Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP273062 (10)Memo Date: To: C From: Project No.: Subject: February 3, 1999 Workshop Particip Central Files (2-2) Jeff Lykken 2830120-003 is City of Renton Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project PROJECT BACKGROUND The Kennydale lakefront sanitary se approximately 51 homes and the Ker Figure 1). The 4,700-foot-long cast-i and ends at North 40th Street. A fli of the facility flushes lake water no (Lake Washington #2) in the 3900 bl then pumped up to Metro's Eastside The flush system was installed in 19, to maintain due to sags in the pipe southerly 300 feet of pipe, the sewer the shoreline, 5 to 60 feet offshore. L line has several significant sags. Sedi in the line and overflows into Lake W adjacent to Kennydale Beach is showr day during the morning and evening 1 cycle, and pumps 400 gallons per mint KCM er is an 8-inch line in Lake Washington that serves ydale Beach Park along the lake in Renton, WA (see n line begins at the north end of Gene Coulon Park h station (Lake Washington Flush) at the south end h through the pipe to a City of Renton lift station ;k of Lake Washington Boulevard North. Sewage is terceptor sewer in Lake Washington Boulevard. ?. From its inception, the facility has been difficult nd limited access for maintenance. Except for the as installed in the lake. The pipe generally follows cause its profile follows the lake bed elevation, the lent accumulates in these "bellies," causing backups shington. A section of the pipeline plan and profile in Figure 2. The flush station is operated twice per ?ak hours. It is run for approximately 2 hours each According to a 1986 survey by Horton Dennis & Associates, the top of the pipe is exposed above the lake bottom along roughly 900 feet of the alignment. Where the pipe is buried, the depth of cover does not exceed 2 fe t. The lake depth varies from 3 to 10 feet along the alignment. Because of the line's proxi ity to the shore and its minimal depth of cover, the pipe has been snagged by boaters and contractors over a half -dozen times, damaging the pipeline. The sewer line has only one access point on -shore, at Coleman Point, making it very difficult to maintain. The City is only able to access the southerly one-third of the line to rod and flush the pipe with their exist'ng equipment. This access point is also where the line overflows to the lake when blockag�s occur. Increased maintenance efforts over the past several summers to better flush and rod the line has reduced the frequency of overfl ws to the lake. However, because of the past KCM, Inc. 9 1917 First Avenue • Seattle, WA 98101-1027 • Tel 206 443-5300 • Fax 206 443-5372 c 40 •� Ask.y> 9ki : y r. •� tr . ` ti 464- Lab • moo 17 Kamp jo M _ ` T i • n -r or • cc C CC C c CN LEGEND 8" Sewer Line � Lake Washington 6" and 4" Side Sewers 0 o Cleanouts o Brass Tags 16' 1 12' Lake Bed 8' 4' 0 KCM 1917First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 High Lake Level-15.2' Low Lake Level-13.2' 'v i Kennydale Beach park 26+00 28+00 30+00 32+00 34+00 36+00 City of Renton KENNYDALE LAKEFRONT SEWER REPLACEMENT Figure 2. Kennydale Beach Plan & Profile KCM problems with the line and continued uncertainty about the pipe's condition, the City wishes to assess upgrading or replacing the facility. PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK KCM, Inc. has been selected by the City of Renton to provide predesign and final design services on the project. The current predesign scope of services will consist of an evaluation of the existing pipeline condition and a thorough review and evaluation of alternatives for rehabilitating or replacing the facility. Because of this project's many permitting, constructability and community issues, KCM will use a workshop approach to identify alternatives and select a preferred alternative for implementation. The workshops will use a "brainstorming approach" to establish the goals and constraints of the project, and identify and rank available repair, rehabilitation and replacement alternatives. Key project team members, representatives of the City's Utility Systems Division, permitting agency and community representatives, and staff from other interested agencies will be invited to attend the workshops. WORKSHOPS The predesign will include a total of three workshops as follows: Workshop 1 — Start-up workshop to identify project goals and constraints and establish ranking criteria. Workshop 2 — Brainstorming workshop where repair, rehabilitation, and replacement alternatives are identified and ranked. Two or three preferred alternatives will be carried forward for further evaluation. Workshop 3 — A preferred alternative will be selected for implementation. An overview of the workshops is presented in Table 1 on the following page. Workshop 1 The purpose of Workshop 1 is to review the history of problems with the flush system, identify any initial constraints affecting potential alternatives and ensure that the project team and the City are in agreement as to the purpose and objectives of the project. KCM will present a brief project overview. City Staff will present a history of maintenance, problems, breaks, repairs, etc. associated with the facility. The remainder of the workshop will include identifying the project goals and constraints, establishing ranking criteria for the alternatives that will be developed, and holding an initial discussion of available alternatives. Page 2 TABLE 1. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS WORKSHOPS Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 Activities 0 Summarize project 0 Brainstorm available Present additional • Renton staff repair, rehabilitation, and preliminary design presents history of replacement alternatives information and cost maintenance, 0 Rank alternatives estimates developed for problems, breaks, a Select top two or three remaining alternatives repairs, etc. alternatives for further Rank remaining • Identify project evaluation alternatives and select goal(s) and preferred alternative for constraints implementation • Establish ranking criteria • Initial discussion of available alternatives Participants Renton Engineering Renton Engineering Staff Staff Renton O&M Staff Renton O&M Staff Renton Planning Staff Renton Parks Staff Renton Parks Staff KCM Staff KCM Staff EnviroIssues EnviroIssues Adolfson Associates Adolfson Associates RSR RSR Golder Associates Permitting Agencies Bellevue/Mercer Island Constructability Participant Products & Project information 0 Workshop agenda Deliverables summary prepared • Workshop minutes for participants including ranking of prior to Workshop alternatives • Workshop agenda • Workshop minutes including ranking criteria Remarks 0 Start-up workshop 0 Pipeline condition to include City staff assessment must be and project team completed before the • Workshop 1 can beginning of Workshop 2 occur prior to 0 Condition of the existing completion of line *ill dictate the pipeline condition feasibility of many of the assessment repair/rehabilitation alternatives • Renton Engineering Staff Renton O&M Staff Renton Planning Staff Renton Parks Staff KCM Staff EnviroIssues Adolfson Associates RSR Permitting Agencies Community Representative • Workshop agenda • Workshop minutes including ranking of remaining alternatives and selected alternative • Additional preliminary engineering and planning level cost estimates must be developed for remaining alternatives prior to workshop Page 3 110 Workshop 2 The purpose of Workshop 2 is to brainstorm available repair, rehabilitation and replacement alternatives for the flush station facility, rank the alternatives, and select the top two or three alternatives for further evaluation. KCM will present a brief project overview for the benefit of new workshop participants. The remainder of the workshop will include developing alternatives and ranking them based on the criteria established in Workshop 1. The goal of this workshop is to narrow the alternatives down to 2 or 3 potential solutions that will be more fully evaluated prior to Workshop 3. Workshop 3 The purpose of Workshop 3 is to select a final preferred alternative for implementation. Prior to the workshop, KCM will prepare planning level cost estimates and identify construction impacts and issues for the selected alternatives developed during Workshop 2. The results of this predesign work will be presented at the workshop, and the remainder of the session will include ranking the remaining alternatives and selecting a final solution for implementation. Each of the workshops will be held at KCM's downtown Seattle office at 1917 First Avenue. PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT The condition of the existing pipeline will be the key issue in determining the feasibility of the alternatives evaluated during the predesign. If the pipeline has many years of service remaining, alternatives to increase maintainability and access to the pipe may be the most feasible. However, if the pipe's condition is poor, alternatives to construct a new lakeline or replace the existing facility with a new on -shore system may prove more feasible. The condition of the existing facility will be assessed during the predesign using the following methods: • Geophysical assessment of the pipeline and adjacent lakebed. • Dye test of the flush station system. • Ultra -sonic testing of the exposed portion of the pipe. The condition assessment will be completed prior to the beginning of Workshop 2. WO DI FIU 11,OVs 11 DI 1181 _M The City will be applying for a Public Works Trust Fund loan to finance construction of the preferred alternative. To meet the April 1, 1999 deadline for the loan application, Workshop 2 must be completed by the second week of March. The schedule for the three workshops has been established as follows: • Workshop 1—A seven hour workshop on February 16, 1999 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. • Workshop 2—A six hour workshop on March 9, 1999 (Time to be announced). • Workshop 3—A four hour workshop on April 15, 1999 (Time to be announced). Page 4 Because of the large number of individuals participating, rescheduling of the workshops will be extremely difficult. Consultant team members need to arrange their schedule around these dates to ensure their availability. Page 5 demo Date: March 4, 1999 Toe Dave Christensen City of Renton Utility Systems 1055 Grady Way South, 5th Floor Renton, WA 98005 G Workshop Participants Central Files (2-2) From: Jeff Lykken Project No.: 2830120-003 Subject: City of Renton Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Workshop 1—Project Initiation Workshop This memorandum presents the results of the Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Workshop 1, which was conducted by KCM for the City of Renton on February 16, 1999. Workshop 1 was the first of three workshops that will be conducted during project predesign. Goals to be accomplished at the three workshops are as follows: • Establish goals and constraints for the project • Identify and rank appropriate alternatives for repair, rehabilitation and replacement of the sewer system. The goal of Workshop 1 was to bring the consultant team and City staff to a common understanding of the problem and issues associated the existing facilities, conceptualize initial alternatives, identify and confirm project goals and constraints, and establish ranking criteria for evaluating the alternatives. WORKSHOP PROCESS Workshop 1, the project initiation workshop, was conducted to ensure that members of the design team and City staff have a common understanding of project goals and constraints. The workshop was conducted as a facilitator -led working group, organized by the agenda included in Appendix A to this memorandum. It was facilitated by Don Stafford of Robinson, Stafford & Rude, Inc. (RSR). The day -long workshop consisted of the following steps: • Provide an overview of potential solution alternatives —prior to the workshop, three categories of solutions were established: — Alternatives to improve maintenance of the existing system — Rehabilitation alternatives KCM, Ina • 1917 First Avenue • Seattle, WA 98101-1027 • Tel 206 443-5300 • Fax 206 443-5372 XX Replacement alternatives. • Discuss past maintenance and operating problems experienced by City of Renton staff. • Develop a "project objective" statement by combining the general objectives of the project into a single concept statement that clarifies the purpose of the project. • Determine and agree upon the goals, constraints and objectives of the project —This part of the workshop gave the City and design team a chance to point out questions to be resolved, likely limitations on project design, and other challenges that can be expected when formulating and evaluating alternatives for improvements. This step ensures that the final recommended alternative will accomplish the goals the City intends for the Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project. • Identify evaluation criteria for ranking the alternatives —specific criteria for evaluating alternatives were established from the discussion of key issues, constraints and other considerations. Alternatives identified in Workshops 2 and 3 will be ranked using these criteria. • Summary —At the end of the workshop, the results of the meeting were summarized to ensure that all participants agreed on them, and a final opportunity was provided to raise any additional points or concerns. Participants included the following City staff and design team members: • Dave Christensen, City of Renton Wastewater Utility Supervisor • Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Senior Planner • Barry Scott, KCM, Inc. • Jeff Lykken, KCM, Inc. • Molly Adolfson, Adolfson Associates • Jennifer Kauffman, EnviroIssues. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Kennydale lakefront sanitary sewer is an 8-inch line in Lake Washington that serves approximately 51 homes and the Kennydale Beach Park along the lake in Renton. The 4,700-foot-long cast-iron line begins at the north end of Gene Coulon Park and ends at North 40th Street. A flush station (Lake Washington Flush) at the south end of the facility flushes lake water north through the pipe to a City of Renton lift station (Lake Washington #2) in the 3900 block of Lake Washington Boulevard North. From there, sewage is pumped up to Metro's Eastside Interceptor sewer in Lake Washington Boulevard. The flush system was installed in 1972. From its inception, the facility has been difficult to maintain due to sags in the pipe and limited access for maintenance. Except for the southern 300 feet of pipe, the sewer was installed in the lake. The pipe generally follows the shoreline, 5 to 60 feet offshore. Because its profile follows the lake bed elevation, the Page 2 line has several significant sags. Sediment accumulates in these "bellies," causing backups in the line and occasional overflows into Lake Washington. The flush station is operated twice a day, during the morning and evening peak hours. It is run for approximately 2 hours each cycle, and pumps 400 gallons per minute (gpm). According to a 1986 survey by Horton Dennis & Associates, the top of the pipe is exposed above the lake bottom along roughly 900 feet of the alignment. Where the pipe is buried, the depth of cover does not exceed 2 feet. The lake depth varies from 3 to 10 feet along the alignment. Because of the line's proximity to the shore and its minimal depth of cover, the pipe has been snagged and damaged by boaters and contractors more than a half -dozen times. The sewer line has only one access point onshore, at Coleman Point, making it very difficult to maintain. City workers are able to access only about one-third of the line to rod and flush it with their existing equipment. This access point is also where the line overflows to the lake when blockages occur. Increased maintenance over the past several summers to better flush and rod the line has reduced the frequency of overflows to the lake. However, because of the past problems with the line and continued uncertainty about the pipe's condition, the City wishes to assess upgrading or replacing the facility. KCM, Inc. has been selected by the City of Renton to provide predesign and final design services on the project. The predesign scope of services consists of an evaluation of the existing pipeline condition and a thorough review and evaluation of alternatives for rehabilitating or replacing the facility. Because of this project's many permitting, constructability and community issues, KCM is conducting workshops to identify alternatives and select a preferred alternative for implementation. The workshops will use "brainstorming" to establish project goals and constraints of the project, and to identify and rank alternatives for repair, rehabilitation and replacement. Operations and Maintenance History of System Dave Christensen made the following points in summarizing the performance and maintenance history of the system: • The flush station system was constructed in 1972 under a utility local improvement district. Historical land use in the service area was recreational/vacation homes, which discharged directly to the lake before the existing system was constructed. • The flush station is currently operated for 2 hours twice a day to reduce the potential of solids collecting in the pipeline. The system is operated after the morning and evening peak hours at approximately 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 P.M. Page 3 • The flush station is operated at approximately 400 gpm. Sewage will back up into homes near the station if the pump is operated at a higher pumping rate. • Some of the flush station pumping capacity is lost during winter when the elevation of Lake Washington is lowered by 2 feet. The system pumping rate is adjusted at the flush station by raising and lowering the pump to control the wet well level. The City finds this operation cumbersome and wishes to change it in the future. • In 1986, the City had a consultant design a project to facilitate pipeline cleaning. Ball valves were installed on each side sewer so that the lakeline could be pressure -pigged. The ball valves were not appropriate for the use, and did not adequately close the first time the City pigged the pipe. Up to 2 feet of sewage backed up into several homes. City staff contemplated replacing the ball valves with a different valve after the incident, but did not feel their credibility in the neighborhood was strong enough. • There is one cleanout on the lakeline that is located onshore at Coleman point. The cleanout cap is intentionally left lose so that when overflows occur, sewage flows out of the cleanout rather than backing up into homes. The cleanout is in the yard of one of the residences. The property owner informs the City when overflows occur. The City has a good relationship with this property owner. • There were a considerable number of overflows between 1990 and 1994. At \ that time the City reassessed its maintenance practices of lakeline cleaning and flush station operation. Since then, maintenance crews have spent two weeks each July rodding and flushing the lakeline. The increased cleaning has reduced the number of overflows. • City crews own 500 feet of rodding. They rod the lakeline from the flush station, the cleanout at Coleman Point, and the lift station. Their biggest area of concern with the lakeline is the sags at the north end of the alignment that cannot be reached with the rodding. • City crews visit the flush station and lift station weekly to ensure that they are operating properly. They say that the lift station seems to be pumping less volume over time. The City is concerned that this is due to the lakeline filling with solids. • The flush station draws lake water to pump through the pipeline. The City has permits from the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Corps of Engineers for pumping the lake water, but the City does not have a defined water right for the flush water. If lake water availability should become a problem the system may need to be retrofitted to use a City water source rather than lake water in the future. • The location of the lakeline was initially marked with a brass tag at each dock. Many of the tags are now missing because of docks being rebuilt or homeowners removing the tags. Page 4 • The City has easements on each residential parcel for the lakeline. The easement descriptions may have been written so that they cover the entire parcel for each property. The City will research the easement language. • The lakeline has been very susceptible to damage from boaters and from contractors working in the lake. • The lift station is essentially new. It was completely rebuilt in 1994. • There is no standby power at the flush station or lift station. The City must bring in generators to address power outages. • Odor has not been a problem at the lift station. • A liberal estimate of the peak sewage flow rate from the service area is 60,000 gallons per day. • The City pays a flat rate per home to King County for sewage discharge, so there is no penalty for the volume of lake water pumped through the system and discharged to the County system. The City expects to be able to grandfather the system, and believes that imminent changes in County inflow and infiltration policy and rate structure will not preclude the use of a flush station system. • Some property owners may have connected roof and area drains to their side sewer connection, which would allow grit into the lakeline. • The service area is zoned only for residential use for the next 20 years. • There is some historical evidence of contaminated soils in the area. Creosote contamination is present on the Barbee Mill Company site just north of the lift station. An environmental impact statement completed for the site may provide additional information. • Creosote was found during rehabilitation of the lift station when the wet well was lowered. The creosote may have been a remnant of old timber pilings. The contamination was not extensive enough to require remediation. • Environmental concerns about the Gene Coulon Park site in the late 1970s or early 1980s kept the site from being developed more extensively than it was. Dave will discuss the history with the City Parks Department. • The flush station is on Gene Coulon Park property. The lift station is on Barbee Mill Company property. The City has a permanent easement for the lift station. • The City believes the pipeline joints are fairly tight. City staff would like to be able to drain the lakeline so they can television the pipe. POTENTIAL SOLUTION ALTERNATIVES KCM has identified three general categories of potential solution alternatives: • Alternatives to improve maintenance of the existing flush station and pipeline system —These alternatives include providing access manholes in Page 5 the pipeline to facilitate rodding and jetting the line, providing pipeline cleanouts at existing docks, and removing the sags in the pipeline profile where solids are collecting. • Rehabilitation alternatives to improve the structural and operational integrity of the system —These alternatives include lining or slip -lining the existing lakeline to improve hydraulic efficiency and modifying the flush station to increase flow velocity in the pipeline. • Replacement alternatives —These alternatives include replacing the existing facility with a new lakeline system or a new system onshore. These alternatives and combinations of them will be refined and additional alternatives will be developed at Workshops 2 and 3. The feasibility of many of the alternatives will depend on the condition of the existing lakeline. The design team is currently assessing the condition of the existing pipe using the following methods: • Geophysical assessment of the pipeline and adjacent lakebed by Golder Associates. • Ultrasonic testing of exposed portions of the pipeline to assess corrosion. • Dye testing of the flush station system. A level of uncertainty regarding the lakeline condition will remain when the assessment is complete because the entire pipeline cannot be accessed. This uncertainty will have to be factored into the evaluation of alternatives. \ PROJECT OBJECTIVE STATEMENT DEVELOPMENT Workshop attendees discussed the general, overall objective of the project. Based on these discussions, the following concept statement was developed for the project: Provide a cost-effective, reliable and maintainable sewage disposal system with a minimum 20-year life that can be implemented in the current regulatory and community setting. PROJECT GOALS AND CONSTRAINTS The group identified the following issues that must be considered in developing and evaluating project alternatives: • Portions of the small frontage roads serving the residential properties are located on Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) property. Railroad permitting and easement requirements could become difficult and time- consuming if a new gravity or pressure sewer is proposed along these frontage roads. • Existing utilities along the residential frontage roads include overhead power, overhead telephone, and water. Existing utilities along Lake Washington Boulevard include overhead power, overhead telephone, water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and natural gas. Page 6 • Kennydale Beach Park is very busy in the summer. Since access to the park is walk-in, it is mostly used by neighborhood residents. The City Parks Department would prefer that any construction in the park occur in May and June or after Labor Day. • The fisheries window for in -lake construction is mid -June to mid - September. This window conflicts with the Parks Department's preferred construction window. • Construction staging will be difficult in the area. • Lake Washington Boulevard is not a designated truck route, however it is accessible to large construction equipment. The frontage roads at the residences are very tight, particularly at the north end of the project. City crews have a hard time getting their jetting truck down the road to the lift station. • Residents served by the lakeline are mostly working couples who are not home during weekdays. The City is not having relations problems with any of the current residents. There was no response to door hangers distributed in the neighborhood regarding the ongoing pipeline condition assessment. • The City is going to provide all the funding for any new construction on the system. • The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe will likely be interested in the project. Water rights may become an issue. • In order for the project to receive a mitigated Determination of Non - Significance through the State Environmental Policy Act process, the predesign must address the following items: — The alternative evaluation and selection process must be well documented. — The selected alternative must demonstrate long-term reliability. — Construction impacts must be identified and mitigated. • Residential property lines extend well into Lake Washington, so the lakeline probably lies entirely within easements on private property. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources, therefore, probably will not be a stakeholder in the project. • The City will dedicate the necessary resources to maintain the existing system and/or any improvements to the system that are implemented. The City will not make the homeowners responsible for upkeep on any part of the system, such as if the lakeline were replaced with individual grinder pump/force main systems. • The City currently has some single-family residences serviced by individual grinder pump systems. These systems were installed as part of new construction, and they are serviced and maintained by the property owner. If new individual grinder pump systems were installed as part of this Page 7 project, they would be the only such systems that City crews would be responsible for. Project Goals Based on the past maintenance problems the City has experienced with the existing sewage system and the issues identified above, the group established the following goals for the project: 1. Proactively incorporate community values. 2. Positively deal with solids deposition to reduce the risk of backups and overflows. 3. Be able to address the uncertainty of pipeline condition. 4. Balance impacts on the natural and built environment. 5. Provide a system that is easy to maintain. 6. Base solutions on adequate data to facilitate sound decision -making. 7. Favor facilities that require routine access from public property. S. Minimize summer impacts on City parks. 9. Locate facilities sited in City parks underground. 10. Design new facilities to be aesthetically acceptable and fit in with their surroundings. Project Constraints Participants identified the following constraints that will affect the feasibility of alternatives: 1. The solution must comply with Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements for construction timing and technique. 2. Any new facilities located in the lake cannot be susceptible to pulling apart. 3. Sewer service must be maintained during construction unless residents are relocated during construction. 4. Improvements to the system must be implemented as a stand-alone project. System improvements will not be implemented as part of any other future projects, such as development of the Barbee Mill site, and the service area for the system will not be expanded. 5. Project costs cannot have a significant impact on sewer rates. 6. The implementation process must be procedurally accurate. 7. The implemented solution must use proven technology. 8. The system must be maintainable with equipment the City owns, or the solution must address new equipment that the City needs to purchase. 9. The City will be solely responsible for maintenance of the system. Page 8 EVALUATION CRITERIA The workshop attendees developed a set of evaluation criteria to ensure that the project will meet the established objectives. The following criteria were established to use in evaluating alternatives at Workshops 2 and 3: 1. Impacts on the built environment —These include impacts on the 51 residences and the park served by the system, impacts on the BNRR railroad, and impacts on the community during construction. 2. Maintainability —This criterion addresses the ability to provide adequate maintenance for an alternative. 3. Ease of permitting —Alternatives involving in -lake construction or work on railroad property will be the most difficult to permit. This criterion addresses the time and difficulty of permitting the different alternatives. 4. Performance reliability —This criterion addresses the operational dependability of an alternative. 5. Constructability—Limited access, restricted staging areas, underwater construction and other factors during construction will limit the feasibility of certain alternatives. 6. Impacts on the natural environment —This criterion addresses potential degradation of the natural environment, both on a long-term basis and on a short-term basis during construction. 7. Level of uncertainty —There will be a level of uncertainty regarding the integrity of the lakeline after the condition assessment is completed. This uncertainty will have to be factored into the ranking of alternatives that involve rehabilitating the existing lakeline. S. Ancillary multipurpose benefits —Opportunities for incorporating additional improvements or enhancing existing conditions in the lake, in the neighborhood, and in the parks increase the feasibility of an alternative. 9. Rate impact/benefit comparison —This criterion is similar to a cost/benefit comparison, except that the impact of the implementation cost on sewer rates will be examined. 10. Neighborhood acceptance —This criterion addresses the acceptance of an alternative by residents served by the facility. 11. Amount of facilities in the lake —Alternatives that remove all or portions of the existing facilities from the lake will be more desirable. After the workshop, each of the criteria was weighted using a paired comparison method. In this method, each criterion is compared to every other criterion to rank its relative importance. As the key decision -makers on the project, City staff weighted the criteria. The results of the weighting determination are shown in Table 1. The ranking form from City staff is included in Appendix B. Page 9 K,( TABLE 1 RESULTS OF PAIRED COMPARISON FOR EVALUATION CRITERIA Evaluation Criteria Weight 1. Impacts on the built environment 4 2. Maintainability 10 3. Ease of permitting 0 4. Performance reliability 10 5. Constructability 8 6. Impacts on the natural environment 5 7. Level of uncertainty 1 8. Ancillary multipurpose benefits 1 9. Rate impact/benefit comparison 7 10. Neighborhood acceptance 5 11. Amount of facilities in the lake 2 Criteria 3, ease of permitting, received a weight of zero in the ranking. The City's rational for this ranking is that they are willing to delay construction of a preferred alternative if that alternative requires a longer permitting schedule. WORKSHOP SUMMARY AND ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION After development of the evaluation criteria, Don Stafford summarized the workshop results. The group spent the remainder of the workshop discussing the following technical issues associated with the project: • The alternative of providing access manholes to the lakeline for maintenance was discussed. The City of Bellevue recently constructed onshore access manholes to its lakelines. The City of Renton has some concerns regarding the configuration of these manholes. A variation of this alternative that City of Renton staff has discussed is constructing a manhole directly over the lakeline in Kennydale Beach Park and constructing a new dock out to the lakeline for maintenance access. The new dock would likely be seen as an amenity by City of Renton Parks staff. • An alternative for removing sags in the pipeline profile may be to place fill . in the lake where the bottom drops off, and raise the pipe. Placing fill in the lake may be difficult to permit. • The minimum pipe diameter to attain a velocity of 3 feet per second for the 60,000 gallon per day peak flow rate was calculated to be 2.5 inches; this indicates how small the service area for the facility is. • The concept of dividing the project in two —north half and south half —was discussed. It is possible for two separate alternatives to prove most feasible for the two clusters of homes divided by Kennydale Beach Park. Page 10 APPENDIX A. WORKSHOP AGENDA APPENDIX B. CRITERIA WEIGHTING FORM Lo CRITERIA WEIGHTING FORM 7 fi a N ID t.elle, Criterion Raw S� m a- Base 10 J Score— A Impacts to BuIA Environment o B Maintainabaify C Ease of Permlling D Performance ReliaUilily � .� 1 O E Conslnlclabiiily F impacts to Natural Environment G Level of Uncertainly H Ancillary Multipurpose Opportunities l Rate ImpacUF3ene6l Comparison .1 Neighborhood Acceptance C `tC Amount of Facilities in the Lake r 8 C A3 kK- ,dt B, " —f�i— 2" '4 2 2- :r4 Z Strenfilh of prelercnce F 4 = Strong preference 3 = Medium preference 2 = Slight preference Compare each criterion against each other crilerion and identify vrhich is mure importanl. Enter the fetier of lire mure irlipoitani critetion followed try a member indicating the strength of preference. 11 criteria are equally preferred, enter bolh fellers and no number f Z -d K c IS97 Robinson, Slalloid Rude, Inc. Memo Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc. 111; Date: June 16, 1999 To: Dave Christensen City of Renton Utility Systems 1055 Grady Way South, 5th Floor Renton, WA 98005 c: Workshop Participants Leslie Betlach, City of Renton Parks Department Larry Fisher, Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Files (22) From: Jeff Lykken Project No.: 2830120-003 Subject: City of Renton Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Workshop 3—Alternative Evaluation Workshop This memorandum presents the results of the Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Workshop 3, which was conducted by KCM for the City of Renton on May 19, 1999. Workshop 3 was the third of three workshops conducted during project predesign. Goals for the workshops were as follows: Workshop 1—Establish goals and constraints for the project Workshop 2—Identify and rank alternatives for repair, rehabilitation and replacement of the sewer system Workshop 3—Refine the alternatives developed in Workshop 2 and narrow the potential solutions for final design. Reduce the list of options to as many as three alternatives, perform additional preliminary engineering, and choose a final design solution. Workshop 1 was a project initiation workshop, conducted on February 16, 1999. Objectives completed at Workshop 1 included bringing the consultant team and City staff to a common understanding of the problems and issues associated with the existing facilities, conceptualizing initial alternatives, confirming project goals and constraints, and establishing criteria for ranking the alternatives. Workshop 2 was conducted on March 9, 1999. Objectives completed at the workshop included brainstorming alternative solutions for the sewer replacement, conducting an initial screening of available alternatives, and selecting the top-ranking alternatives for further evaluation. Following the workshop, KCM performed additional preliminary engineering and cost estimating for the top-ranking alternatives. Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc. a 1917 First Avenue • Seattle, WA 98101-1027 9 Tel 206 443-5300 9 Fax 206 443-5372 Goals for Workshop 3 were to present the results of the preliminary engineering and cost estimating and narrow the potential solutions for final design. