ~ • ~ ~ ----... _--~ ~ '00 ~ , " '00 S,"I"'nl~1 Shy Creek Oevelopment Plan: Proposed FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS' 35 SlotlOn "7S ro -i 00 I '" -~ ~ ~ € m~, j ~ ) ~ c;;:.;;;;- ~ · ~ - ~ '00 ~ , " '00 Slo'"", (1\) Shy Crltllk Plan: Proposlld FINAL 1-06 111012006 ... ~----------m---------~~---~----+-~ SUll"", (~) ShyCrltllkDell\'lloprnerrt PlM Proposed FiNAl H16 111012006 RS.37 St ....... 5+25 ------+---------00------ 5"''''''(111) Shy Crltllk Development Plan: Proposed FiNAl 1-06 111012006 RS_J65 S!a1_~3ilIUSC ...... ~R_C) ._r-----------ro-----------+---------oo -.------.----~----'------~-------- ~ , 5>.0,,,,,,(1') Shy CrOl6k Dell\'llopmenl Plan: PropoSlld FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS'l5~ c ..... c.-..Ur>do<R_C -----------+---------oo--------~~---- s .. ,,,,,(ft) Shy CrOl6k Dewlopmenl PllIn Prtlposed FINAL 1,06 111012006 RS,.15 5 C ..... CuIvo~ Uo.:h< R_ C ------------00--- 5""on(1ll) Shy Creek Developmefl1 Plan: Propos&d FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS':>4 5 510110" 5+90 IDS c ...... rt --f-----m------+----~----+---~~===~f;'~1 G,o....:! . B.nk 51. , i , ! ~ , i , I ! Shy Cr"~ Development Plan: Proposed FINAL 1-06 111012006 R$-3c4 SI.~on">OO ~ 0------------00---------+---~-___'f~-_:::==.:=~==:: """ --==---, '" WSl((\.yr i ~! ~ WS2·yr i -~, . , ~: - ~1~- Station I~l Shy Creek De'ltllopmenl Plan: Proposed FINAL 1_06 111012006 RS'l3 SKI"" 6.:;?5 ~\to--------------c.~c--------------c-----------'---~-~---.oo s..o..",(I) Shy Creek DeWllopmeni Plan' PropoS(ld FiNAl 1-06 111012006 ~ ~ ~ ~, -~ -m m '00 -" Shy Creek Dewlopmerrt PIa,,: Proposed FINAL H)6 1/1012006 :;ta''''''lftl Shy Creak Dewlopment Plan' Proposed FINAL 1_06 1/1012006 RS • JO SI&Oon 7->00 ~ -------->f-~ I ,~ - ~ m ~ .00 Slaloonlft) Shy Creo~ Dllvtlillpmlllnt Plan. PlQpOiWJ FINAl... '-00 111012006 RS. 29 Sl.~"" /+25 '00 WSl00-)'J M~" ~ 0._ •• h WS'OO-,. ~~" ~ '00 0,_ . B.""S,. ~ r-------oo ---------+-------~------_cfl~----I m = m ". m -• ro ~ ~ WSIOO-)'J ~ ~ ~~~ '>.--_~t~~:;:1 ---.---~-----------. --------. . ~ .00 St.,ion 1ft) g i ,. I ~ g l ,. ! , , ,. 1 ,. 1 m ,~ m -., ~ ~ ~ '00 = ~, ~ m ~ ~, ~ = ~ ~ ·'00 --------.-•• ()<I = ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '00 :~ -, 3a7~ Shy CrHk Oewlopmenl Plan: Prcpo5ed FINJoJ.... 1·06 111012006 ------+--''---+-----00-----1 ~ .~ ~ S,.,,,,,,,I) Shy CrHk Dewlcpmem Plan: Prcpcsed FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS.21 51.!io<>9+2!; --------+~--,,---+-------- " StaO"""I) Shy Creek Developmenl PlM: Propoud FiNAl 1-06 111012006 RS·:1Q $1...".,9+50 ---4~--"---+------ ~ -,II Shy Cr&e~ D6Yelopm6m PlBn: PropoSl!d FINAl. 1-06 111012006 RS -I~ 'iiI.-9+~ " ~ 00 00 ~ m~~ ~ c;;;;, "-. BoMSla - I "'..:"':". =~" ----.----I~ i G, ....... I Lo_ t • (._510 '00 WSI(().)'! - ~~! WS:1-l' ' ~1 ~j ·'00 \ r-. \ / \ \ I ? .~ ~ L----~ ___ Ic;;;;,1 l~--------~----~:=~~~~~~--------~----------__o~' .~ '00 $"'-I~I StTy Creek Davelopmem Plan Proposed FINAL H)6 111012006 RS. IS Sootio<1,o.oo ---()<I m -------4<----07 I -., -~ ~ ~ "' '00 $t.I"", I~I Shy C~k DBvelopmem Plarl: Propos6d FINAL 1-[l6 111012006 RS. lij slOM" ,o~ ~ -----+----,,-----+~--- ~ ~ ~ '" "" '" ". ~ 510''''" (~) --00-··--------1 oo·------~ ro WSlOO-),! ~I' WS2-1' o,~ '''''11 . 0.""5,. RJi. 14 St.bon 1 1>00 --------_1~------W l." .. . a.nk 5 .. ro ro S .. ,.,nlftl Shy Creek Development Plan' Propond FINAL 1-06 111012005 RS_1251._".5O " ~ -~ g ~ I m ~ ". '" ~ ~ .~ W • stili"", I~I Shy Creek Developmart Plan: PrOjXl5ed FINAL 1-06 1110.'2006 "tS-'OSu""",',.oo " ~ - ~ g i ~ ~ ,-w . Bonk Sta ~ ·'00 ~ '00 5 .. """ I_I 111012006 00 -----.----------- s...''''''1~1 Shy Cfae~ Dewlopmanl Plan: Proposad FiNAl 1-06 111012006 "tS.6 c...... 'J6<hS,, _ ___ I~----------------"-----------~---,, ~1""'lftl Shy CreeK Dovtllopmonl Plan: PropOSlld FINAL '-00 111012000 RS -6 C"", Il6Ih$l, ... ~----------OO----------_1~--OO I oo--------------~ " Shy Crllllk Oel'9lopment Plan Proposed FINAL 1-06 1/1012006 AS·5 s. .. on 13"6 (OS QI SS ':l6lI< S,) . ~ ~ .-----. WSIOO-yr -------+--00-----+ (16--- ~ ~ ~ ~ ,- 0 ~ ~ € = ---j ., ., "" '" '" ~ '00 S",'ton (~) Shy Creek Del'9lopment Plan: Prtlposad FINAL ,·00 111012006 RS.4 SI.t>on 13<--50 """" ~ ~ i'-------oo-------+----~----+ - ---00 = WS'OO-)" =~" ~ ,,- 0 ~ g ., j ., "" ,~ '" ~ • "....,...(l) Shv Creek Dewlopment f'1an: Propo&ed FINAL 1·06 111012006 RS.J SI"""IJ~ 00----1 ~ Wi; 100-". ~ ~ 0= +--.~--------.--~----"'-------+-~------w----------- ., --------~--~ ~ ""' 7 ., 0 ~ 1185Q1c---____ --- ~ r~ ij ~+l UQ!!UIS 05 r OS+l UO!IU1S it " (9 peo", IJOo<In:l SOl tt+& UO!IUIS 5 tt 0,"1: uOnU)s ,t SL .. t uonelS Ct i 00+5 UOOl81S a& ! S~+S UQ'IRIS l£ :l peol:! J3pu(l ll""'ln:l5 'it b ptlOl:llJ""ln:) SO) OfH5 UCVIBIS 5 'f1: 01)+9 UO!I~IS ~ 05+0 U0!lHI$ ze 00-+6 UO~UIS II ,l+6 UO!IUIS It I § 05+6 UOI1HIS Ot ! ~ 5l+6 UOllulS 61 ' ~L UOI\UIS S I UO!IUIS t GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY BROADMOOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT 144TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST 136TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON E-11609 February 1, 2005 PREPARED FOR CONNER HOMES Scott D. Dinkelman, LEG Principal Kristina M. Weller, P.E. @)(pIRES 02~o5 J Project Manager Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 -136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 643-3780 Toll Free 1-888-739-6670 February 1, 2005 Conner Homes 846 -1 08 th Avenue Northeast, Suite 202 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. John Stochdopole Dear Mr. Stochdopole: Established 1975 E-11609 Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) is pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Broadmoor Single-Family Residence Development, 144'h Avenue Southeast and Southeast 136'h Street, Renton, Washington". This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study were outlined in our December 22,2004 proposal. We understand it is planned to develop the approximately 16-acre, irregular shaped site with a new residential development. Review of preliminary design information indicates the proposed residential development will consist of 64 single-family residence lots, a stormwater drainage tract, and associated arterial roadways. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the site development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Support for the future single-family residences can be provided using conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soils or on newly placed structural fill used to modify site grades. Slab- on-grade floors may be similarly supported. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Scott D. Dinkelman, LEG Principal SDD/KMW/ddw 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue. WA 98005 '-.. Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670 Other Locations Fife TABLE OF CONTENTS E-11609 PAGE INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 General. ... ... ......... ........... ..................... ....... ..................... ......... ... ................... 1 Scope of Services............................................................................................ 1 Project Description........................................................................................... 2 SITE CONDITIONS.......... .... ................................................................ .................. 3 Surface.. ..... .......... .................. ..................... .......... ........ ............ ... ............. ..... 3 Subsurface...................................................................................................... 4 Geologic Review......................................................................................... 4 Soil Review ................................................................................................ 4 Subsurface Exploration................................................................................ 5 Groundwater................................................................................................... 6 Laboratory Testing ... ....... .... ... ... ....... ........... ....... ............ ......... ........ .... ......... .... 6 CRITICAL AREA CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................... 7 Renton Municipal Code.. ................................................................................... 7 Steep Slopes .............................................................................................. 7 Erosion Hazard Areas................................................................................... 7 Landslide Hazard Areas................................................................................ 8 Seismic Hazard Areas.................................................................................. 8 Coal Mine Hazards ...................................................................................... 8 Geologic Hazard Review................................................................................... 9 Steep Slopes .............................................................................................. 9 Erosion Hazard Areas................................................................................... 9 Landslide Hazard Areas............................................................................... 10 Seismic Hazard Areas................................................................................. 10 Coal Mine Hazards ..................................................................................... 11 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 11 General .................................................................. '" ..................................... 11 Site Preparation and General Earthwork............................................................. 1 2 Slope Fill Placement........................................................................................ 1 3 Foundations ................................................................................................... 1 4 Slab-on-Grade Floors....................................................................................... 1 5 Retaining Walls............................................................................................... 1 5 Earth Consultants, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued E-11609 PAGE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Continued S · . D . Con'd t' 1 6 elsmlC eSlgn Sl era Ions ........................................................................ . Ground Rupture .......................................................................................... 16 liquefaction............................................................................................... 1 7 Ground Motion Response............................................................................ 1 7 Excavations and Slopes................................................................................... 1 7 Site Drainage.................................................................................................. 1 8 Utility Support and Backfill............................................................................... 1 9 Pavement Areas .............................................................................................. 20 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 20 Additional Services.......................................................................................... 21 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 APPENDICES Appendix A Plate A1 Plates A2 through A 11 Appendix B Plates B 1 and B2 Vicinity Map T est Pit Location Plan Slope Fill Placement Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Field Exploration Legend Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Grain Size Analyses Earth Consultants, Inc. General GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY BROAD MOOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT 144TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST 136TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON E-11609 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed Broadmoor single-family residence development to be located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 144'h Avenue Southeast and Southeast 136'h Street in Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . Scope of Services The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface based on the conditions encountered, to develop recommendations for the proposed single-family residential our scope of services consisted of the following: conditions at the site, and geotechnical engineering development. Specifically, • Assessing subsurface soil and groundwater conditions; • Providing site preparation, grading, and earthwork procedures, including stripping depth recommendations and details of structural fill placement and compaction; • Assessing the suitability of existing on-site materials for use as structural fill and providing recommendations for imported fill materials; • Providing geotechnical seismic design parameters, including an evaluation of potential liquefaction hazard; • Addressing short-term and long-term groundwater management and erosion control measures; • Providing foundation design recommendations, including bearing capacity and lateral pressures for walls and structures; Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1 , 2005 • Estimating potential total and differential settlement magnitudes; • Providing temporary and permanent slope recommendations; E-11609 Page 2 • Providing construction and post-construction drainage recommendations; and • Preparing pavement design recommendations. Project Description We understand it is planned to redevelop the approximately 16-acre, irregular shaped site with a new residential development. Based on preliminary design information, the proposed development will include up to 64 single-family residence lots, an approximately 64,000 square foot stormwater detention tract, and associated asphalt- paved arterial roadways. A t the time our study was performed, the site, lot and road configurations, proposed stormwater detention tract, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Based on our experience with similar projects, we anticipate the single-family residences will be two to three stories in height and will be of relatively lightly-loaded wood frame construction with a combination of slab-on-grade and wood joist floors. We anticipate wall loads will be on the order of two (2) to three (3) kips per lineal foot and column loads will likely be in the range of twenty (20) to forty (40) kips. We estimate slab-on-grade floor loads will be around 150 pounds per square foot (psI). The proposed site improvements will also include a storm water detention tract located in the southwest corner of the site. A ten (10) to twelve (12) foot high west to southwest facing slope is located in the southwest portion of the site with gradients in the range of ten (10) to twenty (20) percent. The slope is to be graded and developed. The site will be accessed from one entry point along 144'h Avenue Southeast on the eastern edge of the site, from one entry off of Southeast 132,d Street on the northern edge of the site, and from one entry off of 142"d Avenue Southeast near the southwest corner of the site. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 3 Two existing of the site. development. single-family residences and several outbuildings occupy the southern half The structures are to be removed to rna ke way for the proposed If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site consists of an approximately 16-acre, irregular shaped site located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 1441h Avenue Southeast and Southeast 1361h Street in Renton (see Plate 1, Vicinity Map). The site currently contains two single-family residences and several outbuildings that will be removed as part of the planned development. The proposed development area extends approximately 600 feet in an east-west direction from the west side of 1441h Avenue Southeast to the east side of 142nd Avenue Southeast, and approximately 1,200 feet in a north-south direction from the north side of Southeast 1361h Street to the south side of Southeast 132'd Street. The northeast portion of the site is bordered by several single-family residences, outbuildings, and a daycare center, which are located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 1441h Avenue Southeast and Southeast 1 32 nd Street. The predominate topographic features of the site consist of an east-west trending drainage through the central portion of the site which cuts through a northwest- southeast trending slope in the southwestern portion of the site. The drainage is occupied by a small stream which enters the site on the east perimeter via a culvert which collects water from the ditch on the east side of 1441h Avenue South. In the western portion of the site, the stream veers southwest, flowing into the ditch on the east side of 142nd Avenue Southeast. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 4 The slope in the southwest portion of the site descends southwest to west at gradients of ten (10) to twenty (20) percent with an elevation change of ten (10) to twelve (12) feet, to a topographic low in the southwest site corner. The topographic low at the base of the slope is relatively level, descending slightly to the southwest at gradients less than five (5) percent. The southeastern and northern portions of the site consist of two relatively level benches sloping at gradients less than five (5) percent, bisected by the drainage. The southeastern portion of the site descends generally southwest to the top of the slope area and Southeast 1361h Street. The northern portion of the site descends south to southwest toward the drainage and slope area. Two single-family residences and several outbuildings occupy the southern half of the site. The residences are accessed by driveways off of 1441h Avenue Southeast. Large portions of the site consist of fenced pastureland that is vegetated by tall grass and localized areas containing dense growths of blackberry brambles and occasional medium to large diameter trees. Most of the site perimeter is vegetated with small to medium diameter trees. The site is also vegetated with localized decorative shrubs and plants and medium diameter trees in the vicinity of the existing residences that currently occupy the southern portion of the site. Subsurface Subsurface conditions for the site and vicinity were evaluated by reviewing geologic maps, soil maps, and excavating ten test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. A fenced pasture along Southeast 132nd Street in the northern portion of the site was inaccessible at the time of our exploration. Geologic Review Review of geologiC maps indicates the site is underlain by glacial till from the Vashon stade of the Frasier glaciation. The till consist of a compact, unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Soil Review Review of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly United States Soil Conservation Service) maps for King County indicates that the proposed development area is underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, six (6) to fifteen (15) percent slopes. This soil has a moderate erosion hazard. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 Subsurface Exploration E-11609 Page 5 Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating ten test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The test pits were excavated with a rubber- tired backhoe to a maximum depth of eleven (11) feet below grade. Our test pit logs are included as Plates A2 through All. Please refer to the test pit logs for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at each exploration location. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. At our test pit locations in the northern portion of the site, we encountered a six (6) to twelve (12) inch thick layer of topsoil and either grass or duff. In the southern portion of the site, the topsoil layer was typically in the range of one and one-half (1.5) to three (3) feet thick. The topsoil is characterized by its dark brown color, loose consistency, and the presence of roots and organic debris. The soil and vegetative layer is not suitable for support of foundations, slab-on-grade floors, or pavements. In addition, it is not suitable for use as structural fill, nor should it be mixed with material to be used as structural fill. Underlying the topsoil and vegetative layer at seven of our test pit locations (Test Pits TP-3, TP-4, and TP-6 through TP-10), we generally encountered a surficial layer of loose silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) over weathered to unweathered glacial till comprised of silty sand with gravel (SM). The weathered glacial till was generally encountered at two (2) to three (3) feet below existing grade at our test pit locations. The glacial till generally became dense and less weathered at four (4) to six (6) feet below existing grade. Underlying the topsoil and vegetative layer at Test Pits TP-1 and TP-2, we encountered loose poorly graded gravel with sand (GP) over glacial till. The gravel was encountered at one and one-half (1.5) feet and continued to depths ranging from five (5) to seven (7) feet below existing grade. Underlying the topsoil and vegetative layer at Test Pit TP-5, we encountered a zone of loose to medium dense silt (ML) and medium dense poorly graded sand (SP) to a depth of eight (8) feet below existing grade. The silt and sand was underlain by glacial till. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 Groundwater E-11609 Page 6 Light to heavy groundwater seepage was encountered at nine of our test pit locations at depths ranging from two (2) to nine (9) feet below existing grade. The observed seepage at seven of our test pit locations is likely indicative of seasonal perched groundwater collecting above the underlying dense low-permeability glacial till. At Test Pits TP-3 and TP-l0, the seepage is likely indicative of seasonal groundwater within permeable sand lenses within the glacial till. Based on conditions observed at our test pit locations, in our opinion, light to heavy groundwater seepage could be encountered if grading is conducted during the wet season. The contractor should be made aware that groundwater levels are not static. There will likely be fluctuations in the level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and seepage rates are greater in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). The contractor should be prepared to control groundwater if seepage is encountered in site excavations. Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classifications and to evaluate the general physical properfles and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual field classifications were supplemented by grain size analyses on representative soil samples. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual test pit logs or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical engineering recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgment. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of 15 days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Earth Consultants, Inc. • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 CRITICAL AREA CONSIDERATIONS Renton Municipal Code E-11609 Page 7 A part of our study was conducted to address potential geologic hazards within the subject site as defined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Reg ulations). The City of Renton identifies five different types of geologic hazards: steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards. The City's criteria for those various hazard areas are defined as follows: Steep Slopes The boundaries of a regulated steep sensitive or protected slope are determined to be in the location identified on the City of Renton's Steep Slope Atlas. RMC 4-3- 050B.4.b. As noted in RMC 4-3-050B.1.c, the City's steep slope types are: Sensitive Slopes: gradients of twenty-five (25) to forty (40) percent Protected Slopes: gradients steeper than forty (40) percent Erosion Hazard Areas The City of Renton has two classifications of erosion hazard areas. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen (15) percent. RMC 4-3-050B.4.d.i. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen (15) percent. RMC 4-3-050B.4.d.ii. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 Landslide Hazard Areas E-11609 Page 8 There are four classifications for landslide hazard: low, medium, high, and very high. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen (15) percent. RMC 4-3-050B.4.c.i. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between fifteen (15) percent and forty (40) percent and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. RMC 4-3-050B.4.c.ii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty (40) percent, and areas with slopes between fifteen (15) and forty (40) percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. RMC 4-3-050B.4.c.iii. Very High Landslide Hazards (L V): Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. RMC 4-3-050B.4.c.iv. Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are classified under the two following categories: Low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have site coefficients of types S 1 or S2, as defined in the Uniform Building Code. RMC 4-3-050B.4.e.i. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally have site coefficients of types S3 or S4, as defined in the Uniform Building Code. RMC 4-3-050B.4.e.ii. Coal Mine Hazards The City of Renton has three categories of coal mine hazards: low, medium, and high. Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred. RMC 4-3-050B.4.f.i. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 9 Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than two hundred feet (200) for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence. RMC 4-3-050BA.f.ii. High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet (200) in depth of steeply dipping seams, or shallower than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. RMC 4-3-050BA.f.iii. Geologic Hazard Review Portions of the site appear to meet the City of Renton's criteria for erosion and landslide hazards. Potentially liquefiable soils were not encountered at our exploration locations; therefore the site does not meet the criteria for seismic hazard areas. Based on review of historical coal mine records, the site does not meet the criteria for coal mine hazards. The following sections of our study specifically address the steep slope, erosion, landslide, seismic, and coal mine hazard areas. Steep Slopes Most of the site consists of relatively level topography, with slope gradients of less than five (5) percent. In the southwest portion of the site is a ten (10) to twelve (12) foot high descending slope with a gradient of ten (10) to twenty (20) percent. The slope area in the southwest portion of the site does not meet the City of Renton's criteria for steep slopes. Erosion Hazard Areas The soils underlying the site consist of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, six (6) to fifteen (15) percent slopes. This soil has a moderate erosion potential and meets the City of Renton's classification of Low Erosion Hazard (RMC 4-3-050BA.d.i). The localized steep slope area in the southwest portion of the site is steeper than fifteen (15) percent. As such, the southwest slope would be classified as a High Erosion Hazard under the City of Renton's criteria (RMC 4-3-050BA.d .ii). Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 10 Based on our understanding of preliminary plans, the slope area in the southwest portion of the site is to be graded out and developed, however, during construction, erosion in the proposed development area will need to be controlled using best management practices. Our test pits indicate the soils that should be encountered during construction will primarily consist of silty sand. This soil is susceptible to erosion due to sheet flow. The erosion control plan should include measures for reducing concentrated surfacewater runoff and protecting disturbed or exposed surfaces by mulching and revegetation. The temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan should include the following: • Where practical, maintain vegetation buffers around cleared areas; • Cover exposed soil stockpiles; • Hydroseed or place straw mulch in areas where grading is completed; • Divert water away from the top of slopes; • Use silt fences and straw bales around the lower portions of the site perimeter; and • Coordinate clearing, excavation, and erosion control to reduce exposed areas. The erosion control measures should be reviewed on a regular basis to verify they are functioning as intended. Landslide Hazard Areas The localized slope area in the southwest portion of the site has a slope gradient in excess of fifteen (15) percent and meets the City of Renton's landslide hazard classification for a Medium Landslide Hazard (RMC 4-3-050B.4.c.ii). Based on our current understanding of the project, the slope area is to be graded to reduce the slope gradient and developed. Seismic Hazard Areas The soils encountered at our test pit locations primarily consist of silty sand, ranging from loose to very dense, and do not contain an established groundwater table. In our opinion, these soils would not be susceptible to liquefaction. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 11 In accordance with the City of Renton's classification system, the site meets the criteria for a Low Seismic Hazard (RMC 4-3-050B.4.e.i). An additional discussion of the seismic hazards is provided in the following Seismic Design Considerations section of this study. Coal Mine Hazards Portions of Renton contain abandoned coal mines that can adversely impact a site. As part of our study, we reviewed information in our library and files and reviewed Department of Natural Resources (DNR) coal mine records for information pertaining to historic coal mining operations in the vicinity of the site. During our field exploration, we did not observe any surface or subsurface indications of coal mining activity, such as mine tailing piles, abandoned mine openings, or abandoned mining equipment, all of which are typically found near coal mine operations. As part of our study, we also reviewed the Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection: A Catalog, Index, and Users Guide, Open File Report 94-7, prepared by the Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, dated June 1994. Based on the results of our file review, in our opinion, the site is not underlain by coal mine workings and has a Low Coal Mine Hazard designation (RMC 4-3-050B.4.f.ii). DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, the site development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. Building support can be provided using conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on structural fill used to modify existing site grades. Slab-on-grade floors may be similarly supported. The site is underlain by up to five (5) feet of loose native granular soils. If loose native soil is encountered at construction subgrade elevation, it should either be compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill or it should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 12 This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profess·lon currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Conner Homes and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and roadway areas to receive structural fill should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation, organic matter, and other deleterious material. Based on the thickness of the topsoil and vegetative cover encountered in our test pits, a stripping depth of six (6) to twelve (12) inches for the northern portion of the site and one and one-half (1.5) to three (3) feet for the southern portion of the site should be anticipated. The actual stripping depth should be based on field observation at the time of construction. Root balls from vines, brush, and trees should be grubbed out to remove roots greater than about one-inch in diameter. The depth of excavation to remove root balls could exceed four (4) feet below the existing ground surface. Depending on the grubbing methods used, disturbance and loosening of the subgrade could occur during site grubbing. Soil disturbed during grubbing operations should be compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill. Stripped materials should not be mixed with materials to be used as structural fill. The stripped soil materials may be "wasted" on site in non-structural landscaping areas or they may be exported off site. Following the stripping operation and excavations necessary to achieve construction subgrade elevations, an ECI representative should observe the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed. Soil in loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still excessively yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Eel can provide recommendations for geotextiles, if necessary. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 13 Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation 0-1557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. Structural fill in roadway and public right-of-way areas should be compacted In accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. Renton requires structural fill in roads and right-of-way areas be compacted to ninety-five (95) percent of maximum density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation 0-1557 (Modified Proctor). Based on the results of our laboratory tests, the on-site soils at the time of our exploration appeared to be near to slightly over their optimum moisture content and should be suitable for use as structural fill, provided grading operations are conducted during dry weather. Moisture conditioning of the native soils may be necessary depending on conditions observed during construction. In addition, laboratory testing indicates the site soils have between four (4) and fifty-two (52) percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with fines in excess of around five (5) percent will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum level. If the site soils are exposed to excessive moisture and cannot be adequately compacted, then it may be necessary to import a soil that can be compacted. During dry weather, non-organic, compactable granular soil with a maximum grain size of four (4) inches can be used. Fill for use during wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum grain size of four (4) inches and no more than five (5) percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. A contingency in the earthwork budget should be included for the possibility of importing a material meeting this specification. Slope Fill Placement In our opinion, the placement of filion a sloping grade is acceptable, however, where the slope gradient exceeds twenty-five (25) percent, the fill must be adequately keyed and benched into the slope. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 14 This process should consist of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The keyway should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth of at least two (2) feet into med"lum dense to dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be cut into a series of horizontal to slightly inward sloping benches. Typically, the benches are excavated with a small bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of the benches will vary with the gradient of the slope, usually the gentler the slope, the wider the benches. Plate 3, Slope Fill Placement shows a schematic diagram of the keyway and benches. Foundations Based on the results of our study and provided our recommendations are followed, in our opinion, the future single-family residences can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on structural fill used to modify site grades. If loose fill or native soil is encountered at construction subgrade elevations, it will be necessary to either compact the soils to the requirements of structural fill or to overexcavate the loose soils and replace them with a minimum of twelve (12) inches of structural fill. Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of twelve (12) and eighteen (18) inches, respectively. With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) psf can be used for competent native soils, native soil compacted to the requirements of structural fill, or for newly placed structural fill used to modify site grades. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor-of-safety in excess of 3.0 against actual shear failure. For short- term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third increase in the above allowable bearing capacity can be used. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 15 With structural loading as expected, total settlement of less than one (1) inch is anticipated with differential movement of less than one-half (0.5) inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35 should be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance should be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pet). These lateral resistance values are allowable values, a factor-of-safety of 1.5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that conditions are as anticipated in this report. Slab-an-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on competent native soil, native soil compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill, or on structural fill used to modify site grades. Subgrade soils that are loose or disturbed during construction should either be compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill or overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Slabs should be provided with a capillary break consisting of a minimum four (4) inches of free-draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained soils. Walls that are designed to yield should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pct. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pet. Earth Consultants, Inc, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 16 These values are based on horizontal backfill and that surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other surcharge loads will not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressure. The passive pressure, friction coefficient, and allowable bearing capacity previously provided in the Foundations section of this study are applicable to the retaining wall design. To reduce the potential for hydrostatic forces building up behind the walls, free- standing retaining walls and foundation walls should be backfilled with free-draining material extending at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. A rigid, four (4)-inch diameter, schedule 40, perforated PVC or SDR 35 drainpipe should be placed at the base of the wall, and should be surrounded by a minimum of one (1) cubic foot per lineal foot with one (1) inch drain rock. The pipe should be placed with the perforations in the down position. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. A typical retaining wall drainage and backfill detail is provided on Plate 4. Seismic Design Considerations Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity, however, the majority of these events are of such low magnitude they are not felt without instruments. Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area, the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area, and the 2001, 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake. There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response. Ground Rupture The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site during a strong motion seismic event is negligible. Earth Consultants, Inc, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 Liquefaction E-11609 Page 17 Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be loose; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. In our opinion, the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement of the soils encountered at this site should be negligible provided the recommendations contained in our study are followed. This conclusion is based on the absence of a shallow groundwater table in the immediate vicinity of the proposed residential lots. Ground Motion Response The 2003 International Building Code (IBC) regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design-base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion Site Class C, Very Dense Sailor Soft Rock, as defined in Table 1615.1.1 should be used to characterize the site soils. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities, such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state (WISHA), and Federal (OSHA) safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, the loose to medium dense soils encountered in the upper portion of the test pit locations would be classified as Type C by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary cuts greater than four (4) feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1 .5H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical). The underlying dense to very dense glacial till encountered at our test pit locations would be classified as Type A by OSHA/WISHA. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 18 Temporary cuts greater than four (4) feet in height in Type A soils should be sloped at an inclination of 0.75H:1V. Where groundwater seepage is encountered the saturated soils should be treated as a Type C soil and should be cut no steeper than 1.5H: 1 V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workers in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H: 1 V. Cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stabil"lty, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and to improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Site Drainage light to heavy groundwater seepage was encountered at nine of our test pit locations at depths ranging from two (2) to nine (9) feet below existing grade. The observed seepage at seven of our test pit locations is likely indicative of seasonal perched groundwater collecting above the underlying dense low-permeability glacial till. At Test Pits TP-3 and TP-l0, the seepage is likely indicative of seasonal groundwater within permeable sand lenses within the glacial till. If seepage is encountered during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. The appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, should be established during grading operations by ECI's representative at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 19 During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed away from construction areas and the steep slope area located in the immediate southwestern corner of the site. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Loose surfaces should be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the future residences and the steep slope area in the southwestern corner of the site. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of three (3) percent for a distance of at least ten (10) feet away from the residences. Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the residences at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 5. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Utility Support and Backfill The site soils should generally provide adequate support for utilities. Where loose soils or unstable conditions are encountered, remedial measures such as overexcavating soft soils or compacting subgrade soils exposed in the trench bottom may be required. Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line is adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to provide support around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about 12 inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches. Utility backfill within the City of Renton road right-of-way should be compacted to ninety-five (95) percent of the maximum dry density. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 Pavement Areas E-11609 Page 20 The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. The pavement subgrade should be proofrolled under the observation of an Eel representative prior to placement of the crushed rock base (CRB). Yielding areas should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill or moisture conditioned and recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas is suggested: • Two (2) inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four (4) inches of CRB material, or • Two (2) inches of AC over three (3) inches of asphalt treated base (A TB) material. We will be pleased to assist in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones, if needed. Pavement materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. The use of a Class B asphalt mix is suggested. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the observed site materials, selective laboratory testing, engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Conner Homes February 1, 2005 E-11609 Page 21 The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. '. , "" /(~ ~ ~ :Z:;.,. • ~~ ~ l;I: ~ .. s " z l_fjJjT'<i..........-~..-~ ~-i-, ~ ~~ \ :. 110. b· ~ 10;;:; II( :!is'~ i:" :.i ~w IIINOS ::. \= ~ ..... ':; ,. ,,': §;:: ~:J: "'1Tl1P/olf"/I:" ~m_~> !IE: ~T>t ST H£ 5TH '" It >-'" &-°l ~rq, ~ ..., "I ~-· -< .~ :;;:, , HE "'l~ "'" 5 '" ~"''''''''H[~~.:ij", ST!I' p "'> Z ~I. »I • ~ • ~< l~\~HE w ~,.15,..IIt ;; ~ • ~fI '; ~ ~ ~S/'.§ "'1-+ Hf ~TH ~ ~ ~ ~_ s :' roE 57H , ,. 'l~J4\ •• z ,-..ST. c IE 5111 ... -t)T ~ uCl~~'I.~ ~ i-", " .... I('w:"(l--~CI-UJ > 1:5 "'-.,"~Cl~ ,.i ~ ":;i ~~ ME ~~~l ~ W//DSOR -0( ~ ::;0' It~ > RfNTOO Vl i !E Wz < nOll/l CAl w e .. "'"" 11( .-, > ::1';" (1M ~ ~o;T ~ ~ .... S1HlLLS f l»'!)/o\.t lIE ,: ~ '-"" NE • CCUfGE 8 4TH ~Tl1~Cl ,,! :;:, !;~.:o: -> .IH CI ". ~.., ~ cST ~PL""~li'I ~ z< PARI( ... ,,- ..,. "," -. ~ r; FAIRWOoci ' Reference: King County Map 656 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 2005 ~ NORTH NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. GLS .' .... '. ',1 f,' Vicinity Map 8roadmoor Property King County, Washington Date Jan. 2005 Proj. No. Checked ELW Date 1/1010 5 Plate 11609 Sl • " - ~ ~ ~ ,'I) ,... J~ ---- "-) ~ ) I -0- I TP-1 , f ri:-' ·f I -0 - TP-3 1 0 0 L=J 'f' I o -0- TP-21 TP-6 1 -0-u I D ~i 1·1 1 J I TP-4 -0 - I TP-5 1 -0- I 144th AVENUE S.E. l LEGEND TP-1 -r -Approximate Location of ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. E-11609,Jan.2005 Subject Site Proposed Lot Number J Existing Building "-142nd AVENUE S.E. ) "-- I -0 - TP-s i I -0 - TP-7 1 3( ITP-9 -0 - I 18 I -0 - TP-101 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. o o z ..... o ~ I~, '\ ~ w a: t; "0 t: ~ ,... • W . (J) Approximate Scale 50 100 200ft. Ea rth Consult a nts, In c . (;eO!l'<.:I\IlIGJ I Engllll'cr mg. Geology Environmemul science s ConstrUCTion Testing & leBO I WABO Inspection s e r vices Test Pit Location Plan Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Drwn. GLS Date Jan. 2005 Proj. No. 11609 Checked ELW I Date 1/10/05 Plate 2 Existing Grade STAtillARDNOJES • Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating key way or benches. • Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. • Final Slope gradient should be _ : _ (Horizontal: Vertical). • Final Slope face should be densified by over-building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. • Planting or Hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. • Use of pegged-in-place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. • Structural Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the site preparation and Earth Work Section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. Typical "Bench" 4 feet minimum width LEGEND Existing Grade Free draining. organic free, granular material with a maximum size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5 percent fines (silt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve) or other material approved by Geotechnical Engineer. Key Way Fill is same as Structural Fill described above. Key Way should be minimum 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide, extending the full length of the slope face. Approximate original grade. SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING 0 Earth Consultants, Inc. (3 .... "t .. ,·1 ;1\1('.11 EI1,~IIl<""I;;_ (;.-"j(),<";I>'1."'; & EIlI-'I' )11Il,,"1ll;,1 ~('it·Il!I"!C: (:"I",trll<'1I<'11 T .... _"tlll:~ "" I(:H() .' \\".>,BO 111'->1 ,,..,'11[111 :-; ... , \" .... " SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Drwn. GLS Date Jan. 2005 Pro]. No_ 11609 Checked ELW Date 1119105 Plate 3 l 1" Drain Rock WEEP HOLE DETAIL 111=111=111 1Ioot min. I~inches min.~ 111=111=111= =111 III III '----Excavated Slope Perforated Pipe /~-Wrapped with Filter Fabric 1 foot min. Compacted Subgrade STANDARD NOTES 1) Free Draining backfill should consist of granular soil having no more than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve and no particles greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the #4 sieve should be between 25 and 75 percent. 2) Structural backfill should be free of organics, clayey soils, debris and other deleterious materials. It should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. 3) Where weep holes are utilized, surround each weep hole with 3 cubic feet of 1 inch drain rock. Maximum horizontal spacing of weep holes should be 6 feet. 4) Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Drain line should be bedded on and surround with free draining 1 inch drain rock. The drain rock may be encapsulated with a geotechnical drainage fabric at the engineers discretion. L ______ _ LEGEND Surface Seal; Native Soil or other Low Penneability Material Free Draining Backfill []] •• o '. :.~ ::: ~: ~:~~: . .. .. Structural Fill compacted to 90 percent relative compaction 1 inch Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY· NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING o,~·~~,t.h.,s:,?r:,~~l,t~~,~~,:",!,~,:,: . ( ')1 [S1l11O 11<"', T(''';:111;, & I( _'I!() " II .\t.H) II '''I'' '( I" )11 -';1-'1 \'1' -(~c- RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Drwn. GLS Date Jan. 2005 Proj. No. 11609 Checked ELW Date 1/19/05 Plate 4 __ Slope To Drain t I ! I 6 inch min. o 4 inch min. Diameter Perforated Pipe Wrapped in Drainage Fabric ~- 2 inch min. 14 inch max. LEGEND Surface seal; native sailor other low permeability material. 1" Drain Rock Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. "--. __ ._--- , 118 inch min. 2 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING o ,~,~~,t,h""S;5?~.~~1}~~,~,~,;,,,~.~,S,: (", ",,,I,,,, tl')11 I t-" .... IIII:~ ,«, I( :BO.' \\",".H() 111"1 ) .... "ll{") ,-;.-[Y"'''''' TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Drwn. GLS Date Jan. 2005 Proj. No. 11609 Checked ELW Date 1/19/05 Plate 5 -1 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-11609 Our test pit exploration was performed on January 5, 2005. The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating ten test pits to a maximum depth of eleven (11) feet below existing grade. The test pits were excavated by Aikins Excavating, subcontracted to Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI), using a rubber-tired backhoe. The approximate test pit locations were determined by pacing from site features depicted on a preliminary site plan provided by the client. The elevations were estimated based on topographic data shown on the site plan. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. A fenced pasture in the northern portion of the site was not accessible during our visit, and was not explored. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm, who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative samples and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System that is presented on Plate A 1, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented on Plates A2 through A 11. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests on field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Representative soil samples were collected and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants, Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH ISYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Gravel Acd Gravelly Soils Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines CI ean Gravels Hlo'o'-loi;:LJ.'o'-2I':=-:::---"-7r-------------------l (little or no fmes) Poorly-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Coarse Grained Soils More Than 50% Matenal Larger Than No 20'J Sieve 'Sile Fine Grained Salls More Than 50% Mater',,1 Smaller TI'an No _ 200 Sieve Size More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Retained On No 4 Sieve Sand Aod Sandy Soils More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Passing No.4 Sieve Silb And Clays Sllt~; Aod CI3YS Gravels With Fines (appreciable amount of fmes) Clean Sand (Irttle or no fines) Sands With Fines (appreciable amount of fines) Liquid Limit Less Than 50 Liquid limit Glealer Tll,ln 50 Highly Organic Soils Topsoil Fill , + + + + " IN' Sand Mixtures, Lltlle Or No Fines Silty Gravels, Gravel-Sand- Sill Mixtures Clayey Gravels. Gravel-Sand- Clay Mixtures Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines Graded Sands, Gravelly Little Or No Fines Silty Sands, Sand -Silt Mixtures Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts wi Slight Inory<1rm; Clays Of Low To MedlllrTI Plasticity', Gravelly CI'ays, Sandy CI,lYs, Silty Clays, Lean Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Flr~ SOils Organic Clays Of Medium To Hiyh Plasticity, Organic Silts Peat, HumlJs, Swamp Soils With High Organic Contents Humus And Duff La'y'er Hi",hly Variable Constituents 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. DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classification, C TORVANE READING, ts! I 2" O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING, ts! W MOISTURE, % dry weight TI 24" I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED I * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER OBSERVATION WELL pc! DRY DENSITY, Ibs. per cubic ft, LL LIQUID LIMIT, % SZ DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION !' SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL Wj DATE Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND Proj, No, 11609 Date Jan. 2005 Plate At " 3 " ~ in w >- Test Pit Log Project Name: \ Sh;et of Broadmoor Property 1 Job No. I Logged by: I D~t;5/05 Test Pit No.: 11609 ELW TP-1 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Aikin's Excavating 385' Notes: u-~ <nO Surface Conditions: Depth ofTopsoil & Sod 18" w .-0 £ General £.0 0...; c. u D C.E E Notes (%) !" >. " LL <n E 0 .. =>il; (!j<n CI) '" f---TPSL Dark brown TOPSOIL '" 1 f---:..-. • I • 2 f---GP Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, loose, moist to wet ~ .•. 5.0 ••• - -4.0% fines ~I~ 3- -moderate to heavy seepage from 3' to 5', becomes saturated ~ .. _ .. ••• ~I~ 4 f--- •• f--- 13.2 m 5 SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, dense to medium f---dense, wet (Glacial Till) 6 Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 3.0 to 5.0 feet during excavation. '" ~~ .. ~,,~c~~~~,11~!~!~E· Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Proj. No. 11609 Own. GLS I Date Jan. 2005 Checked ELW I Date 1111/05 I Plate A2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of thiS exploratory hole, modified by engmeenng tests, analYSIS and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this 109. 8 u w Test Pit Log Project Name: Broadmoor Property Job No. I Logged by: 11609 I ELW Excavation Contactor: Aikin's Excavating Notes: General Notes W (%) ,:",,:,, •• -.-!.! 6.3 -":'-' !.! •• -.-!.! •• 6.8 -•• !.~ 15.2 10.8 rna u D rn E :::lin TPSL r-- 1 r-- GP Test Prt No.: TP-2 Ground Surface Elevation: 386' Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 18"; grass Dark brown TOPSOIL Reddish brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, loose, moist -becomes medium dense -becomes medium dense to dense -increase in sand -moderate water seepage at 6' of 1 7r-4-~~+-~--~~~~~~~----~--~--~----~~~~~--~ r--SM Gray silty fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet (Glacial Till) 8 r-- r-- 91-- -becomes dense, well cemented, moist Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 6.0 feet during excavation. ~~ ________ -L __ ~ ____ ~~ __ ~ ____ -L ____________ .-__________________________________________ ~ ~ " 3 Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington '= ~r-------------'-------------'-------------~--------------r---------------r---------~ ~ Proj. No. 11609 I Own. GLS J Date Jan. 2005 Checked ELW I Date 1/11/05 I Plate A3 Subsurface conditIons depIcted represent our observations at the time and locatIon of this exploratory hole, modified by englneenng tests, analysIs and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this IQQ. ~ ~ ~ 0 " u - w ~ ~ - w ~ Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sh;et of Broadmoor Property 1 Job No. I Logged by: I D~t;5/05 Test Pit No.: 11609 ELW TP-3 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Aikin's Excavating 396' Notes: 0--" 3 UiO Surface Conditions: Depth ofTopsoil & Sod 4": grass .