Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA-07-023_Misc
Renton ~. FE827 • . RECEIVED SECOND STREET & MORRIS PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JTE, Inc, JAKE TRAFFIC . ENGINEERING. INC. Prepared for Murray Kahn, Manager SOUTH 2ND STREET, LLC 807 S. Third Street Renton, WA 98057 February 20, 2007 Mark J. Jacobs, PE. PTOE, pr!lS.id. eQ,t 7731. 8'" Aw. SW -Seattle, WA 98106 ·2001' Tel. 206.762.1978; Cell. 206.799.5692 Facsimile 206.762.1978 . Email -jaketraffiC@comcast.net JTE . Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. . Murray Kahn, Manager SOUTH 2ND STREET, LLC 807 S. Third Street Renton, WA 98057 Re: Second Street & Morris Project -Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Kahn; Hark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE President J711 80 Ave SW -Seattle, WA 98106 -2007 leI. 206.762.1978 -Cell 206.799.5692 E·mail jaketraffic@comc.stnet February 20, 2007 We are pleased to submit this Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Second St. & Morris Project in Renton. The proposed project is located south of South Second Street and east of Morris Avenue South on parcel #7841800005 and would provide 24 reSidential units and would provide a small amount of commercial space; about 1,102 square feet. Access to the site is via the alley off of Morris Avenue South. The City of Renton's Site Plan Review comments identified that a Traffic Impact Analysis be prepared for the project. Based on past project experience in Renton we conducted a field review of the site and surrounding street system. During our field recognizance of the site (during the PM peak period) we collected traffic volume data at the fOllowing intersections: » Morris Ave. 5./5. 2nd St. » Morris Ave. S./S. 3,d St. Neither of the above intersections is projected to be significantly affected by site traffic (less than 10 PM peak hour trips) but they are the nearest City intersections that would serve the site. The traffic data was collected to facilitate the Traffic Impact Analysis by providing insight to traffic volumes and operations in the site vicinity. In addition the site access intersection is evaluated in this report. The general format of this report is to describe the proposed project, identify existing traffic conditions (baseline), project future traffic conditions and identify Agency street/road improvements (future baseline), calculate the traffic that would be generated by the project and then add it to the future baseline traffic volumes. Operational analyses are used to determine the specific project traffic impact and appropriate traffic mitigation measures to reduce the impact. Additionally Agency traffic impact fees are addressed in this report. The summary, conclusions and recommendations are on page seven of this report. Murray Kahn, Manager SOUTH 2ND STREET, LLC February 20, 2007 Page -2- PROJECT INFORMATION JTE, Inc. Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the proposed site and surrounding street network. Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan prepared by TSA Architects. The site plan shows the proposed project that we understand to be a 4 -story 24 units Condominium Building, 1,102 sq. ft. of commercial space with parking for 31 vehicles (garage and underground; that exceed City requirements per our understanding). Access to the parking is via the alley off of Morris Avenue South. The proposed development neighbors a two story wood building to the east and a four story concrete apartment with underground parking to the south. Full development and occupancy of the proposed Second St. & Morris Project is anticipated to occur by 2008/2009, presuming the permits are issued in a timely manner. However, to ensure a conservative analysis 2012 has been used as the horizon year. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Project Site The project site is presently undeveloped. The proposed development neighbors a two story wood building and an apartment complex located to the east and south, respectively. Street Svstem Figure 3 shows the existing traffic control, number of street lanes, number of approach lanes at the intersections and other pertinent information. The primary streets within the study area and their classifications per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan are as follows: " S. 2"' St. " S. 3" St. " Morris Ave. S. Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Collector South 2 0 ' Street and South 3" Street both operate one way. South 2"' Street runs westbound and S. 3" St. runs eastbound. There is an existing 20 ft. dirt alley off of Morris Ave. S. that serves existing developments in the site vicinity. This alley is to provide access to the proposed development. Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows the existing PM peak hour traffic volumes for the analysis intersections. We collected the existing PM peak hour turning movement count (TMC) at the analysiS intersections on the date and time shown in Figure 4. The turning movement counts were conducted using one hour intervals to sample the traffic volumes at both S. 2 0 ' St. and South 3" Street. The count data sheets are attached in the appendix. JTE, Inc. Murray Kahn, Manager SOUTH 2ND STREET, LLC February 20, 2007 Page -3- Transit Services We reviewed Metro Transit website (WWWAril'lsit.metrokc.gov) for bus services in the vicinity of the proposed project. Renton Transit Center is located just east (-410 ft.) of the proposed development between S. 2 0d St. and S. 3,d St. east of Logan Avenue South. Metro bus routes #101,105,110, 140,143,148,149,153, 167,169,240,342,560,564,565,908and 909 provides service to the Renton Transit Center. Additional information on these routes can be obtained on the Metro Transit website. The site is located near a number of transit routes and the Renton Transit Center. Providing a transit schedule kiosk (or equivalent) in the lobby of the building is recommended. Intersection Operations Traffic engineers have developed criteria for intersection operations called level of service (LOS). The LOS's are A to F with A and B being very good and E and F being more congested. LOS C and D correlate to busy traffic conditions with some restrictions to the ability to choose travel speed, change lanes and the general convenience comfort and safety. The procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 were used to calculate the level of service at the study intersections. The following table depicts the LOS and corresponding average delay in seconds at signalized and stop control intersections: Intersection Level of Service Type A B C D E Signalized <10 >10 and >20 and >35 and >55 and <20 <35 <55 <80 Stop Control <10 >10 and >15 and >25 and >35 and <15 <25 <35 <50 LOS Criteria Conversation with City of Renton staff identified that no LOS standards is set in the City of Renton. However, the desired LOS is LOS 'D' with the acknowledgement that a number of intersections in the City are fully developed that do not lend themselves to further improvements. LOS Analysis Software The LOS of the study intersections were calculated using the following software program: F >80 >50 Murray Kahn, Manager SOUTH 2ND STREET, LLC February 20, 2007 Page -4- JTE, Inc. ~ SIGNAL 2000 by Strong Concepts (signalized) ~ Highway capacity Software (HCS) 2000 by McTrans (stop contrOl) Accident History Field review of the site and study intersections did not reveal any apparent accident problems. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS We have reviewed the City of Renton's web site at (www.rentonwa,gov) for a listing of City street improvement projects. The data on-line provides the "Six Year Transportation Improvement Program 2005 -2010" (attached in the appendix) for street improvement projects in the vicinity of the proposed project. There appear to be no prOjects identified for improvements in the site vicinity. HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS ·WITHOUT" THE PROJECT Figure 5 shows the projected 2012 PM peak hour traffic volumes "without" the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background growth. A growth factor of two percent per year was applied based on the City of Renton Traffic Flow Map for 2002 and 2004 at S. 2 no St. between Shattuck Ave. S. and Logan Avenue South. The actual growth factor at S. 2 nd St. between Shattuck Ave. S, and Logan Ave. S. was calculated at -0.3% per year. The data used was obtained from the City of Renton Traffic Flow Map 2002 and 2004. Utilizing a two percent per year growth factor ensures a conservative analysis. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTiON Definitions A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (existing or entering) inside the proposed development. Traffic generated by development projects consists of the following types: Pass-By Trips: Diverted link Trips: Captured Trips: Trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Trips attracted from the traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator but require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the site. Site trips shared by more than one land use in a multi-use development. Murray Kahn, Manager SOUTH 2ND STREET, LLC February 20, 2007 Page -5- Primary (New) Trips: Trip Generation JTE, Inc. Trips made for the specific purpose of using the services of the project. The proposed Second St. & Morris Project is expected to generate the vehicular trips during the average weekday, street traffic AM and PM peak hours as shown in Table 2. The trip generation for the project is calculated using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, for Residential Condominium/Townhouse and Specialty Retail (ITE Land Use Codes 230 and 814, respectively). All site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips are included in the trip generation values. Residential Condominium/Townhouse generates predominantly primary trips. There would be some captured/pass-by trips that already exist within the vicinity; such as mail delivery, garbage, and other service/delivery traffic. Based on our traffic engineering experience we believe that captured/pass-by trips rates of five percent for residential condominium/townhouse type uses are appropriate. Thus we have applied a 5% factor that we believe to be conservative. The use for the commercial space is not known at this time; but is likely to be used as office space. For analysis purposes we have used Specialty Retail to ensure a conservative analysis. A Specialty Retail use generates more traffic than an office use would; even after factoring for pass-by traffic. The pass-by traffic for a Specialty Retail use is projected at 25 percent. The ITE Trip Generation book "Table B.3 Transportation Impact Factors" (attached in the appendix) identifies percentage of vehicle trip reduction for developments within a % mile of a transit center or light rail stations. The proposed mixed use development is