Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP272710(3) (2)
OAKESDALE AVENUE SW EXTENSION Phase 1A - SW 27th Street to SW 16th Street ADDENDUM TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS Please disregard the "First Set if Input to Addendum No. 2" transmitted on 1/8/98 by Shawn Summersett. While most items from that transmittal are pertinent, a few have been deleted per City request and others have been modified. 3. SCHEDULE OF PRICES: The following bid item references refer to the bid item numbers, as listed on the "Green pages" in Addendum No. 1: Item A18 (Mitigation Wetland Excavation, including Haul): The bid quantity has been revised from 18,500 CY to 20,500 CY. Item A29 (Corrugated Polyethylene Storm Sewer Pipe - 12 inch diameter): The bid quantity has been revised from 1,723 LF to 1,705 LF. 1 Item A32 (Ductile Iron Storm Sewer Pipe - 12 inch diameter): The bid quantity has been revised from 924 LF to 811 LF. Item A39 (Catch Basin - Type 1): The bid quantity has been revised from 30 EA to 29 EA. Item A40 (Catch Basin - Type 2 - 48" diameter): The bid quantity has been revised from 8 EA to 9 EA. Item A42 (Catch Basin -Type 2 - 72 in. Dia. w/Flow-Through Pipe): The bid quantity has been revised from 1 EA to Zero. This item number is shown as "not used". Item 50 (Steel Reinforcing Bar): The specification reference is changed to 6-02.5. Item A54 (Deficient Strength Concrete Price Adjustment): Item A55 (Slump and Air Price Adjustment): In order to provide a uniform basis for bidding, and in accordance with Section 6-02.5 of the Standard Specifications, an amount of$ 0 (Zero dollars) has been entered against each of these items in the Schedule of Prices to become a part of the total bid. Item A79 (Upland Seeding): The bid quantity has been revised from 1.88 AC to 1.48 AC. Item A80 (Constructed-Wetland Seeding): The bid quantity has been revised from 1.97 AC to 2.37 AC. Item A82 (PSIPE Trees): The bid quantity has been revised from 1,244 EA to 1,316 EA. A new Item A108 has been added (covering"Crosshole Sonic Log Testing"). Item C9 (Gravel Backfill for Trench): The bid quantity has been revised from 400 TON to 517 TON. Revised, dated copies of pa c e es A and B are attached. Bidders Bidders shall remove he sup rseded pages of A2 thro A6,A8,A9,All and CI issued with Addendum No. I and re w pages attached. i E_ C TE 1-07.17 Utilities and Similar Facilities(page 8): Before the paragraph that begins "Contractor to place . . .", insert the following: The Contractor shall remove portions of the existing irrigation system, as shown on the plan sheets IR1 through IR3; relocate existing facilities where feasible; install protective sleeves where indicated; and replace the removed portions with pipe, valves, sprinkler heads and controls equivalent to the existing system ( "Rain Bird" or equivalent). The relocated and replacement system shall provide full coverage of existing irrigated areas on both sides of the road, including new embankment side slopes and the slopes along each side of the paved trail along Springbrook Creek. Irrigation below Wall "H" may be accomplished using sprinkler heads located along the east edge of the trail. The work shall be in accordance with Section 8-03 of the Standard Specifications, and all materials and equipment incorporated in the system shall meet the requirements of Section 9-15 of the Standard Specifications. Salvaged components of the existing system may be incorporated in the replacement system provided that they are undamaged and in good working order. The information shown on plan sheets IRl through IR3 is based on design details provided by the Boeing Company and does not necessarily represent the as-built field condition. Prior to commencing any removal, relocation or replacement work, the Contractor shall prepare and submit for review by the Engineer an "Irrigation System Removal, Relocation and Replacement Plan". Page 8 he fifth paragraph in this Section, beginning with "Contractor to place..." shall be replaced in its entirety with the following: -' Where shown in the plans and/or found in the field during the course of utility construction the contractor shall: 1. Place a compressible, degradation-resistant material (Ethafoam HS600 or equal) between rigid utilities and backfill trench with CDF to the spring-line of the upper rigid utility pipe at crossings with 3" or less separation. 2. Backfill trench with CDF to the spring-line of the upper rigid utility pipe at crossings with 12" or less separation. Page 10: Before the paragraph that begins "Payment for Ethafoam . . .", insert the following: The Lump Sum contract price for "Relocate Irrigation System" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for removing, relocating and replacing the irrigation system as shown on the plans, as specified and as detailed in the approved "Irrigation System Removal, Relocation and Replacement Plan", including the cost of preparing the "Irrigation System Removal, Relocation and Replacement Plan". r trol Plans (pa 1 • This Section is su le ented w' ing: + f _ h co may cl a strian Ira" wi ' the work is not req 'red re ute ra fic� 2-03.4 Measurement (page 19): This Section is supplemented with the following: The approximate quantity listed in the schedule of prices for Water Quality Pond Excavation, including Haul includes the over-excavation required by Notes 3 and 6 on Sheet 46 of 96. p a ment (pa 42 . The aFilms,straftnbe���0_5_ ro ' 8-32.3(3) Excavation (page 63): The second paragraph in this Section, beginning with "All g g constructed...", shall be replaced with the following: All constructed wetland areas shall be excavated a minimum of two (2) feet below existing grade to remove soil containing unwanted propagules. Areas of excavation in excess of two (2) feet shall be excavated an additional three (3) inches to accommodate soil amendment. Excess excavated material shall be disposed of in accordance with Section 2-03.3(7) of the Standard Specifications and the note on Sheet 36 of 96, Dwg D2. Page 64: The phrase "controlled density fill (CDF)" in the second to last paragraph in this section, beginning with "Excavation...", should be replaced with the phrase "lean concrete". 8-32.4 Measurement (page 65): The first paragraph in this Section shall be supplemented with the following: The approximate quantity listed in the schedule of prices for Mitigation Wetland Excavation, including Haul includes the over-excavation requirements outlined in Section 8-32.3(3) of the Special Provisions. Page 65: The phrase "Controlled density fill (CDF)" in the last paragraph of this Section shall be replaced with the phrase "Lean concrete". /CONTRACT PLANS V Sheet 1/96 Cover Sheet: The drawing index is supplemented with the following: IRRIGATION MODIFICATION PLANS DWG NO. IR1 - IR3 SHEET NO. 97 - 99 Sheet 2/96 Dwg No. Al Summary of Quantities: Update the Item numbers, specification references and quantities to conform with the revised Schedule of Prices. ,/ Sheet 3/96 Dwg No. A2 Summary of Quantities: Update the Item numbers, specification references and quantities to conform with the revised Schedule of Prices. Sheet 45/96 Dwg No. DI Drainage Details: Detail G is replaced by the attached Detail G. Sheet 96/96 Dwg No. W5 Wetlands Planting Details: Make the following modifications: Replace all occurrences of the phrase "CDF" in the Detail 6 drawings and notes with the phrase "LEAN CONCRETE". The first sentence of Note 1 for Detail 6 shall be replaced with the following: LEAN CONCRETE MIX DESIGN AND PLACEMENT SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF STANDARD SPECIFICATION SECTION 2-09.3(1)E tkI FOR CDF, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: Y" The cover threshold noted in Detail 6 Note 2 shall be revised to 36 inches. The following Detail 6 notes shall be added: 4. UPLAND SEEDING AND SOIL AMENDMENT AS NOTED ON SHEET 94 OF 96, DWG W3 SHALL BE PROVIDED OVER THE LEVEL SPREADER. 5. THE LENGTH OF THE LEAN CONCRETE BACKFILL SHALL BE 25 FEET, CENTERED ON THE LEVEL SPREADER. The following contract plan sheets are being reissued: Sheet 37/96, Dwg D3, Drainage Plan and Profile Sheet 42/96, Dwg D8, Drainage Profiles Sheet 43/96, Dwg D9, Drainage Profiles Sheet 94/96, Dwg W3, South Wetlands Planting ✓` Sheet 95/96, Dwg W4, North Wetlands Planting ` Sheet 96/96, Dwg W5, Wetlands Planting Details ✓ THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FIFTH FLOOR j 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: (425) 277-4428 To: Barry Knight Company: Kato & Warren Phone: 206 448-4200 Fax: (206) 269-6378 JA N i998 From: Lin Wilson Engineering GF nRENTONg Dept. Organization: City of Renton pt. Phone: (425) 277-6223 Fax: (425) 277-4428 Date: January 8, 1998 Pages including this cover page: 5 Subject: Oakesdale Avenue - SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street Draft of Addendum No. 2 Message: Attached is a draft of the proposed Addendum. There are a number of items you will have to advise me on. I shall need to know which other drawings are to be reissued in addition those I have already listed. Would you please review it and let me know later this morning what to expect. Many thanks. cc: Joe Armstrong Bob Mahn Scott Woodbury sF*Y OAKESDALE AVENUE SW EXTENSION PHASE 1A- SW 27TH ST. TO SW 16TH ST. WASHINGTON STATE TIB(TIA)PROJECT NO. 9P-102(002)-1 ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE BID PROPOSAL, CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS NOTICE TO ALL PLANHOLDERS: The Bid Documents for the above-named project are modified as described below. Bidders shall take this Addendum into consideration when preparing and submitting their bids. Bidders shall attach this addendum to their copy of the Contract Documents, and shall acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in the space provided in the Proposal Form. Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to disqualification of his bid. THE BID DOCUMENTS ARE MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: II. INTRODUCTION 4. SCOPE OF WORK(page II-6): In the fourth paragraph, delete "2. Water Quality Ponds for Storm Drainage." 3. SCHEDULE OF PRICES: Item A50 (Steel Reinforcing Bar): The specification reference is changed to 6-02.5 Item A54 (Deficient Strength Concrete Price Adjustment): Item A55 (Slump and Air Price Adjustment): In order to provide a uniform basis for bidding, and in accordance with Section 6-02.5 of the Standard Specifications, an amount of $ 0 (Zero dollars) has been entered against each of these items in the schedule of prices to become a part of the total bid. Anew Item A108 has been added. (covering CDF at fuel pipeline crossing) Revised copies of pages A-6 and A-11 of the Schedule of Prices are attached Bidders shall remove the superseded pages of the Schedule of Prices issued with Addendum No. 1 and replace them with the new pages attached. Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension ADDENDUM NO.2 TIB(TIA) Project No. 9P-102(002)-1 January 9, 1998 Page 1 of 4 SPECIAL PROVISIONS: Section 1-07.23(1) (new section): Public pedestrian traffic on existing trails and paths through the construction area shall be prohibited during the construction period. Section 1-07.17 (page 8): Before the paragraph that begins "Contractor to place . . . ", insert the following: The Contractor shall remove portions of the existing irrigation system, as shown on the plan sheets IR 1 through IR 3, relocate existing facilities where feasible, install protective sleeves where indicated and replace the removed portions with pipe, valves, sprinkler heads and controls equivalent to the existing system, ("Rainbird" or equivalent). The relo- cated and replacement system shall provide full coverage of existing irrigated areas on both sides of the new Oakesdale Avenue, including new embankment side slopes. 'ny/•�re,rf-� The work shall be in accordance with Section 8-03 of the Standard Specifications, and all new materials and equipment incorporated in the system shall meet the requirements of Section 9-15 of the Standard Specifications. Salvaged components of the existing system may be incorporated in the replacement system provide that they are undamaged and in good working order. The information shown on plan sheets IR 1 through IR 3 is based upon design details pro- vided by The Boeing Company and does not necessarily represent the as-built field condi- tion. Prior to commencing any removal, relocation or replacement work, the Contractor prepare and submit for review by the Engineer an "Irrigation System Removal and Re- placement Plan". Before the paragraph that begins "Payment for Ethafoam . . . ", insert the following: The lump sum contract price for"Relocate Irrigation System" shall be full compensation for all labor , materials, tools, and equipment necessary for removing, relocating replacing the irrigation system as shown on the plans , as specified and as detailed in the approved "Irrigation System Removal and Replacement Plan", including the cost of preparing the "Irrigation System Removal and Replacement Plan". Section 1-09.7 Mobilization (new section): Mobilization shall include providing and maintaining a secure field office for use by the Engineer and his inspection staff throughout the entire construction period. The office shall have a floor area of at least 200 square feet, and shall be provided with two (2) office-type desks and two (2) chairs, a 2'/2-foot by 5-foot layout table, a 3-foot by 6-foot drafting table with stool, one four- drawer lockable metal filing cabinet, six (6) chairs, a functioning telephone on a private line exclu- sive to the Engineer's use, electric lighting, air conditioning and heating. The temperature controls shall be available to the Engineer and his staff and shall be capable of maintaining the desired tem- perature. Sanitary facilities shall be adjacent to the office and shall have tap water and soap dis- penser for washing hands. The Engineer's office shall be separate from the Contractor's field office and shall be for the exclusive use of the Engineer and his inspection staff. The contractor's person- Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension ADDENDUM NO. 2 TIB(TIA)Project No. 9P-102(002)-1 January 9, 1998 Page 2 of 4 nel shall not be allowed use of the telephone in the Engineer's office. The costs for utilities and lo- cal telephone service for the Engineer's field office shall be borne by the Contractor. A separate lump sum contract price for"Mobilization" is provided in each of the Schedules of Prices included in the Project Proposal. Section 2-03.5 Payment (Roadway Excavation and Embankment,page 20): 2. "Gravel Borrow including Haul", per Ton: In the second line, after"placing and compacting" delete ", or otherwise disposing of'. Section 6-13.3 (Page 31): (Consider revisions to define placement of tubes for ultrasonic testing- also affecting Drawing Sheet 58196, S3, and review the WSDOT GSPs to verify that the most current are being used, par- ticularly regarding slurry) Section 8-28.2 A Modular Block Units (Page 56): The fourth paragraph is revised to read: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (It may be preferable to leave this as it is - it does not appear to be a cost item) APPENDIX B - HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL: A draft of the proposed HPA is attached. Bidders should assume for the purpose of bidding that the conditions listed will apply when the actual HPA is issued. (if available) APPENDIX E - STANDARD PLANS: Project Sign Detail: Modify Note 2 to read as follows: "2. Letter Types: The letter type shall be solid Helvetica Medium, except for the logos. All letters and numbers shall be black. The City will provide full-size decals of the City of Renton logo and will provide electronic files for the graphic images of the Boeing and T.I.B. logos for use by the sign fabricator." CONTRACT PLANS: Information on the following plans has been revised as described below. Bidders should note these changes on their copies of the plans: Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension ADDENDUM NO.2 TIB(TIA) Project No. 9P-102(002)-1 January 9, 1998 Page 3 of 4 I het 346 Ivg NQC1uw n2At�r erane tt ila� �laris` c �** t Sheet 59/96 D..'.N �� ���si r��ed t�:�hcrrvl��r�t��rr���rr�ss ho1�lo�S���t rfics Sheet 68/96 Dwg No. S 13 In the detail "Typical Intermediate Diaphragm" a metal rail is shown mounted on top of the concrete pedestrian barrier. This is incorrect; the barrier ar- rangement is correctly shown on Dwg No. S 15 (Sheet 70/96). Sheet I16o $I6 luiv `inxiit asit�rretrxil: errnsrn p AJ J` ' lul (lai1d� oe P)....:Sht96 W h y The following General Notes apply to the Contract Plans: THE NUMBER OF CONTRACT PLANS HAS BEEN INCREASED TO 99 SHEETS TO AC- COMMODATE THE IRRIGATION MODIFICATION PLANS IR 1 THROUGH IR 3 The following plan has been revised and is reissued as Revision 1. A copy is attached to this Ad- dendum: Sheet No. Drawing Title SG12 Springbrook Creek Streambank Improvements The following plans have been added. Copies are attached to this Addendum (3 sheets total): Sheet No. Drawing Title IR 1 through IR 3 Irrigation Modification Plans (3 sheets) Bidders are advised to remove the original superseded plans and replace them with the new pages attached. ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS REMAIN IN EFFECT Issued January 9, 1998 THE CITY OF RENTON Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension ADDENDUM NO.2 TIB (TIA) Project No. 9P-102(002)-1 January 9, 1998 Page 4 of 4 OAKESDALE AVE. SW EXTENSION-PHASE 1A OWG NO. m� 2-r UTILITY PLAN SHEET 8 :Z' LUMINAIRE 1 r 0 HOLE PUMP VAULT 1 of 1 CORE RILLED. — �- - Z r_ 1--C7r-------- N TRANSFORMER I PU P & Z Z I & MOTOR I M TOR 11 1 2 10" PVC ~0 u.jQ I CONTROL I CABINET I Ji N t W J I O) z a I L------- N g _� wo ( I 12"0 HOLE CORE DRILLED. w0: d ¢ 1 z -----------I 9" 2'-6" X 1'-6" X 2'-0" DEEP SUMP :ga D } > a0 QoB Z I— 03 o 5/8" SS INSERT I 1 TMP' ( BEGINS Er FROM INSIDE OF VAULT w TYP, ., > o_ I A I 4 PLCS. ON FLOOR ( A ge,a Q> I I CHAIN HOIST ao� U Q I LUMINAIRE r------- lu R'-a N 5- LADDER I2 SUMP PUMPSi h ocgs w r--- i —L_—C3 L-_- --J 0 5'0 HOLE CORE DRILLED. NOTES: 1. EXISTING PUMP VAULT NO. 3 DESIGNED BY 1-3" PVC UTILITY VAULT COMPANY, INC. �a 1 -9� /92 PLAN AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AET 1 4 CITY OF o f 3 a 2 DURING EXISTING NEW PUMP VAULT CAN CONSTRUCTION.INOPERABLE E-�Z ,a 10'-0" INSIDE CLR. PUMP VAULT MUST BE OPERATIONAL BY MARCH 16. 1998. �W a U a c° 3. VAULT STRUCTURAL NOTES: to E 10'-8" DESIGN: ACI-318-95 BUILDING CODE & ASTM C-857 LOADING CONCRETE: 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH f'c = 6000 PSI C 7� 60 12'-8" OVERALL MESH: ASTM A-185 GRADEE65 _o m aU 106" METRO SS 4. CITY AND CONTRACTOR TO BE PRESENT WHEN BOEING VAULT PLAN FIELD VERIFIES THAT VAULT EQUIPMENT FUNCTIONS PROPERLY. BOEING TO SUPPLY REPLACEMENTS IF 1/2" = 1'-0" 8 1 W TESTING LOCATES MALFUNCTIONING EQUIPMENT. IL TA A n 0 5. DISCONNECT AND REMOVE EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING 4 +80 45+00 45+20 TRANSFORMER AND MOTOR CONTROL CABINET, PUMP & GRATED ACCESS DOOR - FU RE OAK D AVE. �, MOTOR, SUMP PUMPS, LADDER, LUMINAIRES, GRATED ACCESS DOOR, CHAIN HOIST AND ALL ASSOCIATED F EXIST. APPURTENANCES) FROM PUMP VAULT NO. 3 AND REINSTALL, z Q� PUMP CONNECT AND TEST IN NEW VAULT. CONTRACTOR SHALL a � _3" IR VAULT PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT REQ'D J NO. 3� FOR PROPER OPERATION OF NEW PUMP VAULT. 3" IR RE ONNECT UTILITIES — EXIST. GRADE -16_3 — _ _ _ G �0 IN IND 6. RECONNECT EXISTING PIPES AND GO POWER SUPPLY TO NEW VAULT. STA. 44+75, 7. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO FIELD LOCATE OJG 39.50' RT. ALL PIPING AND CONDUITS PRIOR TO as u �P NEW PUMP c EXCAVATION. 'f+ ———— - -- • _ VAULT NO. 3 a s C^�tT:err..'� '^ f;^ 41 SUPPLY CRANE FOR OFFLOADING AND VAULT a FUTURE SID ALK INSTALLATION. A FUTURE MSE W L 9• ABANDON EXISTING VAULT NO. 3 PER RENTON SUPPLEMETAL SPEC. 7-05.3(2) MODIFIED TO STATE THAT m FUTURE R W THE 8'xiO' VAULT LID SHALL BE BROKEN DOWN. 1.5" IRS 10. CONTACTS: a a 1.5" IR CITY OF RENTON: JOE ARMSTRONG 425-277-6203 b KATO & WARREN: SHAWN SUMMERSETT 206-448-4200 UTILITY VAULT CO. BOEING: RICK FORD 425-477-0094 0 p ` ^� #810 VAULT SPECIAL a 11. PROVIDE WATER-TIGHT SAND COLLARS AND NON-SHRINK GROUT AT ALL VAULT THRU PENETRATIONS (OR APPROVED 'OR EQUAL) Z Vz jts• �• '\� oLn PLAN FIN. FLR. EL. 5.0 A RECONNECT UTILITIES IN { SUMP KIND AND ABANDON INCOMPLETE t PUMP EXISTING UTILITIES TO , ��_`"`y VATION I : THE WEST IN PLACE.EXC MONITORING WELL PAY ALIMITS SECTION A—A SITE PLAN UUM 1/2" = 1'-O" 1" = 10' CITY OF RENTON OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. EXTENSION PRE-BID CONFERENCE - AGENDA Date: January 6, 1998 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Boeing's Construction Management Office INTRODUCTION Lin Wilson,P.E. Supervisor,Transportation Systems-Design City of Renton DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Lin Wilson,P.E. Barry Knight, P.E.,Kato&Warren,Inc. Brad Stein, P.E.,Entranco,Inc. Shawn Summersett,P.E.,Kato&Warren,Inc. PERMIT ISSUES Mark Pywell, City of Renton Bryce Ecklein,Kato & Warren, Inc. SCHEDULE ISSUES Lin Wilson, P.E. QUESTIONS ISSUES REQUIRING ADDENDA CLOSING REMARKS Lin Wilson, P.E. KATO & WARREN, INC. CLIENT t-D 2003-WESTERN AVENUE By SUITE 555•MARKET PLACE ONE PROJECT Dated sheet of SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98121 Ch kd (206)448-4200 CONTACT Date FAX(206)728-5608 PHONE ( ) Job No. N ��-t � -•� t fz.� ��C zss - 96 ST�1l�N/��k� ►� ,� I tv), I�;1G�P:I�L� ANT 6 oecot-D 6Zw T, �✓�..y�,� lei�-T tv /fi�Tsws G,c'�����vs� ) �z d 79 �orzi JoF- Lvl /V1�{ J kuN��� (�o . Ste/- �v� Arts 6- 4 F. ATv-i a cov Cv <d ) Z 7 3Z -5- � eY Lu N o .48 -4-2oo cl nc /�/Y;-�Jer a-A gob /ilal n 61� o-F 4-2-5 - 277 -$54S- ERI G D�P�VI�. GvNpOrl - .Io�IN�N �ZG�� 5'i�-�248 Z7Z�r, -2 -53-117(42 62��srzC 6X'.ac„2E�Z fl IR"Pf7 (J,�QR�� (z�) l��`f ZOb F3C�� Gu�7?�t �Yu,ii2 '�'Rn�STFcN �G�cf�'iC � �53) G3q- t 330 III. PROJECT PROPOSAL CITY OF RENTON City of Renton-Planning/Building/Public Works Department OAKESDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST 27TH STREET TO SOUTHWEST 27TH STREET SCHEDULE OF PRICES SCHEDULE A- ROADWAY (Continued) ITEM APPROX. ITEM WITH UNIT PRICE BID UNIT PRICE AMOUNT NO. QUANTITY UNITS (Unit Prices to be Written in Words) DOLLARS CTS DOLLARS CTS A 100 LS Permanent Signing 8-21 per LS A 101 LS Illumination System, 8-20 Complete RC/SP per LS A 102 LS Traffic Signal System 8-20 Complete RC/SP per LS A103 LS Interconnect,Complete 8-20 RC/SP per LS A104 LS Traffic Control 1-10 RC/SP per LS A105 LS Contractor Supplied 1-05 Surveying RC per LS A106 6 EA Monument Case and Cover 8-13 RC per EA A107 LS Settlement Instrumentation 8-33 SP per LS TOTAL-SCHEDULE A: $ A - 11 paw•-�� S, � �., �,�y..�t►s �M Z ��� - -- - --- 2 � - I ¢�»p 6t b4mt t/ ovd e, LA psi F F CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 30, 1997 TO: Rick Ford, The Boeing Company FROM: Lin Wilson, Transportation Design SUBJECT: Oakesdale Avenue Project Response to plan review comments on 100% design drawings We have reviewed your comments of December 12 on the 100%plans and specifications submittal. Please note that some changes have already been made to the drawings subsequent to the 100% submittal and form part of the bid documents. Our responses are summarized below: 1. Landscape design drawings are Shapiro & Associates have been requested to meet with Boe- required which describe restora- ing landscape consultant(Peter Hummel) to determine the tion and redesign of irrigation scope of plantings proposed (see responses on pages 5 and 6). systems and landscaped areas Shapiro has been relieved from the assignment to design the disturbed by this project. modifications to the existing irrigation system. This will be done by Kato & Warren and incorporated in an Addendum to the Bid Documents to be issued prior to the Pre-Bid Confer- ence (January 6, 1998) 2. Sheet 1/96 indicates that the "New The City intends to place a Purchase Order for the prefabri- Pump Vault" is not used - we un- cated vault. Installation of the vault and relocation of the derstood that this vault was to be equipment from the existing vault will either be done under an relocated as part of the Oakesdale advance contract(if less than $35,000), or will be added to the project. Please explain. Oakesdale roadway contractor's scope by Change Order. 3. Sheet 8/96 indicates survey con- Point taken. We have requested from W&H Pacific a listing trol points located on Boeing of the remaining control points. It may be necessary to re- property. It is possible that some establish some of the control points during the pre-construc- of these points have been dis- tion survey thatwill be required to obtain new terrain data turbed by Boeing construction or needed for construction measurement purposes. will be disturbed by PSE if the points are located on power poles that are to be relocated. 4. Sheet 13/96 the driveway radii at We used the latest driveway information(at that time)pro- DW-7 should be 35'. vided by Sverdrup in preparing the 100% plans. This infor- mation was subsequently superseded and there will be a re- vised plan issued either as an addendum to the bid documents or prior to the start of construction. Memorandum to Rick Ford December 30, 1997 Page 2 5. Sheet 13/96: Since the profiles The utility crossings (including the proposed/existing Boeing show all utility crossings, the crossings) will be shown on the utility plans as "existing" plans should also show them. crossings. A general note will be added by Addendum to re- fer to to the utility plans. 6. Sheet 14/96: Since the profiles show all utility crossings, the See above response to Comment No. 5. plans should also show them. 7. Sheets 19/96, 20/96 & 21/96: This will be clarified in due course. If the detail is not in- Since the responsibility for paving cluded in the bid drawings, it will not require a Change Order, driveway curbs/gutters will be an since payment is on a unit price basis. Oakesdale responsibility, draw- ings should reflect such. 8. Sheet 33/96 we understand that The portion of the Springbrook Creek Trail in question will be the City of Renton, or the Oakes- constructed as part of the next phase of the Springbrook Creek dale project has agreed to con- Channel Widening project. Design of the next phase is struct that portion of the pathway scheduled to occur in 1998 with construction scheduled for within the 200' shoreline zone 1999. If funding availability, or other circumstances, delay (hat part required to connect the the construction beyond 1999, then Hunter-Douglas is obli- existing Springbrook Creek as- gated, under an agreement with the City of Renton, to con- phalt trail to the proposed trail struct the portion of the trail in question at the location de- roughly parallel to SW 19th termined by the Channel Widening design. The Oakesdale street). Note that this is to be an roadway plans are not affected by this issue. asphalt trail. This is not shown in the drawings. 9. Sheet 51/96 should include the In the latest set of construction drawings, the 6" diameter irri- Boeing 6" irrigation sleeve adja- gation sleeve is shown in plan view. cent to the Boeing 8" irrigation main. 10. Sheet 51/96: It maybe beneficial When we receive a plan from PSE showing the locations to show the location of the relo- agreed between Jerry Hagen and Jeff Schutt,this information cated PSE overhead transmission can be added to the plans. (See also Comments # 14, 16) lines on these plans. 11. Sheet 52/96 indicates a proposed A list of utilities added or modified after the 95% Submittal 12" sewer stub which was added which may be of interest to Boeing include: after the 95% drawings were Entire project length: PSE gas system submitted; have any other utilities STA 15+35, Rt.: Hydrant assembly been added or other significant STA 15+61, Rt.: Storm realignment changes made since the 95% STA 15+62, Lt.: Sanitary sewer stub and manhole submittal? STA 18+00, Lt.: Fire sprinkler assembly STA 18+13, Rt.: Fire hydrant STA 20+25: Power sleeve Sheets U2 and U3: Seattle City Light proposed aerial power system Sheets U2 and U3: Different call-out on private water main parallel to centerline (continued) Memorandum to Rick Ford December 30, 1997 Page 3 STA 20+68, Rt.: Fire hydrant STA 25+50, Rt.: Storm realignment STA 26+12: 60" diameter water main STA 28+97, Lt.: Water valve STA 31+78, Lt.: Sanitary sewer stub and manhole STA 32+90, Lt.: Storm realignment STA 36+85, Lt.: Adjust CB to grade 11. Sheet 52196 indicates a proposed STA 40+50, Lt.: Communications manhole 12"sewer stub which was added Sheets U5, U6 and U7: Irrigation system modifications after the 95% drawings were to be shown in the landscaping plans submitted; have any other utilities Sheets U5 and U6: Updated existing utility file been added or other significant (deletions) to reflect current field conditions ob- changes made since the 95% served during site visit submittal? STA 44+70, Lt.: Communications manhole STA 45+00: Pump vault STA 46+90, Rt.: Storm realignment Sheet U7: PSE proposed aerial power system Sheet D7: Conveyance and vault realignment STA 52+25, Rt.: Fire hydrant CDF and/or ethafoam placed between rigid utilities (see Special Provision 1-07.17) 12. Sheet 52/96: We have spent con- As shown, the water main is not anticipated to conflict with siderable time discussing the ex- project utilities and should, therefore, not need modification. isting waterline at Sta. 32+40 with Kato & Warren. Will this water- line be abandoned in place if it exists or capped at the r/w? 13. Sheet 52-96 indicates a proposed 12" sewer stub. Our records indi- (a) The plans will be revised to show a direct connection with cate that the existing 12" stub is at the existing stub, and the drop connection detail will be I.E. -2.19, and our recent experi- deleted from the standard plans. ence with King County is that they require the connection to be (b) The location of the manhole will be moved 5 feet to the made to the existing stub. (a) west to avoid conflict with Boeing's proposed facilities. Boeing's master utility plan calls for a connection at this manhole, but at the elevation of the stub, not with a drop structure. Previ- ous Boeing connections to the King County sewer have been made at the existing stubs to al- low extensions to the west side of the Longacres site with maximum flexibility. (b) Furthermore, the proposed manhole at 50' left will interfere with the proposed 8" ir- Memorandum to Rick Ford December 30, 1997 Page 4 rigation main designed as part of the Boeing 25-20 parking lot ex- pansion. We suggest that this manhole be set further west, within the adjacent parking stalls. 14. Sheet 52/96: It may be beneficial When we receive a plan from PSE showing the locations to show the location of the relo- agreed between Jerry Hagen and Jeff Schutt, this information cated PSE overhead transmission can be added to the plans. (See also Comments # 10, 16) lines on these plans. 15. Sheet 52/96: It would be more Recently completed Boeing Site 25-20 parking lot extension consistent to show all Boeing utilities south of STA 32+00 can be incorporated into the plan utilities, including those which are set if necessary. If the utilities are outside of the project work within the recently completed 25- areas, our contractor may not be need this information. K&W 20 parking lot extension design. will need the CAD files to incorporate this request. Sverdrup can provide the latest files if the drawings will be re- printed. 16. Sheet 53/96: It may be beneficial When we receive a plan from PSE showing the locations to show the location of the relo- agreed between Jerry Hagen and Jeff Schutt, this information cated PSE overhead transmission can be added to the plans. (See also Comments # 10, 14) lines on these plans. 17. Sheet 53/96: Boeing will remove Field investigation showed that the luminaire and pole base at the luminaires, but not the foun- STA 41+25, 54' Lt. and the pole base at STA 41+65, 44' Lt. dations (similar to Sheet 54/96) have been removed by Boeing construction activity. 18. Sheet 54/96 indicates that the The location of the new pump vault needs to be agreed with pump vault will be relocated by Boeing as soon as possible. A proposed site plan was given Boeing. This is not what the team to Rick Ford 12/19/97. See also response to Comment#2 has agreed to. Sverdrup sug- gested a new vault location closer to the r/w than shown. 19. Sheet 91/96 - (a) Clearing (a) The temporary silt fence shown on Sheet 91/96 will be limit/filter fabric fence should be extended to the end of Wall C (approx. STA 48 +20). added to protect CSTC wetlands. (b) A note on the plans and an item in the bid list will be (b) It is possible that sheet piling added to cover the placement of quarry spalls to provide a will also be required to create a stable platform above standing water on which to construct dry work area. Furthermore, de- the base of Wall C and place embankment fill. This type of watering may be necessary. Has treatment will be more appropriate than attempting to dewater dewatering been planned or the area or using sheet piling. Provision will also have to be permitted? made to provide for planting at the base of the wall as agreed in response to the comments on the following pages. Memorandum to Rick Ford December 30, 1997 Page 5 Comments on the landscape design portion of the drawings: Boeing will lose 105 mature trees and nearly one acre of landscape developed for the CSTC project. Sheet SG-12 is the only land- scape planting sheet that covers the developed portion of the Boeing Longacres property. The planting proposed on this sheet deals primarily with the area between Springbrook Creek and the Springbrook Creek Trail. A small patch of Nootka Rose, 6 Western Crabapples 3' -4' ht., a single row of 1 gal. Virginia Creeper vines, and a note about contractor replacement of plant material, are all that is shown to repair or replace the impacts to the landscape from the Oakesdale project. We recommend the following items be included in the final landscape design that goes out to bid: A. Trees for Wall Screening: It's my (Peter Hummel's) Wall E has trees and shrubs planted understanding that when the Oakesdale project is at the base. It may be that Boeing is done the goal is that the landscape on either side of it responding to an earlier design, or will come up "seamlessly" to the new road and side- that additional plantings are being walks. The large retaining walls, particularly "Wall requested. Shapiro will coordinate C" (which will be up to 20' tall on the "delta wetland" with Boeing on this matter. side), and "Wall E" (which will be up to 14' tall as viewed from the CSTC building) will need to be The meeting between Shapiro and screened with a mixture of native evergreen trees. Boeing's landscape advisors re- This was discussed and agreed to at our 9-23-97 vealed issues that had not previously meeting with the City of Renton and their design been documented. Shapiro will pre- team. We recommend that Western Red Cedar be pare a proposal for the City's con- used as the primary evergreen screen tree due to its sideration to add the plantings and current use on-site, and its adaptability to a range of bioengineering treatment requested. soil moisture conditions. Other native, evergreen tree Since this work will be covered by species could be mixed in to screen these walls as unit prices, it will not be reflected in well, if appropriate to the site conditions. At Wall C the Addendum, and will be negoti- special consideration is needed where the tallest por- ated between the City, Boeing and tion of the wall will be over an area with standing the designers at a later date. water much if not all the time. Since the area will be too wet for any evergreens, we recommend that wil- In Shapiro's opinion, Boeing is rec- lows be planted at the base of the wall in a similar ommending a treatment that would manner as exists at the west edge of the affected wet- fill part of the remaining wetland. land area. A "bio-engineered bush layering" tech- The permitting implications of this nique was utilized for these willows which includes a design need to be discussed. "Coir" geotextile fabric for stabilizing the soil layers above a submerged rock rip-rap base. A small amount of wetland fill may be needed to achieve this wall screening with willow planting. However, the base of the wall should not be left unplanted, particu- larly in this case where it meets the water at its tallest point. B. Trees for Embankment Screening: The 3:1 road- fffiY lidtWsenf&zPiiomde- way embankment slopes approaching the Spring- brook Creek Bridge will need to be planted with trees vealed issues that had not previously sufficient to screen and blend this embankment with been documented. Shapiro's under- the existing landscape. The trees on the embankment standing was that roadway embank- Memorandum to Rick Ford December 30, 1997 Page 6 will need to approximate the size and match the exist- ment slopes, including those within ing species on the CSTC site that they will be adja- the CSTC wetland area, were to be cent to. These tree species include Red Alder, seeded. The request to provide Siouxlang Cottonwood, Western Red Cedar, and Cas- "trees sufficient to screen . . . this cara. These trees were 3" caliper and 12' height when embankment" is one of which planted 4 years ago. Therefore, a much more exten- Shapiro was not previously notified. sive effort to plant trees on both sides of the road Shapiro will prepare a proposal to between stations 41+50 and 48+50 will be needed. add the plantings requested. C. Other Plantings: The existing understory vegetation Shapiro can replace the Virginia in and adjacent to the Oakesdale alignment is a com- Creeper in the design with Boeing's bination of unmoved native grasses, native ground- preferred Boston Ivy, but there is covers and low native shrubs. We recommend that some concern with using this species. the areas affected by road construction(both sides of On previous wetland mitigation proj- the road between stations 41+50 and 48+50)will ects, the USACE has recommended need to be replanted with a palette of species to match that this species not be used because and blend with what exists. Species that are thriving it is a non-native, and because it is an and are easily maintainable by grounds crews are pre- aggressive invasive species. Virginia ferred. Simply hydroseeding these areas with a stan- Creeper is not native, but is natural- dard erosion control seed mix will not achieve the ized in many areas, and is not as ag- desired result--the seamless connection. Also, the gressive a colonizer as ivy. Com- new road embankment will have 3:1 slopes, which ments regarding the planting of the are too steep to mow with normal equipment. On the embankment are addressed in the east side, at Wall C, the drawings show a single row previous response to Comment B. of Virginia Creeper. While this is a step in the right direction, we stated at our 9-23-97 meeting with the City of Renton, that Boston Ivy is preferred. It will cover the wall faster and more completely than Vir- ginia Creeper. Also, the wetland conditions along most of this wall will require that these vines be planted in a raised planter with subdrainage. This comment was made as part of my 10-10-97 review of the 95% Construction Drawings on sheet SG1. We need to review these details. D. Irrigation: There are no irrigation plans. The road Kato & Warren will show the work will cause major impacts to the existing irrigation required to maintain the function of system affecting the CSTC landscape well beyond the the existing irrigation system. Details limits of the road construction. Therefore, repair and will be included in the Addendum to redesign of the irrigation system will need to be ad- allow bidders to provide a price for dressed as part of the Oakesdale project. Also, all of the work. the new plantings mentioned above will need to be irrigated except for the willows at Wall C. h:\...\lin\oakesdal\100%resp.doc cc: Barry Knight(K&W) Jeff Schutt(Sverdrup) Leslie Betlach Bob Mahn Joe Armstrong Dave Christensen Scott Woodbury Abdoul Gafour CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 29, 1997 TO: Dick Warren FROM: Scott Woodbury450 SUBJECT: SW 16th Street Wetvault Design Attached are the design calculations for the SW 16th Street wetvault that was recently installed. Unfortunately, the technical information report has not been finalized and so has some errors that I think would potentially confuse WDOE. The following paragraph briefly explains the rationale behind the wetvault's sizing if WDOE wants to know more information. The wetvault was only sized for the section of SW 16th Street from Oakesdale Avenue to Raymond Avenue(1.12 acres). This is the section of road that was widened by the SW 16th Street project, but is only a portion of the approximately 6.2 acre tributary area. The widening only added bike lanes and sidewalk. Thus the impervious area subject to vehicle use did not change and water quality treatment would not have been required for the SW 16th Street widening project. However, since direct discharge into the previously widened Springbrook Creek was proposed (in lieu of providing detention), the project was required to provide water quality treatment in compliance with Special Requirement #5 of the KSCWDM. It was decided that a wetvault would be used and sized for the impervious area within the limits of the SW 16th Street widening project, not for the entire tributary area. The important point is that some water quality treatment is being provide for the SW 16th Street system even though the project could have just installed a detention system to satisfy the City's requirements. However, WDOE may view the wetvault as mitigation for the SW 16th Street project and not allow the City to apply the water quality benefits to the Oakesdale project. I hope this helps. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me at 425- 277-5547. U:1997:97-040:SW attachments(6 pages) cc: Lin Wilson Joe Armstrong Ron Straka Project sl ) t Sheet of /009) Job Number -I 1 o�1 BERGER/ABAM Subject t.A.)e,+ Vf il1f Li In Desow ENGINEERS I NC. ( � Date I] - l q_ -��n �� W�+" V'G-t�C-1 T� I S �..P�S i Il� Per � E'�G►C�.l Re<:bcu+-e .q 5 c-Acd K. nq Cou4ty 5 ► Z,: n9 S ucr-'FO-cam oa-e-o-, U-z e-., S+a-. 11 -t- 00 +?o S-f-c�- 21 +00 a s q-he, /''1 P PS t1 Q c cis ctr�_ C—O nf, -;b u.T". nc7 ItiSC'� CZ. '-Ir- s 44� I I k on }-moo year s�'orM = 2. O gin . p; p e �.aoForr�se ; 1/7/97 1 page 1 SW 16th St. Water Quality Vault Sizing ------------- BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: watrqual NAME: water quality basin SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 1 .12 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : KC24HR PERV IMP PRECIPITATION. . . . : 0 .67 inches AREA. . : 0 . 00 Acres 1.12 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10 .00 min CN. . . . : 0 . 00 98 .00 TC. . . . : 0 . 00 min 10 .00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 PEAK RATE: 0 .14 cfs VOL: 0.04' Ac-ft TIME: 480 min Project Sl.) l��}-h S-f—o Sheet of /009 Job Number__f7q BERGER/ABAM Subject W tyz - 1 k71.�14- 1� ,`G n per ENGINEERS I No. 9 Date fyJ MQ i tom' 0Yts. r')H t '(2., in 5 opt d vcu�c�1� o 1W-.�o3 �b0-; 1OL t-,?- t,Jal +o Type- Z GC> �+o-0o�-ofrroe Project S W j�-T-h S-i . Sheet //�� of �_1 00010 Job Number t4q 77 'L BERGER/ABAM Subject����- V��,. I�- ��on Designer r.. E N G I N E E R S I N C. Date 1 - I 44--9-7 o . I4-t- Pe- `- I Lb ! 3 ' C-SPs .T cL6le, 3 _ ©� 5ho�-p ed-crexot Ic�� `+ s�3 �cu 0 7 n t o moo.-o,r7 Project S IA 1� ) S� Sheet nn of Job Number BERGER/ABAM Subject���- 1/c,� Des; _ Designer / E N G I N E E R S I N C. 1, Date l rD "9 1 C ,lo � 4t = C'5 0)(1 - -700 !iP+z hz = Il . 6 3 C-,( e.) (2�L00)� ILt- 3 - 1 j .Co3) 00�( (32,2)) �r +(o o�- Znd- 3 b C,-Y C-LAd- be�nq d-, !-:-,c,"eJ EV-ooi-oerows Project 1 /A) S�#' Sheet (('��*-� of cL!! Job Number )9 !O T BERGER/ABAM Subject_!� - Vo c<lam— ,s.�, Designer ENGINEERS I NC. Date. � can '-f be, cr-�s -hop S ,+ mot- G S C,J(I '-f-. L-f G p oSr- G P Pew +-o - slope" 2 % TO vo,"Ji CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 23, 1997 TO: Joe Armstrong FROM: Scott Woodbury 5(A) SUBJECT: Comments to the 95% Oakesdale Extension Drainage Report Following are my comments to the 95% Oakesdale drainage report: 1. Please eliminate any reference to the report as being"abbreviated." 2. The report must describe how the project satisfies the each of the KCSWDM core and special requirements, specifically addressing each subbasin. For example, the report in the discussion of Special Requirement#5 needs to state that the water quality ponds were oversized by 150% in lieu of providing a biofiltration swale. Another example is for Core Requirement#3 where the text needs to explain how runoff control is being provided for the project. For Basins 1 and 2, the existing wetlands will provide runoff control. There needs to be some quantitative justification for using the wetlands, i.e., the volume of runoff for the 10-year event divided over the wetland area would result in less than a 0.1 foot incease in depth. For Basin 3,the discharge is into a receiving water so peak rate runoff control is not required, provided Special Requirement#5 is satisfied. If a requirement does not apply,then the report must state the reason why it does not apply. 3. Please update the conveyance analysis to reflect the current design (unless it is only a minor change that will not affect the analysis)and the following comments: • Because of final design changes, the outfall pipe from Basin 1 is only 34 feet long, not 44 feet. I also plan to make a field change so that the pipe from the south pond to the Type 2 CB at Sta. 15+61, 46.8' right, is 18"diameter. • All backwater analysis should use inlet type coding#5, not#6. 4. See also the attached comments made in the text of the report. I may be contacted at 425-277-5547 if there are any questions regarding these comments. U:OAKSDALE:97-025:S W attachments cc: Ron Straka s Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - Phase IA 95% Abbreviated S.W.T.I.R. City of Renton INTRODUCTION The purpose of this A� Surface Water Technical Information Report is to document the design requirements, exceptions, methodology and calculations for the surface water design elements of the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension project. -D / 5 r O✓ OVERVIEW �f t' s�`�� The project is located primarily west of Springbrook Creek with a small portion cated east of the Creek. Project runoff is tributary to Springbrook Creek via y<adjoining wetland , which flows to the Duwamish River before entering Puget Sound at Elliott Bay. The Phase 1 project will increase the impervious area from an essentially undeveloped site with no impervious area to 7.07 acres of impervious pavement and sidewalks. The proposed road travels through predominantly developing commercial areas on level, grassland terrain. In addition to the Creek, oth sensitive areas exist on site. Several wetlands are adjacent to, or within,the project right-of-way. The project drains to these adjacent wetlands, of which Wetland D is a closed depression. The project is also within, or adjacent to„FEMA floodplain�! Slopes of greater than 30%exist adjacent to the creek. �l DESIGN REQUIREMENT SUMMARY Surface water conveyance and mitigation facilities are designed to meet or exceed the requirements outlined by the following agencies: � t 6411 r r-hw Swalc u hc,d s - City of Renton: The drainage system, including convey and surface water mitigation elements, is designed to meet or exceed requirements outlined in the ng County Surface Water Design Manual (1990 KCSWDM) adopted by the City of Renton Storm an urface Water Drainage Ordinance. Water-quality ponds have been enlarged to provide a minim of 150% of the dead storage volume and surface area required by the 1990 KCSWDM. Tailwater elevations used for the conveyance system backwater analysis were established by the higher of the S 1 A100-yr storage event or the water- quality facility water-surface elevation. Gl f k ors "° t;4.^ 144 14s-, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife: (drainage-related requirements/ recommendations were set forth in a letter to Gregg Zimmerman from Philip Schneider dated May 6, 1997) 4�13t a�tc�, � �,e4cr 1 r+ 'q ("`'�'4- '4i,� (f t,"P"'E I her' 1. An HPA Permit will be obtained for outfalls and for discharge to Springbrook Creek. 2. All discharge meets or exceeds requirements of the WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Kato & Warren, Inc. 1 September, 1997 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - Phase 1A 95% Abbreviated S.W.T.I.R. City of Renton i 3. Where land use will accommodate, wetponds are proposed rather than wet vaults for maintenance reliability,�reasons. cf Washington State Department of Ecology: (drainage related requirements/recommendations were set forth in a letter to Robert Mahn from Rebecca Inman dated May 2, 1997) 1. Drainage design addresses both individual and cumulative impacts to existing flooding, infiltration and water-quality problems by coordinating mitigation efforts with other development proposals in the area (e.g., the East Side Green River Watershed Study and adjacent development proposals). 2. Springbrook Creek (WRIA #WA-09-1015, Class A Waters of the State) is on the current 303(d) list of water bodies exceeding state water-quality standards. The specific standards exceeded include fecal coliform, temperature, dissolved oxygen, sediment bioassay, cadmium, copper, mercury and zinc. Mitigation facilities a designed beyond standard requirements to ensure that state water-quality standard in Springbrook Creek are not further degraded. • IIa r'"1.7 ��•� wz � 3. Stormwater discharges to wetlands are anticipated to either meet state water-quality standards, or through mitigation sequencing, the impacts of such discharges are avoided, minimized, or mitigated by the proposed wetland mitigation plan. 4. Floodway and water-quality mitigation has been integrated as recommended. i EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND PROBLEMS The project site is relatively undeveloped and therefore existing man-made drainage features are primarily associated with off-site private development. Off-site runoff approaches the project primarily from the west. Boeing's BCAG site has several existing drainage courses that convey runoff in an easterly direction across the project corridor and on to Springbrook Creek. These drainage features include: an existing 12" concrete outfall pipe near Sta. 26+30; an existing 12" concrete outfall pipe near Sta. 30+08; and an existing ? MP inlet pipe near Sta. 37+30 which is reported by a Sverdrup engineer(Kevin Bowen)to have Keen abandoned and filled with controlled-density fill during recent Boeing construction activities. Boeing's new CSTC Building site has an existing 48" ductile iron culvert crossing the project in an easterly direction near Sta. 43+00 to drain an open detention/treatment/wetland facility. Runoff from the project site generally sheet flows easterly to wetlands and drainage courses tributary to Springbrook Creek. Besides flooding problems associated with the floodplain in the area, exceedence of State Water-Quality Standards, erosion in Springbrook Creek, and proximity to the closed depression at Wetland D, no other existing flooding or drainage problems have been unearthed during the resource review process. Kato & Warren, Inc. 2 September, 1997 • j{b1 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - Phase IA 95% Abbreviated S.W.T.I.R. City of Renton t PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM ApFil-199:7 Design �Relativel�+-1' d outfall s�ent� -F-�rless-east, c nstru - 1 of pe -rate runo con rids and 4 proposed stormwater conveyance and mitigation systems will be constructed as described below. General Comments for All Site Drainage Basins: Conveyance and mitigation features are ' designed to safely pass the 100-yr storm event. Backwater analysis shows that catch basins will not overtop for storm events less than, or equal to, the 100-yr storm event. In anticipation of tree planting along the boulevard, open-curb-face inlets are being utilized on the project to facilitate runoff capture during autumn months. A minimum pipe cover of two feet has been maintained between the conveyance system and the roadway finished grade except as noted-below. As requested by the City, catch basins are spaced at approximately 150 or 200 lineal feet depending on road grades. i The project has been broken into three basins to accommodate surface water mitigation facility I siting. The following narrative describes the proposed drainage system in each basin. j BASIN I - Sta. 15+00 to Sta. 20+25 After Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction, on-site surface water runoff will be conveyed in curb and gutter systems to catch basins and a closed trunk conveyance system parallel to the road and outfalling to a newly-constructed water-quality pond and constructed wetland. Conveyance System: The conveyance system is constrained on the west side of the alignment by an existing 12"diameter watermain. Proximity to the watermain requires that the trunk conveyance main be placed on the east side of the road and concrete inlets are required near the watermain in places. The conveyance system is further constrained by the limited available fall to the 100-yr downstream tailwater elevation of 13.91 feet set by the water-quality pond outfall culvert. 1,ifnited— 11me The conveyance system outfall pipe will be submerged during wet periods when the water-quality pond dead storage is full, but the road system is set entirely above the water-quality i pond dead storage elevation of 13.60 feet. Submerged discharge was selected in accordance with the Draft 1996 King County Surface Water Design Manual (1996 KCSWDM)to enhance tranquil discharge of runoff into the pond. Limited pipe cover requires the use of ductile iron pipe in low areas of the basin. The conveyance system passes through a 72" diameter Type 2 Catch Basin with a baffle which provides oil spill containment and captures floatable material prior to discharge to the water-quality pond. Kato & Warren, Inc. 3 September, 1997 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - Phase 1A 95% Abbreviated S.W.T.I.R. City of Renton BASIN 2 - Sta. 20+25 to Sta. 48+40 i The Phase 1 conveyance system in this basin is divided by the location of the water-quality pond into a northerly and southerly conveyance zone. The southerly conveyance zone is between Sta. 20+25 and Sta. 25+50 and the northerly conveyance zone is between Sta. 25+50 and Sta. 48+40. For both conveyance zones, on-site surface water runoff will be conveyed in curb and gutter systems to catch basins and a closed trunk conveyance system parallel to the road and outfalling to a newly-constructed water-quality pond and constructed wetland. Southerly Conveyance System: Installation of the trunk conveyance main on the west side of the ' alignment avoids construction above, and parallel to, the 108" and 72" diameter sanitary sewer mains. It is anticipated that the watermain running parallel to the Oakesdale alignment between Sta. 20+90 and Sta. 28+35 is, or will be, abandoned and will not present separation conflicts. The conveyance system outfall pipe will be submerged during wet periods when the water-quality pond dead storage is full,but the southerly conveyance system is set entirely above the water-quality pond dead storage elevation of 11.50 feet. Submerged discharge was selected in accordance with the 1996 KCSWDM to enhance tranquil discharge of runoff into the pond. The conveyance system passes through a 72" diameter Type 2 Catch Basin with a baffle which provides oil spill containment and captures floatable material prior to discharge to the water-quality pond. A shallow ditch is to be cut behind the proposed sidewalk from Sta. 23+50 to Sta. 25+80 Lt. to drain an area which would otherwise pond against the road embankment at an elevation which may compromise the pavement section. The 6" diameter PVC culvert under an existing dirt road just west of the right-of-way near Sta.25+50 is to be removed as it is no longer needed. Northerly Conveyance System: Superelevation forces runoff to the east gutter between Sta. 48+40 and Sta. 43+60 requiring catch basins on the east side of the road only. ILA toulk To maximize �W gradient, pipe cover has been reduced to 12" at the sag vertical curve and ductile iron pipe materials are used in areas with less than 2 feet of pipe cover. The trunk conveyance main crosses to the west side of Oakesdale at S.W. 19th Street to avoid storm sewer construction above, and parallel to, the 108" and 72" diameter sanitary sewer mains between this inter ection and the outfall. ere s own e , 1 is pose to use Type 1 Catc asins rather than Type IL Catch Basins for 18" diameter ductile iron pipe (1996 KCSWDM). ma's e. c The-$e Company is currently constructing a number of utilities within the le way ' between Sta. 3 o to 45+00. Since Boeings utilities will prior to Oakesdale elements, Boeing's current pro tility plan h own as part of the existing 1. It a s features in the drainage plan and profil e Oakesdale 95% Design Submittal. It has been noted that as designed roposed watermain pars Oakesdale between Sta. 37+00 and Sta. 40+25 of provide the desired 10 foot horizontal separ ' een water and Oake orm sewer utilities. It has also been noted that as designed, the propose i ant Kato & Warren, Inc. 5 September, 1997 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - Phase IA 95% Abbreviated S.W.T.I.R. City of Renton stikat Sta. 39+10 will conflict with the proposed trunk conveyance main. It was�gr.�e T.A. is month that the watermain could be relocated i1,aL wntally and vertically to avoid such conflicts. a coordinate erdfiito determine if the watermain vertical relocation would allow�2._foot .imr O ver over, and 18" clearance between, the watermain and st telaTs at Sta. 37+40 and Sta 38+69 an void the use of ductile iron pipe m u s for these two pipe runs. (Kirk Smith looking into this on /29/97) i Between Sta. 41+00 and Sta. 45+00 there are multiple existing inlets within the right-of-way that drain into the created wetland on the west and east side of the Oakesdale alignment. The function of these inlets is to drain Boeing's existing asphalt driveway which will be replaced by Oakesdale or revised due to driveway regrading. Therefore,these inlets are to be removed and the associated outfall pipes removed or abandoned as shown on the plans. A new catch basin will be installed to pick up gutter flow and direct it to an existing storm manhole in the area. A 48"diameter ductile iron culvert crosses the right-of-way near Sta. 43+00 connecting the created wetland areas on each side of the roadway corridor. The proposed roadway trunk conveyance main passes above this culvert and does not impact it. A Type 2 Catch Basin with a flow-through pipe is to be constructed at Sta. 30+09.0, 34.6' Lt. to maintain the existing discharge route for off-site runoff and resolve the conflict between the proposed 24" diameter Oakesdale trunk conveyance main and the 12" diameter off-site storm pipe replacement. The existing storm sewers conveying off-site runoff in this area will be simplified and replaced within the Oakesdale right-of-way as shown on the plans. Grade, and alignment sting F diameter fer the area us u Proposed on-site and proposed off-site conveyance systems compete for nearly the same space at Sta. 26+24, 31.6' Lt. Since Boeing anticipates the abandonment of this Oakesdale crossing in connection with future site development to the west, a zero clearance storm sewer crossing encased in controlled-density fill was selected at this location to avoid the construction of another flow-through manhole within City right-of-way. The Oakesdale trunk conveyance main passes over the Seattle Public Utilities 60" diameter Cedar River Pipeline No. 4 near Sta. 26+00. The proposed ductile iron storm drain with restrained joints constructed to watermain standards meets the requirements set forth by Seattle Public Utilities, including a 12" vertical separation. the -existing pi Utility have agre o posed. ( &u1ale rue t-of--w y The replace The northern conveyance system joins the southern system at Sta. 25+50, 31.6' Lt. and outfalls to the same newly-constructed water-quality pond and constructed wetland described for Basin 1. The conveyance system outfall pipe will be submerged during wet periods when the water- quality pond dead storage is full, but the lowest portion of the northerly conveyance system is set Kato & Warren, Inc. 6 September, 1997 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - Phase 1A 95% Abbreviated S.W.T.L R. City of Renton just 0.2 feet below the water-quality pond dead storage elevation of 11.50 feet. Nearly all of the road trunk conveyance system is above the water-quality pond dead storage elevation. t I The conveyance and mitigation features have been over-sized to accommodate the future completion of the 5 lane road section between Sta. 20+25 and Sta. 37+00 (Phase 1 B). For Phase IA construction, the entire system described above will be constructed in accordance with the ultimate Phase 1 concept, except that the cross pipes between Sta. 21+50 and Sta. 24+00 and between Sta. 27+00 and Sta.35+00 will be stubbed out and capped for future extension and catch basin installation under the bid package for Phase 1 B. The 5.3 acre impervious site yields a 100-yr rational method flowrate of 7.34 cfs. Calculations can be found in the appendix. f Mitigation System: The water-quality pond is designed to meet or exceed requirements outlined in the 1990 KCSWDM as outlined in the narrative and table below. Calculations can be found in the appendix. VOLUME SURFACE AREA LENGTH TO WIDTH RATIO REQUIRED 20,281 c.f. 2,309 s.f. 3:1 AVAILABLE >31,400 c.f. >12,800 s.f. >5:1 EXCEDENT >150% >550% >150% c P 1 This pond was designed to the same standards and has the same design exceptions as Pond 1. The outfall culvert for this pond will also pass storm events up to and including the 100-yr storm event. Should the culvert become blocked, the pond will overflow safely in the southerly and easterly directions into the wetland. Access to the pond will be limited by the absence of a traditional curb cut when Phase 1B is completed, but until then bollards are provided. For Phase 1A construction, the entire mitigation system will be constructed in accordance with the ultimate Phase 1 concept. j BASIN 3 - Sta. 48+40 to Sta. 52+56 After Phase 1 construction, on-site surface water runoff will be conveyed in curb and gutter systems to catch basins and a closed trunk conveyance system parallel to the road and outfalling to a newly-constructed water-quality vault before joining conveyance from S.W. 16th Street �+ where it eventually discharges to Springbrook Creek through an existing bridge abutment. Conveyance System: Superelevation forces runoff to the west gutter between Sta. 48+40 and the intersection with S.W. 16th Street, requiring catch basins on the west side of the road only. Runoff will drop into catch basins and a closed conveyance system parallel to the road. The conveyance system is constrained by the limited available fall to the water-quality vault dead storage surface elevation of 15.50 feet. Limited fall and pipe cover Kato & Warren, Inc. 7 September, 1997 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - Phase IA 95% Abbreviated S.W.T.I.R. City of Renton b • a a requires the use of ductile iron pipe materials. The conveyance system outfall pipe to the vault will be submerged during wet periods when the water-quality vault dead storage is full, but the road system is set entirely above the water-quality vault dead storage elevation. Submerged discharge was selected in accordance with the 1996 KCSWDM to enhance tranquil discharge of runoff into the vault. The 0.77 acre impervious site yields a 100-yr rational method flowrate of 2.08 cfs. Calculations can be found in the appendix. Mitigation System: The water-quality vault is designed to meet or exceed requirements outlined in the 1990 KCSWDM as outlined in the narrative and table below. Calculations can be found in the appen tln� iI� a✓ersi �GvK.Q VOLUME SURFACE AREA LENGTH TO WIDTH RATIO TREQUIRED 2,985 c.f. 340 s.f. 3:1 AILABLE 4,480 c.f. 800 s.f. 8:1 EDENT :1:5:0% >200% >250% It is not necessary to divide the vault into cells since the length-to-width ratio is >4:1 (1996 KCSWDM). It is also not necessary to bypass storm events greater than the water-quality design storm (1996 KCSWDM). Access to the vault has been improved by the use of 36" diameter access risers and frames. The vault will be sloped toward the outlet to facilitate maintenance flushing. A down-turned 90 degree elbow at the outfall pipe will provide oil spill containment and capture floatable material prior to discharge to the downstream system. 