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Kennydale lakefront sanitary sewer is an 8-inch line in Lake Washington that serves approximately 51 homes and the Kennydale Beach Park along the lake in Renton. The 4,700-foot-long cast-iron line begins at the north end of Gene Coulon Park and ends at North 40th Street. Except for the southern 300 feet of pipe, the sewer was installed in the lake. A flush station (Lake Washington Flush) at the south end of the facility flushes lake water north through the pipe to a City of Renton lift station (Lake Washington #2) in the 3900 block of Lake Washington Boulevard North. From there, sewage is pumped up to Metro's Eastside Interceptor sewer in Lake Washington Boulevard. The .facility has been difficult to maintain due to sags in the pipe and limited access for maintenance. Sediment accumulates in the sags, causing backups in the line and overflows into Lake Washington. City workers are able to access only about one-third of the line to rod and flush it with their existing equipment. The top of the pipe is exposed above the lake bottom along much of the alignment. Where the pipe is buried, the depth of cover does not exceed 2 feet. The pipe has been snagged and damaged by boaters and contractors more than a half -dozen times. Because of the past problems with the line and continued uncertainty about the pipe's condition, the City wishes to assess upgrading or replacing the facility. KCM, Inc. has been selected by the City of Renton to provide predesign and final design services on the project. Because of this project's many permitting, constructability and community issues, KCM is conducting workshops to identify alternatives and select a preferred alternative for implementation. WORKSHOP PROCESS Workshop 3 was conducted as a facilitator -led working group. It was facilitated by Don Stafford of Robinson, Stafford & Rude, Inc. (RSR). The five -hour workshop consisted of the following steps: Present the results of the preliminary engineering and cost estimating completed for the top-ranking alternatives developed in Workshop 2. Discuss technical issues associated with the alternatives and refine the alternatives as appropriate. Narrow the list of available alternatives for further evaluation. Workshop participants included the following City staff and design team members: • Dave Christensen, City of Renton Wastewater Utility Supervisor • John Thompson, City of Renton Wastewater Maintenance Division • Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Planning • Barry Scott, KCM, Inc. Page 2 It • Jeff Lykken, KCM, Inc. • Molly Adolfson, Adolfson Associates • Jennifer Kauffman, EnviroIssues • Dave Cotton, Golder Associates, Inc. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Using brainstorming techniques, participants at Workshop 2 identified a list of alternatives to accomplish the following project objective, which was developed in Workshop 1: Provide a cost-effective, reliable and maintainable sewage disposal system with a minimum 20-year life that can be implemented in the current regulatory and community setting. The north and south ends of the lakeline have different physical constraints affecting the feasibility of solutions, so the project was divided into two parts, but without precisely defining the dividing point between the two. Table 1 summarizes the 11 north and south end alternatives that were screened and ranked at Workshop 2 for further evaluation. Two additional alternatives that were not originally screened at Workshop 2 were also developed. They were identified as Alternative N15-a and Alternative S15 and are shown in Table 2. Both alternatives involve installing individual grinder pumps stations at the existing side sewer locations and pumping to a new low-pressure sewer located onshore. These additional alternatives were developed because of feasibility issues related to constructing onshore gravity sewers. Page 3 it TABLE 1. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPED AT WORKSHOP 2 FOR FURTHER EVALUATION No. Description N1 Replace the existing lakeline with a new minimum 6-inch diameter gravity sewer in the lake. N3 Leave the existing lakeline in place, restrain pipe joints, add access points for maintenance, and re -lay portion of the line to remove sags in the profile. N6 Construct a new gravity sewer between the homes and the railroad using trenchless pipeline installation methods. Re-route side sewers to the new gravity sewer using trenchless installation methods. N8 Microtunnel a new gravity sewer in Lake Washington Boulevard and install new side sewers using directional drilling from the lake side. N13 Replace the existing lakeline with a new 6-inch or 8-inch diameter sewer in the lake with flushing capacity. N15 Slipline the existing lakeline to Station 22+50 with 3-inch diameter plastic pipe, install grinder pumps at homes and new pressure side sewers. S3 Leave the existing lakeline in place, restrain pipe joints, add access points for maintenance, and re -lay a portion of the line to remove sags in the profile. S6 Construct a new gravity sewer between the homes and the railroad using open cut pipeline installation methods. Construct a new lift station to convey flows to Lake Washington Boulevard S8 Microtunnel a new gravity sewer in Lake Washington Boulevard and install new side sewers using directional drilling from the lake side. The flush station would remain in service to intermittently flush the new gravity sewer for cleaning purposes. S13 Replace the existing lakeline with a new 6-inch or 8-inch diameter sewer in the lake with flushing capacity. S21 Construct a new gravity sewer between the homes and the railroad north to Station 28+00. Direct flow in the existing lakeline from Station 36+00 south and construct a new lift station at Station 28+00. Page 4 TABLE 2. ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR WORKSHOP 3 No. Description N15-a Install grinder pumps at each of the existing side sewer connections between Kennydale Beach Park and the existing lift station. New pressure side sewers would discharge to a new 3-inch force main installed by open -cut construction in the frontage road. S15 Install grinder pumps at each of the existing side sewer connections between Station 3+00 and Station 25+00. New pressure side sewers would discharge to a new 3-inch force main installed by open cut construction in Mountain View Avenue North. The four southerly homes would drain by gravity to a new gravity sewer. The existing flush station would be replaced with a lift station, and flows from the new main would be pumped up to the existing gravity sewer in Lake Washington Boulevard. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND COST ESTIMATING After Workshop 2, additional preliminary engineering and cost estimating were performed for each of the alternatives listed above. Refinement of the alternatives included the following: • Additional field information was gathered to address construction issues regarding work on individual residential properties and construction within the lake. • Six contractors were contacted to discuss the feasibility of employing various construction methods to install new side sewers, a new lakeline, and new onshore gravity and pressure sewers. Construction methods investigated included directional drilling, microtunneling, pipe ramming, marine construction and shore side construction. • City mapping and as -built drawings were assembled for the project area. A preliminary layout was developed for each alternative. The layouts included an approximate profile for gravity sewers and new lakelines. • Planning level cost estimates were prepared for each alternative. • A plan drawing was prepared for each alternative, showing the primary features of the alternative, advantages and vantages, and a preliminary project capital cost. The drawings ar eluded in Appendix A. Each evaluated alternative presents technical challenges that affect its feasibility. For alternatives that involve construction of a new pipe in the lake, space constraints present the greatest challenge. The existing pipeline is generally constructed close to the shoreline, running beneath most of the existing docks. Lake depth along the alignment is often shallow, in the 4- to 6-foot range, and there is little space between the docks. Page 5 It General Construction Company, a marine contractor, was contacted about building a new pipeline along the same general alignment. The company said that it would be very complicated and costly to construct a new line along this same alignment. The new line would have to be laid with equipment mounted on a barge. Unless the existing docks were removed during construction and subsequently rebuilt, a custom barge and equipment would be necessary because of the space constraints and shallow water depth. Because of these restrictions, it was assumed that a new pipe will need to be aligned immediately beyond the existing docks for alternatives that include a new lakeline. For alternatives that include construction of a new on -shore sewer, the greatest technical challenge would be rerouting the existing side sewers to the new line. A connection to the existing side sewers would have to be made on the west (lake -side) side of the homes, and new side sewers would be routed inland to the new line. On most of the properties, there is very little room between the existing homes, sometimes as little as 8 feet, making it difficult to install a new side sewer. In most cases, the little space available includes improvements such as patios, stairways, decks and rockeries that would have to be removed and replaced if the side sewers were installed using open -cut construction. For this reason, it was assumed that most new gravity side sewers would need to be installed using trenchless methods. It may be possible to install small -diameter pressure side sewers by open -cut construction since the line could be installed at a shallow depth. Findings of the preliminary engineering and cost estimating for each alternative were presented at Workshop 3. The findings are described below, along with technical, permitting and regulatory issues identified for each alternative at the workshop. Alternative N1 A new 6-inch diameter gravity sewer would be installed in Lake Washington beyond the existing docks. The new gravity sewer would have a minimum burial depth of 2 feet below the lake bottom and would have a minimum slope of 0.004 feet per foot. Connection to existing side sewers would be made near the lakeshore, and new side sewers would be extended out to the new lakeline. To attain the minimum burial depth and pipe slope, the existing lift station at the north end of the project would need to be lowered approximately 12 feet. The estimated project cost for Alternative N1 is $1.62 million. Advantages of this alternative are that flushing of the new line would no longer be required, gravity flow in the line would reduce maintenance requirements for the sewer, and side sewer connections would cause little disruption to residential properties. The line would remain vulnerable to damage from homeowners doing work on their docks, and lowering the lift station an additional 12 feet would be difficult and expensive. Adolfson Associates believes this alternative will be the most difficult to permit because of the extent of in -lake work and habitat disturbance, and that the permitting costs during project design could be in the $100,000 to $200,000 range. This level of permitting costs was not accounted for in the cost estimate. Page 6 Alternative N3 The existing lakeline would remain in service. Two sagging sections of the line would be rerouted closer to the shoreline to improve hydraulic characteristics of the line. Additional access to the pipeline would be added to simplify maintenance, and pipe joints would be restrained where the line is in jeopardy of pulling apart. The exact number of joints needing restraint is not known; for cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that 25 pipe joints would be restrained. This represents approximately 25 percent of the pipe joints between Station 27+50 and the lift station. The estimated project cost for Alternative N3 is $0.68 million. Of the in -lake alternatives, this alternative would involve the least amount of work in the lake. It has the least cost of the north -end alternatives and requires little work on the residential properties. Disadvantages of this alternative are that pumping rates and flushing velocities of the existing system would remain low, the line would remain vulnerable to damage, and maintenance access to the system would remain difficult. The group agreed that since the structural integrity of the existing 8-inch cast iron lakeline remains questionable, this alternative does not meet the required project objective. Alternative N6 A new 24-inch diameter casing pipe and 8-inch diameter carrier pipe would be installed by microtunneling in the frontage road next to the homes. The frontage road is too narrow to install the sewer using open cut construction. Side sewers would be re-routed to the new sewer by installing new pipe from the west side of the homes using pipe ramming or directional drilling. The estimated project cost for Alternative N6 is $1.52 million. Advantages of this alternative are that the sewer line is removed from the lake, the line can be more easily maintained, and the sewer is no longer vulnerable to damage. Feasibility issues regarding installation of the side sewers and connections to the new sewer main in the frontage road are the major drawbacks of this alternative. Loy Clark Construction, a pipeline contractor, made a visit to the site to assess the feasibility of installing gravity side sewers using directional drilling. The company's opinion was that the space constraints of the sites would present serious problems in setting up the equipment and installing the side sewer pipe. The risk of failure to install the pipe to grade would be high should a contractor attempt directional drilling or pipe ramming. It would also be very difficult to provide access for homeowners during construction of the gravity sewer along the frontage road and connection of the new side sewers. The