Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E95-0017 - CITY OF TUKWILA / PUBLIC WORKS - MACADAM BRIDGE REPLACEMENTMACADAM BRIDGE REMOVE & REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE S. 133RD STREET E95-0017 AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, ` e_ I iL ereby declare that: Notice of Public Hearing /\Determination of Non- significance Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance llNotice of Public Meeting ElBoard of Packet Board of Packet fl Planning Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda fl Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on — - • e 1 i n'1 e -S. - �pcl ►'L c� FrCc1 P\ -u t • tci gS. - YY\r,6 Id -tom cubed cc.dc reS5 (o4- Bic-iiqs CoPl TWCA & PboIc.,S ISS. tv on.. �(it��((',�(,�(/� ,Signatures. .. Name of Project( -Oa -7 ei� File Number Cq5 ZSEPA ENVIRON. REVIEW DEPT OF ECOLOGY P 0 BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 /CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPT 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 /DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION REG. ENVIR. PROG. MGR. 15700 DAYTON AVE N MS 138 SEATTLE WA 98133 ,/SEATTLE TIMES P O BOX 70 SEATTLE WA 98111 WASH FISHERIES/WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS 411 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON ( ')U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X) STATE AGENCIES ( )OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( )DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES ( )OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( )DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (DEPT. OF FISHERIES ; (/)1 11,4.1(1_, ' ( )K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( )FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( )FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( )RENTON LIBRARY ( )KENT LIBRARY ( )CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY )US WEST )SEATTLE CITY LIGHT )WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS )WATER DISTRICT.#75 )SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT )GROUP W CABLE )OLYMPIA PIPELINE ( )KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (W TILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( PPUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE ( ) OLICE ( )FINANCE ( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING ( )PARKS AND ORECREATION ( )TUKWILA MAYOR ( )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES ( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION (bgpEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE ( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL *SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND *SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS ( )HEALTH DEPARTMENT ( )PORT OF SEATTLE ( )BUILDING & LAND DEV. DIV.- ,SEPA INFORMATION CENTER SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ( )RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES ( )PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ( )VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( )WATER DISTRICT #20 ( )WATER DISTRICT #125 ( )CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( )RAINIER VISTA ( )SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )CITY OF SEA -TAC ( }CITY OF SEATTLE ( )CITY OF BURIEN ( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( )PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( )MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( )DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE MEDIA ( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS ( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE t41.7GHLINE TIMES ATTLE TIMES r PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Applicant Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) Include these documents: SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu.'with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Dlstribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper). SHORELINE MAILINGS Notice of Application: Notice of application for a substantial development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 300 feet of subject property,prepare an affidavit of publication, and publish two consecutive weeks with deadline for comments due 30 days after last newspaper publication date. Shoreline Permit: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General Applicant Indian Tribes Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Include these documents: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report,if applicable) Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements Cross-sections of site w/structures & shoreline Grading plan Vicinity map SEPA D- etermination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper) Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper). CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: MACADAM BRIDGE REPLACEMENT SPANNING S. 133rd ST. PROPONENT: TUKWILA PUBLIC WORK::S= 6EPT T- LOCATION OF PROPOSALINGLIiDING,STREET ADDRESS:'1.:E..-_,-*,, '.': ADDRESS: „,,;,./ `} r' -\_i PARCEL.' NO: r.`c, ' ��, (r , ; , e .1 ^_yrs- , ^ (,, ',: t_, 'SEC/TWN/RNG:/.(,."MAtADAM,'RD.. LIVER eS - "13'STS o':1ECTION'"1 �'. T 2:31‘0,R 4E , WM. LEAD AGENCY. LI'T�Y\F- OTUr.6ilILA4 FItE N0•')EgS-O0, 7. v The City hats determined that thepropor.ayl- does not have a)probable s i gn i t i c#14 adw-er•se mpact vn the`te i'ronment . An eriv iironnmenta 1�s, impact sl amert (EI -S) is=r,ot re ouJi>r•ad-.u.r,1,der RCW 43.21c..03i0.2-Y.(c')( This deri� sion wags made af•t°er--raeyi�'ew of completed envir,onmen ta1 H' check 1 i�sctf��tanii �othe� i nforL�nat4on o�ii 1 i nformat-_lon is ava;i l abK1 e taNth•e pub ******** Thi this f i 1 eyw�,i;tf the lead agency Th\i}'s 1. i•c�- - - request . -�� *•k1.'***-•k-*.k***********'kf`le l***•k* M k Mb h ***-* h k. k M M *•M k k k * k M -k Ar k A* 4k**•k** 111 DN;' ".is :14suea, unclev 1yg7)-1'1 5340'(.2).. comments must be: submitted- by 5J�11'.� -' 19t 19/fir`. .1,`:.,:' •.../The,-,l:e:ad.-aaencv will,: not, ac,t»on 4 O - -dposa 1 `,,f u,r 15 days from the date be l'ow'.. -� ,, r( Steve nca`ste Responsible Otticia4 City t Tuft:"rvi;�l�' J'206).431-3680 6300 'Southcent�`er 13o-1'evard . Tukwila. You may Southcen above si specific expenses WA 981 38 -r , -.,c'.. appeal Chi`s.: determination to the City ter Bouleva, ,Tukwi la. A 98iCC_'./no gnature daWb ritten ,appe;a;l st ging tactual ob.7ecti0i7s� You `mav`be r equi for an appeal.`' ":� -- • Ni Date • `f{ Clerk at C;i;t v'7 H a l l. 6200 later- than --10 days from the the-ba.s;i:s` of the appeal for e e-,d_to'bear some of the Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. { ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW FILE: #E95-0017 DATE: August 2, 1995 PROPOSAL: Macadam Bridge Replacement APPLICANT: City of Tukwila, Public Works Department GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes the construction of a replacement bridge spanning S. 133rd Street. The proposed bridge will span approximately 60 feet, at a height of approximately 22 feet. It will serve two lanes of traffic and sidewalks at a slightly wider dimension than the existing bridge provides. The crossing will be closed to traffic for one year. Detour routes will be established to accommodate traffic. An existing creek, known as Southgate Creek, is located within the project site. The creek is contained within a 48° culvert which passes under S. 133rd Street. This creek is identified as a Type 3/2 Watercourse in the City's Sensitive Areas Overly Zone (SAO), TMC 18.45. The project site also has slopes designated by SAO as Class 2 and 3, with moderate landslide potential. The following is an environmental analysis based on the environmental checklist and additional information provided. Earth Construction of the existing bridge has resulted in notable modification of the original ground. The north side of the existing bridge is apparently supported on a fill embankment according to the geothechnical report submitted with the environmental checklist (°Geotechnical Engineering Services, Macadam Bridge Replacement°, April 21, 199, GeoEngineers) The existing slope of the bridge spans is steep with an approximate 90% slopes. The slopes are identified as °Class 2 & 3 Areas° in the City's Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone [TMC 18.45.020 (e)] The geotechnical report was completed for this project, as required under TMC 18.45.040 (d)(1). According to the geotechnical report the existing soils at the north side of the bridge consist of approximately 18 feet of dense sand with silt and gravel and silty sand with gravel fill underlain by 5 feet of native stiff silt. The south side of the bridge has about 4 feet of medium dense silty sand with occasional gravel underlain with very dense sand with gravel and varying silt content inter -layered with hard silt. Erosion There is potential for erosion to occur as a result of construction of the project. Temporary erosion control measures will be employed during the site work. Both temporary and permanent erosion control measures are outlined in the geotechnical report. These measure should be followed to reduce the adverse impact erosion could cause to the creek and the slopes. WATER The existing Type 3/2 watercourse is located within a culvert along S. 133rd Street. This creek will not be disturbed as the roadway over the culvert is not being proposed for replacement. However, the bridge design does take into consideration the future replacement of the culvert with a 4 x 5.5 foot culvert which will provide a 'fish friendly" passage under 133rd. The future culvert will have baffles, rock and gravel. This culvert will be constructed when 133rd Street is reconstructed in the future. Water runoff and Stormwater All roadway surface water runoff will be collected and directed to the public stormwater system through pipes, ditches, swales and natural watercourses. According to the applicant, the storm -water drainage system will meet King County Design Standard. PLANTS The project includes removal of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to construct the new bridge and widen the approach. Disturbed areas will be re -vegetated. Re -vegetation is planned for the new slopes. Trees removed from the right-of-way and easements within designated sensitive areas, is exempt from the Tree Regulation of the Zoning Code (TMC 18.54). The disturbed areas of the site are proposed to be restored, however a restoration plan has not been submitted at this time. LAND AND SHORELINE USE The project site includes Southgate Creek, a Type 3/2 Watercourse. This watercourse will not be directly effected by the proposed bridge replacement. TRANSPORTATION The project replaces the existing bridge, causing no expected increase in traffic volumes. A detour route will be in effect for one year during the construction. In additiona, S. 133rd will be closed for 6 - 8 weeks to allow for the bridge construction. This will temporarily limit traffic, and detour auto traffic to S. 130th and S. 131st St. and north bound truck traffic from 133rd to Interurban and then East Marginal Way. The completed project be built to the AASHTO standards, allowing truck traffic which cannot be currently supported by the existing bridge. Pedestrian sidewalks are included in the new bridge. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis in this report, it is recommended that this project be issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). City of Tukwz Transportation Com ttee AGENDA Monday,june 12, 1995 Time: 5:00 p.m. Place: Public Works Conference Room ITEM I. Current Agenda Review II. Presentation(s) III. Business Agenda iii;; B. B. Residential Streets IV. Old Business Attachments III. A., Information Memo B. Information Memo II. Vermeer V2N) •ACTION TO BETAKEN. A. Approve Construction Detour (8 wk closure of S 133rd) B. Discuss Priorities and Program Next Agenda: June.26,1995 1. King County signal agreement 2. Pacific Highway lighting agreement . July 10, 1995 1. RCW Access Control 2. I-405 WSDOT Multimodal Study RECEIVED„ The. City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities. Please contact the Public Works Department at 433-0179 for assistance. Pal 0 2 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: From: Date: Subject: ISSUE INFORMATION Mayor Rants Public Works Director June 9, 1995 Residential Streets Discuss priorities and program. BACKGROUND The program has been discussed priorities future consideration MEMO "budgeted" at $1,000,000 per year. TC has of future streets. Streets discussed for near last fall included: 53 Ave S (S 150 St -S 139 St) 53 Ave S and 52 Ave.S (S 139 St-Interurband) 42 Ave S (144-139, 139-E Marginal, and 154-160) 37 Ave S (S 144 St - Pac Hwy) S 130 St (Pac Hwy - Macadam) S 132 St (Military - Pacific Hwy) S 144 St (Military - Pacific Hwy) Sidestreets near the trailer park (Macadam was postponed forcosts and low development.) ALTERNATIVES Continue discussions of what's to do, done. RECOMMENDATION: Continue discussions, maps will be brought to the meeting. To: From: Date: Subject: • INFORMATION MEMO Mayor Rants Public Works Director June 5, 1995 Macadam Bridge Replacement ISSUE Closure of S 133 St during construction of the Macadam Rd Bridge superstructure. BACKGROUND The Macadam Rd Bridge will be replaced beginning in the last quarter of 1995. The bridge construction is expected to last one year. Macadam Rd will be closed for the entire duration of the bridge re -construction. S 133 St carries 3700 ADT below the bridge, including industrial truck traffic. Current pedestrian use of S 133 St below the bridge is minimal due to limited shoulder space. ANALYSIS The duration of the proposed S 133 St closure is 6-8 weeks. A comparison of positive vs. negative aspects of the closure is as follows: Positive Aspects of Road Closure $15,000 savings on falsework 2 week savings in const. schedule $10,000 savings in labor/traffic control Safety to traveling public Clearly posted, convenient detour route Detour map will be sent to local residents and businesses Negative Aspects of Road Closure Detour = approx. 120 truck miles/day Redesign to accommodate desired height clearance during construction is prohibitive Businesses in the area were contacted regarding the proposed road closure. The businesses contacted were: Becker Trucking, Bailey Sales, Sam's Tire, Metro, and Inco Express. The general consensus was that the impact of the road closure would be minimal to moderate; and with a properly signed detour, the impact could be minimized. It is important to note that the commercial traffic using the road is not "through" traffic. The commercial traffic is origin and destination traffic and can be effectively handled with a clearly posted detour route up E Marginal Wy S and down interurban Ave S. The automobile traffic can be detoured through S 130 St and S 133 P1 with only a very minor increase in length or duration. ALTERNATIVES 1) Close S 133 St for 6-8 weeks during the bridge superstructure construction. 2). Allow moderated traffic flow below the bridge for this time period. RECOMMENDATION Proceed with PS&E allowing S 133 St closure during the brid • e superstructure con truction. (0-1V\IN4 ee ka E'« 6 �CIA) a)-kkAre, Control No. Epic File No. F q -Do / Fee: Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Macadam Bridge Replacement. 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 433-0179; Leslie Tauzer 4. Date checklist prepared: 6/5/95 5. Agency requesting checklist City of Tukwila. RECEIVED JUN 61995 (DEVELOPMENT 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is planned to begin in the last quarter of 1995, and continue into 1996. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. This checklist and hazardous material testing - see attached soils report. 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. No. Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Authorization by Tukwila City Council and approval of Tukwila City Mayor. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The existing Macadam Bridge will be removed, and a new one erected. The new bridge will carry the same number of lanes, but will be slightly wider and will carry sidewalks. The vertical alignment of the approaching roadways will be revised to improve visability, and the bridge raised to increase the clearance under the bridge. 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 project is located in the City of Tukwila, along Macadam Road, over S. 133 Street. The Bridge is in Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? There are class 2 and class 3 slopes in the vicinity of the project. Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Authorization by Tukwila City Council and approval of Tukwila City Mayor. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The existing Macadam Bridge will be removed, and a new one erected. The new bridge will carry the same number of lanes, but will be slightly wider and will carry sidewalks. The vertical alignment of the approaching roadways will be revised to improve visability, and the bridge raised to increase the clearance under the bridge. 