9 1 a , 1 ; . mber, 1997 Kato & Warren, Inc. 8 Septe , i CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 5, 1997 TO: Joe Armstrong FROM: Scott Woodbury,- L.". SUBJECT: Oakesdale Extension/Springbrook Widening Project Comment to Wetland Assessment and Mitigation Plan and Revised Plans W 1 to W4 My comments to the above-referenced report are noted in the text of the attached copy. My previous comments to sheet W 1 to W4 do not appear to have been addressed. I also have concerns with the tree planting proposed around the water quality facilities. Either the tree planting is to be sparse along Oakesdale Avenue to allow access from the road between the trees and shrubs, or a 10-foot width must be maintained from the top of dead storage landward with no trees or shrubs. These are long ponds and access from just one end is insufficient according to City maintenance staff. We also need to be able to get to the culvert between the pond and dispersal swale. The berm separating these facilities should be sodded similar to the berm along the dispersal swale. I do not understand why a quarry spall window is called out on sheet W3 over the Olympic Pipelines. If you or the consultants have any questions,please contact me at(425)277-5547. U:OAKSDALE:97-021:S W attachment cc: Ron Straka OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. EXTENSION PROJECT WETLAND ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN Prepared for The City of Renton Prepared by Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 101 Yesler Way Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98101 October 1997 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Renton proposes to build a roadway to connect the disjunct portions of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. located in Renton, Washington (Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Sections 24 and 25). The proposed roadway would be constructed from S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 31st Street. The project would be completed in two phases. Phase I would be completed from S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 27th Street. Phase II (S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 31st Street) would be completed at a later date depending upon funding. At the northern end of the project, a bridge would be constructed over Springbrook Creek. Stormwater retention and treatment facilities would be constructed along the roadway to meet water quality regulations. IL A WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND YALUES 61 � /s itu� Wetland functions and values were assessed using tfe modified Repp rt Method (Reppert, et al., 1979). The functions and values for each wetland are summarized (i.e., high, medium, and low) in Table 1. The Reppert Method provides a general context for assessing the relative value of wetlands. Wetlands are rated as high, medium, low value in 5 resource categories. The Reppert method provides guidelines for evaluating each of the categories and sub-categories. For the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. extension project, this assessment provides information that was used in determining the preliminary design parameters for the required wetland mitigation. A discussion of the general wetland functions that are assessed by the Reppert methods follows. Wetland 1 is adjacent to Springbrook Creek; Wetland 2 is the Boeing Mitigation site; Wetland 3 is adjacent to the south side of the former Longacres practice track; and Wetland 4 is the large system adjacent to the east side of the Phase II portion of the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. extension, which is south of S.W. 27th Street. Ck,r C— LI-e "I d4ic G-r A . Natural Biological Functions `» 2 Need 5 .. /ih l'; - Natural biological functions provided by wetlands include general and specialized habitats, and production of elements within the food chain. Each of these main categories has additional subcategories that are used to assess overall biological functions. Included within the food chain production category are net primary productivity, mode of detrital transport, and food chain support, which rate the productivity, complexity, and diversity of a wetland food chain. The subcategories of the general and specialized habitat include community structure, adjacency, species diversity, and key game, commercial, and aesthetic species. The natural biological functions category also rates the value of the wetland as a scientific study area, sanctuary, or refuge possessing a�t/ui ristics. C�rrS daeg /L*01- (� �lI 1 /5 Gsvp j.�✓C �lE /�4. Nei�hCl' arc �I -49 , Natura iologica unc io i s ues for t;eAfour wetlands in thtudy area l nge from low to mode ate because they are adjacent to urban development -' and have simple habitat structures that support wildlife species tolerant of high levels of human activity. These wildlife species have less specific habitat requirements (i.e., generalists) and use areas within, or adjacent to, developed areas. Wetlands 1,,2 #have a moderate rating for overall natural biological function. Wetland 3 has a low natural biologic functional because of low vegetative diversity.�vu14,i y h., 41,k /0,� ,( � � riac All four wetlands have orested and scrub-shrub vegetative communit4that rate a moderate value for net primary production within the food chain production category. A wetland dominated by emergent habitat would have a high net primary production value. Amour Wetlands have a low value of detrital transport capabilities d 4y&olegy. Wetlands 1, 2, and 4 have habitats that supply moderate levels of p oductivity, I /t'? (jvt�wrwl �Ial /S a Ic<col> �sc` P, (&tL ,Au diversity, and complexity within the food chain. Wetland 3 has a low value of food chain support because it has a homogeneous shrub and herbaceous plant community. Wetlands 1 and 2 have a low to moderate rating for the generalized and specialized habitat category because they have a mix of habitat features with a variety of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent vegetation that can support a diversity of wildlife species. Wetlands 1 and 2 are limited in value because of their relatively small size > drological=��and surrounding urban development. Wetland 3 has a low generalized and specialized habitat value because the emergent and shrub plant community is predominately a monoculture of invasive and non-native vegetation, which provides limited habitat for native wildlife. Wetland 3 also is , in close proximity to urban development. Wetland 4 has a moderate generalized and specialized habitat value because it has a variety of emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested plant species and habitat features that are capable of supporting a moderate diversity of animal species. Wetland 4 also is adjacent to a large undeveloped area on the western boundary with diverse emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitats. /2/ 3 c�1 €ems �etlands4ave a 1 value fo supporting ke ?game, commercial, and { r�pe pP g �y b aesthetic species. �r e value arty unique natural characteristics and have a low value for use as a scientific study area, san`"fu /or refuge. This is due to surrounding development, the wetlands' relatively small size, e a undance of several non-native plant species. s/+urc z u �-Alj��i u4,104 aJ G4s It- Ad B . Hydrologic' Support Functions H dFo gic support functions, including nutrient export, is rated low,at 411 four wetlands in the st y ea because they are small, isolated palustrin;-wetlands that are inte ittently or it regularly fl ode C// o���/ , • b0�/r.� ,-. Z 5 S� a rs �ru� ��/� �J 1.4 �/'�'I►c lry 7 �jo✓n. C. Storm and Floodwater Storage k unctidns 4h1 ok4.4.- Gc,lvPrr r�rou f. Wetlands can reduce flooding and associated flood damage by reducing peak flows and temporarily storing stormwater runoff. Storm and floodwater storage functions rate the storage and retention capabilities of the wetland. Storm and floodwater storage functions vary depending on the landscape position of the wetland and the relative size of the wetland to the total watershed area. Storm and floodwater retention functions also vary depending on the relative amount of woody vegetation. -AH four ..etta d ��r^,-and--fl-e d ate-r-storage 11 and-isolated-palus-trine-systems--relative to the total size o the Spri b it k-section of.the GFeea-River -Valiey-watershed. Storm and floodwater retention function values for the four wetlands range from moderate to high. Wetlands 2 and 3 have moderate retention function values because shrub vegetation cover is more than 10% and less than 30%. Wetlands 1 and 4 have high retention function values because woody vegetation cover is greater than 30%. -AitfhDug#4he woo4�--e«rnprrrtents-of these wat a ..he1 er, eir sma I t --to the- watershed limits-their effectiveness. D. Groundwater Recharge Functions ari �n R�awr 3 t�-f'zm . Groundwater recharge is directly related to the proportion of wetland drainage to the total drainage area. In addition, other factors such as soil porosity, permeability, and transmissivity affect the recharge value of the wetland. AR kff%4wiYe low groundwater recharge function values. ALI l 2 Lwl a. er �> / «` Hey The,.Puyallup-seI}-series-€su-nd_in Wetlandsr', ', a n is wel, am to ...:th--moderatefrrapid dinville soil series-in wetland is-a-Poorly-drained--soil with-moderately s1Q may. -arm &mall and atPrl palustdm-systems less than 1 &4n-size -relativieto th tot&Springbrook-C,reel--section ol'_thajGreen Riser Valley watershed. �JS ►�r�,�alw. b�c T E. Water Purification Function 1e/4hv- 4wva# - s4�►,N� 4" Water quality protection or purification in wetlands occurs through biotransformation an6 biodegration of pollutants and uptake by wetland plants. These processes are related, in part, to '2, If vegetation type and density, and pollutant loading and pollutant properties. Wetlands 1 and 2 have crc a low vegetation density value because they have less than 50% cover of emergent wetland plants. 1, ,,, (*V2 Wetlands 3 and 4 have a high vegetation density value because there is greater than 80% cover of W64s� emergent wetland plants. All four wetlands have a moderate proximity to pollution source value gr because they are below nonpoint pollution sources within the watershed. III. IMPACTS OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. EXTENSION The project would affect 1.32 acres of palustrine wetlands. This includes shading of 0.04 acre of emergent wetlands associated with Springbrook Creek, filling 0.24 acre of emergent constructed wetlands on the Boeing CSTC property, filling 0.03 acre of emergent wetland near the former Longacres practice track, and filling of 1.01 acres of scrub-shrub wetland associated with the Phase II portion of the project. Wetlands that would be affected by Phase II of the project are rated as Class I; all other wetlands affected by the project are rated as Class II. IV. MITIGATION PLAN Two mitigation parcels will be used to create wetlands in accordance with City of Renton regulations. The first parcel is adjacent to the proposed roadway in the southern half of the Phase I portion of the project. The second mitigation parcel is immediately west of the southern terminus of the Phase II portion of the project. City of Renton regulations require a 1.5:1 replacement ratio for the Class II emergent wetlands affected by Phase I of the project, and a 3:1 replacement ratio for the scrub-shrub wetlands that would be affected by Phase II of the project. The required wetland replacement would be 0.5 acre for Phase I and 3.03 acres for Phase H. The proposed wetland mitigation plan for the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. project has been designed to achieve a net gain in wetland functions and to achieve the general goals of the City of Renton's wetland regulations. The two mitigation parcels each would contribute 2 acres of created wetland for a total of 4 acres of new wetland. The approximate size of each habitat component is listed below. Habitat Acres Emergent 0.56 Scrub-shrub/Forested 3.60 Total 4.16 3 The Phase I mitigation site would create wetlands that would lie between the proposed water quality drainage swales and an existing wetland. Currently, the Phase I site is a mixture of upland grasses and Himalayan blackberry that slopes to the east and eventually into the existing reed canarygrass-dominated wetland. The created wetland would include a mix of emergent, scrub- shrub, and forested habitat components. The created wetlands are designed to receive water from the proposed stormwater ponds via a vegetated dispersal ditch, which then flows through the created wetland to the adjacent existing wetland. In addition, plantings of native vegetation would enhance the buffers around the created wetlands. Stormwater ponds and dispersal ditches would be planted with a mix of grasses and emergent plant species depending on the elevation and estimated hydrologic regime. Native tree species would be installed at the pond perimeters for shading. The Phase II mitigation site would receive water from an existing drainage ditch. Water would be routed through the existing wetland, into the mitigation site, and then back to the ditch. The Phase II mitigation site is dominated by fill material and weedy herbaceous species, and is adjacent to existing scrub-shrub wetlands. To ensure adequate wetland hydrology, a impervious liner is included in the design of the Phase II site. The Phase II wetland area is designed to include components of emergent and scrub-shrub/forested habitat. The plan provides a diversity of wildlife habitat types and provides stormwater retention and water purification functions. V. MONITORING PLAN Wetland mitigation and buffer vegetation would be monitored in years 1, 2, and 3 in all plant communities. Monitoring would begin the first year after completion of construction, and standardized procedures described below would be used to measure the survival and growth of plant material and the success of the mitigation plan. The monitoring strategy would consider plant species composition and cover values for vegetation and survival rate of planted vegetation. • Photopoints would be established to obtain representative photographs of the project. Photos would be taken from the same locations to document appearance and progress of the project. • Vegetation data would be collected along permanent transects in mitigated wetlands. Sampling methods would include quadrat sampling to measure the percent cover of emergent plant species and line intercept sampling to measure the amount of growth of shrub and tree species. • Mitigation plantings would be visually evaluated to determine the rate of survivorship, health, and vigor of plants. • Established performance standards for the project would be compared to the monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation effort. Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project would be based on the expected cover percentages and 80% survival rate. An annual report describing the level of success of the plan would be written and submitted to the City of Renton for review and approval. VI. MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS A two-year maintenance program would be part of the construction contract. The program would include watering, weeding, trash removal, and regular inspections of the project to ensure that plants were surviving and to identify any invasion by undesirable plant species. 4 Under a one-year guarantee period, the contractor would replace failed plant material during the first year of planting. If subsequent monitoring indicates that additional plantings are required after the guarantee period, contingency plans will be implemented, with the type and number of additional plantings to be determined by the project biologist. In the event that a performance standard is not met, contingency plans will be developed and implemented to address the failure. This will be done upon approval of the City of Renton and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contingency actions will include efforts to correct the cause of any failure to meet performance standards (e.g., supplemental plantings, invasive plant control). Additional monitoring events may be required to evaluate any contingency actions. Wetlands restored, enhanced, and created as part of this mitigation would be protected under local sensitive area ordinances and regulations. VII. LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT This report has been prepared for use by the City of Renton. In preparing this report, SHAPIRO used information contained in site development plans that were current at the time of report preparation. Recommendations made herein are based on information gathered in the field, information presented in previously prepared reports, and personal communications among SHAPIRO, the City of Renton, and other project consultants. Any proposed modification of site development plans that affects the proposed mitigation plan should be reviewed by SHAPIRO for necessary adjustments to the mitigation plan. VIII. SUMMARY The Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension Project would compensate for the loss of 1.32 acres of wetland by creating 4.16 acres of wetland on two parcels of approximately 2.0 acres each. Mitigation wetlands include a diverse mix of emergent and scrub-shrub/forested habitat. The design plan accounts for the soils and hydrologic conditions of each site and the linking of adjacent wetland habitat. Floodwater storage, water quality, and wildlife habitat are some of the functions that will be served by the created wetlands. Wetlands of low to moderate value would be affected by the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. extension project. These wetlands are small, isolated, and have a low to moderate habitat diversity. The mitigation design provides a diverse mix of emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitat. In addition, both mitigation sites link with existing wetlands, which will ad to the hydrologic functions of those wetland systems. 5 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT Reppert Method Wetland 1 CATEGORY CRfIFAIA HIGH MOD LOW BASIS NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS mod Forested and scrub-shrub vegetative habitats. Food chain production net primary productivity (vegetation density) low Wetland hydrology is relatively isolated palustrine system. mode of detrital transport (hydrologic continuity & periodicity; tidal action or flow regime) mod Moderately diverse plant species present. food chain support (productivity, complexity, diversity) low No evidence of key game, commercial or aesthetic species. General&specialized habitat key game, commercial&aesthetic species mod Moderate variety of forest, scrub-shrub, and emergent community structure habitats at the mitigation wetland site. low Wetland boundaries consist of urban developed areas. adjacency mod Wetland capable of supporting species common in urban species diversity wildlife habitats, birds, small mammals, amphibians, etc. low Wetland has low value for use for scientific study, Study area, sanctuary, refuge use for scientific study, sanctuary, or refuge; sanctuary, or refuge. No obvious unique natural unique natural characteristics characteristics. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT low Site is an intermittently flooded riverine. Periodicity H=intertidal; M=seasonally flooded riverine or open lacustrine; L=intermittently flooded riverine, closed lacustrine, or isolated alustrine STORM&FLOOD WATER low Ratio of wetland to total watershed area is less than 5%. Storage ratio of wetland to total watershed area: H=>20%; M=5-20%; L=<5% high Wood and shrub cover is greater than 30%. Retardation wooded or shrub swamp: H=>30%cover; M=10-30%; L=<10% GROUNDWATER RECIiARGE low Moderate substrate with ratio of wetland to total watershed area less than 2%. Recharge area+ substrate &aquifer ratio of wetland to total watershed area; porosity, permeability, transmissability: H=>_5% + good substrate; M=25% + moderate substrate or 2-4%+ good substrate; L=other than above WATER PURIFICATION low Emergent vegetation cover is less than 50%. Vegetation density H=cover>80%; M=50-80%; L=<50% mod Site is below nonpoint sources. Proximity to pollution source H=below source of municipal waste discharge or above water intakes; M=below non point sources; L=below industrial waste discharges WETLAND UNIT: Springbrook Creek SCORE: Mod/Low By: CKD DATE: 8/97 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT Reppert Method Wetland 2 CATEGORY CRrrERIA I HIGH I MOD LOW J BASIS NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS mod Forested and scrub-shrub vegetative habitats. Food chain production net primary productivity (vegetation density) low Wetland hydrology is relatively isolated palustrine system. mode of detrital transport (hydrologic continuity & periodicity; tidal action or flow regime) mod Moderately diverse plant species present. food chain support (productivity, complexity, diversity) low No evidence of key game, commercial or aesthetic species. General & specialized habitat key game, commercial & aesthetic species mod Moderate variety of forest, scrub-shrub, and emergent community structure habitats at the mitigation wetland site. low Wetland boundaries consist of urban developed areas. adjacency mod Wetland capable of supporting species common in urban species diversity wildlife habitats, birds, small mammals, amphibians, etc. low Wetland has low value for use for scientific study, Study area, sanctuary, refuge use for scientific study, sanctuary, or refuge; sanctuary, or refuge. No obvious unique natural unique natural characteristics characteristics. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT low Wetland is a mitigation site, an isolated palustrine system. Periodicity H=intertidal; M=seasonally flooded riverine or open lacustrine; L=intermittently flooded riverine, closed lacustrine, or isolated alustrine STORM&FLOOD WATER low Ratio of wetland to total watershed area is less than 5%. Storage ratio of wetland to total watershed area. H=>20%; M=5-20%; L=<5% mod Wood and shrub cover is greater than 10% and less than 30%. Retardation wooded or shrub swamp: H=>30% cover; M=10-30%; L=<10% GROUNDWATER RECHARGE low Moderate substrate and ratio of wetland to total watershed area is less than 1%. Recharge area+ substrate & aquifer ratio of wetland to total watershed area; porosity, permeability, transmissability: H=>_5% + good substrate; M=>_5% + moderate substrate or 2-4% + good substrate; L=other than above WATER PURIFICATION low Emergent vegetation cover is less than 50%. Vegetation density H=cover >80°%; M=50-80%; L=<50% mod Wetland is below nonpoint sources. Proximity to pollution source H=below source of municipal waste discharge or above water intakes; M=below non point sources; L=below industrial waste discharges WETLAND UNIT: Boeing Mitigation SCORE: Mod/Low By: CKD DATE: 8/97 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT Reppert Method Wetland 3 CATEGORY CRrrERIA HIGH MOD I LOW I BASIS NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS mod Forested and scrub-shrub vegetative habitats. Food chain production net primary productivity (vegetation density) low Wetland hydrology is a hydrologically isolated system. mode of detrital transport (hydrologic continuity & periodicity; tidal action or flow regime) low Wetland habitat is primarily a monoculture of emergent, food chain support (productivity, complexity, diversity) shrub, and forest vegetation. low No evidence of key game, commercial or aesthetic species. General&specialized habitat key game,commercial &aesthetic species low Forest, scrub-shrub, and emergent habitats at the wetland site community structure is rimarily invasive, non-native monoculture vegetation. low Wetland boundaries consist of urban developed areas. adjacency low Wetland capable of limited species diversity due to low habitat species diversity variety. low Wetland has low value for use for scientific study, Study area, sanctuary, refuge use for scientific study, sanctuary, or refuge; sanctuary, or refuge. No obvious unique natural unique natural characteristics characteristics. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT low Wetland is a hydrologically isolated system. Periodicity H=intertidal; M=seasonally flooded riverine or open lacustrine; L=intermittently flooded riverine, closed lacustrine, or isolated alustrine STORM&FLOOD WATER low Ratio of wetland to total watershed area is less than 5%. Storage ratio of wetland to total watershed area: H=>20%; M=5-20%; L=<5% mod Wood and shrub cover is greater than 10% and less than 30%. Retardation wooded or shrub swamp: H=>30%,cover; M=10-30%; L=<10% GROJINMATERRECRABGE" low Moderately slow substrate with ratio of wetland to total watershed area less than 1%. Recharge area+ substrate &aquifer ratio of wetland to total watershed area; porosity, permeability, transmissability: H=2!5% + good substrate; M=>_5% + moderate substrate or 2-4% + good substrate; L=other than above WATER PURIFICATION high Emergent vegetation cover is greater than 80%. Vegetation density H=cover>80%; M=50-80%; L=<50% - mod Wetland is below nonpoint sources. Proximity to pollution source H=below source of municipal waste discharge or above water intakes; M=below non point sources; L=below industrial waste discharges WETLAND UNIT: Practice Track SCORE: Low By: CKD DATE: 8/97 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT Reppert Method Wetland 4 CATEGORY I CRiTum HIGH I MOD I LOW I BASIS NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS mod Forested and scrub-shrub vegetative habitats. Food chain production net primary productivity (vegetation density) low Wetland hydrology is relatively isolated palustrine system. mode of detrital transport (hydrologic continuity & periodicity; tidal action or flow regime) mod Moderately diverse plant species present. food chain support (productivity, complexity, diversity) low No evidence of key game, commercial or aesthetic species. General & specialized habitat key game, commercial & aesthetic species mod Moderate variety of forest, scrub-shrub, and emergent at the community structure mitigation wetland site. mod Wetland adjacent to large forested and grassland habitat adjacency community. mod Wetland habitats capable of supporting bird, small mammal, species diversity amphibian, and reptile species common in urban environments. low Wetland has low value for use for scientific study, Study area, sanctuary, refuge use for scientific study, sanctuary, or refuge; sanctuary, or refuge. No obvious unique natural Unique natural characteristics characteristics. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT low Wetland is an isolated palustrine system. Periodicity H=intertidal; M=seasonally flooded riverine or open lacustrine; L=intermittently flooded riverine, closed lacustrine, or isolated palustrine STORM&FLOOD WATER low Ratio of wetland to total watershed area is less than 5%. Storage ratio of wetland to total watershed area: H=>20%; M=5-20%; L=<5% high Wood and shrub cover is greater than 30%. Retardation wooded or shrub swamp: H=>30% cover; M=10-30%; L=<10% GROIN DWATERRECHARGE low Moderate substrate and ratio of wetland to total watershed area is less than 1%. Recharge area + substrate & aquifer ratio of wetland to total watershed area; porosity, permeability, transmissability: H=-S% + good substrate; M=>_5% + moderate substrate or 2-4% + good substrate; L=other than above WATER PURIFICATION high Emergent vegetation cover greater than 80%. Vegetation density H=cover >80%; M=50-80°%; L=<50% mod Wetland is below nonpoint sources. Proximity to pollution source H=below source of municipal waste discharge or above water intakes; M=below non point sources; L=below industrial waste discharges WETLAND UNIT: Phase 11 SCORE: Moderate By: CKD DATE: 8/97 OAKESDAL-- AVE. SW EXTENSION-PHASE 1q SHEET a S IBC 20 0 r 0 20 .0 o a _ a ply I.N SOUTH WE G�r.CING SCAL-t 20' 'S ^x��v x OAKESDALE AVE. S.W. , _ _ "7 MEW SS s 7r METRO SS 5 5 7T METRO 55 s Q z i J ;n p r I FSLOPE DAYLIGHT FOR r?o F � r i s C E PHA --- 1 A nn � 1 1 PHASE 1 e SLOPES DAYLIGHT ��.uErno ss s s s � s � Toe,u[rno C E U — r � V STA 17+91.6, 99.6' RT. - - — — — - — — _ 11E. (N) 11.60 i s I C I t� > _ — - STA 70+98:B, 5 RT. o_ ni LZL t I /1�OT�CT TUAL V=G--TATION I END Vi DIT@H n o i nl TpP E EAD ISTp o I OU _ARGL� ING L I1"75 > _ -' bo V) Y I C1 I I I I I 18+16.9, 1 14.3' RT. STA t +15.6, 137.8' RT. G� _ � w `r � L3 I La � iP LE. 12.10 _ C. " ACCESS RA I ;;2 I 6DTTGM E 0 I6 QUARR 6l- eAp, 3.3 TONS STA. ,5+97.0, 814' RT. _ \ I a i �V ego I�.rIV MAXI SLOPE IN RAC.1 PT. I L9 t. AD.�PT. i n_ 120.6' RT. As C Z ` 1� n Ry_ �— — — _ cam_ — — STA 19-97.5. ,3w. RT.-� � � — �-Z 3Q I 51 i C6 > Zj / I I o E / ✓ i 44.a 907T - - - - - - - \c 0�I E . 12.10 I B TTOM ED E 71 I I OR 15 a C U I � . _ • • . • WE7L�4ND I �, I. 4T A W p MX.i , � .o I � 1 . • . . . . . . . . . • • . . . • • . . . • . . . . • i I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •STA. I5•D01 225'-RT- v 2 0 C i <� s . . . - 1% 1 IL - - - - - - - - - - - - - 252 r2fRiD-SA5�E) ON OA<,-Z5 AL� * I r dI I II AVrlSW 27 H 5TRS=T cEN1Z: IN=S `♦ • ,. VAC -1 SE 25 ! 1 7 I / i POWER o �I 50UT�4 WE ELAND G--fRAD ING— FLAN SC-4LE I' . 20 STATE O -.S--=TO. REFSTERM iLANDSCAPE ARC�nCT III 1 GONTCUR CERIKr ATE .0 .71 EXISTIWC S H A P I R O i GCNTOUR k ASSOCIATES, INC. II, It II \;IN AlA! it Z /^� OAKESDALE AVE. Sw EXTENSION—PHASE 1A SHEE7 P IY J 0 IQ NORTH WETLANDS GRADING W2 SCALE. t- - 20' I \ Z = j,�' \W ) ©AKESDAL.E AVE. S.W. \ RRY -, 1 w Z s s^ s ti 4erwo X V) w - � F F � � F O w F EXI V) W _ ('L .r S S S fOL•YET°O 55 S wr� Uj I OUARRY SPALL 9 TONS L - - - - - > N <W =- CL>=ARING IMiTS - - r\ - � %- - i �I - - - -j- - I TA 23-10.4. 84.B• RT. 1 - OS�OIPE DAYLIGHT IF i•E• (N) 9.50 ` N I Z I P E to CONSIRUCTvON. ..J < - AT EW1BI E OP IS DAY HT TOP EAD ST AOE O N C x j Py4 CE1 - DM CTED P I _. DISRER L V-DITCH I I 1 SPACES Gw CRUSH C �SURFA G I - �`j AND INN BOTTOM-.. _ COMS � 1� DEP 01JARF� BOTTOM IL.. 9.50 IIp I I s lI j sir, 2' SP SI A`CCE$S ROA (M�v- S I SOD I5' BOTH�SIDES OF I1� I BOTTOM EL. 7.50 j PORT N). 0 0 = I a E 1 STA. 23+6.3 101.t T. o I RAD. PT.1 z Y•c i I < i I v C) e E r. I y,7- aW TOP DEAD STORAGE El. 11.50 I - W L) f BE E RM/TOP EL.=h 2.50 . \ E I I I I MIN. WIDTJ e a� I 'fl • _� I o i F II I �2 WE 4 U il;i- _ �I - IAX. !W�TER Uri-ACE �L 1 - ;x 16 j i j c i I I I 2mmR I I. - . •3 I I _ _I � I -LJ.r� � � �-1 f w - � 12BmR I - - - �- - �- i - a •I � C - IL 25' GRID 5 . CN C3AG AVE/SW z TTr; T =TNTj=REIN=S - - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - --- - - - - - - - - x X � � - _ . . . . . . . . . . � - - - a� NOfRT� WETLAND GRADING FLAN � • 7m STATEOF RECIS U DM [C6TLRCD LANDSCAPE ARC-ITECT c CVna uP•w. —i2— ?Ro�05_D CONTOUR S H A P I R O E�vr.TE NO •T• j I _XNTO ASSOCIATES. 1NC. AI_ININININIAIA Z — 7 CONTOUR PON MMA •. PHASE I SLOPES DAYLICHT ��_ �`.. • db low a •:, :?...\�,-.`-� �, ._\\l.i,.\�\`. Based�--vry ISM -Api I — :.--- �_ `r•`�`. ; `\`:l`;�:- •:`" w .' �\�\'W!��•�\ \�`-�•',ti ` w'�`1- a ',��Rb`Bahr:t1••.. ♦.. X�\ r�•�, ;•� �� .v 0 0��`� .r��ss,-•V� _- ��� i• �♦�D:\ :�1 \. •�:,.►:.��a.a:'�idr. . 'al�..i; .'►.', •VGA• 7 IF 9 ��\ O��i ► O`' �.. !I� 'W �r \� `C� IpK OWN NOMMS -,uie' - ..`C� �'�•..iii�i���..,.�.��.�°'�►_.4',1i���•I � fir.,; yw:-��!•�!ti`fifi►��Aav-��+��L���fC�ai►a.����//ii_����.%//I�ii�--riiiriaii�ria�iiiiiii� ..a\..� 'a . `C+ n\a►�O;tt4i�♦•`,` ems/ .�i�///➢•r////OI//////�-I/////!//.SQ\•.�\ "1 ♦ <;• \, ♦ O it'Rye I/// \ a ` S p � �.,�♦..��� a�� 000�11R�t• ♦0♦ "'�A1��J�����.a�•C�'f►/► Jv��i��r�'1�.-lr�ic\\\.• \�\� 1 .A� 1�0?�.- ����.� oo�• �. ♦����� tea, ; r►. �� �1 � ♦t�i - � �.�a��1,Ai�.�,�♦.,���'-,.+►moo �►.•`��1�I���.-;>�����r�.Q�'►���.���1a♦ � �� „ �� � ♦a�.`!e ��.j �... �• `� �+•�w�:e►.r�. Sys_ �_� 14►A.[►�e)dl '..-♦ 1\\\. ii fir. `\, `.r; �� r li%mac\s`"��.s'�. ' ' :-��'=.ram;;��r,T.► �o -"' ---�'� •�..�. � ♦�i�'i.i�r►.•�ti i;\,�� �; �.- _ :.. �/►•�'1 of �,.. 0` I� � .�.�A(►♦ ► `��� -.:-1•�`,��..���...�.;:a. ash-`' �� � � ��.♦ � ► .�. S�A�A�.i.�.� ��:t \ `�.\�\ill "�.�.�_:'.. .,5����\\t� pppp��ieOhA.!!l�..a►1 fib..,l�O���y�•,::.'.�\�v.\ � � r >vuG< i • All WO • �. Mr MNI • lie22N, 1,4 �:\ \� �►.�\� �.. �,��V . �\4 � ` \� "ill KN � \wo►\\ 1`` ' • �::;;�.\\..\ •C� 02 migm \\ �CC9t':mz ::w ►�:*:�`:�.J� oka��r�vww.a.•Y. `\\ �� ` - IM ME • ,��i®�1►v\�\-��\\\`�\\�\\y```\�:`\\ ���►\r ���\\\\�►\���_ �\\.� ::.. ��►�\�1►���� ►...r.'♦'%ice: i•'�%r�f`i s••.•. •♦{��••)�►��l�el♦♦�♦�1�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦e��1 \ p� \\�,•• �.a�'♦'♦'♦'♦.�� 'fi►♦O.► •.► O♦O.♦•r i♦.�rw�.1►♦w♦.♦C ►� .♦f•,♦♦•1 \�\ `J�q�� 'a\�.�``..'�1.0 M� '\ .►♦ �♦Sr♦♦ ♦♦♦♦���� ♦i♦♦♦�i�f,► ♦♦♦�!C�i�♦e,♦�. ♦" Oe .j'c.`wUv►ati �♦���♦��!` �`�"'`ss� .r vC' q-�`�r •�'-•i-�1." •""� e•♦♦♦� ♦ :•) ��.!....�A.Vjr -•"' a\ \��.MA 9• .t �♦.tt' ���,"v►,• .vc "\10M'�1''�\w. rii,,:��•♦♦.� �♦,;�♦♦•,♦�♦�.♦obi'♦♦ ♦ i'�♦'-o ♦♦� ♦♦ ♦►♦ �a O♦"c'O♦ wtiaat\� :\a\C _ \\O\O\\\\\\\\'0yic. ,. �•���:. N � :�t.\� � .�"�'a♦"i♦i•�lE• t:•a.� �♦�.�►�►,► I+tr�A�1!.�1 f��♦♦�♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦� ..♦►!>♦♦♦♦♦,♦�•�)♦♦♦`'i♦♦t. ac . .�Q`,��\ ,�•� �,.. \•\� ��.' i}♦r`♦r''11 HF♦1♦f•♦.�►♦ '\ n ♦.�♦ e�..�✓�Lrl►♦` `,'`i'♦�,101����♦�♦�!♦!'�M♦.♦♦,��1 ♦♦ '♦ .6AA�L♦w♦ups.. 'f.►�C'♦♦♦���♦ . `�. yg�s.....-- - � =••:. t+ \ 9 ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦1 ♦1♦�i♦ ♦♦ .� �♦�P♦ s t ♦�►�♦1►Y♦ �C� ��\ . \ �`\\ \� \ : �\r,K•o�'��i.Ne`��1♦♦l•:r��♦�a!♦�1b♦t� .�� \ -, ♦. .1)i ♦ O ..♦♦ ♦♦♦ •►�i'.'�!♦ �♦♦ ���;\ \'` , `� \�` �``.`•'�t ` :�r w!!:iA�A_..AA~����0��.� i.►. `�. ♦♦♦ .�A..�.�c,►��♦���i♦♦♦•�♦♦�i♦i♦i ♦i♦ ♦♦ ♦r.1�♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦♦b♦♦♦♦♦♦ ►♦♦♦A�♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦♦e'►�,♦♦t�lwe� � \` �a,. ` ,.pw•- iv ,i •. . . .� r [;46 �t:`1.� ♦ ♦♦♦ O�♦♦.fit�.���►�i .. .w w_�.a O, i. w • ��':.'. irs.. . . .� �♦ ♦♦ �♦�i.�6�♦♦ ����►�� O ♦♦A -W,ce .vaw v . �� �a� ► w �♦e♦O♦♦♦♦OV♦.• •� - te-.r.�+.�t=.. m,`� :�...- ��111'�sv i 9♦ ♦S♦ ►!♦w♦♦♦MONON♦�i♦♦(�q♦O�i ♦I♦4♦�A ��..' � ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦►O♦♦♦♦a►♦.'y1�il '� �0 . .i►rswrss.�.. .ac. .:.o•�' � ►� ie'1���♦.4♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ►♦n.♦♦,v,M, i♦ ifr ♦�♦� � f•ado ♦%y �i�1♦.�♦♦ ♦♦♦��t� ♦ !\•ys ♦i�Q♦IF�1♦♦r� ►♦♦♦♦♦�1►♦♦�♦ 1�♦>.1♦,J♦ ♦�i♦ ♦N�♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦�t�♦J ♦♦♦,..•.!�wii.�'� �♦♦►♦V♦♦� ►♦♦♦�<J�♦s,��1♦ �T��' �i►♦i: 1 ♦ri►♦i ♦1 ♦♦♦♦�►♦♦♦♦��.•�A• ♦♦ ♦�e�♦ 1� ♦♦.♦♦♦�♦♦ ♦♦�♦♦♦ ♦ ♦�. ♦ �.♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦► ♦ > ►•♦♦Ji. ' , =�.►-M♦rM��O♦�♦♦♦f,� ♦O♦♦♦1 ♦♦♦ ��♦1��j1♦O♦+�,����♦♦ ♦:♦`♦.1 :♦S♦:♦`♦:♦C♦�♦ ♦♦O♦♦♦rig♦7` O♦♦e �i♦♦O. Off! �. ; ♦♦•►♦Ii♦♦♦�/♦♦ �.!.M � ♦•1♦ �.!♦�♦1�•♦♦♦��.♦w�♦�♦w♦F AO O♦♦O♦♦♦•i♦♦♦ ♦♦i ►i♦vd♦ 0�♦��!♦i♦♦��♦�A��10A�1' '►�� ..ONI�0�♦.♦�♦���♦�������� ��►�►�i��v♦�.'�►.. �►A� .� . ' as�� .:� ♦f♦ ♦♦♦� ♦,�I.♦♦.e�0�♦�♦ ♦ ♦♦��♦♦♦.♦♦♦e.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦►' ��Ii�.�..♦.,►.�►. , .ter. . • . �� �Ai♦►♦♦♦♦♦♦ /�♦r.� ♦ ♦i ,�d �.OA���►�►�►.1►1.+►AA�.4 ..A=�r►x,__�w�arm- 'r=.�f�d��.�A%��♦�♦�����''��F♦.A!���♦♦' ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦���♦�♦�1�♦�♦�►�♦��'�♦:�� ♦� •�♦��1�•�♦1����� � --=r•,-- - - ;.�::.•��I�v'♦'i' ♦'♦��`�"'♦�♦''a• P .�. a.�1♦♦♦♦.♦ ♦�►♦f �♦♦♦♦N♦ e�w ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦.�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�;�♦�,♦♦�♦�,,y �.�ViSP o e♦ �iy.♦�♦•♦♦♦�♦♦♦��♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦,♦♦♦ 6 ♦ ♦.♦e♦a,♦e; 4 Nw. . .., ♦♦♦♦♦'P�►♦♦Pi♦♦i'!Oi♦.'♦♦.a ►.�� 'r♦;♦ i♦'!30♦�W -I ��♦♦♦♦♦♦i♦♦♦i♦i♦Oi♦♦r♦ ice �io��♦o♦�♦o♦�♦����!♦�♦♦i�♦♦i,'�♦ice♦�•!♦�♦ .74�s��♦�° ���♦� i'i♦i�%i��'♦�� ♦oi♦i6� e��s►%� �� ; `` ♦�♦,�♦♦i♦♦♦i�i�'♦�i►A�.�,►�� �♦�♦♦'� -1♦\♦C♦♦.♦♦♦ �/.•s♦i� i�+.�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦►♦ ♦♦♦A♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦r♦♦• .►�wwa� �v v w♦�♦w��w♦.�-+wr-..�r_1..�\ �,.; •- M i�♦♦A + "'♦ `♦1►♦♦�►♦♦ �AAs♦.1�♦►���♦.i♦ ►�i�e♦.w♦w�►♦.♦r♦i♦i♦s♦i.♦ ♦.�'�s�♦i�.��C� �.*.vo.��.�►� ►L,►���♦♦♦♦♦♦!♦♦�n•♦.�♦♦.j°s tE,) ♦.. ♦♦'i .♦♦•►♦♦♦♦ _ .. d. ..•::♦ems�:�;►' ��♦ . .7. sl�Yl,�� ,.♦J.♦.o. ���.1►,.♦M►� / .+ �•:�,�ep�eA ►r♦�♦��� 1►� ♦� ♦�♦�♦r♦rr� ♦`♦►�r♦•♦•fie♦�i ..•�I♦♦ ♦♦' ♦' \ w,550444440`' ♦.' WS Rw � \ ♦`.♦♦��♦♦♦.►♦�♦♦♦® :A�1�1:1w►��C►!♦♦4J�♦♦♦♦ ♦G�10♦0♦oOv� !!�!+♦♦�►��•!7!♦♦♦♦i•�►•sue♦.♦f►♦♦♦♦ •1►.♦♦♦♦♦�,♦♦.►♦♦_♦_♦_♦_�♦O♦♦ ,, IF \ \�.we�ili�i!�w♦♦♦.�i - �..♦u�i�ii�♦.♦ i►�♦♦♦ O ♦��M� ♦��♦�.'r!!�� �.���. a♦♦♦e�1♦O♦♦♦e♦�♦��►�♦♦�.� A. :V1♦♦�'!.♦'♦♦ �w♦.♦BOO 0...§MS.wfr4rMmd. •►.♦�►♦'♦ ►�� r♦♦ ♦♦►♦♦♦♦♦♦1�♦♦��► ♦♦♦♦♦1♦1 ♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦1,1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��♦�♦�� �.���♦A♦�♦�♦♦♦��♦♦i'♦♦♦♦♦ �.�♦���♦♦♦�♦�♦�1���♦�♦�o�♦�♦mil)♦ :�♦����\ y `�� •.; '.•:a♦,tom♦♦�♦♦ ♦�♦♦♦♦A♦•►♦♦.�♦/►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦J♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�fi� ♦���♦.♦i��o.►�,.���♦����♦�1�♦.♦w♦a♦w♦w♦w♦w♦w♦i.►w♦♦��� �♦'♦'A���1�i'���?'.�♦'♦'♦'♦'♦'♦'♦'♦��♦�♦'♦��♦�♦�♦`��♦�.M♦��'♦����!'��♦'�r' �� 4..Via .\\�_ _ -•.....-•..e rrr►. .,,»�s r a�.♦ ►♦♦ �♦♦ 1�.'►��0�1�♦�i♦♦♦�;'♦♦i♦♦♦i♦♦♦i���♦moo♦♦�•►♦♦O♦♦♦p♦♦♦$�♦♦i'A�♦♦♦►��♦e♦�♦`�i�d.♦.♦ va�� ♦jQ16♦♦♦♦♦♦��♦♦M��♦♦♦e♦♦��r �� ...\ •♦:'-�♦��� `�-I�:♦�•:. .A11�t���♦�N♦+♦t..11..r♦ j �,�� ♦ �, ♦♦♦♦.♦♦,1♦♦♦.. Aw♦►♦♦♦♦ t♦•P�♦�.`•♦1 - Q�' ��1\���..� _ -"�►�`' ♦ ��.F�♦ ♦�i�►1�,_ .�♦.v.► �I►..eL - ��_.♦ Pi• ♦♦♦♦��i♦jam♦♦♦♦♦♦�►�l►�i>'♦•l.���i A.�� ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦.♦♦♦.i�♦♦1�♦♦!♦♦♦!♦♦♦!�♦n♦�F'�♦t;♦♦:F�♦��♦,•♦6���0�♦�4� •��♦♦♦��'>'O♦<� ::� 'o".y: ' ter r.1.��'►u��n♦i�.1�. � .•...vt�r.. ..-.� tca► ♦♦ �.1♦♦♦♦♦►1♦♦♦♦4♦�♦♦♦�• •♦ ♦4♦♦•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦ ► ���.•N. ci '�oa::;a�.}+r+�.,..=.n..=•:r•.caw;,.;.:�::....,. .�` mow..- A �::9•♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦i♦.► ♦O}O.♦i♦.♦♦♦.►♦♦►♦i♦i!1♦i'�♦i♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ :♦i♦I:!♦♦i♦i�.!♦♦w:♦'�!` � ►. ` :_aplc�a�wA.��t��aIVA��: -Q\..: -- � ��,Dew♦♦j♦w►iP!♦♦♦♦♦♦��e!�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��♦♦♦♦♦♦1►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��i�►♦♦♦♦♦♦��♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Ot♦�>♦♦4�♦`♦�►'�1♦�♦♦��♦i��::����:`���\�� v \5i \�j�\` �. � ''��.� e�i ��♦i♦t.►♦c♦����i��i.♦�i�♦i♦�s♦i♦.�.♦.�i%w♦i►w♦w♦w♦.IA♦�I♦,F♦F♦.♦wM�♦�♦w♦.tf♦♦�.�71.4.1.1.♦..♦�♦..* `"`4\\\ s ��D.\` 0 ^a�M � m.. _ .w •..- ���,.. 1� ��•' '�•~1►'♦♦♦♦�►1�A�4�f'♦�l�i♦�' ��•I,�j ����� ���\ �•* -......... :�►�s;"+� !' v,�!,-1.�►�r, s As♦!�♦ ♦�s♦♦♦r..♦♦l' �♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦w♦♦♦♦♦♦.♦♦o►�.:.)♦1��,•� � �. �� 1118 ' ...r. xoc"m'°R�\�•. --\."� � `• .���.: L��\a\`��!-- +���.A.�♦.sl♦_♦A.•..♦sm4.F rc�.♦��i_.,.�fF.L r, o� ♦♦♦�♦ - - - - o - OAKESDALE AVE. SW EXTENSION-PHASE TA SHEET r ;Y W1 PLANT SCHEDULE r-LAN D S PLANG W 5 Igal I r A�LSI yG9 - NAITE 5-ACING s ZE CUANT t T N D t E 1 5,r,,,. SCIENTF=IC NAME Co ,oN UP AND BuFPEE25 100 _I ACER MACRCi-WTLL!' BIG-LEAF MAPLE Im'OL. J VINE MAPLE 10,CL. 3'-4• 326 -7 AVER CIRCINATI."1 C DOTG a LAS FIR 10'OL. 3'- ' aAb 10 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIE511 W O � UPLAND WYDRO5EED MIX f>=TAIL NOTES: W FTRE P �AND Z A�gTMPF TYPICAL RE-5ZESENT c�=ST=D/V'RL75- I�JS TON ?� U 1n FRAXMZ LATFOLIA OREGON ASW 10,OL. 3'-a' a43 . ALL TREES AND SWRJBS. x (n PICEA 5ITCWEN515 SITKA 5F'R�E 10'OL. 3'-a t90 x ` PLACE ALL ROOTBALL5 50 TOP5 ARE LEVEL LOTH C w� i TNLLJA PLICATA IIF_STERN RED CEDAR 10'OL. 3'-A' Iw FMISW GRADE NOOTKA ROSE 3'O.C. �' '� w PRATE ALL DEAD AND BROKEN LrTB5 AND ROOTS. G Q RO5A NUTKANA W O 5ALIX LASIANDRA PACIFIC WILLOW 6'OL. 18' 210 In U O 5ALIX SCOULERIANA 5COULER'5 0 L L 0 U b'OL. 18' 225 � FMISW GRADE—� � - C MALU5 FUSCA LLESTRN CRABAPPLE 8'O.C. I8' 00 Z = Z Z NWy5oCARW5 CAPITATUS PACIFIC NrNE5ARK 6'OL. 18' TWR15L_n+ERR 5'OL. 18' 255 �_ 2' MtLCW r� ;= RUBUS PARVIFLOR11,5 (UPLAND j N C Z 5 C RACEMOSA RED ELDERBERRY 8'oz. 18' 60 U ONLY) .aL 3 C J CARER OBNJPTA 5LOUGW SEDGE 18'OL. 15' 1,518 i T7PI a'TERING, ARY 11J,O.TERIN:a BASIN NATIVE SOIL ( (ALL PLANTINGS) J 1 O t�W NT ZOH_ TRH=S WR1 SCARFA SOIL Ll f) INTERFACE i O C,A�OBNUFTA SLOUGW 5EDGE 18.OL. a'POT 2,a6 PSEUDOTSUCaA M�NZI>=511 SALIX SGOULERIAtd4 e5CAR;FT Y - g CAI�X STIPATA SAIL6EAK SEDGE 18'OL. a'POT 24Fi AGAR 1'1AGROP:aYLLUT'I MALTS FUSGA 5pREADRooTBALLRAND S < f- =1 rOCWARIS PALUSTRIS Con-ON SPKE RTSW I8'O.C. a'PO 246 vi� * CAR_=X 05NTPTA SPREAD ROOTS O L.0 I,.I AAdCUS BOLANDERI BOLANDER'S RUSW 18'OL. a•POT 245 ACER SIR .INATLR i COMPACT SOIL UNDER < AINCU5 ENSIFOLIU5 D aER-LEAF M15W 18.OL. a' POT 245 PIC'=A 51TC-4EN5l5 O RS18U5 PARVIFLORUS R70TBALL(T7PIGAL) r o PWy5pCARW5 CAPITATUS 2z D1AOENLVJTI-E SAMENTOSA WATER-PARSL�zI' Is'OL. a•POT 2,a�, Tr-ILJA P�I...ATA cFxutBal S �oTS $GIANTS ACUTUS I WARDSTEM BULR1c.7F1 I8.OL, a'POT 245 fR�`,XINUS LATIFOLIA W SALIX LASIANDRG SCIRPJ5 MICROCARPUS SMALL-FRUITED BULR16u 18'OL. a NOT 246 CONTAINER GROWN r�rTTAmER GROWN • SAMBUCU5 RACEM05A CONTAINER GROWy 0 o R05A NUTKANA r�11IF=_ROUS TREE p;CiDL 5 T1Z=E SWRUS o� ;< PERIMETER OF TREE AND S+-4RUB PLANTING DETAIL z oW PLANTING BED A A mi TYPICAL S+-DRUB PLANTING LAYOUT 3 y� od • NOT TO 5CALE a • • {-I�� NOT TO SCALE aE P gE . • \E', PLANT 71 a 5-.=PLANT . • • s•TO►5a:AND WTOROSf ' = 5 ID A•PR SPEGFICATIC M RMARE ROAD 5NRuDER wDENW. G G-CND - rpwt5,DITC�C5 AND DO NOT PLACE TOPSOIL- PLU PLANS DSTWSD aR CLOG uD_Rr5ED 7 FOR 5PA:IY tCE P+ 3I F7aD SrALDR a � rCxSTEoEPPE>:1R:1 OR '{ REQUIREMENTS TC R . SEE? k (ON CENTzR)I SETBACK -------_-EXISTW, NOTE5. 5LOPES 10 OR STEEPER STALL GRADE PLUG 1 8• 6' pE PROTECTED UTW EXCELSIOR GROWING 1101W IF FOLIAGETPR 5E GROWCE TIP ER05ICN DONrRL'JL 5LarK_=TS OR FOLIAGE R NOT PIS=SENT.PLACE ONE ROOT NODE FLUSH WITH NURS=_R'GRAADE OF PLANT 12, 10 4R M-_CFlCAT&ON5 FINISH GRADE TO BE LEVEL WITH FINISW 18, t2• T"P1CA STFEET 5ECTION FNISW GRADE GRADE W 1 a' 18' X 36' 24' :'•': N t •3 r 6' s L N TING DETAIL L T 1'P I A L ST c T SE G " I N TRIANGULAR F _ T T SGAL.-NO O NOT TO SCALE a c DO NOT OVEREXCAVATE PLANTING HOLE. IL=WL` PLACED TOPqU L E $ -SOIL 15 TO BE WET AT TIME OF PLANTING. INGORNORUTE INTO 5U8GRADE FIRrl IM PLI WITWOUT DA ANT OR ROOTS. €V u $ -NO FERTILIZER 15 TO BE ADDED TO EMERGENT PLANTS. 1 V�u Ir WW � � •�•• C� S g Q � � �� W Q IZ ia 6 b µ W L FGG+1' lC } :� •, ynW,uy� EMERGENT PLANTING DETAIL 2 m W Q d¢ n C F o NOT TO SGALE = o T7P. JSTATE OF >e i ii . � RED ISTEREDT7P. DFFER ZONEI ELOe SUGE ut[N ECtFORSTED/bcmz-5mm EE KBr FOFE5TDWJgM-5WRE ZONE EL w 10 IL5 E"ERt W TO S UPLaN� ZONE DLFFER ZONE EL.TL5- ZOrff NE ZO EL 113 TO 133 EL II-R3 EL R3 TO DS EL.S TO:3 EL 13S• Coo ��•(;ERfIF1UTE NC aTa . SOUTH-4 WETLAND-7rFIGAL SECTION -� NOtRTN WETLAND-T1'PIGAL ScGTION �j SHAPIRO NOT TO SCALE k ASSOCIATES. INC. —iNIN�NI NI AIA NOT TO SCALE z I THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF _ - PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR = = 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 To: JAIrs�� N Company: Phone: Fax: From: 54 Woo AM-? Company: P Y: Phone: Fax: Date: Pages including this cover page: 5 Comments: I ' y fle,x54 (Ag sir MME v On NR \ ♦ �`\ \ \ \.�`•\\.\\•11\ 40 \ ♦i, loom. -M,-.-Sm III �9�'/I�/I/war//HI/risrip"y------ �,. � IM A. NO ��'�0�1;;��`�A�6�����A�:r�'�i��T y�r�/��\�",'�•�Ai s N®R.? �,•�►r . O♦♦v'�s�90io0*aoioioioioi�0.`io`oie"`� .. -•.�•��►�♦ <► . o,��i �� ♦♦ o���oo�000�►�����.����\� aka�;���. r.•.;:,��!i►�ioo� �� =������ioiioi�i�i��r�000.�:;.,' A\�\�t�� ANIGM i .► •t:�i♦ !M►AAA♦ r�: �.�4�61A!���AO��AOA�AS.1►o�p�pA�A♦ �i!r'� G� Y �O�O� O Q 4 Ci : y,1,� , • ,p r 10 1 od . �������`���i�������>r O air �..•.y/ ►ice. ., �' �������. a �����;. ,tea``et;�•��� �.3♦�♦��; f � �i/��f�' i ■. -.. ■ WM .. \\\' \\\\\" \NCO\:O\\\\\ -'�\O\\'�CC `'\-\\\\\\\`'�:\ WE wo .kip gq :. mac �,,�5� ���\'�\► r \:-r\' �C� t� for ,� t I I'll \��� \�: ..�h,,;� ' ice ♦a��iti�a�♦�e�s�'�;: :al_.i.�-;�oa`m..�..�R�•�� - +s����,��r'�.s'�9♦�♦1♦��!♦w♦♦1♦♦lf�i1�♦��♦1(�i)�♦♦wf �+eawswrsaw�:`�.:. w�0'P9, i�♦w�����♦<4♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�1 ♦•r 1 r,��^ 1�w�►�Jl��y�4►.�♦y'w..�arcirrv+✓ �i 0 i0NOu •�♦♦1�►♦♦♦ ♦l►w♦i♦ ♦ 1 �c o�roioi a �;M i♦%i�iiii'i0% `oP♦ :'i��►"' MON ��♦i1i1i�74 i♦s♦i♦�1i��♦i'E'i♦o°♦°�!•♦poi♦s~�eoo�! : ♦♦... 1�i♦•1.1�.. ♦♦1♦♦♦♦•1♦�♦♦♦O♦�!♦♦i1.♦ �e.1�.J. '►.1��.1.����70W♦.♦.1./.���♦���♦�►�►1.��►�1�+►.1 .�AAS"� ♦.r----r+w�wrivr.� .f�� �•�r� • !�� �,9 er 1�l�9��?V��1�1�i1'♦�♦� �vV�'i►�w�`•iVv''����V��� ♦♦4♦♦•<�♦•♦•♦�♦.♦.O''♦��1• �y..♦=♦j�r*�♦r ♦r♦-♦A!♦� ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦l�♦♦♦♦�1♦�1♦1►♦♦4�♦♦�►�►4♦♦1♦4♦1��•jl��♦4�♦0♦����1� �4�♦i�j�j♦j1♦♦♦♦♦♦�►1♦♦♦♦♦i♦♦♦��C�♦w7,—�w�A�. ♦o♦ ♦♦♦0��,♦♦♦,♦1�♦ ♦♦�1♦♦♦1♦<1at � ♦♦♦♦♦4��1�►,�♦14:�♦♦4♦<�Q ��•!♦♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i'�i�i♦i♦i♦i♦irPi♦Q♦♦i�i��♦♦i��►♦i�♦i°�i��i♦i♦i♦i��i►'ri♦i°i♦i♦i♦�' ♦♦♦♦♦♦���°♦♦,,♦♦�%t��'`' '` A �i♦i��i♦i♦i♦i♦i�►♦os��i♦�i,►�i♦°♦°♦r►«°♦°♦i♦Oi♦i`� .�.�♦��••,• .- ♦�.���.a.*._..�: a.•.y� .'A.i1.��♦A��A♦.1!w!�!..�♦♦♦A A,W,aW♦A♦A♦.5..♦AAAAIA�.�i �1°.�i�:�v.Poo.� •.•::�"s�:��►' cw.♦♦4oA♦n��♦♦♦o♦♦<,o♦♦,� o♦♦♦0♦♦♦0♦�,4 1♦♦♦��►♦1♦�i♦♦i`i�r', ♦... WIN OO ♦♦►e♦♦♦♦��♦1�O"Or♦a♦♦ls♦e♦s♦♦iai♦♦s�i1i♦i1i♦,��♦�♦•i'.��!♦♦isi♦isi�isi♦%�`♦ ..-♦♦°♦°i°�.4o♦♦♦c�,,♦0♦♦1;.,,♦♦e:�� �\ ♦i♦i�4vr�♦w���♦����♦.♦.♦♦.♦a1 ♦�♦J��►`♦'�1.��1 '�.♦�L♦.♦�U���� ��_� ♦ �A��1�A�ai1♦is��i �4 �: ���'`` ♦�♦���1♦ 1♦♦�1�N� ♦4i♦4♦f ♦♦1j1�♦ <,��r♦O♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦►♦♦♦i��p0�♦'►��♦�� ` i��♦i��1♦ � ♦tl�♦j♦♦♦j���'�<i♦♦♦!♦♦�< w1 ``'♦♦♦♦♦♦<!♦1�♦♦♦♦♦♦�►��!��♦4l���i�,Ce4 V ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��11♦♦♦.i�♦♦l�♦♦!1♦♦!♦♦♦!�♦•tom♦'►!♦ ♦,!♦♦♦oU♦4�♦♦♦e♦1���1�♦,lti�li:i `,♦1♦♦♦o♦e♦e�► e♦e♦e♦°�►,�o♦e♦IV,A51A i°1� ♦•♦♦♦♦♦�i♦♦•♦♦♦•♦ ►•♦♦♦•♦♦♦•♦♦l�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1e<i♦♦♦e1♦♦♦ ��♦��1♦�♦♦♦,e♦.��.♦o♦♦♦�i�♦i♦iv`i;�s ON I FRI, 1♦i+♦,♦♦ ♦♦♦.M�♦•'►♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Q.w�1••1. ♦UW �♦JA♦��♦♦♦1i•♦t .7Y7..i l��♦�♦�♦�♦.�♦y_�:���,,�t\��a .>:-"'+\��;!•►iy� 1!,r':C��♦i'•^ �►�'"�°«••s'�;��►���`A♦� 1d �•♦♦•7�'A<�tf'<►'► ♦ •;1,•`-• . t IV A�u� •1 • ` `�� Sk OZONE, Ml .u\:::.nRV•�.�Q�v.A�r��ay.�+.•-.n _ IM ON rTIn• s•--.w- .♦{�t••> q(�'e)t►�.�/,♦♦♦r��:�.. O'♦'f�f�♦ f• •�1♦�O ♦.� t►♦�fi f►•►' ��♦au�i��♦♦,♦u♦♦♦C'f��?♦�♦O♦�l ``�\ •�: _ � ♦ ,10,�'�i�.�����,.♦i♦i♦ids♦i�♦i♦�Ai..�.♦i������..!=d •.*S�'�`''I.►c��, 7��� �:�� '�iv� !T���t"`�j'rt ♦A♦♦ ♦O♦�♦04A�i♦ ♦�i.O Of♦♦��♦ :�>� �♦?f►.�.....Awj� 13a�. �S�♦♦f�.♦moo♦!'��♦A.fa. 4�1�► ♦.♦ OFA ♦♦�..♦.�`♦♦♦�►•)♦�r♦f \ A �►/�CA�.►i♦.�J����.U�+►�i_+N�.i'.�0�IIC�♦♦t��♦� /rAA.?♦♦♦t►r1 ♦+♦'♦♦�`♦♦1 � � . y •.� l..Is�9„r..,�♦ti 1►E`�� 'P��f�1:t�♦�♦�`♦i`�M♦A�c0� f►vM6Nt►f+�O"� �ts►��'♦O�♦♦♦������y\���\ •. f��A..Zt+ ♦♦AA_♦�.♦A b_?A_IzA�A 4� . ,+ �• � Sri c sa IS i~�„Fwo I�-�rr�► s ♦�♦♦•►♦♦• ♦�►♦Oi��.♦♦♦i♦�� .�►e►'e�♦♦00♦♦�♦♦�.:.♦♦♦♦✓♦♦.:?mac . �=�: -.. -- • ;►♦♦•►♦♦♦♦♦♦4*♦�i♦ .f�♦,¢QI?AI*�"- -�.�.♦s►!_.�►s♦A�A!�1�►!.���1.?A�.•A!.!.'�.0.� �`� ♦'f►��♦�♦�f�y�♦�♦��'' ��P♦ . a e� ♦♦♦♦♦*,,r ��♦♦♦♦A♦�fP ►O , �s♦♦♦♦ ♦fie♦ <►f♦ .?'♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ � i�♦ �►♦♦�♦•►►♦♦�,•.♦aa� �3 .v�-�' ♦.!ioi ♦�a►♦i..♦i♦i♦i♦a♦i♦i♦i♦O♦♦off♦ ,or F4 rAX ��� ♦?♦? Mv♦?♦♦♦ e►�► ♦ t► .vim♦a •�t 1♦♦♦♦♦♦ OVA♦t, ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ f+♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦f►♦♦♦♦ \\�" ��A�A�♦O�♦4`•O♦•�•11A ♦A�♦♦♦f♦0♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦►♦ ♦O♦�♦�♦=►a♦�L*.♦.t►��♦i♦�♦.�.t• gm y � ��.y IWOS ♦Pi♦♦•♦♦o♦♦�►♦♦♦ � ♦♦fly♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦-♦♦♦♦♦♦i♦Qi♦♦i��♦� e►S•�A�AA�►w�.1A.16 0 0�.A.t,_AA Off.�!►�+ y?I/. v .- r�a�♦�l�i�jt��♦�.►�jY♦�♦��t!1�f•::i♦ `.'. w.♦��j/�� CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 5, 1997 TO: Joe Armstrong FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: Oakesdale Extension/Springbrook Widening Project Comment to TESC Plans and Selected Special Provisions Special Provisions Global comment. I think it would be helpful to list the bid item number where bid items are listed in the special provision. For example,the ballast bid item in Section 4-04.5 would be listed as: Ballast(Bid Item 72) Per Cubic Yard Global comment. We need to keep in mind that the WSDOT specification is primarily for roadway construction, not channel construction. Each specification section needs to be carefully reviewed for applicability and revised as necessary(see example in the comment below to Section 2-12). Section 1-07.15 With regard to the third paragraph, it needs to be clearer what the fourteenth paragraph is. I suggest saying, "Replace the paragraph `If done according to the approved plan...' with the following:". The first sentence of the replacement paragraph should read, "All erosion and sediment control items described previously and shown in the Plans will be paid for by the unit contract prices where individual pay items have been provided or where the work has been made incidental to other bid items." I am also concerned with listing the term "dewatering" in the replacement paragraph of the special provision. I think my revision to the replacement paragraph helps, but we need to be sure that this special provision does not conflict with Section 2-09 and other areas of the specification that say dewatering is incidental to other items of work. I am concerned the contractor may try to claim force account compensation for dewatering work which was intended to be incidental. We could instead say it is the treatment (or control) of dewatering discharges, if necessary, that is covered by the force account work, not the dewatering effort itself. Joe Armstrong Comment to Oakesdale TESC Plans and Selected Special Provisions Page 2 Section 1-07.15(1) This section should require the contractor to provide additional addenda as necessary for changes in the work or for work not covered under previous addenda or as requested by the Engineer. I recommend that additional addenda work also be made incidental. Section 1-08.11 Should material testing requirements and coordination be a subject of the conference? Add"Permits"to the items for discussion. Section 2-01.3(5) Filter fence is to be used instead of the clearing limit fence where directed by the plans or the Engineer. Section 2-12.5 The Special Provision and Plan EC3 show Construction Geotextile for Separation while the Engineer's Estimate Bid Item 73 calls the item Construction Geotextile for Soil Stability. This discrepancy needs to be addressed. With either choice, the material AOS seems to be too large and the water permittivity too low for the fine grained soils we are dealing with. We need to discuss this. The spec. ref. in the Engineer's Estimate is also incorrect and should be 2-12, not 8-15. The construction requirements in Section 2-12.3 and 2-12.3(x) need to be checked for applicability to the channel work and revised as necessary(i.e., thickness and compaction methods for first lift on the geotextile, etc). We should also revise Section 2-12.3 to require the geotextile be covered to finish grade as soon as possible after placement(the spec. currently allows 14 days). Section 4-04.5 The item name in the Engineer's Estimate is different than what is used in the special provision and plan EC3. These need to agree. I suggest we use "Filter Blanket" consistent with the WSDOT standard specification 8-15. rather than renaming it. The bid item would then appear in Section 8- 15 which I feel is more appropriate. Section 8-01.3(5) We should note that the time limits in the second paragraphs are minimum requirements. The contractor is responsible for revising and implementing TESC measures as may be needed to protect the work, adjacent properties, storm drains, streams,etc. Section 8-01.3(14) Replace Bid Item 71 of the Engineer's Estimate, which is currently listed as Coir Mat, with Erosion Control Blanket. Delete Coil Matting specification 8-01.3(14) and eliminate Coir Matting from Sections 8-01.4 and 8-01.5. Revise the Engineer's Estimate to $2.00 per square yard from $2.50. Replace Section 9-14.5(2) as noted below. Joe Armstrong Comment to Oakesdale TESC Plans and Selected Special Provisions Page 3 Section 8-01.5 I didn't see bid items in the Engineer's Estimate for Mulching, Clear Plastic Cover, or Storm Drain Inlet Protection. Bid Item 74 of the Engineer's Estimate includes Quarry Spalls for Construction Entrance, not Stabilized Construction Entrance as in the special provisions. These discrepancies need to be corrected. It is unclear whether the geotextile shown on detail A of EC 1 is to be incidental to the entrance or not. Section 9-14.5(2) Supplement this section with the following: The plastic netting shall be bi6degradable. The blanket shall be smolder resistant without the use of chemical additives. The width of the blanket shall be 48 inches or greater and rolls shall be a minimum of 100 feet long. Plans EC1 and EC2 See the comments made directly on the attached plans. Comments to EC3 were forwarded previously. U:OAKSDALE:97-020:S W attachment cc: Ron Straka OAKESDALE AVE- SW EXTENSION-PHASE to DWG.No. EC1 _ o W o M o SHEET EROSION CONTROL or — ........� "ice — --7. ---— _ - a v- I \ x --- �� - - - - :- :-:-:-_ : _ : _`` z _ - _ _ - - i FENCE MAINTAINANCE STANDARDS ). OUARRY SPALLS (OR HOG FUEL) SHALL BE ADDED IF THE PAD / IS NO LONGER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. 2. IF THE ENTRANCE IS NOT PREVENTING SEDIMENT FROM BEING P TRACKED ONTO PAVEMENT,THEN ALTERNATIVE MEASURES TO KEEP THE STREETS FREE OF SEDIMENT SHALL BE USED. THIS MAY INCLUDE STREET SWEEPING,AN INCREASE IN THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ENTRANCE,OR THE INSTALLATION OF A WHEEL WASH.IF WASHING IS USED,IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA COVERED WITH CRUSHED ROCK,AND WASH WATER SHALL DRAIN TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR POND. 1a"D 3. ANY SEDIMENT THAT IS TRACKED ONTO PAVEMENT SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY BY SWEEPING.THE SEDIMENT COLLECTED BE SWEEPING SHALL BE REMOVED OR STABILIZED ON-SITE. 12" MI THE PAVEMENT SHALL NOT BE CLEANED BY WASHING DOWN THE DEPTH $M�� STREET,EXCEPT WHEN SWEEPING IS INEFFECTIVE AND THERE IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.IF IT IS NECESSARY TO WASH THE STREETS,THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SMALL SUMP SHALL BE CONSIO ED. THE SEDIMENT WOULD 1THEN BE WASHED INTO THE SUMP. � rk�fi)� GL r6� l�rn/v o� sA,v 45 �-35)00 . GEOTEXTILE PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF C A INGRESS/EGRESS AREA a. ANY ROCK SPALLS THAT ARE LOOSENED FROM THE PAD AND END UP ON THE ROADWAY SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. 5. IF VEHICLES ARE ENTERING OR. EXITING THE SITE AT THER THAN THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S),FENCIN CTION 5.4.)) SHALL BE INSTALLED TO CONTROL TRAFFIC. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE A NOT TO SCALE — W - SECo25 To23No Ro4E`, so- o vo How.r•6P � In Z� it 'I W x N 7. 1 &'PERM MI-NT ilr I I w IS' -- ---rvATER OUALITY I PONDS �O J STABil12E01`CONSTRUCTION`ENTR/WCE j /t — _ _ SEE ORiYNAGE-P(_Mli k.". — PROFiL'E SHEETS] 03 03 .I i ui L j i La 0 LJ - - ---- Q ..�..� .:f, _..v.-.. _ _ ,ems• w U7 .} p O r• _ - _ __-_ cr w— w - - - _— ------ — -- Ll va . .- . . €� _ TEMPORARY SILT Ff EC2 p �p I�y_ .p - EROSION CONTROL NOTES o W 1. PROJECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE / CONTRACTOR p 2_ THE AREA TO BE CLEARED AND GRADED MUST BE FLAGGED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK ON SITE. 3. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION DEVICES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL / a DRAWINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR, TO OR AS THE FIRST STAGE OF SITE g PREPARATION. = 4. SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS e o SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS NOT PROVE ADEQUATE TO CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AS 4,,.8,. NECESSARY TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES,SENSITIVE AREAS,NATURAL m WATER COURSES,SPRINGBROOK CREEK,AND/OR THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. SPACES 12" 5. IN CASE EROSION OR SEDIMENTATION OCCURS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OR IF DEF SEDIMENT OR TURBID WATER ENTERS SPRINGBROOK CREEK ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE PROJECT THAT MAY FURTHER AGGRAVATE YHE SITUATION SHALL CEASE.AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY COMMENCE MITIGATION AND RESTORATION MEASURES. RESTORATION ACTIVITIES SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL PROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 6. 6—AttB�RABtNg-�4L�FA7 -�t(AL-L—OG6y RII:-4;AF�0._ CONSTRUCTION GEC �HT+%lo �6. SOIL SHALL NOT SHALL NOT REMAIN EXPOSED MORE THAN 1 WEEK FOR SEPARATION— WITHOUT TEMPORARY OR PERMENANENT COVER TO PREVENT EROSION. EXPOSED SOIL ON THE SLOPES ABOVE SPRINGBROOK CREEK IN THE VICINITY OF THE BRIDGE o (STA 47.00 TO 52.50) SHALL BE COVERED AT THE ENO OF EACH WORK DAY- STOCKPILED SOIL SHALL ALSO BE COVERED OR SECURED TO PREVENT EROSION AT c ENO OF EACH WORK DAY. 7. CATCHBASIN PROTECTION OR INSERTS SHALL BE 1 AILED IN AI.L CATCHBASINS WHERE RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT MIGHT DRAIN. L SECo25 To23No R . 4E . W . M .W _ E- -. ---- -- — --- -�- --OAKESDAif-AVE=S`1N' x z z - --- _ -- - - - _ FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 36' WIDE ROLLS TIE BACK AS NECESSARY USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE 2'xr BY 14 GA. WIRE FILTER FABRIC FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT MATERIAL zo 2'x2' BY 14 GA. WIRE FABRIC OR ELYIIVALENT - b b — — — = `= _ = ="= _ _ _ PROVIDE -Yi" - 1Y2' -c _ _ _ — ="�_`` — — WASHED GRAVEL BACKFILL ° ON BOTH SIDES OF FILTER FENCE FABRIC (NOT REQUIRED Zo _ _ —________—_ _• IN SEDIMENTATION PONDS). H ZSURY 8. BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL MIN. IN 8'xl2' TRENCH 2x4 WOOD POST ALT: STEEL FENCE POSTS Zx4 WOOD POSTS, STANDARD OR BETTER OR EQUAL ALTERNATE: STEEL FENCE POSTS. CROSS SECTION MAINTAINANCE STANDARDS 1. ANY DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. i.+tv 2. )K CONCENTRATED FLOWS HE FENCES aK� a fo J. IT IS IMPORTANT TO CHECK THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE FENCE FOR SIGNS OF THE FENCE CLOGGING AND ACTING AS A BARRIER TO FLOW AND THEN CAUSING CHANNELAZATION OF FLOWS PARALLEL TO THE FENCE. IF THIS OCCURS. REPLACE THE FENCE AND/OR REMOVE THE TRAPPED SEDIMENT. D � 4. SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED WHEN THE SEDIMENT_a_&f- N . a�/ Ce/f- P�j Mgr�f a� /v, Ge 5. IF THE FILTER FABRIC HAS DETFRIORATED DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET BREAKDOWN, IT SHALL BE REPLACED. 6. WHERE THE SILT FENCE BORDERS WETLANDS AREAS. BRIGHT ORANGE FENCING (BLETON INDUSTRIES STYLE 803. OR EQUIVALENT) SI(ALL BE USED. TEMPORARY SILT FENCE DETAIL —' NOT--TO--SCALE - — THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF d PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 'I I 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 .; To: Jim Keeny Barry Knight Company: Phone: Fax: From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 11/4/97 Pages incl this cover page: 3 Attached is a revised plot for crest stage gage#6 for use with the attached rating curve in determining available surface water hydrology for the Oakesdale Phase 2 mitigation site. I eliminated the record prior to 10/95 included in previous plots I provided to you because the rating curve is not applicable to the data before 10/95. The revised crest stage gage plot must be used instead of the previous crest stage gage plots to avoid confusion with application of the rating curve. I have also revised the information summary sheet for the Phase 2 site to include the rating curve in the list and to provide an example of how the rating curve may be used to determine flow. Please replace the corresponding pages with these revised pages in the package of information provided to you earlier. I also wish to talk to Marc Boule before he makes contact with the agencies. Thanks. Crest Stage Gage No. 6 West Cell of Wetland W-12, FEQ Wetland W7b Ground Elev. at Gage = 9.82 NGVD Elev. of Invert of 18" Culvert Outlet = 9.05 NGVD 15.1 14.6 14.1 13.6 13.1 j 12.6 Z 12.1 ■Previous Crest w ®Current Water Level 11.6 11.1 10.6 10.1 9.55 �h Ipip�+ 9.05 �n �n 0 co (o w W 10 W ro (o m to m m n n n n n n n n n m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m co of 19 ao T to I T r T T T � in T ao 0 o co cb M in I? I?O N (V '- 4 f0 n a0 0) O N r N M w h GO 0 O .- N Date Additional readings would have been recorded 4/96 through 11/96 if readings would have been taken at the culvert outlet when the water was below the ground elev at the gage. Readings were made at the culvert when appropriate beginning 12/96. RATING.XLS Rating Curve 11/4/97 Rating Curve for the 18" Culvert Outlet from Inventory Wetland W-12a 10 9 For Use With Current Water Level Reading (10/95 to present) from the Chart Titled "Crest Stage Gage No. 6" to Determine 8 Instantaneous Outflow From the Subbasin of Which the Phase 2 Mitigation Site is a Part (Assumes Tailwater of 9.0 Feet or Lower). 7 6 N V 3 5 0 U- 4 3 2 1 0 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 Water Surface Elev. at Culvert Inlet(ft NGVD) Information Available for the Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation Site Wetlands • Wetland delineation report (1991) and City memo regarding extension of expiration deadlines (1995). • Corps jurisdictional determination(1996). Soils(other soils reports for adjacent developments are also available) • SCS soils survey(1973). • Soil test pit data by Parametrix(1993). • Dames&Moore soils report for wetland bank project(1995). • Hong West memorandum for monitoring well installations(1997). Hydrology • Hydrologic model (HSFP) of entire watershed, including the approximately 300 acre subbasin tributary to the mitigation site(NHC, 1996). • Southeast Central Business District Study(Gardner Consultants,Inc., 1992). This study describes the Tukwila portion of the subbasin tributary to the mitigation site. • Boeing wetland crest stage data for the South Marsh (Inventory wetland W-13Sj) and vicinity (5/91 to 3/92). • City of Renton crest stage data for valley wetlands(3/94 to present). • Groundwater monitoring well data(3/95 to present). • Rating curve for 18"culvert outlet from City of Renton Wetland W-12a The rating curve can be used with the current water level data from the City's crest stage gage#6 to determine instantaneous outflow from City of Renton Wetland W-12a (the only outlet for the subbasin for which the Phase 2 mitigation site is a part). Example: The current water level reading on May 5, 1997, was about 9.7 feet (NGVD). At this elevation the rating culve shows the flow through the culvert at the time of the reading to be about 1 cfs. U:65119:97-002A:SW RATINGALS Rating Curve 11/4/97 Rating Curve for the 18" Culvert Outlet from Inventory Wetland W-12a 10 __. _ _._.__ _ 9 For Use With Current Water Level Reading (10/95 to present) from the Chart Titled "Crest Stage Gage No. 6" to Determine 8 Instantaneous Outflow From the Subbasin of Which the Phase 2 Mitigation Site is a Part (Assumes Tailwater of 9.0 F 0 0 -0, y Feet or Lower). C CD 7 sv x Z 0 6 m - �. v 0 5 �` 4 L 7 4 0 0 0 ° yk CD 3 m Nk N 2ca J �o �i 0 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 Water Surface Elev. at Culvert Inlet(ft NGVD) �f� �/�"eh +- �n/y A.* (kii-) r Information Available for the Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation Site Wetlands • Wetland delineation report (1991) and City memo regarding extension of expiration deadlines (1995). • Corps jurisdictional determination(1996). Soils (other soils reports for adjacent developments are also available) • SCS soils survey(1973). • Soil test pit data by Parametrix(1993). • Dames & Moore soils report for wetland bank project(1995). • Hong West memorandum for monitoring well installations(1997). Hydrology • Hydrologic model (HSFP) of entire watershed, including the approximately 300 acre subbasin tributary to the mitigation site (NHC, 1996). • Southeast Central Business District Study(Gardner Consultants, Inc., 1992). This study describes the Tukwila portion of the subbasin tributary to the mitigation site. • Boeing wetland crest stage data for the South Marsh (Inventory wetland W-13Sj) and vicinity (5/91 to 3/92). • City of Renton crest stage data for valley wetlands (3/94 to present). • Groundwater monitoring well data(3/95 to present). U:65119:97-002A:S W Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Well Data 14 Along Oakesdale Alignment and on the South Wetland Mitigation Site 13.18 _ 13.08 1 . 8 - 12.67 12 1.2.07 11.97 -- --11.82 11.58 11.53 1.53 11.38 11.42 1 .63 1 17 10.3 10 - - --- - - -- -- - -.. - -- -- -- -- --9.98-- --- --- -- - - 9.82 .47 9.43 9.32 9.18 9.28 03 a .88 8.88 Z 8.46 .38 .43 8.52 8 - _ __-- ---- 8.02 §A .18 - - - - 7.87 > 7 m J 7.32 7.4 7.33 -0 -GW-1 .85 7.07 6.92 7.02 --f-G W-2 6.3 6.22 .37 - -GW-3i _ - 0_7- -- __ - - ------- ---- -- - - --- - - 5.87 5.48 -X GW-4 5.06 -31E--G W-5 - ) GW-6 See notes on attached data sheet. See stream and +GW 7 wetland crest stage gage data for additional _6 GW $ 3 surface water information. Ditch 2 3-21-95 9-22-95 1-5-96 4-5-96 7-15-96 10-7-96 1-8-97 4-10-97 6-30-97 8-5-97 9-5-97 10-6-97 Date Water Levels Were Read . GWG 1.DAT Measure Down Raw Readings Date gw-01 gw-02 gw-03 6w-04 gw-05 gw-06 gw-07 gw-08 ditch 3-21-95 11.7 9.2 3.4 2.6 5.4 9-22-95 15 11.46 7.35 7.13 11.02 1-5-96 11.63 9.32 3.27 1.91 5.56 4-5-96 11.93 9.45 4.25 2.45 6.35 7-15-96 See note 1 10.65 5.7 5.52 7.8 10-7-96 9.6 6.14 4.51 8.6 1-8-97 8.5 1.75 1.3 3.8 4-10-97 9.5 3.75 2.45 5.01 6-30-97 See note 3 11.04 6.14 5.8 7.6 7.1 10 7.3 41.5 8-5-97 See note 2 5.95 5.25 7.7 7.55 10.34 9.05 See note 4 9-5-97 See note 2 5.99 5.55 8.1 8.15 11.21 9.95 See note 4 10-6-97 See note 2 5.05 5.1 7.55 7.82 10.85 9.1 46.5 Raw Readings Adjusted to NGVD Date gw-01 gw-02 gw-03 gw-04 gw-05 gw-06 gw-07 gw-08 ditch Grd. Elev 18 16.52 13.57 13.98 16.981 16.1 19.03 17.28 16.54 3-21-951 6.3 7.32 10.17 11.38 11.581 9-22-951 3 5.06 6.22 6.85 5.96 1-5-961 6.37 7.2 10.31 12.07 11.42 4-5-96 1 6.07 7.07 9.321 11.53 10.63 7-15-961 5.87 7.87 8.46 9.18 10-7-96 1 6.92 7.43 9.47 8.38 1-8-97 8.02 11.82 12.68 13.18 4-10-97 7.02 9.82 11.53 11.97 6-30-97 5.48 7.43 8.18 9.38 9 9.03 9.98 13.08 8-5-97 7.621 8.73 9.28 8.55 8.69 8.23 9-5-97 7.58 8.43 8.881 7.95 7.82 7.33 10-6-97 8.52 8.88 9.43 8.28 8.18 8.18 12.67 Notes: 1. GW-01 destroyed by development project. 