group agreed that this alternative would not receive further consideration because of the feasibility issue of installing the new side sewers. Page 7 Alternative N8 A new 24-inch diameter casing pipe and 8-inch diameter carrier pipe would be installed by microtunneling in Lake Washington Boulevard. Side sewers would be rerouted to the new sewer by installing new pipe from the west side of the homes using pipe ramming or directional drilling. Each of the new side sewers would need to cross under the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The estimated project cost for Alternative N8 is $3.24 million. Advantages of this alternative are that the sewer line would be removed from the lake, the line could be more easily maintained, and the sewer would no longer be vulnerable to damage. As with Alternative N6, the questionable feasibility of installing the side sewers is the major drawback of this alternative. The risk of failure to install the side sewers to grade is much higher with Alternative N8 because of increased side sewer length. Given these drawbacks and the high cost of this alternative, the group concurred that cost and risk are too high to consider this alternative further. The City also believed that it would be impossible to get permits from Burlington Northern Railroad for the number of side sewer crossings required. Alternative N13 A new 8-inch diameter flush line would be installed in Lake Washington beyond the existing docks. The new flush line would have a minimum burial depth of 2 feet below the lake bottom. Connection to the existing side sewers would be made near the lakeshore, and new side sewers would be extended out to the new line. To attain the minimum burial depth, the existing lift station at the north end of the project would need to be lowered approximately 8 feet. The estimated project cost for Alternative N13 is $1.92 million. Advantages of this alternative are that lowering the lift station would increase the amount of flow that can be flushed through the line without backing up into homes, and that side sewer connections would require little disruption to residential properties. The line would remain vulnerable to damage from homeowners doing work on their docks, and lowering the lift station an additional 8 feet would be difficult and expensive. As with Alternative N1, Adolfson Associates believes this alternative may be expensive to permit. The required level of permitting costs was not accounted for in the cost estimate. Alternative N15 Grinder pump stations would be installed at each of the 18 existing side sewer connections between Station 25+00 and the lift station. The existing 8-inch lakeline would be sliplined with a new 3-inch diameter plastic force main pipe. Existing side sewers would be sliplined with new 1.5-inch pressure sewer pipe and connected to the 3-inch main. The new force main would discharge to the existing lift station. The estimated project cost for this alternative is $1.11 million. Page 8 . / 'J 1 14 V Advantages of Alternative N 15 are that flushing of the lakeline would no longer be required and the sliplined installation of the 3-inch force main inside the existing 8-inch pipe would be easier and less expensive than installation of a new lakeline. 4, Drawbacks of this alternative are that the City would have 18 additional pump stations to maintain, the sewer line would remain vulnerable to damage in the lake, and repairs to the lakeline would be difficult with the configuration of one pipe inside another. Installation of {� the grinder pump stations and connection to the existing side sewers would be difficult because of the improvements in place at existing side sewer locations. City staff said they would require installation of a commercial grade duplex pump station r this alternative rather than the residential grinder pump station typically installed for n i e-family homes. This requirement was not accounted for in preliminary engineering and cs6,st estimating, and would increase the cost of this alternative. h, The City i also concerned about sewage spills into the lake during power outages or in the event of a mechanical failure, since most of the pump stations would be located near the - lake shore. Alternative N1'*-a Grinder pump sta ''ons would be installed at each of the 14 existing side sewer connections between Kennydal Beach Park and the lift station. New 1-1/2-inch pressure side sewers O�(] would discharge to new 3-inch diameter force main installed by open cut construction in J[head the frontage road. It was not known whether the grinder pump stations would have enough to pump sews a along the alignment and then lift it Lake Washington Boulevard, so it was assumed th the new force main would discharge to the existing lift station. If the individual pump s ations have the capacity to lift sewage to Lake Washington Boulevard, the existing lift �ation would no longer be required, reducing future City operations and maintenance c sts. The estimated project cost calculated for this alternative is $0.88 million. Advant es of this alternative are that the sewer line is removed from the lake, the line can more easily maintained, and the sewer is no longer vulnerable to damage. Since the si sewers would only need to be 1-1/2-inch diameter with minimal burial depth, the new ines could likely be installed using trenchless construction techniques. The new 3-inch force main could be installed by open -cut methods in the frontage road since it will require a minimal burial depth and would not need to be laid to grade. Drawbacks of this alternative are that the City would have 14 additional pump stations to maintain, and installation of the grinder pump stations and connection to the existing side sewers will be difficult because of the improvements present at the existing side sewer locations. As with Alternative N 15, the cost of this alternative would increase with the requirement to install commercial grade duplex pump stations. Page 9 it Alternative S3 The existing lakeline would remain in service. One sagging section of the line would be rerouted overland to improve the line's hydraulic characteristics. Additional access to the pipeline would be added to simplify maintenance of the system, and pipe joints would be restrained where the line is in jeopardy of pulling apart. The exact number of joints needing restraint is not known; for cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that 30 pipe joints would be restrained. This represents approximately 25 percent of the pipe joints between Station 4+00 and the Station 27+50. The estimated project cost for Alternative S3 is $0.45 million. The group agreed that since the structural integrity of the existing 8-inch cast iron lakeline remains questionable, this alternative does not meet the required project objective. Alternative S6 A new 8-inch gravity sewer would be installed by open -cut construction in Mountain View Avenue North. This road is less constricted than the frontage road on the north end of the project, making open -cut construction possible. While still very difficult, gravity side sewer construction is more feasible on the south end of the project because of fewer space constrictions. Side sewers in constricted areas would be rerouted to the new sewer by installing new pipe from the west side of the homes using directional drilling. In less constricted areas, side sewers could be installed by open -cut construction. Two homes at the far north end of the alternative project limits are too low to be served by the new gravity sewer. These homes would be served by grinder pump stations that pump up to the new gravity sewer. The estimated project cost for Alternative S6 is $1.89 million. Advantages of this alternative are that the sewer line would be removed from the lake, the line could be more easily maintained, and the sewer would no longer be vulnerable to damage. Mountain View Avenue North is as much as 14 feet higher than the elevation of the lowest floor elevation of the homes. This would require the new sewer to be installed 14 to 18 feet deep to serve the homes with low floor elevations. Dave Cotton noted that construction dewatering would be a big concern for this alternative because of the burial depth and groundwater conditions near the lake. Providing access for homeowners during construction would be difficult because of the large equipment required to construct a deep sewer line. The group agreed that this alternative would not receive further consideration because of the required burial depth and the feasibility issue of installing the new side sewers. Alternative S8 A new 24-inch diameter casing pipe and 8-inch diameter carrier pipe would be installed by microtunneling in Lake Washington Boulevard. Side sewers would be rerouted to the new sewer by installing new pipe from the west side of the homes using pipe ramming or directional drilling. Each of the new side sewers would have to cross under the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. This alternative proved to be unfeasible because of the excessive Page 10 it burial depth required. The elevation of Lake Washington Boulevard varies from 39 feet to 74 feet within the alternative project limits. The new sewer line would need to be at elevations between 10 and 15 feet to serve the homes. This would require microtunneling pits and side sewer connection excavations in excess of 60 feet. The group agreed that this alternative would not receive further consideration. A project cost was not estimated for this alternative. Alternative S 13 A new 8-inch diameter flush line would be installed in Lake Washington beyond most of the existing docks. The new flush line would have a minimum burial depth of 2 feet below the lake bottom. Connection to the existing side sewers would be made near the lakeshore, and new side sewers would be extended out to the new flush line. The existing flush station would be upgraded to increase flushing capacity. To attain the minimum burial depth, the existing lift station at the north end of the project would need to be lowered approximately 8 feet. The estimated project cost for Alternative S13 is $1.92 million. Advantages of this alternative are that lowering the lift station increases the amount of flow that can be flushed through the line without backing up into the existing homes and the side sewer connections would require little disruption to residential properties. The line would remain vulnerable to damage from homeowners doing work on their docks, and lowering the lift station an additional 8 feet would be difficult and expensive. Adolfson Associates believes that, like the other lakeline alternatives, this alternative may be expensive to permit. The required level of permitting costs was not accounted for in the cost estimate. Alternative S 15 Grinder pump stations would be installed at each of the 15 existing side sewer connections between Station 3+00 and Station 25+00. New 1.5-inch pressure side sewers would discharge to a new 3-inch diameter force main installed by open cut construction in Mountain View Avenue North. It is not known whether the existing grinder pump stations would have enough head to pump sewage along the alignment and then lift it to Lake Washington Boulevard, so it was assumed that the new force main would discharge to a new lift station at the location of the existing flush station. If the individual pump stations have the capacity to lift sewage to Lake Washington Boulevard, the new lift station would not be required. The estimated project cost calculated for this alternative is $1.56 million. Advantages of this alternative are that the sewer line would be removed from the lake, the line could be more easily maintained, and the sewer would no longer be vulnerable to damage. Since the side sewers would need to be only 1.5-inch diameter, with minimal burial depth, the new lines could likely be installed using trenchless construction in constricted areas. The new 3-inch force main could be installed by open -cut methods in Mountain View Avenue North since it to would require a minimal burial depth and would not need to be laid to grade. Page 11 Drawbacks of this alternative are that the City would have 15 additional pump stations to maintain, and installation of the grinder pump stations and connection to the existing side sewers would be difficult at many of the side sewer locations. The new lift station included in the alternative accounts for approximately $530,000 of the overall project cost. The project cost could be reduced by this amount if the individual pump stations have the capacity to lift sewage to Lake Washington Boulevard. The cost of the individual grinder pumps would increase with the requirement to install commercial grade duplex pump systems. Alternative S21 A new 8-inch gravity sewer would be installed in Mountain View Avenue North from the flush station to a new lift station at Station 28+00. The direction of flow in the new line would be from south to north. The existing