located just west of the Renton Transit Center less than % mile thus based on Table B.3 a 15% trip reduction is accounted for. Based on our analysis, the trips generated by the Second Street & Morris Project are calculated to be 142 net new daily and 11 net new trips during the PM peak hour. Trip Distribution Figure 6 shows the site generated traffic assigned to the street system. Trips to and from the site were distributed to the surrounding street network based on the characteristics of the street network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (residential, business, shopping, social and recreational opportunities) and previous traffic studies. Murray Kahn, Manager SOUTH 2ND STREET, LLC February 20, 2007 Page -6- HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS "WITH" THE PROJECT Traffic Volumes JTE, Inc. Figure 7 shows the 2012 PM peak hour traffic volumes "with" the proposed project at the analysis and site access intersections. The site generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 were added to the projected background traffic volumes shown on Figure 5 to obtain the Figure 7 volumes. Level of Service Table 1 shows the calculated LOS for the horizon year (2012) "with" and "without" project conditions at the pertinent intersection. Based on our analysis the analyzed intersections would continue to operate at LOS 'C' or better for both "with" and "without" project conditions. Site Access Access to the site is via the alley off of Morris Avenue South. During our turning movement count we observed trips entering and exiting the existing facilities via the alley. Few trips were observed using the alley during our turning movement count at the S. 2 nd St./Morris Ave. S. intersection. Thus for analysis purposes have estimated the trips to/from the existing facilities via the alley as shown on Figure 7. Based on our analysis the alley access/Morris Ave. S. intersection is expected to operate at LOS 'A' for all movements. Good sight visibility exists at the site access (via alley) onto Morris Avenue South. Morris Avenue South is a straight street with visibility to both S. 2 nd St. and South 3,d Street. Below are pictures at the site access (via alley) onto Morris Avenue South. AGENCYTRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a traffic impact fee for new developments based on the number of new average daily trips generated. The current fee is $75.00 per new average daily trip. Murray Kahn, Manager SOUTH 2ND STREET, LLC February 20, 2007 Page -7- JTE, Inc. The proposed development is projected to generate 142 net new daily trips thus contribute $10,650 (142 net new daily trips x $75) towards the City of Renton's transportation improvement program. In addition to payment of the Traffic Impact Fee, the alley serving the site should be paved and a Transit Schedule kiosk (or equivalent) should be provided in the building lobby. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report analyzed the traffic impact of the proposed Second St. & Morris Project generally located south of South Second Street and east of Morris Avenue South. Existing traffic data was collected at the pertinent street intersections identified for analysis. Future horizon year traffic volumes were derived using a growth factor of two percent per year. Level of service analyses were performed for existing and projected future horizon traffic volumes. The evaluation of the traffic impact of the proposed project included adding project generated traffic to the future traffic volume projections and calculating the level of service. The "with" project traffic operations were then compared to the "without" project operations. The comparison of traffic operations "with" and "without" the project identified that the project would not cause a significant adverse affect on the operation of the study intersections. Based on our analysis we recommend that the Second St. & Morris Project be allowed with the following traffic impact mitigation measures. 1. Construct site in accordance with applicable City requirements. 2. Contribute towards the City of Renton traffic impact mitigation fee program. 3. Make appropriate improvements to the alley serving the site. 4. Provide a Transit SchedUle kiosk (or equivalent) in the building lobby No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. Please contact me at (206) 762-1978 or email meatjaketraffic@comcast.netif you have any questions. MJJ: cw I EXPIIIE8 4131 Q f I Sincerely, Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE, President JAKE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC 02.20.01- JTE. Inc. VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION TABLE 2 SECOND STREET & MORRIS PROJECT -RENTON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - TIME TRIP TRIPS TRIPS TOTAL TRIP PASS-BY PERIOD RATE ENTERING EXITING REDUCTION Residential Condominium/Townhouse (ITE Land Use Code 230, 24 units) Average T = 5.86X 70 (50%) 70 (50%) 140 15%/21 5%/6 Weekday AM Peak T = 0.44X 2 (17%) 9 (83%) 11 15%/2 5%/1 Hour PM peak T= 0.52X 8 (67%) 4 (33%) 12 15%/2 5%/1 Hour Specialty Retail (ITE Land Use Code 814, 1,102 sq. ft.) Average T=44.32X 24 (50%) 24 (50%) 48 15%/7 25%/12 Weekday AM Peak N/A ------Hour PM peak T= 2.71X 1 (44%) 2 (56%) 3 15%/0 25%/1 Hour Residential Condominium/Townhouse (ITE Land Use Code 230, 24 units) Average -94 94 188 28 18 Weekday AM Peak ------Hour PM peak -9 6 15 2 2 Hour T = trips X = number of units, per 1,000 square feet A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (existing or entering) inside the study site. The above trip generation values account for all the site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter, visitor, recreation, and service and delivery vehicle trips NET NEW TRIPS 113 8 9 29 - 2 142 - 11 JTE, Inc. PM PEAK HOUR lEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE 1 SECOND STREET & MORRIS PROJECT -RENTON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION APPROACH EXISTING 2012 WIO 2012 WI PROJECT PROJECT S. Second St./ Overall B (16.8) B (17.1) B(17.2) Morris Ave. S. S. Third St.1 Overall C (21.8) C (23.5) C (23.5) Morris Ave. S. Site Access SBlT --A (7.3) Intersection WB --A (8.7) Number shown in parenthesis is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole or approach movement, which determines the LOS per the Highway capacity Manual. Project: Second Street & Morris Residential -Renton Location: Southeast corner of the S. 2 nd St./Morris Ave. S. intersection • JTE, Inc. FIGURE 1 ! j , '" S HIQ~ 1'~'f ."" SECOND STREET & MORRIS PROJECT -RENTON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS VICINITY MAP NORTH • t Project: Second Street & Morris Residential -Renton Location: Southeast corner of the S. 2'" St./Morris Ave. S. intersection NORTH . I -, -SI::C ONO SlREEl -.. ~--:r'·1 .. "i""" f J,i!I I -.----- '-l'::'~-"-,~; --,' ~,-, ~~-~-~,-: .~ I • '-;-~"~:J ; .. ~::--'~~g , /~o.4t III I 40.4 / I \1 I I-.ru+- Note: an 8.5 x 11" pre li minary site pl an IS Included wi t h this report JTE, Inc. FIGURE 2 SECOND STREET & MORRIS PROJECT -RENTON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN r ~ ~ < ~ " ~ J ~ ~ , • ~ a t , ~ ~ t- _.,,,,,, il_!lll' ........ "", ..... W" ... ~.':V _:>.CI I ,,- -:'~ ,. ..... .-..,.,. . ' .. ,~. ,..,,, ...... ) I ... ,,~ SIT;) '.1» r ...... -. ", I"'WOU'.J-·' ..... "".,lj ""'~,<r>"" } , ... ,--~~ .. ,"x.c» .... ,,.. ... ,-,'''' r.,'''''''''' > ~ "f·'''''' /) ~'.":'<o;., ...... ,""" ... ""'''1"-'''' · .. 'n '-~ "'.: ~~'-"'~ ", """~. L '~'''>I'« ........ " ~ l>- • • o V ~~IN IT Y MAP -' ~ i , , + ... _u' .... :oe 1~ ... \.fJ ~ .. ,~.<,." ""1«NI!;7J tot"~'$ ... ..........."" -"'" ._. ·It ............ , ......... ,., '-'~Ol> 40.40 [lJ(s 'P OWER VAULT • POWERtJ VAULT SECOND STREET N8S'32'Ww ~., JO~ U.6.PLE o 30 MAFLl CURB CON(:RC<C-. \.' 8112" ASH 12" ASHN88'32'18"W 87.94' FIR ~ '=f-~",", ~T~ l ~OPOeeD SLoD Tl LEPHO Nl- ULT AREA 41.15 ~ SET TACK ILEAD POWER LT .906 S.r 2 4 1. 40.7 5 N88 '32'23"W 87.76' GRAVEL 4 0 .21 ASPHALT 40.62 16' ALLEY " 4-STORY CONCRETE APARTMENT WITH UNDERGROUND PARKINC " 0 :,~T.:: PL.AN -0 o o m _w ;., -'" ~ P N o Z :r, 2-STORY WOO O BU ILD ING """"""'''' ~ J D i ll"""". '~II ... 0 ::iE O/! -(/) "0 c:: 0 CJ Q) (/) ~ <JJ I- < • ~ • ~ • , • .! ~ • • " • j ... , : ~ +" ~ II A~~ 11 -" " . D I _IJ J 0 WM · ... OIU ·II i: .AW SWOW 'illS Pill S . .~. ~. ,~, , ,. ,." .,. ~ ..• I I mum ~! i ~ ,l _ S!JJOI/II '8 'lS puooas ,-,., '"I VSl ~ 0 0 0 I , 0 .. \!l <", rL= <OJ \!l<i \!ll'l z_ II rL < IL I I ~ ~~~~--I ! ---1 W > W ---1 Z -< l: JTE, Inc. FIGURE 3 .prlnt fR Color Onl)'_ SECOND S1. & MORRIS PROJECT -RENTON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS .- t NORTH LEGEND -+ Approach L a ne & Direction ~ Traffic S i gnal Aerial Image obtained from King County IMap JTE, Inc . FIGURE 4 'Reprint In Color Onl,. ~u '\ • co "" .... l' 18 I' I t I' .. :: SECOND ST. & MORRIS PROJECT -RENTON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES t NORTH LEGEND -PM Peak Hour Traffic V o lume & Directi o n Aerial Image obtained from King County IMap JTE, Inc. FIGURE 5 Reprint In Color On I)'. " 45 '\ .. co "' .. .... " 20 , It, .... .... SECOND ST. & MORRIS PROJECT· RENTON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS --. ~ . t NORTH LEGEND ... PM Peak Hour T r affic Volume & Direction Aerla I 1m age obtained from King County IMap PROJECTED 2012 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WjO PROJECT Project: Second St. & Morris Re s id e nt ial -Renton PM peak hour trips: 15* Entering: 9 Exiting: 6 NORTH t M t. ~ " • • 3' S 2nd SI -.. • SJrdSt S 3(;1 PI "' ., " M M ~ ~ . ~ , ] \l.j~ J ~ ~ * -PM peak hour trips without adjustment for pass-by or transi t use; thus ensunng a conservative ana lysIs JTE, Inc. FIGURE 6 SECOND ST . & MORRIS PROJECT -RENTON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRIP DISTRIBUTION JTE, Inc. FIGURE 7 ReDrlnt In Color Onl,. • 0.., "'-.. " ... '" 50 '\ .. .. '\ 3 (3*' ",3(3*' tl' .... .... " 23 I' tl' "0 "N SECOND ST. Be MORRIS PROJECT -RENTON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS t NORTH LEGEND -+ PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction • -estimated trips using the alley to access the existing fa cllitles Aerial Image obtained from King County IMap PROJECTED 2012 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WI PROJECT SUB MITTAL REQUIREMENTS SITE P LAN REVIEW City of Rent on uev e ,op.rr ent Services D ivision 1055 Sout o G'ody Way -Rent on . WA 98055 Phone' 42 0-"30-1200 Fax : 425-430-7231 PURPO SE : To assure the site p lan is co npatlbie ','Iith both the physical characte ristics of Ihe si te and the existing and pote ntial uses of the su rra c "din>; area. In addition, S ite Pla n Review assures the deve lopment is consIstent with City of Ren ton plars policies and reg ulations. FR EE CONSULTATION MEETING : Pr io r to suomltll ng an application, th e applica nt shou ld informally discuss the proposed deve lopme nt wi th th e Development