2. GW-02 inaccessible due to construction activity 3. Readings of 6/30 are potentially 1'too low because of a fray in the insulation of the instrument cable 1 above the sensor. 4. The ditch is located near GW-08. The ditch was dry if no readings are listed. Page 1 .i`•,` � ;; �.,\ , . I 1 '• ; , � ..�„ 1fI' �//`ll if •M,'�.'�J.•.\,tip,. /I�.W\�\ ` , , � r Ln ao 1 '7- `7` ...........J.. •� 1, ,; . 1 r ••, ; •�.� ... ....... -, �•.,.. .� �.. ; �f .. 'ti .. I ... ! �• , ; , r : : : ! !• �' 'ice\ .._...•... o ., ` •is ,... � ) �v ram........ � ...._ T �;•�:�:tT '�.; ;,�;�:tY• •..�,....,, l = _ co 314 Ln one aniolow ... fir ...........•... ..... . ..•.•.......•..•.. �...... Crest Stage Gage No. 6 West Cell of Wetland W-12, FEQ Wetland W7b Ground Elev. at Gage = 9.82 NGVD Elev. of Invert of 18" Culvert Outlet = 9.05 NGVD 15.1 14.6 14.1 13.6 13.1 - j 12.6 Z t 2.t � ------- --- — __ ■Previous=tll ®Current Level 11.6 �- - - -- ------------_... - -- — -------- 10.6 - - 10.1 - - - 9.55 - - -- 9,05 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 4 ro 4 d m w ,n w in rr m 4 r, a m in ,n N N fro M m w w w rn 6 di m di 1, 6dr w 6 6 w in wm 6 w w Eli N V M 7 4 6 r` 6 6 O N .- N a N d rn 6 n 6 ^ N �- r4 7 4 N 6 n 6 W V N ^ R to 6 r` 6 6 6 Date Existing,severely choked culvert outlet replaced with same sized culvert by maintenance project(City File No.LUA-95-142,SME) Additional readings would have been recorded 4/96 through 11/96 it readings would have been taken at the culvert outlet when the water was below the ground elev at the gage. Readings were made at culven when appropriate beginning 12/96. Chart1 Rating Curve for the 18" Culvert Outlet from Inventory Wetland W-12a 10 9 For Use With Current Water Level Reading from the Chart Titled "Crest Stage Gage No. 6" to Determine Instantaneous 8 Outflow From the Subbasin of Which the Phase 2 Mitigation Site is a Part (Assumes Tailwater of 9.0 Feet or Lower). y-n X p �_ y 7 w 6 z CD 0 v 5 O V V LL � v 4 -0 p „ o x o ° 0 ae ' 3 fD m 3 a s, 2 ED0- CD- � N 0 L0 O O O Co r- L0 (Y) Oo (fl (M c- O 1,- Lr) LO ('M C) C) (M M O Lq (0 1� aj O O .- N C? 11: U? (p 1� 1� O O O N M 1;� L,? (O O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O Water Surface Elev. at Culvert Inlet(ft NGVD) Page 1 t , RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION DESIGN REVIEW Project: Oakesdale Ave. SW - SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street Review Type: 95% Design Project Manager: _Joe Armstrong Phone #: 277-6203 To: Attn: Date: Transportation Design Community Services Transportation Operations Fire Transportation Planning Police Storm Water Utility• fee* Woodb��r SPU Waste Water Utility Metro Water Utility WNG Street Maintenance Puget Power Utility Maintenance U.S. West Construction Inspection TCI Cable Development Planning WSDOT Plan Review_ CIth+ 140VIas% Boeing Planning and Technical Services Drainage District(DBM) PLEASE REVIEW AND RETURN THIS FORM WITH YOUR COMMENTS TO PROJECT MANAGER BY: October f 1997 31 Reviewer check appropriate space(s): No comment Reviewed by: See comments below Date Reviewed: See comments attached See comments on Plans Approved by: See comments on Specs Date approved: Comments: C:\Project\oakes\Review95 f SP-1 1-07 LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PUBLIC 1-07.15 Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion Control (Supplement/Modification) To the maximum extent practicable, the Contractor shall utilize permanent water quality ponds as temporary sedimentation ponds. These ponds shall be constructed as the first order of work during grading activities. Replace the fourteenth paragraph with the following: All erosion and sediment control items described previously and shown in the Plans will be paid for by the unit contract prices where individual pay items have been provided. Sediment removal, dewatering, street cleaning, and other BMPs for which there are no pay items will be paid by force account under the item `Temporary Water Pollution/ Erosion Control" as provided in Section 1-09.6. For the purpose of providing a common proposal for all bidders, the Contracting Agency has entered an amount for the item "Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion Control" in the bid proposal to become a part of the total bid by the Contractor. 1-07.15(1) Plan Addendum (New) The Contractor shall be responsible for preparing a Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion Control Plan Addendum (the Addendum). The intent of the Addendum is to reflect the Contractor's operations by supplementing the Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control (TESC) plans that are included as part of the contract documents to provide comprehensive pollution control at the construction site. The Addendum shall be prepared by the TESC lead for the project in accordance with Section 1-05.3 of the Standard Specifications. The Addendum shall be submitted to the Engineer for approval no less than 15 days prior to the pre-construction meeting. No earth-disturbing activities shall begin until the Contractor's Addendum is approved by the Engineer. The plan shall address, at a minimum, the following items: • Location of BMPs (e.g., stabilized construction entrance, inlet protection) • Management of oil, gasoline, and solvents used in the operation and maintenance of vehicles and machinery • Spill control and containment measures • Waste disposal methods and locations • Detailed construction sequence and schedule • Details for storm drain inlet protection • A list of products to be used, including Material Safety Data Sheets • Identification of stockpile and staging areas, and BMPs to be implemented at these locations The preparation of the Addendum shall be considered incidental to the contract, and all costs shall be included in the unit contract prices bid for the job. Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension City of Renton 97027\specs\1•07(10/22i97):jc October 1997 � r SP-2 1-08 PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS 1-08.11 Preconstruction Conference (New) A preconstruction conference will be held at a time and place fixed by Owner as stated in the notice of award. In addition to Contractor, the intended project superintendents, TESC lead and Emergency Spill Control (ESC) lead, subcontractor foremen, and major suppliers—those who will actually be involved in construction activities—should attend the preconstruction conference. Contractor must be prepared for a thorough discussion and review, as well as revision, which may be deemed necessary in the opinion of Engineer, of the following: =* Contractor's plan of operation and progress schedule (3+ copies) => Approval of qualified subcontractors (bring list of subcontractors if different from list submitted with Bid) List of materials fabricated or manufactured for the project Material sources for the project Names of principal suppliers => Detailed equipment list, including "Rental Rate Blue Book" hourly costs (both working and standby rates) Weighted wage rates for all employee classifications anticipated to be used on Project Cost percentage breakdown for lump sum bid item(s) Shop Drawings (bring preliminary list) => Traffic control plans (3+ copies) TESC Plan Addendum including dewatering plan and haul routes Bonds and insurance Project meetings —schedule and responsibilities Provision for inspection for materials from outside sources Responsibility for locating utilities Responsibility for damage Time schedule for relocation, if by Owner Compliance with Contract Documents Acceptance and approval of work Labor compliance, payrolls, certifications Safety regulations for Contractor's and Owner's employees and representatives Suspension of work, time extensions Change order procedures Progress estimates - procedures for payment Special requirements of funding agencies Construction engineering, advance notice of special work Any interpretation of the Contract Documents requested by Contractor Any conflicts or omissions in Contract Documents => Any other problems or questions concerning the work Processing and administration of public complaints Easements and rights of entry Other contracts Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension City of Renton 97027\5Pec5\1-07(10i22/97):ic October 1997 J SP-3 => These materials MUST be brought to the preconstruction conference for discussion followed by Engineer review. The franchise utilities may be present at the preconstruction conference, and Contractor should be prepared for their review and discussion of progress schedule and coordination. Attendance at and preparation for the preconstruction conference shall be considered incidental to the contract, and all costs shall be included in the unit contract prices bid for the job. 2-01 CLEARING GRUBBING AND ROADSIDE CLEANUP 2-01.3(5) Clearing Limit Fence (New) The Contractor shall flag the project clearing limits and shall have the Engineer approve the clearing limits as flagged. The Contractor shall then install the clearing limit fence along the flagged edge of the project's clearing limits as directed by the Engineer. Contractor shall obtain approval of the final placement of the clearing limit fence prior to beginning site clearing, grubbing, or any other work that could result in damage to areas outside of the clearing limits. The clearing limit fence shall be a high visibility orange, high strength polyethylene. Fencing shall be Mirasafe warning and barrier fence, or an equivalent approved by Engineer. The Contractor shall drive 6-foot posts 12 to 18 inches into the ground every 10 to 12 feet, and at each angle point and fence terminus end. Wrap fence material around end posts allowing overlap of one material opening. Use metal tie wire or plastic tie wrap to fasten material at top, middle, and bottom, and bind tightly to post. Overlap splices shall be a minimum of four fence openings. The Contractor shall be responsible for installing, maintaining, and removing the clearing limit fence throughout the project. 2-01.4 Measurement (Supplement) Clearing Limit Fence will be measured by the linear foot of completed fence, along the ground line, exclusive of openings. 2-01.5 Payment (Supplement) Payment will be made for the following bid item(s): Clearing Limit Fence Per Linear Foot Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension City of Renton 97027TspecsN-07(1 O/M97):}c October 1997 S P-4 The unit contract price for "Clearing Limit Fence" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary to provide the clearing limit fence as shown on the plans and specified herein, including furnishing and repairing the fabric, if required and removal and disposal upon completion of the project. 2-12 CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE 2-12.5 Payment (Supplement) Payment will be made for the following bid item(s): Construction Geotextile for Separation Per Square Yard Construction Geotextile for Temporary Silt Fence Per Linear Foot The unit contract prices for "Construction Geotextile for Separation" and "Construction Geotextile for Temporary Silt Fence" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary to provide the geotextile soil stabilization fabric as shown on the Plans and specified herein, including furnishing, testing, sewing, and repairing the fabric, if required and removal and disposal upon completion of the project. 4-04 BALLAST AND CRUSHED SURFACING 4-04.4 Measurement (Supplement) Ballast shall be measured by the cubic yard. 4-04.5 Payment (Supplement) Payment will be made for the following bid item(s): Ballast Per Cubic Yard The unit contract price for "Ballast" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary to provide the ballast as shown on the Plans and specified herein. 8-01 EROSION CONTROL 8-01.2 Materials (Supplement) Straw Mulch shall meet the specifications of section 9-14.4(1). 8-01.3(5) Mulching (Supplement) Straw Mulch shall be applied at a rate of 2,000 pounds per acre, and at a thickness not less than 2 inches. Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension City of Renton 97027\specs\1-07(10/22/97):ic October 1997 SP-5 From October 1 through April 30, Straw Mulch shall be applied to any unworked soil not covered in Section 8-01.3(8) of these Special Provisions that will remain exposed for more than two days. From May 1 through September 30, Straw Mulch shall be applied to any unworked soil not covered in section 8-01.3(8) of these Special Provisions that will remain exposed for more than seven days. Should the Straw Mulch become damaged or otherwise not conform to these Special Provisions due to rainfall, wind or other natural occurrence, the Contractor shall re-apply and re-anchor the Straw Mulch. 8-01.3(8) Placing Jute Matting, Erosion Control Blanket or Clear Plastic Cover (Supplement) Clear Plastic Cover meeting the requirements of section 9-14.5(3) of the Standard Specifications shall be placed over any exposed soil on the banks of Springbrook Creek that will remain exposed during the Contractor's nightly shutdown. Clear Plastic Cover shall also be applied to any stockpiled fill or waste material under the same stipulations of the second paragraph of section 8-01.3(5) of these Special Provisions. 8-01.3(12) Stabilized Construction Entrance (New) This work shall consist of providing Stabilized Construction Entrances and Tire Washes in accordance with the Plans, the approved Contractor's Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion Control Plan Addendum, and these Special Provisions. Stabilized Construction Entrances shall be provided at each location where construction vehicles exit the site. If construction vehicles continue to track sediment onto roadways after construction of the Stabilized Construction Entrances, Tire Washes shall be constructed where directed by the Engineer. The Stabilized Construction Entrances shall be constructed in accordance with the Plans, the approved Addendum, and these Special Provisions. The Contractor shall operate the Stabilized Construction Entrances in a manner acceptable to the Engineer. 8-01.3(13) Storm Drain Inlet Protection (New) The Contractor shall provide temporary storm drain inlet protection at all inlets made operable during construction in accordance with the Plans, the approved Addendum, and these Special Provisions. The Contractor shall place welded wire mesh on the underside of the catch basin grate, and wrap the grate with construction geotextile. Welded wire mesh shall be two by two inches by 12-gauge commercial quality. If more than one strip of welded wire mesh is necessary, the strips shall be overlapped three inches. Construction Geotextile shall meet the requirements described in Section 2-12 for Construction Geotextile for Temporary Silt Fence of the Standard Specifications and herein. Temporary storm drain inlet protection shall be monitored at least weekly for performance and sediment accumulation, as well as after each rainfall producing runoff. If the construction geotextile becomes clogged, the Contractor shall replace it. If sediment should Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension City of Renton 97027\specs\1-07(10/22/97):Jc October 1997 5 � SP-6 accumulate in the inlet sump, the Contractor shall remove it when it reaches one-half the sump depth. When the temporary storm drain inlet protection is no longer required, as determined by the Engineer, the Contractor shall remove the materials and replace the catch basin grate to the satisfaction of the Engineer. All removed material and debris shall become the property of the Contractor, and shall be removed from the project. 8-01.3(14) Coir Matting (New) Coir matting shall be made from 100 percent biodegradable coconut fiber strands (coir), uniformly twisted and woven into a flexible fabric. The minimum weight of the fabric shall be 26 ounces per square yard as determined by ASTM D3776. The open area shall be 39% maximum. The tensile strength (wet) shall be 122/39 pounds per inch, the elongation (wet) shall be 82% x 49%. Width of coir matting shall be 157.5 inches. Coir matting shall be staked 2 feet on center. Stakes shall be constructed from 2-foot 2x4 hem-fir #2 or better, cut diagonally, and notched 1 inch from the top end. Adjoining pieces shall overlap a minimum of 18 inches, with the downstream piece laid underneath the upstream piece. 8-01.4 Measurement (Supplement) Stabilized Construction Entrance will be measured per each for each complete installation. Storm Drain Inlet Protection will be measured per each for each complete installation. Coir Matting will be measured by the square yard. 8-01.5 Payment (Supplement) Payment will be made for the following bid item(s): Mulching Per Acre Clear Plastic Cover Per Square Yard Stabilized Construction Entrance Per Each Storm Drain Inlet Protection Per Each Coir Matting Per Square Yard The unit contract price for "Straw Mulch" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary to provide the straw mulch as shown on the plans and specified herein, including reapplication in the event of failure. The unit contract price for "Clear Plastic Cover" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary to provide the clear plastic cover as shown on the plans and specified herein. Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension City of Renton 97027Tspecs\1-07(10n2/97):ic October 1997 S P-7 The unit contract price for "Stabilized Construction Entrance" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary to provide the stabilized construction entrance as shown on the plans and specified herein and for removal and disposal upon completion of the project. The unit contract price for "Storm Drain Inlet Protection" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary to provide, maintain, and remove the inlet protection as shown on the plans and specified herein. The unit contract prices for "Coir Matting" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary to provide the coir matting as shown on the plans and specified herein, including furnishing, testing, sewing, and repairing the matting, if required. 8-15 RIPRAP 8-15.5 Payment (Supplement) Payment will be made for the following bid item(s): Hand Placed Riprap Per Cubic Yard The unit contract price for "Hand Placed Riprap" shall be full compensation for all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary to provide the hand placed riprap as shown on the plans and specified herein. Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension City of Renton 97027\specsN-07(10/22/97):jc October 1997 !- OAKESDALE AVE. SW EXTENSION-PHASE 1A OwC. x0. � a � EC1 m w : SECa25 To23Na Ro4Eo WoMo SHEET EROSION CONTROL aF 1 (n 50 0 s0 100 HORIZ.1-•50' 1 _ ---------------- - r—. S • ola X v 1 _ EMP.14`PERMANENT SSS `w 1 _._ _ -WATER QUALITY PONDS .V _-. . o a STABILIZED?CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/ SEE DRAINAGE- !w' k \ __.. _ - — _. _ _ PROFILE SHEET -,t' x x - — -- .. -- -x ---- D3.03 vi ., x - Z SCD .. .... _• .. _ >r U ,..:.. AKESDALE AYE S 9 a c� 3 f-Y Z .. � —•- E CD _:.:w ' : ... .. . ..... . f N CD cnLj cr _ - _. w 2 I.! M., : 00 ( _ r Z YZ i t x xI -_ - -.1• -' •�' __-_-_ _-_ _ - - _ - _ - _ _-- -- -- -.' _'_- --_-__ -.' .-_". .-.: .-. - _._. ..' \ ` ZV -- ----- - --- ---- --- ------- --- -- - x - x TEMPORARY SILT FENCE J _ EC2 MAINTAINANCE STANDARDS EROSION CONTROL NOTES // 1. QUARRY SPALLS (OR HOG FUEL) SHALL BE ADDED IF THE PAD / IS NO LONGER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. m W 1. PROJECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR / JF,� 2. IF THE ENTRANCE IS NOT PREVENTING SEDIMENT FROM BEING 2. THE AREA TO BE CLEARED AND GRADED MUST BE FLAGGED BY THE CONTRACTOR /S PP TRACKED ONTO PAVEMENT,THEN ALTERNATIVE MEASURES TO AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK ON SITE. /y�S AO KEEP THE STREETS FREE OF SEDIMENT SHALL BE USED. / �- o- THIS MAY INCLUDE STREET Sw£EPNG,AN INCREASE IN THE 3. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION DEVICES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL / MAC DIMENSIONS OF THE ENTRANCE,OR THE INSTALLATION OF A DRAWINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO OR AS THE FIRST STAGE OF SITE // WHEEL WASH.If WASHING IS USED,IT SHALL S DONE ON AN PREPARATION. AREA COVERED WITH CRUSHED ROCK,AND WASH WATER SHALL W 4. SHOULD THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AS ���' DRAIN To A SEDIMENT TRAP OR POND. v o SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS NOT PROVE ADEQUATE TO CONTROL EROSION AND g"� 3. ANY SEDIMENT THAT IS TRACKED ONTO PAVEMENT SHALL BE SEDIMENTATION,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES,SENSITIVE AREAS,NATURAL 4"-8" REMOVED IMMEDIATELY BY SWEEPING. THE SEDIMENT COLLECTED WATER COURSES,SPRINGBROOK CREEK,AND/OR THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. SPALLS BE SWEEPING SHALL BE REMOVED OR STABILIZED ON-SITE. 12" MI THE PAVEMENT SHALL NOT BE CLEANED BY WASHING DOWN THE 5. IN CASE EROSION OR SEDIMENTATION OCCURS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OR IF DEPTH $��� STREET,EXCEPT WHEN SWEEPING IS INEFFECTIVE AND THERE IS SEDIMENT OR TURBID WATER ENTERS SPRINGBROOK CREEK ALL CONSTRUCTION A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.If IT IS NECESSARY TO WASH THE WORK ON THE PROJECT THAT MAY FURTHER AGGRAVATE tHE SITUATION SHALL STREETS,THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SMALL SUMP SHALL BE CEASE AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY COMMENCE MITIGATION AND RESTORRATION MEASURES. RESTORATION ACTIVITIES SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL CONSID E0.THE SEDIMENT WOULD THEN BE WASHED INTO THE % P_ROvED BY THE ENGINEER. 5 SUMP. �/ C-11e/ I�w L o� �'srvv c,5 �,a�., A 6. _ AEf4VFTtE9 SHALL OCCUR ONLY BETWEEN-APRIL 1 AND CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF 4. ANY ROCK SPALLS THAT ARE LOOSENED FROM THE PAD AND END SOIL SHALL NOT SHALL NOT REMAIN ExPOSED MORE THAN 1WEEK FOR SEPARATION INGRESS/EGRESS AREA UP ON THE ROADWAY SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. WITHOUT TEMPORARY OR PERMENANENT COVER TO PREVENT EROSION. EXPOSED SOIL ON THE SLOPES ABOVE SPRINGBROOK CREEK IN THE VICINITY OF THE BRIDGE (STA 47.00 TO 52.50) SHALL BE COVERED AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. 5. IF VEHICLES ARE ENTERING OR EXITING THE SITE AT .5 T�H R STOCKPILED SOIL SHALL ALSO BE COVERED OR SECURED TO PREVENT EROSION AT THAN THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S).FENCING CTION 5.4.t) -7 END OF EACH WORK DAY. SHALL BE INSTALLED TO CONTROL TRAFFIC. 7. CATCHBASIN PROTECTION OR INSERTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A1.L CATCHBASINS WHERE RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT MIGHT DRAIN. 2/U If STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE KA� NOT TO SCALE � o I III Z S E C25 T . 23N . R . 4E . W . M SOAKESDALE AVE. SW EXTENSION-PHASE IA DWG.No- C2 EHEE T EROSION CONTROL OF V) Ln -7- z 7'L. .7 r cl- z co uj i x"i x— '_x LAJ C= - E- ..... OAKESDALEAV D Z CD to x < _x >r x r4 x CD x—x V) Ljj Li E- E_ U_Z 00 4 F-Lj Z L)a� TIE FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 36' WIDE ROLLS NE BACK AS NECESSARY USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE 2lx2' BY 14 GA. WIRE FILTER FABRIC /7 FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT MATERIAL it 2lx2' BY 14 GA. WIRE FABRIC OR EOUfVA—,., PROVIDE -%- - ' ' Ln WASHED GRAVEL8 ILL %n ON BOTH SIDES OF FILTER FENCE FABRIC (NOT REQUIRED IN SEDIMENTATION PONDS). 0 ZBURY BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL MIN. IN 8'xl2l TRENCH j 2x4 WOOD POST ALT: STEEL FENCE POSTS 2x4 WOOD POSTS, STANDARD OR BETTER OR EQUAL ALTERNATE. STEEL FENCE POSTS. CROSS SECTION < MAINTAINANCE STANDARDS 1. ANY DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. 2. ><CONCENTRATED FLOWS HE FENCES mrERCEPTED AND-LONVEYED--74-A-SEDiMENT--ZRAP OR POND. '60 IL J. IT IS IMPORTANT TO CHECK THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE FENCE FOR SIGNS OF THE FENCE CLOGGING AND ACTING AS A BARRIER TO FLOW AND THEN CAUSING CHANNELAZATION OF FLOWS PARALLEL TO THE FENCE. IF THIS OCCURS. REPLACE THE FENCE AND/OR REMOVE THE TRAPPED SEDIMENT. 4. SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED WHEN THE SEDlMENT_lS_&z-*if61r 5. IF THE FILTER FABRIC HAS DETMORATED DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET BREAKDOWN, IT SHALL BE REPLACED. 6. WHERE THE SILT FENCE BORDERS WETLANDS AREAS. BRIGHT ORANGE FENCING (SLETON INDUSTRIES STYLE 803. OR EQUIVALENT) SHALL BE USED. TEMPORARY SILT FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: October 22, 1997 TO: Bob Mahn FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: Revised Comments to Oakesdale Extension Dwg V 1 I have supplemented my comments to the attached dwg V1 to note the following: • interior baffles must be provided in the vault per the 1990 KCSWDM. • the bottom of the vault does not have to be sloped longitudinally or transversely. This will help to cut the cost of the vault. If you have any questions,please contact me at 277-5547. Thanks. cc: HAW W60DOTMEMO.DOMh CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: October 17, 1997 TO: Joe Armstrong FROM: Scott Woodbury `&,) SUBJECT: Oakesdale Avenue Extension Comments to 95%Design for Phase I General Comments: I saw only two drawings with clearing limits shown (W1&W2). Maybe a master clearing limit plan(s) would be helpful to tie everything together. The limits of work on Benaroya should be clearly defined. I request the consultant's input on whether there is a need to daylight the weepholes in the existing SW 16th Street concrete wall on the west side of the channel. The weepholes are located about 1 to 1.5 feet below our proposed finish grades at the wall. Clearing is to be restricted during the nesting season (early spring), if possible, according to the Mitigation Document. How will this be addressed in the PS&E? How will the drainage for the project be handled if the Corps permit is not issued in time frame needed to construct storm drainage system outfalls and treatment systems? The 100-year floodplain needs to be shown on the plans per the Mitigation Document. The Mitigation Document notes that wetland plans should include habitat enhancement features. What about including some nest boxes or log debris in the wetland mitigation plans? The Mitigation Document includes some requirements for shielding of street lighting and procedures to follow if cultural artifacts are discovered that I did not see addressed in the PS&E. I have sample specification pertaining to cultural artifact discovery if the consultant would like a copy to adapt to this project. The sheet identifier block in the upper right hand corner of the C, D, and U plan views at SW 16th Street is hard to read. We may need show the planned relocation location for the power poles on the channel widening plan SG2. This is because we may be having a pole relocated next to and on the channel side of the proposed Wall G, which would complicate excavation of the channel and installation of the wall.. The contractor should be made aware of it to avoid our being assessed a changed condition order during construction. I only looked at Dwg U7 for as it related to channel wideninb. I assume others are reviewing the U drawings. The plans need to note where pedestrian railing is required along the MSE walls. Plan SG9 shows section, but doesn't show where the sidewalk railing is to be used outside of near the bridge. Joe Armstrong Review Comments Oakesdale 95%Design Page 2 Items still needed for the channel widening PS&E include,but are not limited to: • permanent erosion control plans and specs(geotextile etc) • planting plans and specs • TWP/EC plan and specs • fish habitat structure plans and specs • final hydraulic analysis and report • sign and underground power relocation plan and spec • plans and specs for adjusting the storm water outlet valve for the Boeing CSTC site Summary of Quantities Items needed for the channel/bridge work include: • Construction/As-Built Surveying • Adjust storm water outfall valve • Relocate power line and interpretive sign(see plan U7 and SG2) • Light loose riprap(for under the bridge) • Erosion control blanket • Fish habitat structures Maybe this was already a planned action, but is there any advantage to separating out specific bid items for the individual plant materials rather than using a single lump sum? Sheet XI/X2 Why not allow Common Borrow for fill required to achieve subbase, especially for the road approaches to the bridge? There will be a substantial quantity of SM material to be removed for wetland and storm water pond construction which will have to be disposed of otherwise. The Mitigation Document noted on page 6 that mitigation should include reuse of on-site material to reduce the amount of import. Sheet D1,D2,D3 Do we want some trees planted around the water quality facility? Spacing could be 20 to 25 feet on- center and should not interfere with maintenance. I have not had a chance to confirm this with John Thompson of maintenance. Bridge r The proposed bottom elevation of Pier 2 is only 1 foot below the proposed soil grade at the north end of the pier. Is this sufficient cover? Storm Drainage Report I have not completed my review of the report, but I do have the following comments to-date: The storm drainage report needs to show that the 100-year floodplain compensatory storage requirement is being met. Storage available from the construction of the channel needs to be used by the Surface Water Utility(SWU) in partially fulfillment of compensatory storage requirements incurred by the SWU when the SWU acquired land rights from property owners adjacent to the creek. A map is needed to show the basin tributary areas used in the report. Joe Armstrong Review Comments Oakesdale 95%Design Page 3 The storm water vault has 150% more volume than required and 200% more surface area. However, the storm water vault does not have to be oversized. Reducing the size of the vault would cut costs. Other Comments Other comments are as noted on the attached copies of the plans and specifications. U:OAKES DALE:97-014:S W attachment cc: Ron Straka i I. CALL FORBIDS CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON OAKESDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST I 1. CALL FORBIDS ISealed bids will be received until 2:30 p.m., $$DATE$$, at the City Clerk's office and will be opened and publicly read in the 5`11 floor conference room, Renton Municipal I Building, 200 Mill Avenue South. This project is subject to a Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit that has yet to be I issued. Issuance is anticipated prior to April 1998. Portions of the work cannot begin until the Section 404 permit is obtained. This project is on a tight time schedule. The roadway from SW 27`h Street to SW 19`h Street must be completed no later than September 15`h, 1998 and can be started immediately. If the Section 404 permit is obtained prior to March I" , 1998 the entire project must be completed by September 15`h, 1998. The work to be performed by September 15`h, 1998 shall include,include, but not be limited to: a_,' G4^" -£t lThis contract provides for the 0.7 mile e sion of Oakesdale Avenue SW, from SW 27th Street to SW 16th Street. This pro enct consists of constructing approximately 3,750 feet of new roadway including, but t limited to: clearing and grubbing, removal of structures and obstru lions, roadway excavation, structure excavation, grading, paving, sidewalk, retaining alls, curb and gutter, storm sewer, biofiltration swales, wet ponds, wet vault, trail mo ifications, wetland enhancement, construction of a single-span, precast, prestressed W74G concrete girder bridge, street lighting, channelization, landscaping, sanitary sewer and water main improvements, and other work necessary to complete the Work as specified and as shown in the Contract Documents. I a"d SW - o rSr� ��ok The City reserves the right to reject any and/or all bids and to waive' any and/or all informalities. Approved plans and specifications and form of contract documents may be obtained in f the Public Works Department Customer Services at the 41h floor Renton Municipal Building (Tel. 235-2631), for a non-refundable fee of $30.00 + $2.58 (Total $32.58) for each set. If ordered by mail, add $5.00 for postage, which is also non-refunded. For information regarding this project contact, Joe Armstrong, Project Manager at 277- 6203. A certified check or bid bond in the amount of five percent (5%) of the total amount of each bid must accompany each bid. I The City's Fair Practices and Non-Discrimination Policies shall apply. I Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension I-2 1 . H.INTRODUCTION CITY OF RENTON 4. SCOPE OF WORK The work involved under the terms of this contract document shall be full and complete installation of the facilities required to construct the new roadway. This contract provides for the 0.7 mile extension of Oakesdale Avenue SW, from Lo `hStreet to SW 16`h Street. This project consists of constructing approximately 3,75of new roadway including, bu t not limited to: clearing and grubbing, removal ofstructures and obstructions, roadway excavation, structure excavation, grading, pasidewalk, retaining walls, curb and gutter, storm sewer, biofiltration swales, wet pwet vault, trail modifications, wetland enhancement, construction of a single-spanprecast, prestressed W74G concrete girder bridge, street lighting, channelization,landscaping, sanitary sewer and water main improvements, and other work necess complete the Work as specified and as shown in the Contract Documents. This project is subject to a Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit that has yet to be issued. Issuance is anticipated prior to April 1998. Portions of the work cannot begin until the Section 404 permit is obtained. This project is on a tight time schedule. The roadway from SW 27`h Street to SW 19`h Street must be completed no later than September 15`t', 1998 and can be started immediately. If the Section404 permit is obtained prior to March I" , 1998 the entire project must be completed by September 151, 1998. Any contractor connected with this project shall comply with all Federal, State, County and City Codes or regulations applicable to such work and perform the work in accordance with the Plans and Specifications of the Contract Documents. Elements of the work subject to the Section 404 permit include: 1. Wetlands grading and enhancement. 2. Water Quality Ponds for Storm Drainage 3. Springbrook Creek Channel work. 4. Retaining wall C and all roadway items, including bridge, from Station 45+00 to the northern limit of the project. All other aspects of the project can proceed prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit. II-6 i Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension I Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Extension SPECIAL PROVISIONS i Phase 1A -Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 16th Street I INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS The following Special Provisions shall be used in conjunction with the Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, 1996 English edition, as amended, as issued by the Washington State Department of Transportation and American i Public Works Association, Washington State Chapter (hereafter "Standard Specifications"), and with the City of Renton Transportation Supplemental Specifications contained in these Contract Provisions, all of which together are hereinafter referred to as the "Renton Standards". The Renton Standards, except as they may be modified or superseded by these Special f Provisions, shall govern all phases of work under this contract, and they are by reference t made an integral part of these Special Provisions as if herein fully set forth. DESCRIPTION OF WORK This contract provides for the extension of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. in the City of Renton, King County. This project consists of constructing approximately 3,750 feet of new roadway including, but not limited to: clearing and grubbing, removal of structures and obstructions, roadway excavation, structure excavation, grading, paving, sidewalk, retaining walls, curb and gutter, storm sewer, biofiltration swales, wet ponds, wet vault, trail modifications, wetland enhancement, construction of a single-span, precast, prestressed W74G concrete girder bridge, street lighting, channelization, landscaping, sanitary sewer and water main improvements, and other work necessary for the accomplishment of the improvement, all in accordance with the attached Contract Plans, these Contract Provisions, and the Renton tandards. i 0 It �2 � tt-y �' 1 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Extension SPECIAL PROVISIONS Phase 1A -Southwest27th Street to Southwest 16th Street 1-07.5(3) State Department of Ecology (WSDOT GSP) �(, �,��,� , a S 2 Section 1-07.5(3) is supplemented with the following: /�%P �S p 9fg P&'Ai, . J Water quality standards have been established for all surface waters of the state. For bridge or other construction with related short-term activities such as working directly in the stream, pouring concrete, or other similar activities which temporarily reduce the water quality, the Contractor must obtain approval of the proposed method of operation from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Contractor shall furnish copies of such permits and approvals to the Engineer prior to beginning any work so affected. 1-07.6 Permits And Licenses (WSDOT GSP) GN d5/Sic Section 1-07.6 is supplemented with the following: Corps Of Engineers Permits For Construction The Contracting Agency has obtained a Corps of Engineers permit for this project (Permit Number $$. All contacts with the Corps of Engineers concerning this permit shall be through the Engineer. A copy of the permit is available at the Engineer's Office. The Contractor shall, at no expense to the Contracting Agency, comply with a requirements of the Corps of Engineers in the construction of this project and shall secure additional permits as are necessary. 1-07.15 Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion Control (WSDOT GSP) Erosion and Spill Control(ESC) Lead The ESC Lead shall be identified by the Contractor at the preconstruction meeting. The ESC Lead shall have, for the life of the contract, a current Certificate of Training in Construction Site Erosion and Spill Control signed by the WSDOT Water Quality Program Manager. The Certificate of Training is valid for 3 years from the issue date on the certificate. �eit( �Fn ' f rGnw wtlA �, �, �QnB rir^^�� fir,.:, Sec.�r .� a�1+,A �CCc�`�c / G.•, ., {�u S Duties of the ESC Lead shad include, bX�t are not limited to: 1. Inspecting temporary erosion and spill control Best Management Practices (BMPs) for proper location, installation, maintenance, and repair. Inspections shall be made weekly and after each precipitation event. A Temporary Erosion and Spill Control Report shall be prepared for each inspection and shall be included in the Temporary Erosion and Spill Control file. The inspection report shall include, but not be limited to: a. When BMPs are installed, removed, or changed; b. Repairs needed or made; c. Observations of BMP effectiveness and proper placement; d,. Recommendations for improving performance of BMPs. /1 4�14r wF1w. l�oct ,rA,-J' 11 -CtJ S F._4e _C /mil,NrwryFi fS L-e- t/,td 4► s 6 I Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Extension SPECIAL PROVISIONS Phase 1A -Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 16th Street 2. Prepare and maintain a Temporary Erosion and Spill Control file on site that includes, but is not limited to: a. Temporary Erosion and Spill Control Inspection Reports; b. Stormwater site plan; c. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESC); d. Contractors addendum to the TESC; nal Ilut Dis rge �iminationStem n tr n Tm otic of In nt; � o I-c� 5 C �it- 7 g. Hydraulics Project Approval. 7Crr orate (�'. , 0, )�o�4lf-.k.w- VP1 r+-+rF (wcJU�� Upon request, thb file ghall be provided eo the Engineer for review. 1-07.17 Utilities And Similar Facilities (WSDOT GSP) Section 1-07.17 is supplemented with the following: Locations and dimensions shown in the Plans for existing facilities are in accordance with available information obtained without uncovering, measuring, or other verification. Public and private utilities, or their contractors, will furnish all work necessary to adjust, relocate, replace, or construct their facilities unless otherwise provided for in the Plans or these Special Provisions. Such adjustment, relocation, replacement, or construction will be done during the prosecution of the work for this project. The Contractor shall call the Utility Location Request Center (One Call Center), for field location, not less than two nor more than ten business days before the scheduled date ` for commencement of excavation which may affect underground utility facilities, unless ( otherwise agreed upon by the parties involved. A business day is defined as any day other than Saturday, Sunday, or a legal local, State, or Federal holiday. The telephone number for the One Call Center for this project may be obtained from the Engineer. If no one-number locator service is available, notice shall be provided individually to those owners known to or suspected of having underground facilities within the area of proposed excavation. The Contractor is alerted to the existence of Chapter 19.122 RCW, a law relating to underground utilities. Any cost to the Contractor incurred as a result of this law shall be at the Contractor's expense. No excavation shall begin until all known facilities, in the vicinity of the excavation area, have been located and marked. The following addresses and telephone numbers of utility companies known or suspected of having facilities within the project limits are supplied for the Contractor's convenience: 1 D I ? 2 Natural Gas G �` Transmissior�Line *Puget Sound Energy *Puget Power P.O. Box 1869 BYD-01 W One Bellevue Center Seattle, WA 98111 411 108th Ave. N.E. Contact: David B. Matulich Bellevue, WA (206) 224-2472 Contact: Janet Olson 7 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Extension SPECIAL PROVISIONS Phase 1A -Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 16th Street (206) 462-3219 60"Water Line 'Seattle Public Utility Water Lines 710 Second Ave. City of Renton Seattle, WA 98101 ' Contact: Abdoul Gafour Contact: Bill Cluckey 425) 277-6210 (206) 684-5970 of yele hone Sanitary Sewer t +'+ U.S. West Communications City of Renton 235 S. 228th St. Contact: Joe Armstro ent, WA 98032 (425) 277-6203s 5�k k� `k'�r. ontact: Frank Forrest cor S `f 53) 345-2968 Sewer Trunk Mains (A ��,�e,ly -Contact: Eric Davison r 11 C per �ra'� U (206) 684 1707 (,i� ��� " v- f �c Denotes member of the One Call" System. �t-oo JOr Telephone: One Call Center 1-800-424- 55 1-08 PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS 1-08.5 Time For Completion (Supplement AIs- P� o Grslvt�e This project is subject to a Corps of Engineers ection 4 4 permit that has yet to be issued. Issuance is anticipated prior to April 1998. Portions of the work cannot begin until the Section 404 permit is obtained. This project is on a tight time schedule. The roadway from SW 270 Street to SW 19"' Street must be completed no later than September 150, 1998 and can be started immediately. If the Section 404 permit is obtained prior to March 1" , 1998 the entire project must be completed by September 15", 1998. This project shall be physically completed within 139 working days. 1-09 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT 1-09.6 Force Account (WSDOT GSP) Item 4 of Section 1-09.6 is supplemented with the following: The following contract items may be eligible for force account mobilization: Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control 8 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Extension SPECIAL PROVISIONS Phase 1A -Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 16th Street Oakesdale Ave. SW Stations: 14+00 to 19+50 22+00 to 26+50 37+50 to 43+00 Contractor shall excavate and backfill as per the Plans and Section 2-03(14) unsuitable foundation materials as outlined in the attached geotechnical report for the project or as determined by the Engineer. Prior to any embankment construction, the Contractor shall excavate and remove from the site unsuitable foundation material to the Engineer's satisfaction. 2-03.3(14)J Gravel Backfill Including Haul (Supplement) Gravel Borrow shall conform to the requirements of the Standard Specifications Section 9- 03.14(1) for Gravel Borrow. Excavated subgrade may be reused with the permission of the Engineer as long as it meets the requirements of the Renton Standards for this item. Existing cement and asphalt concrete may be crushed and reused with the permission of the Engineer as long as it meets the requirements of the Renton Standards for this item. 2-09 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION -e,�c o�✓�� r 2-09.3(1) General Requirements (Supplement) The Contractor shall adequately protect existing pave ent and structures from damage due w,�,*fC 6, to the Contractor's operations This includes, but is not limited to, protecting the existing retaining walls that'W-alls E and G will be linked to and the parking area adjacent to Wall F. -�-T�Co—n-tractor si aa- sh f ore all excavan a tiodjacent to existing pavement as specified in Section 2-09.3(3)D of the Standard Specifications. The Contractor shall replace all pavement removed to the face of Wall F. 2-09.4 Measurement (Supplement) Neat line limits of "Structure Excavation Class A Incl. Haul for Wall" shall be as shown on the Plans. If the Contractor removes pavement outside the neat line limits of structure excavation, this will be considered to be for the Contractor's benefit. No additional compensation will be made for additional pavement removal or pavement patching. 2-09.5 Payment (Supplement) Payment will be made for each of the following bid items: Structure Excavation Class A Incl. Haul for . . . Per Cubic Yard Shoring or Extra Excavation Class A for Per Lump Sum Gravel Backfill for Abutment Wall . . . Per Cubic Yard 11 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Extension SPECIAL PROVISIONS Phase 1A -Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 16th Street DIVISION 7 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, STORM SEWERS, SANITARY SEWERS, WATER MAINS, AND CONDUITS 7-05 MANHOLES, INLETS, AND CATCH BASINS 7-05.3(5) Catch Basin Type 2 - 72" dia. w/Baffle (New) Description The 72" diameter type 2 catch basins at station 15+50.8 and 25+50 are designated catch basins with baffle. Work for these catch basins shall conform to the Renton Standards for catch basins and shall also include construction of a cast-in-place wall within each catch basin as dimensioned in the Plans. Materials Concrete Cement concrete shall conform to Division 6 of the Renton Standards, Class 3000LS. Reinforcing shall 1nform to section 9.07 of the Renton Standards. Cw Construction Requirements The catch basin will be constructed in accordance with Renton Standard Plan B027.1, with the exception of the baffle wall. 03 �roV S�S TLr�/. 4 OIZ. h .S 7Z 7-05.3(6) Catch Basin Type 2- dia. w/Pass-Through Pipe (New) Description .i The aydiameter type 2 catch basinO station 30+09 is designated catch basin with pass through pipe. Work for these catch basins shall conform to the Renton Standards for catch basins and shall also include installation of a ductile iron pipe through the catch basin as detailed in the Plans. Construction Requirements The catch basin will be constructed in accordance with standard plan B027, with the addition of a continuous 12-inch ductile iron pipe constructed through the catch basin. The goal of this ductile iron "pass-through" pipe is to convey off-site runoff under the street without entering the on-site drainage system at a location where there is a vertical conflict between the on and off-site systems. 7-05.3(7) Water Quality Ponds (New) Description This work shall consist of constructing the two proposed water quality ponds and dispersal V-ditches. Materials Topsoil Type A, type B, and type C per Renton Standard 9-14.1. Quarry Spalls Renton Standards 9-13.6 30 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Extension SPECIAL PROVISIONS Phase 1A -Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 16th Street ' Materials Concrete 1 Class 4000. 90-degree Elbow 90-degree elbow fitting for outlet pipe to meet requirements of AASHTO M294. ' Shear Gate Renton Standard plan B033 36"Frame and Slotted, Locking Cover Renton Standards 9-05.15 stings). 36' frame and slotted, locking cover shall be Inland Foundry 72 G�Cover sha e 3-bolt locking. CV Plya4,( Construction Requireme Excavation and backfill for the water quality vault shall be per section 2-09 of the Renton Standards, with the exception,that all costs for excavation and backfill will be incidental to the lump sum contract price of the vault. The concrete vault shall be constructed in accordance with the structural plans and the construction requirements as described and applicable in Section 7-05.3. Access ladders shall be installed per standard plan B027 (type 2 catch basin). A 90- degree elbow shall be installed on 12-inch outlet pipe, with a hole drilled on the top, as detailed in the Plans. ' A shear gate and lift rod shall be installed on the 8-inch diameter maintenance drain per standard plan B033. 7-05.5 Payment (Supplement) Payment will be made for the following bid items: Catch Basin Type 2 2" dia. w/Baffle Per Each rCatch Basin Type dia. /Pass-Through Pipe Per Each Water Quality P 9LS Lump Sum ' [Water Quality Vault Lump Sum The contract bid price for "Catch Basin Type 2 - 72" dia. w/Baffle" shall be full compensation for all labor, material, tools, and equipment necessary to satisfactorily complete the work as defined in the Contract Documents for installing the catch basin and building the interior wall. -7 The contract bid price for "Catch Basin Type - 6 w/Pass-Through Pipe" shall be full compensation for all labor, material, tools, and equipment necessary to satisfactorily complete the work as defined in the Contract Documents for installing the catch basin and pass-though pipe within 2 feet of the structure. 1 32 E Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Extension SPECIAL PROVISIONS , Phase 1A -Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 16th Street i 8-20.3(14)B Signal Heads- Pedestrian Signal Heads i installed on this project and shall be I! New pedestrian signal heads shall be furnished and p 1 fiber optic type conforming to Section 9-29.20(1) of the Renton Standards. r 8-20.3(18) Pedestrian Push Button Assemblies with Signs (New) The Contractor shall provide and install all pedestrian push button assemblies with signs as shown on Standard Plans J024 and J025. i 8-20.3(14)E Signal Standards (Supplement) The mast arm traffic signal support structures shall be of the type and size shown on the Plans and detailed in Standard Plan J021. 8-20.5 Payment (Supplement) Payment will be made for each of the following pay items that are included in the proposal: Illumination System (Oakesdale Avenue SW from SW 27th Per Lump Sum 3 1 Street to SW 16th Street) I I Interconnect System Complete (Oakesdale Avenue SW at Per Lump Sum SW 16th Street) Traffic Signal System Complete (Oakesdale Avenue SW to Per Lump Sum I� SW 16th Street) 8-28 MODULAR BLOCK WALL [TO BE PROVIDED WHEN DESIGN IS COMPLETE] 8-28.5 Payment (Supplement) i Payment will be made for the following bid item(s): Modular Block Wall Per Square Foot Select Borrow Incl. Haul for Wall Per Cubic Yard Gravel Backfill for Wall Per Cubic Yard Underdrain Pipe 4-Inch Diameter for Wall Per Linear Foot The lump sum price for "Illumination System Complete" shall be for the complete system installed and operational, including but not limited to, removal, installation, and/or relocation of luminaires, luminaire poles, pole foundations, illumination cable, conduit, trenching and backfill, and junction boxes as indicated on the Plans. The lump sum price shall also include conduit, trenching, and Backfill, and junction boxes associated with the future traffic signals 39 i I SPECIAL PROVISIONS Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Extension Phase 1A -Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 16th Street at SW 27th Street, the Boeing driveway (approximately Sta. 36+75), and at SW 19th Street, as indicated on the Plans. Luminaire support associated with 6-inch x 6-inch x 18-inch junction box shall be incidental to the "Illumination System Complete". i The lump sum price for "Interconnect System Complete" shall be for the complete system j g but not limited to, installation of interconnect cable, installed and operational, includin conduit, and junction boxes. The lump sum price for "Traffic Signal System Complete" shall be for the complete system ' �0 installed and operational, including but not limited to, installation of signal controller, �n�"" controller cabinet, cabinet foundation, traffic signal poles, pole foundations, vehicle signal heads, pedestrian signal heads, street name signs, loop detectors, emergency vehicle pre- , emption detectors, signal cable, conduit, trenching and backfill, and junction boxes associated with the traffic signal design at the intersection of Oakesdale Avenue SW/SW 16th Street as indicated on the Plans. The contract bid prices above shall be full compensation for all labor, material, tools, and equipment necessary to satisfactorily complete the work as defined in the Contract Documents, including compaction as needed, and all incidental work. I8-30 TRAIL MODIFICATION (New) Construction Requirements The Contractor shall construct cedar bark and crushed cinder trails at locations shown in the Plans or as directed by the Engineer. Clearing and grubbing as per Section 2-01 shall be limited to one foot on either side of the proposed trail. The Contractor shall be responsible for avoiding disturbance to vegetation located outside the clearing limits. No removal of vegetation shall occur outside the clearing limits. Payment Payment will be made for the following bid item(s): ��]Trail Modification Per Lump Sum 8-31 LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION (NEW) [TO BE PROVIDED WHEN DESIGN IS COMPLETE] - - 8-32 WETLAND CONSTRUCTION (New) [TO BE PROVIDED WHEN DESIGN IS COMPLETE] 40 SP-2 D. Leveling pad material shall meet the requirements of Section 9-03.9(3) of the Standard Specifications for crushed surfacing base course. 8-28.3 Construction Requirements The modular block wall shall be installed as shown on the Plans and in accordance with the approved construction drawings and the following provisions. Excavation Contractor shall excavate to the lines and grades shown on the Plans. Contractor shall use caution not to excavate beyond the lines shown, or to disturb the base material. Foundation Soil Preparation After excavation is complete, the Engineer will examine the soil to determine if it meets the design strength expected. Soil not meeting the design requirements shall be removed and replaced with acceptable material, when directed by Engineer. All replacement foundation material shall be compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor. Leveling Pad '—�— Place leveling pad material to the widths and depths show on the Plans. Locate top of leveling pad to allow bottom wall units to be buried tot depths shown—on the Plans.. Compact leveling pad materials to provide a level hard su ace on which to place the first ;3 course of units. Compaction shall be with a mechanical plate 95 en f standard -Proctor. Contractor may replace the top 3 inches of base with unreinforced concrete at no additional cost. Modular Block Unit Installation Place the first course of modular block units on the prepared leveling pad with the front edges tight together. Check the units for level and alignment as they are placed. Ensure that units are in full contact with the leveling pad. Take proper care to develop straight lines and smooth curves on leveling pad as shown on the Plans. Backfill all cavities in and around the block. Backfill front and back of entire bottom row to firmly lock in place. Check again for level and alignment. Sweep all excess material from tops of units. Install next course of wall units on top of base row. Align modular blocks according to the Plans and the manufacturer's recommendations. Check each modular block for proper alignment, and level. Backfill remaining space behind second course as specified on the Plans and compact to 95 percent of standard Proctor. Repeat process for each succeeding course. No more than two courses of block shall be dry stacked prior to placement of unit core fill and backfill. Geogrid Installation Install modular block units to designated height of first grid layer, backfill, and compact behind wall. Cut geogrid to designed length and lay behind wall with cut edge of grid to top outside face of modular block with geogrid securely locked to modular block. Extend to back of slope. Place next course of concrete blocks on top of grid and fill block cores to lock in place. Remove slack in grid and stake to maintain tension as specified by geogrid manufacturer. Lay geogrid at the proper elevation and orientation as shown on the Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension City of Renton 9702 Aspecal8•28(10/06J97):ss October 1997 S P-3 approved construction drawings. Contractor shall verify correct orientation (roll direction) of the geogrid. Follow manufacturer's guidelines for overlap requirements of uniaxial and biaxial grids 4�✓/ h —t /__6c k O -S l� "`wre/'i I0j S�U htr d"f'/7�� �^ �j 0� Backfill 1"L" of '-fie,/ /.er ,v? /( 1,v Stec . &ii , /1 -IhG� . Material sha e ravel rro s s cifie on th :ans he rid slo reinforcement, soils used to bac ill geogrid must comply with standards set by geogrid manufacturer's guidelines. Where additional fill is required, Contractor shall submit sample and specifications to Engineer fora roval. minimum of 12 inches of gravel borrow for wa must extend behind wall to within 1 foot of final grade. ap backfill with topsoil to match existing grades. Place, spread, and compact backfill in a manner that minimizes the development of wrinkles in and/or movement of the geogrid. Place backfill from the face of wall rearward to ensure that the geogrid remains tensioned. S��t�„ oG SG9 ��d��a.�s y�a,�ef ���✓o� �� �zl(1 (��, o� g�cl-�t- Tracked construction equipment shall not be operated directly on the geogrid. Minimum backfill thickness of 6 inches is required prior to operation of tracked vehicles over the geogrid. Keep turning of tracked vehicles to a minimum to prevent tracks from displacing the fill and damaging the geogrid. Rubber-tired equipment may pass over the geogrid reinforcement at slow speeds—less than 10 mph. Avoid sudden braking and sharp turning. Compact backfill to achieve 95 percent of standard Proctor. Only hand-operated compaction Zgine ipment is allowed within 3 feet of the wall face. Contractor is fully responsible for g-t�esp�i#i d a ents. h eceSSQi _ractor remo correctly replace any material found to be not in compliance with these specifications, at Contractor's expense. Cap Units Installation The Contractor shall install cap units at Walls A, B, D, G, and H, or as directed by the Engineer. The caps shall be securely fastened to the modular block units with an adhesive approved by the unit manufacturer. 8-28.4 Measurement Modular block unit walls shall be measured by the square foot of completed wall face including the cap units and all buried courses. 8-28.5 Payment Payment will be made per Section 1-04.1 of.the Standard Specifications for the following bid item(s): Modular Block Wall Per Square Foot The unit contract price per square foot for "Modular Block Wall" shall be full compensation for all material, labor, tools, and equipment required to complete the work as specified, including but not limited to modular block units, geogrid, backfill, compaction, and leveling pad. All costs for shoring or extra excavation for wall construction shall be included in the Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension City of Renton 97027Tspecsl8-28(10/06/97)ss October 1997 - . KATO& 2003 Western Avenue URENW 555 Market Place One Tel: 206/448-4200 INCORPORATED Seattle, Washington 98121 Fax: 206/728-5608 September 26, 1997 Joe Armstrong Transportation Project Manager City of Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Re: Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension Dear Joe: We are pleased to attach twenty-five (25) copies of the 95% Design Submittal plans with five (5) copies each of the draft specifications. Because wall type issues were not completely resolved until this week's TAC meeting, the wall plans and site grading plans are not available for this submittal. The traffic control plans and the survey control layout are also pending completion. We anticipate that the excluded plans and related specifications will be delivered to you by Friday October 3rd. Issues that we will continue to work on include: • Curb return radii • Right-of-Way treatment at driveways / construction responsibilities • Development of bid schedules Please call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, KATO & WARREN, INC. Tor- Barry S. Knight, P.E. Project Manager ENTEtANCa ENGINEERS* SCIENTISTS. PLANNERS. SURVEYORS 10900 NE 8th Street,Suite 300 (425)454-5600 Balleyue,Washington 98004 Fax No. (425) 454-0220 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL D,3te t7 q7 PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES IMMEDIATELY TO: Name Is C,o•T-T �o0D W-'l L.tr� h1tl,Sr�t� Firm/Agency &7-� OF tJrotS city ?-S—:;i4Tonl Fax Number (41"S) 235- 254 t From � ER y--Ob Pi oject/Promo Name 0AN V-e5•PA LX A�6• J• "�E�Sti�+� Pioject/Promo No. �- 9102.-1 - 2-1 R+ marks`/.I ems Transmitted: `�V Hard Copy F� Will F 7Y- Will Not Be Sent N-), of Pages (Including Transmittal Sheet) 1 If there are problems with transmission, call ka'Z>k (zEn�CE (425) 454-5600 Tl-c information in this fax is confidential and proprietary and is intended only for the individual or entity named on th,:cover sheet. if you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information is prohibited. if you do not receive all of the pages or have received this fax in error, please notify us immediately at th,; above telcphor)e number. Place Transmission Sheet in File Box with Copy of Transmitted Material A.07+a.(RcY.y971 TTO/TOOZ '9N3 OONV2IIN3 IVA LT :OT L6/LT/60 MEMORANDUM Date: September 17, 1997 To: Scott Woodbury and Lin Wilson - City of Renton From: Jerrod Snyder and Brad Stein - Entranco Subject: Oakesdale Ave. S.W. Extension Entranco Project No. 97027-21 Following are our recommendations for the retaining wall types on the Oakesdale Ave. S.W. Extension project. The approximate length, height, and area of each wall is listed. Note that the wall height given is the exposed height of the wall, while the wall area is the total wall area including that portion below finished grade. The wall type recommended is based on the factors discussed in italics. Retalning Wall Recommendations Wall A - wall length =25 LF max. exposed wail ht. =6 ft total wall area- 140 SF wall type: Keystone (preferred) Because of this wall's proximity to Wall B (a Keystone wall), a Keystone wall is considered to provide the best visual continuity. Additionally, the ability to adjust the Keystone units to be compatible with the existing drainage structure and hydroponic piping makes this wall type the most viable alternative. While a concrete wall with a textured finish could be used at this location to produce a similar surface treatment as the Keystone, constructibility and its higher initial cost are significant disadvantages to using this wall type. Action Item: Entranco to confirm wall type directly with Boeing. Wall B- wall length = 75 LF max. exposed wall ht. = 8 ft total wall area= 540 SF wall type: Keystone (selected by City) A Keystone wall is considered to be the most viable alternative here because of the close proximity to the trail. This wall is constructed within fill, making the geogrid/block construction a simple and cost-effective wall. Action Item: none. Wall C- wall length =330 LF max. exposed wall ht. = 15 ft total wall area=3800 SF wall type: Keystone (preferred) A Keystone wall is considered to be the best wall type for this location because it is constructed to retain fill and provides visual continuity with the other walls on the project. The wall can be constructed nearly vertical to allow a greater area of wetlands to be developed in front of the wall. if plantings within the wall are desired, either Keystone planter units could be used (without requiring D702A atm em9Tnron09 t 7:3c TTn/znna nnta n1QVX.ThJ7 YFJ RT :nT !6/1T/60 additional R/W) or the wall could be tiered(requiring approximately 1 to 2 feet of additional R/W) to provide a planting shelf at some level below the top of the wall. A crib wall constructed with the standard 1:4 batter may require additional R/W near the abutment. A crib wall with a 1:6 batter can be constructed within the R/W limits but at an increase of approximately 30% in the initial construction cost. Action Item: City to coordinate wall type selection with Boeing. Wall D- wall length = 30 LF max. exposed wall ht. - 14 ft total wall area- 200 SF wall type: Keystone (selected by City) Because of the close proximity to the trail, a Keystone wall is considered to be the best alternative_ Additionally, the transition from a vertical concrete abutment wall face to a battered crib wall would create unappealing visual lines, Action Item: None. Wall E- wall length = 162 LF max. wall height- 13 ft total wall area- 1284 SF wall type. Keystone (selected by City) Structurally, either a Keystone wall or crib wall is acceptable. A tiered Keystone wall near the bridge abutment could be used to provide planting areas. Additionally, a Keystone wall at this location will provide aesthetic continuity with the Keystone walls recommended for Walls 0 and G. A rockery should not be used because of the poor soils on the site particularly at this location. Action item: Entranco to divide wall quantities between the pay item schedules for the Oakesdale Ave. S.W. project and the Springbrook Creek Widening project. Generally, those costs associated with retaining fills will be assessed to the Oakesdale Ave. S.W. project, and wall costs associated with retaining cuts will be assessed to the Springbrook Creek Wldening project. Wall F- wall type: Keystone (selected by City) Wall type determined in agreement with the adjacent property owner. Action Item: none. Wall G- wall length = 160 LF max, exposed wall ht. = 12 ft total wall area= 1230 SF wall type: Keystone (selected by City) A Keystone wall is recommended here to provide a structurally sound, cost-effective wall that maximizes the channel capacity. A tiered Keystone wall could be used to provide additional planting areas if necessary. The Keystone wall will provide visual continuity with Walls 0 and E which are recommended to be Keystone. The geogrid for the wall would extend over the 108-inch Metro sanitary sewer pipeline. This is not considered by Metro to be a significant conflict, and this alternate is considered to be the most compatible with the sewer line. This wall concept has been verbally approved by Metro. Rockeries are considered by the project geotechnical consultants to be unacceptable primarily because of the generally poor soils on the site and particularly within the sewer pipeline trench. Action Item: None. 9702Tpe1m em 87Vm ren0817:as 2 TTn/rnna ")NJ7 n)NTVXTNt7 YV4 RT:nT L6/1T/60 Wall H- wall length=85 LF max. exposed wall ht.