12. Location of the proposal. Givesu ficientL information foraa 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 project is located in the City of Tukwila, along Macadam Road, over S. 133 Street. The Bridge is in Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? There are class 2 and class 3 slopes in the vicinity of the project. Pei Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The terrain is steep. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The maximum slope is approximately 100%. 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 foundation soils include medium dense to dense gravels, and very dense sand with silt and gravel. GeoEngineers has completed boarings to confirm foundation design. A copy of the "draft" soils report is attached. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Cuts and fills will be made to accommodate the new bridge. Unsupported slopes will be limited to 1.5:1 maximum. In areas where the slope cannot be maintained, retaining walls will be used. Approximately 1300 yards of gravel borrow will be imported for the roadway approaches, and approximately 300 yards of structural fill will be imported for the abutments to supplement the on-site material which can be re -used. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction,or use? If so, generally describe. Some erosion could result from the site preparation, including clearing and grubbing. Temporary erosion control techniques will limit this to a minimum. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 60% of the site (R/W) will be asphalt or concrete. Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion control will be employed during construction as required. Following construction, the site will be either impervious or vegetated. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. There will be dust and exhaust emissions during construction. Exhaust emissions along this street are not expected to increase as the result of this project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions 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: Water trucks will be used as standard dust suppression during construction. 3. Water a. Surface: 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. Within the project limits, Southgate Creek is currently contained within a culvert and passes under S. 133rd Street. Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. The roadway over the culvert along S. 133rd Street is not being thus provides a protective layer. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 200 feet) the replaced and placed in or the site that 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 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. Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, orwill water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste materials 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. None. 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. The source of the runoff will be from the roadway. Pipes, ditches, swales and natural water courses will all be utilized as required design components to convey storm water. Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Runoff from the existing roadway is likely to contain automobile oils and fuel - this project will not increase the level of waste materials entering ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A storm -water drainage system that meets King County Design Standards is proposed. 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, bulrush, 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? In areas where the roadway is widened beyond the existing graveled shoulder; trees, brush and grass will be removed to accommodate the street section. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Runoff from the existing roadway is likely to contain automobile oils and fuel - this project will not increase the level of waste materials entering ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A storm -water drainage system that meets King County Design Standards is proposed. 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, bulrush, 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? In areas where the roadway is widened beyond the existing graveled shoulder; trees, brush and grass will be removed to accommodate the street section. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Property restoration will include seeding and planting of trees and shrubs. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds:. hawk, songbirds, migratory water fowl, other: Mammals: raccoons, squirrels, small rodents, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed. Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Property restoration will include seeding and planting of trees and shrubs. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds:. hawk, songbirds, migratory water fowl, other: Mammals: raccoons, squirrels, small rodents, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed. Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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. Electric street lighting will be used. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. 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: The project will replace mercury vapor lights with efficient high pressure sodium luminaires. 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. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise generated by the construction equipment will occur on a short term basis. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Restrict hours of operation to comply with the City's noise ordinance. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently a two-lane paved roadway & bridge. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The existing bridge carries 2 lanes and spans approximately 70'. Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the existing bridge. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The adjacent properties are R-1 and M-1. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The plan designation for the adjacent properties includes low density residential, light industrial, and parks & open space. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. There are Class 2 and Class 3 slopes on the project site 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. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The new bridge will be constructed to adequately carry projected traffic volumes and to provide the required under -clearance to industrial truck traffic use. Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the existing bridge. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The adjacent properties are R-1 and M-1. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The plan designation for the adjacent properties includes low density residential, light industrial, and parks & open space. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Tlifigi A 3 <J--'2 d v� There are Class 2 and Class 3 slopes on the project site A 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. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The new bridge will be constructed to adequately carry projected traffic volumes and to provide the required under -clearance to industrial truck traffic use. Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 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? No buildings are planned. Retaining walls will be limited to minimum required. Overhead utilities will be relocated underground. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 11. Light and Glare a. Whattype of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The project will include standard street luminaires. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The proposed system is expected to improve public safety. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The community center is adjacent to the project site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 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 proposal is a public street. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The bridge reconstruction will, however, upgrade the load capacity and allow for public transit to use the bridge. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project does not require or change any parking. Page 14 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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. This project is not expected to result in more vehicular traffic; ped traffic is expected to increase with the addition of sidewalks. g• Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 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 increase is expected. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. NA. 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. No new utilities are proposed with the project, existing overhead utilities will be placed underground. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to th best • my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decis on. Signature: /IV Date Submitted: Page 16 IS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. NA. 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. No new utilities are proposed with the project, existing overhead utilities will be placed underground. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best lead agency is relying on them to make its decis-on. Signature: Date Submitted: my knowledge. I understand that the 6 is al) \J-ArNA-k,- Qi-eie3N.W C'D-1544e-' C .04-, F-► ev\ is Ply le1a.' 0, CL- ") LiL_J Ftr-)1 _ Citi Page 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? Replace the existing, structurally deficient and functionally inadequate bridge. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The existing bridge could be repaired and widened to meet current standards, however the clearance under the bridge would remain deficient. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Due to the cost of renovating the existing bridge, it is more economical to replace it. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? No. 5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None. Page 17 PROJECT SITE North City of Tukwila CITY OF TUKW1Ll PvbIlc Vorks Engineering 6700 Southcenter Boule.erd tuk.Bo VA 78IAR Macadam Road Bridge Replacement B v. j7 ATT 0o1 SHItIn UVAERS Sta. 29+62.44 om..__...- _.!�. [1.68m) ml IT Macadam Road N 6.56'06' W Ftg., Pier 1 FOUNDATION PLAN For Retaining Wall Footing, See Sheet 6 & 7 Ftg., Pier 2 ,Work line for ret. wall -Approach v..l I ,V=cadam Rd. -Sta. 30+00.00 slabo! 1 133rd. St.-Stu..tr+Bt .00 "-14_656'06' W 31 Atocodam'Rood -- i.,---cr— 30-P00 ---- i ---- -----•�'------- Test Hole `d`Ml.' .75:- Approach 9 - Boring B-1 -...-==_. -...- nh--------- d —... ... • • • PAV • n; 0 --•_ .__......__—�• _. _ ------ . . •/ 0.0229% Wr: 1 f`f 111 g' I • PLAN II/ I {` = = = --.� 7H -- I fI II Y`�!,4 ".; I , t 1 i 1 1 I a sill fIi I Future concrete culvert (NIC) ` II I ii>.i : iR ti 0 0 0 o� N O 300' V.C. C Exist. 133rd. St. -4.1763% Re! the -- El. 2Q0 L- EI. 22.5 — `` Existing grade 0 C rdwy. — r\ Exist. 48' R.C.P. --� ELEVATION l—i, — EI. 20.5 Future conc. culvert (NIC) Rel line - El. 20.0 mrs of tth AA$i al et are? by i Far with All c. Wes from shot 1" of Fosse yr th. The c false Fooli abutr. bear The c for p. This. GUA (L: qo 1. Ins: 2. Ref ret: eel J. Ins: Pee 4. !.ns. Plc 5. Ins 8a Be R.C. Culvert Wal! • NOTES: . Recess baffles 6 feet minimum from ends of culvert. 2. Baffles: 6" reinforced concrete. Figure 2. Culvert baffle installation (adapted from W.R. McKinley, R.D. Webb, Wash. Dept. of Fisheries Research Paper Vol 1(4) 1956). RECEIVED J6 0 21995 CUIVIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4i-a"(tr crzp-i) 14/1/4-Tr4r- NIA42.464 ,c,E0.4r-Aoti "'No 2'.J1 LikS tzb.rellep • wrrori A-rrrzoc• orie- • (0111 fp:2m •AH6oL.N4P— . . • GUI-VZIe-T Gilt7A,C>lenr== 1% MAX. • CAR-AiWz-r. 12•Ityre.:W•viati Me$ 5k-evEED OH/L-tirte.jrAcrOo }-1161-1 FLote4 yo 4.-F, cc rry or -nix-011.46-•, : ; • - • ••••-• • • • lb" DE-Pil--f. - vt-loc114 Ircr-T--- • VIACADAM BRIDGE .• ;TREAM CULVERT - TYPICAL CROSS SECTION'. 3AFFLES NOT SHOWN; REFER TO FIGURE 2 FOR BAFFLE PLACEMENT ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 1/6/95 nis ASY. SCALE: 1" = l'-0" FIGURE 1 LP rtiptr Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Macadam Bridge Replacement Tukwila, Washington April 21, 1995 For City of Tukwila G e o E n g i n e e r s File Nu. 0259-033-R06/042195 April 21, 1995 Sargent Engineers, Inc. 320 West Bay Drive, Suite 101 Olympia, Washington 98502 Attention: Mr. Steve Roberts, P.E. ®RAFT GeoEngineers, Inc. is pleased to submit four copies of our "Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services, Macadam Bridge, Tukwila, Washington." The scope of our services for our studies is described in our proposal dated September 30, 1994. Our services were authorized by Mr. Steve Roberts of Sargent Engineers on November 17, 1994. Preliminary conclusions and recommendations have been discussed with you as information was developed. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you on this interesting project. If you have any questions concerning the contents of this report, and when we can be of further service, please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Gordon M. Denby, P.E. Principal DCO:GMD:vvl Document ID: 0259033.R File No. 0259-033-R06 V KAF i CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE 1 GEOLOGY 2 SITE CONDITIONS 3 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 North Side 3 South Side 4 Ground Water 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 GENERAL 4 BRIDGE FOUNDATION SUPPORT 4 FISH PASSAGE CULVERT 5 APPROACH SECTIONS 6 General 6 Site Preparation 6 Fill Type and Placement 7 Settlement at Approach Section 7 Cut and Fil! Slopes 8 RETAINING WALLS 8 Lateral Soil Pressures on Vertical Walls 8 Lateral Pressures on Sloped Abutment Walls 8 . Backfill 8 - Drainage 9 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 9 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 10 LIMITATIONS 10 FIGURES Figure No. Vicinity Map 1 Site Plan 2 Subsurface Profile A -A' 3 G e o Eng i n e e r s 1 File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 LPKAI' 1 CONTENTS (continued) APPENDICES Page No. Appendix A - Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing A-1 Field Explorations A-1 Borings A-1 Near -Surface Soil Samples A-1 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing A-2 APPENDIX A FIGURES Figure No. Soil Classification System 0 A-1 Key to Boring Log Symbols A-2 Logs of Borings A-3 ... A-4 Pace No. Appendix B - Site History Review B-1 Interview with Ross Heller, City of Tukwila 6-1 Aerial Photographs B-1 Subsurface Contamination Conditions B-2 Soil B-2 General B-2 Chemical Analytical Results B-2 Chemical Analytical Program 6-3 Analytical Methods 6-3 Analytical Data Review 6-3 Analytical Data Review Summary B-3 Table B-1, Summary of Soil Analytical Data, Surface and Soil Boring Samples B-4 Chemical Analytical Data B-5 ... B-1 8 G e o Eng i nee r s 11 File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 DRAF REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES MACADAM BRIDGE REPLACEMENT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR CITY OF TUKWILA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the replacement of the Macadam bridge located over South 133rd Street in Tukwila, Washington. The bridge site is located in the City of Tukwila about 1/2 mile northwest of the 1-5/SR-599 interchange. A vicinity map of the project location is presented as Figure 1. A site plan showing the general layout of the proposed replacement bridge is presented as Figure 2. We understand that the existing bridge will .he replaced by a single span concrete structure with a sloped rigid frame. The new bridge structure will he approximately 63 feet in length with a 60 -foot clear span between the sloped abutments. The roadway grade will be raised by about 3 feet to increase clearance. A cross section showing the existing and proposed replacement bridges is presented in Figure 3. SCOPE The purpose of our services is to explore and evaluate the subsurface soil and ground water conditions as a basis for developing recommendations for the foundation design of the replacement bridge. In addition, we completed a site history review to identify the likely presence of hazardous substances (heavy metals) which we understand may have been present in the till placed for the north abutment. We presented two options in our September 30 proposal. Both options included the site history review. We were to proceed with our basic scope of services (Option 1) if our site history review suggests the site is clean, and our basic scope of services plus chemical analytical sampling and testing (Option 2) if contaminated soil is indicated to be present at the site. Because heavy metals were encountered in previously placed till soi!• during a storm sewer excavation located about 1 Klock east of the site, and information was not available regarding placement of the sane till at the bridge site, we completed Option 2 as outlined below. 1. Site History Review - Review historical aerial photographs to identify past tilling operations at the site and interview current and past property owners or others familiar with past and present uses of the site, as available. 