HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo_Energize Eastside_and_Exhibits_191121
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO
APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA18-000055, CUP-H, SME
APPLICANT: Brad Strauch, PSE
PROJECT NAME: Energize Eastside
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Conditional Use
Permit approval and a Shoreline Exemption for the upgrade of 4 miles of two existing 115 kV
transmission lines with two 230 kV transmission lines beginning at the City’s northern boundary with
Newcastle and ending at the existing Talbot Hill substation. The upgrade is located entirely within
PSE’s existing 100-ft electrical transmission utility corridor. The project site is located within multiple
zoning designations, including: Commercial Arterial (CA), Commercial Office Residential (COR),
Center Village (CV), Light Industrial (IL), Residential-1 (R-1), Residential-10 (R-10), Residential-14 (R-
14), Residential-4 (R-4), Residential-6 (R-6), Residential-8 (R-8), Resource Conservation (RC), and
Residential Multi-Family (RM-F). The proposed upgrade would require the replacement of
approximately 144 existing wood and steel poles (H-frame designs) with approximately 41 steel
monopoles of either single-circuit or double-circuit design. The height of the proposed poles would
vary by location, but are estimated at an average height of between 85 and 95 feet. Within the
Talbot Hill substation, additional breakers and associated controls will be added to accommodate
the new lines. The Project’s southern extent is PSE’s Talbot Hill substation located at 2400 S. Puget
Drive. From the substation, the Project continues north along the existing PSE transmission line
corridor to the northern city limits, between I-405 and the eastern city limits. Multiple critical areas
are mapped along the project corridor including wetlands, streams, steep slopes, landslide hazards,
coal mine hazards, and wellhead protection areas. The project would include the replacement of
aerial wire across the Cedar River, which is classified as a Shoreline of the State. The project proposes
the replacement of poles outside of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction and the aerial wire crossing
would not require any disturbances within the shoreline jurisdiction.
To date, three environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been prepared for the Energize Eastside Project , all of which can be found online at
www.energizeeastsideeis.org:
Energize Eastside Phase I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (January 2016);
Energize Eastside Phase II Draft Environmental Impact Statement (May 2017);
Energize Eastside Final Environmental Impact Statement (March 2018).
In order to ensure that the submitted Conditional Use Permit application materials are consistent
with the existing environmental documents prepared for the Energize Eastside project, the City
contracted with EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC to prepare an Environmental
Consistency Analysis. The following elements of the environment have been addressed in the
Environmental Consistency Analysis: Earth, Water Resources, Plants & Animals, Greenhouse Gases,
Environmental Health: EMF, Environmental Health: Pipeline Safety, Land Use & Housing, Scenic
Views & Aesthetics, Historic & Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Economics. The Environmental
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Memo
Energize Eastside LUA18-000055, CU-H, SME
November 25, 2019 Page 2 of 2
Consistency Analysis determined that the impacts of development under the proposed Conditional
Use Permit application materials are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS altern atives in the
past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2018
FEIS, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: ERC Memo
Exhibit 2: Environmental Consistency Analysis, November 2019
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Energize
Eastside Project
Renton, Washington
November 21, 2019
Prepared by:
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
Landau Associates
Grette Associates
Cultural Resource Consultants
ECONorthwest
Prepared for:
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
Energize Eastside Project i Table of Contents
Environmental Consistency Analysis
ENERGIZE EASTSIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. E-1
CHAPTER 1
COMPARISON OF PROJECT FEATURES UNDER THE PHASE 2 DEIS, FEIS, &
CURRENT PROPOSALS ................................................................................................. 1-1
CHAPTER 2
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE PHASE 2 DEIS, FEIS, & CURRENT
PROPOSALS .................................................................................................................. 2-1
CHAPTER 3
MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................................. 3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Current Proposal Site Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Regional Map ..................................................................................................................... 1-2
1-2 Entire Energize Eastside Project ........................................................................................ 1-3
1-3 Renton Segment of Energize Eastside Project ................................................................... 1-4
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Comparison of Project Features – Phase 2 DEIS, FEIS, & Current Proposal ....................... 1-8
2-1 Comparison of Impacts – Phase 2 DEIS, FEIS, & Current Proposal ..................................... 2-2
Energize Eastside Project E-1
Environmental Consistency Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Energize Eastside Project Environmental Consistency Analysis confirms that the Current
Proposal is within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the
past SEPA environmental review for the Renton segment of the project, and that there are no
significant unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated. Minor additions/clarifications to
the mitigation measures identified in the 2018 FEIS and in the CUP and Shoreline Exemption
application materials are recommended based on the Environmental Consistency Analysis. Below is
further discussion of the analysis.
The Applicant, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (PSE) is proposing to upgrade approximately four miles of
two existing 115 kV transmission lines with two new 230 kV transmission lines in the city of Renton.
The Renton PSE upgrade is part of the larger Energize Eastside Project that would also occur in the
cities of Bellevue, Redmond, and Newcastle, and in unincorporated King County. The proposed
project would require the replacement of approximately 144 existing wood and steel poles (H-
frame design) with approximately 41 steel monopoles of either single-circuit or double-circuit
design. Within the Talbot Hill substation, additional breakers and associated controls would be
added to accommodate the new line. The upgrade would be entirely within the existing 100-foot
wide transmission line corridor.
To date, three environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
have been published by the Partner Cities (the Cities of Bellevue, Kirkland, Newcastle, Redmond,
and Renton) on the Energize Eastside Project:
•Energize Eastside Project Phase 1 Draft EIS (January 28, 2016),
•Energize Eastside Project Phase 2 Draft EIS (May 6, 2017), and
•Energize Eastside Project Final EIS (March 1, 2018).
The following permits will be required from the City of Renton for the proposed PSE electrical
utility upgrade:
•Zoning Conditional Use Permit (CUP),
•Shoreline Exemption,
•Utility Construction Permit, and
•Building Permits.
On March 14, 2018, PSE submitted complete CUP and Shoreline Exemption applications to the City
of Renton (the “Current Proposal”). The following report contains an Environmental Consistency
Analysis of the Current Proposal.
Energize Eastside Project E-2
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Goal of this Analysis
The goal of the Energize Eastside Project Consistency Analysis is to confirm that proposed
development and associated environmental impacts under the Current Proposal are within the
range of development and environmental impacts analyzed in the past SEPA review for the project,
particularly the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS, which contained project-specific analysis of the proposed
utility upgrade. A further goal of the Consistency Analysis is to recommend additional mitigation
measures for the Current Proposal, as necessary.
Development Types, Levels, and Features
Chapter 1 of this Environmental Consistency Analysis compares the types, levels, and features of
development under the Current Proposal to those under the proposals in the Phase 2 DEIS and
FEIS. The proposed type of use (electrical utility) under the Current Proposal would be identical to
the type of use assumed in the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS for the Renton segment of the Energize
Eastside Project. The level of development under the Current Proposal would be similar to or less
than the levels of development assumed under the proposals in the past SEPA review. The Current
Proposal would upgrade approximately four miles of two existing 115 kV transmission lines with
two new 230 kV transmission lines, requiring the replacement of approximately 144 existing wood
and steel poles (H-frame design) with approximately 41 steel monopoles of either single-circuit or
double-circuit design. Within the Talbot Hill substation, additional breakers and associated controls
would be added to accommodate the new lines. The upgrade would be entirely within the existing
100-foot wide transmission line corridor.
Key similarities between the Current Proposal and the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS proposals include:
•The upgrade would follow the same general route and would be entirely located within
PSE’s existing 100-foot wide corridor;
•Proposed pole replacement would generally be in the same locations as the existing pole
locations;
•There would be fewer replacement poles than existing poles;
•Replacement poles would be taller and larger in diameter than existing poles; and,
•Proposed pole replacement would be outside the 200-foot Cedar River shoreline
jurisdiction.
Key differences between the Current Proposal and the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS proposals include:
•Fewer poles would be removed under the Current Proposal than in the Phase 2 DEIS, but
the same number as in the FEIS;
•Fewer poles would be replaced under the Current Proposal than in the Phase 2 DEIS, but
the same number as in the FEIS;
•The lowest wires in the shoreline jurisdiction would be 20 to 30 feet higher than the existing
wires, and,
•Additional information on construction and pole design is available in the applications.
Energize Eastside Project E-3
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Therefore, the Current Proposal would be within the range, or would represent less intensive
development than, analyzed in the past EISs for the project.
Environmental Impacts
Chapter 2 of this Environmental Consistency Analysis compares the probable significant
environmental impacts under the Current Proposal to the those under the proposals analyzed in
the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS. The following elements of the environment are addressed in this
Consistency Analysis: Earth, Water Resources, Plants and Animals, Greenhouse Gases,
Environmental Health: Electromagnetic Fields, Environmental Health: Pipeline Safety, Land Use and
Housing, Scenic Views and Aesthetics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Economics.
The Environmental Consistency Analysis confirms that the impacts of development under the
Current Proposal are within the range of impacts analyzed under the proposals in the past SEPA
review, and that there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated.
This is because the Current Proposal is identical in most respects to the FEIS proposal. The
differences between the proposals primarily relate to pole placement, tree removal, and details on
mitigation provided under the Current Proposal. The impacts under the Current Proposal would
generally be similar to or less than those described in the Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS.
Mitigation Measures
Chapter 3 of this Environmental Consistency Analysis lists the mitigation measures from the FEIS;
highlights additional measures from the CUP and Shoreline Exemption application materials; and,
notes any further measures recommended through this Environmental Consistency analysis. The
measures specified by code are listed as “Regulatory Requirements” and would be required.
“Potential Mitigation Measures” are also listed based on comprehensive plan policies and existing
PSE programs, and would be at the discretion of the applicant to adopt or the City of Renton to
impose as a condition of project approval.
Minor additions/clarifications to the mitigation measures identified in the FEIS and application
materials are recommended based on the Environmental Consistency Analysis.
Conclusion
The Environmental Consistency Analysis confirms that the Current Proposal is within the range of
development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the past SEPA environmental review
of the Renton segment of the project, and that there are no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated. Minor additions/clarifications to the mitigation measures
identified in the 2018 FEIS and in the CUP and Shoreline Exemption application materials are
recommended based on the Environmental Consistency Analysis.
Chapter I
PROJECT FEATURES UNDER
THE PHASE 2 DEIS, FEIS, &
CURRENT PROPOSALS
Energize Eastside Project 1-1 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
CHAPTER 1
PROJECT FEATURES UNDER THE
PHASE 2 DEIS, FEIS & CURRENT PROPOSALS
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Applicant, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (PSE) is proposing to upgrade approximately four miles of
two existing 115 kV transmission lines with two new 230 kV transmission lines in the city of Renton.
The Renton PSE upgrade is part of the larger Energize Eastside Project that would also occur in the
cities of Bellevue, Redmond, and Newcastle, and in unincorporated King County (see Figure 1-1,
Regional Map, and Figure 1-2, Entire Energize Eastside Project). The Renton segment would extend
from the city’s boundary with Newcastle to the north to PSE’s Talbot Hill Substation to the south
(see Figure 1-3, Renton Segment of Energize Eastside Project). The proposed project would require
the replacement of approximately 144 existing wood and steel poles (H-frame design) with
approximately 41 steel monopoles of either single-circuit or double-circuit design. Within the
Talbot Hill substation, additional breakers and associated controls would be added to
accommodate the new line. The upgrade would be entirely within the existing 100-foot wide
transmission line corridor.
The existing PSE Eastside transmission lines were installed in the 1960s. Electricity demands in the
region have increased over the last 60 years. Based on federally-mandated planning studies, PSE
has determined that upgraded transmission lines and a new substation are needed to address
deficiencies in electrical transmission capacity in peak periods. These deficiencies are expected
because of existing population and employment, and anticipated population/employment growth
on the Eastside. During the environmental review process for the project, several commenters
questioned the need for the upgrades. Five separate studies performed by four separate parties
confirmed the need to address Eastside transmission capacity. Combined with aggressive
conservation, the Energize Eastside Project is intended to significantly improve reliability for
Eastside communities, including the City of Renton, and would supply the additional electrical
capacity needed for current and anticipated growth.
The proposed upgrade is located within multiple City of Renton zoning designations, including:
Commercial Arterial (CA), Commercial Office Residential (COR), Center Village (CV), Light Industrial
(IL), Residential-1 (R-1), Residential-4 (R-4), Residential-6 (R-6), Residential-8 (R-8), Residential-10
(R-10), Residential-14 (R-14), Resource Conservation (RC), and Residential Multi-Family (RM-F).
Multiple critical areas are mapped along the project corridor, including: wetlands, streams, steep
slopes, landslide hazards, coal mine hazards, seismic, and wellhead protection areas. The Cedar
River, a Shoreline of the State, flows across the corridor. The existing transmission lines are co -
located with Olympic Pipeline petroleum pipelines for about 0.2 mile at the north end of the
corridor, as well as 0.6 mile at the south end of the corridor near the Talbot Hill substation.
Energize Eastside Project 1-2 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Energize Eastside Project 1-3 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Energize Eastside Project 1-4 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Energize Eastside Project 1-5 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
1.2 EIS PROCESS & PERMIT APPLICATIONS
The City of Bellevue and four partner Eastside Cities (Kirkland, Newcastle, Redmond, and Renton)
through which the upgraded transmission lines would pass, together with PSE, concluded that the
Energize Eastside Project is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts on the
environment. The Partner Cities jointly conducted environmental review for the project under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Pursuant to SEPA, a Threshold Determination of Significance
was issued on the project on April 30, 2015, in compliance with WAC 197-11-360. Environmental
Impact Statements (EISs) were prepared to address the potential for significant environmental
impacts from the project. The City of Bellevue assumed the role of lead agency on the EIS,
consistent with WAC 197-11-944. Phased environmental review, consistent with WAC 197-11-060
(5) (c), was conducted. Three documents were published, and are described in greater detail below:
• Energize Eastside Project Phase 1 Draft EIS (January 28, 2016);
• Energize Eastside Project Phase 2 Draft EIS (May 6, 2017); and,
• Energize Eastside Project Final EIS (March 1, 2018).
These documents are available for review at Renton City Hall and via download on the City of
Renton website – www.rentonwa.gov. Public/agency commenting was invited at each of the EIS
scoping stages and for each of the Draft EISs.
Phase 1 DEIS
The Energize Eastside Project Phase 1 Draft EIS (DEIS) was a programmatic-level evaluation of the
potential impacts on the environment of four alternatives, including:
• No Action Alternative;
• Alternative 1 - New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Line (four options for this
alternative were analyzed);
• Alternative 2 - Integrated Resource Approach; and,
• Alternative 3 - New 115 kV Lines and Transformers.
Impacts on the following environmental elements were analyzed in the Phase 1 DEIS: Earth,
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Environmental Health, Plants and Animals, Noise, Land Use and
Housing, Views and Visual Resources, Historic and Cultural Resources, Transportation, Recreation,
Energy and Natural Resources, and Utilities.
Phase 2 DEIS
The analysis of alternatives in the Energize Eastside Project Phase 1 DEIS resulted in a narrowing of
reasonable alternatives to an overhead transmission line solution. The Phase 2 DEIS contained a
project-level review of an overhead transmission line route action alternative and the No Action
Alternative:
• No Action Alternative; and,
• Alternative 1 - New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines.
Energize Eastside Project 1-6 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Alternative 1 in the Phase 2 DEIS included three route options in the Bellevue Central Segment and
four route options in the Bellevue South Segment. Only one route opt ion was provided for the
Redmond, Newcastle, and Renton segments.
The Phase 2 DEIS evaluated the impacts of these alternatives on the following environmental
elements: Water Resources, Plants and Animals, GHG Emissions, Environmental Health : Pipeline
Safety, Environmental Health: Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Land Use and Housing, Scenic Views
and Aesthetics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Economics. The following
elements of the environment evaluated in the Phase 1 DEIS would not be significantly impacted by
the project, and were, therefore, not analyzed in the Phase 2 DEIS: Earth Resources, Public
Services, Utilities, Transportation, and Energy and Natural Resources.
FEIS
The Energize Eastside Project FEIS provided additional project-level evaluation of the impacts of
two alternatives:
• No Action Alternative; and,
• PSE’s Proposed Alignment: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines.
The analysis in the FEIS was based on the most recent design details provided by PSE at the time
the FEIS was being prepared. In several areas, the design had been refined since publication of the
Phase 2 DEIS. For example, new information on pole types and locations was provided thro ughout
the corridor, and more detailed information was provided in some areas where the design was
more advanced.
The FEIS evaluated the impacts of these alternatives on the same elements of the environment
studied in the Phase 2 DEIS (Water Resources, Plants and Animals, GHG Emissions, Environmental
Health: Pipeline Safety, Environmental Health: Electromagnetic Fields, Land Use and Housing,
Scenic Views and Aesthetics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Economics). In
response to comments on the Phase 2 DEIS, additional information was provided in the FEIS on
Earth Resources related to seismic risks.
The FEIS included responses to public and agency comments on both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 DEIS,
and will be used by the Partner Cities to support any permit decisions that are required.
Permit Applications
On March 14, 2018, PSE submitted a complete application to the City of Renton (the “Current
Proposal”) for a zoning Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Shoreline Exemption. The project will
also require utility construction and building permits from the City. If approvals are granted,
construction of the Renton segment of the Energize Eastside Project may begin as early as Summer
2019. It is expected that construction would take between six to nine months
Energize Eastside Project 1-7 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Environmental Consistency Analysis
This Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared to confirm that the utility
improvements and associated environmental impacts under the Current Proposal represented in
the CUP and Shoreline Exemption applications submitted to City of Renton are within the range of
alternatives and impacts analyzed in the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS. The Consistency Analysis also lists
the mitigation measures from the FEIS, and any additional measures under the Current Proposal,
and recommends further measures to address impacts, as necessary.
EA Engineering Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (EA) and their sub-consultants prepared this
analysis. Below is a list of the EA team and the elements of the environment for which they were
responsible:
• EA – Overall Consistency Analysis author, Water Resources, Environmental Health: EMF,
Environmental Health: Pipeline Safety, Land Use, Aesthetics, Recreation
• Landau Associates – Earth, Air Quality
• Grette Associates – Plants and Animals
• Cultural Resource Consultants – Historic and Cultural Resources
• ECONorthwest – Economics
1.3 COMPARISON OF PROJECT FEATURES
The Energize Eastside Project Environmental Consistency Analysis shows that the Current Proposal
would be within the range, or would represent less intensive development, than analyzed in the past
EISs for the project, as described below.