=4 ft total wall area=250 SF wall type: Keystone (selected by City) Because the toe of this wall is below the 100-year storage event and there are poor soils in the area, a structural wall is considered necessary at this location. A Keystone wall would provide visual and construction continuity with other walls recommended on the project. Action Item: None. Rockery Walls The use of rockery walls on this site has been discussed with the project's geotechnical consultant. For heights exceeding 4 feet, Shannon & Wilson recommends against the use of rockeries to armor the cuts for this project. The soils on the river bank are primarily clayey silts and silty clays, some of which are quite soft. Because every wall exceeds 4 feet, rockeries should not be used. Planning Level Cost Estimates Retaining wall costs have been discussed with Dennis Elliott of Retaining Walls Northwest. This company provides design, materials, and construction of both crib walls and block (Keystone type) walls. Dennis considers the two wall types to have essentially the same cost, approximately $20- $25(SF for the standard wall systems. The area of the wall should be considered as the total area of wall constructed, including the depth below finished grade. Some differences in wall cost will be observed in the bids depending upon the specification of how backfill materials, geogrid, etc. are to be paid_ The cost was developed assuming approximately 4,000 SF of wall, and maximum heights of less than 15 ft. The use of a crib wall with batter steeper than 1:4 will cause the cost of that wall type to be greater by as much as 30%. An MSE wall with a rockery face will have a construction cost very similar to the alternatives discussed above. Treatment of Retaining Walls in the Contract Documents There are several manufacturers of both crib walls and block(i.e., Keystone type) walls. In order to provide a set of contract documents that is specific enough to construct the retaining walls, yet general enough to allow units produced by different manufacturers to be bid, the following approach should be used for the plans and specifications preparation. • Show the front and rear faces at the top of the wall on the plans assuming an 18-inch deep Keystone unit. This graphic representation will not be changed even if an alternate wall type is selected. • The elevation views of the walls will be exaggerated by 400%to adequately show vertical grade changes. A V =20' horizontal scale will be used. • At locations where the wall supports a sidewalk above, the top of wall will be shown in the elevation 6 inches below the top of the sidewalk. The manufacturer's design of the wall will be required by the specifications to provide steps at the top of the wail to account for changes in wall height. These steps will be taken up by a variable depth sidewalk that will step with the top of wall. • At retaining wall locations where there is no sidewalk, the top of wall will be shown 8 inches above the intersection of the finish ground line and the front face of wall. The manufacturer of the wall will be required by the specifications to provide steps at the top of the wall to account for changes in wall height. 97027MO(MemYrnten0917:6e 3 TTO/fOO 9N3 OOHF8Zu3 Eta 6T=0T L6/LT/60 • The bottom of wall will be shown at 1 foot below the finish grade in front of the wall. The wall manufacturer will be required to adjust the actual bottom of wall as necessary for their particular wall system. The retaining wall specifications measurement section will not allow the wall quantities to be increased for a greater embedment depth If required by the manufacturer. • The specifications will be stringent in terms of wall appearance and performance but will allow some flexibility in the Contractor's selection of the wall unit manufacturer. The Contractor will be required to submit for review and approval, wall unit samples and shop drawings of their proposed wall design. 97027Ne1mem97Vnren0917:93 4 TTO/900(al '9N3 OONVEIN3 TE3 6T=0T L6/LT/60 N LJ Lu Lrl In LJ Q w ' >I o¢ r S /l(122 (—� 'LT,)- STAL 43-92'.(4 'LT, ' .. BEGIN`RETAINING WAL ING` "a Li - O`_ a - IL 7- , .. ., �:r.....,�G ;►�� aa.sg "4'.2.•A•O••:.'::'"••:.:�..,,=;':r'--. --.._, .0 O AVE. V� EAS�V f.. ALL L r?f. r.. s' G . BEGIN. REi � � ! � � � �..t, •..`°••��� . •�` �. •. `@•~,+ PLAN SCALE:t"-20'-0" z , O W D AT H NG d � • TTO/900 ] 9N3 OOHti2IZH3 TF3 6T=0T L6/LT/60 OAKESDALE AVE. SW EXTENSION-PHASE IA OWG,No- WALL LAYOUT SHEET OF _R sur:NX. •..--yam."„' _ .._ _.. WALL B TA a (58' T.) _._....... W • '-9--. i,.: END RETAINING wnit ;- Stbl[N'•RETgINING WPIL' l ' W AL ~`1 02 WAL L � C WALL T.. WALL H STA.41-17 _ BEGIN RETAINING WALL 95% SUBMITTAL TTO/L0001 9N3 OCINV IN3 YF-3 07. =0T L6/LT/60 F- F"' P F- Y 1 N V) 1 a v� d o= 0. 1- z� RF/ z i W` .. .. O W V. W�, .. . . - ..-. .-. . - _ _.�.-a-••a-• ... CQ LL- 0� Y co F-w o STA.s U a to ' ' BEGIN oo pAKESpq ' w. . LF 'A VJ7 AU `ST.ti;4 17 41' RT.) " ENO A AfNING'WA-L BEGIN RETAIXING WALL N ENO.RtTAINING WALL Q ,/ TTO/S00 9N3 09NVUN3 ZF3 OZ =OT L6/LT/60 OAKESDACE AVE, SW EXTENSION-PHASE IA OwG'NO. 2 WALL LAYOUT SHEET OF t It ••1 •�� '' '.. :�•_'_ .. _ •• ':.i ill I V _. ...••- IM;wj:• =h : a •i: if s MG* wa0:,, '.. {{ .END•RETaINmG wa�� y • I WALL F STA. 51•4 ENo RErarxmG WALL PLAN I ' SCALE /'-20 95% SUBMII AFT= I. TTO/600[Pl '9K3 0ONVNIN3 ZF3 T7. :OT L6/LT/60 yryL 1. 'r f PLANTER UNIT fusiom RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS R. KEYSTONE PLANTER LET YOUR CREATIVITY GROW! UNIT Unit Slze: • A plantable concrete unit with the proven 8"H x 18"W x 21 "D' structural integrity of KEYSTONE'S patented Unit Weight: interlocking pin system. 95 ibs. • Integrates with KEYSTONE Standard Units and Plantable volume/unit: geogrid soil reinforcement. 0.25 cubic feet (nominal) • Unique design allows irrigation, drainage and Exposed Face Area: free access for root growth, 1 sq. ft./Unit • Available in sculptured rockface and earthtone 'Actual unit weight and colors to match any KEYSTONE wall, dimensions may vary by region. TTO/OTO(P] -9N3 OONVHIN3 1Vd TZ:OT L6/LT/60 -•�,.n,y,,.�.�,,;;•.. r.'1�h'..'f„v:•�; �ig'�:nF.d`i"»ho:G•.^.�d'i',r.•7r..>a': •.3- :Y? 'ti>::C;rq:, �'+'c��%• - - - - - -ti•v:• - - PLANTER UNIT TM E=m PLANTER UNIT Tha KEYSTONE Planter Unit allows the distinctive beauty of a KEYSTONE wall to blossom with plant life! Each Planter has notches to integrate a drip irrigation line and drainage/root access holes in the bottom of the unit. The Planter Units are designed to be built into KEYSTONE St,indard Walls and offer the superior structural qualities of the KEYSTONE interlocking pin system. Call us for installation instructions and design options. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS • Each Planter Unit has a setback of 5-1/2" per 8" course. • Geogrid may be used with Planter Units. • The Planter Units are most suitable for straight wall and moderate curve applications. • For further information. contact your KEYSTONE Representative. FILTER MEMBRANE FOR CONTAINMENT i OF SOILS AT PLANTER UNIT l RILL ED ZONE F I - NATIVE SOILS PINHOL=S --___ ' I _ I FOR 5-1,2' ----_ h�9 OFFSET �'ti GEOGRID t tY REINFORCEMENT PLANTIP:GSOIL I CAVITY ( " �'p iq- y fill PLRANTER UNNITSN IRRIGATION LINE PLANT MATERIAL AT y ' I • FILL ALL UNIT PLANTER UNIT ' CAVITIES OUTSIDE OF 1.116' ,.1y' -' LEVELING PAD yj•.•-. ' y ,4I; y" �_..'`� MEMBRANE NOTCH :OR t.;.1, , + i I ZONE WITH IRRIGA110N ! '',1. KEYSTONE PLANTER WALL UNITS `�;_�; �� CRUSHED STONE LINE -- I, . . �� CORE FILL KEYSTONE STANDARD UNITS DRAINA1.;E HOLES IN BOTTOM OF UNIT Distributed by: MRO RFTAINNC WALL SYSTEMS Corporate Headquarters:KEYSTONE ReUlning Wall Systems,Inc.•o[,4'•w.781.h Strccl.Mlnncapoliy.MN•SS'..,S•I-yUU-1,'/-89711 •Fnx GI 7 fl9'1•SNSy r'RIN fED IN U.S.A.KFYSTONE Is a trademark of KEYSTONE:RCtslning wall SysU;rn-,Ilrc.. U.S.Palon[Nos.'�.60237.0,RC;',, I a,D29S,t9u,U291:Jd?. D'291,57,,D�97,7GT,0799,hG5.U299,0G7.�300,7':;,U WU,J.55,US00).`,,D.:OI,OGh.D511.4a4,ann nlhGr pntcnt:,pcnOlnl? and ISSUCO wnrld-idc.11.0 L'.U,No. ,5991. °Igo•KEsSIUrvE+elo nrnp Wnll S�.•:fnm�,lot. TTO/TTO[A •9N3 03INYHIN3 1V3 ZZ 0T L6/LT/60 f► %W CITY OF RENTON Community Services MEMORANDUM Date: September 16, 1997 To: Joe Armstrong, Engineer Specialist III From: Leslie Betlach, Parks Director Re: Oakesdale Avenue - Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plans Thank you for the opportunity to review Shapiro's Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Drawings for the Oakesdale Avenue Project. Three sheets were provided for review and included the North/South Wetlands Grading, North/South Planting Plans and a Detail Sheet. Although these sites are part of the City's wetland mitigation sites, it should be noted that the Parks Department does not perform maintenance operations for the City's wetland areas, sedimentation ponds or detention facilities. Comments pertinent to these drawings pertain to the growth characteristics of the specified plant materials. Potential objectionable plant materials include the Red Alder (Alnus rubra), Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and the white clover (Trifolium repens). The red alder is known for harboring insects and has soft wood, the black cottonwood has brittle wood, invasive roots and is messy in the spring and the white clover is aggressive and can overtake other ground covers. With the exception of the clover, the trees are common wetland species. They can be acceptable as long as there are no roads, trails, buildings, etc., within close proximity. On a slightly separate issue but still relating to the landscape for this project, it has been decided that the City will not be responsible for any landscape maintenance along Oakesdale Avenue until the next phase, when complete build-out occurs Discussions for requirements will ensue at that time. The materials that Boeing is proposing to utilize immediately adjacent to Oakesdale Avenue for the first phase and within their portion of the project are acceptable. Oakesdale Avenue Landsdaping Page 2 9/17/97 It should be noted, however, that Lombardy Poplars (Populus nigra "Italica") and Red Alders (Alnus rubra) are proposed as part of their landscape plan primarily in parking areas and natural areas as part of this first phase. Although this will not directly affect the City, in the future these plant materials are not suitable for street tree applications, again due to brittle or soft wood, insect disease, and root structure. If you have any questions, please call me at x-5549. cc: Sam Chastain, Community Services Administrator Lin Wilson, Transportation Design Supervisor Scott Woodbury, Civil Engineer II OakelmdOAKELANDDOC THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 ` To: Brad Stein Company: Entranco Phone: Fax: From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 9/15/97 Pages inct this cover page: 3 Subject: Wall types for Oakesdale Extension/channel widening Attached are the first two pages of your 9/12 inter-office memo regarding wall types for the Oakesdale project with comments noted in the text. I also have the following comments: Please provide a detail of what the Keystone planter units would look like (the planter units were referred to in page 1 of the memo under Wall C). Under separate transmittal, please provide as soon as possible a cost breakdown for Wall E, specifically identifying what costs should be attributed to Transportation and Surface Water respectively. Per our previous discussions the Transportation share would be that portion of the wall necessary to fit existing grades, except where the wall would have to be deepened below existing grades to fit the proposed channel grade to be constructed under the bridge at the abutment. The wall sections provided do not accurately portray the excavation for the channel. I will not forward the sections to Boeing et. al. The layout and height for Wall G and potentially Wall D, E, F, and H, are subject to minor changes as the channel design is refined. The wall design should be able to move forward regardless. Wall G should diverge away from the channel as soon as possible rather than parallel the proposed channel centerline as the drawing seems to indicate. The Surface Water Utility prefers that Walls D, E, and G be tiered keystone type, provided the tiers do not significantly add to the overall cost. The use of tiers will allow better screening of the walls with plantings. Please call to discuss these comments as soon as possible. Lin wants you to fax the memo to Rick Ford of Boeing once the final version is produced. I will fax to the other attendees of the 9/5/97 meeting. cc: Ron Straka Lin Wilson 4 INTER-OFFICE MEMO 430 E N T R A N C O Project Name: Oakesdale Ave. SW Page 1 of 3 Project No: 1-97027-21 By: Jerrod Snyder Date: 9/12/97 ❑ Tel. Message To: Brad Stein Phone No: ® Memo to File Of: ❑ Mtg. Notes Attendees: ❑ Other: Subject: Following is a discussion of wall type recommendations and other information pertinent to the retaining walls on this project. Retaining Wall Recommendations Wall A -- wall length =25 LF max. exposed wall ht. =6 ft total wall area= 140 SF (incl bury) recommended wall type: Keystone acceptable alternate: concrete cantilever w/decorative face Because of this wall's proximity to Wall B (a Keystone wall), a Keystone wall is considered to provide the best visual continuity. Additionally, the ability to adjust the Keystone units to be compatible with the existing drainage structure and hydroponic piping makes this alternate the best option. While a concrete wall could be built in this location, it has disadvantages in the aspects of Constructibility and construction cost. Wall B-- wall length =75 LF max. exposed wall ht. =8 ft total wall area=540 SF recommended wall type: Keystone A Keystone wall is considered to be the most viable alternative here due to the close proximity of the trail. This wall is completely constructed with fill, making the geogrid/block construction a simple and cost- effective wall. Wall C-- wall length = 330 LF max. exposed wall ht. = 15 ft total wall area=3800 SF recommended wall type: Keystone acceptable alternate: crib wall A Keystone wall is considered to be the best wall type for this location because this wall is constructed of fill and will provide visual continuity with the other walls on the project. The wall could be built nearly vertical to allow a greater area of wetlands to be developed at the front of the wall. If plantings on the wall are necessary, either Keystone planter units could be used (without requiring additional R/W) or the wall could be tiered (requiring approx. 1-2 ft. of additional R/W) to provide a planting area at some level below the top of the wall. A crib wall with a 1:6 batter can be constructed here with no need for additional R/W. Wall D-- wall length = 30 LF max. exposed wall ht.-?�-10 ft total wall area= 180 SF recommended wall type: Keystone �) alternates rejected: crib wall h j o I�c.�►'' Because of the close proximity of the trail, a Keystone wall is considered to be the best option. Additionally, the transition from a vertical concrete abutment wall to a steeply battered crib wall would be inappropriate. A03intot(rev.4/97) a I g 20 SrF Wall E-- wall length =.162 LF max.wall height= 13 ft total wall area=J�O SF recommended wall type: single Keystone wall or tiered Keystone wall acceptable alternates: crib wall alternates rejected: Keystone w/downslope rockery Structurally, either a Keystone wall or crib wall is acceptable. A tiered Keystone wall could be used to provide planting areas. Either KevGtootian should provide cost savings over the crib wall. Additionally, a Keystone wall at this location will provide aesthetic continuity with the Keystone w lls recommended at Walls D and G. A rockery should not be used because of the poor soils on the site. Wall F-- recommended wall type: Keystone By agreement with the adjacent property owner, this wall will be a Keystone wall. lGs Wall G-- wall length = 160 LF max. exposed wall ht. = 12 ft total wall area= 1230 SF recommended wall type: single Keystone wall Er- fterc.,f ka 34,c s1-10 acceptable alternates: ti ane crib wall, MSE walf�w/rock face alternates rejected: rockery, tiered rockery A ><e Keystone wall is recommended here to provide a structurally sound, cost-effective wall that maximizes the channel capacity in the area. A tiered Keystone wall could be used to provide additional planting areas if necessary. The Keystone would also provide visual continuity with Walls D and E which are recommended to be Keystone. The geogrid for the wall would extend approximately 4 ft over the 108" Metro SS pipe. This is not considered by Metro to be a significant conflict, and this alternate is considered to be the most compatible with the sewer line. This concept has been verbally approved by Metro. Rockeries are considered by our geotechnical consultants to be unacceptable due to the generally poor soils on this site and particularly within the sewer pipe trench. Wall H-- wall length =85 LF max. exposed wall ht. �7 ft," total wall area=,510'SF recommended wall type: single Keystone wall 5 acceptable alternates: crib wall, MSE wall w/rock face alternates rejected: rockery Because the toe of this wall is below the 100-yr storage event and there are poor soils in the area, a structural wall is considered necessary at this location. A Keystone would provide visual and construction continuity with other walls that are recommended to be Keystone. Discussion of Rockeries on the Oakesdale site The use of rockeries on this site has been discussed with the project's geotechnical consultant. Jim Wu (Shannon & Wilson) feels that for heights exceeding 4 ft, rockeries are not appropriate to armor cuts for this project. This is because the soils on the river bank are primarily clayey silts and silty clays, some of which are quite soft. Because all of the walls exceed 4 ft, we recommend against the use of a rockery at any of the wall locations. It should be noted that while terracing the grading to provide individual rockery heights of 4 ft or less is possible, the required horizontal separation of the tiers greatly reduces the available channel area and reduces the economic benefit of using a rockery. Planning Level Cost Estimates Retaining wall costs have been discussed with Dennis Elliott of Retaining Walls Northwest. This company provides design, materials, and construction of both crib walls and block (Keystone type) walls. Dennis considers the two wall types to have essentially the same cost. This cost is considered to be approximately$20-$25/SF for both wall types. The area of the wall should be considered as the total area of wall constructed, including the embedded depth. Some differences in wall cost will be observed in the bids depending upon the specification of how backfill materials, geogrid, etc. are to be paid. The cost was developed assuming approximately 4000 SF of wall, and maximum heights of less than 15 ft. The use of A03intof(rev.4/97) CITY OF RENTON TELEPHONE/CONTACT RECORD Contacted: Eric Davison Date of 9/1 1/97 King County (Metro) Contact: Telephone No.: 684-1707 Time: 684-1710 fax City of Renton Scott Woodbury File No.: Contact: SUBJECT: Trench Backfill for 108" SS Location: Phone Use of geogrids above 108" SS Items Discussed. Trench backfill. According to Metro inspector, Tim Clark, trench backfill for the 108" SS included CDF up to 120 degrees on the 108" pipe. In some places CDF was used up to the top of the pipe. Native material was used in the upper backfill zone with compaction to at least 90%. Al Christensen, inspector for the low head structure crossing of the 108" SS across Seattle's 60" water line, had no recollection that a bond breaker was used between the CDF backfill and the 60" or 108" pipelines. Use of Geogrids. If geogrids were used to support a wall along the west side of the channel along the 108" SS, I asked if the geogrids could overlap into the backfill zone for the 108" SS. Since the geogrids would only extend partially into the 108" SS backfill zone and would be easily removable, Eric did not see any problem with geogrids being located above the 108" SS. agreed to provide Eric a section illustrating the geogrids in relation to the 108" SS for his review as soon as possible. Recommended Follow-up: cc: Eric Davison Hillary Stibbard-Terrell Brad Stein Lin Wilson Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date/S// /c�7 ageso p To n From7 Co./Dept. Co. Phone# Phone# Fax# / /'9'� _ .`w�✓,Q C_ Fax# ) , Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date9/So a es a#a f To ! r�(: ����3 Cb. From h Co./Dept. Co. 09/15/97 Phone# Phone# Fax# Fax# CD ENTRANCO 10900 NE 8TH STREET,SUITE 300 (425)454-5600 BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 FAX(425)454-0220 LETTER OF X TRANSMITTAL ❑ MEMORANDUM To: City of Renton Date: September 12, 1997 Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Project No.: 197027-22 Renton, Washington 98055 Title: Oakesdale Avenue Extension Attention: Scott Woodbury/Lin Wilson Re: Wall Selection X ATTACHED ❑ ORIGINALS ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER [IPRINTS ❑OTHER FOR YOUR: ❑ INFORMATION/USE X AS REQUESTED ❑OTHER OUR ACTION: ❑ REVIEWED ❑ NOT APPROVED ❑ APPROVED ❑ SEE REMARKS REQUESTED ACTION: ❑ APPROVAL X REVIEW&COMMENT ❑ MAKE CORRECTIONS NOTED ❑ REVISE AND RESUBMIT ❑OTHER NO.OF DRAWING COPIES NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 Inter-Office Memorandum w/attachments; dated September 12, 1997 Remarks: Scott/Lin, The attached inter-office memo from Jerrod summarizes our recommendations for each wall based on the selection parameters as we understand them and from the results of the meetings and telephone conversations we have had with the City, Boeing, Shannon & Wilson, wall manufacturers, Sverdrup, Shapiro and others. To push the PS&E along, we need to get the wall types selected ASAP. - Brad By: Brad Stein cc: File o:Form s/a-forms/a021ot(7/97) INTER-OFFICE MEMO 430 E N T R A N C O Project Name: Oakesdale Ave. SW Page 1 of 3 Project No: 1-97027-21 By: Jerrod Snyder Date: 9/12/97 ❑ Tel. Message To: Brad Stein Phone No: ® Memo to File Of: ❑ Mtg. Notes Attendees: ❑ Other: Subject: Following is a discussion of wall type recommendations and other information pertinent to the retaining walls on this project. Retaining Wall Recommendations Wall A -- wall length =25 LF max. exposed wall ht. =6 ft total wall area= 140 SF (incl bury) recommended wall type: Keystone acceptable alternate: concrete cantilever w/decorative face Because of this wall's proximity to Wall B (a Keystone wall), a Keystone wall is considered to provide the best visual continuity. Additionally, the ability to adjust the Keystone units to be compatible with the existing drainage structure and hydroponic piping makes this alternate the best option. While a concrete wall could be built in this location, it has disadvantages in the aspects of Constructibility and construction cost. Wall B-- wall length =75 LF max. exposed wall ht. =8 ft total wall area=540 SF recommended wall type: Keystone A Keystone wall is considered to be the most viable alternative here due to the close proximity of the trail. This wall is completely constructed with fill, making the geogrid/block construction a simple and cost- effective wall. Wall C-- wall length =330 LF max. exposed wall ht. = 15 ft total wall area=3800 SF recommended wall type: Keystone acceptable alternate: crib wall A Keystone wall is considered to be the best wall type for this location because this wall is constructed of fill and will provide visual continuity with the other walls on the project. The wall could be built nearly vertical to allow a greater area of wetlands to be developed at the front of the wall. If plantings on the wall are necessary, either Keystone planter units could be used (without requiring additional R/W) or the wall could be tiered(requiring approx. 1-2 ft. of additional R/W) to provide a planting area at some level below the top of the wall. A crib wall with a 1:6 batter can be constructed here with no need for additional R/W. Wall D-- wall length = 30 LF max. exposed wall ht. = 10 ft total wall area ti 180 SF recommended wall type: Keystone alternates rejected: crib wall Because of the close proximity of the trail, a Keystone wall is considered to be the best option. Additionally, the transition from a vertical concrete abutment wall to a steeply battered crib wall would be inappropriate. A03intof(rev.4/97) Wall E-- wall length =.162 LF max. wall height= 13 ft total wall area= 1284 SF recommended wall type: single Keystone wall or tiered Keystone wall acceptable alternates: crib wall alternates rejected: Keystone w/downslope rockery Structurally, either a Keystone wall or crib wall is acceptable. A tiered Keystone wall could be used to and provide planting areas. vide GostL the crib waff. Additionally, a Keystone wall at this location will provide aesthetic continuity with the Keystone walls recommended at Walls D and G. A rockery should not be used because of the poor soils on the site. Wall F-- recommended wall type: Keystone By agreement with the adjacent property owner, this wall will be a Keystone wall. Wall G-- wall length= 160 LF max. exposed wall ht. = 12 ft total wall area= 1230 SF recommended wall type: single Keystone wall acceptable alternates: tiered Keystone wall, crib wall, MSE wall w/rock face alternates rejected: rockery, tiered rockery A single Keystone wall is recommended here to provide a structurally sound, cost-effective wall that maximizes the channel capacity in the area. A tiered Keystone wall could be used to provide additional planting areas if necessary. The Keystone would also provide visual continuity with Walls D and E which are recommended to be Keystone. The geogrid for the wall would extend approximately 4 ft over the 108" Metro SS pipe. This is not considered by Metro to be a significant conflict, and this alternate is considered to be the most compatible with the sewer line. This concept has been verbally approved by Metro. Rockeries are considered by our geotechnical consultants to be unacceptable due to the generally poor soils on this site and particularly within the sewer pipe trench. Wall H-- wall length =85 LF max. exposed wall ht. =7 ft total wall area=510 SF recommended wall type: single Keystone wall acceptable alternates: crib wall, MSE wall w/rock face alternates rejected: rockery Because the toe of this wall is below the 100-yr storage event and there are poor soils in the area, a structural wall is considered necessary at this location. A Keystone would provide visual and construction continuity with other walls that are recommended to be Keystone. Discussion of Rockeries on the Oakesdale site The use of rockeries on this site has been discussed with the project's geotechnical consultant. Jim Wu (Shannon & Wilson) feels that for heights exceeding 4 ft, rockeries are not appropriate to armor cuts for this project. This is because the soils on the river bank are primarily clayey silts and silty clays, some of which are quite soft. Because all of the walls exceed 4 ft, we recommend against the use of a rockery at any of the wall locations. It should be noted that while terracing the grading to provide individual rockery heights of 4 ft or less is possible, the required horizontal separation of the tiers greatly reduces the available channel area and reduces the economic benefit of using a rockery. Planning Level Cost Estimates Retaining wall costs have been discussed with Dennis Elliott of Retaining Walls Northwest. This company provides design, materials, and construction of both crib walls and block (Keystone type) walls. Dennis considers the two wall types to have essentially the same cost. This cost is considered to be approximately$20-$25/SF for both wall types. The area of the wall should be considered as the total area of wall constructed, including the embedded depth. Some differences in wall cost will be observed in the bids depending upon the specification of how backfill materials, geogrid, etc. are to be paid. The cost was developed assuming approximately 4000 SF of wall, and maximum heights of less than 15 ft. The use of A03intof(rev.4/97) a crib wall with batter steeper than 1:4 will cause the cost of that wall type to be greater. An MSE wall with a rockery face will have a construction cost very similar to the alternatives discussed above. Treatment of Retaining Walls in the Contract Documents There are several manufacturers of both crib walls and block (ie Keystone type) walls. In order to provide a set of contract documents that is specific enough to construct the retaining walls, yet is general enough to be compatible with the units produced by different manufacturers, the following approach should be used for the plans and specifications preparation. • The front and rear faces at the top of the wall will be shown on the plans assuming an 18-inch deep Keystone unit. This graphic representation will not be changed even if an alternate wall type is selected. • The elevation views of the walls will be exaggerated by 400% to adequately show grade changes on the 1"= 20' horizontal scale. • At locations where the top of the wall has a sidewalk above, the top of wall will be shown on the elevation views 6-inches below the top of sidewalk. The manufacturer's design of the wall will be required by the specifications to provide steps at the top of the wall to account for changes in wall height. These steps will be taken up by a variable depth sidewalk that will step with the top of wall. • At retaining wall locations where there is no sidewalk, the top of wall will be shown 4-inches above the intersection of the ground line behind the wall with the back face of wall. The manufacturer of the wall will be required by the specifications to provide steps at the top of the wall to account for changes in wall height. • The bottom of wall will be shown at 1 ft below finish grade at the front of the wall. The wall manufacturer will be required to adjust this as necessary for their individual wall system. The measurement section of the retaining wall specifications will not allow the wall quantity to be increased for a greater embedment depth required by the manufacturer. • The specifications will be stringent in terms of wall appearance and performance while allowing some flexibility in the Contractor's selection of wall unit manufacturer. The Contractor will be required to submit wall unit samples and shop drawings of their proposed wall design. Schedule of Retaining Wall Design Because grading and retaining wall concepts are still being determined, we will be unable to submit our 95% plans to Kato and Warren by the September 19 deadline. I have developed a schedule for the remaining tasks that shows a 95% submittal date on October 1, 1997. This date is contingent upon freezing the retaining wall and grading concepts by September 15, 1997. If changes are made after this date, the schedule will likely slip. A03intof(rev.4/97) F- ~ OAKESDALE AVE- W EXTENSION-PHASE 1A DWG.NO. WA \ LL LAYOUT SHEET `, \ i' OF (n C Z= ZLLJ o w g 30 i w vV) a , pp X Z Q N \ .. LLJ w Y WALL B Q La \ STA.46.88 (58'LT.) Q \ i WALL-$ END RETAINING WALL a W L A A BEGIN RETAINING WALL Vie. \ STk.42.75 (45'LT,)' STA 43-92'.(4 'LT`. /. \ BEGIN RETAINING.WAS-,, —RLIALNING ,F ALL i Z A Op Y I— tiW LLl - a- W ALL..B ,o a � I 0 a 42 00 43.00 44 00 OAICESDLE AVE SW. ;;-' �'0e r 46-00w r , F j �Y ` AL WALL C ~1 / BEGIN. RETAINING WALL \ STA-44.87 (42'RT.) �'. N i tl E PLAN SCALE: V-20`0„ / s o ' } m 0 WALL H STA. 47.17 BEGIN RETAINING WALL f QATI JM x NGVD 1988 0 95% SUBMITTAL OAKESDALE AVE. SW EXTENSION-PHASE /A DWG.NO. ~ tl WALL LAYOUT SHEET OF /) -.. ..__..... z Room (n(D La X3 .....�f .. .........S:f v w 0 F w ALt >^ _. uj V) .r _ I w� Y .../_... ..._.. .. .- �.. t .,......... w ............. ........ - .. ... 0!n H /. .......,_ ., � as W }»v < May , µY , k , " O W r J- O ; 4 F- D �. �1 co WAL LF-w ETA. 50E35JNI41 T,SRT N + f41. t JBEGIN WALL WALL ENO`R lNG WA LL m m VON - ETA%N g8.00 / s LE / -=a - x51-60 .. , , WALL,,t/ / STA.'A +/7 f9/' RT.J EN0'ftE,Afk/N0 WALL � as , , 11 s r ' WALL F r° WALL F t j { r 51 T98 4 WALL { ' BEGIN RETAINING WALL I a / WALL H - 1 STA STA. 97+8/ � •' ,' __.. 1 a PLAN END RE END,RETAIN/NG WALL l LAN I �: SCALE 1'-20' F / , / / , a _ 0 x , d I } 0 95% SUBMITTAL z 0b+�qq s 00 L GL 09 0 0 0 —0-7�-�cl 0 L 0 oz ----- ----------------—----- 0 H s 0b 0 os 0 v ::i 0 31-)CA 9 9 011 0 OS- si- 0 0 0 0 z ------------ ----------- -7- :)Nov SZ+o L sL os Sz ---------- 71 oz 0 z s os 0 s �n11•VI 1, ��_\ •xI1 G^ �_\. \• lint'I'll tlDt_61R lint 441 M[.1Wf 11.111Y ful in ,1. RAfm PNDJ 7 In M - [ FILECOD ^•^s„„NE,Eo Nw _ PROJECT-TITLE-TOP 9/2/ SOME �® ( l OF PROJECT_TITLE-BOT DM/CRL {ZEN,m DRAWING—CODE RL ' "ePAP o "CHEC --I rl, llll/r+llilrll,,/r«irrl W,n!•, nr•,,1 WETLANDS—GRADING 'DW BY ONE Agra �•�-' . 1:1r•,ir, i�1,1111,a11„tll (�r.. �II,II�I;,..Il.tt,rl NORTH/SOUTH—WETLANDS WETLANDS "�V SHr Gam, s .V.Nrgl[MrtNII IM['— �—� -`\ �.11T]i• IIV< .,XM'AaY lar lV •.IN:IIvt � SXNiIINY•yr I(f IN.II'.1 .rl Il �•'�sxX•+Iv[ j -- �— \tNsa• -wlx_� - - --It 1'•1 m on[•a rN•[!.N Iv S;� � / `) � -Innou�-o-lcx«•s sn :nvm Itw.l\ „� .n�n.n 1•NI- /i \ � o VISO- %Xr 5N1 i % ltNLlx t0 XnI'MSI IUD WrIN SXYS f r•VWrM.�- � --_.�. ._--._-..___.._ ., � ' - • I - LOW POINT _4_ _ o r rIIIA Z4 —_�r � -Zs �� -- � -ten ID fT}—y -- •JI.Yrlt•f u1ry Xf rJr.2!an •�r+•1 . (. Q U .xN•.Il•lr. � - wnwxl[�w ���41/ I1` SX[5[fMY Iwl lv . w IUY v-Irll [ Rrl 4W .-. ......._-. \• 1 \ � 1l.f IA `. I[ (MI IIw— `•-.IYu1•.IN .YID/\"mil a.n i .G[1 .1\ru � -___ ._. • �i , Iron w.c[ 1. ;I ♦ ��.) v v ° \/J NN lltllNl.o IN sgy^[� \ � __ --- � •. \ - -Ul - ------— •--\ �—• yD \ _ NNN m ir �+ p \ c\n o III .'-�. -- .:�-) •\I I� D 1 Z _ s ).. . Z N � � U o = r♦[.•�r o\ \ \ \ ..[r; 01, \-- \ \ w 1 naCUO[ n 1 sr.[[. /tn[.]-ki 11. [ m ",. TYMM . - p"al T rn w FILECOfft SCALE """ ('IT1' OF PROJECT—TITLE—TOP ^DWG_C "a'DMGNM PROJECT_TITLE—BOT BG RENTON DRAWING—CODE Pk Dl„ W[„u: D,JA M—TITLE_TOP DW CHECfEm .:.�"ter y, frrgq Zlann...... P.E.. A,l j st,.to tro REwsnua BY Dn1E 4PPR - M-TITLE_BOT SHT F r F'^l�,i .�,��m).� .�.��.a E i E� E F/ . .\ F E // � F E E E E E +• +++�+\ + + +\F\ F E _ ++�+ +� E it I E C F E E E E + + + + +mot' + +- E E ,£ +" + -+ -E I + + I+ + + + + ♦ + + E+ E + +_• ++• E 11 I__— — ------�-- �•E E E E � E E tt •E E I z ----------------- �- ♦ ♦+♦+♦ f f ♦ ♦t f f f + H1 -♦'♦ f - f + ♦♦♦ f f I -t - ♦♦ ♦H+ -iJ tb `F v Q I + Y E E $ E + + + + + + F + / •v F E _ E E � 6� � r \ 1 \ \ Y --__ 111 r - -------------------------- I F _1T___-Ij --n A . $� t , I WME MUM MU 1 11 . . : r _ xxxx Xx xx x x x :xxx x xx x xxxxK% xx xxxxxx x ..Xx CC y rn z C >N v yy MQ � ;xxxxxx xxxx x xx x � i"ii = z N \r ��/�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vl m �'� xxxxxx xx xxxxxx 5 DUiv 11VUH1Z -------- uuuuuuuuuuuyyu :0000g000 n � I_u S A :Mgg*ol;I; ;Ri;����i;>;n�rl;R� : hMMr o Z ZEt, . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Z tm j z � �a z a �� - -- -DETAILS OF A = SPACING 8 = PERIMETER PERIMETER OF U) (ON CENTER) SETBACK PLANTING BE A A m 6" 4" • • • • B" 6' A T I n I B 12" 10' PLANT 9 Q DETAIL NOTES: 18" 12" SEE PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS Sze BE FomtnEO. 24" 18" LEGENDS AND V•,/ • • PLANT PIT gNOENSIIO�TYPICAL AND REPRESENT PLANTING PLANS ALL 36" 24" FOR SPACING PLACE ALL ROaTasus SO TOPS ARE LEVEL WITH FlNISH GRADE REOUIREMENTS PRUNE ALL DEAD AND BROKEN LIMBS MID ROOTS. • • • FINISH GRADE 7 MULCH (UPLAND ONLY) TEMPORARY TRIANGULAR PLANTING DETAIL NATIVE SOIL TYPICALWAG BASIN —0 (ALL PLANTINGS) SCARIFY SOIL NOT TO SCALE INTERFA ;i` I{il o SCARIFY ROOTBA _ ROOTBALL AND � PLANT SCHEDULE SPREADROOTSCOMPACT SM UNDO 8 — zs DLti P40TWASS OF ROOTBALL SPREAD ROOTS - - BUFFER PFO PSS PEM PLANT CONTAINER GROWN CONTAINER GROWN CONTAINER GROWN Z. j� SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PtAN71NG PLANTING PLANTING PLANi1NG SIZE SPACING OUANTITY CONIFEROUS_TREE DECIDUOUS TREE SSHRU p = . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . F- 3< TREES, Z =W Acer mocrophyllum Big-leaf Maple 18' 10' D.C. E [_' Alnus rubro Red Alder X X 18" 10' ox Froxinus latifolia Oregon Ash X 1ir 10' o.c. = Populus trichocorpo Block Cottonwood X X 18' 10' D.C. Picea sitchensis Sitko Spruce X 18" 1 10' O.C. Pseudotsugo menziesii Douglas Fir X 1fr 10' o.c. Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar X X 18, 10' C.C. TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING D ETA I L y Tsugo heterophylla Western Hemlock X iEr 10' o.c. NOT TO SCALE _ P le X. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . SHRUBS Vine Maple iB' 3' O.C. i Ater circinotum 6 Conus sericeo Red Osier Dogwood X X ilr 3' D.C. fc Lonicera involucmta Black Twinberry ; X X ; ; 16" ; 3' D.C. .f Molus fusca Western Crabapple X X 18' 3' D.C. E. Physocarpus CCPRCtus Pack Ninebark X X 18 3' O.C. Rosa nutkano Nootka Rose X X 18" 3' o.c. Rosa pisocarpo Clustered Wild Rose X X 18' 3' O.C. GROWING PONT OR FOLIAGE F FOLIAGE OR GROWING nP PLUG Rubus porviflorus Thimbleberry X 1g 3' D.C. IS HOT PRESENT.PLACE ONE T Rubus spectabilis Solmonberry X X X 18" 3' O.C. RODS Hoof FLUSH WITH -PP Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow X X 18• 3' D.C. FlNSH GARDE To BE L PLANT ZI ;' Salix scoulerianO Scowlers Willow X LS 3' D.C. FINISH GRADE GRADE LF�tl wrtN Ft Salix sitchensis Sitko Willow X LS 3' D.C. X SYTPhoricarPo s Com mon Snow be mSambucus racemosa Red Elderberry y X iEr 3' D.C. X 1� 3' D.C. EMERGENTS/FORBES: E Corex obnupto Slough Sedge X 4' pot 18" D.C. Carex stipata Sawbeak Sedge X 4' pot 18" D.C. -00 NOT (FATE PLAN=HOLE NEWLY PLACED TOPSOIL Eleocharis polustris : Common Spike Rush : X 4" pot 18" D.C. INCORPORATE WTD SUBGRADE L - x Juncus bolanderi Bolander's Rush X 4" pot 18" o.c. -SOL 6 7D 8E MET AT 7fE Or FLAMING. z z F Juncus ensrfdius Dogger-led Rush X 4' pot 11r o.c. -FIRMSOE AROUND RIM ME OR ROOT Oenonthe somentoso Water-Parsley X 4' pot 18" O.C. PLANTWITHOUT DAMAGIING ROOTS. d Scirpus acutus Hardstem Bulrush X 4' Pat 1f3' O.C. -No Famuz R 5 1D BE ACOED TO E►EIMT PLANS. a Scirpus microcorpus Small-fruited Bulrush X 4' pot 18. O.C. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WETLAND SEED MIX S by Wt. Agrostis albs Redtop Berttgrasa X X X 30 - - Alopecunis geniculotus Water FOxtaii X X X 20 } Festuca rubro Red Fescue X X X 10 Glyeria elato Tall Manna Gross X X X 20 EMERGENT PLANTING DETAIL Glyceria occidentarm Western Manna Gross X X X 10 Lotus comiculatus : Birdsfoot Trefoil X X X 10 NOT TO SCALE UPLAND SEED MIX : S by wt. Agrostis tenuis Colonial Bentgraas X 10 Festuca rubro Red Fescue X 40 ffil Loium muk'rflorum : Annual Ryegrosa X 40 O Thfloium repens White Clover X N 7 STATE Or STATE ABBREVIATIO 1� WASMIMCTOM WASMMI(•TOTO N O.C.—on center LANDSCAPEREC1RED REcSFERED LANDSCAPE ARCMfFEC WFOSCAPE ARC1aTECT LS-live stake wt.-weight S H A P I R 0 ,, P. , p W. w,•• PFO-palustrine forested wetland ASSOCIATES. cERnnCATE NO. 474 cEFMFCATE NO.469 k PSS-palustrine scrub-shrub PEM-polustrine emergent wetland c d CIO/ 97 7 U40 tv It" le--) 4',- } i C4 k I _ r4l W _ s .. ...... = N Z m m 0 p + _.. 0 0 -- - - .._.... = v `` \ Line 1/18 SECT 25 TWP 23N. R.4E. W.M. _ N E /S/; 53 -- -- -- 010 0" _ .. �? -- T77777 — - JS ---- - IN -8 a -- -------_-- C s. .. .. .. : , ^ h m� 41 y o _ x b -- 1 _. _., " - s� � w o t Y/D.C10 Sta. 10+85 Lt. & Rt. 28- 49LF-i?--XO. - -- c En,o'Pp�eA/ End Curb & Gutter, Pavement) \ .......... � Io N 10 p ao ...._ ..._.., N ' O o , ti_ N J ,. I 4 Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Date #of �TO - pages C From Co./Dept. Co. Phone# Phone# Fax# u Fax# O/2)�97 EXHIBIT B SCOPE OF WORK: OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. EXTENSION PHASE 1 - S.W. 16TH STREET TO S.W. 27TH STREET BACKGROUND The project is located on land that once formed a part of the old Longacres Racecourse, east of I-5 and south of SR-405. The overall project involves the extension of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. as a four/five-lane roadway south from S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 31st Street. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on April 7, 1997, and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on July 7, 1997. Phase 1A of the project will design and construct a new 5-lane roadway between S.W. 16th Street and S.W. 19th Street, including a bridge over Springbrook Creek. An interim 3-lane roadway will be constructed between Sta. 36+00 and S.W. 27th Street, with a transitional section between S.W. 19th Street and Sta. 36+00. During the subsequent Phase 1 B, the 3-lane roadway section will be widened to five lanes. Phase 2 will provide a new four-lane roadway from S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 31 st Street. The project schedule for Phase IA has been established to meet Boeing's development schedule for the adjoining Longacres Office Park, and by the timeline needed to obtain the necessary construction permits. The estimated cost of this initial phase (subsequent to value engineering, and including right-of-way costs) is $7.4 million. Funds to be utilized include a TIA grant, City of Renton License Fees, funding by the Boeing Company, and mitigation fees to be paid by other developers. Most of the right-of-way for the 5-lane project will be dedicated by the Boeing Company. In March 1997, the City of Renton (CITY) selected Kato & Warren, Inc. (CONSULTANT) to provide consultant services for the final design, PS&E and construction inspection elements of the project. Work commenced under an initial Agreement that covered the work elements that needed to be commenced prior to issuance of the formal Notice to Proceed, scheduled for May 13, 1997. This Scope of Work covers the main body of work for Phase 1 A, including preliminary and final design, PS&E and construction management services. It is being updated at this time to reflect design changes that have occurred since the work began, and includes some tasks related to Phase 2 of the project which have, of necessity, needed to be performed during Phase IA. Vertical lines in the left-hand margin indicate where changes to the text of the original Scope of Work have been made. At the CITY's option, the scope of the CONSULTANT's services may be extended to cover subsequent phases of the project. Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - 1 - August 12, 1997 1 7.0 FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E The final plans, special provisions and estimates (PS&E) will clearly identify the construction work that cannot be initiated until the USACE Section 404 Permit has been obtained, and distinguish it from the work that can be initiated prior to obtaining the USACE Section 404 Permit. 7.1 Typical Sections: The preliminary typical section sheets (two sheets) prepared under Work Element 6.1 will be finalized to show motorized and non-motorized vehicle lanes, sidewalk, and right-of-way widths, and details relating to the pavement, curbs, gutters, cross slopes, new underground utilities, etc., inelttdifig, Typical sections will also be prepared to show details of the relocated trail system, located south of the Springbrook Creek crossing. 7.2 Roadway Plans & Profiles: The preliminary roadway plan and profile sheets prepared under Work Element 6.1 will be completed to show all relevant roadway details. The plan and related profile will be shown on the same sheet and, using a 1"=20' scale, it is anticipated that 7 plan and profile sheets will be required for the mainline roadway. If necessary, an additional sheet will be prepared to show details of the S.W. 16th Street intersection. q„d �.,r4 Details of the revised trail system, located south the pringbrook Creek crossing, will also be shown on the roadway plan and profile sheets. 7.3 Drainage Plans & Profiles: Final plans and profiles for the drainage design elements will be prepared in coordination with the roadway design, permit requirements and wetland mitigation plans. The drainage layout plans will be prepared to a 1"=20' scale and will show drainage swales, pipes, catch basins and inlets; stormwater detention vaults and/or ponds; and water ke quality mitigation facilities. b , these will shew length, de edi r� � levels. It is estimated that a to al of 13 drainage plans will be required: - 7 Plan sheets IV JJIIIb - 4 Drainage details sheets - 2 Drainage quantity sheets. 7.4 Utility Relocation/Installation Plans & Profiles: The preliminary utility relocation/installation plans prepared under Work Element 6.6 will be updated and finalized under this work element. This work will include the incorporation of the utilities associated with Boeing's new facilities in both the plans and profiles. It is estimated that 7 plan and profile sheets will be prepared at a 1"=20' scale. assttffiiRcA5 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - 18 - August 12, 1997 o Plans: The CONSULTANT will analyze, design, and prepare the construction � 7.5 Bridge Pl - plans and technical specifications for the bridge structure. Work will be performed in accordance with the results of the Preliminary Design work presented in Work Element 6.2. and the "Project Definition Report" (Work Elements 3.4 and 3.10). Bridge Calculations: The CONSULTANT will prepare detailed structural calculations for the final design of the superstructure, substructure, and foundations depicted on the drawings and described in the specifications. The structural calculations include: - Development of two-dimensional computer models - Final horizontal and vertical layout geometry - Analysis of member strength and stresses for critical stages of construction and AASHTO load groups - Deflections under self and applied loads during construction and service conditions. The design calculations shall be prepared in accordance with the criteria developed in Work Element 3.8. Bridge Plans: The CONSULTANT will prepare detailed design drawings for the 5-lane bridge concept as depicted by the Bridge Layout Plan submittal with the Preliminary Design (50%) plan set. The drawings will include the following information: IC bnj 5ealu.,5 Structur layout and vertical roadway geometry - Details of the proposed widening of Springbrook Creek the proposed bridge fu Sw - Dimensions and configurations of structural components - Design and general notes, and material notes - Design details, including prestressing, reinforcing, hangers, bearings and joints - Detailed sequence of construction assumed in design - Other information necessary to construct the bridge. qrv� w,c,2,,ear C4,,,.4 This information will be prepared for all superstructure, substructure, and foundation components. Fifteen (16) bridge and structures drawings are anticipated: - Bridge layout - Bridge site final grading plan - Foundation layout and construction sequence - Foundation details - v' sheetd details - Abutment wall plan, sections and details (2) - Framing plan - Girder details (2) - Diaphragms and details Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - 19 - August 12, 1997 services and billed on a time and materials basis. The plans will include detailed descriptions of the mitigation areas, plant types, and planting details, such as location, quantities and forms of plant species; methods of installation; and the final finished grade elevations and hydrology changes necessary for the creation and enhancement of wetland areas. For the planting plan format, general planting areas may or may not be shown with tree symbols, and detailed plant locations are provided with typical plant layouts. The density of plantings may differ from samples. This format allows the CONSULTANT to produce planting plans at a smaller scale (1"=50' vs 1"=20'), thus reducing complexity and the number of plan sheets. The Wetland Mitigation Plans will be prepared in accordance with the "Interagency Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals" dated March 1994, and will include any required buffer mitigation. Six 24"x 36" sheets will be prepared in a format appropriate for bidding and construction. The plan set will include two grading plans with one-foot contours; two planting plan sheets; one detail sheet to show cross section, construction details, and plan notes; and one plant schedule sheet. Z , ie,., waa 7.14 Landscape Design Plans: This ork element will be performed by Shapiro & Associates, Inc. Landscape design plans will e prepared to show proposed plantings along the edge of the right-of-way (where called for), in d ention ponds (if any), for wetland buffers, and for other miscellaneous areasumed that an irriga. t is ass tion system-vi'i1T none`Z!att tfr7Four plan sheets will be prepared at a 1"=20' scale, assuming two 180'-wide plan strips per s eet, and it is estimated that two additional sheets will be needed to show landscape design details. Details of temporary erosion control measures, and permanent plantings associated with work in and adjacent to Sp/ringbrook Creek are provided fo)separately under Work Element 7.15. IN.t � ¢a �1��GGISS e1-��IyVt�en� h� f,�/S1oN 7.15 Erosion Control Plans & Scour Evaluation: The CONSULTANT will assemble and review background material (site maps, photos, soils maps, geotechnical reports, hydrologic reports) and conduct a site visit to verify and review field conditions. Standard details will be used for the temporary erosion control facilities along the new Oakesdale Avenue corridor. Temporary erosion control plans will be developed for the bridge construction that may include clearing limits, stabilized construction entrance locations, requirements for temporary seeding, mulching and matting, interceptor ditches or swales, pipe slope drains, surface roughening, benching, filter fabric fencing, inlet protection, sediment ponds, bioswales, cement and concrete residue traps, and vehicle tire wash traps. A transition plan from temporary to permanent erosion control facilities will be prepared, identifying seed mixes and matting, if needed for permanent vegetated slopes. �J/� Suy� i^� w Y^ N1ar yo O/o 6yd'QGitt dj.74/AY�,S korj%/V�/C d"I /yG�ff/ %U4ylb f Scou✓rAnalysis: The CONSULTANT will assemble 6/sr,/-A review background material (site maps, current and historical aerial photographs, historical flooding photographs, hydrologic or hydraulic reports and basin plans for Springbrook Creek, FEMA floodplain maps, existing survey cross- Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - 23 - August 12, 1997 sections of Springbrook Creek in the vicinity of the bridge, USGS, King County, or City of Renton stream gage records of Springbrook Creek, geotechnical reports, land use maps. The following sub- elements will be accomplished as a part of the scour analysis: - Conduct site visit, to check bed, bank and floodplain conditions in the vicinity of the bridge �ftlr'A 7--� /S ��U-�f� rQ,4i.Pe�? 100-year an 500- ear flood flow rates - '} Wi h /Lesc GfasSj $ >lion /iy �YIEd���l� NDStI� j v eheiiges l o Gv,YI. Gt pr�,de?N1C. ,Yti A��,iJ� c�.ss sQ�,. sr 4..E res�.l - UseoRC-RAS to model existing stream hydraulicsAInsert new,b-ridlge/into model an compare ll, ��SLS wi cv/An.P(y�d-a..hG( � A/4 results with existing conditions, `n� RJt- -Ne b�s ��,o� irw, �Jel U'rYti /jr,J� a.,d4 ,. c4c"Se z) ;" CC6tse > a atr S�,d e u� oK gr rCa,, Sw/Cap, Ste. or fJEC'z 4nalysls_ 3 Use procedur6s descri ednin Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 - Evalua ' b cour at -�-- -- Bridges (HEC-1/8), to determine scour potential at new bridge qxr�r CAs< FG� �lnser tv�,l�5t c4ow/�rli „ c ,nn 4 SIN/&-4 3 inc/yJ,S. - Prepare a Scour Summary Report,which summarizes the analysis,and make recommendations for design criteria and scour protection measures which should be incorporated into the new bridg�r 44 wcAe ",, ,L 7.16 Miscellaneous Plans: The CONSULTANT will prepare all necessary miscellaneous plans and incorporate WSDOT and City of Renton Standard Plans to complete the plan set in accordance with City of Renton standards. Miscellaneous plan sheets include: - Cover (1 sheet) - Survey Control Layout (1 sheet) - Summary of Quantities (2 sheets) - Other required details pertaining to the project not covered under the foregoing work elements (2 sheets assumed) - WSDOT and City of Renton Standard Plans ( number to be determined) 7.17 Special Provisions: The outline special provisions prepared under Work Element 6.11 will be developed by the CONSULTANT to provide a full set of specifications for construction of the project. it :s assufned that The City of Renton will be responsible for the final compilation of the Conditions of Contract, Amendments to the Standard Specifications, and the City's Supplemental Standard Specifications. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with all project- specific details relating to the special provisions, including applicable GSP's, in electronic format (Microsoft Word ^r We-d De_r +) for incorporation in the final contract documents. Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension - 24 - August 12, 1997 R1116/ cv��MM M i 8-A IA f t � �S/l ---- . �yi,�/Y�w,�,� Vim' � � •9�T�h a (�r r"P� S I (its V c � S 14 6�h^26�0�1 Dill ?iat, ok w MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET Project: Oakesdale Ave. SW Date: 8/6/97 Subject: 50% Design Review Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone #: 277-6203 Name Affiliation/Representing Phone # VI �EFF yc. � RvP 5�-72 a t 43, e, k 2- -2 12 nC� J(I �i r n'k=T.`P1;`: ��,^ ��, .,�nrr ^f __r� _ I — c v�L1. A AAa-y- I2� c�y�F 2 < < r Ke►-, K\1 Ggml �;AFouR/ art{ of RE�iau - WA�� (/14;yi Z -6 Z 10 k1T ANCCi � 'S�n7L ��� W���� •�, C�, , 2-7 7-55_ '7 hma/form/cb/ww/s� � �,q R STATq �4 a� y0 O Il89 ' STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000 August 5, 1997 Post-V brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages P- TO.1�YC, N Fro'nLI M C.&-O� Mel Wilson � KAT0 k WA-fZZe9 co'Gt T x 0-f zc lu To N City of Renton Dept. Phone# 2 7 _ C,2 2 3 200 Mill Avenue South Fax# 72 _ d Fax# 2 _ 4-4-2 8 I Renton WA 98055 Dear Mr. Wilson: Re: City of Renton Permit # LUA-95-024 RENTON, CITY OF - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # 1997-NW-40071 1 The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to construct a one mile extension of Oaksdale Ave. SW between SW 16th and SW 31st Streets. Road will vary in width from three to five lanes, include sidewalks, bike lanes, traffic control devices, landscaping, has been filed with this office by the City of Renton on July 18, 1997. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21-day appeal period, August 08, 1997. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if' this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to the subject permit. If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, J,Mi 2� • /1 Ann E. Kenny, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Water Resources Program IED AEK:aek SDP.DOC ?I • _ 1 cc: James D. Hanson, City of Renton LTranvo —n CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 1, 1997 TO: Joe Armstrong FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: Review Comments Oakesdale Extension 50% Design Following are Surface Water Utility review comments on the 50% design for the Oakesdale Extension project. General comments / The draft drainage report should be submitted as soon as possible so that the water quality and conveyance system sizing can be checked. This is necessary if we are to confirm whether or not there are major problems in the drainage calculations that could result in significant changes to the design. At is not clear how the storm drainage facilities and wetland mitigation areas are connected. A grading plan showing both areas together is needed. More dimensioning and location information is needed for the water quality ponds and dispersion ditches. /More information is needed on the proposed grading under the bridge and the reconstructed pedestrian trail. Retaining wall details are needed for our review to ensure that the bottom of wall will accommodate the future channel widening project. /These comments assume that detailed review of potential conflicts with other utilities is being handled by Transportation staff and/or Clint Morgan. Sheet B1 , The datum is NGVD 1929,not NGVD 1988 as the note in the lower left corner shows. f Please clarify that the 100-year elevation of 13.0 feet is the City of Renton(not FEMA)storage event. Sheet C7 f The fill slope line at the north west corner of the bridge is incorrectly shown. More fill (or retaining walls) will be needed to transition the trail down from the sidewalk grade (approx. elev. 25 ft) to the /grade under the bridge(elev. 7 ft). A detailed grading plan for this area needs to be developed. V The easement for the pedestrian trail will need to be amended to follow the revised trail location. Joe Armstrong Review Comments to Oakesdale Extension 50% Design Page 2 Sheet D1 Please delete the concrete baffle in the structure at Sta 15+50. The volume and surface area of water quality pond 1 must be oversized above that required by the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual by at least a factor of 1.5 since a biofiltration Swale will not be used. The water quality pond must be sized to accommodate phase 2 runoff. Is pond 1 sufficiently low in elevation to allow the phase 2 system to gravity drain into the pond without submerging the pipe in the backwater from the pond dead storage, while maintaining the necessary pipe cover and hydraulic conveyance capacity? The pipe between the structures at Sta 15+50 and 16+50 needs to be raised so that it is not below the elevation of the top of dead storage in water quality pond 1. Using a flatter slope may require that the pipe size be increased to 18". Only the pipe downstream of the structure at 15+50 may be submerged at its outfall. Sheets D2,D3,and D4 The volume and surface area of water quality pond 2 must be oversized above that required by the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual by at least a factor of 1.5 since a biofiltration swale will not be used. Please delete the concrete baffle in the structure at Sta 25+50. Approximately 850 feet of the 24" main line will still be partially submerged by the backwater from the permanent pool of the water quality pond. At the first structure upstream of the pond, the 24" pipe will be 75% under water. In my previous memo of July 16 to Lin Wilson, I indicated that a maximum 1/2 pipe diameter backwater at the outfall into the water quality pond would be considered only as a last resort, and only if the consultant can provide written justification that it is necessary in terms of cost or other constraint. I do not believe that topography of wetlands prohibit achieving a non-submerged condition. About 0.5 foot in elevation could be gained at the outfall by going to a 0.1% slope downstream of where the conveyance pipe changes size from an 18" to 24" (Sta 36+30). This would require a structure at Sta 26+50 so the off-site pipe could be passed-through the new main line. Sheet D7 I would like to see a design similar to the SW 16th Street project wetvault. Please also refer to my April 17 memo to Lin Wilson for possible design configurations. The design currently has a portion of the conveyance system submerged below the permanent pool of the wetvault. The design should include a diversion structure to bypass the wetvault for storms exceeding the water quality event. Sheet W1 Please refer to my previous comments to the wetland mitigation plans. Several of my previous comments are yet to be addressed. It is my opinion that the proposed grades will need to be lower. The 1'=100' scale does not comply with the City standards for plans. See comments on the attached copy of sheet W I. cc: Ron Olsen Ron Straka Neil Watt i HASE fA �' OAKESDALE AVE SW EXTENSION-PHASE 1A *WWIa a ) WETLAND MITIGATION PL4N51 2 �L�OGTION �•• 1 � I y 1 !�+'.'-. 'h I`Y`. \ 1.' .'` ` 1.�. _ � -� ` �J .-.w'f_�_�- • .i i Inc � `l: ki EIEV O ID TOP F WEIR ��. :7� \ -A^,' 1 \ �• 4 \' '3t - •� r \ Er \ r� is, _ / � '� ''1 /�• K! ' , �`.. ' � � /III � � :1' i ' +s P}• �•r9 r 41, ' moN now t Iri °EEiv wa '; `...,(J I•h�i. ' iiii). r r`l _ ;�.\ r ,:'- / ♦ .�y 1 �,;{ w 615.SiS�e :5...S. AWEIR IOGTgN ... s .. Em Is T•OP'OP WEIR DITCH FLOW 1 ' .l- ' '" ♦;. - ELEV 17.5 r r It � Al I Frcnln r' �4 M -1 — � ^ � I`T; ` '` w!� 117GP�,Lf�` >e —1l— PROPOSED CONTOUR . ! Pir°�'.JL AUre1t —22— EXIsT,G CoMDMR d �...J•. r p�r! 1 EXISTING O EDGE i t ' j"•'" Oifr 1 t�"'¢r, -- LIMrt CONST OF CONSTRUCTION EnmNG wETUNO � •...•. •• FOREm7!/OCRU9-SNRUS \\ \Z� NNA/:Icp wE7UND- 1 WEiIAND COMMUNITY(PFO/P53) \, ♦`\�. FORESTEb°/scflu6-sNRue coMlluNm ,''''��''`"�`;�);'•'''": L.•�- EMERGENT WETANO COMMUNITY(PEM) UPLAND BUFFER rl' �Z";f:i:i^ �;::::✓• I'D IS I I r rf�mf,lvaAr '' J • ' • ' ( tfi£VEWONI„Y ' 1 n I 01 '97 FRI 09:41 FAY 4521212 SVERM P [Z002 Sverdrup Civil, In,C. Northwestern Region Bellevue July 30, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Pitaer Project Leader FROM: Jeff Schutt Sverdrup i ?Manager SUBJECT: BC AG Headquarters Building 25-20- Site Development Oakesdale Ave SW Project Sverdrup ReN lew Conunents on 501/6 Design Submttal We have reviewed the subject submittal from Kato & Warren and summarize our CoM'L rnent_" as follows: Ge'nenal Sverdrup will e-mail current AutoCad files of all site development draw irigs fog the: _5-2C site development to Barry- :{..night of Kato & Warren. 1`lus wrill oxrur 7f-I ''-'7 Theae files supersede all previous versions used within the Oakesdale Ave SW plans. if any files are required to be modified based on review conuments 4c:rn i-he City of Renton. they will be txansmitted to Barry Knight as they are completed. Per cur discussion at the 7/29/97 Oakesdale coordination meeting, the proposed Boe ng utilities shou''d be added to the utility profiles to ensure That ao conflicts exist. :the plan~ should also include profiles of Oakesdalc Ave. SW v.orrn drainage laterals and she Boeing utilities which they cross. :Near S:a 36+75 add east-,vest portion of 12.-incl waterline installed t:.Zder Boeing contract(the line appears to dead-end as currently shown). Near Sta 41-00 indicate that sanitary sewer manholes installed under Bc-lesng contract must be adjusted to grade. ,Existing r2tibries Confirm existence/location of fire hydrant near Sta 32-40, This hy,.'-ant and service main are not indicated on the Boeing topographic survey and the hydrant was not foimd during a recent field visit. Grading, Filling and Retaining Walls It appears that the wall along the west side of the ROW near Sta. 42+75 conflicts with the proposed hydronic piping which is currently being installed under Boeing contract. 013747'Z210un=rmm020130 doc ►1 87 FRl 09: 41 FAY 4521212 S4ERPR' P (djl►u1 MEMORANDUM July 30, 1997 - Page 2 We will discuss retaining wall options, landscaping and trail configurations at the 7i31/97 1-30 review: meeting. .Storm Drainage Svstem Confirm that proposed 18-inch ;term drain near Sta 40-70 rneets City criteria for horizontal separation from 12.-inch %katerline installed under Boeing contract Proposed catcl, basin at Sta 40-66 is located directly ab;»-� the c,)mmunications ductbank, which is undesirable. Refer to pre�ioas comment - can this CB be relocated? Refer to Sverdrup constriction drawings in vicinity of Sta 434-75 which indicate the proposed connection of two vault sump pump ford mains to Oaresdale storm, drainage system, as approved by the City of Renton. It appears t.liat proposed catch basins at SF corner of Boeing CSTC parking lot are to connect to the existing CSTC storm drainage systerr at an access cover to a grit removal chamber. Such a connectior cannot be made. Please coordinate with Sverdrup how the drainage in this dnveway approach works and i.ve can assist in choosing a better cormectien location. Note that the easternmost of these two catch basins is located directly o,�er or_ existing 12-inch , atcrmaln. ..vhich is not ac..eptable to the Ci'y of Renton Illumination Plans Review location of }-box gear Sta .40- 50 (1t) as it is sao•,kn direct!y or top of com-municatiort: ductbanl: vault. Review location o`lightpole near Sta 40--43 (rt) as it is ver-: close to a 60-inch sewer manhole installed under Boeing contract. This nar±ole is intendeC to be excavated for future extension of the seu-e- sVstem to the lout . Can this pole be moved north or south"? Please call is you would :ike to ciscuss this informatier. 