The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-04-036LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300-FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 !: Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PROJECTNAME:~~~k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPLICATION NO: ________________________ _ The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME MAR 1 7 2004 RECEnf~~ Q;/web/pw/devservlforms/planning/owners.doc ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 08127/03 NAME MAR 1 7 200~ faJ~t:'~:,:~v~rt. .It] "'" ~ La illcco il..!l " ...... ~ '. ~ (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification C::~, c:? hA. ~~J , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresse //~ / , .............. ; ... 'J"p"'" .1:" -;,,«.,S .... : ... 'J.t~'("'11 ~ .'\ •• ' ION ". I ,£ .. ~ •• ~C::Js ~-I-~"~' I" ;; .'~ ~',,,, ~ :: .·'0 ~OT AFiy'fu'" ~ ~ :0 (Jl~ ~ ~. ....-." ~ : : : Date ~ lJ) \ PUBUC ... ~ : =:.:::......-'-'~=+_'"'--_I+-:.A '. .' 0 : ',,"Y/:···.!O .. 19.01 ..... ~ :- " ~ 0··· .... ···· \~ ---I"" f: WAS~ ......... -NOTARY 'I'\W .............. .. ATTESTED: Subscribed a,pd swprn before me, a Notary Public, in ~e State10f W$hington, residing at £!!---<.~-->.-iX-"'J. \~:::-J on the ~ day of ~ ).,..t~ , 20 ~ 'S Signed~O A'--'>.. J~b T L~c;._~ 3'. (Notaj; Public) f\t"-..I-.A.· No ****For City of Renton Use**** CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, _________ , hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to (City Employee) each listed property owner on ______ _ Signed _____________ _ Date: ________ _ NOTARY ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing at on the day of ,20 __ . Si ned hllp:llwww.ci.renton.wa.lIslpwldevservlrormslplanninglowners.doc 2 .... 232305921008 AQUA BARN RANCH INC 15227 MAPLE VALLEY I-IWY RENTON W A 98055 232305917709 BERGERON DONNA PO BOX 6265 KENT W A 98064 730290005000 DUNCAN MICHAEL C+MARY R 14518 152ND PL SE RENTON W A 98056 232305914003 GLOVER LELAND E & ERIKA E 15408 SE JONES RD RENTON W A 98058 108180029002 JOHNSON KETTI-I A 15551 SE 148TH ST RENTON W A 98059 232305901802 KTNG COUNTY 500 KC ADMIN BLDG 500 4th Av SEATTLE W A 98104 232305906603 KING COUNTY ~E.-;~lNm81 ~~$i SUb 500 4uR, 232305909300 KING COUNTY WATER DIST 90 15606 SE 128TH RENTON W A 98059 108180027006 LANE LINDA L 15550 SE 148TH ST RENTON W A 98059 232305910803 MrDDLETON JOHN 15255 150TH LN SE RENTON W A 98058 CHINC 232305921008 AQUA BA 15227 ~ ~ VALLEY HWY WA 98055 RE ' 232305911207 BISHOP JOE C & LYNN A 14860 154TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305903006 FRENCH DOUGLAS F 15258 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305912106 GRIM ELIZABETH L PO BOX 566 RENTON W A 98055 108180051006 KING CO 500KC SEA' 232305905209 KING COUNTY 500 FOURTH AVENUE Suite 500A SEATTLE WA 98104 232305907106 I KING COUNi e .ay t J liM 500 ""TLE WA 98104 232305911900 KORBECKI JOSEPH F 15225 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305917808 MADDEN FRANCES C 15209 150TH LN SE RENTON W A 98058 232305911108 MIHALIK JOSEPH 15222 SE JONES RD RENTON W A 98055 ®AlI:lAV. 232305913708 BARDEN ERIC R+SIRI N 26521 SE 37TH ST ISSAQUAH WA 98029 232305905803 DUETT NEAL K & MARY L 14820 154TH PL SE RENTON W A 98058 232305911405 '-"--"" E & ERIKA E "SRD WA 98058 108180028004 JOHNSONKE 15551 S RE 232305908906 KING CO 5004 SE 232305912502 KORBEC 15225 RE 232305913005 MEYER MICHELLE MARIE 14840 154TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305910902 MUIRHEAD ROSS & MICHELLE 14866 154TH PL SE RENTON W A 98058 ----------------~ 232305902107 NEW LIFE CHURCH@ RENTON 15711 152ND AV SE RENTON W A 98057 232305909805 ROSENBAUM L L 15059 SE JONES RD RENTON W A 98058 232305901406 STEEN ROBERT .l 15224 150TH LN SE RENTON W A 98058 , 23230590210 NEW LIFE 15711 1 REN' URCH @ RENTON AVSE WA 98057 232305904301 SCRIBNER PATRICK F 15035 SOUTHEAST JONES RD RENTON W A 98055 232305909508 STEWART JOHN D+BETTY M 14665 I 54TH PL SE RENTON W A 98058 730290006008 RICHARDSON CHAD+CAROL 14514 152ND PL SE RENTON W A 98059 232305912205 SHIREY RILEY L+DONNA M 1042 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY BELLEVUE WA 98008 232305911504 TALLEY JOHNN 15414 JONES RD RENTON W A 98055 Befit! CITY OF RENTON :! Planning/Building/Public Works JoiCh 1-< a:......I at.) zp...... .,,,;;., 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 UJ ..... W CIl f-i ~~~~ i ~"R \l ~ ~ RECE\\JEO U.S. POSTAGE z:P .... D'3>\e 232305914003 GLOVER LELAND E & ERIKA E 15408 SE JONES RD RENTON W A 98058 GLOV~08 QaOSe2035 ~A02 23 O~/02/0~ FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND GLOVE 8~5 S YUCCA DR WICKENBURG AZ 85390-~~79 RETURN TO SENDER J. t.· _ ~ _ ~ c ... :r.·= .... ___ "'. _._r~;';;. ~;;':'~:"»I""'~ :--:"~~ /O~ !! I !I Ii . j-i j I' ---.j-; T if 1-iii i' H' C-.i. -~1,~ 3'SoIJ" Ii! : !i::if IIfnl:l::;: i!;iiinirlildiE! ii: I! i ::J!iiJiJhf NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE·NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: March 29, 2004 LUA04-036, ECF Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project The proposal Is to Install an 18 Inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement Is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the Intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, .the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2.000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be Installed above the wetland buffer. SR 169 & 15211<1 Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 154th Place SE In King County OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNtFICANCE, MtTIGATED (DNS·M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has d elermlned that significant e nvlronmentall mpacts are unlikely tor esult from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS·M process to give notice that a DNS· M Is likely to ~e Issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS·M are Integrated Into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following t he I ssuance oft he Threshold 0 etermlnation of N on·Slgnlflcance· Mitigated (DNS·M). A 14·day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS·M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 17, 2004 March 29, 2004 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: John Hobson Tel: (425) 430·7279 Email: jhobson@cl.renton.wa.us Permits/Review Requested: . Environmental (SEPA) Review Other Permits which may be required: N/A Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Under the Jurisdiction of King County -Zoned: AR·5P and Comprehensive Plan designation Is Urban. SEPA Checklist The project will be subject to the CIty's Environmental Procedures, Public Works Standards and other codes and regulations where applicable. Proposed Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation Is recommended at this time. Comments o'n the above a'ppllclitlon 'must be submItted In wrItIng to Susan FIala, SenIor Planner, Development Senrlc~s Plvlslon, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on April 12, 2004. If you have questions ab9~t this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and recelv.e additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments wlll automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any deCI~lon on thIs project. . . . CONTACT PERSON: Susan Fiala Tel: (425) 430·7382 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING F.OR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File No.lName: LUA04-036, ECF NAME: ______________________________________________ ____ ADDRESS: __________________________________________ ____ ;" TELEPHONE NO.: ___________ _ .; ·~fit! CITY OF RENTON :!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 .Ji.... " clOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 082004 flECEIVED OY'-o'3.~ 232305921008 AQUA BARN RANCH [NC 15227 MAPLE VALLEY HWY RENTON W A 98055 ;;; '&~ .. ,~, '\\ ,.01 t ,. \: '; ! .. 1 ,st-r !3~~ F~~ .... ' ( :"'--' \. >;y' .:. _ ..,.j -t __ ..... ",CQ 1-.< a: ..... 0(.) en~ wen q::ct: ~a: /'1' ' '!' . I I I I /., I ,. II I I I / I I II J BUrrill fUllil IJ lilli. JiUI iiflul fll '.!li. ullin DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: March 29, 2004 LUA04-036, ECF Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project The proposal Is to Install an 18 Inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement Is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the Intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, ,the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the projec't for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be Installed above the wetland buffer. SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 154th Place SE In King County OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS·M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant e nvlronmentall mpacts are unlikely tor esult from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS·M process to give notice that e DNS- M Is likely to be Issued. Comment periods for the project and tha proposed DNS·M are Integrated Inlo a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of t he Threshold Determination of N on·Slgnlflcance- MItigated (DNS·M). A 14-day appeal parlod will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 17, 2004 March 29, 2004 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: John Hobson Tel: (425) 430-7279 Email: jhobson@cl.renton.wa.us Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review Other Permits which may be required: N/A Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Under Ihe Jurisdiction of King County -Zoned: AR-5P and Comprehensive Plan designation Is Urban. SEPA Checklist The project will be subject to the City's Environmental Procedures, Public Works Standards and other codes and regulations where applicable. Proposed Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation Is recommended at this time. Comments o'n the above a'ppllclitlonmust be submitted In writing to Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Servlc~s Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on April 12, 2004. If you have questions ab9~t this' proposal, or wish to' be made' a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decl!lion on this project. . . . CONTACT PERSON: Susan Fiala Tel: (425) 430·7382 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING F.OR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. FIle No.lName: LUA04-036, ECF NAME: __________________ ~ __________________________ ___ ADDRESS: ____________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ________________ _ CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 23rd day of April, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: ,hi ;:'!!I','I i': 'V::~!ti!;li;;'[~':::'!.::: '''~ fl' "r YiJ in'llii'li"I';:;:':I"!'" ! "'!P"'i"i:" '1::\1"";"" h' I:';' ' I'; 'bll~l~,l;ll;';:'.~;! -i:.l; 'Ii: .'1; 1',;11 :il':~"\:Nam'e;,~i' :ij; 1:>l4:~i;;'i~;Wil~~k'{li~~::t~H\!;~:r!llhtl;~~:i ,']' '\ "~I 1",1, ",'" r': ""'l' i W'T'I(""" I 'W"I','"O",,',i;""""I"'!' ~ "ji'lr;""""~I';;I' '" 1'''ln,!'''p"WU'iI''\ i "UH'i'" I'j:t!",:': ~lJi.r ./I;':~'\'I"r . '",\,". 'l"~:>l",j\ II-·lt,f', ': ';11"11./0""',':"1' ',.' til-<; "I.' j,,;i'i ;':':1:.1'14 ·t':'!i:T,l":i;"I,,i{'li·;::~!\:,)RI3P'~~,S,~ntllJg,,\di':1r.!i"!J'iil;:.:'I;li,'!; 1'}:,i!;·j;;u::;1 John Hobson/City of Renton Contact! Appl icant King County Owner Ross Muirhead Parties of Record John D. Stewart Parties of Record ('. (Signature of Sender): ~ ~~N """"", " ...... VA 'II ~ -..., ... -~"\ " ~.ifc '" _-~ •••••••• ~ I, STATE OF WASHIN TON : "~sS'ON ~" ~ 't : •• '~ '-t'., , .. z..~ ;() . ~ I. SS .. :cr OTAb -;".,. ~ : :0 ~ 'TY!TI~ ~ COUNTY OF KING ) ~ : -.-(/): ! ~ • • II ~ (/I ~. .oUBUC .: : I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Patrick Roduin \:.;,;·· •.• 6. .01 ..... ~c!j signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and VOIU~~~~~~~~~s and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 'I'",\~~~"",,,,,,,,,,,,, Dated: __ ~_l---,-Lrt_().:....Y' _ Notary (Print): ___ -I'IIMmARrfiilt:~VNm;KAnFr.:;MC~H~EFFi:-::::-:~==__--------- My appointment expires: MY APpoiNTMENT EXPIRES 6·29·07 ELLIOTT BRIDGE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT template· affidavit of service by mailing t ...... . 'i' .. 1 : • .~ . , . ! " :.',. ~I, •. On the 23rd day of April, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERe Determination documents. This information was sent to: Agencies See Attached N~~"'I (Signature of Sende . · •••• O..t\ ~'. ~~ I, STATE OF W ,",CT.A ~ ... '1\ ~ "~;,. "': -n ~ SS • .... m. ~ tft· ,tJ .. (I): ~ COUNTY OF KING ) ;. \. U8uC ./ 1 ~ "'~:c?9-07 ...... o~.! I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Patrick Roduin 1~.c-W.··SH\~e~ ...... -. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and vOluntarY'm\1Gt~'''uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: (;'/2-r/cJv _-?J~=-/.!.....!:::=:::"':::!:;:fb=..c......,L.L?4~~~---- shington Notary (Print) : ___ --mrMIMIARrmlL:rnrVNIITTKAnrII'MCrrHmEFrmF"!"'!!"'II'InI"I _________ _ My appointment expires: MVAPPOiNiMENi ExPIRES S:29·n~ ELLIon BRIDGE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT LUA-04-036, ECF template· affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology • Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia. WA 98504·7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor' Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW . Stewart Reinbold' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. c/o Department of Ecology • 3190 160th Ave SE Attn. SEPA Reviewer Bellevue, WA 98008 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Auburn WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program 14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW -Front A . Burien, WA 98166 Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation' Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC·NR·050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olvmpia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jacl<son Street KSC-TR·0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Eric Swennson 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98104·5004 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application .• Also note, clo not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template· affidavit of service I)y mailing CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 11th day of May, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Final ERC Appeal Period Ended documents. This information was sent to: King County Owner City of Renton -John Hobson Applicant John D. Stewart Party of Record Ross Muirhead Party of Record LQ..\\..YN It-..''' •• -"'f" : •• : ;t-t,. 'I /. '7"'~!::A:j~::"""":~..-.-3~~~==:::":" _______ --,;-...:~~·~"'''--'v,,·'' 0 I, -'. ~'I ;. N07: ~\ ~ ~ (Signature of Send STATE OF WASHINGTON :. ~-9 ~'. "'" ~ ~(J): ... ;J.::II:.,,~ ) SS ~ "",,' ..() " m: ~ , .,. ~ u8 (/):: COUNTY OF KING ) \ :;..\ .... LIC",,! , ...... ~~ ." , "" . "'9 . ~ .. I", O~··" .. :R? .... ~o"'_': I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker '.",~ASH\~G~ .......... signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fo'r\tl1a~mes and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ~/'1-iloy Notaryt)ljC in and for th9St{Washington Notary (Print): ____ ~l7II"II"Inn"III=_------------- My appointment expires: MARilYN KAMcHEFF MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6·29·07 Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project LUA-04-036, ECF template· affidavit of service by mailing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIHONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAMe: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: ELLIOT BRIDGe SANITARY SEWER PROJECT LUA·04·030. eCF UNINCORPORATeD KING COUNTy.rWRTH FROM SR 109 AI.ONG t54~ PLACE se Tha JlIOPO&IJ.J IS 10 inslBll an 18 Inch diamutal I>&nilary 51lWOf on 1M Eillel! Brrdgo.Tna new sewer will BUHI near 1110 intof&DCtion oj SA 189 an!) \ 52ntl Avo. SE and 00 nOf1h towards tho Codu, Rlvnr bononlh tho embunkmonllor thO brielgo upprollch. AI tho nver crollslng, Iha sowar will bO 8uapondod benoath tho bridlJo deck in ItlU t>ays tli)lwoun tho girders. tjorth 01 Ina rivar crossing, Iho sower will run up 154lh Plnea SE to n now manhola at tho elld oJ thll projoct lor n tolnl dlstanco 012,000 11. Tho 80wor hno will crOS8 ovtH Iho Codar Rivol and tho lIood plain aren tying on Iho soulh side 01 the river. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeal. ollho environmental detormlnetlon must bo lIIod In writing on or belore 5:00 PM MBY 10, 2004. Apponls must be liled in wrillng together with Ihe required $75.00 application lao with: Hearing Examinor, Cily 01 Renlon, t 055 Soulh Grady Way, Renlon, WA D8055. Appeals 10 Ihe Examinar Are governed by City 01 Renlon Municipal Cocle Seclion 4·8·110. Aclclilional inlormalion re(lar(lin(llhe appeal process nlay be obtained Irani Ihe Renlon Cily Clerk's Ollice, (425)·430·6510 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PleBse Include the prolecl NUMBER when ceiling for proper 1110 Identlflcotlon. ~""''''''''\''''' ,:~' ~~'(N ~.f~1111 ~,. ~~ ......... ''''Q " ,~ ~ .. :~~\SS'o,v~. ~ 'I, ,. " ~. ':t'. ~ , __________ .. /li tlOT.o1 ~ ... ~~ : : .. ~J.. j)~ -n ~ '-:~..... m:, ~tft~ A ... m: ~ f '"'" ~ 'liSLle : : , -. . .-~~'. ~ ... ~: I ~ •• g.~'9 .' ~. " \'·0 ' .• ,:, -01 •..• ~O : ~ ,,--. -:? I, ~ ........ ~' .- I / _ ~ ,/ ,..-/. '1'1 "''''8H\~ ~ ........... I, ~~4'A'q . , hereb~rtlfY that copies o~\'h~,,, ............ ,,, above document were posted ~ i~. conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on cpLTl / .?l0( 2I)t:J Y - CERTIFICATION Signed~-2ntVuL ,f-~ ATTEST: Subscribed.)l~~wornpefore me, a Notary Public, in and for~ of -(fJ Washingron residing~ , on the;JJJit--day of ~1-by ,"*&dY . MARILYN KAMCHEFF MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07 DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: Merch 29, 2004 LUA04.o30, ECF Elliott Brldgo SanltDry Sowor ProJoct The prOpoBot Is to Inslolt on 18 Inch dlamolur sanitary sowor on the Elliott Bridge The Elllon Bridge Replocsmenlla King COUnly's roaponalbUUy. The new sowor will alort neor tho Intersection of SR 160 end 152M Avo. SE end go north towards tho Cedar Rlvor bono nih the ombenkmenl (or tho br/dgo approoC'.h. At U10 rIver crolllng, tho aowor wUl be sUlipondod beneath tht) orldgo dock In the boya between tho girdora. North of tho rl .... er crouing, lIle IOWIU wlll run up 154th Piece BE to 0 now manhole allho end at tho projact for B 10101 dlalanca of 2,000 It. The lowor IIno will croaa over Iha Codur Rivar and tho noad plorn mon lying on the aOulh aldo of tllo rlvor. Tho lowor lil16 will nOI pau over tho neorby vweUands but wilt be In storied above the wttUtmd buftel. SR lao & H5z-:' Avo BE north 10 .Jan08 Rd 5. 1541~ Place SE in King County OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON,SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED IDNS·MI: /" Ihe Lead Agency, Ihe Cily 01 RonlCn hns d olerminod I hot s IgnincMI e nvironmellla\ I mpocta 0 U) U nllkoly lor OBIJIt '(Om I he r) ropI)&ad p rejoct. T herefofO, n I permitted undor tho RCW 43.21 C.l 10, tna Cily 01 Ronton 1& uoing tne OplionDI DNS·M rrocess to givo nOlice IIlIIt 0 DNS- M II likely \0 be iaauod, Commont porlOOD for tho project ano tho propolled DNS·M ara integrateo Inlo (I Iinglo comment period. Thoro will be no cammon' P BrlOd f allowIng I ho I BBuance 0 f the T hro6hold Determination 0' N on·Slgnificance· MItigated (DNS·MI. A 14-day appeal period will follow !fle laau8nce of Ihe DNS-M. peRMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 17, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 20, 2004 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: John Hob.on Tol: 142~) 430·7279 EmDII: Ihohlon@cl,ronlon,wD,u. pormltllRovlow RequoatlKl: Othor Pormlta which may bo roqulrod: RoquOitod Studio.: Location whoro applioatlon may ba rovlowod: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zonlng/t..and Uso: Envlronmontal Document I thot evaluato tho Prapolod ProJoct: Devolopmont Rogulatlon. U.od For Projoat MItigation: Environmental (SEPA) Revlow NlA Goolechnfcal Report Planning/Building/Public Works Oopnrtmont, Oovolopmont Sorvlco. Dlvlelon, Sixth Floor Ronton City Hall, 1055 Soulh Grady Way, Ronton, WA OBO~~ Undor tho JurladlcUon 01 King County -ZOl1ad; AR·5P and ComprotHtnal~o Pton designation Is Urban. SEPA Chocklill Tho prajact will bo sUbJect 10 the City's Environmental Procedural, Public Works 1 Standards and other codal Dnd rogulotlonl whoro oppUcoblo. j Proposod Mitigation Moo.uros: No turther mlllQatlon II rocommonded otthls time. ..J Commonts on the abovo application mUlt bo lubmltled In wr1t1ng to SUlon FlalD, Bonlor Plannor, Dovelopment Sorvlcoa ,olvillon, 1055 South Grady Way, Ron ton, WA 08055, by 6:00 PM on April 12. 2004. If you hovo queaUona BbYl'1 this proposel. or wish 10 bo .mode a party of record ond roceNa additional notification by moll, contact Iho Project Managor. Anyone who Bubmlts wrlllBn commonla will nUlomoUcoJly become a porty of record and wilt be notlfiod ot any doc~lon on this project . CONTACT PERSON: SUBan Fiala Tel: (425) 430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I' If you would like 10 be made a parly of record 10 racelve further Inlormalion on Ihls proposed prolacl, complele Ihl. form and relurn 10: Clly of Ronlon, Oevelopmanl Planning, 1055 So, Grady Way, Renlon, WA 98055, File No.lNnm.: LUA04·036, ECF NAME: ____ ~------------------------------------ ADDRESS: ________________________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO,: , -~~~~~~~::::::::::::::::::~--------~~,,"""\\\" ~ "..;-"'.\\:.'f1'nq--"'I'; -.:' . (~, ......... .if" I, .-~ ~.':I ,00 SS'O~'" Iw~ , ! .., ... ~~~ ~.f." ~ \ : /Ii ~OTAb ~"'~ ~ :. 'Tj, 1'1\' ~ ~ : ... ~ 0: ~ ~ • I) .:;; ~ ~ \ USLIC l ; ~~1~~~~~~~~~-··'s I, ~~.. ... ~ ,# I.... • hereby certify that copie~,~~' .?~:.9~ ... ···f..0 / above docll t were posted b conspicuous places on o~, s"",~~--.. -- tile clescn' bed property on '\\\\\\'" ........... ----~~~~~~~~~~~~------------ . . Signed:/n~ ~ ATTEST, S"bscdbed an~wn," before me. a Notary P"bJic. in and for the te of fO Washington residing i(;P'<11~ • on the PJ(f'ib day of 721b ~c.::ufl29 MARILYN KAMCHEFF MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29.07 ® King County Wastewater Treatment Division Environmental Planning and Community Relations Department of Natural Resources and Parks KSC-NR-0505 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 April 15,2004 Susan Fiala, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 RE: Elliot Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project / LUA04-036, ECF. The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Nonsigniticance dated March 2004. King County's Cedar River Trunk-Section 4 is located within the Elliot Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project site (please see the attached figures). In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City (If Renton do the following: • Submit construction drawings for the project to Eric Davison in the Design, Construction and Asset Management Program, Civil/Architectural Section. Eric can be contacted at (206) 684-1707. Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's impacts. Drawings should be sent to: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section King County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle, W A 98104-3855 • Please contact Eric Davison at (206) 684-1707 a minimumn of 72 hours prior to commencing any construction in order to allow sta ff time to arrange for a King County inspector to be on the site during construction. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have questions, I can be reached at (206) 684-1227. Sincerely, Barbara Questad Environmental Planner @ .4i$!lI12D~M I' I ~'!:;'e.~:,?~.~ ~:~ .~~~:-~ : ·1 I 41 :., _".J ,,:..J ~.'. j(\f-" __ :1" :--.:,. 1 .. ' .~.Ji _' _*0': J ~ t.!~~;T .t_1 . "0 I I ,,- j 1 ~~ I . ".~-. '-, -: tljj'j~ ... I!_ .- SEC 23, T 23N, ; II __ ,--_JI'-~-b..;bu6-~-:J:t-~.-~I~-;f1t-~-:r -H~-:~--~"l;-----( 1 .. ", t '-, , , _ 'c. " ~ ., t-. . // SW // --"', J • ~/ ,. " .","" ,", _., "'" '.", " I NW fA '4 L .-. _ "" '"' '~. '. I . ~ . .-~--IDROP .. : -.:':-'~ r OI.A"J'AC'{tIt'D "l-'G--At.~ L"-1_ l ' '\ "'." -"" \ , ,M, .. "n, " , ".~r 'OAL " \". " ,. --,:. R5E ". ----toIt1 "'0-4\1 , !IT.o 42.!l203 ". N 11< 6tH 333 ,,~, r-r:tn~n81i'r-\ , e" & rue" 'L' ' .,-0<> ' ----r-f '-i=i " \ ",l,-" " IT~'-].T '.. ;; I --( I ,I '1-. ii' -II .! __ I ~I r u .... ~+ _ L~'v-~~~-~t'" i~, ----. l,MIT OF ~"'L 111 BID IrEW NO 7-'''''''' I' \ '""': -----~----;I~l-"~¥: \ "'rl R,G" I--~L-~----~~~~;g-~ I :~. t5W T 'A)",""\ \ \ \ !!....~_~ • .!n_!1~.~_ \ ~' j , ,-• ," ','" "'. . ~ ••• ","co . \ '\ I. '" 0'~ O~'v'~ _ ~ ______ _ '-, • c<,-'L ""' _'~~== _,,_ ""' " " • '~:-<.' ,",. I ;e ~'A'!,t P:-t ------"lo,1.1~_-_4-_--_-----.;.-..f;! ~--I BU .~_ ey _':;""_-: _;'j( -'0: '/_~. :'_ ", n 'Ii . ;---,~ (}, _-_J ---b;:-)-~4---~~ ~ .~,o~31-! ':4-cl~ on "ft.a.r i-lilis ~.»Jft ,_ ---=-= -~ . -----.;;..,;~----.... B-STUB kr . ,:::: ::: IV'~¥ I _.. _ ___ _ Got:[ ,I~" jf_, ' ~~ , " "" ." , ,~ ,---~ .. - --" '-'>",<C ",eA ' . ~---~ " .. ,0"," ,,~,~, -c, ,_ : .URLI~~TQN NORTH~RN __ -~ . -~,~----.-./f'/'O\t--,:--~~:cv/ OI.AIN ~ : '-h'Cqi,'I."!~-1d-~.l..uj' -,~:-v--~-~ RAILROAD N 172.:le.f>-t!D-'2__ v..:::;L" __ : ~ '''d 'r!--_" C'.' "--'4 10 1.-" --, inj ., J i l' ! ~ i I! fi :l ! ,",,", --~--<-.:.-- ' , "n,'" ". -, "'---/", '. ,'" lv-Swo'u.-__ --~----~ -----.---. ---(-.,~.-~'-' \_~~~-...:::~ j/----------E VALLEY--~GHWAY ---------L~--,,---";:::-1.-=--11 ~ \ " - 1'-~~24';O~ ---=x-~.-------c. - -----:" R.Q.!le IJ I)' i j l III it! jr( I , ~ \ \ " __ \ ___ •• ~ ____ . "" _ __~IE.. .~.3 : e~ ~O "O,NT -C-3-,,' ". N 172,83:1:':1 ~ _~~~~~~!_ _ \ -~~opn,fu ---n;~~~ 21! ......... '. '. " E l.e'e,:l43849 I "U'N' • 311"-a .... S,1l "-,IV) ~ L:JS'.t(.N cA. / ",r, 6,.. 11 li9 .. 'TZ 649 SH r:i,e:-F41i8'9 T~ ~ f.. . \ .'\. , C I 9R(]P Ie' ES ... ·T ~ 1 --.......... ,-=0 a. C OAJN-E c..r,OA.{ 'DRGPWH) StlvlIA'. toIli ~.I 1';'-'-Ii-o/ 51'" -~~ " - " ,r" "'.t-,i • "t:, ~ ."~. B ~ !"' ....... ').t:., L -.. __ 4' .. t-' ........ t. / ! MAPL ______ ._ _ _ __ ___ "-~..-" ----P. S H NO. !5 ----------~--------------. "! Hi liullltlPllllT Of 1111£01'0111111 SWllI DOtS tail luam ui GUAUlllU COIdPI£ II H)l Ht Rt OR . 111£ Qf ACCUilt1 OK m Dill lIICU II // Nor A~ BUILT roo; DRA-j/-1It-6 -IIAS-BIDI-R£D-UC-m--'\ (. -DO "aT IICAU: _ KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO 90 CEDAR RIVER INTERCEPTOR -SECTION 4 SEWER PLAN 8 PROFILE -STA 41.00-END -.-----.--.~.----;----7'--------------_call ~~I~ 1_: ~~ ........ {..,~ ~"? _ L _,-j ..... S N S .. -----__ .L t ---I Ill' FEBRUARY. 19 R~5("0' D("""lSH.-4"i fi I ....... PO -; •• ".'--"'il--.--t~"OON[SHVAR i IS-SOCIA lIS: ", ......... . 102 -O~ -02 I ~ 101; aUlOIl III '. Stal'" .a; ~ CF E --l~~:·-r i---i'--l---I---T ·f----rl--j --i---j-r--T j-'f-i (-r 'i ; r ! ~ i ~ ;--1 ii-~ 1 -~ l ; --! 1 !-"r--T--~ --I ~-I l-r---11--1"--;--:--! ~ i ! 1-: i i : 1 ~ ~ ~ ; -~ -:~:l t---: t '-j -. I , .. ~ 1 ---L'-'-j . I .. , , ... 1_) ___ -! -• , • -I • l---'--'---'-j M-----~-, '----1 --1---1---.1-----,-,-, ... -, -'-'---1 ~ ; ~ : ~ : 1 : 0: : -; : :!: t : i : ; . :: : ::: i : ; .,;. : -: . : . ! : : t : i : .. : i : ; ; : : t : . ·-I.:..-:-T'--:...·-~--:-__ 1 --.:...~-L-;. ___ --t--rt_l'jj -: rl -....:--l-.. · :---r' -:--~-.......;..--f -r --' -j--l :-_l ---: : ~T~~~!~~Yf~~2._M-J~ -I ~j)u58-'" ~-~ _l_-L __ + ___ -~---.-!.-'---!---! . 1 .: !.;::: 1 : j' : -J:-: ; i : ! I : . -: : ! : :,! ! : ~"o ",TEilrt !ttl ~p I :m~~AJS ~,ft.. 1 , : j ! : : . ; :: _ .: : __ ; i i-, -" .,' . . . • • , • , ,1 -1, • j _ll,.. 13eubs_ tt. u. tn:, ec vr:, 'Rt' -. ". .,.. '~'C-' -.--1, -T~ _1. ___ --------. I· I . ! .-1---t 'i' . '~A~Nl!n: fOoQf" r:~ -·J-·-I . I--· .. j ,-,--j .. -.---.... -----: :',:" ,I j" : : :~'. . : :!: : I 1 1 : 1 ~ -. --< YO' ---. -:.: : --: --: : '.: £: -• , 1-1 , . -I ' 1 I.,.", --1 ' ; , , ~ 5~ _D1irft ~-~. - -, , .,. ! I. -1 ,-- - . 105 r--' . ~. f' •. • •• ..,. • •• ••• .. • • l' -.. -~ • --+ . • _. 1 f" •••• •• f" .. ' .--'" ·t.----t--· , --------._..J. ___ ~---_ -. ,.----_--1 __ --1----~--t--......,----t---I j----L.. -, r--r---+----_--.1 ___ -~--I ' , ,--. I. • . --, 1 1 • • • .., • 'I' I --• '!' • - -1 --j -• ,I ,-- - -, . I ' I -I ; !." --t • -. --I ~:. ' .. i ; . ._ _ -:-; __. . ;.. t_: _ . ;. =-__ ! _ _! : -: __ _ -I I ; -: : :,: ; i I .' : : -_! • : ~ '_ i: -:: : -_ i --. : _! : __ ; -1 -; -i : :--:: i ".t 1-~~--I -,-1, I '-1' ,---.--·-----r-·· --.---1 .--1 -! -.--,--. 1 -'. ,--1·-----1. __ t--.1 -. I-r: ---------1 ·-j--::-I.---I--.--I-.--~---, --1----~-J~ /i:'" I 1 :. 'j' • ; l :!; : 1 ' I: ' I j 1-": • -. : • • -. --:---:-: .. -,--:--~. *: :-:"1: :_"':,,: :;. ' 100, :. : t" t .., -. -. ,-! -, ! • -• - --. • , - -I ." -I ' • -1100 /,/:.; -1-';' r--:-:--t---.-!---I-t •. :-~_ :--7--=-. __ ~. --; -~--'-f-; ': __ : . ; ',: : ; -~ ;-.:-+=--~~ --:.: _ -:-t : ; ! 1 ~--- / ';1!: 1--; 1 I. j ) :.--; --L.:--.. !..'-t - . : --:--.•. , _:1 I' j -: i.----: .. 1 ~.: -1 -J-::;: I:-J~: ___ i ____ -~=-:.....: ;.-L. 1 ! :.:._-L-'il·~ LJ.::--~i--, '. ~ , .' l' '" t -'-L'!' -"" . ..". .. ---1-1 --, --I' .'-; --:-~ . --. . -/1 .' , -, ' --, !" '!' . I' -I. ' --. ,.. • --------I j • . --I ' ,-.. -- I; i!:i ~ -~--: -f=--.~.-~ -. :-., I ~---;-. -·--:--i---;---i-----~---t__-~ . ,. --~--~ --i--:-~---L-~--:---~ ~·-·--~~~~t -_ +-. --. ~ _:-:-:-'-.-. --~ --:::.---:-: --:"~:-i-· -.: -~~j~ . I . , I . • I ' I . .-, -. ,. - . 1 t • I., • , ! . , ' 1 I I . . . I I· . I ' ! • I 1 eJ'/ ~-.>f ~-I -, .. " I' . I ' -I . I' I I : j -• - : I -.' : : : :.:!: . ,: ..::'::. . r. 1'7 .,...!: 1: . j: : ' j ""'-.--.----• ·-_·----·1 -. --.-I .. ! ; .. /-"'1 .-1 ___ .1 , j' --.... I I ., , .. L. -I .. ··· . ---,-------.. '---'1"-,. -r-'" -.. -.~-, I' i I -l : I : t -: ~: -1 ! : 1 : j : • : 1 : ! :: ~.:: : t : f : I : I ': ! '. / ;:: ;:.:: l-·-, .----I '. ~O I . : ,I. , 1 '1' 1 . 1 . 1 . i • ,. ." -.,. -'. 4·.-J' . ',... I -.. - -90 1'1 :'1' ---t--: ~l'--! --~ -j -!---t--; -l-:-~-l----~-·t---~ --i--~--:---~---to ;--!--~ -I :-.. j-~---I--~.-;--~.--;-~-~~--t-~. -1~. ~ .. -. . , . ~--j--; -! -?--, -~---!-f__L I 'I W '8' - -I --I ' . fl. ,I -. , . , .. -I I' ' , - . -1 ' . ' , -. . ,.. I • , ' I -H ' • • ; .. .. . , . . t.··...., .' . . .. . 0 .,.. ~ t , • I' -t4. i j "I---.~.---t' 1-' .. -.. ... -,-------.. -. 1--'''' ; .. -I' -'I -; -t., t-·, j ... - -,'------.... -I' --11--'-.-,.--... -"-'11 ·--1-,---, i '.., .. , 1 .... 'j' ", ' - . '1' I -. • • • -• -• ' . --t ' J¥'~'''~ 1 -,. , -• 1 __ ! 0 _ : ~. • t _ • ••• ., _ • • • I • • . I • + • •• •. , ! _...... • .... ,.. 8!5 ;.. , ;: : 1 ; : : : t: :': : : :::! :QTtl: ", t , !:; . --: I:' . 8~ Ii S'1 _ .. , .. --:---j'--j ---:--!--, -t ---;-1--r--.;-----:--+ -;---: -.;:ibr--!---:-· -:------L_ -, .• . _ --. !---:-;",.: --I '1~1:-:-j -~ !;-;-,:-e} -I ~ I : ;! w : I,.: • : 1 : ., -• , .: 1 : j ;; I : ,: ;_L ' __ .. I : ~'I'IC,{~·j. II!; ----1-. ~ . ,:l,!)--j"---"-' -, .. ,-.. ,-, .. .. -, ----, ---,.~ U·---~--~Q_·-~_l:::; __ :-____ ; ,.:;_ I, l : : :-: : : ,. -': : : ; : Q~ . :: ., ,1 ~ 80 [ '... t-~_l. --1---. .----. ,--,-___ ....ACL1JI.__ • ~fi.: --.-~ - --r--.. _-1.. __ . -t-'--r----, ---- I '.." l' · ,Y;;.t;'W~_ " • , I j 'I' -.~ I 1 :. • . 'S v· 0. 0.... u i a. S II ft. 1':: ! ; I : i: •. : I I : -. 21 ~I2"!' .r . ... ~ - . -1 -. . . '. " • f • . _._. ------'--..... -. o.(l~ ~~-, ---.. f--~ '\ ----f-+--j - --, --1-' -.---I --~ -! --. ---- -. -! -, -~-f1" _n __ '-1 ~ ~ 1 ~ t -11 . ! ,.[ ~ I ~ ::; Ii! ! ~ !:.:, ~ "'; \ ~ j • i ~ , ~ . _ . . . ; _ _ . _ ~ .., 1 -; : . --~:. i. ! 1· rT~--' -;-----l--!.~'t.,j--,--i-, ~f.t!'~r.i-~;,-,-':--r----;-:;:;;-",&f~', -i-;-:1-; 1---:---i--:-·!--:-ct.l~I'--f-:--,J:.i,:~-:-:: :-! ,-~, -----::-~ _L-_-'_ 1:..,1·'1: I :"'l·-"f.-~l 1': I: 1: I: i ~-iIll:::':' -.::: -;c::lfr".o.;°r't:!I·:rIPI-.:: . i: .:--: I :--. .,-... -.... -·~··-T---"'· , -, -L ...