The following section of the Environmental Consistency Analysis describes the type and extent of
utility construction and other features under the Phase 2 DEIS, FEIS, and Current proposals. The site
plan for the Current Proposal is contained in Appendix A. Table 1-1 summarizes the project
features of the previous proposals and compares them to the Current Proposal. Text that is
highlighted in red under the Current Proposal represents additions or changes from the 2018 FEIS
Proposal. The last column in Table 1-1 summarizes if there are changes between the Current
Proposal and the FEIS Proposal.
Energize Eastside Project 1-8 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Table 1-1
COMPARISON OF PROJECT FEATURES -
PHASE 2 DEIS, FEIS, & CURRENT PROPOSAL
Description of Features May 2017 Ph. 2 DEIS Proposal Mar. 2018 FEIS Proposal Current Proposal
Change from
FEIS Proposal
1. Start/End • Newcastle-Renton
Boundary/Talbot Hill Substation
• Newcastle-Renton
Boundary/Talbot Hill Substation
(same as Ph. 2 DEIS)
• Newcastle-Renton
Boundary/Talbot Hill Substation
(same as Ph. 2 DEIS & FEIS)
No
2. Jurisdiction • Renton and a small portion of
unincorporated King County
• Renton • Renton (same as FEIS) No
3. Length of Renton Segment • 4.5 miles • 4 miles • 4 miles (same as FEIS) No
4. Number of Transmission Line
Circuits
• 2 circuits • 2 circuits (same as Ph. 2 DEIS) • 2 circuits (same as Ph. 2 DEIS &
FEIS)
No
5. Voltage of Circuit Lines • 230 kV and high capacity 115kV • 230 kV • 230 kV (same as FEIS) No
6. Easement/Property Acquisition • Entirely within PSE’s existing
100-ft. kV corridor; no
easements or property
acquisitions necessary
• Entirely within PSE’s existing
100-ft. kV corridor; no
easements or property
acquisitions necessary (same Ph.
2 DEIS)
• Entirely within PSE’s existing
100-ft. kV corridor; no
easements or property
acquisitions necessary (same as
Ph. 2 DEIS & FEIS)
No
7. Shoreline Jurisdiction • Upgrades would be outside 200-
ft. Cedar River shoreline
jurisdiction
• The height of the new wires in
the shoreline jurisdiction would
not change.
• Upgrades would be outside 200-
ft. Cedar River shoreline
jurisdiction (same as Ph. 2 DEIS)
• The height of the new wires in
the shoreline jurisdiction would
not change (same as Ph. 2 DEIS)
• Upgrades would be outside 200-
ft. Cedar River shoreline
jurisdiction (same as Ph. 2 DEIS
& FEIS)
• The lowest wires in the
shoreline jurisdiction would be
20-30 feet higher than the
existing wires.
Yes
8. Olympic Pipeline • Co-located in existing corridor
for 0.2 mile. Pipelines leave
corridor where it crosses SCL
line near Honey Creek Open
Space. Pipelines buried on one
side (east or west) of corridor
• Co-located in northern portion
of existing corridor; pipelines
buried in the center of corridor.
• Co-located in northern portion
of existing corridor; pipelines
buried in the center of corridor
(same as FEIS)
No
Energize Eastside Project 1-9 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Description of Features May 2017 Ph. 2 DEIS Proposal Mar. 2018 FEIS Proposal Current Proposal
Change from
FEIS Proposal
• Poles would be placed in the
center of the corridor south of
Honey Creek Open Space
• Poles would be placed with one
on either side of the pipelines.
• Poles would be placed with one
on either side of the pipelines
(same as FEIS)
9. Single-Circuit Steel Pairs
• Location
• Pole Replacement
• Typical Height
• Maximum Height
• Clearing for Vegetation over
15’ in Height
• SCL Crossing May Require
Wires and Structures to be
Raised, and Lattice Towers
Replaced with Monopoles
• Existing corridor north of Honey
Creek Open Space
• Approx. 12 existing wooden H -
frames replaced with approx. 6
pairs of single-circuit 230
kV/115kV steel monopoles
• 85’ (existing 55’)
• 125’ (existing 93’)
• 16’ from outside transmission
wire
• Yes
• Existing corridor north of Honey
Creek Open Space (same as Ph.
2 DEIS)
• Approx. 22 existing wooden H-
frames replaced w/ approx. 11
pairs of single-circuit 230kV steel
monopoles
• 50-84’
• 50-94’
• 16’ from outside transmission
wire (Same as in Ph. 2 DEIS)
• Yes (Same as in Ph. 2 DEIS)
• Existing corridor north of Honey
Creek Open Space (same as Ph.
2 DEIS & FEIS)
• Approx. 22 existing wooden H-
frames replaced w/ approx. 11
pairs of single-circuit 230kV steel
monopoles (same as FEIS)
• 50-84’ (same as FEIS)
• 50-94’ (same as FEIS)
• 16’ from outside transmission
wire (same as Ph. 2 DEIS & FEIS)
• Yes (same as in Ph. 2 DEIS &
FEIS)
No
10. Double-Circuit Steel
Monopoles
• Location
• Pole Replacement
• Typical Height
• Maximum Height
• Clearing for Vegetation over
15’ in Height
• Existing corridor south of Honey
Creek Open Space.
• Approx. 69 wooden H-frames
replaced with approx. 46
double-circuit 230kV/115 kV
steel monopoles.
• 90’ (existing: 55’)
• 125’ (existing: 93’)
• 16’ from outside transmission
wire
• Existing corridor south of Honey
Creek Open Space (Same as Ph.
2 DEIS)
• Approx. 48 wooden H-frames
replaced w/ approx. 27 double-
circuit 230 kV steel monopoles.
• 94’
• 118’
• 16’ from outside transmission
wire (Same as Ph. 2 DEIS)
• Existing corridor south of Honey
Creek Open Space (same as Ph.
2 DEIS & FEIS)
• Approx. 48 wooden H-frames
replaced w/ approx. 27 double-
circuit 230 kV steel monopoles
(same as FEIS).
• 94’ (same as FEIS)
• 118’ (same as FEIS)
• 16’ from outside transmission
wire (same as Ph. 2 DEIS & FEIS)
No
Energize Eastside Project 1-10 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Description of Features May 2017 Ph. 2 DEIS Proposal Mar. 2018 FEIS Proposal Current Proposal
Change from
FEIS Proposal
• Number of Poles Required at
Talbot Hill Substation for
Dead-End Structures
• SCL Crossing May Require
Wires and Structures to be
Raised, and Lattice Towers
Replaced with Monopoles.
• 2 poles
• Yes
• 2 (Same as Ph. 2 DEIS)
• Yes (Same as Ph. 2 DEIS)
• 2 (same as Ph. 2 DEIS & FEIS)
• Yes (same as Ph. 2 DEIS & FEIS)
Source: 2017 Ph. 2 DEIS, 2018 FEIS, and PSE, 2019.
SCL = Seattle City Light
Energize Eastside Project 1-11 Project Features
Environmental Consistency Analysis
1.4 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the type of use (electrical utility upgrade) under the Current Proposal would be
identical to the type of use assumed in the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS for the Renton segment of the
Energize Eastside Project. The level of development under the Current Proposal would be similar to
or less than the levels of development assumed under the proposals in the past SEPA review, and
would be almost identical to the FEIS Proposal. The Current Proposal would upgrade approximately
4 miles of two existing 115 kV transmission lines with two 230 kV transmission lines, requiring the
replacement of approximately 144 existing wood and steel poles (H-frame design) with
approximately 41 steel monopoles of either single-circuit or double-circuit design. Within the
Talbot Hill substation, additional breakers and associated controls would be added to
accommodate the new lines.
Key similarities between the Current Proposal and the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS proposals include:
• The upgrade would follow the same general route and would be entirely located within
PSE’s existing 100-foot corridor;
• Proposed pole replacement locations would generally be in the same locations as the
existing pole locations;
• There would be fewer replacement poles than existing poles;
• Replacement poles would be taller and larger in diameter than existing poles; and,
• Proposed pole replacement would be outside the 200-foot Cedar River shoreline
jurisdiction.
Key differences between the Current Proposal and the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS proposals include:
• Fewer poles would be removed under the Current Proposal than in the Phase 2 DEIS, but
the same number as in the FEIS;
• Fewer poles would be replaced under the Current Proposal than in the Phase 2 DEIS, but
the same number as in the FEIS;
• The lowest wires in the shoreline jurisdiction would be 20-30 feet higher than the existing
wires; and,
• Additional information on construction and pole design is available in the CUP permit and
Shoreline exemption applications.
Therefore, the Current Proposal would be within the range, or would represent less intensive
development, than analyzed in the past EISs for the project.
Chapter 2
ENVIRONMENAL IMPACTS
UNDER THE PHASE 2 DEIS,
FEIS, & CURRENT PROPOSALS
Energize Eastside Project 2-1 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
CHAPTER 2
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACTS UNDER THE
PH. 2 DEIS, FEIS, & CURRENT PROPOSALS
2.1 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
The Energize Eastside Environmental Consistency Analysis confirms that the impacts of development
under the Current Proposal are within the range of impacts analyzed under the proposals in the past
SEPA review, and that there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated,
as described below.
This section of the Consistency Analysis compares the probable significant impacts under the Phase
2 DEIS, FEIS, and Current proposals. Table 2-1 summarizes the significant impacts of the proposals
documented in the 2017 Phase 2 DEIS and 2018 FEIS and compares these impacts with those under
the Current Proposal described in the CUP and Shoreline Exemption application materials. The
terms “less-than-significant” and “significant” are used in Table 2-1 to describe impacts. These
terms relate to less than a moderate potential and more than a moderate potential for impacts,
respectively. The specific meaning of “less-than-significant” and “significant” varies for each
element of the environment and is described in the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS. Text that is highlighted
in grey under the Current Proposal represents additional information on the Current Proposal. Text
in red indicates changes in impacts from the FEIS.
Energize Eastside Project 2-2 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Table 2-1
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS – PH. 2 DEIS, FEIS & CURRENT PROPOSAL
May 2017 Ph. 2 DEIS Proposal Mar. 2018 FEIS Proposal Current Proposal
Less-Than-Significant/
Significant Impact
3.1 EARTH
Construction Impacts • Construction would require
vegetation clearing and
excavation, which could
temporarily increase erosion.1
Approx. 81 H-frames would be
replaced with 6 single circuit
pairs and 46 double circuit
monopoles
• Construction could involve
grading and installation of
infrastructure in geotechnical
hazard areas (e.g., steep
slopes, landslide, coal mine,
and seismic hazards).1
• An earthquake could occur
during construction, resulting
in slope failures, liquefaction,
ground settlement, or
equipment destabilization.1
• Vibration from construction
equipment could damage
nearby structures.1
• Construction could result in
impacts to Olympic Pipelines
from contact, vibration, or
erosion.1
• Less than Ph. 2 DEIS because
less clearing/
excavation for fewer poles
removed and replaced
(approx. 70 H-frames would
be replaced with 11 single
circuit pairs and 27 double
circuit monopoles).
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as FEIS. Approx.
177,500 sq. ft of land
disturbance and 450 to 650 CY
of excavation would be
required.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• With implementation of
BMPs, impacts would be less-
than-significant. Additional
information on construction
mitigation measures is
provided for the Current
Proposal.
• With geotechnical evaluation
and appropriate construction
specifications, impacts would
be less-than-significant.
• The likelihood of an
earthquake coinciding with
construction would be low;
therefore, less-than-
significant impacts are
expected.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
• With existing regulations and
PSE practices, impacts would
be less-than-significant.
Operational Impacts • Seismic activity and associated
shaking and liquefaction are
likely during life of project and
could cause damage, power
outages, and life safety
concerns.1
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• With implementation of NESC
standards, geotechnical
recommendations, and
regulatory requirements,
impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Energize Eastside Project 2-3 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
• Reuse of unstable or
unsuitable soils could cause
damage or corrosion of new
facilities.1
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • With geotechnical
investigations and
recommendations, impacts
would be less-than-
significant.
Cumulative Impacts • The entire region is seismically
active and could be at risk
from shaking and
liquefaction.1
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • With implementation of NESC
standards, geotechnical
recommendations, and
regulatory requirements,
impacts would be less-than-
significant.
3.2 WATER RESOURCES
Construction Impacts • Construction would require
vegetation clearing and
excavation, which could
temporarily increase erosion
and sedimentation of nearby
water resources (e.g., four
stream reaches including the
Cedar River, and one
wetland).
• Pole installation could
encounter shallow
groundwater requiring
dewatering. Groundwater
contamination could occur.
• Contamination of water
resources could occur from
accidental spills and leaks.
• Portions of the segment are
within Zone 2 of Renton’s
Wellhead Protection Area.
Installation of poles and
increases in impervious
surfaces could impact
groundwater.
• Less impacts on water
resources than Ph. 2 DEIS
because less clearing/
excavation for fewer poles
removed and replaced. (see
Section 3.1, Earth, for details
on pole replacement
• Less than Ph. 2 DEIS, as fewer
poles would be installed.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Less than Ph. 2 DEIS, as fewer
poles would be installed.
• Six wetlands were identified.
However, impacts on water
resources would be the same
as FEIS.
• Same as FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as FEIS. Approx. 969 sq.
ft. of new impervious surfaces
would be installed.
• With implementation of
BMPs, impacts would be less-
than-significant. Additional
information on construction
mitigation measures is
provided for the Current
Proposal.
• Excavated areas would be
small, so dewatering would be
minimal, and impacts would
be less-than-significant.
• With implementation of a spill
prevention plan, impacts
would be less-than-
significant.
• Through compliance with the
City’s construction standards,
impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Operational Impacts • The transmission line would
cross three creeks and the
Cedar River in the existing
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Through compliance with
applicable critical area
regulations, impacts would be
Energize Eastside Project 2-4 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
corridor. No poles would be
placed in the streams or their
buffers. The crossings would
not cause long-term impacts
to streams and no impacts to
buffers.
• No poles would be placed in
wetlands. One new pole
would be placed in a Category
III wetland buffer. Impacts
would be minor.
• New poles and access roads
would result in minor
increases in stormwater
runoff and erosion.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Similar to the Ph. 2 DEIS and
FEIS. One new pole would be
located in the outer buffer of
Wetland NR02 and there
would be larger footprints
from the Lake Tradition Line
replacement poles in the
Talbot wetland buffer. Two
existing poles would be
removed from the overlapping
buffers of Wetlands NRO1 and
NRO5.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
less-than-significant. A
critical areas mitigation plan is
provided for the Current
Proposal.
• Through compliance with
applicable critical area,
impacts would be less-than-
significant.
• Through compliance with
applicable stormwater
regulations, impacts would be
less-than-significant.
Cumulative Impacts • The project is not expected to
contribute to indirect or direct
impacts to water resources
resulting from other projects;
therefore, no cumulative
impacts are expected.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
3.3 PLANTS & ANIMALS
Construction Impacts • Loss or disturbance of plants
and habitat would occur
during construction activities.
Impact levels would depend
largely on pole placement.
- Total trees removed: 350
- Significant trees removed:
250
- Trees removed from
critical areas: 3
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Fewer trees would be
removed than Ph. 2 DEIS and
FEIS.
- Total trees removed: 339
- Significant trees removed:
238 confirmed (significance
of 4 trees could not be
determined)
• Less-than-significant because
the segment would be located
in the existing corridor,
construction BMPs would be
implemented, and disturbed
areas would be replanted with
native vegetation. A critical
areas mitigation plan is
provided for the Current
Proposal.
Energize Eastside Project 2-5 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
- Trees removed from
critical area buffers: 38
(see 3.2, Water
Resources, regarding pole
placement in critical
areas).
• No impacts to terrestrial
protected species are
expected because none are
known to inhabit the study
area. Protected fish species
occur in Cedar River; however,
stream habitat would not be
affected by the project.
• Wildlife could be temporarily
disturbed by noise from
ground-clearing activities.
• Discriminating use of growth
regulators and herbicides for
vegetation management
would be used in accordance
with existing permits and
associated BMPs.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
- Trees removed from critical
areas: 0
- Trees removed from critical
area buffers: 47 (22 trees in
stream buffers and 25 trees
in wetland buffers
(trimming of trees could
also be required).
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
.
Operational Impacts • Minor disturbance or loss of
habitat would result through
routine vegetation
maintenance activities and
facility maintenance.
• Loss of wildlife habitat would
occur due to tree removal,
trimming and management
activities.
• Fish habitat would be lost or
degraded due to removal of
trees in critical areas and their
buffers.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Less-than-significant impacts
because the basic character
and functions of the habitat in
the corridor would be
maintained.
• Less-than-significant impacts
because few protected
wildlife species regularly occur
in the study area.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Energize Eastside Project 2-6 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Cumulative Impacts • Development increases the
likelihood of impacts to fish
and wildlife habitat. The
project would contribute to
urbanization through the
removal of trees and a
reduction of fish and wildlife
habitat.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
3.4 GREENHOUSE GASES
Construction Impacts • Construction truck trips, off-
road equipment, and worker
trips would temporarily
generate GHG emissions.
There is also a potential for
lifecycle emissions from
manufacturing and transport
of material resources for the
project.
• Similar to Ph. 2 DEIS • Similar to Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
because GHG emissions would
be temporary, would not
represent a continuing burden
on the statewide inventory,
and would likely be below
state reporting thresholds.
Operational Impacts • Removal of trees and
vegetation would result in 7.1
metric tons of CO2e per year in
sequestration losses.
• Employee vehicle trips to
maintain the new facilities
would increase GHG
emissions.
• Tree removal would result in
7.5 metric tons of CO2e per
year in sequestration losses.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Less CO2e sequestration losses
expected than Ph. 2 DEIS and
FEIS, because fewer trees
would be removed (see
Section 3.3, Plants and
Animals, for details on tree
removal).
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• GHG emissions would be
substantially below the State
of Washington reporting
threshold of 10,000 metric
tons, and, therefore, less-
than-significant.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Cumulative Impacts • GHGs are a component of
cumulative climate change
impacts; both the
construction and operational
impacts reflect cumulative
impacts.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: EMF
Construction Impacts • Magnetic fields from
construction equipment
would be indistinguishable
from background levels for
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Energize Eastside Project 2-7 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
the public outside of the
construction sites.
Operational Impacts • All parts of the project would
have associated magnetic
fields during operation and
would vary depending on the
pole type and electrical load.
• Operation of the proposed
transmission line would result
in a decrease in magnetic field
levels compared to existing
conditions.
• There are no known health
effects from pole frequency
EMF.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
• The calculated magnetic fields
levels would be well below
industry guidelines, and,
therefore, less-than-
significant.
Cumulative Impacts • The project would reduce
magnetic fields along existing
corridors; therefore, there
would be no cumulative
effects.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: PIPELINE SAFETY
Construction Impacts • During construction, the
Olympic Pipelines would be
exposed to an increased risk
of damage from outside
force/excavation.