2A. Develop a Health and Safety Program for Field Sampling. 2B. Explore soil and ground water conditions at the proposed bridge location by drilling one test boring near each abutment to a depth of 39 feet. C c o Eng i n c e r s 1 File No. 0259-033-806/042195 DRAFT 2C. Submit samples of fill soil obtained in the north boring for Priority Pollutant Metals testing and for individual testing of Arsenic, Chromium and Lead. Two surficial samples were also obtained in the upper 1 foot of the north abutment fill for Arsenic, Chromium and Lead testing. 3. Perform laboratory tests on soil samples ohtained from the explorations to evaluate pertinent properties and characteristics of the site soils.. 4. Provide recommendations for support of bridge abutments on shallow foundations, including: allowable bearing capacity minimum footing sizes provisions for improving soil conditions below footings, as necessary estimated settlem.mts. 5. Develop recommendations for design of abutment and wingwalls including lateral earth pressures for both static .and seismic conditions, hacktill and compaction criteria, and drainage considerations. 6. Evaluate options for retaining fill behind the abutments including the use of geotextile reinforcement. 7. Evaluate options for installing the fish passage culvert including jacking the culvert or use of conventional cut and cover construction. This will include temporary shoring recommendations for the jacking pit or for conventional cut and cover excavations. S. Evaluate potential construction problems and define any special considerations which are identitied during the course of our study. 9. Provide recommendations for pavement subgrade support. 10. Attend one meeting with representatives of Sargent Engineers to discuss the results of our study. 11. Submit a written report presenting our findings and recommendations along with supporting field and laboratory data. GEOLOGY Based on a review and surface geology maps for the Tukwila area. it appears that the site is located in an area characterized by relatively complex surface deposits. The predominant geologic soil unit is a glacial kame-terrace deposit that was Laid down by glacial streams tlowing between higher dense ground (west side) and lower glacially gouged ground (east side). Loose alluvial floodplain deposits from the Green River have since covered the lowlands east of the site. Kame-terrace deposits are characterized by silty sand and pebbles with some cobbles. They are medium dense to dense and are likely suitable for support of bridge foundations. Significant modification to the original ground has been made during construction of the Ma'.adam bridge. In particular, the north side of the bridge appears to he supported on a till embankment. The south side appears to be supported on native material. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0259-033-R06/0:2195 SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The existing bridge is a three -span structure approximately 70 feet long. The deck is constructed of both precast and cast -in-place slab units supported by cast -in-place concrete T - beams. The beams are supported at the abutments and by two interior concrete bents. South 133rd Street passes beneath the bridge through the interior supports. The vertical clearance between the bridge and South 133rd Street is approximately 13.5 feet. In the immediate vicinity of the bridge, Macadam Road slopes down to the north at roughly a 1 to 2 percent grade. It appears that the north approach was constructed by placing a fill embankment in the lowland area, while the south approach was cut into native soils. The fill in front of the north abutment slopes down towards south 133rd Street at approximately 1'/.H:1V (horizontal to vertical) to a small vertical retaining wall approximately 3 feet high. The retaining wall is a concrete cantilever wall between the bridge columns. Outside of the columns, the wall is constructed of precast concrete cribbing. The till in front of the south abutment slopes down to South 133rd Street at an inclination of approximately 1H:IV. There is no retaining at the toe of this fill. Southgate Creek tlows through an existing 48 -inch -diameter RCP on the north side of South 133rd Street. Surface water runoff generally flows to the south side of South 133rd Street to a shallow open ditch. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two borings in the north bound lane of Macadam, Road South near each bridge abutment. Boring B-1 was drilled behind the north abutment; boring B-2 was drilled behind the south abutment. Both of the borings were drilled to a depth of 39 feet below the existing ground surface. Boring locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. A description of the field exploration and laboratory testing procedures, along with logs of the borings, are presented in Appendix A. The boring elevations were referenced to the elevations as presented on the site survey provided by Sargent Engineers. Numerous underground utilities were observed at the site including natural gas, storm sewer, water and overhead power. Both borings were located in the north hound lane to avoid natural gas lines. North Side Subsurface conditions encountered in the poring B-1 (north) consist of about 18 feet of dense sand with silt and gravel and silty sand with gravel fill (to approximate Elevation 26 feet). Underlying the till we encountered a 5 -foot -thick layer of native stiff silt. The silt is underlain by medium dense to dense gravel with sand and varying silt content to a depth of about 31 feet (approximately Elevation 13 feet). Stiff to hard silt was encountered below the gravel. The boring was terminated in hard silt. G c o E n g i n e c r s 3 File No. 0259-033-R06/O42195 VKAr South Side Boring B-2 (south) encountered a relatively thin till thickness beneath the pavement section (about 4 feet of medium dense silty sand with occasional gravel). Very dense sand with gravel and varying silt content interlayered with hard silt was encountered below the fill to the bottom of the boring (approximate Elevation 7.5 feet). Ground Water Ground water was encountered during drilling at a depth of 21 to 26 feet below the existing ground surface. This depth corresponds to approximate Elevation 18 feet on the north side and about Elevation 25 feet on the south side. We expect that ground water levels in the vicinity of the bridge will fluctuate seasonally as a function of precipitation and with changes in the level of the nearby creek. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Subsurface conditions at the proposed footing suhgrade level for the north abutment consist primarily of medium dense to dense gravel. Very dense sand with gravel was encountered at the proposed footing suhgrade level at the south abutment. In our opinion; these soils should provide suitable hearing for supporting the bridge on shallow foundations. We completed a site history review including review of aerial photographs and sampling the north abutment fill for chemical analysis testing. The results of our review suggest that the till does not contain heavy metals. A complete description of our findings for the site history review is provided in Appendix B. We understand that as part of the stream restoration project for Southgate Creek, the creek will Clow through a proposed concrete box culvert 5.5 feet high by 4 feet wide. We understand that the desirable location for the culvert is beneath the right shoulder of South 133rd Street. Specific recommendations for each geotechnical element of the project are presented in the following sections. BRIDGE FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend that the abutments be supported on shallow foundations. The north abutment footing should he founded at or below Elevation 20 in the dense gravel soils. The footing suhgrade should he evaluated at the time of construction to confirm a dense, non -yielding suhgrade. If dense native sand and gravel is not present, Nye recommend that the soils be excavated until this material is encountered. We recommend that a crushed rock backfill (similar to Washington State Standard Specification 9-03.9(3)) he placed and compacted over the native soil to bring the suhgrade to the design elevation of the bottom of footing in areas where overexcavation is required. G e o E n k i n e e r s 4 File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 LIIKAIN. 1 We understand that it is desirable to place the foundation for the south abutment below about Elevation 25 to accommodate future roadway widening of South 133rd Street. The south abutment footing may be founded directly on the very dense/hard native soils expected to be present at and below Elevation 15 on this side of the bridge. We recommend that the footings have a minimum width of 3 feet. Footings constructed as recommended in the dense to very dense native soils, or in on the compacted crushed rock material may be designed using an allowable soil hearing pressure of 6,500 psf (pounds per square foot) for dead plus Tong -term live loads. This value may he increased by one-third when considering transient loads, including wind and seismic. The weight of the footing and any backfill over the footing may be neglected. We estimate that the settlement of the south abutment footing will be on the order of 1/2 to 3/4 inch. Differential settlements should not exceed about 1/2 inch in about 40 to 50 feet for this footing. We estimate that most of the settlement will occur immediately following load application. The north abutment footing will experience slightly higher settlements due to the consolidation of the underlying stiff silt layer. We estimate that the north abutment footing may settle up to about 11/2 inches and that 90 percent of the settlement should occur within 1 to 2 months following load application. The construction schedule should allow for the settlement period to occur prior to final connections to the superstructure. FISH PASSAGE CULVERT • We understand that a new concrete box culvert will he installed beneath the north shoulder of South 133rd Street as part of the Southgate Creek Fish Enhancement Project. The culvert will be 5.5 feet high by 4 feet wide. The bottom of the culvert (inside) will he covered with 8 inches of boulders and river rock. We also understand that the gradient of the culvert will be 1 percent, and that three concrete baffles will he installed inside the culvert. We recommend that an impermeable liner or sealant he placed along the wetted perimeter inside the box culvert to impede seepage around the abutment foundation. As an added precautionary measure, a footing drain should he installed at the base of the box culvert. The drain should consist of a zone of free -draining hacktill against the north side of the culvert. The free -draining backfill should consist of sand or sand and gravel containing no more than 3 percent by weight of silt or clay fines of that portion of the backfill which passes a 3/4 -inch sieve. The drainpipe should he corrugated metal or rigid PVC. not the flexible ADS variety. The pipe should he sloped to drain by gravity and discharge should be disposed of properly so it does not cause erosion. Temporary shoring may he required due to space constraints or other construction sequencing issues. We recommend that temporary shoring supporting the dense native soils he designed for lateral pressures based on an equivalent fluid density of 30 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). This value assumes a level hacktill above the shoring and that the shoring walls will not he restrained against rotation. The above -recommended lateral soil pressure does not include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads or other surface loading. Surcharge effects G e o E n g i n e e r s 5 File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 VKMB'" should be considered as appropriate. The allowable passive resistance on the face of embedded foundation elements may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 350 pcf for on-site soils. The above passive equivalent fluid density values include a factor of safety of about 1.5. APPROACH SECTIONS General The surficial soils at the bridge site contain a significant percentage of fines (material by weight passing the No. 200 sieve) and will become difficult to compact and work on when wet. We recommend that, if practical, all site preparation and earthwork activities related to bridge construction be accomplished during the normally dry months from June to September when the moisture content of the surficial soils can be more easily controlled. If this is not practical, we recommend that provisions be made in the contract to use 12 to 18 inches of clean quarry spalls or crushed rock over exposed suhgrades. The quarry spalls will serve as a working surface for construction vehicles. Quarry spalls should he composed of angular rock with a maximum size of 8 inches. The spalls should contain Tess than 5 percent fines by dry weight and be free of organic matter and debris. Site Preparation Demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the proposed bridge will require significant excavations (up to approximately 25 feet at the proposed abutment footing locations). We recommend that all vegetation, major root systems, and existing asphalt be stripped and separated from the excavated soils. Beyond the limits of the -excavation, the existing asphalt concrete may remain in place where a minimum of I foot of new fill will he placed above the existing grade. In this case, we recommend that the existing asphalt be broken up prior to placing new till. We recommend that the asphalt concrete he removed where less than 1 foot of fill will he placed above the existing grade. We estimate that the depth of stripping required in vegetated areas along the existing roadway and on the abutment backfill slopes will generally he less than 12 inches and will average about 4 to 6 inches. Before structural till placement, we recommend that exposed surfaces he thoroughly proofrolled with heavily -loaded, rubber -tired construction equipment. The proofrolling should he observed by an experienced geotechnical engineer. Any soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable zones disclosed by proofrolling should be repaired or removed and replaced with clean structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum. dry density determined in accordance with .ASTM D-1557. The depth of excavation and replacement should extend to firm bearing as determined by an experienced geotechnical engineer or to 2 feet, whichever is less. G e o E n g i n e e r s 6 File No. 0359-033-R06/042195 u KAI 1 Fill Type and Placement Fill will be required to raise the existing bridge approach grades to design elevation and for backfill against the stepped footing. All new till should he placed as compacted structural fill. We anticipate that, provided the contractor exercises care when placing till against the abutment walls, conventional sand and gravel fill placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness will be appropriate for backfilling beneath the bridge approach slabs. With the exception of a 5 -foot -wide area along the hack of the walls, each lift should be thoroughly compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. • We recommend that within 5 feet of the walls the fill be compacted to 90 percent compaction and be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. This zone should be compacted with hand -operated equipment such as a vibrating plate compactor. The moisture content of the fill material should he adjusted as necessary to achieve the required degree of compaction.. Based on the current moisture content of the on-site soils, we estimate that much of the existing soils may be re -used as structural till. However, the on-site soils contain a significant percentage of tines and will not he suitable for use as till during .wet weather or on wet suhgrades. During wet weather or on wet suhgrades, we recommend the use of clean pit run sand and gravel or 6 -inch minus crushed rock with less than 5 percent tines by weight relative to the portion of the material passing the 3/4 -inch sieve. Structural fill should he free of debris, organic and man-made contaminants and cobbles larger than 6 inches. The suitability of soil for use as till will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. We recommend that a representative of our firm observe the proofrolling of subgrade areas and the placement of structural till. An adequate number of in-place density tests should be taken in the fill to evaluate whether the desired degree of compaction is being.achieved. Settlement at Approach Sections We estimate that the settlement resulting from the placement of each 5 -foot increment of • till for the approaches will he on the order of 1/2 inch or less. Most of this settlement is expected to occur as load is applied. Some minor long-term differential settlement may occur; however, between the approach tills and the abutments. We recommend that final paving be delayed as long as practical to allow settlements to diminish so that the need for repaving the approach sections is reduced. G e o E n g i n e e r s 7 File No. 0259-033-806/042195 Cut and Fill Slopes Temporary cut slopes in general should be inclined at 11H:1 V (horizontal to vertical) in the surficial medium dense soils. A steeper cut slope (up to 1/2H:1 V) may be used in the lower, more competent soils such as dense to very dense granular soils and hard silt. We recommend that fill slopes be inclined no steeper than I'/:H:1 V to 2H:1 V, depending on the characteristics of the fill. Permanent cut slopes should typically he inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Protection of cut and fill slopes from erosion should he provided promptly by means of revegetation, hydroseeding or other methods. RETAINING WALLS Lateral Soil Pressures on Vertical Walls The lateral soil pressures acting on vertical retaining walls will depend on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which occurs as backfill is placed, and the inclination of the hacktill surface. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height of the wall (i.e., wall height times .001), soil pressures will be less than if movement is restrained. We recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill he designed using an equivalent fluid density of 30 pcf, and restrained walls be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf. The above -recommended lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of sloping hacktill surfaces or surcharges such as traffic loads or other surface loading. Sloping hacktill and surcharge effects should be considered, as appropriate. For seismic design, we recommend a uniform active distribution of 7H he added to the above static value. Lateral Pressures on Sloped Abutment Walls We understand that the sloped walls will he an integral part of the superstructure rigid frame. This type of wall structure is expected to he rigid and essentially unyielding. Because of this and because the walls have a negative slope. (i.e., soil will .overlie the walls), lateral earth pressures will he significantly higher thin that for vertical walls. For this non -yielding, sloping condition, we recommend an active equivalent fluid density of 76 pcf be used in static design. For seismic design, we recommend a lineal decreasing active distribution of 22H to OH be added to the above static value. — Backfill All hacktill for retaining walls should consist of clean sand or sand and gravel compacted as described under "Approach Sections." As discussed previously under "Fill Type and Placement," care should he taken to prevent the buildup of excessive lateral soil pressures due to overcompaction of the hacktill behind the wall. G e o E n g i n c e r s 8 File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 Drainage Permanent drainage systems should be provided to collect water and prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure against retaining walls. We recommend that these drainage systems consist of a zone of free -draining backtill against the hack of the wall. The free -draining backfill and perforated drain pipe should he configured as the drain recommended against the culvert presented in the "Fish Passage Culvert" section of this report. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary pavement sections were designed by using the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. Design sections were developed using the projected ADT of 5910 in the year 2010. We assumed 5 percent heavy trucks, an R value of 45 (CBR of about 15) and a 20 - year design life in our analyses. We have provided two alternate pavement sections for construction as listed below. We expect that the decision as to which alternative should be selected will depend primarily on the construction costs for each. An addition consideration is the construction schedule. If construction of the approach ramps is planned during the dry season, then Alternate 1 would he suitable. If, however, construction is during the wet season, Alternate 2 (ATB) would provide a surface seal over the approach fill and may be more appropriate. Asphalt -treated Class B Asphalt Base Course Crushed Rock Concrete Pavement (ATB) Base Course Alternate 1 4 0 8 Alternate 2 2 4 4 The above pavement recommendations assume dry weather construction on an undisturbed subgrade (an R value of 45). If roadway construction is expected during wet weather or on wet subgrade conditions, we recommend that approximately 12 inches of sand and gravel subbase be added to the design sections presented in the preceding section. The required thickness of suhhase will -depend on the amount of subgrade disturbance and is hest evaluated at the time of construction. The suhhase should consist of sand and gravel with less than 7 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve based on the fraction passing the 3/4 -inch sieve (similar to Washington State Standard Specification 9-03.14, Gravel Borrow). We recommend the subbase he placed and• compacted in accordance with Mothod B of section 2-03.3(14)C of the Standard Specifications. We recommend that the roadways he sloped to drain such that surface runoff is directed away from the pavement. G e o E n g i n e e r s 9 File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 DKAF1 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING We recommend that a representative of our firm be present during all phases of site preparation, earthwork and foundation construction in order to confirm the expected subsurface conditions at the bridge and to evaluate the suitability of the subsurface materials encountered for support of the anticipated loads. Our representative would observe the work to confirm our recommendations for site preparation, earthwork and foundation construction and advise on the extent of any repairs to footing and embankment suhgrades needed or identified by proofrolling. In addition, our representative would evaluate whether the desired degree of compaction of fill is being achieved by means of field density tests, and e•.•aluate the suitability of proposed fill sources. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Sargent Engineers, Inc. and the City of Tukwila in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should he provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, hut our report, conclusions and interpretations should not he construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that the final design and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. The subsurface conditions may vary at the bridge site. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should he included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should he provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and• to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation insta:ation activities comply with contract plans and specifications and the intent of our recommendations. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been accomplished in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should he understood. G e o Eng i n c c r s • O ► 10 File No. 0359-033-R06/042195 DRAF1 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this report and when we can provide additional services, please call. DCO:GMD:vvl Document ID: 0259033.R GeoEngineers Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. Debra C. Overbay, P.E. Project Engineer Gordon M. Denby, P.E. Principal I File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 DZS/ 4. .? • k0.6 D 6 :BD,/ 05/75 ..., Vt . A 1:Arl• V a / -s-, • - / .▪ .• . n. Q PG PA Of ...; .cs ...c. LJIKAFT ST 1251"1 ST ▪ S S 1 61H ST a § EilL I NE RI VERTON COVIUN I rt NOSP -4 E :n4 ST S KITH S 1391V ST 142ND L18 FOSTER HS 144 1. FS CtOp,• \ • ST, ••: • • FRik \ . DENT PK I51ST jt 'SISS?b TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT S 156TH ST S 158TH ST LCKi4EE0 -' 514 5 161511 ST I ,4,un CT 2000 wim."'""i;•••••••••• SCALE IN FEET 4000 PKWY DANS ‘tUL01 BAKER BLVD: Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale. without permission. Geo .0 Engineers VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 LO 1.f) V" O � M 40 1 1 1 1 l 6 1 1 1IJ 6Ii1 I I 11 1 / I I 1;'1 t1 1,11 111 _ _1 I 1 , 1 1 1 1 ) 1111 1 I I 1 1 1 , 1 1 I' 1 1 1 11 I 1 1 , 1 11 111' 1111 r 1 , 1 II "11 1111 1 1 11 , 111 I1 ,1 1111 1 111 1111 II11 111 11 1 11 • • • I 1 I I; l , 1 1� '' I 1 1, 1 1. , 1 1 1 111 1 1 Ili. 1 I Ilir I I I 1 1,11 III 1111 ___1 I III , I 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1111 11 .I 111 I 1 1 1111 / �1 11 I 1 i , 1 1 1111 1 I / 1 'I,I } -- 1 , 1 • I1 1 1 I 1 - / 1 I \ • 1 •• 1 \ •• 1 •I • / , 1 I I \ 1 1. \ 1 1 \ \ 1 \ \ 1 \ 1 X. 1 \•` 1 • \‘ I \\\ \ \ •• \ R/ \ -- W —�--- ,,- • r 11I 1 1, . IIji' I//)) liI 1 ,1 • 1 \ 11.E 1 , `30 , 1 Existing Bridge 1 I I I pill:B, to be Removed . �' �' 11 111 ;111 I 1II ,� I 1 '1' I'I, '1 1 111 11 1 1 � 1 1 1 1•1 \' , \' • 1 1-.I 1'11\\� \�. \ 1 ! 1 • I I� 1 1 ` 1 1 t 11 11 �• I- 1 w1 `w •'cr 1-. 1 co Q 1 cr co co •.I I_- 1 01 co 1 • Reference: Drawing entitled "Macadam Bridge, City of Tukwila, 94255," dated 01/10/95. As - 31 1 MACADAM ROAD SOUTH • • • • c) EXPLANATION: -*/3-1 BORING A A' 4 t CROSS SECTION , 1 / t 1 , 1 I/, 1/ `, 1 , I 1 1 1 , 1 11 t` 'I . • R/W• • • I r .1 1` 1. 1 •1 •1 •1 \ 1. , 1 1 , 1•1• , 1 l j ,\ • 1 - 1 1, 1 I I 1 1 1• 1 1 1 1 , , t , • •1• 1 , 1 1 , ! \• 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 ;\• 1• 1 1 1 • I 1 / . .• I , ; I ; \ 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 • , ), ,1 0 RECENED J6 • 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 40 SCALE IN FEET SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 Elevation (Feet) A Proposed Fill 50- 40 - 30- 20- 10 1 Medium dense silty sand with -28 'occasional gravel (fill?) :14.1; , Interlayered very dense sand with silt and gravel and , - • silty sand with gravel 50/4 5• Hard silt -50/5.5' Very dense sand with -50/8' silt and gravel and silty sand with gravel -82/11' 50/4• Existing Grade Proposed Bridge Existing Bridge Hard silt South 133rd Street Existing Grade Proposed Grade h - ^47 -37. -38 -12 7 10 Proposed Fill: • Dense sand with silt and gravel and silty • sand with gravel (fill) 1 Proposed Step Footing Grades to medium dense -15 -11 -70/11' Stiff silt Medium dense to dense gravel with sand and varying silt content Proposed Concrete Culvert Stiff to hard silt A' _so 40 _30 -20 -10 29+50 30+00 Project Stationing HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: 1' = 10' 30+50 EXPLANATION: BORING 1 47 SAMPLE BLOWiCOUNT 0 Elevation (Feet) RECEIVED JU1 • 11995 �.utviw�ui�t 1-1r DEVELOPMENT O GeollEngineers SUBSURFACE PROFILE A — A' FIGURE 3 U A" APPENDIX A 10111A11- APPENDIX )r1Ar APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATIONS Borings Subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the bridge site were explored by drilling two borings at the locations shown in Figure 2. Both of the borings were drilled to a depth of 39 feet below the existing ground surface using truck -mounted, continuous flight hollow -stem auger drill. Representative samples were obtained of each soil type encountered using a 2.4 -inch inside diameter split spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches or other specified distances using a 300 -pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. Soils were visually classified in general accordance with the system described in Figure A-1. A key to the boring log symbols is provided in Figure A-2. The borings were continuously logged by a representative from our tirm who obtained samples and observed surface and groundwater conditions. Logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-3 and A-4. The Togs are based on our interpretation of the Held and laboratory data and indicate the various types of subsurface materials encountered. They also indicate the depths at which the subsurface materials change, although the change might actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. Ground surface elevations are referenced to the new site survey provided by Sargent Engineers. Boring locations were determined by taping from existing features. For chemical analysis purposes, the drilling equipment was cleaned with a hot water pressure washer before the north boring was drilled. Soil sampling equipment was cleaned before each sampling attempt with an Alconox detergent solution, a tap water rinse and a distilled water rinse. Samples that were submitted for chemical analysis are denoted in our boring logs with "CA." A portion of each selected soil sample was placed in a glass jar provided by the analytical laboratory. A label containing the following information was then affixed to each jar: sample number, boring number, sample depth, job number and sampling date. Samples were kept cold during transport of samples til the laboratory. Chain -of -custody procedures were followed in transporting the soil samples to the analytical laboratory. Near -Surface Soil Samples Two near -surface soil samples were collected in the north abutment fill slope on December 9, 1994. The samples were collected at depths of up to 6 inches below ground surface. The samples were collected with a shovel that was first washed in TSP solution and rinsed with distilled water. Samples obtained from the near surface locations were handled in the same manner as samples collected from the soil borings. G e o E n g i n e e r x A-1 File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 V KAI" 1 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the borings were brought to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Selected samples were tested to determine their moisture content and dry density. Results of the moisture content and dry density determinations are presented on the boring logs. G e o E n g i n e e r s A-2 File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 GEI 85-85 Rev. 05/93 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve GRAVEL More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit Less Than 50 INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit 50 or More INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist - Damp, but no visible water Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table Geo tiO4Engineers SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE A-1 w q oo co co w 0 LABORATORY TESTS: AL CP CS DS GS %F HA SK SM MD SP TX UC CA Atterberg limits Compaction Consolidation Direct shear Grain -size Percent fines Hydrometer analysis Permeability Moisture content Moisture and density Swelling pressure Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Chemical analysis. BLOW COUNT/SAMPLE DATA: Blows required to drive a 2.4 -inch I.D. split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 300 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. Blows required to drive a 1.5 -inch I.D. (SPT) split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. - "P" indicates sampler pushed with weight of hammer or against weight of drill rig. NOTES: SOIL GRAPH: SM Soil Group Symbol (See Note 2) Distinct ContactBe:ween Soil Strata Gradual or Approximate Location of Change Between Soil Strata 2 Water Level Bottom of Boring 22 ■ Location of relatively undisturbed sample 12 ® Location of disturbed sample 17 0 Location of sampling attempt with no recovery 10 0 Location of sample obtained in general accordance with , Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) procedures 26 m Location of SPT sampling attempt with no recovery ® Location of grab sample 1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Boring Log Symbols and the exploration logs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 2. Soil classification system is summarized in Figure A-1. - j Geo O Engineers KE`. TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS FIGURE A-2 N:DCO:CMS 4/21/95 0259-033-R00 DEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Lab Tests (%) (pct) Count Samplcs Symbol 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 BORING 'B-1 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (R.): 44.0 - _ WM ASPHALT SP -SM 4 inches asphalt concrete Brown (Inc to mcdium sand with silt, occasional coarse sand and (Inc gravel (dense, moist) (fill) - _ MD, - CA 11 97 47 II - _ CA 37 1 Grades with occasional cobbles _ • SM Brown fine to mcdium silty sand with occasional coarse sand and gravel (dense, moist) (fill) MD, - CA 12 87 50 1 - _ MD 12 79 36 ■ _ 40 12 ® Gradcs to medium dense _ _ 10 1—ML Brown, gray and reddish brown fine sandy silt (stiff, moist) _ - --,'"(111.- "(11 ) p GM C Gray and brown silty tine gravel with sand and occasional wood chips (medium dcnsc, moist) - - CgoC` - 15 ■ 0 0 0 - 0 o C — - !!"