No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 02-07-2005 '" ." City of Federal 'Way City Council"! ' "".' . ' , ::"~and Userrransportation~ommittee'::: , , "'..", February 7, 2005 5:30 pm ,!,;:!,:;"", MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 24, 2005 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. AG 04-108, Lakota Creek Restoration Improvement Project - Project Acceptance Status of the 1-5, SR161, SR18 Interchange Project B. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Action Bucich/5 Min ';cny'Hall ' Council Chari1b~rs Information WSDOT/Perez/30 Min Committee Members Jack Dovey. Chair Eric Faison Michael Park G:ILU1CILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\02-07-05 LUre Agenda,doc City Staff Kathy McClung. Community Development Services Director E. Tina Piety. Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 "'" City of Federal Way City Council Land UselTransportation Committee January 24, 2005 4:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee members Jack Dovey, Chair, and Council Members Eric Faison and Michael Park; Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; City Manager David Moseley; Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Director of Public Works Cary Roe; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Deputy Community Development Director Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Senior Traffic Engineer Maryanne Zukowski; SWM Project Engineer Fei Tang; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. He informed everyone that Council Member Faison will be late. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES The minutes of the January 10, 2005, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. City Center Access Study - Briefing #5 - Ms. Zukowski informed the Committee the accomplishments of the study to date. A public open house will be held February 3, 2005, where the preferred options will be presented. In March, staff will present the Committee their recommendation. B. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Updates Draft Supplemental EIS - Ms. Michaelson informed the Committee that Sound Transit is seeking comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS by January 31,2005. For this reason, she requested that all Council Members present be allowed to vote on this issue since there will not be time to send it to the full Council. Chair Dovey agreed that all Council Members present may vote on this issue. Ms. Michaelson stated that this is the first step in a phased environmental review process. This first step is a board overview of the environmental issues. A more comprehensive specific project environmental review will occur later. The Committee would like the comments left vague regarding whether the route would follow the SR-99 or 1-5 corridor. It was m/slc to authorize staff to prepare written comments on the Draft SEIS as outlined in the staff report; leaving room to modify the comments if a significant issue arises at tonight's Sound Transit Open House and leaving open whether the route should follow the SR-99 or 1-5 corridor. C. 2004 Comprehensive Plan Selection Process - Ms. Clark informed the Committee that the City received only one site-specific request for a change to the comprehensive plan designation and zoning. Specifically, the request is from Puget Center Partnership to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 4.03 acres located north of South 31ih Street and east of 1st Avenue South from Professional Office (PO) to Neighborhood Business (BN). Chair Dovey asked if there was any public testimony. Paul Benton - He is the owner of the property and stated he supports the staff report. He asked the Committee to accept the request. G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\01-24-05, LUTC Minutes"doc Don Barker- He responded to a question, he informed the Committee that they have prepared a conceptual analysis and anticipate (and have interest from) they will place a grocery store and drug store on the site. They intend to work with the neighborhood on the site plan for the project. It was m/slc to recommend that the puget Center Partnership site-specific request be considered further and that it be forwarded to the full City Council for consideration during a public hearing on February 15, 2005. D. Planning Commission Work Program - Ms. McClung informed the Committee that she has made a few changes to the recommendation. She has moved traffic concurrency to the third quarter because staff has concluded the issue is more complex than originally thought. As a result, cottage housing has been moved to the second quarter and neighborhood business to the third. It was m/slc to recommend the staffs proposed Planning Commission Work Program prioritization to the full City Council for approval on February 15, 2005. E. King County Interlocal Agreement - This interlocal agreement deals with permitting and code enforcement issues in the recently annexed areas. The general intent of the agreement is that the county will maintain primary review authority for vested permits, but will allow the City to assume review authority for individual permits on a case-by-case basis. King County cannot approve any vested permits until an agreement is reached. This interlocal agreement must be approved by the City of Federal Way and King County to be valid. It was m/s/c to recommend that the City Council approve the interlocal agreement regarding vested building and land use permitting and code enforcement in the North Lake, Parkway, and Redondo East annexation areas, and that the issue be moved forward to the February 15, 2005, Council meeting. F. Commercial Vehicles in Right-of-Way - The purpose of this item is to seek Council direction as to whether the City should further restrict on-street parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones. Chair Dovey asked if there was any public testimony. Marie Sciacqua - She has lived in Federal Way for over 20 years and asked the Committee what is their vision of the City's future? She stated that she hoped that vision includes making the City a better place to live. Further restricting on-street parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones would help attain that vision. She feels the