0!3:47`22 1U',cngr�rnmVi0790 OJc Boeing Commercial Airplane Group �C — P.O.Box 3707 Seattle,WA 98124-2207 July 21, 1997 6-8WIH-RF-97-013 7 To: Distribution List J U L 211997 CI.f.Y OF RENT ON Subject: Oakesdale Avenue Project Partnering Session The Boeing Company and the City of Renton have adopted partnering as the BOE//VG preferred method of accomplishing the Oakesdale Avenue extension construction. Partnering promotes cooperative alliances between companies, organizations and agencies and will enhance each group's ability to achieve their complementary but separate and/or common objectives. One of the most important components in partnering is the establishment of working relationships between all parties critical to the success of a project. In this way, issues can be addressed early in the project, facilitating a smooth and successful completion. You are a key member of the team required for a successful project, and are invited to an initial partnering session, to be held as follows: Location: Museum of Flight on East Marginal Way Skyline Room Seattle, WA Date: August 5, 1997 Time: 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM This session will provide opportunities for stakeholders to meet and further current relationships. The purpose is to establish a partnering relationship that will enable the team to bring the project to a successful completion. Please call me if you have any questions. Please respond to Christine Perry by August 1, phone number 477-0050, mail stop 20-30. Sincerely, wx� Rick Ford BCAG Office Building Permit Administrator 477-0094; MS 20-30; FAX 477-0088 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 1997 TO: Lin Wilson FROM: Scott Woodbury J SUBJECT: Submerged Pipes Following our meeting yesterday, I reviewed the use of a submerged outlet in the new King County manual. While we have not adopted the new manual, it does reflect recent developments in water quality treatment technology. The new manual does show the use of a submerged pipe discharge into water quality ponds, but the manual clearly states that the purpose of the submerged pipe is energy dissipation and that other energy dissipation methods may be used instead. A rock splash pad would accomplish the same purpose and is preferred to a submerged inlet, unless only a short length (30 feet or less) of pipe would be submerged. The current design elevation of 13.3 feet in the water quality facility adjacent to wetland C would result in pipe full backwater condition for 1000 feet of the conveyance pipe upstream of the water quality facility and a partially submerged condition for another 700 feet. I do not believe it is the intent of the King County manual to require backwater submergence of such a significant length of conveyance system and is why other energy dissipation methods may be used. The purpose of the conveyance system should be conveyance, not water quality treatment. Because the proposed conveyance system will have a very gradual slope, submerging only a short length of pipe is not possible. Therefore a rock splash pad should be used instead of a submerged pipe as the energy dissipation method. The design should seek to avoid submerging aU portion of the conveyance system in the backwater from the permanent pool of the water quality facility. Only as a last resort for this project we would consider a maximum 1/2 pipe diameter backwater at the outfall into the water quality pond, if the consultant can provide acceptable justification (in writing for our review) that it is necessary in term of cost or other constraint. I do not believe that topography of wetlands C or E/F prohibits achieving a non-submerged condition. If you have any questions, please contact me at X-5547. U:OAKESDALE:97-01 LSW cc: Ron Straka John Thompson Dick Warren T -0 0 o ° N Groundwater Monitoring Well Data n -n Along Oakesdale Alignment and on the South Wetland Mitigation Site Irv, z 14 0 J io 13.18 0 S \ ty? J 1 . 8 n v t 1 12 - 12.07 11.82 T -:Do 0 11.58 11.53 m 3 1.53 m 11.38 11.42 1 .63 1 17 10.3 v, 10 - - _ - -- - - --- - 9.82 c N� .4 T 9.32 9.18 03 9.28 l�v 0 � 8.88 Z w 8.46 38 8.43 .18 8. -- - 7.87 > /Z : - I --6 -GW-2 J 7.58 7.32 7.4 7.33 GW-3 m .85 7.07 6.92 7.02 �E-G W-4 6.3 6.22 .37 )K GW 5 6 - 5.9 6.07 -- 5.87 e GW-6 5.48 5.06 i GW-7 6 GW-8 4 - 3 See notes on attached data sheet. 2 3-21-95 9-22-95 1-5-96 4-5-96 7-15-96 10-7-96 1-8-97 4-10-97 6-30-97 8-5-97 9-5-97 Date Water Levels Were Read 06 '4/1997 13: 32 206-728-5608 KATO & WARREN INC. PAGE 01 .ems.—..... KATO& WARREN , 555 Market Place Avenue One SS nt Tel: 206/448-1200 INCORPORATED ____ 5eaule. Washington 98121 Fax:206/728-5608 MEMO Date: June 23, 1997 ---_._----- - 9 7671 Z To: Bryce Ecklein, Bob Mahn posor Fax Noto from L Td Ca- From: Vick Warren CoJD Poona,► phpne M F M Re: Input to Renton FEIS Suggest using the following text in the FEIS: Drainage The basic concept for storm drainage control and treatment remains unchanged. All stormwater will be controlled and treated to City and State standards prior to discharge to Springbrook Creek. What has changed are the specific techniques used to address each drainage sub-basin within the project limits. Basin nomenclature and road stationing, refer to EIS concepts. Basin ,F,from bridge crest to S.W. 16th Street Stations 48+64 to 52+85, Due to the VIM in alignment of the Oakesdale roadway the use of a bioswale for treatment is no longer possible. Instead a water treatment wet vault will be constructed under the roadway with final discharge to an existing storm drain in S.W.16th Street which discharges to Springbrook Creek. No detention was required at this location since the Springbrook Creek channel has been enlarged below the point of discharge. The level of treatment and rate of storm drainage discharge remains unchanged for this basin. Basin E.from,just south of S W. 19th Street to bridge crest Stations 38+30 to 48+64. Storm drainage from this basin will no longer be treated in the S.W.19th Street corridor and directly discharged to Springbrook Creek. Instead flows from this basin will be piped Kato&w.�6r23197 s to the south to join Basins C and D for treatment and disposal. Elimination of this outfall to Springbrook Creek is considered positive from an environmental standpoint. Basins C and,D,from just north of S.W. 27th Street to just south of S.W. 191h Street Stations 19+50 to 38+30. Rather than the wet ponds and detention ponds proposed in the predesign the final design will be based on the Value Engineering recommendations. The degree of control and treatment will equal or exceed that of the original proposal. Drainage from these basins will be combined with drainage from Basin.E to the north and Basin B at S.W.27th Street into a piped system that will discharge to a combination of wetponds,bioswales and constructed wetlands prior to flowing naturally into the existing wetlands bordering Springbrook Creek. Due to the extended flow provided by this design, the City does not require separate detention storage . No new out fall to Springbrook Creek will be needed. Some regrading of the uplands created by the earlier construction of the Metro trunk sewers will be required. This will add additional flood storage volume to the adjacent flood plain which is a positive benefit to Springbrook Creek. Ca Basin B,from just north and south of S W. 27th Street Stations 8+87 to 19+SO. V The drainage from this area will continue to flow northward to join with flows from C Basins E, C, and D for treatment. After treatment the flow will be divided, with some flow going to the wetlands and some flow going to an existing storm drainage pipeline in S.W. 27th Street. This Basin is essentially unchanged from the predesign concept. KATo&WARREN 1MCQI?OKATEO S ' CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June , 1997 TO: Bob Mahn FROM: Scott Woodbury o 7 SUBJECT: Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension Comments to the Draft Project Definition Report I have reviewed the draft Project Definition Report and have the following general and specific comments. I have also included information on the elevations to use for the compensatory storage calculations and storm drainage design. General Comments A single outfall should be used instead of the multiple outfalls. We also desire the system to have a free outlet condition rather than a siphon or"bubble up"condition. The use of 150-foot catch basin inlet spacing is okay per our drainage codes for the road grades of less than 1%. If necessary to obtain greater clearance of existing utilities (i.e., Seattle Water's 60" line), or if cover over the pipe is a factor,the design could consider using ductile iron pipe for cover between 1 to 2 feet. Another option is to match inverts rather than crowns at pipe size changes. Since Ecology and Fish and Wildlife will require use of Ecology's stormwater manual, we need to be sure that the drainage design meets both the City's and Ecology's drainage standards, whichever is more stringent. The report calls for passing the drainage from each system through a Type 2 CB with a baffle to provide oil spill containment. This is not required by code and should be eliminated. For Basin 3, the wetvault provides this function. Specific Comments Per our recent meeting with Dick Warren, Basin 1 drainage should be revised to allow for future runoff from Phase 2. Please see the attached copy of sheet 1 of 7 for a possible layout for the Basin 1 system and future Phase 2 system. I would prefer to see a wetpond rather than a water quality Swale because the wetpond should provide better treatment. It is great that K&W were able to eliminate the need for an outfall at SW 19th Street. The capacity of the system under backwater condition must meet the City standard for conveying the 25- and 100-year events. The offsite flow at Sta 26+30 and 30+10 may be piped through a new structure provided the structure is oversized by at least the size of the pipe that passes through it. Per our recent meeting with Dick Warren, the drainage system in Basin 2 south of Seattle's 60-inch water Bob Mahn 40 Oakesdale Project Definition Report Page 2 line should be collected and discharged at a single outfall. Please see the attached copies of sheets 2 and 3 of 7 for a possible layout for the southern portion of the Basin 2 system. The height of the retaining walls near the Springbrook Creek bridge and between the bridge and SW 16th Street appear to only fit existing grades. These will need to be to a depth that accommodates the widened channel. I will provide proposed grades at the toe of the walls to use in designing the walls. The wetvault in Basin 3 should be shown at its actual size. Other comments are noted in the text of the report(see attached copies). Compensatory Storage Elevations As you know, Gregg Zimmerman has verbally approved use of the lower of FEMA's or the City's 100-year, future land use event, modeling results for determining compensatory storage. A memo providing notice of the policy change is forthcoming. For your immediate use I have attached Table 7-3 from the East Side Green River Watershed Project draft Plan with the elevations that pertain to the Phase 1 and 2 Oakesdale project circled. Any filling below these elevations must be compensated by excavation of an equivalent replacement volume. The 100-year flood elevations at locations other than included in the table may be determined by interpolation. An elevation of 13.4 may be used for just downstream of SW 27th Street. These elevations will change as conveyance improvements to Springbrook Creek are implemented. The compensatory storage requirement will be based on the 100-year elevations for the system in place at the time the construction permit is issued. Therefore, the Phase 2 compensatory storage requirement will be less than calculated using the attached Table 7-3 if downstream conveyance improvements are completed before permits for Phase 2 are issued. Drainage Design Elevations If Basin 1 will outfall to the wetland south of SW 27th Street (see Specific Comments above), then the conveyance design should be based on an outfall tailwater elevation of 14.2 feet. This is the 100-year current land use event with the existing drainage system (see attached Table 7-3). The tailwater elevation for the system that outfall downstream of SW 27th Street should use 13.0 at SW 16th Street to 13.3 feet at SW 23rd Street. These are the elevations of the 100-year future land use storage event(see attached Table 7-3). Thanks for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at X-5547. U:OAKESDALE:97-003:S W 1 � • 1 1 • _ of,r Ch.:�►Y -f T�- -^T��'' -�9I�ti '.r-IP.�-� w^'�-. 2_' . . TABLE 7-3 ' Comparison of Peak Flows and Water Surface Elevation ' FEQ Computer Model and FEMA (1) (Elevation Datum NGVD) Road- 100-Yr Cur.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow 100-Yr Cur.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow FEMA(5) ' way Top Conveyance(6) Conveyance(6) Storage 6 Storage 6 _ Elev. Location/Discription Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev. cfs feet (cfs) (feet) cfs) feet (cfs) ((feet) cfs Panther Creek u/s of SR-167(2) 170 170 82 92 16.0 ' Rolling Hills Creek at Renton(2)(3) 167 21.8 174 21.8 87 20.7 99 20.9 130 24.0 Shopping Center Culv.Outlet ' Rolling Hills u/s 1-405 132"culvert(2)(3) 167 17.8 174 17.8 87 16.8 99 16.9 91 24.0 SR-167 North Crossing 100 17.0 98 17.0 58 15.2 69 15.6 16.0 Springbrook Creek , BRPS outflow 1044 1223 1360 1700 BRPS inflow 1044 4.1 1223 4.1 734 8.4 1153 13.0 1230 15.0 Grady way u/s 935 7.2 1110 7.6 638 8.6 1045 13.0 1100 16.0 ' SW 16th Street 934 7.7 1106 8.2 577 8.6 960 16.4 Confluence of Rolling Hills Creek 930 11.0 1088 11.6 571 9.7 898 .1 15.8 Confluence of SW 23rd St Channel 819 12.0 989 12.6 502 10.4 807 1 .3 16.0 SW 27th u/s 17.9 825 14.2 989 15.6 492 11.4 775 14.3 16.3 ' SW 34th u/s 14.9 887 15.4 1219 16.i 490 12.4 845 15.2 16.8 oakesdale d/s 17.1 891 16.0 1227 1 .9 489 12.9 846 15.8 17.3 Oakesdale Ws 17.1 833 17.4 1167 17.9 463 13.6 792 17.3 17.4 SW 43rd d/s 22.9 830 17.7 1158 18.3 459 14.0 783 17.6 17.8 SW 43rd u/s 22.9 830 18.2 1158 19.5 459 14.2 783 18.0 1055 17.8 Notes ' (1)FEMA uses current land use conditions and does not consider future land use conditions. Elevations are from FEMA floodway data tables. (2)FEQ simulated flows at these locations are based upon frequency analysis of Springbrook ' Creek inflows to the BRPS forebay. Refer to ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis Report(NHC, 1996) for flows based upon frequency analysis of Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Creek. (3)Flows are based upon assumption that capacity restriction through Renton Shopping Center is improved such that no attenuation from surface ponding occurs. ' (4)u/s =upstream,d/s =downstream (5)Rise in FEMA water surface elevation at SW 16th Street from the confluence of Rolling Hills Creek is due to unresolved discrepancy at the upstream boundary of 1989 FEMA restudy(FEMA, 1989). (6)Conveyance event reflects a severe local rainstorm without pumping restrictions at the BRPS due to high Green River flows. , Storage event reflects a high Green River flow event in which the BRPS must restrict pumping rates in accordance with GRIA. ' TABLE 7-2 Summary of Peak Flows and Water Surface Elevations Future Land Use Conditions FEQ Hydraulic Analysis (Elevation Datum NGVD) Road- 2-Yr Fut.Flow 10-Yr Fut.Flow 25-Yr Fut.Flow 25-Yr Fut.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow way Top Conveyance(3) Storage 3 Conveyance(3) Stora e 3 ' Elev. Locaeion/Discription Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev (cfs) (feet) cfs (feet) cfs (feet) cfs feet (cfs) (feet) cfs (feet) ' Panther Creek u/s of SR-167(1) 62 86 96 32 170 92 Rolling Hills Creek at Renton(1)(2) 70 20.4 89 20.7 102 20.9 35 19.6 174 21.8 99 20.9 Shopping Center Culy.Outlet Rolling Hills u/s 1-405 132"culvert(1)(2) 70 16.6 89 16.9 102 17.0 35 16.3 174 17.8 99 16.9 SR-167 North Crossing 45 14.7 71 15.6 82 16.0 32 14.1 98 17.0 69 15.6 ' Springbrook Creek BRPS outflow 726 1021 1095 960 1223 1700 BRPS inflow 728 3.8 1023 4.0 1095 4.1 464 5.5 1223 4.1 1153 13.0 ' Grady way u/s 593 6.2 904 7.1 959 7.2 413 5.6 1110 7.6 1045 13.0 SW 16th Street 584 6.7 897 7.6 951 7.8 408 6.1 1106 8.2 960 13.0 Confluence of Rolling Hills Creek 561 9.4 882 10.8 933 11.1 395 8.4 1088 11.6 898 13.1 Confluence of SW 23rd St Channel 526 10.4 807 11.9 843 12.1 360 9.4 989 12.6 807 13.3 Sw 27th u/s 17.9 518 11.5 808 14.0 831 14.3 350 10.0 989 15.6 775 14.3 SW 34th u/s 14.9 564 12.9 840 15.3 847 15.4 309 10.6 1219 16.1 845 15.2 Oakesdale d/s 17.1 567 13.5 843 15.9 849 15.9 311 11.3 1227 16.9 846 15.8 oakesdale u/s 17.1 527 14.3 787 17.3 800 17.4 292 11.5 1167 17.9 792 17.3 ' SW 43rdd/s 22.9 525 14.7 781 17.6 795 17.6 291 12.1 1158 18.3 783 17.6 SW 43rd u/s 22.9 525 14.9 781 18.1 795 18.1 291 12.3 1158 19.5 783 18.0 Notes (1)FEQ simulated flows at these locations are based upon frequency analysis of Springbrook Creek inflows to the BRPS forebay. Refer to ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis Report(NHC, 1996) for flows ' based upon frequency analysis of Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Creek. (2)Flows are based upon assumption that capacity restriction through Renton Shopping Center is improved such that no attenuation from surface ponding occurs. ' (3)Conveyance event reflects a severe local rainstorm without pumping restrictions at the BRPS due to high Green River flows. Storage event reflects a high Green River flow event in which the BRPS must restrict pumping rates in accordance with GRIA. (4)u/s = upstream,d/s = downstream c CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 5, 1997 Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date ► o �i pa#ges To Fro - _ trice �/ TO: Lin Wilson Co./Dept. Co. FROM: Ron Straka Phone# Phone# Fax# —7 Z _ $bog Fax# STAFF CONTACT: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: Oakesdale Extension Project Bridge Clearance Requirement for Springbrook Creek Boundary Line Agreement Channel Alignment Criteria The purpose of this memo is to provide input to you on the issues listed above as they affect the Oakesdale Extension Project. Bridge Clearance Requirement for Springbrook Creek As a result of the recent value engineering review and subsequent refinements conducted for the Oakesdale project, the location and alignment for the bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek has been revised. The most recent bridge configurations being considered include a single span bridge with abutments drawn in to elevation 9 (NGVD datum)as defined on the proposed widened channel cross section. The single span is preferred for many reasons, but the greater depth of the girders impacts the profile of the road. The profile of the road as it crosses the creek is controlled by the clearance requirement above the 100-year flood elevation in the creek. We had previously directed that a 3-foot clearance above the 100-year, future conditions, storage event be used in determining the minimum elevation for the low chord of the bridge. However, after further review of this requirement, we have decided that a 2- foot clearance would be acceptable. A single span bridge with no piers or restrictions within the 100-year future condition conveyance flow elevation is acceptable. We would prefer to see the bridge constructed with a 3-foot clearance above the predicted 100-year future conditions storage event, but recognize the benefits to the Oakesdale Project and channel capacity during conveyance condition flows with no piers located near the low flow channel. However, the City could be accepting some additional risk by constructing the bridge with only 2-feet of clearance above a predicted water surface elevation. This will provide a minimum clearance about 1-foot higher than what is provided at the SW 16th Street bridge,which to our understanding was based on 1-foot of clearance above the 100-year flood elevation as defined by Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) models in use at the time. We are not sure why such a minimal clearance was used. We recommend a minimum 2-foot clearance to provide a factor-of-safety to the current model results for the storage event. The need to pass the pedestrian trail under the bridge precludes lowering the bridge further anyway. We do want you to know that we will be updating our storage event model to include the severe February 1996 flood. The simulation would model the system Lin Wilson Bridge Clearance Requirement Page 2 assuming the entire pump station had to shut down for the time period when the Green River was above 12,000 cfs at Auburn. No pumping shut down actually occurred because an exception to the operating rules was allowed by King County since water elevations downstream of the pump station were just low enough for unrestricted pumping to occur. However, it was only by a hair's breadth that the pump station did not shut down. Simulating the February 1996 event as if the pump station shut down may result in the modeled 100-year storage elevation being higher than currently predicted. To ensure that there is little potential for impact to the structure, you may wish to have your bridge designers evaluate what the effect on the structure could be if flows in the storage event were to reach the low chord of the bridge. Also, there is the possibility that the pumps at the pump station could fail during a flood, which could result in higher water surface elevations upstream of the pump station. Boundary Line Agreement As you know, there is some overlay of the ownership's of Boeing, Drainage District No. 1, and the City is the area of Springbrook Creek from SW 16th Street to SW 19th Street. We have been told by Boeing to go ahead and proceed with processing a boundary line agreement. I understand you have directed Joe Armstrong to work with the Oakesdale surveyor, W&H Pacific, to prepare the legal descriptions and exhibits needed for the boundary line agreement. We are willing to fund W&H's work related to the boundary agreement and will also provide project management assistance since we have an interest in resolving the boundary discrepancies for the channel widening project. It is also Surface Water Utility property that will be affected by the boundary agreement. Please include this task on your Oakesdale project task tracking list so that progress on this issue can be monitored. Channel Alignment Criteria For initial layout purposes, the channel configuration through the bridge can be based on the following attached cross section and a minimum design centerline radius of 300 feet. Attached is a copy of the channel widening plans for SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street, which provides the centerline, main channel alignment for the previously widened channel. I suggest assuming an angle point in the channel alignment at the south edge of the SW 16th Street bridge. From the angle point, the centerline of the main channel should be defined as being parallel to and 30 feet east of the face of the SW 16th Street bridge's southwest wingwall. The centerline tangent under the Oakesdale bridge may be selected as parallel to and centered within the existing channel. These two tangents are to be connected with a minimum centerline radius of 300 feet. The attached channel cross section applies only under the Oakesdale bridge for an as yet underdetermined distance downstream. There will need to be some transition from the high flow shelf concept to the existing channel configuration under the SW 16th Street bridge. However, for the initial layout your designers can assume that the transition is accomplished downstream of the Oakesdale bridge. Thanks for your help. If you have any questions, please contact me at X-5548 or Scott Woodbury at X-5547. H:DOCS:97498:SW:ps Attachments CC: Rod DenHerder,NRCS Bany Knight,K&W G�V - .. _... �: _ �pZ �11 . .. . .5�. ,S� ,;-- =_, :� --- ,� � I --�-- �- ---�----- ..__- ----- -- '. -- � e�0.p •� �M_h: ,�):�� 3 - *D?K LtWTS { Z ' BR/DCE \ \ o GROUP Q CUR DATA \ a A-1T•14•!O- T-B1.B5 L - 163 J8• � \ CQVSTRUCT/ / GET / MCWK UA// / TERN EA AN T COW LWApTS I "1 KW IS I ARENr k k k k Ty \ a o 0 0 LONG ACRES �, / I I \� x ctXKRr JL'YNT lfE/VTURE /V" -KRRMID 5 aTy B Qc+ s w. 167H STREET I / V '•'+,, s RILY/T Q�WAY I I PUGET %, > WESTERN rn ,6 987..96 \ qq � O y BOE7NG 'rL / (LONCR DOES) I I NOr �DISTURB TURe z O Er czxer I E- Y Mv�E Po Wfi I opK tp W O POMER POLE - -- L �-•C �O U 7RA/JSECW.tfER AD y I - \ (TO BE ITO BY WEN 0 I I I rr�i DOS77NG RETAIN/NC W BDE7NG —" IV— (n N '21-1I EXTSIING I S I I I I Cp o E- D.D. /1 167- oe9. RIGYT OF WAY O U WSDOT ^ Q R. ofW. i � I � d a �MC" I W a a � 4 17 157.lJ U.v/IS I TEVPpP,1RY m U 7,654,192.6E i CONSTRvcnav J > 4 �I — AS90T I I . = O EASEMENT / 2 a R. of W EA7S77NC 7R `� o FBI I I _ R• 0/S�� T E-� OO Nor as Re GROUP �o I I— t _ `Z. >': U z HEAL 7H I - 4 z' W 31 I { I 4037 h'O a I 1(b I I 1. Legal desa*Won of permment right of a+_ C F.�`� roy and tanporary consftcfim easement d I I are owdob/e from the City of Renton. Q. I SW. 167H STREET I I 2 Boundary end Right of Woy/tires on this [s] I L� Ric"r OF WAY *a h g was token Tram irlmnotion in Q SW. 167H S7REET�-i I I I I legal surreys k this area partbr ned by R/G7YT OF WAY ' Target Su ,ws Inc, Poc red*Engiaeer.Jrg, kra, and Wett Pociri (/] I CONS7RUC770V MLWA"L/Wr S other constivction controcts may be - - - n progress Controctor shalt coordinate 2 APPARENT PROPER rY LINE wor* with existing emstruction and eocperote with other coat octo-s performng APPARENT PERMANENT EA.zmcmr work odpc-t to the site U PLAN - - - - 2 90"1IE7R0 WASTE SEWAGE LINE �- No representoti6n is mode of any uNit4s k pub/io or priwte. Absence of utiities on w a w - CENTER LINE these drowngs Ls not assurance that no O uaifieJ ars present. //buriod ufdit"s ore shown, POMER POLE the/o otion arrd depth are r..t approxerrota the exoct/ocotion end depth ESGR-3 of any 0]7y must be determkrsd by the utd'ty conw y prkr to o y excawtion. `—' UJ CITY OF RENTON U PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 5, 1997 l ,� page j Post-ito Fax Note 7671 Date t To From TO: Lin Wilson Co./Dept. Co. FROM: Ron Straka Phone# Phone# Fax# Fax# STAFF CONTACT: Scott Woodbury ec3e ��rc�s rates'------- — -- SUBJECT: Oakesdale Extension Project Bridge Clearance Requirement -C— Id Boundary Line Agreement Channel Alignment Criteria The purpose of this memo is to provide input to you on the issues listed above as they affect the Oakesdale Extension Project. Bridge Clearance Requirement As a result of the recent value engineering review and subsequent refinements conducted for the Oakesdale project, the location and alignment for the bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek has been revised. The most recent bridge configurations being considered include a single span bridge with abutments drawn in to elevation 9 (NGVD datum)as defined on the proposed widened channel cross section. The single span is preferred for many reasons, but the greater depth of the girders impacts the profile of the road. rused �!4"+9�(�y,.�yLc� i4.,61iYThe profile of the road as it crossescontrolled by the clearance requirement above the 100-year flood elevation in the creeeviously directed that a 3-foot clearance above the100-year, future conditions, storage in determining the minimum elevation for the lowchord of the bridge. However, afteew of this requirement, we have decided that a 2-foot clearance would be acceptable. provide a minimum clearance about 1-foot higher 3 ° than what is provided at the SW 16th Street bridge,which to our understanding was based on 1-foot ! t of clearance above the 100-year flood elevation as defined by Natural Resources Conservation s v Service(MRCS)models in use at the time. We are not sure why such a minimal clearance was used. \r We recommend a minimum 2-foot clearance to provide a factor-of-safety to the current model results for the storage event. The need to pass the pedestrian trail under the bridge precludes lowering the bridge further anyway. We do want you to know that we will be updating our storage event model to include the severe February 1996 flood. The simulation would model the system assuming the entire pump station had to shut down for the time period when the Green River was o. above 12,000 cfs at Auburn. No pumping shut down actually occurred because an exception to the , operating rules was allowed by King County since water elevations downstream of the pump station s a O were just low enough for unrestricted pumping to occur. However, it was only by a hair's breadth r that the pump station did not shut down. . Simulating the February 1996 event as if the pump station shut down may result in the modeled .4\ 100-year storage elevation being higher than currently predicted. To ensure that there is little ' Lin Wilson Bridge Clearance Requirement Page 2 potential for impact to the structure, you may wish to have your bridge designers evaluate what the effect on the structure could be if flows in the storage event were to reach the low chord of the / bridge. 4l5., T/,e,,- ,r il-/�,I !-'�- �4- �✓M/�f �%y u ,�✓M�sib h.a 4..l•/4+ J c2��r- it 411(d KSu lF /17 GrhE+1C� S./Y�e. <leuc /7�;y ,fir t►« n e y� �y»,�p SAw�.., 7`d �Ir 5 'T, Boundary Line Agreement As you know, there is some overlay of the ownership's of Boeing, Drainage District No. 1, and the City is the area of Springbrook Creek from SW 16th Street to SW 19th Street. We have been told by Boeing to go ahead and proceed with processing a boundary line agreement. I understand you have directed Joe Armstrong to work with the Oakesdale surveyor, W&H Pacific, to prepare the legal descriptions and exhibits needed for the boundary line agreement. We are willing to fund W&H's work related to the boundary agreement and will also provide project management assistance since we have an interest in resolving the boundary discrepancies for the channel widening project. It is also Surface Water Utility property that will be affected by the boundary agreement. Please include this task on your Oakesdale project task tracking list so that progress on this issue can be monitored. Channel Alignment Criteria For initial layout purposes, the channel configuration through the bridge can be based on the following attached cross section and a minimum design centerline radius of 300 feet. Attached is a copy of the channel widening plans for SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street, which provides the centerline, main channel alignment for the previously widened channel. I suggest assuming an angle point in the channel alignment at the south edge of the SW 16th Street bridge. From the angle point, the centerline of the main channel should be defined as being parallel to and 30 feet SOW n� the face of the SW 16th Street bridge's southwest wingwall. The centerline tangent under the Oakesdale bridge may be selected as parallel to and centered within the existing channel. These two tangents are to be connected with a minimum centerline radius of 300 feet. The attached channel cross section applies only under the Oakesdale bridge for an as yet underdetermined distance downstream. There will need to be some transition from the high flow shelf concept to the existing channel configuration under the SW 16th Street bridge. However, for the initial layout your designers can assume that the transition is accomplished downstream of the Oakesdale bridge. Thanks for your help. If you have any questions,please contact me at X-5548 or Scott Woodbury at X-5547. 14; Wcg - %_.,)(;fk 1U' 5W A5 U: :91.002:SW attachments cc: Rod DenHerder,NRCS CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 1997 TO: Bob Mahn FROM: i'Mark R. Pywell SUBJECT: Oakesdale Ave. Extension I have been researching the extension of Oakesdale Ave. in regards to the wetlands and the need for compensation. My original interpretation of City Code and State standards was that they were unclear but seemed to indicate that compensation would be needed for the actual area being disturbed and for the area that would be a buffer area adjacent to the new roadway. My further research on this issue has proven that my original interpretation was incorrect. I now have discussed this issue with wetland consultants and staff at DOE. It appears that we will only need to mitigate for the wetland area that is actually disturbed for the roadway. The area adjacent to the roadway is still considered to be wetland area. We will need to make sure that the final EIS reflects the correct area required for mitigation. Sorry for any confusion that this may have caused. cc: Lin Wilson Scott Woodbury Rick Ford H:\WW60DOT\MEMO.DOT\bh CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 1997 TO: Barry Knight FROM: Scott Woodbury 5; 'S SUBJECT: Information for Surface Water Utility Property As requested by Dick Warren, attached are two title reports for several properties acquired by the City along with one quit claim deed. If desired, other quit claim deeds may be obtained from Tom Boyns of Property Management via Joe Armstrong. Portions of the subject properties are within the alignment for the Oakesdale Extension Project. I have also attached a vicinity map which I provided to assist you in locating the parcels. Also attached is a floppy disk with the following AutoCad R12 files: 4324q.dwg and 4325q.dwg. These files are from the City's GIS and include parcel boundaries for the section, township, range indicated in the first four digits. The four digit number at the start of the files represent the range (4 for these files), township (just in the 3 in 23), and the section(24 and 25) of the area covered by the drawing. These drawing are in the NAD 1983/91 coordinate space (in feet) with an insertion point of 0,0. These drawings will give an approximate idea of the location of the property lines along the Oakesdale corridor. Thanks for your help. If you have any questions, please contact me at(425)277-5547. U:OAKES DALE:97-001:S W attachment cc: Lin Wilson Scy 968 13A( A,r33(f.,j l8) Sc�. 968 013 S�. /20�_3�Piic�r cJ Sy /2-o t � Sverdrup Civil, InC. Northwestern Region/Bellevue ZVI May 29, 1997 s 'Al / P'r MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Ford 07a�;o `�9� _ S Tom Permit Administrator �� � FROM: Jeff Schu �H Iq IV�f Sverdrup Vg�Manager SUBJECT: BCAG Headquarters Building 25-20 - Site Development Stormwater and Floodplain Issues Related to.Oakesdale Ave. SW You requested that we review the impacts of Oakesdale Avenue SW to the Longacres Office Park storm drainage and floodplain systems. Without roadway and utility plans and profiles, the impact of constructing Oakesdale cannot be quantified. However, we can clarify the capacity of each of these systems under conditions representing those following completion of the 25-20 Building and Site Development. This information is contained within our report titled "Drainage Report - BCAG Headquarters Building 25-20 Site Development," May 1, 1997. We are currently incorporating comments to this report made by City staff, and the report has not been finalized or approved. Nonetheless, the system capacity will not be revised significantly by these comments. We have not completed a hydrologic/hydraulic analysis of the entire site under ultimate buildout conditions, however, we believe that storm drainage peak release rates will govern system design (as opposed to water surface elevations on site). This assumption allows the use of Table D.1 and Figure D.1 of the report, attached. Table D.1 indicates that the drainage system could release up to 14 cfs more peak flow (100-year 24-hour event) than it will after completion of the 25-20 site development. The floodplain analysis indicates that following completion of the 25-20 site development, an additional 7 acre-feet of cumulative storage will be provided versus pre-development conditions. This is shown in Table A.1 and Figure A.8, attached. Assuming that City of Renton regulations do not change, this surplus capacity can be used by Boeing if the site is further developed. However, analysis of such proposed development may determine that additional drainage capacity or floodplain volume is required even before the surplus capacity is expended, similar to the need for Pond "B" at the 25-20 site. Such a determination must be made on a case by case basis. Please call if you would like to discuss this information. 013 747\2210\e ngr\m m010529.doc Combined Outflow to Springbrook Creek Discharge vs Recurrence Event 100.00 Baseline 90.00 o Post CSTC Development —�—Post 25-20 Development 80.00 70.00 60.00 a� rn _ 50.00 - - Y m 40.00 a 30.00 i 20.00 Water Quality Event 100-Year 7-Day Event 10.00 - 0.00 I - 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1000 Recurrence Interval for 24-Hour Storms (years) 013747/2210/engr-KBCALCOI.XLS[Chart D.11 Drainage Report- Figure D.1 5/13/97 Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group BCAG Headquarters Building 25-20 Site Development Floodplain Storage Volumes Stage �'� Cumulative Floodplain Storage Volume (acre-feet) (elevation) Baseline Existing Proposed 12.0 0 0 0 13.0 6 6 6 14.0 15 15 15 15.0 130 153 157 16.0 219 232 233 16.4 265 1 273 272 - Notes: 1. Storage volume considered to begin at peak stage of 100-year 24-hour event while system is not influenced by Springbrook Creek tailwater. 2. Floodplain sills and backwater prevention valves are considered in this analysis. 013747\2210\engrlKBCALCI2.XLS[Table A.11 Table A.1 Sverdrup Civil, Inc. 511/97 Cumulative Floodplain Storage Volume vs Elevation 16.5 16.0 15.5 15.0 c Z 14.5 m a� rn 14.0 ca rn —�-Baseline 13.5 —a—Existing —6 Proposed 13.0 12.5 12.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Cumulative Floodplain Storage Volume (acre-feet) y 013747/2210/engr-KBCALCI2.XLS[Figure A.8] Drainage Report- Figure A.8 5/19/97 Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group BCAG Headquarters Building 25-20 Site Development TABLE D.1 - COMPARISON OF HYDROLOGIC VALUES Pre-Development, CSTC, and Building 25-20 Pre-Development Baseline Hydrographs Combined Outflow STORM to Springbrook FREQUENCY 2 3 4 5 6 Creek 2 3 4(cfs) 5 6 Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1 2 3 4 2520 (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD (cfsJ (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD) Water Quality 0.20 2.08 0.48 0.20 0.14 0.63 n/a 0.59 0.42 0.08 9.10 1.90 8.96 1.25 6.10 0.15 13.54 0.27 11.06 3.65 2-Year 24-Hour 1.12 17.83 4.83 2.07 2.08 7.13 n/a 4.50 7.61 0.50 9.35 15.14 10.13 7.02 6.11 1.17 13.84 2.70 11.54 26.53 5-Year 24-Hour 1.42 23.59 6.37 2.76 2.80 9.54 n/a 5.86 10.38 0.63 9.45 18.55 10.35 8.56 6.13 1.54 13.95 3.49 11.61 32.77 10-Year 24-Hour 1.80 31.02 8.36 3.66 3.74 12.67 n/a 7.60 13.99 0.78 9.51 22.16 10.57 10.53 6.16 2.02 14.05 4.54 11.71 40.03 25-Year 24-Hour 2.18 38.62 10.37 4.57 4.70 15.86 n/a 9.36 17.70 0.92 9.53 25.33 10.76 12.45 6.19 2.52 14.12 5.65 11.82 46.87 50-Year 24-Hour 2.22 39.39 10.57 4.66 4.79 16.18 n/a 9.53 18.07 0.93 9.53 25.63 10.78 12.64 6.19 2.57 14.13 5.76 11.83 47.53 _ 100-Year 24-Hour 2.56 46.31 12.39 5.49 5.66 19.09 n/a 11.13 21.45 1.05 9.55 28.30 10.94 14.40 6.22 3.03 14.20 6.80 11.92 53.58 100-Year 7-Day 1.25 27.55 6.32 4.02 3.29 13.79 n/a 5.84 12.39 0.90 9.53 24.12 10.69 10.85 6.17 3.15 14.21 7.07 11.95 46.09 Post-Development CSTC Hydrographs Combined Outflow STORM to Springbrook FREQUENCY B C 4 5 6 Creek B C 4(cfs) 5 6 Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1 2 3 4 2520 (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD) Water Quality 0.21 4.50 0.53 0.22 0.14 0.63 n/a 0.59 0.42 0.09 9.10 1.01 8.59 1.31 6.10 0.15 13.54 0.27 11.06 2.83 2-Year 24-Hour 1.13 26.17 5.30 2.32 2.08 7.13 n/a 4.50 7.61 0.49 9.35 6.11 8.88 7.30 6.11 1.17 13.84 2.70 11.54 17.77 5-Year 24-Hour 1.43 33.56 7.00 3.10 2.80 9.54 n/a 5.86 10.38 0.63 9.45 7.99 8.97 8.92 6.14_ _ 1.54_ _13.95_ 3.49 11.61 22.57 10-Year 24-Hour 1.82 43.01 9.17 4.10 3.74 12.67 n/a 7.60 13.99 0.78 9.51 10.14 9.08 11.00 6.17 2.02 14.05 4.54 11.71 28.48 25-Year 24-Hour 2.20 52.58 11.38 5.12 4.70 15.86 n/a 9.36 17.70 0.91 9.53 12.26 9.18 13.01 6.20 2.52 14.12 5.65 11.82 34.35 50 Year 24-Hour 2.24 53.54 11.60 5.23 4.79 16.18 n/a 9.53 18.07 0.92 9.53 12.47 9.19 13.21 6.20 2.57 14.13 5.76 11.83 34.93 100-Year 24-Hour 2.59 62.23 13.60 6.16 5.66 19.09 n/a 11.13 21.45 1.04 9.55 14.41 9.29 15.06 6.23 3.03 14.20 6.80 11.92 40.34 100-Year 7-Day 1.25 30.54 1 6.94 1 4.51 3.29 13.79 n/a 5.84 1 12.39 1 0.89 1 9.53 1 14.65 1 9.31 1 11.36 1 6.17 3.15 14.21 7.07 11.95 37.12 Post-Development Building 25-20 Hydrographs Combined Outflow STORM to Springbrook FREQUENCY 2 A B 5 6 Creek 2 A B(cfs) 5 6 Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. Outflow Elev. (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1 2 3 4 2520 (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD) (c(s) (NGVD) (cfs) (NGVD) Water Quality 0.21 4.58 0.34 0.07 0.14 0.63 0.85 0.59 0.42 0.09 9.10 1.03 8.59 1.47 6.10 0.15 13.54 0.27 11.06 3.01 2-Year 24-Hour 1.13 26.32 3.71 1.04 2.08 7.13 3.57 4.50 7.61 0.49 9.35 6.15 8.89 7.06 6.11 1.17 13.84 2.70 11.54 17.57 5-Year 24-Hour 1.43 33.71 4.91 1.42 2.80 9.54 4.41 5.86 10.38 0.63 9.45 8.03 8.97 8.37 6.13 1.54 13.95 3.49 11.61 22.06 10-Year 24-Hour 1.82 43.15 6.46 1.92 3.74 12.67 5.47 7.60 13.99 0.78 9.51 10.18 9.08 10.14 6.15 2.02 14.05 4.54 11.71 27.66 25-Year 24-Hour 2.20 52.73 8.03 2.44 4.70 15.86 6.52 9.36 17.70 0.91 9.53 12.30 9.18 12.14 6.19 2.52 14.12 5.65 11.82 33.52 50-Year 24-Hour 2.24 53.69 8.19 2.49 4.79 16 18 6.63 9.53 18.07 0.92 9.53 12.51 9.20 12.32 6.19 2.57 14.13 5.76 11.83 34.08 100-Year 24-Hour 2.59 62.37 9.62 2.96 5.66 19.09 7.58 11.13 21.45 1.04 9.55 14.45 9.29 14.08 6.21 3.03 14.20 6.80 11.92 39A0 100-Year 7-Day 1.25 30.59 4.97 2.21 3.29 13.79 3.77 5.84 12.39 0.89 9.53 14.65 9.31 10.87 6.17 3.15 14.21 7.07 11.95 36.63 P1job/013747/2210/engr- KBCALC01 ALS (Table D.1] Drainage Report - Table D.1 5/13/97 Sverdrup Civil, Inc. CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 1997 TO: Gregg Zimmerman FROM: Sandra Meyer STAFF CONTACT: Lin Wilson, Ext. 6223 AP- SUBJECT: Oakesdale Avenue Project Effect of Compensatory Storage Policy The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Oakesdale project covered the ul- timate project, to provide a 4/5-lane arterial between SW 16th and SW 31st Streets. The ini- tial construction will be to build 3-5 lanes from SW 16th to SW 27th. Construction of the full five-lane widening north of SW 27th, and the link between SW 27th and SW 31st Streets, will be a future construction project, as yet unfunded. After the DEIS was published, a VE study was performed. One of the VE study recommen- dations was to widen the existing Metro access road above their 108-inch pipeline, in prefer- ence to constructing a 600-foot-long, $5 million bridge over the wetlands south of SW 27th. This approach has been endorsed by Boeing at our Technical Coordination Committee. It was our intention to seek permits for the first phase of construction, and to include in the Fi- nal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) a definition of the features of the initial project affected by the findings of the VE study, but to omit reference to proposed changes south of 27th. These would be documented in a supplemental EIS at the time we were ready to seek permits for that phase of construction. At the pre-application meeting held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 21, it was made clear that the Corps has revisited this area enough already, and we were strongly en- couraged to include the portion of the project south of 27th in our current application for a Section 404 (wetland encroachment) permit. To do this would require that we update our EIS to be in conformity with the configuration for which we are requesting a Section 404 permit. The problem we face is that the DEIS (Section 3.5.4, page 3.5-11) indicates that: "To mitigate loss of flood storage resulting from Phase 2 construction, removal of the existing earth embankment is proposed as part of the roadway project". Memo to Gregg Zimmerman May 29, 1997 This is clearly incompatible with the adopted VE recommendation, that would retain the em- bankment and widen it. If the compensatory flood storage requirement remains, the project would either have to remove a portion of the existing fill as stated in the DEIS, or identify another location where compensatory storage could be provided. The best solution, at this point, would be to revise the current policy regarding compensatory flood storage so as to reduce or eliminate the requirement. A recommendation to this effect was made in Ron Ol- sen's memorandum to Gregg Zimmerman on the subject "COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANA GEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) MAP REVISION- RENTON VALLEY" dated April 11, 1996. The memorandum reads in part: ". . a policy decision could be made now to require compensatory storage to ESGRWP future land use condition elevations, rather than FEMA elevations . . . Such a policy decision for the compensatory storage requirement is within the authority of the City to do, as compensatory storage is not specifically mandated by FEMA regulations. "Surface Water Utility staff recommend that the administration: • concur with the adoption of a revised policy with regard to the application of the compensatory storage requirement. The revised policy would allow ESGRWP future land use condition elevations, rather than current FEMA ele- vations, to be used in determining compensatory storage for fill within the floodplain. " If the recommended policy change can be implemented without delay, it will expedite the completion of the SEPA process for the Oakesdale Avenue project. Would you let me know as soon as possible whether this can be done. cc: Bob Mahn Scott Woodbury Mark Pywell Bryce Ecklein(Kato&Warren) City of Renton OAKESDALE AVENUE - SW 16TH STREET TO SW 27TH STREET Meeting with Design Consultant - May 13, 1997, 8:00 - 9:30 AM Topics to be discussed: Contract formalities/procedures (1' 1b 4 <-/�,,0 /1u�� �Cln �1�/,,j�1�0� �tifi� l�l l , Documentation of rights-of-entry . 1�G�C (AtM /vv/ Confirm schedule milestones , �-Silh 6-ptr"ck rck44k Av- k. Schedule for addressing T.I.B. Cot Increase Committee Z/ter Documentation of design standards 6; 5e,�w4t . L,a.,+s -4o a cceYe� .� �/C5� G►, Channel hydraulic study (to locate bridge abutments) ,H5�4k��oh ltr use L1,-, c40A4'5 hor " 'F w/ {�ang.W 4Sy' Bridge/channel alignment o ti C.jk' ons A aN �PG v'r/h , o GC/a,�" ! Wd 1^y �i�iSG�r►^an� ���oslS Preliminary contact with USACE (before pre-�pl itation meeting) (-"yr T/P, 5�r�f°l7 Pan 0 �►71^;+fee - �04, i Letter to Boeing regarding discharge to CSTC we lds �-�✓ o� �i a r ryr'' , Discuss response WDFW leer re CSTC wetland impacts JL� (J f® T.I.B. funding/limitatiions on wetland mitigation ior L Work plan for obtaining easement from Seattle Water Departme�ft J Add �) endum or s'Inl ''�0 EI�I 6 ay upple�nt`to Pro7ress on defining schedule for permit process , ti vo f,Ft- / /�f 4, f� Availability of B�k oeifig Longacfes Office Park (BCAG) civil drawings Discussion of planter strip/landscape options J Approach to partnering Other business ? PrP f ion M Tv� Sly-►(17 Cc 40 414 Ot,'v r I/ 7 wa/ � •�,e Coy 4 '4 ce rat . h:l...l inloakesdalelagenda. oc / May 12. 1997 THE CITY OF RENTON 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FIFTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 d FAX: 277-4428 To: Barry Knight Company: Kato & Warren Phone: (206) 269-6371 Fax: (206) 269-6378 From: Lin Wilson Company: City of Renton Phone: (206) 277-6223 Fax: (206) 277-4428 Date: 5/12/97 Pages including this cover page: 2 Subject: Oakesdale Ave - SW 16th to SW 27th Comments: Attached is a list of some of the topics we need to cover at tomorrow's meeting. Let me know if there are others you would like to add. cc: (:R:ick =Boeing t CITY OF RENTON OAKESDALE A VENUE S.W. EXTENSION ALIGNMENT STUDYAT NORTH END OF PROJECT DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Purpose of Study: During the VE Study, it was recognized that the greatest opportunity for cost savings in Phase 1 of the project is at the north end where a number of technical, environmental and permitting issues combine to complicate the proposed crossing of Springbrook Creek. As a pre-design task, Kato & Warren was asked to review the horizontal alignment to evaluate the feasibility of shifting it to the west, so as to reduce potential wetland impacts, and impacts on the large stormwater vault where the created wetlands outfall towards Springbrook Creek. Issues to be Considered. ■ The desire to meet 40 mph design speed standards, if possible ■ The desire to align the proposed extension with the existing segment of Oakesdale Avenue north of S.W. 16th Street ■ Impacts upon the skew for the crossing of Springbrook Creek ■ Impacts upon the required length and width of the bridge over the Creek, considering the left- turn storage lane length required at the approach to the S.W. 16th Street intersection ■ Impacts upon the created wetlands ■ Impacts upon the large stormwater vault ■ Considerations of the Boeing Company ■ Other potential impacts. Alternative Concepts Considered: DEIS Concept: The concept proposed in the DEIS crosses the created wetland and Springbrook Creek on an 825'-radius horizontal curve, followed by a 276'-long tangent length between the north side of the Creek and the centerline of SW 16th Street. A 400'-long bridge structure was proposed across the Creek and the created wetland. Advantages: 1. It would be possible to reduce the width of the bridge structure by 12 feet, by reducing the number of lanes from 5 to 4 throughout the length of the structure. (The tangent length at Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension - 1 - May 12, 1997 the north end of the structure provides just sufficient space for a left-turn storage lane at the SW 16th Street intersection). 2. This is the alignment proposed in the DEIS, and an Addendum will need to be prepared to cover any significant deviation. 3. The ongoing Boeing development plans are using this alignment as the basis for new adjacent construction. 4. Wetland impacts (from a permitting standpoint) could perhaps be avoided by the longer bridge structure. Disadvantages: 1. High cost, due to length of bridge structure required. (The VE team recommended reducing the bridge length by filling the created wetland, instead of bridging it. However, after an initial meeting with the permitting agencies, it was recognized that this could significantly complicate the permitting process by requiring an "Individual" COE permit instead of a "Nationwide"permit.) 2. Large skew (53 degrees) required for the creek crossing, which complicates the bridge design and construction, and makes it difficult to use standard precast girders. This results in higher costs and, possibly, a longer construction period. 3. This alternative would have the greatest functional impact upon the created wetland area, even if the wetland were to be bridged. The minimal height of the bridge soffit above the wetland would result in deep shading, which would virtually eliminate the area below the bridge as an effective wetland. Also, the wetland area on the west side of the bridge would be compromised by its isolation from the main wetland area. 4. The alignment centerline goes through the large stormwater vault on the south side of the Creek. It is generally felt that this stormwater vault would need to be relocated, even if it was bridged over, as initially proposed. Concept A: Concept A was developed with the objective of shifting the horizontal alignment as far to the west as possible. This was achieved by using a 700'-radius curve at the north end which would align with the existing curve on Oakesdale Avenue north of SW 16th Street. There would be an alignment shift(compared with the DEIS Concept) of approximately 127 feet at the maximum point which occurs near Sta. 46+00, and the alignment would converge with the DEIS alignment at Sta. 38+84. Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension -2- May 12, 1997 Advantages: 1. Minimizes wetland functional impacts in the Delta area. The alignment would only affect a small portion of wetland between El. 10.00 and El. 13.00 on the west edge of the created wetland area. 2. Minimizes the skew of the bridge crossing (38 degrees) and the length of bridge structure required, resulting in a significant cost saving. 3. Avoids the large storm vault on the south side of the Creek. 4. Alignment shift to west leaves sufficient non-wetland area east of roadway available for potential wetland mitigation to take place within Delta wetland system. Disadvantages: 1. Impacts the existing constructed channel and weir intake structure near Sta. 43+00. This is also considered to be a wetland area below El. 13.00. 2. Impacts the corner of Boeing's parking lot, and reduces the driveway storage length for vehicles exiting the lot. (Both of these impacts could be mitigated by a minor mainline relocation and relocation of the parking lot exit driveway.) 3. Impacts the existing Boeing trail system. 4. Necessitates a 5-lane bridge structure. Concept B: Concept B was developed to mitigate the first two disadvantages (listed above) of Concept A. This was achieved by foreshortening the south end of the 700'-radius curve so as to provide an alignment between the DEIS alignment and Concept A alignment. There would be an alignment shift(compared with the DEIS Concept) of approximately 93 feet at the maximum point which occurs near Sta. 47+00. This alignment would not converge with the DEIS alignment until Sta. 33+30 to the south, and would encroach a little further to the east between Sta. 33+30 and Sta. 43+00. Compromises: 1. Less wetland functional impact than the DEIS Concept. More impact to the Delta wetland area than Concept A,but virtually no impact to the wetland area at the weir intake structure. 2. Less bridge skew(43 degrees)than the DEIS Concept, but more skew than Concept A. Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension -3- May 12, 1997 Advantages (compared with Concept A): 1. Avoids impacting the existing constructed channel and weir intake structure near Sta.43+00. 2. Avoids impacting the corner of Boeing's parking lot, and provides adequate driveway storage length for vehicles exiting the lot. 3. Creek-crossing structure on tangent, instead of on a curve. Disadvantages (compared with Concept A): 1. Impacts an underground pump vault near Sta. 45+00. 2. The alignment shift between Sta. 33+30 and Sta. 43+00 would impact ongoing utility installations, and may impact existing development plans for the area east of Oakesdale Avenue. Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension -4- May 12, 1997 ISSUES DEIS CONCEPT CONCEPT A CONCEPT B Meets 40 mph Design Standards Yes Yes Yes Alignment with Oakesdale Ave.north of SW 16th St. Proposed tangent aligned with curve Continuous 700' radius curve proposed Continuous 700' radius curve proposed north of SW 16th Street through intersection through intersection 0.32 acres of shading below proposed 0.09 acres of wetland impact. Impacts 0.26 acres of wetland impact. Impacts Impact upon Created Delta Wetlands bridge structure,plus 0.25 acres of the eastern edge of the created wetland the eastern edge of the created wetland wetland isolated on west side of road. between El. 10.00&El. 13.00. down to the ponded area. Impact upon Channel Wetlands 0.01 acres of wetland impact,i.e.,below 0.17 acres of wetland impact,i.e.below 0.01 acres of wetland impact,i.e.,below El. 13.00 EL. 13.00 El. 13.00 Most of area used up in the Delta Alignment shift to west creates sufficient Alignment shift to west creates sufficient Wetland Mitigation Opportunities wetland area for wetland mitigation on original area for wetland mitigation on original alignment __ alignment Length of Bridge over Springbrook Creek 400 feet 150 feet(45' -60' -45') 153 feet(45' -63' -45') Width of Bridge over Springbrook Creek Width of bridge could be reduced to 4 5 lanes required 5 lanes required lanes Skew of Bridge over Springbrook Creek 53 degrees 38 degrees 43 degrees Alignment of Bridge over Springbrook Creek On 825' radius curve On 700' radius curve On tangent Impact upon Large Stormwater Vault Requires relocation of vault No impact No impact Impact upon Weir Intake Structure No impact Requires relocation of weir and No impact culverting part of open channel Impact upon Pump Vault No impact No impact May require relocation of pump vault Has the least impact. One crossing of Has the greatest impact. Trail system Significantimpact. Part of trail system Impact upon Boeing's Trail System trail system. would need to be substantially would need to be reconstructed. reconstructed. Has the greatest impact,and would Has some impact,but should not require Impact upon Boeing's Parking Lot Access Driveway Has the least impact. require relocation of the driveway to relocation of the driveway increase storage space Has a minor impact between Sta.39+00 Has the most impact. Impacts utility Impact upon Ongoing Utility Installations No impact &Sta.42+00 installations between Sta.34+00&Sta. 42+00 Other Impacts to Boeing's Development Plans No impacts Should have minimal impact Impacts between Sta.34+00&Sta. 42+00 being reviewed Ease of Permitting May not require a COE permit if fill Uncertain,due to possibility that an Uncertain,due to possibility that an within wetland area can be avoided. Individual COE permit may be required Individual COE permit may be required Bridge Cost $2,630,000 for 5 lanes(DEIS Concept) $ $ $2,300,000 for 4 lanes Total Cost Highest overall cost Savings of$ over DEIS Concept I Savings of$ over DEIS Concept Oakesdate Avenue SW Extension - 5- May 12, 1997 Costs: The 400-foot-span bridge structure proposed in the DEIS Concept is estimated to cost approximately $2,630,000. The potential cost savings associated with Concepts A and B primarily result from the much shorter bridge structure required and the reduced skew angle of the Springbrook Creek crossing. These cost savings are estimated to be approximately $ for both Concepts A and B. There are a number of other cost differences between the three concepts. The most significant of these costs are associated with relocating the following drainage structures: - The large stormwater vault on the south side of the Creek(required for DEIS Concept) - The constructed channel and weir intake structure near Sta. 43+00 (required for Concept A) - The underground pump vault near Sta. 45+00 (required for Concept B). Further information from Boeing is required in order to determine these potential costs. Conclusions: The advantages and disadvantages of the three alignment alternatives are summarized in the matrix on the preceding page. Concepts A and B both represent significant improvements over the DEIS Concept in terms of the following: ■ Wetland functional impacts ■ Length, skew and cost of bridge structure over Springbrook Creek ■ Make wetland mitigation area available east of roadway within the Delta wetland system. The choice between Concept A and Concept B is a more difficult one, and one that should not be made on the basis of potential cost savings alone. There are several tradeoffs to be made in comparing these alternatives. Concept A would have the least impact upon the constructed Delta wetlands but would, instead, impact the channel and created wetland area west of the weir intake structure. The interests of the Boeing Company need to be considered in the decision-making process. If Boeing were to decide that it had no strong preference for one concept over the other, it is suggested that the decision as to which concept be selected be based upon which of these concepts is considered to be the easiest to permit. Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension - 6- May 12, 1997 SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE: D 7, m n r U L' ..�. -- i 2 l rr (n \ O � 0 D o0, \. o `. (D O a CD D `. a D n o r o ^ (D O f -0 Twig_ a 0-0 0 < � o w o� 1 i I --- - --- , 1 m SURVEYED BY: CHECKED BY: SMa CITY OF RENTON DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: RMA DATE BY REVISION CK•D APPR. OAKESDALE EXTENSION KATOI� = 2003 Western Avenue 555 m CONCEPT A WARREN ISeattle,kWA98120ne INCORPORATED M(206)448-4200 REN TON WASHINGTON N SCALE: PROJECT NO. DRAWING FILE NAME: As Shown 3-1086-2201 CNCPT700.DWG LAST EDIT: PLOT DATE: I' I � I 43.12'55" c } J ` T = 277.26' q , --- - ----- ---- -- -- e 4 i= , a CL— I - a _ --- � r 11 M 9 22'14'48" pe ait c 11 R = 1200.00' 11 T = 235.94' p � j -0 o 1 L = 465.93' o --� ----------�- ---- -- ----------- I Concept A - Skew Angle Approximately 38' Proposed Oakesdale Avenue � N �X 111 A= 35'55'24" j41 f R = 700.00' t L e -------- ------ ---- --- -------- -- ---- -- --- ---- AN 0 fe O / , 1 Oppr�. - oOki 0= 08'55'39" ! /// r 4 .•a o $ ii i - - R = 2000.00' 0 �1 CE T = 156.13' {9. �O O AL = 311.63' i O �`= — -- - -------- d i O - ------- � 1 i J I 1 I Concept B Skew Angle Approximately 43° �% Proposed Oakesdale Avenue SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE: s m 7 0 77, • �I i R' , 1 I � \ �v - III',, '� •�/ �, � _ ../—,/ o I \ i I \ \ = la In o\ l \ ,... O 0 Dn 7 a l0 O O oo _ U) aO-0 o 1\ C X •r r a �' D m F'A I I P - - a - ----- --- r •rar � v.. m � SURVEYED BY: CHECKED BY: CITY OF RENTON DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: to DATE BY REVISION CK'D APPR. OAKESDALE EXTENSION KATO& 2003 Western Avenue m CONCEPT 555a Marke t P!a ce 0 WARREN,Settle, WA98121n e INCORPORATED(206)446-4200 ro L— EN TON WASHINGTON N SCALE: PROJECT NO. DRAWING FILE NAME: As Shown 3-1086-2201 CNCPT7DD.DWG LAST EDIT: PLOT DATE: OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. EXTENSION, PHASE 1A Task Task Name Duration Start End 1997 No. (Days) May Jun I Jul I Aug I Sep Oct No NOTICE TO PROCEED 0.00 Ma ll3/97 Ma /13197 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 130.50 Ma 113/97 Nov/14/97 1.1 Prepare CPM Schedule 3.00 Ma /13/97 Ma /15/97 1.2 Monthly Progress Reports&Billings 117.50 Jun/02/97 Nov/14/97 1.3 Management,Direction&Coordination 130.50 Ma /13/97 Nov/14/97 2. IMEETINGS 130.50 Ma 113/97 Nov114197 2.1 Steering Committee 122.50 Ma /23/97 Nov/14/97 2.2 Technical Advisory Committee 125.50 Ma /20/97 Nov/14/97 2.3 Permitting Committee 125.50 Ma /20/97 Nov/14/97 2.4 Internal Team Meetings 130.50 Ma /13/97 Nov/14/97 2.5 Progress Meetings 107.50 Jun/16/97 Nov/14/97 2.6 Other Meetings 130.50 May/13/97 Nov/14/97 3. INITIAL STUDIES 28.00 Ma 113197 Jun120197 3.1 Data Collection&Review 10.00 Ma /13/97 Ma /27/97 3.2 Prepare Base Plans 8.00 Ma /13/97 Ma /22/97 3.3 Update Geometric Alignment 5.00 Ma /20/97 Ma /27/97 ■ 3.4 Update Bridge Structure TS&L 10.00 Ma /20/97 Jun/03/97 3.5 Update Drainage Concepts 10.00 Ma /20/97 Jun/03/97 3.6 Update Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan 10.00 Ma /20/97 Jun/03/97 3.7 Coordinate with Utility Agencies 20.00 Ma /14/97 Jun/11/97 3.8 Finalize Design Standards 5.00 Jun/04/97 Jun/10/97 ■ 3.9 Project Re-estimate/Cost Update 5.00 Jun/04/97 Jun/10/97 ■ 3.10 Pre are Project Definition Report 13.00 Ma /28/97 Jun/13/97 .Submit Project Definition Report 0.00 Jun/13/97 Jun113197 A � City Review of Project Definition Report 5.00 Jun116/97 Jun120197 ■ 4. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 30.00 Jun/04197 JuII16197 4.1 Geotechnical Investigation&Report 30.00 Jun/04/97 Jul/16/97 5. IPERM17TING&SEPA ACTIVITIES 110.00 Ma 113197 Oct11619 5.1 Assist City in Permitting&SEPA Activities 30.00 Ma /13/97 Jun/24/97 5.2 Dev.Draft Permit Submittals&SEPA Doc'n. 30.00 Jun/25/97 Au 06/97 5.3 Finalize Permits&SEPA Documentation 20.00 Se /19/97 Oct/16/97 5.4 Meetings with Permitting Agencies 110.00 Ma A 3/97 Oct/16/97 6. PRELIMINARY DESIGN 50°lo 38.00 JunII6197 Au /07197 6.1 Roadway Plans,Profiles&Typical Sections 18.00 Jun/16/97 Jul/10/97 6.2 Bridge Structure Plans 20.00 Jun/16/97 Jul/14/97 6.3 Drainage Layout Plan 20.00 Jun/16/97 Jul/14/97 6.4 Wetland Mitigation Plans 15.00 Jun/16/97 Jul/07/97 Printed: May/12/97 Milestone A Summary Page 1 of 2 Critical City of Renton Task Fixed Delay OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. EXTENSION, PHASE IA Task Task Name Duration Start End 1997 No. (Days) May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct No 6.5 Traffic Signals&Illumination Layout 18.00 Jun/16/97 Jul/10/97 6.6 Utility Relocation/Installation Details 18.00 Jun/16/97 Jul/10/97 6.7 Supplementary Survey 10.00 Jun/16/97 Jun/27/97 6.8 Right-of-Way Plans 15.00 Jun/16/97 Jul/07/97 6.9 Right-of-Way Legal Descriptions 15.00 Jun/23/97 Jul/14/97 6.10 Preliminary Cost Estimate 10.00 Jul/03/97 Jul/17/97 6.11 Identify Special Provisions Re wired 16.00 Jun/23/97 Jul/15/97 6.12 Quality Assurance 28.00 Jun/16/97 Jul/24/97 6.13 Assemble Preliminary Design(50%) 5.00 Jul/18/97 Jul/24/97 ■ Submit Prelintina Design 50% 0.00 JuII24197 JuII24/97 City Review of Preliminary Design 50% 10.00 Jul/25/97 Au /O7/97 7. FINAL DESIGN&PS&E 80.00 Jul/25/97 Nov/14197 7.1 Typical Sections 15.00 Jul/25/97 Au 14/97 7.2 Plans&Profiles 40.00 Jul/25/97 Se /19/97 7.3 Drainage Plans 40.00 Jul/25/97 Se /19/97 7.4 Utility Relocation/Installation Plans 30.00 Jul/25/97 Se /05/97 7.5 Bridge&Structures Plans 40.00 Jul/25/97 Sep/19/97 7.6 Traffic Signal Plans 30.00 Jul/25/97 Se /05/97 j 7.7 Illumination Plans 30.00 Jul/25/97 Se /05/97 7.8 Traffic Control Plans 15.00 Jul/25/97 Au 14/97 7.9 Signing&Pavement Marking Plans 14.00 Au 29/97 Se /18/97 7.10 Wetland Mitigation Plans 20.00 Au 08/97 Se /05/97 7.11 Landscape Design Plans 25.00 Au 08/97 Se /12/97 ■� 7.12 Erosion Control Plans&Scour Evaluation 25.00 Au 08/97 Se /12/97 7.13 Miscellaneous Plans 35.00 Jul/25/97 Se /12/97 7.14 Special Provisions 28.00 Au 08/97 Se /17/97 7.15 Quality Assurance 35.00 Au /08/97 Se /26/97 7.16 Assemble Draft PS&E(95%) 5.00 Se /22/97 Se /26/97 ■ Submit Draft PS&F, 9567c) 0.00 Se /26197 Se /26197 G City Review of Drct t PS&E 951-7c 15.00 Se /29197 Oct/17197 7.17 Respond to Review Comments 15.00 Oct/20/97 Nov/07/97 7.18 Final Quantities 10.00 Se /29/97 Oct/10/97 7.19 Final Cost Estimate 5.00 Oct/09/97 Oct/15/97 ■ 7.20 Cross Sections&Staking Details 15.00 Se /29/97 Oct/17/97 7.21 Assemble Final PS&E(100%) 5.00 Nov/10/97 Nov/14/97 ■ Submit Final PS&E I00% 0.00 Nov/14197 Nov114I97 i Printed: May/12/97 Milestone 4 Summary Page 2 of 2 Critical City of Renton Task Fixed Delay --- 00 '� s �� 02 ll ►�1,�— tit 7eee a°y ��d State of Washington MAY 13 1997 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N•Olympia,WA 98501-1091 •(360)902-2200,TDD(36Q�W-Y20F RENTON Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building• 1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia 0 WORKS ADMIN, May 6, 1997 Mr. Gregg Zimmerman Planning/Building/ Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Subject: Oaksdale Avenue S.W. ,S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 31st Street, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Dear Mr. Zimmerman: The following are my comments regarding this document: 1 . Surface Water/Quantity and Quality, Page 3. 4-3, Paragraph 2, Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPA) will be required for the bridge over Springbrook Creek , stormwater outfalls and for the discharge of stormwater into Springbrook Creek. We will require that stormwater discharge meets the requirements of the Departments of Ecology Stormwater Manual For Puget Sound. In addition WDFW recommends wet ponds and bioswales for water quality instead of underground vaults. I am concerned that the vaults will not get the proper maintenance. 2 . Wetlands- Page 3. 5-1, A.WDFW also has authority for wetlands associated with Springbrook Creek in addition WDFW wetland policy requires that if there is a HPA for a project than WDFW will require 2:1 mitigation for all wetland impacts even if they are not associated with Springbrook Creek. B.Project Construction Overview, Page 3.5-8 Last Paragraph-I would recommend and support the removal of the embankment supporting the paved access road be removed between wetland F and the South Marsh and wetland F and Wetland G. This would provide better access for animals to utilize this wetland system without crossing roads or going through culverts. 3 . Wildlife, Vegetation, and Fisheries A.Page 3. 6-4 , Paragraph 3 - numerous swallows nested in old barns on the Longacres Office Park Property. B.Page 3. 6-5, Paragraph 7 - The grass fields and wetland pastures provide foraging habitat for raptors. These areas will be lost as development impact increases. C. Dolly varden do not use Springbrook Creek. I would like to thank you for the opportunity comment on this document. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 391-4365. Sipcerely, Philip Schneider cc Ted Muller- WDFW Habitat Biologist Rod Malcomb - Mukelshoot Tribe Jane Banyard- WDFW, Olympia CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mavor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 12, 1997 Rick Ford Permit Administrator Longacres Office Park Development Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707, MS 2R-26 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 RE: Oakesdale Avenue SW - SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street Stormwater System Design Dear Rick: This letter is to confirm our discussions regarding the stormwater system for the portion of Oakesdale Avenue extending from the crest of the bridge over Springbrook Creek to the southern boundary of the system south of SW 19th Street. This topic was the subject of one of the recommendations made by the Value Engineering (VE) panel who reviewed the pre- liminary design of the project in April, as mandated by the Transportation Improvement Board. The VE panel recommended that runoff from this area of the project should be piped to a treatment wet vault and discharged to the delta wetlands, constructed by Boeing in connec- tion with the CSTC project, immediately east of Oakesdale. This approach would keep water in the delta system and would result in a cost saving to the road project by utilizing the avail- able detention capacity of the delta system. You will recall that, in our response to the VE recommendations, in which you participated, we agreed in principle to implementing this recommendation, subject to the proviso that it would have to be determined that it would not be injurious to Boeing's interests. We understand that you will have to verify how much additional capacity the delta area has to receive the runoff from the roadway. In addition to the potential cost savings, we believe the following reasons are supportive of a decision to implement this recommendation: • It avoids a second outfall to Springbrook Creek • The delta area provides additional water quality benefits that will enhance Conditions in Springbrook Creek 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer The Boeing Company Page 2 May 13, 1997 • If the runoff is not discharged to the delta it would be routed directly to the creek. This would diminish the amount of water entering the delta and might require an increase in the supply of maintenance water to the wetland. • The delta design appears to have significant unused capacity • The impervious area added by this segment of roadway is less than 10 per- cent of the impervious area of the CSTC facility. Impacts upon the delta area will be minimal and barely discernible. The City would like Boeing's approval to adopt this recommended approach. Upon approval by Boeing, the City will pursue all permitting issues as part of the overall Oakesdale permit process. All possible precautions would be taken to prevent, by containment, any contamina- tion by possible spills or pollutants from the roadway. We shall need formal easements from Boeing for the wet vault, the pipelines and the discharge to the delta area. In summary, the City believes that the recommended modification to the proposed road drainage system would be beneficial from the standpoint both of environmental and cost considerations, and should be looked on favorably by the permitting agencies. We would appreciate your help in advising us how to proceed with this request. If you have any ques- tions, or would like to meet to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me at 277-6223. Sincerely, , Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor cc: Dick Warren, Kato&Warren Sandra Meyer Scott Woodbury Mark Pywell h:\...\lin\oakesdal\boeing-l.doc DATE A 1E AL/D TE� May 12, 1997 Rick Ford Permit Administrator Longacres Office Park Development Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707, MS 2R-26 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 RE: Oakesdale Avenue SW - SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street Stormwater System Design Dear Rick: SQUn(�:51 54,0�,, S o U-4-t,4 0�- aF This letter is to confi�m our disclsions regarding the stormwater system for the p tion of Oakesdale Avenue bGwieeff the eenof the bridge over Springbrook Creek,-WSW 19th Street. This topic was the subject of one of the recommendations made by the Value Engineering (VE) panel who reviewed the preliminary design of the project in April, as mandated by the Transportation Improvement Board. The VE panel recommended that runoff from this area of the project should be piped to a treatment wet vault and discharged to the delta wetlands, constructed by Boeing in con- nection with the CSTC project, immediately east of Oakesdale. This approach would keep water in the delta system and would result in a cost saving to the road project by utilizing the available detention capacity of the delta system. You will recall that, in our response to the VE recommendations, in which you participated, we agreed in principle to implementing this recommendation, subject to the proviso that it would have to be de- termined that i �ould no beurious o Boein 's ingests. We u erstand that you will have to verifynt capac t�U rgMW fie run g from the roadway ft aer 111 yaflre for the �rn,tr;b„tion expe� Opmen O ties ea. In addition to the potential cost savings, we believe the following reasons are supportive of a decision to implement this recommendation: 0 It avoids a second outfall to Springbrook Creek The Boeing Company Page 2 May 12, 1997 • The delta area provides additional water quality benefits that will enhance conditions in Springbrook Creek • d additio the peak -rate Routing the runoff directly to the creek will diminish the amount of water entering the delta and may require an increase in the supply of maintenance water to the wetland. • The delta design appears to have significant unused capacity DH,X�y !�"�nu� IJJ/6 • The impervious area added by this segment of roadway is 4fie e CSTC facility e feet e i� pe�rieus-s�tifee. Impacts upon the delta area will be minimal and barely discernible. The City would like Boeing's approval to adopt this recommended approach. Upon ap- proval by Boeing, the City will pursue all permitting issues as part of the overall Oakes- dale permit process. All possible precautions would be taken to prevent, by containment, any contamination by possible spills or pollutants from the roadway. We shall need for- mal easements from Boeing for the wet vault, the pipelines and the discharge to the delta area. In summary, the City believes that the recommended modification to the proposed road drainage system would be beneficial from the standpoint both of environmental and cost considerations, and should be looked on favorably by the permitting agencies. We would appreciate your help in advising us how to proceed with this request. If you have any questions, or would like to meet to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me at 277-6223. Sincerely, Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor cc: Dick Warren, Kato&Warren Sandra Meyer Scott Woodbury Mark Pywell Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date 3 To #of y�� Fro Pag/es► Co./Dept. q t0 F'(,� Co. Phone# Phone# Fax# Fax# r� c'Clsa,. o�. Z June 29, 1992 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: THE BOEING COMPANY Customer Service Training Center (CSTC) Longacres Site File No.: SA;SM;-92-006 LOCATION: Longacres Drive, S of I-405 and N of SW 19th Street (if extended) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Boeing Company is seeking Site Plan approval and a Substantial Shoreline Master Permit for the development of an approximately 638,242 square-foot training center complex (CSTC) on an approximately 51 acre site. This training center is intended to provide specialized flight simulation instruction for airline transport personnel. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Division Recommendation: Approval with Conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES The Development Services Division Report was received by DIVISION REPORT: the Examiner on May 12, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Division Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on May 19, 1992, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner clarified the purpose of the hearing, stating that a site plan approval was being considered, not demolition permits for any of the buildings on the site. The environmental determination, which was final and conclusive and was not appealed, also was not to be considered at this hearing. All that was being determined was whether the proposal for the training facility and the shoreline permit were appropriate for the site. He said that whether Longacres should continue to exist or be subsumed by the Boeing project was not a subject for discussion. While the public had a right to petition and ask the City to change its opinion, that was not the issue before this body at this time. He stressed that he would not entertain testimony that was not relevant. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. (This is not a verbatim transcription, but rather, a summary of the testimony.) The Boeing Company SA;SM;-92-006 June 29, 1992 Page 28 25. In summary, while the proposal will alter the local environment, it appears to do so in a sensitive manner, and in so doing provides a well-designed complex, public amenities, habitat enhancement, and economic benefits to the community. 26. It would be unseemly not to address, outside the framework of the decision itself, the issues that many people tried to raise at the public hearing. This office cannot ignore the emotions that formed the background for this proceeding. Not only does it seem appropriate to acknowledge those emotions but to add that this office reluctantly found it necessary to limit the nature of the testimony to issues that were relevant to a review of the applicant's proposal. Those criteria scrutinize an applicant's proposal vis a vis the site and vicinity. Those criteria are not concerned with displacing existing uses. This office also finds it lamentable that a unique way of life that found its home in Renton, that open green space, and that another critical segment in the area's, and more importantly, the City's economic diversity is being lost. That acknowledgement, though, cannot replace the structure and rules for reviewing this particular application. Those rules, as indicated, required limiting testimony and focusing the discussion to the proposed use of the land, not the loss of the current use. While the applicant has indicated a willingness to commemorate the Longacres Race Track, the provision of the commemorative plaque is a token "gesture" that merely reflects the irony involved in the loss of a major amenity, employer, taxpayer, diverse economic asset, and unique place. DECISION The Site Plan is approved and the Shoreline Permit should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The applicant shall provide a revised upland landscaping plan that reflects a wetland ecosystem and discourages use of mere ornamental plants. These plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall be bound to use whatever resources are necessary to create a viable wetland environment and not abandon the effort as a failure after an initial five-year period. The applicant shall be required to commit at least 20 years to forging a successful wetland environment in all of the areas that it alters in pursuance of this wetland proposal. Wetlands are a delicate balance of water, land, plants, and animals and can take many years to come to equilibrium. The applicant will be expected to provide the time and resources to permit this natural process an opportunity to work. In the event the wetland enhancement fails, the applicant shall retain all such former wetland area as permanent open space and habitat. The boggy area that now exists on this site shall be restored to closely approximate the current conditions. In addition, the applicant shall provide funds to fulfill its wetland obligations in the City wetlands bank. 4. The applicant shall contribute to the Fire Benefit Zone for the Valley an amount not less than $331,886.00 which is based on the analysis found in Resolution #2895 and its supporting documents. ;y CITY OF RENTON T R Planning/Building/Public Works Department Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 22, 1997 Jill K. Nelson, P.E., CVS Watermark Engineering ' 4535 SW Concord Street Seattle, WA 98136 Re: Oakesdale Avenue SW- SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street Response to Value Engineering Recommendations 1119 Dear Ms. Nelson: The City, and our partner in the Oakesdale project, the Boeing Company, have completed a preliminary review of the recommendations of the Value Engineering workshop conducted during the week of April 7, 1997. The conclusions we have reached are described below. Cost-saving proposals (initial phase) to be pursued: A list of fifteen proposals for reconfiguring elements of the project to achieve cost savings was compiled by the panel. Some of these are mutually exclusive, so we have been able to defer consideration of them if we decide to implement an incompatible alternative. The baseline project, against which potential savings are measured, is the initial phase consisting of a three- lane development between SW 16th and SW 27th Streets. We intend to modify the scope of this initial phase as defined in the Supplemental preliminary design report to incorporate the following recommendations. Where appropriate,we shall need to verify that approval is avail- able from permit agencies and affected property owners. We shall also be reevaluating the cost impact of the adopted recommendations as we develop an updated project cost estimate. Proposal No. 1 -Drainage modifications: Three recommendations were put forward for a more cost-effective arrangement of the drainage system in the vicinity of SW 19th. Proposal No. la considered discharging runoff directly to the large Boeing pond west of the site. We believe that the estimated costs were understated, and Boeing questioned the feasibility and acceptability of the proposal. Proposals Nos. lb and I considered use of surface ponds instead of a detention/treatment vault, and discharge to the created wetland adjacent to Springbrook Creek. The impact of the extensive area required for the ponds would conflict with future development proposed on Boeing property. In- stead of the ponds, the City's design team,with Boeing's concurrence, will pursue an alternative of using a buried wet vault, in combination with Proposal No. 1 w for dis- charge to the created wetland. The resulting savings have not yet been calculated. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 8 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer r April22, 1997 Page 2 Proposals Nos. 4 and 5 -Drainage modifications: Proposals No. 2 through 5 all re- late to the handling of drainage between SW 19th and SW 27th. Proposal No. 5, a shift in the boundary between drainage basins C and D, is acceptable in principle, but needs further evaluation to determine the potential savings. Proposal No. 4, in combination with Proposal No. 4w, would use water quality swales in preference to water quality ponds and would reduce wetland impacts and have less backwater influence on the roadway drainage system. This will be implemented, but further study is required to quantify the cost savings. Adoption of Proposal No. 4 is not compatible with Proposals No. 2 and 3, so the latter will not be pursued. Proposal No. 6 -Use drilled shafts instead of driven piles for bridge foundations: We agree with the VE panel's conclusion that drilled shafts will give superior perform- ance and constructability as well as cost savings. For the 400-foot-long north bridge (Proposal No. 6a) the estimated savings is $83,000. Proposal No. 6b addressed the 600- foot-long bridge south of SW 27th. Consideration of this proposal is moot if either of Proposals No. 9 or 10 are adopted The point was also made that a long-term savings can be realized if shafts for the future widening of the north bridge can be installed in the initial construction. The cost of re- mobilization of the large drilling rig is $40,000-50,000. Shafts to support future super- structure would be capped below grade. We concur that this work should be included in the initial construction. Proposal No. 7-North bridge pier cap redesign: The panel recommended that the pier column and cap as designed by HNTB should be replaced with column extensions at each shaft to support the superstructure and pier caps combined with the deck dia- phragms. Savings are estimated as $19,300 for the 400-foot-long north bridge. This proposal is acceptable, and the recommendation will be reflected in the revised Type, Size and Location Report to be prepared by the design team. Proposal No. 11 - Shorten the north bridge by filling the wetlands: The VE panel recommended filling the portions of the Boeing CSTC mitigation wetland that would be shaded by the bridge,thus reducing the total length of the three-lane bridge over Springbrook Creek by 57 percent, and the cost by $481,000. The panel's wetland ex- pert opined that the effect might be considered beneficial to the remaining wetland in that a vegetative screen could be developed. Mitigation of disturbed wetland would be required either for filling or shading the existing wetland, so would cost no more for the fill option (see Proposal 1 lw). The City and Boeing agree with this proposal. Currently, the design team is working on further refinement of the bridge design, to determine if additional savings are possible. In verifying the feasibility of this proposal, it will be determined whether Boeing's ob- ligations to establish and maintain the CSTC mitigation wetland have to be formally amended, or whether the City's 404 permit can transfer the appropriate responsibilities April 22, 1997 Page 3 satisfactorily. Further study is also needed regarding retention or relocation of the ex- isting outfall structure in the proposed right-of-way. The VE panel estimated the cost of replacing the vault with a simplified structure (without fish screens) at$25,000. Cost-saving proposals (future construction) to be pursued: The VE panel was requested to examine alternative configurations for the segment of the proj- ect to be constructed in the future south of SW 27th. The City's request for this examination was based upon the need to determine the preferred alignment of the roadway immediately north of SW 27th, as well as VE validation of the roadway configuration for a project the T.I.B. may consider for future funding. The panel also proposed that the width of the ultimate north bridge be limited to four lanes. Proposals Nos. 9, 10 -Project configuration south of SW 27th Street: The prelimi- nary project design between SW 27th and SW 31st Streets was for approach fills and a 600-foot-long bridge structure over a portion of the wetland area. The proposed fill and bridge was to be located to the east of the Metro 72-inch trunk sewer. The VE panel's Proposal No. 9 is to place fill to the east of the existing two-lane road (over the Metro 108-inch trunk sewer) in lieu of building a bridge. Hydraulic continu- ity between the wetlands to the east and west would be enhanced by the provision of three box culverts under the new fill and the existing road. The footprint of the new fill would be comparable with that of the approach fills proposed in the preliminary design, and the arrangement would avoid the shading caused by the previously-proposed bridge. The estimated cost savings are $3,700,000. The City and Boeing are enthusiastic in pursuing this recommendation, and we intend to conduct appropriate investigations during the design phase to verify its feasibility. These will include geotechnical exploration and analysis of the effect of added fill upon the Metro trunk lines, determination of Metro's property rights along the pipeline easements, and verification of the scope and cost of required wetland mitigation. Proposal No. 10 involves widening the existing two-lane road by installing structural decks on either side of the existing fill. The type of structure proposed is a series of precast prestressed concrete planks, supported along the outboard edge by an edge beam on drilled shaft foundations, and along the inboard edge by a grade beam founda- tion. The estimated cost savings are $2,231,000, but this proposal will only be consid- ered further if Proposal No. 9 cannot be implemented. The panel recommended that, whatever the final configuration of the roadway south of 27th, the initial construction north of 27th should maintain a straight alignment, and should not follow the reverse curve alignment of the HNTB layout. Proposal Nos. 12 - Ultimate width of North Bridge: The VE panel recommended that future widening of the bridge between SW 16th and SW 19th Streets be limited to April 22, 1997 Page 4 four lanes (a reduction in deck width of 12 feet from that proposed in the preliminary design). The City and Boeing concur in this recommendation, subject to verification by traffic analysis that the fifth lane is not required for the storage of traffic making turns at SW 16th or SW 19th Streets. The estimated savings for a 400-foot-long north bridge was given as $288,000 (a revised figure)that would be reduced by adoption of Proposal No. 11,to reduce the length of the bridge. Technical Comments: The panel recorded a number of suggestions relating to proposals not explored in further detail, and observations that might be considered by the design team in the final design process. The City will request that the design team consider the following comments during final design. Utility Provisions (#3,97): Provision should be made for the north bridge to accommo- date a 12-to 16-inch water main, and other private utilities, including fiber optic and other telecommunication lines. Utility stubs should be provided to serve adjacent prop- erties that may be developed. Redesign or relocation of the existing drainage vault (#5): (See Proposal No. 11) Options should be examined of modifying the existing outlet vault to maintain access, or providing a replacement structure at another location. Channel Widening Project(#8): Close coordination between the roadway project and the adjacent City project to widen Springbrook Creek channel is desirable. Coordination should include exchange of design information, coordination of the permit process for the two projects to the extent possible, and coordination between road, bridge and channel construction. Without construction coordination, access may be more difficult for fol- low-on construction, and costs may be higher to work around new structures. Concurrent construction in the same area by two separate contractors would also be undesirable. Consideration should be given to including elements of the channel widening project within or near the road right-of-way in the Oakesdale Avenue construction package. Stability of approach fills in the vicinity of bridge abutments (0): In view of the liquefaction potential of the foundation soils, alternative measures should be considered to reduce the potential damage under seismic conditions. Options include stone col- umns and retaining the approach fills using MSE walls. Preferred MSE Wall type (#10): The most suitable type of mechanically stabilized earth(reinforced earth) wall would be the Hilfiker type, being very tolerant to settle- ment, and capable of allowing vegetation to establish on the wall faces. Redesign Basin F Drainage System (#11): The runoff from drainage basin F at the north end of the project should be changed to incorporate an underground vault in place of the biofiltration swale. April 22, 1997 Page 5 Revise the design of the off-site drainage line crossing Oakesdale in Basin C (#13): It appears feasible to modify the drainage crossing by adjusting elevations and provid- ing a structure at the outfall. Geotechnical Conditions: Investigation to date has not included any borings to or below expected foundation depths. Additional exploration is required to develop design data. Effect of fill on buried pipes: South of SW 27th, investigation is required to predict the effect on buried Metro lines of placing additional fill. Piling: Driven piling, including placement of a cofferdam and construction of a pile cap, can only be installed during the fish construction window(6115 - 9/15) and would effectively prevent completion of the north bridge in 1998. Use of drilled shafts would allow an earlier start and more rapid completion of the substructure. High water table: Groundwater conditions may require dewatering for trench con- struction, and design of buried facilities against flotation. Bridge Superstructure: If the bridge deck is to be built to partial width, and extended to full width later, access for the second stage of construction will be easier if the east por- tion is built first(assuming access for Stage 2 construction is available through Boeing property). Our responses to the VE panel's recommendation were discussed with you and Bob Moorhead, representing the T.I.B., at the VE implementation meeting held on Tuesday,April 22, 1997. We shall be proceeding with final design immediately following Board approval (scheduled for April 25, 1997) based upon adoption of the recommendations as described above. In conclusion, may we commend you and members of the panel for the expertise and enthusi- asm that you directed towards the examination and refinement of the Oakesdale Avenue proj- ect. We consider the outcome to be a valuable contribution towards accomplishment of a cost- effective project. Sincerely, cc: Joe Armstrong, Bob Mahn Mark Pywell, Scott Woodbury i Rick Ford(Boeing) ( Bob Moorhead(T.I.B.) Bart'Knight(K&W) " Brad Stein(Entranco) Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor hA...\lin\ve-resp.doc � TO V12,Z,07 &oi 4 April 21, 1997 DRAFT Jill K. Nelson, P.E., CVS Watermark Engineering 4535 SW Concord Street Seattle, WA 98136 Re: Oakesdale Avenue SW- SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street Response to Value Engineering Recommendations Dear Ms. Nelson: The City, and our partner in the Oakesdale project, the Boeing Company, have completed a preliminary review of the recommendations of the Value Engineering workshop conducted during the week of April 7, 1997. The conclusions we have reached are described below. Cost-saving proposals (initial phase) to be pursued: A list of fifteen proposals for reconfiguring elements of the project to achieve cost savings was compiled by the panel. Some of these are mutually exclusive, so we have been able to defer consideration of them if we decide to implement an incompatible alternative. The baseline project, against which potential savings are measured, is the initial phase consisting of a three- lane development between SW 16th and SW 27th Streets. We intend to modify the scope of this initial phase as defined in the Supplemental preliminary design report to incorporate the following recommendations. Where appropriate, we shall need to verify that approval is avail- able from permit agencies and affected property owners. We shall also be reevaluating the cost impact of the adopted recommendations as we develop an updated project cost estimate. Proposal No. 1 - Drainage modifications: Three recommendations were put forward for a more cost-effective arrangement of the drainage system in the vicinity of SW 19th. Proposal No. 1 a considered discharging runoff directly to the large Boeing pond west of the site. We believe that the estimated costs were understated, and Boeing questioned the feasibility and acceptability of the proposal. Proposals Nos. 1 b and 1 w considered use of surface ponds instead of a detention/treatment vault, and discharge to the created wetland adjacent to Springbrook Creek. The impact of the extensive area required for the ponds would conflict with future development proposed on Boeing property. In- stead of the ponds, the City's design team, with Boeing's concurrence, will pursue an alternative of using a buried wet vault, in combination with Proposal No. 1 w for dis- charge to the created wetland. The resulting savings have not yet been calculated. � a April 22, 1997 Page 2 Proposals Nos. 4 and 5 - Drainage modifications: Proposals No. 2 through 5 all re- late to the handling of drainage between SW 19th and SW 27th. Proposal No. 5, a shift in the boundary between drainage basins C and D, is acceptable in principle, but needs further evaluation to determine the potential savings. Proposal No. 4, in combination with Proposal No. 4w, would use water quality swales in preference to water quality ponds and would reduce wetland impacts and have less backwater influence on the roadway drainage system. Proposal No. 6 - Use drilled shafts instead of driven piles for bridge foundations: We agree with the VE panel's conclusion that drilled shafts wi4 give superior perform- ance and constructability as well as cost savings. For the 400-foot-long north bridge (Proposal No. 6a)the estimated savings is $83,000. Proposal No. 6b addressed the 600- foot-long bridge south of SW 27th. Consideration of this proposal is moot if either of Proposals No. 9 or 10 are adopted The point was also made that a long-term savings can be realized if shafts for the future widening of the north bridge can be installed in the initial construction. The cost of re- mobilization of the large drilling rig is $40,000-50,000. Shafts to support future super- structure would be capped below grade. We concur that this work should be included in the initial construction. Proposal No. 7 -North bridge pier cap redesign: The panel recommended that the pier column and cap as designed by HNTB should be replaced with column extensions at each shaft to support the superstructure and pier caps combined with the deck dia- phragms. Savings are estimated as $19,300 for the 400-foot-long north bridge. This proposal is acceptable, and the recommendation will be reflected in the revised Type, Size and Location Report to be prepared by the design team. Proposal No. 11 - Shorten the north bridge by filling the wetlands: The VE panel recommended filling the portions of the Boeing CSTC mitigation wetland that would be shaded by the bridge, thus reducing the total length of the bridge over Springbrook Creek by 57 percent, and the cost by $541,000. The panel's wetland expert opined that the effect might be considered beneficial to the remaining wetland in that a vegetative screen could be developed. Mitigation of disturbed wetland would be required either for filling or shading the existing wetland, so would cost no more for the fill option (see Proposal 11 w). The City and Boeing agree with this proposal. Currently, the design team is working on further refinement of the bridge design, to determine if additional savings can be iden- tified. In verifying the feasibility of this proposal, there will be a need to determine if Boeing's obligations to establish and maintain the CSTC mitigation wetland have to be formally amended, or whether the City's 404 permit can transfer the appropriate re- sponsibilities satisfactorily. Further study is also needed regarding retention or reloca- tion of the existing outfall structure in the proposed right-of-way. The VE panel esti- April 22, 1997 Page 3 mated the cost of replacing the vault with a simplified structure (without fish screens) at $25,000. Cost-saving proposals (future construction) to be pursued: The VE panel was requested to examine alternative configurations for the segment of the proj- ect to be constructed in the future south of SW 27th. The City's request for this examination was based upon the need to determine the preferred alignment of the roadway immediately north of SW 27th, as well as VE validation of the roadway configuration for a project the T.I.B. may consider for future funding. The panel also proposed that the width of the ultimate north bridge be limited to four lanes. Proposals Nos. 9, 10 - Project configuration south of SW 27th Street: The prelimi- nary project design between SW 27th and SW 31st Streets was for approach fills and a 600-foot-long bridge structure over a portion of the wetland area. The proposed fill and bridge was to be located to the east of the Metro 72-inch trunk sewer. The VE panel's Proposal No. 9 is to place fill to the east of the existing two-lane road (over the Metro 108-inch trunk sewer) in lieu of building a bridge. Hydraulic continu- ity between the wetlands to the east and west would be enhanced by the provision of three box culverts under the new fill and the existing road. The footprint of the new fill would be comparable with that of the approach fills proposed in the preliminary design, and the arrangement would avoid the shading caused by the previously-proposed bridge. The estimated cost savings are $3,700,000. The City and Boeing are enthusiastic in pursuing this recommendation, and we intend to conduct appropriate investigations during the design phase to verify its feasibility. These will include geotechnical exploration and analysis of the effect of added fill upon the Metro trunk lines, determination of Metro's property rights along the pipeline easements, and verification of the scope and cost of required wetland mitigation. Proposal No. 10 involves widening the existing two-lane road by installing structural decks on either side of the existing fill. The type of structure proposed is a series of precast prestressed concrete planks, supported along the outboard edge by an edge beam on drilled shaft foundations, and along the inboard edge by a grade beam founda- tion. The estimated cost savings are $2,231,000, but this proposal will only be consid- ered further if Proposal No. 9 cannot be implemented. The panel recommended that, whatever the final configuration of the roadway south of 27th, the initial construction north of 27th should maintain a straight alignment, and should not follow the reverse curve alignment of the HNTB layout. Proposal Nos. 12 - Ultimate width of North Bridge: The VE panel recommended that future widening of the bridge between SW 16th and SW 19th Streets be limited to four lanes (a reduction in deck width of 12 feet from that proposed in the preliminary w y April 22, 1997 Page 4 design). The City and Boeing concur in this recommendation, subject to verification by traffic analysis that the fifth lane is not required for the storage of traffic making turns at SW 16th or SW 19th Streets. The estimated savings for a 400-foot-long north bridge was given as $480,000, but this is believed to be an overly optimistic figure, that will be even further reduced by adoption of Proposal No. 11, to reduce the length of the bridge. Technical Comments: The panel recorded a number of suggestions relating to proposals not explored in further detail, and observations that might be considered by the design team in the final design process. The City will request that the design team consider the following comments during final design. Utility Provisions: Provision should be made for the north bridge to accommodate a 12- to 16-inch water main, and other private utilities, including fiber optic and other telecommunication lines. Utility stubs should be provided to serve adjacent properties that may be developed. Stability of approach fills in the vicinity of bridge abutments: In view of the lique- faction potential of the foundation soils, alternative measures should be considered to reduce the potential damage under seismic conditions. Options include stone columns and retaining the approach fills using MSE walls. Preferred MSE Wall type: The most suitable type of mechanically stabilized earth (reinforced earth) wall would be the Hilfiker type, being very tolerant to settlement, and capable of allowing vegetation to establish on the wall faces. Piling: Driven piling, including placement of a cofferdam and construction of a pile cap, can only be installed during the fish construction window(6/15 - 9/15) and would effectively prevent completion of the north bridge in 1998. Use of drilled shafts would allow an earlier start and more rapid completion of the substructure. Bridge Superstructure: If the bridge deck is to be built to partial width, and extended to full width later, access for the second stage of construction will be easier if the east portion is built first (assuming access for Stage 2 construction is available through Boeing property). High water table: Groundwater conditions may require dewatering for trench construc- tion, and design of buried facilities against flotation. Geotechnical Conditions: Investigation to date has not included any borings to or below expected foundation depths. Additional exploration is required to develop design data. Effect of fill on buried pipes: South of SW 27th, investigation is required to predict the effect on buried Metro lines of placing additional fill. April22, 1997 Page 5 Channel Widening Project: Close coordination between the roadway project and the adjacent City project to widen Springbrook Creek channel is desirable. Coordination should include exchange of design information, coordination of the permit process for the two projects to the extent possible, and coordination between road, bridge and channel construction. Without construction coordination, access may be more difficult for fol- low-on construction, and costs may be higher to work around new structures. Concurrent construction in the same area by two separate contractors would also be undesirable. Consideration should be given to including elements of the channel widening project within or near the road right-of-way in the Oakesdale Avenue construction package. Redesign Basin F Drainage System: The runoff from drainage basin F at the north end of the project should be changed to incorporate an underground vault in place of the biofiltration Swale. Revise the design of the off-site drainage line crossing Oakesdale in Basin C: It ap- pears feasible to modify the drainage crossing by adjusting elevations and providing a structure at the outfall. Redesign or relocation of the existing drainage vault: (See Proposal No. 11) Options should be examined of modifying the existing outlet vault to maintain access, or provid- ing a replacement structure at another location. Our responses to the VE panel's recommendation were discussed with you and Bob Moorhead, representing the T.I.B., at the VE implementation meeting held on Tuesday, April 22, 1997. We shall be proceeding with final design immediately following Board approval (scheduled for April 25, 1997) based upon adoption of the recommendations as described above. In conclusion, may we commend you and members of the panel for the expertise and enthusi- asm that you directed towards the examination and refinement of the Oakesdale Avenue proj- ect. We consider the outcome to be a valuable contribution towards accomplishment of a cost- effective project. Sincerely, cc: Joe Armstrong, Bob Mahn Mark Pywell, Scott Woodbury Rick Ford(Boeing) Bob Moorhead(T.I.B.) Barry Knight(K&W) Brad Stein(Entranco) Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor h:\...\I in\ve-resp.doc �ZP7 g 5 d �fC17 4V rwt - ---- - Pre ,/`G �1�i/)t, d.� O��' 1 W j2� Gc/t L'CI 1uJ/& r-J�fS ���L".lG.�`lrr� • ���`P.. w)/'in ���L� ,r ✓7� �!9'13�. �LPp�`� g �-Fil/��r,� �F frPufos�-S Acccy i- w, NLr n oo4(-),4Aons kx,, au/f,, loickv�Gt{✓Cn -� �J"U✓!o� ��' cXffyylq e g q v�d fir,-��:� 7'0 ,*.tat 5- /'bt 44/m.- rc o� or low'+ . �FwtsS with /wn S ��� �Qi•'ly �7 y��ic �i✓tl� lc,;ilq y .,/-a 1ti;4 G1F�M e� A4(-VV4,," �-i- 5hY -f 47i 46 clCc4 L-i4 NAe-s. OAKESDALE AVENUE SW SW 16th to SW 27th Street Implementation Meeting TIME ITEM 9:00 AM Introductions 9:15 Recap of Project 9:30 Review of Proposals- Recap Discussion Decision Accept Accept w/ modifications Further Study Reject Comments 10.30 Review/ Comments on Technical Comments 11:00 Adjourn PROTOTAL.XLS/Sheet3 Watermark Engineering 4/21/97 OAKESDALE AVENUE SW (SW 16th to SW 27th Street) Implementation Meeting PROPOSALS SAVING ACCEPT/ Phase 1A & SAVINGS- MODIFICA FURTHER REJECT/ # 1b Phase 2 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION ACCEPT TIONS STUDY DEFER COMMENTS Storm Drainage, Water Quality and Detention for System D/E-Use 1a $114,500 Boeing Facilities 1b $111,500* Use oversized pond Ue �elv4H t Use Bioswale in lieu of treatment 2 $72,000 and detention 8' 3 $45,000 Relocate the south pond 4 $43,900* Use a water quality swale 5 $28,200 Relocate the basin boundaries / 6a $83,400* Use Drilled Shafts at North bridge_ 6b $121,000* Use Drilled Shafts at South Bdd e Use a monolithic design at north 7 $19,300* bride Not used (Stagger abutment 8 included in 11 9 $3,700,000 Use fill in lieu of South Bridge Use existing road and outriggers in 10 $2,231,000* lieu of south bride 11 $ADO Shorten North bridge and use fill 12 $288,000* Reduce the number of lanes $748,7001 37700,000 TOTAL Notes 1. * indicates mutually exclusive and not included in the total. 2. Proposal 12- reducing the number of lanes- bridge cost/ square foot has been reduced to $60/sf- proposal will be modified. - PROTOTAL.XLS/Sheet2 4/21/97 OAKESDALE AVENUE SW (SW 16th to SW 27th Street) Implementation Meeting TECHNICAL COMMENTS ACCEPT/ MODIFIC FURTHER REJECT/ # DESCRIPTION COMMENTS ACCEPT ATIONS STUDY DEFER This was included to more throughly discuss the potential. Use a box culvert by Originally the team felt this had considerable merit. The VE 1 S rin brook Crossing team does not think this is the favored alternative Move the Springbook This was included to more throughly discuss the potential. Crossing to the Originally the team felt this had considerable merit. The VE 2 north/west team does not think this is the favored alternative Overall Utility Perspective to the project 3 - North Bride This comment is for information and no action is required. V Overall Utility Perspective to the project 4 - South Bride This comment is for information and no action is required. Considerations for Vault 5 Relocation A cost estimate was developed for general information. Consideration for design At times fisheries requirements are more stringent than city 6 mitigation for fisheries of Renton. This should be acknowledged now. Careful review of long term plans will reduce long term 7 Add Utility stubs implementation cost The channel widening project should be carefully reviewed / and effects considered both in efficient use of dollars and 8 lChannel widening project I schedule PROTOTAL.XLS/Sheet4 Page 1/2 4/21/97 OAKESDALE AVENUE SW(SW 16th to SW 27th Street) Implementation Meeting TECHNICAL COMMENTS ACCEPT/ MODIFIC FURTHER REJECT/ # DESCRIPTION COMMENTS ACCEPT ATIONS STUDY DEFER Design of long term structures should Current design does not appear to have considered 9 consider liquefaction liquefaction Design of piles for both 10 vertical and lateral loads Design of piles should consider effects of li uefaction Storm Drainage System Current design should be reviewed to verify that the current ✓ 11 F plan allows sufficient space for biofiltration swale. Storm Drainage System Current design should be reviewed to verify elevation is 12 D/E appropriate for daylighting of outfall from the wet vault. 13 Off site line in Basin C Review layout to consider not redirecting existing line. Introduction of various storm Drainage 14 jalternatives Wet Vaults, Compost filters, Stormce tors etc. General Constructability / 15 Comments Review construction options. l� PROTOTAL.XLS/Sheet4 Page 2/2 4/21/97 an N12► ��t� �h.,�,�-s April 21, 1997 DRAFT Jill K. Nelson, P.E., CVS Watermark Engineering 4535 SW Concord Street Seattle, WA 98136 Re: Oakesdale Avenue SW - SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street Response to Value Engineering Recommendations Dear Ms. Nelson: The City, and our partner in the Oakesdale project, the Boeing Company, have completed a preliminary review of the recommendations of the Value Engineering workshop conducted during the week of April 7, 1997. The conclusions we have reached are described below. Cost-saving proposals (initial phase) to be pursued: A list of fifteen proposals for reconfiguring elements of the project to achieve cost savings was compiled by the panel. Some of these are mutually exclusive, so we have been able to defer consideration of them if we decide to implement an incompatible alternative. The baseline project, against which potential savings are measured, is the initial phase consisting of a three- lane development between SW 16th and SW 27th Streets. We intend to modify the scope of this initial phase as defined in the Supplemental preliminary design report to incorporate the following recommendations. Where appropriate, we shall need to verify that approval is avail- able from permit agencies and affected property owners. We shall also be reevaluating the cost impact of the adopted recommendations as we develop an updated project cost estimate. Proposal No. 1 - Drainage modifications: Three recommendations were put forward for a more cost-effective arrangement of the drainage system in the vicinity of SW 19th. Proposal No. 1 a considered discharging runoff directly to the large Boeing pond west of the site. We believe that the estimated costs were understated, and Boeing questioned the feasibility and acceptability of the proposal. Proposals Nos. 1 b and 1 w considered use of surface ponds instead of a detention/treatment vault, and discharge to the created wetland adjacent to Springbrook Creek. The impact of the extensive area required for the ponds would conflict with future development proposed on Boeing property. In- stead of the ponds, the City's design team, with Boeing's concurrence, will pursue an alternative of using a buried wet vault, in combination with Proposal No. I for dis- charge to the created wetland. The resulting savings have not yet been calculated. April 22, 1997 Page 2 Proposals Nos. 4 and 5 - Drainage modifications: Proposals No. 2 through 5 all re- late to the handling of drainage between SW 19th and SW 27th. Proposal No. 5, a shift in the boundary between drainage i asins C and D, is acceptable in principle, but needs further evaluation to determine the�tential savings. Proposal No. 4, in combination with Proposal No. 4w, would use a `1•oswale in preference to water quality ponds and would reduce wetland impacts / " a ffipFe* ^the r'owf-a water-to-t-he-adj-ac,@�nt AUG ' — lqn / Lisle ��SS Jnc Gala�t�- enl4tol q. ra)W+�r A-4a, ,e SyS9�n. k' Proposal No. 6 - Use drilled shafts instead of driven piles for bridge foundations: We agree with the VE panel's conclusion that drilled shafts will give superior perform- ance and constructability as well as cost savings. For the 400-foot-long north bridge (Proposal No. 6a) the estimated savings is $83,000. Proposal No. 6b addressed the 600- foot-long bridge south of SW 27th. Consideration of this proposal is moot if either of Proposals No. 9 or 10 are adopted The point was also made that a long-term savings can be realized if shafts for the future widening of the north bridge can be installed in the initial construction. The cost of re- mobilization of the large drilling rig is $40,000-50,000. Shafts to support future super- structure would be capped below grade. We concur that this work should be included in the initial construction. Proposal No. 7 - North bridge pier cap redesign: The panel recommended that the pier column and cap as designed by HNTB should be replaced with column extensions at each shaft to support the superstructure and pier caps combined with the deck dia- phragms. Savings are estimated as $19,300 for the 400-foot-long north bridge. This proposal is acceptable, and the recommendation will be reflected in the revised Type, Size and Location Report to be prepared by the design team. Proposal No. 11 - Shorten the north bridge by filling the wetlands: The VE panel recommended filling the portions of the Boeing CSTC mitigation wetland that would be shaded by the bridge, thus reducing the total length of the bridge over Springbrook Creek by 57 percent, and the cost by $541,000. The panel's wetland expert opined that the effect might be considered beneficial to the remaining wetland in that a vegetative screen could be developed. Mitigation of disturbed wetland would be required either for filling or shading the existing wetland, so would cost no more for the fill option (see Proposal 11 w). The City and Boeing agree with this proposal. Currently, the design team is working on further refinement of the bridge design, to determine if additional savings can be iden- tified. In verifying the feasibility of this proposal, there will be a need to determine if Boeing's obligations to establish and maintain the CSTC mitigation wetland have to be formally amended, or whether the City's 404 permit can transfer the appropriate re- sponsibilities satisfactorily. Further study is also needed regarding retention or reloca- April 22, 1997 Page 3 tion of the existing outfall structure in the proposed right-of-way. The VE panel esti- mated the cost of r at a new location at$25,000. `cf lau ncc r tk 10 vi rt .c Cost-saving proposals (fut7re construction) to be pursued: The VE panel was requested to examine alternative configurations for the segment of the proj- ect to be constructed in the future south of SW 27th. The City's request for this examination was based upon the need to determine the preferred alignment of the roadway immediately north of SW 27th, as well as VE validation of the roadway configuration for a project the T.I.B. may consider for future funding. The panel also proposed that the width of the ultimate north bridge be limited to four lanes. Proposals Nos. 9, 10 - Project configuration south of SW 27th Street: The prelimi- nary project design between SW 27th and SW 31st Streets was for approach fills and a 600-foot-long bridge structure over a portion of the wetland area. The proposed fill and bridge was to be located to the east of the Metro 72-inch trunk sewer. The VE panel's Proposal No. 9 is to place fill to the east of the existing two-lane road (over the Metro 108-inch trunk sewer) in lieu of building a bridge. Hydraulic continu- ity between the wetlands to the east and west would be enhanced by the provision of three box culverts under the new fill and the existing road. The footprint of the new fill would be comparable with that of the approach fills proposed in the preliminary design, and the arrangement would avoid the shading caused by the previously-proposed bridge. The estimated cost savings are $3,700,000. The City and Boeing are enthusiastic in pursuing this recommendation, and we intend to conduct appropriate investigations during the design phase to verify its feasibility. These will include geotechnical exploration and analysis of the effect of added fill upon the Metro trunk lines, determination of Metro's property rights along the pipeline easements, and verification of the scope and cost of required wetland mitigation. Proposal No. 10 involves widening the existing two-lane road by installing structural decks on either side of the existing fill. The type of structure proposed is a series of precast prestressed concrete planks, supported along the outboard edge by an edge beam on drilled shaft foundations, and along the inboard edge by a grade beam founda- tion. The estimated cost savings are $2,231,000, but this proposal will only be consid- ered further if Proposal No. 9 cannot be implemented. The panel recommended that, whatever the final configuration of the roadway south of 27th, the initial construction north of 27th should maintain a straight alignment, and should not follow the reverse curve alignment of the HNTB layout. Proposal Nos. 12 - Ultimate width of North Bridge: The VE panel recommended that future widening of the bridge between SW 16th and SW 19th Streets be limited to four lanes (a reduction in deck width of 12 feet from that proposed in the preliminary April 22, 1997 Page 4 design). The City and Boeing concur in thi recommendation, subject to verification by traffic analysis that the fifth lane is not req fired for the storage of traffic making turns at SW 16th or SW 19th Streets. The estimat savings for a 400-foot-long north bridge was given as $480,000, but this is believed to be an overly optimistic figure, that will be even further reduced by adoption of Proposal No. 11, to reduce the length of the bridge. Technical Comments: The panel recorded a number of suggestions relating to proposals not explored in further detail, and observations that might be considered by the design team in the final design process. The City will request that the design team consider the following comments during final design. Utility Provisions: Provision should be made for the north bridge to accommodate a 12- to 16-inch water main, and other private utilities, including fiber optic and other telecommunication lines. Stability of approach fills in the vicinity of bridge abutments: In view of the lique- faction potential of the foundation soils, alternative measures should be considered to reduce the potential damage under seismic conditions. Options include stone columns and retaining the approach fills using MSE walls. Preferred MSE Wall type: The most suitable type of mechanically stabilized earth (reinforced earth) wall would be the Hilfiker type, being very tolerant to settlement, and capable of allowing vegetation to establish on the wall faces. Piling: Driven piling, including placement of a cofferdam and construction of a pile cap, can only be installed during the fish construction window(6/15 - 9/15) and would effectively prevent completion of the north bridge in 1998. Use of drilled shafts would allow an earlier start and more rapid completion of the substructure. Bridge Superstructure: If the bridge deck is to be built to partial width, and extended to full width later, access for the second stage of construction will be easier if the east portion is built first (assuming access for Stage 2 construction is available through Boeing property). High water table: Groundwater conditions may require dewatering for trench construc- tion, and design of buried facilities against flotation. Geotechnical Conditions: Investigation to date has not included any borings to or below expected foundation depths. Additional exploration is required to develop design data. Effect of fill on buried pipes: South of SW 27th, investigation is required to predict the effect on buried Metro lines of placing additional fill. �eP� Ger►.wo, '7 April 22, 1997 Page 5 Channel Widening Project: Close coordination between the roadway project and the adjacent City project to widen Springbrook Creek channel is desirable. Coordination should include exchange of design information, coordination of the permit process for the two projects to the extent possible, and coordination between road, bridge and channel construction. Without construction coordination, access may be more difficult for fol- low-on construction, and costs may be higher to work around new structures. Concurrent construction in the same area by two separate contractors would also be undesirable. Consideration should be given to including elements of the channel widening project within or near the road right-of-way in the Oakesdale Avenue construction package. Our responses to the VE panel's recommendation were discussed with you and Bob Moorhead, representing the T.I.B., at the VE implementation meeting held on Tuesday, April 22, 1997. We shall be proceeding with final design immediately following Board approval (scheduled for April 25, 1997) based upon adoption of the recommendations as described above. In conclusion, may we commend you and members of the panel for the expertise and enthusi- asm that you directed towards the examination and refinement of the Oakesdale Avenue proj- ect. We consider the outcome to be a valuable contribution towards accomplishment of a cost- effective project. Sincerely, Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor cc: Joe Armstrong Bob Mahn Mark Pywell Scott Woodbury Rick Ford(Boeing) Bob Moorhead(T.I.B.) Barry Knight(K&W) Brad Stein(Entranco) h:\...\I in\ve-resp.doc Sean S. Woodbury From: Sean S. Woodbury To: Lin Wilson Cc: Ronald J. Straka Subject: Draft response letter to VE recommendations Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 12:08PM Following are my comments to the above draft letter. Page 2, first paragraph. Revise the last sentance to as follows: Proposal No. 4, in combination with Proposal No. 4w, would use water quality swales in preference to water quality ponds and would reduce wetland impacts and have less backwater influence on the roadway drainage system. Page 3, 1st full sentance. The VE panel's cost for relocating the vault assumed that the original vault was filled and a simplified control structure installed at a new location. However, the simplified structure (96" manhole) would not have room for the fish screens that are housed in the existing vault and thus may not be a valid substitute for this and other reasons. Thus, the cost estimate of $25,000 is likely too low. I would revise the phrase "reconstructing the vault" to "replacing the vault with a simplified structure". I would also add the issue of relocating the vault to the Technical Comments portion of the letter as an item requiring further study by the design team. Page 4, 2nd full sentance. The word "estimate" in this sentance should be revised to "estimated". Page 4, Technical Comments. I would add technical comments #7 (utility stubs), #10 (storm drainage system F), and #12 (off-site line through basin C) to the list of issues that will be studied further by the design team. I already reviewed the basin F system in my previous memo to you. Technical comment #11 (storm system D/E) will be getting further study through the work effort to implement proposal #1 (as revised). Thanks for the opportunity to review the draft letter. If you have any questions, please call me at X-5547. Page 1 Sean S. Woodbury From: Ronald J. Straka To: Sean S. Woodbury Subject: Oakesdale Project Date: Friday, April 18, 1997 1 2:1 1 PM The Oakesdale Project steering meeting postponed the presentation on the Springbrook Creek Widening Project was postponed until their next meeting on May 9th. This is probably good, since it gives more time to get some answers from the NRCS about funding for the whole project, possible phasing funding (SW 16th to Oakesdale North Bridge) and when the design will start. We also need to explore how we can run the permitting for the Oakesdale project and the Springbrook Creek Widening project concurrently together or slightly lagging behind. We need a project schedule! Also, Lin Wilson and I discussed the use of our P-1 Channel right of way the Oakesdale project. Lin indicated that they would be willing to make the channel improvements at Springbrook where the channel crosses in return we let them use our right of way. This may be acceptable to demonstrate that we are willing to work with them, but I would like you to quantify the amount of P-1 channel right of way that the Utility owns that the Oakesdale project will need and estimate its value using the price that we paid. Then, estimate the cost of doing the channel improvements at the bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek. I want to see if the cost of the improvements is equal to the right of way value. On a separate topic, Dick Warren wanted a copy of the Wetlands Permit that was issued to Boeing for the CSTC project. There was concern that sense Boeing is required to monitor the constructed wetland for 20 years, and if the Oakesdale project fills the wetland, does the city become responsible for relocating the wetland and monitoring it for 20 years? At the meeting Boeing was concerned about VE proposal 1 W could conflict with their plans to also discharge runoff into the Boeing constructed wetland. This could result in too much water being discharged into the wetland and thus an impact. This is a matter that needs to be investigated in more detail. VE proposals 1 W (revised to be a vault instead of a pond), 4/4w and 5 were the VE proposals that were select for inclusion in the final project. Page 1 THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FIFTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 277-4428 To: Brad Stein, P.E. , S.E. Company: Entranco Phone: (206) 454-5600 Fax: (206) 454-0220 From: Lin Wilson Company: City of Renton Phone: (206) 277-6223 Fax: (206) 277-4428 Date: 04/17/97 Pages including this cover page: 5 Subject: Oakesdale Avenue - SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street Bridge Site Plan Comments: Attached are copies of the bridge cross-sections and the channel widening cross-section. The assumption I am making is that if the bridge is built in two stages, it will be east first, and a temporary sidewalk will be provided on the west edge, with a removable concrete barrier separating it from the traffic lanes. With this arrangement, a 12-girder structure doesn't work well, so I am assuming a 13-girder section or whatever else you eventually determine is the optimum. If the whole bridge is built initially, this constraint goes away. The channel cross-section is based upon Scott's advice, and differs in a few dimensions from the assumptions that were available to you at the VE study. The bad news is that the channel width at the 13.0 elevation is increased from 100 to 120 feet. The good news is that the top layer of water below elevation 13 is only present in the "storage case"; the 100-year flood water surface under free flow conditions is somewhat lower, and it is probably feasible to place the abutments in the backslope behind the bench, subject to verification by hydraulic study. A suggested bridge site plan is attached, using a structure with a 45-degree skew and circular columns (hydraulically preferable to rectangular columns), set in the slope below the high-flow bench, and protruding not more than 3 feet into the 15-feet-wide bench. This gives span lengths of roughly 45/75/45 feet, with the abutments as close to the water as possible. If the most conservative view is taken, keeping the abutments out of the bank below elevation 13, the spans are roughly 75/75/75 feet. Does this give you the opportunity to devise a more conventional lower-unit-cost superstruc- ture? Let me know how things look. cc: Scott Woodbury Bob Mahn Barry Knight (K&W) yv�( 7111 oL ; I i ----T yf o ,s ��� �► 1 6} ��V 1 ,�'Z ,11 _ _ ,SI ,81 . - ;� -4-- � i i Nl. ,, ; IAna0 At I 717, i i I CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 1997 TO: Lin Wilson FROM: Scott Woodbury.