- o GP -GM o a � Gray (Inc gravel with sand and silt (dcnsc, wet) 0 0 43 1 o a o o. a - • o ` _• ML Gray fine sandy silt with occasional wood fragments and fine gravel (stiff, wet) _ MD 23 103 11 1 ML Gray silt with occasional (Inc sand (hard, wet) _ - MD 16 116 70/11" 1 Boring completed at 39.0 fact on 12/09/94 _ _ Ground water encountered at approximately 26 fact during drilling _ - Notc: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols Geo 4 ,Engineers LOG OF BG^!NG. FIGURE A-3 W:DCO:CMS 4/21/95 0259 -033 - DEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING B-2 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): 46.5 5- 10- 15- 20 — 25 — 30- 35- 40— MD 13 111 MD 11 126 MD, 12 125 CA 26 30/4' 50/4.5' 65 50/5.5' 50/6' 82/11' 50/4' ^i ASPHALT 4 inches asphalt concrete SM Light brown silty fine sand with occasional gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill?) SP -SM, Dark brown fine to mcdium sand with silt and gravel (very dense, moist) SM Light brown silty fine sand with gravel (very dcnsc, moist) ML Gray silt with occasional tine sand (hard, moist) SP -SM 2 Brown and gray medium to coarse sand with silt and gravcl (vcry dcnsc, wct) SM Gray silty (Inc to medium sand with coarse sand and gravel (vcry dense, wct) ML Gray (Inc sandy silt (hard, wct) Notc: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols Boring completed at 39.0 fcct on 12/09/94 Ground watcr cncountcrcd at approximatcly 21 fcct during drilling Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-4 DRAF1 APPENDIX B DRAFT APPENDIX B SITE HISTORY REVIEW INTERVIEW WITH ROSS HELLER, CITY OF TUKWILA A telephone interview with Mr. Heller was completed on December 15, 1994. We learned that the existing bridge was constructed in 1954 and the previous site use was unknown. Mr. Heller also indicated that the import till source was not known but that there was evidence of contamination (heavy metals) approximately 1 block east of the site during a storm drain excavation. There is also no information regarding the possibility of contamination on adjacent sites. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Aerial photographs were reviewed on December 5, 1994 at Walker & Associates in Tukwila, Washington. We reviewed photographs taken in 1936, 1941, 1946, 1956, 1960, 1969, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1990 and 1992. The bridge is visible in all of the photographs. None of the photographs show bridge construction activities. The areas surrounding the bridge appear to be largely agricultural and pastureland in the 1936 and 1941 photographs. A large building is present near the southeast corner of the intersection of 42nd Avenue South and South 133rd Street. Two small buildings, possibly a residence and farmhouse, are present near the southwest corner of 42nd Avenue South and South 133rd Street. Pockets of residential areas and groves of trees are visible in surrounding areas. Farm buildings and residences are dotted in outlying areas. The site and surrounding areas in the 1946 photograph appear similar to that in the 1936 and 1941 photographs, except more residences have been constructed in surrounding areas. The bridge appears to have been reconstructed in the 1956 photograph. A commercial/industrial or agricultural facility has been developed at the northwest corner of the intersection of 42nd Avenue South and South 133rd Street. The facility includes long rectangular structures and a large cylindrical structure. Several farm buildings and residences are present near the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of 42nd Avenue South and South 133rd Street. Land use in remaining areas near the bridge appears to he primarily agricultural. The bridge and surrounding ,ureas in the 1960 and 1969 photographs appear similar to that in the 1956 photographs. The 1974 photograph shows more roads have been constructed in the areas surrounding the bridge. A large area to the southeast of the bridge has been cleared for construction or may be a gravel pit. Features in the 1977 and 1980 photographs appear similar to those in the 1974 photograph, except more vegetation is present in the cleared/pit area in the 1980 photograph. G e o E n g i n c e r s B - I File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 A large industrial development is present in the 1982 photograph where the cleared/pit area appeared in the 1974, 1977 and 1980 photographs. Other areas surrounding the bridge appear similar to that in the earlier photographs with the exception of more residential development to the southwest of the bridge. The bridge appears similar to that in the earlier photographs. The bridge and surrounding areas in the 1985, 1990 and 1992 photographs appear similar to that in the 1982 photograph. Two new buildings are visible in the 1985 photograph at the industrial facility southeast of the bridge. SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION CONDITIONS Soil General. Soil samples were obtained from boring B-1 in the upper 8 feet below ground surface in till material and from boring B-2 from native soil at a depth of 18 feet. Two near surface soil samples, SS -1 and SS -2, were also obtained. One or more soil samples were selected from each exploration and submitted for chemical analysis for arsenic by EPA Method 7060, chromium by EPA Method 6010, and lead by EPA Method 6010. The sample from the eight -foot depth of B-1 was analyzed for priority pollutant metals (Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc) by the appropriate EPA Method. Locations of explorations (borings and near surface explorations) are shown in Figure 2. The chemical analytical data are summarized in Table B-1. Laboratory reports and our evaluation of the laboratory QA/QC (quality assurance/quality control) data are presented in this appendix. Chemical Analytical Results. Soil Borings and Near Surface Soil Sample Locations - Metals either were not detected or were detected at concentrations less than background concentrations or less than the MTCA Method A cleanup levels in the soil samples from the borings and near surface sampling locations, except for lead in near surface soil sample SS -2. The lead concentration in this sample was 130 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). The background concentration of lead in Puget Sound area soils is approximately 15 mg/kg. The concentration of lead in sample B-2-18, obtained from 18 feet below ground surface was 3.3 mg/kg. The elevated concentration of lead in sample SS -2 does not, in our opinion, indicate that contaminated till was imported to the site, because arsenic and chromium concentrations in this sample are not elevated. The elevated lead concentration may he the result of leaded gasoline use, because the sample location is near the roadway. The MTCA Method A cleanup level for lead in soil is 250 mg'l-g. G e o E n g i n e e r s B-2 File No. 0259-033-806/042195 V K A I""' CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL PROGRAM ANALYTICAL METHODS Chain -of -custody procedures were followed during the transport of the field samples to the analytical laboratory. The samples were held in cold storage pending extraction and/or analysis. The analytical results, analytical methods reference and laboratory QA/QC (quality assurance/quality control) records are included in this appendix. The analytical results are also summarized in the text and tables of this report. ANALYTICAL DATA REVIEW The laboratory maintains an internal quality assurance program as documented in its laboratory quality assurance manual. The laboratory uses a combination of blanks, surrogate recoveries, duplicates, matrix spike recoveries, matrix spike duplicate recoveries, blank spike recoveries and blank spike duplicate recoveries to evaluate the validity of the analytical results. The laboratory also uses data quality goals for individual chemicals or groups of chemicals based on the long-term performance of the test methods. The data quality goals were included in the laboratory reports. The laboratory compared each group of samples with the existing data quality goals and noted any exceptions in the laboratory report. The data quality exceptions documented by the laboratory in the laboratory reports were reviewed by GeoEngineers using the applicable data validation guidelines from the following documents: "Guidance Document for the Assessment of RCRA Environmental Data Quality," draft dated 1988; "National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review," draft dated 1991; and "Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses," dated 1988. ANALYTICAL DATA REVIEW SUMMARY Based on our data quality review, it is our opinion that the analytical data are of acceptable quality for their intended use except for the following: Thallium: Matrix spike recovery for Thallium using EPA Method 7841 were less than the control limit. There is no suspected source of Thallium at the site, and the laboratory did not detect Thallium in the sample. Therefore, the matrix spike exception does not affect the results and conclusions of this report. G e o E n g i n e e r s B - 3 File No. 0259-033-R06/042195 uKAr 1 TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA SURFACE AND SOIL BORING SAMPLES Sample Location' Sample Number Sample Depth (feet) Total Arsenic2 (mg/kg) Total Chromium3 (mg/kg) Total Lead4 (mg/kg) Boring B-1 8-1-3.0 3.0 2.2 15 4.2 B-1-5.5 5.5 1.7 16 4.4 B-1-8.05 8.0 4.2 18 14 Boring B-2 B-2-18 18.0 5.7 35 3.3 Surface SS -1 Surface 4.5 18 13 SS -2 Surface 9.4 18 130 MTCA Method A Cleanup Level 20 100 250 Notes: .!Sample locations are shown in Figure 2. 2By EPA Method 7060. 38yEPA Method 6010. `z By.EPA Method 6010 Semple also: was tested for the other priority pollutant metals - total antimony, bery16um cadmium, copper,. mercury nickel selenium; silver thallium and zinc by EPA Method 6010 or EPA 7000 series methodology Analytes were not detected with the exception of copper (29 mg/kg), nickel (19 mg/kg). and zinc (71 mg/kg). These concentrations do not exceed the MTCA Method B singlecompound formula cleanup levels. Document ID: 25933B1.WK1 B-4 ILS K Lam':'1 / Ani I it ITechnolo IeS Inc. 56C Nocnes Avenue. S.W. Suite 101 Renton WA 08055 (206)228.8335 oyco g December 28, 1994 GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond WA 98052 Attention : Debra Overbay Project Number : 0259-033-R06 Project Name : City of Tukwila Dear Ms. Overbay: Karen L. Mixon, Laboratory Maniouer ATI I.D. If 412072 GeoEngineers DEC Z99 1994 Routing�� -( a File . On December 12, 1994, Analytical Technologies, Inc. (ATI), received six samples for analysis. The samples were analyzed with EPA methodology or equivalent methods as specified in the attached analytical schedule. The results, sample cross reference, and Quality control data are enclosed. Sincerely, Cwt, 2,f� Elaine M. Walke?- __oject Manager EMW/hal /els Enc10Sure LP 1% AT AnalyticolTechnologies,lr ic. ATI I.D. # 412072 SAMPLE CROSS REFERENCE SHEET CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA ATI # CLIENT DESCRIPTION DATE SAMPLED MATRIX 412072-1 SS -1 12/09/94 SOIL 412072-2 SS -2 12/09/94 SOIL 412072-3 B-1-5.5 12/09/94 SOIL 412072-4 B-1-8.0 12/09/94 SOIL 412072-5 B-1-3.0 12/09/94 SOIL 412072-6 B-2-18 12/09/94 SOIL MATRIX # SAMPLES SOIL 6 TOTALS ATI STANDARD DISPOSAL PRACTICE The samples from this project will be disposed of in thirty (30) days from the date of the report. If an extended storage period is recuired, please contact our sample control department before the scheduled 'isposal date. LAncllyhcoiTechnologies,Inc. 2 ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA LdIlMr i ATI I.D. # 412072 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE REFERENCE LAB ANTIMONY ARSENIC BERYLLIUM CADMIUM CHROMIUM COPPER LEAD IERCURY NICKEL SELENIUM- SILVER THALLIUM - ZINC MOISTURE = ATI - Renton SD = ATI - San Diego PH): = ATI - Phoenix PTL = ATI - Portland NC = ATI - Anchorage ?NR = ATT - Pensacola =C = ATI - Fort Collins 'UB = Subcontract ICAP EPA 6010 R AA/GF EPA 7060 R ICAP EPA 6010 R ICAP EPA.6010 R ICAP EPA 6010 R ICAP EPA 6010 R ICAP EPA 6010 R AA/COLD VAPOR EPA 7471 R ICAP EPA 6010 R AA/GF EPA 7740 R ICAP EPA 6010 R AA/GF EPA -7841 R ICAP EPA 6010 R GRAVIMETRIC CLP SOW ILM01.0 R clAnnivticalTechnologies,Inc. 3 METALS ANALYSIS CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA V r !v► r r ATI I.D. # 412072 MATRIX : SOIL ELEMENT DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED ANTIMONY ARSENIC (SAMPLE -5) 12/13/94 12/14/94 12/13/94 12/13/94 ARSENIC 12/13/94 12/16/94 (SAMPLES -1 THROUGH -4, -6)• BERYLLIUM 12/13/94 12/14/94 CADMIUM 12/13/94 12/14/94 CHROMIUM 12/13/94 12/14/94 COPPER 12/13/94 12/14/94 LEAD 12/13/94 12/14/94 MERCURY 12/13/94 12/14/94 NICKEL 12/13/94 12/14/94 SELENIUM 12/13/94 12/15/94 SILVER 12/13/94 12/14/94 THALLIUM 12/13/94 12/21/94 ZINC 12/13/94 12/14/94 4 V KAF I ., r;ysico!Technologies,!nc. t ATI I.D. n 412072 METALS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA RESULTS ARE CORRECTED FOR MOISTURE CONTENT MATRIX : SOIL UNITS : mg/Kg ATI I.D. # CLIENT I.D. ANTIMONY , ARSENIC BERYLLIUM 412072-1 SS -1 412072-2 SS -2 412072-3 B-1-5.5 412072-4 B-1-8.0 412072-5 B-1-3.0 412072-6 B-2-18 METHOD BLANK <3.0 <2.5 4.5 - 9.4 1.7 4.2 <0.30 2.2 5.7 - <0.25 <0.25 Anclyii,:c:!Techno ogies,Inc. 5 iuirsA1 1 METALS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA RESULTS. ARE CORRECTED FOR MOISTURE CONTENT ATI I.D # 412072 MATRIX : SOIL UNITS : mg/Kg ATI I.D. # CLIENT I.D. CADMIUM CHROMIUM COPPER 412072-1 SS -1 412072-2 SS -2 412072-3 B-1-5.5 412072-4 B-1-8.0 412072-5 B-1-3.0 412072-6 B-2-18 METHOD BLANK 18 18 16 <0.61 D1 18 15 35 <0.25 <0 50 D1 = Value from a two fold diluted analysis. 29 <0.50 AnolyticolTechnologies,!nc. 6 METALS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA RESULTS ARE CORRECTED FOR MOISTURE CONTENT DRAFT ATI I.D. # 412072 MATRIX : SOIL UNITS : mg/Kg ATI I.D. # CLIENT I.D. LEAD MERCURY NICKEL 412072-1 SS -1 13 412072-2 SS -2 130 412072-3 B-1-5.5 4.4 412072-4 B-1-8.0 14 412072-5 B-1-3.0 4.2 412072-6 B-2-18 3.3 METHOD BLANK <1.5 <0.11 <0.10 19 <0.50 4 Analv;icoiTechnologies,Inc. 7 METALS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA RESULTS ARE CORRECTED FOR MOISTURE CONTENT V KA1 1 t: ATI I.D. tt 412072 MATRIX : SOIL UNITS : mg/Kg ATI I.D. # CLIENT I.D. SELENIUM SILVER THALLIUM 4120'72-4 B-1-8.0 <0.30 METHOD BLANK <0.25 <0.30 <0.30 <0.25 <0.25 O.'' 'H A:,civ;icclTechnologies,Inc. METALS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA RESULTS ARE CORRECTED FOR MOISTURE CONTENT L1I'S AI" la l ATI I.D # 412072 MiATRIX : SOIL UNITS : mg/Kg ATI I.D. # CLIENT I.D. ZINC 412072-4 B-1-8.0 71 METHOD BLANK <0.50 wAho yt cclTechnologies,!nc. 9 V KAP' 0 ATI I.D. # 412072 METALS ANALYSIS QUALITY CONTROL DATA CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. MATRIX : SOIL PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA UNITS : mg/Kg SAMPLE DUP SPIKED SPIKE ELEMENT ATI I.D. RESULT RESULT RPD RESULT ADDED REC. ANTIMONY BLANK <2.50 N/A N/A 45.0 50.0 90 ANTIMONY 412072-4 <3.04 <3.12 NC 20.7 60.4 34 ARSENIC BLANK <0.250 N/A N/A 2.02 2.00 101 ARSENIC 412072-4 4.18 3.85 8 5.67 2.45 61 BERYLLIUM BLANK <0.250 N/A N/A 42.8 50.0 36 BERYLLIUM 412072-4 <0.304 0.312 NC 53.0 60.4 88 CADMIUM BLANK <0.250 N/A N/A 46.4 .50.0 93 CADMIUM 412072-4 <0.607 <0.624 NC 53.1 60.4 88 CHROMIUM BLANK <0.500 N/A N/A 45.7 50.0 91 CHROMIUM 412072-4 18.1 19.0 5 70.1 60.4 86 COPPER BLANK <0.500 N/A N/A 47.0 50.0 94 COPPER 412072-4 29.5 36.3 21 79.7 60.4 83 LEAD BLANK <1.50 N/A N/A 45.8 50.0 92 LEAD 412072-4 13.9 13.2 5 66.6 60.4 S7 MERCURY BLANK <0.100 N/A N/A 0.505 0.500 MERCURY 412072-1 <0.102 <0.103 NC 0.578 0.521 101 NICKEL BLA1vK <0.500 N/A N/A 44.7 50.0 35 NICKEL 412072-4 19.5 21.1 8 71.6 60.4 86 SELENIUM BLANK <0.250 N/A N/A 1.,21 1.25 97 SELENIUM 4120/2-4 <0:296 <0.307 NC 0.866 1.53 57 STi.tj ER SILVER '--ALLIU'M THALLIUM BLANK <0.250 N/A N/A 45.7 50.0 91 412072-4 <0.304 <0.312 NC 53.3 60.4 33 3LAN K 412072-4 <0.250 <0.296 N/A N/A 1.20 1.25 96 <0.307 NC 0.654 1.53 43F NC = Not Calculable. = Out of limits due to matrix interference. CONTINUED ON•NEXT PAGE Ana!vhhcaTechnologies,!nc. 10 METALS ANALYSIS QUALITY CONTROL DATA CONTINUED CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA lunar 1 ATI I.D. n 412072 MATRIX : SOIL UNITS mg/Kg SAMPLE DUP SPIKED SPIKE o ELEMENT ATI I.D. RESULT RESULT RPD RESULT ADDED REC ZINC BLANK <0.500 N/A N/A 44.8 50.0 90 ZINC 412072-4 71.1 70.3 1 120 60.4 81 o Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result) Spike Concentration X 100 RPD (Relative o Difference) = (Sample Result - Duplicate Result) Average Result B - 15 X 100 • G` , AncivncciTechnologies,Inc. GENERAL CHEMISTRY ANALYSIS CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA IJ TII ANA I- ■ ATI I.D. n 412072 MATRIX : SOIL PARAMETER DATE ANALYZED MOISTURE 12/13/94 I it 12 wAnck•ticaTecnnologies,Inc • GENERAL CHEMISTRY ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA LJIKAIN 1 ATI T.D. ri 412072 MATRIX : SOIL UNITS o ATI I.D. # CLIENT I.D. MOISTURE 412072-1 412072-2 412072-3 412072-4 412072-5 412072-'6 SS -1 SS -2 B-1-5.5 B-1-8.0 B-1-3.0 B-2-18 14 2.7 5.8 14 9.2 13 13 DRAFT wAnalyiica!Techreologies,Inc. ATI I.D. # 412072 GENERAL CHEMISTRY ANALYSIS QUALITY CONTROL DATA CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT # : 0259-033-R06 PROJECT NAME : CITY OF TUKWILA MATRIX : SOIL UNITS 96 - PARAMETER MOISTURE SAMPLE SAMPLE DUP SPIKED SPIKE o ATI I.D. RESULT RESULT RPD RESULT ADDED REC 412072-4 14 13 7 N/A N/A N/A Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result) Spike Concentration x 100 RPD (Relative o Difference) = (Sample Result - Duplicate Result) Average Result B - 18 _. 100 Detour Legend: Automobile Traffic Truck Traffic s 9 S 104 St oy S Boeing Ir i3 .40 h S 107 St cl 0 Cl ;Q E O 0 p S j -h? R S 116 St S 108 S • 1N S 116 St .0 vti S 124 St • 04- gqti 45- 5- 4- v S S 124 St S 12S St S 131 S 133 St S 135 St O S` Z• ID S 138 St N S 140 St S 144 St S 146 St D N 1 D 1 � 1 n S 1149 St S 148 St 0 rt 0 0. 