Se rvices D ivi sion. The Development Services Divi s ion will provide assistance and d etaile d inform at ion on th e C ity 's requirements and sta ndards . Ap pl ica nts may also take th is opportunity to re quest th e wa iver o f the City's typica t app lica ti on subm ittal requirements which may not be appl icable to the specific proposa l. For fu rther inf ormation on th is mee ti ng . see the instruction sheet entitle d 'Submittal Req uire m ents : Pre-Ap pti cation ." COMPLETE APPLICATION REQUIRED : "orcer to accepl you r application. each of the n umbe re d ite ms must be submitted at th e same time If you have received a prior writt en waiver of a submittal it em(s) during a pre-application meeti ng . p ieese Dro"de th e waiver form in lieu of an y submittal item not prov ided. All plans and attachments mu st be folded to a size not exceeding 8 '1, by 11 in ches. APPLICATt ON SCREENI NG : Applican ts are encoura ged to bring In one copy of the application p ackage for informal review by staff, prior to making the requested number of copies, colored drawings . or photo reductions_ Please allow approxim ately 45 minutes for application screening . APPLICATION SUBMITTAL HOURS: Ap p!lcatlons 510 u ld be submitted to Development Services staff at the 6th f loor cou nt er of Renton City Hal l. '055 Sou:~ G rady Way, between 8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. Monday th r ough Friday. An appoint ment to slJDnii you r ap pl i cat ion is not necessary. Due to th e screening t ime required. applications deliverec by 11es senger cannot be accepted . ADDITIONAL PERMITS : Additional p er ml ~" "0 1"1 other age ncies may be required . It is th e applican t's respons ibility 10 obta in the s e ot her approvals In'ofl'1ai ion regard ing th ese other requ ire ments may be fo und a t ht!P.1Iap os .ecy.wa.g ov /opas l All Plans and Attac hments m ust be folded 8 %"b 11" APP LI CATION MA TERIALS: o 2 0 Pre-Application M eeti ng S ummary' i; ~hc ar.·JJc ation was reViewed at a a pre -appl lC3 uon mee t lng~, ple ase prov ide 5 copies (IT :' (: ''''.' "er summary orovlded to you W aive r Form : If you r eceived a wa ',"" t~-T 8'j( '~g or afte r a "p re -application m ee ting" please p r OVid e 5 copies of thi s fo r m PWfDcvServlforrns:PianmN)fs"ep'an 1 (j) 29. 0 30 . 0 31 . 32. 0 • Setback areas and ar"; ct'cas nol !o be disturbed • Finished contours dr3·:." ;,: tWI.) fNI/ Intervals as a result of grading • Proposed drainage ch<H' ',(, S <ll,:'; (f.lated constr uctIOn WIth associated underground storm fines sized and cor ':t;:::.,r,,-,ns shown • Finished floor elevallon's. 0' Cl ~:ru ctures. eX isting and proposed General notes addressing the follu." '9 r.-0) be hs ted on cover sheet). • Area In square feet of t'lC ert·~c oroperty • Area of work In square 'C(;[ • Both the number of tOI1; ano cub c yards of SOil to be added. removed . o r relocated • Type and location of ,,:10"0;; .. ") anc destina ti on of any soi l to be re moved from sIte Drainage Control Plan : Please p ro'nc e 5 copi es of a p lan dra wn to scale and stamped by a Washington S ta te Itcensed profes ..:;.\)I~~1 6'"lg l rf.::6t ana complYing wIth the reqUirements of Renton MUnlclpal C ode. Section 4-6·030 on[) ~e K"9 County Surface Water Management Design Manua l. 1990 ed ilion . as adopted Of ~ne C 11 of Renton Drainage Report : Please provide 4 copies of " report complYing Wl t tl the reqUirements of the City of Renton Drafting Standards Sect.on c-fi-030 of the City of Renton Mu nicipa l Code and the King County Surface Wa ter Manasen1ert :JesI9' Manual (KCSWDM), 1990 edit ion. as adopted by the C ity of Renton The report ;)J51 GOI'laW the fo llowing : • The stamp and signal. t: 0: C: ;/o/"S"llnglon State hcensed professional Engmeer • Complete Technlcallr'o'·n?t or, Repon (T IR) Worksheet • A descnptlon of th e er. s:lng and pro posed on-slle drainage features and construction reqUired • Core and Special ReqL roments Show that Core Requirements 1 -5 Sectio n 1 .2 of KC SWD M are acdressed • Show that all Special ROCJ 'emen" In Sechon '.3 of KCSWDM that ar e applicable to this proW :.:t ~HC Oiddressed • Blofiltratlon swal e p re! '''Ir!<.!~~ v')(.; t.o nceptu3 1 deSign calculations (per Section 4.6l, if for project sit e sub·b';~ ':s 1'",',1'1 rr:.re than 5000 square feet of new ImpervIous area subJe c, :0 '~f:)I CL ar use or stora ge of chemicals • Wet pond swng prehn 'II'd~, Grd r:0 1ceptual design calculations • A Level l Off·Site Ane ,:,1:-'I~ as descn bed In Core Re qUIrement #2. (level 2 or 3 analYSIS may be f c;ql.es:ec later rf a downstream p roblem is found or anticipated from re\llevlo' of i"le 1HI2, submittal of the Drainage Report ) Traffic Study: Please provide 5 c opies 0' a -eDort p r epared by a State of W as hington licensed orofessional en gin eer containing the 81el1ert5 and rnfo rmation identified in the City of Renton "Pohcy GUide lines for TraffIC ImpaCi ~.·'a)'Sl5 c' New Development" in suffiCient detail to define potenllal problems rela ted to the P -c,)~sec :e,. opment and Identify the Improvements necessary to accommod ate the dev(; :-l:::rre1; .~ 3 safe and efficient manner Plan Reductions : Please provide one 8 11~" x 1 1" PMT reduction of all reqU ir ed fu ll size p lan sheets but not hlT'ited to landscape: )1;:"f~S 2:)'1((:;)tual util ity plans, site plan neighborhood detail map. topography map. tree culling I. ,'" o'Eawc; plan grading plan. ano preliminary plat plan (Dr s:ryu larl These reductions are usee' J;e<~2'~ pubhc notice posters and to provide the pubhc with Informa tIO n abou! the project :. ~t,l-:-"ECuctlon IS an or·glna l '.vhite/o p aque (Not transparen t) photograph ic red'-lCllon . Xerox red 1:.1 ;;:',~ ~;r~p. c..ted reductions cannot be accepted. Please ensure the reduced Neighborhood r:n.:,·J· r·,\3 D s legib l e and 'NiH display enough cross streets 10 eaSi ly Identify the p rOject locallon v. t'~r, c;0::oe:d to fit 'n a 4" by 6" pubhc noti ce space. Once the PMT reduct Io ns have been made 'JIp..rJ":,e :r::r:de one 8 %" x 11" photocopy of each PMT sheet Royal Reprographics (425)·;'-: I R?:l:; . ,,8 Copy Company (2061622-4050 and Reprographics NW/Ford GraphiCS r-f, G?" LAO. (425) 883-1110. (253) 383-6363 prOVide th is StH'II('~ o.;!Ob King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report @)King County"'~ Comments By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Assessor Real Pr ,'cords: Taxpayer N & C INVESTMENT L L Parcel Number 7841800005 784180000506 2100 NONE OR UNKNOWN C Account Number Tax Year 2007 Levy Code Tax Status TAXABLE Taxable Value Reason Appraised Land Value $158,400 Taxable Land Value $158,400 Appraised Improvement $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 Value Assessor Propert' . ·)cords: Tip: Use the Rec;orders Office Excise Tax Affidavits Report to see more sales records details Sale Date 12/1212006 ISaie Price 1$625,000 Seller Name N & C INVESTMETNS LLC Buyer Name SOUTH 2ND STREET LLC Sale Date 5/20/2005 ISaie Price 1$249,500 Seiler Name PUTMAN BETTY Buyer Name N & C INVESTMENT L L C Sale Date 7/25/2001 ISaie Price 1$0 Seller Name PUTMAN MARY ANN Buyer Name PUTMAN ROBERT C Sale Date 10/21/1996 ISaie Price 1$0 Seiler Name PUTMAN REGINA H Buyer Name PUTNAM MARY ANN Assessor Par Is: District Name RENTON Property Name VACANT LAND Property COMMERCIAL Type Plat Name SMITHERS 6TH ADD TO Present Vacant RENTON Use (Commercial) Plat Block 1 Water WATER System DISTRICT Plat Lot 1-2 Sewer PUBLIC System http://www5 .metrokc.gov/reports/property _ report.asp?PIN=7841800005 Page 1 of2 2/612007 King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report Lot Area 7,920 SqFt (0.18 acres) Access PUBLIC SectionlTownship/Range SE 18235 Street PAVED Surface Assessor Legal De . . <.ecords· Account Number 784180000506 Record 01 Number Legal Description 1-2 1 SMITHERS 6TH ADD TO RENTON This report was generated: 21612007 7:30:14 PM Related on-line reports: King County GIS PrOPi!rty iraformation FAQ King County AssesSClL SubmitJlreql.le!lt to correct tl1i!linformation DOES: Permit ApplicO!tions Report KingCounty: Districts and Development Conditions RePClrt KingCounty Assessor: eRi!alPropertyReport (PDF format requires Acrobat) King County Assessor: QY;lrter Si!ction Map Report (PDF format requires Acrobat) King County Treasury Operations Property Tax Information Recorders Office Excise Tax Affidavits Report Recorders Office Scanni!d images of plats, surveys and Clthermap dClcuments Enter a 10 digit Parcel Number: or Enter an address: Isears.l!l King County I GIS Center I News I Seryic(:ls I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details http://www5 .metrokc .gOY Ireports/property _report .asp ?PIN =7841800005 Page 2 of2 2/6/2007 t) RCW 46.61.400: Basic rule and maximum limits. Page I of2 Inside the Legislat.ure ... Find Your Legislator ... Visiting the Legislature ... Agendas, Schedules and Calendars • Billinformation • Laws and Agency Rules Legislative Committees " Legislative Agencies " Legislative Information Center ... E-mail Notifications (Listserv) ... Students' Page * History of the State Legislature I '---i Outside the Legislature i * Congress -the Other Washington ... TV Washington * Washington Courts ... OFM Fiscal Note Website .& Access _Washington. \llf,,,,.1 ~ ...... ..:.:. ..... -n.,.n! W.!. ~". i i ; , ! How To Use This Site I About Us I Contact Us I Search L"'9isiature Home Senate: House ,)t Repr"(·sentiJti'.;~s Print Version I No disponible en espaflol RCWs > Title 46 > Chapter 46.61 > Section 46.61.400 f'~ IJ 4661.3~5 /1~rr'-S 4G til 400 46,Ei1.4Q5 RCW 46.61.400 / ~.r ~ ..4 2 cl M fJ JI- Basic rule and maximum limits. ~ (. ..... ; ,'J h.--1 .J /n- <l6.'(,·<f O o (1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable ana prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person. vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care (2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subsection (1) of this section, the limits specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds. and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits. (a) Twenty-five miles per hour on city and town streets: (b) Fifty miles per hour on county roads: (c) Sixty miles per hour on state highways. The maximum speed limits set forth in this section may be altered as authorized in RCW 46.g1.405. 4gJ:l1AlQ, and 49.61415. (3) The driver of every vehicle shall. consistent with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section. drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest. when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway. and when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. [1965 ex.s. c 155 § 54; 1963 c 16 § 1. Formerly RCW ~.O.4~.0l1.1 Notes: Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule --IRLJ 6.2. http://apps.ieg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400 2/912007 RCW 46.61.400: Basic rule and maximum limits. Q Saving of existing orders, etc., establishing speed limits -1963 c 16: "This act shall not repeal or invalidate existing orders and resolutions of the state highway commission or existing resolutions and ordinances of local authorities establishing speed limits within their respective jurisdictions." [1963 c 16 § 7. Formerly RCW 4I'!A& .. Q16.] -~.