current code is not adequate. It allows on-street parking during the day until midnight. One must call after midnight to have the code enforced. She requested that the City not allow any commercial vehicles to park in residential zones. Larry Jackson - He asked, if the City outlaws commercial vehicles from residential zones, what about when you need a plumber or want to move? Jean Atwell- She commented that they are not asking that commercial vehicles never be allowed to park in residential zones, just that they not be allowed to park all day and/or all not with no activity. She said that in her neighborhood, the driver of a commercial vehicle is apparently aware of the code because he will park the vehicle until midnight and then move it, waking up his neighbors with the noise. Mr. Roe commented that the staff has spoken to the police about this issue and the police responded that do not have many infractions of this code and it does not appear to be a big problem. The police stated that they are willing to perform emphasis patrols in neighborhoods that perceive a problem. The Committee discussed that there can also be a problem with the number of vehicles parked by one property owner in a neighborhood. The Committee requested staff return with a matrix of what is done in other cities and a recommendation. G. Code Compliance Presentation - Ms. Martin delivered a presentation on the Code Compliance program. Currently, the City has two Code Compliance Officers, both of whom have been with the City for at least 12 years. The number of cases has steadily increased (not including sing code issues) from 260 per year in 1990 to 450 per year in 2004. The City handles cases on a complaint basis only. Obstacles faced by the program included uncollected fines, legal constraints, procedural constraints, and practical constraints. G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\01-24-05. LUTC Minutes"doc The Department has worked to improve the program and the following improvements are either in place or in process: improvements to the process; utilizing volunteers; proactive neighborhood emphasis; and improvements to the abatement process. H. East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration/100% Design Authority to Bid - When staff first designed this project it was decided to disconnect a RID. Upon further review, the staff concluded that the RID was useful for a safety valve and decided it would stay. The property owners of the land the RID is on want the RID to be removed. The water for this RID goes in and than directly out, so depending on the amount of the flow, sometimes there is no water in the RID. In the past, the question had been raised about who is responsible to maintain the R/D. Staff had researched the issue and found that the RID was created with the plat in 1974 and was marked as a drainage easement. The staff concluded that the easement is a private easement, and therefore, the property owners are responsible for maintaining the RID. Chair Dovey asked if there was any public testimony. Mark Anderson - He is the lawyer for the property owners. He wonders why the City calls the area a RID when it is referred to as a drainage easement on the original plat. He noted that the original plans called for the removal of the drainage easement and then the City decided to use it as a back-up. He asked; why not just use the street? There is no need to use the Zurilgen's property. He stated that having water on the property was a concern because many junior high school students use the property as a short-cut. In addition, sanitary issues, water flow rate, maintenance, liability, and erosion are all a concern. They would like the conduit be cut-off and place the back-up further downstream. Judy Zurilgen - She is the property owner. She stated that a title search does not show an easement on the property. She is concerned for the safety of the kids who play in the area. The pipe will flow with water even if it is not raining. Sometimes the water that comes through the pipe is milky. She feels the grate is just an invitation to kids to toss items into it. She asked the City to research alternative. Steve Zurilgen - He is the property owner. He feels this is a liability issue. His insurance agent told him he should have a lot of insurance coverage in case something happens. Slim Slater- He lives in the house across the street. No one in the community wants the pond. It is a safety issue because of all of the kids in the neighborhood. The Committee discussed the safety and liability issues. Mr. Roe commented the City should ask if a new overflow (meaning spending more money) should be done when one already exists. It was m/slc to move that the staffs recommendation for approval of the 100% design and to authorize the Surface Water Management Division staff to advertise the project for bid, returning to the Council for authorization to award the contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder to the February 15, 2005, City Council meeting, but do not place it on the Consent Agenda so further discussion can be held. I. Lakota Wetland RSF Project Acceptance - It was m/slc to authorize final acceptance of the completed Lakota Wetland Regional Stormwater Facility Improvements Project, constructed by Lloyd Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $215,132.26 as complete and place this issue on the February 15,2005, City Council Consent Agenda. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be February 7,2005, and the Committee decided that because February 21st is a holiday, the second meeting in February will be held February 28,2005. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\01-24-05. LUTC Minutes.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: February 7,2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee David H. Mose.lé'~anager .- , - Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manage'~ AG 04-108, Lakota Creek Restoration Improvement Project - Project Acceptance POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council accept the Lakota Creek Restoration Improvement Project constructed by Wagner Development, Inc. as complete? BACKGROUND: Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements. With the exception of landscaping maintenance, the above referenced contract with Wagner Development, Inc. is complete. Per the project contract, landscaping will be maintained by the contractor for two years, and portions of the landscaping cost will be paid after the end of the maintenance period. Upon City Council's acceptance of the project, and meeting certain conditions by State law, the City will release and pay in full the amounts retained during perfonnance of the contract (other than continuing retention of five percent of the monies for landscaping). PROJECT SAVINGS AND CONTINGENCY: The final construction contract amount is $807,131.55 (including monies held for landscaping that will be paid in two years). This is approximately 2% above the $792,511 original bid price but $64,630.45 below the $871,762 original budget (including 10% contingency above bid price) that was approved by the City Council on June 1, 2004. OPTIONS: 1. Authorize final acceptance of the completed Lakota Creek Restoration Improvement Project, constructed by Wagner Development, Inc., in the amount of$807,131.55 as complete. 2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed Lakota Creek Restoration Improvement Project, constructed by Wagner Development, Inc. as complete and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the March 1, 2005 City Council Consent Agenda for Approval: Authorize final acceptance of the completed Lakota Creek Restoration Improvement Project, constructed by Wagner Development, Inc., in the amount of$807,131.55 as complete. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the March 1, 2005 City Council Consent Agenda. 'APPROV AL"OFêoMivUTTEE"REPÖRT;" ,c' , "c' ,', ,," ""rc "",c' ,.", co'" C"'CO" h<c" ""-~,,, " "v" """',.",, """"" "',, ,Mtc.hael')al':~"M~mber ' ",. '" , ""i,..,," ""', "":"",, ""'J'" ...", "" ,",'" """y Eric'Jiais~rt'r¡M~~be..., ", :;;, ", ::~ii;:' "N " """" ,""""," cc: Project File/ AG #04-108 !,d"_",, creek res"'rati",, ¡"'rmHlr""'11! V"!Cd {¡nld olccC'fn,d"" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: February 7, 2005 Land Use and ~~t~on Committee David H. M,pge¡1 {t~Manager Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer IVf 1-5/ SR-18 / SR-161 Triangle Project Status Update and Alternative Selection POLICY QUESTION: For Information only. BACKGROUND: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), in conjunction with Federal Highways Administration (FHW A), King County, and the cities of Federal Way and Milton, are in the process of selecting a preferred alternative for the environmental process. The project would improve safety and reduce congestion in the I-51 SR-18 interchange and also divert traffic from the SR-18 (S 3481h Street) / SR-161 (Enchanted Parkway S I 161h Avenue S) intersection. Attachment A provides a brief outline of the project's history and current status. One major development since the Council was briefed last on the project is that the half interchange proposed at S 3751h Street is no longer being considered. FHW A determined that it could only be considered if it directly addressed the project's purpose and need in ways that could not be adequately addressed by improvements at the existing interchange. The Project Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee have concluded that any ofthe remaining alternatives can meet the project's purpose and need without the S 3751h Street access. The three alternatives remaining from the alternative selection process include the following: . Alternative W3 (Attachment B), which is very similar to Concept B-Modified except that it does not include an on-ramp from SR-161 to 1-5 northbound; Alternative W4 (Attachment C), a new concept developed by the design consultant; and Alternative V Al (Attachment D), which is also very similar to Concept B-Modified, and was developed by a Value Analysis team to address shortcomings that they perceived with the other alternatives. . . The selection of a preferred alternative to carry into completing the environmental process is planned to occur in late February, and will be conducted by the joint Technical Advisory Committee/Project Advisory Committee. Attachment E outlines the criteria developed to evaluate the alternatives. WSDOT staff will be present to provide a brief presentation and answer any questions the Committee may have. WSDOT is seeking Council comment on the selection criteria and process before the selection of the preferred alternative, tentatively scheduled for February 23. Staff Recommendation: For information only. However, if additional opportunity for comment is desired from the City Council, forward this item to the February 15,2005 City Council Consent Agenda. Committee Recommendation: Forward this item to the February 15,2005 City Council Consent Agenda. '..,', , J~çk Dovey, Chair P,'" ", , , 'Mithael Park, Member<:,n'-r Eric Faison, Mem1>.~~' ""'," A« ":" "':'"" ':.:}j, ,..: ..,' ,,":~' ..' ,r: :,; ,¡,":' ,J' APPROV ALOF COMMITTEE REPORT::'" "i' ': '" ' ".f" ','. ...,,: <;. ,'., "", , i":J,,l.ITC::OO5:'-'-O5 TRl,\\CU' .;¡.\ i,'S ,\\i) :,Ll 1:cno,'< CRi ITRlADO¡ ~ ~ Washington State "II Department of Transportation 1-5/SR-161/SR-18 Triangle Improvements Project History Study Location The focus of the project is located in and around the "Triangle" formed by 1-5 on the east side. Potential road, intersection and interchange improvement concepts were considered that reduce congestion and improve safety within the following limits: . 1-5 From the King/Pierce County line (south of SR-161) to north of 1-5/SR-18 Interchange ramps. 1- 5 milepost boundaries: 139.50 - 142.00 . SR-161 From Military Road through the SR-161/SR-18 Intersection. SR-161 milepost boundaries: 32.58 to 36.17 . SR-18 From SR-99 to WeyerhaeuserWay. SR-18 milepost boundaries: 0.00 to 1.08 Background The 1-5, SR-161 and SR-18 "Triangle" is experiencing severe traffic congestion and safety problems, including: . Congestion extending through both peak-hour periods and into midday. . Traffic volumes are expected to greatly increase over the next 20 years, due to projected growth in South King County and North Pierce County. . The 1-5/SR-18 Interchange loop ramps and the SR-18/SR-16 Intersection are currently operating at a poor level of service. The 1998 High Accident Location, High Accident Corridors and Pedestrian Accident Locations Study noted that the 1-5/SR-18 Interchange has been a high accident location (HAL) for several years. The study also noted: . 