• _ .......... _ .•. , •. _ ... _. ",,---,,-,,-O-:::(";!:j"-A .• -* 1_.-___ q·.!tl. ____ • __ . :.:! ~ ! : -. : I 0 ; : I : : I :. '::::" -I : : : : : I : : : j - ; ; :: ¢1,""::: ; : :; 4>: :; : ",. . tH, ~ -I' I" -.. I , , , , B '" . , . , , . . . - : -. , .' ... 10. , " ~. • . -: :2 --, • I • , . I ..' • .•. t -". • ••• ....,. t • • • • • 1 . • • I I. • +. «-,. t • • _ • ..-- - --+-.1----, .~., --r---~ .... ---. ----+----. -------,----+-----, .. --.-----L_~.-1-~_ ---.-,----~-----. -----.--. ----.--~-----.. .o~l·~· --.-,...---------. ---~ - -• . • n ----. Q'lrQ ,. I • , • ' I . I -,j" -~l ' . , , , - -. . 1 ,.! -'" -. . . -... -j , • -40 , .• , --j-~-' -' ,. c V -, -"I • . • . • . ;x: ... ..,., '. , 8 ~. tr 0-'I'':;' . ~ -_ ... ~: -; ~ ! ! i5.: : ~ ! t. ; : ... : :: ; _0 • f--. :.:: :. j 1·. _ .1?": .: ! : i : T ~; _ :'':: -1--f ~-:--· -. ,--·-I:rl-'·--I ~ d~ '-..1 -.-I . I -----,--+-L' I --~ --T--j" L -I~, , .. -I • -. -1 .~ -... ------1 ,, __ I _. --I-lL-------t· -r <110: -. -t .i ... ------~~-1-------I, :r E ' I -I -j;: I '.,., I' ,., I'" ., -, ' i' .,.. -...,. -. -. ..------. ..! t' t ~ • .m ',::, -• t ~ til' .,...... !' . . to. • • • • j . • • !; t - t • • 11. 4A. • • • •. -•• . "f -':' - -• • 1_ t 1 : .• - -.l. _~!_ j : I; _: _ -.:.~: I :'! __ ~._ . .L_~_:..:.. __ :.._L : : l_:_·_i ; I : 1':" 1· --_l"':"__ :_ .. .:........:_..:....j~~_ :-1 __ :__ .: -, L _'_ K·E .~'~"~:::..! ---... ~-..... " , CITY OF RENTON PLANNING I BUILDING I PUBLIC WORI(S MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: May 12, 2004 City Clerk's Office Stacy M. Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following Information to facilitate project closeout and Indexing by the City Clerl<'s Office. Project Name: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project LUA (file) Number: LUA-04-036, ECF Cross-References: AKA's: ELLIOlT BRIDGE SANITARY SEWER LINE Project Manager: Susan Fiala Acceptance Date: March 29, 2004 Applicant: City of Renton Owner: King County Contact: John Hobson PID Number: 23~305-901Si a3t9.305qOI&; ~305q{)52. ERe Decision Date: April 20, 2004 ERC Appeal Date: May 10, 2004 Administrative Approval: Appeal Perlo~ EndE;: Public Hearing Date: Date Appeale£t to HEX: py Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Couocll: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording NLimber: Proj~ct Description: Install 1811 sanitary sewer approx. 2,000 ft. as part of King Co. Elliott Bridge replacement. The proposal Is to Install an 18 Inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement Is 1(lng COL1nty's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the Intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the brlctge deck In the bi:lYs between tht;! girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be Installed above the wetland buffer. LC)catlon: MAPLE VALLEY HWY & 152ND AV SE & JONES R Comments: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: May 11, 2004 To: John Hobson From: Susan Fiala ~ Subject: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project LUA-04-036, ECF q-. This memo is to inform you that the appeal period has ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures. If you have any questions, please contact me at 430-7382. ., I ;t "('" " ; , '" "i '\ " I' :. '" 'I.:' ' », .. ,~. ;-,. " "1 ',-T" ".' :.~, .' •• :: '.:~.:~. I " 1,1' \ ,j ' .. '.,' / .. ;, •... ",, ,.. , . :.~. ;., , •• -I \~; "'. ' •• .'t 2', ~ • J' ",. .. '. ' , ~ ,""',:; ", . " "' " ,"., ,., • '1': ,. ,~"" , ,i .. <;. '," •. , .' • I" ',J,J ~., . ":,. ~\>'):/,,','" :,',:' . ,',', "... ... . . t.·~~:. -, ~ ~ .. ." .. ·· .. r ... :j· ," ',. " "', '. ':t. " .~ ... ,' '~ , ' ;",.-. , , ~" " ',,1 " " .. '"'. 't', '. ~ " f', 0,.' .," ~ .' .' .. , .. • • ~. I '.-:" I • ~.' .-',' ", STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Notice of Environmental Determination was published on Monday, 4126/04 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $95.13 at the rate of $15.50 per inch for the first publication and NIA per inch for eacmsLlhseauent ~ Lily Nguyen Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this 26th day of April, 2004. " ~ \\\ \ l:! 1 f i i it f I J. \\\\ .. C f"'" -·.If/ .,,\. "'A'--r.· .. ::t.L...; ..... /// ~~~~~ Y'~ •. ';~~~~·E·;~·~·~~? % :::.:~ ~ .-Cb~\-I~s -.. -::.. Tom A. Meagher ~ 0 ... ~' R Y <l'", S Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redmon<t:\\r~~V'_ ": Z ~ -e·O-Ad Number: 841293 P.O. Number: :. \ -,'-> j h ~ Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. ~ ,roo... PU~\': ",,".:J? ~ / uj.' 'i."".' " ..... ~ ..<1 •• ••• MAy 2; •• ··.~ ~ . 'l ,>. ••••.••• S,·~ /////; t: OF 'I'l ~ \\\\~ 111111/ 11111 \ \ \ \\\ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ~ DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMI'ITEE RENTON, WASHINGTON I The Environmental Review Com-I mittee has issued a Determination o~ Non-Significance for the following' project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. iELLIOTBRmGE' .'. ~SEW$'PROOEc;r· LU.t\;.()4.()36, ECF. Tlie proposal is to install an 1~ inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embarikment for the bridge approach.; 4t the river crossing, the' sewer will be sus~ , I pended beneath the bridge deck in ; ,I the bays between the girders. . North of the river crossing, the : sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the : project for II total distance 0[2,000 ! ft. The sewer line will cross over ' thElCedarRiver· and the flood ! plain area lying oil,the south side I of the river. . . . .'. ~.: Appeals of the' enVironmen~ determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 ~M;M3y' 10, 2004. Appeall? ;~l.Ustke"i¥eIl::.jh: writing together w.ith· the,req#~ $75.00 application' fee~ with:H~ Examiner, City of· Renton, 1055; South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner'. are gov~ emed by City of Renton, Municipal Code Section 4-8~no." Additiokl information regarding' the appe~ process may be obWn:ed from .t1;te Renton City Clerk~s Office, (425)-430j 6510. i Published in the' King' County) JourJlal April_2J~'; ..... 2.904; #&4l,.293 : ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: ELLIOT BRIDGE SANIT ARY SEWER PROJECT LUA-04-036, ECF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY. NORTH FROM SR 169 ALONG 154'h PLACE SE The proposal is to install an 18 incll diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge.The new sewer will start near the Intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 fl. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM May 10, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. AprealS to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additiona information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the proJeqt NI!J~BE.B wfi~r caJII,ng\for.proper:fIIe'ldentlflcatlon. STAFF REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Applicant: Project Manager: Project Description: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: ercrpCE/lioff.doc April 20, 2004 Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project LUA 04-036, ECF City of Renton -Wastewater Utility Contact: John Hobson, Wastewater Project Manager City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way 98055 Susan Fiala, AICP The proposal is to install an 18 inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck in the bays between the girders. Continued on next page. Unincorporated King County. North from SR 169 along 154th PL SE N/A Site Area: 2,000 lineal feet City of Renton PIB/PW Department Environm I Review Committee Staff Report ELLIOTT BRIDGE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT LUA-04-036, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 20, 2004 Paga20(5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but on the underside of the bridge and installed above the wetland buffer, The sanitary sewer project would include the installation of eight (8) manholes along with 2,000 lineal feet of pipe. The pipe would be below grade starting at the intersection of SR 169 and 154th PL SE until the road becomes the bridge overpass where the pipe would be located underneath the bridge structure for the length of bridge until the road returns to grade level where the pipe is then below grade and terminates at ST A. 1 + 630.000. The pipe would be located entirely within public right-of-way. As part of the Elliott Bridge replacement project a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was completed as may be referenced in this report as the "Draft SEIS", dated October 2002. Another document that is frequently referenced in this checklist is the Elliott Bridge Replacement Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final 4(f) Evaluation dated August 1995 and will be referred to as the "Final EIS". Project construction is proposed to start approximately May 2004 and be completed in May 2005. The work would coincide with the bridge replacement. When installation is complete, the sewer will be dry as it will not reach areas where sewer service in needed until it is extended at a later date. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE XX Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation is recommended. Advisory Notes to Applicant: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. The following notes are supplemental Information provided In conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as Information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. The applicant is to obtain applicable King County permits, Property Services: 1. No fees are triggered. ercrpl_Elliot1.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department I ELLIOTT BRIDGE SANITARY SEWER P ECT Environmt 'Review Committee Staff Report LUA·04-036, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 20, 2004 Page 3 of 5 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project Impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The site where the sanitary sewer would be located (in conjunction with the bridge work) is flat near SR 169 and becomes hilly as 154th PL SE progresses north of the Cedar River. The maximum slope would be 10% at the north end of the site. The SEPA checklist states that the following types of soils are found on site: Alderwood and Kitsap Soils, mixed alluvial and Puyallup fine sandy loam. According to the Final EIS, "The Alderwood and Kitsap soils on the steep slope are prone to landslide and erosion. The road would not be constructed in this area." The sewer line will be beneath the roadway pavement or the bridge deck for its entire length. If any unstable soils are encountered, they will be stabilized during road construction. Construction of the sewer project will not require grading or filling of the site. When backfilling the trench, native material will be used (that which was removed during excavation) if it meets standards. If the native material is not of an appropriate quality, imported backfill from an approved source will be used. Erosion control requirements for the bridge replacement project have been addressed in the plans and specifications for the bridge project based on information contained in the Draft SEIS and the Final EIS. No sewer construction is proposed to take place outside of the project limits for the bridge replacement project. Any erosion resulting from the sewer project is expected to be minor compared with the impact due to road construction. The Contractor will be responsible for meeting the erosion control requirements set forth in the Bridge Replacement plans and specifications regardless of whether the Contractor is installing sewer line or doing other types of work. No erosion is anticipated to occur after the sewer line is complete. It appears the applicant will utilize measures to reduce potential erosion impacts to the site; therefore, no further mitigation measures are recommended. For the proposed bridge construction, vegetation would be removed; however, no additional removal would be required for the sanitary sewer installation. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report for the Elliott Bridge No. 3166 Replacement, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc., dated April 4, 2003. The report evaluated the surface and subsurface conditions of the site including but not limited to: soils, seismic hazards, earthwork, stormwater and erosion. The sanitary sewer line is proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the bridge work under the jurisdiction of King County; therefore, no further mitigation is recommended. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 2. Air and Noise Impacts: A large quantity of earth will be excavated, moved and removed during the construction process for the bridge replacement and subject sanitary sewer project. Dust and exhaust from construction equipment would occur during the project. Maintenance activities will cause temporary emissions from construction equipment. ercrpt_Elllott.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department Environm . Review Committee Staff Report ELLIOTT BRIDGE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT LUA·04·036, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 20. 2004 Page 4 0'5 Short term noise from construction equipment would occur between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The applicant has indicated that equipment and construction of this project will meet federal, state, and local emissions requirements; therefore no further mitigation is recommended. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 3. Wetlands/Surface Water Impacts: The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River. The bridge will pass over two wetlands identified as wetlands "0" and "E" on the bridge construction drawings. The bottom of the bridge will be above ground level where it passes over the wetlands. The sewer line will not pass over the wetlands but will be installed above the wetland buffer. The sewer line will also pass over a sliver of wetland in an area where a road embankment is to be constructed. The work will be performed over the Cedar River. Steel casing pipe would be attached to the underside of the new bridge deck with hangers that carry the pipe. Once the hangers are in place, steel casing pipe would be set on the supports. Each section of casing pipe would then be welded to its neighbor. Once the casing pipe is in place and has satisfactorily passed hydrostatic testing, the HOPE carrier pipe would be dragged or pushed in to place within the casing pipe. The wetlands will be required to be protected according to King County Wetland Development Standards (i.e. buffer, permitted alterations, permits/exemptions); therefore, no further mitigation measures are recommended. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/ A 4. Shorelines Impacts: Cedar River Park Is immediately adjacent to the project site. Adjacent uses include agriculture and single-family residential. The Cedar River is designated "Conservancy" under King County designations. The sanitary sewer falls under the Shoreline Substantial Development permit that King County Department of Public Works is obtaining from King County Department of Development and Environmental Services; therefore, staff does not recommend further mitigation. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 5. Ground Water Impacts: As identified In the SEPA checklist, dewatering would occur in the pipeline trenches during construction. The ground water that is withdrawn would be routed to the existing King County Cedar River Interceptor sewer for disposal. Sewer construction below the water table is expected to last less than four weeks. The groundwater withdrawal is necessary so that the sewer pipe can be installed "in the dry." Once the pipe installation is complete, groundwater withdraw would cease. The water quantity to be withdrawn is not known at this time. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A ercrpt_Elliott.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department Environml Review Committee Staff Report ELLIOTT BRIDGE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT LUA-04-036, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 20, 2004 PageS 0(5 6. Transportation Impacts: The site is served by SR 169 and by 154th Place SE. The sanitary sewer project would be part of the bridge replacement and 154th PL SE. It is anticipated that the King County SEPAIEIS review of the replacement would adequately address the import and export of material as well as truck traffic. The proposed sewer would not require the export nor the import of material. Traffic and haul routes would be included as part of the King County bridge replacement project. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been Incorporated Into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ! Caples of all Review Comments are contained In the Official File. __ Caples of al/ Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM May 10, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ercrpt_Elllott.doc City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: \1 0(" S APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-036, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 29, 200 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Elliott Brid PLAN REVIEW: SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA LOCATION: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 1541h WORK ORDER NO: 77239 PI SE SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to install an 18 Inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go -north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge-approach.--At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck in the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be installed above the wetland buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Informatlon Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh HousinrJ Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Hlstorlc/CuJtural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS 'Ihvu O/lt fZU~~6 6&J, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: ELLIOT BRIDGE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT LUA-04-036, ECF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY. NORTH FROM SR 169 ALONG 154"' PLACE SE The proposal Is to install an 18 inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge.The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck in the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM May 10, 2004, Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. APFeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additiona information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the .proJect NtJMBER':~.hei'\;ca.lllqgfor proper fII~ldentlflcatlon. CITY Ol~ RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRA TEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: April 7, 2004 Sus~»~lja Rebfc~a\t~ Don Erickson Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project, SR 169 & 1520d Ave SE, north of Jones RD & 154 Place SE; LUA-04-036, ECF The applicant, King County, is proposing to install an 18-inch diameter sanitary sewer on the new El1iott Bridge. For the crossing of the river, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck in the bays between the girders. The proposed bridge is the boundary of the Urban Growth Area and is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. It is designated Residential Low Density on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Because the site is currently outside the City and not part of a prezoned area such as for proposed annexations, it has not been assigned a future zoning designation. Current King County zoning is Rural Area (RA-5), one unit per five acres. The proposed project is identified in the Transportation Element under the Renton Arterial Plan (Table 1.4) as Item 34. Elliott Bridge - Jones Road to SR-169, bridge replacement. Similarly, Policy U-69 is relevant. Policy U-69. Allow the extension of sanitary sewer services within the City's Potential Annexation Area according to such criteria as the City may require. The proposed sewer line is consistent with the Wastewater Utility Services Sewer Plan for the East Renton Plateau portion of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. Recommendation: Support this proposed project. cc: Don Erickson Docllmenl2\cor City of Renton Deparlment of Planning / Bui/ding / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Cc::oVlOW\I'G, COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 12, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-036, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 29, 2004 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Elliott Brid PLAN REVIEW: SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA LOCATION: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 1541h WORK ORDER NO: 77239 PI SE SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to install an 18 inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott' ~~Pa~~i?G· Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152n ve. north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge decl< in the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154 th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be installed above the wetland buffer. . A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e,g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment MInor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts. Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Planls Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Ulllilies Animals Transportation Environmental Health Pubtlc Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We I!ave reviewed /Ms applica/ion witl! particular attention to those areas in which we have expenise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wllere additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or AuUl0rized Representative Roulin9·doc Date Rev. 10193 CIty of Renton Department of Planning / Bui/ding / Public Works E N V I RON MEN. TAL & D EVE LOP MEN TAP P Lie A T ION REV lEW SHE E T APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-036, ECF APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT TITLE: Elliott Brid SITE AREA: LOCATION: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 1541h PI SE COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 12,2004 DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 29, 2004 PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PLAN REVIEW: BUILDING AREA WORK ORDER NO: 77239 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to install an 18 inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck in the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will rLin up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be installed above the wetland buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Eloment of tile Probable Probable More Etoment of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Informatioll Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utililles Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/CuI/ural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS ave reviewed this applicatioll with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and Ilave identified areas of probable impact or wllere additiona i -is needed to pr. perly assess this proposal. Date I j . Rev. 10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -:;~Qt!.e.lWa-;.{-.e..w~"'COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 12,2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-036, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT TITLE: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project SITE AREA: LOCATION: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 1541h PI SE DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 29, 2004 PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala ~ I U,. HEN'/ C;~ R ECEIVFn PLAN REVIEW: MAn 1'\,. ... BUILDING AREA (gross):' "onn J II LUU1 WORK ORDER NO: 77239 aU/LOJNG OIVtSJQI\~ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to install an 18 inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar .. Rlver beneath the·embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer-will be suspended····· beneath the bridge decl< In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, th~ sewer willJ1!I!..!dQ 154th Place SE to a.ne~ llliIobaJaat the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft .. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not. pass over the nearby wetlands but will be installed above tile wetland buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of tho Probable Probable More Element oftho Probable Probablo More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Envlronmont Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aestlletlcs Waler LlghllGlare Planls Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Heal/h Public Services Energy/ Hlstoric/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with parlicular attention to those areas in which we Ilave expertise and Ilave identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess tllis proposal. ~f!~~ Signature of Director or Autilorized Representative Routing.doc Date Rev. 10/93 I City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 12, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-036, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 29, 2004 CITY OF RF'NTm APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala RECEIVED PROJECT TITLE: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project PLAN REVIEW: MAR ~ n ?nn4 SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): LOCATION: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 1541h WORK ORDER NO: 77239 UUIL.Ull'j~ U'VI~jVb'll PI SE SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to install an 18 inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar-River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer··will be suspended beneath the bridge deck In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154 th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be inslalled above the wetland buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Elament of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Informal/on' Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LlghVGlare Plants Recreallon Land/Shoreline Use Utll/lles Animals Transportallon Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoriclCul/ural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. We IJave reviewed IIlls application wit!l particular allention to t!lose areas in w!lic!l we Ilave expertise and !lave identified areas of probable impact or areasr additional information is needed to properly assess t!lis proposal. fL~ ~ ftpf~ Ztc)o4- Signature of Director or AuthofJZedRel)feSefl f3 Date Routing.doc Rev. 10193 -. \-.J City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Co~~"OVl ~ v'eJ:, , APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-036 ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT TITLE: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project SITE AREA: LOCATION: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 1541h PI SE COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 12, 2004 DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 29, 2004 PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala £!T! .. .o!..f1E~!O';; "" PLAN REVIEW: BUILDING AREA (gross): MAR 30 2004 WORK ORDER NO: 77239 BUILDING OI"ls.:lQ~ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to install an 18 Inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck in the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be installed above the wetland buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Moro Environment Minor Mlllor Information Impacts Impacts Nocessary Envlronmont MInor Mlllor Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Ealth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Reeroatlon Land/Shorelino Uso UII/Illos Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Sorvlcos Energy/ Hlstoric/Culturat Natural Rosollrees Prosorvatlon Airport Envlronmont 10,000 Feel 14,000 Feel B, POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS f/OWe We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where dditional information is needed t~properly assess this proposal. Rev. 10/93 City of Renton Deparlment of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ";i (".{L. COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 12 2004 ., APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-036, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: M ~eld ai!.~ 2~~ ~ r \\7 ~ ~ I~b.~r. .~ \SI l!::l ; .. """ APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: ~ "lelia PROJECT TITLE: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project PLAN REVIEW: :\n, """. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): U U MAn J U l.uu't l.-I SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 154'h LOCATION: WORK ORDER NO: 772 9 Cil\' Or-F.ENTO;IJ PI SE rH,r I rr~\H~'[,1f)JT -SU MMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal Is to install an 18 Inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go . north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the .. river-crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154 th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wellands but will be installed above the wetland buffer. ., A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of/he Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary EnvIronment Minor Major Information . impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air AestheITcs Water Light/Glare Plants RecreaITon Land/Shoreline Use Utl/ilTes Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS ,1 A). ~ ~ rJp Wtff/ el17 ~ it parlieular attention to those areas in which we have experlise flnd have identifie.d areas of probable impact or .....,...-.. .-eud,ed to properly assess this proposal. J !J.4/a1 Date (I Rev. 10193 ) City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Plan ~\e.w COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 12,2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-036, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 29, 2004 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project PLAN REVIEW: SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): LOCATION: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 154th WORK ORDER NO: 77239 PI SE SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal Is to install an 18 Inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River· beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will·be suspended· beneath the bridge deck In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154 th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be installed above the wetland buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of tho Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Informal/on Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Informal/on Impacts Impacts Necossary Earth Housing Air Aesthellcs Waler LlghtIG/are Plants Racreallon Land/Shoreline Usa Util/llas Animals Transportallon Environmental Haallh Public Sarvicas Energy/ HislorlclCullural Natural Resources Presarvallon Airport Environmenl 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE·RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additiona/informatlon is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Routing.doc Date Rev. 10193 City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-036, ECF APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT TITLE: Elliott Brid PLAN REVIEW: SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA LOCATION: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE north to Jones Rd & 154th WORK ORDER NO:' 77239 PI SE SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to install an 18 Inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go . --north towards the Cedar River beneath the embanl<ment for the bridge-approach.