lakeline would remain in service as gravity sewer between Station 28+00 and Station 31+00 to serve the Kennydale Beach Park. Flows from the new gravity main and remaining lakeline would be pumped up to the existing gravity sewer in Lake Washington Boulevard. Side sewers in constricted areas would be re- routed to the new sewer in Mountain View Avenue North by installing new pipe from the west side of the homes by directional drilling. In less constricted areas, side sewers could be installed using open -cut construction. A project cost of $2.34 million was estimated for Alternative 521. Advantages of this alternative are that most of the sewer line would be removed from the lake and would no longer be vulnerable to damage, and the line could be more easily maintained. Since Mountain View Avenue North is as much as 14 feet higher than the elevation of the lowest floor elevation of the homes and the new sewer would be laid opposite to the existing road grade, the new sewer would have to be installed 16 to 22 feet deep to serve the homes with low floor elevations. Because of the excessive burial depth, it was assumed that roughly 1,100 feet of the new gravity main would need to be installed by microtunneling. Providing access for homeowners during construction would be difficult because of the size of jacking pits required to microtunnel the new sewer line and casing pipe. The group agreed that this alternative would not receive further consideration because of the project cost, required burial depth for the new sewer and the feasibility issue of installing the new side sewers. ALTERNATIVES SCREENING RESULTS Table 3 lists the alternatives that workshop participants, after review and discussion of all alternatives, concluded do meet project objectives. Of these, the north and south end alternatives were paired to form a list of options for an overall project solution. Order -of - magnitude operations and maintenance costs were estimated for each overall solution and added to the project costs previously developed. Table 4 shows the paired alternatives and costs. Page 12 it TABLE 3. ALTERNATIVES THAT MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES North End Alternatives South End Alternatives N1 S13 N13 S15 N15 N15-a TABLE 4. COMBINATIONS OF NORTH AND SOUTH ALTERNATIVES THAT MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Estimated Cost ($million) Paired Alternatives Capital Cost O & M Cost Total Project Cost N1 & S13a $3.7 $0.3 $4.0 N1 & S15 $3.2 $0.6 $3.8 N13 & S13 $4.0 $0.2 $4.2 N13 & S15a $3.5 $0.6 $4.1 N15 & S13a $3.5 $0.7 $4.2 N15 & S15 $2.7 $1.0 $3.7 N15-a & S13a $3.3 $0.7 $4.0 N15-a & S15 $2.4 $1.0 $3.4 a. A new flush station would be required for this combination of alternatives. Capital and O&M costs for a new flush station are not included above. ALTERNATIVES FOR FURTHER EVALUATION A meeting was held at City Hall in Renton on June 1, 1999 to further narrow the list of paired alternatives. Meeting attendees included the following City staff and design team members: • Dave Christensen, City of Renton Wastewater Utility Supervisor • Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Planning • Leslie Betlach, City of Renton Parks Page 13 it • Barry Scott, KCM, Inc. • Jeff Lykken, KCM, Inc. It was decided at the meeting that the alternative pairs shown in Table 5 best meet the project objective. These two project solutions will be evaluated further. TABLE 5. REMAINING ALTERNATIVES Alternative Pair Description N13 & S13 Replace the existing lakeline with a new 6-inch or 8-inch diameter sewer in the lake with flushing capacity. N15-a & S15 Install a 3-inch diameter force main in the frontage roads adjacent to the homes, install grinder pump stations at existing side sewer locations and new pressure side sewers. Page 14 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: December 17, 2002 TO: Karen McFarland FROM: John Hobson11P# SUBJECT: Title Report for KC Tax Lot 3124059061 We need a title report done for the above referenced lot. This is one of the properties along Lake Washington that the Wastewater Utility is proposing to install a manhole on. By ordering a title report, we hope to establish if the City has an existing easement for the sanitary sewer main located under Lake Washington. W:\WWP-27-3062 Kennydale Lake Line Rehab\Title Search Brennan.doc\cor •.f?.�iz �.. YET'. � _ l • • iL, �; ern~ r~.�,yyf /\/.R .?y: Pipe Line No. THIS AGREEMENT, made this lb day ofMY19. ,'r$ ', bstwelzl y F. BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC.; a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called "Railroad," and cm. or, RC'I'ON, whose post office address is Renton y;�-�dpd1 il�irig� 2W NJ11 R"=W Soutbi Rent0to Washington 9"3, hereinafter called "Permittee." WITNFSSETH: Railroad, for and in consideration of the fee herein provided to be paid to it by Permittee and of the covenants and promises hereinafter made to be observed and performed by Permittee, does hereby grant to Permittee license and permission to excavate for, construct, maintain and operate a (,. ` seliltr `pipe ��� and 'pa lr 'atoll to Cable! .... OOi���tt M hereinafCekreferrcd to as the "facility," upon, along or across the right of way of Railroad, underneath the surface thereof, and under the tra_As of its railroad, as the case may be, at or near Relston Station, in the County of King , State of Washington to be located as follows, to -wit: At surM station 963 plain 10 oe red dated June ®, 1972 as shownn ell -blue time on the plat hereto attached, marked Exhibit " A"Jand by this reference thereto made a part hereof. Permittee in consideration of such license and permission hereby covenants and promises as follows: 1. Permittee will pay in advance to Railroad for this permit the sum of Fifty Dollars ($/ 0.00)0 also all taxes and assessme,-)ts that may be levied or assessed against said facility. Railroad reserves the right to change the said charge at any time while this permit remains in effect upon thirty (30) days" written notice. This provision for payment shall in no way restrict Railroad's right of termination urxier Paragraph 9 hereof. f 2. Permittee',' at Permittee"s sole cost and exr::�se, shall excavate for construct; reconstruct ;'maintain and repair the facility placing the same as ,lII aCCCrdanCe with application d" 4JT"uKrlr 319 lm,o heretofore approved by the Railroad's Assistant Vice President -Engineering, That portion of said 6-inch sever pipe line extending under the Railroad's right of vay and tracts sball be encased .` a 20-inch steel' pipe having a wall thickneen of elf 32 inche. Perillittee is also grant Liefnse and permission to place and maintain a,pow*r Gable in a 4-imh steel Conduit telephone Cable in a 1-inch steel Conduit all to be placed Permittee shall fill in the excavation, -.,d restore the surface of the ground to its previous condition subject to the approval of the Superintendent of the Division of Railroad upon which the facility is located. Said Superintendent shall have the right at any time when in his judgment it becomes necessary or advisable, to require any material used in the work to be replaced wi?h like material or with material of a more permanent character; also to require additional work or change of location of said facility as a matter of safety, or of appearance, or on account of additional tracks being laid, change of grade thereof, construction of a building, or for any other reason whether or not connected with the operation, maintenance, or improvement of the railway of Railroad, all of which shall be done at the expense of Permittee in the manner herein provided. * vithin said 20-inch steel casing pipe. s �����rt ��(�w -��-.� �. .l 7^+ � s�, ��S it .c rJri ; � �• y � i�:�%tr q,�syYl l't` �ra :-i; �� 1 t•, r•�' a..^W b 44 .?3 " 9'. }7!! b!'W^:T. ,r4'rC }. A s:• t,�r� Y _rPermittee sft�h given the said Superintendent at least two. (2) days advance nonce` of any work, to be done by Pemnrttes'in tfie excavatwn, construction, any reconstnction, maintenance, repair, change of location or removal of the fac�iity- Idiom eorduct ?such wrxk in such manner is not to interfere with the maintenance and operation of the ilway'of Railroad: }r• i . 7C t. 4 N r ♦ l R-•` • 1�tiy�� 4 In the'event that Railroad at the request of Permittee, or for the protection of its property and operations, does any work, furnishes any material` or flagging service, or. incurs any expense whatsoever one account_ of the excavation for, construction,' any reconstruction, maintenance, repair,'c'hange of location, removal of the facility or Otherwise; Permittee :shall reimburse Railroad for the cost thereof within twenty (20) days after bills are rendered therefor. lf,the excavation for construction; any reconstruct ion,'maintenance, repair, change of location; or removal of the facility, requires _anyor all of the following work:''removal arxf-replacement of'track', bridging, protection of track or other.railwayfacilities by work!"or .. 11aggmg, 'engineering and/or supervision such work is to be performed by Railroad employees and the cost borne "by' AL Permittee. 5. In the event any cathodic electrolysis or other electrical grounding system is installed in connection witli'the facility which,'in'the opinion of Railroad, in any. way interferes with any train signals,'telephone or telegraph lines, or other facilities of Railroad, Permittee upon being informed by Railroad of,such" interference shall forthwith discontinue operation of, and remove said grounding system, or take such steps as may be necessary to avoid and eliminate all such interference: Permittee further agrees to.IMemnify and save harmless Railroad from and against any damages, claims' losses, suits or expenses in any' mannerarising from or growing out "of interference with the signals; telephone or telegraph lines of Railroad by•the operation, use or existence of any such grounding system. 6.'Permittee shall and hereby releases and discharges Railroad of and from "any and all liability foe damage to or destruction of the said facility, and any other property of Permittee located on or near Railroads premises; and shall and hereby assumes any and all liability for injury to or death of any and all persons whomsoever, including officers, employees and agents of the parties hereto, or loss of or damage to property to whomsoever belonging, including property owned by, leased to `or in the care, custody and control of the parties hereto, in any manner arising from or during the construction, any reconstruction, "use, maintenance, repair or "removal'of said facility, however such,injury,.death, loss, damage or destruction aforesaid may occur or be caused; and shall and hereby does indemnify and save harmless Railroad of and from any•and all claims, demands, wits, actions, damages, recoveries, judgments, costs or expenses arising or growing out of or in connection with any such injury, death, loss; damage or destruction aforesaid. Permittee further agrees to, appear and defend in the name pt Railroad any suits or actions at law brought against it on account of any such personal injuries, death or. damage to property, and to pay and satisfy any final judgment that may be rendered against the Railroad in any such suit or action. The liability assumed by Permittee herein shall not be affected or diminished by the fact, if it be a fact, that any such suit or action brought against Railroad may arise out of negligence .of Railroad, its officers, agents, "servants or. employees, or be once. Notid or the fegoing nothing herein codbiined is to contributed to b such negl' be as �I Ude=ii'ication against, the Sole negligence of Railroad-i-lts . officers y or. a. 7. ermittee sha I not transfer or assign this permit without the written consent of. Railroad. 8. Nothing herein contained shall imply or import a covenant on .the part of Railroad for quiet enjoyment. 9. If the Permittee shall at any time cease to maintain and operate the said facility or shall fail to perform every agreement of this permit' the Railroad may forthwith terminate this permit and may forthwith expel the Permittee .from its premises; and at the end of the permit the Permittee will restore the premises of the Railroad to their former state. 10. -- .. e Peve tl a F—Hity, and est... the ight of "ay to its vie condition at the cost and expense of Peprmittee, 11. Any notices given under 'the provisions of this agreement shall be good if deposited postpaid in a United States post office addressed to Permittee at Permittee's post office :address above stated or as otherwise directed by Permittee. • �'c, c '- ;' f`-t •. .� ! 5 yr- �: ' �. .+, ., 1, , :,I' - ��• ��• .(Q�t� /. ,jam / vi LiN CS 16 lh kit -91 041-109 --9S7 u I ... �S-�r';'i7�I!ii• A,f, ,ice �: t o • � I � y--.�. 