1-5 is a high-accident corridor (HAC) from the SR-18 Interchange to the S. 32Oth Street Interchange Southbound 1-5 off-ramp to westbound SR-18 is a high-accident location (HAL) Northbound 1-5 off-ramp to westbound SR-18 is a HAL SR-18 from SR-99 to 1-5 is identified as a HAL SR-161 from Military Road to SR-18 is identified as a HAC . . . . Preliminary Design Study The 1-5/SR18/SR161 Triangle Interchange Design Study, which was completed in January 2003 and recommended three alternatives move forward into the environmental phase of the project. The three alternatives were A, Band B-modified along with a half interchange at South 376th. At the end of the study Alternative A seemed to be favored and had gone through WSDOTs SCoRE process with the end results being a project cost of $205,000,000 What Has Happened Once the Nickel funding became available WSDOT went through the process of selecting a consultant and selected Berger/ABMA Engineers in Federal Way. At the same time we started selecting members for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) with members representing their areas of experts and not their agencies. Additionally it was determined the Project Advisory Committee started during the design analysis would continue and provide guidance of a more political nature. TAC Members: Rick Perez - traffic expertise, City of Federal Way Jim Harris - environmental/planner, City of Federal Way Robert Kutrich - highway geometrics, WSDOT Rich Zeldenrust - bridge and structures, WSDOT Cathy Arnold - construction, WSDOT Don Althauser - surface water, King County Jim Leonard - environmental & construction FHWA PAC Members: Rick Perez - City of Federal Way Marlo De Rosia - City of Milton Don Sims - WSDOT Christina Olson - WSDOT Bruce Nebbitt - WSDOT Don Bleasdale - King County Jim Leonard- FHWA In June of 2004 a scoping meeting and public open house was held asking for comments on five alternatives A and B-modified with and without a half interchange at South 376th and alternative B without the half interchange at South 376th. Based on the comments received the project team developed additional alternatives, with six new alternatives developed for a total of eleven alternatives. The team then began screening the alternatives looking at each alternatives environmental impacts; like right of way needs, business and recreational impacts, stream and wetland impacts, construction issues and more. Based on this screening six alternatives were eliminated including Alternative A. With five alternatives remaining traffic modeling was done to help further screen the alternatives. With the traffic modeling information the half interchange at 376th and 3 more alternatives were eliminated, leaving two alternatives, W3 and W4 still under consideration. Prior to continuing a more detailed analysis and selection of a preferred alternative a Value Analysis (VA) study was held, with outside experts in traffic an interchange design being brought in to look at the remaining alternatives. The VA team identified some issue that needed to be looked but validated the analysis and screening that had been done to date. In addition the VA team developed a new alternative (VA1) that addressed some of the issue they identified. With the three remaining alternative VA 1, W3 and W4 traffic modeling is being done, looking at the AM peak volumes along with the PM peak volumes. In addition a more detailed analysis and screening is being done with the intent of selecting a preferred alternative by the end of February. Once a preferred alternative is selected a full environmental assessment (EA) will be completed, along with obtaining FHW A approval of the 1-5 SR/18 access revision and preliminary design. At this time the project appears to have agency and public support. Due to the project location we have coordinated with the City of Federal Way City Center project and WSDOT's SR 167 extension project. Budget As part of the Nickel package the project received $2,960,000 for further study and environmental work, continuing on the work started in the design Study. Additionally the City Federal Way applied for and received $1,000,000, 2005 Federal earmark money for the project. With the current funding we anticipate completing the EA, Access Point Decision Report (APDR) and preliminary design. Additional funding would be needed for final design, acquisition of right of way and construction. At this time the project is on the RTID list of projects. Time Line . Complete EA and obtain Finding of No Significant Impacts (FaNSI), spring 2006 Complete APDR and obtain FHWA approval, summer 2006 Complete preliminary design, fall 2006 . . If funding becomes available the final design and right of way acquisition would take approximately three years. Construction would take an additional three years, (if one contract). It would take longer than three years to construct if multiple contracts are used. Project Manager Bruce Nebbitt P.E. is the WSDOT project manager and can be reached at (206) 464-1363 or NebbiEB@.wsdotwa.qov. ~ cu II. -c 0 5.f ~ cu II. -c ~æ ~ ~ CD II. -c ~æ 1-5/ SR 161 / SR 18 Triangle Prqject II's Your Hickel, Wukh il Work Level II Screening Criteria Memorandum (Draft 12/29/04) Date Project Subject From To 29 December 2004 I-5jSR 161jSR 18 Triangle Project Level II Draft Screening Criteria Gary, Phillips, P.E., Jilma V. Jiménez, P.E. Bruce Nebbitt, P.E., Paul Johnson, P.E. Route To File I. Background The three-tiered Level I - Fatal Flaw Screening evaluation for the I-5/SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Project recommended further study of two of the original eleven build alternatives through a detailed Level II Screening evaluation. A third alternative developed during the Value Analysis study will also be evaluated in the Level II screening process. This memorandum outlines the Level II screening criteria and process as well as the ranking/scoring system. II. Level II Screening Criteria Level II screening criteria will employ geometry, environmental conditions and traffic data to evaluate the alternatives. Screening criteria have been grouped into the following six categories: . Geometry . Right of Way . Land Use/Social Effects . Environmental Effects . Construction . Traffic Operations and Safety Table 1 summarizes the Level II screening criteria. A detail description of the six screening criteria categories are provided below. A. Geometry The horizontal alignment of the alternatives was evaluated in the Level I(b) screening process. The Level II screening criteria will consider the attributes of vertical alignments or profiles for the horizontal alignments of the remaining alternatives. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way. WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300. Fax 206/431-2250 Page 1 of 12 Criteria Table 1 - Level II Screenin2 Criteria MåxPoints 135 Geometry Profile Feasibility 2 3 ROW Takes Property Impacts and Displacements 4 5 6 7 Consistency with Local Comp and Regional Plans (e"Q, Hylebos Basin Plan) Utility Impacts Parks, Recreation, Historic & Cultural Resources Weigh Station/Rest Area Relocation Environmental Impacts 8 9 10 11 12 Wetlands Streams Hazmat Drainage/Detention Noise Construction. . 13 14 15 Construction Sequencing Throw Away Costs General Construction Impacts (e,g,#ofstructures,heiQh~ complexity, construction duration, traffic impacts) Soils/Geotech Analysis 16 Traffic Operations and Safety 17 Reduced WB S 348th to SB SR 161 Movement 18 1-5 LOS (Merge and Diverge) 19 SR 18 LOS (Merge and Diverge) 20 Intersection LOS for New Intersections (PM Peak) 21 HSS to HSS Access and Circulation 22 HSS to Service Access and Circulation 23 Design Speed 24 PM Peak Ramp Capacity 25 PM Peak Travel Times 26 Safety 27 AM Peak Sensitivity Analysis @ SR 161 Intersections Points Points Points 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way. WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300 . Fax 206/431-2250 Page 2 of 12 . Prome Feasibility This criterion will consider three sub-criteria - grades, clearances of braided ramps and the need for deviations from the WSDOT Design Manual. Each alternative will receive a score based on the individual sub-criteria and will receive a ranking from one to five. A ranking of five will be given to the alternative with the least total combined points. a. Grades. Section 940.05(3) of the WSDOT Design Manual requires interchange ramps to employ maximum grades of 5 to 7% depending on design speeds. Each profùe will be evaluated to determine if it meets design standards. This sub-criterion will be scored with a point system ranging from five to one, with five being given to the alternative with the most number of alignments that meet or exceed the design standards. b. Clearances of Braided Ramps. Section 1120.04(5) of the WSDOT Design Manual requires minimum clearance of 16.5 feet. For planning purposes, it is assumed that profile clearances will need an additional 8.5 feet to account for structures and superelevation rates. This sub-criterion will be scored with a point system ranging from five to one, with five being given to the alternative with the most number of profiles that do not possess a minimum of 25' clearance at crossings. c. WSDOT Design Manual Deviations. This sub-criterion evaluates all other profile design considerations, such as length of vertical curves and will seek to determine the need for deviations from design manual standards. Under the evaluation of this sub- criterion, each alternative will receive a score from five to one, with five being given to the alternative that will require the most number of deviations. B. Right of Way This category is comprised of two sub-criteria. The first criterion examines the amount of new right-of-way required to construct the alternative. The second criterion determines the impact that new right-of-way takes will have on existing and projected businesses in the area. . Right of Way Takes For this element, preliminary right-of-way takes will be computed as a twenty foot offset from the edge of pavement of each alignment. Alternatives will receive a score from five to one, with five being awarded to the alternative that will require the least amount of new right-of-way. . Property Impacts and Displacements Whereas the previous criterion evaluates the total right-of-way acreage required to build the proposed alternative, this criterion evaluates the impact that proposed right-of-way takes will have on existing businesses, parks, recreation and historic resources; and whether or not the proposed take will cause any displacements. Specific properties being considered are: . . . . . Proposed Wal-Mart site at northwest quadrant of the interchange Bonsai Garden site at northeast quadrant of the interchange Apartments west of 1-5 Southeast interchange property corner Southwest interchange property corner a. Property Impacts. The purpose of this sub-criterion is to weigh the severity of impacts based on the type of business or recreational feature being affected by the construction of the alternative. Under this criterion, the alternative will receive a score of three if it causes an impact to the proposed Wal-Mart site, the Bonsai Garden, the apartments or Page 3 of 12 BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc.. 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way, WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300 . Fax 206/431-2250 the southwest interchange corner. A score of one will be given if the alternative impacts the southeast interchange corner. Displacements. If an alternative causes two or more displacements, it will receive a score of five. An alternative which causes one displacement will receive a score of three. b. Scores for the sub-criteria will be added and used to rank the alternatives. Ranking will be on a range from five to one, with five being awarded to the alternative with the least amount of impact or least combined total points. C. Land Use/Social Effects The four criteria grouped in this category seek to evaluate the effects the alternatives will have on local jurisdictions, on Section 4(f) resources and on utilities. Detailed descriptions of the proposed evaluation criteria are developed in the following paragraphs. . Consistency with Local Comprehensive and Regional Plans This criterion assesses compatibility of each alternative with existing comprehensive and regional plans in the area. Plans considered are the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Hylebos Basin Plan and City of Milton Comprehensive Plan. The evaluation will consist of awarding point values to each of the aforementioned plans based on the system outlined on Table 2. Table 2 - Consistenc with Local Com rehensive and Re Score Plan Conflicts 5 No conflicts with lans 3 Miti table conflict 1 Un-miti atable conflict ional Plans Scoring Alternatives will be ranked from five to one, with five being awarded to the alternative with the greatest combined point total. . Utility Impacts Several existing utilities have been identified within the project limits. This criterion evaluates the number of affected utilities and the extent of the impact based on the totallength of conflict in lineal feet. Each alternative will receive two scores based on the system outlined in Table 3 below. 