• The possibility of pipeline
damage could occur from
excavation activities and/or
surcharge loading from
construction equipment. In
this unlikely event, a damaged
pipeline could result in an
immediate or subsequent
release or fire that could place
the public, workers, natural
resources, and other elements
of the environment at risk.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Less-than-significant because
the change in risk would not
be substantial.
• Less-than-significant because
the change in risk would not
be substantial and mitigation
would reduce the potential for
impacts further.
Energize Eastside Project 2-8 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Potential impacts could be
significant if such an unlikely
event were to occur.
Operational Impacts • The probability of a pipeline
incident -- such as damage to
a pipe wall -- due to electrical
interference could be slightly
higher in some locations. The
likelihood of pipeline rupture
and fire would remain low,
and no substantial change in
risk was identified.
• Impacts to natural resources
and other elements of the
environment could be
significant in the unlikely
event that an accidental
release or fire were to occur.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• In locations where pipeline
incidents could occur, testing,
monitoring, engineering
analysis, and implementation
of mitigation measures would
lower these risks, and impacts
would be less-than-
significant.
• The likelihood of pipeline
rupture and release would be
low, and mitigation would
reduce the risk further.
Therefore, the potential risk
to natural resources and other
elements of the environment
would be less-than-
significant.
Cumulative Impacts • Activities by other parties
unrelated to the projects may
occur in the corridor on
occasion. While these
activities remain a source of
potential pipeline safety risk
in the corridor, the project
would not contribute to
adverse impacts from these
activities; therefore, no
cumulative impact to
environmental health from
pipeline safety would occur.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
3.7 LAND USE & HOUSING
Construction Impacts • Construction impacts, due to
their temporary nature, would
be less-than-significant. No
significant excavation would
be required, access to
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impact
expected.
Energize Eastside Project 2-9 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
adjacent land uses would be
maintained, and installation
would not create significant
noise.
Operational Impacts •The project would be
consistent with applicable City
of Renton land use-related
policies.
•The project would not impact
existing or future land use
patterns in the Renton
segment (primarily in single-
family uses). It would use the
existing corridor and not
require new easements from
adjoining properties.
•The project would cross
shorelines of the state
associated with the Cedar
River. Replacement of poles
would be outside the 200-ft.
shoreline jurisdiction, and the
aerial wire crossing 200 ft.
above the river would not
require any disturbance within
the shoreline jurisdiction. The
project would be allowable
through the approval of a
Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit.
•Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
•Same as Ph. 2 DEIS.
•Similar to Ph. 2 DEIS.
However, because the project
qualifies as repair/
maintenance, a Shoreline
Exemption is being sought.
•Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
•Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
•Same as FEIS.
•Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
•Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
•Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Cumulative Impacts •The project is not expected to
alter land use or the supply of
housing. It would not affect
the scale of additional
development. However, if the
project were not constructed,
it could slow the rate of
additional development on
the Eastside.
•Same as Ph. 2 DEIS •Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS •Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Energize Eastside Project 2-10 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
3.8 SCENIC VIEWS & AESTHETICS
Construction Impacts • Construction impacts, due to
their temporary nature, would
be less-than-significant. Areas
cleared for construction
activities would be replanted
post-construction; the
presence of construction
vehicles, equipment,
materials, and personnel
would end; and increased light
and glare would be reduced.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Operational Impacts • Visual quality could change
due to contrast of structures
with the natural and built
environment from vegetation
removal, incompatibility with
surrounding environment, and
visual clutter.
• Scenic views could be
obstructed by increased pole
height or placing poles in new
locations. Groups with the
highest viewer sensitivity are
residential viewers and users
of recreation areas. Proposed
poles would be taller than (up
to 125’ vs. 93’) and greater in
diameter than existing poles.
• Less than Ph. 2 DEIS, because
fewer existing poles would be
removed and replaced (see
Section 3.1, Earth, for details
on pole removal/
replacement).
• Less than Ph. 2 DEIS, because
poles would be shorter (up to
118’ proposed vs up to 93’
existing).
• Same as FEIS
• Same as FEIS
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected. Additional
information on pole
design/mitigation (e.g.,
surface treatments) is
provided for the Current
Proposal.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Cumulative Impacts • Development would increase
the likelihood of impacts to
scenic views and the aesthetic
environment. The project
would not affect the overall
scale of development but if
the project were not
constructed, it could slow the
rate of development on the
Eastside.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Energize Eastside Project 2-11 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
3.9 HISTORIC & CULTURAL RESOURCES
Construction Impacts • Construction impacts on
historic and cultural
resources, due to their
temporary nature, would be
less-than-significant.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Operational Impacts • Potential impacts to
significant historic resources
and protected archaeological
resources could result from
pole replacement, ground
disturbance, demolition,
relocation, or alterations to
the visual setting of resources.
• Potential impacts to
unevaluated historic
resources will be determined
when the historic property
inventory is conducted.
Significant impacts to these
resources could occur,
although not all are likely to
be eligible for listing.
• Less than Ph. 2 DEIS, because
fewer existing poles would be
replaced and poles would be
shorter.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as FEIS. An historic
property inventory has been
prepared and an
archaeological survey has
been conducted. 118 historic
properties were identified, 6
of which were recommended
eligible for historic registers;
one historic district is present;
and, one archaeological
resource was found that could
be impacted by the proposed
project.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Through consultation with
DAHP, USACOE, King County
Historic Preservation Program,
City of Renton, affected
Tribes, and other
stakeholders, less-than-
significant impacts are
expected.
• Through consultation with
DAHP, USACOE, King County
Historic Preservation Program,
City of Renton, affected
Tribes, and other
stakeholders, less-than-
significant impacts are
expected.
Cumulative Impacts • Development increases the
potential for impacts to
historic and cultural
resources, if present where
development could occur.
Impacts to below-ground
archaeological resources
could occur during ground
disturbance. Impacts to
historic resources could occur
from demolition or alterations
to the setting.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Energize Eastside Project 2-12 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
3.10 RECREATION
Construction Impacts • Construction activities may
result in the temporary loss of
the use of a recreation site
(e.g., Sierra Heights Park,
Honey Creek Open Space, and
Cedar River Natural Zone).
• Construction activities may
decrease the enjoyment of a
recreation site.
• Trees and vegetation may be
temporarily removed within
the managed right-of-way
adjacent to recreation sites.
• Construction workers may use
parking space or adjacent
streets for parking. Recreation
site or facilities may be used
for temporary construction
staging.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
• With restoration of
vegetation, less-than-
significant impacts are
expected.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Operational Impacts • Park user experience may
change with replacement
poles that are taller and/or in
different location than
existing poles. However, there
would be fewer replacement
poles than existing poles.
• Park user experience could be
negatively impacted by tree
removal in some recreation
areas.
• The magnitude of impacts
would vary depending on
location of poles and number
of trees removed. Impacts on
park uses would not be
significant in any location.
• Less than Ph. 2 DEIS, because
poles would be shorter, but
still taller than existing poles
(e.g., in Sierra Heights Park,
Honey Creek Open Space, and
Cedar River Natural Zone).
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS.
• Similar to Ph. 2 DEIS.
• Same as FEIS, except that
poles in the Honey Creek
Opens Space would be 5 ft.
shorter than in FEIS.
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS.
• Less than Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS,
because fewer trees would be
removed (see Section 3.3,
Plants and Animals, for details
on tree removal).
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
• Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Cumulative Impacts • In general, there is pressure
on recreation areas from
development and increased
• Same as Ph. 2 DEIS • Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS • Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Energize Eastside Project 2-13 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Source: 2017 Ph. 2 DEIS, 2018 FEIS, and PSE, 2019.
1 The Ph. 2 DEIS did not include an Earth section because impacts were expected to be less-than-significant. The impacts listed here are from the Phase 1 DEIS.
use. The significant impacts to
recreation sites could
contribute to the degradation
of existing recreation
resources and limit the ability
for municipalities to provide
additional recreation
opportunities, unless
mitigation is provided.
3.11 ECONOMICS
Construction Impacts •No impacts are expected; the
economic aspects of the
project would not relate to
construction impacts.
•Same as Ph. 2 DEIS •Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS •Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Operational Impacts •Undergrounding transmission
lines would potentially cost
the community. The burden
on a very small number of
payees would be
considerable, while the cost
when shared would be less.
•With loss of tree cover, and
associated ecosystem
services, the natural
environment would be less
able to reduce air pollutants
and stormwater runoff and
sequester carbon dioxide
•Same as Ph. 2 DEIS
•Similar to Ph. 2 DEIS.
•Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS
•Less than Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS,
because fewer trees would be
removed (see Section 3.3,
Plants and Animals, for details
on tree removal).
•Less-than-significant impacts
are expected if the cost of
undergrounding transmission
lines is shared.
•Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Cumulative Impacts •Property values would likely
rise with growth and
development; the project
could also contribute to the
combined loss of ecosystem
services, in combination with
other development projects in
the area.
•Same as Ph. 2 DEIS •Same as Ph. 2 DEIS and FEIS •Less-than-significant impacts
expected.
Energize Eastside Project 2-14 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
2.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Due to the nature of the impact, level of impact, and/or through compliance with federal, state and
local regulations, policies or programs, impacts of the Current Proposal on the environment are
expected to be similar to or less than the impacts described for the FEIS Proposal. As described in
the previous EISs, the impacts of the project are expected to be less-than-significant for all the
elements of the environment that were studied. Probable impacts are compared in Table 2-1 and
are briefly discussed for each element of the environment below.
Earth
The Renton segment crosses multiple geological hazard areas (including landslide hazard, steep
slope, and erosion hazard areas). Seismic hazard areas (including ground shaking and earthquake
induced soil liquefaction) are also present along the segment.
Similar to the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS Proposals, construction and operation of the Current Proposal
would not completely avoid impacts to geologic hazard areas due to the prevalence of these
features in the project area. Furthermore, pole replacement activities associated with the
transmission line upgrade must occur in specific locations for proper functioning of the electrical
system, and pole placement in some geological hazard areas would be unavoidable. Like the FEIS
Proposal, fewer poles would be removed and replaced under the Current Proposal than under the
Phase 2 DEIS Proposal, which would reduce the potential for impacts on earth resources. Through
proper engineering (including geotechnical engineering); compliance with applicable local critical
area regulations and relevant state and local codes, including National Electric Safety Code (NESC)
standards; and, implementation of BMPs during construction, impacts on earth resources would be
less-than-significant.
Water Resources
The Renton segment crosses four stream reaches: Cedar River, Honey Creek, Ginger Creek, and an
unnamed tributary of the Cedar River. Six wetlands and Zone 2 Wellhead Protection Areas are also
present in the project area.
Similar to the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS Proposals, construction and operation of the Current Proposal
could impact the quantity and quality of surface water and groundwater resources (e.g., from
contaminants generated during construction and an increase in impervious surfaces and associated
stormwater runoff with development). In terms of direct impacts on water resources, no poles
would be placed in wetlands, streams, or stream buffers; one pole would be placed in a wetland
buffer; there would be larger pole-base footprints in a wetland buffer; and, two existing poles
would be removed from overlapping wetland buffers. Like the FEIS Proposal, fewer poles would be
removed and replaced under the Current Proposal than under the Phase 2 DEIS Proposal which
would reduce the potential for impacts on water resources. Through compliance with applicable
Energize Eastside Project 2-15 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
critical area and stormwater regulations, and implementation of BMPs during construction, impacts
on water resources would be less-than-significant.
Plants and Animals
The Renton segment follows PSE’s existing corridor which largely consists of landscaped or
maintained areas. Much of the existing corridor includes substantially modified fish and wildlife
habitat. No protected plant or terrestrial wildlife species are present in the Renton segment; four
protected fish species (Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and lamprey) occur in the Cedar River
which crosses the segment. A total of 574 trees were assessed for the tree inventory of the study
area; 367 of these trees are considered “significant” and seven trees are considered “landmark” by
the City of Renton.
Under the Current Proposal, a maximum of 339 trees would be removed, 238 of which are
considered significant trees. No landmark trees and no trees in critical areas would be removed.
Fewer trees overall and fewer significant trees would be removed under the Current Proposal than
under the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS Proposals. More trees in critical area buffers would be removed
than under the previous proposals. No poles would be placed in streams or stream buffers and only
one pole in the Renton segment would be installed in a wetland buffer. Similar to the Phase 2 DEIS
and FEIS Proposals, there are no significant unavoidable impacts to plants and animals that cannot
be mitigated under the Current Proposal. Impacts would be minimized by using the existing
transmission line corridor, limiting disturbance, implementing BMPs, and installing transmission
lines between poles with minimal site disturbance. The project would meet or exceed City of
Renton regulations on tree removal and replacement, as well as federal transmission line
operational standards. Most of the trees in the existing corridor are ornamental and associated
with existing property usage; therefore, their removal would not represent a significant impact on
native plant and animal habitat. The Current Proposal’s impacts on plants and animals are expected
to be less-than-significant and would generally be less than described in the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS,
as fewer trees/significant trees/trees in critical areas would be removed.
GHG Emissions
Existing GHG emissions in the Renton segment are associated with vegetation
maintenance/removal, fuel use by construction-related trucks and equipment, fuel use by
maintenance vehicles, and fugitive emissions from substation equipment using sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6, a GHG) as an insulating gas.
Like the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS Proposals, GHG impacts were determined to be less-than-significant
under the Current Proposal. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions would be lower under the
Current Proposal than under the previous proposals because fewer trees would be removed and
more GHGs would remain sequestered. Based on the information provided for the Current
Proposal, the GHG impacts associated with short-term/construction and long-term/operation
would be roughly equivalent to or slightly less than evaluated in the Phase 2 DEIS or the FEIS.
Energize Eastside Project 2-16 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Environmental Health – EMF
Existing magnetic fields in the study area for the Renton segment are associated with PSE
transmission lines and substations. Maximum magnetic fields were calculated along the existing
Renton segment. These levels were well below industry standards.
Like the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS Proposals, impacts from magnetic fields generated by the Current
Proposal are expected to be less-than-significant. All parts of the project would have associated
magnetic fields during operation. However, operation of the Current Proposal would result in a
decrease in magnetic field levels compared to existing conditions. There are no known health
effects from pole frequency EMF.
Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety
The Olympic Pipeline is located within the existing PSE corridor and surrounding area. Two
petroleum pipelines are currently co-located with PSE facilities in the northern portion of the
Renton segment.
As described for the DEIS and FEIS Proposals, construction of the Current Proposal would expose
the Olympic Pipeline to an increased risk of damage. A damaged pipeline could result in a
petroleum release or fire that could place the public, workers, natural resources and other
elements of the environment at significant risk. During operation of the Current Proposal, electrical
interference could cause pipeline rupture and the associated significant risks of petroleum release
or fire. Similar to the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS Proposals, this interference and associated risks could
be slightly higher during operation of the Current Proposal than under existing conditions.
However, given that the likelihood of these incidents is considered low, and with implementation
of regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, impacts on pipeline safety would be less-
than-significant.
Land Use & Housing
Existing land uses in the Renton segment include single family residential, vacant land, and
transportation facilities. Future uses in the segment are expected to be single and multi-family
residential, mixed-use, and industrial. There are 11 zoning districts and several neighborhoods
through which the segment passes. Shoreline High Intensity and Urban Conservancy Environments
are present in the segment (e.g., associated with the Cedar River).
New land uses and development along the Renton segment are regulated by the City of Renton’s
development regulations and Shoreline Master Program. Like the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS Proposals,
the Current Proposal’s impacts on land use and housing along the segment are expected to be less-
than-significant. Specifically, the zoning districts in the study area allow electrical utility facilities as
a conditional use and the Current Proposal is consistent with City of Renton land use-related plans;
the Current Proposal would not impact existing or future land use patterns; and, the proposal
Energize Eastside Project 2-17 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
would not remove or impact existing housing. Like the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS Proposals, the Current
Proposal would occur within the existing PSE corridor and would not require new easements from
adjoining properties. The project would pass through the Shoreline High Intensity and Urban
Conservancy Shoreline Environments, but poles would not be placed within the shoreline zone.
Because the Current Proposal is considered required maintenance and repair, a Shoreline
Exemption would be required. No adverse effects to the shoreline or shorelines uses are
anticipated; therefore, shoreline impacts would be less-than-significant. The Current Proposal is
consistent with land use policies from the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (2015) (e.g., Policy L-
55 related to preserving features that contribute to the City’s identity and define neighborhoods,
and Policy L-56 related to providing landscaping).
Scenic Views & Aesthetics
The visual character of the Renton segment is defined by rolling topography, some steeper ravines
and stands of trees along Honey Creek and Cedar River, and a mix of land uses (see above under
Land Use). Areas with generally high visual quality include residential areas, Honey Creek and Cedar
River, and less disturbed natural areas in King County along the corridor. Scenic views along the
corridor include views of the Olympics and Cascades, and near Talbot Hill of Mt. Rainier, Lake
Washington, and Cedar River.
Impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment under the Current Proposal would be less-
than-significant and would be similar to or less than the impacts under the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS
Proposals. Although the Current Proposal’s new poles would typically be taller and larger in
diameter than existing poles, the segment would be located entirely within PSE’s existing corridor,
resulting in low contrast with existing conditions. Overall viewer sensitivity is considered low
because development in the areas has already occurred around the existing transmission lines. The
degree of additional obstruction of scenic views would be minimal compared with existing
conditions. Like the FEIS Proposal, fewer poles would be removed and replaced under the Current
Proposal than the Phase 2 DEIS Proposal which would reduce the potential for scenic view and
aesthetic impacts. The Current Proposal is consistent with aesthetic and view policies from the City
of Renton Comprehensive Plan (2015) (e.g., Policy L-47 related to maintaining Renton’s natural
beauty, and Policy L-54 related to protecting public scenic views and view corridors).
Historic & Cultural Resources
Based upon the results of the archaeological and historic resource surveys, the following historic
and cultural resources are located in the Renton study area: one archaeological site, 117 individual
historic inventory properties, and one historic district (the Eastside Transmission System).
No impacts to the archaeological site are anticipated because all proposed pole replacements
would be well removed from the site. Five of the individual historic inventory properties are
recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C
for their architectural character. However, the transmission corridor predates each of these
Energize Eastside Project 2-18 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
resources and their setting would continue to include the transmission corridor under the Current
Proposal. As such, no significant impacts would occur to these resources. The Eastside Transmission
System is recommended for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with broad
patterns of history. The Current Proposal would allow the system to continue to fulfill its original
function and would not detract from the characteristics that make it eligible for the NRHP. Impacts
to historic and cultural resources in the Renton segment under the Current Proposal would be less-
than-significant and would be similar to or less than the impacts under the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS
Proposals. The Current Proposal would follow the same route evaluated in the Phase 2 DEIS and
FEIS. The Current Proposal includes refined design details for pole types and placement that would
reduce impacts on historic and cultural resources. Poles would be located entirely within the
existing transmission corridor, resulting in little change from existing conditions. This minimal
change, coupled with implementation of regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, would
result in less-than-significant impacts.