-At the· river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge decl< In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the nood plain area lying on the south side of the river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wetlands but will be installed above the wetland buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non·Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element olthe Probable Probablo More Environment Minor MElior Information Environment Minor MElior Information . Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Nocossary Earth HOllslng Air Aesthetics Wator L1r1ht1G/are Plants Recroatlon I.and/Shorellne Use Utlfltlos Animals Transportal/on "/ Environmenlal Heal/h PubliC Sorvlcos Y' Energy/ HlstorlcICul/ural Nalural Resources Proservatlon Airport Envlronmont 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLlCY·RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE·RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this a Ii tl n with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wJlere additional I 0 i 11 is needed to properly assess this proposal. { 3/~ \-0_ Signature of Director or Authorized Repre Date Routing.doc Rev. 10/93 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: March 29, 2004 LUA04"()36, ECF Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project The proposal Is to Install an 16 Inch diameter sanitary sewer on the Elliott Bridge. The Elliott Bridge Replacement Is King County's responsibility. The new sewer will start near the Intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Ave. SE and go north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing. the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing. ,the sewer will run up 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project for a total distance of 2,000 ft. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of Ihe river. The sewer line will not pass over the nearby wellands but will be Inslalled above the wetiand buffer. SR 169 & 15200 Ave SE norlh 10 Jones Rd & 154th Place SE In King Counly OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE, MITtGATED (DNS·M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renlon has determined that significant e nvlronmenlall mpacts are unlikely lor esult f rom I he proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110, the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS-M process 10 give notice that a DNS- M Is likely to be Issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are Inlegrated Inlo a single commenl period. There will be no comment period following t he Issuance 0 f t he Threshold 0 etermlnation 0 f N on-Slgnlflcance- Mitigated (ONS·M). A 14·day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 17, 2004 March 29,2004 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: John Hobson Tel: (425) 430·7279 Email: Jhobson@cl.renton.wa.us Permlts/Rovlew Requestod: Environmental (SEPA) Review Other Permits which may be required: N/A Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Department. Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Envlronmontal Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Under the Jurisdiction of King County -Zoned: AR-5P and Comprehensive Plan designation Is Urban. SEPA Checklist The project will be subject to the City's Environmental Procedures, Public Works Standards and other codes and regulations where applicable. Proposed MItigation Moasures: No further mitigation Is recommended at this time. Comments o'n the above a'ppllclitlon 'must be submitted In writing to Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development S!lnYICE1S Plvlslon, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on April 12, 2004. If you have questions ab9pt this proposal. or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager, Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any deCI~ion on this project. ' , ' GONTACT PERSON: Susan Fiala Tel: (425) 430·7382 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLiNG F.OR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I , i i If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further Information on this proposed project, complete tris form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. ~ile No.lName: LUA04-036, ECF NAME: ------------------------------------------------------- ~DDRESS:----------------------------------------------- ,TELEPHONE NO.: _________ _ ~4~ , liilrl ..&I. -Kathy Keolker·Wheeler, Mayor CITY •. r MNTON '. ' PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator March 29; 2004 John Hobson City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project' LUA·04·036, ECF Dear Mr. Hobson: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the , subject application is complete according to submittal 'requirements and,' therefore, is accepted for review. , , It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by th'eEnvlronniental Review Committee on April 20, 2004. Prior. to that revi,ew; you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your applicatiOn.' " , Please contact me at (425)0430';7382 if ybu,h~lVe'any qllestions.' A~ Susan Fiala Senior Planner cc: King County IOwn'er, ------)-OS-S-s-o-ut-h-a-ra-d-y-W-ay-.-R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-g-0S-S------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled matenal, 30% 'POSt consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: March 29, 2004 To: John Hobson From: Susan Fiala ~ Subject: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project LUA-04-036, ECF The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on April 20, 2004. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at 430-7382 if you have any questions. Acceptance Memo.doc 004-D~ (-'boL.\ -0 ~b '1-dL\ -OL\ t3 :Vf' ,~ .... -; IT ~1 _ANNING -. H" ")N City of Renton Mt\~ ~ 7 2004 R~~l\;.~VIED LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: King County ADDRESS: 500 Fourth Ave Ste. 500 CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98104 TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (If other than owner) NAME: City of Renton COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP:98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-430-7279 CONTACT PERSON NAME: John Hobson Wastewater Utility Supervisor COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP:98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 4254307279 jhobson@ci.renton.wa.us W:\WWP-27-2'lR6 Elliotl Bridge SnnilUry Scwcr\SEPA\EllintU:lridgc_Master Ap.doc 02/04104 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer Project PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: Intersection of Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) and 152nd Avenue SE north to Intersection of Jones Rd and 1541h PI SE, Unincorporated King County KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 232305-9015,9018, and 9052 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Open Space PROPOSED LAND USE(S): No changes proposed EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Urban per King County PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable):N/A EXISTING lONING:ln Public Right-of Way adjacent to AR-5P (Kina Countv. PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A SITE AREA (in square feet): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): N/A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A PRO,' ~T INFORMATION continuf'·' ~. NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A PROJECT VALUE: $700,000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA. PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE BUILDINGS (if applicable): Cl SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL Cl AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): ."" FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL Cl GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. BUILDINGS (if applicable): Cl HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): ~ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if 'Ji..,WETLANDS sq. ft. applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information Included) SITUATE IN THE ,J\.J QUARTER OF SECTION ~, TOWNSHIP Z. 3>, RANGE2, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. fiI1 \11 f'(';11fYk1.,t-Jpt iZW1.W \ oc:o I~ 2. ~~ PtAmd ~tvt5 ~ 3. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ lj.·t '-\~ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I. (Print Name/s) ~oHbJ jdPBS.Pb J . declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or ~ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers ereln contained and the Information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that.J t;;;,)..\N ~~ 8> t:::>1\\ signed this instrument and acknowledged It to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned In the Instrument. _____ ~ ()A J ....... "",,,'\\ ~ ......... p..J P IIIII _-=~=' ='='=~-=-~f-'-' "'--_---'-~'----"=___._-<"I..~S ••• : ... ~~ " !' <q~"'~~S\ON s:-t .... ~ \ Notary Public In and for th State of Washington , ~ .. ~~ ~ '.1' I ; :'0 ~OTAf:iy~'" ~ , :0 (f): ~ ~: ... -: ~ ~ --r-0 ~ \ PUBUC /~i Notary (PrrntjfUL~-11~ .. ~ tt~'.!.O'19-0: ..... ~C:f "" ~ 0 ......... I(.\~ .. --~ I '" f:WAS ......... .. I b --l --~ .11\\"" ......... ... My appointment expires;, _________ .......L-_ W:\WWP-27-29R6 Elliott Bridge Sunitnry Scwer\SEPA\ElliotU3ridgc_Mastcr Ap.doc 02104/04 232305921008 MAR 1 232305921008 AQUA BARN RANCH INC 7 2D04AQuA BARN RANCH INC 15227 MAPLE VALLEY HWYi'\\fC:~!Ee'J.9i!'!:~15227 MAPLE VALLEY HWY RENTON WA 98055 1t'i![I,;~~~ W bli:.URENTON WA 98055 232305917709 BERGERON DONNA PO BOX 6265 KENT W A 98064 730290005000 DUNCAN MICHAEL C+MARY R 14518 152ND PL SE RENTON W A 98056 232305914003 GLOVER LELAND E & ERIKA E 15408 SE JONES RD RENTON W A 98058 108180029002 JOHNSON KEITH A 15551 SE 148TH ST RENTON W A 98059 232305901802 KJNGCOUNTY 500 KC ADMIN BLDG 500 4th Av SEATTLE WA 98104 232305906603 KING COUNTY KC ADMIN BLDG RM 500 500 4th Av SEATTLE WA 98104 232305909300 KING COUNTY WATER DIST 90 15606 SE 128TH RENTON W A 98059 108180027006 LANE LINDA L 15550 SE 148TH ST RENTON W A 98059 232305910803 MIDDLETON JOHN 15255 150TH LN SE RENTON W A 98058 232305911207 BlSHOP JOE C & LYNN A 14860 154TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305903006 FRENCH DOUGLAS F 15258 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305912106 GRIM ELIZABETH L PO BOX 566 RENTON W A 98055 108180051006 KlNGCOUNTY 500 KC ADMIN BLDG 500 4th A v SEATTLE WA 98104 232305905209 KING COUNTY 500 FOURTH AVENUE Suite 500A SEATTLE WA 98104 232305907106 KING COUNTY 500 FOURTH AVE RM 500 SEATTLE WA 98104 232305911900 KORBECKI JOSEPH F 15225 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305917808 MADDEN FRANCES C 15209 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305911108 MIHALIK JOSEPH 15222 SE JONES RD RENTON W A 98055 232305913708 BARDEN ERIC R+SJRI N 26521 SE 37TH ST ISSAQUAH W A 98029 232305905803 DUETT NEAL K & MARY L 14820 154TH PL SE RENTON W A 98058 232305911405 GLOVER LELAND E & ERIKA E 15408 SE JONES RD RENTON W A 98058 108180028004 JOHNSON KEITH A 15551 SE 148TH ST RENTON W A 98059 232305901505 KING COUNTY 500 4TH A V SUITE 500 A SEATTLE WA 98104 232305906108 KING COUNTY 500 4TH A V #500 SEATTLE WA 98104 232305908906 KING COUNTY 500 4TH AVE Room 500 SEATTLE WA 98104 232305912502 KORBECKI JOSEPH F 15225 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305913005 MEYER MICHELLE MARIE 14840 154TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305910902 MUIRHEAD ROSS & MICHELLE 14866 154TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305902107 NEW LIFE CHURCH @ RENTON 15711 152ND A V SE RENTON W A 98057 232305909805 ROSENBAUM L L 15059 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 232305901406 STEEN ROBERT J 15224 150TH LN SE RENTON W A 98058 232305902107 NEW LIFE CHURCH @ RENTON 15711152NDAVSE RENTON WA 98057 232305904301 SCRIBNER PATRICK F 15035 SOUTHEAST JONES RD RENTON WA 98055 232305909508 STEW ART JOI-IN D+BETIY M 14665 154TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 730290006008 RICHARDSON CHAD+CAROL 14514 152ND PL SE RENTON W A 98059 232305912205 SHIREY RILEY L+DONNA M 1042 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY BELLEVUE W A 98008 232305911504 TALLEY JOI-IN N 15414 JONES RD RENTON WA 98055 ) l ELOPMENT SERVICES-DIVISION .. DEVElr _NT PU WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS C· JF RENT( 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS MAR 1 7 2C" [g1rE(c~~v : -"r,\e-\:\~~s ~~ \-It\t¥\ ~ '~e~Qr-t- -C;rc.d\I('\.~~\~ ~ ~* ~\ . iV\'~ '~ . . c,Jo;;:...\' ~ \"t-. \....es., ':1:':,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:-:,:,,, ........ ' • PROJECT NAME: Ell; C)J.I 2:e1 dtjf .:§ eVV III DATE: '1&;bJ Q:\WEB\Pw\DEVSERv\Forms\Plannlng\waiver.xls DEVELOPMENT SERVICES·DIVISIC WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 , Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1.1 Property Services Section 2.' Public Works Plan Review Section 3'1 Building Section 4.: Development Planning Section \ PROJECT NAME: ~~~/.u..Z.u.1 o'-l.,t.;z;..V---=-=I5.~€!t;:;&ja):L.;~~ ............. ~~t~V'd~L __ DATE: __ ---=--/..::::;~t-h~/.?~3:....--___ _ I 7 Q:\WEB\Pw\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 1 \ br.VF.LO?MEi~T PU\/'J!'·.JiNG CITY OF RE!'fraN Elliott Bridge Rep]acement Sewer Project Construction Mitigation Description Construction of the Bridge Replacement Project is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2004. Construction should be complete by 2006. The project is scheduled to go out to bid in early 2004. Until a Contractor is selected, the hours and days of construction operations will not be known. The same Contractor who is building the new Elliott Bridge will construct the sewer project. Bridge construction wi II entail considerable clearing, grading and traffic impacts. Because the sewer wi II be installed as part of the bridge project, any additional impacts stemming from the sewer construction are expected to be minimal. The bridge replacement project includes a considerable amount of landscaping and stream restoration along with measures to prevent erosion and siltation. The temporary erosion and siltation control measures that are set forth on the bridge construction drawings will prevent the small contribution of silty water resulting from sewer construction from damaging areas outside of the clearing limits. An emergency spill control plan will be developed and implemented during the construction period to reduce or control any accidental spills or leaks from construction equipment. The traffic control plan for the Bridge Replacement Project of which the sewer project is a part, appears on sheets TC-l to TC-3 in the Elliott Bridge Replacement plan set. The road closure plan appears on sheet RC-I. C;\J)ocumenls and Sellings\dchrislensen\Local Sellings\Temp\Conslrucl_Milignlion.doc King County Road Services Division Department of Transportation KSC-TR-0231 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 October 16, 2003 David Christensen Wastewater Utility Supervisor PlanninglBuildingiPublic Works Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: SEPA Lead Agency for the Sewer Line Construction for Sewer Service to the East Maplewood Area Dear Mr. Christensen: DEV'c:l,'rO?IlJ1t:F.JT i='U, .>i<, '1', I'", \'OF'" 1,,\', .;1 -nETlrrO[IJ " ... The King County Department of Transportation is in receipt of your comment letter dated December 5, 2002 on the Elliott Bridge replacement project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS). We understand from your letter that the City of Renton, as the service provider and owner for a sanitary sewer system, proposes to provide sewer service to the East Maplewood area in accordance with its Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan. As stated in the response to your letter included in the Final SEIS, King County has and wiII continue to coordinate with the City of Renton on the sewer utility work and will incorporate a complete and final set of the City's plans and specifications for the work into the contract for the bridge replacement. The impa.:::t :mnly:;i3 for the sewer work, hO'~vevi;;r, was uut~ide ~he s~ope uf i.he SEIS and was not included in that document. We understand that the City of Renton as lead agency will conduct its own impact analysis of the sewer utility work under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). In accordance with WAC 197-11-926, because your agency has initiated the proposal for the sewer work, you will be the SEP A lead agency for that work. We agree that although we share 'in the implementation of the sewer work, the City of Renton is the SEP A lead agency for this proposal. David Christensen October 16, 2003 Page 2 If you have any questions, or need additional infonnation, please call Tina Morehead at (206) 296-3733. Sincerely, /l ~ ~ • CJJ1tt~ Wally Archuleta Managing Engineer WA:TM:mr cc: Ronda Strauch, Supervising Environmental Engineer, Environmental Unit Larry Jaramillo, Supervising Engineer, Capital Projects Engineering Unit Tina Morehead, Senior Environmental Engineer, Environmental Unit DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAR 1 72D94 Elliott Bridge Replacement Sewer Project Project Narrative The proposal calls for the installation of an 18 inch diameter sanitary sewer as part of King County's Elliott Bridge Replacement. The new sewer will OJiginate at an existing manhole near the intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Avenue SE. The sewer will run north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck in the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run up 1541h Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project. The distance from the existing manhole to the telminus of the project is about 600 meters or 2,000 feet. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River and the flood plain area lying on the south side of the river. In the flood plain area, portions of the bridge will pass over 2 wetlands identified as wetlands "D" and "E" on the bridge construction drawings. The bottom of the bridge will be 3 to 4 meters above ground level where it passes over the wetlands. The sewer line will not pass over the wetlands but will be installed above the wetland buffer. When installation is complete, the sewer will be dry, as it will not reach areas where sewer service is needed until it is extended at a later date. The portion of the pipeline included in this proposal is being constructed as an element of the Elliott Bridge Replacement in the interest of cost savings and minimizing environmental impacts. Except for a small portion of the work on SR ] 69, the land where the sewer is to be placed is owned by King County. The project is located in unincorporated King County and lies to the east of the corporate limits of the City of Renton. In a letter dated October 161\ 2003, the King County Department of Transportation authorized the City of Renton to conduct its own impact analysis of the sewer utility work. (Jfii1) 1/5/04 C:\DocllmenlS nnd Seltings\dchristcnsen\Local Settings\Temp\Project_Nnrrative.doc Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1 . Name of proposed project, if applicable: Elliott Bridge Replacement, Sanitary Sewer 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton· Wastewater Utility 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Contact: John Hobson· (425) 430·7279 OR: Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1601 Second Avenue, Suite 1000 Seattle WA 98101·1541 Contact: Brian Vanderburg· (206) 441·1855 4. Date checklist prepared: March 12,2004 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Begin Construction Complete Construction May, 2004 May, 2005 MAR 1 7 2004 rRECE~VtD 7. Do you have any plans for future' additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, it is anticipated that the sewer described in this checklist will eventually be extended north along 1541h PL SE to serve properties that have no public sewer service at present. When further construction is contemplated, a separate SEPA checklist will be prepared. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The Elliott Bridge No. 3166 Replacement, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is referenced frequently in this SEPA Checklist. It will be referred to as the Draft SEIS. This document is dated October 2002. W:\WWI'-27-2986 Elliott Bridge Sanilury Scwerl.S EI'AI.SEI'A_Ellioll_Scw. DOC ·2· Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist Another document that Is frequently referenced in this checklist Is the Elliott Bridge Replacement Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final 4(f) Evaluation dated August 1995. It will be referred to as the Final EIS. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. King County is preparing contract documents for construction of the Elliott Bridge Replacement project. It Is anticipated that the Elliott Bridge Sewer will be Installed as part of the bridge replacement project. The required governmental approvals for the bridge replacement are listed on page II and iii of the Draft SEIS. Copies of pages II and III from the Draft SIES have been attached. See Attachment No.1. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Department of Ecology approval for sewer project. An Approval Letter from the King County Wastewater Treatment Division regarding connection to the existing Cedar River Interceptor Sewer. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The proposal calls for the Installation of an 18 inch diameter sanitary sewer as part of King County's Elliott Bridge Replacement. The new sewer will originate at an existing manhole near the Intersection of SR 169 and 152nd Avenue SE. The sewer will run north towards the Cedar River beneath the embankment for the bridge approach. At the river crossing, the sewer will be suspended beneath the bridge deck In the bays between the girders. North of the river crossing, the sewer will run north along 154th Place SE to a new manhole at the end of the project. The distance from the existing manhole to the terminus of the project Is about 600 meters or 2,000 feet. When Installation is complete, the sewer will be dry as it will not reach areas where sewer service Is needed until It Is extended at a later date. The portion of the pipeline Included In this proposal is being constructed as an element of the Elliott Bridge Replacement in the Interest of cost savings and minimizing environmental Impacts. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, Including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The sanitary sewer will be located In Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The precise location Is shown on the attached plan and profile sheets. See Attachment No.5. W:\WWP-27-29R6 Ellioll Bridge Sanilnry Sewcr\SEPA\sEPA_Ellioll_Sew.DOC -3- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat. rolling. !:l!!rl. steep slopes. mountainous. other _____ _ The site Is flat near SR 169, becoming hilly as It climbs the hili on the north side of the Cedar River. See the attached plan and profile sheets. See Attachment No.5. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Maximum slope Is approximately 10%. The maximum slope occurs In the northerly portion of the project approximately 500 meters north of SR 169. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example. clay. sand. gravel. peat. mUCk)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils. specify them and note any prime farmland. The following types of solis are found on site: Alderwood and Kltsap Solis, Mixed alluvial land, Puyallup fine sandy loam. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so. describe. According to the Final EIS, "The Alderwood and Kltsap solis on the steep slope are prone to landslide and erosion. The road would not be constructed In this area." The sewer line will be beneath the roadway pavement or the bridge deck for Its entire length. If any unstable solis are encountered, they will be stabilized during road construction. e. Describe the purpose. type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Construction of the sewer project will not require grading or filling of the site. When backfilling the trench, native material will be used (that which was removed during excavation) If It meets standards. If the native material Is not of an appropriate quality, Imported backfill from an approved source will be used. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing. construction. or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion control requirements for the bridge replacement project have been addressed In the plans and specifications for the bridge project based on information contained In the Draft SEIS and the Final EIS. No sewer construction will take place outside of the project limits for the bridge replacement project. Any erosion resulting from the sewer project Is expected to be Inconsequential compared with the Impact due to road construction. The Contractor will be responsible for meeting the erosion control requirements set forth In the Bridge Replacement plans and specifications regardless of whether the Contractor Is Installing sewer line or doing other types of work. No erosion will occur after the sewer line Is complete. W:\WWI'-27-2986 Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewcr\sEPA\sEI'A_Elliott_Sew.DOC -4- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? There will not be any new Impervious surfaces resulting from this project. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR Sedimentation and erosion control measures will be employed during construction as detailed In the contract documents for the project. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, on-site emissions will consist of fugitive dust and emissions from construction equipment. These are anticipated to be minor and largely confined near the site. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3. WATER Equipment and construction of this project shall meet federal, state, and local emissions requirements. a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The sewer line will cross over the Cedar River. The bridge will pass over 2 wetlands Identified as wetlands "0" and "E" on the bridge construction drawings. The bottom of the bridge will be 3 to 4 meters above ground level where It passes over the wetlands. The sewer line will not pass over the wetlands but will be Installed above the wetland buffer. The sewer line will also pass over a sliver of wetland BIF In an area where a road embankment Is to be constructed. The location of these wetlands Is shown on Figure 10 from the Final Supplemental EIS. A copy of Figure 10 has been attached to this checklist. See Attachment No.2, Figure 10. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, work will be performed over the Cedar River. Steel casing pipe will be attached to the underside of the new bridge deck. The hangers that will carry the pipe are detailed on sheet S34 and S35 of King County's Elliott Bridge Replacement W:IWWp·27·298fl Ellioll Bridge Sanil:1ry Sewerl.<; EPAIS EPA_Ellioll_Sew, DOC -5- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist drawings. Once the hangers are In place, steel casing pipe will be set on the supports. Each section of casing pipe will be welded to its neighbor. Once the casing pipe is in place and has satisfactorily passed hydrostatic testing, the HOPE carrier pipe will be dragged or pushed In to place within the casing pipe. Plans are attached showing the extent of the sewer work to be performed. See Attachment No.5. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetiands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None for the sewer project. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if. known. None for the sewer project. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 ~O-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes, portions of the project lie within the 100 year flood plain. The location of the 100 year flood plain is shown on Figure 8 from the Final Supplemental EIS. A copy of Figure 8 has been attached to this report. See Attachment No.2, Figure 8. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Dewatering will occur In the pipeline trenches during construction. The ground water that is withdrawn will be routed to the existing King County Cedar River Interceptor sewer for disposal. Sewer construction below the water table Is expected to last less than 4 weeks. The groundwater withdrawal Is necessary so that the sewer pipe can be Installed "In the dry." Once the pipe Installation is complete, groundwater withdraw will cease. Water quantity to be withdrawn Is not known at this time. The following passage Is taken from the Elliott Bridge Replacement Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Page 39: "The temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan and the stormwater pollution prevention plan will also Incorporate measures consistent with the Renton aquifer protection ordinance to protect ground water resources." The text goes on to describe how potential releases of pollutants from construction activities and associated Impacts on ground water will be controlled. W:\WWP-27-2986 Elliotll3ridge Sanitary Scwcr\sEPA\sEPA_Elliotl_Sew,DOC -6- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals, agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. This project Is to construct a sanitary sewer line and will not create a discharge of waste material into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe? Sewer line construction will not cause any changes in the runoff pattern. The sewer line will be beneath the paved road and bridge for its entire length. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: N/A 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _X_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _X_ shrubs _X_ grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The sewer project will not affect any vegetation as all sewer pipe will be installed beneath the proposed road. W:\WWP·27·29R6 Elliott I3ridge Sanitary Sewel'\SEPA\sEPA_Elliott_Sew.DOC -7- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: A wide variety of birds and animals native to the Puget Sound Lowlands are found within the study area. The more common are underlined below: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other~ misc. scavenger birds (I.e. crows) Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other misc. small mammals (I.e. squirrels) Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other . See the Draft SEIS, Plants and Animals, Affected Environment for more details. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon are present In the Cedar River. Bull Trout (Native Char) may be present. Bald Eagles are known to perch on the bank. See Plants and Animals, Affected Environment, in the Draft SEIS. Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species are specifically discussed on page 35. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Yes, Bald Eagles and Salmon use the area. See the Draft SEIS for details. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The completed sewer line will use no energy. The proposed sewer will be gravity flow. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. W:\WWp·27·2986 Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer\sEPA\SEPA_Elliot!_Sew.DOC -8- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: NIA 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. With the exception of potential fuel spills during construction, no hazardous chemicals or other health hazard risks are anticipated. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. The only anticipated emergency needs during construction would be ambulance wI paramedical personnel (In the event of a construction related accident), fire suppression equipment (in the event of a fire, or the emergency spill response team (In the event of a major fuel spill). 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Refueling areas will be equipped with appropriate equipment to comply with spill prevention and cleanup procedures established by King County. Mitigation Measures for Construction Impacts in the Draft SEIS lists other measures that will be taken to control environmental health hazards. The mitigation measures that are applicable to sewer construction Include requiring the Contractor to prepare a spill prevention and control plan for use during the project construction. The Contractor will also be required to provide a containment system while building the new bridge In order to minimize impacts to the river. Sheets EC·2 and EC·5 in the bridge plan drawing set specify how to prevent fuel spills and how to deal with them should one occur. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short·term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term noise from construction equipment would occur between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: All construction equipment shall meet all federal, state and local laws for noise restrictions. W:IWWI'-27-298o Elliott Bridge Sanitary SewerISEPAISEPA_Elliot!_Sew.DOC -9- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently improved public rights of way and single-family residential. Cedar River Park is Immediately adjacent to the project site. Adjacent uses include agriculture. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not known. Portions of site are forested with small second growth alder and cottonwood. c. Describe any structures on the site. A single family residence once stood In the proposed right of way but Is believed to have been demolished recently to enable bridge construction. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No demolition will be required for sewer construction. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The Construction zone is mostly public rights-of-way. According to the Final EIS, the sewer will cross some land zoned AR-5P. Figure 24 from the Final EIS gives more information regarding zoning classifications. See Attachment No.3. When the bridge project is complete, both the bridge and the sewer will lie entirely within dedicated right of way. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Urban per page 111-72 of the Final EIS. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Site Is designated "Conservancy." Note that the sewer falls under the Shoreline Substantial Development permit that King County Department of Public Works Is obtaining from King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Portions of the site lie within the 100 year flood plain. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. W:\WWP-27-2986 Elliott Bridge SnnitUlY Sewer\SEPA\SEPA_Elliotl_Sew.DOC -10- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer Environmental Checklist k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: N/A 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None for sewer construction. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The completed project will be at or below ground level. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. W:\WWP-27-2986 Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewcr\SEPA\SEI'A_Elliott_Sew.DOC -11- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewer-Environmental Checklist d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Cedar River Trail and Cedar River Park are close to the proposed project. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The sewer project will not affect access to these parks. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Historic sites located adjacent to the proposed sewer line are shown on the attached Figure 26 from the Final EIS. Figure 26 shows three alternative alignments for the bridge project. See Attachment No.4. Alternative 3 Is the route that will be used for both the bridge and the sewer. All of the historic sites shown on Figure 26 are at least 500 feet distant from the sewer. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. All known landmarks or objects of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance are located at least 500 feet from the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by SR 169 and by 154th Place SE. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site Is served by Metro routes 143 and 912. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? W:\WWP·27·2986 Ellioll Bridge Sanitary Scwer\sEPA\SEPA_Ellioll_Sew,DOC -12- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary SewerEnvlronmental.Checklist None. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: During construction, proper traffic control and detour routing will be used. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: The following utilities are currently available: electriCity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, cable b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Please refer to A-11 on page 2 of this document. Additional Information regarding utilities may be found on page 111-86 of the Final EIS. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance W:\WWP-27-2986 Elliott Bridge Sanitary Sewer\SEPA\SEPA_Elliott_Scw.DOC -13- Elliott Bridge Replacement Sanitary Sewe(Envlronmental Checklist that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full dis n my part. Proponent: Name Printed: John Hobson. City of Renton Wastewater Utility Date: March 12. 2004 W:IWWP-27-2986 Elliott Bridge Sanitary SewerISEPAISEPA_Ellintt_Scw.DOC -14- continue. with maintenance requirements increasing as the physical condition of the bridge declines. As the bridge continues to deteriorate, it will require widespread timber replacement, bridge deck replacement, and major steel repairs, and would eventually need to be closed for safety/operational reasons. Proposed Implementation Date: Construction is to begin April 2003 and last approximately two years. Proponent: King County Department of Transportation SEP A Lead Agency: King County Department of Transportation SEPA Responsible Official: Harold Taniguchi, Director King County Department of Transportation Lead Agency Contact Person: Tina Morehead Permits and Approval: Attachment #1 Senior Environmental Engineer King County Department of Transportation M.S. KSC-TR-31 Road Services Division King Street Center, 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104-3856 Telephone: (206) 296-3733 E-mail: tina.morehead@metrokc.gov National Marine Fisheries Service/ United States Fish and Wildlife Service ESA Section 7 Consultation and Biological Opinion United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Washington Department of Ecology National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Section 401 Water Quality Certification Washington Department ofFish & Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval Washington Department of Natural Resources State Aquatic Land Lease ii EIS Authors and Principal Contributors: Issue Date of Draft EIS: Date Comments Due: To Obtain of Copy of the Draft EIS: Date and Location of Public Hearing: Attachment #1 (Continued) -:. King County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Public Agency and Utility Exception Clearing and Grading Permit Herrera Environmental 'Consultants, Inc. Lead author Water Resources King County Plants and Animals October 18,2002 December 16, 2002 Copies may be purchased from the lead agency contact person for $15.00 plus tax. November 18, 2002 5:30-7:30 PM East Renton Community Church 13232 -1561h Avenue SE Renton, Washington iii Attachment #2 Legend r,::r: 100-Year floodplain --.... 100 -Ground elevation contour N OIiiiOiiiO~@~;;;;;;;;;~300 feet Approximate scales , ---------I , , Source: King County DOT 1999 Figure 6 I 100-Year Floodplain I IJ· I! Ii I I I I I I I I I. I I I Legend r·.~:-·I 1 :.; ... ·1 1 OO-year floodplain ~ 100-Ground elevation contour N o 300 feet 1iiiiiiiiiiiZ!!!!!!!!5iiiiiii;;;' @ o 100 meters roxlmate scales Attachment #2 Figure 8 for the Elliott .. ,' .... ". ' .. ". ". Source: King County DOT 2003 Figure 8 100-Year Floodplain .~ i ... , , . I -:-. I . Fd2 !\ RR I Approximate location ~. : of Madsen Creek '" \:k. .......... J. overflow channel ". Legend Uplands: Fd1 Deciduous forest -black cottonwood Fd2 Deciduous forest -red alder Fc Coniferous forest S Shrubland Wetland I G Grassland RR Rural residential Wetlands: PEM Palustrine emergent Attachment #2 Figure 10 PFO Palustrine forested PSS Palustrine scrub-shrub PUB Palustrine unconsolidated bottom Riparian: RF Riparian forest N 0 __ iiiii@!!!!!!!!!~iiiii3;i;;OO feet o 100 meters '---iiiiiiiiiiI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ap roximate scales Fc Wetland B/F PFO/PEM/PSS UJ C/J £ ~ .. ". '" '" '" '" Wetland A Stewart PFO Creek RF '" '" ~ '" Tributary A \1 ,/'RR , , '" .............. Modified from: King County 1995 Figure 10 Vegetation and Wetlands • • • • • • • • • • • I I I I · .. AR-5-P CEDAR RIVER PARK ~CITVOF ENTON) AR-5-P RMHP R8-7200-P Attachment #3 I Figure 24 Elliott Bridge Replacement Existing Zoning AR-5 P RMHP RS SC 8-R 5-R (15,000) SC-P CEDAR RIVER PARK (KING COUNTY) ·Rural Area, 1 unit per 5-acres .p suffix Indicates special conditions apply ·Resldentlal Mobile Home Park SC-P AR·5·P ScaJe I I o 200 ·Resldentlal SIngle Family (Number following designation Indicates minimum lot sfze In square feeL) -Suburban Cluster I 400 Feet I I I I I I I j I I I N I Eel -Suburban Residential (Number In parentheses indicates minimum lot size in square teeL) I Note: this ngure has been revised to reneet current zoning. Source,: King County Planning and Community Development Division U) U) U) 0 0 0-~ > > « « "0 "0 ..r= c ... ;-N M :! -.r w ;> (f) t""9'-Q. t""9'-"0 = M ~ ~ =-3 ~ = t""9'- ::u: ~ Figure 26 Elliott Bridge Replacement Location of Historic Resources _;',.j,.W, • • • ,.. ·a • ... • w (f) , eli SE 143rd Sl. ~ ..c -g N \I) ~ w U) a: ..c CD \I) .... w U) ii: ..r= ~ \I) Renton-AfEtple v- alley High ..... ay ( SFl76 9) RLE #324 Veenhulzen House FILE #241 The ElDon Farmstead RLE #321 The Elliott School RLE #319 Second Madsen Home RLE #445 Aqua Bam Ranch RLE #613 The DIy Nielson Bam RLE #824 EDlot! Bridge SE 1441h SI. w (f) n:: ..c iii \I) ~ N EB Not To Scale 12191 Attachment 5 Sheet 1 " .. , ......................... ...... . .. ~.... ~ ......... .. i / _.-.... -...... ;.,..._. / 1/1 ,., (') N "" SEC.23. T.23 N •• R.S E •• W.M -----~--\ ..... '''' ~...¢~ .",-:-~ 1) ~ PCSDI ~ CIaID lJIPI: IS -0-0 ------\ ~CIIs_.s3.~.om:", ~ ... _.::u:I..ODCDIS!IPII::. CII IE-. ...... .cazn UlICGDI c. ... --0- -aD 10 ~ as. f9E. --2') CIICmD IIIDE1t ", ItD'f RJaDI tEUG ------~\ ..... ~ ..... ~~~~ I ~ ! I a ~M _~ ~ __ ~. _1 __ 1 _ /:;!a. '!J"'"'"' '+:"" _ ~ \ P _____ ~ ~ w '" ::J .. _----------e ~ .'" I -=-=-to-====;~ \ II 1Coo.t ~""U5 I I i I I i I I I I I In ~. i I i ! ~ .... I I I I I i = :llt I i I N I I I ~ ! ~I ! I va"-" I »-E .... ;m. ~~J,. ~ ..... ~ 1~~~Z..e::"" .c ~ ~~1ll1 ,K i 1/1 I ;m. .c I I C.J R I 1 1 1 1 = 00 =., ......... C1FJ:If' _" I 1 i i ..... ... ! /1 I i , .:sz. l:: 311_ 8 ,.-=~'" ;-~ 1/ I I I i I ~ ! , ! .. I i 311_ --:--1 I \\ i /f T i J I I ... 1 311. ~ -, J.. ........ ..,. '--. .. ~ _l--~'-~ I i 1 i . .. ,lO . \ I ! , ! , ! .H. ~ ..... \ • I 1 , i , I I I 0 n h V r , ! ~ .H. ,\ I 1 i j I ! ~ w , 3:l. z __ I 1 , i ::J , ! , x ~ -= ~ V I , '\ I i , I I ~ 33_ C> I I .~ 1 I i I i ! I !c 1\ , , ~. , I .' I , , , ... I ME"T'RIC::: I =---r , ! I '" 32 I , V V p-I I ::J , I I ! , ... f"" ..... ~~ -j.,"--l'. t I , e -- 'L , --I I...-{ I I av= ---------"7 + ... r ! \ I .-~ 1CJIIIImc. ..... ~ y v T " ~ ; L -/ , I I , 't,,_t/' I , I -I' Il , I ~. i , i I -, ! -- I V -~. -I ---r--I' , , I i I , , I I ' 'I , Ld i I , I ,-l 28. i 1 j u.:mcaEr ! ! ,I 28. I I ! i i i V).) -.",., I , CA.Ll 2 WORKING OA Y5 D. i ,.,:.0 I I i • I ! BEfORE YOU OIC ,.,,,,, I "/~ i ! 1+2IID I , 'T= I D. 1 -800 4.24. 5555 I f1,OIIC(."'-""O".....,..I~_~1 ~1(''': !'!C(IIo..: I , 'SIJ'M:'I{J: I f[[;I. AlO No. QP'SAoI171(QQ1' m , J m KNl COlMY CEPT. OF lRANSPORTAlXlH ® se.2 'SLl""l" I!ASC IMP I I'i~ HOIIlLD DIIOlDtI. .-.:rIll OESQo ... rUlED-rolr" I,,,,,, , --PROJ[Cf No "0128e II ~ ---"''''''''' .... ..o[~~ I:: , -------SL'~"'VEY !'.Ic.~ ~ El.LJOTT ERDGE • 3186 ..., =~~ """'-~~ " , .. ".", "''' ~~ _ IIflUCDIDIT P1OI>ID:T .... -, , ""-----I ilU[ ----"""'. !~~~ .......... --\A,.\INr(;.o.A.NC[ 01V1~ION No. _,_ SEWBtPLAN ------ · .................. _ ... _.) \ t --'"'-. -....... , " " " " '\ '\ \ \ \ \ ; ) I I I I I I / I / ) ...... ........ "'1 , ..... _ ... -.. .. i i .. . , .. , ...... ( " l .... " ! ~~~-~ !, \ .. ..... 1 . , I ············-r···· I .. ··1· .. Attachment 5 Sheet 4 \ \ \ '. ;: II r \ ">::-., " \ \ \ i'C.OeDCK;- SlPM'!"1JoIr&~ otSIQoI errmm.........!2!Y """"""~ ~ ~- R ~ ~ ~ ~ .n. ~ "2- .!.9_ ~ 1 OArr _c::~~ .,-'<~' ; ~\c~( .. ~ .--,=~ .---. x "'~.'f';-~1-~";:;;;'-::--= ~ :_-r"---------.. 1-_---..... ...-41 -=="'==~""=.,.""",~~~¥-~:: ;~ Ei;<~:~&"~~"-<-", ~ .. ! ~ __ --.l..-___ .L_. --i--! ! .---;---r,--~--~ l.~L_+---.L Ii ;-~ ---t---+ ; ! -t--r". .. ~ .... l ... ,.0. • ..., :c. ..... ~ SEC.23, T.23 N., R.S E., W.t.t. t~nt 1..:JC.a:ID -~'c[.~_---::.i i / t.:t:~ -- ""'''''''''''' _m_ l !~, ~~~:::.:~;;/-- " .;,r' :-=-.. ----=-~=~~~~"":~~:~:-""<;;.~-=--~=.~:~ -,=-- ~""'--.!,",.:..I.~-:;t;~.~: 'to (}C._'" :---~ -:... .: cmo. A }.---f--j ---+----,--,-i : !ri i i c :;; --, _L ___ --r-----+-~! ~lA--! -'I ... ! :z :::i % ::! c 2 ...... ----. ---~.-"-rk673- ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ '!L ,1- "2- ~ ~- (Jlfa) fEe . .ol,;Q ~ Bl'iS "'111(001) (D KNl CCllMY CEPT. OF 1RAN5PORTAllCN 1 ... 1 --"---i~_~'::-!~.-- III~ ---=...--_SO,. ""---- ttoAOlD -.otI. DIRttTIOI B..UOTT Bfi!DGE • 3t86 PRWECtNo.~ SURY£r No.. 2J-2J-5-4.J IJ;IDC( IiD'UCDI(Nl ........cr MAL'I-;(NANCE DMSlON No. __ ,_ SEWERPl.AN tn .-= ~tn e~ .c ~ (J.c =00. .-.- ~ IIVI~ ....-.,.,..c.s -~- -.".. CALL 2 WORKING DAYS 6EFQR[ 'tOU DIG 1-800-42"'-5.555 ~~~-.-..ca.l ® SEW-5 ..en '" ...... - Printed: 03·19·2004 Payment Made: ,,--,lTV OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA04-036 03/19/2004 12: 17 PM Receipt Number: R0401379 Total Payment: 1,014.43 Payee: INTERFUND TRANSFER Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Other 1,014.43 Account Balances Amount 1,000.00 14.43 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 5006 5007 5008 5009 5010 50ll 5012 5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018 5019 5020 5021 5022 5023 5024 5036 5909 5941 5954 5955 5998 303.000.00.345.85 000.345.81.00.0002 000.345.81.00.0003 000.345.81.00.0004 000.345.81.00.0006 000.345.81.00.0007 000.345.81.00.0008 000.345.81.00.0009 000.345.81.00.0010 000.345.81.00.0011 000.345.81.00.0012 000.345.81.00.0013 000.345.81.00.0014 000.345.81.00.0015 000.345.81.00.0016 000.345.81.00.0017 000.345.81.00.0018 000.345.81.00.0019 o 000.345.81.00.0024 000.345.81.00.0005 000.341.60.00.0024 000.341.50.00.0000 604.237.00.00.0000 000.05.519.90.42.1 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD p\J>.NNING Grading & Filling Fees DE\}EL~~~~Et-rTON Lot Line Adjustment Gil' Mobile Home Parks UA.'R , 9 1.\)\)~ Rezone 1"11'\ Routine Vegetation Mgmt RECE\\'EO Shoreline Subst Dev IV Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditional Approval Fee Comprehensive Plan Amend Booklets/ErS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 '" 1. I , . j ., . ,j .. MAR 1 7 2004 ~[iCEaV{ED -' '. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Elliott Bridge. No. 3166 Replacement HWA Job No. 1996-143-21 Prepared for ABKJ, INC~ .1 April 4, 2003 ... __ ._~ .. HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. • Geotec1L11icill Engi/lceri IIg • Hyrirogeology • GeoClIl'irMlJl'ICntll1 Services · Inspectioll 6' resting i i , I , I HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Geotechnical Engineering' Hydrogeology· Geoelll'irOllnlCntlli S,'rl'ic('s ' Illiputioll .;;~ T<,sting April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 ABKJ, Inc. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Subject: Dear Brian: Mr. Brian Sperry, P.E. GEOTECHNICAL REpORT ELLIOTT BRIDGE No. 3166 REPLACEMENT King County, Washington We are pleased to submit six copies of the final Geotechnical Report for the Elliott Bridge No. 3166 Replacement project. This report addresses and incorporates the project team's comments on the draft report dated February 27,2003. We trust this geotechnical report meets your requirements at this time.' We appreciate the opportunity of providing geotechnical services on this significant and challenging project. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. Les C. BanaS Senior Geotechnical Engineer LCB:RD:LAB:lcb D~ CU[BRATING -2r ~ -1978·2003 19730· 64th Avenue W. . Suite 200 Lynnwood. WA 98036.5957 Tel: 425.774.0106 Fax: 425.774.2714 www.h~geosdences.com .. , • .. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 GENERAL ... ; .......................................................... ; ........................................ 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1 2.0 EXPLORA TJONS .................................................................................................... 2 2.1 GENERA.L ....................................................................................................... 2 2.2 FIELD RECONNAlSSANCE AND LITERA TIJRE REVIEW ..................................... 2 2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION ..................................................................................... 2 2.4 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................. 3 3.0 SITE CONDmONS ...................................................................................................... 3 3.1 GENERA.L ....................................................................................................... 3 3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CONDmONS ................................................................ 4 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDmONS ............................................................................ 5 3.3.] Soil Stratigraphy ............................................................................ 5 3.3.2 Ground Water ................................................................................ 7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOtvfMENDATIONS .................................................................. 7 4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................ 7 4.1.1 General .......................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Regional Seismicity ....................................................................... 8 4.].3 Soil Liquefaction ........................................................................... 9 4.].4 Seismic-Induced Settlement .......................................................... 1 0 4.1.5 Ground Fault Hazard ..................................................................... 1 0 4.2 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................. 1 ] 4.2.1 Allowable Axial Capacities for Deep Foundations ...................... .11 4.2.2 Allowable Axial Capacities for Deep Foundations ....................... 13 Design Parameters for Lateral Loading of Piles ...................................... 13 4.1.3 Construction Considerations ......................................................... ] 5 4.1.4 Geotechnical Monitoring of Deep Foundation Installations ......... 16 4.3 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS ..................................................................................... 17 4.3.] Lateral Earth Pressures -Static Condition ..................................... 17 4.3.2 Lateral Earth Pressures during Seismic Loading .......................... .l8 4.3.3 Abutment Wall Backfill ................................................................ 19 4.4 RETAIN1NG WALLS ........................................................................................ ] 9 4.4.1 Structural Earth Walls A, B, and C ............................................... 19 4.4.2 Wall 0 ........................................................................................... 22 4.4.3 Rockery Walls Considerations ...................................................... 22 4.5 PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSING ...................................................................... 24 4.5.1 General ......................................................... : ................................ 24 4.5.2 Foundation Support ....................................................................... 24 4.5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures .................................................................. 25 .. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 4.6 SIGNAL POLE FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................... 26 4.6.1 General .......................................................................................... 26 4.6.2 Design Considerations ................................................................... 26 4.6.3 Construction Considerations ......................................................... 26 4.7 STORMWATERPONDS .................................................................................... 27 4.7.1 Field Investigation ......................................................................... 27 4.7.2 Pilot Infiltration Test ..................................................................... 28 4.7.3 Soils Laboratory Data ............................................................. : ...... 28 4.7.4 Infiltration Rate ............................................................................. 29 Design Infiltration Rate ....................................................................... '" .. 31 4.7.5 Conclusions ................................................................................... 32 4.7.6 Domestic Water Supply Wells ...................................................... 32 4.8 DETENTION POND' A' DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ........................................ .33 4.8.1 General .......................................................................................... 33 4.8.2 Suitability of Available Materials for Construction ..................... .33 4.8.3 Liner Considerations ................................................ ~ .................... 34 4.8.4 Barrier Static Design for Pond Berm ..................... : ....................... 36 4.8.5 Barrier Seismic Design for Pond Berm ......................................... 37 4.8.6 Pond Geometry .............................................................................. 38 4.8.7 Construction Consideration ........................................................... 39 4.9 SITE EAR1lfWORKREco~ATIONS ........................................................ 39 4.9.1 Subgrade Preparation ..................................................................... 39 4.9.2 Structural Fill Materials and Compaction ..................................... 39 4.9.3 Wet Weather Earthwork ................................................................ 40 4.9.4 Embankment Fill Slopes .............................................................. .41 4.1 o TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND SHORING .................................................. .42 4.10.1 Temporary Excavations ................................................................. 42 4.10.2 Temporary Shoring ........................................................................ 43 4.11 DEWATERING AND GROUND WATER CONSIDERATIONS ............................... .43 4.12 SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONSIDERATIONS ......................................... .44 4.12.1 Surface Water Control ................................................................... 44 4.12.2 Erosion Control ............................................................................. 44 5.0 CONDmONS AND LIMlTATIONS ................................................................................. 45 6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 47 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Seismicity Parameters Used in Liquefaction Analyses ................................... 9 Table 2. Estimated Ultimate Pile Capacities for Selected Foundation Alternatives .............. , ...................................................................................... 12 Table 3. Recommended Parameters for Use in LPILE Analyses .................................. 14 04.03.03.FINAL REPORT 11 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Table 4. Recommended Design Parameters for MSE Walls ......................................... 21 Table 5. Recommended Minimum Rock Sizes at Wall Base ........................................ 23 Table 6. Soil Grain Size Classification .......................................................................... 29 Table 7. Infiltration Rates Based On USDA Soil Textural Classification .................... 30 LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Appendix A: Vicinity Map Site Plan, Sheet 1 of2 Site Plan, Sheet 2 of 2 Cross Section A-A', Sta. 1 +020 to 1 + 170 Cross Section A-A', Sta. 1 + 170 to 1 +310 Cross Section A-A', Sta. 1 +31 0 to 1 +460 Cross Section A-A', Sta. 1+460 to 1+610 Results of Liquefaction Analysis Capacity Chart -Drilled Shafts Capacity Chart -Driven H-Piles Pond Liner Diagram -Detention Pond A Earth Pressures for Temporary Cantilever Shoring Field Investigation Summary Hand Auger Boring Logs Table A-I. FigUre A-I. Figures A-2 -A-13. Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Boring Logs BH-I through BH-12 AppendiX B: Laboratory Testing Figure B-1. Summary of Material Properties Figures B-2 -B-13. Grain Size Distribution Curves Figures B-14 -B-19. R-Value and Grain Size Distribution Test Results of Sub grade Soils (King County Materials Laboratory) Appendix C: Technical Memorandum, Elliott Bridge Inftltration Evaluation 04.03.03.FINAL REpORT 111 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 1.1 GENERAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ELLIOTT BRIDGE NO. 3166 REPLACEMENT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) completed a geotechnical study for the proposed Elliott Bridge No. 3166 Replacement project in King County, Washington. The location of the site and the general project layout are shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the Site Plan (Figures 2 and 3), respectively. The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site and, based on the conditions encountered, provide recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of the project. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing Elliott Bridge No. 3166 is located in King County, Washington, north of SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway) as shown on Figure 1. The 2-lane bridge is to be replaced with a new, 3-lane, bridge located approximately 300 m east (upstream) of the existing bridge. The bridge will cross the Cedar River ~outh of the intersection of Jones Road and 1541h Place SE. South of the bridge, a new roadway approximately 175 m long will extend to SR-169 near 152nd Avenue SE. North of the bridge, approximately 375 m of the existing roadway (154th Place SE) will be reconstructed near its current alignment. The proposed bridge will consist of an approximately 14.6-m wide, 123-m long, two-span structure, constructed at the approximate location shown on the attached Site Plan (Figures 2 and 3). Grading associated with bridge construction will include placement of as much as about 6 m of fill material at bridge abutments and along the new roadway alignment, to bring these portions to design grade. A pedestrian undercrossing will be constructed beneath 154th Place SE near SR-169 to carry pedestrian and bicycle traffic along a trail paralleling SR-169. The project also includes installation of signal poles at the intersection of 154th Place SE and SR-169, and construction of a number of retaining walls to support various cuts and fills along Jones Road and 154th Place' SE. In addition, a storm water management system that includes detention and water quality treatment facilities will be installed in the immediate vicinity of the bridge site. Approximate locations of all project components are shown on Figures 2 anp 3 .. ' April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 2.0 EXPLORATIONS 2.1 GENERAL Explorations for the project were perfonned in three separate phases, prompted by additions to and expansions of the original scope of work. The exploration program included site reconnaissance visits, drilling subsurface test borings, excavating test pits, and installing ground water monitoring wells. 2.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND LITERATURE REVIEW HWA personnel perfonned the initial field reconnaissance of the site on August 13, 1996. During the reconnaissance, seven hand auger borings were excavated along the project alignment to depths of between 0.6 to 2.0 m. The borings were logged by HWA personnel, who also collected samples at selected intervals in each boring. Summary logs of our hand auger borings are presented in Appendix A, Table A-I. This geotechnical study for the Elliott Bridge project included a search and review of existing geologic and geotechnical data in the project area. A list of documents reviewed is included in the References section of this report, following the text. In addition to published geologic maps and reports, we reviewed unpublished geotechnical reports prepared by various consultants for previous projects in the vicinity of the alignment. Of the five projects reviewed, three were on the south side 'of SR-169 (Assembly of God Church, Valley Faire Subdivision, and Aqua-Bam Mobile Home Park), one was about 1 km upstream from the alignment along the north bank of the Cedar River (Skyfire Ridge Subdivision), and another was for a residential property located within the project corridor at 14820 154th Place SE. 2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION The first phase of field explorations was conducted at the site on August 13, 1996, and from September 30, 1996, through October 4, 1996. The program consisted of hand-excavating 7 borings (HH-l through HH-7) to depths ranging from 0.6 m to 2.0 m, and drilling and sampling nine exploratory borings (BH-l through BH-9) to depths ranging from about 6.56 to 20.10 m below the existing ground surface. Five of the borings (BJi-l, and BH-6 through BH-9) were drilled using truck-mounted drilling equipment. A track-mounted drill rig was needed to access locations ofBH-2 through BH-5, drilled within the undeveloped portion of the site. Approximate boring locations are indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figures 2 and 3. The second phase of the exploration program was conducted on July 31 and August 1, ]997. During that phase, two borings (BH-I0 and BH-] 1) were drilled for signal poles at 04.0J.OJ.Finnl Report 2 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 the intersection of 154th Place SE and SR-169, to depths of 6.4 and 6.6 m, respectively. Approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figures 2 and 3. The third and final phase of explorations was conducted between October 8 and October 31, 2003. This phase included excavating five test pits (TP-l through TP-5), five hand auger borings (HA-I through HA-5), and installing two ground water monitoring wells (MW-I and MW-2) at proposed locations of stormwater treatment facilities. In addition, one machine boring, BH-I2, was drilled at the location of a proposed structural earth retaining wall along Jones Road. The test pits extended to depths of between 0.9 and 3.8 m below the ground surface. The hand auger borings were limited to the site of the proposed Pond C, and were excavated to depths of between 0.5 and 1.1 m. The ground water monitoring wells were installed to depths of6.6 and 5.8 m, and boring BH-I2 was advanced to a maximum depth of 11.9 m. All borings were logged by HW A personnel, who also obtained disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples at selected intervals in each of the borings. Discussions offield exploration methodology, and summary logs ofthe borings, are included in Appendix A of this report. 