------. -~. _.. -,,_ .... _---- Glossary of Terms I Comments about thIs site I Privacy Notice I Accessibilily Information I Disclaimer http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400 Page 2 of2 2/9/2007 JTE . Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 7731 8th Ave SW -Seattle 98106 -2007 Telephone 206.762.1978 Cell 206.799.5692 Facsimile 206.762.1978 Email jaketraffic@comcastnet Location: s. 2nd St.lMo'ri' Ave. S. <;.\ litj:Ut File I D: 2007.013 Weather: Clear Surface: Dry SouthBound ... 1 L. L ~' .,' ••• ".~,}: I, '. " , ' .. >;;r:.' .. , ;"L1J f',' : :;.7JF 4:00-4:14 0 0 0 0 4:15-4:29 0 0 0 0 4:30-4:44 0 0 0 0 4:45-4:59 0 0 0 0 5:00-5:14 5:15-5:29 5:30-5:44 5:45-5:59 ~ 0 0 0 0 .. r/:Vi' 0 0 0 0 Date: Day: Time: Tech: Interval: WestBound .... J po- ~ • 'T" " :,(" :r.. F ' 116 5 107 13 114 11 123 9 493 41 493 41 SBRT SBTH SBlT 0 0 0 EBlT 0 0 WBRT EBTH 0 493 WBTH EBRT 0 41 WBlT 26 0 0 02.13.06 NBlT NBTH NBRT Tuesday PM peak CV 14 minutes NorthBound EastBound ~ ... , J .... [" ;;;\ .. _-,~" .. ' ~t(: -; J .. ,', .. , 1 "J.. ,.: I; . "," '. " ", 0 0 6 0 0 0 136 0 0 7 0 0 0 136 0 0 5 0 0 0 139 0 0 6 0 0 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 26 __ L_ 0 0 '-----0 JTE . Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. 7731 8th Ave SW -Seattle 98106 -2007 Telephone 206.762.1978 Cell 206.799.5692 Facsimile 206.762.1978 Email jaketraffic@comcast.net /'\ '~) Street Location: s. 3rd St./Morris Ave. S. File ID: 2007.013 Weather: Clear Surface: Dry SouthBound ... l L. L ~'." : 'R:" "" :,1.: ill' " 4:00-4:14 4:15-4:29 4:30-4:44 4:45-4:59 5:00-5:14 0 5 3 0 5:15-5:29 0 3 4 0 5:30-5:44 0 2 4 0 5:45-5:59 0 3 2 0 ". 0 14 14 0 0 14 ,:'tiIi181 14 0 Date: Day: Time: Tech: Interval: WestBound ..... .r-',' T "'t.' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBRT SBTH SBlT 0 14 14 EBlT 18 0 WBRT EBTH 1104 0 WBTH EBRT 14 0 WBlT 0 8 19 02.13.06 NBlT NBTH NBRT Tuesday PM peak CV 14 minutes NorthBound EastBound r 1 ., , .... J 'R ';J ~(l": ,R T, L, " ," 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 226 3 263 6 2 0 3 271 5 315 6 2 0 3 271 5 314 3 2 0 3 262 4 299 19 8 0 14 1104 18 19 8 0 14 1104 18 Second St. & Morris Residential S. 2nd St./Morris Ave. S. Existing (2MAEX) 02/14/07 12:28:35 SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12] -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 1- Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.29 Vehicle Delay 16.8 Level of Service B Sq 11 **/** /1\ I I North I Phase 1 <* * * G/C=0.414 G= 49.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% Phase 2 <****1 ****1 v I I I I G/C=0.519 G= 62.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=44.7% C=120 sec G=112.0 sec = 93.3% Y= 8.0 sec = 6.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group I Lanes I Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E I Volume I S Approach I HCM I L I Queue I vic I Delay I S IModel 11 20.9 C+ LT I 12/1 10.243 10.414 561 I 733 I 27 10.037 I 20.9 I*C+I 25 ftl E Approach 16.6 B = TH+LTI 24/2 10.304 10.519 I 1691 1831 I 562 10.307 I 16.6 I*B I 257 ftl Second St. & Morris Residential 02/14/07 S. 2nd St./Morris Ave. S. 12:28:41 Existing (2MAEX) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 1 - METROAREA NonCBD NETWORK North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No LOS Targets 35 BO 5 NETWORK East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No 90 100 5 NETWORK South 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No Priorities 0 0 0 0 0 0 NETWORK West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 BIKEVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES None None None None PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 UPSTREAMVC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 493 41 0 0 26 0 0 0 WIDTHS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LANES 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 GROUPTYPES Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 STARTUPLOST 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ENDGAIN 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 STORAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INITIALQUEUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 l. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 l. 00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS l.00 1. 00 l. 00 l. 00 1. 00 l.00 1.00 1. 00 l. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 SATURATION FLOWS 0 0 0 0 3526 0 0 0 1770 0 0 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 11 ALL PERMISSIVES No No No No LEADLAGS None None OVERLAPS Yes Yes Yes Yes OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 120 120 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 49.6B 62.32 YELLOWTlMES 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 5 Second St. & Morris Residential S. 2nd St./Morris Ave. S. Without Project (2MAWO) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.121 -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 1- Sq 11 **/** /1\ I I North I Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.32 Vehicle Delay 17.1 Phase 1 <* * * G/C=0.414 G= 49.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF: 0.0% Phase 2 <****1 ****1 v I I I I G/C=0.519 G= 62.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=44.7% 02/14/07 12:27:58 Level of Service B C=120 sec G=112.0 sec = 93.3% y= 8.0 sec = 6.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group I Lanes I Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E I Volume I S Approach ======================================= I HCM I L I Queue I vic I Delay I S IModel 11 21. 0 C+ LT I 12/1 10.244 10.414 I 561 I 733 I 32 10.044 21.0 I*C+I 30 ftl E Approach 16.9 B TH+LTI 24/2 10.313 10.519 I 1691 I 1831 I 621 10.339 I 16.9 I*B I 288 ftl Second St. & Morris Residential 02/14/07 S. 2nd St./Morris Ave. S. 12:28:06 Without Project (2MAWO) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.121 -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 1 - METROAREA NonCBD NETWORK North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No LOS Targets 35 80 5 NETWORK East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No 90 100 5 NETWORK South 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No Priorities 0 0 0 0 0 0 NETWORK West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 BIKEVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES None None None None PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 UPSTREAMVC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 545 45 0 0 30 0 0 0 WIDTHS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LANES 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 GROUPTYPES Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 STARTUPLOST 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ENDGAIN 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 STORAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INITIALQUEUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 SATURATIONFLOWS 0 0 0 0 3526 0 0 0 1770 0 0 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 11 ALL PERMISSIVES No No No No LEADLAGS None None OVERLAPS Yes Yes Yes Yes OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 120 120 30 PEDTIME 0.0 a GREENTlMES 49.68 62.32 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 5 Second St. & Morris Residential S. 2nd St./Morris Ave. S. With Project (2MAWP) 02/20/07 11:04:58 SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12] -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 1- Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.33 Vehicle Delay 17.2 Level of Service B Sq 11 **/** /1\ I I North I Phase 1 <* * * G/C=0.414 G= 49.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% Phase 2 <****1 ****1 v I I I I G/C=0.519 G= 62.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=44.7% C=120 sec G=112.0 sec = 93.3% Y= 8.0 sec = 6.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/ I g/C I Service Rate I Adj I I HCM I L I Queue I v/c I Delay I S IModel 11 Group I Lanes I Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E I Volume I S Approach 21.0 C+ = LT I 12/1 10.245 10.414 561 I 733 I 35 10.048 I 21.0 I*C+I 33 ftl E Approach 17.0 B = TH+LTI 24/2 10.314 10.519 1690 1 1830 I 627 10.343 I 17.0 I*B I 292 ftl Second St. & Morris Residential S. 2nd St./Morris Ave. S. With Project (2MAWP) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection METROAREA Parameters for NonCBD LOS Targets 35 80 5 90 100 5 Priorities 0 o 0 0 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS BlKEVOLUMES PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS Parameters RT o 0.0 o N 0.0 o o None 20 o o 0.00 TH o 0.0 o LT o 0.0 o LANES GROUPTYPES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEARHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN Norm Norm Norm 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 333 STORAGE INITIALQUEUE IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS SATURATIONFLOWS Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 o Phasing Parameters Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 o SEQUENCES 11 PERMISSIVES No Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1.00 1. 00 1.00 o ALL No OVERLAPS Yes CYCLES 120 GREENTIMES 49.68 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 CRITICALS 9 Yes 120 62.32 4.00 5 lnt # 1- NETWORK North NETWORK East NETWORK South NETWORK west NODE LOCATION E 0.0 o o None 20 o o 0.00 RT TH LT o 545 50 0.0 24.0 0.0 o 2 0 Norm Norm Norm 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 333 Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 o No Yes 30 Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o a 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 3524 Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 o No Yes o o o o o o o o S 0.0 o o None 20 o o 0.00 o o o o o o o o o RT TH LT o 0 33 0.0 0.0 12.0 001 Norm Norm Norm 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 333 Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 o Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 o Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1770 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME o o o o o o o o o o o o o 02/20/07 11:05:04 Def No Def No Def No Def No W 0.0 o o None 20 o o 0.00 RT TH LT 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 000 Norm Norm Norm 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 333 Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 o Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o a 1900 1.00 1. 