Recreation
The following opportunities for recreation are located in the Renton segment: Sierra Heights Park,
Sierra Heights Elementary School, May Creek Greenway, Honey Creek Open Space/Greenway,
Cedar River Natural Zone, and Riverview Park.
Impacts to recreation sites in the Renton segment under the Current Proposal would be less-than-
significant because vegetation clearing and changes to poles and wires would not affect the use of
these sites. The Current Proposal would follow the same route evaluated in the Phase 2 DEIS and
FEIS. The Current Proposal includes refined design details for pole types, heights, and placement
that would reduce impacts on recreation relative to the previous proposals, reducing potential
impacts.
Economics
The Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS described the existing tree cover and associated value of the trees in in
the Renton segment. In the FEIS, a total of 499 trees were documented in the segment (not
including trees with low ecological value), with a total fixed value of $701,189, and a total service
value/year of $1,478.
Similar to the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS Proposals, the Current Proposal is expected to have less-than-
significant economic impacts. The economics analysis evaluated two issues: 1- the cost of
undergrounding utilities, and 2- ecosystem service loss resulting from tree removal. The
operational impacts of undergrounding transmission lines would depend on where the lines are
built relative to the cost sharing burden. If only a very small number of payees are involved, the
cost would be a large burden. If the cost is shared broadly, the impacts would be less. The
ecosystem service analyses in the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS were based on the total number of trees
removed, and covered the entire PSE corridor (the Renton segment was not separated out). The
Current Proposal would remove fewer trees/significant trees than the previous proposals;
Energize Eastside Project 2-19 Environmental Impacts
Environmental Consistency Analysis
therefore, there should be less ecosystem service impacts. Ecosystem service is not expected to be
significantly impacted by the Current Proposal.
2.3 CONCLUSION
The Environmental Consistency Analysis confirms that the impacts of development under the
Current Proposal are within the range of impacts analyzed under the proposals in the past SEPA
review, and that there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated.
This is because the Current Proposal is identical in most respects to the FEIS Proposal. The
differences between the proposals primarily relate to pole placement, tree removal, and details on
mitigation provided under the Current Proposal. The impacts under the Current Proposal would
generally be similar to or less than those described in the Phase 2 DEIS and FEIS.
Chapter 3
MITIGATION MEASURES
Energize Eastside Project 3-1 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
CHAPTER 3
MITIGATION MEASURES &
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Mitigation measures are implemented to reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts associated with
a proposed action. Mitigation can be achieved through avoidance, minimization, rectification,
elimination, compensation, or monitoring of environmental impacts (WAC 197-11-768, Mitigation).
Below are the mitigation measures identified for the Energize Eastside Project. Mitigation
measures specified by code are listed as “Regulatory Requirements” and will be required. Those
listed as “Potential Mitigation Measures” are based on comprehensive plan policies, existing PSE
programs, and the recommendations of the Environmental Consistency Analysis, and will be at the
discretion of the Applicant to adopt or the City of Renton to impose as a condition of project
approval to reduce impacts to non-significant levels. The following mitigation measures are
organized based on the stage at which they will be applied (i.e., before construction, during
construction, at project start-up, and during operation).
The mitigation measures from the March 1, 2018 Energize Eastside Project FEIS are noted without
any edits or highlights. Those measures from the 2018 FEIS that do not apply to the Renton
segment or make specific reference to other segments of the Energize Eastside Project are shown
with black strike-edit. Corrections, clarifications, or new measures from the March 14, 2018 CUP
and Shoreline Exemption application materials are shaded in grey. Further corrections,
clarifications, or new measures recommended thorough this Environmental Consistency Analysis
and discussions between the Applicant and City of Renton are noted in red. In the future, if the CUP
and/or Shoreline Exemption applications submitted to City of Renton are changed, these mitigation
measures will need to be re-examined and possibly modified. As appropriate and for consistency,
auxiliary verbs in the mitigation measures (e.g., “would” and “should”) have been updated to “will”
to indicate definitive commitments.
Minor additions/clarifications to the mitigation measures identified in the 2018 FEIS and in the CUP
and Shoreline Exemption application materials are recommended based on the Energize Eastside
Environmental Consistency Analysis, as shown below.
3.1 EARTH
Regulatory Requirements
For PSE, national and state codes and regulations, and industry guidelines govern the design,
installation, and operation of transmission lines and associated equipment. The National Electric
Safety Code (NESC) 2017, as adopted by the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC),
Energize Eastside Project 3-2 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
provides safety guidelines that PSE follows, including provisions for worker and public safety during
seismic events.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
1. Avoid construction on steep slopes, known and potential landslide zones, and areas with
organic or liquefiable soils, where feasible.
2. Use appropriate shoring during construction.
3. Use erosion and runoff control measures, including retention of vegetation, replanting,
groundcover, etc.
4. Comply with relevant state and local critical areas codes and other applicable requirements.
5. Dispose of soils at approved disposal sites.
6. Coordinate with other utility providers, as appropriate, to determine how best to avoid or
minimize any impacts. PSE would will work with other utility service providers during design
of the project to coordinate the placement of new facilities and ensure protection of other
utilities.
7. Conduct settlement and vibration monitoring, as applicable, du ring construction to identify
potential adverse conditions to critical structures and local facilities. PSE will identify
schools, hospitals, and registered historic buildings located in the utility corridor and will
assess and plan for potential impacts from vibrations, as applicable and feasible.
8. Confirm that a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer has conducted
geotechnical hazard evaluations for all proposed elements addressing ground-shaking, fault
rupture, liquefaction, and landslides, and that all geotechnical recommendations have been
incorporated into project design. The project geotechnical engineer will review the final
construction plans, including all foundation, shoring, cut, and fill designs. The project
geotechnical engineer will provide geotechnical inspection during project construction,
when applicable. A letter from the project geotechnical stating that the plans conform to
the recommendations in the geotechnical report and any addendums and supplements will
be submitted to the clearing and grading section prior to issuance of the construction
permit.
9. Design the Richards Creek Substation in accordance with the design recommendation
presented in the project geotechnical report (Geoengineers, 2016). This will ensure that
substation structures are designed to IBC seismic standards even though the IBC exempts
this project from its requirements.
10. Use the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), or future adopted IBC, parameters for short-
period spectral response acceleration (Ss), 1-second period spectral response acceleration
(S1), and Seismic Coefficients FA and FV presented in Table 2 of the geotechnical report
(GeoEngineers, 2016).
11. Use site-specific soil input parameters for lateral load design that consider the effects of
liquefaction through the application of p-multipliers for LPILE soil parameters that are input
to LPILE or similar computer programs that are designed to analyze the behavior of
laterally-loaded foundations.
Energize Eastside Project 3-3 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
12. For the area north of the proposed Richards Creek substation, reevaluate the lateral
spreading risk to the proposed poles in this area once their final locations have been
determined, to determine appropriate foundation dimensions.
13.Where liquefiable deposits areas subject to liquefaction are present, extend foundations
below the loose to medium density liquefiable deposits into underlying dense, non-
liquefiable soils.
14. Reevaluate the axial capacity of the pole foundations and potential downdrag loads for
poles in liquefiable deposits areas subject to liquefaction once final locations are selected
and consider these in the structural design.
15. For the one location where soil test results indicated a moderate to high potential for
Corrosion test results indicate that all the samples have a low to moderate potential for
corrosion. As a result, a corrosion engineer could will be involved in the design of the
project. PSE will assess the safety and AC corrosion risks under steady-state operating
conditions of the transmission lines.
16. Where bedrock is near the surface, additional options such as rock anchors or micropiles
might be appropriate as an alternative to drilled shafts. If micropiles are used, the
contractor should submit a detailed micropile plan describing methods and demonstrating
consistency with specifications. The project geotechnical engineer will review the final
construction plans, including all foundation, shoring, cut, and fill designs. A letter from the
geotechnical engineer stating that the plans conform to the recommendations in the
geotechnical report and addendums and supplements will be submitted to the plan review
section prior to issuance of the construction permit.
17./18. Prior to construction, PSE will The contractor should submit a detailed Drilled Shaft
Installation Plan prepared by their construction contractor describing casing and drilled
shaft construction methods for review and comment by the engineer before construction.
The submittal should will include a narrative describing the contractor’s understanding of
the anticipated subsurface conditions, underground utilities, the overall construction
sequence, access to the pole locations, and the proposed pole foundation installation
equipment. The contractor should will submit a detailed direct embedment pole installation
plan describing both uncased and temporary casing methods as appropriate. If drilled shafts
are used where groundwater is present, the concrete for drilled shafts will be placed using
the “tremie” method and will be considered and evaluated by PSE’s onsite geotechnical
engineer (described in the geotechnical report). The Plan will be reviewed by the project
geotechnical engineer before construction commences; the Plan will include documentation
of this review, which will be provided to the City of Renton Department of Community and
Economic Development.
During Construction
19. Monitor all improvements for changes in conditions such as cracking foundations, slumping
slopes, or loss of vegetative cover.
20.Implement inspection and maintenance programs for all improvements to ensure consistent
performance and stability. The project geotechnical engineer will provide geotechnical
inspection during project construction when applicable. The project geotechnical engineer
will monitor and test soil cuts and fills for pole foundations. The project geotechnical
Energize Eastside Project 3-4 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
engineer also will observe, monitor, and test any unusual seepage, slope, or subgrade
conditions as applicable.
21. Comply with relevant state and local critical areas codes.
22. If drilled shafts are used where groundwater is present, the concrete for drilled shafts
should be placed using the “tremie” method (as described in the geotechnical report ).
23. Monitor the installation of the drilled shafts to confirm that soil conditions are as
anticipated and that the shafts are installed in accordance with project plans and
specifications, document variations in the field if necessary, and provide consultation as
required should conditions vary from those anticipated.
22./23.The project geotechnical engineer will provide geotechnical inspection during project
construction when applicable. The geotechnical engineer will monitor and test soil cuts and
fills for pole foundations. The geotechnical engineer also will observe, monitor, and test any
unusual seepage, slope, or subgrade conditions.
24. Where existing sensitive structures may be present within about 100 feet of the work area,
vibration should be monitored. PSE will monitor for vibrations, as applicable and where
feasible, during ground disturbing activities, where a school, a hospital, or a registered
historic building is within the utility corridor.
During Operation
25. Develop and implement a monitoring and maintenance program that includes inspection
and reporting on structural stability (e.g. cracking foundations, slumping slopes, or loss of
vegetative cover). As part of PSE’s regular inspection of the transmission line, monitor all
improvements for changes in conditions such as cracking foundations or slumping slopes
that could reduce the ability of structures to resist seismic disturbances. This could include
regular reporting to permitting agencies to ensure compliance. PSE will develop a
monitoring and maintenance program that includes inspection and reporting on the ability
of the transmission line poles to resist seismic disturbances. As part of PSE’s regular
inspection of the poles, it will monitor all poles for changes in conditions that could reduce
the ability of the structures to resist seismic disturbances . If changes are identified during
inspection and monitoring of conditions, PSE will implement additional measures to reduce
or minimize those impacts.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Damage and potential injury or death from a significant seismic event are never completely
avoidable. The proposed project would will not increase these risks. The project would will
meet the most recent scientifically-based seismic design standards. Therefore, significant
unavoidable adverse earth resources impacts are not expected.
Energize Eastside Project 3-5 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
3.2 Water Resources
Regulatory Requirements
The project would will need to comply with applicable, federal, state, and local City of Renton
requirements for stormwater, streams, wetlands, and critical areas, and Shorelines of the State.
Prior to Construction
Before If any direct wetland impacts occur to water resources are proposed, PSE would will obtain
federal and state authorization, and must will provide:
A. A jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stating whether the
delineated wetlands are under federal jurisdiction.
B. An application and report presenting impacts on jurisdictional wetlands.
C. A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetland impacts following the standards in Wetland
Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology, 2006).
The project would will need to comply with the following regulations of the Partner Cities City of
Renton:
D. Stormwater regulations of the Partner Cities City of Renton, which are based on the
standards set by Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
(Ecology, 2014).
E. Requirements of Shoreline Master Programs for Renton in crossing the Cedar River (see
2018 FEIS Appendix B-3).
F. Requirements of each applicable Partner City’s City of Renton’s critical areas ordinance.
Typical mitigation measures suggested in the ordinances include:
a. Replacement of wetland acreage based on replacement ratios in critical areas
ordinances.
b. Replacement of lost buffer area.
c. Enhancement or restoration of buffers.
G. Avoid locating poles in wetlands and wetland buffers to the extent possible. It should be
possible to avoid most wetlands by raising the height of poles, allowing for a longer stretch
of transmission line over the wetland.
H. Apply for all necessary permits (BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified in
the construction contract documents that the Construction contractor would be required to
implement).
During Construction
I. Comply with code provisions for the protection of water resources from clearing and
grading activities.
J. Comply with all necessary permits:
a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit for construction
(issued by Ecology).
Energize Eastside Project 3-6 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
b. Possible Hydraulic Project Approval (issued by WDFW) due to crossing of the Cedar
River with the upgraded line.
c. Construction Stormwater General Permit.
K. Implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Temporary Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan to mitigate potential increased sedimentation and turbidity from
stormwater runoff. These plans would include BMPs to ensure that sediment originating
from disturbed soils would be retained, within the limits of disturbance such as the
following:
a. Temporary covering of exposed soils and stockpiled
materials.
b. Silt fencing, catch basin filters, interceptor swales, or hay bales.
c. Temporary sedimentation ponds or sediment traps.
d. Installation of a rock construction entrance and street sweeping.
e. Upon completion of work in each area, exposed soils would be permanently
stabilized with seeding or gravel.
f. Monitoring of the project by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead.
L. Implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan to minimize the
potential for spills or leaks of hazardous materials. BMPs in the Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasures Plan would include the following:
a. Operating procedures to prevent spills.
o Control measures such as secondary containment to prevent spills from entering
nearby surface waters.
o Countermeasures to contain, clean up, and mitigate the effects of a spill.
o Construction vehicle storage and maintenance and fueling of construction
equipment would be located away from streams and wetlands.
M. Comply with a dewatering plan to monitor groundwater withdrawal during excavations
and to avoid groundwater contamination. This would likely include collecting dewatering
water from excavations and treating it before discharge to surface water or stormwater
systems at an approved off-site location.
N. Comply with construction standards applicable to Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2 (RMC 4-
4-030.C8) in the City of Renton. These standards include requirements for the following:
a. Secondary containment for hazardous materials.
b. Securing hazardous materials.
c. Removal of leaking vehicles and equipment.
d. Cleanup equipment and supplies.
O. Monitor soils from construction-related excavation/grading for contamination; if
contaminated soils are encountered, mitigate in accordance with federal, state, and
City of Renton regulations.
During Operation
P. Implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans during maintenance
activities (for poles, the transmission corridor, and access roads) to prevent spills or leaks of
hazardous materials, paving materials, or chemicals from contaminating surface or
groundwater.
Energize Eastside Project 3-7 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
1. Avoid locating poles in wetlands and wetland buffers. to the extent possible. It should be
possible to avoid most wetlands by raising the height of poles, allowing for a longer stretch
of transmission line over the wetland.
2. Apply for all necessary permits (BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified in
the construction contract documents that the Construction contractor would be required to
implement). Project and site specific BMPS will be specified in the construction contract
documents that the construction contractor will be required to implement. It is noted the
BMPs used on construction sites change and often need to be modified during construction
based on current conditions.
During Construction
3. Comply with code provisions for the protection of water resources from clearing and
grading activities.
4. Comply with all necessary permits:
a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit for construction
(issued by Ecology).
b. It is the City’s understanding that a Hydraulic Project Approval is not required;
however, based on the project as currently proposed, it is pPossible that a Hydraulic
Project Approval (issued by WDFW) could be necessary due to crossing of the Cedar
River with the upgraded line.
c. Construction Stormwater General Permit.
The applicant, PSE, will be responsible for consulting with all other local, state,
federal, or regional agencies, and/or tribal entities with jurisdiction (if any) for
applicable permit or other regulatory requirements that pertain to any aspect of the
project addressed in this permit.
5. Implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Temporary Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan to mitigate potential increased sedimentation and turbidity from
stormwater runoff. These plans would will include BMPs to ensure that sediment
originating from disturbed soils would will be retained, within the limits of disturbance
such as the following:
d. Temporary covering of exposed soils and stockpiled
materials.
e. Silt fencing, catch basin filters, interceptor swales, or hay bales.
f. Temporary sedimentation ponds or sediment traps.
g. Installation of a rock construction entrance and street sweeping.
h. Upon completion of work in each area, exposed soils would will be permanently
stabilized with seeding or gravel.
i. Monitoring of the project by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead.
6. Implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan to minimize the
potential for spills or leaks of hazardous materials. BMPs in the Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasures Plan wcould include the following:
Energize Eastside Project 3-8 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
o Operating procedures to prevent spills.
o Control measures such as secondary containment to prevent spills from entering
nearby surface waters.
o Countermeasures to contain, clean up, and mitigate the effects of a spill.
o Construction vehicle storage and maintenance and fueling of construction
equipment would will be located away from streams and wetlands.
7.Comply with a dewatering plan to monitor groundwater withdrawal during excavations
and to avoid groundwater contamination. This would likely include collecting dewatering
water from excavations and treating it before discharge to surface water or stormwater
systems at an approved off-site location. The clearing and grading permit application will
include a SWPPP. The structure and content of the SWPPP will follow the requirements of
the Renton Clearing and Grading Code and the Renton Clearing and Grading Development
Standards. BMPs in the plan could include:
o Operating procedures to prevent spills.
o Control measures such as secondary containment to prevent spills from entering
nearby surface waters.
o Countermeasures to contain, clean up, and mitigate the effects of a spill.
o Construction vehicle storage and maintenance and fueling of construction
equipment would will be located away from streams and wetlands.
8.Comply with construction standards applicable to Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2 (RMC
4- 4-030.C8) in the City of Renton. These standards include requirements for the
following:
j.Secondary containment for hazardous materials.
k.Securing hazardous materials.
l.Removal of leaking vehicles and equipment.
m.Cleanup equipment and supplies.
9.Monitor soils from construction-related excavation/grading for contamination; if
contaminated soils are encountered, mitigate in accordance with federal, state, and
City of Renton regulations. Visually monitor soils from construction-related
excavation/grading for contamination in accordance with federal, state, and City of
Renton regulations. Mitigate in accordance with federal, state, and City of Renton
regulations as applicable.
