LUTC 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