0 3 ur .o a a S 149 St V B ccccc ricce m ' oc c eDlcce men -t • t }} • t— \ I ` } to •, 7tM .. ~•• . r •rr•, • 126TH sr • ,n N r • {46.i`te b -pr •Ji Rei ..., • r•i• • • • •°. �-- . • a_ Iwst?^ SS, St �r�3IST STI . n+ss •, • oO 1z Ot25 0.•. 0 VW — --•l1) II�• ,: � ., N :r. -•-Y•--- i0 P o ti.. 7 i_i- •.._ .... .:........ .....„...,. .7,•.,., . .. . ,f,.....„ ...., 1. !1 5-3 4.919 160 -•*'`' 1. 4.4t* - 4t* ° 1 • -yy3 ,ger a f -I -• , . • • 7!!Sf ,)63[/ •II '41********** Y . •n N, LNWr }I... N•I.e I. r••fZ e•••• •1.1 10 / /!. 57. 9 2011• ti ti *** it 4444.. —• ' T. ;;a Icsr 103050 WI 9, I34TH . ST. 4.411 14 -70 79 -26 -SS •S oRIA �AR LOT,1 . ._S•,M _ •M,4 e _Q— I iii t 4.4 Sec.15, T.23N., R.5E. W.M. MACADAM ROAD (1) Sta. 29+62.50 (22' It.) to Sto. 29+17.65 (18.15 Sta. .30+81.66 (19' rt. & It.) to Sta. 31+36.81 (23' rt. Install 55 Lf. of quardrad type 1, plaarnent case 5 with breakaway cable terminal end section per 1 .-- Std. Plan C-20 k C-4. Type 1 transition per Std. Plan C-3. Thrie beam terminal section.„.j.. design F per Std. Plan C -7o. ® Vision 26.08.x25.0'looq per Std plan A-2. - I. :1 S. CENTRAL ,AcHci v., 111 u;1 1,4"18 Y.S.E.zl /- Tor of 111 Zit') • N 180228.456 / E 1642561.661 'f,fitlocate al existiniutilitlioos required.. ® Pre4de curb rotnp (20:1 Slope or flatter) Simi& to...Ornate per Std. Plan 1 -) d ' 0 0 • iiserbcdm: datum • • Macadam Rd S S. 133rd St. STA.,'26+10.00 • 26 . . teat RCN marker' a... No •13 N 179837770 ...- -- 1: IS „- O` ;4' •-,,'- --. E 1642711 ....s 7 • -;...-.7.t.-1.7_ ..- - --,;•:«...r.--. • sii§..y,. - •16-5 ....!:.. •-•- 4_ .5, ...-..-a ;1 .,-.2.4..-7-7.... ---- -.-.: - :- •- .0 ...5., • • • ---. ------- -----•" -v.,: ..---.:-:-.:-..:-.A1,.."(-.:-'-'-• .. ..• Exist., mailboxes t� be taiOcoted ....... . --- of fII- - 4 14:0271-4r: .---7•-ii-1-8:°554.:11 --- ..21...11.11!2f 2- 6•4 •c4- ".P0 " eefri ... .. . :---...:.."-iii-;<:...2...r6STORIA: -A8itfAir.ES---........... - I..........: .:...-- •:::•-• ::11:..: \ CURVE DATA PI STATION N E A D R T L S 27+66.84 179992.019 1642590.420 2220'33. RT. 5.43'46. 1000.02 197.49 389.96 N.A. 33+78.58 180604.267 1642515.950 1920'12• RT. 71822. 750.00 127.77 253.12 N.A. PLAN HOR. 60 55 so 45 40 35 30 25 20 owe I2/29/ . I C,1 111 -33o 8 Roadway Section •A• CN1 CO 10 - io 0 1.11 -J 141 300'. V.C. co w •. LEGEND - Gas Power U.G. Tel Water San. Sewer Storm Sewer Fence Vertical Datum Ditch . Reference Sheet 4 Not in contract NIC 0.0229x _J• 0 0510 20 HOR. En2M1 SCALE: 1'=20' 0 5 VER InW5IT! SCALE: 1•=5' Roadway- Section -II" 8 • Rdwy. Section. • 51 11 Lt co Roadway Section "0 Left. Bk of pavt. seat - Pier 1 Sta=29+68.33 EL = 49.8 Exist. 133rd st. 1 Bk. of pavt. ceat - Pier 2 Sta=30+31.66 D. = 48.50 41111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111Nliii-IIITIIIN111111111 1111111111111M Roadway Sec. •E• U. _Roadway•• Sec. •E• Rt. 1 El. 22.5 01 Roadway Section •D• Rt. PROFILE oo Sta. 29+43.33 Future tonc. culvert (N.I.C.) -..1711.3x r ir \-cExofistinlAgacadam5"de rd.. .11 , )1 I( ,n`c! I g l'r/// f• ✓ _IS IL I I Rd Sec. I!Sec. F El. 20.5 2: 45 0 3 w v' ▪ Rdwy. Sec. EIVED Rdwy. Rdwy. Rdw . Sec. •G• Sec. Sec. AUG 0 2 1995 Rt. Rt. 1+1 C\I 05 •d• COMmuNi FY DEVAOPIVIENT eh' et 171 2: 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 " by date designed JAD drawn JEW checked ICA pro j •ng pro .1 .D- rwId SDI bk w comsuunurrs SARGENT Sargent (JkOlnO•rf. !no. .320 West Bay DIM. 5i111 Cti • 131-#1eb. Abehhebri 90502 11. 360 94.3-3590 • Fc. 350 352-3711 MACADAM BRIDGE AUG - 1 1995 ikiEhljeaK PLAN Sc PROFILE 9070 file no 110 dot. revisions scale date . -o9 6'56'06' W I F liner-Skip ineSkip stripe an [-Fog Zine mailbgxdes j' 4' N / 114' -1 44g/ n13 N 180550.380 E 1642492290 W t/) ' Ian / a- oa / /-... o o e v ! m m _ N v` a �1V V1 W a] n) 4 Arg !Iv bp 32 MACADAM ROAD 8 n Cr) 11111 _ 33 MiliatilaMea i i ivijig,...... N.656.06" w 39 \ - f Top of fill 29252 �__� I _-- n n o .. ... .. .. .. _ 38. N n + 010 i JOHNSON O m CURVE DATA PI STATION N E & D R T L S 27+66.84 179992019 1642590.420 2220'33" RT. 5'43'46' 1000.02 197.49 389.96 N.A. 33+78.58 180604.267 1642515.950 1920'12" RT. 718'22' 750.00 127.77 253.12 N.A. 3HRRTY LILJESTRAND• v JJ$na W m h o a75. O C j co L N472.54.f _ R/W P Nail N 180552.637----- / 80552.5 -! E 1642537.20T - N 180551720 E-1642552.560 a./ \— Relocate exist. malb x Rs dR/W y� f `_ 0 5 10 20 HOR. SCALE: 1'=20' 0510 20 HOR. SCALE: 1'=20' Rdry Sect: 'H' Roadway Section 'I' 0, Rdwy. Sec. .Rdry. Sect 'H' Roadway Section 'I' Roadway Section 'J' N • 0 : 5 VER.Issn SCALE: 1'=5' 60 55 50 45 35 25 20 32+00 33+00 15 LEGEND Gas --- Power - -- U.G. Tel - - - Water - - - San. Sewer - = = = Storm Sewer - - -- Fence - - ..<- Ditch Not in contract NIC Vertical Datum Reference Sheet 1 1area 12/19/ rExistent pole r‹? Grant boatel fa .ds--,.!. Coasboctkw Ceotertb-' hr w,d.yaund dro w9. I =6� )bias s•" Pm Fon bolts bt . &Intl ,r- Pc6ethArto street* halm o min inkiness of 20 mL 4' Cane ay colt pitted to w' 4 g unit 7 .they've amity amt .d units C.n.,t cola** boric A. cab (Standard Plat F -I) ACP. doss 8 r corp. *pm -7i Sane (min) Canto grads Cuory vas 8' thick ^--Onsbuctkw Goofed* for 'adngomd d)o neq. and bodRt for sails. 3- \� °tubal .o1ucs top nus 2' dery dpi 6' Crawl base DRIVEWAY SECTION AT CUT r *ries see plot -26 doe -t" \-E.ist q,d lite /— 4' Asphalt cmc.. / doss 8 /--2 Crushed sribriq / / top case 8. oars. fermi Boor —' as mural DRIVEWAY SECTION @ FILL Sta. 31+41136 to Sta. 31+7500 Rt. Sta. 31+40.36 to Sta. 31+50.00 Lt 6' / P.rfo and ad,.d 60 PK' crab Atm % &Knouts istded y jafnetion above rain IS alp. to &oic Omit to abAnt 13p. both skin 45'-0' 0 15% (max.) Slope 20'-0" 0 +2%. -' Roadway 1 60 • -Line of Existing Driveway' 60 50 40 Match existing driveway at this point Edge of Shoulder Line of New Driveway El. 50.81 1 50 DRIVEWAY PROFILE © STA 28+56 Roadway Edge of 43.50 Shoulder 20'-0' 0 -2% r I I; 29'-0' 0 15% (max.) Slope , El. 42.74 40 . ...1 . .......... -- - ,-`--------- . . EL 39.7± Line of Existing Driveway 30 Line of New Dripeway Match Existing Driveway at this point 40 40 5 0 5 10 20 50 DRIVEWAY PROFILE ©' STA 31+76 30 5 0 5 10 20 }S I �/�i r. A A'\ PA S rr alma 6.�FOI1V 1 cel SARGENT S°�^' t `� 320 west Bot Orh.. Site 101 • • Olympia. Wnhngtcn T. 360 913-3590 • Fax 360 352-3581 99502 MACADAM BRIDGE . fie t LA ...els, � ..."4:r Z IY��, ti d" Mi P U m , 1 -ENGI Il'I 7. A I -ASEW `� T . I d•s�•d �a lin EFTS- 1 i 1 IL\•/G— Chaco .x:M v checked yN • PLAN & PROFILE \ pro) •ne IEA •• no pro.' d.• sly • . .sale field bk rep no date revisions date . n 0 0 0 0 h -5 0 5 Roadway Varies Varies 4:71. 4.5' 0' to 6' Sh/ 01 I Ditto I d4: .r� i r-1 2: 1 0' to 12' Traffic lane -2X Slope 1 12' to 8' �- Traffic lone Sh I /dr. Profile grad i & photfrom, I -2X Ste It Exist. gad line 10 - 5 0 ROADWAY SECTION A Sta. 26+50.00 to Sta. 26+74.00 Varies iRoadway Varies L° cex. 12.1 \\\\- 4' Asphalt cone., 2' Crushed surfacing top course 6' Bose course • 4.• 5' . 6' 01' Ditch i Barth act 12' Traffic lane Slope 12' 6' 2'. Ili Traffic laneShldr. I 1 r- Ptak grade! & pivot pont ;- Extruded ca / 1 curb type 2 I- / -2 gu 1 1 'i (Std Plan F -2b) �- Exist gnd fine � \\ 4' Asphalt cmc, pass B 2' Gushed surfacing top course \ 6' Bose course 5 10 1'-6" Cement cmc barrier curb . (Std Plan F-1) - Vi Is! /.Vanes 7;_-1 3'• i 5' --iRack1 I I91/b. I 1/area! ----------- Crake! barrow / embankment / as req'd J ROADWAY SECTION B Sta. 26+74.00 to Sta. 28+02.00 Varies - 5 Privity block moll -- 0 5 10 IV let it Roadway 12' Traffic Inc -2X Slope Varies r 112' 6' to 10'. 2': Traffic lane I S,Id' 1 1 /r .J Profile grade, & pivot pont _-Extruded p !/ _u go�e I / (Std. P ' n F -2b) 4' Asphalt cmc, pass B \\ 2' Gushed surfacing top course 1 1 Gravel borrow • embankment 6' Bose course I as req'd. - 1'-6' Cnn'nl cmc barrier curb (Std Plan F-1) -- i Varies / •-• °°I I ! Pei : 1 ROADWAY SECTION C Sta. 28+02.00 to Sta. 28+57.75 Vanes it Roadway Vanes 6.33' 911dr. ; 12' Traffic lane -2X Slope I t�� ?awl), block wall -74' Asphalt cone, Coss 8 r Gushed surfacing top course 6' Base course -'3 0 5 10 12' _6' to 10'. 2' Traffic lane Shldr. I /- Profile grade, & pivot pointExtruded -2X gr._ C l ' curb type 2 i- (Std Plan F -2b) 13 it _ ~ Crowd borrow embmkmen t as req'd - ROADWAY SECTION D Sto. 28+57.75 to Sto. 29+17.65 Rt. Sta. 28+57.75 to Sta. 29+19.20 Lt. M..SE. ret. wait Rdwy. Symm. Abt. f 12' Traffic lone Varies on S approach 1' on N approach 1.5' Cement cone. barrier curb (Std. Plan F-1) stop 0 conc. romp 4' Asphalt cmc, Class 8 2' Gushed surfacing top course \ 6' Bose course ROADWAY SECTION E -- Structural 1711 as req'd. 30' Sta. 29+17.65 to Sto. 29+43.33 Rt. Sta. 29+19.20 to Sto. 29+43.33 Lt. Sta. 30+56.66 to Sta. 30+81.66 Lt. & RL 5 0 5 10 Roadway J0' ri 1 Extruded 2': T-0' 12' 12' 7'-0' • 2' 3 curb type 2 Shldr. Traffic lone Traffic lane - Shld (Std. Plan F-25) I :'f - p -4" Asphalt cone, j pass 8 2' Gushed surfacing -2X Slope % -?X gc�e �/ tap course P -__ 6' Base course 0 5 30' I iRoodwoy 30'... - ---- 1' 2' _ _ 7'-11 ' _ 12' 12' 7-11' _ 2' 1 Shldr. Traffic lane Traffic lane Shldr. ; i I Proh7e grade 1 k pivot point I -2X Slope -2X S/ e I 0 5 10 ■ ■ r : Profie grade 1 / & pivot pont i C---- ------------------ Gravel Barron Exist. gnd Ine as required ROADWAY SECTION F Sta. 30+81.66 to Sta. 30+99.29.36 -5 0 5 10 I arms 12!22/ 1 MSE. Retaining NbI/ (Std. Plan 0-1c.) ------------- gnd Inci £xhuded I p curt type 2 c (Std Pisan F -2b) --4' Asphalt cone, aoss e 2' bushed surfacing top course 6" Bose course Crovol Borrow -'.-_ as required. ROADWAY SECTION G 30' Sto. 30+99.29 to Sta. 31+40.36 Lt. Roadway 30' - 5 0 Vanes Sh/dr. ‘t1 I 12' 12' Traffic lane ( .Traffic lane I rPrahie grade I / k pivot point --2.- Y -2X 51 e -�� Exist. gnd Ine 5 10 - 5 11-0" 2' Shldr. J • 6911=7--33. M.S.0 Retaining Wall Extruded curb type 2 (Std Plan F -2b) 4' Asphalt cont., Gass B • 2' Crushed surfacingtop course 6' Bose course Gravel Barrow ------ os required ROADWAY SECTION H Sta. 31+40.36 to Sto. 31+75.00 Rt. Sta. 31+40.35 to Sta. 31+50.00 Lt Varies 1%2:1 0 4.5' r Varies Ditch 1 Shldr I I I 12' Traffic lone f' Roadway Varies 12' Traffic Inc Prohie grade & pivot point 2XSlope / -2X S/cpe 17 -6' 11, I I/ � 2 Gushed surfacing top course �- 6' Bose course Shldr. M.S.E. Retaining Wog "-Extruded curb type 2 (Std Plan F -2b) - 4' Asphalt cmc, Cass B • Exist. gnd. line 5 10 -5 Coed Barrow as requbed ROADWAY SECTION I Varies Sta. 31+15.00 to Sto. 32+83.70 Lt Sta. 31+50.36 to Sta. 32+71.70 Rt. 4.5' 01 ! Ditch � I Ali 1Y2.1 \ 0 6' to 1.5` 9nldr. 12' Traffic' lane 1f Roadway 1 Varies 12' 6' to 1.3' 2' Traffic lane I Sin/dr. ,Proh7e grade ! • & pivot point _2* g 5 Exist. gnd line 10 ::fr. .i. & e/ 13017011-1 as required. ROADWAY SECTION I Sta. 32+8.3.70 to Sto. 33+10.00 Lt. Sta. 32+71.70 to Sto. 33+10.00 Rt. Extruded j; curb type 2 to (Sid Plan F -2b) •- 4" Asphalt conc., Class B 2' Gushed surfacing Itop course 6" Bose course 11 9 ' S S- +� AAv� S - V ! P -`_`t /�` P T . NG- I by data JL4 GE� 3� w�1 �y1<�.Solve. Sabi °�,`a; ,�,ea Td. 360 963-3500 a Fmno 360 352-3581 ,�� MACADAM BRIDGE flee ,JK"`" o -'li �s� L9 P U e/. = -ENGI _ - SI `� • ) L i designed HE 1 - E I.IW- NIP>i MaekedS ROADWAY SECTIONS �. I :: .ne . no / \ aro, d. sate tiw 6w no • data revisions date Date: 07/31/95 SEC.15, T.23 N., R.5 E. W.M. 5' [1.53m) Work tine l; for ret wall BASIS OF BEARING K.C.A.S. Centert'ne of section 15 Bearing from center of section 15 to north gviorter comer is N 012730" E Cocrdnates in Wa. State Plane Coordinate System VERTICAL DATUM Project i7ench set by Barrett Consulting Engineers. Kia Cra•nty Datum BM/ 8-18-7 RR Sp&e in Power Pole at S.E. Quadrant of Mocadam Rood & 43 Rd. Ave. S. Oov. w 58.51 Project Bench Based on King County Monument EM -38, Elev. 163.73 Bross Disk in 144th: St Overpass of Intestate 5 Vertical Datum Sto. 29+62.44 Sta. 30+37.73 Macadam Road N 6'56'06" W Ftg., Pier 1 FOUNDATION PLAN Retainin. Wall 63'-4' Curtain Retainng Wall Bk. to Bk. of. Pav't. Seat I Wall I I I II 1 I 1 l4, I 1 l /, + 11 , :, o III;; o b8:re 1111' Test 'Hole `.:t11 r -App I uacadom Rd - jla. 304-00.00 roach 29 Boring 8-2 dab - - • - 3041•610133ro. St. - Sta +86.00 1 ---- cApimproach I- • 0 .........::::::.,•- --_-=---7. - _4s For Retaining Wall Footing, See Sheet 6 & 1 Iones tom/ [1.58m] -4In1 • N_656'06" W 31 Macadam Road - ---- Test Hole Boring 8-1 TSdwk. I III. 1iII II a: _ Ill It h -,i +,, Iis sr : L. 1ii•I .:-., ,. 1 ; i;....1 sll 1 ,� Il ( I Future concrete culvert (NIC) + •II ' 1 '11 1 /h' .g h O,I SII tl/,'Ir I E:vv •` 1 Ftg., Pier 2 � - Work line for ret. wall 0.0229% PLAN 300' V.C. C Exist. 133rd. St. 0 S N 7, n bod as &I .--'4p GENERAL NOTES: M materials ore wk shah be it acraobnce with the reephrentonts of the State of Nlpshigton. Department of Tronspertotian, Standard Specifications fcr Rood Bridge and Municipal Construction. doted 1994. this structure hos been desired in accordance with the requiwnents of the 1992 AA.91117 Standard Specification for lfighwoy Bridges" and MS1170 Interim Specifications" through 1994. the superstructure end all other stwctivd elements hone been designed by had factor method except the curtain walls and retonieg walls, which how been designed by alorabk stress method For Seismic design, on acceleration coefficient of 0.25 hos been used with o site coefficient of 1.212 NI cost -in-place concrete shot! be doss 4000 mix Unless otherwise shown on the plans concrete cover shall be measured fon the lose of concrete to the face of ony reinfrciq bar. Cover shad be ?yr" at the top of the roadway slab, 3" of the bottom of footing 1" at the bottom of the roadway slab, and 1W of al other locations Fafsework shall be carefully refeosed to present inpoct or undue stresses in the structure. The concrete sidewalk and rat base shod not be poured anti all the faisework hos been released Footing elections and substructure decals one subject to charge dependng upon foundation moterid encountered Reinforcing sled for footings; columns, abutments and wingwa's shill not be cut unti final tbotiq dew6ons hove been determined .' the fide and substructure detods hove been modified as required The allowable soi pressure per square foot is six and one-half (6.5)'tons for piers 1 and 2 and three (3) tons for retaining scalls This structure hos approach slobs GUARDRAIL NOTES Ararvtol " *tab are to be found in the Washington State Standard Plans for Road Bridge and.Maninpd Construction, Revision No. 92-01 1. Install Trie Bean Terminal Section Design F per Standard Plan C -7o. 2. Refer to Standard Plan C-3, Type 1 for lo}out of Guard -al. Also to Standard Ptah C-24 Placement Case 5 for parabola detois and offset datances » guardrails • 3. Instill Two Ark Beam Rai tiements, one set inside the other, per Standard Pfau C -lo. -4.1783% 4. Install the ark Geon Transition lirara*'i section per Standard Pion C -!d, Type B. 5. Install .W Beam Guorthd per Standard Plan C-1, Type 1, with Breakaway Cable remind per Standard Plan C-4. Provide Type 1 Bean Guardrail Anchor per standard Plan C-6. Ref. the -E120.0 El. 22.5 - Existing grade 0C rdwy. - IThX Exist. 48" R.C.P. ELEVATION Grade Elevations Shown Are Finished Grade On Top Of Roadway Slab at C of Bridge On Mocodom Rood And Are Equal To Profile Grade. . - El. 20.5 Future conc. culvert (NIC) Ref. line - El. 200 R.C. FLAT SLAB RIGID FRAME BRIDGE LOADING: HS -25 OR TWO 24K AXLES ® 4' C'TRS. LEGEND Gas Power U.G. Tel Wa ter San. Sewer Storrs Sewer Fence -{ - E- Ditch Not In contract NIC Identifies Section, Yew or Deter Taken cr Shown on Bridge Sheet 5 Use dash where Section, View a Detai is taken and shown on the some sheet. Epoxy coated ba � VIto 4 ,' . , 9� nPr `�y're`ti 908 - S TS- , A S I\ r'N,A\1\ by dart comm �e 1s SARGENT Sire nt E In••n, Ise, 320 Ilkd Orf•. Sun. to • d washi �' nV Y^PI4 9�^ T.t 382 943-3590 • Fax 380 352-3581 98502 t MACADAM BRIDGE ( file P U -ENGI = A • n _A I • i S'P I - . = , ' I n ice) \/ S L w PT T. 'NG- I d•sraned SEA • 0 f- I EE I I 9�I7 � drawn E. v �,.��d yM • LAYOUT . \\ 1 n9 IEA noJ'\ Oroj dr SEA • SCaI¢ .td bit no no dote revisions , date U7j31/95 lime: 10 n 5 o h 1 1B'-0' /853 m] Roadway J"[761 Jl'-8" [965 mJ Syrrm. about q span, except for effect of longitudira1 grade 1527�q Eq. spa. (1'-6" max) = 31 -5" [9.58 m] J.-0"[9141 Splice Edge of rdwy. slab 1 13'-0" 4.-0" 3_0. • I I 11024 Spa. 0 1-8' [.51 m] -' 0 110®2J Spa 0 1-8" [.51 m] 110®2J Spa 0 1-8" [.51 m] {102J Spa 0 1-8" [.51 m [3.048 mJ 0.91 m]� 022 m1 fast mil L L Top Slab Reinf. Shown Bottom Slab Reinf. Shown 110 22 Eq. spa /10 - 21 Eq. spa. 110-21Eq.spa. [1.22 m] 6.-6" [1.98 m] {7- 2J Sp . 0 1.-8' 110 - 21 Eq.spo. 12'--0" [366 m] . 1%2•[38j `- Edge of rdwy. slob J 10 Spo. 0 1.-6" = 15.-0" [4.57 mJ I 18 Spa 0 10' = 15.-0" [4.57 mj PLAN N HALF SLAB i 10%2" [0.27 mJ For sidewalk & pedestrian barrier details & re61L r� details. see Sheet _ ;Fr 110 41 /10 5.-0" [1.52 mJ N 1 28.-0' [8.5J mJ Roadway S)mm. about ✓t roadway 14'-0" [4.27 m] 14.-014.27 mj 5'-0' j -•-fit ar 110 L Level tronsv. /10 Pro/de garde & pint point [1.52 mJ E 1 � r t0f/2' [0l0.27 mJ 14 Ties 0 2-0" moa. transvc & f-0" longit. 39'-9" [12.12 m] {5 Level transv. 