5 4 3 2 1 Table 3 - Utilit 1m . #Utilities 1m acted 0 of5 1 of 5 2 of5 3 of 5 4 or 5 of 5 Score Alternatives will be ranked from five to one; with five being awarded to the alternative with the greatest combined point total. . Parks, Recreation, Historic and Cultural Resources This criterion assesses the alternative's potential to cause direct or indirect impacts on parks, recreation areas, listed historic buildings or other section 4(f) resources. The Alternative will be ranked as outlined in Table 4 below. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way, WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300 . Fax 206/431-2250 Page 4 of 12 Table 4 - Parks, Recreation, Historic and Cultural Resources Scoring Rank Me¡¡sure 5 4 3 2 1 . Weigh Station/Rest Area Relocation The southern portion of the interchange along 1-5 is bound by a weigh station on the southbound leg, and a combination rest area/weigh station on the northbound leg. These weigh stations are reported to be the most used in the state. The alternatives propose the construction of ramps and/ or exits very close to these facilities. Preliminary operational studies have shown that in order to remediate operational failures on the 1-5 mainline, alternatives will heed to include relocation of the weigh station/rest areas. This criterion assesses the alternative's ability to relocate one or both facilities to improve operations on the 1-5 mainline. Scoring for this element will be per Table 4 below. T bl 5 W' h St t' /R A RI S a e - el21 a Ion est rea e ocabon corIng Score Measure 5 No relocation needed 1 Relocation needed Alternatives will be ranked from five to one; with five being awarded to the alternative with the greatest point total. D. Environmental Effects This category groups all natural environment areas that may be potentially affected by construction of the build alternatives. Evaluation of environmental criteria will be based on existing information and data developed in previous studies. . Effect on Wedands The January 2003 Triangle Design Study identified several wetlands within the project area. This criterion evaluates wetlands impacts caused by each alternative. This evaluation does not consider type of wetlands or impacts to buffers. The evaluation is based on the total number and acreage of impacted wetlands computed from a ramp's edge of pavement. Each alternative will receive two scores, per Table 6. T bl 6 En WI d S a e - ect on et an s corm2 Score #Wedands Total Amount Impacted ofImpact (ac) 5 0 to 2 0 - 0.37 4 2 to 4 0.37 - 0.75 3 4 to 6 0.75 - 1.12 2 6 to 8 1.12 - 1.50 1 8 to 10 1.50 - 1.87 A ranking from five to one is given to each alternative, with five being awarded to the alternative with the least amount of acreage of impacted wetlands. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way, WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300 . Fax 206/431-2250 Page 5 of 12 "'~".~."~.,,,~>,. . Effect on Streams Much like the Wetland Impacts criterion described above. This criterion evaluates the total acreage of stream impacts computed from a ramp's edge of pavement. Each alternative will receive two scores, per Table 7. T bl 7 En t St S a e - ec on reams corm!!: Score #Streams Total Amount Impacted ofImpact (ac) 5 0 to 2 0 - 0.37 4 2 to 4 0.37 - 0.75 3 4 to 6 0.75 - 1.12 2 6 to 8 1.12 - 1.50 1 8 to 10 1.50 - 1.87 A ranking from five to one is given to each alternative, with five being awarded to the alternative with the least combined point total. . Hazardous Materials Within the project area there is a known abandoned capped landfill. This criterion evaluates the potential for encountering hazardous materials during construction based on the proximity of proposed improvements to the capped landfill. A ranking from five to one is given to each alternative, with five being given to the alternative with the least acreage within the proposed landfill site. . Drainage/Detention Total required detention volume and total impacts on proposed regional detention sites are the two considerations of this sub-criterion. Alternatives will receive a score from five to one for each of the aforementioned elements. The alternatives will then be awarded a ranking from five to one, with five being given to the alternative with the least combined impact to the regional detention sites and required detention volume. . Potential for Noise The existing interchange configuration consists of a two-level facility, with most of 1-5 being at grade and SR 18 running below 1-5. The alternatives will require the construction of a multi-level facility, which may create a potential for noise Alternatives will be ranked based on the total number of lineal feet of proposed improvements that are ten feet or more above the existing 1- 5jSR 18 interchange. A ranking of five will be awarded to the alternative with the least number of total overhead structures. E. Construction Effects of construction will be evaluated by studying four main criteria. Criteria to be analyzed are listed below. . Constmction Sequencing The evaluation of this criterion will consist of determining the number of distinct and independent phases that each alternative can be divided into. The greater the number of phases the greater the flexibility afforded to the construction planning and budgeting effort. Alternatives will be ranked from five to one, with five being awarded to the alternative with the greatest number of independent phases. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way. WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300. Fax 206/431-2250 Page 6 of 12 . Throw A way Costs This criterion considers the number and types of temporary improvements needed to accomplish construction elements that must later be demolished. The alternatives will receive a ranking from five to one, with five being awarded to the alternative with the least number of throwaway improvements or cost. . General Construction Four sub-criteria will be evaluated as part of the general construction element. Sub-criteria to be evaluated are listed below. a. Number of Structures. Construction of new structures over 1-5 and SR 18 will be challenging. This sub-criterion will award a score to alternatives based on the number of structures proposed by each scheme. Score for this criterion will be from five to one, with five awarded to the alternative with the least number of structures. c. Height and Complexity of Structures. This sub-criterion will be scored based on a qualitative analysis of the complexity and height of the structures proposed by each alternative. Scoring for this criterion will be from five to one, with five awarded to the alternative with the least the lowest and least complex structures. Construction Duration. This sub-criterion will evaluate approximate construction durations based on the number of construction phases identified for each alternative. Each alternative will receive a score from five to one with, with one being awarded to the alternative with the longest construction time. b. d. Effect on Traffic. This sub-criterion seeks to identify the number of routes or movements that will be impacted by the construction of the alternative's improvements. . Soils/Geotechnical Analysis The need for specialized foundations and/ or extensive ground preparation to support pavements, fills and structures is evaluated by this criterion. The analysis will consist of a qualitative evaluation based on existing geotechnical data compiled for the project area. Alternatives will receive a ranking of five to one, with five being awarded to the alternative with the greatest number of improvements within areas with known suitable bearing layers for fill and foundation support. F. Traffic Operations and Safety This criterion seeks to evaluate an alternative's ability to improve the level of service (LOS) of the merge and diverge segments and safety of the eight highway to highway movements between 1-5 and SR 18 from the 2030 no-build case. Additionally, this criterion will assess the alternative's ability to reduce traffic volume of vehicles making the westbound S 348th to SB SR 161 movement and improvements to circulation. The eleven sub-criteria to be studied are as follows: . Reduced WB S 34lJth to SB SR 161 Movement The SR 18/S 348th and SR 161 intersection is heavily congested. This congestion is a factor in the number of traffic accidents experienced at the intersection. This criterion evaluates the alternative's effectiveness to remove traffic relying on the left turn movement to access the southbound leg of SR 161 from westbound S 348th Street. Primary trips making this left turn movement are trips from \V'B SR 18 and SB 1-5 to SB SR 161. Two of the three alternatives being considered provide direct access ramps for trips from 1-5 and SR 18 to SB SR 161, which eliminate the need for the left turn at the S 348th/SR 161 intersection. Alternatives will receive a BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way. WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300 . Fax 206/431-2250 Page 7 of 12 ranking from five to one, with five being awarded to the alternative which diverts the greatest volume of trips from the intersection. . 1-5 LOS (Merge and Diverge) This criterion will consider operational analysis data from Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and it will compare the performance of merge and diverge segments of priority movements between the 2030 no-build case and each alternative. For this evaluation, segment performance will be assessed by awarding a point value to LOS ratings. Table 8 below shows the point value assigned to each LOS. Table 8 - Level of Service Point Value A B C D E F 100 80 60 40 20 0 A cumulative segment performance score will be computed for the 2030 no-build case and each alternative. Since the number of merge and diverge segments varies for each alternative, a total performance score ratio will be computed by dividing the total performance score by the total point score the alternative would receive if all segments operated at LOS A. The difference between the performance score ratio of the 2030 no-build case and each alternative's score ratio will be used to rank the alternatives from highest to lowest. A final ranking from five to one will be given to each alternative; five being highest. . SR 18 LOS (Merge and Diverge) A similar analysis as the one described in the 1-5 LOS criterion above will be employed in the analysis of merge and diverge points on SR 18. . Intersection LOS for New Intersections (PM Peak) New intersections proposed by an alternative, must show the ability to operate at a minimum LOS E. Alternatives with new intersections that operate at LOS Fin the PM Peak condition with no likely opportunity to improve the LOS will be considered to be fåtaUy flawed. The alternative will be recommended for elimination if it is deemed that there are no viable mitigation measures available. . HSS to HSS Access and Circulation Two of the three highways that form the "Triangle", 1-5 and SR 18, are classified as Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS). While SR 161 is classified as a non-HSS with a FHWA designation of minor arterial. The alternative's ability to provide access between the HSS highways is considered by this criterion. Movements between HSS to HSS will be scored using the point value outlined in Table 9 below. Maximum score is awarded if the alternative provides full directional free-flow access. Minimum score is awarded if the alternative provides access via a ramp and several intersections. In the event that an alternative does not provide one of the above listed movements, the alternative will receive a score of zero for that particular movement. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way, WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300 . Fax 206/431-2250 Page 8 of 12 Table 9 - Access and Circulation Point Values Access Score 5 4 3 2 1 0 + 1 Intersection + 2 Intersections Alternatives will be ranked based on improvements over the no build case. A ranking from five to one will be awarded, with five being given to the alternative with most improvements over the no build case. . HSS to Service Access and Circulation Much like the HSS to HSS criterion described above, this criterion evaluates the efficiency and free-flow circulation being provided by the alternatives between HSS and non-HSS (service) highways. Scoring and ranking of the alternatives will employ the same system outlined in the HSS to HSS Access and Circulation criterion above. . Design Speed of HSS to HSS Ramps This criterion ranks the alternatives based on the design speed of the ramps. The rank of five to one will be awarded to the alternatives, with five being given to the alternative with the greatest average design speed. For this criterion the length of proposed ramps is used to weight the design speed. . PM Peak Ramp Capacity This criterion evaluates the alternative's ability to adequately manage the projected traffic volumes for the 2030 PM peak forecasts. Ramp capacity is determined based on Highway Capacity Manual (2000) - Exhibit 25-3, which lists a capacity of 1900 passenger cars per hour (pc/h) for single lane ramps and 3500 pc/h for two lane ramps with design speeds of 20 to 30 miles per hour. Each HSS to HSS ramp for each alternative will receive a score of five, three or zero for ramps meeting capacity, ramps that can be widened and ramps that cannot be widened, respectively (see Table 10). The combined score of each alternative will be used to rank the alternatives with a ranking from five to one, with five being given to the alternative with the greatest combined score. . PM Peak Travel Times This criterion evaluates travel time improvements for HSS to HSS movements provided by the build alternatives over the no-build condition. The evaluation will be carried out employing travel time analysis data for PM peak 2030 conditions generated with Synchro and EMME/2 software. Total system travel time will be computed as the sum of the individual movements of each alternative and compared to the no-build case. Alternatives will be ranked from five to one, with BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc.. 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way, WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300 . Fax 206/431-2250 Page 9 of 12 five being awarded to the alternative that provides the most improvements in travel times over the no-build condition. . Safety Safety improvements of the build alternatives over the no build condition are considered by the two sub-criteria listed below. a. Removal of High Accident Locations. Currently there are five high accident locations (HAL) in the study area. By improving the design of the study area, accidents can be reduced or avoided. Each alternative will receive a rank from five to one based on the number of HAL eliminated. Table 11 below shows the ranking system. Table 11 - R I fH' h 'd L 'ons Scoring emova 0 12:1 Acci ent ocatJ Rank # of HALs Eliminated 5 3 of5 4 2 of5 3 1 of 5 2 0 of5 1 HALs Increased b. Reduction of Accidents in Dollars. For this sub-criterion, accident reduction rates are computed for the build alternatives in comparison to the no-build case. Dollar reductions are determined based on existing research data for types/ configuration of freeway segments when applied to existing accidents in the Triangle area. Table 12 below shows the scoring system. T bl 12 R d t' a e - e DC Ion 0 CCI en s 10 0 ars corm Score AcçidentReductJ,on in Dollars 5 Greater than $3 Million reduction 4 $2 to 2.99 Million reduction 3 $1 to 1.99 Million reduction 2 $0 to 0.99 Million reduction 1 Less than $0 reduction fA "d t " D II S . AM Peak Sensitivity at Key Intersections This criterion will compare the performance of study area intersections for the 2030 no-build case with their performance following improvements proposed by each alternative. For this evaluation, intersection performance will be a point value given based on LOS. Table 8 above shows the point value assigned to each LOS. A cumulative intersection performance score will be computed for the 2030 no-build case and each alternative in the AM Peak condition. The difference between the cumulative point score of the 2030 no-build case and each alternative's point score will be used to rank the alternatives from highest to lowest and will be given a ranking from five to one. Intersections being considered are listed below. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc.. 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way. WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300. Fax 206/431-2250 Page 10 of 12 1. U. ill. South 348th Street/SR 161 Eastbound SR 18/1-5 northbound off-ramp (new intersection in VAl) South 356th Street/SR 161 Milton Road/SR 161 lV. An altematives with a new intersection that operates at LOS Fin the AM Peak condition with no likely opportunity to improve the LOS will be considered to be fatally Oawed. III. Level II Screening Process Each of the three build alternatives will be evaluated based on the criteria outlined above. The Level II Screening Process assumes equal weighting for all criteria. A total raw score will be computed for each alternative. This raw score will be used to rank the alternatives. Any alternative with identified fatal flaws will be recommended for elimination. The alternative with the highest ranking will be recommended as the preferred alternative. IV. Level II Screening Worksheets An evaluation worksheet has been prepared for each of the criteria listed above. Evaluation worksheets and overall raw score summary have been included in Attachment A. BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way, WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300. Fax 206/431-2250 Page 11 of 12 A ttachmen t A BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 33301 Ninth Avenue South. Federal Way, WA 98003-6395 Phone 206/431-2300. Fax 206/431-2250 Page 12 of 12