-0 General W -".0 a. . a. 0.0 Notes c. E Q) it E Ui E (%) ~ >. o '" ::> >. <.:lUi Ui Ui f---SM Tan silty fine SAND, loose, moist 1 I--16.3 f----contains gravel 2 SM Gray Siltf fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist to wet f--- 3 f--- (Glacial ill) '---trace iron oxide staining 17.7 4- - 5- - -light water seepage at 5.5' 6 f--- !-----becomes dense, well cemented, moist 12.5 71-- f--- 8 f--- -becomes very dense, well cemented I-- 9 f--- f--- 10 f--- 10.0 Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 5.5 feet during excavation. ttl ~!2~,g~?!:.~~,I!~~~l!~~· Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Pro). No. 11609 I Own. GLS I Date Jan. 2005 Checked ELW ! Date 1/11/05 I Plate A4 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of thiS exploratory hole, modified by englneenng tests, analYSIS and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this IOQ. b " o w " g ~ ~ in w ~ Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sh;et of Broadmoor Property 1 Job No. I Logged by: I D~;5/05 Test Pn No.: 11609 ELW TP-4 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Aikin's Excavating 401' Notes: " -~ ~ (/)0 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 30": grass .-0 General W ~"' 1i . 0.. 0"' Notes Q.E Ql it E (/) E (%j i" >-o ., ~iJi C> VJ VJ ..j, r---TPSL Dark brown TOPSOIL ..j, 1 r---..j, ..j, r--- ..j, 2 r--- ..j, -~ -moderate water seepaCle 3 r---SM Gray sil't fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist to wet 19.6 (Glacial ill) f--- 4 r----iron oxide staining to 5.5' f--- 5 f--- r--- 6 f----becomes dense, moist r- 7 f--- - 8- - 9- 13.9 f--- 10 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.0 feet during excavation. I , tel ~E~~,,~S~~,l!~!,~,!~~. Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Proj. No. 11609 I Own. GLS I Date Jan. 2005 Checked ELW Date 1/11/05 I Plate A5 Subsurface conditions depicted represent OUf observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engmeenng tests, analysIs and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this IOQ. ~ D " 13 w " D ~ l= ~ ~ ~ ~ Test Pit Log Project Name: I S~eet of Broadmoor Property 1 Job No. I Logged by: I Da~;5105 Test Pit No.: 11609 ELW TP-5 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Aikin's Excavating 402' Notes: .11 '0 ~ .91 (1)'0 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 30": grass General W ~ .0 a. . c. u.o "-! CD ir E (I) E Notes (%) ~ Ci m ::oi:) (') (f) -l.-f----TPSL Dark brown TOPSOIL -l.-1 f-----l.- -l.-f---- -l.-2 r--- -l.--moderate to heavy water seepaQe 3f--ML Tan sandy SILT, loose to medium dense, wet to saturated f-----iron oxide staining 28.1 4 f-----52.2% fines I----moderate caving 5 f---- I--- 6~ ~ 7 10.3 . 0 SP Gray poorly graded SAND with gravel, medium dense, saturated q • f----o • 0 III IIII 8 SM Gray silty fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet (Glacial Till) 16.3 I--- 9 Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2_0 feet during excavation. '" ~,0,,~ .. ~~~.I!~~~,!,~E· Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Proj. No. 11609 I Own. GLS I Date Jan. 2005 Checked ELW I Date 1/11/05 I Plate A6 Subsurface condftJons depicted represent our observatIons at the time and locatIon of thiS exploratory hole, modified by englneenng tests, analYSIS and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this IQQ. § >-" in w >- Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sht of Broadmoor Property 1 Job No. I Logged by: I D~t;5/05 Test Pit No.: 11609 ELW TP-6 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Aikin's Excavating 389' Notes: u :g .c jl r/Jo Surtace Conditions: Depth ofTopsoil & Sod 36": grass General W ~ c....; "-u.c Notes (%) ~ ~ ~ u. E r/J E 0 ., "'iii CJ r/J r/J "" r-TPSL Dark brown TOPSOIL "" 1 I----"" "" i-- "" 2 I---- "" I---- "" -light seepage 3 SM Tan silty fine SAND, loose to medium dense, wet (Glacial Till) 36.8 I---- 4 r---iron oxide staininq, trace gravel 5~-SM Gray silty fine SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Glacial Till) r- 6- '-- 117 7- -27.6% fines f--- 8i-- I---- 9i-- I---- 10 I---- -9.9 11 Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.5 feet during excavation. '" ~!1~,,~?!:~~&1!~~,!~,S' Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Proj. No. 11609 I Dwn. GLS I Date Jan. 2005 Checked ELW I Date 1/11/05 I Plate A7 Subsurface condItions depIcted represent our observatIons at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modIfied by englneenng tests, analysIs and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information oresented on this 100. >-o " U w " '3 >-a: in w >- Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sht of Broadmoor Property 1 Job No. I Logged by: I D~t;5/05 Test Ptt No.: 11609 ELW TP-7 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Aikin's Excavating 403' Notes: 0-~ ~ (1)0 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": grass .-0 General W ~.<> D.. . Q. 0'<> Notes (%) ~~ G) u: E <I) E o .. ""iii Cl <I) '" I--SM Reddish brown silty fine SAND with gravel, loose, moist 14.3 1~ ze----SM Gray silty fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Glacial Till) I-- 31---trace iron oxide staining f--- 4~ -becomes dense, well cemented 8.2 I-- 51-- I-- 6 f--- I-- 7- -increase in moisture, decrease in fines I-- 81---becomes moist to wet I-- 8.6 91-- Test pit terminated at 9.S feet below existing grade. encountered during excavation. No groundwater ttl ~0,,~,,~?~~&1~~!~!~"S' Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Proj. No. 11609 1 Own GLS J Date Jan.200S Checked ELW I Date 1/11/0S l Plate AS Subsurface condItIons depIcted represent our observations at the time and locatIon of this exploratory hole, modified by engmeenng tests, analYSIS and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this JQQ. Ii " 8 g >- ~ l;; i" Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sht of Broadmoor Property 1 Job No. T Logged by: I D~;5/05 rest Prt No.: 11609 ELW TP-8 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Aikin's Excavating 405' Notes: <)- " .!! U)o Surface Conditions: Depth ofTopsoil & Sod 12": grass .-0 General W ".0 1i . a. 0.0 Notes "-E CD u: E U) E (%) ~ >. o ~ :;>>' <.? U) U) U) -I--TPSL Dark brown TOPSOIL -I-1 -SM Reddish brown silty fine SAND, loose, wet 40.3 21---lioht water seeoaoe 31--SM Gray silty fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet (Glacial Till) f-- 41---light water seepage 15.8 I---becomes dense, moist, well cemented 51---30.4% fines I-- 61-- I-- 71-- -becomes moist to wet, decrease in fines I--- 81-- -light caving I-- 91--14.1 1--. 10 I---increase in fines, becomes moist -- Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.0 and 3.0 feet dUring excavation. ttl ~~E!m~,,~?~t;!r~!~!~~· Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington ProiNo.11609 I Own. GLS I Date Jan. 2005 Checked ELW Date 1/11/05 I Plate A9 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of thiS exploratory hole, modified by englneenng tests, analYSIS and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this IOQ. " o ~ t= ~ ~ ~ ~ Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sh;et of Broadmoor Property 1 Job No. I Logged by: I Da1t;~/05 Test Prt No' 11609 ELW TP-9 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Aikin's Excavating 408' Notes: u }] w (/)0 Surface Conditions: Depth ofTopsoil & Sod 12": grass General W :c " c. 0.. ... 0.0 C. E E (/) E Notes (%) !" wLL ~ 0 ~ ::oi;; (!) (/) (/) '" -TPSL Dark brown TOPSOIL '" 1 SM Reddish brown silty fine SAND, loose, moist to wet, light water -43.6 seepage 2 SM Gray silty fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet (Glacial Till) ~ 3- --iron oxide staining 4- -becomes dense, moist, well cemented -13.2 5- - 6- - 7--becomes moist to wet - 8--light caving, iron oxide staining - 9- -becomes moist, dense - 7.4 10 - Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.0 feet during excavation. til ~:!!l;,S?~~~&I!~!,~,!,~,S' Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Proj. No. 11609 I Dwn. GLS I Date Jan. 2005 Checked ELW I Date 1/11/05 I Plate A10 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by englneenng tests, analysIs and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this 100. 0 " u w ~ w ~ Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sh 1 eet of Broadmoor property 1 Job No. I logged by: I Da1t~5/05 Test Ptt No.: 11609 ELW TP-10 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Aikin's Excavating 412' . Notes: u '0 .c ~ (f)'O Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 8": grass General W "' .c 15. . 0.. un "-~ (l) [: E (f) E Notes (%) ~ o ., ::liJ; Cl VJ (f) f--SM Reddish brown silty fine SAND, loose, moist 1 t-- 32.2 f---becomes wet 2 SM Gray silty fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet (Glacial Till) t-- 3 f-- - -iron oxide staining 15.2 4- -becomes dense. moist - 5 t-- f-- 6 t-- f-- 7 f-- - -becomes wet 8- -iron oxide staining - 9 f---light water seepage at 7' -9' f---light caving 11.4 10 t---becomes dense, moist Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 7.0 to 9.0 feet during excavation. eM ~m~~g£?E~1~!!~!~'!~IS' Test Pit Log Broadmoor Property King County, Washington Proj. No. 11609 1 Own. GLS I Date Jan. 2005 Checked ELW 1 Date 1/11/05 1 Plate A 11 Subsurface condItions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by englneenng tests, analysIs and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this IOQ. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS E-11609 Earth Consultants, Inc. Particle Size Distribution Report " " " .. ~ • 0 8 ~ ~ " • ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I il ~ " N • .. • 100 I~ N : : : ~~ 90 : 1\'" :: "' : " , , I I , . , , , , , , 80 '\ \ ~r--~ ........ I : 70 : : " : 0:: "\ UJ 80 --~ z "I iI '\ f-80 \: z UJ f\ \ () 0:: -+-UJ 40 i\ Q. 30 ---: - : \, : 20 : : : ~ : : "-a. 10 : - : : : : : 0 : 200 100 10 1 0.1 0,01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE -mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL %SANO % SILT I % CLAY USCS AASHTO PL LL 0 74.0 22.0 4.0 GP 0 47.8 52.2 ML 6-23.0 49.4 27.6 SM SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER SOil DESCRIPTION Inches 0 0 6-number 0 0 6-o TP-l: 2.5' _ OP size size Brown poorly graded Gravel with sand~ 5.0% 1.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 #4 26.0 100.0 77.0 moisture 3/4 76.3 100.0 91.4 #8 17.8 99.8 73.3 o TP-5: 4.0' -ML 3/8 43.5 100.0 82.3 #16 12.0 98.7 70.0 Tan sandy Silt 28.1% moisture #30 8.3 95.2 65.7 #50 5.8 87.4 56.3 6 TP.<;: 6.5' -8M #100 4.6 76.1 40.6 #200 4.0 52.2 27.6 Gray sitly Sand 'With gravel; 11. '7010 moistwe >< GRAIN SIZE REMARKS: D60 13.6 0.0917 0.371 o Tech: 8EP D30 5.96 0.0862 010 0.850 o Tech: 8EP >< COEFFICIENTS Cc 3.08 6 Tech: SEP Cu 15.99 o Source: Sample No.: TP-I Elev.lDepth: 2.5' o Source: Sample No.: TP-5 Elev.lDepth: 4.0' 6 Source: Sample No.: TP-6 Elev.lDepth: 6.5' EARTH Client: Project: Broadmoor Property, Renton CONSULTANTS, INC. Proiect No.: E-I1609 Plate B1 Particle Size Distribution Report .6 " " " .. -' .. 0 " 0 § 0 i i 8 ~ ~ M N ,--$ ~ ~ ; li ij ;; Ii 100 \L : : , , --90 : : I : : eo I" .. : "-: : : 1 70 , I; ~ : D: : : : UJ 60 --r---z : N u::: : I-: : 1\ Z 50 : 1[\ : --- UJ ~ 40 : , -.. -._-UJ 1 N n. 1 : : 30 -: 20 : . I: 10 : 0 I' : 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE -mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY USCS AASHTO PL LL 0 18.7 50.9 30.4 SM SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION inches 0 number 0 o TP-8:4.0'-SM ••• .., Gray silty Sand with gravel; 15_8% mQisture 1.5 100.0 #4 81.3 3/4 100.0 #8 74.2 3/8 87.7 #16 66.4 #30 60.1 #50 51.0 #\00 39.7 #200 30.4 >< GRAIN SIZE REMARKS: D60 0.594 o Tech: SEP D30 D10 >< COEFFICIENTS Co Cu o Source: Sample No.: TP-8 Flev.lDepth: 4.0' EARTH Client: Project: Broadmoor Property, Renton CONSULTANTS, INC. Proiect No.: E-II609 Plate B2 ...i.. Copies DISTRIBUTION E-11609 Conner Homes 846 -108th Avenue Northeast. Suite 202 Bellevue. Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. John Skochdopole Earth Consultants, Inc. Shy Creek Renton, Washington Traffic Impact Study January 26, 2006 Prepared for: Conner Homes Company 846 108 th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 DevELOPMEIVT P CITY OF REIVT~/NG JAN 272006 RECEIVED 1/t6/06 I EXPIRES 3131/ a 6 Prepared by: T ralUportation Engineering NorthWest Transportation Engineering/Operations. Impact Studies. Design Services. Transportation Plannlng/Foreustlng 816 6~ Street South. Klridand, WA 98033. Olliee (425) 485-4663. Fax (425) 889-TENW(8369) Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analys~ Table of Contents FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS ••.....•....•..•••..•••..•.•...•......................•..•.......................... 111 INTR 0 D U CTI 0 N ............•..........•....•......•..•....•.............•......•................•............................ 1 Analysis Approach .......................................................................................................... 1 Primary Data and Information Sources ........................................................................... 2 EXISTING CO ND ITI 0 NS ............................................................................................... 5 Roadway Network .......................................................................................................... .5 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 5 Existing Level of Service ................................................................................................ 7 Pedestrian and Transit Facilities ..................................................................................... 8 Planned Transportation Improvements ........................................................................... 9 DETERMINATION OF FUTURE CONDITIONS ...................................................... I0 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 1 0 Trip Distribution and Assigoment ................................................................................ 11 Future Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 13 Future Levels of Service ............................................................................................... 16 Access Analysis ............................................................................................................ 16 Levels a/Service and Queuing. .................................................................................. 17 MITIGATION .................................................................................................................. 18 Level of Service ............................................................................................................ 18 Impact Fees ................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix Appendix A -Existing Traffic Volumes Appendix B -Level of Service Calculations at Study Intersections Appendix C -Site Access Level of Service and Queue Calculations T ransporution Engineering NorthWest Page i January 26, 2006 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis List of Figures and Tables Figure I Project Vicinity ................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 6 Figure 4 PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................. 12 Figure 5 2008 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 14 Figure 6 2008 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................... .15 Table I LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ............................................ 7 Table 2 2006 Existing Level of Service Summary -PM Peak Hour .............................................. 8 Table 3 Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................... 10 Table 4 2008 Level of Service Summary -PM Peak Hour .......................................................... 16 Table 5 PM Peak Hour Site Access Level of Service ................................................................... 17 Transportation Engineering NorthWest Page ii January 26, 2006 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS This report documents the transportation analysis for the proposed Shy Creek development. The Shy Creek development includes 61 single-family homes located on the west side of Jericho Avenue NE between NE 2 nd Street and SE 2nd Street in the City of Renton. The existing site includes two single-family homes which would be demolished as part of the proposed project. Access to the development would be provided onto Jericho Avenue NE, NE 2nd Street, and Hoquiam Avenue NE. The year of build-out is anticipated to be in 2008. Trip Generation. The completed project is expected to generate 565 net new daily trips with 44 trips (II entering, 33 exiting) occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 60 trips (38 entering, 22 exiting) occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Intersection Operational Analysis. A p.m. peak hour operational analysis was conducted at six study intersections in the project vicinity. The results showed that under 2008 future conditions with or with the proposed project, all signalized study intersections and stopped controlled movements at un-signalized study intersections are expected to operate at level of service (LOS) C or better. Therefore, no off-site mitigation is proposed. Access Analysis. An assessment of the proposed access on Jericho Avenue NE was completed including LOS and queuing. The eastbound movement (exiting the site) at the proposed site access on Jericho Avenue NE is expected to operate at LOS B with a 95 th percentile vehicle queue of one vehicle. Mitigation. The current long-term mitigation required by the City of Renton is payment of a $75 per daily trip impact fee. The proposed Shy Creek development is expected to generate 565 net new daily trips which would result in an impact fee of$42,375 (565 net new daily trips X $75/daily trip). Transportation Engineering NorthWest Page III January 26, 2006 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis INTRODUCTION This traffic impact analysis has been prepared for tbe proposed Shy Creek development which includes 61 single-family homes. The site is located on the west side of Jericho Avenue NE between NE 2nd Street and SE 2nd Street in tbe City of Renton (see figure J). The existing site includes two single-family homes which would be demolished as part of tbe proposed project. Access to tbe development would be provided onto Jericho Avenue NE, NE 2nd Street, and Hoquiam Avenue NE. The year of build-out is anticipated to be in 2008. A preliminary site plan for tbe development is shown in figure 2. Analysis Approach To analyze potential traffic impacts from the Shy Creek development, tbe following tasks were undertaken: • Assessed existing conditions through field reconnaissance and reviewed existing planning documents. • Documented pedestrian and transit facilities within the project vicinity. • Estimated the weekday daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips generated by tbe Shy Creek development. • Assigned p.m. peak hour project-generated trips to tbe street network, based on the existing travel patterns in the area • Analyzed tbe p.m. peak hour operations at tbe following study intersections: ~ NE 4th Street I Momoe Avenue NE ~ NE 4th Street I Union Avenue NE ~ NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE ~ NE 4th Street I Hoquiam Avenue NE ~ NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE (l44th Avenue SE) ~ Jericho Avenue NE I NE 2 nd Street • Evaluated tbe operations at the proposed site access including LOS and queuing. • Identified traffic mitigation to tbe City of Renton. Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Page 1 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis Primary Data and Information Sources • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003 • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, June 2004 • Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Updated 2000 • City of Renton 2005 Traffic Counts • King County/Metro webpage as of January 2006 • City of Renton's Six Year (2006-2011) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) T ranspo .... tion Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Page 2 Shy Creek Development ©2003 Thomas Bros. Maps Transportation Engineering Northwest Transportation Engineering NorthWest Figure 1 Vicinity Map Traffic Impact Analysis - -~A{' -·,t"',t.}F<-1J NOT TO SCALE Shy Creek Renton, WA '~rMmy 26, 2006 January 26, 2006 Page 3 Shy Creek Development • , ; ~ "- @;. I '~ T ii' Note: Preliminary site plan provided by Triad AsSOCIates 1119/06. Transportation Engineering Northwest Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan T ransponation Engineering NorthWest Traffic Impact Anal)'>~ Shy Creek Renton, WA I~nu~ry 26, 2006 January 26, 2006 Page 4 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analys~ EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Network The following describes existing arterial roadways that would be used as routes to the site. Roadway characteristics are described in tenns of facility type, number of lanes, and posted speed limits. NE 4th Street is a five lane east-west principal arterial which provides a link between 1-405 and the City of Renton east City limits. In the vicinity of the Shy Creek development, the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Jericho Avenue NE (144th Avenue SE) is a two lane north-south street which provides access to residential developments south ofNE 4th Street. In the project vicinity, the posted speed limit is 30 mph. Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Weekday 2005 p.m. peak hour traffic volume data was provided by the City of Renton at the following study intersections: • NE 4th Street / Monroe Avenue NE • NE 4th Street I Union Avenue NE • NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE • NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE (144 th Avenue SE) Traffic counts at the study intersections ofNE 4th StreetIHoquiam Avenue NE and NE 2nd Street/Jericho Avenue NE were collected by Traffic Data Gathering in January 2006. A two percent annual growth rate was applied to the 2005 City of Renton traffic counts to estimate 2006 existing conditions. Figure 3 shows the 2006 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. The p.m. peak hour turning movement count sheets are included in Appendix A. Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Page 5 Shy Creek Development w z w " z > " -< > " -< e " " 0 0 -" ::; ::> Legend D = Intersection Number ..-XX = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes '" X. 63 OMM ..--1,120 ~~a> r 31 '\ t r ~N~ "'~v X.2 M _ 660 ~ '" M r 18 '\ t r 1.106 __ "'~v 333" M ~ N T ransportJtion Engineering Northwest '" X. 66 M I'-X. 171 "'~'" _ 878 vl'-~ ..-770 ~ '" ~ MMM ) +\, r98 ) n. r19 193 J '\ t r 260 J '\ t r 1,076 -... '" '" '" 1,049 -+--MN'" 121 " 0,,"'" 37" MN X.6 ~'" _0 M"N ) t "-r 6 3J '\ t r 0 __ "" '" " 10" ::: Figure 3 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Traruponation Engineering NorthWest w Z Project Site '- ) '" '" "- Traffic Impact Analys~ w z ~ 0 " " .~ , X. 21 .-933 64 J ~ 1,587 ~ ~ g NOT TO SCALE Shy Creek Renton l WA I~rllury 16, 2006 January 26, 2006 Page 6 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Level of Service An existing 2006 weekday p.m. peak hour level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted at the study intersections. Level of service refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection. It is a measure of vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel delays, and driving comfort. Level of service is generally described by a letter scale from A to F. LOS A represents free-flow conditions-motorists experience little or no delays, and LOS F represents forced-flow conditions where the number of vehicles arriving exceed the capacity of the intersection. The LOS at stop-controlled intersections is based on average control delay (sec/veh) and is reported for each movement. Therefore, the reported LOS at unsignalized intersections does not represent a measure of the overall operations of the intersection. The LOS reported for signalized intersections represents the average control delay per vehicle entering the intersection. Table 1 outlines the LOS criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 1 LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections SigJ!alized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Delay Ran2e (sec) Delay Ran2e (sec) A <10 <10 B >10 to 20 >10 to IS C >20 to 35 >15 to 25 D >35 to 55 >25 to 35 E >55 to 80 >35 to 50 F >80 >50 SOUI"CC: "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board, 2000 Intersection LOS were calculated using the methodology and procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board (TRB), using the Synchro 6 and Highway Capacity Software (HCS2000) software programs. The p.m. peak hour LOS analysis results for the study intersections are summarized in Table 2. Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Page 7 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2 2006 Existing Level of Service Summary -PM Peak Hour 2006 Existing Delay Intersections LOS (see/veb) VIC Signalized Intersections 1. NE 4th StlMonroe Ave NE C 20.5 0.66 2. NE 4th StlUnion Ave NE C 33.2 0.80 3. NE 4th StlDuvall Ave NE C 29.7 0.71 5. NE 4th StlJericho Ave NE B 15.1 0.69 Un-Signalized Intersections' 4. NE 4th StlHoquiam Ave NE Southbound Left C 20.7 - Southbound Right B 12.4 - 6. NE 2nd StreetlJericho Ave NE Eastbound shared Lt-Thru-Rt B 12.6 - Westbound shared Lt-Thru-Rt B 13.5 - J The level of service at stop-controlled intersections is reported for each movement. Therefore, the reported illS does not r~present a measure of the overall operations of the intersection. Pedestrian and Transit Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity include sidewalks on the north side of NE 4th Street and on the east side of Jericho Avenue NE. Crosswalks are also provided at the signalized study intersections along NE 4th Street and at the un- signalized intersections on Jericbo Ave NE at NE 2nd Street and SE 2nd Street. As part of the Shy Creek development, pedestrian facilities including sidewalks are proposed throughout the development. Transit service to and from the project vicinity is provided by Metro Transit. There is currently a Metro bus stop at the intersection of NE 4th Streetl1ericho Avenue NE which serves route Ill. Route 111 provides service to and from the project vicinity and downtown Seattle. T r.nsportation Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Page 8 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analys~ Planned Transportation Improvements The purpose of this section is to document the known planned transportation improvements in the study area. There are two planned transportation improvement projects identified in the City of Renton's six-year 2006-2011 Transportation Improvement Program (HPJ in the study area. City of Renton 2006-2011 TIP • TIP #9: NE 3,d/NE ,;h Corridor Improvements (from 1-405 to just east of Union Avenue NE) Description: This project involves a series of key improvements in this corridor to improve traffic operations such as rechannelization and traffic signal modifications, possible construction of an eastbound hill-climbing lane from Monterey Ave to east of Edmonds Ave, possible transit priority signal treatments and possibly queue jumps. This project will seek to meet pedestrian, transit, and bicycle needs. The total estimated cost of the project is approximately $13,000,000. • TIP #16: NE,;h Street/HoquiamAvenue NE Description: This project involves installing a new fully actuated traffic signal, including poles, signal and pedestrian displays, detection lops, emergency pre-emption, a new signal controller, interconnect to master computer and associated channelization. The total estimated cost of the project is $400,000. T r.nsportation Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Page 9 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis DETERMINATION OF FUTURE CONDITIONS Trip Generation The Shy Creek development is proposed to consist of 61 single-family dwelling units. The existing site includes two single-family homes which would be demolished as part of the propOsed project. Vehicular trip generation for the existing and proposed uses was based on rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for Land Use Code (LUC) 210, Single-Family Dwelling Units. The daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation associated with the proposed Shy Creek development is shown in Table 3. Table 3 Trip Generation Summary ITE Trips Land Use Units LUC[ In Out Total Daily Single-Family 61 210 292 292 584 Less existing single-family homes 2 210 9 10 19 Net New Daily Trips = 283 282 565 AM Peak Hour Single-Family 61 210 II 35 46 Less existing single-family homes 2 210 0 2 2 Net New AM Peak Hour Trips = 11 33 44 PM Peak Hour Single-Family 30 210 39 23 62 Less existing single-family homes 2 210 1 1 2 Net New PM Peak Hour Trips = 38 22 60 Note: I Institute of Transportation Engineer.; Land Use Code. As shown in Table 3, the Shy Creek development is estimated to generate 565 daily trips with 44 net new trips (11 entering, 33 exiting) occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 60 net new trips (38 entering, 22 exiting) occurring during the p.m. peak hour. T ransporudon Engineering Nortb West January 26, 2006 Page 10 Shy Creek Development Tr.mc Impact An.lys~ Trip Distribution and Assignment The distribution of project-generated p.m. peak hour traffic was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the study area other traffic studies in the project vicinity. The following summarizes the general distribution of the project- generated p.m. peak hour traffic. • • • 60% to/from the west on NE 4th Street 15% to/from the north on Duvall Avenue NE 5% to/from the north on Union A venue NE 5% to/from the north on Monroe Avenue NE 10% destination retail along NE 4th Street 25% to/from west of Monroe Avenue NE 20% to/from the east on NE 4th Street 20% to/from the south on Jericho Avenue NE Based on these distribution patterns, the p.m. peak hour project generated traffic was assigned to the local street system. Figure 4 illustrates the p.m. peak hour trip distribution and assignment. T ran'portation Engineering North West January 26, 2006 Page 11 Shy Creek Development UJ Z W ~ Z UJ Z > w .. > ~ .. E <= <= .2 0 <= ::;; :;) ~ ~ n; > => 0 Legend D -Intersection Number ...... XX = PM Peak HQur Traffic Volumes ~ '" Distribution Percent ,NE 23" "-1 -+-6 ,-8 Transportation Engineering Northwest N "-1 '" "-3 '" -+-8 """,, '" -+-10 , 13 --+ , 17 --+ ] Proposed Site Ao:essfJerichoAve NE '" on ~ ) t ) 51,! A!f~ ___ 10 -" ~ ~ 4" , "-• ~ Figure 4 PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution and Assignment T ransporutlon Engineering NorthWest UJ Z Project Site Traffic Impact Analys~ UJ z ~ 0 ~ 0 '<= ~ ~ ~ -+-13 23 --+ HOT TO SCALE Shy Creek Renton, WA hnu~1)' 26, 2006 January 26, 2006 Page 12 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volumes with and without the proposed the proposed Shy Creek development were estimated for p.m. peak hour conditions in the year 2008. Future weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes used for the LOS analysis at the study intersections were developed based on existing traffic counts increased to account for both background growth and l'ipeline project trips. A two percent annual growth rate was used to account for the anticipated future traffic growth. The two percent annual growth rate was based on the growth rate used in other traffic studies in the project vicinity. The estimated 2008 weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes without the project are shown on Figure 5. Future year 2008 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes with the Shy Creek development were estimated by adding the p.m. peak hour project trips (Figure 4) to the 2008 baseline traffic volumes (Figure 5). Figure 6 shows the year 2008 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes with the Shy Creek development. Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Page 13 Shy Creek Development Legend D = Intersection Number ill Z ~ <= .2 <= :::J ...-XX = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes '" "-00 ~ .. ~ ~ 1,165 ~-'" ",32 125 ~ t (' 1,318 ~ "MN 10" "'-.. "-2 ... 0 ~~M 1,150 --+- (' ... ~'" 346" ... -'" Transportation Engineering Northwest '" "-69 ~ 0 "-178 "' .. '" ~'" M -"'~ MM M 201 (' 271 (' 1,091 ---+-"MO 38" MN_ '" "-6 N~ +-0 "' ... '" ",6 0--~ t (' ~"'~ "" '" - Figure 5 2008 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Engineering NorthWest ill Z Project Site .. ~ ) 67 '" N Traffic Impact Analysis ill Z ~ o .c u .~ ..., "-22 +-971 1.651 ---+- g NOT TO SCALE Shy Creek Renton, WA laouJlY 26, 2006 January 26, 2006 Page 14 Shy Creek Development legend a = Intersection Number ..... XX = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N ~ 67 _..,.m __ m +-1.171 11'32 ~ t (' 1,327 ---... .,. <'> N 10 ---,.. ~ -..,. ~2 ..,.0 --<'> -+-687 11'27 1.150 -.. ~ t (' "_0 389---,.. '" N N Transport.1tion Engineering Northwest 0 ~ 70 ~.,." ..-922 _ m_ II' 102 ~ t (' om", 1,108 ---.. ..,. <'>0 ;:::r-..c.o 38---,.. <'>N_ Proposed Site AccesslJerrllo Ave NE .,. ~ N ~6 -..,. '" ) t "'-_0 5ire A({~ll 11'5 <'> ~6 "'..,." _0 _..,.N 11'6 ------10~ ~ ~ t (' o -.. ~ < r--~ 0 4~~ 0-~ t (' ""''' 11 ---,.. ~ Figure 6 2008 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Engineering NorthWest w Z Project Site Traffic Impact Analys~ w z ~ o .c .g m ~ ONE 4th S1A-IoquiamAve NE ..,. w ~ 22 " N ) "'- ...... 984 Nf "f!hSz 67 J ~ 1,674 ---+- , < ~ I g NOT TO SCALE Shy Creek Renton, WA l~nuK116. 2006 January 26, 2006 Page 15 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analys~ Future Levels of Service Future 2008 level of service was analyzed at the study intersections with and without the Shy Creek development. The p.m. peak hour LOS analysis results for the study intersections are summarized in Table 4. Detailed level of service summary worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Table 4 2008 Level of Service Summary -PM Peak Hour 2008 Baseline 2008 With Project Delay Delay Intersections LOS (secJveh) VIC LOS (sec/veh) VIC Signalized Intersections I. NE 4th StlMonroe Ave NE C 22.1 0.68 C 22.3 0.69 2. NE 4th StlUnion Ave NE C 34.7 0.83 C 34.8 0.83 3. NE 4th StlDuvalJ Ave NE C 31.0 0.74 C 31.2 0.75 5. NE 4th St/Jericho Ave NE B 16.3 0.71 B 17.7 0.76 Un-Signalized Intersections 4. NE 4th St/Hoquiam Ave NE Southbound Left C 21.6 -C 21.9 Southbound Right B 12.6 -B 12.7 6. NE 2nd Street/Jericho Ave NE Eastbound shared Lt -Thru-Rt B 12.8 -C 15.9 Westbound shared Lt -Thru-Rt B 13.9 -B 14.4 The level of service at stop-controlled intersections is reported for each movement. Therefore, the reported LOS does not represent a measure of the overall operation.<; of the intersection. As shown in Table 4 all signalized study intersections and stopped controlled movements at un-signalized study intersections are expected to operate at level of service (LOS) C or better with or without the proposed Shy Creek development. Access Analysis Access to the Shy Creek development would be provided onto Jericho Avenue NE, NE 2nd Street, and Hoquiam Avenue NE. Level of service and queuing were assessed at the proposed site access on Jericho Ave NE. Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Page 16 - - - - Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis Levels of Service and Queuing The p.m. peak hour operations at the proposed site access on Jericho Avenue NE was analyzed using the methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. The following Table 5 summarizes the calculated LOS and 95 th percentile queues at the proposed site access during the p.m. peak hour. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 5 PM Peak Hour Site Access Level of Service 2008 With Project Delay 95th Percentile Intersection LOS (sec/veh) Queue (vellL Jericho Avenue NElProposed Site Access Eastbound Shard Left-Thru-Right B 14.8 1 (Exiting Site) Westbound Shard Left-Thru-Right B 12.3 I Note: Analysis based on methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. As shown in Table 5 the eastbound shared left-tbm-right turn movement (exiting site) at the proposed site access on Jericho Avenue NE is expected to operate at LOS B with a 95 th percentile vehicle queue of one vehicle. Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Page 17 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis MITIGATION Level of Service The installation of site-specific improvements under SEP A is primarily determined by the results of the LOS analyses conducted at study area intersections. Based on the results shown in Table 4, with or without the proposed project all signalized study intersections and stopped controlled movements at un-signalized study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better. Therefore, no off-site mitigation is proposed. Impact Fees To mitigate long-term impact traffic impacts of the proposed Shy Creek development, the City of Renton requires payment of a traffic impact fee based on the number of trips a project is estimated to generate during a typical weekday. The City's adopted impact fee is $75 per net new average daily trip. The proposed Shy Creek development is expected to generate 565 net new daily trips which would result in an impact fee of $42,375 (565 net new daily trips X $75/daily trip). T ransportadon Engineering North West January 26, 2006 Page 18 Shy Creek Development Trafllc Impact Analysis Appendix A: Existing Traffic Volumes ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Weather :SUNNY Counted by:CWW/RHR Board # :TI2-150 oHrface :DRY I MONROE AV NE ISouthbound Start I City of Renton Transportation 5yst •• s Diyision Traffic Operations 2005 Studies CARS/PEDESTRIANS,HEAVY V<HIClES INE 4TH ST IMONROE AV NE IWestbound I INorthbound I 11£ 4TH ST lEast bound I Study Na.e: ~71P Sit. Cod. : 00000000 Start Date: 08/12/05 Page : 2 Til@ I Left Thru Right other I L.n Thr. Right otherl Left Thru Right otherl Left Thru Right Ilntvl. otherl Total Peak Hour noalysis By Entire Inters.ction for the Period: 1&:00 on 08/12/05 to 17:45 on 08/12/05 Tile I 1&:30 Vol. I 91 13 100 Pet. I 42.5 6.0 49.5 Total 214 High I 1&:45 Vol. I 31 0 32 • Total I 65 PH' I 0.B23 ~CARS/PEDESTRIANS ·~HEAVY VEHICLES I 1&:30 I 16:30 41 30 1MB 62 31 &0 I.BI 2.5 92.0 5.1 0.21 51.2 I 1193 I 117 I 17:15 I 17:15 01 5 293 IB 01 20 I 31& I 35 10.944 , 0.83& # MONRuE AV NE I 4#~ 1061~ 131~ 891 #-01-01-21 =====#=====1=====1=====1 4 # 106 I 13 1 9 1 I # j, I 1&:30 12 40 51 liB 10.2 34.1 4.21 B.6 1370 I 1&:30 3 12 01 27 392 I 0.874 # 62 # 12 # 1 18 # ;;;:;==== # 192 # # 1242 90.6 361 ~ A 9 0.