2.4 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant engineering (physical) properties of the on-site soils. Laboratory testing included determination of natural moisture content, grain-size distribution, fines content, organic content, and cation exchange capacity (CEC). The King County Materials Laboratory performed R-Value and grain size distribution testing on three soil samples of near-surface subgrade soils. Testing was conducted in general accordance with 'appropriate American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. The test results and a discussion oflaboratory test methodology are presented in Appendices B and C. Test results are also displayed, where appropriate, on the summary logs in Appendices A and C, and/or on the Summary ofMa;terial Properties, Figure B-1 in Appendix B. 3.0, SITE CONDITIONS 3.1' GENERAL The southern approach to the proposed bridge is a wooded, relatively flat floodplain with elevations ranging from about 30 to 32 m above mean sea level (MSL), At the proposed location of the southern bridge abutment, a flood prevention berm' with a top elevation of about 33 m crosses the alignment. North of the proposed abutment, is a flat heavily 04.03.03.Final Report 3 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC, " April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 wooded area with dense undergrowth, extending 75 m to the river's southern edge. The location of the proposed center pier is near the south bank of the river, at Elevation 30.5 m. The water level in the Cedar River is approximately Elevation 29 m (low summer water level). Surficial exposures in the river bed observed during our exploration consisted of poorly graded gravel with cobbles. The river bed is approximately 30 m wide at the centerline of the alignment. The north bank of the river has a relatively steep slope from the river bed up to about Elevation 32 m in the rear yard of a home located at the intersection of Jones Road and 154th Place SE. The proposed location of the north bridge abutment is near the north bank of the river on this property. From Jones Road north along 154th Place SE, the project alignment slopes upward, gradually steepening and reaching an elevation of about 60 m at the end of the proposed road improvements. This portion of the roadway alignment is bordered by residential properties. The properties on the east side of the roadway are generally cleared and on the west side are densely forested. A small stream, Stewart Creek, parallels 154th Place SE on the west side of the road, enters a culvert at about Station 1+590, and empties into the Cedar River just west of the proposed alignment. Water was flowing in Stewart Creek at the time of our first site reconnaissance. Two spring-fed wetlands have been mapped near the north end of the alignment, to the west of the proposed road improvements (FHWA et aI., 1995). These wetlands reportedly drain into Stewart Creek. Soil exposures observed in the creek bed were poorly graded alluvial sands and gravels. 3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The project site is located in the flood plain of the east-west trending Cedar River several miles east of Renton, Washington. The Cedar River Valley is located in the southeastern portion of the Puget Lowland, an elongated topographic and structural depression bordered by the Cascade Mountains on the east and the Olympic Mountains on the west. The Puget Lowland is characterized by low-rolling relief with some deeply cut ravines. In general, the ground surface elevation is within ISO m of sea level. The Puget Lowland has been repeatedly occupied by a lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet; one of two continental glaciers which developed during the recent ice ages of the Quaternary period. The Cordilleran Ice Sheet was centered over the coast ranges of British Columbia. A portion of the ice sheet, termed the Puget Lobe, advanced south from British Columbia to occupy the lowlands of western Washington. At least four such advances occurred. The southern termini of the glacial advances were generally in the area of the Black Hills, south of Olympia, Washington. 04.0l.0l.Finnl Report 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HW A Project No. 96143 Between and following these glacial advances, the Puget Lowland was partially filled with alluvial (stream channel) and lacustrine (lake) sediments deposited by runoff from the western slopes of the Cascades and eastern slopes of the Olympics. The Puget Sound area is hence underlain by a thick, complex sequence of glacial and interglacial sediments. The past 12,000 to 13,000 years since the last glacial episode have been an interglacial period. Sediment has accumulated in topographically low areas, such as the Cedar River Valley, where sands and gravels were deposited by the Cedar River and tributary streams. The sand and gravel deposits were interbedded with clays and silts during overbank floods, with peats accumulating in swampy areas. Geologic mapping for the area (Mullineaux, 1965) indicates that the majority of the alignment is underlain by recent floodplain alluvium. Alluvial soils are described by Mullineaux as predominantly sand and gravel, with associated thin beds of silt, clay, and peat. Due to the process in which the alluvial soils were deposited, they are typically loose/soft in consistency and highly susceptible to settlement upon an increase in . overburden stress. Review of references (Luzier, 1969 and Mullineaux, 1965 and 1970) suggests that alluvium in the project area may extend to depths of 10 to 15 m, and perhaps, greater. Geologic mapping by Mullineaux indicates the northernmost portion of the alignment, on the south-facing slope of I 54th Place SE is underlain by pre-Vashon undifferentiated drift. These deposits are anticipated to underlie the Cedar River floodplain alluvium, and reportedly have thicknesses of greater than 300 m in the project area. The undifferentiated drift deposits include at least three layers of till, separated by inter- glacial alluvial deposits of sand and gravel and lacustrine silts. Because they have been overridden by great thicknesses of glacial ice, the interglacial deposits are typically very dense / hard, and exhibit low compressibility and high shear strength characteristics. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.3.1 Soil Stratigraphy We based our interpretations of subsurface conditions on the results offield exploration, our review of available geologic and geotechnical data, and our general experience in similar geologic settings. In general, the area of the proposed improvements is underlain by a sequence of fill, recent alluvium, recessional outwash, and stratified glacial drift deposits. These soil units are described separately and in more detail below. • Fill -The near-surface soils encountered in borings BH-l, BH-4, and BH-7 through BH-Il consisted offill, generally associated with the existing 04.03.03.Final Report 5 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 roadway improvements and flood control benn. Depth of fill encountered in the borings ranged from about 0.6 to 2.7 m. Fill composition was variable, consisting generally of loose to medium dense silty sand, silty gravel, and sand with gravel. Fill soils are expected to exhibit low to moderate shear strength and moderate compressibility. • Recent Alluvium -Recent alluvium deposited by the Cedar River was encountered in borings BH-1 through BH-7, and BH-10 through BH-12. The alluvium occurred beneath fill soils in BH-1, BH-4, BH-lO, and BH-11, and was the uppennost unit encountered in the other borings. Recent alluvium ranged in depth fTom about 5.4 to 11.9 m, and was underlain by stratified glacial drift deposits in borings BH-3 through BH-7. The alluvium unit was not fully penetrated in borings BH-1, BH-2, and BH-10 through BH-12. At the proposed bridge pier locations (BH-4, BH-5 and BH-6), the recent alluvium extended to depths of about 10.8, 8.6 and 10.2 m below ground surface, respectively. Typically, the recent alluvium consisted ofloose to dense sand and gravel, with cobbles and boulders. Alluvial soils are anticipated to exhibit low to moderate shear strength and moderate compressibility. Hand auger borings excavated during our site reconnaissance encountered recent alluvium to the maximum depth of each exploration (see Table A-I in Appendix A). These near-surface deposits consisted predominantly of loose sands and gravels, with varying proportions of silt. Alluvial gravels included significant proportions of cobble-size particles. Six of the seven hand auger borings were tenninated in cobble deposits, which could not be excavated with hand tools. • Recessional Outwash -Recessional outwash was encountered beneath the existing fill deposits in borings BH-8 and BH-9, extending to depths of about 2.5 and 3.8 m below ground surface, respectively. Where encountered, recessional outwash consisted generally ofloose to medium dense sand to silty sand with some gravel. Cobbles and boulders also typically occur within recessional outwash deposits. These soils are likely to exhibit moderate to high shear strength and moderate compressibility. • Stratified Glacial Drift Deposits -Stratified glacial drift deposits were encountered in borings BH-3 through BH-9, underlying recent alluvium (BH- 3 through BH-7) or recessional outwash (BH-8 and BH-9). Glacial drift was the lowennost unit encountered in the borings and extended to the maximum depths of the borings. The glacial drift encountered generally consisted of dense to very dense, stratified layers of sand and silty gravel with a few silt 04.03.0J.final Report 6 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HW A Project No. 96143 interbeds. Drilling was difficult within this unit, due to the presence of significant amounts of cobbles and boulders. Generally, glacial drift is anticipated to exhibit high shear strength and low compressibility. Interpreted subsurface conditions are depicted on Cross Section A-A' (Figures 4 -7). It should be noted that the interpreted subsurface conditions shown on Cross Section A-A' are generalized to provide an overview of the findings of the explorations. Appendix A contains logs of subsurface conditions encountered at the individual exploration locations. 3.3.2 Ground Water Ground water was encountered in all of the machine-excavated borings, at depths ranging from about 1.8 to 5.8 m below ground surface. Ground water was encountered in one of the hand auger borings (HH-6) at a depth of 0.9 m, and in test pits TP-l through TP-4 at depths ranging from 1.8 to 2.6 m. Ground water conditions observed in borings can be erratic because if often takes hours or even days for the ground water se~page to reach equilibrium; borings are typically only open a short time and the auger used to advance the borings can impede ground water seepage. Thus, the ground water seepage tends to develop first in more permeable lenses, which may be located below the localized water level. The localized water table may actually be located higher than that indicated during the exploration program. The ground water conditions reported above are for the specific dates "and locations indicated, and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. It is anticipated that ground water conditions will vary depending on the season, local subsurface conditions, and other factors. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our site reconnaissance, field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The recommendations of this report should, however, be incorporated in design and construction. Geotechnical recommendations are provided below for bridge seismic design criteria, foundations and abutments, earthwork, temporary excavations and dewatering, and site drainage and erosion considerations. 4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1.1 General The project site lies within Seismic Zone 3 as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997). Zone 3 includes the Puget Sound region, and represents an area of significant seismic risk. For comparison, much of California and southern Alaska are in 04.03.03.Final Report 7 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HW A Project No. 96143 Seismic Zone 4, which is one of higher seismic risk. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaJcing may be anticipated during the design life of the subject facilities. Based on the Standard Specifications/or Seismic Design o/Highway Bridges (AASHTO, 1996), seismic hazard mapping by the US Geological Survey (1996), and in consideration of the project location, we recommend a peak ground acceleration, Bnw, of0.29g for use in design. The recommendation is associated with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. Selection of the appropriate Site Coefficient depends on the soil profile at a specific site. Using AASHTO guidelines, we consider Soil Profile Type II is appropriate for use in design. The corresponding Site Coefficient is 1.2. Potential secondary effects of earthquakes on the proposed facilities include liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic-induced settlement, ground fault, or landslide hazard. The following sections provide additional discussions and recommendations pertaining to the first three of these seismic issues for use in design of the bridge. Steep slopellandslide hazards were addressed in our Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study for the project (HWA, 1996). 4.1.2 Regional Seismicity The seismicity of northwest Washington is not as well understood as other areas of western North America. Reasons for this include: (l) relatively recent and sparse population of the region resulting in incomplete historical earthquake records; (2) deep and relatively young glacial deposits and dense vegetation which obscure surface expression of bedrock faults (HaJI and Othberg, 1974); and (3) the distribution of recorded seismic epicenters is scattered and does not define mappable fault zones (Gower, et aI., 1985). Historical records exist, however, of strong earthquakes with local Modified Mercalli Intensities up to VIII (structural damage such as cracked walls and fallen chimneys). Since the 1850's, 28 earthquakes of Magnitude 5 (Richter Scale) and greater have reportedly occurred in the eastern Puget Sound and north-central Cascades region. Five events may have exceeded Magnitude 6.0. Researchers consider the North Cascades earthquake of 1872, centered near Lake Chelan, the strongest (Magnitude 7.4) historical earthquake in the region. Earthquakes of Magnitude 7.2 occurred in central Vancouver Island in 1918 and 1946. The most significant recent event, the Nisqually Earthquake, occurred on February 28, 2001, near Olympia and had a magnitude of6.8. Other significant historical earthquakes in the region include a 1949 event near Olympia (Magnitude 7.2), and a 1965 event centered between Seattle and Tacoma (Magnitude 6.5). 04.0J.OJ.Final Report 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 Potential sources of earthquakes that may be significant to the site include: (1) the Cascadia subduction zone, along which the Juan de Fuca oceanic plate is being thrust under the North American plate; and (2) shallow crustal faults that may generate earthquakes in the site vicinity (McCrumb, et al., 1989). In contrast to similar geologic regimes having subducting plates, such as Alaska or Chile, no earthquakes have been recorded in the Pacific Northwest from thrust fault deformation between plates (interplate earthquakes). However, some seismologists believe that the local subduction zone has created great interplate earthquakes (Magnitude> 8) in the past, and is capable of future great earthquakes (Atwater, 1987). It is our opinion that random regional seismicity or shallow crustal earthquakes are more critical to the proposed improvements than potential ground motions from a postulated large subduction zone event. This primarily results from the relatively large distance between the site and potential source areas for subduction zone earthquakes. Significant ground accelerations would occur at the site in the event of a large subduction zone earthquake. However, the probability of exceedance of this magnitude of ground shaking would be quite small, given the large recurrence interval of postulated sobduction zone events. 4.1.3 Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated and relatively cohesionless soil deposits temporarily lose strength as a result of earthquake shaking. Primary factors controlling the development ofliquefaction include intensity and duration of strong ground motion, characteristics of subsurface soil, in-situ stress conditions and the depth to ground water. We estimated soil liquefaction potential using SPT N-values measured in each boring, and the methodology of Seed et al. (1983, 1985). In addition, we assumed the seismicity parameters indicated in Table 1 for the liquefaction analyses. Table 1. Seismicity Parameters Used in Liquefaction Analyses 500-Year 7'h 0.29 The results of the liquefaction potential analyses performed for the individual borings are depicted graphically on Figure 8. The liquefaction potential analyses indicate that, for the levels of ground shaking considered reasonable for use in design, the potential for soil 04.03.03.FinaJ Report 9 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 liquefaction at the site is limited to discontinuous layers in the recent alluvium and recessional outwash. Potential effects of soil liquefaction include temporary loss of bearing capacity and lateral soil resistance, and liquefaction-induced settlement, with concomitant potential impacts on the proposed bridge and embankment fills. Recommendations to reduce the potential effects of soil1iquefaction on bridge foundations and abutments are presented in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. It appears the potential for soil liquefaction is low in the vicinity of the south and north bridge abutments (borings BH-4 and BH-6). Based on the available data and the analysis perfonned, it is our opinion that th~ potential for significant liquefaction- induced lateral spreading of soils beneath the bridge abutments is low. 4.1.4 Seismic-Induced Settlement Settlement of the ground surface may occur as a result of earthquake shaking, particularly in conjunction with the occurrence of soil liquefaction. It has long been recognized that sands tend to settle and densify when SUbjected to earthquake shaking. Jlrocedures for estimating probable seismically-induced settlements within saturated sand deposits have been suggested by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). This methodology is most applicable to clean sands, and yields conservative results when applied to silty or gravelly soils. Using the methodology ofTokimatsu and Seed (1987), we estimated seismic-induced settlements at the boring locations. Under the assumed SOO-year seismic event (see . Table 1), we estimate settlements on the order of 20 to 200 mm. The greatest settlements are estimated at the boring locations where potentially liquefiable soils were identified (BH-l, BH-2, BH-S, BH-7 and BH-9). Vertical settlement of soil around piles could result in downdrag loads. The potential downdrag force could reduce pile capacities ifnot accounted for in design. As a result, we recommend that piles be embedded well below the level of potentially liquefiable soils. Allowable axial capacities also include an allowance for potential downdrag loads as described in Section 4.2. 4.1.5 Ground Fault Hazard Our review of available literature (including Cheney, 1987; Crossen, 1972; Noson et aI., 1988) did not indicate the potential presence of any active ground faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Also, during our site reconnaissances, we did not observe any evidence of active faulting or lineaments, which might be indicative of recent surface faUlting. Based on this evidence, we conclude that ground fault hazard at the site is low. 04.03.03.FinnJ Report 10 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HW A Project No. 96143 4.2 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS As presently planned, the new bridge will consist of a 2-span structure with a total length of about 123 m. Exploratory borings were drilled at each bridge abutment and the center pier. Approximate boring locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, it is our opinion that the new bridge should be supported using deep foundations. Parameters for design of alternative deep foundation systems, including allowable axial capacities, design parameters for laterally loaded piles, construction considerations, and geotechnical monitoring requirements are provided below. 4.2.1 Allowable Axial Capacities for Deep Foundations Deep foundations will be required for support of bridge structure loads. Spread foundations are not considered feasible for the bridge piers, due to the presence of loose layers within the recent alluvium which could lead to excessive settlement, and also due to the potentially liquefiable nature of certain layers within the recent alluvium. Our evaluations indicate that either drilled shafts or driven H-piling would be feasible for support of the bridge. Based on conversations with the design team, we understand that use of drilled shafts may be desirable from a structural standpoint, because of more favorable lateral load-carrying characteristics than H-piling. The presence of high ground water and substantial amounts of cobbles and boulders in subsurface soils will potentially impact design and construction of either of these deep foundation alternatives (see Section 4.2.3). In our opinion, use of driven closed-end pipe piles or precast concrete piles will not be feasible for this site due to the anticipated cobbles and boulders. Analysis was performed to evaluate the axial capacities ofH-piles assuming HP14x117 steel sections. In addition, we estimated capacities of 1.83-, 2.44-and 3.05-m (6-, 8-and lO-foot) diameter drilled shafts, based on our interpretation of geologic conditions as discussed above. Recommended allowable axial pile capacities, for drilled shafts and H-piles are presented in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. The recommended allowable values for compression incorporate performance factors of 0.5 for skin friction and 0.35 for end bearing. The allowable capacities for tension incorporate a performance factor of 0.5. Dense glacial deposits were encountered at approximate elevations of21 Y2 to 22 m at the bridge pier locations (BH-4, BH-5 and BH-6). We recommend a minimum pile embedment of2 m (6 feet) into the dense glacial deposits. This ,-,,:ould correspond to a pile tip elevation of about 19.5 m, assuming dense glacial deposits occur at Elevation 21.5 m. If greater capacities are desired, pile lengths should be increased. Piles 04.03.03.Final Report 11 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 embedded a minimum of 5 m (16 feet) into the dense glacial deposits would have corresponding tip elevations of about 16.5 m. Capacities appropriate for these embedment depths are presented on Figures 9 and 10. Piles should be located no closer than three pile diameters center-to-center. No reduction for group effects would be required for piles at this spacing or greater. During project team meetings on February 5 and 28, 1997, more detailed information regarding the bridge design concept was presented and discussed. A memorandum . prepared by ABKJ dated February 5, 1997 summarizes foundation alternatives , considered for the center pier (Pier 2). At this location, several configurations of drilled shafts have been considered. We understand that a system of two 3.05-m (lO-foot) diameter shafts would be required at the center pier. If drilled shafts were used, a system of two 2.44-m (8-foot) diameter shafts would be used at the two end piers (Pier I and Pier 3). As an alternative to drilled shafts, H-piling could be used to support the new bridge. At the center pier, the foundation system would consist of24 HP 14xl17 H-piles; fewer piles would be required at the two end piers. The pile spacings indicated in the February 5 memorandum are greater than or equal to three pile diameters center-to-center. Therefore, no reduction of compressive or uplift capacity is recommended due to group effects for these pile configurations. At the request of the design team, we prepared more detailed information with respect to pile capacities for the most probable foundation systems, as described above. Table 2 presents ultimate pile capacities for 2.44-and 3.05-m (8-and lO-foot) drilled shafts and HP 14x 117 H-piles. Estimates of ultimate end bearing and skin friction for each case are provided, for the tip elevations indicated. Table 2. Estimated Ultimate Pile Capacities for Selected Foundation Alternatives 2.44-m (8-foot) 14 m 13,420 5,500 4,400 drilled shaft 3.05-m (lO-foot) 14m 20,980 6,870 5,500 drilled shaft HP 14xl17 H-pile 18 m 330 1,510 1,210 04.0J.03.Finnl Report 12 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 4.2.2 Allowable Axial Capacities for Deep Foundations Design Parameters for Lateral Loading of Piles We understand the LPILE (Reese and Wang, 1989) computer program will be used to analyze the behavior of drilled shafts and piles under lateral loads. We concur that this program is applicable. The parameters presented on Table 3 are intended for use with the LPILE program, under static, cyclic, and liquefied soil conditions (where applicable). Thevalues are given in English units, since early versions of the LPILE program required input in that system. Metric values can be obtained using the conversion factors listed. For analysis of 3.05-m (lO-foot) diameter shafts, it is our opinion that base shear may be included in design when evaluating resistance of the shafts to lateral loading. Assuming a dead load of 7,000 kN (1,570 kips) per shaft, and allowing for the portion of the normal load which will be taken up in shaft friction, we estimate a maximum shear force at the base of the shaft of830 kN (190 kips). We estimate the base of the shaft would need to move laterally a distance of60 mrn (2Yl inches), to generate 100 percent of the estimated shear force. Linear interpolation can be used to estimate the basal shear· force if lateral movement is less than that required to mobilize the full force. 04.0J.OJ.Final Report 13 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 South Pier- BoringBH-4 Center Pier - BoringBH-5 North Pier- Boring BH-6 108 98 105 Table 3. Recommended Parameters for Use in LPILE Analysesl 108 94 Sand 120 -34 -0 94 69 Sand 58 -34 -0 69 58 Sand 63 -36 -0 58 42 Sand 68 -40 -0 98 93 Sand 110 -34 -0 93 79 Sand 48 48 30 10 0 79 70 Sand 58 -38 -0 70 48 Sand 68 -40 -0 105 96 Sand 120 -34 -0 96 88 Sand 58 -38 -0 88 72 Sand 58 -36 -0 72 59 Sand 68 -40 -0 -90 90 -60 60 -90 90 -150 150 -90 90 0 20 20 I 1.5 -110 1I0 -150 150 -90 90 -110 110 -90 90 -150 150 Metric conversion factors: 1 foot = 0.3048 m; 1 pcf = 0.1571 kN/m3; 1 psf = 0.04788 kPa; 1 pci = 271.4 kN/m3 I Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) values should be reduced by the following factors to account for group action. No reduction is required for friction angle and apparent cohesion, «Jue to group effects. 04.03.03.FinBI Report Pile Spacing, D (pile diameters) 8D 6D 4D 3D Reduction factor for k 14 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.25 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 4.2.3 Construction Considerations Construction of deep foundations will be impacted by the presence of shallow ground. water and potential obstructions such as cobbles and boulders. Ground water will be more of an issue for drilled shaft installation; the presence of oversize materials will impact both H-piles and drilled shafts. Difficulties associated with high ground water and excavation of oversize material should be addressed in the contract documents. If the specifications are structured such that additional payment will be made for excavation or handling of oversize materials, the project documents should include a clear definition of the conditions which must exist in order for the additional payment to be warranted. Due to the presence of shallow ground water, it is possible that excavations for pile caps will extend below water. The contractor should be advised of this condition, and an appropriate plan for dewatering devised and implemented. See Section 4.11 for additional recommendations relative to temporary excavations and dewatering. Drilled Shaft Installations During installation of drilled shafts, the anticipated sandy materials below ground water will tend to slough and cave if unsupported. Casing will be required to keep the shaft excavations open. During advancement of the shaft, the casing should be kept filled with water or drilling fluid to prevent bottom heave and disturbance of bearing soils. The contractor should take appropriate precautions to limit the amount of ground loss or disturbance to soils around the drilled shaft excavations. Drilled shaft installation may potentially impact local ground water aquifers (see Section 4.12). Special drilling tools and procedures will probably be necessary to excavate and remove any boulders encountered in the drilled shafts. This might include use of rock gads, rock buckets, or other methods selected by the contractor. The potential construction difficulties associated with ground water and oversize materials will result in substantially higher cost to construct the drilled shafts, compared to shafts constructed in more favorable subsurface conditions. Care should be taken to limit disturbance of the bearing soils, as the shafts near the target tip elevation~ Drilled shaft bottoms should be cleaned to the extent practical. After the shaft bottoms are cleaned, concrete should be placed in the drilled shafts using the tremie method. Drilled shaft capacities presented on Figure 9 incorporate skin friction, assuming a concrete/soil interface. Therefore, steel casing used to advance the shafts should not be left in place but should be withdrawn during concrete placement. Sufficient concrete should be present in the casing at all times as the casing is withdrawn to counteract hydrostatic pressure and prevent ingress of soil and water into the freshly cemented portion of the shaft. 04.03.03.FinaJ Report 15 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 H-Pile Driving Installation ofH-piles will similarly be impacted by the potential presence of cobbles, boulders or other obstructions. To drive the piles, it may be necessary to use pre-drilling, "spudding" with a heavy H-section, or other methods. Provisions should be made in the contract documents for dealing with potential obstructions during H-piledriving. The piles should be provided with drive points, to reduce the potential for damage to the piles in heavy driving conditions. Boulders encountered during driving of H-piles may cause some of the piles to be driven out-of-plumb, or to "drift" off of the design horizontal location. Also, if significant obstructions are encountered at certain locations, it may be necessary to adjust certain pile locations to avoid the obstructions. Because of this potential effect, some flexibility should be allowed in the design to enable adjustment of pile locations. In certain instances, it may be necessary to increase the size of the pile cap to accommodate the new pile locations. Any such situations which arise during construction should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the owner, structural engineer and geotechnical engineer. Use of an H-pile alternative will necessitate construction of a below-grade pile cap. Construction of the pile cap may require shoring and dewatering (see Sections 4.11 and 4.12). Potential impacts to local ground water aquifers from H-pile driving are anticipated to be substantially less than the drilled shaft alternative, as discussed in Section 4.11. 