During Operation
10.Implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans during maintenance
activities (for poles, the transmission corridor, and access roads) to prevent spills or leaks of
hazardous materials, paving materials, or chemicals from contaminating surface or
groundwater.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
•The proposed project would will comply with applicable regulations and implement
appropriate BMPs. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse water resources impacts
are expected.
Energize Eastside Project 3-9 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
3.3 Plants & Animals
Regulatory Requirements
Federal, state, and City of Renton regulations and ordinances have been established to protect
natural resources (e.g., tree protection and critical area regulations) and are required to be
followed.
During Construction
A. Replace trees removed for the project based on the tree protection regulations and critical
areas regulations in each jurisdiction; some of these trees would likely be planted off-site
or, in the case of the City of Newcastle, mitigated by paying into an in-lieu fee program.
Replacement may be based on cross-sectional diameter of trees removed, or on habitat
functions lost due to tree removal, depending on applicable regulations.
B. In the Bridal Trails Subarea of the City of Bellevue, plant replacement trees as required
under the City’s Tree Retention and Replacement Code.
C. Restore affected critical area buffers at a ratio of 1:1.
D. Install high-visibility orange construction fencing around the extent of critical areas and their
buffers (including native growth protection areas) to prevent disturbance.
E. Trees to be retained would will be protected in accordance with City of Renton tree
protection standards.
Implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 3.2, Water Resources, to
minimize impacts on water resources would will also minimize impacts on plants and animals. In
addition, PSE would comply with applicable construction windows for in-water work.
If a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) is required by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) would be prepared and PSE would
will also comply with all requirements of their JARPA the HPA imposed by natural resource agencies
WDFW to protect fish and wildlife species and their habitat, such as these could include:
F. Limit work to allowable “fish window” time periods.
G. Limit work during sensitive nesting and breeding seasons for protected wildlife species
occurring in the area.
H. Implement PSE’s established bird protection programs and procedures.
I. Provide fish exclusion if required to prevent harm to protected species.
J. Replant and stabilize disturbed construction and staging areas with native trees, shrubs,
and grasses.
K. Implement temporary erosion control measures.
L. Utilize a Spill Prevention and Control Plan.
During Operation
M. Trees removed from critical area in Bellevue and Renton may require mitigation monitoring.
N. Trees replaced within wetlands or wetland buffers in Renton could require mitigation
monitoring for a period of five years or more, consistent with RMC 4-3-050L(3).
Energize Eastside Project 3-10 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
1.Increase pole heights to allow greater separation between poles, allowing for some poles to
be moved outside of critical areas or buffer.
2.Partner with local City of Renton, state, and federal agencies to identify potential off-site
mitigation areas that are currently degraded.
3.Develop enhancement plans to convert off-site mitigation areas into thriving ecosystems,
with an emphasis on enhancing critical habitat areas and buffers through planting of
native trees and shrubs to provide shade to streams and habitat for birds, woody debris
for fish and amphibians, foraging habitat for mammals, and nesting habitat for avian
species.
4.Pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Bellevue for trees removed in the City’s right-of-way to
offset loss of public amenity.
5.Pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Renton if tree replacement ratios cannot be met within
the corridor. Vegetation mitigation will be completed consistent with PSE’s July 24,
2019, “Vegetation Replacement Approach” letter to the City.
During Construction
6.Replant disturbed areas using native vegetation, where feasible and appropriate, that
would will meet transmission line clearance requirements and would will not need to be
removed or require maintenance (i.e., trimming) in the future.
7.Critical area and buffer trees would will be trimmed and not removed if possible, and
trimmed branches and trunks at least 4 inches in diameter would will be left in place to
provide a greater amount of woody debris for the area streams, compared to the long-
term natural recruitment process, where the underlying property owner approves the
placement of woody debris and there are no safety issues related to replacement.
8.PSE would continue to implement an ecologically based, integrated weed management
program to control the spread of invasive and noxious weeds at disturbed areas by planting
native plants. PSE will implement an ecologically based, integrated weed management plan
to control the spread of invasive and noxious weeds at disturbed areas by planting native
plants where feasible and appropriate. The Plan will be submitted to the City for approval
prior to issuance of the construction permit.
9.Flag the limits of construction, trees to be retained, and critical habitat areas and associated
buffers to be avoided.
10.Where pole access is through vegetated areas, maintain existing vegetation to the greatest
extent possible. Many of the remaining poles could be replaced from the roadway, reducing
the disturbed areas to approximately the footprint of the pole
11.As part of the construction permit process, PSE will coordinate with the City of Renton
regarding access roads and possible use of cranes. At sites where access is difficult, a
helicopter or large crane may be used to limit the extent of disturbance necessary for
construction access.
Energize Eastside Project 3-11 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
12. Retain or replace trees at ratios contained in the PSE July 24, 2019 “Vegetation
Replacement Approach” letter to the City. that meet or exceed regulatory standards, as
proposed in the Renton Tree Retention Plan (Watershed 2017).
o To mitigate for the loss of significant trees in the transmission corridor, PSE is
proposing mitigation ratios that exceed the City’s regulatory standards.
13. If trees are planted offsite, larger trees could be clustered, which would contribute to
increasing habitat quality and area aesthetics. PSE will submit a Final Tree Retention and
Replacement Plan at the time of construction permit review. Where feasible and authorized,
PSE will cluster large trees.
During Operation
14. Continue to implement an PSE will submit for approval an ecologically based integrated
weed management program plan to control the spread of invasive and noxious weeds
along the corridor, and at PSE substation facilities, including the removal of existing
infestations of invasive species, where feasible and appropriate.
15. Continue to implement PSE’s Avian Protection Program (PSE, 2016b), and mitigate for the
direct loss of nesting and roosting habitat for protected species (i.e., eagles, osprey, and
other raptors). This mitigation typically occurs by providing nesting platforms in isolated
areas away from power lines when nests of species protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act need to be removed from the
power structures. Any such removal/replacement would occur outside of the nesting
season to minimize the disturbance of the birds. In addition, PSE would continue to
proactively discourage and minimize the use of the power structures by all avian species by
retrofitting existing structures with wire guards, flight diverter devices, and bird guards. PSE
will implement its Avian Protection Plan, including methods and equipment to reduce
collisions, electrocution, and problem nests. To reduce impacts to birds, the timing and
location of construction work will consider critical time periods such as the nesting season
for species of local importance present in the immediate Project area. A habitat biologist or
other qualified professional will submit a plan to the City documenting recommended
measures to limit impacts.
16. During tree maintenance activities, Critical area and buffer trees would will be trimmed
and not removed if possible, and trimmed branches and trunks at least 4 inches in
diameter would will be left in place to provide a greater amount of woody debris for the
area streams, compared to the long-term natural recruitment process, where the
underlying property owner approves the placement of woody debris and there are no
safety issues related to placement.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• The major impact of the proposed project on plants and animals would will be the removal
of trees, including significant trees. Protected species are not known to occupy the habitat
within the Renton segment, and the urbanized setting is unlikely to provide suitable habitat
for these species in the future. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse plant or
animal impacts are expected.
Energize Eastside Project 3-12 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
3.4 Greenhouse Gases
Regulatory Requirements
Although there’re are no regulations specifically limiting GHG emissions, PSE would will need to
comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations that apply to other resources, some of
which would will mitigate the potential for long-term adverse GHG impacts (e.g., regulations that
protect tree coverage in critical areas). The following measure s identified in Section 3.3, Plants and
Animals, would will potentially offset the long-term sequestration impacts.
A. Replace trees removed for the project based on the City of Renton tree protection and
critical areas regulations in each jurisdiction; some of these trees would likely could be
planted offsite or in the case of the City of Newcastle, mitigated by paying into an in-lieu
fee program. Replacement may be based on the cross-sectional diameter of trees removed,
or on habitat functions lost due to tree removal, depending on applicable regulations.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
1. For equipment installed as part of Energize Eastside at the Talbot Hill substation, if SF6-filled
equipment is used, use equipment manufactured guaranteed leakage rate of 0.1 percent.
Installation of such equipment could reduce fugitive SF6 emissions by up to 80 percent over
older equipment types. As appropriate, use an alternative insulation system for closely
spaced equipment.
During Construction
2. If available, prudent and not likely to cause harm to equipment, u Use renewable diesel for
diesel-powered construction equipment. The fuel can achieve a 40 –80 percent reduction in
GHG emissions compared to fossil diesel and is a recommended component of GHG
reduction efforts in other jurisdictions such as the Drive Clean Seattle program (Seattle OSE,
2012).
3. Use non-petroleum lubricants for construction equipment.
4. Where compatible with the transmission lines, the underlying property owner agrees, and
where feasible based on areas use, rReplant disturbed construction and staging areas with
native trees, shrubs, and grasses.
5. Retain or replace trees at ratios that meet or exceed regulatory standards, as proposed in
the Renton Tree Retention Plan (Watershed 2017). Vegetation mitigation will be completed
consistent with PSE’s July 24, 2019, “Vegetation Replacement Approach’ letter to the City.
During Operation
6. BMPs could be implemented to reduce GHG contributions
Energize Eastside Project 3-13 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
•Construction-related GHG emissions would will be temporary, and construction and
operational GHG emissions would will not create an increase that would will be above the
state reporting thresholds. Therefore, significant unavoidable adverse GHG emission
impacts are not expected.
3.5 Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety
Regulatory Requirements
PSE is responsible for the Energize Eastside Project’s design, construction, and operational
parameters within the shared corridor with the Olympic Pipeline system. For PSE, national and
state standards, codes, and regulations, and industry guidelines govern the design, installation, and
operation of transmission lines and associated equipment. The National Electric Safety Code (NESC)
2017, as adopted by the UTC, provides the safety guidelines th at PSE follows. The NESC contains
the basic provisions necessary for worker and public safety under specific conditions, including
electrical grounding, protection from lightning strikes, extreme weather, and seismic hazards. PSE
would will use these in developing the final design.
To address concerns about potential interaction between the Energize Eastside Project
transmission lines and Olympic Pipeline system, PSE and Olympic have coordinated regarding the
project since 2012, and both have indicated that they would will continue their coordination
through final design and construction.
PSE For construction activities within all segments, the appropriate party would will need to comply
with applicable federal, state, and local damage preventions laws, regulations, and requirements,
and Olympic’s general construction requirement for work near its pipelines, including:
A. Develop construction and access plans in coordination with Olympic’s Damage Prevention
Team and mutually agreed upon by both parties. These plans would will outline the specific
actions that PSE would will take to protect the pipelines from vehicle and equipment
surcharge loads, excavation, and other activities in consideration of Olympic’s general
construction requirements and in consultation with Olympic on the Energize Eastside
project design specifically. Consistent with regulatory requirements, tThe following general
measures, at a minimum wcould be included in the construction and access plans:
o Notify “one-call” 811 utility locater service at least 48 hours prior to PSE or PSE
designated contractors conducting excavation work. (Olympic’s line marking
personnel would will then mark the location of the pipelines near the construction
areas. These procedures are designed to ensure that excavation would will not
damage any underground utilities and to decrease potential safety hazards.)
o Field verify the distance between the pipelines and transmission line pole grounds.
o Add the pipeline location and depth to project plans and drawings and submit
to Olympic for evaluation.
Energize Eastside Project 3-14 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
o Arrange for Olympic representatives to be on-site to monitor construction
activities near the pipelines.
o Install temporary fencing or other markers around the pipeline area.
o Provide all necessary information for Olympic to perform pipe stress calculations for
equipment crossings and surface loads (surcharge loads). Based on pipe stress
calculations, and in coordination with Olympic, provide additional cover that may
include installing timber mats, steel plating, or temporary air bridging; utilize a
combination of these; or avoid crossing in certain identified areas in order to avoid
impacts on Olympic pipelines. Ensure that mitigation to address potential surcharge
load impacts is implemented in accordance with applicable requirements and
recommended practices, including the following:
▪ 49 CFR 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquid by Pipeline.
▪ American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1102, Steel Pipelines
Crossing Railroads and Highways.
▪ American Lifelines Alliance, Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe.
o Comply with additional measures related to minimizing surcharge loads included
in Olympic’s general construction requirements (see 2018 FEIS Appendix I-2).
B. As part of Olympic’s general construction requirements for all work proposed near the
pipelines (see 2018 FEIS Appendix I-2), comply with other applicable requirements, including
the following:
o No excavation or construction activity would will be permitted in the vicinity of a
pipeline until appropriate communications have been made with Olympic’s field
operations and its Right-of-Way Department. A formal engineering assessment
(conducted by Olympic) may be required.
o No excavation or backfilling within the pipeline right-of-way would will be
permitted for any reason without a representative of Olympic on-site giving
permission.
o In some instances, excavation and other construction activities around certain
pipelines can be conducted safely only when the pipeline operating pressure has
been reduced. PSE must will inform its designated contractors that excavation that
exposes or significantly reduces the cover over a pipeline may have to be delayed
until the reduced operating pressures are achieved.
o For a project within 100 feet of the pipelines, Olympic’s Damage Prevention Team
would will meet the construction crew on-site at the beginning of the project and
weekly thereafter. If excavation has the potential to be within 10 feet of the
pipelines, the Damage Prevention Team would will be onsite at all times to
monitor excavation.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
1. PSE will cContinue to coordinate with Olympic and include safeguards in the project design
to protect nearby pipelines from interaction with the new transmission lines due to AC
current density, faults caused by lightning strikes, mechanical/equipment failure, or other
Energize Eastside Project 3-15 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
causes. PSE will optimize conductor geometry to the extent feasible and consistent with
engineer recommendations, where the Olympic pipelines are collocated with the upgraded
transmission line.
2. PSE will pPerform an AC Iinterference Sstudy incorporating the final powerline transmission
route, configuration, and operating parameters to confirm that current densities would
remain within acceptable levels and inform Olympic of any locations where additional
measures may be needed to protect the pipelines. PSE will provide Olympic with the Study
and if requested, provide the City with documentation establishing that the Study was
performed and submitted to Olympic.
3. Obtain and incorporate all the pipeline parameters required for detailed modeling and
study (i.e., locations and details of above-grade pipeline appurtenances/stations,
bonds, anodes, mitigation, etc.). This should include a review of the annual test post
cathodic protection survey data.
4. PSE will fFully assess the safety and coating stress risks for phase-to-ground faults at
powerline structures transmission line poles along the entire area of co-location,
including both inductive and resistive coupling.
5. PSE will Fully assess the safety and AC corrosion risks under steady-state operating
conditions on the powerline.
6. PSE will rReassess the safe separation distance between the transmission line and
Olympic’s pipeline at each pole location to minimize arcing risk based on NACE SP0177-
2014 and considering the findings in CEA 239T817 (Stantec, 2017).
7. Ensure that the separation distance between the pipelines and the powerline structures
exceeds the safe distance required to avoid electrical arcing by installing pole grounds
at appropriate distance from the pipeline based on engineering analysis. Specify
appropriate distances for pole grounds from the pipeline to reduce, to the maximum
extent feasible, electrical arcing as recommended by the engineer.
Field verify the distance between the pipelines and transmission line pole grounds.
8. Consistent with the approved Construction Management and Access Plan, PSE will
document all mitigation measures implemented, monitored, and conducted.
If requested by the City of Renton, PSE will fFile a mitigation and monitoring report with the
City of Renton demonstrating that sufficient safety factors have been incorporated into the
design, and documenting all consultations with Olympic, including the sharing of modeling
and engineering information with Olympic to assist Olympic in its monitoring and mitigation
responsibilities. that documents consultations with Olympic and mitigation measures to
address safety-related issues.
The mitigation and monitoring report should include a plan that identifies the process for
conducting will demonstrate that sufficient pipeline safety measures have been
implemented, and document all consultations with Olympic, including the sharing of
modeling, engineering, and as-built information with Olympic to assist Olympic in its
ongoing monitoring and mitigation responsibilities. The report will identify any additional
Energize Eastside Project 3-16 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
field surveys and data collection necessary for verifying mitigation measures following
project start-up, and any proposed monitoring to ensure that mitigation measures related
to operational issues are followed. additional field surveys and data collection for
identifying mitigation measures following project start-up, and proposed monitoring to
ensure that mitigation related to operational issues is followed.
9.Install Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) shield wire on the transmission line poles.
10.Prior to permit issuance of the Energize Eastside project, prepare a preliminary plan
detailing measures PSE would require of its contractor to protect the pipeline during
construction. Where the utilities are co-located, PSE will develop a Construction
Management and Access Plan in coordination with Olympic’s Damage Prevention Team
that is mutually agreed upon by both parties. This plan will outline the specific actions
that PSE will take to protect the pipelines from vehicle and equipment surcharge loads,
excavation, and other activities in consideration of Olympic’s general construction and
right-of-way requirements and in consultation with Olympic on the Energize Eastside
project design specifically.
11.Prior to construction of the Energize Eastside project, file a mitigation and monitoring
report with the Partner Cities City of Renton documenting consultations with Olympic
and mitigation measures to address safety-related issues. The report should include a
monitoring plan that identifies how mitigation measures would be monitored to
ensure that mitigation related to construction activities is followed.
12.Require that aThe project geotechnical engineer review final plans and indicate in their
report measures necessary to ensure that construction activity would not increase the risk
of landslides that could damage the Olympic Pipeline system. will certify that PSE has
conducted geotechnical hazard evaluations for all proposed elements of the transmission
poles, and that all geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into project
design/ PSE will provide required certification and supporting documentation to the City of
Renton. The geotechnical report will address all code requirements and provide a
discussion of how the design meets or exceeds the following:
o The 2012 International Building Code (IBC), or as amended, parameters for short
period spectral response acceleration (SS), 1-sectond period spectral response
acceleration (S1), and Seismic Coefficients FA and FV presented in Table 2 of the
geotechnical report.
o Consistent with the project geotechnical engineer’s recommendation, use soil input
parameters for lateral load design that considers the effects of liquefaction through
the application of p-multipliers for LPile parameters (or equivalent computer
program).
o Where areas subject to liquefaction are present, extend foundations below the
loose to medium density liquefiable deposits into underlying dense, non-liquefiable
soils.
o Reevaluate the axial capacity of the pole foundations and potential downdrag loads
for poles in areas subject to liquefaction once final locations are selected and
consider these in the structural design.
13.Coordinate with Olympic and include safeguards in the project construction and access plans
to protect nearby pipelines from excavation activities and surcharge loads.