00 1.00 o None 0.00 0.0 Yes 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 o o 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 o None 1 o Second St. & Morris Residential S. 3rd St./Morris Ave. S. Existing (3MAEX) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12] -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 1- 02/14/07 12:32:49 Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.62 Vehicle Delay 21.8 Level of Service C+ Sq 11 **/** /1\ I I North I Phase 1 + + + + + +> v Phase 2 " 1++++ + +>1++++> + + 1++++ + + I v G/C=0.414 G= 49.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.519 G= 62.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=44.7% C=120 sec G=112.0 sec = 93.3% Y= 8.0 sec = 6.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group I Lanes I Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E I Volume I I HCM I L I Queue I vIc I Delay I S IModel 11 N Approach 21.0 C+ -------------------------- TH+LTI 12/1 1~.244 10.414 I 537 I 704 I 30 10.043 I 21.0 C+I 28 ftl S Approach 21.0 C+ IRT+TH 1 12/1 10.243 10.414 531 697 1 28 10.040 1 21.0 C+I 26 ftl W Approach 21. 8 C+ IRT+TH+LTI 24/2 10.414 10.519 1 1693 1833 1 1196 10.652 1 21.8 C+I 665 ftl Second St. & Morris Residential 02/14/07 S. 3rd St./Morris Ave. S. 12:32:54 Existing (3MAEX) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12) -Sununary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 1 - METROAREA NonCBD NETWORK North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No LOS Targets 35 80 5 NETWORK East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No 90 100 5 NETWORK South 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No Priorities 0 0 0 0 0 0 NETWORK West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 BIKEVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES None None None None PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 UPSTREAMVC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 14 14 0 0 0 19 8 0 14 1104 18 WIDTHS 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 LANES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 GROUPTYPES Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ARRlVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 STARTUPLOST 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ENDGAIN 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 STORAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INITIALQUEUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 SATURATIONFLOWS 0 1700 0 0 0 0 0 1683 0 0 3530 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 11 ALL PERMISSlVES No No No No LEADLAGS None None OVERLAPS Yes Yes Yes Yes OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 120 120 30 PEDTlME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 49.68 62.32 YELLOWTlMES 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 5 Second St. & Morris Residential S. 3rd St./Morris Ave. S. Without Project (3MAWO) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12] -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 1- 02/14/07 12:32:03 Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.69 Vehicle Delay 23.5 Level of Service C+ Sq 11 **/** /1\ I I North I Phase 1 + + + + + +> v Phase 2 A A 1++++ + +>1++++> + + 1++++ + + I v G/C=0.414 G= 49.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.519 G= 62.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=44.7% C=120 sec G=112.0 sec = 93.3% Y= 8.0 sec = 6.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group I Lanes I Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E I Volume I I HCM I L I Queue I v/c I Delay I S IModel 11 N Approach 21.0 C+ TH+LTI 12/1 10.244 10.414 534 I 701 I 32 10.046 I 21.0 C+I 30 ftl S Approach 21.0 C+ IRT+TH I 12/1 10.244 10.414 I 536 I 703 I 32 10.046 I 21.0 C+I 30 ftl W Approach 23.6 C+ ===============================- I RT+TH+LT I 24/2 10.439 10.519 I 1693 I 1833 I 1321 10.721 I 23.6 C+I 774 ftl Second St. & Morris Residential 02/14/07 S. 3rd St./Morris Ave. S. 12:32:08 Without Project (3MAWO) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 1 - METROAREA NonCBO NETWORK North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oef No LOS Targets 35 80 5 NETWORK East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No 90 100 5 NETWORK South 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No Priorities 0 0 0 0 0 0 NETWORK West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 BIKEVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIOES None None None None PARKVOLtlMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLtlMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREOS 0 0 0 0 UPSTREAMVC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 15 15 0 0 0 20 10 0 15 1220 20 WIDTHS 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 LANES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 GROUPTYPES Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 STARTUPLOST 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ENDGAIN 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 STORAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INITIALQUEUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 SATURATION FLOWS 0 1694 0 0 0 0 0 1698 0 0 3530 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 11 ALL PERMISSIVES No No No No LEADLAGS None None OVERLAPS Yes Yes Yes Yes OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 120 120 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 49.68 62.32 YELLOWTlMES 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 5 Second St. & Morris Residential S. 3rd St./Morris Ave. S. With Project (3MAWP) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12] -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 1- 02/20/07 11:06:07 Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.69 Vehicle Delay 23.5 Level of Service C+ Sq 11 **/** /1\ I I North I Phase 1 + + + + + +> v Phase 2 A 1++++ + +>1++++> + + 1++++ + + I v G/C=0.414 G= 49.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.519 G= 62.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=44.7% C=120 sec G=112.0 sec = 93.3% Y= 8.0 sec = 6.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group I Lanes I Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E I Volume I I HCM I L I Queue I vic I Delay I S IModel 11 N Approach 21.1 C+ TH+LTI 12/1 10.245 10.414 I 526 691 I 35 10.051 I 21.1 C+I 33 ftl S Approach 21.0 C+ IRT+TH I 12/1 10.245 10.414 I 538 1 705 I 33 10.047 1 21.0 C+I 31 ftl W Approach 23.6 C+ IRT+TH+LTI 24/2 10.440 10.519 I 1693 1 1833 I 1324 10.722 I 23.6 C+I 777 ftl Second St. & Morris Residential 02/20/07 S. 3rd St./Morris Ave. S. 11:06:12 With Project (3MAWP) SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.02.12] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 1 - METROAREA NonCBD NETWORK North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No LOS Targets 35 80 5 NETWORK East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No 90 100 5 NETWORK South 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No Priorities 0 0 0 0 0 0 NETWORK West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Def No NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 BIKEVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES None None None None PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 UPSTREAMVC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 15 18 0 0 0 20 11 0 15 1220 23 WIDTHS 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 LANES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 GROUPTYPES Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm Norm UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ARRIVAL TYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 STARTUPLOST 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 END GAIN 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 STORAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INITIALQUEUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 SATURATIONFLOWS 0 1669 0 0 0 0 0 1703 0 0 3530 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 11 ALL PERMISSIVES No No No No LEADLAGS None None OVERLAPS Yes Yes Yes Yes OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 120 120 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 49.68 62.32 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 5 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Chris Valdez Intersection SA/Morns Agency/Co. JTE, INC Jurisdiction Renton Date Performed 0211412007 Analysis Year with project Analvsis Time Period pm peak Project Description Second St. & Morris Residential (SAMAWP) EastlWest Street: Site access North/South Street: Morris Avenue S. Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ~ajor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R iV_olume 0 25 9 10 40 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 26 9 10 42 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 --- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ,-,onfiguration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 6 a 6 0 a 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 a 6 0 a 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 a 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) a a Flared Approach N N Storage a 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 a 0 Configuration LTR Delay. Queue Length and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR v (vph) 10 12 C (m) (vph) 1589 973 vic 0.01 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 0.04 \"ontrol Delay 7.3 8.7 LOS A A Approach Delay ---8.7 f.pproach LOS ---A > Copynghl C :'WO() \ il1l1·ersl\1 of Florida, All Rights Reserved VersIOn 4 Ie <tV file:IIC:lDocuments and Settings\Owner\Local Scttings\Temp\u2k668.tmp 02/20/2007 • CITY OF RENTON 2004 TRAFFIC FLOW MAP DEP .. """, (F .......... _JPueuc ...... TRNISPORTA'TIOH SYsm.ts OMs(lol OP£RA ~s SE:CTK.IH 'IN THOOSNriOS Of ~Cl.ES BIOIAECTIa4AL Ao.,£RAGE DAILY TRMnC NOl[; IHmtSTAlE..05 NI) STAlE ROJlE 117 (SOUTH Of I-~) ~ SHQ'MII AT HALf SCN.L .- :~ .. ~ ... I OF RENTON Amended 11 /27/06 Fil;ure 7-2 Trarti<' Flow Map @ III 10 CITY OF RENTON 2002 TRAFFIC FLO W MA P '00,000 ~u Adoptoo 11/01104 TABLE 8.3 CITY OF RENTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2005-2010) @ XI-67 Table B.3 Transportation Impact Factors Development Around Transit Centers and Light Rail Stations TRANSfIORTATlON OTHER IMPACT FACTOR DeVELOPMENT PATTERN OENSITYRNTENSITY PEOESTRlANIBICYCLE FACILITIES CHARACTERISTICS SOURCES 5% Vehicle Locate commercial Minimum FAR of 1 Direct, safe connections between Commercial uses JHK, 6193 Trip Reduction and/or light industrial per gross acre for commerciaVindustrial uses and located with mini· lACMTA, uses within 1/4 mile of a commerciaVindus~ transrt center or light rail stations. mal setbacks. 11/93 transit center or light rail tnal development. Preferable ~ safe and secure bicy-Commercial station, cle parking is provided at com-includes retail and merck<lVindustrial uses, transrt non-retail uses. centers, or light rail stations. 