4.2.4 Geotechnical Monitoring of Deep Foundation InstaUations All pile or drilled shaft installation operations should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer or his representative experienced in the design and observation of deep foundation installations. During installation of drilled shafts, soil conditions encountered should be verified by the project geotechnical engineer. Concrete should not be placed until the soil conditions have been verified, and cleaning of the drilled shaft bottoms has been adequately performed. If used, H-piles should be driven using an approved top-impact hammer. Jetting of piles should not be allowed. We recommend using an impact hammer with a maximum rated driving energy of at least 9,700 kg-m (70,000 foot-pounds), and a ram weight equal to at least one half of the pile weight. Selection of an appropriate hammer will depend on the pile types and sections selected for use on the project, the contractor's methods, and other factors. Fixed leads should be utilized to reduce the potential for the pile being driven out of alignment. 04.0J.OJ.Final Report 16 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 Following selection of a pile hammer, cushion and driving system, HW A should be consulted to provide final driving resistance field criteria, using an appropriate dynamic pile driving analysis. Bearing graphs should be generated by incorporating the contractor-proposed hammer/cushion system into the analysis. Typically, penetration resistance at the end of initial driving (EOID) is lower than during re-striking. However, it is not practical to re-strike every new pile after installation to estimate ultimate capacity. Therefore, in our opinion, a minimum penetration resistance should be established for the EOID condition during production pile driving, based on the results of pile driving analyzer data. IfH-piles are used, we recommend a minimum of 4 indicator piles be driven at each abutment or pier location, to determine the field conditions in conjunction with the contractor's pile driving equipment. The indicator piles should be located such that they may also serve as production piles. No less than 24 hours after initial driving, the indicator piles should be re-struck. Ultimate capacities of these .piles should then be evaluated using penetration resistance during re-striking. We recommend use of the dynamic pile driving analyzer (PDA) on the indicator piles to monito~ their dynamic behavior during initial driving and re-striking. The design recommendation may be revised if necessary based on results of the PDA evaluation. In addition, the PDA data can be utilized to determine appropriate pile driving criteria for EOID conditions, thus reducing the number of piles requiring re-striking. A minimum of 10 percent of production piles should be re-struck. Local variations of subsurface conditions along the bridge alignment should be expected, as evidenced by the results of our field explorations and previous projects in the area. The lengths of certain H-piles may need to be adjusted in the field based on conditions encountered during driving. Variable pile lengths should be anticipated, and provisions should be included in the contract documents to facilitate adjustment in payments to the contractor based on actual lengths of piles installed. We recommend that production piles be ordered after driving the indicator piles if possible. It may be desirable to issue a separate contract for test piles, performed prior to bidding of the bridge construction contract. 4.3 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS 4.3.1 Lateral Earth Pressures -Static Condition Lateral earth pressures used for design of bridge abutments should be equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 8.5 kN/mJ (55 pct), assuming tops of the abutments are restrained from lateral movement. An equivalent fluid unit weight of 5.5 kN/m3 (35 pct) should be utilized if the tops are free to rotate (active case). The 8.5 kN/m3 (55 pct) value 04.0J.03.FinaJ Report 17 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 should only be used if the abutments are restrained at the time ofbackfilIing. The above recommendations assume properly compacted, well-drained granular fill adjacent to the abutments. Traffic surcharge loads should also be included in the abutment design. Lateral loads at bridge abutments can be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of pile caps or other structural elements. Because the abutment vertical loads will be carried by deep foundations, frictional resistance along the base of the abutments should not be included in calculating resistance to lateral loads. Passive resistance may be evaluated using an equivalent fluid density of78 kN/m3 (500 pcf) for structural elements cast neat against undisturbed native soils or structural fill. These values assume the native soils or structural fill extends laterally beyond the structural element for a distance equivalent to at least twice the height of the element. If the soils do not extend the required lateral distance, we recommend the passive resistance be ignored when evaluating lateral resistance. In addition, structural elements will need to be able to move sufficiently to generate the full passive resistance. The lateral movement required to generate 100 percent of the passive pressure is a function of the type of soil bearing against the footing and the thickness of the footing. We estimate structural elements founded against undisturbed native soils or structural fill would need to move laterally a distance of 0.02H, to generate 100 percent of the passive pressure, where H represents the height of the structural element. Linear interpolation can be used to estimate the passive pressure contribution iflateral movement is limited to less than that required to mobilize the full force. The recommended design parameters presented above assume level ground surface at the top and base of the abutment walls. The above values for passive pressure do not incorporate a factor of safety. Suitable factors of safety should be incorporated in evaluating lateral resistance of bridge abutments. 4.3.2 Lateral Earth Pressures during Seismic Loading During a seismic event, active earth pressure acting on bridge abutments will increase. To determine the increase in lateral earth pressure under seismic loading, the Mononobe-Okabe analysis was utilized, as formulated by Richards and Elms (1992). For use in design of abutment walls with level backfill under seismic conditions. a uniform, rectangularly distributed, seismic pressure of 4.2H kN/m2 (27H psf), where H equals the height of the abutment wall in meters (feet). should be used in place of the active earth pressure recommended in Section 4.3.1. Lateral loads applied to the bridge structure under seismic loading may be partially resisted by passive pressure of soils adjacent to abutment walls. Assuming properly compacted fill will be placed against the sides of abutment walls and pile caps, the 04.03.03.Final Report 18 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 ultimate passive earth pressure resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid weighing 91 kN/m) (580 pct). The full passive resistance will only be mobilized if the wall moves laterally a sufficient distance. The guidelines presented above in Section 4.3.1 may be utilized to .evaluate the percentage of passive resistance, which would be mobilized for a given amount of wall displacement. The above values assume level ground surface at the top and base of the abutment wall under consideration. The parameters do not incorporate a factor of safety; a suitable safety factor representative of the transient seismic loading condition should be applied. In our experience, walls designed for at-rest earth pressures typically exhibit adequate factors of safety for seismic loading. 4.3.3 Abutment Wall Backfill Abutment wall design and construction should be in accordance with applicable WSDOT Standards. Wall backfill materials should consist of Gravel Backfill/or Walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)), or Gravel Borrow (WSDOT 9-03.14), as described in the WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2002). Placement and compaction of fill behind walls shall be in accordance with WSDOT 2-09.3(1)E. Wall drainage systems should also be designed and constructed in accordance with the WSDOT Standard Specifications. For rock walls on the project, provisions for permanent control of subsurface water should at a minimum consist of a perforated drain pipe behind and at the base of the wall, embedded in clean, free-draining sand and gravel. The base of the drain pipe should be a minimum of300 mm (12 inches) below the base of the adjacent ground surface at the toe of the wall. The drain pipe should be graded to direct water away from backfill and subgrade soils and to a suitable outlet. For structural earth walls on the project, wall drainage systems should be in accordance with the wall manufactures specifications. 4.4 RETAINING WALLS Four retaining walls (Walls A, B, C, and D, see Figures 2 and 3) will be constructed to support fills and cuts necessary for road and trail construction. Walls A, B, and C will consist of structural earth walls to support fills of up to a maximum height of about 3.8 m. Wall D, a proposed rockery, is planned to support cuts of up to a maximum of about 1.0 m. 4.4.1 Structural Earth Walls A, B, and C Wall A will be situated near Jones Road, from Station 1 +900 to approximately Station 1 +933 Right (RT), and will support fills of a maximum height of 3:3 m for a total wall length of 43 m. Wall B will be installed on the opposite side of Wall A on Jones Road 04.0J.OJ.Final Report 19 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4,2003 HWA Project No. 96143 between Station I +899 and about Station 1 +916 Left (L T), and will support fills up to 2.1 m high. The alignment of Wall C begins along 1 54th Place SE at Station 1+356 RT, and continues southward for about 12 m, where it turns eastward at Station 2+008 LT on Jones Road. From there, the alignment extends along Jones Road to Station 2+042, where it turns again, and continues for about 12 m northward along a residential property line. Wall C will have a total length of about 59 m, and will support fills to a maximum height of about 3.6 m. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations, it appears that the area in the vicinity of the proposed walls is underlain by loose to medium dense fill and medium dense to dense alluvial deposits consisting of sands and gravels with varying amount of silt. One boring (BH-12) was drilled along the alignment of Wall C, and two test pits (TP-I and 2) were excavated at a distance (about 28 m) northeast of Wall B. However, limited subsurface information exists for Wall A, and we inferred the soil conditions from the nearest explorations (TP-l and 2, BH-6, 7, and 12). Structural earth, or mechanically stabiliz~d earth (MSE) walls are often a cost-effective method for support offill embankments. Principal advantages ofMSE walls include relatively low unit cost and tolerance of relatively large differential settlements. Design of such a wall system must, however, be based on site-specific conditions and geotechnical parameters. Reinforced soil retaining walls consist of alternating layers of backfill soil and reinforcing material with facing elements. CommonJy used reinforcing elements include steel strips and various geosynthetic products such as geogrid and geotextile sheets. The vertical spacing of the reinforcing element is typically on the order of 0.3 to 1 m (I to 3 feet), depending on the reinforcing material specified and other parameters. Pre-cast concrete members (panels or blocks) are widely used as facing elements. Gabions or rockeries can also be employed as facing elements. Many MSE wall systems are available as proprietary wall systems and typically are constructed on a "design-build" basis. A number of proprietary systems have been pre-approved by WSDOT and are included in this project as options to the Contractor. The wall supplier is responsible for design of the system. Typically, wall suppliers will require the ground upon which the wall placement is to occur to be suitably prepared. The presence of loose random fill, or soft organic soils may necessitate over-excavation of unsuitable material beneath the walls, and replacement of the removed material with compacted structural fill. The depth of over-excavation should be determined in the field during construction based upon the actual conditions encountered: We do not anticipate substantial over-excavation; however, localized areas may contain loose fill underlain by organic topsoil as suggested by observations in the test pits. In cases of deeper 04.0J.03.FinaJ Report 20 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 over-excavation, it should be noted that all excavations in excess of 1.2 m (4 feet) in height must be sloped or supported per Washington Administrative Code requirements as described in Section 4.11.1. Over-excavated soils should be replaced by structural fill compacted to a minimum of95 percent of the maximum density as determined by the Compaction Control Tests described in Section 2-03.3(14)D of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Structural fill placed directly beneath foundations should extend outward from the footing line a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the fill beneath . the foundation. We recommend the design parameters summarized in Table 4 be used in design of the proposed MSE walls. The values shown below assume the backfill soil and the retained soil are compacted in accordance with Method C as discussed in Section 2-03.3(14)C of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Table 4. Recommended Design Parameters for MSE Walls Unit Weight (pct) Friction Angle (degrees) Cohesion (psf) Allowable Bearing Capacity for Load Group I (psf) Allowable Bearing Capacity for Load Group VII (psf) I WSDOT 9-03.14(1). 2 WSDOT 9-03.12(2). 135 135 36 38 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Soft alluvial, organic, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade soils to be over-excavated and replaced with crushed rock. 04.03.03.Final Report 21 130 34 N/A 2,500 3,300 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 MSE walls should be designed for a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding and pullout of reinforcing elements and 2.0 against overturning. Global slope stability should have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 and I. I 5 under static and seismic loading, respectively. The minimum embedment of the wall should be 0.6 m (2 feet) below finished exterior grade in front of the wall. We recommend that proprietary wall system design be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to verify that valid assumptions were made relative to material properties and other factors. If all soft organic soils are removed and replaced with properly compacted structural fill, we estimate that the MSE walls wi11 undergo settlements ofless than 13 to 25 mm ('is to 1 inch). Actual settlements may vary, depending on the wall geometry, local subsurface conditions, and other factors. 4.4.2 Wall D A cut of up to about 1.0 m in height along a vegetated berm west of the proposed bike path is to be supported by a rockery wall. The rockery will extend between Station 51+856 and Station 51+910 LT for a total length of 54 m. The soil conditions in the area, as indicated by the nearby explorations including monitoring well MW-I and test pits TP-3, 4, and 5, consist of a surficial layer of sandy silt underlain by sands and gravels. The medium stiff to stiff silt layer is between 0.6 and 1.2 m thick and contains organics, especially, in the upper part of the deposit. The base of the rockery can be placed directly on native soils, provided that the foundation soil is firm, undisturbed, and free of organics and deleterious inclusions. Unsuitable foundation soil as determined by the geotechnical engineer should be removed as described in Section 4.4.3. 4.4.3 Rockery Walls Considerations The main benefit of a rockery wall is that it provides protection against surficial erosion of stable material behind the wall. However, a we)) designed and constructed rockery also provides some support for the soils being retained. For the proposed rockery wall, we recommend minimum base widths as presented in Table 5. D4.0J.OJ.FinnJ Report 22 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 Table S. Recommended Minimum Rock Sizes at WaU Base o 51+856 to 51+907 Three-man (approx. 0.6 -0.9 m) o 51 +907 to End Two-man (approx. 0.45 -0.6 m) The base width of a rockery is designated as the width of a single rock as measured perpendicular to the face of the slope. A 0.9-m (3-foot) base width corresponds roughly to the commonly used designations for 4-man rocks at the base. The walls should be inclined or battered to no steeper than 6V: I H. The base of the rockery should be keyed in at least 0.3 m below the lowest adjacent grade The base of the rockery wall should be placed on firm, undisturbed and organic-free, native soils, or structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density (Section 2-03.3(14)0 of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications). If soft compressible soils are encountered in the rockery foundation area, it may be necessary to remove and replace the soft soils to the depth determined by geotechnical engineer in the field. Fill materials and placement should be in accordance to with the recommendations presented in Section 4.9.2. A drainage system should be provided behind the base of the rockery wall to prevent potential buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The drain should consist of a 100-mm diameter perforated PVC pipe, encased in crushed drain rock wrapped in filter fabric, sloped to a storm drain or appropriate outlet. A minimum 300-mrn wide free draining sand and gravel layer should be placed directly behin~ the rockery and in contact with the drain. Rock quality is an important factor in rockery wall performance. A large number of rockery failures occur because of degradation of poor quality rocks under freeze-thaw and weathering conditions. Visual assessment of rock quality is difficult. The contractor should be responsible for verifying that the rocks used are sufficiently hard, sound, durable and relatively free from cracks, seams or other defects tending to reduce the resistance to weathering. Rocks should be placed so that each rock overlaps at least two different rocks in the course below. The long axis of each rock should be placed perpendicular to the slope. The rock surfaces between individual courses should be relatively flat, and should never slope downward away from the wall. All rocks used in 04.03.03.Final Report 23 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 the uppennost course should be 2-man rocks to minimize the potential for vandalism or accidental dislodging of the top rocks. 4.5 PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSING 4.5.1 General Based on the results of our explorations and our understanding of the proposed structure, it is our opinion that the proposed pedestrian undercrossing is feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated in design and construction. Current plans indicate that the pedestrian undercrossing footings will extend approximately 2 to 2Yl m below existing ground surface. Soil conditions encountered in boring BH-2 indicate recent alluvium consisting ofloose poorly graded sand with silt at the anticipated footing level. Should the location and/or depth of the proposed structure change significantly from those assumed, HWA should be contacted for additional recommendations. 4.5.2 Foundation Support Prior to construction of foundations for the pedestrian undercrossing, the required excavations should be made. Sub grade preparation and earthwork associated with the pedestrian undercrossing should be in accordance with Section 4.9 of this report. Sub grade soils beneath the proposed footings should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density, detennined in accordance with Section 2-03.3(14)D of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Footings for the pedestrian undercrossing founded on properly prepared subgrade soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 145 kPa (3,000 psf), provided disturbance of the subgrade soils is minimized during construction. The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for short tenn transient conditions such as seismic loading. Assuming construction is accomplished as recommended herein, and for the foundation loads anticipated, we estimate total settlement of spread foundations ofless than 25 mm (1 inch), and differential settlement between two adjacent load-bearing components supported on competent soil ofless than 13 mm (YS inch). It is anticipated that the majority of the estimated settlement will occur during construction, as loads are applied. Subgrade preparation should be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer, to verify that conditions are as anticipated and that subgrade soils have been adequately prepared prior to foundation construction. 04.0J.OJ.FinaJ Report 24 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HW A Project No. 96143 Ground water was observed at a depth of about 3 m below ground surface during drilling ofBH-2. This is below the anticipated depth of excavation required for construction of the undercrossing. However, ground water conditions can be highly variable. The recommendations of Section 4.11 (Temporary Excavations and Shoring) and Section 4.12 (Dewatering and Ground Water Considerations) are also applicable to design and construction of the pedestrian undercrossing. 4.5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures We understand the under-crossing tunnel will be constructed using pre-cast concrete sections. Geotechnical design considerations for this type of structure are presented below. Seismic design recommendations for structural walls are presented in Sections 4.1,4.3.1, and 4.3.2. Pre-cast concrete tunnel sections should be designed for lateral earth pressures equivalent to a fluid weighing 8SkN/m) (55 pct). This value applies to all structures where the tops of walls are restrained from lateral movement at the time of backfilling .. If cantilever concrete walls are used for wing-walls or other portions of the structure, they should be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 5.5 kN/mJ (35 pet). This lateral earth pressure should be used only for walls that are free to rotate at the top. The above recommendations assume no adjacent surcharge loading. If the walls will be subjected to the influence of surcharge loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall, the walls should be designed for the additional horizontal pressure. For uniform surcharge pressures, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure of 0.30 and 0.45 times the surcharge pressure should be added for yielding and non-yielding walls, respectively. The lateral load re~istance will be a combination of sliding resistance of the footing on the underlying soil and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. A coefficient of friction of 0.45 may be assumed between the base of the footing and the underlying foundation soils. For design purposes, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 47 kN/m3 (300 pct) may be assumed for properly compacted permanent fill placed against the sides of the structure. The coefficient of . friction and passive earth pressure values include safety factors of 1.5. The recommendations presented in this section assume that the backfill behind the pedestrian undercrossing walls will consist of free draining materials, as desCribed in Section 4.9.2. The recommendations also assume that drainage provisions will·be included in the design of the walls. Accordingly, the recommended lateral earth pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures. Drainage provisions for the pedestrian undercrossing structure should conform to those presented for bridge abutment walls (see Section 4.3.3). 04.03.03.Final Report 25 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 4.6 SIGNAL POLE FOUNDATIONS 4.6.1 General Based on the results of field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the proposed new signal poles can be supported on drilled shaft foundations. The drilled shafts should be embedded sufficiently to resist lateral loads and overturning moments as discussed below. 4.6.2 Design Considerations If the proposed signal poles conform to WSDOT standards for design, the foundation design chart presented in Chapter 850-05(1 )(i) of the 1998 WSDOT Design Manual will be applicable for this project. It should be noted that the WSDOT design chart is appropriate for single and double mast arm standards with 90 degrees between arms. Furthermore, the "XYZ" value (summation of the wind load areas multiplied by each respective offset distance from the centerline of the standard to the center of the sign or signal display mounting location) for either a single mast arm, or for either arm of a double mast arm standard, must not exceed 65 cubic meters (2,300 cubic feet) for the design chart to remain applicable. If the above criteria are not met, a special foundation design may be required. HWA can provide such services if the need should arise. Required foundation depths and diameters will be a function ofthe total "XYZ" value of each mast arm and the surrounding soil's allowable lateral bearing stress. Based on the soil conditions observed in boring BH-l, we recommend an allowable lateral bearing stress of 120 kPa (2,500 pst) for design. Using the WSDOT design chart, and assuming the total "XYZ" values for each pole will be between 42.5 and 65 cubic meters (1,500 and 2,300 cubic feet), the required foundation depth should be between 3.4 and 4.6 m (11 and 15 feet) for 0.9-m (3-foot) diameter shafts; or between 1.8 and 2. I m (6 and 7 feet) for 1.2-m (4-foot) diameter shafts. 4.6.3 Construction Considerations Cobbles and/or boulders may be encountered in the on-site undocumented fill or recent alluvium soils. The presence of such obstructions can significantly impact construction of drilled shaft foundations for signal poles. The contract documents should, therefore, include provisions for dealing with obstructions, if encountered. The contractor should be prepared to install temporary casing or u,se drilling fluid to support the shaft side walls because the existing fill soils and granular portions of the recent alluvium are susceptible to caving, particularly, below the ground water table. If 04.03.03.Final Report 26 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4,2003 HW A Project No. 96143 the holes extend below ground water, we recommend that concrete be placed using the tremie method. Drilled shaft excavation and concrete placement should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer. This will allow the opportunity to confinn conditions indicated by the exploration and/or provide corrective recommendations adapted to conditions revealed during construction. 4.7 STORMWATERPONDS As part of construction of the new bridge, a stonnwater management system will be installed in the vicinity of the bridge. HW A conducted an infiltration evaluation in two proposed stonnwater pond facilities (Ponds A and C) and measured ground water elevation in one proposed stonnwater detention facility (Pond B). The pond locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3, Site and Exploration Plan. Appendix C provides a complete infiltration evaluation technical report. 4.7.1 Field Investigation Between October 8 and October 31, 2002, HWA conducted a limited soils exploration program to evaluate subsurface soil conditions in the vicinity of Ponds A, B, and C. Best Way Excavators, Inc. Lakewood, Washington, provided test pit excavation services with an extenda-backhoe, and Holt Drilling Inc. Puyallup, Washington, provided soil boring and well construction services. PondA HWA logged the excavation of two test pits within the proposed Pond A. Soils in the northern portion of the pond (TP-l, see Figures 3 and 2C) consisted of approximately 1.8 m of sandy loam to loamy sand (fill), over 0.2 m of highly organic loam (old soil horizon), and gravelly sands (alluvial deposits) to a depth of at least 4 m. We observed significant amounts of wood debris, including tree stumps, between 2.2 and 3.1 m below ground surface. Soils in the southern portion of the pond (TP-2) consisted of approximately 1.8 m of sand to sandy loam (fill), over interbedded gravelly sand to sandy gravels to a depth of at least 3.6 m. A bluish gray silt layer with dark brown organics was observed at a depth of 3.0 to 3.2 m. We observed ground water seepage during excavation operations at a depth of2.4 m in test pit TP-1 and 1.8 m in TP-2. King County suspended further soil borings and pilot infiltration testing at Pond A because field results of the test pit explorations indicated that soil and ground water conditions underlying Pond A made the site unsuitable for infiltration at a reasonable rate. PondB HW A observed the drilling and installation of one ground water monitoring well (MW-2, see Figures 3 and 2C) adjacent to Pond B. Subsurface soils consisted of 1.2 m of silty 04.0J.OJ.Final Report 27 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 sand over interbedded sands and gravels to a depth of at least 5.3 m. HW A measured the ground water level in monitoring well MW-2 at 1.3 m below ground surface (approximate elevation of 30.5 m). PondC Field exploration in Pond C included excavation of three test pits (TP-3, TP-4, and TP-5), drilling one boring and installing a ground water monitoring well (MW-l) in that location, and excavating five hand-auger borings (HA-l through HA-5). Soils underlying proposed Pond C consist of 0.3 8 to 1.0 m of sandy loam over interbedded sands and gravels to a depth of at least 3.6 m. Ground water was encountered in test pits TP-3, TP-4 and well MW-l at elevation -29.2 m (2.6 m below ground surface). The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figures 2, 3C, and 4C. HWA hand-augered five borings in order to determine if the thickness of the sandy loam soil meets the minimum 0.6-m (24-inch) thickness requirement for receptor soils within a sole source aquifer. The sandy loam layer ranged in thickness from 0.38 to 1.07 m (15 to 42 inches); somewhat thicker on the western portion of the proposed infiltration facility. Figure 4C shows hand auger locations and thickness of sandy loam layer. 