34 ►�.S(3 � •7 'fir Fro, � • � TO N IX ICI TETRA TECH/KCM, INC. 1917 First Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1027 (206) 443-5300 • FAX (206) 443-5372 March 15, 2000 Dave Christensen City of Renton Utility Systems 1055 Grady Way South, 5th Floor Renton, WA 98005 I?A'�C46' kAR / VFD -20 ciT 0 OtIt I OsAENT 0 S iQp Subject: Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Fisheries Evaluation Dear Dave: As we discussed in our meeting last week, we are recommending that site -specific fisheries evaluations along the lakeline begin in April. These observations would be in support of the permitting effort that will be required for final design of the project. The Scope of Services we are preparing for the final design includes this fisheries evaluation, however we believe that this effort needs to begin before the final design scope and budget are approved by the City Council. Adolfson & Associates would be supporting us in this effort. We propose that field observations are begun along the pipeline to determine the presence or absence of fish during various life cycle periods. It is important to begin this observation in April to identify the presence of juvenile salmonids and characterize the potential for predators in the vicinity of the pipeline. We propose using two field personnel: one snorkel diver and one observer. We recommend conducting one observation per week. Prior to beginning the field investigations, we would need permission for access from property owners. We anticipate that City staff would be responsible for obtaining this permission. This task would need to be promptly completed by the City in order for us to start our work. If needed, we could provide a template for use by the City describing the specifics of our activities. In order to start this process during the critical spring period, initial funding of $2,500 is required. This would allow us to mobilize and conduct three weeks of observations. To fund this effort, we recommend temporarily reallocating the predesign budget that is currently set aside for a community meeting. We have approximately $3,500 remaining in our predesign budget for this meeting. Once the final design scope of services and budget are approved we would reallocate the funds spent on the fisheries evaluation back to our community involvement task. Dave Christensen March 15, 2000 Page 2 Please let me know if this approach is agreeable with the City. If you have any questions regarding this issue please give me a call at (206) 443-3591. Sincerely, KC4, IN . t ffrey W . Lykken, P.E. /Project Manager c: Central Files (2-2) #2830120 J99 08:57 2067675994 WARDIAN 1N5rtUilUN r T R L R ' 1 401" 403". 401' 21 .467' .463' .475` .383" .393.` 22 .430' 3 .374' A..15' 403` 23 .r 4 .394' .395" 24 .361" 3Fm" 5 .322" .351,'" 338 25 .373' .363' 6 308.- ,317" 26 .368' .367' .392" r 3�5" 3S'S." 384 29 .387' .378' .384`. 8 .361" 9 10 .375" .389" ,362` 11 HOLE 2".01A: 12 .;362` 13 .349" 14 16 .374" .368" .361' 1? .419' 358:-.. .4.16": 10 .513" 51PJ" 515' 1U 422` 4 5": 415".. 20 .474' .484" CUSTOMER: KCM: INC PROJECT: KENNYfJAL�- S8WER REPLACEMENT u 9L r d a n �ae��dY�o�a •aWv�o�e.�Mo. TECH_ KEV T N ,H;:MAAHS: i Transmittal Tetra TPrh/KC.M_ Tne_ Imm Date: January 10, 2003 To: John Hobson RECEIVED City of Renton Utility Systems JAN 13 2003 1055 Grady Way South, 5th Floor Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON UTILITY SYSTEMS C. Central Files (2-2) From: Jeff Lykken Project No.: 2030051-003 Subject: Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project For Your Information For Your Signature For Your Approval I `/ For Your Use We are sending you: Attachments Shop Drawings Specifications Prints Copy of letter Other ... No. of Copies Number Description 1 Parcel Information at Brennan Property Remarks: Signed.• Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc. • 1917 First Avenue • Seattle, WA 98101-1027 • Tel 206 443-5300 • Fax 206 443-5372 rA WATER SURFACE ELEVA770M = 16.84(NAV088) LAKE WASHINGTON WATER SURFACE ELEVATION = 16. 84'(NA VD88) - -E' roIssues 4tjechnical and Poliev Decision Consultants 101 Stewart Street, Suite 1101, Seattle, WA 98101 TO: John Hobson, City of Renton Jeff Lykken, TetraTech/KCM cc: file From: Jeannette Walsh, Envirolssues Date: January 9, 2003 Subject: Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Public meeting strategy The goal of a public meeting would be to provide residents and affected stakeholders with information about the solution the City of Renton is ready to implement for the Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project. This solution will provide a cost effective, reliable, and maintainable sewage disposal system for the 51 homes along the lake line. The most effective way to give the residents an opportunity to learn about the project and ask questions would be an Open House style meeting. This less formal setting has no agenda or presentations. Stations are set up that allow residents to circulate and gather information about the project. Project staff for the City of Renton is available to answer questions for the residents. Suggested Timeframe for meeting: • May (early) — before start of the summer/vacation season begins. • The City is giving residents plenty of notice to the residents and work with any who might have big events scheduled at the time of construction. Outreach for attendance: A flyer would be produced in the form of an announcement of the meeting. • Flyer to the residents, • Ad in a Renton newspaper, • An online announcement on the City of Renton website in Public works/wastewater section of site. (Or a simple one pager on site that has information about the project with a timeline), Additional outreach to neighbors near access points: Residents on either side of the access points should be keep in the loop about activities, even if they are only minimally impacted. Additional outreach at the time of the open house notice is suggested with the following messages: • Work is being done near your neighbors dock and the City of Renton wanted you to be aware of it, • Work will not directly impact you, but you may want to attend the upcoming meeting to learn more about the project, the solution, the timeline and the potential impacts. Suggested stations include: • Station 1 — Information about the lake line • Station 2 — Illustration of the problem • Station 3 — Illustration of the solution (with construction timeline) Key messages to keep in mind while talking to the residents: • Does the resident understand the problem? • It's the City of Renton's job to fix the problem. • Through studies and other research, the City has proposed a reasonable solution. • The City is listening to the community and they care. • This is a better solution than constructing a new lake line. TETRA TECH/KCM, INC. 1917 First Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1027 (206) 443-5300 • FAX (206) 443-5372 RECEIVED March 29, 2000 MAR 3!7 Dave Christensen ClTY OF ur�t�rvc;vg F�0ty City of Renton Utility Systems 1055 Grady Way South, 5th Floor Renton, WA 98005 Subject: Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Fisheries Evaluation Dear Dave: As we discussed in our last meeting, we are recommending that site -specific fisheries evaluations along the lakeline begin in April. These observations would be in support of the permitting effort that will be required for final design of the project. The Scope of Services we are preparing for the final design includes this fisheries evaluation, however we believe that this effort needs to begin before the final design scope and budget are approved by the City Council. Adolfson & Associates would be supporting us in this effort. We propose that field observations are begun along the pipeline to determine the presence or absence of fish during various life cycle periods. It is important to begin this observation in April to identify the presence of juvenile salmonids and characterize the potential for predators in the vicinity of the pipeline. We propose using two field personnel: one snorkel diver and one observer. We recommend conducting one observation per week. Prior to beginning the field investigations, we would need to provide the residents in the project area an update on the project status, and notify them of the upcoming work. We propose to have EnviroIssues prepare and distribute a flyer to the residents that updates them on the project status. In order to start this process during the critical spring period, initial funding of approximately $4,000 is required. This would allow us to mobilize and conduct three weeks of observations and provide a flyer to the residents notifying them of the upcoming activity. To fund this effort, we recommend temporarily reallocating a portion of the predesign budget that is currently set aside for a community meeting and finalizing the predesign report. We have approximately $4,200 remaining in our predesign budget for these two tasks. Once the final design scope of services and Dave Christensen March 29, 2000 Page 2 budget are approved we would reallocate the funds spent on the fisheries evaluation back to finalize these two tasks. Please let me know if this approach is agreeable with the City. If you have any questions regarding this issue please give me a call at (206) 443-3591. Sincerely, M,IN . Jeffrey W. Lykken, P.E. Project Manager c.• Central Files (2-2) #2830120 Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Workshop 1 Agenda Project Initiation Workshop February 16, 1999 9:00 — 9:30 Introduction Lykken/Stafford Identify participants Review workshop objectives Review agenda 9:30 — 10:00 Overview of project Lykken 10:00 — 10:30 History of pipeline performance and problems City Staff 10:30 — 10:45 Break 10:45 — 11:15 Overview of preliminary solution alternatives Lykken 11:15 — 12:00 Develop "Concept Statement" for project Stafford/Group 12:00 — 1:00 Lunch 1:00 — 2:00 Identify goals and constraints Stafford/Group 2:00 — 2:45 Brainstorm evaluation criteria Stafford/Group 2:45 — 3:00 Break 3:00 — 4:00 Screen possible evaluation criteria and select Stafford/Group criteria to be used 4:00 — 4:15 Summarize workshop results Stafford/Group 4:15 — 4:30 Plan and schedule Workshop 2 Lykken 4:30 Close Stafford Sent ty: KCM 206 443 5372; 02/22/99 10:11AM;Jd& #850;Paae 1/3 Facsimile Transnussian KCM. Date Toc Namo: G February 22, 1999 Dave Christensen Organization: City of Renton Fax #: (425) 430-7241 Central Files (2-2) From- Name: Jeff Lykken Office: Seattle Project No./Name: 2840120-003 / Kennydale Sewer Replacement No. of Paves (inc. cover): 3 If transmission is not complete, please call Receptionist at (206) 443.5300 Dave: Attached for your use is the Criteria Weighting Form from Don Stafford for ranking the eleven criteria established at Workshop 1. 1 have also attached a copy of the form partially filled out for you to use as an example. The form should be filled out as follows: 1. Fill in the boxes on the bottom of the form row by row. The first row compares cHterion "A" versus the other ten criterion (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D, etc.). In the first row of the attached example, I have a strong preference of criterion A over criterion B (i.e., 1 feel maintainability is considerably more important than impacts to the built environment). I have a slight preference of criterion A over criterion C. I have a strong preference of' criterion :D over criterion A. I have a slight preference of criterion A over criterion E. And I see criterion A and F as being equally preferred. 2. Each row of boxes should be filled out through criterion "K". The last column in will not be filled in since we do not have a criterion L. The example shows the last row to be filled in. In the example, I have a medium preference of criterion K over criterion J. 3. After all the appropriate boxes are tilled in, fax or mail the forms back to KCyI. We will total the scores for each form. Each of the key decision -makers within the City should be individually filling out a separate form. Please have each participant put their name and department on the form before they are sent back to KCM. If you have any questions or comments please give me a call at (206) 443-3591. Thanks. KQA, Tna - 1917 First Avenue - Seattle, WA 98101-1027 - Tel 206 443-5300 9 Fax 206 443-5372 02/22/99 MON 12:05 FAX 2062695046 ENVIROISSUES Z 001 Ov'— , 01zr_',.t-JvL Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Project Planned Community Outreach Activities Prior to Workshop #2 1. Develop targeted outreach strategy for lakefront property owners/residents. • Develop questionnaire/flyer to determine knowledge of lakeline, concerns and issues, reactions to potential repair/restoration options, issues and concerns, preferred method of involvement. (consult with D. Christensen to get his ideas). • Conduct interviews with selected property owners/residents identified in conjunction with City (e•.g., resident that monitors flush station, l' cs DePt. • Contact City (Christensen, Jennifer Hennin , neighborhood�Iiaisorn�) make direct contacts to identify additional contacts for interviews/outreach • Obtain property owner mailing list from City bK • Determine locations and target audiences for small group briefings 2. Identify other potential stakeholders and preferred methods for involvement. • Other potential stakeholders may include, but not be limited to: -Palk users (reach with signs, invite to open house) -Lake users -Nearby residents that could be impacted if an upland route altemative is chosen (e.g, traffic impacts) Outreach to these groups would be implemented after workshop #2. 