10% Vehicle Locate residential devel-Minimum residentk<ll Direct, safe connections between Commercial uses lACMTA, Trip Reduction opment wrthin 1/4 mile of denSity of 24 residences and transit center or located with mlni-11/93 a transit center or light dwelling units per light rail stations. Preferable if sate ma setbacks. rail station. gross acre and secure bicycle parking is pro-Commercial vided at trans~ centers, or light includes retail and rail stations. non~retail uses. 15% Vehicle Locate commercial Minimum FAR of 2 Direct, safe connections between Commercial uses lACMTA, Trip Reduction and/or light industnal per gross acre for commerciaVindustrial uses and located wrth mini-11/93 uses wrthin 1/4 mile of a commercial/indus-transrt center or light rail stations. mal setbacks. tran~ center or light rail Inal development. Preferable IT safe and secure bicy· Commercial stetion. cle parking is provided at com-includes retail and merciaVindustrial uses, transit non-retail uses. centers, or light rail stations. 15% Vehicle Locate residential-<lnented Minimum residential Direct, sate connections between Commercial uses lACMTA, Trip Reduction mixed use devebpment density of 24 commerciallindustrial uses, resi-located wtth mini-11/93 wrthin 114 mile of a transit dwelling units per dences, and transit center or light mal setoacks. center or light raJl station. gross acre. rail statklns. Preferable if safe and Commerck<ll Minitrum 15% of fIocr secure bicycle parking is provided includes retail and "- area devoted to commer-at ccmmerck<llfndustriaJ uses, non-retail uses. cial uses oriented toward transrt centers, or light ran statioos. use by residences. 20% Vehicle Locate mixed-use com· Minimum FAR of 2 Direct, safe ccnnections between Commercial uses lACMTA, Trip Reductkln mercial and 19ht industnal per gross acre for commercial/industrial uses, resi-located with mini-11193 development that commerciallindus-dences, and transrt center or light mal setbacks. includes non-residential trial development rail stetklns. Preferable if safe and Commercial uses wrthin 114 mile of a secure bicycle parking is provided includes retail and transrt center or light rail at ccmmerciaJlnduslriaJ uses, noo-retail uses. station. At least 300/0 of transrt centers, or light rail stations. floor area for residential use. Source: ODOTIDLCD Transportation & Growth Management Program. Reprinted with pennission. I DEVELOPt.IENT P1ANN CITY OF RENTON INa FEB 272007 RECEIVED Site Development Associates, LLC 18322 Botheil Way NE; Bott',,,:, W':L~ir19ton 98011 Office: 425A86.6533 Fax: 425"86.6593 Storm Drainage Report 2nd and Morris Building Renton, Washington Prepared for TSA Architects Prepared by Site Development Associates, LLC 10117 Main St Bothell, WA 98011 425-486-6533 February 19, 2007 Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................. 1 Existing Conditions ................................................. 2 Existing Onsite Drainage Basin ............................. 2 Developed Conditions .................................... 1 Proposed Drainage Plan ................................ 1 • Core Requirements ................................................. 2 Appendix A • TlR Worksheet Appendix B -KCRTS Calculations Appendix C -Reference Material List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Existing Topography .................................................... 6 Figure 3. Proposed Site ................................................................ 7 Figure 4. Existing Site Area Calculations ................................... 8 Figure 5. Developed Site Area Calculations ............................... 9 Figure 6. Storm & Surface Water Map ....................................... 10 INTRODUCTION The 2nd and Morris Building project is a building located at the southeast corner of the intersection of South 2nd Street and Morris Avenue within the City of Renton, Washington. The project is bordered to the north and west by South 2 nd Street and Morris Avenue, to the south by an alley and existing apartment building and to the east by a lot containing an abandoned home. Figure 1 is a vicinity map depicting the project location. The site is approximately 0.18 acres in size. The site is currently vacant, covered partially by grass and exposed soil, it is currently being used as a staging area for the remodel of the apartment building to the south. Figure 2 shows the site and surrounding existing features. The proposed project will create a two story mixed-use building with one level of underground parking. There will be some minor changes to the existing property frontage such as removing an existing driveway cut and replacing it with sidewalk. The proposed site layout is shown in Figure 3. The proposed project will include all utilities and other improvements necessary to accommodate the new building. This report addresses the storm drainage issues associated with the development of the property, and construction of the frontage improvements. The design standards addressed for this report are contained in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-6-30. Section 4-6-30 specifies that the drainage design analysiS shall conform to the standards set forth in the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990. However, the City of Renton's Utility Review Memorandum, dated October 25, 2006 states that a SEPA condition requires any proposed stormwater features conform to the 2001 edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology. - 1 - EXISTING CONDITIONS EXisting On-site Drainage Basin Currently the site surface runoff discharges northwesterly to the storm drainage systems within South 2nd Street and Morris Avenue. A review of the SCS soils map for area indicates Urban Land for the entire site. Based on the soils report, these soils vary from sandy silt to gravelly sand for a hydrologic soil group C, with a moderately high runoff potential. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Proposed Drainage Plan The proposed project will redevelop 0.18 acres of property into a mixed-use building with underground parking. The drainage system for the building will include roof downspouts connected to the existing system in S 2nd St. The parking drainage will include an oil water separator and connect to the existing sewer system. CORE REQUIREMENTS 1. Core Requirement #1: Discharge at Natural Location The project will discharge runoff to the existing storm drainage system in Morris Avenue. From this point, it will follow it's natural downstream flowpath. The project is also not located within a landslide hazard area, nor does it contain any sensitive areas such as wetlands, landslide, coal mine, seismic or erosion hazard sensitive areas. 2. Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis An offsite analysis was performed for one mile downstream of the project. A representative from SDA visited the site on February 20,2007, the weather was overcast and 45 degrees, there had been rain earlier in the day. The site currently drains to an existing storm drainage system located within S 2nd St which runs toward the east. At Shattuck Ave S the drainage system runs south until S ih St where it turns to the west again. The system runs west until it outfalls into a stream to the east of - 2 - Creeekside Ave SW. This creek is a tributary to the Duwamish Waterway .. See Figure 6 for the existing drainage system map obtained from the City of Renton Storm & Surface Water standard map. No existing or potential problems were identified in the field inspection. The project is not expected to negatively impact the downstream since peak runoff rates and durations are expected to remain essentially identical to the pre-developed conditions. 3. Core Requirement #3: Runoff Control Detention and flow control is not required on this site because the proposed development creates a negligible increase in the peak runoff rate. Per the exemption (1) under Negligible Peak Runoff Rate Increase for Core Requirement #3, detention and flow control are not required if the increase in runoff for the 100 year, 24 hour design storm is less than 0.5 cfs between the proposed and existing site conditions. For this project the site runoff increase between existing and proposed is 0.06 cfs. See the KCRTS runoff analysis included in Appendix B, and also Figures 5 &6. 4. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System The conveyance system will include a roof drain connection to an existing catch basin within Morris Avenue. Since the project is not proposing a significant increase in storm drainage, and no additional catch basins, a conveyance analysis has not been performed. 5. Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control The project site will be almost entirely occupied by the proposed building, and no significant grading activity is proposed. Construction access will be via a paved alley along the south edge of the site. No other erosion and sediment control BMP's are proposed. 6. Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations Maintenance and operations gu idelines for the proposed garage floor- drainage system are included in Appendix C of this report. 7. Core Requirement#7: Bonds and Liability The developer will meet bonds a nd liability requirements for the project. - 3 - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Special Requirement #1: Critical Drainage Area Not applicable. Project is not known to be within the critical drainage area. 2. Special Requirement #2: Critical Drainage Area Not applicable. Project is not included in an existing master drainage plan. 3. Special Requirement #3: Conditions Requiring a Master Drainage Plan Not applicable. Project does not meet the minimum requirements to trigger a master drainage plan. 4. Special Requirement #4: Adopted Basin or Community Plans Not applicable. The project is not known to lie within an area with an adopted basin or community plan. 5. Special Requirement #5: Special Water Quality Control Not applicable. The project does not meet the 5,000 sf threshold of new pollutant generating impervious surface (PGIS) which would require treatment. See exemptions from on-site peak rate runoff control, negligible peak runoff rate increase section 1.2.3-5 in the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The project will only add 620 sf of PGIS; the new PGIS is created by paving the alley south of the building. All of the parking area will be fully enclosed in the parking garage, and the drainage from the garages will be collected by floor drains connected to the sewer system. See Figure 5 for the pollutant generating impervious surfaces for the proposed project. 6. Special Requirement #6: Coalescing Plate OillWater Separator Not applicable. 7. Special Requirement #7: Closed Depressions Not applicable. The project does not discharge to any closed depressions. 8. Special Requirement #8: Use of lakes, wetland or closed depressions for peak rate runoff control No.t applicable. 