<Ud SUBJECT: Oakesdale Extension Project Use of Wetvault for Subbasin F One of the VE team technical recommendations was to review the design for drainage subbasin F, particularly the use of wetvault in place of the biofiltration Swale because of lack of area to install the biofiltration swale. Attached is my evaluation in the format of the VE proposals because I feel that the wetvault has important cost saving potential for the Oakesdale project. If you have any questions,please call me at 277-5547. U:1997:97-020:SW attachments cc: Ron Straka Lin Wilson Use of Wetvault for Subbasin F Page 2 Proposal Title: Use of direct discharge to Springbrook Creek for subbasin F (as is being done for the SW 16th Street project). Function: Protect water quality, convey water. Original Concept: Outfall runoff from subbasin F to the creek through a biofiltration swale for treatment, but compensate for detention requirement by oversizing another upstream system. A biofiltration Swale is required because more than 5,000 square feet of impervious area subject to vehicular use will be constructed. However, the impervious area for subbasin F is less than 1 acre so the King County Surface Water Design Manual requirement for special water quality control (special requirement#5)does not apply. Proposed Change: Install a wetvault for water quality treatment and discharge runoff without detention to the previously widened Springbrook Creek downstream of SW 16th Street. Rational: The King County Surface Water Design Manual allows direct discharge to qualifying receiving waters and no detention is required provided special requirement#5 (special water quality controls)of the manual is met. A wetvault is proposed to satisfy special requirement#5 since there is no room for a wetpond. Only a wetvault is required and the biofiltration swale may be eliminated since the impervious area for subbasin F is less than 1 acre (1 acre is the threshold that invokes special requirement #5 even if direct discharge were not used). If the wetvault was required by virtue of the fact that the 1 acre threshold for special requirement #5 was exceeded, rather than the wetvault being required solely on the basis of using direct discharge, then the biofiltration swale could not be eliminated unless the wetvault was oversized to compensate for elimination of the bioswale. It is important to note that if all VE proposals for using wetlands for detention are implemented, there will be no other subbasin with a detention system that could be used to compensate for subbasin F. Therefore, detention would have to be provided for subbasin F, unless the direct discharge provision is used. HNTB calculated that a 75'x10'x4.5 foot deep live storage volume would have to be provided if detention were provided at subbasin F. This is more than two times the size of the proposed wetvault with direct discharge. Initial Savings Future Savings Total Savings $38,000 $ $38,000 Advantages Disadvantages Lower cost Moderately deep installation for vault(-8' deep) Eliminates problematic biofiltration Swale and Maintenance of vault may require temporary, channel widening coordination issue but infrequent, lane closures. Requires no detention compensation Reduces retaining wall height along the channel Vault easier to access for maintenance. t . . G,Ac-C.vi�/o..JS D�r�r/�rJ � g/•s w.�c.E ,1CSc/'i of �Q.,an i�ly ill r U^)t /o ScclAt� r£ ►v 7 pr1 130 ��� b'? 08o 5- -"37 S� USA SS GOO G1aLcuLAf rr� �l/ ✓>'SC6lAfZt Oes cam%'h.,r (Qufial , Uhn-5 C b,+ (��,�►�,.r A- /./) 30 /��lal/how Ty`t 2 c g / 674 T240o 1,1000 low �38/ ©00 Right of Way Line E Roadway & Right of Way Right of Way Line Temporary onstruction Easement 45' 45' Varies 4 ' Future Phase 1 B Widening 12'-0" 1 '-0- 12'-0" 4'-0 3:1 Max (Typ.) � I l�� Profile Grade Point and Crown 2 + 2% -- -- ------ . ----- 6'7 Concrete Barrier 4.5' Asphalt Concrete _————— Curb & Gutter Pavement Class B/E -------_-- .i---- Planter Strip 6" Crushed Surfocin 4" Concrete Sidewalk 18" Grovel Based r 2" Crushed Surfacing bgrade Pre ion Excavation Limit S bilizotion otext4le (if required) Roadway and Right of Way ,f I 66' Final Roadw Width 40 Future Phase 18 Widening 6'-6" 12'-0" 12'-0' Sidewalk r Bridge Railing i Traffic Barrier Profile Grade and Pivot Point I !d Fin Finish (Typ. 2% I 2% I 2L f �— I — ———————————————-- I Pier Cap I Pier Shaft Finished Ground Lin \I I I— stressed Girder W58G (Typ Pile Cop r —1 I I Piles (Typ.) L F T r1 —r l.d l.d l.d Right of Way Line Roadway & Right of Way Right of Way Line I 45' 45' -G" 40' I Future Phose 1 B Widening 6 12'-0- 12'-0" 12'-0" '-0 2'-0" Concrete Barrier I l t 29. / `� Profile Grade Point and Crown 27 ------------- —� rr-- Retaining Wall Guard Roil II II I I 4.5" Asphalt Concrete I I Concrete Barrier Pavement Class B M° II / Curb & Gutter OP of Bank ��� 4" Concrete Sidewalk 6" Crushed Surfacing II :! i� 2" Crushed Surfacing 18" Gravel Bose Z -- ' —II En APR DRFWNED KI LER G �Y k /� S /J�1/ ° A � PLANNING/BUILDING/ OAKESDALE A' CHECKED + PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Southwest 16th Stre. WL APPROVED :MA�R,C�H1997 MARUSKA MUNICIPAL BUILDING TYPICAL SE( •Q 200 MILL AVENUE SOUni DATE E N T e RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 y H U-1 h r [uOw 0 1 E U LTT s_ TEhIP_ 17 /419 CIMH y RIM-17.75 S RIM=1 8.92 P SOMH b a e wlth caner. -- - - ' _ — SMHE--7Cr- OUTFALL 00i 2+ 78.53 OUVAU .01 FLOW to or do 00 127 or t meet Section A I t L Su Cd I00 y. / Ir jwelftsom 1 Wert )DA4xw) RIM 17.75 ZVI - N � W RAM= -t vry tl lle�. R / SFA H i --- .__ --- RI =1,q 70 lifor EW-PROJECT (A RIM / "-- _• _ 00J STA; -/5 2+7 8.5 �- % t0000 40 rn OP J, MAtl 40 milli, ,,Illlll 1 i J tchment Se SU Ca -; , � � __� � � ' ' LESlpofor lot Iva PIP F4 Vick t 1 • �; - - 1'J y 1 i7 ' �fiTyp) _____-__ -. _-___ _ __---_I__.a__._ .__--__-_-_____.__----__-1- ' ��__ ] " � ,r it �� __ \'`__- -_-.__✓ ' Lj •ti i ; LEGEND ------ Fill slope 2:E Subcatchment Boundary CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 1997 TO: Lin Wilson FROM: Scott Woodbur}r�� SUBJECT: Effects of North Bridge Skew on Channel Widening and Pedestrian Trail Configuration You asked me on April 11 if I would look into the feasibility of realigning the channel in the vicinity of the north bridge so as to accommodate a 30 degree maximum skew for the bridge substructure. This assessment assumes that columns and a monolithic cross beam around the end of the girders will be used for the bridge substructure instead of the piers and pier cap proposed by HNTB. Before looking at realigning the channel, I first think it is important to look at the issues pertaining to a 30 degree skew. Figure I shows possible locations for bridge abutments based on the 30 degree maximum skew proposed by HNTB. The north abutment is shown in the approximate location presented by HNTB. I am showing the south abutment shifted slightly south of the pier location proposed by HNTB on the west bank of the channel. The purpose is to place the abutment as close as possible to the Boeing wetland outlet control vault consistent the VE study proposal to shorten the bridge by filling the Boeing wetland south of the bridge and avoiding the need to relocate the control vault. This also reduces the encroachment of the south end of the south abutment into the channel area. In Figure 1 I did not attempt to show any of the intermediate supports. It appears from this rough sketch that it would be possible to construct high flow shelves on each side of the existing channel consistent with the conceptual cross section proposed in the East Side Green River Watershed Project. The north end of the north bridge abutment and the south end of the south abutment would encroach near to the outside edge of the high flow shelves. Following are some issues associated with this configuration. • Hydraulic analysis would be needed to confirm the impact of the bridge on 100-year flows and elevations in the creek. The east shelf could potentially be lowered below the level of the 2-year flood to compensate for the encroachment of the bridge abutments if needed, but this would require a deeper north abutment. The intermediate column substructure proposed by the VE team should have less hydraulic impact than the substructure proposed by HNTB. • The location of the intermediate column supports are of concern. It will be very difficult to design intermediate column placement that does not result in a column(s) being placed on the west shelf(where the pedestrian trail needs to go) or within the ordinary high water area of the creek. There may be an option to widen the west shelf toward the north end of the south r Lin Wilson Effects of North Bridge Skew Page 2 abutment (shown hatched on Figure 1) so that the pedestrian trial could be routed around any column that might need to be placed on the shelf. • This configuration avoids impacts to the existing low flow channel, provided no columns are placed within the ordinary high water mark. This should serve to streamline the permitting process. • Only the west shelf must be designed so that the pedestrian trail can be routed under the bridge and also allow for maintenance access to the channel(maintenance access is only needed on one side of the channel). Therefore, placing a column(s) on the east shelf would be acceptable as long as it is justified by the hydraulic analysis. The option you asked I consider was realignment of the channel widening so as to accommodate a maximum substructure skew of 30 degrees. A possible configuration for the widened channel is shown on Figure 2. This configuration orients the high flow shelves proposed under the East Side Green River Watershed Project parallel with the 30 degree skewed substructure. The abutments are shown in the same location as on Figure 1 and no intermediate supports are shown. Following are some issues associated with this configuration. • As shown on Figure 2, I estimate that approximately 450 linear feet of the existing low flow channel would have to be realigned to accommodate the proposed configuration. This is a costly proposition as well as a much more difficult scenario to obtain permits for than the option shown in Figure 1 or the 53 degree substructure skew proposed by the VE team. I roughly estimate realigning the low flow channel to add $200,000 to the cost of the project. The construction project would be significantly complicated and involve greater risks, likely requiring point wells for dewatering and a temporary piped stream bypass system. Any sediment sampling and special disposal if hazardous materials are encountered would add even more cost. • Realigning the channel would also likely require 4000 square feet more right-of-way from Boeing and construction of a 200-foot long retaining wall south of the north abutment. Construction of the retaining wall would be difficult as it would require excavation into the fire access lane on the recently completed adjacent development. I understand that at least 10 feet of the fire access road would have to remain open so space for the wall construction would be limited. I roughly estimate the cost of the retaining wall to add $125,000 to the cost of the project. • Intermediate supports would need to be placed so that the pedestrian trail could be routed under the bridge on the west shelf and also allow for maintenance access to the channel (maintenance access is only needed on one side of the channel). Placing a column(s) on the east shelf would be acceptable as long as it is justified by the hydraulic analysis. • Hydraulic analysis would be needed to confirm the impact of the bridge on 100-year flows and elevations in the creek. The east shelf could potentially be lowered below the level of the 2-year flood to compensate head loss impacts if needed,but this would require a deeper north abutment and potentially deeper retaining wall south of the north abutment. The intermediate column substructure proposed by the VE team should have less hydraulic impact than the substructure proposed by HNTB. Finally, I have a few comments regarding including the East Side Green River Watershed Project channel improvements as part of the Oakesdale Project. Lin Wilson Effects of North Bridge Skew Page 3 • Only the work required to mitigate the hydraulic impacts of the bridge, if any, is justifiably a part of the Oakesdale project. To add widening of the channel from upstream of the Oakesdale crossing to SW 16th Street to the Oakesdale project is clearly going beyond mitigation for the Oakesdale project. I believe it will be rightly viewed by the agencies as a separate action from the bridge crossing and will only serve to complicate the Oakesdale project. Adding the channel widening would pose a significant risk to the Oakesdale project. • Separating the 16th to Oakesdale reach from the rest of the 16th to 23rd channel widening project will likely require that the 16th to Oakesdale widening be paid for by the City with no possibility of getting a grant from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) for that portion. This is potentially a cost of$400,000. • Concurrent construction by two separate contractors is not an insurmountable problem. This has been done on other City projects and can be done again. • We can work with the Oakesdale engineers to finalize a bridge crossing plan that is cost effective and coordinates with the channel widening plans. There is no need, however, for the channel widening work to be a part of the Oakesdale construction package. We are planning to proceed with design surveys in May with preliminary design beginning immediately following preparation of the base maps. • If the channel widening does not happen concurrent with the Oakesdale crossing, then there will be additional disruption to the pedestrian trail when the channel widening is subsequently constructed. However, is avoiding additional pedestrian trail impacts alone worth losing the potential to have the channel widening paid for by grant funds? Under previous channel widening projects,NRCS paid for preparing the subbase for the trail. The City only had to pay for the crushed rock and asphalt. Another issue is the separation between the Boeing CSTC wetlands and the creek. The wetlands and creek are currently separated by a berm/embankment with a sill elevation of 14 feet (NGVD). Depending upon the topography of the area, we may need to work with Boeing to allow the sill elevation to be lowered slightly to avoid the need for shallow retaining walls along the wetland. If you have any questions,please call me at 277-5547. U:1997:97-022:SW cc: Ron Straka r g pA t2 VD 1 E 1 ' j Q o 2 ❑ - 1 'S0 s T f 0f ' RI 18,6Did Q a _a Aim j m T. f -: OP LiTLrr .08 29 I I' j 0 'E'to �` Existin 'M�r t o r� F. / t Matcem h Isti W RIM-,5.92 i £ H 0 ns 1 7 Le 95 - R D \N• D ENES ROADWAY y 1sTA: 5 +78 79 5 25- Right of Way ++/ Retaining I f C Wall 514 (+ 1}'14"W -; i; It; i I y-•t'-. --"l; `. - Vr41 I 1j ' •�. ``\ XRight of ay � �; •AL \\------_— -- -------- — it-t`i - /, s /— �-- ;, X / Ap Ch Slab 1 �ake; ale Av ��W /' C 1 g Ot Begin Taper Rt. STA: 50+4 1 i i i 2 I , STA; 52+78.53 Ockesda� i End Taer t.' I j t 0+ 0. .1 L. Existing Ockesdole Ave. /•" Ss�uJi.E t 1 Sppn� br�ok 51 97r j 1 I j STAB 36+45.81 SW 16tf� Sho eli Boundary 30 .0 I r /^ Existing Righi of Way Springbrook �4'fG j u,n 41 I"� (' !E� I LEGEND Sh ry f j Shoreline Boundary ; \ W flood Bounds czr,.... Y. I I �Y rt I Quarter Section Une i- I' ' Property Line -- uF-la l Dedicated Property Une —————————— osed gnnel o aYEi 11 l i I :It I ening ement 1 I / I I !! I M )6/ [ ` 100 50 0 100 200 i I � p:•F., i 4 SCALE OW"K�% 1 (__ —1 , '— — —— — cl L! 111 IN FEET REVISIONS 1i7 d �. —— ——— — — —— No. DATE REMARKS BY APR DESIGNED MHLER Gl�Y °.n PLANNING/BUILDING/ OAKESDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST NUMBER 15203 ARCKT-LCTS ENC;IN'-F1LS PI.VulER DRAWN Southwest 16th Street to Southwest 31st Street CHECKED + ->- PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CAD RLE ROADW3.OWG APPROVED + ROADWAY PLAN MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 ON. AVENUE 50t1H STA. 43+00 TO 52+85- DATE C 19917 L''N T O REMON, WASHWGrON 98055 N0. I i i oro0 IZ S ,ki, x ❑ _ � I �t " 1 I ti>r R y��:�► ka MW LII L1T V lal m ID.086 5296 ❑. ) --- 1 0 H � -W I istin IM 88 Match em P A i E=s.s9 Z C eway X D W, RIM=,3.S2 -, , SDMH 0 �Q Ik SIAH" 0 / :'ENff R ADWAY A, Da MEC 0 �• e a>Rru 'r ETA: 5 _ +78 53� _ n 4g 412 79- /" // v -Zr WWAL g 1?0 525_ L4 ' 4 0 ./ Right Retaining Wall 5 I V pp W �1 W— is i' aVT % j13'14"W 7, \ I m 4 Ell j ' s• s �•� \ •Right oa`Y % i \\k� Slab - tiale Av 'S�W C`` ;.� /lt,�i, firiIr'e Sjk ip•E ti it 1;y�� // 3 ,. r r STA. 50+42 , SA52+78.53 Oke01 Begin Toper Rt. --- t. sda eA 11A y50 Ge Loy/1-o"wi I Ed To Der + Existing a esda a Ave. rSl 519 I f STA; 36+45.81 SW 16tf SPPn gbr ok Sho eli Boundary .\ r ,�\ 1 / �% — — — — �z50 I i .0FW I i Existing Right of Wa Springbrook y I . �' LEGEND / Shoreline Boundary W tland Boundary Quarter Section Line Property Line -- Tw-ra F- - I Dedicated Pro Line —————————— .,r.r. Property 2*,M,8 > { l 1 0*I .. dosed gnnel IdeningM ement I F r I I 100 50 0 100 200 I F r\ u _ � ! i t 11 ,1i I I L i i I , � --► i I SCALE xi cu3 r--- I r-- ;tJ- - -- --I L, ( IN FEET r A REVISIONS _ No. DATE REMARKS BY APR I DESIGNED RKITTLERY DRAWN G�� °� PLANNING/BUILDING/ OAKESDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST NDM8ER 15203 Southwest 16th Street to Southwest 31st Street CADnLE ROADW3.DWG ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS CHECKED � V f} � PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVED MUNICIPAL. BUILDING ROADWAY PLAN STA. 43+00 TO 52+85 • SHEET 3 3 DATE c 199 N T O �roON.W ssM N0. OF t THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF :>w PLAN ING BUILDING/PUBLI WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH _ RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 .... FAX: 235-2541 ==' To: O I< �tlr��► Company: Phone: Fax: '72 sba8 From: Company: Phone:27 7 —5�y? Fax: Date: Y117/17 Pages including this cover page: y Comments: c4m Ma."d 7 /al rd Z/ 6 CLI rile y C-a'-h/y, -f- y fir, nv7 ,l '� - 11 Gt/CH �jOti /✓►ti l ia r �y r GU;h i'j Gi,✓� o�� fie d�ti C e- / P)ck -)2g 5(a8 P12W CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 1997 TO: Lin Wilson FROM: Scott WoodburyS%� SUBJECT: Oakesdale Extension Project Comments to VE drainage proposals Following is my brief evaluation of the VE drainage proposals. It is important to note that any proposal to use wetlands for peak rate runoff control (detention) must demonstrate that it satisfies the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual's special requirement #8 (this should not be a problem for the VE proposals). Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please call me at X-5547. Proposal 1A-Piping System to Boeing's existing CSTC lake facility west of Oakesdale. This proposal assumes that there would be no water quality treatment prior to discharge to Boeing's existing CSTC lake facility. However, a wetvault would be required, but it would not need to be long as the vault proposed by HNTB since the size of the HNTB vault is controlled by the detention sizing calculations. No biofiltration Swale would be required and the wetvault would not need to be oversized to compensate for elimination of the swale because the Boeing lake provides water quality treatment considered equivalent to oversizing the wetvault. Because a wetvault would need to be provided, the cost savings under proposal 1A are less than the VE proposal indicates. Dick Warren was going to look into the cost of providing a wetvault. Also, constructing the piping to the lake would require additional right-of-way from Boeing which was not reflected in the cost. There would also be high potential for utility conflicts which could eliminate this proposal as a viable option. Discharging to the CSTC mitigation wetland east of Oakesdale would avoid the need for piping to the lake(see proposal 1 W). Proposal 1B -Replace system D/E vault with wetpond/detention facility oversized to eliminate the need for a biofiltration swale. lt-isttut-clearf p , bnt4--bo eve�his proposal assumes that the system outfalI is to 1'kc 4;�e,7 SpringbreelFGr . The major factor limiting the ability to implement GSTc this proposal would be Boeing's concern with the loss of developable land due to the ponds. Given (fir/a,/ the value of the land to Boeing, it seems that the cost of the land used in the calculations is much too low. Lin Wilson Effects of North Bridge Skew Page 2 Proposal 1W-Create wetpond for system D/E and detain in the Boeing wetland. This proposal has the same concerns as proposal 113 in terms of its right-of-way cost and land development impacts. Although not noted in the VE proposal, the wetpond would need to be oversized if the need for a biofiltration swale were to be eliminated. Also, Boeing has invested significant resources in the development of the CSTC wetland and surrounding buffer and would likely not want the Oakesdale project destroying this investment, even though the end result would be an expanded wetland. Also, the vegetation in the expanded wetland would not be as mature as the vegetation installed as part of the CSTC mitigation, detracting from the aesthetics of the wetland. If a wetpond were to be installed as this proposal suggests, the wetpond could also be made to also function as a detention facility with little modification. Therefore, there would be little need to use the Boeing wetland for detention storage and we are back to proposal 1 B. In light of the above discussion, I suggest that we accept proposal 1 W provided a wetvault is used prior to discharge to the Boeing wetland rather than a wetpond. A biofiltration swale would still have to be provided in addition to the wetvault unless the wetvault were oversized to compensate for elimination of the biofiltration Swale or the impervious area of the subbasin subject to vehicular use was reduced to less than 1 acre. The primary advantage of a wetvault is that it would be underground, avoiding the right-of-way impacts a wetpond would have. With regard to the detention storage, it is my understanding that the Boeing CSTC system has excess capacity. Therefore, the Boeing wetland could provide the needed detention storage without the need to add more storage. Also,much of the runoff from the existing subbasin DE already drains to the wetland so directing the developed system runoff from system DE into the wetland maintains the natural drainage pattern. Proposal 2 -Use biofiltration swales to eliminate some conveyance piping This proposal is not recommended for implementation for the following reasons: • More area would be needed for the biofiltration swales to meet code requirements for depth, side slopes, and freeboard than the proposed road section allows. Additional right-of-way would therefore be required, negating any cost savings achieved by eliminating some conveyance piping. • The bioswale would likely conflict with the roads landscaping scheme. • Maintenance of the biofiltration swales would need to be more frequent than a piped system. Proposal 3 -Relocate ponds in basin B. This proposal should be considered for implementation if proposal 4/4W is not implemented. However, the reconfiguration would likely need to be different than shown in the VE study. Also, the additional piping necessary because of the new locations could be as much as 500 feet in length and cost $20,000. This lowers the cost savings for proposal 3 below that which would be achieved for proposal 4/4W. It is also important to note that the ponds would need to be oversized if biofiltration swales will not be provided. Lin Wilson c Effects of North Bridge Skew Page 3 Proposal 4/4W-Use water quality swale for treatment with detention in the wetlands. This proposal should be implemented with some configuration changes as needed to achieve the grades necessary for the upstream pipe system to function (the swales will likely need to be extended to outfall at a sufficiently low elevation). Also, biofiltration swales must also be provided or the length of the water quality swale will need to be increased to compensate for elimination of the biofiltration swales. Dick Warren also suggests considering use of constructed wetland in lieu of water quality swales to better integrate the water quality treatment system with the existing and mitigation wetlands. The use of constructed wetlands would require a code modification/alteration. ' Proposal 5-Relocate boundary between basins D/E and C to drain more runoff to basin C. This proposal should be implemented, but the boundary may need to be adjusted during final design which could result in less area being directed to basin C than the VE study shows. Proposal 11 - Shortening of the north bridge In a separate draft memo delivered to you on April 16, 1 evaluated issues pertaining to the effects of the north bridge skew on the planned channel widening and pedestrian trail configuration. I am committed to working with the Oakesdale Extension project as needed to coordinate the channel widening design with the north bridge crossing design. I feel it is important to stress to Boeing that this VE proposal to fill that portion of the Boeing CSTC mitigation wetland where Oakesdale will cross is absolutely necessary if we are to pursue a fill option for the south bridge in the future. Bridging the as yet low quality CSTC wetland would set a precedent that would be difficult if not impossible to go against should the City decide in the future to pursue a fill crossing of the much higher quality wetlands at the currently proposed south bridge. u:1997:97-021:Sw cc: Ron Straka Z CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 15, 1997 TO: Gregg Zimmerman f � VIA: Sandra Meyer R P R 16 i997 FROM: Lin WilsoA r11TY OF RP4TON SUBJECT: Oakesdale Avenue SW- SW 16th'St. to SW:27thSt. Value Engineering Recommendations A Value Engineering workshop was conducted during the week of April 7, 1997 on the pre- liminary project design developed by HNTB. The workshop facilitator was Jill Nelson, of Watermark Engineering. Panel members included Bob Moorhead (T.I.B.), two of the incoming Kato & Warren/Entranco design team, Dave Christensen as City representative without prior project involvement, and consultants with expertise in drainage, wetlands and constructability. Rick Ford of Boeing attended some of the sessions; and Dan Rude of the T.I.B. attended the final debriefing. City staff, including Scott Woodbury, were available to furnish information to the panel, as were Dick Warren (K&W) and Rick Kittler(HNTB). The panel addressed various aspects of the project, and their deliberations are documented in a (handwritten) draft report, of which copies are available for those interested in the detail. I have listed below the highlights which should receive our attention immediately. The review covers the following topics: • Suggestions for more cost-effective accomplishment of project objectives (this is the principal goal of the VE study process) • "Technical comments" identifying items requiring further definition or study • Constructability and construction schedule • Risk factors to be identified and addressed Cost-saving proposals: A list of fifteen proposals for reconfiguring elements of the project to achieve cost savings was compiled by the panel (see attached list). Some of these are mutually exclusive, so those ad- dressed below are the high-priority items to be considered initially. Generally, the baseline project, against which potential savings are measured, is the three-lane development between SW 16th and SW 27th Streets. The exceptions are a proposal (12)to limit the width of the ul- timate north bridge to four lanes and three proposals (6b, 9 and 10)that address alternatives for the segment south of 27th. The panel was requested to address these latter alternatives so that a r April 15, 1997 Page 2 preliminary design decision could be made regarding the alignment of the roadway, as it affects the location north of 27th, as well as the economics of future development. Use drilled shafts instead of driven piles for bridge foundations (Proposal No. 6): Disadvantages of driven piles include noise and vibration, increased susceptibility to soil liquefaction, more stringent environmental constraints on construction of pile caps inside a cofferdam in Springbrook Creek, and a longer construction schedule. Drilled shafts will give superior performance and constructability as well as cost savings. For the 400-foot-long north bridge,the estimated savings is $83,000; for the 600-foot-long south bridge, the estimated savings is $121,000. This savings does not include econo- mies associated with the replacement of the pier column and cap as designed by HNTB with column extensions at each shaft to support the superstructure and combining the pier caps with the deck diaphragms (covered by Proposal No. 7). The point was also made that a long-term savings can be realized if shafts for the future widening of the north bridge can be installed in the initial construction. The cost of re- mobilization of the large drilling rig is $40,000-50,000. Shafts to support future super- structure would be capped below grade. The VE panel also commented on the need for a comprehensive boring program to supplement the scanty data gathered so far, primarily from shallow exploratory holes investigated for other projects in the area, such as Metro's large-diameter trunk sewers. Shorten the north bridge by filling the wetlands (Proposal No. 11): The VE panel recommended filling the portions of the Boeing CSTC mitigation wetland that would be shaded by the bridge,thus reducing the total length of the bridge over Springbrook Creek by 57 percent, and the cost by $541,000. The panel's wetland expert opined that the effect might be considered beneficial to the remaining wetland in that a vegetative screen could be developed. Mitigation of disturbed wetland would be required either for filling or shading the existing wetland, so would cost no more for the fill option (see Proposal 1 lw). There will be a need to determine if Boeing's obligations to estab- lish and maintain the CSTC mitigation wetland have to be formally amended, or whether the City's 404 permit can transfer the appropriate responsibilities satisfactorily. Consideration of the desired bridge configuration should also include the drilled shaft recommendation(above), the recommendation to limit the ultimate width of the bridge to four lanes, a proposal to retain the existing outfall structure in the proposed right-of- way, with access to be provided through a riser constructed through the south approach fill, and the pros and cons of constructing the bridge to full width in the initial con- struction phase. Brad Stein, the design consultant's bridge designer,proposed a composite structure in- tended to alleviate the adverse effects of the extreme (53-degree) skew of the bridge deck. Side spans would be cast in place and would cantilever slightly beyond the in- April 15, 1997 Page 3 termediate piers to support the center-span deck girders. If it is feasible to realign the high-flow portion of the proposed channel widening so as to reduce the structure skew, this could be reevaluated for possible additional savings. Scott has looked into this, but believes that there is no significant flexibility in the alignment. However, he considers that piers in the high-flow bank need not be aligned with the direction of flow; the hy- draulic resistance of circular piers will be significantly lower than the rectangular piers and pier caps of the HNTB design. Brad will look into the cost impact of a slightly longer bridge with the skew reduced sufficiently to allow use of a more conventional superstructure. He will also develop cost estimates for each of the bridge types built out to an ultimate four-lane configuration. Drainage modifications (Proposals 1-5): Several suggestions were put forward for a more cost-effective arrangement of the drainage system, including provisions for de- tention and water quality treatment. Some are mutually exclusive; the most optimistic combination could result in a savings of some $200,000. Part of this savings would be a reduction in the cost of wetland mitigation. Portions of the water quality ponds pro- posed in the HNTB design require construction in the wetland area between SW 23rd and SW 27th. Dick Warren and Scott Woodbury will initiate discussion of the alterna- tive proposals today to determine which are the most advantageous to pursue. However Boeing has indicated that Proposal No. IA, to use the existing Boeing detention/treat- ment facilities for the roadway drainage, is not feasible. Project configuration south of SW 27th Street (Proposals 9, 10): The HNTB pre- liminary design for the five-lane project between SW 27th and SW 31st Streets consists of approach fills and a 600-foot-long bridge structure over a portion of the wetland area. The location of the new roadway is parallel with an existing two-lane road on fill di- rectly over the Metro 108-inch trunk sewer. The HNTB-proposed fill and bridge is lo- cated clear of the older Metro 72-inch trunk sewer to the east. Mitigation of wetland disturbance is required both for the area lost due to the approach fills and that shaded by the bridge structure. Proposals Nos. 9 and 10 both involve incorporating the existing two-lane road in the new roadway, so that the two Metro lines will be beneath the pavement. This may re- quire consideration of the interaction between new construction and the Metro trunk lines, to the extent that loading and displacement of the pipes may occur due to added fill, or adjacent structural foundations. Proposal No. 9 is to place fill to the east of the existing two-lane road in lieu of building a bridge. Hydraulic continuity between the wetlands to the east and west would be en- hanced by the provision of three box culverts under the new fill and the existing road. The footprint of the new fill would be comparable with that of the approach fills pro- posed by HNTB, and would not result in the additional shading caused by the HNTB bridge. The estimated cost savings are $3,700,000. Note that this savings is for the r April 15, 1997 Page 4 portion of the corridor development not currently funded for construction under the T.I.B. grant. Proposal No. 10 involves widening the existing two-lane road by installing structural "outriggers", or"half-bridge" decks on either side of the existing fill. The type of structure proposed as an economical solution is a series of precast prestressed concrete planks, supported along the outboard edge by an edge beam on drilled shafts, and along the inboard edge by a grade beam foundation. The estimated cost savings are $2,231,000. Issues to be addressed include: • Metro's property rights along the pipeline easements • Interaction of fill or structure foundations on pipeline integrity • Verification of relative scope and cost of wetland mitigation • If the fill alternative is rejected, consideration of the durability and ride quality of the "outrigger"type of roadway deck construction The panel recommended that, whatever the final configuration of the roadway south of 27th, the initial construction north of 27th should maintain a straight alignment, and should not follow the reverse curve alignment of the HNTB layout. Technical Comments: The panel recorded under the heading"Technical comments" a number of suggestions relating to proposals judged not to be worth exploring further, or observations that might have to be considered by the design team in the final design process. The latter included: Utility Provisions: Provision should be made for the north bridge to accommodate a 12- to 16-inch water main, and other private utilities, including fiber optic and other telecommunication lines. Options for storm outlet vault: The alternatives of reconstructing the vault at a new location($25,000), or accessing it through the north bridge approach fill (Proposal No. 11) were compared. Stability of approach fills in the vicinity of bridge abutments: In view of the lique- faction potential of the foundation soils, alternative measures should be considered to reduce the potential damage under seismic conditions. Options include stone columns and retaining the approach fills using MSE walls. Preferred MSE Wall type: The most suitable type of mechanically stabilized earth (reinforced earth) wall would be the Hilfiker type, being very tolerant to settlement, and capable of allowing vegetation to establish on the wall faces. April 15, 1997 Page 5 Constructability and construction schedule: Led by Tom Alexander, the contractor member, the VE panel addressed constructability and construction schedule issues: Piling: Driven piling, including placement of cofferdam and construction of pile cap, can only be installed during the fish construction window(6/15 - 9/15) and would ef- fectively prevent completion of the north bridge in 1997. Use of drilled shafts would allow an earlier start and more rapid completion of the substructure. Bridge Superstructure: If the superstructure includes 110-foot-long girders (e.g., the HNTB design), two cranes will be required. If the bridge deck is to be built to partial width, and extended to full width later, access for the second stage of construction will be easier if the east portion is built first (assuming access for Stage 2 construction is available through the Boeing CSTC property). "Outrigger" widening of existing road south of SW 27th: It is possible to construct the "outrigger" option for the roadway south of 27th(Proposal No. 10) entirely from the existing road, without having equipment enter the adjacent wetland areas. Risk factors: In a session on Wednesday afternoon, the panel and City staff participated in a"risk assess- ment". The following were identified as significant factors, currently unknown, that could af- fect successful and timely accomplishment of the project. The purpose of identifying these factors is so that a management plan can be devised to control and minimize these risks to the extent possible. High water table: Groundwater conditions may require dewatering for trench construc- tion, and design of buried facilities against flotation. Geotechnical Conditions: Investigation to date has not included any borings to or below expected foundation depths. Additional exploration is required to develop design data. Effect of fill on buried pipes: South of SW 27th, investigation is required to predict the effect on buried Metro lines of placing additional fill. Delay in obtaining permits: It is impossible to predict with certainty when permits, particularly the Corps of Engineers permit for construction affecting wetlands, will be is- sued. The only advice is to start early and be persistent. Channel Widening Project: The concurrent development of the Surface Water Sec- tion's channel widening project poses significant potential risks to the Oakesdale Ave. proj ect: April 15, 1997 Page 6 • Design decisions - We need to know the geometry of the future channel the north bridge is crossing • Permit coordination - There is the possibility that, with two adjacent City projects in contemplation in the same area,permitting agencies may decline to act until both projects are adequately defined. • Construction overlap - Coordination between road, bridge and channel construc- tion is desirable. Without coordination, access may be more difficult for follow-on construction, and costs may be higher to work around new structures. Concurrent construction in the same area by two separate contractors would also be undesirable. Elements of the channel widening project within or near the road right-of-way may be better included in the Oakesdale Avenue construction package. cc: Joe Armstrong Bob Mahn Mark Pywell Scott Woodbury Rick Ford(Boeing) Bob Moorhead(T.I.B.) h:\...\I inure-recom.doc April 15, 1997 Page 7 NUMERICAL LIST OF COST-SAVING PROPOSALS (VE TEAM'S NUMBERING) la. Use Boeing facilities for detention/treatment $115,000 lb. Use surface pond at SW 19th instead of wet vault $112,000 1 w. Create pond and detain in created wetland $68,000 2. Use bioswale instead of inlets and piped drain system $72,000 3. Relocate south treatment pond to avoid impact on wetlands $45,000 4. Use water quality swale instead of ponds @ 23rd and 27th $39,000 4w. Use water quality swale @ Basin B - Wetland Impact 27th $29,000 5. Relocate basin boundaries (drain more to south) $28,000 6a. Replace driven piles with drilled shafts -North bridge $83,000 6b. Replace driven piles with drilled shafts - South bridge $121,000 7. Combine pier caps with deck diaphragms -North bridge $19,000 8. (not used) 9. Replace south bridge with a widened fill $3,700,000 10. Use "outrigger" structure to widen roadway south of SW 27th $2,230,000 11. Shorten the north bridge by filling wetland west of creek $541,000 12. Reduce roadway width across north bridge to four lanes $480,000 (estimate of savings appears unreasonably high; assume $312,000) r� Grp R rho y,a w) a,CK w• a� 3/�►oG� lavou3 c?U5t/i'ii/4- .arc TgAr+ 0/� QE�c,,b,�,�G- A,+, taut 5�4 �. laVpA46t w- h/u �s c.f,ac.E Vucs-r— � 3� TG� (�, �SO �a�i.✓(i R�iL�Qr�eE Pi�Pos - ut -- Cyr*. wr.rpe„., .A' owAN /,-, &/,j 6, t�/r�La4 Mi0 ^to OIA cl^WJ5 1) osz Gp eo l D gAe �c15's Ago A"40 A#40 &w►,PAeAr' Tv ,W/A o iv- /Jo tiff .:�4 Ai►f£� P lL"Jv- Sa�,n+Zmoot P� eAje 5 A -cam• L� NU7' Ste` Ace:,•. 4,t g,1cswA(t. (,vv✓L.0 /"Lj J!U A?OIVZ la,(m r-,O - w 44-1 . Vl qW Ste, 0 ' (7a Ae Ui` 3:2� cA�� ��Sl� 4uv,�,vp�j Bow SSs .s A2 4--'1 rts SECTION 24 T, 2JN. W. M. ov I C111- 1% K-TtVG COU • �""-� ` � �' •. � . ' _ ' ." % / �' / / is 14WA MAD WET-LAND GOUNRARY - ENGINEERE " (T�?I)-- pleel h ' / • C� ��„�7' f _ mil• • - � � ! J aIrk- • ` ram' i' f - _ Af do A_ 48+ 7l._35 P..I f ! % - / �l7 _ I ti \ / / ,' .' .' � CAr?+h1f`RRl�(1SC f'�r ►- K / f'� r � � � r ql,ig h T vi opo " To c.q brNcc �f r Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date U ' 7 pagges� a Fro April 14, 1997 To co. Co./Dept. Phone# Phone# Fax# (�y� 5�7 Fax# Mr. Joe Armstrong City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 1 200 Mill Avenue S. ' Renton, WA 98055 Re: Oakesdale Avenue Wetland Delineation (Shapiro Project#6971033) Dear Mr. Armstrong: This letter report provides a brief overview of the history of wetland delineations conducted within the vicinity of the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. project. It also presents results of additional field investigations conducted in March and April 1997 —information that is supplemental to the Wetland Technical Report: Oakesdale Avenue S.W., S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 31 st Street, Renton, Washington (City of Renton, 1997). The City of Renton is proposing to construct a section of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. between S.W. 16th Street and S.W. 31 st Street. The first phase of construction would terminate at S.W. 27th Street. Two proposed alignments have been examined in a Draft EIS published by the City of Renton in April 1997. The presence and extent of wetlands along the two alternative alignments have been examined as part of several development proposals that lie adjacent to the proposed roadway. Wetlands were delineated on Boeing's Customer Service Training Center(CSTC) site by Shapiro and Associates, Inc. (SHAPIRO) in 1991 and 1992 in conjunction with Boeing's x development of the site (please refer to Figures 1 and 2 in the Wetland Technical Report accompanying this letter report). These wetlands were field-verified by the U.S. Army t Corps of Engineers (Corps). The CSTC site has since been developed, and wetland impacts were mitigated by constructing wetlands on the site. One wetland was delineated along the west bank of Springbrook Creek on a portion of the CSTC site at the time of the original CSTC wetland investigation; however, the wetland lies mostly outside Boeing's property and was not affected by the CSTC development. This wetland was re-examined IYr10T Yssler way as part of the City of Renton's East Side Green River Watershed project and was { determined by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. not to be wetland. In their investigation � sufie aoo of the area, Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. observed wetland vegetation but did not 1 observe strong indicators of hydric soil or wetland hydrology. The area was examined again by SHAPIRO in April 1997 and wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland Seattle, WA 98104 hydrology were observed (the results of this latest re-examination are presented below). ,Telephone: Wetlands on Boeing's Longacres Office Park site were delineated by SHAPIRO in 1991 ""` and field-verified by the Corps. Only three of the wetlands delineated on the Longacres Office Park site occur within the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. roadway corridor. 'These M ,206.624.9190 wetlands are described in the Wetland Technical Report. r Facsimile: In fall 1994, SHAPIRO was contracted by HNTB Corporation, the engineering firm conducting roadway design work for the City of Renton, to delineate wetlands lying within g g y ;w,• 100 feet of the centerline of the two proposed alternative alignments for Oakesdale Avenue s {�so6.e2a.19o, S.W. The wetland study area excluded Boeing's property where wetland investigations had been completed. Wetlands were delineated in January 1995 and are discussed in the .E-mail: Wetland Technical Report accompanying this letter report. shapirooshop.com 4.4. Mr. Joe Armstrong Page 2 April 14, 1997 In March and April 1997, SHAPIRO conducted additional field work for the proposed Oakesdale Avenue S.W. project. The purpose of this field investigation was several-fold and included the following: (1) ensuring that wetland boundaries delineated in January 1995 remain visibly marked with flagging and reestablishing those wetland boundary lines as necessary to facilitate confirmation by the Corps; (2) determining if there have been changes in wetland boundaries as a result of activities that may have taken place in the project vicinity between January 1995 and March 1997; (3) in.several areas where gaps between previously delineated wetlands occurred because the original wetland flagging did not extend outside a 100-foot corridor defined by the proposed roadway centerline, the gaps were delineated; and(4)examining Springbrook Creek to review conditions along the west bank and determine whether wetland conditions originally observed by SHAPIRO in 1992 still exist. Figure 1 accompanying this letter report shows wetlands in the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. project corridor that lie between S.W. 16th Street and S.W. 27th Street outside of Boeing's property. The configurations of the wetlands shown in Figure 1 are approximate and reflect adjustments made during the March and April 1997 field visits. Figure 1 also shows the locations of wetland sample plots. Sample plot numbers correspond to the numbers on data sheets included in the appendix of the Wetland Technical Report accompanying this letter report. Much of the original flagging from the January 1995 delineation was still present on the site at the time of the March 1997 field investigation, and, for the most part, wetland conditions have not changed. Flagging along the southern portion of Wetland A was rehung and was extended along the eastern and southern edge of the former practice track. Extension of the flagged wetland edge connects Wetland A and Wetland C. Wetland A/C continues to the east; however, the eastern edge of the wetland,was not delineated. The area between Wetland C and Wetland D was examined to determine whether the gap in flagging between these wetlands could be connected(see Figure 5 in the Wetland Technical Report). Observations revealed that Wetland C has a narrow finger that extends south, and that Wetland C and Wetland D are not connected. The north end of Wetland D narrows and abuts the edge of the Allpak site development. The Wetland D western boundary that was flagged in 1995 was rehung and adjusted slightly to more accurately reflect hydrologic conditions. During the 1995 delineation, wetland hydrology was assumed to extend farther west; however,conditions during the months immediately preceding the March 1997 field investigation were very wet and it was evident the wetland edge actually occurred slightly to the east of the originally-flagged line. Flagging along the southern edge of Wetland D was extended where it curves around and parallels S.W. 27th Street. The final task conducted during the March and April 1997 field investigation was examination of the west bank of Springbrook Creek from the bridge at S.W. 16th Street southward as it flows adjacent to the Boeing CSTC site. The investigation did not include examination of conditions south of the southern border of the CSTC site. A narrow, linear wetland was observed and flagged along a narrow terrace adjacent to the - creek. The terrace is between approximately 6 and 15 feet wide and approximately 1,000 feet long. The terrace includes a flat bench and the adjacent bank. The bench varies in width from about 3 to 10 feet. At the time of this investigation, the top-of the bench was Mr. Joe Armstrong Page 3 April 14, 1997 3.5 feet above the water surface in Springbrook Creek. The banks adjacent to the flat bench vary from relatively flat 3:1 to 4:1 slopes at the southern end of the CSTC site, to 2:1 near the northern end of the wetland. Vertical cutbanks approximately 10-12 feet tall, which appear to be actively sloughing, occur north of the bench. They start near the bridge at S.W. 16th Street and extend south for about 250 feet. The vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the wetland delineated along the bench are described in the following paragraphs. Vegetation on the narrow terrace along the west bank is composed of a dense community of deciduous shrubs and trees. Dominant shrubs and trees in this community include Sitka willow, Douglas spirea, Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood, and Pacific willow. Scattered red alder also are present. Himalayan blackberry forms dense thickets near the - top of the bank in previously disturbed areas and in openings in the shrub/tree canopy but the blackberry thickets are generally sparse beneath the dense,shrub and tree canopy formed by the willows and black cottonwood. The few herbs that are present occur in openings in the shrub/tree canopy and include reed canarygrass, bluegrass, horsetail, and American bulrush. This hydrophytic vegetation community begins approximately 250 feet south of the bridge, which is located at S.W. 16th Street, and extends upstream (southward) to the southern end of the CSTC site. The wetland boundary and terrace begin approximately 250 feet south of the bridge and just downstream of the 36-inch diameter storm vault outfall at the CSTC, and extends upstream to the southern boundary of the CSTC site and beyond. The terrace and vegetation community extend south of the southern boundary of the CSTC site. Soils on the terrace are fine sandy loams above dense silt loams. The surface horizon is a 4-inch-thick layer of very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) fine sandy loam with few fine distinct strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles, which overlies a 6-inch-thick mixed matrix of gray (IOYR 5/1) to brown (IOYR 4/3) fine sandy loam to silt loam. Many fine to medium distinct yellowish brown (IOYR 5/8) to strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles were observed in the B horizon (i.e., 4-10 inches). A dense gray (IOYR 5/1) to gray (IOYR 6/1) silt loam with many fine to coarse distinct strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles underlies the mixed matrix from 10 inches to more than 18 inches below the ground surface. This silt loam appears to be an aquitard. Low chromas and mottles are positive indicators of hydric soils. Mr. Joe Armstrong Page 4 April 14, 1997 Several positive indicators of wetland hydrology were found on the terrace. Surface scouring, deposition of fine sands, drift lines in the shrubs, and oxidized rhizospheres and saturation at 10 inches were observed in the wetland sample plot (see Sample Plot 8 data). The terrace likely floods periodically. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this information for you. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, SHAPIRO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Constance Gold Assistant Project Manager i O i-405 Gro�i 7, o s� S.W.16th St. sample CSfC Sample Plot 0 Plot 0 Q Site Sample Plot s .� � I �S.W.19th St. a U c Q � N mi a Sample Plot S E : .... g` _ Sample Plot as a Sample Plot O Wetland A *) 7 41 •Z ' a 1 ,y Sample Plot c Wetland C Sample Plot Sample Plot m I�° Sample Plot 6 ' / Sam le Plot A�Wedand D Qa S.W.27th Sr. O 08 L. Boeing Co.PropertyUne. u City Owned -o 0 3 a NOTE:Wetland locations are approximate. 1 FIGURE 1 0 800 LEGEND: WETLANDS ALONG THE ROADWAY -------------Veet Flagged Wetland Edges CORRIDOR BETWEEN SW 16TH STREET Wetlands Extend Outward AND SW 27TH STREET o Sample Plot Locations S H A P I R O OAKESDALE AVENUE SW S ASSOCIATES. INC. 4J97 AGENDA VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY OAKESDALE AVENUE SW SW 16th to SW 3+*Street TIME ATTENDEES CVS VE TEAM OWNER APRIL 7, 1997 PROJECT OVERVIEW 9 AM- 11 AM X X X VE GOALS 1IAM- 11:30AM SITE VISIT 1 PM X X X DOCUMENT REVIEW 2 PM- 5 PM X X APRIL 8, 1997 BRAINSTORMING 9 AM- 11 AM X X X 1 JUDGMENT/ RATING 11 AM- X X X NOON GROUP CREATIVITY AS NEEDED X X PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT 12:30 PM-5 X X PM APRIL 9, 1997 PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT 9 AM-3 PM X X GROUP REVIEW 1 PM X X RISK ASSESSMENT 3 PM X X X (1) APRIL 10, 1997 PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT 9 AM-2 PM X X PRESENTATION 2 PM X X X APRIL 14, 1997 UNEDITED WORKING COPY OF X PROPOSALS DELIVERED APRIL 22, 1997 9AM RvIPLEMENTATION MEETING X X APRIL 25, 1997 DRAFT COPY OF REPORT X DELIVERED 1. Owner is invited to attend. 2. General hours-9 am-5 PM with 30 minutes for lunch. CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 25, 1997 TO: Gregg Zimmerman rr VIA: ' N MAR 21997 i997 Sandra f1 e7 ^ CITY OF kE[ TON FROM: Lin Wilson,,- / Engineering Dept. SUBJECT: Oakesdale Avenue SW- SW 16th St. to SW 27th St. Recommended Selection of final Design Consultant On Monday, March 24, 1997, five candidate firms were interviewed for the assignment to per- form final design of the Oakesdale Avenue project. The interview panel consisted of Lin Wil- son, Sandra Meyer, Joe Armstrong, Bob Mahn, Mark Pywell and Scott Woodbury, all with the City P/B/PW Department, and Rick Ford, of the Boeing Company. Each interview lasted for approximately one hour, and included a 30-minute presentation by the candidate firm, followed by a question-and-answer period. In the letter of invitation to participate in the interview, firms had been advised of five specific topics of interest to the City, as follows: • Experience of the project manager and team members on"fast-track"projects • Documented success in adhering to demanding project schedules • Successful experience with, and recommended approach to expedited acquisition of wetland and environmental permits • Experience in managing projects involving coordination with adjacent construction by others • Suggested management methods to be considered by the City to facilitate and ex- pedite timely and cost-effective accomplishment of the project In the scoring system for the interview, 75 out of a possible 100 points were assigned to the candidates' treatment of these topics. The remaining points were to be made based upon the firms' responses to questions, with 10 points for"other factors"at the discretion of each panel member. The combined scores in each category (the sum of the scores awarded by the seven panel members) are tabulated on the attached spreadsheet"Category", and show that the high- est combined score was obtained by the Kato & Warren/Entranco team. The spreadsheet "Rankings" shows that, of the seven panel members, six ranked Kato & Warren/Entranco No. 1, with KPFF receiving the No. 1 ranking from the seventh member. March 25, 1997 Page 2 Accordingly, it is our recommendation to negotiate an agreement to perform the final design and provision of construction support services with the Kato & Warren/Entranco team. The schedule is to agree a scope and cost estimate not later than April 23, 1997. This will be the subject of an agenda bill on your desk April 25, 1997, for referral by the Council on May 5, 1997 to Transportation Committee May 6, 1997. Approval by the full Council is scheduled to follow May 12, 1997, with the start of work the following day. Pending agreement and execution of the agreement, I am considering having the team perform some early tasks (such as scoping, participation on the VE panel and project committees, and developing a scheduled for permit processing), under a limited budget contract, identifying them as a sole source provider. The alternative would be to have these services furnished un- der an agreement with Entranco, a firm on our Small Works Roster. In the course of the interviews, several presenters made interesting suggestions regarding the configuration of the bridge over Springbrook Creek. Most candidates (including HNTB, the preparer of the bridge TS&L report) recommended consideration of an alternative type of pil- ing and substructure for the bridge. Also, two teams recommended consideration of filling the portions of the Boeing wetland that would be shaded by the bridge and providing the additional mitigation that might be required as a result. My preferred approach(which we had considered even prior to the interviews) is to ask the VE panel (scheduled to convene the week of April 7, 1997) to consider these tradeoffs and estimate what project cost savings might result. In addition, I have proposed that the VE panel be re- quested to consider the tradeoff south of 27th between filling and bridging the wetlands. This is an issue that it would be desirable to resolve before we finalize the alignment of the 3-lane roadway immediately north of SW 27th Street. cc: Joe Armstrong Bob Mahn Mark Pywell Scott Woodbury Rick Ford(Boeing) h:\...\I in\selexion.doc Category CONSULTANT INTERVIEWS Combined Scores (by Category) Oakesdale Avenue (SW 16th - SW 27th) Final Design Criteria (Note 1) Total Name of Firm A B C D E F G Score Rank /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /105 /70 /700 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 96 91 90 89 94 90 54 604 2 INCA ENGINEERS, INC. 67 67 63 59 66 67 42 431 5 HNTB CORPORATION 83 89 91 87 87 81 55 573 3 KATO& WARREN, INC. 97 97 98 86 96 95 56 625 1 CH2MHILL 91 91 88 84 80 81 58 573 3 NOTE 1: Evaluation Criteria D: Projects adjacent to other construction A: Fast track project experience E: Suggested management methods B: Success in meeting project schedules F: Responses to questions C: Expediting permit acquisition G: Other factors/observations h:\division.s\transpor.tat\design.eng\lin\oakesdal\intscore.xls Page 1 Rankings CONSULTANT INTERVIEWS Combined Ranking Oakesdale Avenue (SW 16th - SW 27th) Final Design Ranking by Evaluator Com- Name of Firm Initials of Evaluator Total bined L.W. S.M. J.A. B.M. M.P. S.W. R.F. Rank KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 15 2 INCA ENGINEERS, INC. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 35 5 HNTB CORPORATION 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 23 4 KATO & WARREN, INC. 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 9 1 CH2MHILL 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 20 3 h:\division.s\transpor.tat\design.eng\lin\oakesdal\intscore.xls t' CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 26, 1997 TO: Lin Wilson Joe Armstrong FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: Oakesdale Extension Project Wetland Crest Stage Gage Presentation to VE team Attached is a plan and detail regarding my suggested installation of a wetland crest stage gage in the wetland immediately north of SW 27th Street. I recommend that you install the crest gage as soon as possible. It will give us the water level information needed to determine if we can use the wetland for water quantity control. If the wetland is used for water quantity control, then all that may be needed for water quality (not quantity) control for System B prior to discharge to the wetland would be a water quality swale. Replacing the currently proposed combination water quantity/quality control pond with a swale will lessen the area of wetland impacted, if not completely eliminate it. We will monitor the gage along with the other gages we are already monitoring in the valley. Also I will be available at your convenience to give a presentation to the VE team regarding our knowledge of the existing drainage features in the project area (Springbrook Creek, the wetlands, etc). If you have any questions, please call me at X-5547. cc: Ron Straka n _—� ' •=ma's MOM�.��►— WE 1►. �AMM�. �) — WIRE— o i - � a . 0 I AL IF♦ ; ► R Ores e •.�,� Y RC CID ; he S� �i",eva�,je T0i (w r1� mt-All 66 oA {°P -la a1fovu 'j► d{�plQCeati�en� o�' air a,; UV44" {g�sss -px way er Sur-Ace _ � O I U�p x - Cd�p � �, stasofoI. Vat ia'�,hr► o-� w4p . o L "Pi' 3�� ir1Gh ale S tow wot F4> e` rtwiber� 0. - war level rTC • � ti 'I��loseG y7! LSa Jai_ uti�, ��^ r� Cmo7 �✓- �r� Lv��s w IMP y g7 1AJ �41* lr7 � • ; OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. INN Coordination Meeting Minutes -- Bi-weekly Meeting #3 March 11, 1997 Attendees: Representing Name City of Renton Bob Mahn, Lin Wilson, Clint Morgan, Mark Pywell, Joe Armstrong, Scott Woodbury, Abdoul Gafour The Boeing Company Lori Pitzer, Rick Ford A. PROJECT SCHEDULE STATUS: A.1: TIB schedule for design phase approval: TIB Staff Report issued to City: First week in March, no later than March 11. Received March 11th Review by TIB Cost Increase Committee 11:00 AM, March 20 Review by TIB Sidewalk Committee: 1:00 PM, March 20 TIB Board Informal Meeting: 7:00 PM, March 20 TIB Board Meeting(Formal Action): 9:00 AM, March 21 Note: • City attendance at Cost Increase and Sidewalk Committee meeting is mandatory. City attendance at Informal Board Meeting is strongly suggested, and at Formal Board Meeting is up to City. • Boeing should plan on attending both the Informal and Formal Board Meeting. • All above meetings will be held in Kent. Location still to be determined. A.2. Project Status: • EIS in progress-Draft EIS to be completed early March. Schedule on this item has slipped. It should now be ready by March 31. • VE study: TIB would pick facilitator. 3/11/97: Done (Retired) (see Item#C.16, below)�� �' • The preliminary design report has to be revised and supplemented prior to the VE study Dug if TIB meeting March 21, 1997 --City will discuss with TIB status of the Prospectus prior to the meeting • Start Design --May 1997. PS&E complete October 1997 /M;7 01/Ol , AAwfL X_-6,-wov_4 cw,Gp ,XL r, • Start Construction -- March 1998. Three steps are required prior to construction: funding, advertise, and 71-- — award. (Pending) B. BI-WEEKLY TOPICS: B.1. Bob Moorehead is the TIB representative assigned to this project. Bob Mahn explained the TIB had three initial questions: 1) Is the scaled-down 3-lane version consistent with Regional plans? 2) Is funding available for the other phase(s)?and, 3) Will Boeing be doing the construction? Bob stated he had replied that the City would be doing the construction. He noted that Lee Haro (from the City)will be providing a quick response on the other two items. 3/11/97: Boeing requested a copy of Lee's written response to the TIB. I ACTION ITEM (City) B.3. CONSULTANT SELECTION: 3/11/97: Copies of the responsive SOQ's and the City's review ratings were handed to Rick Ford for review. The consultant interview date has been set for 3/24/97, in the 6th floor Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 2 Technical Committee Meeting Minutes March 11, 1997 conference room. It was agreed to specify certain topics to be addressed during the presentation process as part of the selection criteria (i.e. experience in fast-tracking; the firm's approach to the permitting process and their permitting experience; and, their expertise in multi-level construction coordination for multiple concurrent projects within the project limits and disciplines). The top five firms will be invited to participate in rank order. The interview process will be scheduled for one hour, with a minimum of a 15-minute break between presentations. Partnering during design and construction was discussed. It was agreed Boeing will present the question of how each firm would approach partnering as an interview question. Clint suggested incorporating a construction partnering commitment as an advisory note for the preconstruction meeting. ACTION ITEM (City) B.4. Bob stated the project will be to construct a 3-lane road along with a bridge, drainage, and water quality treatment. A question was raised, why not 5 lanes? At this time, funding is not available to cover the additional cost of$1 million plus. 2/25/97: Responding to a question, Bob explained the preliminary design report must be modified to reflect the change from a 5-lane facility down to a 3-lane. He is currently compiling a Scope of Work for the consultant to cover this. The consultant (HNTB) is under contract to help through the final EIS and Design Report. Bob will be meeting with HNTB on 2/26/97. 