4.7.2 Pilot Infiltration Test On October 14, 2002, HWA conducted a 24-hour, relatively large scale, in-situ, pilot infiltration test (PIT) to calculate the design infiltration rate for Pond C. The PIT was conducted as described in Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual Jar Western Washington. (SWMM) Appendix V-B (August 2001). The Infiltration Report in Appendix C provides a detailed discussion of the PIT. 4.7.3 Soils Laboratory Data HWA selected soil samples collected from test pits TP-l and TP-2 in Pond A and TP-3 and TP-4 in Pond C for analysis of grain-size distribution and moisture. Our soil laboratory conducted the tests in general accordance with US Department of Agriculture (USDA Textural Classification) and American Society of Materials Testing (ASTM D422). Table 6 shows sample soil classifications based on ASTM and USDA methods and Appendix B presents the laboratory data. HWA submitted one soil sample, TP-3/S-1 (a split ofTP-3/S-1a) to Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc. in BellevUe, Washington, for analysis of USDA textural classification, organic content, and Cation Exchange Capacity. Analytical results are presented below and the complete laboratory report is included in Appendix C: USDA Soil Classification -Gravelly Sandy Loam Organic Content -2.6% based on dry weight 04.0J.03.Final Report 28 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 Cation Exchange Capacity -14.9 milliequivalents per 100 grams soil Table 6. Soil Grain Size Classification TP-IIS-2a 0.37-Fine sandy loam (SM) very dark brown, silty TP-I/S-4 2.0-2.2 -Fine sandy loam s cs TP-2/S-1 0.6-0.8 Very gravelly sand (GP-GM) bro~n, poorly graded GRA VEL with silt and sand TP-2/S-3 1.8-2.0 Extremely gravelly sand (GP) brown, poorly graded GRA VEL with sand TP-3/S-1 1 0.3-0.5 Gravelly fine sandy (SM) brown, silty SAND oam TP-3/S-1 al 0.3-0.5 Fine sandy loam (SM) brown, silty SAND TP-3/S-2 0.9-1.1 Gravelly sand (SP) grayish-brown, poorly SAND TP-4/S-2 1.8-2.0 Extremely gravelly sand (GW) dark reddish brown, well ed GRAVEL with sand TP-4/S-4 2.4-2.6 Extremely gravelly sand (GW) dark brown, well graded GRA VEL with sand. I Soil samples TP-3/S-1 and TP-3/S-1a are splits of the same sample. 4.7.4 Infiltration Rate Short-Term Inmtratio~ Rate Table 7 provides estimated short-tenn infiltration rates of selected soil samples collected in Ponds A and C based on USDA soil classification method, as described in King County Surface-Water Design Manual (SWDM, 1995) and Ecology SWMM(2001). 04.03.03.Final Report 29 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 Whjle King County no longer recognizes the USDA soil classification method of estimating infiltration rates based on grain size, we have included the data to compare with field measurements. Table 7. Infiltration Rates Based On USDA Soil Textural Classification TP-l/S-2a 0.37-Fine sandy 2.5 2.5 TP-l/S-4 2.0-2.2 Fine sandy 2.5 2.5 loam TP-2/S-1 0.6-0.8 Very gravelly 51 51 sand TP-2/S-3 1.8-2.0 51 51 PONDC TP-3/S-1 J 0.3-0.5 Gravelly 2.5 2.5 TP-3/S-1 aJ 0.3-0.5 Fine sandy 2.5 2.5 loam TP-3/S-2 0.9-1.1 Gravelly sand 51 51 TP-4/S-2 1.8-2.0 Extremely 51 51 sand TP-4/S-4 2.4-2.6 51 51 Maximum Infiltration Rates based on Table 1.5.2, SUiface Waler Design Manual. King County Washington, January 1,990 (Revised November 1995). 1 Short-term infiltration rates based on Table 7.1, Siormwater Management Manual/or Western Washington, Ecology, August 2001. J Soil samples TP-3/S-1 and TP-3/S-1 a are splits of the same sample analyzed by separate laboratories. 04.0J.OJ.Finol Report 30 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 PondA Based on textural classification, short term infiltration rates for soils encountered in test pits TP-l and TP-2 is 2.5 cm/hr (centimeters per hour) for the overlying fine sandy loam and 51 cm/hr for the underlying grave11y sand. PondC Results of the 24-hour pilot infiltration test indicated a short-term infiltration rate of 158 cmlhr (62 inches per hour). The ground water level in MW-l rose approximately 1.52 em after 1.5 hours into the test, stabilizing at 3.3 em for 12 hours. Short term infiltration rates of soils encountered in test pits TP-3 and TP-4 were 2.5 cm/hr for overlying fine sandy loam and 51 cm/hr for the underlying grave]]y sand, based on textural classification. Design Infiltration Rate The design infiltration rate is determined by applying a correction factor to the short term infiltration rate, taking into account the receptor thickness, potential ground water level variability, clogging, and long term maintenance. Pond A The short-term infiltration rate for soils within the proposed infiltration receptor was 51 cmlhr. Ecology recommends a minimum correction factor of 2 for gravelly sands, allowing for a design infiltration rate of25 cm/hr. We believe the recommended correction factor of2 is appropriate for Pond A based on heterogeneous soil conditions (fi11, wood debris, silt layers) and shallow ground water level. PondC Results of the PIT indicated a measured short-term infiltration rate for infiltration receptor soils in Pond C of 158 cm/hr (62 inches per hour). We calculated a correction factor of 0.137 based on the King County SWDM, 1998 to estimate the design infiltration rate. Based on current design plans, HW A recommends a design infiltration rate of 22 cm/hr (9 inches per hour) for receptor soils underlying Pond C. Whereas, the recommended design infiltration rate is 22 cmlhr, actual infiltration rate may exceed 50 cmlhr. Utilizing the USDA soil classification method, the short-term infiltration rate of soils within the proposed i~filtration receptor is 51 cmlhr. Ecology recommends a minimum correction factor of 2 for gravelly sand, a110wing for a design infiltration rate of 25 cm/hr (10 inches per hour). 04.03.03.FinnJ Report 31 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 4.7.5 Conclusions HW A evaluated infiltration receptor soil conditions in two proposed stonnwater pond facilities (Ponds A and C) and measured ground water elevation in one proposed stonnwater detention facility (Pond B). Current design plans call for excavating Pond A 1.9 to 2.4 m (to an elevation of 31.2 m), and excavating Pond C 1.9 m (to an elevation of a 29.9 m). PondA In general, soils underlying Pond A consists of 1.5 to 2.0 m of fill overlying interbedded sands and gravels. Current design plans call for excavating Pond A to elevation of 31.2 m. During the subsurface soils exploration program, HWA encountered ground water at elevation 32.1 m on the northern portion of the proposed facility, and 30.2 m on the south portion. Based on current design plans, Pond A is unsuitable for stonnwater infiltration because the ground water level would be 0.9 m above the bottom of the pond on the north end and 1.0 m below the pond bottom on the south end. PondB HWA observed the drilling of one boring and completion as a ground water monitoring well (MW-2) located adjacent to the proposed Pond B. Soil boring samples indicated about 1.2 m of sandy loam over gravelly sands to a depth of at least 5.3 m. Ground surface elevation at MW-2 is approximately 32 m and ground water level was measured at a depth of 1.4 m (elevation 30.6 m). PondC Existing surface elevation is approximately 31.8 m. Pond design plans call for excavating Pond C 1.9 m to elevation of 29.9 m. Soils at Pond C consist of 0.38 to 1.0 m of sandy loam over interbedded sands and gravels to a depth of at least 3.6 m. Ground water was encountered at elevation 29.2 m in October 2002, and 30.0 m in January 2003. HWA performed soil analyses on selected infiltration receptor soil samples collected from Pond C and conducted an in-situ infiltration test to detennine a design infiltration rate. Based on USDA textural classification and our field test program, we recommend a design infiltration rate of 25 cmlhr (10 inches an hour). However, based on current pond design plans, Pond C is unsuitable for stonnwater infiltration because the water level in MW-I adjacent to Pond C, measured in January 2003, indicated that ground water would be O.lm below above the pond's designed bottom. 4.7.6 Domestic Water Supply WelJs Homes in the immediate vicinity of Pond C are reportedly serviced by individual water wells. Our review of available water well logs on file with the Department of Ecology, and interviews with several property owners in the vicinity of Pond C, indicate that the domestic wells are very shallow and most draw water from 5 to 10m below ground 04.0l.0l.FinaJ Repon 32 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 surface. We estimate that at least seven nearby water wells maybe located hydrologically down-gradient to the proposed Pond C. The closest well is approximately 76 m north/northwest of the pond. There are insufficient hydrologic data to evaluate the potential risk to nearby domestic wells if contaminants, originating from stormwater runoff, were to infiltrate in Pond C. 4.8 DETENTION POND 'A' DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 4.8.1 General Pond A will be located north of Jones Road and west of 154th Place SE, near Stewart Creek, and will involve construction of an earth berm to Elevation 34.75 m. The top of the berm will be between 2.11 and 2.73 m above the pond bottom that is to be developed at E1. 32.02 and 32.64 m. The pond bottom will be situated almost entirely below existing grade. The berm surrounding the pond will require both cuts into the existing soils, and fill placement on the existing sloping ground surface, to provide for the required containment of storm water. The necessary cuts will be up to about 2.5 m deep in the north part of the pond, and the fill for the berm will reach heights of up to 2.5 m in the south part of the pond. The proposed inside slope of the pond will have a gradient of 3H: 1 V (horizontal to vertical), while the outside slope will be at 2H: 1 V, where fill placement is required. We understand that, under the maximum short-term conditions, retained water in the pond would accumulate to EI. 34.45 m; thus, leaving 0.30 m of freeboard below the top of the berm. Under normal operating conditions, the water in the pond will be at about EI. 33.84 m, which corresponds to a water depth of 1.2 m. To preclude infiltration of the retained water into the underlying soils, the pond will feature an impervious geomembrane system. As the height of the berm will exceed 1.8 m (6 feet), the berm is required to be designed by a geotechnical engineer, and must satisfy the Dam Safety Guidelines of the Washington State Department of Ecology. In terms of Dam Safety Guidelines, Part IV: Dam Design and Construction, Clause 1.1.2, the size classification of the berm is "small dam" (water depth less than 4.6 m (15 feet)), and the reservoir operation classification is "intermittent 'operatioQ" (duration of the normal high pool condition is insufficient for the steady state seepage or saturated flow to develop). 4.8.2 Suitability of Available Materials for Construction The results of our investigation indicate presence of predominantly coarse-grained materials underlying the general area of the proposed pond location. These soils will 04.0J.OJ.Final Report 33 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 provide adequate foundation support for the detention facility and are considered generally suitable for use in constructing pond benns. The surficial topsoil and any fill containing visible amounts of organics are unsuitable as subgrade for the pond benns, or for structural layers in construction of the benn. Such materials are best suited for fill in non-critical areas of the project, or for landscaping. The fill encountered on site is classified as silty sand and gravelly sand with silt, and is considered suitable for benn construction, provided that the material is free of organics and that work is undertaken in dry weather. Furthennore, careful attention should be paid to compaction and moisture conditioning, because of occurrence of materials with a relatively high fines content. The underlying recent alluvial deposits are also considered suitable for berm construction purposes; however, any material containing organics or organic debris should be removed and discarded. Also, cobbles and boulders, ifpresent, should be removed from materials intended as fill, and poorly or gap-graded soils should be mixed with sapd to achieve better gradation for compaction purposes. 4.8.3 Liner Considerations The required pond liner can consist either of a low-penneability, compacted, soil blanket or an impervious synthetic barrier. The explorations indicate absence of well-defined layers of fine-grained, low permeability, materials in the project area that could be used in construction of an impervious bamer on the bottom and inside slopes of the detention pond. While it is possible that during construction excavation, occasional layers / seams, or isolated lenses, of low penneability fine-grained soils will be encountered, they are not expected to occur in sufficient volumes to construct the liner. In order to achieve the liner low penneability criterion of a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10.7 crn/sec or less, selected on-site soils would have to be amended with bentonite. The process of amending soils with bentonite, and then installing a low-permeability compacted soil blanket, is highly labor-intensive and weather-dependent. Also, such a liner would be subjected to desiccation and cracking when exposed to weather, and would require further protection. In our opinion, installation of an amended soil liner would not be feasible for this relatively small pond. Consequently, we recommend using a multi-layer liner system that includes a synthetic geomembrane (such as HDPE) for this application, due to its high reliability and ease of installation. We envision a liner system, depicted schematically in Figure 11, that would include the following elements: 04.03.03.FinBI Report 34 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 • Geotextile Cushion Blanket -8-ounce non-woven geotextile; placed over the entire bottom and sideslopes of the pond. The purpose of the cushion blanket is to provide protection to the geomembrane barrier against punctures and abrasion from the underlying soils. • Geomembrane Barrier -60-mil HOPE geomembrane with one textured upper surface; placed over the entire bottom and sideslopes of the pond. The impervious geomembrane barrier effectively seals the bottom and the sideslopes of the pond, thus, preventing infiltration of the retained water into the underlying soils. • Geotextile Friction Blanket -8-ounce non-woven geotextile; placed on all pond sideslopes above the permanent water level (El. 33.25). The friction blanket protects the geomembrane bru:rier from potential damage from materials placed on top of the liner, and equipment working above the liner. It also provides frictional resistance against sliding of materials directly on the liner system on pond sideslopes. • Geocell Annor -100-mm (4-inch) deep Terracel (or equivalent) infilled with topsoil; placed on all pond sideslopes above the permanent water level. The geocell armor provides long-term stability for vegetation and its growth-support topsoil layer placed on sideslopes of the pond, where resistance of the friction blanket alone is not sufficient to prevent sliding. • Bottom Blanket - A minimum 600-mm thick layer of borrow Is oil or 300-mm (12-inch) thick layer of sand, with optional cap of crushed rock; placed over the entire pond bottom (on top of the geomembrane barrier). The bottom blanket of sand provides additional protection to the liner system from damage by equipment traveling or working on the bottom of the pond. During periodical sediment removal from the pond bottom, the sand would give clear indication when all sediment has been removed. • Liner System Anchor Trench -we recommend that the upper edges of the geocomposite cushion blanket, geomembrane barrier, and geotextile friction blanket be anchored in a trench having a minimum depth of 0.9 m and a minimum width of 0.6 m. The anchor trench provides support to the liner system against sliding, folding and wrinkling. • Geocell Annor Tendons -we recommend that the geocell armor be restrained by means of polypropylene tendons such as Terratendon 1250, which have a rated strength of 5.6 kN (1250 pounds). A maximum tendon spacing of 1 meter would, in our opinion, provide adequate restraint. • Tendon Anchor -the tendons should anchor to a 7S-mrn (3-inch) diameter PVC pipe that is then buried in the liner system anchor trench. 04.03.03.Final Report 35 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 Both the geotextile cushion and friction blankets should consist of 8-ounce non-woven needle-punched geotextile, such as PermeaTex 4080 or equivalent, with a minimum grab tensile strength of 0.90 kN (200 pounds) and a minimum puncture strength of 0.45 kN (100 pounds). The geomembrane barrier should comprise of a 60-mil, one-side textured, HOPE (High Density Polyethylene) membrane, such as Layfield HDPE 60 (T') or equivalent. Alternatively, a thinner, 40-mil, membrane section could be considered if puncture from heavy construction or maintenance equipment is unlikely. The geocell annor infilled with topsoil can support vegetation growth on the inside slopes of the pond. To provide long-term stability, the geocell armor has to be held in place by a series of tendon elbows anchored as described above. Alternatively, vegetation can be grown on a layer of topsoil placed directly on the geotextile friction blanket without using the geocell armor and its anchoring system. The proposed 3H: 1 V gradient of the inside berm slope, combined with the available friction resistance provided by the geotextile friction blanket and the textured surface of the geomembrane, offers a high enough factor of safety to consider this alternative. It should be noted that, if placed without the geocell armor reinforcement, the vegetated topsoil layer may be affected by long-term creep and occasional shallow-seated failures. However, these surficial failures are expected to occur locally, without affecting the overall stability of the berm, and can be mitigated through routine maintenance measures. 4.8.4 Barrier Static Design for Pond Berm For Barrier Static Design, the Department of Ecology, Dam Safety Guidelines Part IV: Dam Design and Construction, requires that the following be satisfied: Design Condition Minimum Factor of Safety End of Construction 1.3 Sudden drawdown for maximum pool 1.0 Sudden drawdown from spillway crest 1.2 Steady-state seepage with maximum storage pool 1.5 In consideration of the presence of an impervious liner, and unsaturated granular materials comprising the berm, only the end-of-construction and long-term stability considerations are an issue. Sudden drawdown and steady-state seepage conditions will not apply to this case. Slope stability analyses for a 2.75 m high berm with 3H: 1 V inside side slopes and 2H: 1 V outside side slopes have been undertaken using the GSlope computer program and the 04.0J.OJ.Finnl Report 36 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HW A Project No. 96143 modified Bishop analysis method employing conservatively assumed parameters for compacted site soils and ground water conditions. The results of our analyses for the critical cross-section of the berm operating at full storage condition determined the minimum factor of safety to' be 1.60, confirming that the berm design satisfies the criteria of the Dam Safety Guidelines. 4.8.5 Barrier Seismic Design for Pond Berm For Barrier Seismic Design, the Department of Ecology, Dam Safety Guidelines Part IV: Dam Design and Construction, dismisses seismic considerations when all of the following apply: 1. The dam is well built (densely compacted) and peak accelerations are 0.2g or less; or the dam is constructed of clay soils, is on clay or rock foundations and peak accelerations are 0.35g or less. 2. The slopes of the dam are 3H: 1 V or flatter. 3. The static factors of safety of the critical failure surfaces involving the crest (other than infinite slope case) are greater than 1.5 under loading conditions expected prior to an earthquake. 4. The freeboard at the time of an earthquake is a minimum of2 to 3% of the embankment height (not less than 3 feet). The proposed berm configuration does not satisfy all of the above criteria. Therefore, a seismic assessment (including deformation and liquefaction assessments) is required in terms of the Dam Safety Guidelines. The discussion of seismic design criteria for the project is 'included in Section 4.1 of this report. Our evaluation of the pond site shows the following: 1. The recommended peak ground accelerations for an earthquake with a 10% and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (1 :476 and 1 :2475 years) are 0.29g and 0.54g, respectively. 2. The site is not located over any known potentially active fault, so no seismic rupture is predicted at the location of the facility. 3. The liquefaction potential for'the soils underlying the Elliott Bridge project site is limited to discontinuous layers in the recent alluvium and recessional outwash. Potential effects of soil liquefaction include temporary loss of-bearing capacity and lateral soil resistance, and liquefaction-induced settlement 04.0J,OJ.Final Report 37 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 4. The berm will be constructed of silty sand (SM) and silty gravel (GM) materials compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density, as determined using test method described in Section 2-03.3(14)D of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications. In addition, strict quality control procedures will be implemented during fill placement to ensure that the required minimum density is achieved. Screening level evaluations of the fill material using the Seed approach, and assuming that the compacted relative density of the material is over 70%, indicated that the potential for liquefaction of the compacted fill is remote. 5. For a compacted material such as that proposed for use in the berm, we anticipate that the maximum settlement of the material as a result of seismic shalcing will be less than 1 % of the fill height. This amounts to about 3 rom and is in addition to the potential liquefaction-induced settlement of the foundation soils. 6. Pseudo-static slope stability analyses for the berm under an earthquake loading (assumed extreme event with seismic coefficient of 0.17, 60% ofPGA for a 1 :475 year event) and with the maximum pond depth show a factor of safety of 1.09, which is considered acceptable for such an extreme event. Based on the above considerations, we believe that due to the presence ofpotentially liquefiable soil layers, the pond may sustain damage during the extreme event of a large earthquake. The damage would likely be limited to liquefaction-induced settlement of formation materials. However, loss of bearing capacity at a depth of about 5 m below the pond bottom and loss oflateral soil resistance would not affect the structural integrity and performance of the pond. Possible mitigation measures include ground improvement techniques such as soil densification or installation of stone columns. However, given the probability of the extreme seismic event and the relatively small dimensions of the pond, any mitigation measures are not considered feasible, and any potential damage to the berm could readily be repaired afterward .. 4.8.6 Pond Geometry Our analyses have shown that the pond's proposed inside sideslopes of 3H: 1 V and outside slopes of 2H: 1 V will ensure long-term stability. Furthermore, the gradient of the inside slopes could, in our opinion, be reduced to 2.5H: 1 V without compromising the overall safety of the structure. However, it is our understanding that the 3H: 1 V sideslopes are required for this particular pond. We recommend that the berm crest be at least 1.8 m wide for constructibility and access purposes. 04.03.0J.Final Report 38 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. . : April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 4.8.7 Construction Consideration To minimize the chances of encountering unfavorable, perched, ground water conditions, we recommend that the pond excavation be scheduled for the summer months. Before any liner materials are placed, all subgrade and sideslope areas should be cut (or filled) and compflcted with a vibratory roller to achieve a relatively smooth and unyielding surface. Ideally, the subgrade would have no particles protruding from the surface. Fill placed in the berm should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density determined by the Compaction Control Tests (Section 2-03.3(14)D of the WSDOT Standard Specifications). The moisture content of fill material s~ould be at or near optimum at the time of placement, in order to ensure adequate compaction. 4.9 SITE EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 4.9.1 Subgrade Preparation Site preparation should begin with the removal of undocumented fill, deleterious matter, and vegetation beneath the proposed embankment fills. Removals shotiid extend beyond the embankment fill "footprint" a minimum distance equal to the depth of excavation, or 1.5 m (5 feet), whichever is greater. The excavated soils should either be stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas or exported from the site if unsuitable for landscaping. The subgrade soils should be compacted to a dense and unyielding conditio!l and then proof-rolled with heavy construction equipment such as a large, self propelled, vibratory roller or a fully-loaded dump truck. Successive passes of the roller or dump truck should be made, spaced to provide complete coverage. Proof-rolling should be performed under the full-time observation of a representative of the geotechnical consultant. Such proof- rolling will provide visual information for the assessment of the sub grade and the evaluation of its acceptability as a bearing stratum. If the sub grade is in a wet or saturated condition, proof-rolling should not be performed. Under this circumstance, sub grade conditions should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant using a steel probe. Any areas exhibiting significant deflection, pumping, and/or rutting during the proof- rolling/probing process should be over-excavated and replaced. The over-excavation process, if necessary, should be observed by the geotechnical consultant and the over- excavated area should be backfilled with structural fill materials in accordance with the recommendations in the following section. 4.9.2 Structural Fill Materials and Compaction Structural fill materials should consist of relatively clean, free draining sand and gravel conforming to the Gravel Borrow specification, Section 9-03.14 (Gravel Borrow) of the 04.03.03.Final Report 39 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 2002 WSOOT Standard Specifications. If earthwork is performed during extended periods of wet weather or in wet conditions, the structural fill should conform to the recommendations provided in the Wet Weather Earthwork section below. In general, we anticipate that portions of the existing fill materials on site will be suitable for re-use as structural fill. Soils which are fine-grained (silt and clay), or organic-rich are considered unsuitable. Sandy portions of the existing fill materials on site may be suitable for re-use as compacted structural fill, provided that care is taken to prevent mixing with unsuitable soils, and the compaction criteria presented herein are met. In general, the backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a dense and unyielding condition, and at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by test method described in Section 2-03.3(14)0 of the 2002 WSOOT Standard Specifications. The thickness ofloose lifts should not exceed 200 mm (8 inches) for heavy equipment compactors and 100 mm (4 inches) for hand operated compactors. The procedure to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction df?pends on the size and type of compacting equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being compacted, and on soil moisture-density properties. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness, and the adequacy of the subgrade preparation and embankment materials compaction be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant during construction. A sufficient number of in-place density tests should be performed as the fill is being placed to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. 4.9.3 Wet Weather Earthwork The on-site fill and native soils are considered moderately moisture sensitive and may be difficult to traverse with construction equipment during periods of wet weather or wet conditions. Furthermore, the near-surface soils may be difficult to compact if their moisture content significantly exceeds the optimum. General recommendations relative to earthwork performed in wet weather or in wet conditions are presented below. • Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soil should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean structural fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe to minimize sub grade disturbance caused by equipment traffic. ' • Material used as structural fill should consist of clean, granular soil with less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, based on wet sieving 04.03.03.FiMJ Report 40 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 the fraction passing the ~-inch sieve. The fine-grained portion of the structural fill soils should be non-plastic. • The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water. • The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, and under no circumstances should soil be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. • Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be observed under the full-time observation of a representative of the geotechnical engineer, to determine that the work is being accomplished in accordance with the project specifications and the recommendations contained herein. • Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be strategically located to control erosion and the movement of soil. 4.9.4 Embankment Fill Slopes Compacted fill for roadway embankments should be placed on subgrades prepared as recommended in Section 4.9.1. We recommend that the planned compacted fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2H: 1 V (horizontal:vertical). For fill slopes constructed at 2H: 1 V or flatter, and comprised of fill soils placed and compacted as recommended above, we anticipate that adequate factors of safety against global failure will be maintained. For fill embankments up to 6 m in height, we estimate maximum settlements on the order of about 15 to 25 mm. It is our opinion that these settlements will occur relatively rapidly, with the majority of settlement occurring during construction. Therefore, we do not anticipate the need for preloading or surcharging of abutment fills. During a strong seismic event, embankment fill slopes may be impacted by seismic- induced settlement or liquefaction of on-site soils. Due to the limited thicknesses and extents of the potentially liquefiable layers (see Figure 8), we do not anticipate widespread damage to the highway embankments ifliquefaction occurs. Deformations and possibly failure oflocalized portions ofthe.roadway embankment may occur during a strong seismic/1iquefaction event, but should be capable of being readily repaired. Measures should be taken to prevent surficial instability and/or erosion of embankment material. This can be accomplished by conscientious compaction of the embankment fills all 'the way out to the slope face, by maintaining adequate drainage, and planting the slope face as soon as possible after construction. To achieve the specified relative compaction 04.0l.0l.Final Report 41 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HW A Project No. 96143 at the slope face, it may be necessary to overbuild the slopes several feet, and then trim back to design finish grade. In our experience, compaction of slope faces by "track-walking" is generally ineffective and is, therefore, not recommended. 