9. Special Requirement #9: Delineation of 1 OO-year floodplain Not applicable. The proposed project does not contain or abut a stream, -4 - lake, wetland, or closed depression and is not located within the 1 DO-year floodplain. 10,Special Requirement #10: Flood Protection Facilities for Type 1 and :z Streams Not applicable. The project does not abut a Type 1 or Type 2 stream. 11. Special Requirement #11: Critical Drainage Area Not applicable. The project does not propose to install a pond or infiltration facility and does not modify a flood protection facility. 12. Special Requirement #11: Soils Analysis and Report A geotechnical report has been prepared and submitted separately as part of the building permit. - 5 - ~ o L Vl o ~ o 2 rn D o > o co 2; KJM ~ Design BLS N H ST RO ST @s' PROJECT ~~~I~U">I4=t'11LOCATION SI ~~~~~~ ________ J~~( ('J- \ (~~Ci) \ '---------' \ S 21 Sl ST o z o :;- 2ND & MORRIS BUILDING N.T.S. Drawn ;;, 02-19-07 Date Site Development Associates. LLC 18322 &oIheI Wrzt NE; Bothel, WO$hI'1gton 9801' f------------------------------1 Scale il 131-004-07 u... Project No. OfIk:e; ol25.486.6S33 Fa<: 425.486.6.593 WWw.doo~gin~.com VICINITY MAP R:\Pro)ects\ 131 (TSA Ar-chiteds)\CQ4-07 (2nd (n:-: \,1 ',-;r, ~) ,dwg\figures\TIR\MO fig 1 -vicinity mop.dwg 1 Figure No. r ~ c c "' '" A CD " u > 0 c1 "' .s :;> .~ N C "' " 0 0 N N '" D ~ "- KJM Design BLS Drawn ~-(Ji,_,':-_!IJ C(JI\I'::I<,LTr -'i·/I:H L= ;",[,' !:-CI< -i ----'~----- I -_ -r-L------::'_ -:"1_ /~~ ~~~' --.~ --------;:' r ~--,.,: . , --------\',' - w :) Z W > « II) iE Ir o :: • • • '---_._-- --~, ._ .. I I " 'C _ 'I 1',0 I J' I " I, , t 1 02-19-07 Site Development Associates, LLC Date 18322 Bottlell Woy NE; 801hell. Womirrglon 98011 SECOND STREET h.'5,8".:)2'; S"I/\," -<:-- _>:: ==--:: ---=-=== " -'.- ,_ ':::;. __ ~ _ _ --,:,,=,-"""f""O~\ ""'0' .-- ==~C;--'O-=--';::-Q::::~;:~,-_ \~~r~_" __ ~ __ :...J " ::,-1 ".: • • • • • o 25 50 ! ':3ca Ie Feet 2ND & MORRIS BUILDING 131-004-07 Office: 425_466.6533 Fax: 425.486.6593 wv,w Idoeng"1eE'''Ixorr EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY Project No. ~",,~"'""f~ 16' ALLEY N (1) 1'.25' 2 Figure No. , , , c-o o N \ \ ~ --, _r= r ___ / L [ (" I J ~ I J I ~ I 1 i I I I J , " ~ 0 25 50 / :j 1"=? 5 E I ,)cole Feet KJM Design BLS ~~~ 2ND & MORRIS BUILDING Drawn Site Development Associates, LLC 02-19-07 Date 18m Boll1ell Way NE: Bethel. Wmhinglon 981Jli PROPOSED 131-004-07 Office: 425.486.6533 Fa!(; 425.4866593 1WWW ldce~gi·'Bers.com SITE LAYOUT Project No. ---' -, -, R.\PrOJt.cl",\1.51 (.::'A Krchltects)\:):)4 87 1,2r, __ , \ \ -, , J _.dwq\frGures ,11F:\t..1C flo "-' -- N C-f) 1-c 25' Scale 3 Figure No. ,.",,'" l' o £ V1 v ~ o 2 OJ 2; KJM o Design N BLS Drawn N 02-19-07 Date ~ 131-004-07 I.J... Project No. Site Development Associates. LLC 18322 eojha~ Wo~ NE; Boit1elj. Washington 98011 N8S'32'18"W ?'J E ':;cale o EXISTING CONDITIONS TOTAL AREA = 0.21 ACRE PERVIOUS AREA= 0.19 ACRE IMPERVIOUS AREA= 0.02 ACRE , N 25 50 I Feet EB 2ND & MORRIS BUILDING 1" = 25' /--_______________ ---/ Scal. Office: .0125.486.&533 fox; 425.486.6593 www.doenglneef.\.com EXISTING SITE AREA CALCULATIONS 4 Figure No. R:\Projects\ 131 (TSA Architeds)\004-07 (2nd CJ!-·j :v~C;"";:" Idwg\figures\TIR\MO fiC; 4 -existinq area COlrlJlntinn", ri'JJ", o c > o en "' Q , 6 KJM ~ Oeslgn BLS Drawn N 02-19-07 Date ~ 131·004-07 LL Project No. EXISTING CONDITIONS TOTAL AREA = 0.21 ACRE PERVIOUS AREA= 0,01 ACRE IMPERVIOUS AREA= 0,19 ACRE NEW POLUTION GENERATING IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.01 N88'32'18"W 87.94' o o o m w C") "l "" P • N o Z 1 "-r;:=, -. L,-) --,r::: L.J Scale o 25 50 Feet 2ND & MORRIS BUILDING N Ef) 1-= 25' Site Development Associates, LLC 1----------.---------1 Scale 18322 80ll1ell Way NE; Ilolhell. Washington 98011 Office: 425.486.6533 Fax: 425.466.6593 w"""'_,doengl~eef5,corn DEVELOPED SITE AREA CALCULA TION S 5 Figure No. R:\Projects\131 (lSA Architects)\004-07 (2r-d (]n,:~ \1:::,;-, :.)\dwg\figures\TIR\MO fig 5 -propsed orea colculotions.dv,'G REFERENCES City of Renton Municipal Code, current through Ordinance 5020, passed September 29, 2003 King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 - 7 - Appendix A -TlR Worksheet - 1 - KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TlR) WORKSHEET , ..... Part 1 PRQJj;;CT OWNER AND PROJECt ENGINEER . . A'·I'''~ A Project ......,. rSf H,U4'T'6cr~ Phone ca£' ~.~?Z,y Address fOJja? A-t' &-:!" $-; ,$:k>O ik'~ ~vutf! < aY"f f-8c (» Y Project Engineer /IE,; &-7;:J'T'Mt' Company 'Com:.. t>f!AC:l,Q~e.&T~ttte-.,. Phone "\1 ... '5'" "''?to ... {"56 ~ ... I.-C- Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION I ll1ianduse Services l-tubdivison ! Short Subd, ! UPD o Building Services MlF ! Commerical ! SFR o Clearing and Grading o Right·ol-Way Use o Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technicallnlormation Report Type 01 Drainage Review <::flliC:1 Targeted (circle): Large Site Date (include revision dates): Date 01 Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS 1 Part 2 PROJECTLOCATIONAND .'. DESCRIPTION Project Name Z~ . .1 &u.s &."r. DDES Permit # _________ _ Location Township Z.JAl Range £(.:: • Section 1& Site Address ttJp i /("'z~ $ , i~ .• ·,..,~~ Gt '-i' Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS 0 DFW HPA o Shoreline 0 COE 404 Management 0 DOE Dam Safety o Structural Rockery/Vaultl __ 0 FEMA Floodplain o ESA Section 7 0 COE Wetlands -' 0 Other (Jd/'" C' Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): Full ! Modified ~ 1 Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard ! Complex ; Preapplication ! Experimental! Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) ;Jc>;V(,~ Date of Approval: 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1 111105 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET . Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ' ....• .. ," . ........ Monitoring Required: Yes /c:!ljCl) Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN .. , Community Plan: )¥A/~c.'/~' Special District Overlays: ~,' .. 'h",-c_. _________________ _ Drainage Basin: . Storm water Requirements: me:> ;<:"A"<:; Cc>, Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS DRiver/Stream _________ _ o Steep Slope ---------o Lake o Erosion Hazard ______ _ o Wetlands _________ _ o Landslide Hazard ______ _ o Closed Depression ____ _ o Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ o Floodplain _______ __ o Seismic Hazard _______ _ o Other _______ _ o Habitat Protection ______ _ 0 __________ _ Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential c:J,,$../te' {,./rNv --r::"~r L.o~ o High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) o Sole Source Aquifer o Other o Seeps/Springs o Additional Sheets Attached 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 2 111105 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET ,Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS > . :. ..' '. . . .. REFERENCE LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT ~ Core 2 -Offsite Anal~sis ~ Sensitive/Critical Areas ~ SEPA r:J Other r:J r:J Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: I . Offsite Analysis Level: CV/ 2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 /2/ 3 or Exemption Number Nf'<u&;tll,,f' ,':'ITo- (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs 4 Nc.e.5'4"t> c' Conveyance System Spill containment located at: <9/<-I"uJ>~r~,. ~'-~ f"Jt:>;e.:rf.l ~~ .0,"'-f<,/;-t#' Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: 7i? G<f-",. ;S,&;,u~p A r-' ;",z~-eo" f..; Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: /~ "A-/6:~SS~ Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private / P, ilil;". If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes d"!W Liability Water Quality Typo: Basic / Sense Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. !.Ji!(.,tllf/L!(/ /N<tltE"'~<" /IJ ~/.5 Landscape Management Plan: Yes / No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA )(SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac. / None Requirements Name: /\. 'OpE Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption ~ 100·year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: A)O)J{': Source Control Describe landuse: (comm'/industriallanduse) Describe any structural controls: 2005 Surface Water De'ign Manual 111/05 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: ~_ / No Treatment BMP: <",>!,L.oATiSTZ-56';;? ~~Cb-<' ; Maintenance Agreement: Yes / <lS!O:) with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION , AFTER CONSTRUCTION o Clearing Limits t;<,j,~ o Stabilize Exposed Surfaces o Cover Measures ,;f/ / /.p-O Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities o Perimeter Protection ~,//7f.11' ~ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure f' o Traffic Area Stabilization ~I I, Operation of Permanent FaCilities o Flag Limits of SAO and open space o Sediment Retention o Surface Water Control preservation areas o Other o Dust Control o Construction Sequence Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control TypelDescription Water Quality TypelDescription o Detention o Biofiltration o Infiltration o Wetpool o Regional Facility ---o Media Filtration o Shared Facility ~ Oil Control 5(~J" 4?'2-N'TO/l o Small Site BMPs o Spill Control ptJ Other OI(../~A'.4'"J. ::1,......' /-o Small Site BMPs 5?P'-';'" --·f ,"'~'-,:l,!'" ~,,/ o Other 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 111105 4 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTSITRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS o Drainage Easement o Cast in Place Vault o Access Easement o Retaining Wall o Native Growth Protection Covenant o Rockery> 4' High o Tract o Structural on Steep Slope o Other o Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site, Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report_ To the best of my knowledge the informatio~ided '~;'is/~te7_ ~ /'Z~~f~ --z:/£z. /o? J Si@edlOate 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 111/05 5 Appendix B -KCRTS Calculations Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File ,predev. tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.017 3 2/09/01 14, 00 0.009 7 1/05/02 16 ,00 0.018 2 2/27/03 7,00 0.006 8 8/26/04 2,00 0.010 6 1/05/05 8,00 0.016 4 1/18/06 16,00 0.016 5 11/24/06 3,00 0.033 1 1/09/08 6,00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:postdev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.049 7 2/09/01 2,00 0.043 8 1/05/02 16,00 0.060 3 12/08/02 18,00 0.050 6 8/26/04 2,00 0.059 4 10/28/04 16,00 0.052 5 1/18/06 16,00 0.073 2 10/26/06 0,00 0.096 1 1/09/08 6,00 computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- -. -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.033 1 100.00 0.990 0.018 2 25.00 0.960 0.017 3 10.00 0.900 0.016 4 5.00 0.800 0.016 5 3.00 0.667 0.010 6 2.00 0.500 0.009 7 1. 