3/11/97: Lori asked to keep this open as an action item. She explained that Boeing is adamant that a 5-lane bridge be constructed as part of this project. Lin explained that the Technical Committee is tasked with implementation of the project, and that the current direction to the group is to construct a 3-lane facility. A 5-lane facility would be outside the scope already authorized by the TIB. He further explained that the Oakesdale Oversight (Steering) Committee was charged with the responsibility of determining the scope of the agreed project. If a change in direction is received prior to mid-April, it can be accommodated without delay to the schedule for this technical coordination group. B.6. Permits: Bob stated that several wetland areas would be affected by the Oakesdale project; however, it is not known which wetlands will be under Corps jurisdiction. A Shoreline and a Hydraulic permit will be needed. Question was asked if the Shoreline Permit would be obtained for a 3-lane or 5-lane project. Mark will take a look at the shoreline issue. Lori suggested that, if delays occur, the permit process for work south of 19th could be separated from the north portion. 3/11/97: Scott reviewed the permitting process: The delineation report needs to be submitted to the Corps first, and approved by them. After that, should proceed with the permit application process. The Stokes report does not agree with that of Shapiro for the delineation of the wetland area adjacent to the creek. Because of this, it will be presented to the Corps for their evaluation and final determination. 2/25/97: Bob Mahn explained the City will be contracting for pre-design survey work by W. H. Pacific to be done prior to May 1, including location of new wetland flagging to be placed by Shapiro. 3/11/97: Lori requested copies of the consultant's proposals. (Pending) Survey and Wetland consultants' proposals ACTION ITEM (City) The City will need a right-of-entry letter for the consultants from Boeing. Boeing explained they have their own established guidelines which must be followed. Rick will provide a copy of them and help expedite the process for the City. (Pending) Right-of-entry guidelines ACTION ITEM (Boeing) The construction bid package may be split into two separate schedules (Schedules A and B) which will allow flexibility in the bidding, awarding, and construction of phased activity, if necessary, to reflect delays in the acquisition of permits. Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 3 Technical Committee Meeting Minutes March 11, 1997 Bob then explained how the Shoreline Permit timelines are interpreted: A project for which a permit has been granted must be completed within five years after approval of the permit. Upon review and a showing of good cause, the permit may be extended for a period of up to one year. Construction of a project for which a permit has been granted must commence within two years after permit approval. Regarding this Oakesdale project, the intention is to obtain a permit for the full five-lane project. Commencement of construction of the three-lane project by March 1998 will meet the permit's two-year commencement requirement. 3/11/97: Rick agreed to prepare a timeline for the needed permits. Mark will submit the Shoreline Permit to the DOE for their comments. (Pending) Permit Timeline ACTION ITEM (Boeing) Shoreline Permit to the DOE ACTION ITEM (City) C. COORDINATION ISSUES C.7. Street lighting was designed for both sides of 5-lane. Lighting for 3-lane will have to be looked at. 2/25/97: The lighting requirements under the phased 3-lane project were reviewed. The original design is staggered lighting on both sides of the roadway. One option may be to light just one side, using more poles to compensate for lack of poles on the opposite side which won't be constructed under the first phase. Clint commented on the possible impact to lighting from one side with trees planted in the boulevard median. Boeing wishes to maintain a boulevard appearance. Lori asked about City standards for lower intensity with fewer lights. Clint proposed there may be legal ramifications for liability in this regard. It may be possible to set the poles, using longer arms, in the undeveloped portion and still have a staggered look. Boeing would lean toward the staggered lighting option. (Pending) ACTION ITEM (City) C.8. Puget Power's transmission line needs to be moved out of the alignment. The new location should be compatible with the 5-lane scheme. Coordination is needed on Puget Power relocations. • Poles outside of right-of-way, no coordination issue. • Poles in right-of-way becomes a design coordination issue. Boeing will follow up with Puget Power, including the "Raymond" option. 2/25/97: Boeing has met with Puget Power. The poles will be moved and will not impact the schedule. 3/11/97: The final location has not yet been decided. (Pending) ACTION ITEM (Boeing) C.9. UTILITY COORDINATION: Boeing will also approach the water and sewer utilities regarding relocation needs. It was noted that the new building will need gas service which may need coordination in the design, should the service be in the road. GAS LINES: 2/25/97: A gas line extension does exist on Boeing's property. Rick advised it may be prudent for the City to see if they want an extension to the south installed within City right-of-way. IACTION ITEM (City) WATER LINES: 2/25/97: Boeing is considering the relocation of the existing waterline and is discussing the possibility with Neil Watts. Boeing currently is not showing the waterline as relocated, except for a portion around their new building. This relocation and the remainder of the existing waterline should be able to remain out of the Oakesdale right-of-way even if future development occurs on the Office Park site at a later date. All other utilities will remain in the utility easement already set aside on the Boeing property and will not pose a problem. 3/11/97: Clint discussed the potential stub across Oakesdale for a Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 4 Technical Committee Meeting Minutes March 11, 1997 new waterline back to the east. Abdoul discussed the current routing for waterlines within the immediate vicinity. Rick believes a new City waterline is scheduled to be stubbed across, and he will check to verify this will happen. Abdoul explained that whether it was stubbed and capped on both ends, or whether it is capped on the east side and charged, doesn't matter as far as the City is concerned. (Pending) Waterline stub crossing Oakesdale ACTION ITEM(Boeing) ELECTRICAL: Exhibits were provided by Sverdrup showing the Electrical plan and cross-section. The exhibits were given to Clint which will be passed on to other departments for review. Discussions on utilities as shown on the exhibits were discussed. Direct buried electrical is planned to be in portions of the roadway to miss the CSTC wetland and a small (0.08 acre) wetland on the Office Park Site. Bob stated that when the Boeing Training Center was constructed the 0.08 acre wetland was also mitigated. Boeing stated that this wetland is still functional and impacts to it require mitigation. The schedule for utility installation needs to be coordinated with that for road construction. Sverdrup/Boeing will furnish information when available. Utility Coordination ACTION ITEM (Boeing) FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLY/other building support facilities: Bob discussed the cross-section showing the planting strip, back of sidewalk being at the property line. Lin asked at what point does the City have responsibility. It was noted the City's responsibility would end at the new right-of-way. However, Boeing may need to locate fire protection water supply, and/or other building support facilities in the new right-of-way. It was stated that all construction work would be coordinated. (*This item was previously listed as Item 11.) Utility Coordination ACTION ITEM (Boeing/City) C.10. 2/25/97: The status of the 0.08 acre wetland needs to be clarified for this Boeing site. Jim Coulter believes that Metro's 108" pipe project may have disturbed this wetland to the extent that it no longer exists. Lori will be checking further on this. In the meantime, Boeing prefers to leave the wetland alone. Lori asked if the proposed Oakesdale drainage outfall could go around this wetland, either through the CSTC wetland buffer to the north or further to the south, so it wouldn't be impacted. The lack of slope may restrict this; however, these options will be investigated further during Oakesdale project final design. 3/11/97: Bob noted that Shapiro did not mention this wetland in the EIS for this project. Lori stated Boeing is proceeding with the assumption that it is still there. Scott advised this may be an item which the Corps will ultimately have the responsibility for determining. Status of 0.08 wetland ACTION ITEM (Boeing) Avoiding 0.08 wetland ACTION ITEM (City Design Team C.12. Driveway entries to the site will be more like a roadway intersection than a curb-cut type driveway. 2/25/97: The loading-dock exit will be a wing-type driveway. (Retired) C.13. Datum: Clint opened discussion on datum City vs. Boeing. Both parties will review the situation and report back at the next meeting. Bob Mahn advised vertical datum currently being used for the Oakesdale project: NGVD 1929, per Boeing Company Customer Service Training Center Site Development Plan by W&H Pacific (Monuments "A" and "B"). NGVD 1929 plus 3.57 feet = NAVD 1988. The Oakesdale datum will match existing Boeing datum. Care will have to be exercised in the future concerning the City's new S.W. 16th Street project and its datum when compared to the Oakesdale project's datum, because they won't correlate. (Retired) Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 5 Technical Committee Meeting Minutes March 11, 1997 C.16. VE STUDY: The TIB is awaiting a letter from the City requesting they nominate the facilitator for the Value Engineering (VE) study. 3/11/97: The facilitator has been nominated (Jill Nelson) and the City will be meeting with her on Wednesday. Rick will work on obtaining a meeting room near the project for the VE group. He will notify Joe Armstrong when arrangements have been made. (Pending) VE meeting room ACTION ITEM oein D. GENERAL DISCUSSION D.14. It was agreed that the coordination meetings will be every two weeks. It was also suggested that a matrix be set up for action items as a format. Draft copies of minutes will be forwarded to Rick Ford for distribution within Boeing. Action Item Matrix ACTION ITEM (Boeing)] NEXT MEETING: The next coordination meeting will be held on March 25'h at 1:30 p.m., City Hall, in the 51�floor conference room. Attachment: Action Items Log Copies: Attendees Gregg Zimmerman Sandra Meyer PLANNING/BurmiNG/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISON MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET Project: Oakesdale Ave. S.W. / Boeing Corp. Bldg. Date. 3/11/97 Subject: Coordination Meetina Location: Renton Municipal Bldg. Project Coordinator: Bob Mahn / Clint Morgan Phone: 277-5545 / 277-6216 Name (Please PRINT) Affiliation/Representing Phone C47� Cam= /�=NrUry T N BDor�v a AFDua/ �E►.nvu U1�v Ikn�� 277-G2 i 0 SIGNUP.Doc,' OAKESDALE AVENUE — SW 16TH STREET TO SW 27TH STREET TECHNICAL COMMITTEE - ACTION ITEMS LOG -Ls/9 7 Item Action Item Responsibility Date Date Resolution No. Description Assigned Due B. 1 Provide copy of City's response to T.I.B.regarding project Bob Mahn 3-11-97 ASAP P° p.;wMha,rt consistency with regional plans,status of funding for future phases, and identification of agency responsible for construction. B.3 Include question regarding partnering in format of design interviews Lin Wilson 3-11-97 3-24-97 Go B. 6a Provide Boeing with copies of W&H Pacific scope for pre-design Lin Wilson 3-1 1-97 3-24-97 surveys and Shapiro scope for wetland delineation. C.c.•, B.6b Provide right-of-entry for survey and wetland delineation Rick Ford 3-11-97 - mr B.6c Prepare timeline for permitting process Rick Ford 3-11-97 Undetermined 1vvv-0. 7a te .r%,.ri B.6d Submit copy of Shoreline Permit to DOE for comment Mark Pywell 3-11-97 Undetermined ki -r>, ,4 ,T •"Q,; C. 7 Revise illumination concept presented in prelim. design report City/HNTB 2-25-97 3-31-97 " C. 8 Coordinate relocation of Puget Power 115 kV lines Lori Pitzer 3-11-97 Ongoing C. 9a Determine future location of gas line extension to the south Clint Morgan 2-25-97 Ongoing C.9b Locate waterline stubs crossing roadway alignment Rick Ford 3-11-97 Ongoing C.9c Furnish schedule for utility installations included in Longacres Boeing/ 3-11-97 When available Office Park construction program Sverdrup d C.9d Determine location of fire protection water lines 13eeiug 1A 3-11-97 Ongoing C. I0a Clarify status of 0.08-acre wetland Lori Pitzer 2-25-97 L ASAP Assume continued existence C. 10b Design to avoid 0.08-acre wetland City team 3-11-97 May 1997- D. 14 Provide model"Action Item"matrix Rick Ford 3-1 1-97 ASAP () c1 D. 16 Determine if a room is available in a Boeing facility for the VE Rick Ford 3-11-97 3-25-97 f study team during the week of 4-7-97 P. yT AA* � �R W; � � k:C W 's Print date: March 22, 1997 R°%ti iv At-16,v�,.t�r ?u Z'7A W VAC P s +[3 3 i y li:\division.s\transpor.tat\design.eng\lin\oakesdal\axionlog.doc CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 13, 1997 ,' � TO: Ron Olsen ° Sandra Meyer \� '" -0 Ron Straka N4® Scott Woodbury Bob Mahn �nd�`�eevA FROM: Gregg Zimmerman 2 SUBJECT: March 5 Oakesdale Meeting The meeting was held to explain the commitment the Mayor's office has made to Boeing regarding the completion of a Phase I, three-lane, Oakesdale project (S.W. 16th to S.W. 27th). This commitment obligates the City to complete the portion of the project between S.W. 19th and S.W. 27th by October 1998, and to complete the portion between S.W. 19th and S.W. 16th by June, 1999. These deadlines are non-negotiable; therefore, it is imperative that P/B/PW staff work cooperatively and expeditiously, as a team, to meet these deadlines. With this in mind, the following points were agreed to: • The Transportation Division's consultant design team will include expertise on State and Federal environmental permits and permitting processes (Corps 404, WDFW BPA permit, Ecology permits, etc.), and will prepare the permit application(s) and assist in the permitting process(es) required for the three-lane project. • Surface Water Utility staff will oversee acquisition of required State and Federal environmental permits (provide guidance and review during preparation of permit applications, assist in obtaining needed permits, etc.). • Gregg to investigate further and finalize a decision on lowering the 100-year floodplain elevation used by the City to assess impacts associated with filling flood plains and to establish compensatory storage requirements. It is understood that the FEMA 100-year flood plain elevations will not be altered by this decision. • Elevate to the Oakesdale Oversight Committee the issue of future water and sewer facilities. Existing constraints (i.e. Metro 108-inch and 72-inch trunk sewers) will most likely dictate that these future utilities, if in the Oakesdale right-of-way, would need to be located in the Phase I roadway area. Installation after completion of Phase I will require traffic disruption, pavement restoration and additional cost. Boeing setting aside property adjacent to Oakesdale for future utility easement is one option. The meeting also included a brief discussion of the Phase H Oakesdale project (S.W. 27th to S.W. 31 st). Ideas presented for reducing the cost of this roadway connection, given the highly sensitive wetland issue, included: • Long Range Planning is beginning the process to modify sensitive area ordinances. Other PB/PW staff need to get issues to them for consideration (i.e. reduce wetland replacement ratios, as required, to be more in line with other jurisdictions). • Roadway on fill versus bridge structure over wetland area. Minimize fill impacts on wetland by locating new roadway in area of existing earth embankment and paved access road. • Possible utilization of City owned wetland mitigation bank property to construct created wetlands to mitigate Phase H project. Early construction of wetlands could result in reduction in the overall size of the wetland creation project, per current code. HATRANSIRLM\0&b4da1jj OAK4I.doc CITY OF RENTON ..LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 12, 1997 Peter de Boldt MAR 1 ,1 1997 CH2M-Hill P.O. Box 91500 - 777 - 108th Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Engineering Dept, SUBJECT: OAKESDALE AVENUE SW(SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street) Interviews For Final Design Engineering Services Dear Peter: Congratulations! On the basis of the Statement of Qualifications submitted for the above project, your firm has been selected to make an interview presentation to a selection panel on Monday, March 24, 1997. The schedule for interviews is as follows: 8:00 AM KPFF Consulting Engineers 9:30 AM INCA Engineers, Inc. 11:00 AM HNTB Corporation 1:00 PM Kato &Warren, Inc. 2:30 PM CH2M-Hil1 Each interview is scheduled to last 60 minutes. Following introductions, the consultant will have up to 30 minutes in which to make a presentation. The remaining time will be allocated to questions from the panel, and related discussion. Candidate firms will enter the interview unranked. Panel members will score and rank each team based upon the material presented and responses to questions. The scoring system will be weighted to give greatest emphasis to the following topics,which are of special significance to the Oakesdale project: • Experience of the project manager and team members on"fast-track"projects • Documented success in adhering to demanding project schedules • Successful experience with, and recommended approach to expedited acquisition of wetland and environmental permits • Experience in managing projects involving coordination with adjacent construction by others • Suggested management methods to be considered by the City to facilitate and expedite timely and cost-effective accomplishment of the project We look forward to your participation in the selection process. If you have any questions, please contact me at 277-6223, or Joe Armstrong,Project Manager,at 277-6203. Sincerely, UAR14.11 Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor hA...ViMoakesdahinvitatn.doc 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,2011,post consumer R410 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 12, 1997 Rich Kato Kato &Warren, Inc. 2003 Western Ave 555 Market Place One Seattle, WA 98121 SUBJECT: OAKESDALE AVENUE SW(SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street) Interviews For Final Design Engineering Services Dear Rich: Congratulations! On the basis of the Statement of Qualifications submitted for the above project, your firm has been selected to make an interview presentation to a selection panel on Monday, March 24, 1997. The schedule for interviews is as follows: 8:00 AM KPFF Consulting Engineers 9:30 AM INCA Engineers, Inc. 11:00 AM HNTB Corporation 1:00 PM Kato &Warren, Inc. 2:30 PM CH2M-Hill Each interview is scheduled to last 60 minutes. Following introductions, the consultant will have up to 30 minutes in which to make a presentation. The remaining time will be allocated to questions from the panel, and related discussion. Candidate firms will enter the interview unranked. Panel members will score and rank each team based upon the material presented and responses to questions. The scoring system will be weighted to give greatest emphasis to the following topics,which are of special significance to the Oakesdale project: • Experience of the project manager and team members on"fast-track"projects • Documented success in adhering to demanding project schedules • Successful experience with, and recommended approach to expedited acquisition of wetland and environmental permits • Experience in managing projects involving coordination with adjacent construction by others • Suggested management methods to be considered by the City to facilitate and expedite timely and cost-effective accomplishment of the project We look forward to your participation in the selection process. If you have any questions, please contact me at 277-6223, or Joe Armstrong, Project Manager,at 277-6203. Sincerely, Laoi;w Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor hA...\lin\oakesdal\invitatn.doc 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 12, 1997 Doug Myrhe, VP HNTB Corporation 600 - 108th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: OAKESDALE AVENUE SW(SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street) Interviews For Final Design Engineering Services Dear Mr. Myrhe: Congratulations! On the basis of the Statement of Qualifications submitted for the above project, your firm has been selected to make an interview presentation to a selection panel on Monday, March 24, 1997. The schedule for interviews is as follows: 8:00 AM KPFF Consulting Engineers 9:30 AM INCA Engineers, Inc. 11:00 AM HNTB Corporation 1:00 PM Kato &Warren, Inc. 2:30 PM CH2M-Hill Each interview is scheduled to last 60 minutes. Following introductions, the consultant will have up to 30 minutes in which to make a presentation. The remaining time will be allocated to questions from the panel, and related discussion. Candidate firms will enter the interview unranked. Panel members will score and rank each team based upon the material presented and responses to questions. The scoring system will be weighted to give greatest emphasis to the following topics,which are of special significance to the Oakesdale project: • Experience of the project manager and team members on"fast-track"projects • Documented success in adhering to demanding project schedules • Successful experience with, and recommended approach to expedited acquisition of wetland and environmental permits • Experience in managing projects involving coordination with adjacent construction by others • Suggested management methods to be considered by the City to facilitate and expedite timely and cost-effective accomplishment of the project We look forward to your participation in the selection process. If you have any questions,please contact me at 277-6223,or Joe Armstrong,Project Manager,at 277-6203. Sincerely, L��P9, Lin Wilson,P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor hA...Vin\oakesdahinvitatn.doc 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ©This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer ;y CITY OF RENTON T R Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 12, 1997 Ron Leimkuhler KPFF Consulting Engineers 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: OAKESDALE AVENUE SW(SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street) Interviews For Final Design Engineering Services Dear Mr.Leimkuhler: Congratulations! On the basis of the Statement of Qualifications submitted for the above project, your firm has been selected to make an interview presentation to a selection panel on Monday, March 24, 1997. The schedule for interviews is as follows: 8:00 AM KPFF Consulting Engineers 9:30 AM INCA Engineers, Inc. 11:00 AM HNTB Corporation 1:00 PM Kato &Warren, Inc. 2:30 PM CH2M-Hill Each interview is scheduled to last 60 minutes. Following introductions, the consultant will have up to 30 minutes in which to make a presentation. The remaining time will be allocated to questions from the panel, and related discussion. Candidate firms will enter the interview unranked. Panel members will score and rank each team based upon the material presented and responses to questions. The scoring system will be weighted to give greatest emphasis to the following topics,which are of special significance to the Oakesdale project: • Experience of the project manager and team members on"fast-track"projects • Documented success in adhering to demanding project schedules • Successful experience with, and recommended approach to expedited acquisition of wetland and environmental permits • Experience in managing projects involving coordination with adjacent construction by others • Suggested management methods to be considered by the City to facilitate and expedite timely and cost-effective accomplishment of the project We look forward to your participation in the selection process. If you have any questions, please contact me at 277-6223, or Joe Armstrong, Project Manager,at 277-6203. Sincerely, Ltv_;(� Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor hA...Vin\oakesdahinvitatn.doc 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 8 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer ' CITY OF RENTON TR Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 12, 1997 Dan Patsula INCA Engineers, Inc. 11120 NE 2nd Street Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: OAKESDALE AVENUE SW(SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street) Interviews For Final Design Engineering Services Dear Mr. Patsula: Congratulations! On the basis of the Statement of Qualifications submitted for the above project, your firm has been selected to make an interview presentation to a selection panel on Monday, March 24, 1997. The schedule for interviews is as follows: 8:00 AM KPFF Consulting Engineers 9:30 AM INCA Engineers, Inc. 11:00 AM HNTB Corporation 1:00 PM Kato&Warren, Inc. 2:30 PM CH2M-Hill Each interview is scheduled to last 60 minutes. Following introductions, the consultant will have up to 30 minutes in which to make a presentation. The remaining time will be allocated to questions from the panel, and related discussion. Candidate firms will enter the interview unranked. Panel members will score and rank each team based upon the material presented and responses to questions. The scoring system will be weighted to give greatest emphasis to the following topics,which are of special significance to the Oakesdale project: • Experience of the project manager and team members on"fast-track"projects • Documented success in adhering to demanding project schedules • Successful experience with, and recommended approach to expedited acquisition of wetland and environmental permits • Experience in managing projects involving coordination with adjacent construction by others • Suggested management methods to be considered by the City to facilitate and expedite timely . and cost-effective accomplishment of the project We look forward to your participation in the selection process. If you have any questions, please contact me at 277-6223, or Joe Armstrong,Project Manager,at 277-6203. S'ncerely, Lin Wilson, P.E. Transportation Design Supervisor hA...\lin\oakesdal\invitatn.doc 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer M1, Mlif� ofm f 6x ,- and UJI &f4t r C6"-rp— cf-4C - l I ll fuar019 r-)P-w.S XA40u L&P �R oa come, Rcon�. 6Zu,��Sfidr! Sc,� ; c-�,�NrL g�,6�6L V�• 3-u �M-oG46 O APlm- I S ovccl�rlG ac 1�/r✓lr ems' 3 -�,,,,� --- f � IsSU� 5c:tl�p(1c,•E.� /�it!t t�-�'��!- � k� __ ��, ri�r�-ice �. �w r�r r�.,�tti� wo►�;2—�- "� r, "VAA,4vo Air ljor CvmA,.I Lc 6 �a'ti '�✓Py� I� 5�/ ir3��K . /"' T6 MAR-11-97 TUE 08:03 AM TRANS IMPROVEMENT BOARD FAX NO. 360 706 6830 P. 02 i Design Staff Review - TIA Urban Program Board Meeting Date: March 21, 1997 a� REGION Puget Sound FUNIMNG YEAR PY 90 LEAD AGENCY City of Renton PROJECT LENGTH 1.00 miles PROJECT-NUMBER 9P-102(002)-1 FUN _TIONAL CLASS IAADT Minor I New Route PROJECT NAME Oakesdale Avenue SW vE STUDY Pending PROJECTTERMINI SW 16th Street to SW 31 st Street (Phases 1 &2) --�� TIA Funds Local Funda I PREDESIGN 382,500 581,427 Funds;approved for Predesign DESIGN 212,382 387,518 Fundszo be approved for Design 629,854 1,266,219 Fundsxo be approved for Right of Way CONSTRUCTION 1,347,918 2,460,082 Funds3estimated for Constriction $2,572,654 $4,695,346 Subtotlals $7,268.000 TOTAL,PROJECT COST PROPOSED AWARD RATE Feb. 1998 TIA MATCHING PERCENT 35.4% 1 LOCAL City of Renton $100,000; Boeing $3,$46,000 (LID and right-of-way dedication); Other Developer Mitigation $749,346. BASTING FAGILMFS A three lane section exists between 34st and 27th, the remainder is a new arterial on a new alignment adjacent to the Boeing Corporate Center. PROPOSED WORK Design and construction of a three-lane arterial (Phase 1). including a bridge across Springbrook Creels. The project is planned to be expanded to five lanes at a future date (Phase 2). The initial roadway template includes three 12' lanes, curb and sidewalk at ), the ultimate location on the west side, a 4' shoulder on the east side, storm drainage. I1 illumination, and traffic signals at SW 16th Street and SW 27th Street. DISCUSSION This project was selected for FY 90 funding as a three-lane arterial on a new alignment. At Predesign Approval in July, 1991, the project scope was increased to a five-lane section, based an anticipated needs. Since 1990, the Boeing Company has purchased the former Longacres Racetrack site and has begun development of it's corporate headquarters campus. The scope of the project has been refined in the course of the Predesign Phase, calling for a three-lame section now to meet traffic needs for ten years or more, and expanding to five lanes in the future as the Boeing complex and other developments are completed, perhaps as soon as 2010. The City requests approval of this proposed change in scope from Predesign approval. The City also requests a . sidewalk deviation to omit the sidewalk on the east side of the street at this time. ! This second sidewalk wiil be constructed at a future date when the roadway is widened to its ultimate five-lane configuration. The City acknowledges that T`lA funds will not be I made available to complete the five-lane section and the second sidewalk. The City request$an increase in TlA finds for the protect as noted below. Total Project Cost (TPC) Breakdown Phase Apiroval(date) TIA Funds(XTPCI Local Funds(%TPC) ToL P"wict Coat Application (9189) 2,058,220 (42.5%) 2,788,900 (57.5%) 4,aA7,120 Predesign (7191) 5,933,000 (42.5%) 8,027,000 (57.5%) 13,960,000 Design (3/97) 2.572.654 (15.4%) 4,695,346 (64.6%) 7.268.000 Net Increase, 514.434 1.906,446 2,420,880 i j 1989-1997 Percent Change, 25.0% 68.4% 49.9% 1989 to 1997 c w�au�eFnnna�Fxro++�uraExn.�x laM.V I PM MAR-11-97 TUE 08:03 AM TRANS IMPROVEMENT BOARD FAX NO. 360 105 6830 P, 03 The overall project cost estimate has changed from 1989 as follows: Predesign from $0I to $900,000; Design from $487,120 to $600,000; Right-of-way from S360,000 to I $1,960,000; and Construction from $4.000,000 to S3,808,000. The increase request is the maximum tiinder TIA policies. At Predesign Approval in July, 1991. the estimated project cost had increased from $4,847,120 to $13,960,000 for the five-lane design, the cost increase was not approved at that time. As a result of the Predesign Phase, an interim three-tang section with an estimated cost of $7,268,000 is now proposed. The City's explanation Is included in the following pages. STAFF Staff recommends approval of the Sidewalk Deviation request to delay construction of RECOMMENDATION the easterly sidewalk until buiidout to tt a sidewalk Committee. Staff recommends approval of the throe lane section, which was the original scope of work at project application, and the, increase request to the Increase Committee, contingent upon the City's commitment to construct the added capacity when needed without additional TIA funds. Staff recommends approval of$342,236 in TIA funds for the Design Phase of the project to the Board. f1 I I! iI l� F WSEMRC"RTnA%AEN TOWAMNT7 DOC 10rr91-1 33PM MAR-11-97 TUE 08:04 AM TRANS IMPROVEMENT BOARD FAX N0, 360 705 6830 P. 04 FTRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD INCREASE REQUEST GUIDELINES COMPARE PROJECT SCOPE, ORIGINAL VS. CURRENT • Identify the major cost items • Identify the cost saving measures instituted i • Are there any design features that could be omitted or scaled down? • Use charts and/or current aerial photos for display, and supply handouts at the committee meeting ENUMERATE VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS AND WHAT PARTS ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED (TOTAL$) (if applicable)_ TI13 STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THE PROJECT TO THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN TURN THE MEETING OVER TO THE AGENCY TO PRESENT THE INCREASE REQUEST. • The committee agenda provides about 30 minutes for each agency, use 15-20 minutes for your presentation, and allow about 10 minutes for questions • Be prepared to answer the question "What if TIB grants half of the increase request?" (Does the project still go ahead?) • If transit is involved, have they contributed significantly? • If WSDOT is involved, have they contributed significantly? • The lead agency must be at the Committee meeting, WSDOT should be there if applicable, other agencies involved in the project should attend at the lead agency's discretion. • The lead agency should be prepared to answer detailed questions on the project. The committee is very knowledgeable on transportation projects. • Can the scope of work for project be reduced and still have a functionally useful project? THE INCREASE COMMITTEE WILL RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THE AMOUNT OF THE INCREASE. THE AMOUNT SHOWN ON THE INCREASE WORKSHEET IS CURRENTLY THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED, THE INCREASE ACTUALLY APPROVED MAY BE LESS. F.4ySL725RODUU4LSC\1NCROST DOC RwR•O:Augu i 29.1998 Br-8 MAR-11-97 TUE 08:05 AM TRANS IMPROVEMENT BOARD FAX NO. 360 705 6830 P. 05 TRAN S PORTATION NSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD SIDEWALK DEVIATION REQUEST GUIDELINES ITEMS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN EVALUATING DEVIATIONS: • Zoning in the project area, both now and projected (planning studies?). • Five (5) foot minimum unrestricted width; less width requires a deviation. • Connectivity between pedestrian generators and destination (identify). Pedestrian safety. • Environmental concems (if arty) limiting R/W width • Public ac ceptanceiresistance to R/W takes. • Limited access facility (such as highway UC. ramps) ? • Current Board policy is sidewalks on both sides for urban projects, one side for small cities, anything less requires a deviation. • When looking at generators/destinations for pedestrians, consider the following.- Along route ` Beyond project termini, pass through Adjacent to route ' • identify on current aerial map or plan view(in E 1/2"X 11-format PREFERABLY) • No obstructions in sidewalk limits; requires a deviation for placing features inside limits such as poles, fire hydrants, etc_ • Sidewalks must conform to ADA requirements. • The agency is to prepare a short typewritten response to each issue. It will be used by the committee to evaluate the deviation request. TIB STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THE PROJECT TO THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN TURN THE MEETING OVER TO THE AGENCY TO PRESENT THE SIDEWALK DEVIATION REQUEST. • Presentation limited to 15 -20 minutes, about 10 minutes for questions. • Lead agency should know what the costs would be to construct sidewalks without the desired deviation. • Written commitment is necessary if gaps are to be filled in, in the future (if deviation granted)_ • Are there advantages to construct later? Developer funded , etc_ • The lead agency must be at the Committee meeting and WSDOT should be there if applicable, other involved agencies attend at the lead agency's discretion • The committee is very knowledgeable on this subject, the lead agency should be prepared to answer detailed questions. THE SIDEWALK COMMITTEE, AFTER REVIEWING THE DEVIATION REQUEST, WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD ON THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN. F•USF.RM0XML9C%SV4MVSU13 OOC R--ed Alnua 29.1OM 8F8 MAR-11-97 TUE 08:05 AM TRANS IMPROVEMENT BOARD FAX NO. 360 705 6830 P, 06 Transportation improvement Board Letter of Transmittal ro: TIB Increase Committee Members From: Rod Diemert TIA Program Engineer Phone/FAX: (360) 705-7592 1 (360)705-6830 Vale: Tuesday, March 11, 1996 Subject: March Increase Committee Meeting Here is the schedule for the Increase Committee meeting at on Thursday, March 20, 1997 at the Hawthorn Suites Hotel, 6329 South 212th Street, Kenn Time: 1:00 P.M. Agency: City of Fife Project: DATA. Pacific Avenue East Increase Request: $50,082 (30.7%) Increase request prior to construction approval. Time: 1:30 P.M. Agency: City of Renton Project: TIA: Qakesdale Avenue SW Increase Request: $514,434 (25.0%) Increase request and change of scope at Design Approval. Time: 2:00 P.M. Agency: City of Vancouver Project: TIA: Fourth Plain Blvd. Cloverleaf Increase Request: $135,341 (15.4%) Increase request at Construction Approval. Time: 2:30 P.M. Agency: City of Vancouver Project: TIA: Mill Plain Extension Increase Request: $0. Request is for a shift of TIA funds from Construction to Design. Note: Increase Committee members are requested to review the increase requests prior to the meeting. If you have questions, please call Al Deutscher (Fife) at (360) 705-7596, Bob Moorhead (Renton) at (360) 705-7593, or Brian Barnett (Vancouver) at (360) 705-7595.. Thank you_ Post Office Box 40901 Olympia, WA 98504-0901 •:• Voice(360)705-7300 FAX(360)705-6830 MAR-11-97 TUE 08:06 AM TRANS IMPROVEMENT BOARD FAX NO. 360 705 6830 P. 07 • NOW ETransportation Improvement Board D-1"" Letter of Transmittal To: TIB Sidewalk Committee Members From: Rod Diemert TIA Program Engineer PhonaJFAX: (360) 705-7592 1(360)705-6830 Date: Tuesday, March 11, 1997 Subject: March Sidewalk Committee Meeting Here is the schedule for the Sidewalk Committee meeting at on Thursday, March 20, 1997, at the Hawthorn Suites Hotel, 6329 South 212th Street, Kbnt Time: 3:00 P.M. Agency: City of Renton Project: Oakesdale Avenue SW Deviation Request: Omit sidewalk on east side of interim three-lane section. A paved shoulder will be provided. The east sidewalk will be constructed at a later date when the roadway is widened to it ultimate five-lane section. Time: P.M. Agency: City of Van ver Pro' Mill Pla ension �P viation F2eque Omit Sidewalk Note: Sidewalk Committee members are requested to review the sidewalk request prior to the meeting. If you have questions, please call Bob Moorhead (Renton) at (360) 705-7593 or Brian Barnett (Vancouver) at (360) 705-7595. Thank you. Post Office Box 40901 Olympia, WA 98504-0901 •:• Voice(360)705-7300 FAX(360)705-6830 Oakesdale Road Coordination Team March 11, 1997 Agenda • Project Schedule Status • Bi-weekly Topics (examples) Permitting Status Engineering Firm Selection Process and Selection Status Budget • Coordination issues to be worked Light poles Utilities in the ROW • Action Items • Open Discussion * Pertinent issues that change weekly misc./1 106 N . OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. INN Coordination Meeting Minutes -- Bi-weekly Meeting #2 February 25, 1997 Attendees: Representing Name City of Renton Lin Wilson, Bob Mahn, Mark R. Pywell, Clint Morgan The Boeing Company Lori Pitzer, Rick Ford Sverdrup Civil, Inc. Jim Coulter 1. Schedule: Boeing representative stated the occupation date for the Boeing building would be October 2, 1996. Bob Mahn stated the contractor will concentrate his work on S.W. 27th Street to 19th Street which would be Phase I, and 19th Street to S.W. 16th Avenue would be Phase II. TIB would not likely approve separate contracts for the two phases. 2/25197: Bob Mahn advised he'd provide a copy of the City's schedule to Boeing after today's meeting. It is mutually understood that the schedule is presented as the City's best current estimate of project progress, and is not be interpreted as a commitment for performance by specified dates. Bob presented the TIB's schedule for design phase approval and opened it up for discussion. TIB Staff Report issued to City: First week in March, no later than March 11. Review by TIB Cost Increase Committee: 11:00 AM, March 20 Review by TIB Sidewalk Committee: 1:00 PM, March 20 TIB Board Informal Meeting: 7:00 PM, March 20 TIB Board Meeting (Formal Action): 9:00 AM, March 21 Note: • City attendance at Cost Increase and Sidewalk Committee meeting is mandatory. City attendance at Informal Board Meeting is strongly suggested, and at Formal Board Meeting is up to City. • Boeing should plan on attending both the Informal and Formal Board Meeting. • All above meetings will be held in Kent. Location still to be determined. Bob Moorehead is the TIB representative assigned to this project. Bob Mahn explained the TIB had three initial questions: 1) Is the scaled-down 3-lane version consistent with Regional plans? 2) Is funding available for the other phase(s)? and, 3) Will Boeing be doing the construction? Bob stated he had replied that the City would be doing the construction. He noted that Lee Haro (from the City) will be providing a quick response on the other two items. The Sidewalk Committee will review the provision of sidewalks on the project. Bob noted that the proposal to provide a sidewalk only on the west side of the three-lane road will require a waiver, and approval will be determined by this committee. Bob indicated that all meetings are open to the public and he will be in attendance at both Board meetings. Lori asked what their roles will be. Response was that it depends upon the track of discussions during the informal meeting. Once the general mindset comes out during the informal meeting, then it may be possible to coordinate all efforts for a united presentation at the Formal Board meeting. M Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 2 Coordination Meeting Minutes February 25, 1997 2. Bob noted that a prospectus has been submitted to TIB for design phase funding. Boeing asked if anything additional is required by City. Bob stated no. (Retired) 3. Lin briefly discussed consultant selection process and asked if Boeing would like to take part in the selection. Boeing stated yes. Bob noted that RFQ will be advertised February 12, 1997. SOQ's will be in hand at the 3/11 bi-weekly meeting. 2/25/97: The SOQ's will be received by the City on 3/6. Boeing requested a copy of SOQ's selected for consideration and asked to be included on the panel for consultant selection. Lin agreed to both requests and noted the tentative interview date has been set for 3/24/97. ACTION ITEM 3/11/97 Cit 4. Bob stated the project will be to construct a 3-lane road along with a bridge, drainage and water quality treatment. A question was raised, why not 5 lanes? At this time, funding is not available to cover the additional cost of$1 million plus. (Retired) 5. Project Status: • EIS in progress-Draft EIS to be completed early March • VE study: TIB would pick facilitator (see Item #16, below) • The preliminary design report has to be revised and supplemented prior to the VE study • TIB meeting March 21, 1997 — City will discuss with TIB status of the Prospectus prior to the meeting • Start Design — May 1997. PS&E complete October 1997 • Start Construction — March 1998. Three steps are required prior to construction: funding, advertise, and award. (Pending) Boeing asked if we would get a copy of the TIB staff report prior to the March 21 meeting. We will ask. See Item 1. (Retired) 2/25/97: Responding to a question, Bob explained the preliminary design report must be modified to reflect the change from a 5-lane facility down to a 3-lane, phased to 5-lane project. He is currently compiling a Scope of Work for the consultant to cover this. The consultant (HNTB) is under contract to help through the final EIS and Design Report. Bob will be meeting with HNTB on 2/26/97. ACTION ITEM 2/26/97 City 6. Permits: Bob stated that several wetland areas would be affected by the Oakesdale project; however, it is not known which wetlands will be under Corps jurisdiction. A Shoreline and a Hydraulic permit will be needed. Question was asked if the Shoreline Permit would be obtained for a 3-lane or 5-lane project. Mark will take a look at the shoreline issue. Lori suggested that, if delays occur, the permit process for work south of 19th could be separated from the north portion. 2/25/97: Bob Mahn explained the City will be contracting for pre-design survey work by W. H. Pacific to be done prior to May 1, including location of new wetland flagging to be placed by Shapiro. Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 3 Coordination Meeting Minutes February 25, 1997 The construction bid package may be split into two separate schedules (Schedules A and B) which will allow flexibility in the bidding, awarding, and construction of phased activity, if necessary to reflect delays in the acquisition of permits. Bob then explained how the Shoreline Permit timelines are interpreted: A project for which a permit has been granted must be completed within five years after approval of the permit. Upon review and a showing of good cause, the permit may be extended for a period of up to one year. Construction of a project for which a permit has been granted must commence within two years after permit approval. Regarding this Oakesdale project, the intention is to obtain a permit for the full five lane project. Commencement of construction of the three-lane project by March 1998 will meet the permit's two-year commencement requirement. 7. Street lighting was designed for both sides for 5-lane. Lighting for 3-lane will have to be looked at. 2/25/97: The lighting requirements under the phased 3-lane project were reviewed. The original design is staggered lighting on both sides of the roadway. One option may be to light just one side, using more poles to compensate for lack of poles on the opposite side which won't be constructed under the first phase. Clint commented on the possible impact to lighting from one side with trees planted in the boulevard median. Boeing wishes to maintain a boulevard appearance. Lori asked about City standards for lower intensity with fewer lights. Clint proposed there may be legal ramifications for liability in this regard. It may be possible to set the poles, using longer arms, in the undeveloped portion and still have a staggered look. Boeing would lean toward the staggered lighting option. ACTION ITEM City or Design Team 8. Puget Power's transmission line needs to be moved out of the alignment. The new location should be compatible with the 5-lane scheme. Coordination is needed on Puget Power relocations. • Poles outside of right-of-way, no coordination issue. • Poles in right-of-way becomes a design coordination issue. Boeing will follow up with Puget Power, including the "Raymond" option. 2/25/97: Boeing has met with Puget Power. The poles will be moved and will not impact the schedule. ACTION ITEM Boeing, ongoing 9. Boeing will also approach the water and sewer utilities regarding relocation needs. It was noted that the new building will need gas service which may need coordination in the design, should the service be in the road. ACTION ITEM Boeing, on oin 2/25/97: A gas line extension does exist on Boeing's property. Rick advised it may be prudent for the City to see if they want an extension to the south installed within City right-of-way. Boeing is considering the relocation of the existing waterline and is discussing the possibility with Neil Watts. Boeing currently is not showing the waterline as relocated, except for a portion around their new building. This relocation and the remainder of the existing waterline should be able to remain out of the Oakesdale right-of-way even if future development occurs on the Office Park site at a later date. Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 4 Coordination Meeting Minutes February 25, 1997 All other utilities will remain in the utility easement already set aside on the Boeing property and will not pose a problem. ACTION ITEM City 3/11/97 10. Utilities: Exhibits were provided by Sverdrup showing the Electrical plan and cross-section. The exhibits were given to Clint which will be passed on to other departments for review. Discussions on utilities as shown on the exhibits were discussed. Direct buried electrical is planned to be in portions of the roadway to miss the CSTC wetland and a small (0.08 acre) wetland on the Office Park Site. Bob stated that when the Boeing Training Center was constructed the 0.08 acre wetland was also mitigated. Boeing stated that this wetland is still functional and impacts to it require mitigation. The schedule for utility installation needs to be coordinated with that for road construction. Sverdrup/Boeing will furnish information when available. 2/25/97: The status of the 0.08 acre wetland needs to be clarified for this Boeing site. Jim Coulter believes that Metro's 108" pipe project may have disturbed this wetland to the extent that it no longer exists. Lori will be checking further on this. In the meantime, Boeing prefers to leave the wetland alone. Lori asked if the proposed Oakesdale drainage outfall could go around this wetland, either through the CSTC wetland buffer to the north or further to the south, so it wouldn't be impacted. The lack of slope may restrict this; however, these options will be investigated further during Oakesdale project final design. ACTION ITEM City Design Team 11. Bob discussed the cross-section showing the planting strip, back of sidewalk being at the property line. Lin asked at what point does the City have responsibility. It was noted the City's responsibility would end at the new right-of-way. However, Boeing may need to locate fire protection water supply, and/or other building support facilities in the new right-of-way. It was stated that all construction work would be coordinated. ACTION ITEM Boeing/City, ongoing 12. Driveway entries to the site will be more like a roadway intersection than a curb-cut type driveway. 2/25/97: The loading-dock exit will be a wing-type driveway. 13. Datum: Clint opened discussion on datum City vs. Boeing. Both parties will review the situation and report back at the next meeting. Bob Mahn advised vertical datum currently being used for the Oakesdale project: NGVD 1929, per Boeing Company Customer Service Training Center Site Development Plan by W&H Pacific (Monuments "A" and "B"). NGVD 1929 plus 3.57 feet = NAVD 1988. The Oakesdale datum will match existing Boeing datum. Care will have to be exercised in the future concerning the City's new S.W. 16th Street project and its datum when compared to the Oakesdale project's datum, because they won't correlate. 1 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Page 5 Coordination Meeting Minutes February 25, 1997 14. It was agreed that the coordination meetings will be every two weeks. It was also suggested that a matrix be set up for action items as a format. Draft copies of minutes will be forwarded to Rick Ford for distribution within Boeing. ACTION ITEM City, on oin 15. Contact person. with City will be Bob Mahn for Oakesdale and Clint Morgan for building. (Retired) 16. The TIB is awaiting a letter from the City requesting they nominate the facilitator for the VE study. ACTION ITEM City, ASAP NEXT MEETING: The next coordination meeting will be held on March 11`h at 1:30 p.m., City Hall, in the P floor conference room. Copies: Attendees Gregg Zimmerman Sandra Meyer y �� PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DTVLSON MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET Project: VC�'I e�G�Q�(� l/�( � �� Date: ,/,, /7 Subject: d Location: '51 to G' Project Coordinator: Phone: Name (Please PRUM Affiliation/Representing Phone r o fir-) I A-/�- L= 544- 5'L6, Z � � yi✓�/ey fl�'v,��S - Q2 - 3 SIGNUP.DOC./ CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 1997 TO: Joe Armstrong;Bob Mahn;Mark Pywell; Scott Woodbury COPIES TO: Sandra Meyer;Lee Haro; Connie Brundage,FYI FROM: Lin Wilson SUBJECT: Oakesdale Avenue(SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street)- Evaluation of Submittals for Final Design Consultants Greetings. This is your invitation to participate in evaluating the Statements of Qualifications(SOQs) received from consultants interested in the final design of the Oakesdale Avenue project. At a later date you and others, including a representative of the Boeing Company, will serve as a member of the interview panel to evaluate the short list of candidate firms. On Thursday,March 6th we shall receive submittals from consultants presenting SOQs to provide professional services in connection with the final design and preparation of PS&E for the above proj- ect. We shall also retain the successful firm to provide support services during construction. The Request for Qualifications (RFQ)outlined the scope of the project, and the capabilities that we are seeking in the consultant. The bottom line is that the project does not have any unusual technical challenges; the most important thing for consultants to demonstrate is their experience in managing design on a"fast-track"basis, and the ability to work their way around, over or through obstacles (such as regulatory processes) so as to keep the project on schedule. A copy of the RFQ is attached. As described on page 3 of the RFQ,the Statements of Qualifica- tions will be evaluated based upon the following weighted criteria: Criterion Points Firm's capabilities and expertise 10 Project manager's qualifications and experience 10 Experience of team members 15 Previous project examples 20 Performance on past projects (with the City of Renton, or other client references) 20 Understanding of project 10 Resources, workload and availability 15 100 The intention is to select five or six firms to be called for interviews,tentatively scheduled for March 24, 1997(Monday). Although you will be ranking submittals in order to arrive at a short list for in- terview,the selected candidates will enter the interviews unranked. The purpose of screening the submittals is two-fold: September 20, 1996 Page 2 1. To verify that the teams selected for interview have the necessary skills (design and regulatory management), and sufficient resources to ac- complish the work in the limited time period available,and 2. From the firms passing the test in 1., above,pick those that present the best knowledge and experience of "fast-tracking"projects. Evaluators may use a spreadsheet to record their scores. A suitable spreadsheet template will be found on the h: drive at h:(division.sltranspor.tatlformslsogeval.xls, and a hard copy is attached for your reference. When the SOQs are received,the names of the firms will be entered into the spreadsheet. Before entering scores,please make your own copy of the file; do not enter scores on the master copy on the h:Wivision.sVranspor.tatlforms directory. In scoring, use a scale where 50 percent represents reasonable expectations; lower scores represent degrees of disappointment or inadequacy, down to 0 for"I wouldn't hire those bums again"; and the higher range of scores reflects above-average capabilities,performance above reasonable expecta- tions, with 100%as perhaps"The sooner we have these guys on our team, the better". Use of a more tightly-grouped scale just makes ranking more difficult. As one of the reviewers,I certainly intend to apply a"spin"to each of the criteria in order to reflect the objectives described under 1. and 2., above. Specifically,I shall judge the"Project manager's qualifications and experience" almost entirely on his/her background and success relate to fast-track projects. General, institutional technical skill should only be considered under Criterion A:Firm's capabilities and experience, and a minor portion(say 5 points out of the possible 15)of Criterion C: Experience of team members. The rest of the score for Criterion C:Experience of team members, should reflect the team members' contribution to, and familiarity with, fast-track projects. Criterion F: Understanding of Project, is not assigned a great weight(10 points out of 100)in the ranking of submittals,but it will become more significant at the interview stage. Submittals that designate schedule adherence, expeditious permit acquisition and close communication between all parties should be scored highly. Oakesdale is a high-profile,high-priority project for the City. In view of this,please complete your evaluation of the submittals and let me have the results not later than noon on Tuesday,March 11. The selection of firms for interview will be made based upon a combination of each of your evalua- tions, and any input that Boeing wishes to provide at this stage(Boeing will have a seat on the inter- view panel). h:l AIin\sNcval.doc CONSULTANT EVALUATION Initials of Evaluator: Oakesdale Avenue (SW 16th - SW 27th) Final Design Criteria(Note 1) Total Name of Firm A B C D E F G Score Rank /10 /10 /15 /20 /20 /10 /15 /100 BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERING INC. 0 BUSH,ROED&HITCHINGS,INC. 0 CHMAHILL 0 HNTB CORPORATION 0 INCA ENGINEERS,INC. 0 KATO&WARREN,INC. 0 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTE 1: Evaluation Criteria A: Firm's Capabilities and Expertise B: Project manager's quals/experience C: Team members'experience D: Previous project examples E: Past performance F: Understanding of Project G: Resources,workload and availability h:\division.s\transpor.tat\fonns\soq".xls i CITY OF RENTON FINAL DESIGN OF OAKESDALE AVE. S.W. -- S.W. 16TH ST. TO S.W. 27TH ST. The City of Renton's Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Transportation Systems Division, is soliciting Statements of Qualifications from interested consultants capable of providing professional services in civil and structural engineering and related technical disciplines for final design of Oakesdale Avenue S.W., between S.W. 16th and S.W. 27th Streets. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The location of the project is shown on the attached vicinity map. The project constitutes the initial phase of a five-lane extension of Oakesdale Avenue, south from S.W. 16th Street to S.W. 31st Street. Initial construction comprises 0.7 miles of three-lane roadway, including a 400-foot-long bridge crossing Springbrook Creek. As shown on the attached typical cross- section, the roadway provides two through lanes with a central two-way left-turn lane; curb, gutter and sidewalk along the west side, and a shoulder along the east side where future widening will take place. Relocation of existing overhead power lines will be required prior to roadway construction. Construction will include storm drainage facilities; traffic signals; channelization, signing, street lighting and landscaping. The storm drainage facilities to be provided include the detention and water quality treatment features required for the ultimate five-lane roadway. The estimated construction cost of the initial phase is in the range $3,500,000 to $4,000,000. Funds to be utilized for the project include a Transportation Improvement Account grant, City of Renton Business License Fees, A Local Improvement District to be funded by the Boeing Company, dedication of right-of-way for the five-lane project by the Boeing Company, and mitigation fees fees payable by other developers. No Federal funds will be utilized for this project. Construction of the portion of the project between S.W. 19th Street and S.W. 27th Street must be completed prior to October 1998, to serve the adjoining development of the Boeing Longacres Office Park. A preliminary schedule for achieving this completion deadline is displayed on the attached bar-chart diagram. This early completion requirement calls for skills in planning and executing design and construction on a "fast-track" basis. Firms submitting Statements of Qualifications will be evaluated for these skills, and the availability of sufficient resources to support the City in meeting this schedule, in addition to their qualifications and experience in the fields of civil engineering, bridge design, drainage design, illumination and traffic signal design, P.S. &E, environmental support and permit acquisition. Consultant Small Works Roster RFQ February 1997 CONTENTS OF STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS: As described below, submittals shall provide general information regarding the firm, together with specific information applicable to the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. project. A. General Information 1. Qualifications and Expertise: Describe the history of the firm, location of office(s), the range of technical disciplines represented, the size and distribution of the staff, financial capability (ability to provide insurance and bonding requirements), list of recent clients and current workload. Provide a brief description of significant projects worked on in the last five years. Firms may attach a copy of their current SF 254 as a means of furnishing some of the information requested. 2. Project Experience: List the location, scope and size of up to five recent projects, prefer- ably in the central Puget Sound area, in the category selected. For each project, identify the owner, and give the name and telephone number of an individual who may be contacted for a reference. Include only those projects managed by the proposed project manager or including several of the proposed team members. 3. References: Give the names, titles, addresses and telephone numbers of up to five client representatives, preferably in the central Puget Sound area, who can give information re- garding the work done by the firm within the last five years. B. Specific Information 1. Team qualifications: List the individuals with appropriate qualifications who will be actual working members of the team furnishing services on the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. project, each member's proposed role, and the office location at which the individual is based. Identify the proposed project manager. Briefly outline the education and experience of, and provide a one-page resume for, each proposed team member. 2. Understanding of Project: Outline your firm's understanding of the issues and challenges to be addressed by the project design team. Demonstrate, by reference to past projects, your capabilities and experience to assist the City in attaining successful resolution of these issues and challenge. 3. Approach to Project Management: Explain your firm's approach to project management and product delivery. Indicate your methods for establishing scopes of work, cost estimates and schedules. Describe your methods of ensuring that the firm's performance meets the expectations of the client and the public, and your methods for monitoring and controlling compliance with established budgets and schedules. Describe methods that you might consider to address the special needs of the Oakesdale Avenue S.W. project Consultant Small Works Roster RFQ February 1997 EVALUATION OF STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS: The Statements of Qualifications will be evaluated to select a limited number of firms to be invited to make interview presentations. Final selection will be made based upon the results of the interviews. The Statements of Qualifications will be evaluated based upon the following weighted criteria: Criterion Points Firm's capabilities and expertise 10 Project manager's qualifications and experience 10 Experience of team members 15 Previous project examples 20 Performance on past projects (with the City of Renton, or other client references) 20 Understanding of project 10 Resources, workload and availability 15 100 SUMMARY: Three copies of Statements of Qualifications shall be submitted, accompanied by a Letter of Interest addressed to: Lin Wilson, Supervisor, Transportation Systems -Design Planning/Building/Public Works Department Fifth Floor, Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue Renton, WA 98055 Telephone (206) 277-6223 Statements of Qualifications shall be received by the Transportation Systems Division not later than 4:00 PM on Thursday, March 6, 1997. Questions regarding this Request for Statements of Qualifications may be addressed to Lin Wilson at the address or telephone number listed above. hA...\hn\oakesrfq.dce Consultant Small Works Roster RFQ February 1997 ATTAcMar--,MA. 0 Sw Sun i �r G Cakes Begin Project wa Tu kw i $ . Ren On sty m m• 81 •.v. Phase 1 Fnd 1s I "PLO!"ec Stmnder Blvd 79 Y Phase 2 CL a� m m SW: 4th L 0 U = > u0 L Q a CO Z m W (n .......... h m .!! SW Alst St S ism St - `~• --�• m a � Gj y Kent 167 0- 114 112 1 N Miles */� Project Viclnfty Crry OP RENTON DVA�TLOf! N�UD QAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SW 16th St to SW 31st St. �nsns •1 Final RoaAwa, RI kf o-F W� Lll+e R116t of Way LI he Ri�l►� p� W y 9 y I 45' 45.' I Stil�r l 2 i IL .3:/ Sidewalk Pl�nf�►� 1 � Max 2.M C1 ' ' .Proftle (wade `►� >�C row h Po l►+�' y A5e�ialk GoHcvc-t"e, Nvewte,fi C1 8 4 �trusl~ed. S��•�aci� e� Gvavel case. LooKomG ORT►{ 'CITY OIL RENTON p1►r41-1iH!NT OF' P1104i0 W0n11a OAKESDALE 'AVENUE S.W. PlIASE 1A M_T + TO SW 27TI I a►oea ► m 9/15/95 XXX o•waa Rtat,+ �f way -- 4s' To R►'ht of Way L,Na CIS'T-c R,;3I,+ of Wry L,Ne . . ,F•►N><1 Ro„dwa .UI a'"lolo' ' Pro�,lt Gvalt I4/ 4CV.wM Pojv% Pk75p JB S,daw�lk / u u Zoo � � y1 Z•! 1 I I Looktv%5 No►-r6 CITY OP RENTON pttrA RTlIttIT Or Ptlat_to WORM• OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. jMfi_srANQAjjh P.r, MM PIIASE 1 A M 1 PT II TO SW 27TIl a►om ..�i 8/15M _ o�oa� ►cti/.XXX