& 3 3 II 0.01 I II 3 ####################### NE 4TH ST Inbound IOutbound Total 214 192 406 ###################### 1264 106 1098 60 ====================== ~ 117 118 1 Inbound -------------Outbollnd 1242 ~1215 Total 27 9 o 1370 1264 2634 Inbound Outbound Total 62 .. '~ 62 ~1064 ..... 34 10'38 1193------------- 1373.... 30 2566 ..... 30 ===================== 40 1242 1373 91 Inbound 117 NE 4TH ST ####################### Outbound 52 ###################### ~ 1 # Total 16'3 # 1 A # 9 ,-591~ 121 .... 39#.... 5 # 13 ,-llA 01-1#-0 # 30 1=====1=====1=====#===== # ===== 60 12 40 # 5 ~ 52 I # # MONROE AV NE # 11\ I I \ North I 071{ City of R,ntoT; WeathEr :SUNNY Transportation 5yste.5 Division rJ' Study Na,,: TMC071P Counted by:CWW/RHR Traffic Oper-atiOTl5 Il~ Sit, Cod, , 00000000 B.ard I :T12-150 2005 Studi FS Start Date: .8/12/05 ~lrface :DRY Page : 1 CHRS/PEDESTRIANS,HEAVY V<HICLES IMONROE RV NE INE 4TH ST I MONROE AV NE INE 4ftl ST I Southbound IW"tbound INorthbound Itastb.und start I I I I IlntYI. n .. I left Thru Right otherl left Thru Right other I left Thru Right other I left Thru Right oth.rl Total 00112105 I I I I 16:001 14 6 21 51 3 253 17 81 11 4 11 01 19 220 21 587 1.:151 27 3 30 01 4 261 24 11 12 4 12 21 27 256 3 01 &66 16:301 15 2 35 21 8 273 15 21 11 3 8 2"1 27 361 3 11 768 16:451 31 2 32 01 12 ~.J8 17 11 16 3 13 31 29 272 3 01 692 Houri 87 13 118 71 27 1045 73 41 50 H 44 71 102 1109 10 31 2713 I I I 17:001 19 7 17 01 5 274 12 01 13 3 7 01 34 269 01 ,,1 17:151 26 2 22 21 • 293 18 01 20 3 12 01 28 340 2 01 773 " 17:301 22 0 18 01 6 273 22 11 4 3 11 01 35 330 5 21 732 17:451 23 3 20 21 9 260 24 01 IJ 0 8 II 36 317 3 41 721 Houri 90 12 77 41 25 1100 76 11 48 9 38 1 I 133 1256 11 (,1 2B1l7 I I I I Totall 177 25 195 111 52 2145 149 51 98 23 B2 SI 235 23&5 21 91 5600 ~ Apr. I 43.3 6.1 47.7 2.6J ~2 91.2 6.3 0~21 46.4 10.9 38.8 3.71 B.9 89.9 0.7 0.31 ~ Int. I 3.1 0.4 3.4 0.11 0.9 38' ., 2.6 -I 1.7 0.4 1.4 0.11 4.1 42'J .c 0.3 0.1 I I I I Weather :S[J;N'( Counted by:CWW/RHR Board # :D4-1027 Surface :DRY IUNION AV 1£ ISouthbound Start I City of Renton Transportation Systels Di~ision Traffic Operations 2005 Studies CARS/Pl:DESTRIANS, HEAVY VEHIClES 11£ 4 fH ST IUNION AV 1£ IWestbound I I Northbound I 11£ 4TH 5T I~astbound I Study Na.e: TMC072P Site Code : 00000000 Start Date: 08/19/05 Page • 0 • L Ti.e I Left Thru Right other I Left Thru Right otherl Left Thru Right Otherl Left Thru Right I Intvl. other I Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period. 1&.00 on ~/19/05 to 17.45 on 08/19/05 Ti.e I 16:15 I 16:15 I 1&:15 Vol. I 158 89 152 31 % 861 &5 131 104 Pct. I 39.3 22.1 37.8 0.71 9.2 83.1 6.2 1.21 42.7 Total 402 I 1035 I 243 High 1&:15 I 17.00 I 1&.15 Vol. 47 20 42 II 21 230 18 31 28 Total 110 I 272 68 PHI' I 0.914 I 0.951 I 0.893 # UNION AV NE ~CARS/PEDESTRIANS '~HEAVY VEHICLES ~ 3#~ 1451~ B71~ 1561 A #~ 71~ 21A 21 ~~~~~#~~~~=I====~I~====I 3 :tJ: 152 # . # 89 I 158 I 1&.15 74 bl 41 189 Ja4 25.1 l.bl 13.7 I 1370 I 17.00 22 18 01 52 I 368 10.931 # &5 # 74 # 189 # ===== # 328 # # 1055 n.0 289 'v -.'~ 119 8.& 2& 13 I I 71 0.51 I 1/ 13 rt###################### NE 4TH ST Inbound IOutbound Total 402 328 730 ###################### 1117 189 152 8&1 104 ~ 18& , .... 3 Inbound 1370 -------------Outbound 1117 ~1039 Total 2487 1055 .-'-. 1 £:. ~ 118 119 1 ####################### 7 ~ 7 # ~. # # # # # 62 .0"'. .;. &5 'v 834 .'-', 27 8&1 Inbound O'Jtbound Total 1035------------- 1274 ~ 94 2309 . ..,. 9& ==;================== &1 112155 158 1274 Inbound Out bound 243 304 NE 4TH ST ###################### Total 547 # 119 I~ 991~ 731~ &1#~ 4 89 IA 51A llA 0#A 0 9& I===~=I=~~~=I~~=~~#===== =~~~~ I 104 I 74 61 # 4 304 I # 11\ I I \ # UNION AV NE # NOr'th I 612 City of Renton WE!ather ,SUNNY Tran'portation Sy,te., Di,i,ion t" Study Na •• , TMC~72P Counted by:CWW/RHR Traffic OperatioT,S (JY" Site Code : 00~00~0 Board ~ :D4-1027 2005 Studies Stat't Date: 0BI19/ilS Surface :DRY Page : 1 CARS/PEDESTRIANS,HEAVY ~EHICLES IUNION AV NE INE 4TH 5T IUNION AV NE INE 4TH 5T I Southbound IWestbound I Northbound IEastbound Start I I I I IIntvl. Tile I Left Thru Right otherl L.ft Thru Right oth.rl Left Thru Right otherl Left Thru Right Other I Total 081 19/ilS I I I I 16:001 "4 10 3& 11 25 240 18 01 15 19 21 11 4& 251 40 11 750 16:151 47 20 42 II 24 202 16 41 28 22 18 01 54 210 29 21 179 16:301 27 28 34 01 25 204 20 31 23 22 11 21 36 K-'6 35 01 &% 16:451 41 17 3& 01 26 K"'5 11 31 25 16 20 11 47 270 29 41 771 Houri 139 77 IltB 21 100 871 65 101 91 79 70 41 183 1017 133 71 29% I I I 17:001 43 24 40 21 01 230 18 31 28 14 12 11 52 289 26 11 804 17:151 37 18 42 11 28 188 16 01 34 15 14 01 48 247 28 41 720 17:301 40 ,> ~ 26 11 26 215 10 31 18 20 17 21 30 266 39 01 735 17:451 40 24 45 11 22 212 14 01 24 25 20 41 52 231 30 41 748 Houri 1&0 88 153 51 97 845 58 &1 104 74 63 71 182 1033 123 91 3007 I I 1 1 1 Totall 299 1&5 301 71 197 171& 123 161 195 153 133 111 3&5 2050 256 161 &003 ~ Apr. I 38. 7 21.3 38.9 0.91 9.& 83.& 5.tJ 0.71 39.6 31.0 27.0 2.21 13.5 76.2 9.5 0.51 ~ Int. 4.9 2..7 '5.0 0.11 3 .j " 28.5 2.0 0.2.1 .3 .j .. '. 0 c.. oJ 2.2 0.11 b.0 34.1 4.2 0.21 W.athfr :SUNNY Count od by: RHR Board # :04-1027 Surfac. :DRY IDUVALL AV 1£ ISouthbound Start I City of R.nton Transportation 5yst •• s Division Traffic Op.rations 2005 Studies CARS/PEDESTRIANS, NEAVY VEHI£;lE5 11£ 4TH 5T IDUVALL AV NE IWestbound I I Northbound I 11£ 4TH ST IEastbound I Study Na •• : TMCI03P Sit. Cod, : 00000000 Start Dat.: 08/11/05 Pa9' : 2 Ilntv!. Ti., I l.ft Thru Right Other I l.ft Thru Right Oth.rl left Thru Right Oth,,1 l.ft Thru Right Oth.rl Total P.ak Hour Analysis By Entir. Int.rs.ction for the P.riod: 1&:00 on 08/11/05 to 17:45 on 08/11/05 Tile I 1&:45 Vol. I 311 3b 33b Pct. I 45.3 5.2 48.9 Total &86 High I Ib:45 Vol. 88 13 92 Total 193 PtF I 0.889 ~CARS/PEDESTRIANS ·····HEAVy VEHICLES I 1&:45 31 19 755 168 0.41 2.0 80.1 17.8 I 942 I 17:00 01 4 203 4b I 253 I 0.931 # DUVALL AV NE 3-#"" 3331'V 351'" I 16:45 01 32 0.01 48.4 &b I 17:30 01 5 21 I 0.786 I 312171 ~ #-31-11-41 =====#=====1=====1=====1 .3 # 336 # 36 I 311 Inbound 686 I Ib:45 22 9 31 2S5 33.3 13.& 4.51 19.3 I 1320 I 17:00 10 4 21 67 I 350 I 0.943 # 168 # .~.=- ~~ # 255 # ====== # 44~1 # # 1028 n.B 271 ~ ..... 3b 2.7 11 I I 11 0.01 I 11 # ~##################### NE 4TH ST IOutbound 445 Total 1131 ###################### ~ 168 336 1123 755 32 ====================== ....,. 254 255 ..... 1 Inbound -------------Outbound 1028 36 ~112t03 Total ..... 25 36 121 1320 1123 2443 Inbound Outbound Total ..... 121 168 755 942------------- 1348 ~ 18 229121 ...... 1 1'3 1028 311 1348 Inbound 66 N~ 4TH ST ####################### Outbound 91 ###################### ~ 1 # Total 157 # 1 # 36 JIV 321~ 221-9#~ 3 # 36 1-01-01-0#-0 # 19 1=====1=====1=====#===== # ===== I 32 I 22 J 9 # ~ # 91 I # # DUVALL AV NE I # 11\ 1 I \ ~,ath'r ,SUNNY Counted by:RHR Board # ,D4-1027 Surfae, :ORY 1 DUVALL AV NE 1 Southbound Start 1 Ti.. 1 L.ft Thru Right 08/11/05 1&,0111 50 9 SO 1&:151 5& 8 sa 1&,301 60 17 &3 1&,451 aa 13 92 Houri 25'1 47 323 I 17,0111 71 & 74 17:151 SO 12 95 17,301 72 5 75 17:451 68 1& 9J Houri 291 3'l 337 1 Total I 545 8& &&0 % Apr. 41.7 6.5 50.& % Int. 9.4 1.4 11.4 City of R.nto" Transportation SystolS Division M Tra:fiC Operation, ~\IIl!" 20il5 StOJdl .. CARS/PEDESTRIANS,HEAVY VEHICLES I NE HH ST 1 DUVAlL AV NE IW"tbound I I Northbound I INE 4TH ST IEastbound I Study Na." TMCI00lP Sit. Cod, : 00000000 St ""t Oat., 08111/05 Pag' , 1 /63f IlntYI. Othfrl lfft Thru Right othfrl l.ft Thru Ri ght other I L.ft Thru Right Oth.rl Total 1 01 3 m 32 21 0 1,3 29 51 11 183 35 01 10 192 37 71 24 714 133 I 11 4 203 4& 01 3 185 38 21 2 175 47 31 1 184 35 ,1 10 747 1&6 I 131 34 1461 299 0.91 1.8 81.4 1&.& 0.21 0.5 25.3 5.1 I 01 5 01 7 01 8 01 12 01 32 I 01 b .01 9 01 5 01 3 01 23 I 01 55 -I 42.& -I 0.9 & 4 8 4 6 2 5 4 4 2 15 10 4 5 4 23 11 45 2& 34. B 211.1 0.7 0.4 01 ,& 01 ,6 01 55 01 65 01 2".2 I II 67 01 21 57 01 49 31 239 31 491 2.31 19.3 -I B.5 242 229 243 245 959 271 259 .253 2 7 a 5 11 7 13 24& 8 102'l 39 1988 ,1 78.2 2.4 34.4 1.0 01 676 01 &&3 01 7011 01 765 01 2804 I II 770 01 757 0J 722 01 715 11 2964 I 11 57&B -I -I ~I@ TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 2,701 OUT 2,701 COUNTED BY: REDUCED BY: DATE OF REDUCTION: H 181 ~ HV PHF SB 5% 0_83 NB #N/A #N/A WB 2% 0_86 EB 1% 0_96 INTRS_ 2% 0_93 HV -Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor Hoquiam Ave NE @ NE 4th St Renton, WA MV DATE OF COUNT: Thu_ 1/19/06 CN TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 -6:00 PM FrL 1/20/06 WEATHER: Overcast 14 TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: Hoquiam Ave NE @ NE 4th St DATE OF COUNT: Thu.1/19106 COUNTED BY: TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 -6:00-"P-"M"----__ WEATHER: -------- TIME FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON INTERVAL Hoquiam Avenue NE 0 ENDING AT HV 02:15 PM 0 02:30 PM 0 02:45 PM 0 03:00 PM 0 03:15 PM 0 03:30 PM 0 03:45 PM 0 04:00 PM 0 04:15 PM 2 04:30 PM 3 04:45 PM 0 05:00 PM 0 05:15 PM 2 05:30 PM 0 05:45 PM 0 06:00 PM 0 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 5 ALL MOVEMENTS %HV PEAK HOUR FACTOR HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF ::; Peak Hour factor REDUCED BY: eN Left Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 8 0 6 0 6 0 2 0 8 0 4 0 25 0 96 5% 0.83 Right HV Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 ---- 21 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 I. 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 #N/A tt-N/A 4:00 -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: FROM EASTON FROM WESTON NE 4th St (SE 128th 81) N E 4th Street HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 212 5 6 12 358 7 0 225 4 7 7 372 6 0 268 9 7 10 413 3 0 212 3 3 22 407 3 0 228 5 5 25 ! 395 0 0 211 6 2 10 362 1 0 170 10 7 18 378 1 0 158 9 4 14 343 i 19 0 933 21 22 64 15871 954 1651 2% 1";" 0.86 0.96 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: MV Overcast INTERVAL TOTALS Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- 0 0 0 616 0 633 0 729 0 666 0 673 ----- 0 598 0 598 0 536 0 INTERSECTION 2701 2% 0.93 112012006 W.ath.r :SUNNY, 72' F Count.d by:CWW/RHR Board i :T-WlI9 Surfac. :DRY IJERICHO A~ NE ISouthbound Start I Ti •• I L.ft Thru Riuht City of R.nton Transportation Syst •• s Division Traffic Op.rations 2005 Studi.s CARS/PEDESTRIANS, f£lIVY VHH D-ES INE 4T1l ST IJERICHO AV NE IWestbound I oth.rl L.ft Thr. Right INorthbound I otherl L,ft Thru Right INE 4T1l ST IEastbound I Study Nal.: TMCI31P Sit. Cod. : ~ Start Dat.: 06/29/05 Pa~e : 2 other I L.ft Thru Right Ilntv!. other I Total P,ak Hour Analysis By Entir. Int.rs.ction for tho P.riod: 1~:011 on ~/29/~ to 17:45 on ~/29/~ Ti., I 17:00 I 17:08 I 17:00 Vol. 3 9 13 61 18 &47 2 71 230 Pct. 9.& 29.0 41. 9 19.31 2.6 95.9 0.2 1.01 93.8 Total 31 I m I 245 High I 17:15 I 17:15 I 17:15 Vol. 0 3 41 7 171 0 II ~8 Total I II m 71 PHF I 0.7~ I 0.941 I 0.&3 ~CARS/PEDESTRIANS ,"'HEAVY VEHI CLES # JERICHO AV NE ~ 6#~ 131~ 91~ 31 A #A 01A 01A 01 =====#=====1=====1=====1 6 # 13 I 9 I 3 # # .ff##################### NE 4TH ST 13 890 647 230 =================;::;:==== ~. 8 .~ 8 o Inbound 1418 -------------Outbound 890 ~1059 Total 2308 1084 25 ..... 322 326 .~ 4 ####################### ~ # " # # Inbound IOutbound Total Inbound Outbound Total 326 I~ 9 , ...... 31 11 42 245 353 598 2241 .... 6 I" 0.4 1 8 ===::::::;;::;: 11 H 5.7 3 I 17:00 01 8 ~.01 0.5 # # # # # # I 1418 17:45 01 4 I 3&3 I 0.977 1084 76.4 289 .. '~ 32. 22.9 70 7 01 0.01 I 01 7 # ###################### .... 636 .... 11 2 647 Inbound 674------------- Outbound 1101 ~ 18 1 I~ 01--' Tot al 1775 ,', 0 18 ===================== 14 1084 3 1101 NE 4TH ST ###################### # 14#~ 0 0#"" 0 11\ # 18 1=====1=====1=====#===== I I \ # ===== I 230 I 1 14 # 0 I # -=--,>"",:, I # NOr'th # JERICHO AV NE # I t31t City of Renton Weather : SUNNY, 72' F Tran5portation SY5te., Divi5ion tAl Study Na.e: TMCI31P Count,d by:CWW/RHR Traffic Operations lL--tJ Sit. Cod. : 00000000 Board • :T-0'l19 2005 Studi .. Start nat,: 06/29/05 Surface :DRY Pag' : 1 CARS/.~DESTRIANS,HEAVY VEHIClES IJERICHO AV 1£ 11£ 4TH ST IJERICHO AU NE INE HH ST ISouthbound IWestbound I Northbound IEastbound Start I I I I IIntvl. Tile I Left Thru Right Other I Left Thru Right Oth.rl Left Thru Right Oth.rl L.ft Thru Right Other I Total 01,/29/05 I I I I 16:001 2 4 21 4 160 (\ 21 46 2 01 (\ 235 54 01 513 16:151 1 (\ 31 5 151 31 42 (\ 3 01 2 276 66 01 554 16:301 0 2 01 2 151 (\ 01 42 6 01 1 228 b4 01 498 1&:451 0 (\ 2 01 2 99 0 II 43 0 5 01 2 167 SC 01 373 Houri 3 6 5 51 13 561 1 61 173 2 16 01 5 906 236 01 1938 I I I I I 17:001 I 3 II 4 ISC 0 II 61 0 4 01 I 268 82 01 579 17:151 0 4 3 41 7 171 (\ 11 &8 0 3 01 2 263 97 01 &23 17:301 2 4 11 J 153 31 JJ I 4 01 I 2&4 77 01 548 17:451 1 2 3 01 4 171 1 21 &8 0 3 01 4 289 70 01 618 Houri 3 9 13 61 18 M7 2 71 230 14 01 8 1084 32. 01 2368 I I Total I & 15 18 111 31 J208 3 131 403 3 30 01 J3 J990 5&2 01 430& % Apr. I 12.0 30.0 36.0 22.01 2.4 96~2 0.2 1.01 92.4 0.6 &.8 -I 0.5 77.5 2U -I ~ Int. I 0.J 0.3 0.4 0.21 0.7 28.0 0.31 9.3 0.6 -I 0.3 4&.2 13.0 -I I I -------------,------- j@i TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM I I I I 615 I w (f) '" ~ ~ => c '" > <t: .c ::> 31 403 1 25 ... ,~ NE 2nd SI (SE 132nd SI) r t " / ~ ---L - '" ~-------'" 3 1-- I 13 I 0 ------~----~- ~ ! 1 10 w 7 I 175 I 7 (f) '" => INTERSECTION c '" > ~ ~ PEAK HOUR VOLUME <t: £ ... IN 645 ... OUT 645 608 I 144th Ave NE @ NE 2nd Street Renton, WA COUNTED BY: ~A~C~ ______ __ REDUCED BY: ~C~N~ ______ __ DATE: Fri. 1r2OJ06 TO 5:00 PM NE 2nd St(SE 132nd SI) 6 0 6 ----- ~ '-- ... ... I 32 I HV PHF SB 1% 0.83 NB 3% 0.89 WB 0% 0.60 EB 0% 0.81 INTRS. 2% 0.92 HV ::; Heavy Vehicles PHF ::; Peak Hour Factor DATE OF COUNT: Thu.1I19106 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 -6:00 PM WEATHER: Overcast ~I~ TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: 144th Ave NE @ NE 2nd Street DATE OF COUNT: "T~h~u~. ~1'~19~I~O~6 ____ COUNTED BY: Renton, WA TIME OF COUNT: 4:0(1 -6:00 PM WEATHER: TIME FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EASTON FROM WESTON INTERVAL 144th Avenue SE 144th Avenue SE NE 2nd 51 (SE 132nd St) NE 2nd St (SE 132nd St) ENDING AT HV 02:15 PM 0 02:30 PM 0 02:45 PM 0 03:00 PM 0 03:15 PM 0 03:30 PM 0 03:45 PM 0 -- 04:00 PM 0 04:15 PM 0 04:30 PM 3 04:45 PM 2 05:00 PM 0 05:15 PM 1 05:30 PM 1 05:45 PM 3 06:00 PM 0 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 5 ALL MOVEMENTS % HV PEAK HOUR FACTOR HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF == Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: eN l.tt Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 86 9 100 9 91 2 126 2 90 3 95 3 102 I 0 104 25 403 431 1% D.SJ Right HV left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 47 2 0 3 2 50 1 1 1 0 40 4 2 2 2 38 0 0 0 3 18 0 4 1 2 21 0 1 0 0 31 0 1 0 0 45 0 3 6 7 175 7 18. 3"10 0.89 4:00 -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: HV left Thru Right HV left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 , 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 ! 0 0 1 i 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 3 I 0 10 12 13 0% 0% 0.60 0.81 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: AC Overcasl ___ _ INTERVAL TOTALS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 170 152 176 121 128 141 151 INTERSECTION 645 2% 0.92 1120,2006 [11@l TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM HV PHF SB 1% 0.82 NB 4% 0.88 WB 0% 0.69 EB #N/A #N/A INTRS. 2% 0.91 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 603 OUT 603 I I 413 408 I 5 'If , .. /"- ,~ , 413 I I 598 I I w rn J ij I I I Q) 185 ::J c: Q) > <{ .<:: ;; "" ~ 13430 -Maplewood Heiq hts ES North Drvwy -.. 6 ,l I I 11 5 co ~ .-~ ~ T w , rn 179 I 0 Q) ::J c: , , , Q) > 179 <{ .<:: ;; "" I ~ 592 I Maplewood Hts. ES N Drvwy @ 144th Ave SE Renton, WA COUNTED BY: CN DATE OF COUNT: Thu.1/19/06 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 -6:00 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: Fri. 1/20/06 WEATHER: Overcast IE TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: Maplewood Hts.. ES N Drvwy@ 144th Ave ~ Renton.WA DATE OF COUNT: ~T"h",u"-. ec'I"'=.91,,O"'6 ____ COUNTED BY: TIME OF COUNT: ~4"':O"'O"-'--'6"':OO""'P-'M"--__ WEATHER: TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT HV 02:15 PM 0 - 02:30 PM 0 02:45 PM 0 03:00 PM 0 03:'5 PM . 0 03:30 PM 0 r-_~3:4~!,M 0 04:00 PM 0 04;15 PM 0 04:30 PM 3 04:45 PM 2 05:00 PM 0 05:15 PM 1 05:30 PM 0 05:45 PM 1 06:00 PM 0 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 5 ALL MOVEMENTS %HV PEAK HOUR FACTOR HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: eN FROM NORm ON FROM SOUTH ON 144th Avenue SE 144th Avenue SE left Thru Right HV left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 86 0 3 0 51 0 2 102 0 1 0 49 0 - 1 94 0 1 0 41 0 0 126 0 2 a 38 0 2 91 0 0 0 18 0 - 0 99 0 1 0 23 0 4 100 0 0 0 30 1 I 2 99 0 0 0 39 0 I 5 408 0 7 0 179 a 413 179 1% 4% 0.82 0.88 4:00 -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: FROM EAST ON FROM WEST ON 13430 -Maplewood Heights 0 ES North Drvwy HV left Thru Right HV Left Thru 0 1° -0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -_2 .. a --- - 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 a 5 a 6 a a a 11 a 0% #NfA 0.69 #N/A 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: eN Overcast INTERVAL TOTALS Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 0 157 -_. 0 139 0 166 0 113 0 122 0 136 0 144 a INTERSECTION 603 2% 0.91 1/20/2006 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix B: Level Of Service Calculations at Study Intersections ~ T , .... portatlon Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis 2006 Existing T ransportaoon Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 4th St & Monroe Av NE ; -..... Movement EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations "i +r. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 10 10 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1652 3300 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1652 3300 Volume (vph) 120 1267 9 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 138 1456 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 a 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 1466 0 Heavl Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% Tum Type Prot Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 14.7 72.7 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 74.7 Actuated glC Ratio 0.13 0.62 Clearance Time (5) 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 216 2054 vis Ratio Prot cO.08 cO.44 vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.64 0.71 Uniform Delay, dl 49.5 15.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.1 2.1 Delay (s) 55.5 17.5 Level of Service E B Approach Delay (s) 20.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.5 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/20062006 Existing Transportation Engineering Northwest " -"-'\ WBL WBT WBR NBL "i tr. 1900 1900 1900 1900 10 10 12 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1636 3245 0.95 1.00 1636 3245 31 1120 63 61 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.84 33 1191 67 73 0 2 a 0 33 1256 0 0 3% 3% 3% 2% Prot Split 5 2 3 5.3 63.3 6.3 65.3 0.05 0.54 4.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 86 1766 0.02 0.39 0.38 0.71 55.0 20.3 1.28 0.39 2.2 1.3 72.6 9.2 E A 10.8 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service t I'" NBT NBR 4' 'f 1900 1900 11 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1728 1583 0.96 1.00 1728 1583 12 41 0.84 0.84 14 49 0 44 87 5 2% 2% Perm 3 3 10.5 10.5 11.5 11.5 0.10 0.10 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 166 152 cO.05 0.00 0.52 0.03 51.6 49.2 1.00 1.00 3.8 0.1 55.5 49.3 E D 53.3 D C 9.0 6 1/26/2006 \. + ..' SBL SBT SBR 4' '(f 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1742 1599 0.96 1.00 1742 1599 93 13 108 0.82 0.82 0.82 113 16 132 0 0 115 0 129 17 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 4 4 4 14.5 14.5 15.5 15.5 0.13 0.13 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 225 207 cO.07 0.01 0.57 0.08 49.1 46.0 1.00 1.00 4.2 0.2 53.3 46.2 D D 49.7 D Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 4th St & Union Av NE / --,. Movement EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations "i t .. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3_0 3_0 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0_95 Frt 1.00 0.98 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd_ Flow (prot) 1787 3403 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3403 Volume (vph) 193 1076 121 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0_93 0_93 0_93 Adj. Flow (vph) 208 1157 130 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 a Lane Group Flow (vph) 208 1281 0 Heavl Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Prot Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 17.4 54.1 Effective Green, g (s) 18_4 56_1 Actuated glC Ratio 0_15 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4_0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4_0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 274 1591 vis Ratio Prot cO.12 cO.38 vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.76 0.80 Uniform Delay, dl 48.7 27.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.75 I ncremental Delay, d2 9_1 3_3 Delay (s) 57_6 23_9 Level of Service E C Approach Delay (s) 28.6 Approach LOS C Intersection SummarY HCM Average Control Delay 33.2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0_80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120_0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/20062006 Existing Transportation Engineering Northwest # +-~ ~ WBL WBT WBR NBL "i t .. 1900 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 12 3_0 3_0 1_00 0_95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1752 3353 0.95 1.00 1752 3353 98 878 66 106 0_95 0_95 0.95 0.89 103 924 69 119 a 4 0 0 103 989 0 0 3% 3% 3% 3% Prot Split 5 2 4 10.2 46.9 11.2 48_9 0_09 0.41 4.0 5.0 3.0 6.0 164 1366 0.06 0.29 0.63 0.72 52.4 29.9 1.47 0.48 5_7 2.1 82_7 16_5 F B 22.7 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (5) ICU Level of Service t I'" NBT NBR 4 (f 1900 1900 11 12 3_0 3_0 1_00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0_97 1.00 1732 1568 0.97 1.00 1732 1568 75 62 0.89 0.89 84 70 0 59 203 11 3% 3% Perm 4 4 18.1 18_1 19_1 19_1 0.16 0.16 4.0 4.0 4_0 4.0 276 250 cO.12 0_01 0.74 0.04 48.0 42.7 1.00 1.00 10.4 0_1 58.4 42_8 E D 54.4 D C 9.0 C 1/26/2006 \. ~ .; SBL SBT SBR 4 'F 1900 1900 1900 12 11 11 3_0 3_0 1.00 1.00 1_00 0.85 0_97 1.00 1728 1516 0.97 1.00 1728 1516 161 91 155 0.91 0.91 0.91 177 100 170 0 a 139 0 277 31 3% 3% 3% Split Perm 3 3 3 20_6 20.6 21.6 21.6 0.18 0.18 4.0 4.0 4_0 4.0 311 273 cO.16 0_02 0.89 0_11 48.0 41.2 1.00 1.00 26_1 0.2 74_1 41.4 E D 61.7 E Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th St & Duvall Av NE / --,. Movement EBl EBT EBR Lane Configurations "i 1'i+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 Total lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3404 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3404 Volume (vph) 260 1049 37 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 277 1116 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 277 1153 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 5 2 Permit1ed Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 58.6 Effective Green, g (s) 22.5 60.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 321 1719 vIs Ratio Prot cO.16 cO.34 vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.86 0.67 Uniform Delay, dl 47.3 22.2 Progression Factor 0.73 0.55 Incremental Delay, d2 13.9 1.3 Delay (s) 48.3 13.5 Level of Service D B Approach Delay (s) 20.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.7 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Intersection Capacity utilization 69.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/2006 2006 Existing Transportation Engineering Northwest ~ -....... '\ WBl WBT WBR NBl "i tot r 1900 1900 1900 1900 11 11 11 12 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1694 3388 1516 0.95 1.00 1.00 1694 3388 1516 19 770 171 33 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 20 828 184 42 0 0 82 0 20 828 102 0 3% 3% 3% 0% Prot Perm Split 1 6 4 6 1.6 39.7 39.7 3.6 41.7 41.7 0.03 0.35 0.35 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 51 1177 527 0.01 0.24 0.07 0.39 0.70 0.19 57.1 33.8 27.4 1.08 0.91 0.94 4.7 2.0 0.2 66.6 32.8 26.0 E C C 32.2 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service t /'" NBT NBR 4- 1900 1900 11 12 3.0 1.00 0.98 0.97 1757 0.97 1757 22 9 0.79 0.79 28 11 5 0 76 0 0% 0% 4 9.8 11.8 0.10 5.0 4.0 173 cO. 04 0.44 51.0 1.00 2.4 53.4 D 53.4 D C 9.0 C 1/26/2006 \. i ./ SBl SBT SBR "i l' 'f 1900 1900 1900 11 11 11 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1728 1818 1546 0.95 1.00 1.00 1728 1818 1546 317 37 343 0.89 0.89 0.89 356 42 385 0 0 282 356 42 103 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 8 8 8 30.0 30.0 30.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 0.27 0.27 0.27 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 461 485 412 cO.21 0.02 0.07 0.77 0.09 0.25 40.6 33.0 34.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.3 0.1 0.4 48.9 33.1 35.0 D C C 41.2 D Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE 4th SI & Jericho Ave NE ..J -+ " Movement E8L E8T E8R Lane Configurations 'I tt> Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3416 Fit Permitted 0.35 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 644 3416 Volume (vph) 8 1106 333 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 1129 340 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 1451 0 Heav~ Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% Tum Type pm+pt Protected Phases 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (5) 76.2 75.0 Effective Green, g (s) 80.2 77.0 Actuated glC Ratio 0.67 0.64 Clearance Time (5) 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (5) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 460 2192 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 cO.42 vis Ratio Perm 0.01 vic Ratio 0.02 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 13.4 Progression Factor 0.93 0.62 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.3 Delay (5) 6.4 9.7 Level of Service A A Approach Delay (5) 9.7 Approach LOS A Intersection· Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.1 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (5) 120.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1124/2006 2006 Existing Transportation Engineering Northwest # --""-'\ W8L W8T W8R N8L 'I tt> 1900 1900 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1770 3538 0.11 1.00 205 3538 18 660 2 235 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.86 19 702 2 273 0 0 0 0 19 704 0 0 2% 2% 2% 2% pm+pt Perm 1 6 6 4 78.0 75.4 81.0 77.4 0.68 0.64 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 185 2282 cO.OO 0.20 0.07 0.10 0.31 10.3 9.4 1.00 1.00 0.2 0,1 10.6 9.5 B A 9.5 A HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service t /'" N8T N8R 4 ., 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1774 1583 0.71 1.00 1332 1583 1 14 0.86 0.86 1 16 0 5 274 11 2% 2% Perm 4 4 28.4 28.4 30.4 30.4 0.25 0.25 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 337 401 cO.21 0.01 0.81 0.03 42.1 33.7 1.00 1.00 13.9 0.0 56.0 33.7 E C 54.8 D B 9.0 C 1/26/2006 '. ~ .; SBL SBT SBR 4' ;I' , 1900 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1878 1615 0.94 1.00 1786 1615 3 9 13 0.71 0.71 0.71 4 13 18 0 0 13 0 17 5 0% 0% 0% Perm Perm 4 4 4 28.4 28.4 30.4 30.4 0.25 0.25 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 452 409 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 33.8 33.5 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 33.8 33.6 C C 33.7 C Synchro 6 Report Page 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst TENW Intersection NE 4th St & Hoquiam Ave Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 0112412006 Analysis Year 2006 Existing Analysis Time Period PM Peak Proiect Description Shy Creek EastlWest Street: NE 4th Street INorth/South Street: Hoquiam Avenue Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 64 1587 0 0 933 21 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 66 1653 0 0 1084 24 Proportion of heavy 1 0 vehicles, P HV ------- Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR Upstream Signal I 1 I I I 1 I I Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 25 0 71 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 30 0 85 Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 5 0 5 vehicles, P HV Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration I I I L I I R I Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 66 30 85 Capacity, c m (vph) 664 259 571 vic ratio 010 0.12 0.15 Queue length (95%) 0.33 0.39 0.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.0 20.7 12.4 LOS B C B Approach delay (s/veh) --14.6 Approach LOS --B TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst TENW Intersection NE 2nd Street & Jericho Ave NE Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 0112412006 Analysis Year 2006 Existing Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Shy Creek EastNVest Street: NE 2nd Street North/South Street: Jericho Ave NE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 7 179 7 26 411 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 201 7 31 495 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 ---I ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized a a Lanes a 1 a a 1 a Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal a a Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 6 a 6 3 a 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 a 9 3 a 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles a 0 0 a a a Percent Grade (%) a a Flared Approach N N Storage a a RT Channelized 0 a Lanes a 1 a 0 1 a Configuration LTR LTR Delay. Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 7 31 18 15 C (m) (vph) 1061 1369 440 489 vic 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 95% queue length 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.09 Control Delay 8.4 7.7 13.5 12.6 LOS A A B B Approach Delay --13.5 12.6 Approach LOS --B B Rights Reserved '"cr.<:inl1 -t.ld Shy C .... k Development Traffic Impact Analysis 2008 Without Project Transportation Ehgineerlng NorthWest January 26, 2006 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 4th SI & Monroe Av NE /' --..... Movement EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations "'i t1- Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 10 10 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1652 3300 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (eerm) 1652 3300 Volume (vph) 125 1318 10 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (v ph) 144 1515 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 144 1526 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% Tum Type Prot Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 70.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 72.7 Actuated glC Ratio 0.13 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 222 1999 vis RatiO Prot cO.09 cO.46 vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.65 0.76 Uniform Delay, dl 49.3 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 2.8 Delay (s) 55.7 20.2 Level of Service E C Approach Delay (5) 23.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.1 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (5) 120.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/20062008 Baseline Transportation Engineering Northwest .--"-~ WBL WBT WBR NBL "'i 1'1- 1900 1900 1900 1900 10 10 12 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1636 3245 0.95 1.00 1636 3245 32 1165 66 64 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.84 34 1239 70 76 0 2 0 0 34 1307 0 0 3% 3% 3% 2% Prot Split 5 2 3 5.3 60.9 6.3 62.9 0.05 0.52 4.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 86 1701 0.02 0.40 0.40 0.77 55.0 22.7 1.28 0.38 2.2 1.8 72.6 10.6 E B 12.1 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service t I'" NBT NBR +1 r 1900 1900 11 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1728 1583 0.96 1.00 1728 1583 13 42 0.84 0.84 15 50 0 44 91 6 2% 2% Perm 3 3 12.3 12.3 13.3 13.3 0.11 0.11 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 192 175 cO.05 0.00 0.47 0.03 50.1 47.6 1.00 1.00 2.5 0.1 52.6 47.7 D D 50.8 D C 9.0 C 1/26/2006 '-. t ./ SBL SBT SBR +1 7' 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1742 1599 0.96 1.00 1742 1599 97 14 112 0.82 0.82 0.82 118 17 137 0 0 119 0 135 18 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 4 4 4 14.7 14.7 15.7 15.7 0.13 0.13 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 228 209 cO.08 0.01 0.59 0.09 49.1 45.8 1.00 1.00 4.8 0.2 53.9 46.1 D D 50.0 D Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 4th St & Union Av NE ~ -"). Movement EBl EBT EBR Lane Configurations "i tv. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 Total lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.98 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3403 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3403 Volume (vph) 201 1120 126 peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 216 1204 135 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 lane Group Flow (vph) 216 1333 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Prot Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (5) 17.8 53.2 Effective Green. g (s) 18.8 55.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (5) 4.0 6.0 lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 1565 vis Ratio Prot cO.12 cO.39 vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.77 0.85 Uniform Delay, dl 48.5 28.8 Progression Factor 1.00 0.75 Incremental Delay, d2 9.1 4.2 Delay (s) 57.6 25.8 Level of Service E C Approach Delay (5) 30.3 Approach lOS C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 34.7 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/20062008 Baseline Transportation Engineering Northwest .f -""-'\ WBl WBT WBR NBl "i tr.. 1900 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1752 3352 0.95 1.00 1752 3352 102 914 69 110 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 107 962 73 124 0 4 0 0 107 1031 0 0 3% 3% 3% 3% Prot Split 5 2 4 10.4 45.8 11.4 47.8 0.10 0.40 4.0 5.0 3.0 6.0 166 1335 0.06 0.31 0.64 0.77 52.3 31.4 1.46 0.48 6.1 2.6 82.6 17.7 F B 23.7 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service t /"" NBT NBR +1 7' 1900 1900 11 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1733 1568 0.97 1.00 1733 1568 79 65 0.89 0.89 89 73 0 61 213 12 3% 3% Perm 4 4 18.5 18.5 19.5 19.5 0.16 0.16 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 282 255 cO.12 0.01 0.76 0.05 48.0 42.4 1.00 1.00 11.6 0.1 59.6 42.5 E D 55.2 E C 9.0 C 1/26/2006 \.. + .; SBl SBT SBR +1 7' 1900 1900 1900 12 11 11 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1728 1516 0.97 1.00 1728 1516 168 94 161 0.91 0.91 0.91 185 103 177 0 0 145 0 288 32 3% 3% 3% Split Perm 3 3 3 20.9 20.9 21.9 21.9 0.18 0.18 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 315 277 cO.17 0.02 0.91 0.12 48.1 41.0 1.00 1.00 30.0 0.3 78.1 41.2 E D 64.1 E Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3 NE 4th St & Duvall Av NE ..) -+ ... Movement ESL EST ESR Lane Configurations 'i +1- Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 FH Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3404 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3404 Volume (vph) 271 1091 38 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 288 1161 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) a 2 a Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 1199 a Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% Tum Type Prot Protected Phases 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 57.0 Effective Green, g (5) 23.0 59.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.49 Clearance Time (5) 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (5) 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 328 1674 vis Ratio Prot cO. 17 cO.35 vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.88 0.72 Uniform Delay, dl 47.1 23.9 Progression Factor 0.73 0.58 Incremental Delay, d2 14.1 1.5 Delay (5) 48.5 15.3 Level of Service D B Approach Delay (5) 21.7 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.0 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (5) 120.0 I ntersection Capacity utilization 72.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/20062008 Baseline Transportation Engineering Northwest .. -"-"\ WSL WBT WBR NBL "i tt 'i' 1900 1900 1900 1900 11 11 11 12 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1694 3388 1516 0.95 1.00 1.00 1694 3388 1516 20 801 178 34 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 22 861 191 43 a a 83 a 22 861 108 a 3% 3% 3% 0% Prot Perm Split 1 6 4 6 2.4 38.4 38.4 4.4 40.4 40.4 0.04 0.34 0.34 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 62 1141 510 0.01 0.25 0.07 0.35 0.75 0.21 56.4 35.4 28.4 1.08 0.91 0.92 3.3 2.9 0.3 64.3 35.0 26.5 E C C 34.1 C HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (5) ICU Level of Service t ".. NBT NBR ,f. 1900 1900 11 12 3.