10" [254] 3- [76] .1 i u hiN N Bk of poll. seat SECTION 31-8" [9.65 m] 5® 21 Eq. spa (1'-6" max.) 31'-5' 1 $rnm. about E span except for effect of grade. J [457] ='[9.58 m] I - Bot. of slab level tronsv. I:• Const. j7. 10 Spa 0 I -6" = 15.-0" [457] = [4.57 mJ • 29.-10" [9.08 mj pear spur 14 Tres 0 2.-0' mar. transv. & 3 -0 longiL 18 Spa. 0 9" = 15.-0" [228] _ [4.57 m] 8121 HALF LONGIT. SECTION THRU ROADWAY SLAB DEAD LOAD CAMBER' CURVE This arae shows the decd load camber only and should be increased by the amount of anticipoted,take-up in the folsework. ts 15 1 - - S 'S- A �- N P II P T . G-�d by date LVI eers SARGENT Sargent Engln..re. Inc. 320 Merl Bay Ane. Suite 101 • 0ynplo, ttbannatm 98502 Td: 360 9U-3590 • rat 360 352-3581 MACADAM BRIDGE ! file �J�/ I Lq �9 P U o „'� � -ENGI �'� ' IT�i�r}- II. A ' A �/" II S I I I `, L� destpeed �, Q EE v ri ROADWAY SLAB • I %�\S I no 9 `j / \ � a� . scale need bk ro no dere revisions date . a C 0 a 0 (1212m] 28"-0" [8.5Jm] g Roadway (llocadan rood) 5'-1072" [1.79m] 0 /10 -- 24 Spa. 9 1 -8" max [51 m] /10 - 23 Spa. 9 1'-8" max [51 m] 102 j70 23 Spa. 0 1'-B" max [.51 mJ 0 /10 -- 13 Spa 9 1'-8" max [51 mJ — X-11" [1.19 mJ Splice NO W111o 2 0/7- 23 Spa 91=8" max. [51 mJ /7 -- 24 Spa 9 1'-8" moz [.51 mJ N 2 16 48 Eq. spa. 10-0" [J05 mJ Ctrs. ®I-48 Eq. spa. 0.225 --Pict ,015 Near Face of Wol! -4- Far Face of Woll Rein!. Bars Shown Rein( Bars Shown ELEVATION Looking Ahead on Station •- Pier 1 Looking Back on Station •- Pier 2 Wingwdl Not Shown N B. 20.5 - Pier 2 Sta. 29+62.44 Pier 1 Ftg. i. Sta 304-J7.73 Pic 2 Ftg. \ 13%, a• E E O h <o 2H EE E Rla O I ? Q/7 Top d bot. - 50 Spo. 0 10" [254] = 41-8" [12.7 mJ 21'-172" (6.44 m] !t Roadway FOOTING PLAN 21'-1Y" [6.44 m] 1 DPW tom/ TABLE OF ELEVATIONS (At Beck of Pail seat.) Roadway Location A 8 Pier 1 49.81 49.53 Pier 2 48.50 48.22 _. 1 a . 10" . i' [254] r --- Bk. of pout. sear 0 /4 0 r-0" [3o5J /479 1'-0" [305] li nI E Ie, Const. jL L0,7 0/6 5'-0' [1.52 m] 1=0" 4"--0" [1.22 m] 5'-6" [1.68 mJ [O.31 4'-6" [1.37 mJ Wall 9top offtg. Fig. SECTION Pier 1 Pier 2 DRAIN DETAIL See Standard Plan D-4 For Drainage Details by data despned 94/ drawn .E1 checked �>r pro3 *Kt NFA prof dr rleld ba ro CONSULTANTS SARGENT Sargent Elglnoers, Inc. 320 wart Bar Draw. Site 101 ' • Olpnpio, sbehngla' 98502 Td. 360 913-3580 • rax 360 352-3581 MACADAM BRIDGE PIER 1 & 2 no date revisions File no . 1 scale date . 7 • of l^ 11 ,o;! al 0 Of - .1; 1 If NIS i / L Front face of 'ai, wall 0top of �1I Ng. = work line. Rdwy • curb lire —1 +` e urn 1 an 39'-11/4"[11.91 m] Retaining wall Pier 1 Sta. 29+62.44 I10'-103'4' Curtain rail [1.30 m) 6 45.28 PIER 1 FOOTING PLAN N S.E. RET. WALL SW. Retaining Wall Similar 6 5001 O SE) O tap of ret roil EL— OSW. n' Cpm pint in pedestrian barrier. I I /- Fractured fin surface finish on 1/ outside face of ret. waif & ii pedestrian barrier. See Detail, Sheet Z J / h - Bk. of pari. seat Pier 1 A. Sta. 29+68.33 Q 4275 /5 0 1-0' Max. 63&15 Icoma 12/19/ 10-1%4" [108 m] 19 f0 –103'4" [3.30 m) /5 F.F. - 13 Eq. spa. (9' max.) = 9'-6" [229] [290 m] f4 N.F.-7Eq. spa ': (1'-6' max.) = [457] [2.90 mi Y2" Prenoided pint filer 1 from bot of ftg to top 1 of wall, in sidewalk & in 1 cement concrete barrier! & gutter 1 1 1 Open pint in pedestrian barrier /5 Cont. jt. 1.0 N ° ^ 4 Cr3 to 11-6/" See N.E: & N.W. [156] Ret. Wall 0 Pier 2 0 15 F.F. A- 14 Eq. spa (9' max) = 10'-2" 3" j14 N.F. A. 7 Eq. spo. (1-6" max. = Curb lure --- Cement c I trete ` barrier curb & gutter. — n" Open joint in [76) ' pedestrian barrier. 111111 Illii NI �. iii b 1 —11- I - Fractured fn surface finish on outside face of curtain wall & l l \.`-it i pedestrian barrier. ---,HI 1 ..,; t . NOiEL 1 1 Concrete & rebors in / / the curtain wall are 1 / / substructure items. 1 1 151 1 1 1 / / 1 \ — - 810 Hole opening for drainage pipe \ 1 — Jam,`-- tMs curtain gal Adjust bars to clear. -----...._____v_... 1 - 11 I J Q 22.50 1.-0" [305) 0 /5 0 1-0' Max El 29.88 14•-6" 1 I. /5 0 1'-0' Max Q 2250 [4.42 m] [457] [105 m] PIER 1 S.E. CURTAIN WALL SHOWN S.W. CURTAIN WALL SIMILAR -t 2, ° 1- [0.61 m) " Premo/ded A filler, full width btwn. tap of ftg & bot, of curtain wog. 1 I �*I11 Prernolded joint fila 1 from bot. of Ng. to top 1 of wall, in sidewalk & in cement concrete barrier & gutter. Q 20.50 OIndicates design wall height n feet for selecting reinforrenmt. ELEVATION i. JI ••=; L � 111 PIER 2 N N.E. CURTAIN WALL SHOWN N.W. CURTAIN WALL SIMILAR I Ilii k • i N. ' Premolded jL filler, full width blwn. top of Ng dr bottom of curtain wall. 5'-0" [1.52) 94'4"1-248) t '4 - Vertical -, •'4 -111 %. . Ft. 10%1 —1:111 I Const pint with ' roughened surface SECTION Reinforcing Not Shown See Section A, & Section 1hru Sidewalk & Ped. Barrie, Sheet 7. --Topof curtain rid! .a g Q. a r -r [381) Pigmented sealer to 1-0" below ground surface. Top of n ro Fractured fin surface finish. See detol sheet Z - O /5 F.F. - 23 ,(4 N.F. [381 1.-3' [381] SECTION 0 PT. ,1' 0 .N G — by date designed drawn JEW Checked Cyr Prat .ng NEA prof de held bk ro CONSULTANTS SULTAI 1 S SARGENT Sargant EngJn..e Ma. 320 Weet Bay AFw. Site 101 • . Qlynpie, MbIagtan 98502 Tel. 360 903-3590 e rat 360 352-3881 MACADAM BRIDGE CURTAIN WALLS & SOUTH RETAINING WALL no date revisions file no scale date 1 Date: O'/26/9S T - Bonk of pov't. sect Pier 2- Sta. 30+31.66 Ftg. - Pier2 30+37.73 • 11'-6%8" [353 mJ Curtain wall See Pier 2 East Curtainn Wall, sheet — O: Front lace of roll of g lcp of ft¢ = reek line 8 o o/ t as / 1.t^ T1p 1 O _ __I__L _ '1'- -- - 1 ,1- 1 — VI' r.f. N� I E E o, us ‘I'd 'd `i J8"-5%8" [11.71 mf - Retoini,g wadi v o m 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555_ 5 r__ -i L E/ 2050 L FOOTING PLAN — N.E. RETAINING WALL S.W. RETAINING WALL SIMILAR —for surface treatment detail see S.E Retaineg Wall. Sheet 1. of a' i W� ti •• El 46.780 Top -,.", of retaining wall ph o` E7 3238 E7 25.00 /5 /5 0 1-0' [305J 1'-6' [457] /5 0 1'-0' [305] E7 27.88 2-0" 10-0' [305 mJ [610] 1'-0' [305] 14'-6' [4.42 m] ELEVATION — N.E. RETAINING WALL — PIER 2 E7 4025 36 /5 E7 36.25 35 /5 0 1'-0' [305] 9'-5' [2.87 mJ N.W. RETAINING WALL SIMILAR « PIER 2 E7 41.75 Indicates design wall height in feet for selecting reinforcing. I °'e 12/29/ • FRACTURED FIN FINISH [211] Curb line --- 5'-0" [1.52 mJ 241 Piynt»ted scala l0 1'-0' bila► grated surhxe. /6 7 3-7" splice 3,4' Chamfer Nanta+ I Cement cmc. bomer —1 curb & gutter, see Std. Plan F-1 015 O 9' 130 /1 0 18" mal. r,I N. IIit\ 0 /4 0 1'-6' Fractured fin surface finish, see detail 0 /4 0 /4 O 1'4' /- Top of wall (curtain wall & ret. wall) Premolded /1. filler —' Const. /7. roughened surface [391] it FF (Retoineig wall) FF (Curtain will) — f 1 E ', " Half -round or "t '4 chamfer drip groove Fractured fin surface e finish, see detail r Near Face T`TP. SECTION. THRU SIDEWALK & PEDESTRIAN BARRIER (CURTAIN WALL & RETAINING WALL) Sidewalk & pedeshion barrier not shown Top of Ret. Wall -- Fractured fin finish Bar J —. — Bar C Tv' pis shown in plan) --BarK&M 1'psi met 3Y" [89J max. B' as shown in p/m TYP. RET. WALL SECTION 1. See Standard Plan 0 -lo Tor reinforced concrete retaining wall type 1. 2. For determining the reinforcing bar size & sparing, use the height of wall noted in the plan. Modify bars K & M dimension b"&borJ&0for length. 3 See Standard Plan 0-4 for drainage details, A/temate Oetod. by date designed drawn checked prof crag _11 IN prof dr iwld by ro CON ULTi INJ CEJ SARGENT Sargent Engineers, Iro. 320 Neat Bar Drive. Sutra 101 • Orris. sbahington 98502 Td. 360 843--3590 • ear 360 352-3581 MACADAM BRIDGE N.E. RETAINING WALL & DETAILS file no , 110 date revisions scale date . rj2' Open hilt — • k Pedestrhn Barrier Sde.dk art E9". pint 4 Spa 0 8'-0' .T9-tyi" r-til;1 to' -toys Omit Gummy bat— on this face 2 2 J 2 2 SECTION O ski.* font y yr" \ prenolded font tiler LL -sae.aa r orb pint %T• pr'e'noldal pint Jlkr (pe+ ,Amit '. n Peiortnvr Bonier'. ^Fn.pnf r • 8-0• - Ili' -0' r -e' 6-5t `. e3' -I• tt-6�• PLAN - SIDEWALK & PEDESTRIAN . BARRIER Erymeio^ pot - ' gvan pit in pedeetrbn baster • Preridded pint Ari rdl, ,Lr. SECTION 2-2 VIEW C,) M Chamfers 3'." Pedestrian Barrier Bar List ALL R�E2;M.�F.,eG4CING SHALL BE AASHTO MX, Cit 6a (Bridge. Corton M60, and Retaining l06) NARK SIZE LENGTH t3ENDING DIAGRAM (ALL DIMENSIONS ARE CUT TO OUT) Pt 5 5-0' P F b �� L P1 1Oy2. f: r i 1 T (a) Determined From Plans 1 P2 4 5-3• STR. PJ 6 (o) SIR P4 4 (o) SM. P5 5 (a) SIR P6 4 o me • 9 - �C�e7' S I_' EE - Curb the I Famed o• Top of rdrK slab bonier h: �I ' Use 3'4• ed9r °fie i 1• /1 (; 4 Spa 0 e' -o" a err -0" 3B'-5ka. R J"R-• Both of Por'C Seat Sade.dk Cure ria r .ride.o'k bkts ./ 2 I Premdded Joint flex 0J6 r/r-r min Splice j I Modified traffic bonier rid sectln 8'-0' (Mine Thrie Beam GLardai remind/ Design Fit used)k2. °Pen ins des bit k pedes Brrier TJpicd Dummy Joky on Bridge shoe/ be Spaced • 8'-0' PARTIAL PLAN - SIDEWALK & PEDESTRIAN BARRIER Berner txnfiuoas between Ruddy expansion pits Construction pots with thew keys arc permnitrhre at dummy pint locations Form pits between dummy pints shot not be permitted Retaking Weil Orton Wil & Bridge Side.dk 9%2'_ �6' i[n. r 6-D• Maar. -- , BP RolMdnooav 2_10. • 1 1 See Rai IM:et {.� j r- 10 0 is Calf. y r -r woo, 0A 09' - Op 0 t-6- 121 /t 01-6' '- Bottom of dab km1 fransv. 814 120 i6 • 9' 11 �//m7• Hoff round ?I4 • Chanter drip g'vooe TYPICAL SECTION - SIDEWALK & PEDESTRIAN BARRIER 1 onus 12/19/ offace proo(gmrd°arr.) of 111 " 111 -L 11 ' 1 Ili 1111 1 11 111 fl nBr • ea at 0 pedestrian bonier 0 Back of Pmemant Seat --•-Tcp of Site 0 .11 1 111 1 1 Top of Rd, y, carton nth & retonLrg_adl ; i L _ LL l - 1j I II L 8, 1 P4 „, ! L '! ' lt 1 1� 11 1 n i1 1 6609; 801401-6•llos I Connection kr Me bean gurotal fermend design F. inside lace of location shown it the layout Pm.atr 5-811 gdv. Burke Hl -laude inserts roper ed equal OUTSIDE ELEVATION END OF PEDESTRIAN BARRIER Nota Retoikg Wal & Curtain Woo' Reid Not 95omr 9 �JK41" y9 TS- An S I\ P dot. LTAN9C�J CONSULTANTS S"'� MACADAM BRIDGE P U -ENGI ' I!Ta�/- ' 0 -A r SI `� S tL P T T. NG- designed 9;, • 9 - �C�e7' S I_' EE an.�.e w 6908 I ( flj ��\\\L� I j IEA • Sargent. `"°`""� `� 320 Wet Boy Dri.., Sita 101 • aropio, iked ngtm Td. 360 90-3590 ! 101 360 352-350 98502 SIDEWALK & PEDESTRIAN BARRIER File 62ss-� I 7pro rdJ d^0 IOW bine • no dote revisions date Coves plate shill be snapped alto position after bottom extruded channel hos been bolted into place. See DETAIL 0" Mchcr bolls 2' 11%2' • 0 • 3' Raing & drive pin This cora plate section shat be crapped into position after 2 0 std ppe hos been welded to bottom extruded channel Baluster C 0 SECTION of 2%7' Std. ppe railing Std pipe bluster 3i6 2-0 Std pipe END DETAIL Except 0 %4' drain hole Cow plate shall be snapped into position after bottom extruded channel has been bdted into place. Top of cont traffic bonier F Anchor bolls or wedge anchors 3/32 Typ Trim tips 0 washers Top of traffic • boner frll 1/32' Radius 0 top & sides Coves plate shall be snapped • into position after bottom extruded channel has been bolted into place. Coves plate a 0 m 3%4' Top of cont. traffic barrier Polyurethane or siicone sealant •v Color to match aluminum railing. DETAIL shy%/.:; �'•�i;.yf��' Fill 71' ad washer as necessary to adjust top of mi to o smooth profile & plumb railing./ 6' Embedment for anchor bolts (for wedge anchors use manuf. recommendation.) Polyurethane or silicone - seolont - Cola to match . aluminum railing. ..v Tod( weld 3 1 Steel sides eo head %)3x2x0'-3" Dull 1%4'0 hole thru cow plate 0 ea baluster Cow plate 1/32' Radius (Ti.) (r .� 6' Typ. SECTION 3' End section vanes (.5.-6. [1.68 mJ min 9.-6' [2.90 mJ mar) Baluster spa = 8't (divided equally)• Expansion joint Permissble yi in top ro1 Bend before -\ anodizing fiAnchor bolts or wedge anchors 1 � 2.1 11 R=7" T,.icd interior section e'-0' (5'-6' [1.68 m] min. 9'-6' [2.90 mJ max. odpcent to bridge exp. pints) Baluster spoon. - 11 sop 0 8' 203 = 7-4' 2.24 m Dummy pint Bdluster & bolt spacings shown are maximum Womble. Vary as necessary odpcent to bridge expansion pints. Anchor bolts r wedge anchors See GENERAL DETAIL' this sheet See END DETAILS" Bottom extruded channel Inch to Millimeter Top of sidewalk or roadway slab 1/az 1/16 3rn = 1 = 1'/4 = 1/e 3/16 1/4 3/8 1/2 5/8 3/4 13/16 7/8 [0.79] 13'e = [34.93] [1.59] 1'/2 = [38.1] [2.38] 13'4 = [44.45] [3.18] 2 = [50.8] [4.76] 21/4 = [57.15] [6.35] 21/2 = [63.5] [9.53] 23/4 = [69.85] [12.7] 3 = [76.2] [15.88] 31/2 - = [88.9] [19.05] 4 = [101.6] [20.64] 6 = [152.4] [2223] 71/2 = [190.5] [25.4] 8 = [203.2] [31.75] %2'0 Hole 0 interior section or %2' x slotted hole (for longitudinal adpstment) 0 end section only. 31"0 Wedge anchors. Red Head W -S 3830. Hill Kwik Bolt. Molly Paraband. Acne Keystone MW, or approved.egad % std nut & 3'6' std washer or %60 x 7%2" Anchor bolts 473'0 x 7%2' Anchor bolts %std nut & 1" ad washer, threaded 10 NG 11/e' long. (Alternate to WO wedge anthers) I nae 12/29/ 1 ELEVATION For For typ. rel rail 6' • Expansion it. 6' + r See Note 1/2'+.r spl ^• /2 NOiE.' r Dimension equals mot opening or closing of cone rol bose at expansion pints. E = %4" Drine pin • 16 V 3/4 Typ 0 each end baluster for all roil sections Expand baAisters into roll to fit light. (Typ) Anchor bolts or wedge anchors (Bun thread latter installing) 1%4" 0 Hole lhru cow plate (Typ. 0 eo. baluster) Dummy ity. 5 Top o1 / traffic barrier Typ �6 E" See note II L GENERAL DETAIL 3/4 ••• Typ. except 0 exp. yt. NOTE$ Ppe rain¢ ppe rolling splices cora plates and bottom extruded channels shall be bent to the horizentd curve where the radius of the curvature is less than 200 feel Shap drawings o/ rolling shall be submitted for approval showing complete. dimensions and details of fabric -diol and including on erection diagram. Materials being used shot be specified n the shop drawings All aluminum parts shot be given o deo" anodic coating of least 0.0006' thick, and shat be sealed to meet the requsements of ASTM B 136 and shall hove o uviform finish. POC rolling, ppe raling splices cover plates and bottom extruded channels may be heated to not more than 400' F for a period not to exceed 30 min. to faclitote laming and bending Cutting shall be done by sowing or milling and al cuts shall be true and smooth. Flame cutting wil not be permitted Ppe rolling, ppe balusters one reeling splices crow plates aid bottom extruded channels shall be adequately wrapped to insure surface protection during handling and transportation to the pb site. Welding of aluminum shall be in accordance with Section 5 of the latest AASH10 Standard Specibcotians for Structural Supports for Highway Signs Luminaires and Troffer Signals E 3'6' Drive pins • Locate on opposite side to traffic - Drive pins shall be driven flush the ouside face of the railing. Typ> 25/2' Pipe ming 2' Std pipe roiling splice. Dril 31'0 hale • for 321' alive pin 0 location shown. Cut 0 bott to dear 3/4 0 bdusters Alum. a 916xlx0'-13'e' [2 mil per pipe railing splice.] 3/4' Std pipe baluster E Rai ng & baluster i6 " SECTION O ?:)4 PART MATERIAL SPECIFICATION E g E e Pipes A.S.T.M. 8241 or B429 Alloy 6061-T6 Schedule 40 (Std pipe) Extruded channels & cove plotes ASTM. 8221 Allo 60611-T6 y Drive ens & plates ASTM. B221 Alloy 60611-T6 I: • 4,1 Anchor bolts nuts & washers AASHTO M164 (Galvanize n accordance with AASHTO Specification M232 Plates AASHTO M183 Drive pins A.ST.M. A-276 Type 300 Stainless Steel O ?:)4 — S iS- A 1 I S I� — P T . 'NG- dater 6LTsvua Its Sargent ern, ,»re. Ino. 320 Mont Bay Drew. gib ICA • plmpfa. Tbehin5ton T. 360 543-3590 • F. 360 352-3581 96502 MACADAM BRIDGE file �J,tdll•0 L x' ., .SARGENT •` z J �..� �� ;'`�~ 908 P U ' �— I -EE II _� r IS' ` P "/.� �) S L deay.ed 9w1y1 10 -ENGI ��_ dra•n weaved tw • BRIDGE RAILING /�\ I 'ro' •� //.\\ roe dr fled ne m no date revisions date . S=Bar Is Included In S=Bor Is..included Tn E is to be Epoxy Coated E -Bar is to be Epoxy Coated Substructure Quantities -Bar Substructure Quantities F Bar is to be Field Welded V�Bar dimensions wry between shown an this the F. -Bar is to be Held Welded T.=Tie Stirrup. -� - VaBar dimensions wary between dimensions shown on this line T=ire or Stirrup.dimensions and following line. or and following line. 1 IS v o g u DIMENSIONS ( OUT TO OUT) r °i c1 2 -o u F m o V u DIMENSIONS ( OUT TO OUT) ...c- °' 2 2 Locationb �� U a to U W. X Y Z Br 82 Length 3b Location . - Zr n W U W X Y Z 0, 82 Length '+ In O 2 u m - � 13 %n W o c > 2 FL la FL lit FL In. PL In. ft. In. Deg Deg Pt In. ti vn d 2 u m •0?�°yo 1=� 1n W d > 2 Pt In. Pt la ft In. Pt In. Pt. In. Deg Deg ' P_ In - 1 2 3 4 5 6 PIER i FOOTING LONGIT TOP & BOT FOOTING TRANSV TOP & BOT FOOTING DOWEL FOOTING DOWEL FOOTING DOWEL WALL INCLINE 7 6 6 7 7 6 102 22 49 25 24 49 50 50 80 • 80 I NN NNNN VINN VI 1 9 1 41 1 4 1 9 1 17 1 25 8.0 11.0 10.0 3.0 9.0 6.0 2 2 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 3.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 104 76 76 0 0 0 9 41 6 10 19 25 8.0 11.0 9.0 11.0 5.0 6.0 2015 1385 497 558 953 1877 120 121 122 123 SLAB TO PEDESTRIAN BARRIER SLAB TO PEDESTRIAN BARRIER BRIDGE SIDEWALK TRANSV BRIDGE SIDEWALK LONGIT 5 4 4 4 170 86 86 32 50 50 50 1 1 1 V 16 4 4 4 15 0.0 0.0 8.