Energize Eastside Project 3-17 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
14.PSE will develop a Construction Management and Access Plan in coordination with
Olympic’s Damage Prevention Team that is mutually agreed upon by both parties. The
Plan will identify appropriately sized construction zones to protect the general public,
construction timing limits, and other mitigation measures that would will effectively
limit the exposure of the general public to potential pipeline incidents
15.Coordinate with school districts Renton School District to identify the most appropriate time
for construction to occur near schools that would minimize exposure to students or others in
the school facility. To reduce potential impacts to recreation sites as a result of project
construction, PSE will coordinate construction activities with Renton Technical College.
During Construction
16.To address the potential to encounter boulders, use vacuum truck/equipment (or hand
digging in difficult to access areas) to dig past the depth of the pipelines before auguring
type equipment is utilized. As directed by Olympic, use soft dig methods (e.g., hand
excavation, vacuum excavation, etc.) whenever the pipeline(s) are within 25 feet of any
proposed excavation or ground disturbance below original grade.
17.PSE will cCoordinate with Olympic to ensure that line marking personnel mark the entire
length of any pipeline within 50 feet of any excavation or ground disturbance below original
grade, and not only the location of angle points (points of intersection).
18.Use soft dig methods (e.g., hand excavation, vacuum excavation, etc.) whenever the
pipeline(s) are within 25 feet of any proposed excavation or ground disturbance below
original grade.
19.Coordinate with Olympic to ensure that an Olympic representative employee trained in the
observation of excavations and pipeline locating is onsite at all times during excavation and
other ground-disturbing activities that occur within 100 feet of the pipelines where the
pipelines are co-located with the proposed transmission lines.
If requested by the City of Renton, PSE will file mitigation and monitoring reports with the
City quarterly during construction. The reports will identify any additional mitigation
measures and monitoring that may be required as a result of PSE’s coordination with
Olympic
The mitigation and monitoring report will demonstrate that sufficient pipeline safety
measures under PSE’s authority and control have been implemented, and document all
consultations with Olympic, including the sharing of modelling, engineering, and as-built
information with Olympic to assist Olympic in its ongoing monitoring and mitigation
responsibilities. The report will identify any additional field surveys and data collection
necessary for verifying PSE’s mitigation measures following project start-up, and any
proposed monitoring to ensure that mitigation measures related to operational issues are
followed.
20.Arrange for a special monitor (third-party monitor) onsite at all times during excavation and
other ground-disturbing activities that occur within 100 feet of the pipelines where the
pipelines are co-located with the proposed transmission lines.
Energize Eastside Project 3-18 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
21.Where excavations would will be within 10 to 20 feet of the Olympic Pipeline system, the
project geotechnical engineer in coordination with Olympic Pipeline will consider
temporary casing in the upper 10 to 15 feet should be considered to reduce the risk of
sloughing under the pipeline.
22. As required by Olympic, sSteel plates or mats should will be placed over the pipelines to
distribute vehicle loads where construction equipment needs to cross over the pipelines.
23. Utility settlement monitoring points, similar to those described below and recommended
by PSE’s geotechnical engineer, should will be established on the Olympic Pipeline system
corridor at the direction of Olympic where drilled shafts would will be within 15 feet, if
requested by Olympic, (or another distance as stipulated by Olympic) to monitor
settlement during installation of the drilled shafts. Settlement monitoring points should
will be installed so that base-line readings of the settlement monitoring points may be
completed prior to the contractor mobilizing to the site. Monitoring should will continue
during construction on a daily basis and twice a week in the 3 weeks following
construction. The monitoring readings should will be reviewed by the Engineer on a daily
basis. If measured settlement exceeds 1 inch, or the amount specified by the utility owner
Olympic, the integrity of the utility should will be tested and the contractor should be
required to PSE will work with Olympic to repair any damage to the utilities as a result of
construction.
At Project Start-up
24.PSE will wWork with Olympic to evaluate and implement appropriate mitigation measures
to reduce electrical interference on the Olympic Pipeline system to safe levels. (Olympic
has informed PSE that, after the system is energized, it plans to collect field data to assess
the necessity for the installation of AC grounding or similar systems to address steady-state
conditions. Olympic has informed PSE that it plans to implement appropriate mitigation
measures to the extent needed based on its analysis of field data collected following
system energization. AC grounding systems are commonly installed in connection with
power transmission poles to dissipate any energy to ground.)
PSE will provide information to Olympic as appropriate or when requested by Olympic for
Olympic to record AC pipe-to-soil potentials during its annual cathodic protection survey.
PSE will provide Olympic with as much advance notice as practical of when outages are
planned on the individual circuits (i.e., when only one circuit of the double circuit
transmission lines is in operation) to allow monitoring of the AC induction effects on the
pipelines.
PSE will provide Olympic with data on anticipated maximum loads under peak winter
operating conditions on an annual basis, and, if requested, provide copies to the City of
Renton to verify that this data has been provid ed to Olympic.
After the transmission line is installed and energized, Olympic is expected (due to its
federal requirements to protect the pipeline from damage) to measure the actual AC
Energize Eastside Project 3-19 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
interference with the pipeline in order to ensure that all AC interference risks have been
fully mitigated under steady-state operation of the transmission line. PSE will cooperate
with Olympic in completing post energization AC site survey to determine if any
adjustments are needed to Olympic’s pipeline protection systems. PSE will provide load
data for the survey, along with any design or as-built information requested by Olympic
25.Verify arc distances once poles are installed and, where necessary, install ground wires or
other grounding systems to ensure that pole grounds are all adequately separated from
the pipelines. A qualified licensed engineer will verify the separation distances between
the transmission grounding system and the pipeline. The separation distance should will
meet the recommendations in the Final Pipeline Interaction Assessment and Design
Report after poles are installed. If grounding distances are not consistent with the
recommendations, PSE will reinstall the grounding system to comply with the
recommendations.
26. Mitigation that Olympic could provide based on the results of the analysis may include the
installation of additional protective measures such as grounding mats, horizontal surface
ribbon, and/or deep anode wells based on a detailed mitigation study, as appropriate.
During Operation
27. If indicated by the AC interference study conducted for final design, inform Olympic when
the electrical system is expected to operate at or near winter peak loading so as to
provide Olympic a reasonable opportunity to take appropriate steps to measure actual
AC current densities. PSE will provide Olympic with data on anticipated maximum loads
under peak winter operating conditions on an annual basis. If requested, copies of the
data will be provided to the City of Renton to verify that this data has been provided to
Olympic.
28. To detect any unexpected changes between the pipeline and transmission line, provide
information to Olympic as necessary for Olympic to record AC pipe-to-soil potentials and
DC pipe-to-soil potentials during their annual cathodic protection survey. PSE will
provide information to Olympic as appropriate or when requested by Olympic for
Olympic to record AC pipe-to-soil potentials and DC pipe-to-soil potentials during its
annual cathodic protection survey.
29. PSE will pProvide Olympic with as much advance notice as practical of when outages are
planned on the individual circuits, as the AC induction effects on the pipelines may be
magnified when only one circuit (of the double-circuit transmission lines) is energized (i.e.,
when only one circuit of the double circuit transmission lines is in operation) to allow
monitoring of the AC induction effects on the pipelines.
30.PSE will pProvide the Partner Cities City of Renton with PSE monitoring Olympic with data
on maximum currents loads under peak winter operating conditions on an annual basis. If
requested, copies of the data will be provided to the City of Renton to verify that this data
has be provided to Olympic.
Energize Eastside Project 3-20 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Even with worst-case assumptions related to the increased risk during construction and
operation of the proposed project, the likelihood of a pipeline release and fire would will
remain low and no substantial increase in risk compared to the existing conditions was
identified. It is expected that any increase in risks within the corridor c ould be fully
mitigated. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse pipeline safety impacts are
expected.
3.6 Environmental Health – Electric & Magnetic Fields (EMF’S)
Potential Mitigation Measures
No adverse impacts from magnetic fields are expected.
At Project Start-up / During Operation
1. If In the event that radio frequency interference is found by a radio operator, PSE would will de-
tune pole structures by installing hardware (such as arresters).
Mitigation for potential corrosion of the pipeline is discussed under Section 3.5, Environmental
Health – Pipeline Safety. If that mitigation is incorporated into the project, it would will further
reduce magnetic field levels at the ground level from the proposed transmission lines.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• No adverse impacts are likely from power frequency EMF at the levels of public exposure
from the proposed project. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse EMF impacts are
expected.
3.7 Land Use & Housing
Regulatory Requirements
All of the segments and options The Renton segment would will need to meet the regulations of the
zoning districts through which it traverses. In areas where the use is not allowed outright within a
zoning district, a Conditional Use Permit would will be required. The proposed use is not allowed
outright within City of Renton zoning districts. Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit is required, and a
complete application was filed with the City on March 14, 2018.
Adherence to the zoning regulations of each jurisdiction City of Renton is generally not discretionary
and would will provide some mitigation for project-related impacts to land use.
Energize Eastside Project 3-21 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Undergrounding of transmission lines is not required by any of the subarea plans in the study area
City of Renton regulations. If the City of Renton does request that a portion of the transmission line
be placed underground, PSE would will work with the City to determine the cost of undergrounding
and how a tariff may apply.
In Newcastle, PSE intends to apply for a variance from the setback requirements, which would
enable the use of shorter poles in that segment. The City has the right to impose conditions on the
facility in regards to location, development, design, use or operation to mitigate impacts, as
summarized in the section below.
Prior to Construction
A. Design and operate utility facilities to minimize impacts on the surrounding uses, the
environment, and the city (NMC 18.44.052.C.1).
B. Work with the City of Newcastle to adopt any conditions imposed relating to the location,
development, design, use, or operation of a utility facility to mitigate environmental, public
safety or other identifiable impacts. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited
to, natural features may serve as buffers, or other site design elements such as fencing and
site landscaping (NMC 18.44.052.D)
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
1. Consolidate utility facilities and co-locate multiple utilities (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-
P3).
2. Implement new and expanded transmission and substation facilities in such a manner that
they are compatible and consistent with the local context and the land use pattern
established in the Comprehensive Plan (City of Bellevue Plan Policy UT-95).
3. Design, construct, and maintain facilities to minimize their impact on surrounding
neighborhoods (City of Bellevue Plan Policy UT-8)
4. Conduct a siting analysis for new facilities and expanded facilities at sensitive sites (areas in
close proximity to residentially-zoned districts) (City of Bellevue Plan Policy UT-96),
5. Underground sections of the transmission lines where inconsistencies with the
comprehensive plan policies regarding aerial facilities would otherwise occur.
(Undergrounding of transmission lines is not required by any of the subarea plans in the
study area City of Renton regulations. If a City of Renton does request that a portion of the
transmission line be placed underground, PSE would work with the City to determine the
cost of undergrounding and how a tariff may apply.)
6. In locations where access is difficult, PSE will identify any areas where a helicopter or large
crane could be used to lift foundation rebar and/or poles over adjacent properties and into
place. Helicopters could also be used to facilitate , or to facilitate stringing the new
transmission lines. into place, reducing the need to enter property to feed the initial lead
line (called a “sock line”) that is used to pull the actual conductors into place. PSE or its
contractor will provide copies of the “congested air” permit from the Federal Aviation
Energize Eastside Project 3-22 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
Administration (FAA). PSE will also coordinate with the City of Renton to determine where
this type of construction is allowed.
The decision to use a large crane or helicopter is usually determined by the construction
contractor to address access concerns and minimize site disturbance. Use of a helicopter for
this purpose is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A “congested air”
permit and advance notification are required. Because of the potential impacts of this type
of construction, local regulators may also want to limit where this type of construction
would be allowed. Appendix A-3 includes a series of questions and answers about
helicopter use. Following is a brief summary of considerations regarding this type of
construction.
o Helicopter use for stringing the sock line takes only a few minutes per pole, for
each conductor. It involves flying directly over the poles and would not likely
involve suspending anything over occupied buildings or homes.
o If a crane or helicopter were used to install poles, it would require occupants of
buildings or homes in the path of the poles being transported to vacate the
premises for up to 2 hours at a time during daylight working hours.
o Helicopters generate substantial noise that is not regulated by local codes.
Appendix A-4 of the 2018 FEIS includes a table that shows expected noise levels.
o Helicopter use would not eliminate the need for construction access by
vehicles for excavation and pouring concrete.
During Operation
7. To the extent allowable under state law governing pole attachments, PSE will lLimit the
number of cellular telecommunication facilities that could be installed on the proposed
230 kV poles to the number locations currently installed in the corridor and proposed to
be reinstalled as part of the 2018 FEIS. to reduce potential land use and visual impacts.
Reinstalled facilities will be in approximately the same locations as they were previously.
Facilities will be required to get City approval per current land use regulations before
reinstalling telecommunication equipment; provided, however, PSE will not be liable for
any third party’s obligation or failure to obtain such City approval.
8. Require the reinstalled telecommunications facilities to be in the same approximate
locations as they were previously and to comply with the requirements of Chapter 80.54
RCW, Chapter 480-54 WAC, and City of Renton regulations.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Any nuisances to land uses caused by construction activities would will be short-term and
less-than-significant. Long-term land use and housing impacts would be less-than-significant
as well because the transmission line upgrade in the Renton segment is a land use
anticipated in the City and its subarea plans and would will not impact existing or future
land use patterns. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse land use or housing
impacts are expected.
Energize Eastside Project 3-23 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
3.8 Scenic Views & Aesthetics
Regulatory Requirements
Local regulations would will require some mitigation of project-related impacts to the aesthetic
environment. Requirements are summarized in the 2018 FEIS by jurisdiction and would will be
required to be incorporated into the design prior to construction.
City of Renton would will require some mitigation measures for indirect project-related impacts to
the aesthetic environment (e.g., through mitigation to address critical area and land use impacts),
and these measures should will be implemented during the design stage (prior to construction) and
as long-term mitigation strategies (e.g., maintenance of screening vegetation), as listed below. The
City does not have regulations that directly address mitigation of impacts to scenic views or the
aesthetic environment that would will be produced by the proposed project, although their general
policies do address general aesthetic qualities and public views.
As mentioned previously under Land Use, undergrounding of transmission lines is not required by
City of Renton regulations. If City of Renton does request that a portion of the transmission line be
placed underground to address unavoidable significant impacts to scenic views or the aesthetic
environment, PSE will work with the City to determine the cost of undergrounding and how a tariff
may apply.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
1. Ensure siting and location of transmission facilities is accomplished in a manner that
minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses (City of Renton
Plan Policy U-72).
2. Consolidate utility facilities and co-locate multiple utilities (City of Newcastle Plan Policy
UT-P3).
3. Implement new and expanded transmission and substation facilities in such a manner that
they are compatible and consistent with the local context and the land use pattern
established in the Comprehensive Plan (City of Bellevue Plan Policy UT-8).
4. Conducts a siting analysis for new facilities and expanded facilities at sensitive sites (areas
in close proximity to residentially-zoned districts (City of Bellevue Plan Policy UT-96)
5. New development should install a dense visual vegetative screen along Richards Road
(City of Bellevue Plan Policy S-RV-31).
6. Consider neighborhood character in planting appropriate varieties and trimming tree
limbs around overhead lines (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P9).
7. Design overhead transmission lines in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with
surrounding land uses (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P10). This could include design
measures such as changes to pole height, spacing, location, or color.
Energize Eastside Project 3-24 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
8. Minimize visual and other impacts of transmission towers and overhead transmission lines
on adjacent land uses through careful siting and design (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-
P14).
9. Design transmission structures to minimize aesthetic impacts appropriate to the
immediate surrounding area whenever practical (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P16).
10. Underground section of the transmission lines where unavoidable significant impacts to
scenic views or the aesthetic environment would otherwise occur.
11. Position poles and adjust pole height to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible.
In Newcastle a variance from setback requirements would allow the poles to positioned
farther away from the houses. This would also allow for shorter poles.
12. Specify poles with an aesthetic treatment (such as paint or a self-weathering finish) to
reduce contrast with the surrounding environment.
13. If steel poles are used, a non-reflective coating would be applied. A non-reflective coating
will be used on steel poles, unless specifically requested by the City.
14. Position poles and adjust pole height to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible
feasible in light of applicable regulations and technological and safety constraints.
15. PSE would will continue to coordinate with property owners along the existing corridor
to develop property-specific landscaping and tree replacement plans, with a focus on
controlling invasive species and enhancing native species. Where individual property
owners decline to have new trees planted onsite, PSE would will work with the City to
place additional trees offsite or would will participate in the City’s fee in lieu of program.
Vegetation mitigation will be completed consistent with PSE’s July 24, 2019, “Vegetation
Replacement Approach” letter to the City of Renton .
During Construction
16. Retain or replace trees in a manner consistent with to the greatest extent possible at ratios
that meet or exceed regulatory standards as proposed in the Renton Tree Retention Plan
(Watershed 2017). PSE’s July 24, 2019, “Vegetation Replacement Approach” letter to the
City of Renton.
16A.PSE will incorporate art (wraps or painted) on the lower portion of the support
structures, in order to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of the new larger poles within the
proposed corridor.
During Operation
17. Limit disturbance to vegetation within major utility transmission corridors to what is
necessary for the safety and maintenance of transmission facilities (City of Newcastle Plan
Policy UT-P8). In areas where vegetation disturbance is unavoidable and to the extent
authorized by the underlying property owners, replant with vegetation that would will be
compatible with vegetation clearance requirements, preventing future vegetation removal
or maintenance in the future.
18. Use landscape plantings to screen or improve the appearance of areas surrounding above-
ground utility facilities and to diminish visual impacts due to vegetation clearing in the
corridor (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P20).
Energize Eastside Project 3-25 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
19. Require the reinstalled telecommunications facilities to be in the same approximate
locations as they were previously and to comply with the requirements of Chapter 480.54
RCW, Chapter 480-54 WAC, and local jurisdiction City of Renton regulations. To the extent
allowable under state law governing pole attachments, PSE shall limit the number of
telecommunication facilities installed on the 230 kV poles to the locations currently
installed in the corridor to reduce potential land use and visual impacts. Reinstalled facilities
shall be in approximately the same locations as they were previously. Facilities shall be
required to get City approval per current land use regulations before reinstalling
telecommunication equipment; provided, however, PSE shall not be liable for any third
party’s obligation or failure to obtain such City approval.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• No significant unavoidable adverse scenic views or aesthetic impacts are expected.
3.9 Historic & Cultural Resources
Regulatory Requirements
Prior to Construction
A. Develop resource-specific mitigation measures during consultation with DAHP, affected
Tribes, KCHPP, and other appropriate stakeholders if a protected archaeological resource
is identified during pre-construction archaeological survey or historic property inventory.
B. Apply for an archaeological excavation permit from DAHP (WAC 25-48-060) if impacts to a
protected archaeological resource cannot be avoided.