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1754 0.98 1754 23 10 0.79 0.79 29 13 6 a 79 a 0% 0% 4 10.0 12.0 0.10 5.0 4.0 175 cO.04 0.45 50.9 1.00 2.5 53.4 D 53.4 D C 9.0 C 1/26/2006 '-.. + .I SBL SBT SBR "i + 'i' 1900 1900 1900 11 11 11 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1728 1818 1546 0.95 1.00 1.00 1728 1818 1546 330 38 357 0.89 0.89 0.89 371 43 401 a a 292 371 43 109 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 8 8 8 30.6 30.6 30.6 32.6 32.6 32.6 0.27 0.27 0.27 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 469 494 420 cO.21 0.02 0.07 0.79 0.09 0.26 40.5 32.6 34.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.3 0.1 0.4 49.9 32.7 34.7 D C C 41.5 D Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysIs 5: NE 4th St & Jericho Ave NE .-J--.. Movement EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations 'I tt.- Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Uti/. Factor 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3416 Fit Permitted 0.33 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 618 3416 Volume (vph) 8 1150 346 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 1173 353 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 1508 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% Tum Type pm+pt Protected Phases 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 75.5 74.3 Effective Green, g (s) 79.5 76.3 Actuated glC Ratio 0.66 0.64 Clearance TIme (s) 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 440 2172 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 cO.44 vis Ratio Perm 0.Q1 vic Ratio 0.02 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 7.2 14.2 Progression Factor 1.01 0.69 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.5 Delay (s) 7.2 11.3 Level of Service A B Approach Delay (s) 11.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.3 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/20062008 Baseline Transportation Engineering Northwest ~ +-'-'\ WBL WBT WBR NBL 'I tt.- 1900 1900 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1770 3538 0.10 1.00 181 3538 19 687 2 244 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.86 20 731 2 284 0 0 0 0 20 733 0 0 2% 2% 2% 2% pm+pt Perm 1 6 6 4 77.3 74.7 80.3 76.7 0.67 0.64 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 169 2261 cO.OO 0.21 0.08 0.12 0.32 11.4 9.9 1.00 1.00 0.3 0.1 11.7 9.9 S A 10.0 A HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (5) ICU Level of Service t ,. NBT NBR 4' f' 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1774 1583 0.71 1.00 1330 1583 1 15 0.86 0.86 1 17 0 5 285 12 2% 2% Perm 4 4 29.1 29.1 31.1 31.1 0.26 0.26 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 345 410 cO.21 0.01 0.83 0.03 41.9 33.2 1.00 1.00 14.8 0.0 56.7 33.2 E C 55.4 E B 9.0 C 1/26/2006 '-. + .' SBL SST SBR +l r 1900 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1879 1615 0.94 1.00 1790 1615 3 10 14 0.71 0.71 0.71 4 14 20 0 0 15 0 18 5 0% 0% 0% Perm Perm 4 4 4 29.1 29.1 31.1 31.1 0.26 0.26 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 464 419 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 33.3 33.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.0 C C 33.2 C Synchro 6 Report Page 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst TENW Intersection NE 4th St & Hoquiam Ave AgencylCo. JUlisdiction Date Performed 0.1124120.0.6 Analysis Year 20.0.8 Baseline Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Shy Creek East/West Street: NE 4th Street North/South Street: Hoquiam Ave NE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0..25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (vehlh) 67 1651 a a 971 22 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0..96 0..96 1.0.0. 1.00. 0..86 0..86 Hourly Flow Rate (vehlh) 69 1719 a a 1129 25 Proportion of heavy 1 a vehicles, P HV ------ Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? a a Lanes 1 2 a a 2 a Configuration L T T TR Upstream Siqnal 1 1 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) a a a 26 a 74 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00. 1.0.0. 1.0.0. 0..83 1.0.0 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate (vehlh) a a 0 31 a 89 Proportion of heavy a 0 a 5 a 5 vehicles, P HV Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 a RT Channetized? 0 a Lanes 0 0 a 1 a 1 Configuration L R Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 69 31 89 Capacity, cm (vph) 638 248 I 561 I vic ratio 0..11 0.13 0.16 Queue length (95%) 0..36 0.42 0.56 Control Delay (slveh) 11.3 21.6 12.6 LOS B C B Approach delay (slveh) --14.9 Approach LOS --B C(tp~right -,:"-:O()(}:; l'njy,::rsity ofFloriJa. AJI RIght;:: R~a\-<:,J TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst TENW Intersection NE 2nd Street & Jericho Ave NE Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 0.1124120.0.6 Analysis Year 20.0.8 Base/ine Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Shy Creek EastiWest Street: NE 2nd Street North/South Street: Jericho Ave N E Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0..25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 7 186 7 27 428 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0..89 0..89 0..89 0.83 0.83 I 0.83 I Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 208 7 32 515 I 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -I -I 1 I -I --I Median Type Undivided RT Channelized a a Lanes 0. 1 a a 1 a Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Siqnal a a Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 6 a 6 3 a 11 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.60. 060. 0..60. 0..81 0..81 0..81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 a 9 3 0. 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0. 0. a 0. a a Percent Grade (%) 0. a Flared Approach N N Storage a a RT Channelized 0. 0. Lanes 0. 1 a a 1 0. Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR I v (vph) 7 32 18 16 C (m) (vph) 10.43 1361 422 478 vic 0..0.1 0..02 0..04 0.0.3 95% queue length 0..0.2 0..07 0..13 0..10. Control Delay 8.5 77 13.9 12.8 LOS A A B B Approach Delay --13.9 12.8 Approach LOS --B B Rights Reserved Y",rf:(OIl -t ld Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis 2008 With Project ~ T ransportadon Engineering NorthWest January 26, 2006 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 4th St & Monroe Av NE / .. # +-4.... '\ -Movement EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR NBl lane Configurations "i ti-> "i ti-> Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 lane Width 10 10 12 10 10 12 12 Total lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1652 3300 1636 3245 Fit Pennitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (eerm) 1652 3300 1636 3245 Volume (vph) 125 1327 10 32 1171 67 64 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 1525 11 34 1246 71 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 a 0 2 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 144 1536 0 34 1315 a 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% Tum Type Prot Prot Split Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 Pennitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 70.5 5.3 60.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 72.5 6.3 62.7 Actuated glC Ratio 0.13 0.60 0.05 052 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 222 1994 86 1696 vis Ratio Prot cO.09 cOA7 0.02 0.41 vis Ratio Penn vic Ratio 0.65 0.77 OAO 0.78 Unifonn Delay, dl 49.3 17.6 55.0 23.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.28 0.38 Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 2.9 2.1 1.9 Delay (s) 55.7 20.5 72.7 10.7 Level of Service E C E B Approach Delay (s) 23.5 12.3 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.3 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/2006 2008 With Project Transportation Engineering Northwest t I" NBT NBR 4' if 1900 1900 11 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1728 1583 0.96 1.00 1728 1583 13 42 0.84 0.84 15 50 0 44 91 6 2% 2% Perm 3 3 12.3 12.3 13.3 13.3 0.11 0.11 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 192 175 cO.05 0.00 OA7 0.03 50.1 47.6 1.00 1.00 2.5 0.1 52.6 47.7 D D 50.8 D C 9.0 C 1/26/2006 ~ + ~ SBl SBT SBR 4' l' 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1742 1599 0.96 1.00 1742 1599 99 14 112 0.82 0.82 0.B2 121 17 137 a 0 119 a 138 18 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 4 4 4 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 0.13 0.13 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 231 212 cO.OB 0.01 0.60 0.09 49.0 45.7 1.00 1.00 4.8 0.2 53.8 45.9 D D 49.9 D Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 4th St & Union Av NE ..J -... f -..... ..., Movement EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR NBl Lane Configurations 'tj ti< 'tj ti< Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3403 1752 3352 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3403 1752 3352 Volume (vph) 201 1133 126 102 922 70 110 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 216 1218 135 107 971 74 124 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 216 1347 0 107 1041 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Split Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 17.8 53.1 10.4 45.7 Effective Green, g (s) 18.8 55.1 11.4 47.7 Actuated glC Ratio 0.16 0.46 0.10 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 1563 166 1332 vIs Ratio Prot cO.12 cO.40 0.06 0.31 vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.77 0.86 0.64 0.78 Uniform Delay, d1 48.5 29.0 52.3 31.6 Prog ression Factor 1.00 0.75 1.47 0.47 Incremental Delay, d2 9.0 4.5 6.0 2.8 Delay (s) 57.7 26.3 82.8 17.6 level of Service E C F B Approach Delay (s) 30.6 23.7 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 34.8 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/2006 2008 With Project Transportation Engineering Northwest t /"" NBT NBR 4' rr 1900 1900 11 12 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1733 1568 0.97 1.00 1733 1568 79 65 0.89 0.89 89 73 0 61 213 12 3% 3% Perm 4 4 18.5 18.5 19.5 19.5 0.16 0.16 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 282 255 cO.12 0.01 0.76 0.05 48.0 42.4 1.00 1.00 11.6 0.1 59.6 42.5 E D 55.2 E C 9.0 C 1/26/2006 \.. + .; SBl SBT SBR 4' rr 1900 1900 1900 12 11 11 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1727 1516 0.97 1.00 1727 1516 170 94 161 0.91 0.91 0.91 187 103 177 0 0 145 0 290 32 3% 3% 3% Split Perm 3 3 3 21.0 21.0 22.0 22.0 0.18 0.18 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 317 278 cO.17 0.02 0.91 0.12 48.1 40.9 1.00 1.00 29.9 0.3 78.0 41.1 E D 64.0 E Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th St & Duvall Av NE ~ " "" -"-...... -Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Lane Configurations lj tt. 'I tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 11 11 11 12 Total Lost time (5) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Uti I. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3404 1694 3388 1516 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3404 1694 3388 1516 Volume (vph) 271 1108 38 20 811 181 34 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 Adj. Flow (vph) 288 1179 40 22 872 195 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 84 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 1217 0 22 872 111 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 0% Tum Type Prot Prot Perm Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (5) 21.0 56.6 2.4 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (5) 23.0 58.6 4.4 40.0 40.0 Actuated glC Ratio 0.19 0.49 0.04 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (5) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 328 1662 62 1129 50S vis Ratio Prot cO. 17 cO.36 0.01 0.26 vis Ratio Perm 0.07 vic Ratio 0.88 0.73 0.35 0.77 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 47.1 24.5 56.4 35.9 28.8 Progression Factor 0.73 0.58 1.07 0.89 0.89 Incremental Delay, d2 13.9 1.6 3.3 3.3 0.3 Delay (5) 48.5 15.9 63.8 35.4 26.0 Level of Service D B E D C Approach Delay (5) 22.1 34.3 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.2 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/20062008 With Project Transportation Engineering Northwest t ~ NBT NBR 4- 1900 1900 11 12 3.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1754 0.98 1754 23 10 0.79 0.79 29 13 6 0 79 0 0% 0% 4 10.0 12.0 0.10 5.0 4.0 175 cO.04 0.45 50.9 1.00 2.5 53.4 D 53.4 D C 9.0 C 1/26/2006 \. + .; SBL SBT SBR "i t l' 1900 1900 1900 11 11 11 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95· 1.00 1.00 1728 1818 1546 0.95 1.00 1.00 1728 1818 1546 336 38 357 0.89 0.89 0.89 378 43 401 0 0 291 378 43 110 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 8 8 8 31.0 31.0 31.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 0.28 0.28 0.28 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 475 500 425 cO.22 0.02 0.07 0.80 0.09 0.26 40.4 32.3 34.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.5 0.1 0.4 49.8 32.4 34.4 D C C 41.4 D Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE 4th St & Jericho Ave NE ~ "'to # -'-'\ -Movement EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR NBl lane Configurations 'i tf,. 'i tf,. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3410 1770 3538 Fit Permitted 0.34 1.00 0.08 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 626 3410 156 3538 Volume (vph) 8 1150 369 27 687 2 257 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 1173 377 29 731 2 299 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 lane Group Flow (vph) 8 1530 0 29 733 0 0 Heav~ Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Tum Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (5) 73.0 71.8 77.6 13.6 Effective Green, g (5) 77.0 73.8 80.6 75.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.62 0.67 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 lane Grp Cap (vph) 432 2097 172 2229 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 cO.45 com 0.21 vis Ratio Perm 0.01 0.11 vic Ratio 0.02 0.73 0.17 0.33 Uniform Delay, dl 8.0 16.1 12.9 10.4 Progression Factor 1.04 0.69 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.8 0.5 0.1 Delay (5) 8.3 12.9 13.4 10.4 level of Service A B B B Approach Delay (5) 12.9 10.6 Approach lOS B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.7 HCM level of Service HCM Volume to Capac~y ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (5) Intersection Capac~y Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Cr~icallane Group Shy Creek 5:00 pm 1/24/20062008 With Project Transportation Engineering Northwest t /'" NBT NBR 4' 'f 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1774 1583 0.71 1.00 1330 1583 1 20 0.86 0.86 1 23 0 7 300 16 2% 2% Perm 4 4 30.2 30.2 32.2 32.2 0.27 0.27 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 357 425 cO.23 0.01 0.84 0.04 41.5 32.4 1.00 1.00 16.1 0.0 57.6 32.5 E C 55.8 E B 12.0 C 1/26/2006 \. + .; SBl SBT SBR <1 ;If . 1900 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1879 1615 0.94 1.00 1789 1615 3 10 14 0.71 0.71 0.71 4 14 20 0 0 15 0 18 5 0% 0% 0% Perm Perm 4 4 4 30.2 30.2 32.2 32.2 0.27 0.27 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 480 433 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 32.4 32.2 1.00 1,00 0.0 0.0 32.5 32.2 C C 32.4 C Synchro 6 Report Page 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst TENW Intersection NE 4th St & Hoquiam Ave Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 1/25/06 Analysis Year 2008 with Project Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Shy Creek EastlWest Street: NE 4th Street North/South Street: Hoquiam Ave NE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 67 1674 0 0 984 22 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 69 1743 0 0 1144 25 Proportion of heavy 1 0 vehicles, P HV ------ Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR Upstream SiQnal 1 1 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 26 0 74 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 31 0 89 Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 5 0 5 vehicles, P HV Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 69 31 89 Capacity, c m (vph) 631 244 559 vic ratio 0.11 0.13 0.16 Queue length (95%) 0.37 0.43 0.56 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.4 21.9 12.7 LOS 8 C 8 Approach delay (s/veh) --15.0 Approach LOS --C \ -<:rsiOll -'. ld TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst TENW I ntersecti on NE 2nd Street & Jericho Ave NE Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 1125106 Analysis Year 2008 with Project Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Shy Creek EastlWest Street: NE 2nd Street North/South Street: Jericho Ave NE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 7 195 7 27 443 19 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.83 0.83 I 0.83 I Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 219 7 32 533 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 --1 --- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized a a Lanes a 1 a a 1 I a I Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Siqnal a a Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 6 a 6 12 a 11 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 a 9 14 a 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles a a a a a a Percent Grade (%) a a Flared Approach N N Storage a a RT Channelized a a Lanes a 1 a a 1 a Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 7 32 18 27 C (m) (v ph) 1010 1348 403 357 vic 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 95% queue length 0.02 0.07 0.14 0.24 Control Delay 8.6 7.7 14.4 15.9 LOS A A B C Approach Delay --14.4 15.9 Approach LOS --B C Rights Reserved Copyright.<;-20((: Fnin;rsity of Florida .. -\11 Rights R<!:'(':IYcJ Shy Creek Development Traffic Impact Analysis . Appendix C: Site Access Level of Service and Queue Calculations January 26, 2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst TENW Intersection Proposed Access & Jericho Ave AgencylCo. Jurisdic~on Date Performed 1125106 Analysis Year 2008 With Project Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Shy Creek EastJWest Street: Proposed Access NorthlSouth Street: Jericho Ave NE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 7 186 0 5 424 16 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 206 0 5 471 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 --2 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream SiQnal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 6 10 0 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 6 11 0 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 7 5 11 15 C (m) (vph) 1075 1365 503 384 vic 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.04 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 007 012 Control Delay 8.4 7.6 12.3 14.8 LOS A A B B Approach Delay --12.3 14.8 Approach LOS --B B Rights Reserved Cop~Tight .~<. ~oo~ Fnr.·~rsity of Florida .. -\]1 Right'> Rese(Y<!d \-.;:r;;iun -lId Yersion -I.ld