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 5.0 709 230 268 <w' 7 8 WALL HORIZONTAL WALL HORIZONTAL 5 4 24 61 24 50 1 39 1 39 7.0 7.0 1 9.0 1 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 42 39 10.0 7.0 1072 635 130 APPROACH SIDEWALK TRANSV 4 I 136 r0 50 1 15 4 9.0 20 9.0 2.0 333 379 1 2 PIER 2 FOOTING LONGIT TOP & BOT FOOTING TRANSV TOP & BOT 7 6 102 50 24 50 1 10 1 41 8.0 11.0 10 41 8.0 11.0 2224 1511 131 APPROACH SIDEWALK LONGIT 4 32 50 V 16 23 25 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 529 ii 3 4 5 6 7 8 FOOTING DOWEL FOOTING DOWEL FOOTING DOWEL WALL INCLINE WALL HORIZONTAL WALL HORIZONTAL PIER 1 SE & SW CURTAIN WALL 6 7 7 6 5 3 49 80 25 •, 24 80 49 I 24 61 24 I N N NNN NN VI 1 4 1 9 1 18 1 26 1 39 1 39 10.0 10.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 7.0 ' 2 2 2 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0 0 0 0 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 104 76 76 0 0 0 6 11 20 26 42 39 9.0 6.0 0.0 3.0 10.0 7.0 497 588 981 1932 1072 357 REINFORCEMENT BENDING DIAGRAMS 7 8.0 20 HORIZONTAL INSIDE FACE 7 78 - 2 6 12 8.0 10.0 13 10.0 1714 ux r z Y Z 21 HORIZONTAL OUTSIDE FACE 5 78 50 2 6 12 8.0 10.0 6 12 8.0 10.0 793 I 'I I_...1......1/1.._ ). "I H "i f"" I f" 22 VERTICAL INSIDE FACE 5 14 I S 1 24 9.0 24 9.0 361 Type 50 I -->< - 22 VERTICAL INSIDE FACE 5 14 50 S V 2 5 0.0 ITyp°�0 I Fjp 3�rx:23 2200.0 .0 22 0.0 197 Tye 1t VERTICAL OUTSIDE FACE 4 850 S 1 24 9.0 24 9.0 132 23 VERTICAL OUTSIDE FAO 4 8 50 S V 2 5 0.0 5 0.0I L Type 52 _) I I I H I U 22 0.0 22 0.0 72 ,. I�7 L Type 5.3 r�.1/h x PIER 2 NE & NW CURTAIN WALL ) X ; 20 HORIZONTAL INSIDE FACE 7 82 • S V 2 7 2.0 8 2.0 Type 13 5.0 14 5.0 1893 54 T e r I 5- 21 HORIZONTAL OUTSIDE FACE 5 82 S V 2 2.0 7 2.0 3I x�. 31 Tom° 65 3 13 5.0 880 Tie .55 4� 4 Type 64-1- 137 5.0 22 22 22 VERTICAL INSIDE FACE VERTICAL INSIDE FACE 5 5 14 50 16 ' S S V 1 25 2 5 1.0 0.0 0 0 0 25 5 1.0 0.0 366 Type 56 U I F . U --..I U �.- u FT 0.023 23 .0 01.0 234 y 23 23 VERTICAL OUTSIDE FACE VERTICAL OUTSIDE FACE 4 4 8' 8 50 S S V 1 25 225 0 6.0 25 22 6.0 134 73 x i typ66 0\\\\\ T -1• 0 RETAINING WALL 4.0 Typ° 67 3 LI k 1 Type 69 25 26 SE. & SW RET WALL SE & SW RET WAI.L 5 5 26 62 1650 T 5 S 1 1 .1 11 9.0 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0 0 6.0 6.0 14 11 0.0 389 184 14 u r 0 o W 1 27 SE & SW RET WALL 5 5 18 62 12 1 T S S 1 1 1 8 3.0 3.0 5 5.0 5 5.0 0 6.0 6.0 12 8 8.0 3.0 238 103 --.I u I_- -I u F.- -28 28 29 SE & SW RET WALL SE & SW RET WAIL 5 12 62 T S 1 0 9.0 5 2.0 5 2.0 0 6.0 6.0 11 8.0 146 30 SE & SW RET WALL 5 12 50 S 1 5 5.0 5 5.0 68 �- ^I 173' o � 173' - 31 33 NE & NW RET WALL NE & NW RET WALL 5 5 26'62 16 T S 5 1 1 1 11 9.0 1.1 6 0.0 6 0.0 0 6.0 0 8.0 14 11 4.0- 1.0 389 185 ;e Type 703 x a3T U 33 NE & NW RET WALL 5 18 62 T 5 1 1 3.0 5 20 5 2.0 0 6.0 0 6.0 12 2.0 228 1::117 Type 57 34 NE & NW RET WALL 5 1250 S 1 8 2.0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.0 102 -1- �~ x jllL- 35 36 NE & NW RET WALL NE & NW RET WALL 5 5 12 12 62 50 T S S 1 0 1 5 9.0 5.0 4 8.0 8.0 0 6.0 0 6.0 10 5 8.0 5.0 134 68 u u u ROADWAY SLAB u U H 100 SLAB TO WALL LONGIT 10 50 80 E 1 22 6.0 9 6.5 0.0 1 6.0 0 0.0 104 0 31 7.0 6795 I I F 101 SLAB TO WALL LONGIT 10 48 80 E 1 11 0.0 19 6.5 0.0 1 6.0 0 0.0 104 0 30 1.0 6214 2 z r r 8274 Z 102 103 104 SLAB TO WALL LONGIT SLAB TO WALL LONGIT SLAB TO PAVT SEAT 10 10 4 48 4860 650 80 E E 1 18 1 14 137 0.0 0.0 9.0 16 12 6.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 1 1 6.0 6.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 104 104 0 0 34 26 37 1.0 1.0 9.0 7040 5387 151 Type so r 62 + (r / REINFORCING NOTES: i 78 65 1 6.0 0.0 2 11.0 152 ,/ Type 61 ♦f 105 SLAB TO PAVT SEAT 4 E 1 1 6.0 Type 79` J 1. Al reinforcing ban an this sheet shot be A55}/lt7 U-31 Grade 64L)" 106 SLAB TO PAVT SEAT 4 78 65 1 2 0.0 3 9.0 0.0 5 8.0 295 Type 82 unless shown othgrrlse. 107 SLAB TOP 7 24 50 E 1 29 4.0 29 4.0 1439 M 2 Reinforcing for pedestrian barters are not shown h this Bar List 0 LCNGIT 10 22 50 1 24 0.0 24 0.0 2272 I ` See Pedestrian Barrier Sheet 110 111 112 113 5148 BOTTOM SLAB BOTTOM LONGIT SLAB BOTTOM LONGIT SLAB BOTTOM LONGIT 10 10 10 22 22 23 50 50 52 1 37 1 45 1 63 0.0 0.0 3.0 37 45 66 0.0 0.0 1.0 3503 4260 8540 �.?Of'a °f ;"'. ,r ' .1 Bend for bvnsie are bas die to roadway' crown conaitians are not B 4 shorn these bas shit be bent as required to confirm fo the a configuration of the structure. 114 SLAB BOTTOM LONGIT 5 57 50 1 39 5.0 39 5.0 2343 ; f,. V ": 4 a A: Type 90 6: 4. Rekiloreing of the retaking was ore not shown h this bar list r 115 116 SLAB TOP TRANSV SAB TIES 5 4 43 2152 50 E 1 39 1 1 5.0 8.8 39 2 5.0 9.0. 1768 39 19459 6i x • Tjpe 91 See Std Plan D -la Approximate weight of reinforcing bars is 14,0010 to 116 116 SLAB TIES SLA8 TIES 4 4 126 294 52 52 V 1 2 2 1 2 0.5 9.0 0.0 3 2 3 1.0 9.0 0.0 260 565 i;t,a. eeo / Ji] �•a_CONSULTANTSMACADAM 4 IL4 P U 1.1. MP �i, P T.. • BRIDGE' m k � 4 'at� I � ► ! \ A. If=it'r)\` drawn • • `��,•'� _ -ENGI I S THEE `S- A /1 S - P u/ S ' G- SARGENT o ivy 1 !�\ Pr•J ••9 - idle no �i►�o., I `; V �eJ �•. . . .Sar7sat [ngY+••n. Ina. BAR LIST 'scale , 908 w - Md 6a m 320 Wel Bay 0rtw. Slit. 101 • ayryio. *Ai*. 99502 T1 360 01.3-35603-SS90 • Fa 150 352-3581 no data revisions _ date / BEGINNING OF PROJECT STA.26+10 ► 0 © 1 0 epi 0 O, 1 16 Sec.15, T.23N., R.5E. W.M. MACADAM ROAD SCALE: 1'-20' O 10 20 40 0 00 s. 1 01 ▪ 1 0 11i 1 11 11 411111111iM 0 0 II/�,. PLAN 0 0 0 0 II 0 IAI♦ HOP. I . 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 55 50 • 45 40 35 30 25' 20 -3.3029 0.02298 S-l2.5X 0 l'11'11:1111111'11! 0111.1111111'11161111111111111i11i11! LEGEND f - NIC IN 0 GAS POWER U.G. TEL WATER SAN. SEWER STORM SEWER FENCE DITCH NOT IN CONTRACT PROPOSED STORM DRAIN OR STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURES.. PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT R.O.W. LINE 1844.1 - IS. SSP S -1.4X N 1.0 10 ,A + r. - N h a 434 vs cc ht ■ ice. 25LF 12 SSSP S -IX J N ?g m -= N ��jj +d1.. _= < m - F C N ■ iW in E2 33 1? 1 • SSP rn- 95 LF 15' SSP S -1.92X -WATERIAIN l DEPTH UNKNONN .... ___ CATCH BASIN /7. Em6.1 -STKZlwfi3-24%L____-- R1M-51.00 IE -46.00.(12') CA101 BASIN I6. TYPE I E-- .......... ATERMAIN DEPTH UNKNOWN s- IX W KING COUNTY. DATUM Ex STA.29+1&12. 1&461L RIM=50.02 IE -45.0 (12% 15. 18') 34 IF l8' SD S=Iz B.M. /8-18-7 ELEVATION - 58.51 RAILROAD SPIKE IN POWER POLE Al SE OUAD. OF INIERSEcnhN OF. MACADAM AND 43RD AVE. & PROFILE CATCH BASIN 18. TYPE 11. W/FRAME AND GRATE STA.29+1&12, 17.13' RT. RIM -50.00 IE -44.66 (18") W 1 2 u. • 18 LF SSP S -0.5X 'CATCH BASIN 110. TYPE 11 IW/RING h WATERTIGHT LOCKING COVER STA.15+14.7. 3l.5RT. .RIM -26.90 IE -23.59 (18-) 1E-22.34 E-23.50 RIPRAP OUTFALL PROPOSED FUTURE BOX CULVERT. 4. MATCH LINE• STA:31+75 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 26+00 O ii 0 0 o ,r, 44 E 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. -ENGINEERING-STREETS-WATER-SEWER-PARKS-BUILDING- /01/1995 - TY„4: 8:44 om by Onto d..:y-d Lir wit ch.ck.d STT P -o3 •n0 SIT Oro3 ar G Skillings Connolly, Inc. MConsulting Engineers CIYL • TRANSPORTATION • ENVIRONMENTAL 5018 LACEY BLVD. SE. LACEY. WA. 98503 340/491-3399 FAX 491-3857 MACADAM BRIDGE STORM DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND PROFILE e no 4255-02 Ll no dote revisions Scale Hate . Nome: 4255-03 Dote: 07/13/95. Time:.15'.40 MATCHLINE STA.31+75 0 5 10 20 SCALE: 1"=20' 60 LEGEND 60 in 1` + - GAS - - - POWER - - U.G. TEL - - WATER - - SAN. SEWER = = = STORM SEWER - - FENCE -E - DITCH NIC NOT IN CONTRACT PROPOSED 55 50 55 50 - 45 40 - Q N Z J U__ •cL M -___ _ _ -1.0000* 157 IF12" SD 5-2.47. I n_ 2gH =^o ti IS T. Ty u,nzw1J Sc h N ree. 4a •,o,”-.4°,. - ro11.1.1,6 STORM DRAIN OR STORM SEWER on • PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURES PROPOSED EDGE OF - - - - R.O.W. LINE 1' . •25 LF 15' SD s-ots. cc n 0Oeo0 om 8 AA .. .. VERTICAL DATUM - KING COUNTY DATUM B.M. /8-18-7 ELEVATION RAILROAD SPIKE IN POWER SE. OUAO. OF INTERSECTION PAVEMEN' - 58.51 POLE AT OF 45 40 35 30 35 30 25 20 25 20 15 15 Immo +rnroel MACADAM AND 43RD AVE. S. 32+00 33+00 O EXISTING 12- CONC. SO O CB 1 1. TYPE 1 vs/FRAME AND GRATE REPLACE EXISTING CATCH BASIN ANO CONNECT TO EXISTING CONC. 5D (SE) RIM -56.3} IE -53.30 (FIELO VERIFY EXISTING) O3 REMOVE EXISTING 50 SIO INSTALL 56 LF I2" SSP 5-7.47 OREMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN 0 C8 /2. TYPE 1 W/TRAME ANO GRATE RIM STA -26+63.5.52.65 17.1317. IE -49.15 (12" (5), 15" (N)) REMOVE EXISTING 12" CONC. 50 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN REMOVE EXISTING 12' 5D INSTALL 164 LF IS" SSP S-1.47 0 0 10 0 t2 U C8 /3. TYPE I w/FRAME AND GRATE STA.28+23.79, 17.13'LT. RIM -50.32 • 1E-46.82 (12') INSTALL 25 LF 12- SSP 5-1.0X CB /4. TYPE 1 w/FRAME AND DOMED GRATE STA.28+00.00. 21'LT. RIM -49.50 IE -47.10 (12') 14 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN 1S INSTALL 33 LF 12' SSP 5-1.07 16 C8 /5. TYPE 1 w/ FRAME AND GRATE 5TA28+23.79. T7.13'RT. RIM -50.32 1E-47.15 or) 17 MAINTAIN FLOwUNE ACROSS DRIVEWAY APRON 18 INSTALL 325 LF, CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR 19 CB /9. TYPE 1 WRING AND COVER STA29+21.00. 26.5'RT. RIM -45 50 IE -39.5 (18") 20 C8 O. TYPE it w/FRAME ANO GRATE STA 29+ 18.12. 17.13'R T. RIM -50.00 IE -44.66 (18" i'.• E) 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 29 INSTALL OINSTALL 0 INSTALL 34 LF 18" 55P 5-1X C8 17. TYPE I w/FRAME ANO DOMED GRATE STA29+11.5. 24'LT. RIM-ST.00 IE -46.00 C8 /6. TYPE 1 C,/FRAME AND GRATE STA29+18.12, 16.46'LT. RIM -50.00 1E-45.00 REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND SO REMOVE CMP H'LF-PIPE C8 /10 TYPE n WRING AND WATERTIGHT LOCKING STA.15+14,. 31.5'R T. RIM -26.90 IE -23.59 (3) 37 ca /11 . TYPE 1 w/FRAME AND VANED GRATE STA30+60. 12.1317. RIM -46.79 IE -43.80 OINSTALL 80 LF 12 SSP S-3.67 • C8 /12. TYP1 13'RT STA31+50, 25.E RIM -43.93 IE -40.93 40 51 LF 12' SO S -1X I1 REMOVE EXISTING CULVERT 42 REGRADE DITCH TO DRAIN 43 STA.30+80. 12.13'LT.. IE -41.44 44 PROMDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM OUTFALL TO EXISTING 01TC1 AT 132ND ST. (125'3). SEE DETAIL THIS 9-iEET 45 C8 /13. TYPE 1 5 TA 33+ 07.5. 13.13'R T. RIM -40.05 IE -37.05 46 180LF CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR SILT FENCE 47 157 LF 12' 50 5-2.47. 8 INSTALL 31 LF 12" CULVERT w/BEVELED ENDS 5-1.0X 49 STA33+09.12. 16.83LT., IE -37.20 O REMOVE EXISTING CULVERT REGRADE DITCH AS SHOWN 51 25 LF 15" 50, 5-0.5X 52 STA33+31.79, 20.97'RT., 1E-36.68 O 30 1.F 12" 50. 5-0.5X OREMOVE EXISTING CULVERT. REGRADE DITCH AS SHOWN SS REMOVE EXISTING CULVERT, REGRADE DITCH AS SHOWN O INSTALL 95 SILT FENCE COVER STA29+83.74. 36.84'RT. INSTALL 16 LF 15" SO 5-0.57 OUTFALL TO EXISTING FLOWUNE AND RIPRAP. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO OOwHSTREAM CULVERT. INSTALL STRAw,BALE SILT BARRIERS PER DETAIL THIS SHEET 8 LF 12" SSP 5-12.5X 10 LF SSP 5-51.60X INSTALL 48 LF IS" SSP S-33.1% INSTALL 1 CEME+IT.CONCRETE PIPE ANCHOR AT TRENCH BOTTOM MIDPOINT PER DETAIL THIS SHEET • 32 INSTALL STRAWI)ALE SILT BARRIERS PER DETAIL THIS SHEET FIRM NAIVE MATERIAL 33 INSTALL 85 LF CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTLE FOR SILT FENCE 034 INSTALL48 LF CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTLE FOR SILT FENCE 35 INSTALL STRAW BALE SILT BARRIERS PER DETAIL THIS SHEET OINSTALL 55 LF CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR SILT FENCE • LF 15" SSP 5-1.977 A SECTION 11IN. SIDE VIEW PLACE CHECK DAMS AT 50' 1NTERVALS WHERE LONGITUDINAL SLOPE EXCEEDS 4X V -DITCH W/CHECK DAMS NO SCALE NOTES • ALL STORM DRAW OUTFALLS ANO CULVERT INLETS SHALL HAVE HAND PLACED RIPRAP PER THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. PLACE 1' THICK X WIDTH ANO HEIGHT OF CHANNEL AT OUTFALL OR INLET X6'LONG. • CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXnLE AND STRAW BALE SILT BARRIERS ARE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL AND WILL BE PALO AS EROSION CONTROL, LUMPSUM. REUOVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MACES WHEN. AND ONLY WHEN SITE 15 FULLY STAOAUZED • STORM DRAW PIPE (50) AND STORM SEWER PIPE (SSP) SHALL BE SMOOTH INTERIOR PIPE MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS WEDGE LOOSE STRAW BETWEEN HAY BALES POINT A SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN POINT B PROPER PLACEMENT OF STRAW BALE IN DRAINAGE WAY NOTE: STRAW BALES SHALL 8E ANCHORED TO ONE ANOTHER VIA w1RE TES. STRAW AND HAY BALE BARRIERS NO SCALE 0.5' MIN. FROM JOINT "-INSTALL 1 ANCHOR PER 50 LF' CLASS 3000 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDE VIEW 1' MIN.- 0.5' MIN. END VIEW PIPE ANCHOR DETAIL NO SCALE KEYED CONCRETE BLOCK INE PAY ITEM: INCIDENTAL TO STORM SEWER PIPE INSTALLATION. Lo CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXnLE MATERIAL 60" w1DE ROLES. USE STAPLES OR w1RE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO WRE. 2" BY 2' 8Y 14 GA. WIRE FABRIC OR EOUIV. n' BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL 11N 8" 8Y 12"- 11 1I 11 11 II 2"BY 4" WOOD POSTS. STANDARD OR BETTER OR EOUAL ALT.: STEEL FENCE POSTS. -6' MAX. CONSTRUCTION GEOTExTILE 2" 8Y 2" BY 14 CA. WIRE FABRIC OR EGUIV. PROVIDE 1/� - 11/2 WASHED' GRAVEL BACKFILL IN TRENCH AND ON 80TH SIDES OF CONSTRUCTON GEOTEXTILE ON THE SURFACE. 2" BY 4" W000 POST ALT.: STEEL FENCE POSTS CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR SILT FENCE NO SCALE dote K�`LA •• PUJP1LIC WORKS • D 11-i1PT. d..,.n.d. Gskhhh1 gs -Connolly, Inc. Consulting Englneers MACADAM BRIDGE ; File 9 {, ..' Z o - -ENGINEERING-STREETS-WATER-SEWER-PARKS-BUILDING- `\ % 2 6 ~... ti mss,? 1908 Tote: 5/01/1995 - 1Yne•. &52 orn •fad Aron MI .755-I3 cn.ck.a STT STORM DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND PROFILE Wei en0 STT SOI6 nCETY WRSEIAGpwTA. �3. 360/.fl,-]J99 fAII .9,-2557 a�J� W no no dote revtSlonS date . SERVICE CABINET ! METER BASE, SEE ES • 1,=20' 2F.1Q' O' 2' FEEDER SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION 0 Q Q] 0 1' INC (S01 40 PVC) PITH GSC ELBOWS 2 j3 THIN 4. j6 GROUND I'CSC. 2faTIM 3' GSC, LAIN RAL UNE . I. MC (SCH 40 PVC) PITH GSC ELBOWS LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE TYPE LUMINAIRE STANDARD (POLE) O 200 WATT HPS, CO8RA HEAD CUT -OFF OPTICS, IES TYPE Al- 30 FOOT MOUNTING HEIGHT. ALUMINUM 6063 - T6 SATIN GROUND FINISH .168 INCH THICK C -II OISTRIBUTIGN, PHOTOCELL RECEPTACLE WTH POLE CAP. 4'x8' NON -FLUSH HANDHCLE WTH COVER AND REINFORCED FRAME, BASE AND PHOTOCELL; 240 VOLT, CLEAR LAMP. FLANGE ALLOY 356-T6, ONE 10 FOOT 6083-T6 ALUMINUM TRUSS ARM. FRANGIBLE BASE AND COMPLETE NTH HARDWARE INCLUDING (4) nil, 36' LONG 1'-8NC GALVANIZED STEEL ANCHOR BOLTS. G.S. NUTS. G.S. LOCX WASHER. GS. FLAT WASHER, AND BOLT COVERS AND d,a,M STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS. RATED WND LOAD OF 100 MPH FOR LUMINAIRE E.P.A OF 1.5 v,.J ...11 SQUARE FEET. aECTRICAL LIGHTING NOTE� O WORK SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING AND INSTALLING ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT FOR COMPLETE IN PLACE ILLUMINAT10N SYSTEM, INCLUDING LUMINAIRES, STANDARDS (POLES), CONCRETE BASES. JUNCTION BOXES, CONTROL CABINET, ASSOCIATED WIRING AND INCIDENTAL RELATED WORK. WORK SHALL CONFORM 90TH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (W6DOT) STANDARD PLANS FOR ROAD. BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION AND WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. E2 PROVIDE CONCRETE BASE (FOUNDATION) FOR EACH ILLUMINATION STANDARD FOR FIXTURE TYPES 'F1' & 'F3'. CONFORM TO DTY OF TUKWLA STANDARD R-10 [CONSISTS OF A 36' DIAMETER (OR 30'..30' SQUARE) BY 54' DEEP CLASS 3000 CONCRETE REINFORCED BASE WTH 6{7 BARS EVENLY SPACED AND TIED TOGETHER WITH 5 j4 HOOPS (SMILAR TO FOUNDATION DETAIL CN WSDOT STANDARD PLAN J -lb SHEET 1 EXCEPT WITH 4 ANCHOR BOLTS)]. PROVIDE JUNCTION BOX TYPE 1 PER WSDOT STANDARD PLAN J -11a WITHIN 10' OF EACI1 CONCRETE BASE FOR FIXTURE TYPES E3 EXISTING FIXTURE TO REMAIN. COORDINATE WTH POWER CO. . TO MAINTAIN POWER. E4 CONFORM TO WSDOT STANDARD PLANS J -1e, J-38. J -3e. APO J -9a FOR WRING AND GROUNDING DETAILS. SERVICE VOLTAGE IS 120/240V 1 PHASE 3 VIRE SEE FEEDER SCHEDULE. ES PROVIDE ILLUMINATION SERVICE CABINET CONFORMING WTH WSDOT STANDARD PLAN J -3b FOR MODIFIED TYPE B SERVICE WTH NETER BASE AND 100 MNP 22.000 AC MAN CIRCUIT BREAKER EXCEPT DELETE PHOTOCELL, ASSODATED PHOTOCELL BREAKER AND TEST SWITCH, AND CONTACTORS. STRUT MOUNT SERVICE CABINET ON REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB AS DETAILED ON 1,030T STANDARD PLAN 3-38. SEE PANEL SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS VERIFY SEATTLE CITY UGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR METERING ARRANGEMENT, BASE. MOUNTING AND ENCLOSURE E8 SERVICE FEEDER PER UT31TY COMPANY REQUIREMENTS CONTACT AND COORDINATE WITH SEATTLE CITY UGHT REGARDING REMOVAL OF EXISTING LUMINAIRES EXISTING 250 WATT HID LUMINAIRES TO REIJAIN PROPERTY OF UTIUTY ES CONTACT AND COORDINATE 90T1 SEATTLE QTY UGHT REGARDING ELECTRICAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW ILLUMINATION SYSTEM. SEATTLE CITY UGHT WILL PULL -IN SERVICE CONDUCTORS AND MAKE TERMINATIONS AT TRANSFORMER MID METER BASE. OBTAIN AND PAY UTWTY COMPANY CONNECTION CHARGES. �°,. ]E-J'UB LJC WO iRI(S DEPT. 4-4- � I-E1JGIfvEEP.ING—STREETS—WATER—SEWEP.—PARKS—BUILDING— 'vie �l J��s-___./.4?/ \',./' `� '" l',..2_05.1/ 60�ISMLTANTS �@i SAR`ten E NT Sar ..nt Englnan. Inc.• 3713 Itwt Boy Ore, Sa• 19 • Oyrgi IMYyton 90502 It 360 943-3590 • Fu 360 352-3581 MACADAM BRIDGE rtle 0119",, b nil, v d,a,M v,.J ...11 no Yrol • scale W Le so - no aau roViaione Date .