C. Request an eligibility determination from DAHP for resources listed recommended as
eligible for listing in the NRHP (Eastside Transmission System, Somerset Neighborhood,
Newcastle Cemetery, Mt. Olivet Cemetery, and the Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad). If
any are determined eligible, mitigation measures specific to those resources would will be
developed during consultation with DAHP, affected Tribes, and any other appropriate
stakeholders.
D. Obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from KCHPP (KCC 20.62) if there are
potential impacts to a designated KC Landmark.
E. Avoid cemeteries in accordance with state law (Chapters 68.60 RCW and 68.50 RCW).
F. Avoid graves outside of the dedicated boundaries of a cemetery in accordance with state
law (Chapters 27.44 RCW and 68.60.050).
During Construction
G. Develop mitigation measures during consultation with DAHP, affected Tribes, and any other
appropriate stakeholders if a protected archaeological resource is identified during
construction. In accordance with RWC 27.53, an archaeological resource identified during
Energize Eastside Project 3-26 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
construction is protected until DAHP determines whether it is eligible for listing in the
NRHP.1
H. Follow procedures dictated by state law (RCW 27.44) if human skeletal remains are
discovered.
I. Obtain an excavation permit from DAHP if unmarked graves would will be disturbed.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
1. Conduct a historic property inventory (field work is complete; resulting forms and
associated report have been submitted to DAHP and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
for review and approval).
2. Conduct archaeological resource surveys for the selected route that include subsurface
testing (pedestrian and subsurface survey of the 16-mile alignment and specific proposed
pole locations began in August 2017 and was on-going in January 2018; PSE will conduct a
second pedestrian and subsurface survey to assess staging areas, laydown areas, stringing
sites, and access roads once more information on these locations is available; as of this
writing, this has not started (the archaeological survey has been conducted. The applicant
is currently working with DAHP and the USACE to obtain necessary approvals).
3. Prepare an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) for the project and discuss the IDP during pre-
construction meeting(s).
4. Conduct subsurface testing.
5. Consult with DAHP and any other appropriate stakeholders to develop resource-specific
mitigation measures for impacts to significant cultural resources.
6. Preserve or add screening at proposed pole sites to minimize potential impacts to the
viewsheds of historic cemeteries.
7. Adjust the proposed pole locations to reduce potential direct impacts to historic cemeteries.
8. Conduct ground penetrating radar analysis in areas adjacent to Newcastle Cemetery, if conditions
are determined appropriate.
Prior to construction, PSE will conduct archaeological resource surveys for the selected route
that include subsurface testing and a second pedestrian and subsurface survey to assess staging
areas, laydown area, stringing sites, and access roads after more information on these locations
is available.
Prior to construction, PSE will develop resource-specific mitigation measures during consultation
with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), affected
Tribes, King County Historic Preservation Program (KCHPP), and other appropriate stakeholders if
a protected archaeological resource is identified during the pre-construction archaeological
survey or historic property inventory.
1 Isolated (single) artifacts, either precontact or historic, are not protected because they do not meet the definition of a
“site” under state law (WAC 25-48-020(9)).
Energize Eastside Project 3-27 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
PSE will prepare an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) for the project and discuss the IDP with the
contractor during pre-construction meeting(s). PSE will apply for an archaeological excavation
permit from DAHP (WAC 25-48-060) to the extent required under applicable law.
If any resources are determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NHRP) by DAHP, mitigation measures specific to those resources will be developed during
consultation with DAHP, affected Tribes, and any other appropriate stakeholders. Any final
determination and mitigation measures developed based on this determination will be reported
to the City of Renton to the extent allowed by law.
During Construction
9. PSE will follow the procedures identified in the IDP if any cultural resources are encountered
during construction. PSE will also follow procedures identified for any historic resources
through consultation with DAHP.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• It is probable that all historic and cultural resource impacts could be mitigated through
consultation with DAHP, King County Historic Preservation Program, Renton, affected
Tribes, and other stakeholders. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse historic or
cultural resource impacts are expected.
3.10 Recreation
Regulatory Requirements
None of the Partner CitiesThe City of Renton does not have regulations that would will require
mitigation of project-related impacts to recreational resources.
Prior to Construction
A. Avoid placement of infrastructure within or adjacent to recreation sites where there is none
currently to the extent possible.
B. Use BMPs to minimize noise, dust, and other disturbances to visitors to recreation sites
during construction, as well as in areas used for infor mal recreation (e.g., along roads).
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior To Construction
1. Use vegetation outside of any area required to be cleared to screen poles and wires
where transmission infrastructure is placed within a recreation site.
2. Work with each Partner City of Renton to determine mitigation for tree removal within
recreation sites in its jurisdiction. Vegetation mitigation will be completed consistent with
PSE’s July 24, 2019, “Vegetation Replacement Approach” letter to the City of Renton.
Energize Eastside Project 3-28 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
3. Coordinate with potentially affected park districts/departments City of Renton Community
Services Department.
4. Provide alternative access points to recreation sites and trail detours.
5. Avoid construction during months when recreation sites are busier, when possible. In areas
where construction will impact use of recreation sites and where feasible, avoid construction
during times those recreation sites have higher usage. As appropriate detour and temporary
closure signs will be used.
6. Avoid vegetation clearing for construction activities where possible.
7. Avoid placing poles at Rose Hill Middle School and Tyee Middle School while school is in
session.
8. Notify local jurisdictions City of Renton, Renton School District schools, or private owners 60
days in advance of work within recreation sites.
9. Notify the public of any temporary closure of trails or recreations sites 2 weeks in advance.
10. Provide signage along trails or park entrances at least 1 week prior to closures.
11. Avoid placement of infrastructure within or adjacent to recreation sites where there is none
currently to the extent possible. Use BMPs to minimize noise, dust, and other disturbances
to visitors to recreation sites during construction, as well as in areas used for informal
recreation (e.g., along roads).
Post Construction
12. Restore recreation sites or trails after construction to pre-construction conditions.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Any nuisances to recreation activities caused by construction activities would will be short-
term and less-than-significant. Long-term impacts to recreation would will be less-than
significant as well because the project would will not adversely affect recreation use or
opportunities. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse recreation impacts are
expected.
3.11 Economics
Regulatory Requirements
Mitigation for economic impacts from a project is not required under SEPA; however,
PSE would will need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations that apply to
other resources, some of which would will mitigate the potential for economic impacts (e.g.,
regulations that protect tree coverage in critical areas).
During Construction
A. Replace trees removed for the project based on the City of Renton tree protection
ordinance and critical areas regulations in each jurisdiction; some of these trees would
Energize Eastside Project 3-29 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Consistency Analysis
likely could be planted offsite. or, in the case of City of Newcastle, mitigated by paying into
an in-lieu fee program. Replacement may be based on cross-sectional diameter of trees
removed, or on habitat functions lost due to tree removal, depending on applicable
regulations.
Potential Mitigation Measures
1. Retain or replace trees at ratios that meet or exceed regulatory standards, as proposed in
the Renton Tree Retention Plan (Watershed 2017). Vegetation mitigation will be completed
consistent with PSE’s July 24, 2019, “Vegetation Replacement Approach” letter to the City of
Renton.
o To mitigate for the loss of significant trees in the transmission corridor, PSE is
proposing mitigation ratios that exceed the City’s regulatory standards.
2. If trees are planted offsite, larger trees could be clustered, which would will contribute to
increasing habitat quality and area aesthetics. Vegetation mitigation will be completed
consistent with PSE’s July 24, 2019, “Vegetation Replacement Approach” letter to the City of
Renton.
3. To mitigate the ecosystem service impacts due to tree loss, tree species that absorb carbon
at higher rates (e.g., common horse-chestnut, black walnut, American sweetgum,
Ponderosa pine, red pine, white pine, London plane, Hispaniolan pine, Douglas fir, scarlet
oak, red oak, Virginia live oak, and bald cypress2) could be planted. Vegetation mitigation
will be completed consistent with PSE’s July 24, 2019, “Vegetation Replacement Approach”
letter to the City of Renton.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• No economic impacts are anticipated during construction. Long-term, there would will be
no significant impacts on assessed property values. The proposed project would will require
tree removal along the existing corridor; however, the value of total ecosystem services lost
because of tree removal would will be minimal. Therefore, no significant unavoidable
adverse economic impacts are expected.
2 Nowak, D. J., Stevens, J. C., Sisinni, S. M., & Luley, C. J. (2002). Effects of urban t ree management and species selection on
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
CURRENT PROPOSAL
SITE PLAN
MAP CREATED BY:
Date: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Landuse_CUP\Renton\Version_N\PSE_Renton_Index.mxdTopo Basemap - ESRI Online,Transmission Line - PSE
ST169
ST900
§¨¦405 Renton
Renton
Newcastle
KingCounty 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19 20
21
22
23
24 25
26 27
28 29 30
1
2
3 4
5
I0 0.25 0.5
Mile
RENTON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INDEX /CRITICAL AREAS LAND USE PERMIT
SOURCES:
APPLICANT:
Brad Strauch
Puge t Sound Energy
P.O. Box 97034, Bellevue WA 98009-9734
(425) 456 - 2556
ACREAGE IN RENTON: 54.5 acres
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle 8888!(D!(D&-&-4/2C-16AA1
4/2C-16BA1 K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
ySE 95TH WAY
0423059142 33451004453345100450
3345100470
3345100475
7788000140
K i n g C o u n t yC i t y o f N e w c a st l eC i t y o f R e n t o n
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdProjec t Corrid or
&-Prop osed Pole L oc a tion
!(D Existing Pole L oc a tion–To Be Rem oved
Tra nsm ission L ine - Prop osed
Tra nsm ission L ine - Existing
#*Potentia l Stringing Site
Rec om m end ed Ac c ess- Prop osed Pole
U nd erground Power U tility L ine
U nd erground Wa ter & Wa stewa ter U tility L ine
Pa rc el
City Jurisd ic tion Bound a ry
Strea m
Wetla nd
Wetla nd or Strea m Buffer
L a nd slid e Ha za rd
L a nd slid e Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slop e
Steep Slop e 50ft Buffer
Erosion Ha za rd I220+00831
4/2SCT10EAST 100FT/WEST 100FTSTA=221+56.71HT=88FT EL E=325.36
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
300
280
SITE PLAN
500
520
540
560
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
300
280
500
520
540560
Profile V iew
Struc ture
Cond uc tor
Ground L ine
Ma jor Eleva tion Grid
Ma jor Sta tion Grid
Minor Sta tion Grid Page 1 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EXTENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Roa d s a nd Pa rc els - King County (2015), Aeria l- King County (2015); Strea m s, Wetla nd s a nd Buffers,L a nd slid e Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slop es a ndBuffers from Wa tershed Com p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Prop osed Pole Num b er
Struc ture Typ e (See Ap p x. A)
Construc tion Sc ena rio Key(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 2
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle88!(D!(D&-&-4/1C-18AC1
4/1
C-18BC1 #*#*0423059069
0423059142
3345100450K i n g C o u n t yC i t y o f R e n t o n
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I215+00210+00501
831
4/1
SCDE60EAST 072FT /W EST 072FTST A=213+1.0HT =72FT ELE=449.25
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
500
520
540560
580
600
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 2 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 1MATCHLINE SHEET: 3
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle 888888!(D!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-&-&-&-3/9C-17AC1
3/9C-17BC1
3/10C-2AC1
3/10C-2BC1 4/1C-18AC1#*S
E
1
0
0
T
H
S
T
N
E
2
4
T
H
S
T
0423059002
0423059069
0423059142
0423059282
0423059313
04280000100428000015
0428000020
0428000290 K i n g C o u n t yCity of RentonSITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I210+00501
205+00418
3/10SCA15EAST 095FT /W EST 095FTST A=208+1.11HT =95FT ELE=450.50
400
420
440
460
480
380
500
520
540560
580
600
620
640
660
680
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 3 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 2MATCHLINE SHEET: 43/9SCHDE5EAST 050FT /W EST 050FTST A=203+76.41HT =50FT ELE=440.87
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle 888!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-&-&-&-3/7C-1A1
3/8C-17AC1
3/8C-17BC1
3/9C-17AC1
3/9C-17BC1
S
E
1
0
0
T
H
S
T
126TH AVE SE0423059002
04280000200428000025
0428000095
04280000950428000100
0428000105
0428000155
0428000160
0428000165
04280001900428000195
04280002000428000205
0428000210
0428000290 0428000290
0428100530
3449820290 3449820300
3449820310
3449820320
K i n g C o u n t yC i t y o f R e n t o n
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I200+00361239
3/9SCHDE5EAST 050FT /W EST 050FTST A=203+76.41HT =50FT ELE=440.87
3/8SCHDE5STA=200+3.60EAST 050FT /W EST 050FTELE = 438.00
3/7DCT 2D90FTST A=197+97.16HT =77FT ELE=444.87
400
420
440
460
480
380
500
520
540560
580
600
620
640
660
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 4 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 3MATCHLINE SHEET: 5
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle8!(D!(D&-3/6C-1A1
NE21STS
T NEW P O RT CTNE
OLYMPIAAVENE0423059035 0428100530
0428100540
0428100545
3449820140
3449820150
3449820160
3449820170
3449820190
3449820200
3449820210
3449820220
34498202303449820240
3449820250
3449820260 3449820270 3449820280
3449820460
3449820470
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I 195+00190+00615
3/6DCT 2D95FTST A=191+72.13HT =80FT ELE=401.63
852
400
420
440
460
480
380
500
520
540560
580600
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320300
500
520
540560
580600
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 5 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 4MATCHLINE SHEET: 6340
360
320300
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
8
8
!(D!(D&-&-3/5C-18AC1
3/5C-18BC1#*#*MR01(Honey Creek)Type F
0423059035
0423059342
3888320090
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I185+00852
3/5SCDE60EAST 090FT /W EST 090FTST A=183+20.03HT =90FT ELE=403.89
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320300
280
260
500520
240
400
420
440
460
480
340
360380
320
300
280
260
500
520
240
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 6 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 5MATCHLINE SHEET: 7
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
8 8
!(D!(D&-3/4C-1A1
NE 15 T H ST0423059023
0423059097
0423059269
0423059342
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I180+00175+00672
3/4SCDE60105FTST A=176+67.86HT =91FT ELE=397.38
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320300
500
520
540560
580600
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320300
500
520
540560
580
600
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 7 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 6MATCHLINE SHEET: 88
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle8888!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-3/2C-1C1
3/3C-1C1
SR
9
0
0
0423059080
04230590970423059127
0423059145
0423059153
0423059269
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I170+00536401
3/3DCA15100FTST A=171+22.20HT =100FT ELE=389.41
3/2DCA15090FTST A=167+21.64HT =90FT ELE=391.71
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320300
500
520
540560
580
600
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320300
500
520
540
560
580
600
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 8 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 7MATCHLINE SHEET: 9
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle8!(D!(D&-3/1C-1A1
NE 12TH STLYNNWOOD AVE NE
MONROE AVE NE
0423059096
0423059127
0423059169
0423059182
0423059316
0423059317
77361000057736100009773610001077361000157736100016
7801300000
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I 165+00160+00564458
3/1DCT 2125FTST A=161+67.96HT =109FT ELE=383.42
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
SITE PLAN
500
520
540
560
580
600
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
500
520
540560
580
600
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 9 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 8MATCHLINE SHEET: 10
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
8
8
!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-2/9C-1A1
2/10C-1A1#*MONROE AVE NE
LYNNWOOD AVE NE
28548000302854800035285480004028548000452854800050
2854800055
28548000602854800065
285480007028548000752854800080
7227900028
7227900030
7801300000
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdProjec t Corrid or
&-Prop osed Pole L oc a tion
!(D Existing Pole L oc a tion–To Be Rem oved
Tra nsm ission L ine - Prop osed
Tra nsm ission L ine - Existing
#*Potentia l Stringing Site
Rec om m end ed Ac c ess- Prop osed Pole
U nd erground Power U tility L ine
U nd erground Wa ter & Wa stewa ter U tility L ine
Pa rc el
City Jurisd ic tion Bound a ry
Strea m
Wetla nd
Wetla nd or Strea m Buffer
L a nd slid e Ha za rd
L a nd slid e Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slop e
Steep Slop e 50ft Buffer
Erosion Ha za rd I155+00525
2/10DCT2100FTSTA=156+96.08HT=86FT EL E=390.15
2/9DCT2100FTSTA=151+75.53HT=86FT EL E=397.22
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
500
520
540560
580
600620
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
500
520540
560
580
600620
Profile V iew
Struc ture
Cond uc tor
Ground L ine
Ma jor Eleva tion Grid
Ma jor Sta tion Grid
Minor Sta tion Grid Page 10 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EXTENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Roa d s a nd Pa rc els - King County (2015), Aeria l- King County (2015); Strea m s, Wetla nd s a nd Buffers,L a nd slid e Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slop es a ndBuffers from Wa tershed Com p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Prop osed Pole Num b er
Struc ture Typ e (See Ap p x. A)
Construc tion Sc ena rio Key(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 9MATCHLINE SHEET: 11
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