4.10 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND SHORING 4.10.1 Temporary Excavations Based on the soil conditions observed in our explorations, we anticipate that the on-site soils can be excavated using conventional excavating equipment. Temporary excavations will be required for pile caps or other purposes. Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with the current requirements of federal, state and/or local agencies. Exposure of personnel beneath temporary cut slopes should be kept to a minimum. Construction should proceed as rapidly as feasible, to limit the time temporary excavations are open. During wet weather, runoff water should be prevented from entering excavations, and should be collected and disposed of outside the construction limits. Heavy construction equipment, building materials, and surcharge loads such as excavated soil should not be allowed within 1/3 the slope height from the top of any excavation. For temporary excavations exceeding 4 feet in height, excavations must be sloped in accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155, or be shored. The existing loose fill and alluvial soils classify as Type C soil and may be inclined no steeper than 1 ihH: 1 V according to WAC 296-155. Glacial deposits on site are anticipated to classify as Type B soil and may be inclined no steeper than IH:1V. Flatter slopes may be required where ground water flow is present. Specific design for temporary slopes is not included herein; since the contractor has control over factors during construction, which are critical to the stability of the slope. Such factors include the amount of slope opened at one time, the length of time the slope is left open, and to some extent when the slope is left open in terms of weather conditions. Thus, maintaining safe and stable temporary excavations is the responsibility of the contractor. With time and the presence of seepage and/or precipitation, the stability of temporary unsupported ,cut slopes can be significantly reduced. Therefore, all temporary slopes should be protected from erosion by installing a surface water diversion ditch or berm at the top of the slope and by covering the cut face with well-anchored plastic sheets. In addition, the contractor should monitor the stability of the temporary cut slopes and adjust the construction schedule and slope inclination accordingly'. 04.0J.Ol.Finnl Report 42 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 4.10.2 Temporary Shoring Where temporary cut slopes are not feasible, the contractor should design and construct an appropriate shoring system. For example, if the H-pile alternative is selected for support of bridge abutments and the center pier, pile caps will extend as deep as approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface. This depth of excavation would be wel1 below the anticipated ground water level. To avoid impacts to adjacent wetlands, or to facilitate dewatering of the excavations, temporary shoring may be needed. Cantilevered sheet pile wal1s may be a feasible shoring alternative. However, installation of the steel sheets may be impacted by the presence of cobbles and boulders. Other wall types considered feasible include soldier pile and lagging and cast in-place tangent pile walls. If soldier pile walls are used, it may be most efficient to use steel sheets for lagging rather than timber. The tangent pile wall, which consists of a series of auger-cast piles installed adjacent to each other, may also be a practical and economical alternative for this project. Any temporary shoring system should be designed and constructed to support lateral loads exerted by the retained soil mass and any adjacent surcharge loads. Recommended lateral earth pressures for design of temporary cantilevered sheet pile, soldier pile and lagging, and auger-cast tangent pile walls are presented on Figure 12. The design pressures presented on Figure 12 assume ground water is present near the ground surface on the outside of the wall, and is drawn down to 0.5 m (approximately 2 feet) below the base of the excavation inside the wall. 4.11 DEWATERlNG AND GROUND WATER CONSIDERATIONS Ground water was encountered in the exploratory borings at relatively shallow levels. It should be noted that ground water conditions can vary substantially over time, and over relatively short distances. The contractor should be prepared to deal with ground water during construction. Of particular importance would be dewatering of excavations such as pile caps (see Section 4.11). Design and implementation of any dewatering system is the responsibility of the contractor. We recommend that the contract documents include a requirement that the contractor submit a dewatering and shoring plan to the engineer for review prior to construction. Ground water encountered during construction of the Elliott Bridge will occur primarily in the Cedar River alluvial deposits, which are host to the shallow aquifer system. Previous studies (Robinson and Noble, 1972) and borings installed for this study indicate the shallow aquifer thickness is on the order of 7 to 10m (23 to 33 feet). Most domestic wells located in the project vicinity use this aquifer. Further down the Cedar River system, the City of Renton uses this shallow aquifer as part of their municipal water supply. Based on a review of available information, it is our understanding that the 04.0J.OJ.Final Report 43 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 project site is located within the Cedar River Aquifer Protection Area. Special precautions required for projects within the Cedar River Aquifer Protection Area may be applicable to the Elliott Bridge project. Potential impacts to the local ground water regime could result from the proposed construction. In particular, dewatering associated with excavations such as pile caps could draw down the ground water level locally, during the time the dewatering system is operable and shortly thereafter. Installation of drilled shafts or driven piling may potentially impact the shallow aquifer, possibly increasing turbidity of ground water within the locally affected area. Again, such impacts would likely be temporary. In our opinion, potential impacts to the shallow aquifer would be greater for drilled shafts than for driven piling. It should be noted that a detailed hydrogeologic study is beyond the scope of HWA 's services. However, we recommend that an inventory be taken of nearby domestic water wells. If any such wells are located near enough to the site that construction may potentially impact the quantity or quality of ground water, it may be adv.isable to collect additional data on those wells prior to construction. Measurements of ground water levels and water quality tests should be taken to provide a basis for determining if ground water impacts have occurred, and for evaluating the severity of any impacts. A plan should be developed for providing alternate sources of water to affected residences, should significant ground water impacts occur during construction. 4.12 SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONSIDERATIONS 4.12.1 Surface \Vater Control Surface runoff can be controlled during construction by careful grading practices. Typically, these include the construction of shallow, upgrade perimeter ditches or low earthen berms and the use of temporary sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from damaging exposed subgrades. Also, measures should be taken to avoid ponding of surface water during construction. Permanent control of surface water should be incorporated in the final grading design. Adequate surface gradients and drainage systems should be incorporated into the design such that surface runoff is directed away from structures and pavements and into swales or other controlled drainage devices. 4.12.2 Erosion Control In our opinion, erosion at the site during construction can be minimized by implementing the recommendations presented in Wet Weather Earthwork. Section 4.9.3, and by judicious use of straw bales, silt fences and plastic sheets. The erosion control devices 04.0J.OJ.Finnl Report 44 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 should be in place and remain in place throughout site preparation and construction. Potential problems associated with erosion may also be minimized by establishing vegetation within disturbed areas iinmediately following grading operations. Vegetation with deep penetrating roots is the preferred choice, since the roots tend to maintain the surficial stability of slopes by mechanical effects and contribute to the drying of slopes by evapotranspiration. 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by King County and ABKJ, Inc. in design of a portion of this project. The report and any other applicable geotechnical data should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that subsurface soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HW A should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditio!ls have changed due to construction operations at or near the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability ofthe conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse. This report is issued with the understanding that the information and recommendations contained herein will be brought to the attention of the appropriate design team personnel and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and the necessary steps will be taken to verify that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The scope of work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil; surface water, or ground water at this site. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner ifhe considers any of the recommended actions presented herein unsafe. -------0· 0------- 04.03.03.FinaJ Report 45 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 We appreciate the opportunity to have provided geotechnical services for this project, and trust that this report meets with your requirements. However, should you have any questions, or require further assistance please call at your convenience. Sincerely, HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. Les C. Banas Senior Geotechnical Engineer _, 1\ _ I ---....;~~::.....,--.J Lome A. Balanko, P .E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer LCB:RD:LAB:lcb 04.03.0J.Finnl Report 46 !2~t{)1~ Randal Dyer, R.G. Geologist HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 6.0 REFERENCES American Association oJ State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1996, Guidefor Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, 1996, Standard Specifications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, Sixteenth Edition. ABKJ, Inc., 1994, Design Report -Elliott Bridge Replacement, consultant report to King County DOPW dated April 5, 1994. Associated Earth Sciences, 1986, Subsurface Exploration and Geologic Hazards Report. Skyfire Ridge Subdivision. King County. Washington, consultant report dated October, 1986. Atwater, B., 1987, Evidencefor Great Holocene Earthquakes Along the Outer Coast of Washington State, Science 236, pp. 942-944. Blake, T.F., 1989, LIQUEFY2. A Computer Program for the Empirical Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential, User's Manual, 1986, 87 p. Cascade Geotechnical, i 986, Geotechnical Report for Building Site. 4.32 Acres on 154th Avenue SE, King County. Washington, consultant report dated November 6, 1986. Cheney, E.S., 1987, Major Cenozoic Faults in the Northern Puget Lowland of Washington, Schuster, E. J., "Selected Papers on the Geology of Washington," Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 77, pp. 149-168. Crossen, R.S., 1972, Small Earthquakes. Structure. and Tectonics of the Puget Sound Region, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 73, pp. 1133-1171. Earth Consultants, Inc., 1984, Preliminary Geotechnical Study. Valley Faire I and II. King County. Washington, consultant report dated August 24, 1984. FHWA, WSDOT, and King County, Department of Public Works, 1995, Elliott Bridge No. 3166 Replacement. King County. Washington State. Final Environmental Impact Statement .. GeoEngineers, Inc., 1987a, Report. Preliminary Soils Investigation. Pr,oposed Valley Faire I. Phase 2. King County. Washington. File No. 0104-1 J.~2, consultant report dated August 28, 1987. 04.03.03.Fina\ Report 47 HWA GEoScrENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 GeoEngineers, Inc., 1987b, Supplemental Report, Preliminary Geotechnical Services, Valley Faire I, Phase 2, King County, Washington, File No. 0104-11-2, consultant report dated October 16, 1987. GeoEngineers, Inc., 1988a, Report, Site Investigation, Proposed Mobile Home Park, King County, Washington, File No. 1212-01-2, consultant report dated January 15, 1988. GeoEngineers, Inc., 1988b, Summary Report, Geotechnical Consultation, Valley Faire 1, Phase 2, King County, Washington, File No. 0104-11-2, consultant report dated January 25, 1988. Gower, H. D., J.C. Yount and R.S. Crosson, 1985, Seismotectonic Map oJthe Puget Sound Region, Washington. U. S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-1613. Hall, J. B. and K.L. Othberg, 1974, Thickness oJ Unconsolidated Sediments, Puget Lowland, Washington, State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. . Hong West & Associates, Inc., 1996, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, Field Reconnaissance and Literature Review, Elliott Bridge No. 3166 and 149th Avenue SE. King County, Washington, consultant report dated September 9, 1996. Hong West & Associates, Inc., 1997, Geotechnical Report, Elliott Bridge No. 3166 and 1491h Avenue SE, King County, Washington, consultant report dated March 21, 1997, Revised August 12, 1997. King County, 1996, Topographic Mapping and Profile Drawings. King County Department of Natural Resources, 1990, Surface Water Design Manual, January 1990, Revised November 1995. King County Department of Natural Resources, 1998, Surface Water Design Manual. King County Engineering Department, 1949, Elliott Bridge No. 3166, As-Built Plans. Luzier, J.E., 1969, Geology and Groundwater Resources oj Southwestern King County, Washington, State of Washington, Department of Water Resources, Water Supply Bulletin No. 28. McCrumb, D., et at., 1989, Tectonics, Seismicity, and Engineering Seismology in Washington, Engineering Geology in Washington, Vol. I, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 78. 04.03.03.FinsJ Report 48 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 Mullineaux, D.R., 1965, Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, USGS Map No. GQ-450. Mullineaux, D.R., 1970, Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles, King County, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 672. Noson, L., A. Qamar and G.W. Thorsen, 1988, Washington State Earthquake Hazards, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Information Circular 85. Reese, L.C. and S.T. Wang, 1989, Documentation of Computer Program LPILE. Richards, R., Jr. and Elms, D.G., 1992, Seismic Passive Resistance of Tied-Back Walls, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Volume 118, No. GT7, pp. 996-1 ° 11, July. Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates, Inc., 1984a, Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Church and School Facilities, Renton Assembly of God Church, King County, Washington, consultant report dated March 30, 1984. Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates, Inc., 1984b, Design Phase Subsurface Exploratio.n and Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Church and School Facilities, Renton Assembly of God Church, King County, Washington, consultant report dated July 10, 1984. Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates, Inc., 1990, Supplementary Field Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Church and School Facilities, Renton Assembly of God Church, King County, Washington, consultant report dated July 12, 1990. Robinson & Noble, Inc., 1972, Ground Water Resources of the Cedar and Green River Basins, unpublished report to CH2M Hill, June, 1972. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential. Using Field Performance Data, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Volume 109, No. GT03, March. Seed, H.B., K. Tokimatsu, L.F. Harder and R.M. Chung, 1985, Influence ofSPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluation, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 12, pp. 1425-1445. 04.03.0J.FinaJ Report 49 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. April 4, 2003 HWA Project No. 96143 Seed, H.B., Wong, R.T., Jdriss, I.M. and Tokimatsu, K., 1986, Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Analyses oJ Cohesion less Soils, Journal of G eotechrti cal Engineering, ASCE, Volume 112, No. GTII, November. Tokimatsu, K. and H.B.' Seed, 1987, Evaluation oJSettlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, ASCE Journal of the Geotechrtical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878. Uniform Building Code, 1997, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, International Conference of Building Officials, Vol. 2, 1339 p. U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1993, Dam Safety Guidelines, Part IV: Dam Design and Construction. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1991, South King County 'Groundwater Management Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001, Stormwater Management Manual Jor Western Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2002, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. Woodward, D.O., Packard, F.A., Dion, N.P., and Sumioka, S.S., 1995, Occurrence and Quality of Ground Water in Southwestern King County, Washington, USGS Water- Resources Investigations Report 92-4098. 04.03.03.FinaJ Report 50 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. NOT TO SCALE I SOURCE. DeLDRM STREET ATLAS USA 1998 B 1--___ V_IC_I_N_IT_Y_M_A_P ___ --jCHDUECXED~ ~~ := ~ 1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC ELUOTf BRIDGE NO. 3166 REPLACEMENT KING COUNlY, WASHINGTON Ho\lProJects\1996 ProJects\96143 Elliott Bridge N 3166\200\99143-01.dwg 11.08.02 99143 lEV Dj ICS 2/21/O.J .; , I LEGEND ~W-l y MONITORING WELL DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION X. HA·1 Y HAND AUGER BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION ~H-l T BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION tHH -1 HAND BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION I @j , PROPOSED BIKE PATH ALIGNMENT "'OS? ..... a" lOw 20M 4011 ~ SCALE: 1 Qj a 1011 ~ DOMESTIC WATER WELL DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION ~P-3 TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION .. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC ELLIOTT BRIDGE NO. 3166 AND 149TH AVENUE SE KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON f'1CIUIIl NO. DllAWM IT ~M-2 IT -.l.CL-SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN ~IIATI~---J=PC.Il'CI'~NO.~- 11.21.02 96143-200 lEV 01 a I/U/OJ . LO !JD ... . . . I LEGEND ~W-l Y MONITORING WELL DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION ~H-l T BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION ... HH-l T HAND BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION A DOMESTIC WATER WELL DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION ~P-3 TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION ELLIOTT BRIDGE NO. 3166 AND ~,.....---~--, -~ OM 10" 20" 40" e-w; SCALE: 1 CII... 10" .. 149TH AVENUE SE SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN ""=-----+=~-- HWAGEOSClENCES INC KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 11.21.02 96143-200 H: 614J-200-02.dwg (!) Z Z 0 ~ iii o .... n-+ o o n-+ 0 en N-+ 0 IX) N-+ o ,... N-+ o 10 N-+ 0 It') N-+ ~ N-+ o n N-+ o ~-+ o ... N-+ 0 0 N-+ 0 en + 0 IX) ... -+ .... o ,... + ...... I-Z w ::I I-::> CO ~ :I: t-o:: 0 Z ........ (~l3ld w U ~ \... 0:: ::> III o z ::> o 0:: (.!) ...... I-Z w ::I I-::> CO ~ :I: I-::> 0 III ...., 0:: W > 02 0:: ~ o W U G _1---"1---'-1 --..,1---1---...1---1.----1---..1---.-1 --..,I-··· .. ·j .- ~ N 0 IX) ~ ~ N 0 IX) 10 ~ N n n n N c~ N N N ~. -' w > ~ 0:: (.!) 0 z' ~ ~ 0 -' III Z ~ W III III W 2 III W Z e· -' W WW 0 vi Ill> o~ 00:: oO:: I-W -,e.!) e W-' ::I:I: Ill::> 00 ::>t::: o~ OCO -' We 0 ::I z "z ::I~ o~ ::> > III I-Ill w O ::>w -,-' III 2 -'co O~ ~co 0-, 0 ~U -'W .:.i~ W:I: UI--'0:: W-i::(.!) O::~ m ,. 0 Z W C!J W ...J '"' I- 0 III Zz W I-~o I-2;:: 0. O~ III -U 1-0 ::I ~-' III 0 s:!w 1-0:: IIlI-Z\... w~ ::>W 0::1 0::> (.!)x U-' ~~ Zo _0:: 0 I 0::0. -'Z 00. co ........ co~ en '" £-H8 I -.---'Ol.:l 3NIlH::llVf4l W III Z will 00 w )-olD 0::0:: WW >1-2 "I-1Il-, 1-_ Vi III 0:1: 0-1-w_ o~ t.J' -w 0::> o~ -,0:: ~e.!) u>-~t--,-' (.!)iii 00 !::!z \...~ ;::0 ;22 I-~ III III I :'0" :~.l (' . ..• I- -' U W ~ I-> Z W 0 -' o::e.!) U W= ~ e.!) 1--' (.!) 2 ~-' 02 ~02 0 -' 0 e 0 co W W I-\... e.!) \... ~O 0 0 XW W ::I 0::1 0:: 0 0::;:: 0:: I:: 0-W 0-1-L.. 0 ~~ 2 co .. iLO i I I ~ ~ I z 0 ~ 0 W (J) (J) (J) 0 0:: 0 ~ ~ <c « .. o .. It') .. o Ii 0 l!. 0 N S M V a ..... Ii co 0') ; N q 0 ~ 0') 0 0 -r- ('I') + -r- 0 r-... -r-+ ~ « ~ (J) " " • • ........ 1'.' ~. o ~-+ ... ~ 'Ot-+ ~-+ ... 0 I"l 'Ot-+ .... o N 'Ot-+ o .... 'Ot-+ o ~-+ o Ol I"l-+ o IX) I"l-+ .... o ,... I"l-+ o 10 I"l-+ ~ I"l-+ ~-+ ~ I"l-+ o N I"l-+ o .... I"l-+ t N 'Ot OVO~ S3NOr ..:lO 3803 HlnOS I ~ I 10 r") I N I"l I o I"l I 10 N I 10 N I 'Ot N 1 N N o N £ -I W > < --~ t.:> 0 Z >-< I--I 0 VI Z < w VI VI W Z VI w Z 0, -I W wW 0 vi VI> 0< 00: oO: I-W -It.:> 0 w-l ~:J: VI:::l 00 :::It= o~ om -I Wo 0 "Z ~z ~« 0< I-VI >VI wO :::lW ...J-I VIZ -1m 0« «m 0-1 0 I-U -Iw Z .. > W:J: -1« UI--10: w-i::t.:> o:~ ~ ,. 0 Z W C!) W ...J ....... I- 0 VI Zz W I- «0 I-zl= 0. 0« VI -u 1-0 ~ ~...J Vlo !:2w 1-0: zL... VII-w« :::lw o~ 0:::l t.:>x U-I ~:; zO _0: 0 I 0:0. ...Jz 00. m_ m« en otl C-H8 I - ---'DI..:l ]NIlH::>lV~ 0 ~ 0 N S cJ> dCC i oo::t a ..-c; I I (0 en ~ J ~ N ~ 0 Ii N en Ii 0 z 0 (0 0 ~ i= + ,... u « I UJ 0 en I ,... en <C ('t') en + ,... 0 ~ 0:: U en w w VI VI Z Z WVl WVl 00 00 w W >-m >-m 0:0: 0:0: wW Ww >1->1-~ Z " I-"I-VI-I VI-I 1--1--iii VI iii VI 0:J: 0:J: 0.1-0.1-w-w_ o:t o:t tJ tJ -w -w 0:> 0:> 0< 0< • 0 N • -10: <t.:> -10: «t.:> o· .... 'Ot u>-u~ j~ j::! t.:>iii t.:>VI II II • • ........ • 00 00 wz Wz i::« i::« 1=0 1=0 «z «z f=« f=< VI VI VI VI [J ~. . , . -" " ,"'.,:. 0 ~~ • V) V) I/') ~~ • ~~ 0 :r I- -I U « W I-> Z ~ 0 o:t.:> U w~ ~ t.:l I-...J t.:> Z «-I 0 0: :to:: ...J 0 0 0 m W W I-L... t.:> ~O ..... 0 0 -W W )(~ ::::z 0_ 0: 0 0:1-0: 1= 0. W 0.1-L... 0 «< ~ m ... STATIONING 1+460 I 1+470 I 1+480 I 1+490 I 1+500 I 1+510 I 1+520 I 1+530 I 1+540 1+550 1+560 I 1+570 I 1+580 I 1+590 I 1+600 I 1+610 I lj ~I z ::::q :r ~I -T NOTES: t') BORING DESIGNATION AND :I: APPROXIMATE LOCATION II) 39 BLOW COUNTS (N-VALUE rROM SPT TEST) APPROXIMATE WATER LEVEL AT TIME or DRILLING --INrERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT BonOM or BORING 1. lli£ SUBSURFACE CONDmONS SHOWN ON lli£ CROSS SECTION ARE ~ ON IN1!RPOlATlON BETWEEN BORINGS, AND SHOUlD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIWAlE ONLY AND SUBJECT 10 POTDlTlAllY S&GHlflCANT VARl41lON. Z. REftR 10 FlGUR£ 2 FOR l.OCI.llON OF CROSS SECTION A-A. H:\IPrqe:tsII995 Prqects\95143 EJliaII BriI1ge N 3166\200196 I~DWG LEGEND I I GROUND SURrACE IZY"'Yl riLL: LOOSE TO MEDIUM LOOSE DENSE SILTY ~ GRAVEL AND SAND WITH GRAVEL. 'f-:'~'-'i!1J STRATIfiED GLACIAL DRln DEPOSITS: VERY DENSE '!!;:;ic;,!'~ SAND AND SILTY GRAVEL. WITH SILT INTERBEDS. ~..... STRATIfiED GLACIAL DRln DEPOSITS: VERY DENSE ~ SAND AND SILTY GRAVEL, WITH SILT INTERBEDS. 0" 5· 10· 20· um ~ HORIZ. SCAlE~ ,. = 1 n· VERT. SCALE: 1· 4· HWAGEoSCIENCFS INC A NORTH 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 --------------------.-------------.-----~==~--~ ELLIOTT BRIDGE NO.1366 CROSS SECTION -- REPLACEMENT A -A' KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON STA 1+460 -1+610 .....a:r_ 96143-200 lEY 01 ItS 1/%1/= 1+020 1+050 1 + 100 I I I LEGEND ,- I I CD TOP OF BORING /~ POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE ZONES ASSUMED SOD-YEAR EVENT POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE ZONES ASSUMED 100-YEAR EVENT BOTTOM OF BORING A (SOUTH) 36..,~ I ::r: 344m C\I I ::r: m 32111~ 21M 108M 30 11 .... ,-... . 3.4M ,.... 28~ I 144.3M II) ~ w t::; 26 ~ '-' z Q 24 ~ ~ r;:1 22 20 18 16 14 12 1+150 1+200 I I ,...... I- Z W ~ I- => m « (W) I ..q-~ I=> J:53 m ......... ::r: OJ 1+250 1+300 1+350 I I I ,...... I- Z W ~ ,..... l-I => m ::r: ,...... « 0:: ./ w CO~ 0.... ,0:: 0:: ::r:~ .,,--IO~ m ......... IZ J:~ ~ m ......... I I 5.5M 6.1M 2.1M ~ 2.1M 8.5M . 8.5M 5.8M ~ 5.8M 11m HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 1+400 1+450 1+500 I I I EXISTING GROUND SURFACE ~ co / I J: m / HORIZONTAL Om 20m 40m ~ : I : i Om 2m 4m VERTICAl ELUOTT BRIDGE NO.1366 REPLACEMENT 1+550 I / BOm :. 8m KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON l+~OO A' (NORTH) C» I r56 ::r: m 54 52 1.BM~ 50 r3.7M r48 r46 144 1"1 r 42 .~ 40 38 r36 r34 r32 r30 t2B 26 r24 r22 20 RESULTS OF UQUEFA010N ANALYSIS -i 6 Z ,.... ~ !?:l 1"1 ::0 II) '-' CWITIT:=I-a IIGt I rmm:I' lID. 11.22.02 I 96143 IE\' lIZ IS 2,/%5/IU 24 ,-- - -, - - --_,_-- - --1-- - - -, - - --_,_-- --, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I APPRCjlXIMATE TOP IOF I 1 I 1 I r DENS~ GLACIAL DEpOSITS 1 1 1 22 1 1 1 1-----+------/------1 (j) 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 0:: 1 AX IAL 1 1 1 AX IAL 1 I 1 ~ 1 J 1 d 1 1 I ::E 1 TENSIO~ I C IMPRESSION 1 I I ;-20L--A-----_J. ____ --1 o I \ 11 I I !:i: 1 \ 1 I Gj I \ \ I I Q I \ \ 1\ 13 I I a. I \ \ 1\ I ~ I ~I I ~ 181----~~---_,_ ---,---_,_----, w I~ \t-? \. ~ I 10l \.~ gil 1 I ~ I 13 \t \ ~ I I I I I a I ~ :6i \0. I I I I I g: 1 \ t \~ I 1 I I ~ 16 i---'~fl---i-----:----i----1-----; 1 \ 1 \ \ I 1 I I I I 1 1 \ \ I 1 1 I I I 1 1 \ 1 I. 1 I I I 14 +----J..J--L_ ----+ -----1-----+------+-----I o 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY (kN) NOTES: (1) A FACTOR OF SAFE1Y OF 2.0 AND 3.0 IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATING THE ALLOWABLE SHAFT FRICTION AND END BEARING CAPACITIES, RESPECTIVELY. (2) ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES MAY BE INCREASED BY 1/3 FOR WIND AND SEISMIC LOADS. -HWAGEOSCIENCES INc CAPACITY CHART DRILLED SHAFTS ELuon BRIDGE NO. 3166 REPLACEMENT KING COUNTY', WA --DlAWN If ..sM-9 If J.CL 11.22.02 96143 I£V 0' ICI 2/2' /OS 24 T - - - - --1-- - - - - T - - - - --I~ - - --7l 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I : : APPR~XIMATE TOP LOF : 1 1 r DENS~ GLACIAL DE~OSITS I 22 -l-1 I -1-- - - - -..J 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I z 20 T------I-.,----T------I------l 2 I 1 \ 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 \ I I I W I I \ ~ I I cd I I \ I~ I I 0.. I I \:t. I ~ I I I-18 1. - - ----1---"'0 __ 1. -.... :...r ___ 1 ___ ---J I 1 \ -;. I I' I ~ 1 1 \~ 1 ~ I I ~ I I \~ I ~ I I x I I \~ I ~ I I ~ I I \~ I ~ I I 0.. I I \ % I ~ I I 0.. 16 T - - - - --1-- - --\~i - - - --1-- - ---1 « 1 I \\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 I 1 \ 1 I 1 1 I \1 1 1 14 + ------1-- - - - -* ------1-- - - - -J o .'. 400 800 1,200 1,600 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY (kN) NOTES: (1) A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 2.0 AND 3.0 IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATING TIiE ALLOWABLE SHAFT FRICTION AND END BEARING CAPACfT1ES, RESPECTIVELY. (2) ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES MAY BE INCREASED BY 1/3 FOR WIND AND SEISMIC LOADS. -HWAGEOSCIENCES INC CAPACTIY CHART DRIVEN H-PILES ELLIOTT BRIDGE NO. 3166 REPLACEMENT KING COUNTY, WA DlAWN IV ~tt--1110.0 CICED IV J.CIL- DATI ND.Ia:f 110. 11.22.02 96143 IIlV Of ICS 2/2f/OS 34.76 iii '0 m t:mlES; GHlCEU. "ffNDOH ElBOW ,-GHX:Etl. ARMOR (4"lBUIACEU. OR EQUNAlfNT) WITH TOPSOIL INfIU. TYPICAL SECTION N.T.S. 1. PLACE GEOCElL ARMOR AND GEOTEXl1LE FRICl10N BLANKET AROUND ENllRE POND BE1WEEN ELEVAl10NS 33.25 m AND 34.75 m. 2. PLACE GEOMEMBRANE BARRIER OVER ENllRE POND SURFACE BELOW ELEVATION 34.75 m. 3. PLACE GEOTEXllLE CUSHION BLANKET OVER ENllRE POND SURFACE BELOW ElEVAl10N 34.75 m. -HWAGEOSCIENCES INC ELLIOTI BRIDGE NO. 3166 REPLACEMENT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON POND liNER DIAGRAM DETENTION POND A m DRAWN BY SM 1--11 O{[CIC[D 111' .... LC ...... B __ .... 11: I'C&CI' _ 11.11.02 96143-200 lEV ot IS 2/ZtjDJ AssuME GROUNDWATER A T SURFACE FOR DESIGN P-4 WATER PRESSURE NOTES: ./ SOLDIER PILE OR /' SHEET PILE BonoM OF EXCAVATION + ACTIVE PRESSURE PASSIVE PRESSURE P 2 = ~ + 21 (0-0.5) P3 = 3(H+D) P ~ :: 9.8(H+0.5) H (1) THE ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURES FOR SOLDIER PILE WALL DESIGN DO NOT INa.UDE THE EFFECTS OF WALL FRIcnON. (2) THE ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURE COEFAOENTS FOR SOLDIER PILE WALLS CAN BE ASSUMED TO ACT OVER ONE AND TWO TIMES THE PILE WIDTH BELOW THE BASE OF THE EXCAVATION, RESPECTIVELY. (3) SURCHARGE LOADS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ACTIVE PRESSURE WHERE APPROPRIATE. (4) RECOMMENDED PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURES INCLUDE A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.5. (5) HEIGHT (H) AND DEPTH (D) ARE IN METERS,· PI THROUGH P~ ARE IN kPa. B EARTH PRESSURES FOR TEMPORARY CANTILEVER SHORING EL 30m± D -HWAGEOSOENCES INC ELUOTT BRIDGE NO. 3166 REPLACEM ENT KING COUNTY, WA 11.22.02 96143 Il't 01 ICS 2/17/DJ ---~--~~-----~ ii--LL~OTT BRIDGE REPLAC " Mfi..--.o' SEWER PROJECT s.s: • \.A ~~s ~ ~~~ ~~. ~~ ~ -- , , I , , I I , , I , . , ""-~ I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I , ~ I I I I I I I I I ... -25 0 25 50 SCALE IN METERS I I , , I , , I I II " 1/ II , , , , I I I , I , I I I , I , I I I 75 I , I i : I II , , I 11 II , ""-' I , II~ ""-1'-" I \ ~ : : II II I I I I iii i I I I I ~--H-iidk , " o o· , I, ______ I ' , o / / I \ I I I /- ---/ -----------L. o 0 , , I I I , I I I I II ~!1~~/I~~ ; "~"~'" '~{~ / ,'" I I I I I / I , , I I I I / / I f I I , , I I ~ I I I I I I I I I , , ) I I I I I I I I I I I ----, I I I I I I I I f I I I ~ -----rl '----" NEIGHBORHOO!D DETAIL MAP i I I i I : ! i i ! i i I , , I I , I , , i , , ! ' , i , I I , I • I I ~-----------~--------------- ELLIO BRIDGE REPLACEMENT I , , I , , I , , I , , I , , SANITARY SEWER I / / / / / / / / / / I / I , , ' I ______________ _ r -------------~4 : / ----------~ , , I , , I , , I , , &.~ ! · YQ I t\I~& j ~ ~. ~~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I , , I , , I , , I I I I I I I Ii ~ I , , I , , I I , I , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r- I 1/ I I I I I I -- --T---_ I 1/ I '/ ! / 1/ q 0 0 ! / i I : / 42.'!(J ----,"1-.. ! / i / I I r -=r----I I I I I I -+--I -n----1H--IIf-tt=:l. I I 1--- I I I I I I I I I I I I ';'· .. , -'" ," I I I ----------------- -- CONTOUR INTERVAL 0.5 METERS ••• -I ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ SCALE IN METERS I I --- ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ------ ----( ~ ~ -~~ • W • / CIl • I ~ I I C I Z ~ ...- - ------------------- TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ---_. • I o / I I / I I I I / I I I / I , / ---..)~-' --- / I I I I / / I , I I ~,~ o , . v . t. \.J . • --------------:---r-~---. __ I , , ST ) 134.a I i i , . I , i . .1 .• o ----------~"~----------. fU "U ::u ~ ~ 1"'1 :r: > z G"l ?O --r. ~ l ~ '- $ ~~'II ' ....... 11 _ .. __ I 1/1 ~~ / / I, / I / fl· //..,'!-./ 'i 1"/ // 1,1 " /1 / • "*,20.0 ~O.g ~ ~200 -~ ~ i l.-. ~ ~ *20.2 . "*'20.5 ~----:::;ft'\ • 1 5 2004 APPROVED; NO, iNV Eli .• BOT 15.1 .2 21.J ~~2I.J t~.OO """.0 SC.\LE; 1 DATE BY , , ~I .' . ." .. -., , .. f , . ,J ~·1 .; .1 [ ..... o '~\o-' : lJ '" 1. 'u' , , ) , , i i I r-------:---__________________________________ . _____________________ ~ ___________________ _ -~,------"'''.. . ,." , ' ------~----,-------" : \ I. ST 134, i i {~ 1 - o 04.8 10.4 I I I 1 f f , I I I f f f ! 21 I I 1 I I ',,(Tf ",", , /1 /' " , P2rr'~111 3$' OW' Nt PAIR III CXIII1fi tABU. .... .. . ..... INV E 16.8 SOT IS.! -'i ~ ~ .2 ,3 APPR. *20,6 " , , I .. . ' , . ;:. ,: : ' . . If , IJ ~~f ~. I , ; ~ , , Y I