30 0.231 0.006 8 1.10 0.091 0.028 50.00 0.980 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- -Peaks Rank Return prob (CFS) Period 0.096 1 100.00 0.990 0.073 2 25.00 0.960 0.060 3 10.00 0.900 0.059 4 5.00 0.800 0.052 5 3.00 0.667 0.050 6 2.00 0.500 O. 049 7 1. 30 0.231 0.043 8 1.10 0.091 0.088 50.00 0.980 0.096 cfs -0.033 cfs 0.063 cfs increase Appendix C Reference Material .+. USDA N.ru~1 R_rrc.s iiIiiiii CorucHali oo Scrvkf SOIL SURVEY OF KING COUNTY AREA. WASHINGTON 2nd ___ ===-_____ Meters 02040 80 We b Soil Survey 1.1 National Coope rative Soil Survey _ _ Feet o 50 ,uu 200 300 400 2120 /2007 Page 1 of 3 MAP LEGEND Soil Map Units ., Cilies [::::J Detailed Counties c:::J' Detailed States Interstate Highways Roads -+---+-Rails V'Vater Hydrography Oceans A'" J.. '" A Y loy Escarpment, bedrock VAVAVAV\ Escarpment, non-bedrock "'-"-"-"--"-Gulley 111111111111111 Levee Slope '" Blowout [J Borrow Pit , . Clay Spot • Depression, closed Eroded Spot )<, Gravel Pit Gra .... elly Spot Gulley 1\ Lava Flow © Landfill J. Marsh or Swamp @ Miscellaneous INater v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot I' Slide or Slip 0 Sinkhole % SodiCSpot ~ Spoil Area a Stony Spot Qe,), Stoll! @ Perennial 'IWlter HSDA Natural R~n:es f \MIt Spot """""""" "'- SOIL SURVEY OF KING COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON 2nd MAP INFORMATION Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10 Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Spatial Version of Data: 1 Soil Map Compilation Scale: 1 :24000 Map comprised of aerial images photographed on these dates: 711011990; 711811990 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting_of map unit boundaries may be evident. Web Soil Survey 1.1 National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/20/2007 Page 2 of3 Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Summary King County Area, Washington Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOl Percent of AOl ~-- USDA Natural RffilUW~S iIiIiii ConservallQn Seni« 0.2 \Veh Soil Survey 1.1 NatiOllal Cooperative Soil Survey 2nd 2120/2007 Page 3 of3 Operations & Maintenance Information NO.5 -CATCH BASINS Maintenance Component General Defect Trash & Debris (Includes Sediment) Structure Damage to Frame and/or Top Slab Cracks. in Basin Wallsl Bottom SedimenV Misalignment 1998 Surface Water Design Manual KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Trash or debris of more than 1/2 cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of the basin by more than 10% Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking more than 1/3 of its height. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume Corner of frame extends more than 3/4 inch past curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch (intent is to make sure aU material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet! outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks Basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. A-I Results Expected When Maintenance is performed No Trash or debris located immediately in front of catch basin opening. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or debris. No dead animals or vegetation present within the catch basin. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Frame is even with curb. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. 9/1198 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO.5· CATCH BASINS (CONTINUED) Maintenance Component Catch Basin Cover Ladder Metal Grates (If Applicable) 9/1/98 Defect Fire Hazard Vegetation Pollution Cover Not in Place Locking Mechanism Not Working Cover Difficult to Remove Ladder Rungs Unsafe Trash and Debris Damaged or Missing. Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Presence of chemicals such as natural gas, oil and gasoline. Vegetation growing across and blocking more than 10% of the basin opening. Vegetation growing in inleUoutlet pipe joints that is more than six inches tall and less than six inches apart. Nonflammable chemicals of more than 1/2 cubic foot per three feet of basin length. Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open catch basin requires maintenance. Mechanism cannot be opened by on maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. One maintenance person cannot remove lid after applying 80 Ibs. of lift; intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance. Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate missing or broken member(s} of the grate. A-2 Results Expected When Maintenance is performed No flammable chemicals present. No vegetation blocking opening to basin. No vegetation or root growth present. No pollution present other than surface film, Catch basin cover is closed Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover can be removed by one maintenance person. Ladder meets design standards and allows maintenance person safe access. Grate opening meets design standards. Grate free of trash and debris. Grate is in place and meets design standards. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual APPENDIX A MAINTEN ANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO.10 • CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (PIPES & DITCHES) Maintenance Component Pipes Open Ditches Catch Basins Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Rack) Defect Sediment & Debris Vegetation Damaged Trash & Debris Sediment Vegetation Erosion Damage to Slopes Rock lining Out of Place or Missing <If Applicable). 1998 Surface \Vater Design Manual Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through pipes. Protective coating is damaged; rust is causing more than 50% deterioration to any part of pipe. Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Pipe cleaned of aI/ sediment and debris. All vegetation removed so water flows freely through pipes. Pipe repaired or replaced. Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20%. Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1 ,000 square feet of ditch and slopes. AccumUlated sediment that exceeds 20 % of the design depth. Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. See "Ponds" Standard No. Maintenance person can see native soil beneath the rock lining. See "Catch Basins: Standard No.5 See "Debris Barriers" Standard No.6 A·3 Trash and debris cleared from ditches. Ditch cleanedl flushed of all sediment and debris so that it matches design. Water flows freely through ditches. See "Ponds" Standard No.1 Replace rocks to design standards. See "Catch Basins" Standard No. 5 See "Debris Barriers" Standard No.6 9/1/98 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 14 -OIL CONTROL FACILITIES A.) Oill Water Separators Maintenance Defect Component API Type OWS (baffle type) CPS-Type OWS . 911/98 Monitoring Sediment Accumulation Trash and Debris Accumulation Oil Accumulation Damaged Pipes Access Cover Damaged! Not Working Vault Structure Damage- Includes Cracks in Walls Bottom, Damage to Frame and! or Top Slab Baffles Access Ladder Damaged Monitoring Sediment Accumulation Trash and Debris Accumulation Oil Accumulation Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed. In s pection of discharge water for obvious signs of poor water quality. Sediment depth in bottom of vault exceeds 6-inches in depth. Trash and debris accumulation in vault, or pipe inleV outlet, floatables and non- floatables. Oil accumulations that exceed 1-inch, at the surface of the water Inlet or outlet piping damaged Of broken and in need of repair. Cover cannot be opened, corrosionl deformation of cover. Cracks wider than 1/2-inch or evidence of soil particles entering the structure through the cracks, or maintenancel inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and! or showing signs of failure as determined by maintenancel inspection person. Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, not functioning properly, missing rungs, cracks, and mIsaligned. Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint of any inleV outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering the vault through the walls. Inspection of discharge water for obvious signs of poor water quality. Sediment depth in bottom of vault exceeds 6-inches in depth and! or visible signs of sediment on plates. Trash and debris accumulated in vault, or pipe inleV outlet. floatables and non- floatables. Oil accumulal"ron that exceeds 1-inch at the water surface. A-4 Effluent discharge from vault should be clear with out thick visible sheen. No sediment deposits on vault bottom which would impede flow through the vault and separation efficiency. Trash and debris removed from vault, and inleV outlet piping. Extract oil from vault by vactoring. Disposal in accordance with state and local rules and regulations. Pipe repaired or replaced. Cover repaired to proper working specifications or replaced. Vault replaced or repaired to deSign specifications. Repair or replace baffles to specifications. Ladder replaced or repaired and meets specifications, and is safe to use as determined by inspection personnel. No cracks more than 1!4-inch wide at the joint of the inleV outlet pipe. Effluent discharge from vault should be clear with no thick visible sheen. No sediment deposits on vault bottom and plate media. which would impede flow through the vault and separation efficiency. Trash and debris removed from vault, and inleV outlet piping. Extract oil from vault by vactoring methods. Clean coalescing plates by thoroughly rinsing and flushing. Should be no visible oil depth on water. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual • APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO. 14 -OIL CONTROL FACILITIES (CONTINUED) A.) Oill Water Separators (Continued) Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Component Damaged Coalescing Plates Damaged Pipes Baffles Vault Structure Damage-Includes Cracks in Walls, Bottom, Damage to Frame and! or Top Slab Access Ladder Damaged 1998 Surface Water Design Manual Plate media broken, deformed, cracked and! or showing signs of failure. Inlet or outlet piping damaged or broken and in need of repair. Baffles corroding, cracking, warping andl or showing signs of failure as determined by maintenance! inspection person. Cracks wider than 1/2-inch and any evidence of soil particles entering the structure through the cracks, or maintenance inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, not functioning properly, missing rungs, cracks, and misaligned. Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint of any inleU outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering the vault through the walls, :\-5 Results Expected Whon Maintenance is Perfonned Replace that portion of media pack or entire plate pack depending on severity of failure. Pipe repaired and or replaced, Repair or replace baffles to specifications. Vault replaced or repaired to design specifications. Ladder replaced or repaired and meets speCifications, and is safe to use as detennined by inspection personnel. No cracks more than 1/4-inch wide at the joint of the inleU outlet pipe. 911/98