8
!(D!(D&-2/8C-1A1NE10THST
MONROE AVE NE
2854800080
2854800085285480009028548000952854800100
2854800105 2854800110 2854800115 2854800120 2854800125 7227900028
7809000005780900001078090000157809000020
7809200005
780920001078092000157809200020
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxd&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I 150+00145+00533542
2/8DCT 2110FTST A=146+42.17HT =95FT ELE=393.88
400
420
440
460
480
340
360380
SITE PLAN
500
520540
560
580
600620
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
500
520
540560
580
600
620
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 11 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 10MATCHLINE SHEET: 12Projec t Corr dior
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle!(D!(D&-2/7C-1A1
NE 8TH STNE 7TH CTMONROE AVE NE
7809000025780900003078090000357809000040780900004578090000507809000055
78092000207809200025780920003078092000357809200040780920004578092000507809200055780920006078092000657809200070
7809200075
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I140+00615 542
2/7DCT 2110FTST A=140+98.42HT =95FT ELE=394.84
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
500
520
540560
580
600
620
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 12 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 11MATCHLINE SHEET: 13
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
8
8
888!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-2/5C-1A1
2/6C-1A1NE 7TH STNE 7TH PLMONROE AVE NE
7227800425
7227800426
7809200080
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdProjec t Corrid or
&-Prop osed Pole L oc a tion
!(D Existing Pole L oc a tion–To Be Rem oved
Tra nsm ission L ine - Prop osed
Tra nsm ission L ine - Existing
#*Potentia l Stringing Site
Rec om m end ed Ac c ess- Prop osed Pole
U nd erground Power U tility L ine
U nd erground Wa ter & Wa stewa ter U tility L ine
Pa rc el
City Jurisd ic tion Bound a ry
Strea m
Wetla nd
Wetla nd or Strea m Buffer
L a nd slid e Ha za rd
L a nd slid e Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slop e
Steep Slop e 50ft Buffer
Erosion Ha za rd I 135+00130+00601
2/6DCT2115FTSTA=134+85.06HT=100FT EL E=386.81
2/5DCT2100FTSTA=128+84.48HT=86FT EL E=378.68
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
500
520
540
560
580
400
420
440
460
480
340
360380
320
300
500
520
540
560
580
Profile V iew
Struc ture
Cond uc tor
Ground L ine
Ma jor Eleva tion Grid
Ma jor Sta tion Grid
Minor Sta tion Grid Page 13 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EXTENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Roa d s a nd Pa rc els - King County (2015), Aeria l- King County (2015); Strea m s, Wetla nd s a nd Buffers,L a nd slid e Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slop es a ndBuffers from Wa tershed Com p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Prop osed Pole Num b er
Struc ture Typ e (See Ap p x. A)
Construc tion Sc ena rio Key(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 12MATCHLINE SHEET: 14300
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle8!(D!(D&-2/4C-1C1
NE 6TH PLNE 6TH STRENTON TECH ACRD
MONROE AVE NE
7227800425
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I125+00120+00598594
2/4DCA15085FTST A=122+86.01HT =85FT ELE=378.32
400
420
440
460
480
340
360380
320
300
280
500
520
540
560
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 14 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 13MATCHLINE SHEET: 15
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle88!(D!(D&-2/3C-1A1
M O NR O E A V E N E
R E N T O N T E C H A C RD72278004257227800500
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I 120+00594
115+00652
2/3DCT 2110FTST A=116+81.81HT =95FT ELE=341.54
400
420
440
460
480
340
360380
320
300
280
500
520
540
560
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 15 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 14MATCHLINE SHEET: 16
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle88!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-&-2/1C-18AC1
2/1C-18BC1
2/2C-1C1#*NE 4TH STRENTON TECH ACRD1623059058
1623059059
1623059111
1623059112
7227800500
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I110+00281
2/2DCA15D115FTST A=110+39.98HT =115FT ELE=340.44
2/1SCDE30EAST 100FT /W EST 100FTST A=107+58.76HT =100FT ELE=339.96
105+00400
420
440
460
480
340
360380
320
300
280
500
520
540
260
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
300
280
260
500
520
540
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 16 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 15MATCHLINE SHEET: 17
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle!(D!(D&-1/7C-1A1
1434000010
1434000012
1434000020
1623059059
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdProjec t Corrid or
&-Prop osed Pole L oc a tion
!(D Existing Pole L oc a tion–To Be Rem oved
Tra nsm ission L ine - Prop osed
Tra nsm ission L ine - Existing
#*Potentia l Stringing Site
Rec om m end ed Ac c ess- Prop osed Pole
U nd erground Power U tility L ine
U nd erground Wa ter & Wa stewa ter U tility L ine
Pa rc el
City Jurisd ic tion Bound a ry
Strea m
Wetla nd
Wetla nd or Strea m Buffer
L a nd slid e Ha za rd
L a nd slid e Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slop e
Steep Slop e 50ft Buffer
Erosion Ha za rd I 105+00100+00755
1/7DCT2D105FTSTA=100+3.83HT=91FT EL E=331.93
400
420
440
460
480
340
360380
320
300
280
260
500
520
540
Profile V iew
Struc ture
Cond uc tor
Ground L ine
Ma jor Eleva tion Grid
Ma jor Sta tion Grid
Minor Sta tion Grid Page 17 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EXTENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Roa d s a nd Pa rc els - King County (2015), Aeria l- King County (2015); Strea m s, Wetla nd s a nd Buffers,L a nd slid e Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slop es a ndBuffers from Wa tershed Com p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Prop osed Pole Num b er
Struc ture Typ e (See Ap p x. A)
Construc tion Sc ena rio Key(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 16MATCHLINE SHEET: 18
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle!(D!(D&-1/6C-1A1
1434000010
1434000020
1623059133
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdProjec t Corrid or
&-Prop osed Pole L oc a tion
!(D Existing Pole L oc a tion–To Be Rem oved
Tra nsm ission L ine - Prop osed
Tra nsm ission L ine - Existing
#*Potentia l Stringing Site
Rec om m end ed Ac c ess- Prop osed Pole
U nd erground Power U tility L ine
U nd erground Wa ter & Wa stewa ter U tility L ine
Pa rc el
City Jurisd ic tion Bound a ry
Strea m
Wetla nd
Wetla nd or Strea m Buffer
L a nd slid e Ha za rd
L a nd slid e Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slop e
Steep Slop e 50ft Buffer
Erosion Ha za rd I95+0090+00673585
1/6DCT2105FTSTA=93+31.08HT=91FT EL E=337.03
400
420
440
460
480
340
360380
320
300
280
260
500
520
540
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
300
280
260
500
520
540
300
280
260
Profile V iew
Struc ture
Cond uc tor
Ground L ine
Ma jor Eleva tion Grid
Ma jor Sta tion Grid
Minor Sta tion Grid Page 18 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EXTENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Roa d s a nd Pa rc els - King County (2015), Aeria l- King County (2015); Strea m s, Wetla nd s a nd Buffers,L a nd slid e Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slop es a ndBuffers from Wa tershed Com p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Prop osed Pole Num b er
Struc ture Typ e (See Ap p x. A)
Construc tion Sc ena rio Key(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 17MATCHLINE SHEET: 19
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-1/4C-1A1
1/5C-1A1SE 1ST STINDEX AVE SE1434000010
1434000020
1623059133
4307300550 4307300560 4307300570 4307300580 4307300590 4307300600 4307300610
4307301240
4307310360
4307310370
4307310380
43073103904307310400
4307330340 4307350010
4307350020
4307351230
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I85+00583 585
1/5DCT 2115FTST A=87+86.09HT =100FT ELE=299.67
1/4DCT 2; 130FTST A=81+73.15HT =113FT ELE=259.19
400
420
440
460
340
360
380
320
300
280
260
180
200
220240
300
280
260
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 19 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 18MATCHLINE SHEET: 20
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-1/3C-1A1
1/4C-1A1
#*FERNDALEAVESE4307300390
4307300410
4307300420
4307300430
4307300460
4307300470 4307300480
4307300490 4307300500 4307300510 4307300520 4307300530 4307300540
4307301230
4307301240
430732022043073202304307320240430732025043073202604307320270 4307330270 4307330280 4307330290 4307330300 4307330310 4307330320 4307330330 4307330340
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I
1/4DCT 2; 130FTST A=81+73.15HT =113FT ELE=259.19
80+00515548
1/3DCT 2D085FTST A=76+58.13HT =73FT ELE=306.00
75+00400
420
440
460
340
360
380
320
300
280
260
180
200
220
240
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 20 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 19MATCHLINE SHEET: 21
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle !(D!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-&-1/2C-18BC1
1/3
C-1
A1
1/2C-18AC1
#*#*FERNDALEAVESESE 3RD ST
3955901130
4307300380
4307300390
4307300400
4307300410
4307300420
4307301220
4307301230
4307301260
4307320250430732026043073202704307320280430732029043073203004307320310
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I
548
75+0070+00410
1/2SCDE60EAST 070FT /W EST 070FTST A=71+9.79HT =70FT ELE=334.50 400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
300
280
260
500
520
240
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 21 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 20MATCHLINE SHEET: 22
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle!(D!(D&-1/1C-1A1
Not Rated
SR 169
1623059035
1623059131
4307301220430730TRCT
430732032043073203304307320340430732TR-W
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I
410
65+001,524
1/1DCT 2D090FTST A=66+89.56HT =77FT ELE=333.62
400
340
360
380
320
300
280
260
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 22 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 21MATCHLINE SHEET: 23
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
Cedar River [ND]Type S, Shoreline
NR02Type Ns
NR02Category II
NR03Category III SR 169CEDAR RIVER TRLRIV
E
R
VIE
W
P
A
R
K
WALK1623059012
1623059033
1623059078
162305HYDR
SITE PLAN
Date : 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdProje c t Corrid or
&-Propos e d Pole Loc ation
!(D Exis ting Pole Loc ation–To Be Re m ove d
Trans m is s ion Line - Propos e d
Trans m is s ion Line - Exis ting
#*Pote ntial Stringing Site
Re c om m e nd e d Ac c e s s - Propos e d Pole
Und e rground Powe r Utility Line
Und e rground W ate r & W as te wate r Utility Line
Parc e l
City Juris d ic tion Bound ary
Stre am
W e tland
W e tland or Stre am Buffe r
Land s lid e Hazard
Land s lid e Hazard 50ft Buffe r
Ste e p Slope
Ste e p Slope 50ft Buffe r
Eros ion Hazard I60+0055+001,524 320
300
280
260
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
40
60
80
Profile Vie w
Struc ture
Cond uc tor
Ground Line
Major Ele vation Grid
Major Station Grid
Minor Station Grid Page 23 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Fe e t1 inc h = 50 fe e t
MAP EX TEN T
RENTON
SOURCES: Road s and Parc e ls - King County (2015), Ae rial- King County (2015); Stre am s , W e tland s and Buffe rs ,Land s lid e Hazard and Buffe rs , and Ste e p Slope s andBuffe rs from W ate rs he d Com pany (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Propos e d Pole N um be r
Struc ture Type (Se e Appx. A)
Cons truc tion Sc e nario Ke y(Se e Appx. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 22MATCHLINE SHEET: 24
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle!(D!(D&-0/9C-1A1
SE8THSTHARRINGTON PL SE
KIRKLAND AVE SE
1623059012
1623059078
1623059078
7701590000
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdProjec t Corrid or
&-Prop osed Pole L oc a tion
!(D Existing Pole L oc a tion–To Be Rem oved
Tra nsm ission L ine - Prop osed
Tra nsm ission L ine - Existing
#*Potentia l Stringing Site
Rec om m end ed Ac c ess- Prop osed Pole
U nd erground Power U tility L ine
U nd erground Wa ter & Wa stewa ter U tility L ine
Pa rc el
City Jurisd ic tion Bound a ry
Strea m
Wetla nd
Wetla nd or Strea m Buffer
L a nd slid e Ha za rd
L a nd slid e Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slop e
Steep Slop e 50ft Buffer
Erosion Ha za rd I50+00595
0/9DCT2D100FTSTA=51+65.84HT=86FT EL E=249.01
400
420
340
360
380
320
300
280
260
120140
160
180
200
220
240
Profile V iew
Struc ture
Cond uc tor
Ground L ine
Ma jor Eleva tion Grid
Ma jor Sta tion Grid
Minor Sta tion Grid Page 24 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EXTENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Roa d s a nd Pa rc els - King County (2015), Aeria l- King County (2015); Strea m s, Wetla nd s a nd Buffers,L a nd slid e Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slop es a ndBuffers from Wa tershed Com p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Prop osed Pole Num b er
Struc ture Typ e (See Ap p x. A)
Construc tion Sc ena rio Key(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 23MATCHLINE SHEET: 25
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
!(D !(D
!(D
!(D!(D
&-
&-
&-&-
&-
0/8C-18BC1
0/8C-18AC1
115-5
115-4115-3
#*
#*
NR02Type Ns
NR04Category III
H
A
R
RIN
G
T
O
N
P
L
S
E
SE 8
T
H
S
T
S E 8TH PL
2123059003
7701570000
7701590000
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdProjec t Corrid or
&-Prop osed Pole L oc a tion
!(D Existing Pole L oc a tion–To Be Rem oved
Tra nsm ission L ine - Prop osed
Tra nsm ission L ine - Existing
#*Potentia l Stringing Site
Rec om m end ed Ac c ess- Prop osed Pole
U nd erground Power U tility L ine
U nd erground Wa ter & Wa stewa ter U tility L ine
Pa rc el
City Jurisd ic tion Bound a ry
Strea m
Wetla nd
Wetla nd or Strea m Buffer
L a nd slid e Ha za rd
L a nd slid e Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slop e
Steep Slop e 50ft Buffer
Erosion Ha za rd I45+00697
0/8SCDE90EAST 100FT/WEST 100FTSTA=45+62.15HT=100FT EL E=275.79
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
300
280
260
500
200220
240
Profile V iew
Struc ture
Cond uc tor
Ground L ine
Ma jor Eleva tion Grid
Ma jor Sta tion Grid
Minor Sta tion Grid Page 25 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION N
I 0 25 50 Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EXTENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Roa d s a nd Pa rc els - King County (2015), Aeria l- King County (2015); Strea m s, Wetla nd s a nd Buffers,L a nd slid e Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slop es a ndBuffers from Wa tershed Com p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Prop osed Pole Num b er
Struc ture Typ e (See Ap p x. A)
Construc tion Sc ena rio Key(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 24MATCHLINE SHEET: 26
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
!(D
!(D!(D !(D
&-
0/7C-1A1
NR01(Ginger Creek)Type Np
NR01Category III
NR02Category IIINR02Category
I
I
I
D
NR02
-
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Category
I
I
I
NR02Category III
2023059001
2023059050
2123059003
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I 40+0035+00702
0/7DCT 2D110FTST A=38+95.26HT =95FT ELE=360.45
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
320
300
280
500
520
540
560
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 26 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION N
I 0 25 50 Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 25MATCHLINE SHEET: 27
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
!(D !(D
!(D!(D!(D
&-&-
0/5C-1A1
0/6C-1A1
NR02Category IIID
C
EDAR
RIDGE
DRSE
2023059001 2023059001
2023059050 2023059050
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I30+00700
0/6DCT 2125FTST A=31+83.14HT =109FT ELE=400.66
400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 27 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION N
I 0 25 50 Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 26MATCHLINE SHEET: 28
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
!(D !(D !(D
!(D!(D
!(D!(D
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-0/3C-19C10/5C-1A1
0/4C-18AC1
0/4C-18BC1
115-2
#*BEACON WAY
S
2023059001
2023059002
2023059003
2023059066
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I 25+0020+00546
0/5DCT 2D125FTST A=24+98.52HT =109FT ELE=414.55
0/4SCDE110EAST 070FT /W EST 070FTST A=19+47.02HT =70FT ELE=430.97
299
0/3DCDE2075FTST A=17+38.25HT =75FT ELE=43
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 28 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION N
I 0 25 50 Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 27MATCHLINE SHEET: 29400
420
440
460
480
340
360
380
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle !(D!(D!(D!(D!(D!(D!(D!(D&-&-&-&-&-0CC0/1C-18BC10/2C-19C1
0/3C-19C1
0/4C-18AC10/4C-18BC1
0/1C-18AC1
0/4C-18A115-2#*BEACON WAY S
2023059002
2023059003
2023059051
2023059062 2023059066
2023059066
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I 20+000/4SCDE110EAST 070FT /W EST 070FTST A=19+47.02HT =70FT ELE=430.97
15+00306 299
0/3DCDE2075FTST A=17+38.25HT =75FT ELE=430.35
0/2DCDE90090FTST A=12+38.27HT =90FT ELE=431.39
400
420
440
460
480
340
360380
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 29 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION NI02550Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 28MATCHLINE SHEET: 30
§¨¦405 Renton
Newcastle
!(D!(D!(D
&-
&-
&-0/1C-18AC1
0/1C-18BC1
0/2C-19C1
BEACONWAYS2023059003
2023059051
2023059062
2023059066
SITE PLAN
Da te: 1/18/2018Path: G:\Projects\Washington\Puget_Sound_Energy_007022\EnergizeEastsideMapbook_10059878\7.2_WP\Map_Docs\Renton\Landuse_CUP\Version_N\PSE_Renton_CUP.mxdPro jec t Co rrido r
&-Pro p o sed Po le Lo c a tio n
!(D Existing Po le Lo c a tio n–To Be Rem o ved
T ra nsm issio n Line - Pro p o sed
T ra nsm issio n Line - Existing
#*Po tentia l Stringing Site
Rec o m m ended Ac c ess- Pro p o sed Po le
U ndergro und Po wer U tility Line
U ndergro und W a ter & W a stewa ter U tility Line
Pa rc el
City Jurisdic tio n Bo unda ry
Strea m
W etla nd
W etla nd o r Strea m Buffer
La ndslide Ha za rd
La ndslide Ha za rd 50ft Buffer
Steep Slo p e
Steep Slo p e 50ft Buffer
Ero sio n Ha za rd I
332
0/2DCDE90090FTST A=12+38.27HT =90FT ELE=431.39
10+00199
0/1SCDE110/SCDE90075FTST A10+35.18HT =75FT ELE=443.43
400
420
440
460
480
360380
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640660
Pro file View
Struc ture
Co nduc to r
Gro und Line
Ma jo r Eleva tio n Grid
Ma jo r Sta tio n Grid
Mino r Sta tio n Grid Page 30 of 30
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERINGDESIGN REVISION N
I 0 25 50 Feet1 inc h = 50 feet
MAP EX T ENT
RENTON
SOU RCES: Ro a ds a nd Pa rc els - K ing Co unty (2015), Aeria l- K ing Co unty (2015); Strea m s, W etla nds a nd Buffers,La ndslide Ha za rd a nd Buffers, a nd Steep Slo p es a ndBuffers fro m W a tershed Co m p a ny (2017).
For cartographic purposes only.
Note:Note: Underground utility lines are surveyed in thevicinity of poles only. Existing Lake Tradition poles aren'trepresented by new conductors because they are anexisting line, and are being represented due to the polesbeing replaced.
5/7C-16A1
Pro p o sed Po le Num b er
Struc ture T yp e (See Ap p x. A)
Co nstruc tio n Sc ena rio K ey(See Ap p x. B)MATCHLINE SHEET: 29MATCHLINE SHEET: 31
STRUCTURE TYPES
Appendix A
Date: 1/18/2018
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERING
DESIGN REVISION N
RENTON
Structure T ype Naming Convention Description
SCDE C-18 A/B Single circuit deadend
SCT C-16 A/B Single circuit tangent
DCT C-1 / C-19 Double circuit tangent (D denotes OHGW overhead groundwire)
DCA C-1B Double circuit angle - equiv to a C1 with a post brace to handle bigger angle
SCHDE C-17 A/B Single circuit horizontal deadend (only under SCL line)
SCA C-2 A/B Single circuit angle
*number after type in table denotes angle
Eastside 230 ROW and structure options.dgn 8/16/2017 2:06:44 PM
Structure Height
65'-105'
85'-90'
70'-120'
85'-115'
50'
90'-95'
CONSTRUCTION SCENARIOS
Appendix B
Date: 1/18/2018
BASED ON PSE ENGINEERING
DESIGN REVISION N
RENTONStructure Type
Typical Construction
Scenario
(Not in critical area)
Typical Construction
Scenario
(In a critical area)
C-1 A1 A2
C-2 C1 C2
C-1B C1 C2
C-16 A1 A2
C-17 C1 C2
C-18 C1 C2