3. Develop outreach strategy for agencies and groups that have ,jurisdictional and/or regulatory authority. • Consult with Lyl&.en and Adolphson regarding list of agencies and groups and areas of jurisdiction, including but not limited to: -DFW -DNR (verify they do not own the lake bottom and have no authority) -Corps of Engineers -Ecology -City of Renton - Development Services, ESA staff, Parks -Muckelshoot Tribe -BNRR (easements) Develop strategy of r involvement, including who to invite to Workshop #2©r—r-i'�6, 4twlllr Post -it" Fax Note 7671 Date pages Tow r From C } _ CoiDept Co. Phone # Phone # Fax # Fax 0 CRITERIA WEIGHTING FORM ID Raw Base 10 Letter Criterion Score Score A Impacts to Built Environment B Maintainability C Ease of Permitting D Performance Reliability E Constructability F Impacts to Natural Environment G Level of Uncertainty H Ancillary Multipurpose Opportunities Rate ImpacUBenefit Comparison J Neighborhood Acceptance K Amount of Facilities in the Lake L B C D E F G H 1 J K L A'] E B C D E Strength of preference F 4 =Strong preference 3 = Medium preference � / G 2 = Slight preference S H Compare each criterion against each other criterion and identify which is more important. Enter the letter of the more important criterion followed by a number indicating the strength of preference. If criteria are equally preferred, enter both letters and no number K 0997 Robinson, Stafford Rude, Inc. Lie CRITERIA WEIGHTING FORM ID Raw Letter Criterion Score A Impacts to Built Environment 8 Maintainability C Ease of Permitting D Performance Reliability E Constnictability F Impacts to Natural Environment G Level of Uncertainty H Ancillary MUltiptrrpose Opportunities I Rate ImpacUBenelit Comparison J Neighborhood Acceptance K Amount of Facilities in the Lake L B C D E F G H I J K A E .4 E�: A'--3 A B4� 3 3 D �j P4-1,� E 194- A3 2 Strength of preference F 4 = 3 =Medium Strong preference preference G �!7 4 j 2 = Slight preference H �r4 ,)4 k Compare each criterion against each other criterion and identify which is more important. ,J Z Enter the letter of the inure important criterion followed by a number indicating the strength of preference. K If criteria are equally preferred, enter both letters and no number Base 10 Score L 0997 Robinson, Stalfoid Rude. Inc. Sent by: KCM 206 443 5372; 03/16/99 4:26PM;JetFnx #728;Paoe 1/7 Facsimile Thansm Sian KCM. Date: March 16, 1999 Toe Name: Dave Christensen Organization: City d Renton Fax #: (425) 430.7241 Central Files (2.2) Fran- Name: Jeff Lykken Office: Seattle Project No./Narne: 2830120-003 / Kermydale Sewer Replacement No. of Pages (inc. cover): 7 If transmission is not complete, please call Receptionist at (206) 443.5300 Dave: Attached is the alternatives listing and scoring from Workshop 2, After you have had a chance to review this we can tally about which of the alternatives should be carried forward for additional consideration. I will give you a call tomorrow afternoon. Thanks KCM, Ina 9 1917 First Avenue • Seattle, WA 98101-1027 • Tel 206 443-5300 • Fax 206 443-5372 Sent by:, KCM 206 443 5372; 03/16/99 4:27PM;Jf1Fax #728;Paae 2/7 KCM Page Number: Project: City of Renton INITIAL ALTERNATIVE Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer LISTING AND EVALUATION FOR NORTH END OF PROJECT Workshop Date: March 9,1999 NORTH END ALTERNATIVE LISTING ALT. NO. ALTERNATIVE, DESCRIPTION VOTES NI Replace the exisdng lakeline with a new minimum 6-inch diameter gravity sewer in the lake. 6 N2 I -cave the existing lakeline in place, restrain pipe joints, and add access points for 2 maintenance. N3 Leave the existing lakeline in place, restrain pipe Joints, add access points for maintenance, r 9 and re -lay portion of the line to remove sags in the profile. N4 Slip -line the existing pipe with the minimum hydraulically acceptable plastic line site and provide access points for maintenance. N5 Slip -tine the existing pipe with the minimum hydraulically acceptable plastic tine sire and provide access points for maintenance. Slip -line the existing side scwcrs N6 Construct a new gravity sewer between the homes and the, railroad using trenchless pipeline 5 installation methods. N7 Install a vacuum sewer between the homes and the railroad and construct a new vacuum pump 2 station at the existing pump station site. N8 Microtunnel a new gravity sewer line in Lake Washington Boulevard and install new side W 7 :ewers using directional drilling from the lake side. N9 Install grinder pumps for each home and install a new 3-inch diameter force main between the homes and railroad that discharges to the existing force main from the pump station N IQ fine the existing pipe with an In Situ Form liner or similar and provide access pointq for maintenance. N I I Line the existing pipe with an In Situ Form liner nr similar and provide access points for maintenance. Slip -line the existing side scwcrs. N 12 Replace the existing lakeline with a new small diameter pressure sewer. 3 N 13 Replace the existing lakeline with a new 6-inch or 8-inch diameter HDPE sewer in the lake hh with flushing capacity, N 14 Direct flow in the existing pipe from approximately Station 36+00 to the south. Eliminate the 3 sag at Station 40+00 and slip -line Like existing lakeline and side scwcrs from Station 36+00 to the pump station with HDPE and add acces for maintenwice. N 15 Slip -line the existing lakeline to Station 22+50 with 3-inch diameter plastic pipe. install 6 grinder pumps at homes and new pressure tide sewers. Eliminate the existing pump station and add access to the lakeline at IOOn-font intervals. Sent by:,,KCM 206 443 5372; 03/16/99 4:28PM;JetFax #728;Paae 3/7 KCMPage Number: Project: City of Renton INITIAL ALTERNATIVE Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary sewer LISTING AND EVALUATION FOR NORTH END OF PROJECT Workshop Date: March 9, 1999 NORTH END ALTERNATIVE LISTING ALT. NO. ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION VOTES N I6 Slip -line the existing lakeline to Station 22+50 with 3-inch diameter plastic pipe to act as a vacuum sewer. Convert the existing pump suction to a vacuum/pump station. 1 N 17 Install a new HDPE sewer along the existing bulkheads in the lake. N 16 Install it new ductile iron sewer along the existing bulkheads in the lake. N 19 Build new bulkheads outside the existing bulkheads and install it new sewer line on the land side of the new bulkhead. N20 Restrain the existing pipe joints, add access poinu in the lakeline for maintonunce and install permanent flushing nozzles inside the existing pipe to clean the sags. Sent by:-KCM 206 443 5372; 03/16/99 4:29PM;jgffjL #728;Page 4/7 KOM Page Number: Project: City of Renton INITIAL ALTERNATIVE Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer LISTING AND EVALUATION FOR SOUTH END OF PROJECT Workshop Dale: March 9, 1999 SOUTH END ALTERNATIVE LISTING ALT. NO. ALTERNATIVE DESCRiPTION VOTES S i Replace the existing lakeline with a new minimum 6-inch diameter gravity sewer in the lake. 4 Construct a new pump station to pump flows to the existing gravity sewer in Lake Washington Boulevard. S2 Leave the existing lakeline in place, restrain pipe joints, and add access points for I maintenance. S3 Leave the existing lakeline in place, restrain pipc joints, add access points for maintenance, ti and re -lay portion of the line to remove sags in the profile. S4 North -end alternative N4 is not applicahle to south end. Slip -lining the existing South end of the lakeline is not a feasible alternative because of the extreme horizontal curvature of the pipe. S5 North -end alternative N5 is not applicable M South end. Slip -lining the existing south cnd of the lakeline is not a feasible alternative because of the extreme horizontal curvature of the pipe. S6 Construct a new gravity sewer between the homes and the railroad using open cut pipeline 8 installation methods. Construct a new pump station to (lows to Lake Washington Boulevard. S7 Install a vacuum sewer between the homes and the railroad and construct a new vacuum 3 station at the existing flush station site. SH Microtunnel a new gravity sewer line in Lake Washington Boulevard and install new side A 7 1 .ewers using directional drilling from the lake side. The flush station would remain in service to intermittently flush the new gravity sewer for cleaning purposes. S9 Install grinder pumps for each home and inaall a new 3-inch diameter force main between the I homes and railroad that discharges to a new force main that crosses under the railroad track and discharges to the City of Rcnion gravity sewer in Lake Washington Boulevard. S 10 North -end alternative Ni 0 is not applicable to south end. Lining the existing south end of the lakeline is not a feasible alternative because of the extreme horizontal curvature of the pipe. S I 1 North -end alternative NI 1 is not applicable to south end. Lining the existing south end of the lakeline is not a feasible alternative because of the extreme horizontal curvature of the pipe. S 12 Peplace the existing lakeline with a new small diameter pressure sewer. l S 13 Replace the existing lakeline with a new 6-inch or 8-inch diameter fiDP2 sewer in the lake 5 with flushing capacity. S14 North -end alternative N14 is not applicable to south end. Sent by: KCM 206 443 5372; 03/16/99 4:31PM;J9Fax #728;Page 5/7 KCMPage Number: Project: City of Renton INITIAL ALTERNATIVE Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer LISTING AND EVALUATION FOR SOUTH END OF PROJECT Workshop Date: March 9, 1999 SOUTH END ALTERNATIVE LISTING ALT. NO. ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION VOTES S I5 North -end alternative N15 is nut applicable to south end. S 16 North -end alternative N16 is not applicable to south end. S 17 Install a new HDPF. sewer along the existing bulkheads in the lakc. S 18 Install :t new ductile iron sewer along the existing bulkheads in the lake. S19 Build new bulkheads outside the existing bulkheads and install a new sewer line on the land sick ol' the new bulkhead. S20 Restrain the existing pipe joints, add access points in the lakeline for maintenance and install I permanent flushing nozzles inside the existing pipe to clean the sags. S21 Construct a new gravity sewer between the homes and the railroad north to Station 28+00. Direct (low in the existing lakeline from Station 36+00 south and construct a new pump station at Station 28+00 S22 Use the existing lakeline for gravity flow from Stanon 36+()O ro Stanon 28+00. Inaall 1 new I pump station that draws from the sag at Station 21+00. Relay the pipe to remove the sag at Station 4+50, and provide ACCe5Y to the lakeline for maintenance. Sent by: KCM 206 443 5372; 03/16/99 4:32PM;)gjEpA #728;Page 6/7 TABLE 1 RESULTS OF WEIGHTED IMATRIX EVALUATION FOR NORTH END ALTERNATIVES Alternative Number NI N3 N7 NS N13 146 158 111 141 1:56 179 149 152 161 141 173 191 166 186 167 186 166 133 168 192 152 159 164 240 152 186 178 115 190 195 196 183 125 130 172 184 161 193 247 1S6 205 229 140 176 185 198 176 168 177 216 TOTAL 1805 1750 1467 1816 1762 RAND 2 4 5 1 3 Sent by: KCM 206 443 5372, 03/16/99 4:32PM,)g Fax #728;Page 7/7 TABLE 2 RESULTS OF WEIGHTED MATRIX EVALUATION FOR SOUTH END ALTERNATIVES Altornative Number S3 S6 S6 S13 S21 187 218 236 188 194 150 190 165 144 159 155 166 153 131 168 187 195 192 194 185 166 123 107 1.52 126 163 151 126 191 124 171 172 190 190 179 150 227 231 155 196 172 1.78 211 154 186 214 192 183 182 181 TOTAL 1715 1812 1794 1681 1698 RANK. 3 1 2 5 4 Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Workshop 2 Alternatives generation & Evaluation Workshop March 9, 1999 Agenda 9:00 — 9:30 Introduction Identify Participants Review workshop objectives Review Agenda 9:30 — 9:45 Discussion of Pipeline Condition Assessment 9:45 — 11:00 Brainstorm Solution Alternatives 11:00 — 12:00 Conduct Initial Screening (voting/discussion method) 12:00 — 1:00 Lunch/Continue Initial Screening 1:00 — 2:30 Conduct Weighted Matrix Evaluation of Top 10-12 Alternatives 2:30 — 3:15 Finalize Selection of Top Two or Three Alternatives for Further Evaluation 3:15 — 3:30 Summarize Workshop Results 3:30 Close � VCA1tJA&r- 1S6Ue- I Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project Workshop 3 Alternatives generation & Evaluation Workshop Date Draft Agenda 9:30 - 10:00 Introduction Identify Participants Review workshop objectives Review Agenda 10:00 - 12:00 Present Alternatives & Discuss technical issues 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 2:00 Discuss community and permitting issues 2:00 - 2:30 Conduct paired comparison of alternatives 2:30 - 3:00 Calculate results of paired comparison p"w'vpI 3:00 - 4:00 Review results and select final alternatives 4:00 Close i